The Loss of Our Liberty

"The world you describe [the grey world, the new Dark Age] is easy to visualise by anyone who has read beyond the corporate media. That world is all too real for those the state tramples on but which is all but ignored by the media. Is it any wonder that those who consider themselves to be 'mainstream' simply cannot see what is right in front of their noses? We [in the West] seem to have forgotten what 'liberty' means, and as a result, we've lost it" / "It's the old 'hide a book in a library' trick. Everything is in plain sight so nobody suspects a thing. Then there's the 24/7 imposed pace of life. Workers are expected to always be available, always have that phone on them and answer within seconds. There is no free time to think abut anything so they rely on 'experts' who can now just make up any old c**p and the drones accept it. Not because they're stupid ... but because they don't have the time to think. When they have a bit of free time, there are all the circuses on TV..." [comments at source].

The Police Force Service

"After 13 years of Labour party rule [the British police] have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible - preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions - particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling" [source].

"As for PC (not Police Constable, the other one) Plod's performance in this whole sickening case, they're just the BBC in uniform" [Comment at: source].

"Years of indoctrination by the liberal left have produced policemen with no sense of duty to protect the most vulnerable in society. Politically Correct police chiefs have no morals, no decency, no empathy. They are now driven by the fear of being labelled racist, apparently a far worse crime than racist gang paedophilia. ... The British police are now more than just a disgrace, they are a stain on the history of this country" [source].

"...And then there's the bit about how Mr Mitchell 'said' he was the Chief Whip. Said? How could this officer not have known? When I worked at the House of Commons, in another age, the wise, calm, helpful constables who staffed the place made it their business to know by sight the name of every single MP, 630 or more, within a week of a General Election. If I were in charge of the police guarding Downing Street, I would get rid of any constable working there who could not identify by sight and without hesitation every member of the Cabinet. This episode will, I hope, rebound hard on those who seem to me to have abused their positions to make trouble for a Minister. They should remember who employs them, and who pays their wages. They are not paid to leak such matters to the papers. This is lawless personal spite, not law enforcement. If they really thought the law had been broken, then they should have arrested Mr Mitchell. Our police force has gone badly wrong and it's time it laid down its guns, sold its helicopters, removed its baseball caps and stompy boots, and went back to patrolling on foot - and on bikes. That's my 'policy'" [Pater Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 30 September 2012].

"Personally, I hope that the judge is not too hard on Detective Chief Inspector April Casburn, who seems to have rung up the papers in a moment of madness, and now faces prison for doing so. If this is enough to get a police officer locked up, then who shall escape? DCI Casburn was quite rightly appalled by the ridiculous celebrity-worship of the modern police. She saw how her colleagues were pathetically excited about meeting the actress Sienna Miller, to discuss her problems with phone hacking. These cases are so much more interesting and urgent than a bugled pensioner, or a persecuted and lonely family such as the late Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francesca, whose miseries were ignored by police until Mrs Pilkington killed herself and her daughter in a blazing car" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 13 January 2013].

"The dim 'police' officer who was so exasperated with Suzanne Dow's pleas for help that he emailed a colleague 'you just can't win with some people, can you?' is widely condemned. But he was only doing his job as it is now understood in the Land of Human Rights, in which the police are a sort of UN peacekeeping force mediating between victim and 'offender', not taking sides or being 'judgmental'. That would never do. Why, if we were judgmental, we might grasp just what a cesspool we have made out of our country, and do something about it" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 3 February 2013].

"Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the beleaguered Commissioner of the Met, is utterly misguided to think the law should be changed to allow positive discrimination and the recruitment of more ethnic minority [police] officer. The public will have even less respect for the police if they think some officers are only in ht e job because of a politically correct appointment system" [Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 05 April 2014].

The Crown Prosecution Service

"The main purpose of the Crown Prosecution Service is to save money by pretending that crime and disorder are not as bad as they really are. That is why it is almost impossible to get it to prosecute anyone, unless you have clear, high-definition film of the crime actually being committed. Burglary? Why bother? Here's a crime number, if you can still get insurance in your postcode. Car theft? Happens all the time. Probably your fault. Assault? How about a caution? Drugs? Well, Chuka Umunna, the Shadow Business Secretary, reckons that it isn't news anymore that he smoked dope. So why would we trouble ourselves over that? In which case, why on earth did the CPS think it was worth spending heaps of our money on prosecuting Cinnamon Heathcote-Drury after a bizarre and faintly comical scuffle in Tesco, in which nobody was hurt? Could it be because her accuser was a Muslim who alleged she was a 'racist'? But now that a jury has thrown out this ludicrous case after 15 minutes of deliberation (God bless them), will anyone in the CPS be disciplined? [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 08 July 2012].

Crime and (In)Justice

"Yet again newspapers refer to a lawless murder as an 'execution'. Please stop doing this. An execution is a just punishment for a heinous crime, and if we still had them, we'd have fewer murders and less violence in general" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 09 September 2012].

"A judge refused to jail a repeat-offending paedophile who downloaded hardcore images of children, as he was worried Mark Martin would have a 'hard time' in prison. Not half as hard as the poor children forced to perform these hideous acts to satisfy the perverted needs of men like him" [Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 6 April 2013].

"Politicians who know the case for capital punishment is unanswerable will often wriggle out of supporting it by a trick. They will ask anxiously: 'What about hanging an innocent person by mistake? How could we have that on our conscience?'  Leave aside the fact that every murder victim is innocent, and that many now dead would be alive if we still executed heinous murderers. Note that nearly once a year, an innocent person is killed by a convicted murderer given a 'life' sentence but freed to kill again. The latest such horror is the death of Graham Buck, a valorous and noble man who went to the aid of a neighbour. That neighbour was being attacked by Ian McLoughlin.  McLoughlin, now back in prison, will, with a bit of luck, stay there until he is no danger to anyone. But you might ask why he was free, or even alive. In 1984, a court somehow ruled that it was 'manslaughter' after McLoughlin killed Len Delgatty, smashing his skull seven times with a hammer, cramming his body upside down into a cupboard and ransacking the house for money. He was out of prison in five years. The judge pretended to sentence him to serve ten. Even that was reduced to eight years on appeal. Can these judges sleep? Three years after his release, he was sent to prison for 'life' for stabbing Peter Halls to death. Then some genius allowed him out on day release, so freeing him to murder Mr Buck. Innocent deaths all over the place. And I promise there will be more. But none of them causes our compassionate, conscience-stricken politicians to regret their abolition of the gallows, or reconsider it. Funny, that" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 27 October 2013].

"Once again, noisy promises to give us the freedom to defend our homes against burglars has been watered down. If the law protected us better, this problem would not arise. But with 633,000 burglaries a year - 29% involving violence - the police and the courts are failing the public. It is no good complaining householders and shopkeepers are 'taking the law into their own hands'. Whose is the law in the first place? If the state will not enforce it why should we not do so in our own defence?" [Daily Mail Comment, 28 April 2013].

"The Royal Marine who shot dead a wounded Taliban prisoner pleaded for anonymity to protect his family from revenge terrorist attacks. This request was denied by our most senior judge, Lord Thomas. He ruled that to conceal the identity of the decorated war hero Sergeant Blackman would undermine the principles of open justice. Yes, that's the same 'open justice' that secretly removed an unborn child from its mother's womb. What shameful double standards" [Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 07 December 2013].

"A jury (God bless it) has taken 20 minutes to acquit a man who defended himself against a violent burglar - a case that should never have been brought to court in a civilised country. The Innocent man, ... had previously lost equipment worth £25,000 to thieves, crimes a proper police force would have prevented. He faced prison if convicted. The thieves... were fined £75. Did the jury know something the Government and the police don't know - or wont admit - about modern Britain? I suspect they did. No wonder juries are being quietly abolished" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 26 January 2014].

"One of the strongest arguments for hanging heinous murderers is that it is more humane than locking them up until they die. ... Now I read that a Belgian serial killer, Frank van den Bleeken, has won the 'right to die' under that country's laws which I suspect we will soon adopt. I don't think he'll be the last. I find this quite funny. Modern liberals lack the moral courage to defend the gentle with strong laws, so won't directly kill even the worst criminals. But the ludicrous twaddle of 'Human Rights', with which they try to replace Christian morals, allows them to euthanise the people they won't execute" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 21 September 2014].

The Court of 'Protection'

"Wanda Maddocks was sentenced by a secret court to six weeks in prison, without even legal representation to defend her. Now we discover her brother Ivan suffered a similar injustice and was given a two-month suspended sentence. They were punished by the Court of Protection, which settles the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves. Her and her brother's crimes were to take their elderly father, who suffered from dementia, out of his council-designated care home, as they were both fearful of the care he was getting. He later died there. What a crazy world when the human rights of villains such as Abu Qatada are more sacred than those of two children simply trying to protect their dad" [Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 27 April 2013].

"The Court of Protection was set up in 2007 as a product of one of Labour's most contentious laws. The court, which was introduced by the Mental Capacity Act, can force people to stay in care homes or hospitals. It decided who controls the money of people who can no longer handle their own affairs and judges have the power to make life-or-death rulings about withdrawing treatment. At first, ministers said the Court of Protection should hear cases in public. But since autumn 2007 the court has operated in routine and almost total secrecy. Earlier this year the Daily Mail exposed the case of Wanda Maddocks, who was secretly imprisoned for five months for repeatedly trying to release her father from a care home. After the Maddocks affair, judges ruled that no one should be jailed without being named or having details of their offence published" [Daily Mail, 03 December 2013].

"Mr Justice Mostyn is the judge who, in the secret Court of Protection, allowed doctors to perform a Caesarean on a mother without her knowledge or consent, then immediately remove her child for adoption. Now he's ruled that a Bangladeshi woman who tried to murder her own child can remain in the UK on the grounds that sending her back to her country would violate her human right to a family life. What kind of warped country do we live in when a mother who has never threatened her child can be denied any rights, while one who tried to slaughter hers is given life-long access?" [Amanda Platell, Daily Mail, 28 December 2013].

Security and Surveillance

"Security was made for man, not man for security. The point of all these searches, gates, checks, X-rays and stupid questions is - we are told - to keep us safe. So why is it that the people in charge of these systems act as if they were prison warders processing us for a ten-year sentence?..." [Peter Hitches, Mail on Sunday, 30 September 2012]

"Seen in Sainsbury's, a small yellow notice warning that 'for the safety and security of our colleagues and customers, audio may be monitored and recorded'. We knew they were watching. Now they're listening too. Who would have thought that Big Brother would come into being among the yoghurt and the biscuits?" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 08 December 2013].

UK Govt's Snooping Bill 2016

PETITION:  Repeal the New Surveillance Laws (Investigatory Powers Act)  (23 November 2017)

"A bill allowing UK intelligence agencies and police unprecedented levels of power regarding the surveillance of UK citizens [sic] has recently passed ... With this bill, they will be able to hack, read and store any information from any citizen's [sic] computer or phone, without even the requirement of proof that the citizen [sic] is up to no good. This essentially entitles them to free [rein] of your files, whether you're a law-abiding citizen [sic] or not..."

"This new 'Law' is nothing more than government sponsored terrorism against the host population... It will be used and abused by government agencies throughout the land in their attempt to force the host population to adhere to their political narrative or face arrest and imprisonment. We fought two World wars and countless other wars to keep these islands free from tyranny only to find that by stealth and deceit our very own government has become the greatest tyrant of them all. The red line between liberty and tyranny has been crossed with this piece of draconian legislation... it will do nothing to deter terrorists, it will merely categorise honest and outspoken lovers of freedom as terrorists" [comments at source].

"Angela Merkel will be delighted. This pernicious piece of legislation was the only proposal Theresa May genuinely pursued as Home Secretary, and failing, has successfully introduced as PM. The repression of the British people rather than appropriate and prompt action to remove the terrorist threat. You may snoop on me any time you wish, Theresa May, in the confidence that eavesdroppers always hear ill of themselves"  /  "Hope the officials are not too sensitive, some of the stuff I've said about them may cause them some hurt feelings" [comments at source].

"Didn't MPs demand exemptions from this bill? If so, what do they have to hide that the general public cannot?"  /  "Treason, paedophilia, fraud, bribery, subversion. I'm sure there are more"  /  "We now live in a Police state... But politicians are excluded... what a surprise" [comments at source].

"What this mean is that ordinary people who have no interest in terrorism or crime will be spied upon, while the real criminals will no doubt find ways to evade detection"  /  "Take away guns from law abiding citizens to penalise the criminals who will circumvent said law - because they're criminals and therefore don't abide by it. Snoop on law abiding citizens to penalise the criminals who will circumvent said law - because they're criminals and therefore don't abide by it. Quality logic on the part of these people" [comments at source].

"This is clearly another attempt by our ever so progressive government to lock people us if they criticise the Kalergi plan"  /  "Deliberate irresponsibility and dismissing of Brexit and the British people's safety, through letting in countless obvious criminals/terrorists., yet they say this is to keep us 'safe'. It's not. This is outright enabling of further cruelty [and] injustice, and especially trying to make us all afraid to be who we are and speak out the truth. Disgusted doesn't cover it"  /  "The development of a surveillance state and militarised police patrolling towns and cities on motorbikes looking to neutralise people that are acting 'suspiciously'. All because of one group - Muslims. Still there will be sheep drivelling on about diversity being our strength"  /  "The Home Office claims:- 'The law gives authorities the powers they need to disrupt terrorist attacks in a digital age'.  The Maria Office claims:- 'The simple act of banning all Muslims from the UK would adequately disrupt terrorist attacks in any age - digital or otherwise!'" [comments at source].

"I see Shameless Shami didn't object"  /  "We have a human right to privacy, how can they get away with denying us this?"  /  "Because... 'Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.' John Stuart Mill"  /  "and don't you just hate it when you hear the old flannel 'if you got nowt to hide' nonsense!  It's not about that, it's about having freedom of [conscience] to express yourself as you desire without thinking big stupid brother is watching and listening to your every moment of your waking life"  /  "Obama has been doing this to us in the U.S.  We only found out when Snowdon, now in Russia, for asylum, told us"  /  "the only people to be under surveillance will be those with the wrong political views. George Orwell just hit 10,000 RPMs"  /  "Anyone who doesn't [toe] the establishment line will become a target"  /  "The march to 1984 continues" [comments at source].

Political Arrests

Tommy Robinson

"The real issue behind all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being prosecuted for 'hate speech' offenses - the state does not want the substance of what he says to [be] aired in an open courtroom and discussed in  the national media. Therefore other types of infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state. So here's the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies - Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts. Then, as far as the sharia-compliant British state is concerned, the problem has been solved" [source].

Kevin Crehan

"[W]e still don't know the circumstances of his death - can you imagine if this had been a member of an ethnic minority group who had died - MSM would have been all over it. I still feel extremely angry about his particular case, we should not allow Kevin Crehan to be forgotten" [comment at source].

"Kevin Crehan put a bacon sandwich outside a mosque, or 'attacked' a mosque, as one MSM article phrased it. He went to prison for one year. He only served six months. Not, as you might be excused for thinking, because you automatically halve any sentence a British judge hands down, but because he was found dead in a heavily Islamic jail. There has never been a satisfactory reason given. The death sentence in Britain technically disappeared in 1966. Except it didn't" [source].

Alex Chivers

"'Detective James Payne ... called the assault 'truly shocking'. Well yes, it's not quite in the same league as shrapnel bombs and beheadings, but it's up there..."  /  "Muslims murdering people every day with bombings/beheadings/acid/etc and this guy goes to jail for bacon?"  /  "What's truly shocking is that this is the modern day response to this invasion by savages. Bacon?"  /  "He may be an ignoramus who deserves to [be] punished for harassment. But bacon isn't a suicide bombing at a concert full of teenage girls" [comments at source].

"After the murder of Kevin Crehan, imprisoned for a similar 'offence', I hope [the alternative media] will monitor Alex's welfare while inside"  /  "In effect it's a death sentence and a message to anyone who has the audacity to stand up against the Islamisation of Europe"  /  "The sentence is disproportional to the man's bad behaviour and yes, could end up as being a death sentence" [comment at source].

"These aren't just crimes... they are heresy against the progressivist 'religion'. They must therefore be punished with the fires of hell, or the libtard equivalent, i.e. disproportionate prison time. Know your enemy"  /  "Most people want to reject the current political and economic policies. The police, most courts, the state machine, the government machine itself will crush the citizen [sic] until they have nothing left in the face of increasingly hostile external pressure" [comments at source].

Enemies of the State

The following is an extended extract from the article The Trial of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

"In fully-fledged Police States where the Law, Civil or Criminal, is whatever the ruling Junta says it is there is no right of access to fair and impartial legal processes. There is only a perverted form of 'justice' designed for and used in the public show trials of 'Enemies of the State'.

"The principle control mechanisms of such State entities really are simple and straightforward - physical brutality, including torture, arbitrary incarceration and summary execution - and the concealment thereof is generally and with deliberate intent quite minimal - universal public knowledge thereof serves to frighten and intimidate the subject population so that it submits to and obeys the diktats of the ruling entity, thus precluding protest or counter-action.

"However in embryonic, quasi-Police States, such as are now in the latter stages of their gestation all across the West - particularly within that inappropriately named behemoth, the European Union - lip service still has to be paid to the remnants of the original, idealised concept of one Rule of Law for all. Up to now this lip service, whilst being nothing more than comforting noises designed to conceal a real and different intent, has been paid quite subtly so that in general its common purpose (no pun intended) has slipped below the conceptual radar of the body politic.

"Now, fortunately, in one revealing moment this intent has, perhaps out of a hubris generated by the past successes of its implementers, stumbled into the open, its methodology glaringly exposed. In this demonstration of its reality we saw how 'Political Correctness', together with the latter's bastard spawn, 'Islamophobia' and 'Racism', rides roughshod over our ancient rights and freedoms on a deceptive tide of faux self-righteousness. Now many more of us have at last awoken to the deep and abiding threat posed by this, 'The New World Order Project', as it approaches its apogee.

"But, still, at least for the moment, the Iron Fist of the ruling elite continues to strike - mostly whilst covered with its ever-thinning velvet glove of dissimulating legality. Thus, the Junta's apparatchiks and enforcers must, at least when exposed to public scrutiny, be seen to function within the existing legal framework of the State, within the power-limiting - and to them annoying - constraints of its statutes. Those statutes oblige them to impartially and openly serve the commonality as a whole without fear or favour, rather than from behind a veil of smoke and mirrors. And they failed this day because they had tried to cross what became a bridge too far for them - a bridge that was at last properly defended.

"Hence, on the morning on the 14th of April, 2016, during the trial of Mr. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and the consequent public exposure therein of the series [of] events leading up to his prosecution (or, as his Counsel, Mr. Richard Kovalevsky, QC, so eloquently put it, 'This preposterous persecution!') we were given a short but definitive peek behind the veil and were able to cast our eyes upon the draconian future so long planned for us in the venal corridors of power.

"It was there that day that the establishment's long exercised practice of first ridiculing, then demonising, and then destroying those who would protest or resist their social re-engineering was clearly seen in all of the gruesome reality of its final phase."

The Frankfurt School

"The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the 'oppressive' order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus - 'continuing the work of Western Marxists by other means' as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their 'quiet' cultural revolution ... the [Frankfurt] School recommended (among other things):

(1) the creation of racism offences,
(2) continual change to create confusion,
(3) the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children,
(4) the undermining of schools' and teachers' authority,
(5) huge immigration to destroy identity,
(6) the promotion of excessive drinking,
(7) emptying of churches,
(8) an unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime,
(9) dependency on the state or state benefits,
(10) control and dumbing down of media,
(11) encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism' - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

(a) attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children,
(b) abolish differences in the education of boys and girls,
(c) abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces,
(d) declare women to be an 'oppressed class' and men as 'oppressors'."

Programmes of Treason

"There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state:

• Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people;

• Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live;

• Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That wa6y you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty;

• Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state;

• Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income);

• Education - Take control of that people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school;

• Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools;

• Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor" [source].

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!"
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

© Elizabeth McDonald     https://www.bayith.org     bayith@blueyonder.co.uk