The untouchables - Powerful Paedophiles and British Military Terrorists

For some time now I've been thinking about the similarities between Britain's VIP paedophiles and Britain's Military Terrorists.

Both Powerful Paedophiles and British Military Terrorists are, in my mind, archetypal examples of Britain's "Criminal State" in action.

What are the common features of the Powerful Paedophile and the British Military Terrorist?

Being "untouchable" is a first common feature.

An assumption of being able to injure and kill others without being held to account for their actions, too, is a common feature.

Cover-up of their actions by the Police is a further common feature.

Cover-up by bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission is a fourth common feature.

Inadequate reporting by much of the mainstream media is a fifth common feature.

Protection by the actions or failures to act of the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service is shaping up to be a sixth common factor.

For readers of my blog on the UK Child Abuse Inquiry the factors stated will be pretty obvious in their application to child abuse.

1. Powerful paedophiles operated for years and were, in effect, untouchable
2. In recent weeks it's become increasingly clear that powerful paedophiles, at least at times, resorted to murder either for pleasure or to demonstrate their power
3. The Police around the UK protected the powerful paedophiles e.g. the seizure of the Barbara Castle dossier from Don Hale
4. The mainstream media have been worryingly silent on the issue of child abuse by powerful paedophiles. Most coverage, until very recently has been by the tabloid press and, outstandingly, by Exaro News. Honourable exceptions in the mainstream media include the articles by Nick Davies which I refer to here: I didn't know. I simply didn't know
5. The role of the former Attorney General Michael Havers and the former Director of Public Prosecution Thomas Hetherington in the cover-up of child abuse relating to Kincora and Sir Peter Hayman will come readily to mind.

They may be less sure what I mean by British Military Terrorism and how the listed factors apply to British Military Terrorism and British Military Terrorists.

If you're unsure what I mean by British Military Terrorism a good place to start is perhaps my blog post entitled,
Sergeant Alexander Blackman: One man's hero is another man's terrorist

One man's hero is, indeed, another man's terrorist.

But, I believe, it is not fanciful to label Sergeant Blackman a terrorist.

The Iraq War was terrorism in my view:
Was the Iraq War "terrorism" in UK Law?

David Cameron's air strikes in Iraq are also terrorism:
The air strikes in Iraq are unlawful, contrary to the lies David Cameron told the House of Commons

Mr. Cameron's untouchable status is facilitated by a deception perpetrated, in effect, on the House of Commons by the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright:
Unlawful UK air strikes in Iraq - Letter of 25th September 2014 to UK Attorney General and Solicitor General

And, it seems, that Mr. Cameron's terrorism in Iraq is being unlawfully concealed by Chief Constable Chris Sims and Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale of West Midlands Police:
RAF Terrorism in Iraq - Section 56 offences by David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP reported to West Midlands Police

Police protection of powerful terrorists, specifically British Military Terrorists, is not new. See, for example, my letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir Paul Stephenson and the then Assistant Commissioner John Yates:
Terrorism Act 2000 Section 56 offences etc - Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates

I also wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission asking them to review what I believe to have been the unlawful cover-up of British Military Terrorism by Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates. That, too, was blocked by what I view as unlawful actions by Deborah Glass and Graeme Thame.

I am currently attempting to bring a private prosecution against David Cameron and Michael Fallon with respect to the ongoing British Military Terrorism in Iraq.

See
Private prosecution of David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP for offences contrary to Section 56 Terrorism Act 2000
for a copy of my request for the formal Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Law requires that I seek both the Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Permission of the Attorney General before I can bring a private prosecution of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon.

Will those in the System seek to protect Mr.Cameron and Mr. Fallon from prosecution of their offences contrary to Section56 of the Terrorism Act 2000? I fully expect that they will.

The parallels I draw between the untouchable Powerful Paedophile and the untouchable British Military Terrorist aren't exact but, in my view, they deserve careful thought.

In a democracy is it acceptable that powerful paedophiles and British Military Terrorists should, in effect, have been above the Law?

I believe it is totally unaceptable. Your view may differ.

RAF Terrorism in Iraq - Section 56 offences by David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP reported to West Midlands Police

A little time ago I reported by letter to West Midlands Police suspected criminal offences by David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP, contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The letter to West Midlands Police relates to acts of terrorism (as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

The letter was sent by email. The text of the letter follows here:

1^st  October 2014

To:

Chief Constable Chris Sims, West Midlands Police

ACC Marcus Beale, West Midlands Police

Gentlemen,

RAF air strikes in Iraq are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000

1. David Cameron MP
2. Michael Fallon MP

I write to report to each of you as constables suspected offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP.

The air strikes are terrorism – Section 1 Terrorism Act 2000

The air strikes in Iraq are, in my view, visibly terrorism in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Here is my reasoning.

Subsection 1(3) indicates that where explosives are used (as they must be in air strikes) then only two further criteria require to be satisfied for terrorism to exist.

The two necessary criteria are expressed in Subsections 1(1)(a)and 1(1)(c).

The criteria expressed in Subsection 1(1)(a) are satisfied since air strikes inevitably involve serious injory to one or more individuals and/or serious damage to property. Ministry of Defence media releases confirm destruction of property.

The criteria expressed in Subsection 1(1)(c) are satisfied since the air strikes are being conducted for a political cause – the degrading and/or destruction of ISIS.

The characteristics of the air strikes demonstrate that Mr. Cameron has initiated acts of terrorism in Iraq by the Royal Air Force.

Section 56 offences

Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 indicates that a person who directs at any level an organisation carrying out acts of terrorism commits an offence.

It seems to me that Mr. Cameron, as Prime Minister, and Mr. Fallon, as Secretary of State for Defence, each play a role in directing the UK Armed Forces in committing acts of terrorism in Iraq.

Offences committed by others

It is evident that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon are not acting alone in committing acts of terrorism with respect to the air strikes in Iraq.

With regard to these acts of terorism in Iraq you will, if you are honest Police officers, seek to ensure that all who have committed offences contrary to the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and other related legislation will be fully investigated.

Jurisdiction

The Terrorism Act 2000 provides that West Midlands Police has jurisdiction with respect to the suspected offences.

Prevention of additional acts of terrorism

I understand that, as Police officers, you have a duty to prevent crime.

I ask that you ensure that you take all necessary steps to ensure that RAF terrorism in Iraq is brought to an end forthwith.

Actions requested of you

I ask that you record and fully investigate the suspected Section 56 offences, as required by Law.

I ask that you ensure that additional acts of terrorism are stopped forthwith.

I very much hope that West Midlands Police will demonstrate that it, unlike at least one other Police force, does not operate a policy of targetting Moslems with respect to investigating acts of terrorism.

Distribution

For the avoidance of doubt this letter is a public document.

I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

 

Unlawful UK air strikes in Iraq - Letter of 25th September 2014 to UK Attorney General and Solicitor General

On 25th September 2014 I wrote to the UK Attorney General, Jeremy Wright MP, and Solicitor General, Robert Buckland MP to ask them, as a matter of urgency, to examine whether the proposed UK air strikes in Iraq were or were not terrorism in UK Law.

The letter was sent by email to email addresses which I had good cause to expect to be operative.

The covering email indicated that the matter was for the immediate attention of the Attorney General and Solicitor General.

On 26th September 2014 no mention was made in the House of Commons of the issue of UK air strikes being terrorism in UK Law. At least I have found no mention of the issue in reports of the debate.

Were the Attorney General and Solicitor General party to a deliberate deception of the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, David Cameron?

Was the vote authorising air strikes conducted on a false premise?

I believe there is a potential case that the UK Attorney General and UK Solicitor General may have wilfully caused the UK House of Commons to be misled.

Here is the text of my letter of 25th September 2014:

25^th September 2014

To:

Jeremy Wright, Attorney General

Robert Buckland, Solicitor General

Gentlemen,

Proposed air strikes in Iraq are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000

You will each be aware that the House of Commons is scheduled tomorrow to consider a proposal from the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom conduct air strikes in Iraq.

I write to draw to your attention the likelihood that the proposed air strikes are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Consequently, I believe that the proposed air strikes are unlawfu

Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000

This section of the Terrorism Act 2000 is the primary definition of terrorism in UK Law.

For convenience I quote the full text of Section 1 here:

1 Terrorism: interpretation.(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

To constitute “terrorism” when explosives are used (as they must be in air strikes) only two further criteria have to be satisfied.

First it must satisfy one or more of the criteria specified in Subsection 1(2). Given the nature of air strikes it must be the case that one or more of those criteria are satisfied.

The second test is that it must inter alia be in pursuance of a political cause. Mr. Cameron has recently made public statements which describe some aspects of the political cause in pursuance of which air strikes are proposed.

Against that (much simplified) background I conclude that the proposed air strikes are terrorism in UK Law.

I see no rational basis on which it can be denied that the proposed air strikes are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1.

Misleading the House of Commons

In recent public statements the Prime Minister has claimed that the proposed air strikes are lawful.

Given that the air strikes are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 this, so it seems to me, cannot be true.

I am concerned therefore that the Prime Minister intends to mislead the House of Commons tomorrow prior to the vote on the proposed air strikes.

Your perceived duty

It is, in my perception, your duty to draw to the Prime Minister’s attention that the proposed air srikes meet the criteria specified in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and that, consequently, he is proposing to have RAF pilots undertake acts of terrorism.

Actions requested of you

I ask that you each carefully consider the matter of whether the proposed air strikes are “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and that you fully inform Members of Parliament of all relevant aspects of this matter before the House of Commons debate tomorrow.

Secondly, I ask that you carefully consider whether politicians and military personnel playing any part in the preparation for and execution of such acts of “terrorism” are individually and jointly open to prosecution for offences contrary to the various provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and related legislation.

For example, it seems to me that the Prime Minister may himself be liable for prosecution with respect to Section 56 of the Act for which the penalty on conviction is life imprisonment should he succeed in inflicting the unlawful air strikes on Iraq.

Misconduct in public office

As stated above I believe you each have a duty to inform MPs fully on this important question.

Should you choose to conceal this important question from Members of Parliament (and the public)  such premeditated deception seems to me to, at least arguably, constitute the offence of misconduct in public office.

In the absence of your failing to inform MPs of this important question prior to the debate I anticipate that I will make a report to the Police of what I would perceive as criminal misconduct on your part.

Distribution of this letter

This letter is a public document.

I am copying it visibly to Paul Flynn MP (Labour), Andrew Mitchell MP (Conservative) and Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat).

I would be grateful if you would ensure that each receives a copy of your reply to this letter. In the unlikely event that you dispute that the proposed air strikes are “terrorism” I look forward to reading your approach to the question.

Given that Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband seem to be under the misapprehension that the proposed air strikes are lawful I ask that you similarly copy them in to your reply.

Further, I ask that you copy your reply to the Chief Whip of each party represented in the House of Commons.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

For the record, of the copy recipients Mr. Flynn voted against air strikes. Mr.Mitchell voted for the air strikes.

Sir Robert Smith voted for the air strikes but has written to the Attorney General and Solicitor General asking "that they address the points you have raised".

At the time of writing this blog post I am not aware that either the Attorney General or Solicitor General have replied either to myself or to Sir Robert Smith MP.

The air strikes in Iraq are unlawful, contrary to the lies David Cameron told the House of Commons

In the House of Commons on 26th September 2014 the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, told the assembled MPs that there was a "clear legal basis" for UK military intervention in Iraq in the form of air strikes.

See Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL for David Cameron's speech.

I believe that David Cameron lied to the House of Commons regarding the supposed legality of RAF air strikes in Iraq.

I'll explain briefly why I think so.

Broadly, there are two aspects of Law which may be relevant:

1. International Law
2. UK Criminal Law

For an act such as air strikes to be legal it must be lawful both in International Law and in UK Criminal Law.

Mr. Cameron's statement made reference only to international Law.

Serious questions could be asked about the request from the Iraqi Government asking for UK assistance.

It is entirely possible that the "request" was a charade - a confidence trick to fool MPs and the British public. If it was, then the supposed basis in International Law for the air strikes is a fabrication and a deception.

However, the more easily demonstrable aspect of Mr. Cameron's lies relates to UK Law.

Mr. Cameron concealed from the House of Commons the evidence that the proposed air strikes in Iraq are "terrorism" in UK Law, specifically in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The text of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can be found here:
Terrorism: interpretation

For convenience, I'll reproduce the full text of Section 1 at the time of writing this blog post:

Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

If you're not used to ploughing through the morass of legislative text this might, at first glance, seem opaque.

Let me describe my rationale for concluding that the air strikes in Iraq are "terrorism" in UK Law.

When explosives are used, as they must inevitably be in air strikes, only two further criteria need to be satisfied for "terrorism" to exist, in the meaning of Section 1.

Those criteria are expressed in Subsections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c). For convenience, here is the text of Subsection 1(1):

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.

Because explosives are used in air strikes, it is not necessary to satisfy Subsection 1(1)(b). This is expressed in Subsection 1(3):

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

Subsection 1(1)(a),

(a)the action falls within subsection (2)

 is satisfied since air strikes meet the criteria in Subsection 1(2):

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

Air strikes inevitably involve "serious violence against a person" and/or "serious damage to property".

The final criterion which must be satisfied for "terrorism" to exist is expressed in Subsection 1(1)(c):

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.

Mr. Cameron in various speeches disclosed the political cause in pursuance of which the air strikes were proposed - the destruction of the organisation variously known as "Islamic State", ISIS, ISIL or IS.

So, in my view, there is no rational basis to doubt that the proposed UK air strikes in Iraq are "terrorism".

Various criminal offences, some of which are expressed in the Terrorism Act 2000, arise.

One serious example is Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000:

56 Directing terrorist organisation.

(1)A person commits an offence if he directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Mr. Cameron is, in my view at least, clearly "directing" UK military forces with respect to the proposed air strikes in Iraq.

In my view both Mr. Cameron the Secretary of State for Defence have committed offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In Summary, here are some aspects of the deception that I believe Mr. Cameron perpetrated in the House of Commons on 26th September 2014:

1. He said there was a "clear legal basis" for air strikes in Iraq. It may be "clear" in International Law but there is no clarity that it is legal in UK Law.
2. He concealed from the  House of Commons (and the British public) that the air strikes are terrorism in UK Law.
3. He concealed from the House of Commons (and the British public) that he and Michael Fallon would be committing criminal offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrrorism Act 2000.

The House of Commons was deceived by Mr. Cameron.

The UK is conducting acts of "terrorism" in Iraq on the basis of lies told to the House of Commons by David Cameron MP.

That deception was possible, in my view, because of the misconduct of Jeremy Wright, UK Attorney General and Robert Buckland, UK Solicitor General.

I will return, in a future post, to my view about the perceived misconduct of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General which I believe may amount to criminal offences of misconduct in public office.