Friday, 28 October 2016

Assange - Dead or Alive?

For up-date from Assange via telephone Bitcoin link as of 26.10.16 see: and 'Comments' bottom of page.


Recently fears have been expressed in some quarters as to the welfare of Julian Assange, the well-known activist and principal of the 'Wiki Leaks' organisation. (1) This has been prompted by an absence of reliable confirmation from the organisation, suspicious misleading communications, pressure by the USA on Ecuador that resulted in internet links being cut, and standing threats by that country in addition to Britain and Sweden. (2) This is all in the context of announcements by Assange that he intended to release information that had the potential to influence the American Presidential election, specifically Hillary Clinton's prospects of filling that role.

"Confinement is ageing!"


Most people are aware of the Julian Assange, CEO of the Wiki Leaks organisation, and what has happened to him. To summarise, he has been 'holed up' in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the past four years, hiding from the British Met. Police, intent on arresting him and extraditing him to Sweden, where he faces an allegation of sexual misconduct. (3)

He has done so because he fears it is a thinly veiled attempt by the American authorities to have him removed to that country to face serious charges of publishing secret state documents. Sweden has refused to give any undertaking that it would not do so, which rather supports his fears. (4)

His apprehensions are also justified by the way in which Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was treated before and after his Court Martial from 2010 onwards, for making public Classified Materials. This resulted in a sentence of 35 years imprisonment, though in theory he could be eligible for parole in eight years. The fact that some of the leaked information revealed criminal acts by the United States itself, was considered irrelevant. She has recently made an attempt on her own life. (5)


It is also worthy of note that an original serious charge of "aiding the enemy" was based on giving the information to Wikileaks. In other words Assange is regarded as the enemy by the United States, and after Iraq and Guantanamo, we know how it treats the enemy - an assumption reinforced by remarks by leading political figures including Hillary Clinton herself.

She has been quoted as saying, "Can't we just drone this guy?" It is aid laughter in the room subsided when the participants realised she was not joking. (6)

Recent Clinton-related Suspicious Deaths

The Clintons have become infamous for the number of close associates that have met premature deaths of one sort and another. An Anonymous web site lists FIVE  recent incidents in which individuals closely linked to the Clintons, have died under suspicious circumstances. (7)  They are:

  • June 27th John Ashe (61)  Former president of the United Nations General Assembly in 2013 and 2014 and due to give evidence about alleged illegal Chinese money laundering to DNC two weeks later. Died from "heart attack or wind pipe crushed" from barbell whilst weight training?  (8)
  • July 19th  Seth Conrad Rich (27) Operations Director for Voter Expansion at the DNC. Murdered on the street on way home date @ 4.10 am (9)
  • 25th July. Joe Montano, (47) who was a former DNC Chairman and top aide to Sen. Tim Kaine  heart attack on July 25, the day the DNC started. (10)
  • Aug 1st. Victor Thorn, (54) who was a prolific author who concentrated on the Clinton's misdeed. Gunshot wound on mountain top near his home. (11) 
  • Aug. 2nd. Shawn Lucas, (38) the lead attorney who was working to expose the DNC fraud case in Florida, and famously served court papers on its officials, was unexpectedly found dead in his home on bathroom floor. (12)

To this we might add the rather suspicious circumstances of the 'suicide' of Assange Barrister John Jones (13 ) and now  the demise of Assange close confident and Wiki Leaks Chairman Gavin MacFadyen (76) in a London hospital from lung cancer on the 22.10.16. (14) The title on the screen in the following may be a tad misleading if he was in hospital and under close medical supervision at the time!

Dead or Alive?

So we certainly have reason to be concerned if Assange ceases to communicate. We know attempts were made to arrest him in the Embassy itself contrary to international law. We know that the USA has an animus against him and is capable of 'extraordinary rendition' - effectively international kidnapping. We know that it executes people around the world by drone and bomber without any due process to ensure they are guilty of any criminal act. We know it lies and falsifies stories to justify intervention. We know it is capable of creating false flags and sacrificing its own citizens in staged so-called terrorist events. Why should not Assange - or we - harbour quite rational fears for his safety. 

However about a week ago, Craig Murray, the noted ex British Ambassador and activist reported in an article that he had been to see see Assange and that he was OK. (15) He writes: 

"I left Julian after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense."  

Four years ago at the start of the siege, he was filmed outside the embassy to clarify the legal situation in international law regarding the inviolability of the Embassy itself and that anyone entering it without permission would be committing a criminal act. (16) This You Tube video is well worth watching.

However there are some rather 'spooky' contra-indications. For example this video on You Tube ( is titled to suggest it is current ("Published on 21 Oct 2016 New Breaking News Julian ASSANGE speech at the Ecuadorian Embassy!") when in fact it shows the events at the beginning of the siege referred to above and in (16) below. This must be intentional misrepresentation to give the impression that Assange is fit and well presumably. Or is it merely to give an old video and events new lease of life? If so shouldn't it make this clear from the start?

Then there is a Michael Moore video here ( that clearly states, "Michael Moore visits Julian Assange in 4 year Ecuadorian Refuge Office "Captivation" Published on 20 Oct 2016 #FreeAssange #RideTheJohnson)   similarly suggesting it is recent, when in fact it was posted four months previously on June 9th 2016! 

Again, why the clear misinformation implicit in the title? Both these examples give cause for concern and a suspicion that maybe the public is being duped into thinking all is well with Assange when it isn't. Efforts to get him to confirm he is alive and well and still in the building (by for example a photograph with the day's newspaper) have got no reaction. For some reason or other Assange has gone incommunicado. In this context we must hope that Murray's report is indeed as recent as the date suggests and not just reissued from an earlier one! 

Further background material



"At 4:19 a.m., police patrolling nearby responded to the sound of gunfire in Bloomingdale and found Seth Rich lying mortally wounded at a dark intersection a block and a half from a red-brick row house he shared with friends. He had multiple gunshot wounds in his back. About an hour and 40 minutes later, he died at a local hospital. Police have declined to say whether he was able to describe his assailants."


From:  Published 

"Earlier today, WikiLeaks tweeted a photo of an investigative journalist, Gavin MacFadyen, with no explanation or accompanying caption, and the tweet immediately began fuelling Internet conspiracy theories. The tweet just featured a picture of the investigative journalist with no caption and no explanation. WikiLeaks later pinned the tweet. Why did WikiLeaks tweet this photo? It was later revealed that MacFadyen had passed away."

"MacFadyen has a long history as a journalist who’s friendly to WikiLeaks. He was the director of the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London, an adviser to The Whistler, and focused much of his work on discussing and protecting whistle blowing activities. He even created the Julian Assange Defence Committee to raise funds to help pay for Assange’s legal expenses."

"After its initial tweet, WikiLeaks tweeted more messages, not related to MacFadyen, without any explanation of the pinned tweet. Around the same time that the tweet was released, an edit was made by an anonymous person to MacFadyen’s Wikipedia page and then quickly deleted:
This, rather suggestive image has been published as a header to a 28.10.2016 New York Times article announcing MacFayen's death on the 22nd October, 2016 here:   Was it intended to be subtly defamatory? It seems a strange and inappropriate choice for an obituary.

"Gavin MacFadyen, an American investigative journalist who became an early mentor and defender of the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, died on Saturday in London, where he lived and spent much of his professional life. He was 76.
The cause was lung cancer, his wife, Susan Benn, said.
Since the 1970s, Mr. MacFadyen produced and directed scores of television documentaries on a wide range of subjects, including neo-Nazi violence, child labor, nuclear proliferation and industrial accidents. Sometimes he worked in disguise.
He also co-founded the nonprofit Center for Investigative Journalism in London in 2003, a training program in skeptical reporting, and WhistleblowersUK, a support group for tipsters. He was a director of WikiLeaks and, with his wife and another journalist, John Pilger, formed the Julian Assange Legal Defense Committee.
Immediately after Mr. MacFadyen’s death, WikiLeaks issued this Twitter post: “Gavin Macfadyen, beloved director of WikiLeaks, now takes his fists and his fight to battle God. Sock it to him, forever, Gavin.” It was signed “JA.”"

I assume we are being led to believe "JA" stands for Julian Assange. Is it likely in such a personal matter he would sign himself thus?

1. AMTV video:
6. From:



10. Joe Montano

11. Victor Thorn

12. Shawn Lucas

13. john jones;




Tuesday, 25 October 2016

7/7 and the Mystery of the Missing Train.

On the morning of 7th July, 2005, as I sat at the desk where I worked, the news slowly filtered in that there had been a serious violent event in London. Gradually everyone became aware this consisted of a series of explosions on three tube trains on the underground and another on the top deck of a bus that killed or seriously injured hundreds of people. Whilst feeling natural sympathy for those affected, I had selfish reasons to be concerned as well. I knew my lawyer daughter worked in London. Imagine my relief when I learnt she had narrowly missed two of the explosions, having arrived at Kings Cross immediately before it was closed and walking on the route the bus had later taken!

Much has been written about the events of that day. Indeed I have referred to it myself on numerous occasions, some of which are here: (1) The events of 7/7 are filled with so many questions and coincidences, as to make the official version of events highly suspect and unreliable. (2) However replicating the attacks on America four years before, nothing appears to shake the Government's confidence in their own narrative. This of course was and is that four British born and bred Muslim extremists were responsible for planning the operation as a protest at Britain's involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraqi invasions. That they made their devices from readily available chemicals - home-made organic peroxide - which they carried in back-packs and detonated in their four separate locations - three simultaneously on the underground (08.49 BST) and another approximately an hour later (09.47 BST) on the Number 30 double deck bus, sacrificing their own lives in the process. They were, it was claimed 'suicide bombers'.

Perhaps before I go any further I should make it clear that I take no credit for any of the discoveries or assertions made in this article.  That must go to the ingenious and courageous individuals that did so, many of whom were pursued and harassed by media and government, including unsuccessful prosecution, in an effort to prevent them questioning the official version and speaking out against it. It has become a very familiar pattern with these high profile events. They appear to be choreographed from beginning to end to permit just one approved version, however untenable it proves to be.

Aldgate tube station following the attack (PA)

Much has been made of the huge number of coincidences and inconsistencies in this case that appear never appear to have been seriously addressed by Government bodies. 

The fact that the Gleneagles conference was taking place the very next day, enabling the Prime Minister to be seen condemning Al Qaeda (AQ) terrorism with the full support of the 'G8'. (3)

The fact that only the day before it had been announced London would host the 2012 Olympic Games which Tony Blair also described as 'momentous news for Britain'. (4)

The fact that on the very same day as the explosions had taken place, a coordinated parallel counter-terrorist training exercise was taking place that almost exactly replicated the locations and circumstances of the real one! (5) 

The fact that only seven days before the Met Police had carried out its own simulated tube bombing merely intended 'to see how officers would get to work'! (6) 

The fact that on the very morning of the explosions Benjamin Netanyahu 'who just happened' to be in London on that day, was apparently warned by a Met Police source to remain in his hotel.   ("Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag“The Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast, the paper reports, confirming an earlier AP report. As a result, it was impossible to take any action to prevent the blasts.”") (7) 

The fact that one of the trains was "derailed" that suggests the explosive was actually beneath the carriage, supported by the physical damage to the trains and many of the injuries. (8) 

The fact that there has never been a full Public Inquiry into this one of the most serious terrorist incidents the country has ever known and that the inquest held in 2010/11 under Lady Justice Hallett was a shambles of a closed affair. Rather amazingly the inquest did not confirm that Hussain, Khan, Lindsay, or Tanweer died and puts the number of dead at 52. Is this official and inadvertent recognition that no suicide bombers were present or indeed perished on 7 July, 2005? (9) 

The fact that none of those involved with policing or security or in the subsequent tragic and criminal events that followed, when the innocent Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead fifteen days later, were ever convicted with offences or even disciplined. (10) Although in 2007 The Met as an organisation was found guilty under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act! (13)

Indeed the police woman in charge, Cressida Dick, Gold Commander on the day of the operation, and therefore ultimately in charge, was subsequently promoted to Deputy Assistant Commissioner, later to become Director General of the Foreign Office!  She is now being touted to replace the existing Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who is departing early. (11)

Taken in the round, all of this and many other features not listed, point to this being a government secret-agency-organised event rather than the four rather insignificant and incompetent individuals who were immediately blamed. Of course we saw a very similar modus operandi in the case of the blamed nineteen blamed hi-jackers on 9/11, who variously either turned up alive afterwards and were unable to fly even a Cessna!

All these issues have been addressed elsewhere, of which the references below are just a sample. I do not intend to revisit them in detail here. However there is just one feature that I wish to relate, that if correct must mean that these men COULD NOT have carried out the attacks as described. It turns on what I called 'the mystery of the missing train'. 

As I have shown in the case of the Paris outrages, much turns on timings. If it is physically impossible for the perpetrators to be where they are said to be, the credibility of the whole narrative is undermined if not destroyed. If it was IMPOSSIBLE for the four accused to have been on those tube trains, because the stated connecting train did not run that day, and none of the others fit, I think you may have to think twice about the whole story. Of course as usual the questions, "If they didn't do it, who did?" and "Why if they know it's a lie do the authorities keep sticking to it?" naturally follow, ones I'm afraid I can't answer.

The official account was apparently as follows:

"08.23: The train arrives at King’s Cross, slightly late due to a delay further up the line. The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system. At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train.
08.50: At Edgware Road, Mohammad Sidique Khan was also in the second carriage from the front, most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors. He was probably also seated with the bomb next to him on the floor. Shortly before the explosion, Khan was seen fiddling with the top of the rucksack. The explosion killed 7 including Khan, and injured 163 people.

The 7 July bombers were identified as Mohammed Siddeque Khan (30), Hasib Hussein (18), Shazad Tanweer (22), and Jermaine Lindsay (19). All apart from Jermaine Lindsay were British nationals of Pakistani origin, born and brought up in the UK, and at the time of the bombings based in Leeds area of West Yorkshire. Lindsay was a British national of West Indian origin, born in Jamaica and based in Aylesbury prior to the attacks. He was a convert to Islam.
7/7 bombers, (L-R) Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Mohammad Sidique Khan (PA)

The ISC Report states (para 43) "We have been told in evidence that none of the individuals involved in the 7 July group had been identified (that is, named and listed) as potential terrorist threats prior to July. We have also been told that there was no warning from intelligence (including foreign intelligence) of the plans to attack the London transport network on 7 July 2005." 

Clearly if the Mossad Chief can be believed, the ISC must have been misled on the latter point. As regards the former, it was later revealed at the inquest in 2011 that both Khan and Tanweer were followed and photographed by counter-terrorism officers in early 2004.  They also had on record a telephone number belonging to Jermaine Lindsay and ‘Siddeque Khan’. (12) So it is probably fair to say it was at least - in that famous phrase - "economical with the actualit√©.

So as to the alleged movements of the four on the 7th July, 2016 they were said to have travelled by car to Luton station and from there catching the 7.40 train to London. In fact this train was cancelled. In a famous photo that has serious defects that suggests it might have been tampered with, they are recorded entering the station at 7.21.  Note how the railings appear to pass through the body of the man with the white hat! There is a real question whether this image was interferred with and whether it was actually recorded on the date shown.

This is a much clearer longer view of ostensibly the same moment including the same defect. Why the better definition? This one contains the time (almost 7.22 not 7.15 notice) This might just have allowed them to catch the 7.24 that departed at 7.25 possibly but not if they had to obtain tickets and they don't appear to be rushing do they. And if they did catch this one, why did the report state it departed 7.40?,_2005_London_bombings_CCTV.JPG

For comparison purposes, the next one is of the  suspects (L-R) Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Mohammed Sidique Khan at Luton train station, taken the week before, apparently on a 'dry run'. Notice how much clearer it is. The respective head gear (or lack of) appears to be retained in the alleged 7/7 image above.

WIKI has this: "The four bombers captured on CCTV at Luton station at 7:21 am on 7 July 2005. From left to right: Hasib Hussain, Germaine Lindsay, Mohammad Sidique Khan, and Shehzad Tanweer." The Independent 'timeline' has this: "7.15am: The men enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers heading to the platform for the Thameslink train to London King's Cross.7.40am: The train sets off." Except it didn't! 

The next one departed 24 minutes late. So the 7.40 train they reportedly caught didn't run and the next one didn't get to Kings Cross until 8.42 (it made up two minutes on the way) The east bound train that exploded departed 8.25. That is the crucial time the bombers had to be there.
The only possibility is if they caught an earlier but delayed train - but which one?
The scheduled 7.30 doesn't leave until 7.42 but is ruled out because it does not arrive until 8.39, 35 minutes late and well after the east bound tube had departed.
So the only possibility would have been if they had caught the delayed 7.24 which left at 7.25 and got in at 8.23 - 23 mins late.
However apart from the fact this was not the official story, it is unrealistic on two accounts: it allows less than three minutes for them to get from outside Luton station and they are seen not to be rushing, clearly thinking they had plenty of time until 7.40.
Even had they caught THIS particular train, it would provide only TWO minutes at the Kings Cross end to get from train to tube platform and onto the east bound train. I doubt you could do it even if you ran but it is also definitively ruled out as the state produced evidence that they were all recorded together apparently hugging, which would have used up the available two minutes on its own.

This is the official account from Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005, printed 11th May 2006  located here:
"07.40: The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station. There are conflicting accounts of their behaviour on the train. Some witnesses report noisy conversations, another believes he saw 2 of them standing silently by a set of train doors. The 4 stood out a bit from usual commuters due to their luggage and casual clothes, but not enough to cause suspicion. This was the beginning of the summer tourist period and Luton Station serves Luton Airport. 
08.23: The train arrives at King’s Cross, slightly late due to a delay further up the line. The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system. At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train. Hussain also appeared to walk towards the Piccadilly Line entrance." 

It should be noted that it is impossible to reconcile this with the actual timetable below.

"NikK" summarised much better than me in this 2010 article:
"July 7th New ‘Official Narrative’ timingsThen the court showed similar CCTV sequence of July 7th with the Four carrying (alleged deadly-bomb) rucksacks. Now they only took one and a half minutes to complete exactly the same movements:
07.21.54 Enter Luton, 07.22.43 Go through barriers, 07.23.27 On platform.
What we see here is a crucial and necessary new reworking of the timeline.

So one must conclude that the first train they could have caught would have arrived too late for them to situate themselves on the tubes as described.

The table above and below is reproduced with thanks from:

Luton – King’s Cross Thameslink timetable for the morning of July 7th, 7-8 am
Booked             Actual                    Due in at                   Actual arrival               Delay
Departure       Departure                King’s Cross                 Kings Cross               (mins)

07.16                07.21                      07.48                         08.19                      31
07.20                07.20                      08.08                         08.15                       7
07.24                07.25                      08.00                         08.23                      23
07.30                07.42                      08.04                         08.39                      35
7.40               Cancelled                 Cancelled                    Cancelled              Cancelled
07.48                07.56                      08.20                         08.42                      22
08.35 : The Eastbound Circle line train that exploded, leaves King’s Cross.
Muad'Dib, the maker of the remarkable film "Ripple Effect" (see below) also claims a 7.46 train (not shown in the table above) was also cancelled . Otherwise they concur.


It is frankly incredible that despite its catastrophic nature, with all its implications for national security and the "war on terror", no one in the British Government or political community considers it appropriate or necessary to carry out a searching and independent enquiry into what actually happened on 7/7 and who in reality was responsible for it. 

The parallels between how this and the events of 9/11 have been dealt with are stark. Rather like the 9/11 Commission, the only Parliamentary scrutiny appears more akin to a meeting of old friends at the club. It fails to ask any searching questions and is limited to a very select circle of those with a common interest in supporting the establishment and with it the official line. Similarly the Inquest that took place five years later and might have been expected to discover the truth, was ham strung by secrecy on the grounds of 'national security'. This catch-all phrase can equally be used of course to protect interested parties and cover up malfeasance - even treason!



Committee Report into the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005 (Published May 2006) 

8. This Report sets out a number of conclusions and recommendations. These points should not overshadow the essential and excellent work the Agencies have undertaken against the terrorist threat in the UK. We record that *** terrorist plots in the UK have been thwarted by the intelligence and security Agencies since 11 September 2001, three of them since July 2005. Despite their successes disrupting these other plots, they did not manage to prevent the attacks that took place in London on 7 July 2005.

EVIDENCE In addition to examining a number of intelligence assessments and other written documents, the Committee took evidence from the following witnesses, some of whom gave evidence on more than one occasion: Ministers The Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, MP – Foreign Secretary The Rt. Hon. Charles Clarke, MP – Home Secretary Officials GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS Sir David Pepper KCMG – Director, GCHQ Other officials SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE Mr John Scarlett CMG – Chief, SIS Other officials SECURITY SERVICE Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller DCB – Director General, Security Service Head of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre CABINET OFFICE Sir Gus O’Donnell KCB – Cabinet Secretary Sir Richard Mottram GCB – Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator Mr Tim Dowse – Chief of the Assessments Staff Other officials FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE Mr David Richmond CMG – Director General (Defence and Intelligence) POLICE Chief Constable Ken Jones QPM – Chair of ACPO TAM/ACPO President designate Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman QPM MA– Head of Specialist Operations, Metropolitan Police Service Deputy Chief Constable Bryan Bell – National Co-ordinator, Special Branch

See also:
7/7 Ripple Effect 2 (Full Length) HD. "Published on 23 Jun 2013
Muad'Dib's latest film about the July 7 2005 London bombings.

After being unlawfully jailed for 157 days based on trumped-up charges, and the BBC making a dedicated hit-piece on the original 7/7 Ripple
Effect, the film-maker Muad'Dib expands upon the original film and has added over 60 minutes of new material connecting the dots of what most
likely really did happen in London on July 7th 2005, when 3 tube-trains and a double-decker bus were exploded.

Watching this film should leave the viewer no doubt that the crimes and murder committed in London were done by other organizations than by
claimed by the official and corporate media."

Thursday, 20 October 2016

"Don't panic Mr Mainwaring!" 
(Pronounced "Mannering"!)

Planning for What?

Does the Government know something we don't or just getting prepared in case?

So many 'joint exercises'! Does the government know something we don't?

This year (2016) appears to have seen an unprecedented number of local joint emergency exercises, involving all the emergency services, plus others that might be involved. From Plymouth to Paisley and from Birkenhead to Basildon, events have been held to test the preparedness of these organisations to work together in a variety of assumed situations. These include major rail disasters, the collapse of buildings, fires, radio-active leaks and terrorist attacks.

We all know that Britain and America are close communicators in matters of national security, so it is reassuring (sic) to learn that September this year, America appears to be testing its systems for a national emergency. The Federal Government issued a "reminder", that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), would conduct a mandatory nationwide test of the 'Emergency Alert System (EAS) on Wednesday, September 28, at 2:20 p.m. EDT. (See: This is just one of indicator of what some interpret as long term planning for major conflict and domestic repression under the guise of actual or created external threat. This perspective may not be over illusionary. (See:

It is hard not to see these moves as ominous, in the light of developments in the international situation, particularly as it relates to the deteriorating relationship between America and Russia in Syria and Ukraine, where direct confrontation has been narrowly avoided to date and is an ever present danger.

The UK and European governments have generally not warned their populations regarding the huge dangers implicit in this stand-off and in the build up weaponry in these regions - military, airborne and naval. Virtually all public relations have been directed towards the 'threat from ISIS'. Increasingly this has been shown to be a sham and a cover for much less well known strategic objectives, indeed that ISIS may well have been an American/Israeli/Saudi (not exclusively) creation and instrument in the region.

The ISIS ploy has acted as camouflage for a continuing policy of balkanisation of the Middle East and Israeli/American hegemony, with natural resources, particularly oil, at its centre. The fact that Russia (and now it appears China) have obstructed this goal, backing both Syria and Iran, has very much upped the anti, and indeed the risk of super-power conflict that could involve nuclear weapons!

In this regard we cannot escape notice that Russia too is making provision for civil defence. See here: These worrying developments cannot be overstated for the safety of millions and the future of the planet.

So returning to the United Kingdom, we might infer that although the numerous exercises throughout the land are advertised locally as merely ad hoc training exercises, there may be far more sinister civil defence reasons for them never reported, reminiscent of the 1980 when generally unknown, we came perilously close to a nuclear exchange under Reagan and Thatcher. (A good review of the historical perspective and particularly the 1983 'near-miss can be found here:

This view is not without documentary support. In the Emergency Planning and Preparedness Guidance Document (2014) it states: 

"The government aims to ensure all organisations are fully prepared for all types of emergencies. Integral to that is the practising and testing of all the elements of emergency plans. This guide outlines what we mean by exercising, describes different types of exercise, and outlines the exercising which takes place at all levels of government. It also provides some specific examples of recent exercises." (See:

I must admit, given our recent knowledge of how notable 'terrorist incidents' have been accompanied by 'training events' that closely resemble the genuine one, I found the following paragraph rather intriguing. Specifically, I am left wondering what the "fourth category" actually refers to?

"Types of exercises
There are 3 main types of exercise:
  • discussion-based
  • table top
  • live
A fourth category combines elements of the other 3."
I am of course aware that Government updates its plans continuously, but we are justified in asking whether the current flurry of local emergency response exercises, that as in the case of the February London one in February cost over a million pounds to stage, are being centrally demanded and co-ordinated, with more than local disasters in mind? Is it possible that it reflects a growing realisation in Whitehall, that we are in fact edging closer to war and all that entails, but that by selling the exercises as mere local training, the truth can be concealed, so as 'not to frighten the horses'?

" "Loud bangs but don't be alarmed.""Exercise Triton II  "Codenamed Exercise Short Sermon 16"

"That's enough exercises." Ed.

Then there are the armed services: "

Royal Navy's first 'robot wars' exercise begins 4 October 2016 

Major UK-led Nato exercise begins in Scotland 10 October 2016