The Strange Case of Mahyar Tousi's Non-Arrest.

The YouTube vlogger Mahyar Tousi was covering yet another Palestinian protest at the weekend, when he was approched by Police officers. Details are sketchy of what happened (Mahyar Himself doesn't give a great account of the incident), but apparently the Police Officers who he assumed were Metrpolitan Police Officers told him verbally he was requested to appear voluntarily for interview at a Police station.

The vlogosphere erupted over the weekend with offers of monetary and legal support.

Then Mahyar attended the Police station on Monday.

The Police couldn't find the paperwork for his interview or the allegations requiring his attendance for interview. Curiouser and curiouser. Mahyar left the Police station without being interviewed.

It's uncertain why the Police officers at the weekend told Mahyar of his interview by word of mouth. Normally something like that would be done by phone or letter.

However, in another dramatic turn, it appears the Police then leaked the address of Mahyar to the public. Thankfully the address was wrong, but why would the Police do such a thing? Is it to intimidate, to put pressure on Mahyar to shut up, or is it to bring the wrath of political/religious activists down on Mahyar? He's been a critic of Islamist Extremists in the UK. Was this an attempt to have someone to attack and silence him?

So there are a number of serious questions that need answering.

Were the officers at the protest actually Police officers? Why did they break protocol and inform Mahyar verbally he was required to voluntarily submit to interview?

If they weren't what sort of officers were they? Did they work for a different agency like GCHQ? If so, what were they doing at the protest and why did they approach Mahyar?

Who is calling the shots when it comes to hauling vloggers like Mahyar into Police stations for questioning?

Is it a rogue element within the Police? If not rogue, is there an official capacity?

Is it a political unit within the Police? Do the Police have a political investigations wing?

Is it a propaganda unit within the Police?

Is it GCHQ?

I ask these questions seriously. I've already raised the question of journalists on the right and the left of politics being arrested under the terrorism act. The only thing that links them is they report news that opposes the official government and therefore mainstream media narrative.

Is there a concerted effort to censor narratives of all kinds that go against the mainstream media and government narratives?

Again, I've already blogged about how I think I've already been investigated by intelligence. Having been obviously followed when I changed my routine.

Who is starting these investigations and why? Is it as I suspect GCHQ, but under what powers? Why are they investigating a Blogger on Blogspot or a Vlogger on YouTube? 

But the why is intriguing. Is it an effort to reduce dissident voices, voices against the government/mainstream narrative? Again why?

Is the government involved in a propaganda campaign, essentially trying to control narratives and public opinion? It would appear so, given that not only voices on what we consider the right of politics are being investigated and intimidated. Independent voices on the left of politics are also being intimidated.

The Police are using unprecedented powers to silence independent journalists and commentators.

On the right we have Tommy Robinson and the continued lawfare against him, culminating in him being arrested under the prevention of terrorism act. An act that does not give you the right of silence.

I've a sneaking suspicion that Mahyar would have been arrested and interviewed under terror powers last Monday had he not had the legal support he had. 

But on the left is also a litany of journalists and commentators that brief against the government narrative being arrested under terror powers.

Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson, Craig Murray, Asa Winstanley, are just some names of journalists and commentators that have been arrested under the prevention of terrorism act. 

Now, these appear to be fishing exercises to try and find further names and networks of dissidents or anti-government-propaganda voices.

But I ask the question again. By whom? Under what authority? What is the end game?

And I notice, ALL happened under the new Labour government. 

And the left say Starmer's not an authoritarian. I beg to differ and they really need to look among their ranks for the the evidence.

It's understandable given Starmer only understands the world from a judicial perspective, but this is the longest of overreaches of law. Investigating and then arresting journalists under a law designed to be used against terrorists as an immense misuse of that law.#

UPDATE:

I've created a petition to ask the home secretary why people who are clearly not terrorists are being arrested under the prevention of terrorism act.

https://chng.it/mqVwzCBv8R

Tommy Robinson - Getting to the Endgame.

Yesterday Tommy Robinson had his rally of Patriots in Trafalgar Square. 

During the rally he showed the documentary that he'd been prevented from showing lest he be charged with contempt of court.

Tommy had complied with the instructions of the court and had not released the documentary. 

It was released and was shown some months ago in the USA. Tommy denies he was involved in the release. 

However, even though he denies he was involved, he was summoned to court to answer to charges of contempt. He was due to go to court either today or tomorrow. 

Yesterday evening, he was arrested and charged under the Terrorist Offences Act. 

Under this act you do not have the right to stay silent. You have to answer all questions put to you.

Not only that you have to surrender any devices and give passwords.

I think that's what the Police were after. If for instance they could arrest Tommy under the TOA, seize his phone and get access to it, they could then by the back door confirm if he had instigated the release of the documentary in the USA or not. It's a fishing exercise and a way to gather evidence without a warrant and without enough evidence to attain a warrant. It's a misuse of the TOA.

"Oh, look, just by chance we found communication with the guy in the USA" would say the Police. 

In America I assume that evidence gathered in such a way as part of the TOA arrest would be inadmissible in a separate contempt case. But not here in the UK. Any evidence trawled up by one enquiry would be submitted by the Crown Prosecution in the contempt case.

Tommy realised they were going to try and prosecute him for contempt for something he did not do, so as a big "Fuck You!" to the court and the Judge in this week's case. If they are going to jail him for something he didn't do, then he may as well do it. At least he knows what he did.

The Establishment are shitting themselves. They themselves have released Tommy. He has lost his home, his business and his family and he is still not a broken man. In fact they have made him more determined. He's that sort of guy.

He is now a loose cannon, he is free in the sense he has no fear of prison or of anything else the establishment do to him. To the establishment he is very dangerous.

There is now a battle of Wills. Tommy doesn't care. And that scares the Establishment more than anything...

State Censorship out in the Open

Back in 2009 I blogged about censorship and especially the newly enshrined in law Criminal Justice and Immigration Act and especially the parts of the act referencing the prohibition of viewing violent pornography.

I said at the time, the act was so broad in it's description of what was proscribed, that it could make it illegal to view online anything the Government deemed unsuitable. Violent Pornography was the useful excuse to enact the law (I mean it's bad, really bad, so we should ban it, right?), but the wording of the law enacted was so broad in scope that it could quite easily be applied to anything, including political viewpoints (oh bugger, you didn't see that coming did you?) (well yes I did actually).

We had the news via Breitbart that the governments considering making the viewing of "far right" material illegal. |No need to enact new law, the law is already there thanks to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. With  law already enacted you could drive a coach and horses through it, or get even a half-decent lawyer to argue "watching puppies do the cutest things" on the internet illegal, the Government can just change their interpretation of the law and they're good to go and round up the troublemakers and lock them up for a decade or more.

But who determines what is "Far Right"? Nigel Farage is termed far right by many newspapers... are we to be banned from listening to him? President Trump and the Republican party in the US is termed far right in their views. Are they to become illegal?

Tommy Robinson is termed far right by many and the term sticks because he is a minority of one and hasn't the political or financial power to change that. But will it become illegal to listen to his message?

Just who decides where the line is crossed from right of centre to far right and how clear will that border be defined. Who has that authority? The Government? Will they be issuing leaflets to every household explaining what groupthink is expected of  them so they can avoid prosecution?  Will it be the Police and their officers (those bastions of probity)  that will arbitrarily enforce the law when told by political masters?

This news and the news of the recent refusal to allow Lauren Southern, Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone into the UK show that there is a concerted movement to stifle free speech against the current globalist agenda.

Muslim Immigrants and Antifa are the useful stooges that allow the Government to stifle debate. Tommy Robinson calls out Muslim extremism and hate speech and he is labelled far right and racist. The trio detained at the weekend have Conservative Christian views, are threatened by Antifa and are detained at the border to remove the violence threatened against them (rather than detaining those that threaten violence).

It seems that the agenda to promote the globalist viewpoint to the exclusion of others is well advanced.

The continued mutterings from the Elite about ignoring the Brexit referendum result or making the deal so unpalatable that people clamour to remain, or a second referendum or commons vote on the final option are all part of the same agenda. Disallowing democracy and freedom of speech, promoting the global elitist viewpoint. Making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Also when it gets to censorship of political viewpoints, what I said a few days ago about the cornerstones of democracy (free speech and political freedom) are badly eroded this week.