Someone Else's Business

.


Tony Farrell, 'Principal Intelligence Analyst' For South Yorkshire Police (the UK's 18th largest force), was sacked in July 2010 for submitting in his annual review that the major threat of terrorism against British people came from within the UK state apparatus rather than from Islamic fundamentalists. Mr Farrell had worked in this position for twelve years and his previous work record was, his employers admitted, 'impeccable'.

However, in this 2010 report he asserted that both 7/7 and 9/11 were 'inside jobs'.

One can understand the dilemma this posed for South Yorkshire Police.

One can understand his being sacked. Tony himself well understood that this would almost certainly be the outcome of his actions.

Earlier this year an Employment Tribunal upheld SYP's decision when they rejected TF's claim against them for 'unfair dismissal'.

I attended the first day of Tony Farrell's appeal against this decision in Sheffield Employment Tribunal yesterday. Tony cannot afford legal representation but this probably matters little. He is being assisted/represented by well-known public speaker and polymath Ian R Crane.

I had attended a 'Friends of Tony' gathering the previous evening and it was clear that the substance of the appeal would be to pursue the 'procedural' argument, i.e. that procedures were violated by the SYP resorting to summary dismissal without reviewing or investigating any of his analysis that had caused the dismissal.

However, in court, while listening to the interrogation of the SYP witnesses I found it difficult not to sink into a sort of gloom. Nitpicking exchanges over nuances of procedure somehow missed the point.

The Director of Finance who sacked TF was a transparently decent man. One could easily understand the 'impossible' position in which he found himself. Any normal person would naturally ask themselves, "What else was he supposed to do?" This man even said that Tony Farrell's allegations "could be right.".....but it turns out that the UK police policy on 'terrorism' is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police.

Someone else's business.

The same goes for the Tribunal, three men who bent over backwards to cover every detail of the actions of SYP and offered Tony Farrell every courtesy, full respect and sometimes necessary patience as he required time to respond to various thrusts in the evidence.

For this Tribunal too, the content of Tony Farrell's analysis is 'somebody else's business'. It is their job only to address evidential matters relating points of law previously overlooked or misapplied.

One might ask what would have happened if TF had worked for the Metropolitan Police. There is little doubt he would have been sacked by them also. They would have said that they take their directions on anti-terrorism' policy from the 'security services'.

But it is the 'security services' who are being accused by Tony Farrell (and many, many others) of carrying out the 7/7 terror attacks.

For parliament and the mass media too the truth about 7/7 is "somebody else's business". The narrative emanating from the 'security services' is treated as gospel in spite of the extraordinary anomalies, contradictions and pure lies that are promoted as truth in the public domain.

The truth about this appeal is that the outcome of the case depends entirely on the panel's interpretation of the word "reasonable".

They could easily find that South Yorkshire Police were being 'reasonable' in every way when they sacked Tony Farrell because the issues he raised were "someone else's business".

But such extraordinary and serious allegations are surely everybody's business! If the Tribunal were to admit this to themselves then the reaction of South Yorkshire Police to TF's 'annual review' take on an entirely different complexion. From this perspective the SYP were entirely UNreasonable in their actions.

.....and if the same South Yorkshire Police had carried out a little investigation into TF's allegations, here are just a few of the facts (emerging from published and submitted 7/7 evidence) they would have discovered:

1) That there were THREE holes in the Edgware Road carriage, one large hole by the first set of single doors and two holes, one large and one smaller in front of the first set of double doors. Individuals fell into all three holes. two emerged. One died. In what way is this scenario possibly compatible with a suicide-bomber carrying one rucksack of home-made liquid explosive?
2) A Dr Morgan Costello was sent by police on to two of the trains to count the dead bodies. He counted Six on the Aldgate coach and Seven at Edgware Road. These numbers exactly match the numbers of civilian dead but where are the bombers? The numbers should have been seven and eight. Here is the clearest possible evidence that the so-called suicide bombers were not on the trains. The narrative has adjusted to this anomaly by claiming that Tanweer's body (Aldgate) was splattered into 52 different pieces. But this violates common sense. The evidence places many people all around Tanweer on the train, yet nearly all the other serious injuries were to feet and lower limbs.
3) There were 4 different drills around 7/7, one at the very time of the attacks, that mimicked what actually occurred with more-than-uncanny accuracy. For those who study such matters here is an ever-present and defining fingerprint of the false-flag attack template.
4) Regarding the explosives used, the first analysis came from a genuine expert. Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, chief of French anti-terrorism Coordination Unit who was in London assisting Scotland Yard with its investigation, confirmed to The Times that,‘The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying.....the material used were not homemade but sophisticated military explosives …’ This is surely the most reliable commentary on the nature of the bombs that went off that morning. The problem is that it would have been all-but-impossible for four young men from Leeds to get their hands on such materials.
Between 2005 and today the official story developed onwards from explosives 'C4' to 'TAPT' to, finally, a mixture of black pepper and boiled-down hydrogen peroxide bought from a local warehouse.

There are literally hundreds of other anomalies that SYP could have discovered for themselves through EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN OFFICIAL SOURCES.

No one, it seems, excepting people like Mr Farrell, are prepared to do this important work. The consensus appears to be that this is

'SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS'.

When we are being mired in wars that no sensible person wants, when the media today are signalling new possible wars with Syria, Iran and Venezuela, when we see the beginnings of our children being mired in debt slavery before they even begin their working lives, when they are told they will never own their own homes, when the prospect of a lifetime of central finance-controlled Soviet-style subjugation looms for our yet-unborn grandchildren,

WHOSE BUSINESS IS IT?

WHOSE?

Once men and women swallow mainstream fictions, however widely accepted, and abandon principle we are doomed and we have no one to blame but our individual selves.

The fact is that South Yorkshire Police should have honestly investigated Tony Farrell's allegations. Normal procedures demand it and although THE SYP's behaviour was emotionally and culturally reasonable, in principle it was NOT reasonable.

Everybody in the courtroom understands the extraordinary nature of this case and the possible alarming and dangerous consequences (for individuals involved) of anything other than the obvious verdict.

But this case transcends matters of established employment procedures or even broader matters of law.

It should be clear to everyone that this is a matter of visceral and vital importance and that the arena of battle is not firstly a tribunal premises but the individual human soul.

The battleground is our own hearts and minds.

Deep down everybody in this court understands the issues. It is just that some are afraid (perhaps understandably) to face them and some are not.

An easy path for avoiding them has been laid down for, not just the tribunal, but for everyone else....by an owned mainstream media and a supine and invisible parliament.

We must appeal to the Tribunal not to take this path.

If charges against the state are made, however seemingly outrageous, let us at least demand that relevant evidence be investigated.

If the Police will not do it, who will protect us?

If the Law will not demand it, where is Justice?

THESE MATTERS ARE EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.

I appeal to the members of this Tribunal to look deeply within themselves.

Let the system that is put in place to serve us AT LAST do so.

Let the message go out that we, whoever we are, demand to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of these matters.

Let us also not forget that our culture was founded on Christ's teachings and such words as these:

"YOUR JUSTICE MUST EXCEED THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES WHO STRAIN AT THE GNAT BUT SWALLOW THE CAMEL."



P.S. The hearing continues at Sheffield Employment Tribunal (beside the Cathedral). Its last day will be on Friday 9th September.


.