Jazz Clubs are being terrorized by Labour Politicians – enough is enough!

March 26, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

labour terror.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

I read in the news that the Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism, but I can confirm that Labour politicians all over Britain are actually working 24/7, mounting pressure on Jazz clubs and venues that host my performances in a desperate attempt to appease one foreign Lobby.

In December it was Islington Council leader Richard Watts  (Labour) who acquiesced to a Likud UK’s director and banned me from playing a Christmas concert with the legendary Blockheads.  I will reiterate: a Labour politician surrendered to the ridiculous demands of a Zionist lobby actor who happens to be associated with a regime that is notorious for being racist and some say, crypto-fascist. Islington Council spent £136, 000 on legal fees attempting to justify its insane act. But as it seems, insanity is contagious within the current party environment. However, the Blockheads concert was a great success and apparently one Santa Claus managed to emulate my style perfectly well. Everyone was happy, except the local Labour Council.

In the new year, Councillor Rachel Eden (Labour), a dedicated friend of Israel, was desperate to cancel my concert at Reading Jazz club. She has failed twice now.  but this won’t deter her from trying once again as soon as I cross her region. The Reading concert, again, was a great success.

Two weeks ago, Hackney Council (Labour) was determined to cancel my gig at the Vortex.  It was joined by Momentum and Jewdas and even Owen Jones. Hackney Mayor Philip Glanville (Labour) sent a slanderous email to the club. But to his surprise, the club insisted that they have known me for 30 years, and the allegations against me are a pile of nonsense. But our Labour politicians didn’t give up.  Hackney Council sent the police to the venue and threatened to withdraw the club’s music license. But the Club didn’t surrender. In the next few weeks I will file a few Freedom of Information requests with Hackney Council and its Mayor. I will ask them to substantiate their claims against me. We will then follow up and see how much taxpayer money Labour politicians in Hackney were happy to spend to justify their dark actions.  Meanwhile I am happy to report that the Vortex gigs were totally sold out and were a great success.

On Friday I was supposed to perform at Southsea club Coastguard Studio. The concert sold out five weeks ago. But once again a bunch of Zionists, together with their Labour stooges, assaulted the club in the last few days. I spoke with Club’s owner yesterday and learned from him that his business was threatened by the council. Once again it is the license which our Labour politicians are threatening to revoke. Apparently the club was contacted by the ‘local MP.’ It didn’t take me too long to figure out that  Stephen Morgan MP is listed on the Labour Friends of Israel.

One may wonder why Corbyn’s Labour is stupid enough to operate as an Israeli stooge in such a battle against elementary freedom, in a continuous campaign which contradicts every British value. One answer is that our Labour politicians are lacking where it really matters. They are both senseless and compromised. Another answer is that someone in the Labour party may be foolish enough to believe that making me into their scapegoat will help to vindicate their party and its leader over anti-Semitism accusations.

Needless to say, I am in a win-win situation. Most times I just manage to survive these ludicrous campaigns but when I fail to do so it only exposes the Labour party and its true nature. Sooner or later, Brits will have to decide whether they can allow such a crude, dictatorial and corrupted party into government. I guess that I have made my decision by now.


Call For Action 

Don’t vote Labour, vote Vortex: I urge you to log in to All About Jazz https://www.allaboutjazz.com/ and give your vote to the Vortex who stood firmly against Labour hooliganism (and also support other British jazz clubs: 606, Ronnies, Pizza Express, The Bear Inn and many others).

Donate

 

Advertisements

Art of Resistance – an interview with Oliver Weindling

March 17, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Once again elements within Labour and Corbyn’s closest political ring have been caught performing vile authoritarian symptoms trying to interfere with the arts and freedom of expression. In the last two weeks Momentum, Jewdas and Guardian Journalist Owen Jones joined forces in an attempt to intimidate a London jazz club. Not only did they fail, their campaign backfired on a humongous scale. In this video I interview Oliver Weindling, Vortex Club’s director. I asked Oli about his family background and about his take on the recent assault on British artists and elementary freedoms.

I urge you to log in to All About Jazz https://www.allaboutjazz.com/ and give your vote to the Vortex (and also support other British jazz clubs: 606, Ronnies, Pizza Express, The Bear Inn and many others).

Hezbollah, Justice, Resistance and Humanity

SF

Tuesday, 05 March 2019

The recent British enrollment of those who fight terrorism as ‘terrorists’ is indeed funny, contradictory and reckless. Not only inside EU countries, but in UK itself, the majority reject to reward the fighters of evil, wahabbism and terrorism, by leveling false accusations.

Hezbollah is the legitimate resistance for defense against the occupiers and for liberation of the occupiede territories. The history of this hero Party is clean from any terrorist attack against any civilians and innocents.

It is geographically located, based and operate in Lebanon; its liberation of the Southern part of Lebanon and its steadfast victory against the occupiers’ hegemony and brutality in 2006 are remarkable. It is a Lebanese Party involved in humanitarian, social and domestic aid service, where the majority of its followers pass their days and nights in local humanitarian services.

BUT, once attacked, all freedom fighters worldwide are Hezbollah! Hezbollah is a sacred noble thought and belief; stand by the oppressed against the oppressors. The tales of sacrifices and victories of Hezbollah fighters in Syria in their heroic fight against terrorism are indeed glory, heroism, and true fraternity, amity and peace.

If Hezbollah Party is a ‘terrorist’ organization according the Gulf ewes, US, UK and Israel , who is not so!

The Party of God has been carrying out, at times on behalf of all humanity, all and every king of generous humanitarian assistance, and not to mention its staunch Resistance and defense of all the oppressed, mainly victimized by the dirty petrodollars of the ewes. Is terrorism to occupy others’ or is it to defend and liberate the occupied! Such is the case with the Wahabbi terrorism of occupying others and hijacking the true noble and sublime values of Islam, spreading the Wahabbi terrorism worldwide!

Actually, the thought, mentality and doctrine of the Party of God are mainly based on the sacred legislations and doctrines of amity, fraternity and dignity. This is perhaps one of the main reasons which makes the Party globally more than regionally as the unbreakable epic of steadfastness in the face of the sinister schemes hatched against the oppressed.

The colonizers, occupiers and ewes whose main task is but to distort and  conspire against every Arab and true Islamic symbol  are dismayed at the remarkable accomplishments, victories, in alliance with the Syrian freedom fighters and other true friends and brothers. What a foolish move by Britain, ewes and their own masters, including the Israelis, some Westerns and Americans! Is it a prelude to launch a massive war against the Party of God? If so, the ewes are surely once more along with their masters the big losers.

The innocents, from all colors, religions and thoughts, defended by and saved by Hezbollah do but refer to some of Hezbollah’s merits, when all know, deplore and condemn the barbaric state terrorism of the US, UK and the Monarchy of saws, treason and fratricide.

Dr. Mohamad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

Editor-in-Chief

alibrahim56@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/Mohamad.Abdo.AlIbrahim

http://syriatimes.sy/

http://www.presidentassad.net/

The British History of Terrorism in Palestine

Palestinian detainees in the Old City of AlQuds, during the British Occupation. Credit: Fox Photos, via Getty Images.

By Marwa Osman

Britain declared this past week that it intends to add the Lebanese political bloc Hezbollah ‘in its entirety’ to list of banned ‘terrorist’ organizations and to ban membership of or support for Hezbollah’s political wing. It was not surprising given the full-time lobbying that ‘Israel’ pushes into the UK Parliament. However, given the history of Hezbollah, a force of liberation and resistance against the occupation of the Zionist ‘Israeli’ entity and its big role in fighting off and eliminating takfiri terrorists in Lebanon and Syria, one has to stop and raise her/his voice in the face of Britain’s hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy of UK’s politicians does not manifest itself only when it comes to pointing fingers at the region’s only force that has ever defied and crushed ‘Israeli’ aggressions, yet it simultaneously turns a deliberate blind eye to the history of colonial Britain that is nothing short of terrorizing due to the warmongering foreign policy of the UK in support of Zionism.

One can easily make a massive collection of the UK’s historic atrocities committed with contemplation and determination to weaken and subordinate the natives within Britain’s colonies. Being an Arab from what the UK assigned “The Middle East” when it really is west Asia, the biggest atrocity I see committed by Britain in my region is its role in the illegal creation of Zionist ‘Israel’ on stolen Arab Palestinian land.

The British role in Stealing Palestine

The Balfour declaration was the moment that it became British state policy to support the creation of a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. A hundred years ago, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote what was to some the Magna Carta of Zionism. To the Arabs, who ended up being violently dispossessed, it was a calamitous promise. As the British author Arthur Koestler famously put it, “One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.” It was an early and foundational contribution from Britain to the world’s most intractable war still ongoing since 1948. However, the British role in terrorizing, stealing and colonizing Palestine started way before that.

In 1917, the British colonial forces entered Palestine, and by 1918, the Ottoman rule over Palestine was ended following the defeat of its forces in WWI at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918. Under the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916’, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, after ending the Ottoman control over it, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. However, after the war, Palestine was occupied by the British Military from 1917 until 1920.

During the period Palestine was under British occupation, the Zionists were putting pressure on the British Government to facilitate the establishment of a ‘Jewish Homeland’ on the land of Palestine. On the 2nd of November 1917, the British responded to the Zionist demands through what became to be known as the ‘Balfour Declaration’. Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, handed a letter to Lord Rothschild (a leader of the British Jewish community) for transmission to the Zionist Federation (a private Zionist organization). The letter declared the support of the British King’s Government to the Zionists’ plans of establishing a Jewish ‘national home’ in Palestine, as if Palestine is part of British land.

All this was established at the hands of the warmongering psychopath of all time, Winston Churchill. Churchill’s own efforts to help establish a “Jewish national home” for the sons of Zion in Palestine were at their most intense throughout 1921 and 1922 when, as Colonial Secretary, he was directly responsible for the evolution of British policy in the Middle East.

Since that date, Jewish immigration to Palestine, which started around 1882, increased rapidly. Conflicts erupted between the new Jewish settlers and the local Palestinian people, each fought for their survival. The Palestinian people rebelled against the British Mandate and its policies of settling foreigners on their land; meanwhile, the Jewish illegal colonial gangs continued to carry attacks on the Palestinian people as well as on the British mandate forces. So, the United Nations on the 29th November 1947 agreed upon a ‘Partition Plan of Palestine’, which would divide Palestine into two independent States; one for the Jews and another for the Palestinians, while keeping Jerusalem under international administration, by declaring it a ‘Corpus Separatum’. However, the plan was never implemented.

Churchill, the British terrorist regarded the Arab population in Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”, declaring that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine. In 1921, as he stood in the Palestinian city of AlQuds, Churchill told Palestinian leaders “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national center and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?” He blatantly stood on a foreign land and demanded its people to give it away willingly to a third party. His demands were not very subtle and diplomatic you see, they were done with guns pointed to heads of Palestinian natives.

Obviously, the Palestinian Arabs refused to accept, and in London on 22 August 1921, they once more urged Churchill to bring a complete halt to Jewish immigration. Churchill rejected this appeal, telling the Arabs: “The Jews have a far more difficult task than you. You have only to enjoy your own possession; but they have to try to create out of the wilderness, out of the barren places, a livelihood for the people they bring in… they were in Palestine many hundreds of years ago. They have always tried to be there. They have done a great deal for the country. They have started many thriving colonies and many of them wish to go and live there. It is to them a sacred place.” As if to the Palestinian natives it is a place that they can just give up, because someone else who came from hundreds of miles away claims that Palestine is his, by religious right. You still find people in the west who read this last statement and actually agree with it, until you ask them how they would feel if Arabs decided to come back to Spain’s southern coast of Andalusia and claim it is sacred to them and start a one race/one religion state for them there. When you hear their deafening silence you understand that they know how wrong and illegal the creation of Zionist ‘Israel’ was, yet they don’t dare declare that in fear of being stigmatized as anti-Semitics, disregarding the fact that native Palestinians are the real Semites in this story and not the illegal European colonial settlers.

Churchill stuck to his Zionist policy later in 1937, at the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel), where he stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”. On 19 May 1941, in a secret memorandum, he wrote of his hope for the establishment after the war of a “Jewish State of Western Palestine” with not only the fullest rights for immigration and development, but also with provision “for expansion in the desert regions to the southwards which they would gradually reclaim.” Even after the great theft of Palestine, Churchill was still promising the illegal Zionist settlers more free land for them to grab to the south of Palestine, meaning in both Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula.

Rigid Partnership to Terrorize Arabs

Even now, more than 100 years later, the British political, military and intelligence support for ‘Israel’ facilitates the ‘Israeli’ aggression be it against Palestine, Lebanon or Syria. In 2018, the UK pledged to increase “trade and investment” between the two countries, which already stands at a record 9 billion dollars as ‘Israel’ continues to murder Palestinian natives on a daily basis. Yet, one cannot find a single article in the British “mainstream” media noting the depth of supportive UK policies towards ‘Israel’ since the late 1890s to date.

In 2016 and 2017, the UK sold 512 million dollars’ worth of military goods to ‘Israel’, including components for combat aircraft, tanks, drones and military communications and approved export licenses for 34 types of military-related equipment. No one seems to ask; for what? Or more practically; to kill whom?

The UK wants to ban Hezbollah for being a force of resistance to the continuous ‘Israeli’ occupation and aggressions while at the same fills up the tanks of the most aggressive entity in west Asia, expecting the natives in that region to sit and watch instead of prepare to defend themselves.

The UK’s military relationship with Zionist ‘Israel’ is extensive, covering areas such as naval cooperation and the provision of components for ‘Israeli’ nuclear-armed submarines. However, the UK chooses to brand Hezbollah as a terrorist group, all while ‘Israel’ has nuclear-armed submarines without being a signatory of the Nuclear Proliferation treaty. The British government revealed in 2018 that it was providing military training to ‘Israel.’ This followed news in 2016 that British military pilots were due to be trained by a company owned by ‘Israeli’ arms firm Elbit Systems. Training is longstanding: in 2011, it was revealed that British soldiers were being trained in ‘Israel’ in the use of drones that had been “field-tested on Palestinians” during the 2008 war on Gaza.

So tell us again Britain, who exactly is the terrorist organization?

Britain’s Ban on Hezbollah Is Hypocritical and Unhelpful

By Edward Wastnidge, MEE

The UK’s currently febrile political climate is being dominated by Brexit, as the country’s politicians grapple with the uncertainty created by result of the referendum to leave the EU.

The result and its aftermath has also provoked some soul-searching about the UK’s place in the world and increased its dependency on some of its most questionable allies in the Middle East, as Britain grapples with the now very real prospect of life outside the world’s largest trading bloc.

Crass politicking

On Monday, Sajid Javid, the British home secretary, said in a statement that Britain would add Hezbollah, the Lebanese political party, in its entirety to its list of banned “terrorist organizations”.

Javid said that it was no longer tenable to maintain that there was a distinction between the political and military sides of the group.

This decision shines a light on some key developments in both the UK’s domestic politics and foreign policy.

Firstly, on the domestic front it represents a crass piece of politicking by ambitious Tory politicians, namely Javid and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who are both keen to show, in light of the insecurity surrounding Theresa May’s position, that they would make a plausible prime minister.

It is a move that seeks to take advantage of the current debate around anti-Semitism in the opposition Labor party.

The wrong-headed equating of support for resistance to “Israeli” government policies in the Middle East with anti-Semitism takes advantage of the lack of understanding amongst the UK public and politicians regarding the complexities of Lebanese politics and the wider politics and international relations of the Middle East.

Britain’s hypocrisy

That Hezbollah and its allies gained around 60 percent of the popular vote in last year’s parliamentary elections, are essential to Lebanon’s security and stability, and have acted as one of the most effective fighting forces against ISIS, has been lost on British decision makers.

Citing Hezbollah as a security threat, when the UK is struggling with the blow-back from its own ISIS recruits demonstrates just how far removed UK decision-makers are from reality.

Indeed, British armed forces, according to a Hezbollah official, sought out the movement’s assistance in fighting ISIS in 2015, thus showing the rank hypocrisy that taints almost every British move in the Middle East. The UK’s unwelcome intervention into Lebanese politics shows that any semblance of even-handedness, such as that demonstrated by the UK’s siding with Europe over continued adherence to the Iran nuclear deal in the face of US pressure against Tehran, is merely a charade.

The UK inked one of its first post-Brexit trade agreements with Israel, continues to support its Saudi and Emirati allies with lethal weaponry to pursue their brutal war in Yemen, and shores up odious dictatorships in an attempt to boost its virtually stagnant economy.

The specter of lobby groups

This also begs questions about the integrity of the British foreign office (FCO). One can acknowledge the perverse maneuverings of ambitious politicians as being a motivating factor, but the supposed expertise and impartiality of the foreign office has been severely compromised by allowing such a short-sighted move to see the light of day.

Attempts to influence UK foreign policy are sadly following the model that has long predominated over the other side of the pond in Washington D.C.

Now, in London we have the unwelcome specter of lobbying groups with links to overseas regimes, holding events to try and influence UK decision-makers.

This can be seen in the moves of organizations such as the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, an organization set up ostensibly to promote globalization for all.

A recent event hosted by the Tony Blair Institute at parliament, aimed squarely at proscribing Hezbollah and involving pro-“Israeli” politicians and lobbyists, shows that the pernicious motives of foreign regimes are finding a place, and potentially a receptive ear in the heart of UK-decision making.

A waning reach

It appears that the FCO has followed the politicians and lobbyists’ lead here, and the UK’s waning international reach has forced it into giving a sop to its allies in the Middle East as it desperately struggles to keep itself relevant.

What this shows us is that UK foreign policy is open to the highest bidder – something the government department has essentially admitted before – which has serious ramifications for the UK’s mission as a so-called force for good in international affairs.

An institution that prides itself on its mission to promote British “values”, through active promotion of democracy, security and regional stability in the Middle East, should not be complicit in a move that is a blatant attempt to secure political capital by key cabinet members.

In short it is a move that directly undermines the fragile Lebanese democratic process, thus showing scant regard for the UK’s purported values and will ultimately be counter-productive in terms of UK national security. Legitimate political actors such as Hezbollah need to be engaged, not ostracized.

Labor politicians, and indeed any with a modicum of knowledge about the Middle East and who aren’t in thrall to foreign interests, would do well to push back against such misguided politicking.

Britain can only be taken seriously if it looks anew at the Middle East and casts off the imperial baggage that continues to cloud its reputation.

Recent noises from Labor have focused on plans for moving away from the laser-like focus on interests back towards values.

In doing so, current shadow foreign minister Emily Thornberry cited the obfuscating effect that previous UK governments’ obsessions with arms deals had on their ability to comprehend regional developments, particularly in relation to the Shah of Iran.

The current government would do well to heed this advice.

Israel, UK and Brexit

February 03, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

brexit_edited-1.jpg

Introduction by GA: The following is a translation of the last segment of an article in Ynet  yesterday on Brexit. The article explains that: the Jewish State has located itself as post Brexit Britain’s gateway to the world: “Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign separate trade agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.” And that: “Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally.” And, of course, “the British government totally disregard the boycott campaign against Israel. On a political level, they boycotted the boycott.”

A few years ago we learned that back in 1982 Oded Yinon devised an Israeli ‘plan for the Middle East.’ The following Ynet’s segment provides us with a glimpse into the current ‘Israel’s plan for Britain.’

If you have been puzzled by the insane institutional campaign against Corbyn  (BOD, Jewish Chronicle, CAA, etc.) the Ynet article raises the possibility that the campaign has not actually been about ‘antisemitism.’ It is more likely about shekles: Corbyn in Number Ten could easily interfere with ‘Israel’s plans for Britain.’ The Ynet article may also help Brits to understand the bipartisan forces that operate intensively to push Britain to break away from the EU. For some reason some of the staunch Israel supporters within the Government and in the Parliament are also pushing hard for Brexit. Ask yourself, do they do it for Britain, Brits and British national interests or are they, once again, serving the interests of that dark and oppressive foreign state.

The Brexit Hurricane

https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5456081,00.html

“…It turns out that on some fronts the British began to prepare in advance. When it decided to withdraw from the European Union, Britain was even more enthusiastic about reaching agreements to sign bilateral trade agreements, this time not through the EU, but with countries around the world. The Brits saw the signing of these trade agreements as evidence of Britain’s steadfastness. Time and time again, British leaders, headed by Teresa May, said that “Britain can maximise its business and commercial potential beyond the EU as well.” Israel was one of the first stations in that campaign. Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign such agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.

 In recent years, Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally. Innovation, technological, intelligence and cyber capabilities have made Israel one of the most popular potential partners in Britain. The volume of trade between the two countries rose to a record $ 11 billion last year, of which $ 5 billion was Israeli exports to Britain, and the rest was British imports to Israel. After the United States, Britain is the largest exporter to Israel, and trade relations span a wide range of fields – energy, pharmaceuticals, food and technology – and the British government’s total disregard of the boycott organizations against Israel. On the political level, they boycotted the boycott.

In the past year, teams of British and Israeli economic ministries have gathered to discuss bilateral trade agreements. They had to draft new agreements, since the current trade agreements between the two countries were within the framework of the European Union. Ohad Cohen, head of the Foreign Trade Department in the Ministry of Economics, who was in charge of the talks on the Israeli side, said that the British had entered talks with a simple task: to continue without unnecessary shocks, to repeat most of the clauses in the agreement that Israel signed with the EU in 1995.

“They came and said, ‘Whatever was, will be,'” Cohen said. “In other words, they wanted Israel to continue to trade with Britain on the same terms, with full customs exemptions, and to make very small changes to existing agreements, especially in quantities. Britain has named Israel as one of the first countries with which it wants to sign a bilateral agreement, and it is important for the British government to ensure that the commercial ties between the two countries are not harmed.”

According to Cohen, the negotiations were oblivious to the many changes that have stirred the British political system in the past year. The British did not arrive with any panic for the negotiations with Israel, not even when ministers resigned one by one and Theresa May’s government was crushed under the wheels of Brexit. “The only difference is that they were required to set up a unit that deals with trade agreements, which they did not have before, because before everything went through the EU institutions in Brussels,” says Cohen.

Thus, in the coming month a trade agreement between the two countries is supposed to be signed. After Israel, Britain expects  to sign trade agreements with some 70 other countries, including its closest ally, the US. The agreement with the Americans is very important, because for a Brexit government this is a prestigious card and a proof that Britain can stand on its feet even outside the European Union…”


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

ATB

Gilad

The Nurse’s Tale – “How We Poisoned the Skripals”

By David Macilwain
Source

Alison McCourt 845f0

Forget all those conspiracy theories about the “Skripal Hoax”, tales of doorknobs and toxic perfume bottles, “GRU agents” and Salisbury cathedral. Forget too the stories of “Novichok” and “BZ” and the Institute for Statecraft, of Bellingcat, Chepiga and Mishkin.

These attempts to explain or to conceal one of the biggest criminal mysteries of modern times may now be forgotten, in the light of new and definitive evidence from a prime source – the Chief of Nursing for the British Army, Colonel Alison McCourt.

Seemingly imbued with team self-confidence at having pulled off the most successful covert operation since 9/11, Colonel McCourt has outed herself to a Salisbury local radio station as themystery nurse who first attended to Sergei and Yulia Skripal when they passed out on a  bench in The Maltings at 4.15 pm on Sunday 4th March.

Ten months of enquiries as to who this nurse was have yielded nothing, as following the possibly life-saving care Alison McCourt and her daughter Abigail afforded the poor Skripals, they slipped out of sight and mind, like the poisoning victims themselves.

There was a very good reason for this. Had the credentials and position of Nurse McCourt emergedat the time, questions may have been asked; not the right questions of course, but obvious questions such as why someone with Colonel McCourt’s experience had failed to diagnose the symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning so as to warn emergency and hospital staff of the contamination dangers from contact with the patients.

At the time, on Sunday evening, there was however no apparent knowledge that such a nerve agent was responsible, and in fact this was not public knowledge for another 24 hours. The local Salisbury Journal treated it as “the possible first case of Fentanyl poisoning in Salisbury”, going on peoples’ observations of the Skripals, and statements of emergency services.

Colonel Alison McCourt was appointed Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army on 1st February 2018. This followed a CBE for her work in charge of the field hospital set up in Kerry Town in Sierra Leone in October 2014 to fight the Ebola outbreak. She would have been acutely aware of the dangers of infection and contamination, and necessity for great care in approaching people displaying unusual symptoms and incapacitation. While the symptoms and treatment for Ebola and other “biological agents” may be different from those of nerve agents and related chemicals, the similarity in the precautions necessary is similar.

Reflecting this relationship it is no surprise to discover that Porton Down was closely involved in dealing with the Ebola outbreak and in “Operation GRITROCK” as the UK’s campaign in Sierra Leone was called. As commanding officer of this deployment and operation of the “22 Field Hospital”, Lieutenant Colonel McCourt would certainly have worked in close coordination with Porton Down, whose experience in dealing with Ebola dates back more than 40 years, at which time its function was research into Chemical and Biological Weapons, their development and countermeasures.

Nowadays Porton Down is rebadged as the DSTL – Defence Science and Technology Laboratories – and described in benign terms in a Government hand-out – “the truth about Porton Down”. Apparently focused on countering certain rumours and conspiracy theories about its activities, it says (and I must include this!):

Alien Bodies: No aliens, either alive or dead have ever been taken to Porton Down or any other Dstl site.

Cannabis Cultivation: Dstl and its predecessors do not and have never grown cannabis at Porton Down.

But on the subject of this particular conspiracy and the Ebola connection, it says:

“DSTL has an active research programme on Ebola and played an important role in the UK’s support to Sierra Leone during the recent outbreak. DSTL’s scientists provided advice on the biological and physical aspects of the virus, as well as deploying highly skilled research scientists to the diagnostic laboratory at the Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Unit.”

Following the success of the campaign by November 2015, the running of the UK facilities in Sierra Leone was taken over by Save the Children, and Colonel McCourt returned to the UK, where:

On promotion to Colonel in Dec 2015 she assumed an appointment in the newly established Senior Health Advisors department and has been the lead for Assurance and now Health Strategy in that area.

Given her home base is at Larkhill, one of a number of military-dominated towns in the “Salisbury Plains” area, that include Tidworth  – home of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, Warminster and Porton, one can assume that one of McCourt’s roles would be as liason between military health facilities at Porton Down and Salisbury District Hospital. In fact one can hardly imagine otherwise. SDH has had a covert relationship with Porton Down since the fifties, and specifically over Porton Down’s Sarin testing program.

Before her deployment in Operation GRITROCK, Alison McCourt had twenty years’ experience running field hospitals with QARANC, including two stints in Southern Iraq, in Bosnia and Kosovo. Interestingly in 2001 she helped set up a joint US-UK hospital in Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, at the same time as James Le Mesurier of White Helmets notoriety was there setting up a local “security force”.

So what happened? How is it possible that a dedicated nurse as competent and as experienced as Colonel McCourt, awarded the highest distinctions and made Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army, could be engaged in such egregious malpractice?

As McCourt’s true actions on that sunny Sunday afternoon in March remain unrecognised by the media and public, and unacknowledged by Government and its agencies, we need to go over the details of that crucial event, as they were reported by the Times on May 3rd, and accessible on the Police Federation website noted above. This is the relevant extract:

Offering new details on the March 4 attack, a source with knowledge of the case revealed that the first person to respond to the Skripals when they passed out was an off-duty army nurse who had worked on the ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. The nurse, a commissioned officer who has asked to remain anonymous, treated them before the emergency services arrived, and was vomited on but is not thought to have suffered novichok poisoning.

The treatment of patients thought to have been subject to nerve agents like Sarin and VX is comprehensively described in this document from the Royal Army Medical Corps. The first and most important action of the responder is decontamination of the victim, before making any contact, both to prevent further absorption of the agent by the victim and to prevent any effects on the responder.

Without sufficient protective gear, or self pre-treatment with antidote, the danger to any first responder is enormous. Abigail McCourt’s description of “putting the (victims) in the recovery position”, leave alone giving mouth to mouth, can mean only one thing, as her mother would never have allowed her daughter to be so endangered; she clearly knew there was no danger – at least from exposure to a highly toxic nerve agent.

Lieutenant Colonel McCourt first deployed to Iraq at the very beginning of the US invasion, at a time when there was much talk of Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons, even though they appeared to have largely been destroyed by 2003. Whether she encountered any cases of chemical poisoning at that time is unknown, but as the RAMC journal shows this was an essential aspect of training for soldiers in general. The use of a Combo Pen of antidotes developed at Porton Down for emergency treatment of nerve agent victims also remains an essential part of that training, and of a soldiers’ equipment – even when off-duty.

But let’s not beat about the bush any longer, or get too taken up with speculation on the specifics of the Skripals’ poisoning. The questions of when they were initially poisoned, where and by whom, and with what drugs or chemical agents may never be revealed. What matters for this case is that the UK government’s story, on which multiple punitive actions have been taken, resulting in an unknown number of innocent deaths in Syria and elsewhere, is false on ALL counts.

First, the Government claims the poison contamination was on the Skripals’ doorknob, and it was this that was sampled by the OPCW. The whole story of the GRU agents’ trajectory is about their visit to Sergei Skripal’s house, around midday, and four hours before they were given “treatment” by Chief Nursing Officer McCourt. This is NOT possible.  Had the Skripals made skin contact with a lethal nerve toxin like VX (Novichok remains a theory at this point) and survived for four hours with no antidote, then they would certainly have recovered consciousness within days after suitable hospital treatment.

The only alternative explanations for the serious symptoms as described, with Yulia unconscious and apparently needing an emergency tracheotomy, all rule out any possibility of Russian involvement while incriminating part or all of the UK leadership, military and intelligence services in an elaborate conspiracy. By her own admission, Colonel McCourt was a party to this crime, and present in the area where it took place – in Salisbury Maltings shopping centre. The two Russian tourists accused of the attempted murder were long gone however, as Luke Harding notes:

At 1.50pm the suspects were seen at Salisbury station, going through the ticket barriers on their way back to London. Nobody paid them much attention. By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the poisoners were gone.

It won’t matter how many files are destroyed and identities changed in the corridors of GCHQ and Whitehall, in a desperate attempt to disclaim this crime as a rogue operation – as is currently being done by the “Two Eyes”; the game is up.

And perhaps as a final act of penance and service to the nation, Colonel Alison McCourt will come forward to tell “the Nurse’s Tale” – at a full public enquiry into this monstrous crime against humanity, and her co-conspirators will bear the consequences.

%d bloggers like this: