The whole RAF Fairford story stinks to high heaven, and I’m amazed how quickly people have jumped from “arrested on suspicion of terrorism” to treating a terrorist bomb plot as established fact. Look at what actually happened. RAF Fairford was REPORTEDLY ALREADY at FPCON Delta — the highest force-protection level — before this incident was reported to police. Yet it wasn’t counter-terrorism officers, intelligence services or base security who discovered these three suspicious vans. It was a FARMER. She says she encountered three strangely positioned vans and saw 8–10 masked men. She tried contacting the airbase police and got no answer before eventually calling 999. Police say that call came at 00:45. Five people were arrested. So if the farmer saw 8–10 people, what happened to the others? Then look at the supposed explosive threat. We’re being encouraged to believe these vans potentially contained explosive devices beside one of the most sensitive US military bases in Britain. Yet the temporary airspace restriction didn’t take effect until 14:40 — nearly FOURTEEN HOURS after the initial police call. It extended four nautical miles around the site and from ground level to 9,500ft. Before it was imposed, news helicopters were actually flying over the scene filming the bomb-disposal operation. How does that fit with the impression now being created of an established, viable bomb threat? And despite some of the dramatic headlines, investigators were still testing the suspected devices to establish whether they were actually viable. Now ALL FIVE suspects are being released on police bail. None of this proves that terrorism wasn’t involved. But neither does an arrest under terrorism legislation prove that it WAS. And here’s the part that concerns me most. FEAR IS POLITICALLY USEFUL. Get people frightened enough about terrorism, hostile states, Russia, Iran or “hybrid warfare” and things they would normally question can suddenly become much easier to sell. More surveillance. More restrictions. More police powers. More legislation introduced in the name of “security”. And a public more willing to change its position on foreign policy because it believes the threat has arrived on its own doorstep. That’s precisely why we should be MORE demanding about evidence when the word “terrorism” is used, not less. I’m not saying this incident was fabricated. I’m saying I refuse to let frightening terminology do the government’s argument for it before the evidence has been produced. Then there’s Danny Tommo. He was refused bail. Yet five people arrested in connection with what has been portrayed as a potential terrorist bomb plot involving THREE vans are being released on bail. I regard that contrast as glaring evidence of two-tier justice. If evidence establishes that these people were transporting viable explosive devices as part of a terrorist attack, publish it and prosecute them accordingly. But until then: SUSPECTED explosives aren’t proven bombs. ARRESTED under terrorism legislation doesn’t mean convicted of terrorism. And a SUSPECTED terrorist plot isn’t an established terrorist attack. Fear should never substitute for evidence. Because once people are frightened enough, they’ll accept things they would never accept otherwise. Ask questions. Demand evidence. Think for yourself.

European democracy, they claimed Russian elections were rigged 🤣🤣

Apparently intimidation depends on your politics. DOVER: Protesters wear masks. No arrests. Government ministers condemn “thuggery” and behaviour “clearly planned and intended to be intimidatory”. We hear about the full force of the law. CAMDEN: Around 30 Stand Up To Racism protesters confront 12 Restore Britain campaigners handing out leaflets. One canvasser is surrounded and followed down the street by protesters carrying coordinated placards and using amplified chanting. Their own organisation boasts that Restore was “chased out”. Then a woman is arrested after police say they witnessed a Restore campaigner being punched. So where is the political outcry? Where are the ministers condemning “thuggery”? Where are the speeches about intimidation? Where are the warnings about the full force of the law? And here’s some important context: Stand Up To Racism lists Labour MP Diane Abbott as its PRESIDENT, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy as a CO-CHAIR and Labour MP Richard Burgon as a VICE-CHAIR. None of that makes their protest illegitimate. But it makes the absence of equivalent political condemnation worth asking about. If intimidation is unacceptable, the standard cannot depend upon which side of the political argument you’re on. One standard. Apply it equally. #TwoTierBritain #FreeSpeech #RightToProtest #RestoreBritain #StandUpToRacism

Trump threatens to “annihilate” Iran at the UN General Assembly. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits BOTH the threat and use of unlawful force. Apparently, international law matters when Russia is accused of violating it, but who holds Washington to the same standard? Same Charter. Same rules. No exceptions. 🌍 #UNGA #Iran #InternationalLaw

Sanctioned by the US government 🤔