Locking Up the EDL
The legal strategy suggested for Guramit Singh of the English Defence League assumed that Mr. Singh was being charged for what he said in his BBC radio interview. However, that appears not to be the case, based on news stories that appeared in the British media today.The case against Mr. Singh is based on what he said at the EDL rally in Peterborough on December 11. For those who are interested, the six-minute speech that got him in trouble is available on video. The language is quite salty, and I don’t want to ask Vlad to do another bleep-job, so you can click the link if you want to hear it.
You’ll notice that Mr. Singh realized that he might well be arrested for what he was saying. You’ll also notice that he said nothing about race, and saved his vehement condemnation for the ideology of Islam (or Islamism), and not Muslims.
He said some very insulting things about Mohammed, but Ol’ Mo has been pushing up sand dunes for 1400 years, so how can he possibly be offended? The Crown has no case.
But that won’t stop them from throwing the book at Mr. Singh to make an example of him. The authorities are determined to break the EDL, and the politically correct “hate speech” statutes are pliable enough to do the job.
The first article is from the BBC. It doesn’t mention the name of the arrested man:
Man arrested over Peterborough protests
A 28-year-old has been arrested and bailed in relation to protest marches in Peterborough.
The English Defence League (EDL), which says it opposes Islamic extremism, Unite Against Facism [sic] and the TUC, demonstrated on 11 December.
The man, from Nottingham, was arrested over the offence of intentionally causing religiously-aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.
He has been bailed to return to police in Cambridgeshire in February.
Peterborough Today, however, names Guramit Singh:
Police arrest EDL protest’s leader
ONE of the leaders of the English Defence League (EDL) has been arrested after police received complaints about his speech during their protest in Peterborough on 11th December.
Guramit Singh (28), from Nottingham, was arrested yesterday (22nd December) on suspicion of intentionally causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.
Cambridgeshire Police received two complaints after Mr Singh, an unofficial leader and spokesman for the EDL, gave a speech during the EDL’s two-hour protest in the city on Saturday, December 11.
Mr Singh was addressing around 1,000 EDL supporters and hundreds of onlooking members of the public during his speech, which was delivered outside Peterborough Magistrates’ Court and has since been uploaded onto YouTube.
A spokeswoman for Cambridgeshire Police said: “A 28-year-old man from Nottingham was arrested on suspicion of intentionally causing religiously aggravated harassment alarm or distress, under section four of the public order act 1986.
“He was questioned in Nottingham and has now been bailed.
“Police are investigating whether any further criminal offences were committed during protests in Peterborough.
“The arrested man will return to a police station in Cambridgeshire in February.”
The EDL held its protest claiming to be against Islamic extremism and its perceived rise in England.
It’s important to remember that Guramit Singh and Tommy Robinson are not the only EDL members who have faced charges; others have been convicted and sentenced. Richard Price and Collum Keyes have been hit with fines and/or jail time, and the ASBOs on them will keep them from participating in EDL activities for ten years.
Ten years is a long time — by the time these ASBOs expire, England will be under full sharia.
From the Beeb again:
Travel ban for English Defence League Birmingham men
Richard Price, 41, and Collum Keyes, 23, were given Anti-social Behaviour Orders (Asbo) restricting their protests to Birmingham until 2020.
Police said it was the first time the ban had been applied to anyone linked to the group, which says it is against Islamic extremism and terrorism.
The pair previously pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct at a march in May.
They had also pleaded guilty to using threatening behaviour during the protest in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, and were sentenced at Aylesbury Crown Court on Friday.
‘Clear signal’ Judge Lord Parmoor sentenced Price to 12 weeks in prison and fined Keyes £150.
He said both men travelled with the group to foment disorder and gave them a 10-year Asbo to stop them taking part in or controlling any protest more than 10 miles away from Birmingham city centre.
They have also been banned from distributing any material for the group or encouraging others to attend protests outside the city.
Hat tips: DF for the articles, Nick for the video.
Let the British authorities think on that during and after this pro-Islamic crackdown.
12/22/2010 10:13 PM
12/23/2010 12:48 AM
EDL OUGHT TO READ THEIR RIGHTS IN THE 1689 ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS!!!
GMAN THE HONEST LAWYER!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
A Defense Strategy for Guramit Singh
Hi Baron,
I saw your post about Guramit Singh, and I thought I’d give you a bit of legal analysis as to the chicanery the authorities are trying now.
What this means is that they’re charging him with (a) an offence under S. 4, and that that offence was (b) racially aggravated.
First, the S.4 part of the alleged offence (key words highlighted by me):
4. Fear or provocation of violence. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or (b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. 4(a): Is it “threatening, abusive or insulting” to say that Mohammed was a “disgusting figure”? It is not enough simply to say that someone was insulted by it.
Nor is it enough that the words were insulting towards Mohammed — they have to be used “towards another person”. Guramit said in the interview that these were insulting words “towards Mohammed” but that doesn’t mean they were insulting towards another person. E.g. I admire Cromwell, but if you or Dymphna have Irish heritage, you may say he’s a disgusting figure. That wouldn’t be “threatening, abusive or insulting” even if I feel insulted by it, plus it wouldn’t be “used towards” me. And the justness of the statement is relevant to the question of whether it’s insulting.
4(b): This is broadly worded. It includes a situation where (1) you believe that (2) my words are likely to provoke (3) Mike Tyson to punch (4) Britney Spears immediately. Or if a British Muslim is likely to believe that Guramit’s words are likely provoke an EDL guy in Bolton to punch a Muslim neighbour immediately.
The key word is “immediate”, and I don’t think you can reasonably believe that this (pre-recorded?) BBC interview was likely to result in immediate violence.
I think what we’re seeing here is the deliberate twisting of already broadly drafted laws in order to make it impossible to criticise Mohammed. The strategy appears to be to prosecute people that the government feels are unpopular enough for them to be able to ram through a conviction, in order to establish the precedent that criticism of Mohammed is a crime.
Second, the ‘racially or religiously aggravated’ bit. Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 says:
28. Meaning of “[F1racially or religiously aggravated]”. (1) An offence is [F1racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if— (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a [F2racial or religious group]; or (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a [F2racial or religious group] based on their membership of that group. The prosecution will have to prove that Guramit said what he said about Mohammed because he was, at least in part, motivated by hostility to Muslims rather than Islam. They might be able to use previous statements by him where he has said “Muslims” when he meant “militant Muslims”. But again, it is quite possible to criticise Mohammed while having profound compassion for Muslims, e.g. murdered and mutilated Muslim girls. And I don’t think the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that criticism of Mohammed is impossible without hostility to Muslims.
I think the prosecution will refer to a previous statement of Guramit at a rally where he referred to “the f’ing Muslims”, when what he says he meant to say was “the f’ing militant Muslims”. If so, then this looks like the government taking note of this statement, and waiting to be able to use it so that they can pile on the ‘religious aggravation’ bit of the offence.
So that’s the overall conclusion: governments passing broadly worded legislation, then lying in wait for people who speak out of turn, and further twisting the legislation, in order to make it a crime to condemn Islamic doctrine.
My advice would be:
- Guramit should elect for jury trial.
- He should bring evidence as to the nature of Mohammed, and whether he can reasonably be described as “disgusting”.
- He should say that while his words may have been insulting towards Mohammed, they weren’t insulting towards other people.
- He should argue the public policy need for freedom to debate religious doctrine.
- He should also say that no immediate violence was likely as a result of this radio interview.
- And he should say that it is quite possible for anyone to criticise Mohammed without being motivated by hostility to Muslims, even if that person is in fact hostile to Muslims.
- He should give evidence that he has compassion for Muslims, as the people who suffer first under Islam.
- He should argue that criticism of religious doctrine, however trenchant, is not an appropriate basis for claiming “insult” for the purposes of public order legislation. Otherwise, what qualifies as ‘religion’ and ‘insult’ are defined by the level of political pressure. Does religion include Jedis, Moonies, Scientologists, Druids, Thuggees, Rev Jim Jones, Wiccans and astrologists? If it’s only major religions, does it include different traditions within them? Does “insult” mean that denunciation of religion can only be done in academic language, so that it is OK for academics but not for ordinary people?
— G-Man
I note that 4 (1) (b) states that a person is guilty of an offence [under the Public Order Act 1986] if he ‘distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting’ which is surely a condition that cannot be met during a radio interview, since that is not a visual medium.In short, no ‘writing, sign or other visible representation’ can be distributed or displayed on the radio. Therefore the charge laid against Mr. Singh is an impossibility.
It says on the BBC website that someone, and I assume this is the fellow in question, has been arrested and bailed because of something to do with a protest in Peterborough on the 11th of December. Here’s the link.12/22/2010 6:22 PM It would seem that Mr. Singh has been arrested not because of the radio interview but on charges relating to a protest in Peterborough on the 11th December. Here is the relevant link.12/22/2010 6:27 PM This and what is happening to Tommy Robinson is like something from Kafka, Orwell or “A Clockwork Orange”. All we can do is pray and continue to fight.12/22/2010 7:52 PM 
I signed on to make a comment and discovered Nick had already made the comment for me. I think it was the series of ‘Fxxx ‘em, fxxx ‘em, fxxx ‘em’ comments directed not at Mohammed, but apparently at Muslims generally, that has caused the effect. Now, I think Mr Singh’s tone and language were ill-considered, but it’s a long way from shouting ‘Fxxx ‘em’ in that context, which would simply appear to be a generally dismissive comment, than actually inciting the crowd to ‘Fxxx’ anyone in particular, or do any particular violent act. If someone says to me ‘Fxxx you’, I might feel offended, but I wouldn’t feel endangered. Furthermore, the test is ‘with the intent to cause’ the people to feel threatened, not (praise the Lord) something that just happens to cause people to feel threatened because they choose so to feel.12/22/2010 9:00 PM The British political courts are giving the totalitarian thought crimes a go to see if they can get away with it.Before they are dragged before the ECHR.Man fined £200 for offensive comments about Allah only police heard http://my.telegraph.co.uk/obadgerostripeyone11/badgerostripeyone/340/man-fined-200-for-offensive-comments-about-allah-only-police-heard/
Fellow Peacekeeper said… // 7
You mention the ECHR. If one follows their decisions, that body it seems is not (yet) wholly corrupt.Would it not then a sensible strategy to appeal any and all of these type of ludicrous “hate speech” convictions to the ECHR? At best have them reversed, at worst make it a known pain in the neck to the PC police charges crew.
Has the possibility been investigated? Surely there must be some lawyers willing to work pro bono, and some freedom minded sponsor available?12/23/2010 4:03 AM
THE MARX MOHAMMED PACT- WELL- BOTH ARE FASCIST IN PRACTISE!!!
SILENCE ALL AND ANYONE THAT DOESN’T AGREE…………LIBLABTOR MERCHANTS!!
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/12/defense-strategy-for-guramit-singh.html
FREEDOM …TO SPEAK
An Unusual Hobby
Many thanks to JLH for the translation:
Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
by Sylvia Margret SteinitzShe is said to have incited hate against Muslims, and is before the court on a charge of incitement. But even a conviction will not silence Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. S. M. Steinitz accompanied the new figurehead of the Islam critics to Copenhagen. And witnessed how Sabaditsch-Wolff made her trial a manifesto — and gained in political influence.
The prosecutor apparently did not consider it necessary to prepare for the trial. No, he said, he had no questions for the defendant. The tape recording of her comments, the basis for the charge against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, 39, he had only heard “in excerpts.” On this tape, covertly recorded by a reporter in the fall of 2009, can be heard how Sabaditsch-Wolff — during her seminar “the Fundamentals of Islam” — says to a participant, among other things,: “Cardinals rape in spite of their religion. Muslims rape because of their religion.” Sponsor of the seminar: the Freedom Education Institute. A charge was laid after a report appeared in the weekly magazine, NEWS.
A year later in Room 31 of the Viennese Regional Court: the prosecutor seems confident of success, almost bored. Even the onlookers do not doubt that a verdict will be reached quickly: Sabaditsch-Wolff — guilty of incitement and denigration of religious doctrines. Like Susanne Winter, that FPÖ representative who was convicted two years ago because of her comments about the founder of Islam. (“In today’s system, this Mohammed is a child molester.”)
But it was different this time.
Big Entrance
Defense attorney, Dr. Michael Rami, turns to Judge Bettina Neubauer: “Your Honor, today it is not Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff, but freedom of expression that is on trial.” At first, Neubauer acts unimpressed. What did Sabaditsch-Wolff mean when she said that about rape, she wants to know. “When a Muslim marries a nine-year old,” says the defendant, “he can invoke Islam, which allows him to do that.” “How do you conclude something like that?” asks the judge. “Muslims are supposed to emulate the Prophet in all things,” is Sabaditsch-Wolff’s answer. “That is what it says in the Koran.” She holds up a copy of the Muslim holy book. “And because Mohammed married a six-year old, Muslims, in Yemen among other places, still assume the right to marry and abuse children.” She gives the judge a penetrating look. “I have a six-year old daughter. I do not want something like that to happen to her.” Neubauer asks matter-of-factly: “Why should that happen?” “Because Europe is under threat of Islamization,” says Sabaditsch-Wolff… I give my seminar to inform and warn people.” “What do you think you call forth with such statements, if not hate?” asks the judge, who was already somewhat unnerved. “I do not create hate,” replies the defendant calmly. “Reading the Koran causes far more hate than my seminars.” The trial is adjourned.
Why?
The charge of incitement is the high point of her career as a provocateur thus far. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff devotes up to ten hours a day to her campaign, prepares speeches and seminars, confers by e-mail and skype with allies all over the world. A look at her life history could offer an answer to the Why: As the daughter of an Austrian diplomat, she experienced, at age six, the takeover of the ayatollahs in Iran. “These shouting figures in their black robes, the palpable fear of the religious police in the streets — all that unsettled me greatly.” Years later, she was working in the Austrian embassy in Kuwait when Iraqi troops marched in. The embassy employees became hostages of Saddam, and were allowed to leave the country only after weeks of diplomatic negotiations. Sabaditsch-Wolff treated the trauma of her captivity in the book “I Was Saddam’s Hostage.”
Later she returned to Kuwait, then worked in Libya after that. “Life in Islamic countries is terrible,” she maintains. “… And the Muslims are the first victims of this ideology. They should be freed from their religion.” Does she really believe that Islamization is threatening Europe? “It is already fully underway. And if we do nothing, Europe will go under.”
The Network
Copenhagen, a few days later. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, invited by the Free Press Society to a conference in the Danish parliament on the topic “Freedom of Expression,” was introduced as a “martyr for freedom of speech.” The guest list reads like the Who’s Who of European rightist parties: Jimmie Åkesson, head of the Sweden Democrats, who this year managed to enter the Swedish parliament with a controversial ad (burka-wearing women with baby carriages scaring an old woman off of welfare support). Peter Skaarup, foreign policy spokesman for the Danish People’s Party, is also there. Then too, René Stadtkewitz, founder of the German party Die Freiheit, modeled on the example of Geert Wilders’ Netherlands party of the same name [in Dutch]. He also intended to come, but had to cancel, at the last minute. “He is watching my trial with great interest,” says Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who had met Wilders in Berlin in October. “He himself is accused of incitement. It’s crazy how many of us they want to get.”
She is greeted as a friend by the politicians. The paying public too, which has come to see Sabaditsch-Wolff live, is happy. “I know you from the internet. You are Elisabeth from Austria,” says an elderly lady. “You are a heroine!” shouts another. “Elisabeth from Austria” is a web celebrity. On more than forty connected websites she is celebrated as a “free speech advocate,” as a “fighter for freedom of speech.” On the website set up especially for her — savefreespeech.org — donations are requested, for her trial, which she will pursue “if it is necessary, all the way to The European Court of Justice.”
In today’s speech, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff offers a glimpse of her agenda: Up until now, Europe has had no political leaders who would show the way against Islamization. “However, several are already on the scene and one day they will be the true leaders of individual European nations,” she says and nods in the direction of Åkesson, Stadtkewitz and company. “Our time is now!” she cries into the room, and the people leap to their feet. Standing ovation. A few handkerchiefs are even pulled out. She has done it again. “Those are the best moments.” says Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff later, “when I stand there and feel the people’s enthusiasm. That gives me incredible power.” Does she want to go into politics sometime? “No, I don’t want that,” she says. “I can accomplish more where I am now.”
New Alliance
Two gentlemen are following the event with interest: FP Ö dinosaur Hilmar Kabas and city councilman David Lasar have come to tie their party more firmly to the network of the new European right. An alliance which is visibly moving their views on Islam into the mainstream. Recently, support is even coming from Israel. Representatives of the ultra-rightists who would like to continue the settlements on the West Bank rather now than later, are looking for support for their plans in Europe. And they get this from Strache & Company, who for their part, want to wash off the Nazi smell that still clings to them, by means of emphatic friendship with Israel.
The common “enemy, “ Islam,” unites them all. And so, at the beginning of December, the Israeli politician, Eliezer Cohen, leads Messrs. Strache, Dewinter and Stadtkewitz through the West Bank. Also there: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, personally invited by the organizers. Her speech to the political greats of Israel — including Vice Minister Ayoub Kara of the ruling party , Likud — is favorably received. “Islam is a threat for Europe,” she says. And that Israel is “an oasis of civilization in a desert of barbarism.” Applause. Following on, Strache introduces her: “This woman is politically persecuted, She says what you say about Islam. But in Austria she is brought to court because of that.” The Israeli Ultras are indignant.
The career of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff continues. Next, she and Strache are invited to a series of speeches in Canada. And the spear tip of the USA rightist conservatives, Sarah Palin, has already become interested in the troop. “I appreciate your work,” she sends a message, “and I look forward to meeting you soon.” “Global politics are being pursued,” Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff declares. Astounded follow-up: “And I am right in the middle of it.”
Shooting Yourself in the Foot
The prosecutor in the Viennese Regional Court does not know all that yet. The trial against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff could prove to be a mistake. As a “martyr for free speech,” her profile increases and she is far more useful to the new right. “They underestimated me,” she says. “However my trial turns out, it will help our cause.”
This is not the “housewife with an unusual hobby”, as she has been represented until now. More like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Confronted with this picture, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff laughs. “The wolf has had a bad image for a long time. Even so, it is a very useful animal: in its territory, the wolf maintains the balance of the species.”
The trial against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will continue on January 18, 2011.
Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/12/unusual-hobby.html#more
DHIMMI POLICE
MORE…..
INNOCENT ARRESTED YET AGAIN……..STILL THERE’S ONLY 2 MILLION MUSLIMS HERE……….LOL- MY ARSE!
The word islamophobe was politically manipulated and designed to silence the critics of islam. The word was coined by the International Institue of Islamic Thought, based in Virginia USA. Even a former member of this group said he witnessed it himself that those at the ìnstitute came up with the idea to emulate the word homophobe to silence critics. You cannot criticize anything in islam without members of the left , multiculturalist, and muslims themselves throwing up that stupid silly word
Rockywaves73 5 days ago Rockywaves73 5 days ago
Communities Secretary John Denham compares EDL and S.I.O.E to nineteen thirties fascism
ISLAM IS FASCIST- JUST READ THEIR HISTORY
RICH COMING FROM PART OF THE FABIAN FASCIST THAT RULE IN WESTMINSTER!
ENOCH PROVEN RIGHT!
WHAT WESTMINSTER FABIANS HAVE DONE TO ENGLAND!
READ 300 NOT 200!!! KNOWN FABIANS – NOW WE KNOW OF MANY,MANY MORE!
Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was Chairman of the Fabian Society.
Since the 1997 British general election there have been around 200 Fabian MP’s in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost entire Labour Cabinets including Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan Milburn and Clare Short.
Headed by Tony Blair, Fabians now dominate the entire British government.
They are resident in all parties and sit on all important select committees, commissions and organizations allied to the government.
A good web-site on the subject is: http://www.lindsayjenkins.com/
The Fabian Society literally controls the European Union. German-born Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston since 1997, and member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, was one of two House of Commons’ Representatives on the European Convention and a member of the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The Presidium was the drafting body that created the draft Constitution for Europe. In her book, The Making of Europe’s Constitution, published in December 2003 by the Fabian Society, p. 20-21, Gisela writes: “In the early months, the Presidium members would meet in a small room in the Justus Lipsius Building some fifteen minute walk from the European Parliament.
Attendance was limited to the thirteen members, the Secretary General Sir John Kerr, his deputy and the press officer. Sir John Kerr, a former Permanent Secretary of the British Foreign Office, conducted the proceedings inside the Presidium and in the plenary sessions of the Convention with deft diplomatic skill as might be expected from someone who John Major called ‘Machiavelli’ in his autobiography.
The best description of his talents I heard was: ‘When Kerr comes up to you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?’
On several occasions, we would retreat to the Val Duchess a small palace used by the Belgian foreign minister. It was at one of the dinners at Val Duchess that the skeleton of the draft constitution was given to members of the presidium in sealed brown envelopes the weekend before the public presentation.
We were not allowed to take the documents away with us.
Just precisely who drafted the skeleton, and when, is still unclear to me, but I gather much of the work was done by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Sir John Kerr over the summer.
There was little time for informed discussion, and even less scope for changes to be made.”
There is another important idea, a method more than a principle which becomes closely associated with Fabianism.
Sydney Webb called it ‘permeation.’ Today it would be called ‘consensus.’ Webb put it this way. Most reformers think that all they have to do in a political democracy is to obtain a majority. This is a profound mistake.
What has to be changed is not only the vote that is cast, but also the mental climate in which Parliament and Government both live and work.
That I find to be an accurate description of the approach I and my colleagues have tried to bring to the affairs of the nation in our first term of office.”
In the last century, members of the British Fabian Society dynastic banking families in the City of London financed the Communist takeover of Russia.
Trotsky in his biography refers to some of the loans from these British financiers going back as far as 1907.
By 1917 the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution were co- ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner.
LIBLABTORS THE FABIANS OF WESTMINSTER!
THIS LOT ARE MAKING YOU LOOK LIKE MONKEYS!!
The British plan to takeover the world and bring in a “New World Order” began
with the teachings of John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University.
Rhodes in one of his wills in 1877 left his vast fortune to Lord Nathan
Rothschild as trustee to set up the Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford to
indoctrinate promising young graduates for the purpose, and also establish
a secret society for leading business and banking leaders around the world
who would work for the City to bring in their Socialist world government.
Rothschild appointed Lord Alfred Milner to implement the plan. At first the
society was called Milner’s Kindergarten, then in 1909 it came to be called
The Round table.
It was to work closely with the London School of Economics founded in 1894
by Fabian Socialist leader Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield).
Today former Rhodes Scholars (such as Bill Clinton), Fabian Business Round
Table members, and graduates from the London School of Economics (the primary
Fabian Socialist training school in the world) dominate the global banking,
business and political systems in every country.
The British Fabian Society plan to takeover the world by the City of London
financial community was first published in a book entitled “All These Things”
by a New Zealand author and journalist, A. N. Field.
The book was first published in 1936 by Omni Publications in the United States
(and censored in New Zealand).
The document, called “Freedom and Planning” was secretly circulated in 1932
by the inner councils of the members of the Political Economic Plan, otherwise
known as “P.E.P.” in London
CAMERON KNOWS THIS WELL…….OXFORD …