The Sunday Herald, the day after the Glasgow Airport suicide bombing, said the bombers were thought to be already on the run from Home Office Control Orders.

This is all very vague. But isn't it exactly the type of detail that comes out after these bombings and makes the picture seem not to add up? These "control orders" are supposed to prevent terrorism. Ha ha to that, obviously. How could anyone know these men were on the run from control orders, except by watching them but not reimposing the much-propagandised controls? Knowing what they were doing and saying, "oh good, go on then."

The Metro, a free tabloid given out on buses and rail stations, March 29:

"
Visitors to Britain will infuture need to give a fingerprint or a scan of their iris. Tourists from countries requiring an entry visa would have to obtain a biometric pass, which contains encrypted information about the traveller, before they were allowed into Britain, said Home Secretary John Reid.
The requirement will apply to people from about half the world's countries by the end of 2008.
"

Parents Against TeenScreen has circulated a link to a page on the Liberty Coalition site where you can download PDF copies of 4 of the TeenScreen interview forms, being used in different parts of the country. TeenScreen is about citizen docility and it's no accident it is being pushed by Bush in the War On Terror era. It is about attracting mental health suspicion, and politically motivated psychiatric control, potentially meaning drugging, towards any citizen who feels troubled and unhappy. As any thinking citizen will feel. It is a Soviet style nightmare.

Now on these documents you can see what state of life officially makes a healthy citizen.

Blair has been interviewed by the police twice, only as a witness, in a corruption scandal around the British government where you get favours in exchange for contributing big money to the Labour Party. 2 folks who work for him, Ruth Turner and Lord Levy, have actually been arrested then released, resulting in predictably much media time devoted to speculation about what is going to come out. As these 2 folks' colleagues have rightly pointed out, if they have been arrested then released, they are innocent. They are not even under any charges. They are exactly equally as innocent as anyone else, until shown otherwise, which to date hasn't been shown.

I have sent hundreds of copies of this worldwide, since the Elian Gonzalez and Ivory Coast chocolate slavery cases in 2000.

I have been lobbying people in a series of political situations to spread knowledge of the Court Change, whose shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence.

Nevertheless, it's on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European Parliament, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish Parliament.

Since 7th July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are "open to open ended fault finding by all parties and recapitulation thereupon" instead of final.

This is an item I wrote on 1984-Brigade in 2005, concerning the Terrorism Bill published then.

As we may all know, it intends to put a limit on free speech that you can't say anything deemed to encourage terrorism or support for it, and to allow the police to bang anyone up for 3 months without charge on a notional suspicion to do with terrorism - such as buying a flammable oil derivative from a DIY shop for home use. The police will have to get a court's permission to do that, but as we know, that will be willingly granted, so rather than asking not to be banged up the targeted person will need to have something embarrassing to say in court that might deter the banging up.