Are the Police in on it?!? Why I Think Defend Our Juries is a Pysop - Part 2

Why aren't then police taking police reports on terrorism offences?....

Photo by Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona on Unsplash

So, on 12th September, Defend Our Juries escalated their game and told people to stick posters saying ‘I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action’ in their windows, claiming it be legal. Not only that, they provide the posters to the people to download and encourage them to do so, and to display them.

It's not legal. Are you telling me that if people in the country decided to put ‘I support Isis’ or ‘I support Hamas’ or ‘I support Hezbollah' in the windows of their home for the public to see as they walked past, that would be legal?! Do you think that police would leave such a website - promoting people to download ‘I support Hamas’ posters and stick them up in their windows - online? Or do you think they would've taken urgent steps to take it down? Do you think the police would allow people encouraging this behaviour to remain free?

What's more, as I explained in my previous post, displaying an item in public (i.e. where the public can see it), is a s.13 strict liability offence. That means, it has no defence. Saying, ‘But DoJ said it was legal!’ will not get you anywhere in court.

Encouraging support of a proscribed organisation is a s.12 terrorism offence, punishable with up to 14 years in prison. Which is exactly what DoJ’s website is brazenly doing.

Yet not only have the police allowed the DoJ site to remain online, police forces which have received complaints have shut down the conversations, some have refused to give reference numbers (a simple record that the conversation took place), and none have logged the complaint (officially logging the complaint) - which they aren't legally allowed to do, especially in regards to terrorism offences.

For all those who don't know, in the UK you can make a police report in several ways, and one is via a chat box on the respective police force’s website.

When one individual tried to log a crime report with the Met police (the London police force), this is what they said - here is the whole conversation:

The police themselves abruptly closed the chat. No, ‘is there anything else we can help you with?’ No, ‘I’m going to close the chat now.’ Absolutely nothing. Just shut down completely.

Not only did the Met police refuse to take the complaint seriously, they also disingenuously misrepresented their statutory responsibilities and powers under terrorism legislation. They incorrectly suggested that they had no authority to act, when in fact sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorism Act 2006 confer on a constable the power to serve a notice requiring service providers to remove or modify material contrary to terrorism legislation, including the encouragement of terrorism offences. If they do not within 2 days, they will be held to have given their endorsement to the material, and they can be arrested and prosecuted.

Another person tried to complain to the GMP (Greater Manchester police). They too, would not take the complaint. In fact they told the complainant not to look at the website if caused them ‘distress’! They also refused to accept that the material may be terrorism related and disingenuously tried to pass it off as potentially ‘explicit’ or ‘upsetting’. They then claimed in a democracy, anyone could put anything up online. Really?!? Has anyone told these proscribed groups this? Because I'm pretty sure Palestine Action themselves have had to take down all their sites, social media etc, and Isis doesn't have a blog.

They also tried to place the responsibility on the ‘organisations behind the servers’ and not the police.

It seems these police call handlers have been told not to take any complaints about the DoJ campaign. The police have made it clear - they are intentionally allowing and will not prevent the encouragement to support a proscribed organisation.

What’s more astonishing is that Tim Crosland himself - who apparently has been charged under s.12 Terrorism Act for arranging DoJ meetings on Zoom, encouraging people to support a proscribed organisation - was this week, continuing to give the same online meetings!!! Why haven't the police stopped him?! Why have they allowed him to continue? I've never ever, in my life, seen such lackadaisical policing regarding those encouraging people to support a proscribed organisation. Knowingly, allowing people to believe the action is lawful, doing nothing about this false messaging, and then scooping them up under terrorism offences. This is the definition of complete entrapment. Which itself is unlawful.

The police’s actions are problematic in law. Under the Prevent scheme, they have a statutory duty to prevent vulnerable people from supporting terrorist groups (which Palestine Action currently is). They are clearly not doing this, but the opposite - by failing to act they are encouraging vulnerable people to be caught up in supporting groups by being brainwashed into thinking it's legal.

Phil Bevin - probably the country's foremost expert on tactics of the intelligence services of the state, wrote this excellent article. He is incredibly thorough and his research is impeccable. Of course, he backs up absolutely everything with evidence - so I highly recommend you give it a read. And yes, his conclusions are that DoJ have all the red flag hallmarks of a psyop.

He prefaces his article with an incredibly apt quote which imo, completely sums up DoJ, and which I must share:

“He is used by the secret police of most countries to incite students, soldiers, or sailors to legal illegal activities in order that certain troubles may be artificially fomented, plots brought to light, or in order that people with certain political tendencies may fall into the net of the police.”

– George Alexander Hill on the activities of the Agent Provocateur, Go Spy the Land, 1932, p. 4.

Phil also astutely points out the following, which shows you how much ridiculousness is being spread by DoJ. Their respective Action briefings, updated before every action, make the claim that the specific number of people they propose should be arrested at each respective protest, will overwhelm the system.

Before their first action on 9 August they said this:

“That 500 [people] is more than double the total number of people arrested under the Terrorism Act in 2024. It would be practically and politically difficult for the state to respond to an action on this scale. Even assuming it had the physical capacity to arrest so many people on the same day, the political fallout from such an operation would be incalculable, causing irreparable damage to the reputation of the government and the police. Our assessment is that an action on this scale could be enough for the ban to be lifted. Charging and prosecuting at least 500 more people, in addition to the 200 people already arrested, is likely to be beyond the capacity of the state, given the current situation in the criminal justice system.”

When the police comfortably arrested over 500 people, DoJ’s updated Action briefing before the 6 September protest claimed the following:

“This action will only proceed if at least 1,000 people have committed to it. Based on the response to 522 people being arrested on 9 August, we believe that if 1,000 hold signs on 6 September, until arrested or until the police give up, there is a good chance the ban could be lifted. The government will no longer be able to silence those exposing its complicity in genocide.”

When the police comfortably arrested these people, the system was not clogged up and the police did not give up, DoJ updated their Action briefing before this Saturday's scheduled 4 Oct protest:

“charging and prosecuting another 1,500 people for Terrorism Act offences, in addition to the 1500 already arrested, would be beyond the capacity of the state, given the current situation in the criminal justice system.”

I hope the point has been made.

Proceed with caution, but better still, don't proceed at all.