The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Every so often, a piece of news comes up that shows clearly that you cannot depend on the state to protect you, or to defend you if attacked, or even to leave you alone.  So obviously we have the example of Tommy Robinson, that the state is trying to destroy, because he is not keeping to their defined narrative.

But there are other news items that show which way the chips lie, where totally innocent people in the UK experience violent, criminal or terrorist incidents, their lives are ruined, and we see no attempt by the state to take on the causes in any serious way.  We start off with this poor doctor - one of the more precious bulwarks of our society - not that it did her any good.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hero-london-77-bombings-doctor...$category%20p$10

What is the real story here?

Hero London 7/7 bombings doctor killed in fire caused by cigarette thrown into plastic bag
16:05, 23 AUG 2016 UPDATED 16:05, 23 AUG 2016
BY SCOTT CAMPBELL
Claire Sheppey was one of the first to respond to the devastating terror attack 11 years ago which stunned the world

So after dealing with all the mayhem and mangled bodies caused by that Islamic attack, was she perhaps finding it difficult to find peace in her soul?

Fumes seeped into Dr Sheppey's bedroom and she died of carbon monoxide poisoning after being rushed to Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel.
It was the hospital where she battled to save dozens of terribly-injured and shell-shocked victims after Islamic terrorists killed 52 people in an onslaught on Tube trains and a bus on July 7, 2005.

Dr Sheppey, who wasn't burned at all, was found slumped in her bedroom by firefighters.
She had 193 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millitres of blood, the hearing was told.
The drink-drive limit is 80mgs of alcohol per 100mls of blood.

I think Dr. Sheppey was another victim of that Muslim 7/7 attrocity.

In the same way, many of our ex-servicemen sleeping rough because they can't fit in, or committing suicide because of PTSD, are victims of the governments politically correct way of fighting Islam by going to another country to address the problem, because they can't face the issues over here.

Tags: Enemy, State, The, is, your

Views: 47

Replies to This Discussion

Edlington boy torturers granted anonymity

Image captionThe brothers moved to Edlington just three weeks before the attack to live with foster parents

Two brothers who tortured two other children in South Yorkshire have been granted lifelong anonymity. 

The boys, then aged 10 and 11, lured their victims to a ravine and carried out a "sadistic" attack in Edlington, near Doncaster, in 2009.

They were sentenced to five years' detention in 2010 and granted anonymity until the age of 18.

The High Court has now given them lifelong anonymity on the grounds they would be "at serious risk of attack".

Live updates on this story and others from South Yorkshire

Sir Geoffrey Vos - who heard the brothers have new identities and are now both in their late teens - said he was satisfied the anonymity order was in the public interest.

He said he would outline his reasoning in writing at a later date.

Image captionThe attack happened near the Doncaster village of Edlington

The brothers, who admitted causing grievous bodily harm, were released earlier this year after a decision by the Parole Board, but lawyers sought an injunction to extend their anonymity as one of the boys approached his 18th birthday.

It was claimed that to identify them would breach various sections of the Human Rights Act.

Anonymity places them alongside only four other individuals who have lifelong protection of new identities:

  • Mary Bell, who was given a new identity after she convicted of murdering two young boys when she was 11
  • Jamie Bulger's killers Robert Thompson and Jon Venables
  • Maxine Carr, who was convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice over the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. 

The brothers' victims, aged nine and 11, were throttled, hit with bricks, made to eat nettles, stripped and forced to sexually abuse each other in the attack.

A sink was dropped on the older boy's head, and the younger boy had a sharp stick rammed into his arm and cigarettes pushed into the wound.

Parts of the attack were recorded on a mobile phone.

Image copyrightJULIA QUENZLERImage captionThe boys were initially granted anonymity until they were 18

The brothers moved to Edlington just three weeks before the attack to live with foster parents.

Sentencing them at Sheffield Crown Court in 2010, Mr Justice Keith said they had committed the "prolonged, sadistic" crimes for no other reason than they got "a real kick out of hurting and humiliating" their victims.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38263416

So not only do these sadists escape serious punishment, but we also have to pay for lifelong anonymity for them - a very expensive process.  The state is protecting those that attack our children.  I guess it is also unlikely that they will get work, the state also requires us to support for life, those that seek to attack and destroy our families.

The state makes us pay for anonymity for these torturers, and I think makes it a criminal offence to expose their identity, whilst at the same time offering no anonymity to Tommy Robinson who's had multiple serious credentialed death threats against himself and his family - and not taking any action against a solicitor that revealed his identity, possibly using official confidential information.

Note that all the police activity below, took place before the group was officially banned
https://national-action.info/news/2016/10/31/october-review-2016/

https://greenandblackcross.org/

York Charges Dropped

Back on the 28th of May police raided half a dozen homes in the dead of night, this followed a demonstration we held in York where the authorities surrounded the group of 35 peaceful demonstrators. HNH gloated at this, implying that the leadership of the organisation would all be in prison by the end of the year – other leftists ridiculed our scathing response.

We can confirm now that all of those arrested in York and we intend to make good on our threats. Lawsuits against the authorities are likely to run into the tens of thousands, while theirs failed, our form of justice will be swift and merciless. We are also able to renew our lawful activities with intensified vigour.

We have interviewed one of the protesters who has been NFA’d to further discuss what happened and how we intend to avoid similar incidents in the future.

What happened to you at York?

It was a pretty standard demo, the same as our demonstration in Newcastle. Out of nowhere the police showed up in large numbers an started charging in, going for one of our guys - this didn't go down well and we moved in to try and de-arrest him. Then the entire police cordon charged forward and officers were kicking people indiscriminately. Unfortunately they had succeeded in getting our guy, had pushed us back and formed a kettle around us. From what I also gather, a police wedge had also rushed us from the back, knocking people over and snatching our guy. He then ended up on the floor with a boot on his face. The gash on his face will leave a nice scar. All of this because he had shouted a profanity.

I've been on more demonstrations than I can count, but I've never seen the police react like that, ever. I've been in serious public order situations, with bricks flying and smoke grenades going off and I've still seen police act with some restraint, even when they had numbers.

After that incident, I carried on with my speech and went to pack the megaphone in my rucksack, I had two officers come over, grab me and lead me outside the cordon. I was informed that under their powers under PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) the megaphone was being confiscated. When I told them that I wasn't giving it to them because I hadn't committed a crime, they simply forced it out of my hands and ignored any protestations.

I made the mistake of berating an officer who had kicked me during the fracas earlier; asking him why he felt he had the right to kick me, that he should be ashamed of himself, etc. He simply responded that he would 'enjoy arresting' me. I turned around and put my wrists together and told him "well arrest me then, if you're going to?" to which he just smirked.

Things cooled down, I folded my arms and paced around the periphery of the group. the golden rule is to keep the time you spend interacting with the cops to a minimum. I was a little bit angry with myself for breaking that rule.

A while passed and the police eventually told us that we would only be let out if we gave our details and allowed them to take a photograph of each individual protester – this practice had been made illegal by the high court and only ever possible when EVERY person can be reasonably suspected of committing an offense (we were not all arrested). In my opinion it should never be consented to. However, when the first person they asked refused, he was cuffed and taken to a police van.

When he was taken away, a group of bystanders started cheering. Some people really are naive and we started chanting 'police state! - police state!' in response. Then when I joined around 3-4 officers moved quickly, forced my hands behind my back and restrained me, then put into a position where I was bent so far forward I thought I was about to get bummed. I was then unceremoniously escorted behind a police van where I had my pockets searched and put into the back of a van.

The officer searching me seemed to be trying to draw the search out as long as possible by searching every pocket several times over, probably because he could tell by the contorted look on my face that the position I was in wasn't the most comfortable. I suppose he gets his kicks from that sort of thing.

How did the 'investigation' go?

As can be expected I suppose. During the interview, the two officers seemed to be following a good cop, bad cop routine. If one trying to build rapport and be pally, whereas the other one was following a line of questioning that implied that I was intending on exterminating minority groups with my wicked words.

Once I was released I didn't hear anything about the progress of the case, just that I was to answer bail everyone month until a decision was made. This led to a process every month where me and my solicitor would be sending a flurry of emails and calls to the station a couple of days before to try and find out whether I would be rebailed or not. That way I would know whether I would need to fork out on the £120 train fare or not. But, like with all pencil pushers, the people we were dealing with would always ask for a number and tell us they would get back to us ASAP - which they invariably would never do.

Now that I've finally got the No Further Action decision, I'm waiting on getting my possession that was taken when police searched my address after the arrest. Naturally, there is no urgency on the part of the police in doing this. The cogs of bureaucracy turn slowly.

Funny anecdote; I phoned the officer in charge of the investigation to chase this up and she mentioned how she thought I'd gotten the right decision. I thought, 'bitch, please’, she spent months putting a case together and sent that to the CPS, so don't give me that bullshit. That is one characteristic that seems to be ubiquitous within the police force - lying. In dealing with them, they have consistently lied to me and about me. On my original arrest sheet, it was noted that I appeared to be under the influence of alcohol; when my solicitor brought this up, I was shocked because I clearly wasn't and if I was exhibiting such behaviour then I should have been breathalyzed. Their motivation for doing so, was by adding a comment like that, even without definitive proof, in court the prosecution could have used it to case doubt on my take on events. The officers also took many other liberties in intentionally botching paperwork relating to the arrests that I won’t discuss here – it is all evidence we are using.

This has certainly hardened my personal attitude towards the police. They are simply state mercenaries acting as guardians of the status quo.

What do you say to the allegation that if you were dressed nice and had union jacks you would have been treated very differently and that arrests were inevitable?

Anyone peddling such uninformed rubbish also doesn't take into consideration the fact that powers are interpreted by individual officers. There is no insurance you can take to protect yourself in every circumstance – then what?

Look at how they've treated different protest groups in the past. When you look at past examples, even leftist demonstrations – organisations that presented a nice, gentle face that have been treated the most ruthlessly because the cops know they are dealing with pushovers. The BNP faced problems during the noughties of stalls being turned over, meetings being cancelled due to threats and after the 2009 European Elections had an outdoor press conference attacked by antifascists. They weren't protected by the police, instead they were the ones always being investigated for ‘hate words’ and harassed by Special Branch.

When the austerity demonstrations happened the leftists increased their militancy and it led to landmark changes in policing where they have been treated with kid gloves ever since. It's often remarked that the Left get away with a lot more than we do, like when Class War blocked access to London Bridge earlier this year. The Left have been organised in such a way that they know how to deal effectively with police action. They have the Green and Black Cross which provide advice and legal aid; everything from advice on laws used against demonstrators; stop and search powers; what to do when arrested; how to prepare for court; handling police bail through to how to organise legal observers; support to arrested parties; call-outs for witnesses and how to take action against the police afterwards. The last bit is vitally important because if police know that if they abuse their powers then there will be serious consequences. This is what we have been developing for some time now.

Instead of acting like lambs at an abattoir, it is important that Nationalists face challenges and adapt to them because the bottom line is that the police are not on our side. We used to talk about institutional racism in the police force, but those days have gone. It was nearly 20 years ago that the Macpherson Report was published and during the time the police force has been subjected to the same doctrine of political correctness as any other public body. For 20 years, they have been subjected to affirmative action; to culturally sensitivity training and to intense scrutiny regarding racial disparities regarding convictions, arrests and stop and search figures. They are now also receiving PREVENT training and have the same obligation to 'counter extremism' as the rest of the state apparatus.

They are part of the same system that we are at war against. Anyone who is naive enough to think otherwise needs to give their head a wobble.

What measures have we taken to prevent this happening again

After York we again re-enforced discipline in our group so as not to give the authorities the pretext to take action against against demonstration, we act as a group, walk as a group, chant as a group – nobody puts a single finger out of line. We are continually educating members and supporters on how to behave and react in these situations and hope to publish comprehensive guides on this before new year. We also intend to sue the police for blatant violations such as this, they will learn that we are not to be kicked around figuratively or literally – if this incident teaches us anything it is that our liberties must be fought for.

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service