Theresa May is a terrorist in the meaning of section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000

The United Kingdom is in the bizarre position of having a terrorist, Theresa May MP, in charge of its counter-terrorism strategy.

Let me explain.

The principal definition of who is or is not a terrorist is contained in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

For convenience I quote the text of Section 40 here.

40 Terrorist: interpretation.

(1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—

(a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or

(b)is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

(2)The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.

The question then arises as to whether Theresa May is or is not a terrorist in the meaning of Section 40.

Has, for example, Theresa May committed an offence contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000?

In my view it is clear that Theresa May has committed a Section 56 offence.

Again, for convenience, I quote the full text of Section 56 here:

56 Directing terrorist organisation.

(1)A person commits an offence if he directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

I will take it as read that my readers accept that Mrs. May plays a part in "directing" (at least some of)  the "activities" of Her Majesty's Government.

Is H.M. Government an organisation "concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism"?

To demonstrate that Mrs. May is a terrorist in the meaning of Section 40 we must examine the definition of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

For convenience, I quote the text of Section 1 in full:

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

H.M. Government, led by David Cameron, has conducted acts of terrorism (in the meaning of Section 1) in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq.

My letter of 25th September 2014 to Attorney General Jeremy Wright and Solicitor General Robert Buckland rehearses some of the arguments relating to RAF terrorism in Iraq:
Unlawful UK air strikes in Iraq - Letter of 25th September 2014 to UK Attorney General and Solicitor General

Let me summarise my reasoning as follows:

1. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, directs activities of H.M. Government
2. H.M. Government has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya
3. Theresa May has therefore committed one or more offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000
4. Given that she has committed offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000, Theresa May is a terrorist in the meaing of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Notice that the definition of "terrorist" in section 40 refers to an offence having been committed. It does not refer to conviction of such an offence.

It is bizarre that the terrorist Theresa May MP leads the UK Counter-terrorism strategy.

British Military Terrorism - Letter to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee re RAF terrorism in Iraq

Below is the text of a letter sent to Sir Richard Ottaway MP asking that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee conduct a brief, urgent inquiry into the ongoing British Military Terrorism in Iraq.

Here is the text of my letter to Sir Richard:

8th March 2015

To:

Sir Richard Ottaway MP and Foreign Affairs Select Committee

[By email]

Dear Sir Richard and members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee,

British Military Terrorism in Iraq

I write to ask that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, as a matter of urgency, conduct a brief  inquiry into the ongoing British Military Terrorism in Iraq.

This letter is intended to be written evidence to the requested inquiry.

Are RAF air strikes “terrorism”?

The question which I ask the Foreign Affairs Select Committee urgently to consider is whether or not RAF air stikes in Iraq are “terrorism” in the meaning of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

This question could readily be resolved by the Committee by means of taking written evidence or oral evidence from David Anderson QC.

It seems to me that a straightforward answer to a question such as the following might resolve the matter,

“Do the RAF air strikes in Iraq correspond to the definition of terrorism in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000?”.

I consider it unlikely that Mr. Anderson would reply in the negative to the foregoing question but, if he should do so, he should be asked:

“In what respect(s) do RAF air strikes in Iraq differ from ‘terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000”.

Letter of 25^th September 2014 to the Attorney General

In my letter of 25^th September 2014 to Jeremy Wright, Attorney General and Robert Buckland, Solicitor General I set out the case that the proposed RAF air strikes are, indeed, “terrorism” in UK Law.

I further pointed out that politicians such as the Prime Minister would be committing offences contrary to Section 56 of the Act.

See

http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/unlawful-uk-air-strikes-in-iraq-letter.html

for the text of my letter of 25^th September 2014 to the Attorney General and Solicitor General.

The vote taken on 26^th September 2014 was taken, so I understand, with MPs unaware that the proposed RAF air strikes in Iraq were “terrorism” in UK Law. The vote is therefore, in my view, null and void having been taken on false pretences.

Cease and Desist Request to David Cameron and Michael Fallon

Given my belief that RAF air strikes in Iraq are terrorism I wrote a “cease and desist” letter to David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP on 8^th October 2014.

Section 56 offences: David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP

Given that the RAF air stikes are “terrorism” in UK Law and that David Cameron MP, as Prime Minister, and Michael Fallon MP, as Secretary of State for Defence, are “directing” such RAF terrorism I reported Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon to the Police for suspected offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

See

http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/raf-terrorism-in-iraq-section-56.html

for the text of my letter to the Police regarding the suspected Section 56 offences.

Private prosecution of David Cameron and Michael Fallon

Given the apparent inaction by Chief Constable Chris Sims and Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale I sought permission to bring a private prosecution against Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon with respect to the suspected Section 56 offences.

See

http://britishmilitaryterrorism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/private-prosecution-of-david-cameron-mp.html

for the text of my letter to Mr. Malcom McHaffie of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Related important issues

British Military Terrorism goes far beyond the RAF air strikes in Iraq.

The Iraq War of 2003 was terrorism in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Military action in Afghanistan from 2001 likewise was terrorism in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Of the order of 600 British military personnel have died as terrorists (in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hundreds more British military personnel lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorists (in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

I do not ask the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to investigate those issues at present. I anticipate asking the successor Committee to do so after the May 2015 general election.

Possible Misconduct in Public Office

In the interests of clarity I state that I view this issue as being one of the utmost seriousness.

Procedurally, whether or not the Committee chooses to conduct an urgent inquiry is a matter for the Committee.

However, my view is that a failure to inquire into this serious matter would be of such a nature as arguably to constitute the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

I ask the Committee carefully to consider whether I might be justified in taking such a view.

Should the Committee decide not to investigate this important matter by the time that Parliament is prorogued I reserve the right to make a report to the relevant Police forces of suspected misconduct in public office by the Chairman and members of the Committee.

In conclusion

I believe the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has a duty urgently to inquire into RAF terrorism in Iraq.

A single evidence session with David Anderson QC could resolve the question and is eminently practicable before Parliament is prorogued.

In fact a 5 minute telephone call with Mr. Anderson could resolve the issue.

In that context I see no practical barrier to the Committee carrying out an urgent investigation of this important matter.

Nor do I see any credible barrier to the Committee publishing a brief report on the matter.

In the absence of appropriate investigation I may, without further notice, report to the relevant Police forces suspected misconduct in public office by the Chair and members of the Committee.

I am asking the Clerk to the Committee, Mr. Kenneth Fox,, to distribute this letter as a matter of urgency to each Committee member in view of the seriousness of the matter at hand.

I am placing a copy of this letter on my “British Military Terrorism” blog here:

http://britishmilitaryterrorism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/british-military-terrorism-letter-to.html

I would be grateful if Sir Richard would promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter and indicate how, if at all, he and the Committee propose to proceed to conduct an inquiry into this important matter.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Cc David Anderson QC

The UK Government narrative on terrorism is a lie and has been a lie for more than a decade

The UK Government narrative on terrorism is a lie.

The UK Government narrative on terrorism has been a lie for more than a decade.

The deception of the Britsh public relates to British Military Terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and the concealment of British Military Terrorism in those countries.

In all likelihood, British Military Terrorism has also taken place in Syria and has been concealed.

The non-disclosure of Britiah Military Terrorism

Successive UK governments have promoted the notion that they are fighting against terrorism.

At no point, to the best of my knowledge, has any UK Government publicly acknowledged that it has itself been committing acts of terrorism (as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

The UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001 has been "terrorism" as defined in UK Law.

UK military action in Iraq before the 2003 Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in UK Law.

The 2003 Iraq War was "terrorism" in UK Law.

See, for example, Was the Iraq War "terrorism" in UK Law?

The UK military intervention in Libya was also "terrorism" in UK Law.

The more recent RAF air strikes in Iraq are also "terrorism" in UK Law.

See, for example, Unlawful UK air strikes in Iraq - Letter of 25th September 2014 to UK Attorney General and Solicitor General and RAF Terrorism in Iraq - Section 56 offences by David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP reported to West Midlands Police

The concealment of British Military Terrorism

Important individuals and organisations in the public life of the United Kingdom have concealed British Military Terrorism from the consciousness of the British public.

The Police have concealed British Military Terrorism.

For example, on 2nd February 2010 I wrote to Sir Paul Stephenson, then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Assistant Commissioner John Yates regarding Section 56 offences by Tony Blair and others.

See Terrorism Act 2000 Section 56 offences etc - Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates

More recently, I wrote to Chief Constable Chris Sims and Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale  about Section 56 offences by David Cameron and Michael Fallon.

See RAF Terrorism in Iraq - Section 56 offences by David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP reported to West Midlands Police

The Chilcot Inquiry is concealing British Military Terrorism.

On 2nd February 2010 I sent the following letter to the Iraq Inquiry: The Iraq Inquiry: Letter of 2nd February 2010 to Sir John Chilcot

The UK Attorney General and Solicitor General are concealing British Military Terrorism.

For example, Attorney General Jeremy Wright and Solicitor General Robert Buckland allowed the House of Commons to be deceived on 26th September 2014 regarding the proposed air strikes in Iraq.

See Unlawful UK air strikes in Iraq - Letter of 25th September 2014 to UK Attorney General and Solicitor General

The silence of the mainstream UK media

And what can we say of the silence of the mainstream UK media on British Military Terrorism?

I am not aware of a single mainstream UK media outlet, whether written media, broadcast media or online media, which has seriously asked the question of what terrorism is.

I have over the years contacted dozens of UK journalists about the issue.

Not one has published anything on the issue.

Why?

Laziness?

Bias?

DA-Notice?

The UK media needs to explain its shameful silence on this important issue.

The effects of concealment of British Military Terrorism

If the Metropolitan Police had acted, in 2003, on my anonymous report of Section 56 offences by Tony Blair many lives would, I think, have been saved.

If the British public had known in 2003 that the Iraq War was terrorism and that UK military action in Afghanistan was terrorism would the UK have continued to participate? I think not.

Would the UK have spent tens of billions of pounds on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq? I think not.

If the British public had been informed that the RAF air strikes in Libya were terrorism would they have continued? I think not.

Thousands of Moslems have died, in my view, because the Police and other UK institutions have concealed British Military Terrorism.

Dozens, perhaps hundreds. of British military personnel have died as "terrorists" (in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000). For the moment, the families of dead British Military Terrorists are unaware they died as terrorists.

Hundreds of British Military personnnel have lost limbs as "terrorists" (in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000). What will their feelings be when they realise that they lost their limbs as terrorists?

Cognitive dissonance

The British public has been conditioned by more than a decade of lies about British Military Terrorism.

It won't, I anticipate, be easy for the public to work through the implications of British Military Terrorism.

What of the families of military personnel who died as terrorists?

What of the family of Lee Rigby who died as a terrorist?

What of the families of military personnel who lost limbs as terrorists?

What of those who lost limbs as terrorists?

What of the media which has, on many occasions, referred to British Military Terrorists as "heroes"?

For some, coming to terms with the implications of British Military Terrorism will be profoundly disturbing.

The cognitive dissonance cannot be put off for ever, in my view.

Letter to the Defence Select Committee re British Military Terrorism in Iraq

Earlier today, 4th March 2015, I sent a letter to Rory Stewart MP for the urgent attention of the Defence Select Committee of the House of Commons requesting that the Committee hold an urgent inquiry into British Military Terrorism in Iraq.

The text of the letter follows:

4th March 2015

To:

Rory Stewart MP and Defence Select Committee

[By email]

Dear Mr. Stewart and members of the Defence Select Committee,

British Military Terrorism in Iraq

I write to ask that the Defence Select Committee, as a matter of urgency, conduct an inquiry into the ongoing British Military Terrorism in Iraq.

This letter is intended to be written evidence to the requested inquiry.

Are RAF air strikes “terrorism”?

The question which I ask the Defence Committee urgently to consider is whether or not RAF air stikes in Iraq are “terrorism” in the meaning of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

This question could readily be resolved by the Defence Committee by means of taking written evidence or oral evidence from David Anderson QC.

It seems to me that a straightforward answer to a question such as the following might resolve the matter,

“Do the RAF air strikes in Iraq correspond to the definition of terrorism in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000?”.

I consider it unlikely that Mr. Anderson would reply in the negative to the foregoing question but, if he should do so, he should be asked:

“In what respect(s) do RAF air strikes in Iraq differ from ‘terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000”.

Letter of 25^th September 2014 to the Attorney General

In my letter of 25^th September 2014 to Jeremy Wright, Attorney General and Robert Buckland, Solicitor General I set out the case that the proposed RAF air strikes are, indeed, “terrorism” in UK Law.

I further pointed out that politicians such as the Prime Minister would be committing offences contrary to Section 56 of the Act.

See

http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/unlawful-uk-air-strikes-in-iraq-letter.html

for the text of my letter of 25^th September 2014 to the Attorney General and Solicitor General.

The vote taken on 26^th September 2014 was taken, so I understand, with MPs unaware that the proposed RAF air strikes in Iraq were “terrorism” in UK Law. The vote is therefore, in my view, null and void having been taken on false pretences.

Cease and Desist Request to David Cameron and Michael Fallon

Given my belief that RAF air strikes in Iraq are terrorism I wrote a “cease and desist” letter to David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP on 8^th October 2014.

Section 56 offences: David Cameron MP and Michael Fallon MP

Given that the RAF air stikes are “terrorism” in UK Law and that David Cameron MP, as Prime Minister, and Michael Fallon MP, as Secretary of State for Defence, are “directing” such RAF terrorism I reported Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon to the Police for suspected offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

See

http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/raf-terrorism-in-iraq-section-56.html

for the text of my letter to the Police regarding the suspected Section 56 offences.

Private prosecution of David Cameron and Michael Fallon

Given the apparent inaction by Chief Constable Chris Sims and Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale I sought permission to bring a private prosecution against Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fallon with respect to the suspected Section 56 offences.

See

http://britishmilitaryterrorism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/private-prosecution-of-david-cameron-mp.html

for the text of my letter to Mr. Malcom McHaffie of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Related important issues

British Military Terrorism goes far beyond the RAF air strikes in Iraq.

The Iraq War was terrorism in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Military action in Afghanistan from 2001 was terrorism in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Of the order of 600 British military personnel have died as terrorists (in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000) in Iraq and Afghanistan..

Hundreds more British military personnel lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorists (in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000).

I do not ask the Defence Select Committee to investigate those issues at present. I anticipate asking the successor Committee to do so after the May 2015 general election.

Possible Misconduct in Public Office

In the interests of clarity I state that I view this issue as being one of the utmost seriousness.

Procedurally, whether or not the Defence Select Committee chooses to conduct an urgent inquiry is a matter for the Committee.

However, my view is that a failure to inquire into this serious matter would be of such a nature as arguably to constitute the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

I ask the Committee carefully to consider whether I might be justified in taking such a view.

Should the Committee decide not to investigate this important matter by the time that Parliament is prorogued I reserve the right to make a report to the relevant Police forces of suspected misconduct in public office by the Chairman and members of the Committee.

In conclusion

I believe the Defence Committee has a duty urgently to inquire into RAF terrorism in Iraq.

A single evidence session with David Anderson QC could resolve the question and is eminently practicable before Parliament is prorogued.

In fact a 5 minute telephone call with Mr. Anderson could resolve the issue.

In that context I see no barrier to the Committee carrying out an urgent investigation of this important matter.

Nor do I see any credible barrier to the Committee publishing a brief report on the matter.

In the absence of appropriate investigation I may, without further notice, report to the relevant Police forces suspected misconduct in public office by the Chair and members of the Committee.

I am asking the Clerk to the Committee,  James Rhys, to distribute this letter as a matter of urgency to each Committee member in view of the seriousness of the matter at hand.

I am placing a copy of this letter on my “British Military Terrorism” blog here:

http://britishmilitaryterrorism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/letter-to-defence-select-committee-re.html

I would be grateful if Mr. Stewart would promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter and indicate how, if at all, he and the Committee propose to proceed to conduct an inquiry into this important matter.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

Cc David Anderson QC