White Helmet Bollox Johnson Russia Wot Done It

Boris just spoke at a Tory fringe meeting.

Edit:
Boris Johnson’s speech at Conservative Conference (FULL)

He’s certainly more exciting than Theresa May, but let’s remind ourselves, this is the same guy who provided £65 million for the White Helmet jihadi killers and tells us repeatedly it was Russia wot done it….

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Responses to “White Helmet Bollox Johnson Russia Wot Done It”

  1. Workhouse says:

    Some members from his own party seem to be thinking along the right lines…
    “Operation Arse’ revealed” “Scottish Conservatives are plotting to stop Boris Johnson becoming prime minister as part of a secret campaign dubbed “Operation Arse,” the Daily Record has reported.” https://www.rt.com/uk/440101-arse-operation-boris-johnson/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

  2. sovereigntea says:

    As former big chief at the FCO Johnson funded and praised The White Helmets a front group having common UK staffed training facilities shared with terrorist groups. Both terrorists and their supporting White Helmets then crossed the border into Syria one might call this “working in partnership”.

    Endless video footage is available of Boris’s White Helmets aiding and abetting their terrorist partners. Also available is considerable evidence suggesting that BJ’s White Helmets have been and still are engaged in the kidnap and murder of children for the purposes of producing propaganda video footage which can be deployed by diabilocal media assets such as the BBC in order to pre-stage a criminal UK taxpayer funded military attack aimed at deposing Assad.

    If we had an honest press we would wake up tomorrow after they published headlines such as the one below.

    Boris Johnson, Gavin Williamson and Jeremy Hunt Arrested On Terrorism Charges.

    A couple charged with funding terrorism could be guilty of ahttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/11/supreme-court-rules-against-couple-charged-with-funding-terrorismn offence even if they did not actually suspect their money would be used for terrorist purposes, the UK’s highest court has ruled.

    Sally Lane, 56, and John Letts, 57, from Oxford, are due to stand trial at the Old Bailey for allegedly breaching section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They are charged with sending money overseas, or arranging to do so, when they knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that it would or might be used for the purposes of terrorism.

    In a unanimous judgment, five supreme court justices ruled that it was not a strict liability offence but nonetheless “an accused can commit this offence without knowledge or actual suspicion that the money might be used for terrorist purposes”.

  3. sovereigntea says:

    JUDGMENT

    R v Sally Lane and John Letts (AB and CD) (Appellants)

    2. The two appellants are charged with the offence of entering into funding arrangements connected with terrorism, contrary to section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the Act”). Because it is not yet known what course the trial will take, as little as possible should be said now about the allegations, which may or may not be proved. It is enough to say that the appellants are charged with sending money overseas, or arranging to do so, when they knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that it would, or might, be used for the purposes of terrorism.

    3. The section of the Act which creates this offence says as follows:

    “17. Funding arrangements.

    A person commits an offence if –

    (a) he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and

    (b) he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.”

    4. The question which arises on this appeal concerns the correct meaning of the expression “has reasonable cause to suspect” in section 17(b). Does it mean that the accused must actually suspect, and for reasonable cause, that the money may be used for the purposes of terrorism? Or is it sufficient that on the information known to him there exists, assessed objectively, reasonable cause to suspect that that may be the use to which it is put?

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/36.html

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.