Brits pass law to criminalize independent terror war zone reporting


UK starts implementing controversial legislation on terror zone presence

…from Press TV, Tehran

[ Editor’s Note: We have seen this coming for a long time, all part of the “total surveillance” thing. The presumption of innocence, which was never a worldwide right, is on its way out even in the US, with Britain apparently ahead of us.

Will our courts protect us from this political mafia scourge? Don’t hold your breath. The control over who gets approved for judicial slots has gone mainstream. The idea the judges should be independent, the Deep State folks view that is just damn silly, an Alice in Wonderland concept.

With most of corporate media long in the bag, if not all as many would say, the bullseye is now on what is left of independent journalism. It the big media houses want to avoid expensive litigation with governments, the small independents have way less ability to resist the obvious intimidation.

Catch below how “viewing terrorist-related material online could be prosecuted”. Imagine that. Journalists could be targeted for doing background research, something which is a never ending task for real journalists.

These border guard guys are under pressure now to “flip” journalists, meaning that if they want to roam around with no problems, they must become agents of the government, supplying them information.

This makes all journalists in a terror war zone kidnapping targets of Jihadiis to catch and torture into admitting that they were Intel agency spies. Those who are really independent have no one to call upon for help when captured, which sends a message to all the remaining “independents”.

As it is now, they can grab your cell phone and laptop and dump everything off it. Even Gordon had to go through this in the Detroit airport, with a wife outside waiting to pick him up, and where the protocol is to not even show the courtesy of informing her that he is going through questioning.

When they were done with him, he had to call her for another round trip to pick him up. And a week later, when the Feds were done with his phone and laptop, they were not delivered to his door. He was contacted to come pick them up. As Gordon does so love to say, welcome to how the world really works Jim W. Dean ]

Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>

– First published … April 13, 2019

A controversial legislation enabling the UK government to jail people travelling to war-torn countries like Iraq and Syria have become effective, as campaigners express deep concerns that the new laws could lead to the imprisonment of journalists and press freedom activists.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 came into effect on Friday against the backdrop of calls on the government to limit its “vague” definition of terror offense so that it would not affect the work of journalists present in war-ton countries or working on materials related to those areas.

Under the new law, people travelling to areas designated by interior ministry (Home Office) as terror zones could face up to 10 years in prison.

Border guards will also have the power to stop and search individuals without suspicion and simply because they want to tackle “hostile state” activity. Viewing of terrorist-linked material online could also be criminalized under the new legislation.

Rights campaigners and press freedom watchdogs have earlier warned about the implications of the new law for people who may wrongly be caught without any wrongdoing. They have warned that journalists, for example, could simply be stopped during their domestic flights and be prosecuted if they avoid answering questions or refuse to hand over materials.

The UK government has defended the legislation as necessary to prevent terrorist attacks by nationals who return to the country from areas of militancy in the Middle East.

Official estimates suggest that nearly one thousand individuals “of national security concern” have traveled to Syria over the past several years to join terrorist groups fighting against the government. Some 40 percent of those people have returned to the UK while about 20 percent have been killed overseas, according to the data.

The Interior ministry has also decided to revoke the citizenship of several nationals over their presence in Syria and parts of Iraq, a move which has sparked massive criticism from the opposition and activist who believe the government simply seeks to abandon nationals in conflict zones to dodge any future responsibility.


We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


  1. “We will not bring the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law. We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes”../

  2. Additional reply to John Cook:

    My apologies for not having answered your direct question regarding the people / personalities involved. I did not quite grasp it at first.

    The short answer is that I long ago adopted a policy of not making such inquiry. I discovered almost 30 years ago that the facts are so damning, and of such systemic import, that it would be counterproductive to attempt to assign causality to individual people. I most certainly do a macro analysis based on profession but otherwise do not make inquiry into personal relationships.

    For example, 35 years ago, a Mr. Brian Mulroney became prime minister of Canada. He was essentially “sold” to the public as a labour lawyer, for the Iron Ore Company of Canada I believe. But he had also been a director of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) for about a two-year stint before resigning to run for the leadership of the federal PC (Progressive Conservative) Party in a notably well-financed campaign that appeared to involve his co-director on the board – a Mr. Conrad Black, who also owned about half the newspapers in Canada.

    After his attainment of the prime minister’s office, Mr. Mulroney spent the next 8 years to 1992 directly appointing what seemed to me to be an extraordinary number and proportion of high-power bank solicitors to the appellate courts across the country.

    Meanwhile, in 1990, I won a lawsuit against the Eaton’s Department Store chain’s credit card division after discovering that it was using a prima facie fraudulent purported interest calculation methodology. In April of 1990 my picture appeared on the front page of the Edmonton Journal Business Section under the caption: Local man beats Eaton’s – Decision could cost $ billions.

    That decision was ultimately overturned by a virtual “tag-team” of former bank lawyers at the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in 1994. The surprise-ending as it were, is that it is not really about the banks and the financial system, but rather the legal and equitable (malpractice) liability of the legal profession. In practice all money is debt, and debt is liability. So the expression “follow the money” really means “follow the liability” and that means that “All roads lead to the City of London”.

    If you just focus on the math and the history, then the issues are clear and precise. I simply don’t have the intellectual capacity (or perhaps “temperament” is the better word) to deal with the complexity of trying to determine and analyze the motives and relationships between individual players in the constructive game that appears to be on-going.

    Basically, the judges of the Courts use “irrationality”, per se, as a means of broadcasting “policy” to the broadly-defined legal profession. That is why the more objectively irrational and transparently fraudulent a decision from a multi-judge court of appeal, the more likely it is to be “unanimous”.

    But when I read these decisions as a non-lawyer, and blessed with a well-balanced left-brain / right-brain configuration, I can only conclude that batsh*t-crazy is batsh*t crazy, and it makes no difference what their socio-economic, ethnic or religious background may be, and so I don’t go there. The aggregate business and political relationships may well be relevant, but again, the facts are sufficient to condemn the whole system regardless of the specific identity of the puppets-du-jour.

    I hope that makes sense. Tim.

  3. ……It was the Brits that were the ones to accurately name their WW II bombing campaigns over Germany as ” Terror Bombings ” . Dresden Hamburg , Berlin and others . Aimed mostly at civilian concentrated populations of course .

  4. Reply to Trakkath:
    “Can som1 plz give me a clear definition of “Madness” ?

    The closest answer to which I can refer you is a “systematized delusion”:

    “A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).

    By somewhat more than coincidence, such is also the core “business model” or “modus operandi” of virtually all broadly-defined public and private institutions. They are ever-increasingly run by “professional schizophrenics” who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Syllogistic logic has been supplanted by “managed-mental-illness”.

    Hope it helps. Tim.

  5. Pop-quiz on fact versus fiction:
    “Equity” is a branch of:
    A: Medicine
    B: Accounting
    C: Law
    D: None of the above

    The correct answer is D, None of the above.

    “Equity” means “fact” or “reality”. “Law” means “fiction” (as in “legal-fiction”) or “pretence”.

    That is why English law was founded on separate Courts of Equity and Courts of Law.

    Any matter, whether civil or criminal, started with the Court of Equity or Court of Fact. If the facts as submitted by the parties were ratified by the Court of Fact / Equity, and were sufficient to establish a prima facie case, then those facts would be handed over to a Court of Law for a legal determination.

    Above all, the same judge was never allowed to determine both the facts and the law in any dispute, because such is prima facie a recipe-for-disaster, or “just-plain-stupid” to use the vernacular.

    It was also foundational that a practicing lawyer was never allowed to subsequently become a judge. With respect, even allowing “professional language manipulators” to interpret the law is like having “convicted child molesters” run “day-care centres”. It is just-plain-stupid.

    But that all changed circa 1873 with the broadly-defined Judicature Acts that purported to merge the two courts into one, and put the administration of both under the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law.

    Henceforth the same judge would decide both the facts and the law, and that judge was ever-increasingly a former bank-lawyer or bank-solicitor or other representative of the entrenched-money-power.

    The same procedural innovation then metastasized like a cancer throughout the broadly-defined English law system, including and especially the U.S. system.

    Our current trajectory was initiated and determined almost 150 years ago when the entrenched-money-power provided, by legislative fiat, that henceforth “reality” is a “branch of Law”.

    Question: Why is the human species faced with imminent substantive extinction?
    Answer: Because we deserve it.

    • Thank You Tim – I’ve been wondering about the ‘what, how and when’ of the obvious corruption of the legal system – seems I was waiting for exactly your post.

      I’m wanting to know more, however, about the personalities involved in this fundamental corruption.
      I expect it’s the usual suspects – do you have any further information?

      ps I’m impressed by the standard of the posts here – I registered to reply to your post.

  6. Under broadly-defined English law people are not in fact “Presumed innocent until proven guilty”; they are “Presumed innocent until a prima facie case is established against them”.

    The converse is that the Crown / government is not supposed to charge anyone with an offence unless and until a prima facie case has been made out against them.

    And that is where we are going very wrong.

    In practice we are “Presumed innocent until accused of an offence by the state”.

    Rather than focus on the all important nexus between bona fide evidence and the decision to prosecute, the governments of the world have quietly transmogrified the process by administrative procedure into:

    “You stand accused of being accused: How do you plead?”.

    • Where is the Bar association outrage at this? Lawyers and barristers are the true stewards of the law. I wish they were out in the streets. We need that level of intellectual cachet leveled against these tyrants!

  7. The British are after the control of information flow from the targeted countries, of course. This is just a way of pre-discredit all journos or regular folks that are not in line with western propaganda. Others can play this game as well, but of course British are the Masters of the Universe.

  8. Corporations can only create business conditions, never ever able to create so called “Laws”. Just the last 4 or 5 countries which are on the list of terrorists can create laws. And you can cancel every contract done w those Corporations, most of those contracts are done by fraud. And business conditions can be negotiated as we have seen from Trump.

  9. Australia has had similar laws for a few years resulting in people having passport revoked at airport trying to leave. No such laws for israeli citizens that head off to commit war crimes in illegal military actions ,of course

  10. “viewing terrorist-related material online could be prosecuted” Why was 9/11 the first thing to cross my mind? This has a very Zio-Kosher flavor about it! Once upon a time I read Nineteen Eighty Four and thought it a disturbing work of fiction, low and behold, they are using it as an enhanced operations manual. This business model of theirs is updated with new volumes with each proclamation.

    BDS 2019!

    • Anyone “they” deem to be a threat to them, is targeted to be “dealt with”. If they were just gangsters it would be a more manageable problem, as they are answerable to the law, theoretically. But the Deep State gangsters are not, and that is widely known, which enhances their intimidation power.

      The Brits are still getting away with the Skripal hoax, the Israelis with shooting unarmed children dead in Gaza, the Saudis for the Kashoggi slaughtering, and the US for its proxy terrorism support in Syria and god only knows where else, and yet the are trying now to present independent journalism as a security threat.

Comments are closed.