How about considering the possibility it was a false flag attack?
The handler was in fact working for Ukrainian intelligence. He used Russian to try to cast blame on the Russian government. Somehow in the police investigation they found evidence the handler was Ukrainian so instead of letting this fact come out in court the prosecution simply avoided it.
It seems pretty obvious it wasn't Russian intelligence since if it were there'd be the usual pearl clutching reaction. Nord Stream 2 is another example.
We can’t assume anything is true that they want us to think. Your comment shows how they are manipulating our reality by watching what they do or say. And frankly what they do or say or don’t do or say assuming the opposite to be true is probably more accurate.
Not really their comment is just making a judgement based on the evidence you yourself presented, why would the British state conspire to protect Russian intelligence operations in an era of extreme hostility towards Russia? Your essay is missing actual analysis of what the evidence you're presenting is pointing to. It seems that you're biased towards British state narratives
Wow! Another great article on this very mysterious trial. It really is amazing and worrisome what the powers that be can conjure and spin even in a court room. Thank you for this article, I hope that it provokes some reflection on just how manipulated we all are. Most seriously the 12 jurors sitting right there and being told outright what not to consider.
What is the real story here? Is it anti muslim with the graffiti and perhaps starmer’s support of that community?
Yes, that is very true, just ironic that ukrainians were used when they are the ones being supported by starmer. Maybe it is a russian message about the war support and the threat of the muslim takeover. In other words, look who you are supporting!
It's a disgrace that this trial is only being covered properly by citizen journalists and being almost totally ignored by the MSM. So many questions raised but will we ever get any answers - like many things involving Starmer, it looks like it is being deliberately played down/covered up? There has got to be a compelling reason but I doubt we will ever find out the truth.....
This is yet another high profile demonstration of the real reason the establishment changed the fabric of the judiciary, most notably the removal of trial by jury replaced with jury trials. The trial by jury was the cornerstone of what made England and Britain authentically democratic because it's verdicts could enshrine statutes into the common law. This was possible because the jurors were the judges of the facts of each case, including the law itself and it's application. Therefore, if elected representatives in parliament made bad (repugnant) law then a jury of 12 common men and women could nullify it, in effect, strike it from the law books. That would automatically bring the authors of that law, the parliamentarians, into question and they too could face trial. That was genuine democracy, not this sham of suffrage we're fed now. And that sham is all possible because in the modern day jury trial it's accepted that a jury can be directed and they regularly are. In a genuine democracy that is both perjury and treason.
As for what's being covered up by the state's use of a corrupted judiciary, it's just a bit of a bummer that we'll never really know.
I think there are also aspects here in this jury trial given what is happening that doesn't n normally happen that makes disposing of jury trial downright dangerous, I mean who normally has a case and the jury be instructed to not even think about the motive? It just shows you how with a judge a courtroom change change and turn into a kangaroo court by at least changing the normal goalposts
That is odd in itself, the motive being disregarded never heard of that before. This Labour government is out to dismantle the system to fit their agenda which is the reason behind trying to remove trial by jury, seeing as the judges are not fit for purpose.
How about considering the possibility it was a false flag attack?
The handler was in fact working for Ukrainian intelligence. He used Russian to try to cast blame on the Russian government. Somehow in the police investigation they found evidence the handler was Ukrainian so instead of letting this fact come out in court the prosecution simply avoided it.
The similarity to the Dylan Earl case is striking.
It seems pretty obvious it wasn't Russian intelligence since if it were there'd be the usual pearl clutching reaction. Nord Stream 2 is another example.
We can’t assume anything is true that they want us to think. Your comment shows how they are manipulating our reality by watching what they do or say. And frankly what they do or say or don’t do or say assuming the opposite to be true is probably more accurate.
Not really their comment is just making a judgement based on the evidence you yourself presented, why would the British state conspire to protect Russian intelligence operations in an era of extreme hostility towards Russia? Your essay is missing actual analysis of what the evidence you're presenting is pointing to. It seems that you're biased towards British state narratives
This is the most obvious conclusion. After all, the first language of many in Ukraine is Russian - including Vlodomir Zelensky himself!
Wow! Another great article on this very mysterious trial. It really is amazing and worrisome what the powers that be can conjure and spin even in a court room. Thank you for this article, I hope that it provokes some reflection on just how manipulated we all are. Most seriously the 12 jurors sitting right there and being told outright what not to consider.
What is the real story here? Is it anti muslim with the graffiti and perhaps starmer’s support of that community?
Thank you. To me the connection has seemed very obviously the Russian/Ukraine war given how much we support the Ukraine.
Yes, that is very true, just ironic that ukrainians were used when they are the ones being supported by starmer. Maybe it is a russian message about the war support and the threat of the muslim takeover. In other words, look who you are supporting!
It's a disgrace that this trial is only being covered properly by citizen journalists and being almost totally ignored by the MSM. So many questions raised but will we ever get any answers - like many things involving Starmer, it looks like it is being deliberately played down/covered up? There has got to be a compelling reason but I doubt we will ever find out the truth.....
Everything is very murky for sure.
What if the Russian voice was a MI5 handler.. .
This is yet another high profile demonstration of the real reason the establishment changed the fabric of the judiciary, most notably the removal of trial by jury replaced with jury trials. The trial by jury was the cornerstone of what made England and Britain authentically democratic because it's verdicts could enshrine statutes into the common law. This was possible because the jurors were the judges of the facts of each case, including the law itself and it's application. Therefore, if elected representatives in parliament made bad (repugnant) law then a jury of 12 common men and women could nullify it, in effect, strike it from the law books. That would automatically bring the authors of that law, the parliamentarians, into question and they too could face trial. That was genuine democracy, not this sham of suffrage we're fed now. And that sham is all possible because in the modern day jury trial it's accepted that a jury can be directed and they regularly are. In a genuine democracy that is both perjury and treason.
As for what's being covered up by the state's use of a corrupted judiciary, it's just a bit of a bummer that we'll never really know.
Yes it’s very stark with this case, how detrimental to the facts coming out in trials that could be, isn’t it?
Excellent article. Something we are not being told and I doubt we will find out what is really behind it.
Thanks and no. If it was Farage it would be all over everywhere.
Absolutely agree, it just stinks they want it to go away, nothing to see here, which to me says there is.
I think there are also aspects here in this jury trial given what is happening that doesn't n normally happen that makes disposing of jury trial downright dangerous, I mean who normally has a case and the jury be instructed to not even think about the motive? It just shows you how with a judge a courtroom change change and turn into a kangaroo court by at least changing the normal goalposts
That is odd in itself, the motive being disregarded never heard of that before. This Labour government is out to dismantle the system to fit their agenda which is the reason behind trying to remove trial by jury, seeing as the judges are not fit for purpose.
Is this the Rent Boy thing?
Starmer has buried it. Like a cat, that will bury its mess…..😡