UK Home Office squashes terrorist funding report

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 11:23am

Last week I pointed out that the Manchester terrorist has actually been an MI6 intelligence asset in Libya.
Now it turns out that Theresa May's government isn't interested in disclosing how terrorists get their funding.

An investigation into the foreign funding of extremist Islamist groups may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.
The inquiry commissioned by David Cameron, was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in December 2015, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Isis into Syria.
But although it was due to be published in the spring of 2016, it has not been completed and may never be made public due to its "sensitive" contents.
It is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which the UK recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to.

Obviously this 'sensitive' report could be embarrassing for any government that sells weapons to terrorists.
Especially a government who's lead in the polls has been cut to just one point, four days before the election.

On a related note, people who know better know how to vote in the UK election.

British foreign fighters in the International Freedom Battalion (formerly the Bob Crow Brigade) of the #YPG/#PKK in northern Syria. pic.twitter.com/gb0c8XJHLt

— Kyle Orton (@KyleWOrton) June 4, 2017

Tags:

terrorism

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 12:07pm

Pilger is telling the story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoZik4fXdVM (12 min)

Let's hope Jeremy Corbyn benefits from this and the national health service lies.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 12:32pm

Not releasing the report should benefit Corbyn, but

@Lookout

we all know how that goes.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 12:17pm

In quashing the report,

The British government is protecting and serving the billionaires who are benefitting from these deals. They clearly don't give a damn about the British people, their safety, or justice.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by dance you monster on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 12:35pm

Also protecting May, . . .

@dervish

. . . who headed the Home Office for six years before she was Prime Minister.

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sun, 06/04/2017 - 2:08pm

Tories usually outperform polls

I think it will be different this time, but history says otherwise.

But there’s a catch — and a potential saving grace for May. Although the polls haven’t been very accurate in the U.K., the errors have usually run in the same direction: Conservatives tend to beat their polls there. (There’s been no comparable phenomenon in the U.S., where polls have erred toward both Democrats and Republicans about equally often in past elections.) That was the case in 2015, for instance, when Conservatives outperformed their polls by a net of 6 percentage points. There was an even worse error in 1992, when polls showed Labour narrowly ahead but instead Conservatives won in a landslide, making for a 9-point polling miss. That election gave rise to the term “Shy Tory Factor,” the idea that Conservative (Tory) voters were reluctant to declare their true voting intention to pollsters....
And betting market prices imply a Conservative win by 9 or 10 percentage points rather than their 7-point lead in the polling average. Since pundits expect Conservatives to beat their polls, the First Rule of Polling Errors would therefore predict that Labour would beat their polls instead.

Submitted by gjohnsit on Mon, 06/05/2017 - 3:22pm

Terrorism not helping Tories

link

Moreover, she has a record to defend on security: the cutting of 20,000 police officers on her watch has become a millstone around her neck, and one that Jeremy Corbyn is now using to his advantage.
...
The speech was delivered well, but she was very uncomfortable in the question and answer session with journalists that followed. Seven of the 19 questions asked of the Prime Minister were about police cuts. May went into her robotic "refuse to answer directly" mode. She was never going to admit the cuts were a mistake, that they should be reversed or that she was wrong to tell the Police Federation in 2015 to stop “crying wolf” over the slimming down of the police force. But she was, nevertheless, very much on the defensive.