Jump to content

Today's news temporary edition


kj35
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

I don't think so mate.

On cbn  too :-(

ISRAEL

CBNNEWS.COM

: Israel, Saudis Negotiating Control of Temple Mount 

Share

Tweet

Email

06-02-2020

Emily Jones

JERUSALEM, Israel – Israel and Saudi Arabia have been conducting secret negotiations since December about allowing Saudi officials to join the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf responsible for controlling the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Israel Hayom reported. 

“These talks are sensitive and clandestine and have been conducted by small teams of diplomats and security officials from Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia as part of the Trump administrations' Peace to Prosperity Middle East initiative,” unnamed senior Saudi diplomats told the Israeli paper. 

The Waqf oversees Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, claims exclusive control over the Temple Mount, and says it is not subject to Israeli law. 

Related

Churches Believed to be Where Jesus Was Born, Resurrected Reopen

Jordan exclusively funds and manages the Waqf and according to the report, previously objected to any change in the Waqf council. However, Israel Hayom reports that Amman has since reversed its position because it is worried about the level of Turkey’s influence in eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.  

Seven senior Fatah and Palestinian Authority leaders were added to the council last February and opened the door for Turkish Islamic organizations to pump millions of dollars into projects in Jerusalem. 

Jordan is willing to allow Saudi Arabia to have a place at the council so long as the Saudis apply diplomatic pressure to Turkish organizations in Jerusalem, they donate millions of dollars to Islamic organizations in the holy city, and Jordan retains its exclusive control on the Temple Mount. 

STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APP! 
Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Live Events!

An unnamed senior Arab diplomat told the paper why Jordan is so interested in stopping Turkey from gaining influence in Jerusalem. 

 "If the Jordanians allow the Turks to operate unhindered at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, within a matter of years their special status in charge of the Waqf and Muslim holy sites would be relegated to being strictly 'on paper.' They need the Saudi's money and influence to block (Turkey's President) Erdogan. Israel and the US also have an interest here because they want Saudi support for the US peace plan and Israeli annexation initiative, and because Saudi Arabia can ensure support from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates."

The diplomat said it is too early to know if the negotiations will actually lead to Saudi Arabia’s presence on the Temple Mount. 

This report came a day after the Temple Mount reopened following Israel’s coronavirus lockdown. 

Muslim worshippers visited the site, which is one of the holiest places in Islam. 

Several dozen Jews were escorted by Israeli security forces onto the site.

The Temple Mount has been a flashpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it is the holiest site in Judaism. 

L

 

 

LATEST CBN NEWS STORIES

Bishop T.D. Jakes Joins Hillsong Pastor Carl Lentz for Powerful, Personal Response to Racism in America

‘The Temple Mount Is In Our Hands’: The Words That Still Shake Israel 53 Years Later

 

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this what the pope is up to ? Dropping vicar of christ? Eucamenical control of the mount. Are they TRYING to invoke Armageddon? I probably know the answer to that  :-(

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kj35 said:

Is this what the pope is up to ? Dropping vicar of christ? Eucamenical control of the mount. Are they TRYING to invoke Armageddon? I probably know the answer to that  :-(

 

As unreal as it seems, I really do think so. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USA are gunning for Prince Charming - he'd hired a lawyer last I heard to fight possible extradition, but now they're saying he could be forced to give evidence.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11805488/prince-andrew-quizzed-over-jeffrey-epstein-links/

 

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-demands-uk-hands-over-22153995

 

 

After very much faffing about, am leaving the press articles linked instead of posting headlines etc.

Edited by Tinfoil Hat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the USA ... it's the liberals.

It's the same with the kneeling or licking the floor "for Black people".

They want to "bring down" everyone and everything so we call be fwwee and eqwal.

Can't see Boris saying yes to this, or DJT demanding anything.

Many of the US institutions are infiltrated just like the BBC with the anti-reality people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

It's not the USA ... it's the liberals.

It's the same with the kneeling or licking the floor "for Black people".

They want to "bring down" everyone and everything so we call be fwwee and eqwal.

Can't see Boris saying yes to this, or DJT demanding anything.

Many of the US institutions are infiltrated just like the BBC with the anti-reality people.

 

Yes, I think it's just panto season myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

The USA are gunning for Prince Charming - he'd hired a lawyer last I heard to fight possible extradition, but now they're saying he could be forced to give evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

After very much faffing about, am leaving the press articles linked instead of posting headlines etc.

I'd like to think he might actually face some punishment for this but I bet they swap Assange for Sacoolas and he gets off scotfree as part of the extradition. The queen has distanced herself from him a little but I bet she will not let her pet son go through this.

Edited by kj35
removed hyperlinks so I could post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These articles are talking about him giving evidence in a UK court now though rather than extradition. (I meant to put that in my commentary, but evidently forgot after lots of changing the post because of being blocked). I don't know what the legalities of that are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jack said:

Didnt the UK ask the US for the military wife to hand her self in and come back to The UK, for killing the young lad on the motorbike and they said no

yes.  but the Americans want Assange. and Andy pandy. we want sacoolas. they'll do some sort of trade. mind you looks like they are either trying to kill Julian or going to hang him out to dry anyway.

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kj35 said:

yes.  but the Americans want Assange. and Andy pandy. we want sacoolas. they'll do some sort of trade. mind you looks like they are either trying to kill Julian or going to hang him out to dry anyway.

 

I agree. Though I thought there was no hope for Gary McKinnon at one time, and he made it back in the end, so I'm not giving up hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Egyptian TV series Al-Nihaya ("The End") provokes controversy for referencing Freemasonry

https://egyptindependent.com/egyptian-tv-series-al-nihaya-provokes-controversy-for-referencing-freemasonry/

 

 

Quote

Egyptian Ramadan 2020 television series “Al-Nihaya” (The End) has provoked controversy for its handling of the topic of Freemansonry, after Actor Iyad Nassar appeared in the series as the one-eyed “president of the oasis and the president of the entire world.”

Critic Tariq al-Shinnawy criticized the series for tackling Freemasonry, saying that “[Freemasonry] is an ambiguous and versatile expression that changes over time. Egypt had legal Freemasonry temples, and well-known figures such as Jamal Eddin al-Afghani joined the Freemasons.”

Shennawy added: “The problem with the series is that it took a vague definition of Freemasonry, and started building upon it with hostility and attack.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder whether this is linked to the latest Madeleine Mccann article. I've not heard anything much about German Paedo rings until that, and now this...

 

Horror as child abuse dungeon where 'unimaginable' acts filmed found in Germany

WARNING DISTRESSING CONTENT Police have arrested 11 people over a child abuse ring in Germany as investigators found 500 terabytes of sick footage of children in a basement

 

Police have arrested 11 people after uncovering a child abuse ring in Germany.

 

Investigators found footage of two boys, aged 10 and five, being 'brutally' raped by four men during a search of a summer house in Munster, Germany.

 

It is believed the children were drugged before being abused for hours.

 

Evidence of the horrific acts was found in a fake ceiling, with officers also seizing more than 500 terabytes of encrypted footage in the basement of the main suspect's home.

 

Much of the sickening abuse was reportedly filmed at the summer house, which was fitted with cameras inside and out.

 

The rest is here...

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/horror-child-abuse-dungeon-unimaginable-22155552?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

 

This is what people should be standing together across the world to make a noise about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

friday june 12 2020

Register

LAW REPORT

Strict liability for shows of support for terrorists

Friday June 12 2020, 12.01am, The Times

Queen’s Bench Division
Published June 12, 2020
Pwr and others v Director of Public Prosecutions
Before Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice Swift
[2020] EWHC 798 (Admin)
Judgment April 3, 2020

Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which prohibited wearing or displaying articles in a way which could be construed as indicating support for a proscribed organisation, created an offence of strict liability and did not constitute an interference with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Divisional Court so held when dismissing the appeal by way of case stated of the defendants, Rahman Pwr, Ismail Akdogan and Rotinda Demir, against the dismissal by the Crown Court sitting at Southwark of their appeal against conviction of offences under that section.

Section 13(1) of the 2000 Act provides: “(1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he — (a) wears an item of clothing, or (b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

Mr Jude Bunting for the first defendant; Mr Joel Bennathan, QC, and Mr Russell Fraser for the second and third defendants; Mr Dan Pawson-Pounds for the Crown.

Lord Justice Holroyde said that the defendants took part in a demonstration in central London, the broad purpose of which was to demonstrate against the perceived actions of the Turkish state in Afrin, a town in north-eastern Syria.

Each carried a flag of the Kurdistan Workers Party (the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistane or PKK), an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. They were each convicted of an offence contrary to section 13(1) of that Act.

They contended that those convictions were wrong in law. The essence of their argument was that section 13(1) did not create an offence of strict liability and the defendants, therefore, could not be convicted without proof of mens rea; or alternatively, if the section did create an offence of strict liability, it was incompatible with article 10 of the Convention.

The common law presumption that mens rea was an ingredient of a statutory offence, unless it had clearly been excluded by parliament, was a strong one and could not lightly be displaced. The court had to consider the words of the statute and other relevant circumstances to ascertain whether parliament, by express words or by necessary implication, had made clear its intention to create an offence the commission of which did not require mens rea.

The terms of the statute and all other relevant factors and circumstances, such as the language used, the nature of the offence and the mischief sought to be prevented, were to be taken into account and, if there was no clear parliamentary intention to create an offence which did not require mens rea, then the presumption would apply.

In the present case, there were five considerations which, taken together, pointed clearly to a parliamentary intention to create by section 13 an offence which did not require mens rea.

First, the language of section 13 was entirely clear and unambiguous in that a person committed the offence if he deliberately wore, carried or displayed an item of clothing or an article, such as an image or banner, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse the relevant reasonable suspicion. There was nothing in section 13 that required any knowledge on the part of the wearer of the import of the item or article, or of its capacity to arouse the requisite suspicion.

Second, parliament had legislated to proscribe certain terrorist organisations, and the purpose of section 13 was to give practical effect to such proscription. The mischief at which it was aimed was conduct which would lead others reasonably to suspect the wearer of being a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, that being conduct which would give rise to a risk that others would be encouraged to support that proscribed organisation or to view it as legitimate.

A person who committed the actus reus of the section 13 offence by his conduct created the risk, whether or not he intended to do so or knew he was doing so.

Conduct which fell within section 13 was conduct which aroused reasonable suspicion of membership of or support for an organisation involved in violence designed to influence the government or intimidate the public.

Third, although not conclusive, it was relevant that predecessor legislation, dating back to 1936, had been expressed in materially similar terms. Parliament had therefore had ample opportunity to amend the legislation if it had wanted to indicate a requirement of mens rea.

Fourth, far from doing that, parliament had recently amended section 13 by adding, in sub-section (1A), a further offence in similar terms: see section 2(3) of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.

Fifth, while the inclusion of an express element of mens rea in other offences created by the same Act was not conclusive, it was relevant to take into account that the 2000 Act also created offences which required mens rea, and had drawn a distinction between the more serious offences, which required mens rea, and the less serious section 13 offence, which did not.

For those reasons parliament had clearly intended by section 13 to create an offence which did not require mens rea, and it was not open to the court to interpret the section as if it had been drafted in different terms.

Section 13 restricted the freedom of persons to express their opinions by wearing, carrying or displaying certain items of clothing and other articles and, therefore, article 10 of the Human Rights Convention was engaged. The issue was whether that restriction was justified.

It was clear that the restriction pursued a legitimate aim which was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and public safety, and/or for the prevention of disorder or crime, and/or for the protection of the rights of others.

Section 13 was a necessary part of the appropriate mechanism to achieve that aim: it prohibited conduct which created a risk of encouraging others to support a proscribed organisation or to view it as legitimate.

There was nothing in the submissions of the defendants which suggested any realistic alternative lesser means of achieving the objective of prohibiting such conduct or any unequivocal statement of principle to the effect that a restriction on freedom of expression could only be justified where the expression included an incitement to violence.

It was clear that section 13 struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect society by preventing terrorism. The defendants could have shown their support for the people of Afrin without displaying the flags of a proscribed organisation. That, after all, was what the majority of those carrying flags at the march had been doing.

Accordingly, section 13 did not constitute a disproportionate interference with the defendants’ rights under article 10 of the Convention, but struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect society by preventing terrorism.

Solicitors: Birnberg Peirce Solicitors; Morgan Has Solicitors; Crown Prosecution Service.

Europe

 

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kj35 said:

friday june 12 2020

Register

LAW REPORT

Strict liability for shows of support for terrorists

Friday June 12 2020, 12.01am, The Times

Queen’s Bench Division
Published June 12, 2020
Pwr and others v Director of Public Prosecutions
Before Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice Swift
[2020] EWHC 798 (Admin)
Judgment April 3, 2020

Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which prohibited wearing or displaying articles in a way which could be construed as indicating support for a proscribed organisation, created an offence of strict liability and did not constitute an interference with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Divisional Court so held when dismissing the appeal by way of case stated of the defendants, Rahman Pwr, Ismail Akdogan and Rotinda Demir, against the dismissal by the Crown Court sitting at Southwark of their appeal against conviction of offences under that section.

Section 13(1) of the 2000 Act provides: “(1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he — (a) wears an item of clothing, or (b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

Mr Jude Bunting for the first defendant; Mr Joel Bennathan, QC, and Mr Russell Fraser for the second and third defendants; Mr Dan Pawson-Pounds for the Crown.

Lord Justice Holroyde said that the defendants took part in a demonstration in central London, the broad purpose of which was to demonstrate against the perceived actions of the Turkish state in Afrin, a town in north-eastern Syria.

Each carried a flag of the Kurdistan Workers Party (the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistane or PKK), an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. They were each convicted of an offence contrary to section 13(1) of that Act.

They contended that those convictions were wrong in law. The essence of their argument was that section 13(1) did not create an offence of strict liability and the defendants, therefore, could not be convicted without proof of mens rea; or alternatively, if the section did create an offence of strict liability, it was incompatible with article 10 of the Convention.

The common law presumption that mens rea was an ingredient of a statutory offence, unless it had clearly been excluded by parliament, was a strong one and could not lightly be displaced. The court had to consider the words of the statute and other relevant circumstances to ascertain whether parliament, by express words or by necessary implication, had made clear its intention to create an offence the commission of which did not require mens rea.

The terms of the statute and all other relevant factors and circumstances, such as the language used, the nature of the offence and the mischief sought to be prevented, were to be taken into account and, if there was no clear parliamentary intention to create an offence which did not require mens rea, then the presumption would apply.

In the present case, there were five considerations which, taken together, pointed clearly to a parliamentary intention to create by section 13 an offence which did not require mens rea.

First, the language of section 13 was entirely clear and unambiguous in that a person committed the offence if he deliberately wore, carried or displayed an item of clothing or an article, such as an image or banner, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse the relevant reasonable suspicion. There was nothing in section 13 that required any knowledge on the part of the wearer of the import of the item or article, or of its capacity to arouse the requisite suspicion.

Second, parliament had legislated to proscribe certain terrorist organisations, and the purpose of section 13 was to give practical effect to such proscription. The mischief at which it was aimed was conduct which would lead others reasonably to suspect the wearer of being a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, that being conduct which would give rise to a risk that others would be encouraged to support that proscribed organisation or to view it as legitimate.

A person who committed the actus reus of the section 13 offence by his conduct created the risk, whether or not he intended to do so or knew he was doing so.

Conduct which fell within section 13 was conduct which aroused reasonable suspicion of membership of or support for an organisation involved in violence designed to influence the government or intimidate the public.

Third, although not conclusive, it was relevant that predecessor legislation, dating back to 1936, had been expressed in materially similar terms. Parliament had therefore had ample opportunity to amend the legislation if it had wanted to indicate a requirement of mens rea.

Fourth, far from doing that, parliament had recently amended section 13 by adding, in sub-section (1A), a further offence in similar terms: see section 2(3) of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.

Fifth, while the inclusion of an express element of mens rea in other offences created by the same Act was not conclusive, it was relevant to take into account that the 2000 Act also created offences which required mens rea, and had drawn a distinction between the more serious offences, which required mens rea, and the less serious section 13 offence, which did not.

For those reasons parliament had clearly intended by section 13 to create an offence which did not require mens rea, and it was not open to the court to interpret the section as if it had been drafted in different terms.

Section 13 restricted the freedom of persons to express their opinions by wearing, carrying or displaying certain items of clothing and other articles and, therefore, article 10 of the Human Rights Convention was engaged. The issue was whether that restriction was justified.

It was clear that the restriction pursued a legitimate aim which was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and public safety, and/or for the prevention of disorder or crime, and/or for the protection of the rights of others.

Section 13 was a necessary part of the appropriate mechanism to achieve that aim: it prohibited conduct which created a risk of encouraging others to support a proscribed organisation or to view it as legitimate.

There was nothing in the submissions of the defendants which suggested any realistic alternative lesser means of achieving the objective of prohibiting such conduct or any unequivocal statement of principle to the effect that a restriction on freedom of expression could only be justified where the expression included an incitement to violence.

It was clear that section 13 struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect society by preventing terrorism. The defendants could have shown their support for the people of Afrin without displaying the flags of a proscribed organisation. That, after all, was what the majority of those carrying flags at the march had been doing.

Accordingly, section 13 did not constitute a disproportionate interference with the defendants’ rights under article 10 of the Convention, but struck a fair balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect society by preventing terrorism.

Solicitors: Birnberg Peirce Solicitors; Morgan Has Solicitors; Crown Prosecution Service.

Europe

 

Probably not immediately clear why I've posted this until you look at what strict liability means and what UK definition of terrorism is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kj35 said:

friday june 12 2020

which prohibited wearing or displaying articles in a way which could be construed as indicating support for a proscribed organisation, created an offence of strict liability and did not constitute an interference with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

 

 

strict liability, no harm or intent to harm or negligence

 

terrorism definition UK 

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] 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] or ideological cause.

 

It is now illegal to wear or show allegiance to any group deemed an idealogical terrorist threat, EVEN if  no harm caused or intended to others. Rights to freedom of expression under Human rights conventions OVERRULED
 

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a couple of days ago, but I've just seen it...

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8414517/Virginia-Roberts-admitted-hospital-bacterial-meningitis.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

 

Prince Andrew accuser Virginia Roberts is admitted to the hospital with bacterial meningitis following trip to the rainforest - two months after coronavirus scare.

 

A convenient coincidence for his Highness?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...