Was Kingsmill the tip of the Iceberg for the Period?

These are interesting comments from Willie Frazer that must be a catalyst for investigation by the authorities?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML7jXZ1ptSE&noredirect=1

"Those IRA terrorists who massacred the men at Kingsmill killed many more innocents. This wasn’t freedom fighting, it was the blatant sectarian killing of Protestants. We estimate that they killed over 100 Protestants in South Armagh, they shot into Orange Halls, Gospel halls and even tortured people. It really is time that they answered for their crimes."

This is the group that Republican revisionists tell the world were "political".

Kingsmill Sectarian Slaughter

While many Republicans now deny the Sectarian nature of the IRA, evidence continues to stack up that the Provos were Sectarian.

The enquiry in to the Kingsmill slaughter this year concluded that the premeditated slaughter of ten Protestants was "purely sectarian", with one catholic travelling with the Protestant group freed from the carnage.

This is the terrorist group that Celtic fans idolise each week through songs such as "Ooh Ah Up The 'Ra" and "Roll of Honour".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0622/1224299384987.html

Stunning Documentation of Sectarianism by Celtic Fans

This site was emailed to me yesterday.

On it are times and dates detailing Sectarianism by Celtic supporters, with links down the left to lyrics of said songs, and hyperlinks to evidence of the specific instances.

One can only hope that this site will have an impact in fighting this cancer.

http://doublestandards.bplaced.net/index.html

Scottish Court Sets Legal Precedent

A Scottish Court set a legal precedent on Sectarianism today when Celtic Supporter Michael Bailey was convicted of sectarian abuse.

While the BBC Report oddly lacks detail of the abuse the stv report indicates the language concerned included the terms "Orange b*s*ards", "Orange c*nts", and Sectarian IRA Slogan "TIOCFAIDH AR LA" as well as some disgusting racist abuse.

It is now clear that a legal precedent has been set, and that calling anyone an orange bast*** or c*nt is now, by legal definition, sectarian.

Reports:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14222785

stv reports

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/263115-celtic-supporter-admits-making-racist-and-sectarian-rants-on-facebook/

Celtic fan admits making racist and sectarian rants on Facebook

Michael Bailey made comments about Rangers fans, Walter Smith and El Hadji Diouf on the social networking site.

20 July 2011 14:50 GMT

Conviction: Michael Bailey will be sentenced next month Pic: © Spindrift

A Celtic supporter has admitted posting racist and sectarian comments on a Facebook page opposed to the club’s manager Neil Lennon.

Michael Bailey, 20, left a number of messages on the social networking site about Rangers fans, the club’s then manager Walter Smith and El Hadji Diouf, the African forward who was on loan to the Ibrox side at the end of last season.

On a page entitled ‘Neil Lennon should be banned’ and on his personal Facebook page, Bailey posted comments which included ‘Glasgow rangers yous are s*** you bunch of orange b*******’ and ‘send diouf back to the jungle’. Bailey also described Mr Smith as a "dirty pie eating Orange b******".

Bailey, from Bridgeton in Glasgow, appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday and admitted a charge of posting comments of a "racist and sectarian nature" on the internet between March 7 and 8 this year.

The court heard how a police taskforce began a review of social network sites and their contents after an increase of sectarian football-related hostility and offending following a fiery Old Firm match on March 3.

Procurator fiscal depute Julie Clark told the court police officers investigated further and identified that Bailey had made a comment on the 'Neil Lennon should be banned' Facebook page and his own.

Ms Clark said another message posted on Bailey’s page was "Oh the rangers are s**** ya bunch of p*** lovers send diouf back to the jungle and you can go back with him...ya smelly orange c***...soldiers are we...TIOCFAIDH AR LA."

Bailey was detained by police on April 30 and interviewed. The court was told he accepted full responsibility for posting the comments.

The 20-year-old has been released on bail with the conditions that he must not enter any SPL ground, or Hampden Stadium. He must also sign on at his local police station during the first half of every Celtic match.

Sheriff Johanna Johnstone QC deferred sentencing until next month for reports. Defence lawyer Stephen Bentley will give his plea in mitigation then.

FARE – Fare Are Rangers Enemies – A Summary

FARE – Fare Are Rangers Enemies – A Summary

As more and more evidence emerges of the sinister nature of the workings of the group who successfully reported Rangers for alleged sectarian chanting twice, I feel it my duty to summarise in one place and in one article, exactly why FARE are not fit for purpose, and why FARE as an organisation should be suspended from all activity involving Rangers and Celtic Football clubs with immediate effect.

What follows is a summary of the findings against FARE by investigative Journalist David Leggat, and some communications between users of rangersmedia.com, thebluenose.co.uk, vanguardbears.co.uk and the editor and users of followfollow.com and FARE.

Firstly, with regards to the links of FARE Chief Piara Power to Celtic Football Club.
On the 15th April 2011 a poster the bluenose.co.uk, a website or the Rangers Supporters Assembly posted some very interesting information.

http://www.thebluenose.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=54&func=view&catid=5&id=116041


http://www.milestonegroup.co.uk/licence-agreement-issue-of-equity--total-voting-rights-08-april-2011.html


“Licence Agreement, Issue of Equity & Total Voting Rights
Milestone Group Plc

(“Milestone” or the “Company”)

Licence agreement with BGP Global Services Limited and launch of OnSide

AIM quoted Milestone Group PLC (AIM: MSG), the digital solutions provider, announces that it has signed an agreement with BGP Global Services Limited (“BGP”) for the exclusive licence of its Facilitated Electronic Data System (“FEDS”) within UK community sports programmes (the “Licence”).

BGP will issue a perpetual licence of FEDS, an innovative and bespoke web application that can be currently run on portable networked computer systems, to OnSide Limited (“OnSide”), a newly incorporated Company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Milestone, for use in the UK community sporting sector, initially to be launched in football, but to be extended to cover other community sports.

……..

Paul Elliott MBE, the former Chelsea and Celtic player, Piara Powar, the Executive Director of FARE (Football Against Racism in Europe), and Bob Quick, the former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, will be the ambassadors for OnSide.

-----
Deborah White, CEO of Milestone, commented:

“The creation of OnSide through the relationship between Milestone and BGP will bring together state of the art software and our strong skill set in mobile devices to deliver a revolutionary platform for sporting coaches throughout all sports and communities. OnSide will dramatically reduce the costs associated with sports coaching and create a safer environment for sports to take place. I am grateful to Paul Elliott, Piara Powar and Bob Quick for the passion and dedication they have given to this new venture and look forward to working with BGP going forward.”

So far as the Company is aware and subject to any new notifications received, the following persons will have a notifiable interest in the issued share capital of Milestone following this issue of Ordinary Shares:

Current percentage holding Resultant percentage holding

Deborah Jane White 34,883,774 (15.21%) 34,883,774 (14.63%)

HBS 049 Limited 30,000,000 (13.08%) 30,000,000 (12.58%)

Cormac Crawford 18,954,772 (8.26%) 18,954,772 (7.95%)

Brett J. Desmond (all held by
Aurum Nominees Ltd) 15,729,204 (6.86%) 15,729,204 (6.60%)

Martin King 13,667,049 (5.96%) 13,667,049 (5.73%)

BGP Global Services - 9,090,909 (3.81%)

Lynchwood Nominees Ltd 9,083,489 (3.96%) 9,083,489 (3.81%)

For further information, please contact:

Milestone Group Plc
Deborah White, Chief Executive Tel: 020 7929 7826

Strand Hanson Limited, NOMAD
Richard Tulloch / David Altberg Tel: 020 7409 3494

Hybridan LLP, Broker
Claire Louise Noyce Tel: 020 7947 4350

College Hill, PR
Jamie Ramsay Tel: 020 7457 2020

David Leggat reported this on the 23rd June 2011 when the report started reaching a wider audience.

http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/2011/06/fares-piara-powar-and-celtic-exclusive.html

What the user on the bluenose didn’t mention, and what Leggat didn’t mention is that the firm named against Brett J Desmond in the Milestone announcement “Aurum Nominees Ltd” isn’t the only link to Brett Desmond’s shares in Milestone.
These shares are owned by IIU Nominees Limited

http://www.milestonegroup.co.uk/issue-of-equity-and-total-voting-rights-25-nov-2010.html

“MILESTONE GROUP PLC
(“Milestone” or the “Company”)

Issue of Equity
AIM quoted Milestone Group PLC (AIM:MSG), the digital solutions and technology agency, announces that it has agreed to issue 24,408,061 ordinary shares of 0.1 pence each in the capital of the Company (“Ordinary Shares”), at a price of 1.13 pence per Ordinary Share, raising £275,811.07. Of the Ordinary Shares being issued, 15,929,204 Ordinary Shares are being issued to IIU Nominees Limited on behalf of Brett J. Desmond, representing 9.41 per cent. of the enlarged issued share capital and 5,309,735 Ordinary Shares are being issued to Bryan Lynam, representing 3.14 per cent. of the enlarged issued share capital.”

This is where it get’s really interesting.

The board of IIU Nominees Limited is as follows

IIU NOMINEES LIMITED
R/O Address : Ifsc House Registered No : IE241141
Custom House Quay Legal Form : Private Limited
Dublin 1
Co. Dublin

Current directors
1. Mr B. O'Sullivan Brian 11/08/1963 Director

2. Mr D. Desmond Dermot 14/08/1950 Director

3. Mr J. Bateson John 8/07/1963 Director

4. Mr M. Walsh Michael 2/10/1951 Director

5. Mr N. O'Dwyer Noel 14/01/1971 Company Secretary

So, the link between FARE’s Piara Power and Celtic Football Club is even stronger than first imagined.

Which brings me nicely on to the latest revelations on FARE.

2 days ago, 4 Rangers fans who had reported Celtic for Sectarian Singing in an SPL Match via the FARE reporting form were surprised to find letters to their home from Celtic Chief Executive Peter Lawwell.

One fan posted a scan of said letter to Rangers Media, who subsequently put on the front page of their site. The scan also appeared on the Vanguard Bears and Follow Follow forums.

The recipient of said letter was rather alarmed that their personal details including their home address, home phone number and mobile phone numbers had been passed on to a third party or parties without their consent.

What happened then was startling. the Editor of Follow Follow, Mark Dingwall sent a brief and to the point email to FARE.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Dingwall [mailto:byerley_turk@cqm.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:07 PM
To: info@farenet.org
Subject:

Hello,

Called the Kick It Out office and they gave me this email address to
write to.

I edit a Rangers fans messageboard. www.followfollow.com

Today I had two users say that they had written to FARE to lodge
complaints about the behaviour at the end of season Hearts v Celtic
match. They both said that today they had received letters
concerning their FARE complaints from the Chief Executive of Celtic
Football Club. One of them posted a graphic file of the letter.

Would it be possible for you to confirm that the this is indeed how
the complaints were handled as some fans are skeptical about it.

Yours faithfully,

MARK DINGWALL

I think even he was surprised at the quick response

From: info@farenet.org
Subject: RE:
Date: 29 June 2011 14:20:48 BDT
To: byerley_turk@cqm.co.uk
Reply-To: info@farenet.org

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your email.

We received many complaints about Celtic FC earlier this year. We informed
the club and the SFA about this and asked them to reply directly to those
who had complained as FARE's specific focus is to look at issues that arise
within the international arena, in matches covered by UEFA or FIFA.

Kind regards

FARE PO Box 67536 London EC2P 2HY UK
www.farenet.org

If you think I deleted the respondent from the reply to Mr Dingwall, you’d be wrong.
They never put their name to the email.

The topic was again picked up on Leggat’s blog

http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/2011/06/fare-face-prosecution-threat.html

It’s all there in black and white.

To Summarise, FARE, or an agent of FARE advised Celtic Football club of the private details of Rangers fans who had complained about Sectarian Singing by the Celtic Support.

They then admitted on an email they had done so.

While Lawwell’s reply was laughable, this time it’s not the content of the letter (and it is a letter not an email) that is causing concern, it’s not only FARE apparently admitting to breaching certainly their own privacy promises, but possibly breaching Data Protection laws, and certainly raising eyebrows over their handling of personal data when the party being complained about was Celtic Football Club, while protecting the identity of the FARE Complainant at the PSV-Rangers Matches.

What is most alarming for the senders of the FARE Forms is the alleged shadowy links between FARE and Kieron Brady’s CICI organisation, and that organisation’s links to extremist Irish Republican Celtic Supporters’ Group “The Green Brigade”, and Brady’s friendship with Irish Republican Phil MacGiollaBhain.

Have they seen these details?

If so, who passed on those details?

They must be punished.
As the first link in that communication chain is FARE, it’s there that the authorities need to look at first.

DJM

Excellent Piece in "The Spectator"

A Bill That Shames Scotland

Alex Massie

Tuesday, 21st June 2011

Here's a clue for politicians: when you're asked if you've just criminalised the national anthem and all you can do is say "Er, maybe, it all kinda depends on the circumstances" the chances are that you've produced a bill that tests even the patient, hard-to-exhaust, limits of parliamentary absurdity and you should probably put it through the shredder and start again. If, that is, you should even be legislating in these matters at all.

More Here, and please follow the links within the article.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7043055/a-bill-that-shames-scotland.thtml

Wasting Taxpayers’ Money – Superficial Nonsense Politics

As the dust settles after the SNP published their bill on Sectarianism on Friday the only conclusion that can be drawn from said publication is that it is a waste of time, energy and resource by a Government lacking imagination and courage.

The government have employed the most influential legal brains in Scotland to create a bill covering a range of “crimes” already covered within Scottish law.

Existing laws could easily have been amended.

This new bill should be read, in full by all Scots, in order that they too can see how their tax contributions are being wasted.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s4/bills/01-offbehfoot/index.htm

Each document should be read in its entirety, in order that you see the sheer scale of work put in to this, including estimated costing of prison sentences.

As for the bill itself, it is worthy of some detailed analysis.

Firstly, there are 3 specific areas of interest that the bill directs itself at

1) Offensive behaviour at regulated football matches

2) Threatening communications

3) Offences outside Scotland

Area 1 is further explained thus

1) A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match:

(a) the person engages in behaviour of a kind described in subsection (2)

(2) The behaviour is—

(a) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on

their membership (or presumed membership) of—

(i) a religious group,

(ii) a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,

(iii) a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4),

(b) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the

individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any

of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a),

(c) behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in

any of those sub-paragraphs,

(d) behaviour that is threatening, or

(e) other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive

1 Continued

and

(b) the behaviour—

(i) is likely to incite public disorder, or

(ii) would be likely to incite public disorder.

As we address Area 1, it becomes apparent that this is a “catch all” bill that will most likely be interpreted by the Police and/or the Procurator Fiscals as directed specifically by Roseanna Cunningham and Frank Mulholland, as the wording on actual offences appears to be deliberately ambiguous.

I’ve heard some observers state the wording is in said manner due to the rushed timescale of the Bill. I beg to differ.

There can be no other reason than to hide the specific interpretation of certain phrases, in order that this gets cross party support with as little opposition as possible.

As the first section continues, the bill adds the following sub sections

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) and (b) it is irrelevant whether the hatred is also

based (to any extent) on any other factor.

(4) The things referred to in subsection (2)(a)(iii) are—

(a) colour,

(b) race,

(c) nationality (including citizenship),

(d) ethnic or national origins,

(e) sexual orientation,

(f) transgender identity,

(g) disability.

The Bill then adds further Sub Sections:

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii), behaviour would be likely to incite public

disorder if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that—

(a) measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or

(b) persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in

sufficient numbers.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or

to a fine, or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or

to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

There are, of course, two supplementary documents on the link above. As recommended, these are worth a read.

It should be cautioned that they should only be read in order to establish just how ridiculous the bill is, as you will read both documents and find no further clarity on just what will be defined sectarian, or how it will be interpreted that the recipient, or intended recipient of hate mail or worse is the victim of a sectarian crime.

Let me start with section 1, where the target group of offenders is at a football match.

On the face of it, all bases are covered, and many politicians at Holyrood will have difficulty arguing against the bill, without putting their own interpretation on the sub sections.

The volume of words throughout the 3 hefty documents belies the fact that the key aspects are covered between pages 3 and 4 of the Bill itself, with all of that element reproduced above in italics.

So what does each element mean in that key sub section 2?

(2) The behaviour is—

(a) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on

their membership (or presumed membership) of—

(i) a religious group,

This is where the scratching of heads begins.

To all intents and purposes, this is indeed a statement no sensible person could disagree with, until you start to analyse each word very carefully. This will be “the law”, unless enough people mobilise against it, so one should not scan the bill, nor ignore the “small print”.

What then does “expressing hatred of” mean exactly, and what does “stirring up hatred against” mean?

Is there a different approach to constructive criticism of any group, to some hate filled fan ending every reference with “bastards”, or “scum”, or such like?

Despite the clear effort at closing legal loopholes to cover any offence the legal fraternity wish to deem sectarian, they didn’t appear to put the required time and effort in to explaining what this actually means.

How do you “stir up hatred”, and how is it measured if someone has actually stirred up hatred? Is it measured by the volume of expressions of anger on extremist websites? We really should be told.

What this means is that there can still be a level of interpretation put on test cases, which could well be inaccurate and most probably unfair.

While the disgraceful behaviour towards Neil Lennon will be covered (which it was anyway, or there would have been no arrests) either by an offender being of a different nationality or religion, it would remain to be seen how a regular victim of hatred such as Nacho Novo would be tackled?

Does this Bill cover all bases for certain expressions of hatred but not cover Catholics who play for Rangers?

The sub section lines “colour”, “race”, and “nationality including citizenship”, are very interesting indeed.

Will expressions of hatred of nationality include hatred of being British or English?

Will booing the UK national anthem be classified as such an expression?

Will the Anti-English songs of the tartan army also be addressed?

Does the addition of “citizenship” mean anything in particular or refer to specific cases in the past?

The most disappointing aspect of this bill is that it does not offer that clarity up front that could genuinely have an immediate impact on the most obvious displays of sectarianism at football matches.

It does not list songs, chants or phrases that are unacceptable, with explanations and case studies or test cases to explain why.

Why not?

Why not just state in plain language that songs or chants that are derogatory about Catholics or Protestants, or their derivative slang nicknames are captured within the bill, and state what those derivative nicknames are.

Why not just state in plain language that certain definitions as claimed by certain groups are NOT sectarian?

Why not state once and for all that the term “Hun” is sectarian?

Why not address the term “fenian”? Why has it got two Dictionary definitions, and who decides which one that an alleged offender means?

Why not address the Sectarian “Old” IRA, and the Sectarian Provisional IRA, and both subliminal and obvious support for these organisations?

Given the man hours already put in to this Bill; the effort required to implement the bill, and the effort to manage the bill on an ongoing basis, I state today that unless these issues are addressed, and some assurances given to the good people of Scotland that this Bill is a) fair, and b) of value to Scottish Society as a whole.

At a time of desperate financial woes, it is entirely inappropriate to spend in the region of £250K+ for many of the individuals who are likely to find themselves hauled up in court.

(£40K per year, plus legal costs conservatively estimated at 50K for a routine hearing)

For Area 2 of the bill (Threatening Communications), it seems simply that this is just an addition of “sectarianism” to the physical sending of hate mail, or the sending of (or posting of) offensive electronic communication either indirectly or directly at a group or individual.

Like Area 1, it will be the interpretation of the Sectarian element which will define if this is a fair bill, or an unjust one.

Many of the questions above apply here. What defines the motivation being sectarian, racist or “anti” anything?

Is it simply if the recipient, or intended recipient, or their advisors say so?

It’s at area 3 though that you start to question both the sanity and the agenda of the bill

Sections 1(1) and 5(1): offences outside Scotland

(1) As well as applying to anything done in Scotland, sections 1(1) and 5(1) also apply to

anything done outside Scotland by—

(a) a British citizen, a British Overseas Territories citizen, a British National

(Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,

(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 (c.61) is a British subject,

(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act, or

(d) a person who is habitually resident in Scotland.

(2) Section 5(1) also applies to a communication made by any person from outside Scotland

if the person intends the material communicated to be read, looked at, watched or

listened to primarily in Scotland.

(3) Where an offence under section 1(1) or 5(1) is committed outside Scotland, the person

committing the offence may be prosecuted, tried and punished for the offence—

(a) in any sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or in custody, or

(b) in such sheriff court district as the Lord Advocate may direct,

as if the offence had been committed in that district (and the offence is, for all purposes

incidental to or consequential on the trial and punishment, deemed to have been

committed in that district).

The obvious glaring hole in this policy is that it is only legally workable to chase British Citizens overseas, so Citizens of other nations outside of the UK can effectively state what they like online, or anywhere else, with impunity.

The thought that Scotland will be sending Police to Australia or Canada or the USA to pick up someone for calling someone else a term ending in Bastard (enter your own prefix as applicable) is absurd, and failure to adhere to this strand of the bill would be hypocritical and would smash any credibility that any subsequent act would carry.

There are already dissenting voices in Scotland at credible levels, and I’d ask that you join these people, while also raising specific concerns with your MSP.

If you don’t, then this bill will pass in its current state, and the interpretation of these ambiguous sub sections will be down to unelected legal people who may not share your interpretation of the key points here.

You have been warned.

DJM

http://www.takealiberty.blogspot.com/