Tony Farrell was dismissed from his post as Principal Intelligence Analyst of South Yorkshire Police, a job he had held for twelve years, on 2nd September, 2010.
The document that caused his dismissal, which he handed over to Yorkshire Police Authority area on 8th July 2010, contained the following words (under the heading “My Summary”):
“…without knowing it, we are spiralling towards a state of war every bit as dangerous as we were when Neville Chamberlain declared peace in our time in 1939. Unfortunately on this occasion, the threats are far less visible, equally putrid but potentially many times more dangerous. They come from within our own camp but are hidden in the power and hold that the secret societies and global elite and the giant world banking establishments have over near-bankrupted governments. In the UK – standing shoulder to shoulder with the USA over foreign policy in the Middle East – ours has long since been corrupted. Frankly we are in a terrible mess and the nation has become too stupid to realise it.
My honest view as a principal Analyst is that all other threats pale into insignificance when compared to the inner corruption in high places and government. Ultimately, by fair means or foul this inner corruption has to be exposed and the Police Service and the Intelligencer Services have their own value decisions to make. Who is brave enough to take a contra position for the sake of our freedoms? I recognise that this stance is not likely to be embraced immediately and will probably be seen as unacceptable to senior managers. That does not make it wrong. Unfortunately I see few others in the Police Services having the courage to stand up and attempt to expose the ignoble lies on behalf of the public we serve. Yet if we just do nothing and bury our heads in the sand we are every bit as complicit in the tyranny….
The real truth behind 9/11 and 7/7 render the Government’s Counter-terrorism Strategy and our control Strategy of PREVENT and RICH picture and counter-terrorism local profiles as utter shams crafted to divert attention from their own secret schemings and evil ways of the elite. It needs dismantling and overhauling fast. All this to my mind invalidates the force controls strategy unless this stance is reflected within….
CLAIM FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Having been sacked, Tony Farrell presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal on 30th November 2010, he complained that he had been unfairly dismissed and subjected to discrimination on the grounds of his religion or belief.
At a pre-hearing review held in Sheffield on 24th May 2011, the judge found that Tony’s “belief” did not satisfy the definition of “belief” in Regulation 2(1) b Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations and all his discrimination claims made under those regulations were struck out.
The case is allowed to continue on the basis of an unfair dismissal.Tony’s Counsel have advised him that there is an arguable point of appeal arising from the judgement about his beliefs. The notice of appeal needs to be submitted at the Employment Appeals Tribunal before 28th July 2011.
He will re-appeal at Sheffield Appeals Court over September 7-9, on grounds of unfair dismissal.
The following is for the benefit of persons who may attend his Appeal. It quotes from the ‘Reserved Judgment’ produced by the Employment Tribunal pre-hearing and released on 15th June. The views here expressed are solely those of the author. Let’s first consider the Act of 2003 used for his appeal.
I. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations Act 2003
This Act prohibited discrimination, eg sacking, on grounds of ‘religion or belief.’ It linked the term ‘philosophical’ with religious belief as follows:
2.1 In these Regulations, “religion or belief” means any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief. –
But, in 2005, the House of Lords deleted the word ‘similar’ (on 13th July), on the doubtful grounds that:
the term “philosophical belief” will take its meaning from the context in which it appears; that is, as part of the legislation relating to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.
Given that context, philosophical beliefs must therefore always be of a similar nature to religious beliefs. It will be for the courts to decide what constitutes a belief for the purposes of Part 2 of the Bill, but case law suggests that any philosophical belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and must not be incompatible with human dignity. Therefore an example of a belief that might meet this description is humanism, and examples of something that might not—I hope I do not give any offence to anyone present in the Chamber—would be support of a political party or a belief in the supreme nature of the Jedi Knights. I hope that this provides some assurance on the change of definition of “religion or belief” that we have adopted.” Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General.
N.K. Comment: this House of Lords comment fails to elucidate what is meant by ‘philosophical belief.’ Thus, Humanism is an attitude to life, which does not involve believing in anything very definite; and the ‘Jedi Knights’ were lawkeepers of Empire – were they not? – where it would be hard to obtain agreement about ‘philosophical beliefs’ associated with them.
A court case elucidating this Act, in that same year 2005, sensibly advised that:
The court is concerned to ensure an assertion of religious belief is made in good faith: ‘neither fictitious, nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice’, to adopt the felicitous phrase of Iacobucci J …But, emphatically, it is not for the court to embark on an inquiry into the asserted belief and judge its ‘validity’ by some objective standard such as the source material upon which the claimant founds his belief or the orthodox teaching of the religion in question or the extent to which the claimant’s belief conforms to or differs from the views of others professing the same religion. Freedom of religion protects the subjective belief of an individual…. religious belief is intensely personal and can easily vary from one individual to another. Each individual is at liberty to hold his own religious beliefs, however irrational or inconsistent they may seem to some, however surprising…….. The relevance of objective factors such as source material is, at most, that they may throw light on whether the professed belief is genuinely held.” Supreme Court in R-v- Secretary of State ex parte Williamson  2 AC 246.
N.K. comment: the Court of Appeal did to Tony Farrell exactly what is here warned against: they threw out his claim for unfair dismissal on the grounds that his belief lacked ‘evidence’ and ‘coherence.’
A further quote from that same judgement is helpful, as regards a ‘philosophical belief:’
23. Everyone, therefore, is entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wishes. But when questions of ‘manifestation’ arise, as they usually do in this type of case, a belief must satisfy some modest, objective minimum requirements. These threshold requirements are implicit in article 9 of the European Convention and comparable guarantees in other human rights instruments. The belief must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or integrity. Manifestation of a religious belief, for instance, which involved subjecting others to torture or inhuman punishment would not qualify for protection. The belief must relate to matters more than merely trivial. It must possess an adequate degree of seriousness and importance. As has been said, it must be a belief on a fundamental problem. With religious belief this requisite is readily satisfied. The belief must also be coherent in the sense of being intelligible and capable of being understood. But, again, too much should not be demanded in this regard. Typically, religion involves belief in the supernatural. It is not always susceptible to lucid exposition or, still less, rational justification. The language used is often the language of allegory, symbol and metaphor. Depending on the subject matter, individuals cannot always be expected to express themselves with cogency or precision. Nor are an individual’s beliefs fixed and static. The beliefs of every individual are prone to change over his lifetime. Overall, these threshold requirements should not be set at a level which would deprive minority beliefs of the protection they are intended to have under the Convention…”
One more recent source, Grainger-v-Nicholson  ICR 360 (Burton J) is viewed as being important:
24 I do not doubt at all that there must be some limit placed upon the definition of “philosophical belief” for the purpose of the Regulations…I shall endeavour to set out the limitations, or criteria, which are to be implied or introduced by reference to the jurisprudence set out above: The belief must be genuinely held. It must be a belief and not, as in McClintock, an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others…
N.K. Comment: these judgements have gone astray in trying to focus upon and define a ‘philosophical belief.’ Beliefs are not as such philosophical. Philosophy is a method of inquiry not a belief-system. One can have religious beliefs or personal beliefs, but not really philosophical beliefs. It is not the case that some beliefs are philosophical while others are not. Rather it is the case that some beliefs are true while others are not, and philosophy may help one to discern the difference. The 2003 Act concerns ‘religious belief or similar philosophical beliefs,’ and most of us would more or less know what is meant by such a phrase. It alludes to an overall Weltanschaung or world-picture.
But, there is an inherent danger that this very bad legislation will come unhinged: eg a policeman was sacked recently for his belief that psychics should be used to solve crimes, and successfully appealed against his dismissal using this 2003 Act.
II. We now turn to how Tony Farrell was fired for presenting some words of truth to his Police force, quoting solely from the 15th June employment Tribunal judgment. Judge Rostant commented that ‘the genuineness of his beliefs and indeed his sincerity and honesty shine out from his witness statement and the manner of his giving evidence.’
Part of the document that got TF dismissed has been quoted above (paragraph 3). This outlined the Claimant’s views that 9/11 and 7/7 were “false flag operations” authorised by the respective national governments in order to give material with which the respective governments could persuade their respective populations to support foreign wars.
A further excerpt from the Appeal document stated that:
(i) The world faces the risk of the ascent of the “New World Order”.
(ii) The establishment of the New World Order is the goal of a global elite which seeks to introduce a secret satanic ideology to enslave the masses and claim control of the world’s resources;
(iii) The global elite seeking the establishment of the New world Order are intrinsically linked to secret societies such as Free Masonry and include the leaders of the United Kingdom, the United states governments and the international financial institutions;
(iv) The attacks of 7 July 2005 and 11 September 2001 were in fact perpetrated by the governments of the UK and the USA against their own citizens for the purpose of building support for their foreign policy agenda;
(v) The media is controlled by the global elite and it wrongly overstates the risk of terrorist attack on the UK to build support for its foreign policy agenda.
(vi) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unjustified and morally wrong as they are for the4 sole purpose of furthering the New world Order.
5.3 The Claimant goes on to explain that the New world Order, made up as it is of human actors, comprising the members of secret societies such as, but not limited to, Freemasons, the members of various governments including that of the UK and the United States, world banking institutes and the global media is, nevertheless, under a satanic influence. Its hidden goal is to create a one-world, Fascist government, stripped of nationalist and racial boundaries, obedient only to its own agenda… At paragraph 20, the claimant goes on to set out what he describes as the “separate philosophical components of my beliefs”
They are as follows:
(a) Both Freemasonry and the New World Order are satanic and the ascent of the New World Order is part of the anti-Christ system and the fulfilment of the end-time prophecy.
(b) The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are morally wrong and a furtherance of the satanic New world Order’s agenda and
(c) The false flag attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 were perpetrated in furtherance of the New World Order agenda.
N.K. Comment: South Yorkshire police were indeed fortunate to receive such a profound analysis of the modern terror-threat, and where it was coming from – with an offer to provide backup evidence should they require it. Nothing could have been more valuable to them, for the practical, workaday running of their Force. Or, if the police found what was handed over to them on July 8th was too shocking and too different from what they expected, then they could easily have taken a few weeks to mull over the matter instead of just giving him prolonged leave then sacking him: because they were under no pressure or urgency to have a new annual position statement. Their own Principal Intel analyst was telling them about the arch-terrorists who had conspired to perpetrate both 9/11 and 7/7. The police have a primary and overriding duty to solve crime – not to be part of some US-exported, government-driven, everlasting ‘war on terror’ – an utterly bogus concept if ever there was one, guaranteed to poison community relations – which victimises the innocent. But instead, they chose to sack their own analyst because of a wholly correct analysis he was presenting to them, on the subject which he was employed to evaluate.
III. The dismissal of TF’s case was made under the heading
‘6. Why I do not consider that Mr Farrell holds a philosophical belief’
6.4 It pretended that ‘the beliefs held by Mr Farrell completely failed to meet even a bare minimum standard of coherence and cohesion’ and dismissed the ‘cogency’ of his argument: ‘He started with a proposition that he did not claim to know exactly what had happened during the attacks of 9/11 an 7/7 but then asserted his belief that they were both false-flag operations…. He then described ‘weighty proponents supporting his theory’ as Professor David Ray Griffin and Professor David McGregor. Very little more is said about Professor McGregor but the claimant did annex an article by Professor Griffin to his statement. On the latter point it should be noted that Professor McGregor’s article appears to be more in the nature of an essay and is entirely unreferenced.’ Etc
N.K. Comment: There were thirty references to the McGregor article. T.F. might have done better to introduce the Webster Tarpley ‘9/11 Synthetic Terror’ book as evidence, as this classic opus links 9/11 and 7/7.
The judge averred that ‘the conspiracy theory he (TF) advances remains, in the light of subsequent events and the weight of evidence, wildly improbable. There is no body of respectable academic commentary in peer reviewed academic journals that supports the theory, or at least none that I have had drawn to my attention.‘
N.K. Comment: there are several academic, peer review journals concerning 9/11 produced eg by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The judge’s destructive comments about the alleged incoherence and improbability of TF’s views are unsound, as well as being of very doubtful relevance to the 2003 Act. That the Judge was in fact incompetent to make such judgements became clear from what he said next.
6.5 Once Mr Farrell was required to answer questions about his beliefs, their incoherent nature became all too apparent…. In this regard, a Mr Philipp Powell of an organisation called Vista Security was implicated. He had been interviewed on the day of the attacks saying that he had been invited to set up a training exercise for a putative terrorist threat.
N.K. Comment: If this courtroom cannot even name Peter Power and his Visor Consultants exercise, that met on 7/7, then it was in no way competent to assess the integrity of TF’s argument.
6.5 When confronted with the obvious fact that the 7/7 bombings had been investigated exhaustively by a six month inquest presided over by Lady Justice Hallett which has in no way challenged the official narrative…,
N.K. Comment: the Coroner’s Inquest, presided over by Lady Justice Hallett, did in no way ‘investigate’ the London bombings, nor did it question for one second the official narrative: it heard evidence – for five months, not six – that is all.
The judge summarised with the following incoherent statement: ‘It follows from my conclusion that Mr Farrell does not hold a belief which meets the definition in the Regulations that all claims relying on that must be struck out, leaving only his complaint of unfair dismissal.’
7.1 As to whether TF was unfairly dismissed, ‘The Control Strategy is one document which summarises the key policing priorities in order for the police authority to give the Force the resources to serve the needs of the local communities. He felt that the supporting statements you presented indicated that your sincere beliefs and opinions around world terrorism meant that as Principal analyst you are no longer able to produce a Control Strategy for the Director of Intelligence which was proportionate to the risks the community faced. Your priority concerned global and national perspectives which are out of balance with the priorities in South Yorkshire communities.’
N.K. Comment: The perspective TF was offering his local Force was badly needed by them, in order to optimise their daily schedule: it explained to them how the phantom menace had been drummed up by central government. Understanding this would free the South Yorkshire Force from focussing unjustifiably upon Muslims as potential threats to society at large in the UK. Then they could devote their energy to better serve their local community, and be respected by it. The Home Office has recently released its ‘CONTEST’ i,e counter-terror strategy which does have this undue focus upon Muslims, and South Yorkshire police might find TF’s considered opinion a helpful counterbalance in this respect.
Muad’Dib lived and grew up in Sheffield, then Prof Ridley-Duff teaches there, and now again South Yorkshire becomes the epicentre of 7/7 debate! Let us venture to hope that Hasina Patel, the remarried former widow of Sid Khan, now living in Sheffield, may wish to break her long silence upon this matter.
* There was a 2009 case which decided “a belief in man-made climate change… is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”. This rather strains the original meaning of the 2003 Act, however it is not greatly relevant to the present case, which does have a central religious component to it.
8 July Rich Planet 3-part interview
8 July Bristol local radio
13 July Alex Jones ‘Prison Planet’ interview
18 July Sovereign Independent Radio broadcast 7-9 pm
22 July Kevin Barrett interview on American Freedom Radio, 8 pm UK time.