Thursday, October 20, 2011

A personal message to Tony Farrell

Hi Tony

A little dickie bird tells me that you're getting mixed up with opinions I express and opinions expressed by the J7 Truth Campaign

To the best of my knowledge the J7 Truth Campaign hasn't expressed any opinion about your Damascene conversion to full blown 7/7 conspiraloon at all

I, on the other hand, think you're your story is dodgy as fuck

I think you're dodgy as fuck because...
  • You work(ed) in police 'intelligence' for many years
  • Even though you worked as a terrorism risk analyst in the same county three of the alleged 7/7 bombers came from, you claim that you only became aware of conspiracy theories about 7/7 five years after the bombings

  • Even though you worked as a terrorism risk analyst in the same county three of the alleged 7/7 bombers came from, you claim that the only insight you have into the bombings came from 'watching videos in the internet' and you learned nothing relevant to 7/7 scepticism from your day job
  • You are attempting to promote doubt in the official 7/7 narrative as being a matter of religious faith and not a matter of scepticism in a poorly supported, inconsistent narrative

  • Your account of your dismissal is littered with apparent contrivances - your suspension on the anniversary of 7/7, your hearing on the anniversary of 9/11, the story about a priest switching you onto 7/7 Truth, claims that your superiors were sympathetic to your views on 7/7. It all sounds unlikely, unrealistic and scripted

Going forward, the only thing I see you contributing to the cause of 7/7 Truth is more twaddle about a 'Satanic' New World Order which will assist the establishment in depicting 7/7 Sceptics as being credulous believers and not rigorous sceptics

And maybe at some point you'll shave your legs and claim to be God

Which isn't much of a contribution at all

Sorry I missed you last Saturday. I'll try and catch up with you another time. I'll be the one not clapping, waiting to ask questions





paul said...

In a time of universal covert policing, talking bollocks is a reactionary act.

Tony Farrell said...

Dear Stef,

This is Tony Farrell. I was disappointed that you were not there on Saturday as I was looking forward to meeting you.

That said it was a useful for me to meet Tom Secker and Bridgette Dunne at the event. I understand from Bridgette that she considers the employment case that I am in more of a hinderance than a help to getting to the truth. Obviously that is an arguable point of view.

Unexpectedly, I was put on the spot on the evening to say a few words. I spoke briefly and paid compliments to Tom's film & the J7Truth website.

I note your comments continue to be somewhat hostile. You are entitled to say ad think what you like about me but I have no intention of retaliating or defending my position within this blog.

If our paths do ever cross in the future, please introduce yourself as I'd be quite happy to chat and hopefully clarify the misunderstandings you appear to have about my motives.

Kind Regards

Tony Farrell

Anonymous said...

Farrell, Bridget Dunne, Tony Gosling, Charlie Veitch, Annie Mahon - so many shills lurking in the 'truth movement', the sooner people forget these agents and think and research for themselves, the quicker we'll get to the bottom of the 7/7 hoax. What is blindingly obvious is most of those who apparently 'died' on July Seventh were never real people in the first place. This can of worms leads directly to the perps and is the main reason the gatekeepers mentioned above will never touch upon the subject.

Anonymous said...

@Mr Tony Farrell:

What - aside from your own personal grievances with your 'former' employer, and beliefs in the invisible man (that isn't) in the sky Vs his (non-existent) opposite number - do you profess to bring to the search for the truth about 7/7?

Bridget said...

Hi Tony

How odd that you claim to have been looking forward to meeting Stef yet totally avoided me all afternoon and evening. If I hadn't collared you on my way out we would never have spoken.

Being introduced as a hero of 7/7 by Belinda McKenzie and allowed to hijack the question and answer session for myself and Tom was entirely spontaneous & unplanned I presume? To then be given the floor to challenge Tom on '7/7 RE was likely due to probability' or some such nonsense wasn't exactly my idea of a compliment.

It appears that you will use every forum and platform to gain support, publicity and financial donations - but for what? How do you help 7/7 truth?

Messiahs, martyrs and now heroes - what next?

Oh and Anonymous what makes you think that I am a real person?

Bridget said...

@ Paul - genius :)

KingofWelshNoir said...

Hi Mr Farrell

I'd love to believe you but I find the notion that you took your doubts about 9/11 to your priest and he suggested that maybe 7/7 was dodgy too, is laughable. And so is the alleged reaction of Detective Superintendent, the Director of Intelligence for the South Yorkshire Police when you told him of your suspicions. (As reported on Veterans Today )

‘Tony, you and I will never get them to tell the truth’, came the philosophical reply, ‘- we are mere foot-soldiers of the government.’

So you want us to believe the Director of Intelligence for the South Yorkshire Police is a covert Troofer too?

Not even remotely credible.

paul said...

So you want us to believe the Director of Intelligence for the South Yorkshire Police is a covert Troofer too?

and obviously a wistful, lyric one at that...that must how you get to the top theses days

paul said...

Dear Tony,
Stick to trying to fuck up the kids, the grown ups don't have enough time for it.
I have no idea whether you are sincere or not but all I can be sure of is that you like talking about yourself a lot.
No harm in that... but this really isn't the place.
kind regards

Bridget said...

Is this the same DI that told Tony:

His work ‘could be helpful to the police service’

The Antagonist said...

There's lots of people's work that is "helpful to the police service", some of which is being exposed as we speak:

Police spies and corporate infiltrators – an interactive guide to what we know so far

Police spies unit 'crossed the line', says Lord Macdonald

Undercover police and the law: the men who weren't there

'The law', lying under oath, to paraphrase Bill Hicks, "It's irony at a base level, but I like it." Imagine what they get up to when not under any oath other than the one they pledge to the feudal monarch.

Police accused of allowing undercover officers to lie in court

Away From Keyboards and not-AFK too:

Police buy software to map suspects' digital movements

Tony Farrell said...

Dear All,

What Do I Bring To the Truth Movement?

Hey, I don't know, it's not for me to say really! Courage, honesty and an ongoing case of potential unfair dismissal because of a stance I made, I suppose.

Basically, because I did not believe the main threat to UK citizens comes from Islamic Extremism, I was not prepared to say it was, unless given proofs!No such proofs were given to me.

Last week in London, I was put on the spot to stand up at the front and say a few words.I felt slightly awkward about it. Nothing was planned beforehand however, I assure you! Honest!

I am sorry that the incident may have interrupted session's planned for others, but this wasn't my fault. If I'd have declined to say something when called to the front , it would have appeared a bit rude and embarassing. In a sense, I was damned if I did, damned if I didn't! I tried not to speak too much about my own case - frankly I didn't feel it was the right forum for that. I believe I did apologise to Bridgette afterwards when challenged on the matter. Absolutely, no offence was intended! What was I to do for the best?

Bridgette, honestly neither did I avoid you. Unfortunately, I missed many of the earlier sessions because I was up on the roof talking to other people about issues such as Hillsborough and the status of my employment tribunal case. Up until you got up to talk, I would not have recognised you as I had never seen your face before. I recognised Tom Secker's face and was keen to say hello to him and congratulate him on his new excellent but disturbing film.

On a personal note, I have just received the judges reasoning for dismissing my case for unfair dismissal (9th September 2011). I have 42 days to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London. If you want me to send you a copy of the judges reasoning I will gladly do so. I have nothing to hide! This case has some unusual features and I am trying to be as open and transparent as possible. I am currently without a legal team so I spent time picking the brains of Paul Warburton.

I believe I was right to make my stance at work. Conscience told me I could do no other. I had a right to appeal against the SYP decision to dismiss me. I exercised that right. In one sense it was a high risk strategy for me. I am perilously close to going under financially but I remain content in my own mind that I have stood up for what I believe in. Win or lose, I am at peace with myself for doing the right thing. There are no regrets. Yes I am bracing myself for the worst but still hoping for the best. I am still alive and still fighting. The alternative is to throw in the towel and walk away from all this. Doesn't the truth movement need some fighters? Are fighters like Muad Dib to be automatically condemned? He has paid a high price for standing for the truth.

I am not one for taking sides! I have not aligned myself with any one particular camp within the truth movement. I am my own boss so to speak. I am open and honest and will talk to people about my case if they are interested. I don't get easily offended!

So that said, please let me know if you would like me to forward you a copy of the judges reasoning. It only gives a partial picture of wha went on for the three days. It says nothing about the people who walked out of court in total disgust with proceedings for instance. You are free to comment on it in any way you see fit - no favours asked or expected!

Kind Regards

Tony Farrell

Bridget said...

Hi Tony

What Do I Bring To the Truth Movement?

If you had read people's comments here you would understand that the issue isn't about some 'truth movement' but rather '7/7 truth'. As you may or may not realise, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign does just that, campaigns for the truth of 7/7. We do this because the evidence for the official narrative is absent, we do it because we do not claim to know what precisely happened that day, we do this via research such as FOIs etc. and we also campaign for a fully independent public inquiry into 7/7.

What do you bring to 7/7 truth, as Stef and others here have asked? What evidence or information have you gleaned in your many years as an Intelligence Analyst? According to our conversation, precisely nothing.

Basically, because I did not believe the main threat to UK citizens comes from Islamic Extremism, I was not prepared to say it was, unless given proofs!No such proofs were given to me.

During the previous 9 years since the events of September 11th and the 5 years since July 7th, you had seen proof or evidence for a threat from Islamic Extremism to be able to produce your threat assessments?

Did you sign the OSA?

Doesn't the truth movement need some fighters? Are fighters like Muad Dib to be automatically condemned? He has paid a high price for standing for the truth.

Muad'dib has never fought for the truth, he has only ever sought to get people to believe his version of events (not even researched it himself, just cherry picked from the J7 website) in an attempt to further his kingly and self-prophesised messiahdom and pick up a few disciples and jedi warriors along the way.

I am not one for taking sides! I have not aligned myself with any one particular camp within the truth movement.

I was unaware that there were camps and sides - unless you mean those like J7 who are willing to campaign for the truth and others that think they already know it.

KingofWelshNoir said...

@ Bridget

Is this the same DI that told Tony:

His work ‘could be helpful to the police service’

Yes it is, but the spooky bit comes next, namely:

'DI remarked cryptically.'


I'm sorry MrFarrell, but I write fiction for a living and I have to tell you your script needs some work on it.

If indeed you had warned your boss that 7/7 had been ‘deliberately engineered to justify British PM Tony Blair standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush in the illegal was in Iraq' a more likely reaction would be:

A. He would think it was a wind-up.
B. He would think, no, no seriously, this is a wind-up, right?
C. He would think you were barking mad.

But according to you he said, in effect, Yeah I know but what can you do?

I don't know how he sleeps at night, I really don't.

Stef said...

Hello all,

I'll try and read through the comments and respond shortly but I have noticed a reference to 'Muad'dib' paying a high price for standing for the truth

In this instance 'Standing for the truth' would be a euphemism for 'attempting to nobble a jury without checking with the accused first'

and, in another one of those totally unscripted expressions of divine synchronicity which seem to cluster around 7/7 RE advocates, Muad'dib's hearing coincided beautifully with the conclusion of the 7/7 Inquest, drowning out sceptical coverage of the Inquest conclusion nicely

That would be an example of the hijacking of 7/7 'Truth' Bridget refers to above

Stef said...

and, I'm repeating myself for the upteenth time here...

Muad'dib claims to be The Messiah

In Matthew 7 & 24 Jesus warns specifically against false Messiahs and prophets *and* their works ('Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit')

Which means that any Christian sticking up for Maud'dib and his film either a) acknowledges that Tony is the Christ or b) is embracing the works of a false prophet

Stef said...

...and I've checked this false prophet thing out with a couple of practicing Muslims and they apparently have equally specific warnings about 'dajjals'

As a relevant aside I recommend Matthew 24 highly for those of a Millennial inclination. That's the chapter where Jesus says quite clearly that no-one, not even the Messiah, will know when the End Times are upon us...

'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father'

Stef said...

"Which means that any Christian sticking up for Maud'dib and his film either a) acknowledges that Tony is the Christ or b) is embracing the works of a false prophet"

that would be Tony Hill / Muad'dib

Tony Farrell said...

I am fighting a case of unfair dismissal! You are not!

Do you think I should just throw in the towel?

We have different objectives here!Bridget and others have researched the London Bombings in great detail. That is admirable!

Whatever you think of me, I am what I am but please you do not know the full facts of my case and you do not know the full circumstances of the stance. I am 3-0 down at half time, but does that mean I should give up?

No, If I lose my case, at least I intend to go down fighting! Some people are applauding me, some people are despising me for what I have done. If you don;t like me, you don;t like me! No worries!

If you wish to ridicule me and knock me at every turn, you are perfectly entitled to do so. Carry on regardless! There will be no retaliation from me!

But why not let's just see how things unfold eh?. This case is not lost yet, and I am no quitter! I am not done. I don't need your support and your critical comments are noted but they are not particularly helpful to me or my case.

I wish you well with your campaign, but I do not wish to engage in a blog that degenerates into defending every statement that can be picked out from my lengthy case.

Believe whatever you want about me. I have offered to send you the judge's reasoning on the case. That was a reasonable offer. If you have no interest in that, that's fine.

However, I have no FURTHER intention of using a blog site which is so openly hostile in its tone towards me. Neither will I trade insults.

Kind Regards


Tony Farrell said...

Hi Stef,
I am aware of Muad Dib's claims to be the Messiah! Equally, I am aware that David Shayler made similar claims.

I treat Muad Dib's search for the truth about London Bombings as a quite seperate issue! Muad Dib was to my mind wrongfully imprisoned. He made a very good film. It had different objectives.

Hey guys, do you want me to send you the judge's reasonings or not?

Stef said...

This Peter Power thing...

There's a wealth of material that has been dug up by J7 and presented by Tom Secker in his documentaries which identifies state infiltration and possible comnplicity in domestic Islamic extremism. Some of the characters and connections identified interface with the alleged 7/7 bombers

Both J7 and Tom Secker have documented that the British state has a history for this sort of thing dating back to The Troubles and way before

7/7 RE advocates, however, have very little time for this sort of facty approach and prefer instead to a) pick and choose which statements made by Peter Power about 7/7 are true and which are lies and then b) declare that Power recruited the alleged bombers as patsies for his exercise

The acid test for deciding when Power is telling the truth or not appears to be whether the statement in question fits in with 7/7 RE alternative narrative

This is what I like to refer to as cobblers, and uncorroborated cobblers at that

Ditto for the story of suicide bombers being shot a Canary Wharf

A completely uncorroborated piece of 'evidence' which cannot be traced back to an original source

As someone elsewhere has just said...

"When you are back up consider the possibility the "suicide bombers shot in Canary Wharf" rumour was deliberating started in order to introduce the suicide bomber meme. A person looking out of an office window in Canary Wharf could see an incident and reasonably report that some-one had been shot. But how on earth could they know it was a suicide bomber?"

Stef said...


I have no idea what kind of person you are and have no animosity to you personally

As far as your case is concerned, for the life of me, I cannot see how you have any chance of success pursuing the line you have taken

Instead of basing your stand on the flaws and contradictions in the Official 7/7 Narrative you appear to be fighting your case on the basis of easily discredited alternative narratives and religious belief in a 'Satanic' New World Order

I've listened to several of the interviews you have given in recent months and, to be honest, one of the things that struck me about what you were saying is how little depth of knowledge you displayed about 7/7. It really did sound like your understanding of 7/7 was limited to 7/7 RE and little else

And you chucked in your job for that?!

Speaking as someone who is extremely sceptical of the Official 7/7 Narrative I can shoot holes all day in the positions you have taken and statements you have made. Someone who is employed professionally to support Official Narratives could really go to town

And, whether you are aware of it or not, your case is being used to promote an alternative narrative which some of us 7/7 sceptics know to be flawed and an impediment to spreading greater awareness of sins and omissions of the Official 7/7 Narrative

Tony Farrell said...

Hi Stef,

Thank you for that. I think I understand a bit better where you might be coming from now.

For you to understand, just exactly how I got myself in the position I did on 6th/7th/8th July 2010 and my thought processes that led me to make such a stand would take a great deal of explaining. I can't do justice to that process on a blogging site!

I would gladly come down to London to meet with you and Bridget and walk you through the decision making processes I have taken and explain the processes of coming up with a threat assessment model warts and all.

I can well imagine from where you are sitting that you think I've come at this back to front, but I can explain what I did and why I think the way I do.

The dominant thinking for me at the time I made the stance was that I must not tell a lie. My focus had not been on 7/7 but something entirely different. That would take some considerable explaining.

What you may not realise was that this was the first time we were doing a threat assessment in SYP.In previous year's I had produced a Strategic Assessment which was a different product altogether. NIM and the intelliegnce analysis process is far from perfect! The theory often differs from practice.

I am not particularly proud of the fact that as a Principal Intelligence Analyst, I was not even alert to the inaccuracies in the Home Office account of the London Bombings until shortly before I made the stance. Again I say though, you need to understand what happened to me in the months and days leading up to the stance.



Bridget said...


A copy of the judge's report would be welcome - I know gyges has requested this before. You can send it to the J7 fastmail if you like.

Tony Farrell said...


I don't necessarily share the view that the case is lost!

The way the case has unfolded means that my religious and philosophical beliefs are now completely irrelevant.

Basically it is a statement of fact that it was not the religious/philosophical component parts of my beliefs that got me the sack. They were not the blockage which prevented me from handing over the assignment.

It is a fact that the blockage came the moment I could nolonger believe in the government narratives on 7/7 and 9/11. Such beliefs were sufficient to undermine my previous assumptions about the threat.

So without proofs which I asked for, I was not prepared to put my name to a statement which said the threat came from Islamic Extremism. To my mind, that was not an unreasonable position to hold in the circumstances! You really need to see how this case has turned! Ian R Crane and Dr Rory Ridley Duff who were present at the hearing which was packed full of supporters feel the door is now wide open to appeal.

It might still become a useful opportunity to allow data analysis to be presented to court and to call expert witnesses to support my position that the government narratives were unreliable. Yes I made inferences that they were inside jobs, but they were inferencences and not forwarded as facts. That's what we were trained to do! They reflected my conceptual models of threat.

All that deeper philosophical stuff about the NWO etc has been deemed as irrelevant to the decision to sack me! Ultimately that could be very advantageous! Don't think that the Judges write up of the earlie PHR was an accurate reflection of events in court. The Judge only wrote down things that would essentially support his decision.

Basically, despite my pleas, my employers would not allow me to challenge the government narrative concerning the threat from terrorism despite the holes in the offical versions of 9/11 and 7/7. I had to accept the assumptions as unvarnished truth. My conscience would not allow me to do that!


paul said...

My conscience would not allow me to do that!
Well what are you complaining about?

You, by your own, almost perfectless lights, have done the right thing.

Its an old saw, but a true one, that visionaries are rarely welcomed in their own lifetime.

Personally, anyone who allies themselves with the clown car, running interference of the ripple effect mob, is not a person to be taken seriously.

What you choose to interpret as hostility is merely healthy derision.

paul said...

...and please stop telling us how honest, brave and true you are.

You could be the greatest wanker in the world, for all I care, if you actually contributed anything more than the right to believe stuff on the internet.

I tend to think that would set a terrible precedent.

paul said...


I forgot to add the 'kind regards' though I resisted the more robust 'fuck you'

</ channels charles dickens and has a greater appreciation of uriah heep />

Edo said...

Tony, would you also like to share a copy of your employment contract?

gyg3s said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gyg3s said...

^trivial error, so re-posted with correction.

Hi Tony

"A copy of the judge's report would be welcome - I know gyges has requested this before. You can send it to the J7 fastmail if you like."

This has been posted on the J7 forum (here); could you also post your statements of case from each of your hearings?

Maybe I'll buy you a pint the next time you're in the Tankersley Manor.

slowsmile said...

Just thought I'd come back to this - would appear that the time for TF to appeal against the Sept Tribunal decision passed a couple of weeks ago;


No sight nor sound of any news about this anywhere on the interwebs.

From pin-up boy of the conspiraloons to nowhere to be seen in 2 months. Who'd have thought it?

Tony Farrell said...

Dear Slowsmile,

Fear not! Be assured I'm not done yet!

My case sits in the Employment Appeal Tribunal where the legal argument will hopefully shift to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The ball is CURRENTLY in the EAT court and I have no intention of throwing in the towel.

If you are genuinely interested on the progress of the case, then you can always watch this recent talk in Manchester, but other stuff will be out shortly in time for the EAT in London.

Tony Farrell