Murder In Dover: The Western Jet Foil incident – its place in a process of criminalisation of reasonable opposition to UK Government; Part One

Andrew Leak’s opposition to UK Government’s kid glove handling of all-too-evident mass and uncontrolled immigration, and also what he perceived to be UK Government’s preferential treatment of some people with immigrant ancestry or who were recently immigrated, could be said to range from conventional to whipped-up by agent provocateurs and ignorant. There was nothing in it, at least as it could be discerned by the author in a presentation of his longer term social media history by Hope Not Hate (and in other corporate-media places), that could be said to be dangerous or threatening. This was the good reason, we might suppose, for why police could not for a few days after the “firebomb attack” at the Dover Western Jet Foil centre, attributed to Leak, certify him a terrorist for it.

And then on Wednesday 2nd November, 2022, three days after the incident, The Guardian published this:

Andrew Leak said he planned to “obliterate Muslim children” an hour before his firebomb attack in Dover, it has been revealed, amid continuing questions about why it took police so long to treat the incident as terrorism.

The actual tweet, which read (in all its illiteracy), “Your children will feel the pain we will obliterate them Muslim children are now our target And there disgusting women will be targeted mothers and sisters Is burn alive [sic]”, was called his final one, and – in terms of being significant to understanding where it actually ultimately came from – its existence was revealed as being part of an archive salvaged after being deleted by “anti-fascist charity Hope Not Hate”. The same Guardian article stated that, not coincidentally, “on Tuesday, counter-terrorism police said they were now investigating the incident”.

The chain of events described here is not to be surprised at, because the necessary linkage between Leak’s political views and his (supposedly) carrying out an act of violence based on them – and therefore being a terrorist – was formed by the emergence of this screed. Indeed, such was its necessity in shaping the dimension of the incident that the author thinks that Leak never actually authored it. It would be, therefore, another element of the engineering whereby an individual – representing a huge swathe of the population he moved amongst – was made to appear as if the views he holds are dangerous; or, as that gang of most infamous “anti-fascists” put it:

HOPE not hate have long been warning that far-right rhetoric about asylum seekers and migrants will lead to violence and sadly this appears to be further proof of this. Andrew Leak may have acted alone but he had a long history of consuming far-right content and interacting with other extremists.

Importantly, his attack came at a time when demonisation and scapegoating of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees by the far right, government and elements within the media, is contributing to a toxic and dangerous climate. This rhetoric shapes hostile public opinion and encourages the far right at a time when violent extremism is at a high.

To cover what goes on here, then, is to cover old ground at FBEL – and much is to be said (in a second part of this article) about guilt by association with agitators on UK Government’s payroll. In this part, however, and to start, we will look at the central, underpinning way that Leak’s unremarkable politics were transformed into extremism so that he became a figure hated himself, undeserving of advocacy, it appears, to ask questions about the suspicious manner of his death.

On the 5th November, the BBC published an article that provided a most important explainer:

Tim Jacques, senior national co-ordinator for counter terrorism policing, said: “After considering the evidence collected so far, whilst there are strong indications that mental health was likely a factor, I am satisfied that the suspect’s actions were primarily driven by an extremist ideology.

“This meets the threshold for a terrorist incident.”

Ahead of that paragraph, the article led with a summary:

“The firebombing of an immigration processing centre was motivated by extreme right-wing terrorist ideology, police have said.”

All was then revealed. The “extremist ideology”, therefore, was what we might call “far-rightism”. If this classification of fanaticism is new to the reader, let there be no surprise as it is a fiction that it is still in the stages of being invented, just as this site continues to warn, in order to intimidate a huge number of people with the prospect of being criminalised for holding a wholly legitimate political stance. Any casual reading of material produced by Hope Not Hate, for instance, teaches that an aspect of “far-rightism” is the quite unradical position of being opposed to immigration, and while “far-rightist terror” is another thing again (as we will see), that we are at the thin edge of a wedge in the imposition of a comply-or-be-marginalised/penalised state ideology is all too clear.

Without going into the details regarding the UK Government’s definition of terror (which is not a single thing, and because the process would involve eliminating certain conditions and providing explanation), it is simplest to say that Andrew Leak could be called a “terrorist” because, i) he attempted to influence the government, or intimidate a “section of the public” (where the public nominally selects the government, this could amount to the same thing), ii) he looked to advance his “far-rightist” cause, and iii) he risked the health and safety of a “section of the public”.

It has to be pointed out that the third condition is the most relevant option from a list (in the broader definition of “terrorism” given in the 2006 act of the same name) of several types of damage that could have been done, none of which could be said to apply in this case. Indeed, in reality Leak, with his two tiny fires at perimeter walls (allegedly), did not pose any kind of risk at all: the appearance of danger was created in the reaction by the administrators of the centre, who evidently had the place evacuated (“afterwards, 700 people were moved to Manston asylum processing centre near Ramsgate for safety reasons”, as The Mirror reported).

Besides this overlooked disqualification of Leak as a terrorist, there is another problem in the same respect, which is establishing Leak as a terrorist based on his ideological motivation. This appears primarily to have been done by showing the online company he kept: guilt, therefore, by association (as mentioned before, explanation of this will feature in Part Two).

However, the problem should not be so easily solved, because – as it should readily occur to anyone who is able to think about it – it is possible to commit a crime of violence with no reference to any incriminating ideology one might hold. While the latter could be said, in this case, to be strong circumstantial evidence regarding the motivation to execute the former, that is all it would be.

Moreover, if Leak had still been alive after his so-called crime, and had been able to speak at a trial, he could have denied that he moved according to any ideology, nor indeed that he even had one. It would then be down to the prosecution to prove both cases. That “far-rightism” is the wrapping up of quite sensible opinions into a pretence of criminality, it is a phenomenon merely waiting to be unpicked in a proper, real trial. Therefore, it may be surmised that this would have been a wholly undesirable outcome for those who would see the Leak case an opportunity to make an example.

What we arrive at in these deliberations, then, are the reasons that i) Leak could not remain alive, and ii) why a statement of intent to commit violence, attributed to Leak, was discovered at a later date – and it’s incredibly important that these ideas are clear. The fact of the incident as a terror attack relies primarily on Leak’s supposed admission in his tweet (so-called) which indicated his “far-rightism” (expressed as hatred of Muslims, which is stronger than stating opposition to immigration) had a direct relation with a threatened course of violence.

As previously stated, without this statement of intent, Leak’s ideology, asserted without his being able to defend himself against the charge, could only be circumstantial – and not enough evidence given that Leak’s politics – like hundreds of thousands of other people’s – were generally unextraordinary (not the same thing as not ignorant, or not misled).

For instance, the following are two “now-deleted” Facebook postings attributed to Leak presented in the Mirror piece linked to above. The first is presented, it seems, with the astonishing expectation that we should be appalled that someone should think that a benefits claimant should meet qualifying criteria:

The next time the job centre sanctions your money for not looking for enough work ask them about the thousands of people getting benefits cannot speak English and can not write English, how are they looking for work?

The second reflects the way that people like Leak have been misled by agitators on the Government payroll – all part of generating prospective guilt by association with tarnished media characters – but it still doesn’t promote, incite or announce acts of violence:

All Muslims are guilty of grooming, they never spoke out because it wasn’t their daughters, f****** animals wake up.

As such – with all these things being the circumstances whereby the Western Jet Foil centre incident could be called an act of terrorism – there is nothing to dissuade the author that Leak was not murdered by the people who put him up to his participation in their scheme – the same people who planted Leak’s ultimately incriminating statement of intent.

And further about that, not only was it uncharacteristic, but it bore no relevance to what Leak was supposedly about to do (at least as the story goes) when it was composed in the hour prior to the incident. It is universally agreed† that small boat illegal migrants are military aged males, and this is perceived amongst critics to be the unusually peculiar problem with the phenomenon. How did Leak, therefore, expect to be burning “mothers and sisters” alive by attacking this place in Dover? Given that there is absolutely no reference in his so-called last social media post to what Leak was supposedly about to do, and given that it was so immediately prior to the act (including suicide) that he was about to commit (allegedly), it is completely surprising that it bears no relevance whatsoever. In fact, the communication is so unhinged and so irrelevant that it should be suspected of being written to show Leak in the worst possible light. It was part of the frame-up.

† Migration Watch UK: 75% of small boat migrant 2018 to (mid) 2021 were 18-39 years old, 87% male. Please note that UK Government lately admits that “from May to September 2022 Albanian nationals alone comprised 42% of small boat crossings”, and read the FBEL article, Happy Accident? Possible Redeployment Of Terror Assets (The Continuation Of); Launch Of “Anti-Terror Super Squad”