A a free press, not controlled or restricted by government censorship in political or moral or religious or other matters, which unrestrainedly publishes news, books and provides media facilities, remains a fundamental right of us in a free democratic nation, doesn’t it?

Now, such journalistic freedom doesn’t come without a price unfortunately as it comes with “power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages “, as British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin famously decried Beaverbrook and Rothermere the rich press barons, of nearly ninety years ago. Mind you this was not in fact a denigration of a free press, as is often perpetrated, but was directed at those controlling it at a time when for personal reasons they wanted Baldwin ousted [his repost found favour with the public and he continued for another half dozen years as the most powerful politician in the UK, eh?].

Oh yes, our press is defined by that important aspect of lacking responsibility, whence they needn’t pull their punches, don’t have to compromise, never worry about being fair, can break confidences, don’t regret generating inconvenience, revel in causing embarrassment – but they do have to tell the truth, no less.

This means that journalists can write things that others can’t even dare to say, but that is not to suggest that the press is irresponsible or operates without standards or ethics – though it is a bone of contention whether or not they always adhere to their self-imposed control, isn’t it?

However our general laws, meaning those ones not specifically restricting the press as such, can prevent publication of certain stories, if they are affected by the likes of defamation laws, or non-disclosure agreements (which has recently hit the headlines in the UK) – so some would have it that the free-press in the UK is only ‘relatively’ free

That all being so, it is disturbing when the media allows their level of irresponsibility to rise to dangerous levels and heights which indeed not only threatens its own freedom, but the freedom that our democratic society enjoys and relies-on.

In that context it has been operating in such a crass way for nearly some twenty years and that results from their reckless ‘over-detailed-reporting’ of Islamist terrorist attacks and providing a unprecedented platform for extremists. One has to understand the single major fact about Jihadist terrorism, and that is that its ultimate objective is NOT really simply to kill a crowd of innocent men, women, and children, but it IS to create a climate of utter irrational fear over a whole population and more wherever possible. The more disgusting, the more debased, the more extreme, the more blood & guts, the more innocents, the more pregnant women, the more children, the more babes in arms, the more the devastation, the more spectacular, and the more vile the atrocity, the more that ISIS objective is achieved, isn’t it?

Well, you don’t have to be all that bright to see that the final objective can only be truly attained, if dreadful news of the atrocity travels far and wide, so that even those thousands of miles away, will be shit-scared and live their lives forever in abject fear.

Is it then that the worldwide media is so less bright, that they deliver throughout the globe exactly what the terrorists need for meeting their objective at absolutely no cost – substantial repetitive publication on expensive television channels, newspapers, magazines radio, and of course the devastatingly powerful invasive internet, of their image-grabbing carnages, would you say? No, perhaps not, you might think?

You see, the coverage sucks-in the hypnotised astounded public and as a result the media make a killing (pun intended) – but then of course they are also shit-scared and disgusted, but nevertheless spread fear and trepidation wherever they go and that reinforces the panic developing everywhere, so it becomes endemic. That situation is well worth dying for as far as the follow-on indoctrinated suicide bombers are concerned, isn’t it?

This fecklessness of the media and press towards Islamic terrorism probably emanates from the 9/11 mind-boggling aircraft impact destruction of the New York Twin Towers in the United States in 2001. That’s what brought home to those operations involved in news gathering and dissemination, just how attention-grabbing and so reputational and financial rewarding reporting of such atrocities could be, eh? So, they have unacceptably continued relentlessly, and moreover even eagerly await the certain next major killing event that will swell their coffers further, while being in denial that they themselves, without playing an active part, will actually have caused it– while they get away with it unpunished here in this life, but like the Jihadists, they will have to answer to their maker at the end, wouldn’t you say?

[9/11 was a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda (the pre-cursor of ISIS involving the hijacking and crashing of passenger jet airliners that killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage]

The latest example of newspaper and media mindless behaviour was perpetrated by the London Times last week when it announced with an air of some false triumph, that it had tracked-down an unrepentant traitorous British Jihadi bride to a teeming refugee camp of 39,000 people in Syria.

What though was the bloody purpose of this iconic national newspaper’s expensive quest, do you think? Was it to help this Country in its ongoing battle against the murderous ISIS jihadists in our midst, those who are determined to destroy our way of life in Britain, to undo our successful fight over past centuries for personal choice and freedom, to reinforce inequality and abuse of women, to rewrite our standards of decency, to remove democracy, and to bring death and destruction to every single one of us not of the Muslim faith, do you reason? Oh no, we think not, don’t we?

Oh yes, as prayed-for by the Times, it was a major media scoop that put the Times organisation in pole position in UK and overseas news bulletins, but it was all done with absolutely zero regard to the consequences, wasn’t it? Yep, and those consequences have been both the fillip to ISIS at a time of its lowest ebb, when the jihadist terror group faces the indignity of defeat in Syria and annihilation of their self-proclaimed “caliphate”, which recently ruled over nearly eight million people across Syria and Iraq, and that combined with the massive publicly for their cause, which is the life blood of their bloodthirsty quest to rule the World

Now, many amongst us might think that after nearly five years and overwhelming cost and dreadful loss of life, we now have the fight in the bag so the defeat of Islamic terrorism is complete, eh? Well dream-on those people, because the ISIS terrorist threat is ongoing, and that is why the crass action of the Times and other media continues to put our community’s safety in continuing jeopardy.

There will be some twenty or thirty THOUSAND Jihadist fighters that travelled from other counties to facilitate ISIS atrocities ,who unfortunately have avoided death – they will remain the same ideological murderous maniacs as before capture, but now they will return to their own countries to seek further opportunities for terrorist attacks, or they will roam as bold attackers wherever there is weakness to exploit, as it did with great success before

The female the Times unearthed is one, 19-year-old Shamima Begum, who was heavily pregnant at that time but two days ago gave birth to a boy. She has said she wants to return to Britain, so has been given unwarranted media and political attention, with press and TV coverage, which has given her an unexpected and astoundingly important platform on the world stage to publicise jihadist support and as its poster girl to progress the ISIS cause. This inevitably resulted in sustained pressure from her family, ISIS fellow travellers, and the usual human rights do-gooders, to bring this evil woman and her baby back to the UK – so that they can be given free accommodation and live on benefits for life, to which not a penny has been contributed. Throughout we would spend a fortune and allocate untold security resources to monitor her activities to ‘try’ to prevent her [and later her son when grown-up] from undertaking terrorist attacks in Britain. We would not be able of course to prevent her from peddling Islamic hate and poisoning the minds of others who are off the radar, so would be better able to undertake murderous attacks on innocent men, women, and children. You see, she even now in trying to return here, believes that terrorist attacks by ISIS in the UK are perfectly justified as retaliation for destroying jihadists terrorists overseas

She is being portrayed of course as a ‘victim’ and ‘a very damaged young woman’, because she threw-in her lot with the enemy a few months before her 16^th birthday. You can be bloody-well certain that she is nothing of the kind, can’t you?

She was a streetwise young female who was motivated by Islamic jihadism and was desperate to escape from the straightjacket of the dull life of a woman in a devote Muslim family and religious community, so she craved the mind-blowing excitement of life and camaraderie in a far-off country war zone, which would probably not actually include using a weapon or fighting, nor participating in atrocities. She knew exactly what she was getting into, and that she was cruelly betraying the Country that had given safe haven to her extended family from Bangladesh. She understood exactly the full nature of the ISIL army she was heading for. She recognised that it would immediately involve marriage to a selected stranger, so that she could provide sexual comfort and children to a fighter, and that simply increased the attractive aura of it all, not least in the knowledge that being a jihadi bride gave her an important and powerful role (compared to being insignificant within her London environment).

Oh yes, even the Times itself accepts that ISIS bride Begum is no innocent but nevertheless insists that her place is in Britain [the Times’ banner line is ‘Britain’s most trusted national newspaper’ – doesn’t look that way, does it?]

Well, the Times and the rest of the crowd intent in bringing a dangerous terrorist lover back to the UK can get lost, because Home Secretary Sajid Javid has already blocked that by revoking her British Citizenship. That action was previously assumed to be unavailable, as the UK will not make someone ‘stateless’. However, because Begum as well as our citizenship automatically (and equally her son) has Bangladeshi citizenship, that restriction falls. [Those that are born to at least one Bangladeshi parent acquire its citizenship at birth]

Javid’s decision can of course can be fought in the UK courts (and doubtless will be), but overturning this would take many years

 [The only ISIS fighter repatriations that Britain needs are the ones that arrive in body bags]