Tax Rebellion

Are you committing a Criminal Offence every time you pay tax? The answer may surprise you!

I was fortunate enough the other day to chat in depth with Chris Coverdale. This is a man who has devoted many years of his life to raising awareness in the public domain of the crimes against humanity, genocide and acts of terrorism committed by our government since war was outlawed in 1928. Yes that’s right War was outlawed in 1928 when our government signed and ratified the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (the Kellogg Briand Pact) which means it is never legal or lawful or legitimate to fund or wage War.

In 1945 the British Government signed and ratified the United Nations Charter agreeing on behalf of the British people never to wage war; never to threaten or use force; never to harm or kill people because of their nationality; never to interfere in another nation’s affairs; to respect human rights; uphold and enforce the rule of law; settle all disputes peacefully and work together for the benefit of very nation, mankind and the planet.

So how is it then that the terms of these lawfully binding agreements appear never to be adhered to? the British Government has fought 28 illegal wars since 1945 resulting in the death of at least 6 million people. The answer is simple, the UK government never keeps its promises and routinely engages in unlawful wars.

The decision to go to war in Iraq was a hotly debated topic and the legal arguments continue today. Here is link to an article in which the legal issues are discussed by ‘legal experts’:

If we look at some of the rules of the Charter of the United Nations to see what exactly our government along with all other member states agreed to we can decide how well we are doing:

‘2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.’

‘2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’

’41 The Security Council may decide what measures, not involving the use of armed force, are to be employed to give effect to its decisions.’

So the legislation states that any decisions the security council makes should be based upon the non-use of force. So how then did they decide that the use of force was legitimate?

So, to be clear the Security Council did not authorise the use of force, they wanted Bush and Blair to wait until the weapons inspection was completed. Hanz Blix, the then head of the Weapons Inspectors has recently released a book in which he is quite clear that Bush should have faced war crimes and of course by extension that would include Blair, and indeed Jack Straw who actively encouraged other members of parliament to vote with the government to engage in a military operation against Iraq. Straw even said in his speech to parliament that he was aware that there was a risk that innocent civilians may be injured or killed as a result of the decision but encouraged others to vote with the governments proposal nonetheless. Blair and Bush rushed to war when it clearly was not necessary and more time appears to have been dedicated in speeches both in and out of parliament by both men to deride Saddam Hussein as a bad leader, a tyrannical dictator who abused his own people rather than establish a true predicate for engaging in an act of aggression against the country and the people of Iraq. The case for using violence against the people of Iraq was never made, Blair has stated on many occasions after the war, that he ‘had to make a difficult decision’ and that ‘he did the right thing’ and that ‘there was no third way’, and yet all that they had to do was to accede to the request by Blix to complete his inspection and he asked for ‘not weeks, not years, but months’ and they could then have considered their options after it was discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction! So contrary to Blair’s assertion that there was no third way, there clearly was, and that option was to wait. The intelligence picture had not changed but it seems a decision had already been made by Bush based more upon revenge for 9/11 than actual evidence of a real threat and Blair just followed in behind him.

So how did they get around the Security Council not supporting the use of force and in fact advising that they let the non violent weapons inspections continue? Tony Blair resorted to obtaining false legal advice from the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. His department searched around for a barrister to give an ‘opinion’ in favour of the war. They eventually found Christopher Greenwood QC and paid him a substantial fee to devise a legal argument in favour of war, he came up with a totally fabricated argument saying that the war had been authorised by UNSC resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, which were UNSC Resolutions related to the first Gulf War which Greenwood tried to pretend had been revived. They had not and they certainly provided no basis for the use of force and it is widely accepted by many that the arguments were both weak and would not have stood up in any court as being valid. Both Bush and Blair have been found guilty of War crimes in court proceedings in Malaysia, unfortunately Malaysia has no jurisdiction here in the UK or the US, but neither man can travel to Malaysia as they will be arrested.

What this tells us however is that the case against Bush and Blair is sound. Chris Coverdale spent many hours explaining the case against Blair to officers at Belgravia Police Station over a number of days. The allegation of crime was recorded by the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Unit at New Scotland Yard and then sent for advice to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) by the police. The case was allocated to a senior figure at the CPS. Eventually the CPS, headed by the DPP Keir Starmer, decided not to prosecute Britain’s leading political war criminals on the grounds that Chris and his team had not established sufficient ‘intent’. It seems to me that it is for the CPS to make the case and the jury in a court to decide whether the war crimes were committed with intent or were accidental, not for the witnesses who were reporting the crimes to the police. In addition, it also seems to me that the case should have gone ahead due to the extreme public interest, certainly pre-CPS I believe this is a case that the police would have considered appropriate for an immediate charge.


The issue of ‘intent’ is always difficult to prove because generally speaking a person who intends to commit a crime will never directly admit their intent even if caught red handed so such intent needs to be inferred from a persons actions, behaviour or inadvertent references. So if we look at Jack Straw for example, he said in parliament on 18th March 2003 ‘But as elected Members of Parliament, we all know that we will be judged not only on our intentions, but on the results, the consequences of our decisions…Yes of course there will be consequences if the House approves the Government’s motion. Our forces will almost certainly be involved in military action. Some may be killed; so too will innocent Iraqi civilians…I urge the House to vote with the Government tonight.’

So Jack Straw acknowledges that he is aware that British soldiers and Iraqi civilians will be killed, and yet he still urges other members of the House to vote to support an unjustified act of aggression against them. Hanz Blix, the leading Weapons Inspector’s request for more time to complete his inspection was ignored by Blair, Bush, Straw and many others who voted for this unjustified act of aggression against them. So despite the fact that no WMDs had been found at the time that Blair and Bush were beating the drums of war, Blair paid generously for a legal argument albeit a thin one to support his unjustified act of aggression, knowing full well that innocent Iraqi civilians would be killed and without the support of the UN security council who in fact were advocating that the non-violent option of weapons inspections continue. Intent can be inferred here by Blairs actions, there was a third way despite his denials. I would ask the reader to bear in mind that since the use of force was authorised, MP’s who voted for the war have caused the violent deaths of 1 million people, including 300,000 children; they have maimed and injured 2.5 million and have driven 4 million into exile and destitution

So the question for the reader is ‘Do you believe that Blair, Straw and all of the MPs that voted for this act of aggression are guilty of war crimes, i.e. Genocide and Crimes against Humanity ?

To answer this question let us first examine the definition of Genocide:

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the domestic law against genocide is contained in the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct ancillary to such an act.   This applies to acts committed in England or Wales or outside the UK by a UK national, resident or person subject to UK service jurisdiction.

For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

In light of the few things I mention above we can see that the intent is clear, however, I have only scratched the surface here and in light of the Chilcot enquiry and the remarks of Hanz Blix and others, the evidence against say the top 20 perpetrators is quite overwhelming and perhaps it is time to submit another updated crime report to the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Unit at New Scotland Yard. This is a piece of work that myself and Chris will be looking at in more detail in due course.

Genocide, a particularly horrific type of mass murder, takes place whenever a government or ruling group develops and implements a policy to destroy members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.   In law, waging aggressive war and killing people because of their nationality constitutes an act of genocide.

It is clear that genocide occurred in both Afghanistan and Iraq because the victims were killed by Coalition forces for the sole reason that they were members of the Iraqi and Afghan national groups.   Prior to the attacks, the victims lived peacefully in villages, towns and cities doing nothing to warrant a fatal attack.  To attack them on at least 100,000 separate occasions using modern sophisticated high-explosive weapons is a deliberate act of genocide as well as a crime against humanity.  Again if we think about intent again, when the consequences of the first couple of attacks tell leaders that civilians have been killed and and are going to continue to be killed with further attacks and then they engage in those further attacks, again this is evidence of intent.

Under international law the ONLY people using armed force lawfully in Iraq and Afghanistan are the Iraqi and Afghan citizens fighting to defend their country from invasion and occupation.   Every other person associated in any way with the conflicts is acting unlawfully, and if the killings satisfy the other elements of the crime then the perpetrator and their associates are guilty of genocide and can be charged under the law of England and Wales with a crime of ‘genocide’ or ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ under sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.   Describing the victims as ‘enemy’, ‘terrorists’, ‘insurgents’, ‘rebels’ ‘militants’ or ‘infidels’ is a propaganda ploy used by political leaders, journalists and the media to cover the fact that innocent people are being killed because of their nationality or because they own the rights to large quantities of oil. It makes no difference in court to plead that the victim was an enemy combatant.   If they were killed because of their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity then a crime of genocide has taken place. 

So back to my original question ‘Are you committing a Criminal Offence every time you pay tax?’ I stated that the answer might surprise you and the reason for this is that every time that you pay any tax whatsoever, the tax collected will be paid into the government’s ‘Consolidated Fund’ and from that fund a certain percentage will be allocated to The Ministry of Defence who will spend that money on weapons of all sorts, training and deploying young men and women to conflict zones and engaging in unlawful wars. In 2021/22 the UK spent £45.9 billion on defence and a further £16.5 billion was allocated to cover up to 2024/5:

If the reader determines in their own mind that the government is engaging in genocide and war crimes then by paying taxes to fund this activity you are engaging in ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’. Below is a link to a document that discusses this in more detail and I will also attach a few other documents that flesh out some of the issues I have discussed and provides template letters that can be used to send to appropriate tax collecting bodies. If you do not wish to engage in conduct ancillary to genocide then it is up to each of us to do our due diligence and think about setting up a local community cooperatives and conditional taxation trusts. I will provide links below to a document where these are explained. The conditional taxation trust is a mechanism by which we can withhold the tax we pay the government until such time as they desist from engaging in criminal activity, specifically illegal wars. So there is no chance that you will be sent to prison for non-payment of tax, because this is a lawful method by which we can withhold payment until the government and public authorities stop their criminal activity. Again I will provide a link to a blank conditional taxation trust form which you can use in this process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please reload

Please Wait
WordPress Cookie Notice by Real Cookie Banner