Filmed during peak austerity in London, the most expense and polarized city in the world.  It's a city in the future, I explore in the new emerging cultures from this new multicultural civilization.

 The term domestic extremist is so often associated with Islamic extremism. In this series of films, I look at the other extremist ideologies as I follow London's revolutionary Radical Left and Anarchists groups their influence and possible threats to British democracy.

 At what point can our actions be classed as Domestic Extremism and how do those strategies impact our freedoms and way of life? In this film, I look how the government defines domestic extremism and in a world of ever-increasing surveillance, I want to understand which is the bigger threat to the British public, extremism or a government with unprecedented powers of control?

The film story offers fresh insight into immigration, London's housing crisis, tax avoiding companies, the UN investigation of welfare cuts and exposes a mental health crisis.

In the film one of the Anarchist in the film Daniel Gardonyi, a Hungarian Anarchist was arrested during filming and he was charged with deportation via “Operation Nexus was established to target high-harm foreign national offenders.

Police and Home Office officials say Operation Nexus aims to maximise intelligence, information and worldwide links to improve how they deal with and respond to foreign nationals breaking the law. When someone is brought into a custody suite for a suspected crime, identity checks are run to find out everything they can about the person arrested.

The film captured an unreported story of the Conservative Government's hard-line approach to immigration via illegal deportations of EU nationals.

The government’s legal advice is that the planned legislation cannot adequately define its core issues of “nonviolent extremism” and “British values”; instead it risks bringing law-abiding people under unnecessary scrutiny.

A source close to the process said: “The bill is sinking without trace. They cannot get a working definition of extremism – lawyers are effectively saying it’s incompatible with issues like free speech.”

In May 2015, the newly formed Conservative Government announced proposals to introduce a new Extremism Bill aimed at addressing non-violent forms of extremism. Measures would have included new civil orders to ban extremist groups, restrict the behaviour of extremist individuals, and to close down premises used for extremist purposes. The Bill would also have provided Ofcom with powers to censor extremist content, and enable employers to conduct checks on employees for involvement in extremism.

The proposals proved controversial and the Bill did not materialise as expected. In October 2015 a new Counter-Extremism Strategy was published. This made further mention of the measures announced in the 2015 Queen’s Speech, but did not reveal when legislation might be expected. In May 2016 a Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech including a range of similar measures. However, no detailed proposals emerged.

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, which includes counter-extremism, has come to the fore of the agenda.

On 21 June 2017, the Queen’s Speech announced the establishment of a new Commission for Countering Extremism, as well as a review of counter-terrorism powers and a commitment to tackling online extremist content.

Counter-extremism will undoubtedly be a crucial issue for the new Parliament, which will face difficult questions about how to tackle this complex problem.

The future of policing?

The film shows the use of private mercenary company being used to police a recently evicted housing estate. The estate had become a no-go-zone and occupied by Anarchist and the focus of a radical left Housing Protest, designed to case as much damage to the property company and raise awareness of social cleansing.

In May 2015, the newly formed Conservative Government announced proposals to introduce a new Extremism Bill aimed at addressing non-violent forms of extremism. Measures would have included new civil orders to ban extremist groups, restrict the behaviour of extremist individuals, and to close down premises used for extremist purposes. The Bill would also have provided Ofcom with powers to censor extremist content, and enable employers to conduct checks on employees for involvement in extremism.

The proposals proved controversial and the Bill did not materialise as expected. In October 2015 a new Counter-Extremism Strategy was published. This made further mention of the measures announced in the 2015 Queen’s Speech, but did not reveal when legislation might be expected. In May 2016 a Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech including a range of similar measures. However, no detailed proposals emerged.

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, which includes counter-extremism, has come to the fore of the agenda.

On 21 June 2017, the Queen’s Speech announced the establishment of a new Commission for Countering Extremism, as well as a review of counter-terrorism powers and a commitment to tackling online extremist content.

Counter-extremism will undoubtedly be a crucial issue for the new Parliament, which will face difficult questions about how to tackle this complex problem.

Who Killed Tom Palmer?

The story shows Tom Palmer's last year before his death in 2106. As the leader of the Anarchist group ANAL (Automonymouse Nation of Anarchist Libertarians), London's most renowned Anarchist group, famed for occupying some of London's most famous royal Buildings.  Tom was an ardent anti-pedophilia activist and had waged war on Mi5 accusing them of covering up institutional pedophilia and information about Jimmy Savile. Using the alias agent Kingfisher, Tom was rumored to hold information that he believed made him a Targeted Individual by the British Government.

The government’s legal advice is that the planned legislation cannot adequately define its core issues of “nonviolent extremism” and “British values”; instead it risks bringing law-abiding people under unnecessary scrutiny.

A source close to the process said: “The bill is sinking without trace. They cannot get a working definition of extremism – lawyers are effectively saying it’s incompatible with issues like free speech.”

Initial thoughts 

In this video, John Humphries pushes Theresa May the then Home Secretary on the definitions of Extremism. Her inability to answer clearly means the British public will have to wait until October when the bill is released.

“We already have a wealth of laws to fight incitement to violence. Rather than making us safer, the counter-extremism bill would alienate, discriminate and divide our communities, all while curbing our freedom – a core British value that’s fundamental to our democracy and to the fight against those who want to destroy it.”

The bill reveals that the Government, in order to protect the public, the political will exists to change laws that infringe on our basic civil liberties.

Does it also reveal a flaw in the foundational principle of Liberal democracy, an inherent flaw that in order to protect society from anti-liberal ideologies itself must act illiberally, and therefore undermine its own core principles?

The Guardian reported in 2009 that there was no official or legal definition of domestic extremism.[8] However, they say that a "vague stab" at a working definition by senior officers is that domestic extremists are individuals or groups "that carry out criminal acts of direct action in furtherance of a campaign. These people and activities usually seek to prevent something from happening or to change legislation or domestic policy, but attempt to do so outside of the normal democratic process." The same article quotes activists criticising this definition as too loose, worded to give "police the licence to carry out widespread surveillance of whole organisations that are a legitimate part of the democratic process."[8]

The Independent described the definition as "a label for radical environmental activism – a sort of terrorism-lite." It quoted David Howarth, a former Liberal Democrats MP and law professor, who opposed what he saw as "an astonishing conflation of legitimate protest with terrorism".[9]

The government’s legal advice is that the planned legislation cannot adequately define its core issues of “nonviolent extremism” and “British values”; instead it risks bringing law-abiding people under unnecessary scrutiny.

A source close to the process said: “The bill is sinking without trace. They cannot get a working definition of extremism – lawyers are effectively saying it’s incompatible with issues like free speech.”

Top