The British ideology

The risk of external foes is significant to a sovereign state, the intimidation of citizens is a risk for legitimacy in proposals. The poisoning of citizens is not an act of war, but a goal of terrorists or criminal ideologies. Secret servants are local and react to universal principles that support this position, the demagogue has no legitimacy if these rules are broken. I suggest institutions form in similar ways and for similar purposes. The threat comes form added interpretation.

The events in Britain seem a risk to democracy in the media, a threat to fairness in society and has murdered members of security and former ideological foes. This creates an adversarial tilt to these events, and criminals may be taking advantage. The society is less about principle in daily life and more about ideology, the threat is to home cadres and party sympathisers. The future lies in institutional identities and political isolation. The point is to rule against this kind of power and illustrate the  principle of justice.

But while meaningful democracies support this kind of inquisition, other more bruised identities have  a realistic agenda based on war and home divisions. Britain must not step out of line and old rivalries can obscure this clarity.  The principle of goal and net not system and right. The human rights Russia has advocated in Ukraine are not infringed by the murder of UK victims. The British ideology is insistent that these rights are not accepted.

Britain is a small force and territorially the smallest it has been since the early societies. It has its own concerns like former roles and powers to angry neighbours. No longer a member of the EU, it seems immediate conflict with Russia has occurred. In fact Julius Caesar is an opportunity, Russia may have taken advantage. The British are waiting for the evidence and the record of the government is outstanding in this area.