A city press release called the incident a 'mass casualty event'.

Ro (layer 4 cipher) spotted (as Or); 1st pic;

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15786349/Knifeman-stabs-woman-death-random-street-attack-terrified-bystanders-Barcelona.html

Anyone learning the ciphers, what else do you see?

911 22 (see telephone number on 3rd pic {background advert; remove the zeroes). ;)

Les Corts

L C

12 3

33 ;)

Les Corts translated (from Catalan) =

Courts
Regional Assembly
Spanish Parliament

Can't say more about this at this time, but may later, if it becomes possible to do so.

Myself and the only other codebreaker I've personally trained to my standards, have recently understood both the 22 and 44 references which often appear in output to mean SS (NAZI); progression as follows =

11 (the AA secret Society)
22
44
88 = Heil Hitler).
16 16

Flip 6 -> 9 =

19 19

SS ;)

Convert the 1 to a 7 per cipher system. Reverse, re-express =

777777777 777777777

Sum 9x7 = 63, reverse 36, re-express = 666

Satan Satan. ;)

This is the most troubling crack I have done in a very long time. More on this when/if possible.

Spanish TI's, stay on high alert for a major terrorist attack; possibly on your court system, regional assemblies, or main Parliament.

ps note also the TWO pharaohs in Les Corts

El

and

Ro.

I ASKED:

What is the case reference for the recent High Court decision declaring the Met Police freemason declaration policy lawful, and refusing leave to appeal the decision?

BRAVE AI REPLY =

The case reference is United Grand Lodge of England & ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 330 (Admin).

The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Chamberlain on 17 February 2026, refused permission for judicial review and interim relief, ruling that the Metropolitan Police’s requirement for officers to declare Freemason membership was lawful and proportionate. The court determined that the policy served the legitimate aim of maintaining and enhancing public trust in policing and was not discriminatory or unduly stigmatizing.

AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.

Here is the FULL High Court judgement;

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/united-grand-lodge-of-england-and-others-v-metropolitan-police-2/

Our first HERO;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Chamberlain

A proud moment for Scottish TI's reading (he's a Jock!).

What are the potential implications for other police forces?

The High Court's ruling in United Grand Lodge of England & ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 330 (Admin) is likely to have significant implications for other UK police forces, despite the policy currently being specific to the Metropolitan Police.

1. Policy Precedent and Potential Adoption
The judgment establishes that requiring officers to declare Freemasonry membership is lawful and proportionate for maintaining public trust, setting a strong legal precedent. While no other force has yet implemented a similar mandatory declaration policy, the ruling may encourage others to follow suit, particularly in light of:

Historical concerns about Freemasonry’s influence in policing, previously highlighted by the Home Affairs Committee (1998) and the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel.
Public and internal pressure for greater transparency, especially following culture reviews like the Casey Report into the Met.
2. Pressure for National Consistency
There is growing political and public discourse advocating for a uniform national approach. For example:

In January 2024, MP Tonia Antoniazzi proposed a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament to create a public register of police affiliations with secretive organisations across all forces.
The Metropolitan Police Federation has raised concerns about human rights and fairness, suggesting that if the Met’s policy stands, a national standard may be preferable to avoid a patchwork of rules.
3. Operational and Cultural Impact
Other forces may now feel compelled to:

Review internal vetting and declaration policies for all “declarable associations” (e.g., organisations with confidential membership or mutual support obligations).
Address perceptions of bias, as the court accepted evidence that even the perception of Freemason influence could undermine trust in investigations, promotions, and misconduct proceedings.
4. Legal and Human Rights Considerations
While the High Court found the Met’s policy to be a modest interference on private life, other forces may still face legal challenges if they adopt similar rules. The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) maintains that such policies are discriminatory and could deter recruitment, particularly from communities with strong Masonic traditions.

In summary, while the policy remains specific to the Met for now, the legal validation of its approach increases the likelihood of broader national reform, driven by demands for transparency and accountability in policing. The High Court's ruling in United Grand Lodge of England & ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 330 (Admin) is likely to have significant implications for other UK police forces, despite the policy currently being specific to the Metropolitan Police.

1. Policy Precedent and Potential Adoption
The judgment establishes that requiring officers to declare Freemasonry membership is lawful and proportionate for maintaining public trust, setting a strong legal precedent. While no other force has yet implemented a similar mandatory declaration policy, the ruling may encourage others to follow suit, particularly in light of:

Historical concerns about Freemasonry’s influence in policing, previously highlighted by the Home Affairs Committee (1998) and the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel.
Public and internal pressure for greater transparency, especially following culture reviews like the Casey Report into the Met.
2. Pressure for National Consistency
There is growing political and public discourse advocating for a uniform national approach. For example:

In January 2024, MP Tonia Antoniazzi proposed a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament to create a public register of police affiliations with secretive organisations across all forces.
The Metropolitan Police Federation has raised concerns about human rights and fairness, suggesting that if the Met’s policy stands, a national standard may be preferable to avoid a patchwork of rules.
3. Operational and Cultural Impact
Other forces may now feel compelled to:

Review internal vetting and declaration policies for all “declarable associations” (e.g., organisations with confidential membership or mutual support obligations).
Address perceptions of bias, as the court accepted evidence that even the perception of Freemason influence could undermine trust in investigations, promotions, and misconduct proceedings.
4. Legal and Human Rights Considerations
While the High Court found the Met’s policy to be a modest interference on private life, other forces may still face legal challenges if they adopt similar rules. The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) maintains that such policies are discriminatory and could deter recruitment, particularly from communities with strong Masonic traditions.

In summary, while the policy remains specific to the Met for now, the legal validation of its approach increases the likelihood of broader national reform, driven by demands for transparency and accountability in policing. The High Court's ruling in United Grand Lodge of England & ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 330 (Admin) is likely to have significant implications for other UK police forces, despite the policy currently being specific to the Metropolitan Police.

1. Policy Precedent and Potential Adoption
The judgment establishes that requiring officers to declare Freemasonry membership is lawful and proportionate for maintaining public trust, setting a strong legal precedent. While no other force has yet implemented a similar mandatory declaration policy, the ruling may encourage others to follow suit, particularly in light of:

Historical concerns about Freemasonry’s influence in policing, previously highlighted by the Home Affairs Committee (1998) and the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel.
Public and internal pressure for greater transparency, especially following culture reviews like the Casey Report into the Met.
2. Pressure for National Consistency
There is growing political and public discourse advocating for a uniform national approach. For example:

In January 2024, MP Tonia Antoniazzi proposed a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament to create a public register of police affiliations with secretive organisations across all forces.
The Metropolitan Police Federation has raised concerns about human rights and fairness, suggesting that if the Met’s policy stands, a national standard may be preferable to avoid a patchwork of rules.
3. Operational and Cultural Impact
Other forces may now feel compelled to:

Review internal vetting and declaration policies for all “declarable associations” (e.g., organisations with confidential membership or mutual support obligations).
Address perceptions of bias, as the court accepted evidence that even the perception of Freemason influence could undermine trust in investigations, promotions, and misconduct proceedings.
4. Legal and Human Rights Considerations
While the High Court found the Met’s policy to be a modest interference on private life, other forces may still face legal challenges if they adopt similar rules. The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) maintains that such policies are discriminatory and could deter recruitment, particularly from communities with strong Masonic traditions.

In summary, while the policy remains specific to the Met for now, the legal validation of its approach increases the likelihood of broader national reform, driven by demands for transparency and accountability in policing.

Additionally, the case is cited in the Industrial Cases Law Reports (ICLR) database under the reference IC.LR.4, though full access to this platform may require a subscription. The judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Chamberlain in the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, on 17 February 2026.

AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.