VHeadline commentarist Carlos Herrera writes: As a result of surfing the archives of VCrisis, I discovered an Editor’s Note published on November  2, 2004 ... the author of which is Aleksander Boyd himself. He is therefore responsible for the opinions expressed.

On November 2, the Editor’s Note in VCrisis, referred to above, openly states:

Yesterday I had a conversation with someone about Venezuela and its problems. Given the peculiar characteristics of our crisis, my interlocutor asked “what’s the solution then?” And I replied “when elected politicians treat one as an animal, how on earth can be expected that one behaves as a gentleman? The solution in my view is clear and simple: violence.

Later on in this note, the author once again advocates a violent resolution to the Venezuelan “crisis,” as he sees it:

The other question that daunts me is, how can democracy be protected from itself? What mechanisms has the layman to simply kick out of office pariahs such as Chavez? The answer is none, and since there is no democratic mechanisms in place, violence is the only recourse left.

Since it was impossible to recall Chavez democratically via the recall referendum, Boyd is now opting for the option of violence -- this could mean political assassinations ... such as that of Danilo Anderson, a coup d’etat as in April 2002 or a politically motivated lock out and oil industry sabotage as happened in December 2002-February 2003.

Whatever one of these options is being referred to, such penmanship is tantamount to terrorist activity, inciting people to violence and its attendant results of injuries and death.

Is it legal under British Law to use the Internet to such ends?

This is something that will have to be decided by the competent authorities, especially when it concerns a democratically elected and re-elected President and Head of State as is Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias.

Is it legal under British Law to call for the overthrow of a friendly, democratic government using terrorist incitement to a resultant bloody conclusion?

• These are questions that must be addressed, since Boyd is resident in London and must subsequently live under British legal jurisdiction.

Boyd has to realize that he is not in Venezuela ... where there has been a free-for-all in the gutter media for five years at least, all aimed at overthrowing the Chavez regime.

Boyd is not in Miami where Orlando Urdaneta called for the assassination of Chavez using “a rifle and a scope” by an Israeli hit squad. To all intents and purposes, Urdaneta appears to have gotten away with such terrorist declarations ... which is not surprising, since Florida Governor, Jeb Bush has allowed anti- Cuban and anti- Venezuelan terrorist groups to train in Homestead and in the Everglades.

However, Boyd is in London and the British authorities will most certainly frown upon such declarations and incitement to violence in another democracy ... especially when British Petroleum (BP) has large investments in Venezuela.

Assuming its responsibility to support democracy without resorting to lawlessness, VHeadline.com maintains that VCrisis and its Editor should be referred to the British Intelligence Services, Special Branch Police and the Home Office (Internal Affairs) for investigation ... and we will ensure that these authorities are notified.

There is enough terrorist activity in the world, without having another cell festering in at 50 Berners Street, London, W1P 3AD.

Photography: Santiago Padilla