Lawful Rebellion

The Name Game

2010-05-24T02:54:00.002+01:00

An interview with Irene Gravenhorst, regarding the deception of the all capitals name, which is issued by the Government

Iceland knows how to deal with the Banksters

2010-05-12T23:20:00.000+01:00

12th May 2010

Bankers jailed, sued as Iceland

seeks culprits for crisis

More than a year and a half after Iceland's major banks failed, all but sinking the country's economy, police have begun rounding up a number of top bankers while other former executives and owners face a two-billion-dollar lawsuit.

Since Iceland's three largest banks -- Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir -- collapsed in late 2008, their former executives and owners have largely been living untroubled lives abroad.

But the publication last month of a parliamentary inquiry into the island nation's profound financial and economic crisis signaled a turning of the tide, laying much of the blame for the downfall on the former bank heads who had taken "inappropriate loans from the banks" they worked for.

On Wednesday, the administrators of Glitnir's liquidation announced they had filed a two-billion-dollar (1.6-billion-euro) lawsuit in a New York court against former large shareholders and executives for alleged fraud.

"I think this lawsuit is without precedence in Iceland," Steinunn Gudbjartsdottir, who chairs Glitnir's so-called winding-up board, told reporters in Reykjavik.

"It is about higher figures than we have ever seen," she said, adding that she expected Glitnir to file more lawsuits going forward, but that "it is unlikely any will be this big."

Glitnir said it was suing "Jon Asgeir Johannesson, formerly its principal shareholder, Larus Welding, previously Glitnir's chief executive, Thorstein Jonsson, its former chairman and other former directors, shareholders and third parties associates with Johannesson for fraudulently and unlawfully draining more than two billion dollars out of the bank."

The bank also said it was "taking action against its former auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for facilitating and helping to conceal the fraudulent transactions engineered by Johannesson and his associates, which ultimately led to the bank's collapse in October 2008."

Glitnir's suit, filed in the New York state Supreme Court on Tuesday, blamed most of the bank's woes on "Johannesson and his co-conspirators," who had "conspired to systematically loot Glitnir Bank in order to prop up their own failing companies."

Johannesson, the former owner of the now-defunct Baugur investment group with stakes in a number of British high street stores including Hamleys, Debenhams and House of Fraser, said he was shocked by the lawsuit.

"The distortions and the nonsense in the lawsuit are incredible," he told the Pressan news website.

Glitnir's administrators "can get a 10-year-prison sentence for misusing US courts in this manner," he insisted.

The bank's chief administrator Gudbjartsdottir took his comments in stride.

"I didn't expect him to be happy with the lawsuit," she said.

In addition to its New York suit, Glitnir said it had "secured a freezing order from the High Court in London against Jon Asgeir Johannesson's worldwide assets, including two apartments in Manhattan's exclusive Gramercy Park neighbourhood for which he paid approximately 25 million dollars."

Gudbjartsdottir said Johannesson had just 48 hours to come up with a satisfactory list of his assets.

"If he does not give the right information he faces a jail sentence," she said.

Four former Kaupthing executives, who all live in Luxembourg, have meanwhile been arrested in Iceland in the past week and Interpol has issued an international arrest warrant for that bank's ex-chairman, Sigurdur Einarsson.

Former head of the bank's domestic operations, Ingolfur Helgason, and former chief risk officer Steingrimur Karason were arrested late Monday on arrival from Luxembourg, just days after former Kaupthing boss Hreidar Mar Sigurdsson, along with Magnus Gudmunsson, who headed the bank's unit in Luxembourg, were taken into custody.

The 49-year-old Einarsson, who lives in London, said late Tuesday he had no plans to travel to Iceland to be arrested.

"I'm absolutely flabbergasted about the latest news," he told the Frettabladid daily.

"There is in my opinion no need for the arrests or custody rulings, and I will not of my own free will take part in the play that it appears is being staged to soothe the Icelandic people," he said.

"I'll put the human rights I enjoy here in Britain to the test and will not therefore come home (to Iceland) to these conditions without being forced," he added.

Article courtesy of Breitbart and AFP

Death of the Internet: Unprecedented Censorship Bill passes in UK

2010-04-09T12:49:00.002+01:00

by Steve Watson
8th April 2010

“Wash-up” process used to rush through draconian

legislation as a pitiful handful of MPs attend debate

A draconian Internet censorship bill that has been long looming on the horizon finally passed the house of commons in the UK yesterday, legislating for government powers to restrict and filter any website that is deemed to be undesirable for public consumption.

The “Digital Economy Bill” was rushed through parliament in a late night session last night after a third reading.

In the wake of the announcement of a general election on May 6, the government has taken advantage of what is known as the “wash-up process”, allowing the legislative process to be speeded up between an election being called and Parliament being dissolved.

Only a pitiful handful of MPs (pictured above) were present to debate the bill, which was fully supported by the “opposition” Conservative party, and passed by 189 votes to 47 keeping the majority of its original clauses intact.

The bill will now go back to the House of Lords, where it originated, for a final formal approval.

The government removed a proposal in clause 18 of the bill, which openly stated that it could block any website, however it was replaced with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill which essentially legislates for the same powers.

The new clause allows the unelected secretary of state for business, currently Lord Mandelson, to order the blocking of “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”.

Opposing MPs argued that the clause was too broad and open ended, arguing that the phrase “likely to be used” could be used to block websites without them ever having been used for “activity that infringes copyright”. Other MPs argued that under the bill, whistleblower websites, such as Wikileaks, could be targeted.

The legislation will also allow the Home Secretary to place “a technical obligation on internet service providers” to block whichever sites it wishes.

Under clause 11 of the proposed legislation “technical obligation” is defined as follows:

A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.

A “technical measure” is a measure that — (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

In other words, the government will have the power to force ISPs to downgrade and even block your internet access to certain websites or altogether if it wishes.

The legislation is part of an amplified effort by the government to seize more power over the internet and those who use it.

For months now unelected “Secretary of State” Lord Mandelson has overseen government efforts to challenge the independence of the of UK’s internet infrastructure.

The Digital Economy Bill will also see users’ broadband access cut off indefinitely, in addition to a fine of up to £50,000 without evidence or trial, if they download copyrighted music and films. The plan has been identified as “potentially illegal” by experts.

The legislation would impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined £250,000.

As Journalist and copyright law expert Cory Doctrow has noted, the bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes, without Parliamentary oversight or debate.

This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites.

Mandelson and his successors will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any digital transgression he deems Britons to be guilty of.

Despite being named the Digital Economy Bill, the legislation contains nothing that will actually stimulate the economy and is largely based on shifting control over the internet into government hands, allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to arbitrarily hide information from the public should they wish to do so.

Mandelson began the onslaught on the free internet in the UK after spending a luxury two week holiday at Nat Rothschild’s Corfu mansion with multi-millionaire record company executive David Geffen.

Over 20,000 members of the public have written to their MPs in the last week to lobby against the bill being rushed through, however, their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and the government has been allowed to deal a devastating blow to the last real vestige of free speech in this country.

The Wider Agenda Of Internet Control

The Digital Economy Bill is intrinsically linked to long term plans by the UK government to carry out an unprecedented extension of state powers by claiming the authority to monitor all emails, phone calls and internet activity nationwide.

IN 2008, the government announced its intention to create a massive central database, gathering details on every text sent, e-mail sent, phone call made and website visited by everyone in the UK.

The programme, known as the “Interception Modernisation Programme”, would allow spy chiefs at GCHQ, the government’s secret eavesdropping agency, the centre for Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) activities (pictured above), to effectively place a “live tap” on every electronic communication in Britain in the name of preventing terrorism.

Following outcry over the announcement, the government suggested that it was scaling down the plans, with then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stating that there were “absolutely no plans for a single central store” of communications data.

However, as the “climbdown” was celebrated by civil liberties advocates and the plan was “replaced” by new laws requiring ISPs to store details of emails and internet telephony for just 12 months, fresh details emerged indicating the government was implementing a big brother spy system that far outstrips the original public announcement.

The London Times published leaked details of a secret mass internet surveillance project known as “Mastering the Internet” (MTI).

Costing hundreds of millions in public funds, the system is already being implemented by GCHQ with the aid of American defence giant Lockheed Martin and British IT firm Detica, which has close ties to the intelligence agencies.

A group of over 300 internet service providers and telecommunications firms has attempted to fight back over the radical plans, describing the proposals as an unwarranted invasion of people’s privacy.

Currently, any interception of a communication in Britain must be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or a minister of equivalent rank. Only individuals who are the subject of police or security service investigations may be subject to surveillance.

If the GCHQ’s MTI project is completed, black-box probes would be placed at critical traffic junctions with internet service providers and telephone companies, allowing eavesdroppers to instantly monitor the communications of every person in the country without the need for a warrant.

Even if you believe GCHQ’s denial that it has any plans to create a huge monitoring system, the current law under the RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) allows hundreds of government agencies access to the records of every internet provider in the country.

In publicly announced proposals to extend these powers, firms will be asked to collect and store even more vast amounts of data, including from social networking sites such as Facebook.

If the plans go ahead, every internet user will be given a unique ID code and all their data will be stored in one place. Government agencies such as the police and security services will have access to the data should they request it with respect to criminal or terrorist investigations.

This is clearly the next step in an incremental program to implement an already exposed full scale big brother spy system designed to completely obliterate privacy, a fundamental right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Death Of The Internet In Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.

Similar efforts to place restrictions on the internet are unfolding in Australia where the government is implementing a mandatory and wide-ranging internet filter modeled on that of the Communist Chinese government.

Australian communication minister Stephen Conroy said the government would be the final arbiter on what sites would be blacklisted under “refused classification.”

The official justification for the filter is to block child pornography, however, as the watchdog group Electronic Frontiers Australia has pointed out, the law will also allow the government to block any website it desires while the pornographers can relatively easily skirt around the filters.

Earlier this year, the Wikileaks website published a leaked secret list of sites slated to be blocked by Australia’s state-sponsored parental filter.

The list revealed that blacklisted sites included “online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.”

The filter will even block web-based games deemed unsuitable for anyone over the age of fifteen, according to the Australian government.

In neighbouring New Zealand, the government has quietly implemented an internet filter and is urging the leading ISPs in the country to adopt the measure, in a move that would give the authorities the power to restrict whichever websites they see fit.

The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) reportedly turned on the internet filter on February 1st without making any announcement, prompting critics to charge that the measure had been activated in stealth.

It was no coincidence that around the same time the government’s Internet filter went live, Infowars began receiving notification from readers in New Zealand that their access to Alex Jones’ flagship websites Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com had been suddenly blocked.

The broad attack on the free internet is not only restricted to the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

The European Union, Finland, Denmark, Germany and other countries in Europe have all proposed blocking or limiting access to the internet and using filters like those used in Iran, Syria, China, and other repressive regimes.

In 2008 in the U.S., The Motion Picture Association of America asked president Obama to introduce laws that would allow the federal government to effectively spy on the entire Internet, establishing a system where being accused of copyright infringement would result in loss of your Internet connection.

In 2009 the Cybersecurity Act was introduced, proposing to allow the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.

The legislation, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in April, gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.

During a hearing on the bill, Senator John Rockefeller betrayed the true intent behind the legislation when he stated, “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet,” while fearmongering about cyber attacks on the U.S. government and how the country could be shut down.

The Obama White House has also sought a private contractor to “crawl and archive” data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place online where the White House “maintains a presence” – for a period of up to eight years.

Obama has also proposed scaling back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites with “cookies” and other technologies.

Recent disclosures under the Freedom Of Information Act also reveal that the federal government has several contracts with social media outlets such as Youtube (Google), Facebook, Myspace and Flickr (Yahoo) that waive rules on monitoring users and permit companies to track visitors to government web sites for advertising purposes.

The U.S. military also has some $30 Billion invested in it’s own mastering the internet projects.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. All of the above represents stepping stones toward the realisation of that agenda.

The free internet is under attack the world over, only by exposing the true intentions of our governments to restrict the flow of data can we defeat such efforts and preserve what is left of the last vestige of independent information.

Article courtesy of Prison Planet

>>>> discuss this topic @ Prison Planet >>>>

We Are Change Vancouver - 2010 Winter Olympics: The Movie

2010-03-10T13:08:00.001Z

'For 14 days straight, they relentlessly bannered the CTV national Olympic newscast with 911 signs etc. They were punched at, pushed, shoved, sworn at and threatened by numerous delusional sheeple mesmerized by the Olympic fanfare, but they still prevailed with an unprecedented amount of coverage.'

Video courtesy of We Are Change Vancouver

The DNA of a Police State

2010-03-10T12:39:00.006Z

Gordon Brown wants to further expand
the Police State DNA Database in the UK

Gordon Brown makes another promise of expanding the UK's Police State DNA Database, whilst at the same time, retain over a million innocent people's DNA Profiles.

In the example he gives of how the DNA Database was useful, he says that a person was caught using the Database. In reality, as he said, the man was caught after an appeal on BBC Crimewatch, so was not caught by DNA, but by someone recognising a photo or description.

Videos courtesy of BBC, Sky News and Liar Politicians @YouTube

>>>> British Prime Minister Gordon Brown named as a Paedophile >>>>

Goldman Sucks

2010-03-10T12:05:00.007Z

This video is a visualization of Matt Taibbi's "Inside The Great American Bubble Machine"

It has been cut down slightly to fit the 10 minute time constraints of YouTube

Video courtesy of Back Burner News @YouTube

What a daft way to stop your Spaniel eating the Milkman

2010-03-08T20:59:00.003Z

by Jeremy Clarkson
7th March 2010

As we know, one man once got on one plane in a pair of exploding hiking boots and as a result everyone else in the entire world is now forced to strip naked at airports and hand over their toiletries to a man in a high-visibility jacket.

In other words, the behaviour of one man has skewed the concept of everyday life for everyone else. And we are seeing this all the time.

Last month a Birmingham couple pleaded guilty to starving their supposedly home-schooled daughter to death. Now, of course, there are calls for parents who choose to educate their children at home to be monitored on an hourly basis by people from the “care” industry, and possibly to have their toiletries confiscated.

Then we have calls to ban sexually provocative pop videos from the television until 9pm and put Loaded magazine on the top shelf. Will this prevent teenage boys from seeing girls’ breasts? Well, whoever thinks it will has plainly never heard of the internet.

We see the same sort of overreaction to paedophilia. Just because one man in your town likes to watch schoolgirls playing netball, you must apply for a licence if you wish to take a friend’s kids to school in the morning. And I now run the risk of having my camera impounded by the police if I take pictures of my children playing on the beach.

Likewise, if I decide to take a picture of St Paul’s Cathedral I will be hurled to the ground by anti-terrorist officers and possibly shot six times in the back of the head — just because one person in Bradford once made a speech about the infidel.

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that throughout history 90% of people have behaved quite normally 90% of the time. Agatha Christie, for instance, was home-schooled and at no point was she forced to eat breadcrumbs from her neighbour’s bird table.

Of course, at the extremes, you have 5% who are goodie-goodies and who become vicars, and 5% who build exploding hiking shoes and starve their children to death.

It’s this oddball 5% that is targeted by the tidal wave of legislation. But making it more difficult to teach your children at home will not stop kids being mistreated.

It just changes the pattern of everyday life for everyone else. This is what drives me mad.

We now think it’s normal behaviour to take off our clothes at an airport. But it isn’t. Nor is it normal to stand outside in the rain to have a cigarette or to do 30mph on a dual carriageway when it’s the middle of the night and everyone else is in bed. It’s stupid.

And last week the stupidity made yet another lunge into the fabric of society with the news that government ministers were considering new laws that would force everyone to take a test before they were allowed to keep a dog.

No, really. Because one dog once ate one child, some hopeless little twerp from the department of dogs had to think of something sincere to say on the steps of the coroner’s court. Inevitably, they will have argued that the current law is “not fit for purpose”, whatever that means, and that “steps must be taken to ensure this never happens again”.

The steps being considered mean that every dog owner in the land will have to fit their pet with a microchip so that its whereabouts can be determined from dog-spotting spy-in-the-sky drones, and that before being allowed to take delivery of a puppy, people will have to sit an exam similar to the driving theory test. The cost could reach £60, and on top of this you will need compulsory third-party insurance in case your spaniel eats the milkman.

So to ensure that someone in the north called Mick doesn’t shove his pit bull into a primary school playground to calm it down, I will now have to computerise my labradoodle and answer a lot of damn fool questions about when my dog should be on a lead.

In other words, the normality of dog ownership will be skewed. Instead of spending your free time with your pooches, throwing balls or tickling them under the chin, you will be forced to provide tea and biscuits for someone from the department of dogs while he inspects your cupboard under the stairs for evidence that they’ve eaten the cleaning lady.

This will achieve nothing good. It will ruin the enjoyment of dog ownership for millions, it will result in thousands of abandoned dogs, as people realise they can’t afford the insurance, and yet it will make no difference to men in the north called Mick, who will continue to tattoo their dogs with gothic symbols of hate.

What good did all the airport legislation achieve? None. It simply means that you and I now must get to the airport six years before the plane is due to leave and arrive at the other end with yellow teeth, smelly armpits and no nail file. Did it prevent a chap from getting on board with exploding underpants? No, it did not.

Happily, however, I have a solution to the problem, a way that normal human behaviour can be preserved. It’s simple. We must start to accept that 5% of the population at any given time is bonkers. There are no steps to be taken to stamp this out and no lessons to be learnt when a man with a beard boards a plane with an exploding dog.

Government officials who are questioned on the steps of coroner’s courts must be reminded of this before they speak. So that instead of saying the current law is “not fit for purpose” and that something must be done, they familiarise themselves with an expression that sums up the situation rather better: “Shit happens.”

Article courtesy of TimesOnline

>>>> discuss this topic @ TimesOnline >>>>

>>>> Jeremy Clarkson censored by The Sunday Times >>>>

POLICE COMMUNITY SUPPORT OFFICER (PCSO)

2010-03-08T12:01:00.005Z

Write to your local politician, we will not be safe until every 3rd person on the street is some form of enforcement officer or other.

We must police ourselves, we need uniforms, badges, radios and especially fluorescent jackets!

Whilst we're at it, let's double the MI6 (British CIA) budget; because as we approach 2012 (???) our imaginations may run wild, and we might invent new terrible enemies!

Video courtesy of Charlie Veitch

Piano track is "Lara's Castle" by Yann Tiersen, from the soundtrack to "Goodbye Lenin"

>>>> Everything is OK Channel @ crazations.tv >>>>

Hundreds more Town Hall Staff to get Police-Style Powers

2010-03-08T10:05:00.000Z

by Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
8th March 2010

Hundreds more Town Hall Staff and Private Security Guards are to be handed Police-Style Powers in a fresh Home Office drive to create an Army of Civilian "Spies".

Almost 1,700 people, also including car park attendants and dog wardens, already have powers to hand out a string of fines and even take photographs of low level offenders under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme.

But the Government has quietly announced it plans to review the scheme with chief police officers to see how it can be expanded further.

Rank and file officers warned the move is "blurring the lines" of legitimate law enforcement and is creating a "third tier" of policing.

Even chief constables are now cautious over the scheme following it's rapid growth, which has seen numbers increase by a fifth in just 12 months.

It will further fuel concerns that, with increasing budget pressures, the Government is keen to push for policing on the cheap.

Under CSAS, a chief constable can give employees of local authorities or private companies limited powers such as the right to hand out on-the-spot fines for offences including disorder, truancy and littering; stopping vehicles for roadside tests and confiscating alcohol.

They have their own uniform and badge and can demand names and addresses as well as take photographs of offenders.

There are 1,667 so-called "accredited persons" in England and Wales with 109 organisations, including 31 private companies, involved across 26 forces.

A further 478 civilians have been given the power to stop vehicles to check for out-of-date tax discs.

But a section buried in a recent Home Office neighbourhood policing strategy document read: "The Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) is a powerful way for the police to work with partners and to make the most out of other people whose job is to keep their neighbourhoods safe by giving them a limited range of powers to tackle ASB (anti-social behaviour).

"The Government and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officer) will review CSAS to see how it can be expanded to more forces and organisations."

The review is to be carried out this summer but Peter Davies, Nottinghamshire assistant chief constable and ACPO lead on CSAS, said: "Accredited persons do play a part in building safe and secure neighbourhoods.

"However, their role must remain distinct from that of police officers whose task is to uphold and enforce the law, tackling all forms of harm to the public and communities."

The move also raises fresh fears over the future of policing, especially with chief officers under pressure to cut costs. There are already more than 16,000 police community support officers and now a growing number of accredited civilians.

Simon Reed, the vice-chairman of the Police Federation, said: "It is just growing out of control. The growth rates are phenomenal.

"It is blurring the lines between police as the legitimate law enforcement organisation and these pseudo agencies springing up.

"It is effectively a third tier of policing. We are having all these police powers devolved to anyone and there does not seem to be any boundaries to law enforcement. Where will it end?"

Dylan Sharpe, campaign director of Big Brother Watch, said: "Those empowered by these schemes don't have anything near the proper training, experience or respect to try and boss around members of the public."

A leaked document last month suggested one in five police officers could lose their job under cost-cutting measures.

Up to 28,000 officers would be replaced by civilian workers — saving hundreds of millions of pounds — under suggestions put to a Workforce Council meeting chaired by Acpo and involving the National Policing Improvement Agency, the Home Office-funded body responsible for finding efficiencies within the service.

The Daily Telegraph also disclosed that forces are losing thousands of officers by freezing recruitment and replacing them with volunteer special constables.

Three quarters of all forces have stopped taking new recruits meaning that up to 3,200 officers could be lost nationwide over the next three years.

David Hanson, the policing minister, said: "Police are cracking down hard on anti-social behaviour, but beating it is not just a job for them. We are determined to give powers to communities to help tackle the crimes that matter most to them and the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme is part of that drive

“It gives limited powers to people already working in community safety, which was backed by two thirds of the public in a nationwide survey. The scheme is yet another tool to tackle anti-social behaviour and can help free police time to tackle serious crime and protect the public.”

Article courtesy of Telegraph.co.uk

Photography under threat: The Shooting Party’s over

2010-03-08T09:55:00.002Z

by Richard Woods
7th March 2010

Did you hear the one about the mother banned from taking a snapshot of her baby in the pool? Or the student prevented from photographing Tower Bridge at sunset? Be warned. The authorities now have the power to confiscate your camera — or even arrest you — for daring to take a picture in public

A protest at Trafalgar Square, January 23, organised by the group I'm a Photogapher, Not a Terrorist!

Put that camera away. Yes, you, put it away right now. This is a public place, you can’t take pictures here. What right have you got to take photographs? People might not like it. Did they say you could take photographs? Did they? No. Are you some sort of paedo? A terrorist? Gimme that camera. Delete those images. Delete your rights, delete trust, delete innocence before guilt. You’re nicked.

Perhaps I exaggerate a little: nevertheless, the days when you could photograph freely in public spaces are disappearing fast. In the eyes of many, the camera has become an offensive weapon, as Peter Dunwell discovered when he travelled from Grimsby to London in January. Coming down by train with a work colleague, Dunwell planned to make a photo-journal of their trip. At King’s Cross he took out his Sony Handycam and started to photograph the arrivals board and station. Two police community-support officers approached and told him to stop. Sure, PCSOs are agents of the state whose job it is to stand by while others drown (as happened in the case of a 10-year-old boy) but intervene in anything none too dangerous. And yes, King’s Cross is sensitive to the threat of terrorism because the London bombers arrived there before going their separate ways on the Tube to murder 52 people in 2005. But Dunwell, a middle-aged man of middle build with middling-brown hair, doesn’t look much of a terrorist. He looks more like the manager of a Jessops camera shop, which is what he is. Though his colleague has dyed blonde hair and pierced ears, there’s no law against that, yet.

In fact, the PCSOs did not suspect him at all of plotting to blow King’s Cross to smithereens. They told him to put his camera away simply “because people don’t want you taking their photographs”. Kamera verboten.

Nobody had complained or objected. Authority had taken its own decision that the British public did not wish to appear in Dunwell’s photograph, even if only in the background. Dunwell was shocked and embarrassed. “It made me feel like I was a paedophile,” he says. “I wasn’t doing anything wrong or illegal. It says something about our attitudes, our freedoms and restrictions on life that you can’t even take a photograph.”

In the most spied-on country in the world, with an estimated 4.2m CCTV cameras tracking our moves, people are now suspicious if Joe Nikon presses his shutter button. In one way Dunwell’s incident was so bittersweet it was almost comical. He had come to London to attend a demonstration in Trafalgar Square about precisely this: the rising tide of restrictions on public photography. That day hundreds of photographers gathered in the square — where you can now only take a commercial photograph if you pay for a special permit — to protest that they are not terrorists, paedophiles or paparazzi invaders of privacy. They’re just enthusiasts pursuing life through a single-lens reflex. The protestors came in all shapes and sizes: tall, short, fish-eyed and wide-angled. Some were as tatty as their cameras, bandaged together with tape, others were in cashmere and corduroys with the latest kit. Among them was Jane Hobson, a photography student. Shortly before Christmas, Hobson was on a student exercise taking pictures in central London. Outside City Hall, security guards ordered her to stop. “They just said it wasn’t allowed, even though I was on a public highway. Another time I was stopped while taking pictures of Tower Bridge at twilight.”

Many photographers believe more is at stake than a few lost shots of iconic buildings. Eyeing up the fading light, they see darkness falling on personal freedoms and a whole strand of social history. “Look at the Victorians and Edwardians,” says Hobson. “Photographs tell us so much of what it was like then. We’re in danger of losing that.” And Simon Moran, a photographer who hosts the UK Photographers’ Rights Guide on his website, says: “Some of the greatest pieces of photographic art we have — reportage and street photography and cityscapes — wouldn’t be possible if people didn’t have the freedom to go around and take pictures without being stopped.”

One of the most beguiling properties of photographs is their ability to expand over time. When you capture an image, often spontaneously, it is a single moment framed in stillness. A child’s innocent smile, perhaps, a lover’s glance, a silhouette etherised against a sundown sky. Look again in 5, 10 or 50 years and that image will have grown far beyond a 7x5in print into a lost world all of its own: a life that might have been; a culture vanished; a childhood of happy, crazy days. Did we really wear those fashions? And look at that hair!

From animals daubed on cave walls to Martin Parr painting modern life with a camera, man has always recorded the world around him. It’s personal memory and public history, and, say photographers, it’s under threat.

If such claims seem alarmist, consider a famous image by Jimmy Sime from 1936. It shows a group of five boys standing by the road in Eton and brilliantly portrays the social divide of the time. Three are local boys in open-neck shirts and scruffy trousers or shorts, looking agog at the other two, who are Eton pupils immaculate in top hats, ties and waistcoats, walking canes in hand. The facial expressions still speak across the years. To capture such an image now, you would need the permission of all the boys, via their parents or the school. Without it, the pixel police step in, either in person or in the form of self-censorship. When a recent BBC programme filmed Eton pupils walking along the road outside the college, it blurred the faces of every one.

Photographing adults, even our most taxpayer-funded figureheads, is also becoming off limits. In December some of Her Majesty’s loyal peasants tried to snap the Queen and members of the royal family as they were going to church near Sandringham. A heinous crime obviously — so the police moved in and confiscated their cameras. Kate Middleton, a royal-in-waiting as Prince William’s on-off girlfriend, threatened legal action after being snapped at Christmas on a tennis court close to a public footpath. Her lawyers sought damages for invasion of privacy. At the time of writing the case was unresolved, but was expected to be settled in Middleton’s favour

Many photographers blame changes in the law for the antipathy that has developed towards them. One European court ruling, involving Princess Caroline of Monaco, judged that taking photographs of her was an invasion of her privacy even when she was in a public place. Yet other celebrities court such pictures. Some photographers complain they are now uncertain where the boundaries lie.

In photography journals and blogs, professionals and keen amateurs also take aim at the Terrorism Act of 2000. Section 44 of the act gave police more power to stop and search people in specified areas. That might sound reasonable — until you learn that large tracts of London, every big rail station in the UK and many other sites have been quietly designated specified areas. To make matters more confusing, details of which areas have been designated are often not disclosed in case it might help terrorists. It’s 1984 meets Catch-22. Previously the police had at least to cite reasonable grounds for suspicion in order to stop and search you; now they don’t. If you’re wearing a loud shirt, walking on the pavement cracks, or carrying a camera, you’re fair game.

The law also allows officers to view images in your phone or camera. Officers are not allowed to delete them — but they can seize and retain any item that an officer “reasonably suspects is intended for use in connection with terrorism”.

At the same time terrorism shares a powerful characteristic with paedophilia: they both fuel a climate of fear that spreads far beyond their immediate or likely victims. In the aftermath of the child murders of Sarah Payne in 2000 and Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham in 2002, local officials went to Defcon 2 on paedo-alert throughout the country. Pre-emptive bans and jobsworth enforcement have become the norm, as Kevin Yuill, a university lecturer, discovered when he picked up his daughter from a ballet class at a Durham leisure centre.

“She was 10, and for her to apply for the Royal Ballet School she had to have some pictures of certain poses,” recalled Yuill. “I’d arranged with her ballet teacher, a middle-aged woman, to help me with the poses while I took pictures. I was stopped by the manager of the centre and told I needed permission to take pictures. I said, ‘From who? Who exactly do I need permission from? I’m her father.’ She said I’d need to get central permission, from the council, to take pictures in a leisure centre of my own child.” Despite his protestations, the manager insisted Yuill took no photos. “It’s outrageous,” he says. “I’m not allowed to take pictures of my own child. And her ballet teacher, a 60-year-old woman, was there. She was outraged too. It’s not about protecting children, it’s about something else. I dislike the idea of government being the only people allowed to take pictures, which is what this appears to be.”

Age, gender and location make little difference. In Fareham, Hampshire, an older couple were stopped from taking pictures of their grandchildren in a shopping centre because photography was banned. They were ordered to leave. In a park in Oldham, a young couple were stopped from taking pictures of their 11-month-old baby when a warden told them it was “illegal”. In recent months a man was questioned by police for taking pictures of the Christmas lights in Brighton; and in Kent a man was arrested after he took pictures of Mick’s Plaice, a fish-and-chip shop. Haddock fundamentalism has yet to emerge as a major threat, but you never know.

Is it too high a price to pay for safety? Have we lost sight of common sense? Cheryl Hudson, a mother from Oxfordshire, thinks so. She wanted to record the moment when her son had his first swim. Like any parent, she wanted an image of the delight on his face. “We took him to a pool in Abingdon,” she recalls. “I was pregnant with our second child and I sat on the side. My husband took my son in — they were the only people in the pool. It was the first time my son had gone in with his little armbands to have a splash around. He was two, and I wanted to capture the memory for our family album.

“The lifeguard came over and said that it was against regulations to take photographs. I said ‘Why?’ He said other parents might not like it. I said, ‘There are no other parents. There are no other children here!’ He just said I couldn’t do it and he got quite forceful.” Hudson felt frustration, embarrassment, guilt and anger. The middle classes aren’t used to feeling like criminals for taking photographs of their children.

“It’s similar at my children’s nursery. If they are having any kind of special event that parents get invited to, every parent has to sign a release form to allow photographs. If one parent objects or doesn’t sign, then no one can take photographs.

“Parents are sensible people. They know the other parents. They know we are not paedophiles and I know they aren’t. It’s just horrible. These regulations seem to be there for their own sake. I think they are really there to cover the backs of the organisations. It’s stifling to any kind of childhood expression and being able to remember all the nice things your child did.”

In their defence, local-authority suits can argue that technological advances have given the public reason to be unsettled about photography. The spread of digital cameras allows secrecy previously unavailable to most photographers. These days images can go straight from your camera to your computer. Some 10 or 15 years ago, when most pictures were shot on film, photographers generally had their pictures developed by Boots or other firms. Outsiders could see your photographs and there was an element of informal policing. If you took pictures of your wife topless, you ran the risk that everyone would know. That is no longer the case.

It’s a fair point, though only half-convincing because any committed photographer was able to develop their own films at home before the arrival of digital systems. One can also argue that digital is a more open medium: a photographer can now instantly show images they have taken to their subjects or concerned individuals, something that could not be done with old-style film.

If there was a sense of informal policing, it has been replaced by pervasive public suspicion that now summons the real police. That’s what happened to Pericles Antoniou, a Greek photographer who made the mistake last year of using a camera on the Tube. A woman complained that she did not want him to take photographs that included her young daughter. Antoniou apologised and showed her the images. When that wasn’t enough, he deleted them. This was still not sufficient to placate the father of the child, who called the police, who arrested Antoniou, seized his camera and belongings and charged him with behaviour liable to cause “public harassment, alarm or distress”. When he appeared before magistrates, the case was dismissed after the police failed to offer any evidence.

Not surprisingly, professional photographers are now wary of shooting in public. Outside war zones and developing-world countries, few places are trickier to take street photographs than Belfast, for many years the scene of sectarian divisions. At the same time it is a city rich in opportunities for documenting social history and change. So Pauline Hadaway, director of the gallery Belfast Exposed, has a front-row seat in the debate on public attitudes to photography. “Yes, photography is contentious and it always has been,” she says. “Nobody wants to have a camera pushed into their face, and people do see their own privacy as important, and rightly so. But what’s interesting is that once you might have had a few people in the street say, ‘I don’t want my picture taken, clear off,’ now it’s become almost formalised, almost semi-legalised.”

The legal position remains badly focused. Case law on privacy is developing. Certain laws relating to private property can encompass photography — you might be pursued for trespass if you took a photograph on private property without permission. And taking photographs against a subject’s will could be held to be harassment.

The lack of any specific law banning photography in public places is little comfort. The uncertainty itself is insidious, says Hadaway. “There is this huge space for people to impose rules. The government and the police say that no, there’s no law that prevents you from taking photographs. But petty authority pushes for greater control.”

In Hadaway’s eyes, that antagonism reflects wider rents in the social fabric. “It’s not just about photography,” she says. “I think it’s about how we all relate to one another. We are losing the ability to negotiate with strangers. Everyone seems to be afraid of everyone else, particularly where child-ren are involved. I don’t think anyone would ever just walk out on the street now with a camera, as they might have done five or six years ago. It’s firmly planted in your head that you are doing something that is potentially problematic. Once it is in your mind, it becomes an issue.”

Students on courses run by the gallery are now taught how to negotiate problems with strangers who object to public photography. In Hadaway’s experience, patience and politeness go a long way. Despite all the problems, two of her students have forthcoming exhibitions of photographs documenting the lives of teenagers and children in some of the most close-knit communities in Northern Ireland. Both had to win the trust, and permission, of their subjects over many months.

“It gives you hope that if you get it right, you can keep doing things,” says Hadaway. But she, too, wonders how much we are at risk of losing. “It’s important to keep making the case for public photography. It’s important for people to be able to record the world around them.”

In the eyes of the law

Know your legal rights: the do’s and don’ts of public photography

If you run into trouble while photographing in public, stay calm and co-operate — but don’t feel guilty. There is no specific law against taking photographs in public. Nor can the police or anyone else insist that you delete images you have taken.

However, you may fall foul of other laws that may seem to have nothing to do with photography. If the police invoke laws on terrorism, they have the power to examine your photographs and seize your equipment.

If you are on private property and have been told photography is not allowed, you could be guilty of trespass if you still take pictures. And if you are taking pictures of people, they may claim their privacy has been invaded, particularly if they are on private property.

While it is not specifically illegal to take a child’s photograph in a public place, the same laws on privacy and other issues apply. To avoid trouble you may need to get consent from a parent; a child cannot legally give consent. Of course, it is a criminal offence to take an indecent photograph of a child under 18.

If you feel you have been treated unfairly by the police, you can complain, either at a police station or through the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Article courtesy of TimesOnline

>>>> discuss this topic @ TimesOnline >>>>

>>>> Metropolitan Police outline the 'Law' on Photography in Public Places >>>>

NYPD Police Officer admits to Arrest Quotas

2010-03-07T20:13:00.004Z

An NYPD Officer breaks his silence and admits that innocent people are set-up, falsely arrested and ticketed in order to meet Funding Quotas - It is all about money and keeping you under control.

Welcome to The United Police States of America.

Video courtesy of ABC7 Eyewitness News and UAFF films @YouTube

Pay-as-you-throw Tax

2010-03-07T02:39:00.002Z

by Matthew Taylor
5th March 2010

Microchips in our bins herald

Pay-as-you-throw Tax, say Tories

Number of households whose rubbish is chipped
has jumped by two-thirds to 2.6m, according to report

Councils deny using microchips to monitor individual households' amount of rubbish.

Photograph: Guardian

The number of households that have microchips in their bins has jumped to 2.6m in the past 12 months, according to a new report.

The study shows that 68 councils across the UK now put the new technology in their bins – a two-thirds increase in the past year.

Councils say the microchips identify which houses the bins belong to and deny accusations that they allow local authorities to analyse the amount of rubbish being thrown away. But opposition politicians claim the microchips can be used to weigh waste and fear the rise in the use of the technology will lead to "pay as you throw" schemes.

Caroline Spelman, shadow communities secretary, said: "Labour ministers are secretly planning to roll out bin taxes across the country after the election if Gordon Brown can cling to power.

"The government has already forced through bin tax laws and has been funding the bin technology to collect the taxes."

Alex Deane, director of Big Brother Watch, which published the report based on information released under the freedom of information act, criticised the "surreptitious" installation of chips which he said had cost more than £1m in the past year.

"Councils are waiting until the public aren't watching to begin surveillance on our waste habits, intruding into people's private lives and introducing punitive taxes on what we throw away. The British public doesn't want this technology, these fines or this intrusion. If local authorities have no intention to monitor our waste then they should end the surreptitious installation of these bin microchips."

But a spokesman for the Local Government Association dismissed the claims of the group, which was set up by the founders of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

"Microchips simply identify the house to which a bin belongs. They do not mean councils can analyse what people are throwing away or issue fines. Putting microchips in people's bins can allow councils to provide people with a better service that costs less... Through its Big Brother Watch campaign, the TaxPayers' Alliance claims to be fighting intrusions on people's privacy and liberties. If this was really the case it would be focusing on more important things than the state of the nation's rubbish bins."

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs said there were no government plans to introduce microchips in bins.

"Any use of microchips is a local authority decision – some councils use them to monitor levels of waste across their area.

"The microchips do not monitor what goes into the bin and this is not about spying on people or fining them."

He said the microchips would help councils work with households to reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill. "It is important that councils work with communities to reduce waste, reuse it where possible and recycle more."

Article courtesy of Guardian.co.uk

>>>> discuss this topic @ Guardian.co.uk >>>>

The EU Super-Prosecutor

2010-03-06T21:05:00.004Z

by Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
6th March 2010

European Prosecutor could prosecute

Britons without Government's permission

The European Union is planning to create a new Super-Prosecutor

who would have powers to bring cases against British Citizens without

the approval of the Crown Prosecution Service or the Government

The Spanish EU Presidency, backed by France and Germany, announced that it is going to propose the creation of an EU European Public Prosecutor next month using powers under the Lisbon treaty.

The move is regarded as "extremely worrying" and is seen as a further attempt to transfer powers from London to Brussels.

It would mean that British people could face prosecution through a justice system the UK Government has made no contribution to setting up.

The British Government has consistently opposed the plans but is powerless to stop them going through as they can be passed as long as they have the backing of nine member states under so-called “enhanced co-operation”.

Britain has "opted out" of the system, which means that while the European prosecutor will not be able to bring cases in this country, he will still be able to issue European arrest warrants to force UK citizens to face prosecution in another member state – without asking the permission of the Government or the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.

The news comes after The Daily Telegraph disclosed how the European Union is drawing up plans for its first direct tax with a "green" levy on petrol, coal and natural gas that could cost British consumers up to £3 billion.

The prosecutor’s initial powers will be confined to cross-border financial transactions – specifically to “investigate fraud and speculation against the euro”.

Conde Pumpido, Spain’s Inspector-General of Finances, said: “The single currency needs a specific institution that protects the application of criminal law against fraud and speculation.”

However, there are concerns that once appointed the new European prosecutor will seek to use his powers to prosecute a range of different and non-financial crimes.

The Spanish Presidency’s website raises the prospect of allowing the prosecutor also to "investigate and initiate criminal proceedings against cross-border crimes such as people trafficking, drug trafficking or terrorism".

Sarah Gaskell, from campaign group Open Europe, said: “This is an extremely worrying move for UK citizens, who could face prosecution by a European Public Prosecutor that the UK Government had no hand in setting up.

“The deeply undemocratic Lisbon Treaty is being used to outsource controls over our justice system to EU institutions, in what is the start of a very worrying trend of judicial creep that could see such a prosecutor’s powers expanded into all manner of areas.

“This just goes to show that the Government’s so-called 'opt-outs’ from the Lisbon Treaty in justice and home affairs are a totally inadequate safeguard for the UK’s criminal and justice system.

“A future government needs to fundamentally reform Britain’s participation in EU criminal and justice rules and reclaim much greater control over the legal rights of its citizens.”

Mark Francois, the shadow Europe minister, said: “The Lisbon Treaty allows other countries to establish a European prosecutor for themselves if they wish, but we are not obliged to follow suit.

"In fact, it would be absolutely unacceptable for Britain to participate in any such project.

“It would endanger the integrity and accountability of our legal system. A Conservative government would not allow a European Public Prosecutor to have any authority in Britain. Labour and the Lib Dems should now match our position.”

A spokesman for the EU Commission said: "The Commission is looking at its options but no decisions have been made."

Article courtesy of Telegraph.co.uk

>>>> EU draws up Plans for first Direct Tax with Fuel Levy >>>>

The Love Police: How to Escape a TERROR STOP

2010-03-04T15:13:00.002Z

The Love Police were doing the usual, enjoying free speech in a corporate zone, and the Beefeaters (Royal Guardians) of the Tower of London called the Police on them. Again. This time, the Police knew to send more than one officer. They sent an Inspector (rather senior), two Sargeants, and five officers. 4 Police cars. Sirens.

This is their attempt to show you how to stop yourself getting arrested under this RIDICULOUS and OVER-USED Terror Act.

Do not consent.

No one rules if no one obeys.

Live Free. Die Free.

Video courtesy of Charlie Veitch

>>>> Everything is OK Channel @ crazations.tv >>>>

>>>> Stop and Search Powers Illegal, European Court Rules >>>>

Black's Law Dictionary

2010-03-04T12:28:00.002Z

>>>> download Editions 1 to 8 as PDF Files >>>>

Metropolitan Police outline the 'Law' on Photography in Public Places

2010-03-04T11:50:00.006Z

Photography advice

The Metropolitan Police Service’s approach towards photography in public places is a subject of regular debate.

We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the importance not only of protecting the public from terrorism but also promoting the freedom of the public and the media to take and publish photographs,

Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.

Freedom to photograph / film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

Terrorism Act 2000

Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the armed forces, intelligence services or police where the information is, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

Any officer making an arrest for an offence under Section 58A must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that the information was, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism

It would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests because there would not normally be grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist. An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

Guidelines for MPS staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews

Members of the media can, like any other person, be stopped and searched under s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They may also be stopped and searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if an officer reasonably suspects that they are a terrorist. However, where it is clear that the person being searched is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.

Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it's crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.

Following these guidelines means both media and police can fulfill their duties without hindering each other.

Creating vantage points

When areas are cordoned off following an incident, creating a vantage point, if possible, where members of the media at the scene can see police activity, can help them do their job without interfering with a police operation. However, media may still report from areas accessible to the general public.

Identifying the media

Genuine members of the media carry identification, for instance the UK Press Card, which they will present on request.

The press and the public

If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.

Access to incident scenes

The Senior Investigating Officer is in charge of granting members of the media access to incident scenes. In the early stages of investigation, evidence gathering and forensic retrieval take priority over media access, but, where appropriate, access should be allowed as soon as is practicable.

Film Unit

The aim of the Metropolitan Police Service Film Unit is to be a central point of contact, to co-ordinate, facilitate and bring consistency to those people filming in London with MPS support.

We work together with Film London and stakeholders of the Film London Partnership to make London accessible, whilst minimising inconvenience to Londoners and increasing the economic benefits of filming.

For more information please visit the Film Unit web site.

Article courtesy of The Metropolitan Police

>>>> Photography under threat: The Shooting Party’s over >>>>

Sarcastic Email to Police becomes an Internet Hit

2010-02-25T10:05:00.007Z

1. THE COMPLAINT

Dear Sir / Madam / automated telephone answering service

Having spent the past twenty minutes waiting for someone at Leith police station to pick up a telephone I have decided to abandon the idea and try emailing you instead. Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass this on to your colleagues in Leith by means of smoke signal, carrier pigeon or ouija board.

As I'm writing this e-mail there are eleven failed medical experiments (I think you call them youths) in West Cromwell Street which is just off Commercial Street in Leith. Six of them seem happy enough to play a game which involves kicking a football against an iron gate with the force of a meteorite. This causes an earth shattering CLANG! which rings throughout the entire building. This game is now in its third week and as I am unsure how the scoring sytem works, I have no idea if it will end any time soon.

The remaining five walking abortions are happily rummaging through several bags of rubbish and items of furniture that someone has so thoughtfully dumped beside the wheelie bins.

One of them has found a saw and is setting about a discarded chair like a beaver on speed. I fear that it's only a matter of time before they turn their limited attention to the bottle of calor gas between the two bins.

If they could be relied on to only blow their own arms and legs off then I would happily leave them to it. I would even go so far as to lend them the matches. Unfortunately they are far more likely to blow up half the street with them and I've just finished decorating the kitchen.

What I suggest is this. After replying to this email with worthless assurances that the matter is being looked into and will be dealt with, why not leave it until the one night of the year (probably bath night) when there are no mutants around then drive up the street in a panda car before doing a three-point turn and disappearing again. This will of course serve no other purpose than to remind us what policemen actually look like.

I trust that when I take a clawhammer to the skull of one of these throwbacks you'll do me the same courtesy of giving me a four-month head start before coming to arrest me.

I remain sir, your obedient servant, Mr X

2. THE REPLY

Dear Mr X,

I have read your email and understand your frustration at the problems caused by youth playing in the area and the problems you encountered in trying to contact the police.

As the Community Beat Officer for your street I would like to extend an offer of discussing the matter fully with you.

Should you wish to discuss the matter, please provide contact details (address/telephone number) and when may be suitable.

Regards, PC Y Community Beat Officer

3. THE REACTION

Dear PC Y

First of all I would like to thank you for the speedy response to my original email. 16 hours and 38 minutes must be a personal record for Leith Police station and rest assured that I will forward these details to Norris McWhirter for inclusion in his next book.

Secondly I was delighted to hear that our street has its own communitybeat officer. May I be the first to congratulate you on your covert skills. In the five or so years I have lived in West Cromwell Street, I have never seen you. Do you hide up a tree or have you gone deep undercover and infiltrated the gang itself ??

Are you the one with the acne and the moustache on his forehead or the one with a chin like a wash hand basin ??

It's surely only a matter of time before you are headhunted by MI5. Whilst I realise that there may be far more serious crimes taking place in Leith such as smoking in a public place or being Muslim without due care and attention, is it too much to ask for a policeman to explain (using words of no more than two syllables at a time) to these twats that they might want to play their strange football game elsewhere.

The pitch behind the Citadel or the one at DKs are both within spitting distance as is the bottom of the Albert Dock.

Should you wish to discuss these you should feel free to contact me. If after 25 minutes I have still failed to answer, I'll buy you a large one in the Compass Bar.

Regards Mr X

P.S If you think that this is sarcasm, think yourself lucky that you don't work for the cleansing department.

Courtesy of David Icke

PC 'Shiny Buttons' should be charged with 'Wasting Police Time'

2010-01-29T16:21:00.017Z

by Paul Sims
29th January 2010

Driver fined for blowing his nose... by same

PC who ticketed man for dropping £10

When motorist Michael Mancini found himself stuck in a queue of traffic with a runny nose, he instinctively reached for his hankie.

However, the simple act of pulling out a tissue and blowing his nose earned him a £60 on-the-spot fine because he was 'not in proper control of his vehicle'.

Policeman Stuart Gray, nicknamed PC Shiny Buttons for his zealous approach to the job, also handed out three points - even though Mr Mancini had his handbrake on.

Shocked: Michael Mancini was given a £60 fine for

blowing his nose while at the wheel of his van

Now Mr Mancini, a 39-year-old father-of-two, faces a potentially expensive legal battle to clear his name after vowing not to pay the fine.

He is the latest victim of PC Gray, who is no stranger to controversy. A few months ago, the officer issued a £50 fixed penalty for littering to unemployed Stewart Smith, who accidentally dropped a £10 note in the street as he left a shop.

Last night Mr Mancini spoke of his disbelief at his experience.

'I was just completely gobsmacked,' the furniture restorer said. 'I thought it was some kind of Beadle's About moment - a wind-up.

'I made sure it was safe. The traffic was nose to tail in the high street.

'We came to a complete stop and I thought that was quite a good time to blow my nose.

'I stopped the van and put the handbrake on. The traffic moved on and I was waved across by an officer.

'I still had the tissue in my hand and was stunned when he said I was getting a fixed-penalty notice. Surely it would have been more dangerous to drive with a blocked nose?

Offbeat: Mr Mancini has vowed to go to court after PC Stuart Gray, known as

PC Shiny Buttons for his officious approach, handed him the penalty notice

He faces a trial at Ayr District Court over the alleged traffic offence in the town in October.

His solicitor, Peter Lockhart, wrote to the procurator fiscal on January 18, explaining the circumstances.

A day later Mr Mancini received a letter warning him that if he continued to refuse to pay the fine he would be ordered to go to court.

Mr Lockhart said: 'In the letter we sent I said, "it should have been obvious to the officers what was going on and it beggars belief a ticket was issued".

Not in proper control of vehicle: Michael Mancini's ticket

'I also wrote, "we cannot see, given the circumstances of this case, that it is in the public interest".'

Mr Lockhart-said he was waiting to hear if a court date has been set but added: 'We will be pleading not guilty and will fight it all the way.'

Last night, a police source said: 'Total nonsense like this is the very opposite of good policing. This officer is known as PC Shiny Buttons for his lack of common sense approach to the job.

'It is supposed to be about serving and protecting the public - not embarking on some petty power trip.'

Strathclyde Police confirmed: 'A 39-year-old man is the subject of a report to the procurator fiscal in connection with an alleged traffic offence on October 26.'

The case echoes that of salesman Keith Pemberton, from Cheshire, who was also fined £60 and given points for eating a sandwich at the wheel in March 2007.

In 2008, Ediri Tsekiri was fined £60 and given points in Liverpool for not being in control of her vehicle. She was also eating a sandwich.

Gary Saunders was stopped in Liverpool for laughing while driving last March.

Article courtesy of MailOnline

>>>> Strathclyde Police: Community Policing Team for Ayr West >>>>

>>>> You can telephone the Strathclyde Police Community Team on (UK) 01292 664242 >>>>

'The Cwmbran 10' cause mayhem in South Wales Court

2010-01-23T17:38:00.003Z

by Rebel Leader
22nd January 2010

The Cwmbran 10 ! - Members of Freedom Rebels Network came together today to support Freedom Rebels Member SSONICK in his Council Tax Liability Order hearing! - It was a great day and the video will be coming very soon.

Valuable lessons were learned - Magistrates were challenged and they abandoned the court!

The Clerk Lost his temper and threw his toys out of the pram - WE called the Police to have the Magistrates Arrested and on it went - we claimed Common Law Jurisdiction on entering - the legal fiction manifested THREE times in the court and was seen MANIFESTING by 15 witnesses.

Now they are claiming that a "Liability order was issued in his absence" - so we will now challenge that by asking them how they could issue a liability order in the absence of the legal fiction when FIFTEEN men & women, good & true will TESTIFY in any COURT that the PERSON was in the Court on the day and came in AND out of the court THREE times!

They saw it! They Saw the "BIRTH CERITIFICATE known as MR. S. XXXXXXX" Produced and the Clerk was TOLD in no uncertain terms that this was the LEGAL PERSON they wished to speak to - in a conversation outside the court he ADMITTED that he (The Clerk) knew exactly what a "Legal fiction" was!!!! - we are cracking them and overall it took them 47 minutes to get us out of that Court!

Thanks to all who turned up - great day and great fun! - We are doing it all again on Friday 29th in another court for another Freedom Rebel! GAME ON!

Article courtesy of Freedom Rebels Network

Common Purpose Exposed - Back Up and Running

2010-01-13T16:15:00.014Z

After being taken down by their Webhosting Company
under instructions from Common Purpose...

CP Exposed is now back with a vengeance...

Bigger, Better and Fighting Fit !!!

>>>> Common Purpose Exposed >>>>

The End of Trial by Jury ??

2010-01-13T16:11:00.004Z

12th January 2010

Legal History made as four men stand Trial

for Heathrow Robbery in Trial without Jury

The unprecedented trial of four alleged armed robbers without a jury began today as a barrister for one of the men said: 'We are breaking history.'

John Twomey, Peter Blake, Barry Hibberd and Glen Cameron are accused of taking part in a 'professionally executed' £1.75 million hold-up at a Heathrow warehouse in February 2004.

The Court of Appeal ruled last year that the case should be heard by a judge alone because of the danger of jury tampering.

It is the first major criminal trial in England and Wales to be held without a jury, and is taking place at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Accused: Glenn Cameron (left) and John Twomey outside the High

Court today. They are among four men being tried without a jury

As the case was about to open it was the judge, Mr Justice Treacy, who was formally put in charge of the defendants by the clerk of the court, rather than any jury.

Earlier during legal submissions Sam Stein QC, for Hibberd, remarked: 'We are breaking history. This is the first time that a court has started a jury-less trial.'

As prosecution barrister Simon Russell Flint QC was about to open the case, the judge explained how he had decided to adapt the normal procedure by which juries are given responsibility for a case.

He said: 'At this stage the defendants would have been put in the charge of the jury and, although it is not apparently a strict legal requirement that they are, I have asked the court clerk to adapt the normal formula and to put me in charge of the various counts on the indictment.'

Then, instead of reading out all 18 charges as she would have done to the jury, the clerk simply asked the judge to confirm he had seen the indictment.

She then informed the judge that the defendants had pleaded not guilty and that it was in his charge to say whether they were guilty or not - the task usually given to jurors.

After this procedure, Mr Russell Flint began to set out the Crown's case.

No jury, no justice: Protesters supporting four men accused of the

£1.75 million armed robbery outside the Royal Courts of Justice today

He told the judge: 'Nearly six years ago, on February 6 2004, a professionally-planned and professionally-executed armed robbery took place at the warehouse premises of Menzies World Cargo.'

Mr Russell Flint said the armed robbers expected to net £10 million in the raid after one gang member misread a delivery manifest, and instead they managed to get away with £1.75 million in various currencies.

It is alleged that each of the defendants were among the six robbers who entered the depot, wearing masks, high-visibility jackets and dark woollen hats.

Firearms were used to threaten the 16 members of staff, who were then tied up, the judge was told, one of them shot at, allegedly by Blake, as he tried to escape before being overpowered.

Mr Russell Flint said police had been aware since July 2003 that 'something was going to take place' at the depot and kept watch on those they suspected of being involved.

He said the gang were equipped with 'inside information' from those who 'worked or had worked in and around Heathrow Airport'.

In June last year Lord Judge, sitting with two other judges, agreed to set aside the 'hallowed principle' of trial by jury because of what he described as the 'very significant' danger of jury tampering.

The landmark decision was made under new powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

There have already been three Old Bailey trials in the case, which is thought to have cost the taxpayer £24 million.

The latest proceedings ground to a halt in December 2008 after claims of jury tampering, after which prosecutors applied for a new trial, to be heard by a judge sitting alone.

Before the trial began today a small group of protesters gathered outside court holding up banners such as 'No Jury No Justice'.

Twomey, 61, of New Milton, Hampshire, Blake, 57, of Notting Hill, west London, Hibberd, 43, of Shepherd's Bush, west London, and Cameron, 50, of New Milton, Hampshire all deny a series of charges including robbery and firearm possession.

The trial continues.

Article courtesy of MailOnline

>>>> Illusion Collapse - Britain's 1st Trial Without Jury in 400 Years >>>>

Stop and Search Powers Illegal, European Court Rules

2010-01-13T00:51:00.006Z

by Alan Travis, Home Affairs Editor
12th January 2010

Judges in Strasbourg say UK Powers under Terrorism
Act 2000 violate the Convention on Human Rights

A stop and search operation in London: the powers, under the Terrorism Act, have

been ruled illegal by a European court. Photograph: Martin Godwin/Guardian

The ability of UK police to use "arbitrary" counter-terror stop and search powers against peace protesters and photographers lay in tatters today after a landmark ruling by the European court of human rights.

The Strasbourg court ruled it was unlawful for police to use the powers, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to stop and search people without needing any grounds for suspicion.

The widely-drawn ruling said that not only the use of the counter-terror powers, but also the way they were authorised, were "neither sufficiently circumscribed, nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse".

The use of these powers has grown fourfold, from 33,177 times in 2004 to more than 117,200 in 2008.

The Metropolitan police have used them most, but 11 other forces in England and Wales also make routine use of them.

A political furore ensued when it was disclosed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion since 2001.

The case ruled on today was brought by Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton, who were stopped by police while their way to a demonstration outside the annual arms fair at the Excel centre, in London's Docklands, in September 2003.

Quinton, a journalist, was ordered to stop filming the protest despite showing her press card, while Gillan, who was riding his bicycle, was only allowed to go on his way after 20 minutes. They were awarded €33,850 (£30,400) in costs and expenses.

The European judges said the power to search a person's clothing and belongings in public included an element of humiliation and embarrassment which was a clear interference with the right to privacy.

But they also criticised the way in which the police use of stop and search powers was authorised. There is no requirement that the powers be considered "necessary" – only "expedient".

The use of the powers is subject to confirmation by the home secretary within 48 hours, renewable after 28 days, but the European court said there was no real check on authorisations by parliament or the courts.

This was demonstrated by the continuous renewal, every 28 days, of the use of the powers in London since their first introduction, the judges added.

They said they were further concerned that the decision to stop and search somebody was "based exclusively on the 'hunch' or 'professional intuition' of the police officer".

The sole condition was that the search had to look for articles used in connection with terrorism – but this covered many things commonly carried by people in the street. Police did not even have to have grounds for suspecting such articles were present.

The judges said that, because of this, there was a "clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion" to a police officer.

Their concerns were compounded by the fact that black and Asian people were four times more likely to be stopped under section 44 and there was a risk that the power could be misused against demonstrators.

"The absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion made it almost impossible to prove that the power had been improperly exercised," the judges said in describing the lack of judicial checks.

As such, section 44 was not in "accordance with the law" and amounted to a violation of article eight – the right to respect for private and family life.

Quinton told the Guardian she was delighted with the judgment, saying: "There has to be a balance between private life and security.

"The court has shown that section 44 is an invasion of people's right to liberty and privacy. Hopefully the government will have to put a fairer law in place to protect us."

Gillan hailed the ruling as "fantastic news after a long struggle" and added: "I look to the government for a strong response."

Corinna Ferguson, the legal officer for Liberty and acting for the two, said: "Liberty has consistently warned the government about the dangers of stop and search without suspicion and actively campaigned for the tightening up of the infamous section 44 power.

"The public, police and court of human rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law.

"In the coming weeks parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess."

The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, said: "We have long said that anti-terror laws should not be used as a way of conducting normal day-to-day policing.

"The government needs to make sure that the police have the appropriate powers to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour."

The full judgment can be read here.

Article courtesy of Guardian.co.uk

In reply to the Arrest Warrant Info crazations posted

2010-01-07T00:41:00.013Z

by I_Amness

7th January 2010

re: Anyone can apply for a Warrant

over allegations of a Serious Offence

So me being me, this morning phoned the Courts to establish the full facts, and what a conversation I had; first and foremost anyone can serve a summonds, a warrant is slightly harder to obtain and the rather interesting solicitor I spoke with informed me in his time as a solicitor he has never seen a warrant issued for such, but a summonds, if you phone early you may be able to speak with a Solicitor, try London on the details bellow if you're local Court does not provide you with what you need.

I contacted the bellow:

70 Horseferry Road

London

England

SW1P 2AX

Applications 0207 805 1172 / 1173

I was told that only indviduals within London would use this Court Service to serve a summonds or an attempt for a Warrant, anyone else can do it through their local Court, anyhow, I informed the Solicitor of the Courts that I spoke with that local Courts are often less than helpfull with these types of issues and he informed me that they are required to have a Solicitor or some type of legal advise available for such.

I phoned at 9:00 AM, he told me that maybe local Courts if contacted later are busy so a solicitor may not be available, very cunning I thought, I have to add that he appeared a cool guy, the conversation continued a little deeper, I told him that I felt other Courts I had contact with do not like individuals obtaining Esoteric Knowledge and then came the big pause, silence for about 20 seconds, at which point he, gave a large sigh and a long mmm, I guess as he pondered what to say, frankly I felt he did not know what to say, he then reluctantly declared I can't really talk about that!

Eh I thought, what is it with the big word Esoteric lol, I then asked him how do I go about obtaining a summonds or a Warrant then, he profoundly informed me that the Warrant is not what you are likely to manage to obtain, you can have a Summonds served, but Warrants are very rare for the public, he then was kind enough to run through the entire procedure with me.

What anyone whom wishes to instruct such will need the Criminal Procedure Rules, so type into google exactly that, and you will see the link: What's new - Criminal Procedure Rules - Ministry of Justice, with, Rules, Forms, ect, as links bellow, click forms and you will be direct to:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/proc ... mspage.htm

Index of Criminal Procedure forms, scroll down till the Preliminary proceedings and what anyone will require is CrimPR Part 7 - Starting proceedings in a magistrates' court: Information (PDF - opens in new window), linked on the webpage http://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/proc ... 1page1.pdf

This is the form you will need to obtain a summonds or attempt to obatin a warrant, which can be found above...

DRAFT / PRACTICE DIRECTION: ANNEX D

FORMS

COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS IN A MAGISTRATES’ COURT

(CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES, PART 7)

Information

(Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s 1)

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Magistrates’ Court (Code)

Date: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Accused: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Address: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Alleged offence: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (short particulars and statute)

The information of: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Address: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Telephone No.

who (upon oath) states that the accused committed the offence of which particulars

are given above.

Taken (and sworn) before me

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Justice of the Peace

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (Justices’ Clerk)

[Note: Formerly form 1, Magistrates’ Courts’ (Forms) Rules 1981 (SI 1981/553),

relating to rule 4 of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981 and section 1 of the

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980].

The Court finder is available at http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCS ... urtList.do if you need to find your local Courts.

You will also maybe need to I am led to believe to obatin the relevant Statute Law from http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx or Law that you are using to indicate the offence and breach.

He told me how to complete the form which is pretty basic, he emphasised the point of ensuring one is correct with the definitions of the Law and to add detail to the case outline, a brief but clear and detailed synopsis I was told will surfice for the Courts, but make sure the Statute and legal aspect is clear, be clear on you're Law he advised, so I then spent the moring trolling through the Statute's and fuck me some of them are bloody interesting, it appears that the system pretty much twists and turns and evolves with its own system of sewing up our bloody rights as and when they need it, or as and when the public or precedent cases requires it. Bastards.

Check out the Computer Misuse Act 1990 which is bloody interesting, it got me thinking that it does not appear to mention hacking, so under this Law is it possible that any of our personal details that are held on any computer in the UK without our knowledge and accessed without our consent is a breach of this Law? Does that mean that cold calling and junk mail access to computer held personal information is actualy a criminal offence? MMM I wonder? It appears clear from the Statute that this is an imprisonable offence, fine or both, and does this also include Government lose of computer held data? Interesting reading, go through the Statutes, you will need a few hours just to view all the headers, reading them all or all that are relevant is going to take me a few weeks, maybe months, but as I do, and as I find interesting issues that I believe shed further light on the situation you can bet you're bottom dollar I will be posting like a frantic mad man lol...

Check it out, let me know you're views, and if anyone knows a fair solicitor run this Law past him, lets open the box on computer held records, it does not define that it has to be hacked, just accessed!

Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18) http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... esize=7750

— (1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1 , or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

(b) the access he intends to secure [F2 , or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and

(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—

(a) any particular program or data;

(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or

[F3 (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

This also got me wondering as I have personaly been in a battle with the IOW Council concerning their use of a computer spine system named SWIFT, this system is being used throughout the UK in certain areas, check with your local authority as this system is totally illegal and breaches various Statute's and the Human Rights Act, Right To Privacy ect; what the system does is allow all local municipal authority faculties to interlink all personal information or any information held on computer file/records for each indvividual person, faculty, and departments within that local area and gives them direct access, yes folks your entire medical record, social recordsa, housing records the lot, could be being held on a system that many, many, people have what they believe is defined as legal access in their eyes, they are required to audit this system, but as I have personaly found out obtaining the audit is not exactly so simple as they are aware they have commotied a criminal act, someone has added a note about it online:

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/ ... s-with.htm

and here: http://ventnorblog.com/2008/10/17/medic ... iw-council

They have the abbreviated title SWIFT in capaital letters, does this indicate it is a CORPORATION? Let me know what you think guys?

My personal experience has indicated that it is not just an NHS issue, or local Council who access such a system but all local departments or faculties have access to any such system, and by the way they do not have, or even ask for any consent, and I have even gone as far as meeting with their officials in their Council building and pointed out that they do not have information available to the public within their leaflets/marketing paraphanalia and neither was it originally published online on their website :

http://www.iwight.com

since my campaign some information has been forced to be added:

http://www.iwight.com/council/committee ... r%20E1.htm
http://www.iwight.com/search/?site=iow& ... ift+system

The NHS concept behind their definition of their right to enter any such information into this sysem is based upon the ideology of implied consent, hence why I have been asking on this site if anyone knows more about the NHS consent system, it appears the second a person walks into a hospital or has any form of medical care or advise from the medical services, including you're GP that this gives them legal implied consent to add your entire health records onto their system and from the looks of it this can include your GP records or any helath related or social care issues and even criminal history.

Yes folks if you have a child then you are likely to be found on such a system if it is in use in you're area, if you have ever had contact with the MH services then you may also be held on such a system.

I have also ascertained via FOA & DPA Act requests that they also confer with the local Police and in my case it would appear parts of my past criminal record/history has also been provided to this system and notes have been added referencing not only convictions but also blatantly erroneous non-sequitor accusations and even arrests, remember the new NHS powers I have referrenced on my previous posts which outlines the power they now have and if you make any protest against them then it can be contrived as an actual offence;

Well long story short, I had to see a NHS specialist on the IOW in 2008 to get a referal to Bristol Frenchay brain unit whom I missed an aoopinted at in December 2007 when I lived in the West Country, I had moved counties in Jan 08 and I was requesting a referral back to this hospital after missing an 07 appintment due to moving, I also was requesting a brain scan after finding out I suffered a traumatic event 17 days after I was born in 1975, which they covered up all the facts of, and that I had ascertained I had an indented fontanele at aged 17 days and was rushed into intensive care, which was the result of an alegy to cow's milk protien, etiology of which being Glutamate (human breats milk) and Glutamic acid (SMA synthetic milk).

In 1987 it was decided by the NHS that I was epileptic and subsequently have not been allowed to obtain a driving license since as it is held on GP records I am epileptic, so I pressed for a full investigation, I got some of the medical notes (I am having to get a court order, disclosure order to obtain the full medical history as they have breached the DPA by refusing to provide the full notes) surrounding the birth issues, I was previously told in 2006 in Bristol Frenchay hospital 19 years after being told I was epileptic and had to take epileptic medication for most of those years that I was not actually epileptic, bastards, so I was informed by the local NHS (IOW after moving county) that I had to see a local clinician before they would agree a referal back to Bristol to confirm once and for all I was misdiagnosed as epilaptic in 1987; in 2008 I pressed for a full investigation and a referral back to Bristol, or UCL London, and after telling the doctor all about my concerns of what I am explaining here, he attempted to have me sectioned twice, which by all accounts failed both times, lol, it appears that because he instructed a Section 2 MH Act assessment, twice, and both times failed too even get me out of my house, (by the way they had two riot vans and 8 Police pressent surrounding my house), that this Section 2 MH Act assessment attempt gave them access to my entire criminal record, IE the three possesion charges and several public order offences for protesting I had in my early adulthood and every other held information relating to myself they have kept on record since birth, including all school records, basically a persons entire life in documants, anyhow this power and the legislation they believe they have, oh and the SWIFT computer spine system gave them the right alledgedly to add my entire life and life long documents too such a computer held record system, please do not think that its is solely to do any health issues as there are none, other than pseudoscience bollocks that they have inveneted, I am not epileptic, but suffered an organic dysfunction as a result of basically being brain dead 17 days after birth, although they would like to believe that any issues relating to my childhood are deemable as an adult as being MH issues, which again is hokum, its like asking what came first the chicken or the egg! This issue has been generated not just because of my unique circumstances, it can happen to anyone, and I am just outling the exact facts so anyone can understand how when one fights to ressolve their own nightmare or life issues how the system will twsit and turn its legisltaion and rules to continue to force that person to be under their control. Again I am still fighting for a brain scan and they are still refusing, I wonder why lol, should it transpire as experts believe that I have a lesion on the brain then you can imagine who then is implicacted in such circumstances, IE the bloody NHS and its failure to recognise I had an alergy to a highly toxix substance for my gentic make-up, oh and the curropt system that tried to hide all the fact. You cannot avoid the medical services if you are a slave in this country and have to use such services, and the bastards wont let you resssolve any issue one may raise as it will continue to implicate them as at fault. I am still banned from driving and the fucking medication I was forced to take has created a high alkaline phosphatase, basically I have a lack of oxygen in the blood because of Benzene in pharmacuticals, so if you're eplieptic, or even it is suggested you have a medical concern and are forced to take any medication because as a child you're parents were told you have too, then really consider what you have been led to believe as it more than likely is bollocks and hokum, also be aware that if you fight the system then they will use their own system to try and fuck you over and they will fight, and believe they have the power to do exactly as they wish!

It is clearly evident from my research that this is a massive abuse of power and it could be happening to anyone not just those in ceratin areas or with Councils whom are testing this SWIFT computer Spine System or any linking computer held records or system.

I urge every reader reading this issue whom has had to have contact with the NHS, or any munical dystopia (Council an local systems) to be aware of their alledged power, put in FOIA requests with every faculty in you're local area to ascertain if they are using such a system, get your full medical records and GP records and see what is publshed about you, you may be shocked as I was. We are dealing with a formidable power who believes they are above us all and the Law and we have to live within their rules, or so the believe, bollocks do we, if you have children, or have ever had any contact with any so called services then put in requests with them, as I have found the hard way you may not initially get all the records and may have to instruct legal action, a disclosure order is a matter of paper work, and so is a Stop Order if you disagree with anything you may read and they refuse to change it, and believe they will not make it easy for you, district judges will not allow you your rights, or at least that is what I have found, fight the bastartds, rememebr you have grounds to appeal, and take the case all the way through the circuit Judge system and if need be take it to the High Court, these bastards will not win if you persist, they may try to say you are off you're head but remeber you can get any expert as I have to reiterate you're own beliefs. I doubt anyone will be granted legal aid so if anyone has to fight as I have for their rights then like solicitos we all can educate ourselves into understanding the legal aspect of any case, if anyone does follow my advice or needs further information then I will be happy to share with anyone what I have learnt taking on the system.

This is what was initally provided to me pertaining to the SWIFT Record System! More information is now online since my campaign http://www.iwight.com/search/?site=iow& ... ift+system

Mental Health Access Team Swift Recording Processes (provided to me by the IOW NHS)

Introduction

Swift is an electronic system used jointly by the Isle of Wight National Health Service,

Primary Care Trust, Mental Health Services (I W NHS PCT MH) and Social Services

to support the provision of fully integrated MH and Social Care Services. The

information held on the joint system enables a coordinated approach and the

development of care packages which meet all the needs of an individual.

The system provides key information necessary to support the provision of

appropriate crisis, out of hours and emergency services, to ensure best possible

outcomes for those using these services.

Swift enables you to record, maintain and access information regarding individuals

using I W NHS PCT mental health services and Local Authority Social Services.

The following details are recorded in relation to patients referred to and receiving

support from mental health services.

• Contacts

• Referrals

• Assessments

• Provision of Services

• Reviews

• CPA Care Plan

• Involvements including Key Worker & Key Team

• Housing & Employment Status

Information should be recorded in accordance with this business process to :-

• Ensure availability of personal and clinical data necessary to support

provision of services to an individual,

• Meet the business needs of both organisations i.e. statistical data for local

and national monitoring and for statutory returns

• Inform future service development

Areas used in Swift

Front Desk

The front desk page enables us to:-

• Search for a service user

• Create a new person if necessary

• Maintain personal data i.e. address and DOB

• Record a contact requesting a service i.e. written GP referral

• Initiate a “referral” (request for service) – this identifies the person as “open”

to MH Services.

Frontdesk Terminology

Person

A person is anyone on Swift who is an individual. This could be a

client, a Doctor, a Solicitor, or a Social Worker. A person on Swift

does not become a client until they have had a referral recorded

against then.

Contact

A contact is the first point of contact with Social Services and any

further contacts that require Social Services to investigate or reassess

etc. For example, if a person telephones concerned about their

neighbour, this is a contact on the neighbour. If a doctor sent a letter

to inform you of a patient who will need help at home, this is a contact

on the patient.

Referral

A referral is when the first contact made to the department requires

work to be carried out to investigate the situation further and assess

whether the person needs help from Social Services. It is at the point

of recording a referral against a person on Swift that the person

becomes a client.

A client must only ever have One open referral. Therefore, if a

person has had an initial referral, any further contacts made to the

dept. ( whilst they are still a client ) remain as contacts and are not

progressed to a new referral, instead they are linked to the existing

open referral.

Involvements

An involvement in Frontdesk is any person or organisation that is

involved with the client’s situation. Involvements recorded elsewhere

in Swift are also displayed in Frontdesk.

Record Management: Use of and Access to SWIFT

It is the intention of these business rules to set a standard approach to Service User records particularly with the use of SWIFT and subsequent paper files.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Access to SWIFT is restricted to authorised access only and is auditable. This is a safeguard installed for both Service Users’ and Staff protection. It is an expectation that any authorised user of SWIFT will use the system in accordance with set guidelines and should not look at any records that they do not need to, such as family members, colleagues, neighbours or your own personal records, etc. If you do not have a professional involvement you should not be accessing the record.

This inappropriate use of SWIFT is a very serious breach of confidentiality under the following legislation, and is in contravention of the service user’s civil liberties:

• Data Protection Act 1998

• Freedom of Information Act 2000

• The Human Rights Act 1998

Any incident of inappropriate use of SWIFT will result in disciplinary action.

WHAT IS DESIGNATED AS A BREACH OF THIS POLICY

There are two types of breach ‘Accidental’ and ‘Non-Accidental’ as described below:

Accidental Breach

1) If you accidentally access a record but report it immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk

2) If you accidentally access a record but do NOT report it immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk

Non-Accidental Breach

3) If access is non-accidental but you report is immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk

4) If access is non-accidental and NOT reported immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk

5) If access is non-accidental; if you amended, change or delete a record and is NOT reported immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Any disciplinary action will be undertaken in accordance with the Isle of Wight Council’s Disciplinary Policy, which is available on the intranet at the following web address via PDF format:

Any potential breaches of this policy will be investigated by the Information Governance in conjunction with Human Resources during instigation of disciplinary procedures, and will make appropriate recommendation to the disciplinary panel.

THE FOLLOWING ARE EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE ‘PENTALTIES’ FOR BREACHING THESE BUSINESS RULES

Any form of inappropriate access will result in disciplinary action being taken. However there are differing levels of the outcomes of any such proceedings depending on the level of the breach. The following are examples of possible recommendations by the Information Governance Manager who following investigation into any breaches of confidentiality:

Accidental Breach

1) If you accidentally access a record but report it immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk you could receive a verbal warning.

Please note if a similar incident occurs during the period of a live verbal warning, the disciplinary outcome could escalate to a higher disciplinary sanction. Any subsequent breaches would be treated as serious misconduct and appropriate sanction given which may include dismissal.

3) If you accidentally access a record but do NOT report it immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk you could receive a first written warning.

Please note if a similar incident occurs during the period of a live written warning, the disciplinary outcome could escalate to a higher disciplinary sanction, However, any subsequent breaches would be treated as serious misconduct and appropriate sanction given which may include dismissal.

Non-Accidental Breach

3) If access is non-accidental but you report is immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk you could receive a final written warning.

Please note if a similar incident occurs during the period of a live written warning the disciplinary outcome could be treated as serious misconduct which may include dismissal.

4) If access is non-accidental and NOT reported immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk this is considered a matter of serious misconduct and could result in dismissal

5) If access is non-accidental; if you amended, change or delete a record and is NOT reported immediately to your line manager and/or the Swift Helpdesk this is considered a matter of serious misconduct and could result in dismissal

WHAT IS AN AUDIT?

Audits are undertaken where concerns about possible abuses of access are raised as well as periodically when random selections of staff members are audited to ensure the continued security of SWIFT. We are aware that some staff do not hold caseloads but will have legitimate reason to be looking up clients and inputting profile notes.

The audit and caseload reports are carefully reviewed and any anomalies are highlighted and reported to the relevant manager and Head of Service. If any anomalies are found your line manager will discuss this matter with you.

The whole process is confidential and the Information Governance Manager and SWIFT Application Team do not disclose who has been audited.

SERVICE USERS’ RIGHT TO ACCESS

Service User records must be factual, accurate and are available for scrutiny to the Service User under the Data Protection Act 1998 (as amended by the Freedom of Information Act 2000) and previously the Access to Information Act. Service Users should be made aware of how and where their information is stored. Practitioners need to ensure that SAR leaflets are given to all their service users along with the directorate’s consent to share form, which they should discuss and sign off with the service user.

CAN I ACCESS MY OWN RECORDS ON SWIFT?

NO - Staff cannot, for any reason, access their own SWIFT records. Staff who are service users and believe their social care records are kept on SWIFT MUST use the same Access to Records procedures as any other service user. They must apply to the Information Governance Manager to view their records.

SWIFT records are maintained and stored under the Data Protection Act with restricted access to authorised users only.

To view your own records or those of your relatives, friends, colleagues or neighbours is a breach of confidentiality and is considered Serious Misconduct and disciplinary action will be taken.

To access your records please contact the Information Access Officer at the Modernisation Unit, 5 Langley Court, Pyle Street, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 1LA.

AS A MANAGER CAN I USE SWIFT AS PART OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS?

No - If such searches are to be undertaken applicants MUST be informed and their CONSENT sought and received prior to SWIFT being used for this purpose, as is undertaken for their standard medical information.

We are working with Human Resources to include the search of SWIFT as part of the wording of the information release form applicants sign but until this is finalised, no searches should be undertaken.

The only current exception to this rule are Ofsted service users, who include the searching of social care databases as part of their information release forms.

We also have a moral obligation to our service users, to respect their privacy and protect their human rights, and those will be compromised if this practice were to happen without the relevant authorisation.

EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES

Please note that although in the past employees and their close family have been given the “Right to Refuse” (*see note below), this changed from the 1st November 2003. The Directorate Management Team agreed that all employees and their close family should be treated no differently from any other Service Users and their details should be included on SWIFT.

*However, like any other service user under Caldicott they can ask to be excluded from SWIFT under the ‘Right to Refuse’ rules and this is undertaken on the condition that the decision to remove is made by a Chief Officer (Head of Service). Please see a copy of the disclaimer form below (Appendix A – Employee form and Appendix B – Close Family Member).

Examples of when a request will be refused by a Chief Officer are as follows:

• Child or adult protection issues

• The Mental Health Act applies

• It’s in the public interest – in other words there is a serious risk to staff and the public if this information is not available to professionals

Please note that when a close family member uses their right to refuse the case worker must confirm the identity of the person completing and signing the disclaimer form (Appendix B)

We must reassure both staff and service users that SWIFT is a secure system with authorised access only and strict business rules in place to avoid any abuses of access. There should be no need for paper only files or pseudo names on the system.

Municiapl Dystopia that has access to such a system below (in my area):

Head of Service

(Childrens Social Care)

Isle of Wight Council

Head of Service

(Adult Social Care)

Isle of Wight Council

Head of Housing

Isle of Wight Council

Director of Mental Health Services

Isle of Wight Healthcare Trust

Head of Human Resources

Isle of Wight Council

Caldicott Guardian

Isle of Wight Council

It should also be noted that employee's and their families have the option to opt out of such a system, is'nt that conincidental lol, personaly I believe this is a fraudulent system designed to enslave the masses IE the general public whom are forced to use these services, you do not see anyone from the Private Sectors using these services, just the slaves.

This is the Council employees opt out form (bellow):

Right to Refuse Disclaimer

Although I understand that any personal information received either directly or indirectly will at all times be treated as confidential, and will not be transmitted to a third party (unless in the normal course of working duties), as an employee of the Isle of Wight Council or the Isle of Wight PCT Healthcare Services, I wish to exercise my Right to Refuse with regard to my personal details being input on to SWIFT.

I do understand this is undertaken on the condition that the final decision to remove is made by a Chief Officer (Head of Service). However, I do agree that a ‘document’ file will be kept by the relevant Practitioner and/or Team Manager.

Employee Signature: __________________________________ Date: _____________

Employee’s Name: ______________________________________________________

(Please print FULL Name clearly)

--------------------------------------- Chief Officer Authorisation ----------------------------------------

As Chief Officer for *Adult Services/Children & Family Services I authorise the removal of the above person’s records from the SWIFT Electronic Care Record Database

Chief Officer’s Name: __________________________________________________

Chief Officer’s Signature: __________________________________________________

Date: ______________________________

---------------------------------- Chief Officer Authorisation Refused---------------------------------

As Chief Officer for *Adult Services/Children & Family Services I refuse authorisation to remove the above person’s records from the SWIFT Electronic Care Record Database for the following reasons:

Chief Officer’s Name: __________________________________________________

Chief Officer’s Signature: __________________________________________________

Date: ______________________________

Bellow is the Council employees family opt out from!

Right to Refuse Disclaimer

Although I understand that any personal information received either directly or indirectly will at all times be treated as confidential, and will not be transmitted to a third party (unless in the normal course of working duties), as an employee of the Isle of Wight Council or the Isle of Wight PCT Healthcare Services, I wish to exercise the Right to Refuse procedure with regard to a close family member’s personal details being input on to SWIFT. However, I do agree that a ‘document’ file will be kept by the relevant Practitioner and/or Team Manager.

I understand this is undertaken on the condition that the final decision to remove, or not add information onto the diary screen is made by a Chief Officer (Head of Service).

Employee’s Full Name: __________________________________________________

Employee’s Signature: _____________________________________ Date: ________

Family Member’s Full Name: _____________________________________________

Relationship to Employee: ______________________________________________

(Please State)

Family Member’s Signature: _________________________________ Date: _________

------------------------------------------ Chief Officer Authorisation -------------------------------------

As Chief Officer for *Adult Services/Children & Family Services I authorise the removal of the above person’s records from the SWIFT Electronic Care Record Database

Chief Officer’s Name: __________________________________________________

Chief Officer’s Signature: __________________________________________________

Date: ______________________________

---------------------------------- Chief Officer Authorisation Refused---------------------------------

As Chief Officer for *Adult Services/Children & Family Services I refuse authorisation to remove the above person’s records from the SWIFT Electronic Care Record Database for the following reasons:

Chief Officer’s Name: __________________________________________________

Chief Officer’s Signature: __________________________________________________

Date: ______________________________

If there are Solicitors that view this post or use this site then message me, I would love to be able to talk in detail with anyone whom may have more knowlegde than myself pertaining to these issues, another big twist in my situation is one of my family actually is pretty high up in the local municipal dystopia IE employed by them and one would have imagned that such a family memeber would not have had their family records held on such a system as the family member would he requested so, and completed the actual forms they have sent to employees, the reality is such information is according to them personal information and one cannot even establish such, and the family memeber also cannot legally disclose such as it breaches the contract they signed. It appears as a Freedom Fighter I am subjected to special rules and they like to keep a close eye on me, how bloody lucky is that eh, lol, I have clearly established that it is one rule for one group and another set of rules for the slaves. I believe it is time to unite and take back our rights and bloody force an end to this despotic castigation of theose defined as CORPORATE slaves.

I called their office and sent them the bellow this morning after establishing the Computer Statute, check out their reply lol, notice the restrictions put on me after handing out information outside their building (County Hall) and showing members of the public what is going on with their information! Lol...

From:

Sent: 06 January 2010 09:12:41

To: @iow.gov.uk

You're SWIFT System breaches the Computer Misuse Act 1990, lol I told you I was moving in for the big one!

And look its am imprisonable offence, I wonder how many may face prison and almost certainly have to lose their jobs.

By the way I can appy for a Warrant for this serious offence as you will see bellow!

Risk and Laws pertain to us all not just me, I'll see you all in Court!

Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18)

Unauthorised access to computer material.

— (1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1 , or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

(b)the access he intends to secure [F2 , or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and

(c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—

(a)any particular program or data;

(b)a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c)a program or data held in any particular computer.

[F3 (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.]

Anyone can apply for a Warrant over allegations of a Serious Offence

A quirk of English law allows private individuals to seek warrants for the arrest of people they wish to prosecute for serious offences, including alleged war crimes.

Under the system, the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service are unable to impose checks on, or even have prior knowledge of, applications to the courts for the arrest of individuals suspected of war crimes. The latter are subject to the principle of universal jurisdiction, where the seriousness of the alleged offence means that they can be tried anywhere.

From: @IOW.GOV.UK

To: @hotmail.co.uk

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:04:15 +0000

Subject: Unacceptable Behaviour

Dear Mr (me),

Following recent telephone conversations with officers and the repetitive requests to the Council for information, we have applied certain sanctions under the ‘Unacceptable Behaviour Policy’. These are;

· All contact with the council is to be by e mail, letter, or fax only.

· All your correspondence to the Isle of Wight Council will be filtered and will only reach the ‘customer service’ mailbox.

· That you should not attend County Hall or any other council premises without prior arrangement.

Staff monitoring the ‘customer service’ mailbox will forward your correspondence if appropriate but if it pertains to a subject access request that has already been dealt with and has been reviewed internally you should use the correct channels through either the Information Commissioners Office or the County Court (as previously stated), as otherwise e mails will be filed only, with no acknowledgement being sent. Any e mails, letters or faxes which relate to issues you have already raised with no new issues being added, will be similarly filed. If your matter relates to allegations of abuse you have suffered when you were at school then these matters should be reported to the police.

The areas of the policy which have been applied are:

1. You present the same issues repeatedly (exactly or with minor differences) but never accepts the explanations and outcomes. This can take the form of excessive telephone calls, visits to Council offices or lengthy written communications.

2. You seek an unrealistic outcome and persist until it is reached, namely that we admit that we hold these documents when, in fact, the Council no longer has custody of these documents.

3 You have shown a pattern of unreasonable persistence on these same issues.

4. You persistently contact the Local Authority and your contact is frequent, lengthy, complicated and stressful for staff.

5. You can present as aggressive towards staff which may be expressed in verbal abuse or threatening/threatened physical harm.

6. You persistently make repeated approaches to different staff members of the Local Authority about the same issue.

You can apply to have these sanctions removed any time after the 6th June 2010.

Corporate Policy and Complaints Manager

Tel: (01983) 821000

Web: http://www.iwight.com

Notice they do not mention any offence they have commited and even have gone as far as declaring I have theatend them, lol, if one had made such threats then one would have been arrested, it appears many feel that pointing out their actual offences is a form of threatening; I have to conclude that if anyone has ever been accused of an offence by the Police then on their basis it appears we have the right to state that such accusations constitues threats, if a Police officer or anyone else states you may have to go to Court or be held accountable for any issue then state to them "you are threatening me and this is harrasmnet as it is causing you alarm and distress". Lol, what a manipulation of legislation....

Does anyone also know anything about Council Sanctions, it appears I am going to have to learn various other information about their ballshit, eveyrtime one gets to one stage they change the goal posts... LOL

I will be taking all my concerns to the Judical System and fighting this through their corropt system just for the fucking hell of it, never let the bastards grind you down.

Peace.

PS can anyone who reads this sign up for this petition for medical marijuana

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/uk- ... -2010.html considering the amount of people here not many appear to take direct action and appear to enjoy just creating posts and adding information, what we need is action, the petition is early days but there is a group of us behind it doing it for a reason, we aim to challenge these issues in the Courts...

Also checkout http://www.drugequality.org Edwin is one of the reasons we are taking this all the way and view that no longer should good people get 20 bloody years for being a scientist, bring on the revolution...

Peace, out!

I_Amness

Article courtesy of I_Amness @TPUC Forum

>>>> discuss this topic @ TPUC Forum >>>>

Love, Peace, JUSTICE, for ALL

2009-12-23T20:55:00.028Z

by Richard Ford
21st December 2009

Anyone can apply for a Warrant over allegations of a Serious Offence

A quirk of English law allows private individuals to seek warrants for the arrest of people they wish to prosecute for serious offences, including alleged war crimes.

Under the system, the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service are unable to impose checks on, or even have prior knowledge of, applications to the courts for the arrest of individuals suspected of war crimes. The latter are subject to the principle of universal jurisdiction, where the seriousness of the alleged offence means that they can be tried anywhere.

The Magistrates’ Courts Act (1980) allows anyone in England and Wales to apply to a court for a warrant to arrest someone against whom they wish to bring a private prosecution for a serious crime. The law does not require prosecutors even to give advice on such an application.

Anyone seeking to bring a private prosecution would provide information, usually a written formal allegation about the offence, which is put before magistrates. All applications for warrants in private prosecutions are dealt with at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. A warrant can be issued without either the alleged suspect or official prosecutors having the chance to make legal representations.

The court will consider if the alleged offence is actually a crime and whether it has the jurisdiction to issue an arrest warrant. The judge issues the warrant if he or she is convinced that there is likely to be a case to answer and that the accused person is in the country — hence the withdrawal of the warrant for Tzipi Livni after she decided not to travel to Britain.

Any change to the law would be up to the Ministry of Justice after discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General. It would probably focus on giving the Attorney-General the power to approve all warrants before arrests can be made.

Article courtesy of TimesOnline

>>>> discuss this topic @ TimesOnline >>>>
>>>> In reply to the Arrest Warrant Info crazations posted >>>>
>>>> Arrest warrants keep Israeli team away from UK >>>>

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

1980 CHAPTER 43

Part I

Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure

Jurisdiction to issue process and deal with charges

1 Issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest

[ F1 (1) On an information being laid before a justice of the peace that a person has, or is suspected of having, committed an offence, the justice may issue—

(a) a summons directed to that person requiring him to appear before a magistrates' court to answer the information, or

(b) a warrant to arrest that person and bring him before a magistrates' court. ]

(2) F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3) No warrant shall be issued under this section unless the information is in writing F3. . . .

(4) No warrant shall be issued under this section for the arrest of any person who has attained [ F4 the age of 18 years ] unless—

(a) the offence to which the warrant relates is an indictable offence or is punishable with imprisonment, or

(b) the person’s address is not sufficiently established for a summons to be served on him.

(5) F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6) Where the offence charged is an indictable offence, a warrant under this section may be issued at any time notwithstanding that a summons has previously been issued.

(7) A justice of the peace may issue a summons or warrant under this section upon an information being laid before him notwithstanding any enactment requiring the information to be laid before two or more justices.

(8) F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1 S. 1(1) substituted (1.4.2005) by Courts Act 2003 (c. 39), ss. 43(1), 110; S.I. 2005/910, art. 3(p)
F2 S. 1(2)(5)(8) repealed (1.4.2005) by Courts Act 2003 (c. 39), ss. 43(2), 109(3), 110, Sch. 10; S.I. 2005/910, art. 3(p)(aa)
F3 Words in s. 1(3) omitted (29.1.2004) by virtue of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), ss. 31(1), 336; S.I. 2004/81, art. 4(1)(2)(d) and the same words repealed (15.12.2004) by s. 332, Sch. 37 Part. 12 of that Act; S.I. 2004/3033, art. 3(2)(e)(ii)
F4 Words in s. 1(4) substituted (1.10.1992) by Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), ss. 68(d), 101(1), Sch. 8 para. 6(1)(a), Sch. 12 para. 22(1); S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2

Statute extract courtesy of Office of Public Sector Information

Reclaim Consent

2009-12-01T21:30:00.007Z

The Brave New World is Here - Where are you?

A Talk by John White - presented in Malvern, UK, on 26th November 2009

Hello everybody

The first thing I want to say tonight is thankyou: thankyou all

It means a very great deal to me personally to have the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I've lived in Malvern for many years and known many of you for many years, and its entirely my honour that you have come to listen to what I have to say tonight

I'd like you to know I'm not saying it lightly... there is no pleasure in delivering what may very well be uncomfortably and shocking news, just as there is no pleasure in being right when bad things are seen as potentially coming, and then happen: only a great sadness.

I would Love it if I was going to talk for the next couple hours about the healing and transformative power of Love, or the holographic nature of reality, and who knows, I might touch on those topics, but its not what I'm here tonight for

I'm here to talk to you about the Brave New World that we now live in

A year ago, or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, there would be some comfort in that I could stand before you and tell you "The Brave New World is coming". But I can't do that now, as its no longer true

I have to tell you that the Brave New World is here. I urge you face that truth, to stand to the reality of it, and not to distract yourself with comforting diversions to avoid that act: far better if we learn to comfort and help each other

Please. Take that fact away with you tonight: the brave new world IS here

But that's not the end, far from it, because I can do more than that. I can show you what the Brave New World is, I can show you at least part of how it has come about, and we can discover what the Brave New World could be IF you will accept your part in shaping it into what you want it to be... just as I must warn you what this Brave New World will be if you do not

It's probable that you will find some of what I have to say alarming and frightening. That's very human, and very understandable. Still I urge you: do not be frightened. There is no need for Fear. Fear is the mindkiller, Fear is the workhorse of control, and a fearful people give no trouble to those looking to run their lives

I'm also going to tell you about a great power that resides inside every single one of you. I'm going to tell you about the power of consent, the most powerful force in any society. I'm going to tell you about what I personally have done to make good use of that power. And I'm going to invite you to discover that power inside yourselves

Because what we fear is nothing like as powerful, in fact is puny in comparison, to what we CHOOSE

And that's why as well as stating the fact that the Brave New World is here, I ask you all a question. You don't have to have an answer, it may take time for you to find an answer, but that question is my "gift" to you to consider in the days and weeks and months ahead

Where are YOU?

As a philosopher, my job or role is to provide help with considering questions like that. I empathise HELP: not do it for you. As a basic start point, never believe anything just because someone else says it, but if it feels like it might be right, challenge yourself to explore. I provide that help firstly by making choices in my own life and lifestyle that ensure I have the opportunity and capacity to sift through the chaos and noise of society, the media, the ideas and the perspectives that fly through the ether all around us, and to condense and filter all of that into key points, that provide a structure for you all to consider the questions of life around, that are co-ordinates to the bigger picture, so you can see yourselves and see where you stand with things in ways it might be difficult to do alone. I do it simply because I can, its a good contribution to benefit my fellow humans all around me, and the vast majority of people have life commitments that make it difficult for them to do the same.

I do my best to do that as well as I can

So to start us off tonight, I'm going to spend a little time giving us some co-ordinates, that will help us to get the bigger picture by the end

Freedom and Liberty

Here's two words we all know the meaning of

Or do we? We assume a lot as we go through the world, and are busy enough in life that we dont always stop to consider the meaning of what is flowing in front of us. It's a shame, as we miss a lot of clarity that can help us a great deal

Freedom and Liberty.

They are similar words. But they have distinctly different meaning and therefore quite different implications

We all assume we know the meanings of words, but that consensual assumption is based on the surface of words. All words have greater depth of meaning: and if they are words in legalese, they can be shockingly different from the common interpretation

Freedom and Liberty

Do they really mean the same?

When we think of Freedom we think things like "born free" "free to do what I want" "Free not to be repressed and put down" "free to live my life and be respected, to be treated as a thinking feeling human being and not a robot". We think of noble ideals that so very many have given their lives for across History

The essence of Freedom is that it is YOU: it is your natural state. Freedom isn't something put upon you like a cloak across your back: Freedom IS you, its the core of your self. It is innate. It is your birthright. Freedom is the awareness which is you that looks out of your eyes and moves your body around, Freedom is the consciousness observing your life as you live it

We also know that Freedom comes with certain responsibilities. We know that using our freedom to kill and rampage and pillage is wrong. So we know that respecting the freedom of others is defending their right not to have their freedom damaged and harmed: and thus is also protecting our own

Liberty is a word much used these days "civil liberties".. we never say "civil freedom": why is that?

The word civil gives us a clue: liberty comes from civilisation. Liberty is something we receive, separate from the freedom of our human souls. Liberty is privilege, reward. Liberty is what press ganged sailors used to receive from the captain: to be at liberty to go ashore for leave: with an understanding they would have to come back or be hunted down by force

And because we receive Liberty, it can also be taken away

I'm all for civil liberties, its a good idea to have some, its protection from abuses by the state or our employer. In fact a good way to understand liberties (and human rights legislation) is to think of the state as our employer, and as citizens, ourselves as employees. Civil liberties are the rules on the staff canteen board: but they are still the rules we follow when at work. Are we only our jobs? Which is to say our position and status in society. Obviously no, we are more than that, although sadly many of us forget this

lets try some more co-ordinates

Lawful and Legal

These two words would certainly be considered by most people to be the same

But they are not, and the difference is both eye opening, reassuring and empowering

Lawful is the behaviour of the human. Lawful behaviour is as old as mankind for it comes from the tribe: from the shared common values that help us all get along agreeably with each other. Lawful behaviour is the behaviour of a free adult human being. It is very simple

Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not harm

Whenever we hear "that behaviour was unlawful" it means somebody or some group lied to someone, stole from someone or harmed someone, either physically or emotionally

Legal is quite different. Legal is the rules set by society regarding trade with each other. It developed from the creation of the first cities, who would post the city laws on the walls of the city so all who entered knew how they were contracting to behave. And this is vital: the legal system is concerned with one thing: contract: although that contract can be hidden in all sorts of ways and only understood to be there by one party, who is not obliged to tell the other. Anything illegal is to do with breach of contract. Get caught speeding in your car or driving while intoxicated? that is a breach of contract with the government via applying for a driving licence: a contract. Of course a lawfully behaving human doesn't need an act of parliament to make them behave: they know excessive speed or intoxication could cause them to crash and do others harm, so why would they do it?

This separation is the foundation of what we know as British justice, and both lawful and legal working together provide the centre of the checks and balances of a free society. Whenever government works solely on the legal, with no provision for the lawful, we get tyranny, and the independence of the judiciary has been there to serve us by preventing just that

Lawful behaviour is the centre of what we know as Common law. We know it as "unwritten law", although this is not, but Common Law is a record of past judgements as reference for the future, with occasional documents stating its implications like the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1694. It is not rigid rules applied robotically

Common law brings in the human heart to the justice system. It is why for a millennia the accused has had the right to appear before a Jury of his peers: ordinary men and women who decide whether what the person is claimed to have done was right or wrong as well as whether they did it or not. For the hearts and minds of fellow human beings can understand right and wrong in the way that a piece of paper never can

Legal liability is decided by Statute Law: this is all the law passed by parliament as Acts or other statutory devices. A Statute Law is not Law because it is written down: It is Law because it receives the consent of the governed. Implicit in this is the common law understanding that if Statute Law declares something legal, but that statute law violates lawful behaviour (forcing us to lie, steal or harm or otherwise arbitrarily preventing lawful behaviour, such as charity to the needy), then it is declared unlawful. It doesn't matter who says it's legal: if it's unlawful it CANNOT be law, and a dictator trying to impose unlawful behaviour by force must be overthrown for the sake of the freedom of us all. British Judges have confirmed this time and time again... not to say sometimes there hasn't been a need for public pressure to do so... abolishing the slave trade, for example

Lawful and Legal

common Law and Statute law

freedom and liberty

right and privilege

the human and the state

Only by clearly holding understanding of all of these terms and their relationship can any society stay free

Which is sadly where we must start to consider the Brave New World that is here

For there is no Common Law in the European Union, and European law has been placed above all British law

Your going to hear the word's European Union a lot through the rest of this talk, so I want to clarify: I am not saying the European Union is evil. I am not saying Britain is the best Nation in the whole world who deserves to rule all the rest. But I am saying there is a reason British Society has preserved freedom so well over the centuries while other countries have been enslaved in various ways. I'm not saying Britain has been perfect, we have done terrible things, especially in other peoples lands. But this core of freedom from the balance of common law against abuse from the state is what has made Britain so admired by so many, and inspired so many, especially the Founding Fathers of America, who loved that balance so much they encoded it into the very fabric of society in their Constitution: sadly much eroded now from that glorious beginning

I'm not against the idea of the European union. In fact, I love it. I've watched Star Trek, Ive dreamed of the whole world united in peace, working together without war misery poverty and want, with fairness and caring for all. Furthermore I believe, really believe, that we actually can do that, that we actually can get there. I believe humanity can grow up: but only if we can stay human.

I am concerned that the realities of what the European Union really is has been lost in the political noise and spin of the past few decades, that it's been about job's, about fish, about party loyalty, about keeping influence, and not what it will be like for all of us to actually live in for the rest of our lives. I am concerned that so very few people seem to have gained an understanding of what joining the EU, especially with the shameful unlawful politics since 2005, really means, that the treasure of real freedom which has been at the heart of our way of life for 1000 years has been thoughtlessly discarded and forgotten about. I am concerned about so many of our elderly, who suffered so long and gave so much in the world wars to secure freedom for ever more, have been pushed aside by modern society, farmed off and medicated up, so that they have not been able to pass on their golden wisdom to the new generation. And most of all, I am really really concerned that those really in favour of joining the EU seem to have almost no real knowledge of how it works, and know only that its got a better voting system, human rights legislation, and precious little else. I am concerned about a cliff we are collectively being asked to step off without a moments thought

We are talking about The Brave New World, and the EU is not the whole of it, it is a part of it, a product of the way of thinking that has seen the world being bestrided by Transnational Corporations and human beings treated as discardable commodities

But now, as we approach the extra-ordinary change coming on 1st January 2010, now we can finally see the EU for what it actually is, and to describe the EU is to describe the Brave New World all across the planet, whether its the birth of NAFTA or the Pacific Union. From the United Kingdom to New Zealand, the situation is the same, the same processes and pressures shaping the world without the consent of the worlds people

So why is the EU, and the Brave New World, so potentially terrible?

Two words to get us started: Strict Liability

EU Law: Strict Liability: The Law of Injustice

Without the common sense of common law, we are left with statute law alone. Statute Law can only decide guilt or innocence by the exact wording of the law itself. Anything else is irrelevant: motivation, extenuating circumstances, obviously not doing any harm: all irrelevant. Can the person be linked to one of the clauses indicating guilt? That's it

Think of statute law like a computer programme. A programme is only as good as it is written. A programme is linear. Statute law is a computer programme of Justice. But it does not breathe, it does not feel, it cannot think. It is dead paper, separate from the human. A human knows what justice is: statute law cannot

That is the meaning of strict liability: the programme says you are liable for fine or imprisonment: you are. It's strict. No exceptions

For the last couple of decades especially, the understanding of common law has been eroded in the legal profession. I've talked to law students and was amazed that they only understood statute law, and even more shocked that they only understood government as force. But it's only recently that strict liability verdicts have appeared being rigidly enforced in our courts. I was researching material to show strict liability when a remarkable story was published in a Surrey Local paper

Paul Clarke is a 27 year old former soldier. Back in March he looked out of his house and saw a black bin liner at the bottom of the garden, probably thrown over his wall. He investigated and discovered a sawn off shotgun with 2 cartridges. He rang the Chief Superintendant and asked if he come in and speak with him. He made the weapon safe, put it in a bag, and walked off down to the police station with it. He got there, put the safe gun on the desk with it pointing to the wall. He was then immediately arrested for ill-legal possession of a fire arm without a licence.

At trial the prosecutor told the jury it was a strict liability charge. Judge Christopher Critchlow confirmed: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

The jury was told they could only find him guilty as the evidence was incontestable, so they did

Paul Clarke promptly received a 5 year prison sentence, currently suspended pending appeal

His defence wasn't even rebutted: there was no need to: he could not have one. I suspect Paul may have contracted by signing a statement under questioning

That seems incredible to us now, but it will be the norm. EU law cannot develop any other way until the EU has some form of common law balance

As well as been directed away from their traditional role into becoming a rubber stamp for the state, Jury's themselves will have no role in most trials in the near future. Already happening this year is trial by camera in a Police cell, over 10,000 cases have been tried this year in the UK, and from January 1st this "voluntary" scheme will become compulsory. It's hard enough for an innocent man in court now, with the twin disadvantages of being in the dock and thus having to get past the immediate suspicion of guilt, and having expert witness's arrayed against him put up by the state. He has to "reach" the jury so they see him as a man whose defence is worth considering... one reason defence lawyers make sure their clients wear suits. How much harder will that be when he can't even see the jury and they see him on a television screen? The odd's of a successful defence get even more remote when there is no jury and its strict liability so there isn't a defence anyway. If I found myself arrested on suspicion of some crime I certainly wouldn't be signing anything, even if offered a nice cup of tea with extra sugar. Just not worth it

Crucially, the EU does not have Habeus Corpus, latin for "show me the body"

The Act of Habeas Corpus 1679, enacted to overcome repression at the whims of kings, clarified and helped to enforce traditional rights with regard to detention by the state. The writ of Habeas Corpus, directed those having custody of a prisoner to produce the body (habeas corpus) of the prisoner with a statement to justify his detention. It entitles an arrested citizen to be brought before a court and charged, within 60 hours of arrest. In addition the burden of proof lies with the prosecution: absolutely vital to a free societies maxim "innocent until proven guilty"

The EU maxim is the reverse: "Guilty: unless you can prove your innocent": Corups Juris, Civil Law. To us in the UK, we are literally going to see Justice turn on its head

The EU also doesn't have common law defence against unlawful arrest: all arrests are legal, so none are unlawful: at least in the EU's eyes. And this includes being arrested because you MIGHT commit a crime, with no requirement to give a reason, to tell anyone that your under arrest or where, and with the power to immediately take you out of the UK into prison on mainland europe and possible extradition to anywhere

But what about human rights legislation we might ask? Surely that wouldn't let all this go on?

Human rights legislation can protect the human: but only at the end of a long trial process, assuming one can get a case that one can get tried. Under strict liability, its one thing to address prejudice in a workplace, strict liability works on the side of the employee being harassed by their boss, but quite another to take the state to court for perfectly legal use of its powers: unless you could get strict liability against the state for breaking it's own rules, its very unlikely to do anything for you. It offers no defence at all of your rights at the time they are being violated: only Habeas Corpus can do that, by ensuring the state has to be open and justify itself reasonably shortly after it has acted

If this talk hasn't shocked you before, then I hope you are shocked now. Not because I want to shock you, it is simple facts of life now after all, but because we all need to be shocked by the implications if we are not simply to submit to them: we also need to recognise the only thing that prevents a state using these laws is the public watching like a hawk what is going on and the state reckoning its not worth pushing it for political reasons: legally they can do as they like, as long as they can show strict liability after 60 days

Now we are getting into looking at the Brave New World we find ourselves in, we can examine the evolution of the EU from its starting dream to where we are today

Everyone has heard of George Orwells seminal 1984, his grim tale of unrelenting tyranny that so oppresses the people they cannot even think about freedom any more. Orwells dark vision was the boot stamping down on the human face forever. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, published in 1935, tells of another form of tyranny, the velvet tyranny, where the people have endless pleasures to amuse themselves with, where it is abnormal for the individual to want anything else than diversion from their labours, but where hard and unrelenting rules of status and privilege were decided for the individual before they were even born. Orwell's vision is what we know to fear, but Huxley's vision of management through pleasure has already become in some ways true, we have all lived it for many years,and has been seen in the consumer culture which has blinded us to the harm it has caused to other countries while the structures of the Brave New World have come together.

It is not a question of who was right, Orwell or Huxley, but more the observation that both taken together describe the range and polarity of controls the real Brave New World employs today. What those (rightly or wrongly) accused of being Al-Qaeda terrorists and so on have experienced is very very much Orwell,while the pleasant consumer dream world of the 80's and 90's has been very Huxley: both are attempts to gain our consent either directly against our will or by hypnosis

To really tell the story of the real Brave New World in completeness I would have to go back at least 150 years, to the time of Darwin and Marx. I would have to tell the story of the rise of Marxism, and the story of Darwin's Cousin Galton who took his theories forward with the ideas of Thomas Malthus to create the ideas of Eugenics, and how those ideas impacted on the Russian Revolution of Lenin. I would tell you about Marxist-LENINISM, and what that means (Marxist in secret!). I would have to tell you about Freud and Jung and especially the adaptation of Freuds ideas about the nature of man into a set of scientific principles, especially in the period after the 1st world war and the birth of Public Relations by Freud's Nephew Edward Bernays, which are now globally applied, as they have been throughout most of the 20th century. I'd have to talk about the rise of Nazism and the ideas that shaped Europe after WWII, and the post war influence of Leo Strauss, who advocated government by a privileged elite through the manufacture of public mythology. We know this as War by any Lie. And also Mathematician John Nash and his game theory, leading to the control of the stability of society by modelling behaviour on a mass scale, and setting peoples selfish drives against each other in corporate structures to achieve equilibrium.

I cant do all that here, so ill have to focus just on one important part: the gradual story of how power in the industrialised nations lost their faith in the human

Democracy is always a pain in the arse for those wielding power in it: true democracy, in a free society with the protection of common law. You try and get things done and the masses are contrary and don't see the brilliance of your notions, protest and resist and do all sorts of stuff which makes ruling much more difficult than it has to be if everyone just did as they were told. Of course, since the days of Rome, rulers have by and large got on with it, sometimes by using force, sometimes, if they feared the people too much to try force, by the use of persuasion

But the birth of the new science of psychology changed that: it offered those with power new options

Freud's basic work tells of man as a creature of strong subconscious desires, lurking beneath the surface of civilised society, a primal animus. Others considered this to mean that man's own nature made him disruptive and combative, and that he would always tear down civilised structure if these primal impulses were not channelled and controlled. It was seen that by bypassing man's conscious mind and appealing to his inner drives, he could be steered and moulded productively. And by playing on the ego man could be kept diverted and distracted and contained. These social scientists were the true architects of the Brave New World we have entered today. It is a world of amusements and diversions, consumption linked to the satisfaction of unconscious desires, and a power elite comprised of politics, banking, corporations, and fabulously rich individuals and families. This power elite shares the rewards of privilege only with those willing to serve their aims, and have sufficiently massive influence to control social debate by having their people across all polarities, to influence or even directly set the shape and breadth of opinion in the mass media, by giving contrary opinions the appearance of being considered and then shut down: illustrated nicely by Ken Clark's admission on newsnight a week ago that David Cameron's manifesto pledge to "change the law to ensure all future transfer of sovereignty must be subject to referendum" was simply a sop for the Tory eurosceptics. How could it be otherwise when the Lisbon Treaty is self amending (to the direction of the EU commission) and needs no further votes in national parliaments: on anything at all.

In fact a good analogy for the true role of Westminster in the brave new world is to imagine the prime minister: it doesn't matter what party he represents: driving along in his car. He comes to a T junction and is considering whether to turn left or right. Just then a huge giant of a man, built like Conan, rips open the drivers door, shoves the PM down into the passenger footwell, jumps in, and then drives off at high speed in a direction the PM see's not where. The PM gets out his mobile, rings up the people and says: it doesn't matter, we can still decide what to tune into on the radio"

By the end of the second world war these ideas had penetrated deeply enough that they were the hidden drivers behind the formation of the EU. And its architects saw that they would never win an open and honest political debate to get the whole of Europe to unite into one structure. So the intention was to develop the "European project" very slowly and steadily, step by step by step over more than one generation of time, so that the overall shape of the design could not be perceived until it finally came all together, and that by then the thinking and ideas of the people would be so modified they would not see what had happened, why it happened, how it happened, and most crucially, never successfully object, most especially with critics managed and diverted out of the public eye by association with ideas like racism and nationalism to ensure a united opposition did not arise

In synthesis, and for pragmatic reasons if nothing else, the architects of the Brave New World have progressed in successive steps, disguised as having limited economic or social purpose instead of the real implications of ever more centralised control until full federation is achieved

Disinformation, misinformation, misdirection, and inducing apathy in the majority: these are the tools the state has used since the birth of this scientific management of consent.. and while this may have been farcical and impossible to believe some years ago, with our common experience of the New Labour project over the past 12 years, who could doubt it now?

We have seen this nanny state disdain for the people to rise to every more obvious levels, with government by quangos and teflon ministers who never apologise and keep returning to treat us the same all over again

These ideas have had a corrosive effect on our society, so we are now at the point where trust in government and the system of government is eroded to almost non-existence

Because the more these ideas have taken control, that power should manage the people and not serve them, that the people are not fit to be trusted with making the "right" choice, the more people have reflected that treatment back, until now we are Apparently so dumbed down and conditioned we are no longer fit to make good choices for ourselves. But that is an illusion, and that can be changed, very dramatically, as we will see

And we cannot understand the EU if we don't understand the part these ideas have played from its very formation

So lets see the progression of the EU from its foundation to today

First came the European Coal and Steel Community, established in 1951. This integrated the coal and steel industries of France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg and came from an 'idea' by Jean Monnet

The six countries of the European Coal and Steel Community signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to create the 'EEC', the European Economic Community

The EEC was enlarged in 1973 to include Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The UK's entry was promoted by Ted Heath, and the deal signed when he was Prime Minister. Heath would later go on to admit he new all along it was never "just trade" and was quite candid that the goal was a unified federal state

The first elections to the European Parliament were held in 1973. Greece joined the EEC in 1981 followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986

The Schengen Agreement of 1985 opened the borders between most member states and a year later the 'Community' introduced its own flag

The Treaty of Rome was revised by the Single European Act of 1986 which significantly increased the power of the bureaucratic centre to impose its will on the countries of Europe

The European Union was formally established when the Maastricht Treaty became law in 1993. This gave greater power to the Bureaucracy and opened the way for the implementation of the Euro

The European Union expanded to include 27 member states with around 500 million people in all

Then came the proposal of a European Constitution to introduce full federation

The constitution was a hot issue in the 2005 general election. All parties contracted with the people promising a referendum on the constitution. No party received any votes at all with a mandate to legislate away sovereignty

A serious setback was received when France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution in 2005

The EU had got past such issues in the past by forcing a 2nd Vote, but they could not this time as the national feeling was too strong

Hence they stripped out the non essential parts of the constitution, leaving the vital and essential powers intact, especially self amendment, the ability for the EU to re-write itself without permission from anybody, and presented it as the Lisbon Treaty

This was politically useful in the UK, because now, although Lisbon was a stripped down constitution with the mechanism built into it to make itself into the constitution, we were told by Gordon Brown and others that it was a different document, and thus we did not deserve to have a referendum. Despite having no mandate and no consent, the British Parliament ratified spring 2009

The Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty caused some upset when they voted "NO" in 2008. A massive EU operation went into full swing, enormous money was spent, in flagrant breach of the EU's own rules, and with all Irish parties parroting the "yes" line. Coupled with the effects of the Credit Crunch hitting in September 2008, when the Irish were forced to vote again, doubt and insecurity and the apparent absence of any other options were enough to squeek a yes

The final bastion of resistance was Vaclav Klaus, Czech President, who had done his best to stand for the obvious desire of the people to hold onto their sovereignty, which had been won only recently from the Soviet Union after decades of repression, against a parliament stuffed with EU supporters. With the Irish yes vote secured, he held against pressure for a couple more weeks before he finally had to sign, and we reach the present day

So how the system of the EU actually work?

The EU is such a multiplexed bureaucracy that it would be a lengthy talk in itself just to define the whole operation

Obviously we can't do that, but if we could we would find a system very good at finding roles for people to do. There are groupings of national ministers (regional management meetings), groupings overseeing the bureaucracy, all sorts of quangos: it's a busy busy busy machine

But for the purpose of tonight, and to illustrate the fundamental difference between how we understand British Democracy, we can focus on just 2 EU entities: The European Parliament and the European Commission

If I think back to when I did Social Science at High School, I learned that in the British Parliamentary system the function of an MP was to represent the views of their constituents in Westminster. MP's would vote on party issues, but also could raise questions that must be answered and directly propose changes in the law themselves. The house of Lords acted as executive oversight, and could pass laws back to the commons for amendment if they had concerns. Ultimate sanction for a change in the law was in the hands of the monarch, who could refuse to authorise a law, and then would have to demonstrate why. Our reigning monarch has never done this, though others have

As the 80's changed into the 90's it was clear this system was being eroded. Both Tory and Labour administrations led to a swathe of unelected quangos writing large parts, if not the vast majority, of new law. Before this, governmental support was provided by the civil service, afterwards the civil service become implementers of corporatly driven policy, accompanied by corporate target and productivity philosophy, not public service. This allowed corporate business interests to gain large influence over government policy... just as they have and do in the EU... and we can all see just how good a friend Tony was to Goldman Sachs today. I do find myself wondering: who would pay 100's or even 1000's of pounds of dollars just to hear Tony Blair talk after his retirement? Could it instead be a wonderful way for providing a reward for services rendered in culpably deniable instalments?

Since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, and most especially since 1997, parliament has mostly acted to implement statute law from Brussels by voting to write it into our statute books, always under the party whip. A staggering 85% of new law since 1997 has come directly from the EU.. and the amount of new law has broken all previous records

Taken together, this has led to a blurring of the distinctions of the separation of powers. Corporate becomes Government, Government becomes corporate, and career politicians jump between the two worlds repeatedly. This alone is enough to be very concerning, for it was Benito Mussolini who defined fascism as "control of government by corporations": which makes Stalinist Communism control of corporations by goverment. In the Brave New World the political spectrum has become the political circle, a closed loop of powerful elites coming together and ruling the people

Another area this is very visible is in the relationship between policing and councils. The anti terrorist powers introduced since 9/11, especially RIPA, are now publicly known to have been widely mis-used, and police and councils have worked in far closer partnership to enforce statute laws on the general population. Now councils are gaining investigative powers, in fact public privacy has been ripped apart. Every branch of government now has or is soon gaining the powers to totally investigate our lives, including knocking the door down and forcing their way in. This would have been unthinkable just 20 years ago. To top that off, the EU is handing over EVERY single piece of information on every single one of its 500 million citizens to the US Secret Services (at least 18 different agencies) All of it, the lot: and has no barrier whatsoever to extradition into the hands of same on the suspicion of... well anything. Privacy is dead. Say anything on a phone, type anything on your computer, and if any of the above want to know about it they can

I remember a television programme trying to dismiss this 4 or 5 years ago. They essentially tried to show it was aberant thinking to think the government wanted to spy on you. But they missed the point: the Brave New World doesn't want to spy on YOU: it wants to spy on everything and everybody, universally. Then if they find reason to want you: they know who you are, where you are, everything you do and everyone you know

So even before this newborn brave new world, the old world was being shaped in its image, which of course has also normalised us to the progressive changes, to make a society based on freedom into a society based on privilege. The culmination of 100 years of scientific social management

Now that we have got to today, we can see the design being laid out

Still its not all bad news: when it comes to the European Parliament, the system to elect its members is a thing of democratic beauty. without a doubt, it marvellously represents the full spectrum of the peoples choice for their MEP's. Minority views get represented, even the unpleasant ones.

Regrettably however, this is practicably simply a show:

There is a vital difference between an MP as we have known one, and an MEP

An MEP cannot be lobbied to change the law!Well you can write them letters and harangue them, sure, but it isnt a practical course of action

MEP's vote only on what is put in front of them. They can influence the legislation through the quango system, but the quango system itself only provides draft recommendations. So while its true that MEP's can vote down parts of legislation, their voting power is comparable to answering a prepared multiple choice. Their role, and the role our MP's have slowly shifted into being, is most akin to a policy manager who sells policy to the public and the councils who implement it, rather than a policy maker who creates it. Perhaps its small wonder that MP's minds have increasingly turned to their own comfort rather than our service, as they have discovered the job is little like they believed it was. And perhaps that corruption has been encouraged to ensure the British Parliament has come to be seen as unfit for purpose? And what's the answer? why Europe of course: the only choice (sic)

ONLY the EU commission has the power to propose new legislation or amendments... and they wont even look at a petition with less than 1 million signatures (all database cross referenced, of course)

This puts massive power into the hands of the commission: that appoints itself and is accountable to itself. Well strictly speaking if 66% of the MEP's voted no confidence it can be disbanded, but how likely is THAT? Even then it could only be replaced with an identical organisation with a few new faces

And who are they? Well the recent selection (not election) of Baroness Ashton gives us a comprehensive insight into the shape of things to come. She has spent her entire career moving all around all areas of the british system pulling levers, now she is the 2nd most powerful person in the EU, and she has never ever ever ever been elected: by ANYONE... and also she is hardly known in the UK

So who is she? How did she get put forward? Why does she deserve the position?

Here is a quick run through of just the positions of her career:

Catherine Margaret Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, (born 20 March 1956)

Graduated economics and sociology at Bedford College, University of London 1977

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, national treasurer and vice chair 1977 to 1979

Employed by Social Work Training Council 1983, role unknown

Director of Business in the Community 1983 to 1989 where she established the Employers’ Forum on Disability, Opportunity Now, and the Windsor Fellowship

Chaired the Health Authority in Hertfordshire from 1998 to 2001

Vice President of the National Council for One Parent Families

She briefly advised the producers of several U.S. television shows, most notably Boston Legal on storylines

Made life peer as Baroness Ashton of Upholland in 1999

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Skills June 2001

Minister for Sure Start in 2002

Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs 2004

Privy Council 2006

Politician of the year 2006

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Ministry of Justice 2007

28 June 2007 Gordon Brown appointed her to the Cabinet as Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council

3 October 2008, she was nominated to replace Peter Mandelson as the UK's European Commissioner

EU's first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

What an incredible range of areas her career has placed her in. She is a true representation of the grooming process where the "right" candidates are spotted at university and even before, and given roles based on their conformity to the required values: chiefly the creation and then perpetuation of the centralising status quo. She may not be known but she sure knows government

This then brings us to the President of the EU for the next 2 and one half years, Mr Herman Van Rompuy. I have to tell you I nearly fell off my chair listening to his first speach last saturday, the candour is remarkable about the real shape of the Brave New World

But before we get to that, I invite you to consider something possible: that Tony Blair was never ever going to be EU president. But what Blair is, is widely despised in the UK. Rather than the nation wondering "what's this President lark all about that I didnt get a vote for in a new system of government i didnt vote for, by the way, what's the Queen's job then" the comment sections of the newspapers were full of "no way that War criminal lying scum bag" or "anyone but Blair!": even "get rid of blair and westminster too!" That kept our attention focused into venting about what we didnt want rather than wondering about what we did want

So Rompuy's speech... here are some key statements:

"The disadvantage of rotating the presidency between 27 member states was a lack of perspective" (read diversity of perspective)

"we would benefit from going back to our roots" (when just 6 countries made the real decisions)

(focus on) "the big questions of the European project: the economic and social agenda"

"2009 is the first year of GLOBAL governance"... going on to cite the G20 and the upcoming Copenhagen climate treaty

Here he tells us what the project's goal is: to expand this system so it is global

He is also quite candid about his desire to introduce Europe wide Taxes paid DIRECTLY to Brussels and the phasing out of the use of national flags... 2 and a half year presidency, expect him to be busy

It's also worth noting his career. In the 1990's talk of a super secret "bilderberg" group (established 1954) working for global governance was widely derided. the press went to great lengths to deny any such group existed. The idea that leaders from all parties met in secret with other major players for secret policy meetings was absurd. But Rompuy, along with the other candidates "put forward", are all now openly bilderberg members: as well as similar groups like the trilateral commision. The trilateral commision takes its name from the idea, first exposed by Orwell in his book 1984, of combining the nations of the world into 3 continental governments, but they go further, citing it as a precursor to establishing a world government, as seen in Aldous Huxley's brave new world: only now fiction is becoming fact. Perhaps this also tells us why it is that which ever party we have voted for, when it comes to centralising power, the agenda has stayed unchanged

With Rompuy taking office on January 1st 2010 the idea of global government seems a radical and new one. But it has been a long time coming

So there we have the shape of this Brave New World

Now we can see what we are being asked to lose by going into this Corpus Juris bureaucracy, an empire of an elite, and there privilege, and our acceptance of submission to whatever they feel we should do. In fact, we arnt even asked. We arnt even told there is anything to know. In many ways it is an old story humans guarding their freedom have had to deal with, but it is also a story being told on a massive scale with unprecedented technology and social engineering. Facing this Brave New World is the challenge of the human today... and the human can rise to the challenge:

I appreciate this first part of our talk tonight has been a lot of information to take in, so time for a 15 minute break, however you feel right now, I hope you have appreciated the tour we have taken:

In Part 2, I will tell you of my own journey of reclaiming consent, and the power of consent that lives within us all

PART 2

Hello again all

The second part of tonight's talk is about the most amazing power in the world after Love: the power that has defeated injustice and brought justice to human society time and time and time again. The power inside every single one of us, most especially inside you. The power of consent

I don't stand before you tonight saying "it would be great if you did this"

That would be too easy, and its the path we have chosen too many times: "the world's a mess, you sort it out for me". "He promises change, Im fed up, I vote for him, what do I get? more of the same".

To do that is to give our power away, and whenever we do that, we can be certain that we get what we deserve as a result

Instead I'm going to tell you what I have already done, and what I will keep doing

Is it an invite to be inspired? Yes. If it was not, I wouldn't be talking here tonight. I suppose I could give a talk simply to tell everyone they are now enslaved, but I myself would struggle to see the point of that. The story is much bigger than a handful looking to manage the affairs of millions: for it is at most a few thousand people globally who form the real core of the Brave New World. Hidden on billion dollar Yachts and in the penthouses of 100 story skyscrapers, in massive buildings of governments, banks and corporations, they can seem immensely powerful, but they are just people all the same

Is it an attempt to persuade you to be inspired? No, categorically not, even though language makes it difficult for it to seem any other way

Your power is your power and it is your business to inspire yourself, no-one elses. When we project the energy of our hopes and desires and beliefs onto others, we remove that energy from inside ourselves, where it rightfully belongs

And all those who desire power, even for good motivations, covert that power inside you: they can't help it. They need your power, or they themselves cannot act. Ethical leaders have always sworn allegiance to a philosophy of service to the people, and demonstrated their service through their actions and those are the people at least worthy of trust to act in our best interest. The rest, we cannot trust, and that is why free society depends on active and vigorous scrutiny of those we invest power in. We must make sure they behave, make sure they stay on track, and replace them, with courtesy for services rendered, when they do not. And that means keeping an eye on the ethical ones too. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". We all know this

I've told you the story of the Brave New World, at least in outline, but to learn the lesson of the story we must look beneath the manipulations and dangerous erosions of our assumptions of how society works, the illusion of respect we expect to receive while power treats us contemptuously , and see what all this massive effort has all been about

It's been about YOU

Government needs consent. Fact. Nothing happens without your consent. Fact

"Well what about guns and troops?" people ask. "Robert Mugabe doesn't need consent, he just shoots people who challenge him"

Yes. That is consent through force, the tyranny of Orwell: make you scared enough you darn't say no

That is government which is blatantly unlawful, an offence to humanity which must be overthrown as a matter of duty

But how empowering is it to realise that even an obvious dictator still NEEDS the people to say Yes?

Then there is consent through apathy, very much what the power elite of Britain now pushing to be part of this Brave New World hopes to get from you now. Say nothing, think nothing, don't worry about it, go along with it, look! X-Factor on the telly, you can Vote in that!

That is the management of consent, the velvet tyranny of Huxley

That is government that at the very least is unethical, as soon as it tries to make people apathetic, and which will swiftly decide to be unlawful if it comes to the choice of keeping control or letting the people have their power back

And lets make no mistake, the Government we have had since 2005, from ALL parties, is the most unlawful government we have seen in a century or more

To be a human being living in this society, which could most accurately be described as "technotronic", the use of technology to manage consent, most vitally the television, has been to experience growing up and living in a bubble

Inside the bubble is the real us, our humanity, our consciousness, which is also our conscience

We know right from wrong, we know health from sickness, we know we are free

Outside the bubble is the world laid upon us. It is the world of the legal person, not the lawful human. It is the world of compromise, of doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons because that's what the rules say. It is a world of fears: fear's for our jobs, fears for our wealth, fears of being seen to step out of line, fears of having an opinion that contradicts the television, fears of not fitting in

This Brave New World, which seems so massive and all pervasive, is nothing else but more pressure on that bubble

More pressure to make us break our resolve, to give up our freedom because the weight opposing us holding onto it is too great, especially the weight of despair

Yet that weight pressing on the bubble is also a massive clue

What does a bubble of air in water do?

It rises

What is that pressure on the bubble all about?

Stopping us rising

And that is it

Governments that abandon lawfulness must make the people fear. They either make the people directly fear them, or they make the people fear everything else

"Terrorist Threat! Must give up your liberties to protect your freedom (and that is classically Orwellian, "double think") new laws, new powers, goodbye rights, its all for your own good!

Fact.

More people die from taking an aspirin than from terrorism

Well non-government terrorism anyway. War of Terror? War IS Terror, especially for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq right now. And our armed forces are being cruelly used and should all be home

But here, as all the great teachers of freedom have taught us from Socrates to Ghandi, is the real lesson

Government Fears YOU. It is terrified you might say anything else but YES, either by action or inaction

Because you have power, and they only have illusion leading to acquiescence

A free society is a society by lawful government, and lawful government must deserve consent

Deserve it. Nothing else will do

It must be open, it must be accountable, it must have checks and balances, it must be decent

For most of us, for the whole of our lives, our inner human has sat inside that bubble, observing itself going though life, observing all around it. It expresses itself in various ways, especially in the privacy of our homes as we share love with our families, but by and large has gone along to get along and rarely says what it really thinks

But what if it did say? What would it say? What would you say?

What does your inner human actually want?

Mine wants Love, decency, justice, fairness, a world of sharing and co-operation and brotherhood, where life is a great adventure we share together, not a drudgery to be struggled through until the grave, or a viscous rat race

Mine wants a world where we are caretakers for the beauty of all we have, where we preserve and sustain, nourish and grow, express the poetry of our souls, and can look out at the end of our lives at the new generation going bravely on because we did our part to care for them even when we did not know them

As a very dear friend of mine says: Freedom is the Grandchildren, we are the Caretakers

Now that's all very well, and may seem like a dream, and so it should, because it shouldn't be real unless it becomes the balance of what we all choose

But if we do not choose anything, we get what is chosen for us, and that's all we deserve to expect, because its all we created

A real Brave New World, fit for humans to live in? It starts by saying a Brave New World fit only for robots, fit only for adults treated like children by the elitist few, simply isn't good enough, so we aren't going to go into it in the hope you magically make it nice for us, for we know you never will, and its up to all of us to get the job done

It starts by saying "no"

And that is the fear of all tyrants, velvet or otherwise

That the human within lifts up a little finger, pop's that bubble and says "NO"

I am me and I am free

But isnt it also the truth that we fear freedom? In itself its not surprising as in the outer world we find it hard to experience any, and new experiences can be frightening

Wouldn't everyone just do what they want and rob and steal and kill and everything else? Humans can't be trusted to be free! Of course that was the fear of the elite themselves, as they misunderstood Freud's work. They turned their back on a real free society because they came to believe they had to rule to prevent chaos: and then set about covering themselves with privilege for doing us the favour

Because both Freud and Jung spoke of the perfection of man by the conquest, or transcendence, of the ego... of those selfish drives, to become better than the sum of our parts, those age old sins. To become, ultimately, human beings fit to live lawfully under common law. To not lie, not steal, and not harm, naturally, because being lawful has become who we are, not because of rules and punishments. It's the same as the spiritual teachers who urge us to find inner peace

Our rulers decided that wasn't possible, or more, that they wouldn't like it if we did, because then after all: who would need them?... and for the past century they have acted accordingly and created what we see today as we continued to quietly consent... bit of a grumble now and then but basically giving them their way.. and by confirming their assumptions, we have ensured our lives have become so limited and stunted we never get the chance to really grow, despite our apparent "wealth"

After the great promise of a new start in the year 2000, looked forward to for many many years, it wasn't just planes that got hijacked on 9/11: it was our chance for a new future, as those same ideas from the past century have tried to remake this one into it's ultimate expression

Freedom is not chaos: freedom is responsibility. That's the truth to be understood

We can be free if we can be responsible for what it is ours to affect: ourselves. That's what the world calls on us to do to do our part: to be the human we want others to be

It's a simple lesson, but a powerful one, because it cannot be denied

Which brings us again to my question for you tonight:

Where are you?

It's not for me to know if you can be free, if you are fit to be free, but it's certainly a question to ask yourself

In my own life so far I've been somewhat cursed and somewhat blessed to know what I know as I have learnt what I learnt

And it's because I know what I know that I had to be honest with myself and recognised I have reached my "line"

We all have a line. It's that line in the sand that says "cross that and I will act"

But if we doubt ourselves, if we waver, and our line is crossed, we go oh no you crossed my line! and step back to draw another one. There cross that! they do, step back again, more desperate this time, another line Cross that! And then we find ourselves with our backs to the wall we are up against because we would not stand firm

I'm at my line, and I knew it when Vaclav Klaus signed and David Cameron folded. I knew I had given life a chance to come right for as long as I could, and I must speak, and I must act, and I must stand firm

A week ago on Monday the 16th November, at 10 am, I went to see the Electoral Officer of MHDC. I took with me

a witness and a piece of paper called a Notice. A Notice is an empowered document that requires to be recognised

I'm going to read it for you now: it's not written quite the same as simple English might be, because there are certain things a Notice must do: It must clearly be a notice. It must be complete in itself, so must not refer to other documents to justify itself, and must provide understanding of what the Notice is about. And it must be free of "vexation or frivolity", or to put it another way, it must not be angry or sarcastic.

Ok here we go:)

John of the White Family
C/O MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE
**************
Malvern _ _ _ _ _ _ _

11th of November 2009

NOTICE OF RECLAMATION OF CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED

I request and require all those who read this Notice to accept this Notice as a Notice. Notification of one Branch of government is de facto Notification of them all

I am John of the White Family, a free human being on the land. I count the lands known as "England" and "Wales" to be mine to inhabit by right of birthright

Through registration of my birth by my parents, and creation of social contract on behalf of myself, I understand that I am the authorised agent for the Legal Entity known as "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" National Insurance number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I understand "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" to be my vessel for the purpose of acting in commerce. I understand that Parliament uses statutory Instruments to create Acts that set rules "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" must follow as I use that vessel to engage in commerce and facilitate my life as a human being. I understand that these rules apply to MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE because I consent, through contract, to be governed. I understand that Acts of Parliament and other Statutory Instruments are given the Force of Law through the consent of the governed. This is a social contract. I understand the governed have the right to withdraw consent because they are Free Human Beings, and I am also a Free Human Being

I Understand that as a Free Human Being I can withdraw my consent at any time from any contract I might make. The ability to withdraw consent, the ability to say "No", are fundamental for one to be in a state that can be considered Free. If one cannot withdraw consent then one is thereby enslaved. As a Human being I have the right not to be enslaved

It has come to my attention that, possibly at the beginning of December 2009, the sovereignty of the British Parliament is to be transferred to the European Union as a result of the signing of the Lisbon Treaty by all required parties. It is my understanding that, if I consent to contract to said transfer of sovereignty, I agree that my vessel in commerce "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE" will be bound by statutes and legislations of the European Union

I understand that in a Democracy it is a fundamental expectation that, as a Government governs with the consent of the governed, it maintains consent with the decisions it wishes to make. This is normally considered to be received by receiving electoral consent at a General Election based on presenting a programme of policies and manifesto pledges.

The Current Labour Government of the UK started it's current term of Office having made a solemn pledge the British people would decide whether or not Britain should sign the European Constitution through a National Referendum. I understand that to mean the British People were pledged they would decide whether sovereignty of these lands would be transferred out of these lands. By doing so, the current Labour government clearly surrendered any mandate to transfer sovereignty and placed the responsibility for that decision into the hands of the governed, also known as the Electorate. At that time, I was a member of the electorate through my vessel MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE. Following the defeat of the then European Constitution in other European countries referendums, the European Constitution was repackaged as "the Lisbon Treaty". The Labour government then said, in line with the position of the European Union, that although the Lisbon Treaty did transfer sovereignty from these lands it was not the same document as the European Constitution and therefore did not require the empowerment of a mandate via national referendum

I consider this action to be potentially legal but certainly unlawful. As a free human being I am not required to accept unlawful actions as lawful even if they are legal. I understand unlawful actions cannot be legal even if a Government claims unlawful actions are legal. This action by the Labour Government was an unlawful breach of contract with the legal person of "MR JOHN LEONARD WHITE", and by extension, an unlawful breach of contract with myself, the human being John of the White family

As a result, when MP's of all parties voted to pass the Lisbon treaty in Spring 2009 they did so without the required consent of the governed. No Political party was elected to office with a mandate to legislate away British sovereignty, least of the the governing Labour Party, which had made clear at the election it did not have or seek that mandate through General Election. I understand this to be a betrayal of public trust, to be unlawful, and to potentially be treasonable. As the Government acted without a mandate to demonstrate the consent of the governed the contract with the governed is broken

I understand that I have the option to withdraw my consent from contract to be governed when the Government has broken that contract. I understand I have lawful cause to do so to protect my status as a free human being

I understand that consenting to register as an elector is contractually how I consent to be governed. Whether I do or do not choose to use my allocated vote, by registering I consent to be governed by the winning party of said election

Based on my understanding, I therefore no longer consent to register on the Register of Electors. I understand this is not a criminal offence to do so as I do not consent to be governed and thus statute law is inapplicable. I withdraw all consent and all assumed consent to be governed. The government of the UK does not act with my consent from this moment forward until further notice, and the government of the European Union cannot act with my consent as it has not received it. Therefore I am not a European Citizen and, whilst remaining in honour, am not bound by any European Law

I declare to all human beings around me that I will continue to act lawfully within the common law and good spiritual values at all times, acting as myself, the human being known as John of the White family. I swear that I will not knowingly tell untruth, will not Steal and will not cause Harm in accordance with living harmoniously with my fellow human beings

I hereby give 14 days for reply to Notice this Notice. If no reply is received, I will consider this notice accepted, and my withdrawal of consent to be governed uncontested

John of the White Family

--------------------------

I am delighted to say that the Notice was received exactly as it should be, with courtesy and without conflict. It was signed by both myself and my witness

Following on from serving the Notice, I also wrote to Micheal Spicer, sitting MP. Liz Lynne, sitting MEP, conservative and liberal candidates for this constituency, Phil Grove leader of MHDC, Gordon Brown, and the Queen, with personal letters, a copy of the Notice, and where appropriate an invite to tonight

And of course Iorganised tonight's talk

I have served Notice reclaiming my consent and as of tonight there are only 4 more days for rebuttal

But what does this mean?

Well it doesn't mean laws don't apply to me: it means I take on the adult responsibility of living lawfully. I make it clear I am not a child and the state is not to treat me as one. I don't want conflict for the sake of conflict, I don't want to cause harm, so I don't intend to mess about not paying council tax... at least not without cause. It does mean I refuse to be held to strict liability, and insist upon being treated as a human being with common law rights. And it means I display lawful free behaviour for everyone else to see

It also means I do not currently accept a vote in our system.. I cannot say I reclaim my consent and still expect to have a say in their rules: and that might be a problem for others who also do not wish to consent, to take the same step.

But then, I am not saying anyone else should do so: in fact I am definitely saying no-one else should unless they are also absolutely confidant they are ready to live free as a lawful human. Taking that step is not one anyone should make if they do not know themselves well enough to be certain they can live with their choice. I must also point out that I consider rigid and inflexible views blaming a particular people or ethnic group for all the worlds problems to be unlawful as they cause harm and are nothing like sufficiently true to ever be justified. Human's are Human's, everywhere, in all our beautiful diversity

However, what anyone can do, if they agree that what I have chosen to do is honourable and worthwhile, is support me and others like me. And yes, beyond the world of Malvern, out across the UK and across the planet, there are many pioneers of human freedom in our new millennium

So I don't feel its unreasonable to say that if you would like to help taking the message of tonight's talk out of this room, there already practical things you can do

There is a facebook group called Reclaim Consent: you can join it to show support... and I know facebook is a big brother nightmare. So is everywhere else. Say anything on the net have no illusions of privacy, but it doesn't make saying it any less powerful. So its there, Reclaim Consent on facebook

I am also at a webforum called tpuc.org

You can email me malvernmessages@btinternet.com

You can tell me directly,and say "Hi John" when you see me around the town

You will be able to see the video of this talk again on the net, and read the whole speech online. Anyone can use the speech, and give it themselves to people where they live

And you can talk to each other and learn more. That's what popping the bubble is: talking to each other, not staying silent. Silence is consent. Silence is a step back and a step back and a step back until your back hits the wall. History tells us that is when it is too late

Any of you can invite me to come and give this talk again, in homes, or churches, or clubs, or staff canteens. Anywhere in this community I'll come, that's a promise, further afield, perhaps:)

And most especially, tell your elected representatives that your not consenting to what is going on, and the newspaper, and the radio talkshow, encourage them to recognise the case for Reclaim Consent: and your partner, and your children, and your parents, and your friends: maybe even let your boss know

At the very least by recognising the political process whereby Great Britain's came to sign the Lisbon Treaty was unlawful, we say the job hasn't been done right. It is in all our interests, even if we are dead keen on the EU, to see a proper job done.

There must be a referendum.

And it must be a fair one, with a guarantee of equal time and equal money to support both views. If the EU wishes to pay 1,000,000 pounds to promote its case, then there must be 1,000,000 spent on the other view too

If we vote Yes, then we ratify what the politicians have done in our name without asking, if we vote No, then they must give up that dream or give up their seats for people who have, who will dream new and better dreams we actually want.

But we must get our Vote: or know that we are living in a society that has become a lie, and a miserable life that will be. We will have failed as a free society

It seems to me that what we must do is clean and refurbish our own house before we can consider being part of the houses around us. We must restore the balance to our politics, and put common law firmly at the heart of justice again. We must insist on election for Westminster by proportional representation. Why not make sure we have that? It's been promised for decades: always by the opposition! Past time it was delivered, so all of society has a stake in society. We must consider ending the party whip system which has led Mp's to obey the orders of the party leader even when at odds with their own conscience or the views of the people they serve. And we must ask all our Mp's and local politicians to renew their contract with the people by making a common law oath to uphold our freedom and serve us: while not lining their pockets with privilege undeserved

Of course, its not for me to say what's right and wrong for all of us: but those are my views of what would be sensible. Then we can look at the question of the EU properly, and know what the deal is we are signing. It's up to the EU to be good enough to be worth our signature

Final words, then we can do questions or whatever anyone likes:)

Silence is consent. If we are silent we are only saying we expect silence from others. No-one else will speak on our behalf if we will not use our own voice

That's what freedom is all about.

Now we have a chance to speak, and waiting longer to do so is not safer.

So if you see as I see, and if you seek as I seek, the time is NOW

If that's not you, know I totally respect you. Your freedom is just as precious to me as my own

It really is up to you. Your power is your own and you can reclaim it or leave it with those you have given it to

It has been my greatest honour to speak to you all, and you have my very best

I am John of the White family, John White for short and John to my friends.

Thankyou all so very much

Goodnight:)

Article courtesy of John White @TPUC Forum

>>>> discuss this topic @ TPUC Forum >>>>

The Basics and Potential Power of an Affidavit of Truth

2009-12-01T20:19:00.013Z

In the reality we live in, we would be wise to accept that we live in a world that has laws, and these laws exist on paper and fortunately some laws exist in our hearts and conscience. Since the dawn of laws-of-man there existed a piece of paper that was held above all others; an Affidavit. A sworn statement of truth that if ‘un-rebutted’ stands as the agreement of the parties, the judgement in commerce and the truth in commerce.

So please humour me and answer the following (I have placed my answers in brackets):

Are you a man or woman? (Yes)
Are you an artificial entity of the UNITED KINGDOM aka CITIZEN, VESSEL, PERSON, SUBJECT, TAXPAYER, LEGAL FICTION, RESIDENT or INDIVIDUAL? (No)
Do you belong to the UNITED KINGDOM? (No)
Should you be coerced into presenting yourself as a ‘public’ entity? (No)
Are you capable of swearing an oath? (Yes)
Are you liable to or for any political/corporate rules (statutes)? (No)
As a man/woman do you have to voluntarily elect to submit to give another party jurisdiction over you? (Yes)
Should your use of bank notes or any other public facility when alternatives are generally unavailable tie you into a contract of some sort? (No)
Should you be coerced into receiving vaccinations or any other medical treatments and procedures? (No)
Are your words your definitions and not for redefining? (Yes)

If you answered the above with the same answer as given then that is your truth, yes? So imagine this as your sworn Affidavit being presented because as a man you are receiving injury from another party, i.e. Corporations:

The Affiant is a private, living and sentient man.
The Affiant is not a UNITED KINGDOM “citizen,” “subject,” “vessel” or “person” or any ens legis artificial entity, procedural phantom, legal fiction or juristic personality within the UNITED KINGDOM.
Affiant is foreign to and without the UNITED KINGDOM.
Any party that would order, represent or persuade the Affiant to falsely present the Affiant as a UNITED KINGDOM citizen, vessel or person directly or by deception, device, misnomer, mistaken identity, warrant or indictment, real or imagined, would be engaging in Enticement to Slavery.
Any party that alleges a liability against the Affiant is obligated to produce an Affidavit of Liability to demonstrate such liability.
The Affiant is not liable to or for any Government statutes, rules and/or codes, including, without limitation, UNITED KINGDOM Codes and statutes and/or codes of any of Respondents’ political subdivisions.
A legal fiction corporation cannot secure in personam jurisdiction over or against Affiant, a living man, without Affiant’s voluntary election to submit.
The Affiant’s use of a notary public, Bank of England Promissory Notes, and/or any other public facilities, when alternatives are generally unavailable, does not comprise Affiant’s submission to any political jurisdiction, the creation of an adhesion contract expressly or tacitly with the UNITED KINGDOM and/or any other party real or imagined, or an appearance before any body or tribunal, administrative or judicial, real or imagined.
It would be both a violation of law and a violation of the Affiant’s God given unalienable rights if any government/corporative agent, officer or employee attempts to, or does in-fact, force, coerce, manipulate and/or deceive the Affiant into receiving any form of medical treatment at anytime whatsoever, including but not limited to vaccinations.
All words herein are as Affiant defines them.

So, as an operation of law, the Respondent, if they want to rebut, has to rebut your Affidavit point-by-point via a sworn affidavit and providing ‘evidence to support’ why your statement is not true. Are they ever going to be able to do that? Of course they are not; and they never can, because your affidavit offers facts and truth and all the legal world can ever offer is fraud and falsehoods. So what have you got then? You have got a lawfully binding agreement of the highest order that no other party can impair. Not bad hey.

So imagine having a lawfully binding agreement with the CEO of the UK Government (Gordon Brown, d/b/a Prime Minister), and/or the CEO of EUROPE (Herman Van Rompuy, d/b/a President of EUROPE) that cannot be impaired by any party.

As a footnote and for those folk who like to fool around in the fictional and laughable Admiralty courts of the UK and Europe; are you aware that a ‘counterclaim’ is mandatory? Did you know that the only true counterclaim is a ‘lien?’ Did you know that the highest form of lien is a Maritime lien from the private side (man/woman)? Did you know that a Maritime lien is also known as a ‘Commercial lien’ and a Commercial lien is also known as, wait for it, ‘Affidavit of Obligation?’ Did you know that if any public entity attempts to impair/breach your agreements/contracts, you have an instant lien right on the other party? Did you know that Affidavits of Obligations have had judges running out the back door of the courts to avoid being named on the lien? This is hardly going to make it to mainstream media is it!

Folks, Affidavits work because in law, they override everything else that comes before them. Affidavits offer the Facts, Harmony and maybe more importantly when it comes to law, the Agreement of the parties. Whilst of course the legal world offers only lies and falsehoods.

Warmest regards,

Matt.

Article courtesy of LawfulRebellion.org

>>>> discuss this topic @ LawfulRebellion.org >>>>

Is the UK still a Common Law Jurisdiction ??

2009-11-29T02:26:00.021Z

Hedley - a contributer to TPUC - wondered, that since much depends upon the fact that the UK is a Common Law jurisdiction, if the Lisbon Treaty were to change the jurisdiction to Civil Law, we would have a much harder time of making our case.

In view of this, on 18th November, he e-mailed the man who has for some time purported to represent him in Parliament, David Willetts MP, and posed him this very simple question:

"Can you tell me please, when the Lisbon Treaty is in force,
will this Country still remain a Common Law Jurisdiction?"

It did not strike Hedley until later, quite how powerful this question may turn out to be: If the answer is "Yes", then we have the power to continue in our rightful manner and it must be recognised by the 'courts'. If the answer is "No", this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the Treaty attempts to remove our historic inalienable rights and gives great force to any demand to put it to the people.

Hedley received a reply from David Willetts by post, that included a short letter stating in a typical politician's way of answering a different question than the one asked:

"It is my understanding that the Lisbon Treaty will not affect the balance of power between Common, Statute and EU Law"

He also received a six page response to the question from the House of Commons Library, which appears to state in a number of places that we remain a Common Law jurisdiction, but hedges it about with caveats and warnings that our politicians must be careful if we are to preserve this.

Article courtesy of TPUC

Stop Messing Around - Read This And Study Affidavits

2009-11-22T22:02:00.019Z

Would you like a simple, lawful and immensely powerful way to stop messing around with arguing FIXED PENALTY CHARGES, debt collectors, council tax, utility companies, TV licensing etc? A way that creates the lawfully binding void between you and the legal ‘person’ and can inform all parties that you as a man/woman are not liable for any public entity or public debt/liability; as well as any other FACTS that you may want to use for a particular purpose?

I am guessing the answer is yes. Then Affidavits, I believe, are your way forward.

Affidavit process

Documents enclosed in ZIP file download

Affidavit sample
Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure sample
Notice of Default sample
Certified Copy document
Affidavit process

A ‘private’ affidavit, if the whole process is done correctly, creates a ‘lawfully’ binding agreement/contract between the parties that rises far, far above any ‘legal’ contract/agreement; in fact as paperwork goes, an affidavit from the ‘private’ side is superior to all other documents, full stop! You could go as far as to term the private un-rebutted affidavit as ‘Sovereign Law’ because an affidavit from the private side and sworn under unlimited commercial liability indicates that a sentient living private man/woman is behind it, and therefore a Sovereign. (Warning - Please make sure that whatever you put on an affidavit is your truth).

I have attached an affidavit for you to peruse and use if you wish. I have actually used this affidavit in a slightly longer format, yet I have removed a few points that I used as they may have been confusing to some, yet as you will see the points on the attached affidavit create an agreement (law of the parties) that would cover, I believe, every eventuality between the private (real) and public (fiction). If you cannot stand-under any of the points on the attached affidavit then remove them or research them until you are convinced without a shadow-of-doubt that they are now your truth.

Do NOT use affidavits lightly. Research what you are doing if you are unsure. Affidavits are simple and incredibly powerful law documents. There is nothing to be fearful of whilst using them, but please comprehend what you are doing before firing them off!

Q. How does this affidavit create an agreement of the parties?

A. Because of Tacit Procuration and Stare Decisis (see below for more on stare decisis). Tacit Procuration basically means ‘silent agreement’ (agreement through acquiescence) and this is the reason why ignoring documents is considered a lethal act in Admiralty. If the Respondent does not respond then he/she is simply saying, “Yes I agree/affirm by my acquiescence.” Tacit procuration enables what is commonly known as ‘self authenticating contracts.’

Q. Why use a Notary Public?

A. The reason Notary Public verification on important documents is so powerful is because simply, in effect, by the time you have a Notice of Default signed and sealed by a Notary you have ‘lawful’ summary judgement which cannot be overturned, as long as your paperwork and process is correct. (By the way, if at a later date you discover your paperwork is lacking in some way, then simply create another one with all the corrections on. Remember, every party has to have the ability to exhaust their administrative remedies, and creating an affidavit is part of that process). Quite simply you now have ‘STARE DECISIS’ – Lat; "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts; and you also have ‘RES JUDICATA’ – Lat; decided or determined by judicial power; a thing judicially decided; a judgment that is considered final and bars re-litigation on the same matter. A Notary is the judicial power! Also important is the fact that a Notary can act as a conduit between the private and public in regards to ‘foreign’ jurisdiction; a solicitor cannot do this. Private is classed as foreign to the public.

One of the great deceptions of official agencies is the use of the Stare Decisis doctrine. Stare Decisis originates from Common Law courts and it is in Common Law that the principles of precedent decisions exist. Precedent decisions do not have to be used in Admiralty courts: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Admiralty

So an official agency sends another party a document. The document gets ignored (lethal in Admiralty), and so the agency sends out a follow up of some kind. If the document gets ignored again then the Common Law doctrine of ‘Stare Decisis’ gives the official agency summary judgement; the case is now already decided and cannot be argued.

Q. What is a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure and why do I need to use one?

A. A Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure is correct procedure and therefore gives the Affiant uncompromised standing. There may be a very genuine reason why the Respondent couldn’t respond; maybe a death in the family, maybe they were hospitalized etc. So you are saying, “just in case there is a genuine reason why you couldn’t respond I am kindly granting you a further three (3) days to respond. You are being nice, and so you should be, as you want to stay honourable at ALL times.

Q. Do I have to put all the points on my affidavit?

A. No of course not. Make sure it is your truth and besides you can always create more affidavits at anytime. Affidavits create ‘your’ law; law between the parties. So if you are not happy with their law, create your own. Yours are far more powerful in every single way if done correctly. Your affidavit can have one single point or hundreds; it is your document so you can make it whatever you want and for whatever suits your purpose.

Q. Why is a private affidavit so powerful?

A. Basically because as a private man/woman you can operate under unlimited commercial liability and public entities cannot. You see all public entities have what is called a ‘scope of office’ – which is basically a job description and conditions for which they have limited liability insurance cover. For instance, if a Police Officer believes that you are becoming threatening or aggressive he can make the decision to use appropriate force to restrict and arrest you. Now if in the tussle you fell and broke your arm, the Police Officer does not have to worry about prosecution because using appropriate force in this situation is in his ‘scope of office’ and therefore falls under his limited liability insurance policy. But, if the Police Officer was to punch you in the face whilst you were sat in your car, he can now be prosecuted for a criminal offence. If the prosecution stands then his insurance would not cover him in anyway. Therefore he could do jail time, be fined and lose his job as his actions did not fall under his insured ‘scope of office.’ EVERY public official, agent and employee has a ‘scope of office’ – that’s worth remembering!

In commerce, the game is won by the party who took the biggest risk, and as you sign under unlimited (full) commercial liability, the public entity cannot match that as they are under limited liability; unless they are willing to forego this and risk losing their own possessions and career; as far as I know no public entity has ever wanted to take that risk, understandably as they know they are involved in fiction. This is why it is also worthy of reiterating that you should only put your truth on an affidavit, because if it turns out that you have deliberately lied then you risk your commercial credibility for life; and anyway it is against EVERY law to use fraud/lies in your contracts, as so it should be, so DON’T do it! (I have listed some Maxims of law near the bottom of the page concerning affidavits so you can ascertain yourself why affidavits are seen as so powerful).

Q. Can the Respondent just return it?

A. Yes, but then they haven’t responded to the points raised so they are instantly at fault, so you can continue with the Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure due to non response. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t springs to mind.

Q. Can the Respondent just respond with something like, “I disagree with point 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 21.”

A. Yes they can, but once again they would be at fault. A Maxim of Law states, “An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.” And any rebuttal must have evidence provided to the Affiant to demonstrate why the Affiant’s point isn’t true, and the Respondent needs to provide his/her rebuttal in sworn affidavit form. Now as long as you have your believed truth on the affidavit, they are NOT going to rebut your facts with their fiction, guaranteed!

So the process is as follows:

Print out your affidavit on very high quality paper. I would recommend something like ‘Southworth’ Cotton paper, but if finances won’t allow then try and find the best quality you can afford because this affidavit will become a valuable document to you.
Visit a Notary Public to attend an ‘Affidavit Oath Swearing’ and make sure you take a valid passport and a current utility bill or bank statement as the Notary will require these for ID purposes. You will be in the Notaries office for no longer than about 30 minutes. (I also recommend that you buy a small ink pad so you can put your thumbprint seal next to your autograph for added validity and security, yet if you are uncomfortable with this then simply leave this part out). If you do not want to use a Notary then use two (2) private witnesses on the affidavit, Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure, but do get the Notice of Default Notarised. This is still very effective, saves money and you are still getting summary judgement; although with certain documents I would suggest getting the whole process Notarised if possible for the added weight and your own psychological confidence.
Photocopy the entire affidavit and then use the supplied ‘Certified Copy’ template to run the photocopied affidavit back through your printer whilst adding/printing the ‘Certified Copy’ details. (The Holder in due course of a document can lawfully make true, correct and complete copies of the originals; and the holder in due course in this instance is the Claimant/Affiant). NEVER SEND THE ORIGINALS – THEY ARE YOUR VALUABLE EVIDENCE THAT A LAWFUL AGREEMENT EXISTS! Sign and date the certified copies.
Post the copies using Special Delivery, and I would suggest within 48 hours of the Notaries verification. KEEP THE POSTAL RECEPTS SAFE WITH THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. Then make another appointment with the Notary for another ‘Oath Swearing’ in 14 + days time.
Prepare a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure, again using high quality paper, and continue the same process as above giving the Respondent the set amount of time to respond. Then make another appointment with the Notary for another ‘Oath Swearing’ in 7 + days time.
Prepare a Notice of Default and once again continue with the above process. Once you have a ‘default’ judgement from the Notary you now have a bona fide lawfully binding agreement/contract.

Now if you so wish, every time that you need to inform a ‘public’ entity that you have a lawful agreement with Gordon Brown, d/b/a Prime Minister (or whoever) then simply make another ‘Certified Copy’ and send it to them; the affidavit copy and the default copy. If they still dare to proceed (extremely unlikely), maybe subpoena the CEO of the UK, in this instance Gordon Brown… it would be a laugh and raise a few eyebrows hey! In truth once you have a valid and lawful agreement you shouldn’t even be going to court, that’s their little playhouse of fairytales, so let them keep it and take care of your business administratively on the private side.

I remember studying what is sometimes (erroneously in my opinion) called ‘Commercial Redemption’ under Winston Shrout and I would hear Winston say the following statement on many occasions, “If you don’t like their law, then create your own.” For months I didn’t grasp quite what he meant and Winston is a great teacher (spiritually as well as commercially), and so I believe he was waiting for folk to ‘have the ears to hear’ this particular loaded message, yet I received the light-bulb moment early whilst watching and studying Winston’s ‘Commercial Lien’ DVD (which I highly recommend). My often research buddy and friend, Guy, had the very same light bulb moment a few weeks later whilst watching the exact same DVD without any interaction between us regarding this matter, and so we knew we were on to something when we shared our individual experiences. Then Guy met with Winston at a private seminar and informed him of what we were currently doing and showed him our private material; Winston was suitably impressed and informed Guy that our method was absolutely rock solid and the correct and lawful procedure. To be truly honest we already sensed this but of course it is always a pleasure to receive confirmation from someone who has inspired your learning. Since then we have had this information confirmed time and time again, yet as stated before, we didn’t really need this confirmation as our confidence in this process felt very solid; and once you realise who you really are I am sure you will comprehend, or already do comprehend, what I am talking about.

Remember it is the agreement of the parties that is important. Their law is contract law, and theirs is built on fraud and deception, so create the contracts that you want, not what they want, and yours will be built on fact and truth. If they do not rebut or reply to your paperwork (they won’t) then you have a ‘lawfully binding’ agreement that no other party can lawfully or legally impair. By the way, if the respondent violates the contract then you have instant lien right, but that is for another day. My personal opinion is this; affidavits and maritime liens (which are affidavits of obligation from the private side) wipe the floor of everything in their laughable and weak fictional system.

Maxims of law. (Affidavit based)

An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.

An un-rebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.

An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.

If you don’t like the idea of creating and sending in such an elaborate affidavit as the one provided, and yet you have situations that would benefit from getting the other party into an agreement, then just a very few points can have an almighty effect. Example:

Affiant is a private living sentient man.

Affiant is not JOHN SMITH or any other artificial entity/legal fiction.

The Affiant is not liable to or for any Government statutes, rules and/or codes, including, without limitation, UNITED KINGDOM Codes and statutes and/or codes of any of Respondents’ political subdivisions.

The Affiant is not liable for JOHN SMITH or any artificial derivative thereof at anytime whatsoever.

The Affiant is not liable for any public debts/liabilities at any time whatsoever.

The Affiant is not a member of any society whatsoever and therefore the Affiant is not bound by any society’s statutes, rules or codes.

Now if the above six (6) points are your truths (and they should be) and you put them on an affidavit to the Respondent, the Respondent has to provide evidence to the contrary of all the 6 points if they want to rebut. I think you can see for yourself that they won’t be able to do that. I think you will also notice that you don’t even have to use the above 6 points; 1 would be enough for most cases, but try and think of any situation you are involved with that couldn’t be solved by having a lawfully binding agreement/contract such as the above.

Folks;

Stop messing around in fear, controversy, statutes, and other self limiting ways; many of the limiting ways I witness on this and many other forums. Create the law you want with the corporate entities. Once you realise who you are and why your true identity and power has been kept at bay, you will realise why a private sovereign affidavit is so powerful. Keep your original affidavits very safe and keep ‘certified copies’ on you at all times. An enforcement agent will only proceed so far after they have checked the validity of your paperwork; because you will have made sure of the following:

You know who and what you are.
You know what you are not.
You are working through your anger, resentment and blame issues.
You have stopped being a victim in life.
You are realising that only you have the power to make you feel.
You are working towards treating ALL others with understanding, patience, forgiveness, empathy and tolerance.
You offer your self in service to others at some points throughout your day/week.
Your law/agreement documents are correct.

Soon we can all be sending our law to ‘thingy me-jig’ d/b/a President of Europe. Oh what larks.

If you have any questions whatsoever please contact me and I will endeavour to provide you with an answer/opinion.

Warmest regards,

Matt.

http://www.thetruthwillout.com

Article courtesy of mattstrat @TPUC Forum

>>>> discuss this topic @ TPUC Forum >>>>

Psychodrilla -v- Department for Work and Pensions

2009-11-19T07:46:00.006Z

Videos courtesy of Psychodrilla @YouTube

Brian Gerrish - Soviet Britain

2009-11-18T15:18:00.009Z

Filmed at the 3rd Lawful Rebellion Conference, London, 31st October 2009 (courtesy of BBC5.tv)

Videos courtesy of BBC5.tv

Charles Ferrier - The Surveillance State

2009-11-18T15:11:00.005Z

Filmed at the 3rd Lawful Rebellion Conference, London, 31st October 2009 (courtesy of BBC5.tv)

Videos courtesy of BBC5.tv

John Harris - Undermining Democracy

2009-11-18T12:42:00.005Z

Filmed at the 3rd Lawful Rebellion Conference, London, 31st October 2009 (courtesy of BBC5.tv)

Videos courtesy of BBC5.tv

Black’s Law Dictionary Now in iTunes

2009-11-11T11:57:00.027Z

by Molly McDonough

Adding to the ever-expanding toolbox for the wired lawyer who needs to work while on the go, West has launched a Black's Law Dictionary in iTunes.

This is the first iPhone / iPod Touch app for the legal publisher and features the most recent edition of the dictionary.

“The idea that you can have a very full, elaborate, complex and richly textured book like Black’s available at your fingertips is fantastic," the dictionary's editor Bryan A. Garner said in a statement.

Before heading to the app store, be forewarned that the price is a bit steep compared to most of the freebies or less-than-a-dollar applications many are used to seeing. The Federal Rules of Evidence are available on The Law Pod app for 99 cents. And the U.S. Constitution is available in a number of apps for free or for a nominal price.

So what's West's price for the Black's Law Dictionary? $49.99

Dan Bennett, senior director of New Product Technology at West, said in a statement that lawyers and law students can expect more apps from West soon.

Read a detailed review of this app by iPhone J.D.

Article courtesy of ABA Journal

crazations' Law Dictionary

2009-11-10T22:10:00.017Z

First Edition, Third Draft, July 2009

WARNING: The following contains
arrangements of Letters that some
Cultures have been programmed
to find offensive and / or Bollocks.

I reserve the Right to use any Word,
from any Language at any time, and
to even create new re-wordisms, for
any purpose I see fit - If you have a
problem with my Words - then it is
your problem - they are only Words.

Neil, of the Kerslake family
Freeman-of-the-World at Common Law

WELCOME TO MY NEW WORD ORDER...

Edited 14th July 2009 for Third Draft:
> New Entries in Blue
> Modified Entries in Green

BAILOUT. Unique form of Bank Robbery,
where it's the Bank that does the actual
robbing. (see Bankster, Tax, Tyranny)

BANKSTER. Literally a Gangster with
a Bank. (see Tax, World Government)

BIRD FLU. (see Propaganda Placement)

BORING. A desciption of Information
above one's IQ Level. However, as with
all things to do with politics, meaning
is reversed when applied to a Politician.

CARBON DIOXIDE. Gas plants breathe.
0.0387% of the Atmosphere. Essential to
life, but Propaganda Placement is trying
to brand it pollution. (see Carbon Tax,
Climate Change, Fee)

CARBON TAX. A Fee imposed by the
World Government for the privilege of
being a Carbon-based Life-form. (see
Bankster, Climate Change, Illusion)

CLIMATE CHANGE. A cynical ploy to
exploit the general public's ignorance
by using Propaganda Placement when
attempting extortion in the form of a
Carbon Tax. (see Global Warming,
Illusion, Sir Bob Geldof, Sir Bonio)

COMMON LAW. The Law of Common
Sense. (simply: No Victim = No Crime)
i.e. Do no harm; Cause no loss; Do no
mischief. (see Freeman, Peace Officer)

CON. Prefix used to indicate something
is a form of Confidence Trick.

CONSPIRACY THEORY. Literally a Theory
about two or more people planning to do
something. Propaganda Placement has
successfully re-branded it to mean the
tendentious ramblings of a madman.
(see Government, Illusion, Lies)

COVER-UP. A Government Statement on
a failed Propaganda Placement. (see Lies)

CRAZATIONS. An expression of dismay
at the state of The World. (from it's root
cause, literally the Crazy Nations - such
as in "what's going on in this Mad World
gives me crazations!")

CULT. (see Climate Change, Peak Oil,
Religion, Science, Scientology)

DIAMONDS. A cynical ploy to exploit
the general (well mainly female) public's
desire for shiny stuff by pretending that
something is rare, when all of the Laws
of Supply and Demand are now working
against you, and there is in fact a glut
of your shiny stuff. (see GOD Trinity)

DOCTOR. Someone who has been in-
doctrinated. (see Propaganda Placement)

ETHOS.

EXPENSES. A work of Fiction written by
a Politician. (see Illusion, Lies)

FEDERAL RESERVE. A double oxymoron.
It's not Federal and it hasn't any Reserves.
(see Bankster, Illusion, Tax, Tyranny)

FEE. What's left when your R's is taken
out of Free. Usually extracted in the
form of a Tax or a Fine. (see Statute)

FINE. The only single word oxymoron.
(see Fee, Police Officer, Statute, Tax)

FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING. The
art of lending someone Money that you
haven't actually got and also charging
them Interest. (see Bankster, Illusion)

FREE. The Status of 'All Rights Reserved'.
(see Freedom, Freeman, Peace Officer)

FREEDOM. The Right and Balls to say NO!
(see Free, Freeman, Statute, Tax, Treaty)

FREELOADER. Someone that will expect
something for nothing. Not to be confused
with Freeman. (see Bankster, Politician)

FREEMAN. A flesh and blood living Soul,
with the responsibility to respect all other
living Souls, by upholding Common Law.
(see Free, Freedom, Peace Officer)

G8, G20, etc. A distraction used to gauge
the Tyranny-to-Freedom Ratio that can be
imposed on the general public for the next
year. (see Illusion, Sir Bob Geldof, Sir Bonio)

GEOLOGIST. A lying bastard that would
have you believe he can tell you how old
a Rock is. Literally means Unsure Bloke.
(from Gee = Guessing + ologist = Bloke)

GLOBAL WARMING. A once popular
Propaganda Placement, now fallen into
dis-use, following the successful re-
branding to Climate Change, when
temperatures were found to be falling.
However, the Brand Image Polar Bear
perched on an Ice Cube has remained.

GM. Abbreviation meaning either General
Motors or Genetically Modified. To avoid
any future confusion, the Banksters have
got rid of General Motors.

GOD TRINITY. Gold, Oil and Diamonds.
(see Bankster, Illusion)

GOLD. Shiny Metal that used to be an
indicator of wealth, but since replaced
by Paper Currencies that are cheaper
to make. (see Bankster, GOD Trinity)

GOVERNMENT. Literally to rule by Lies.
(from govern = rule over + the French
Ment = Lies)

HISTORY. Literally His Story. Not to be
confused with The Truth of what actually
happened in the past. (see Illusion, Lies,
Propaganda Placement, World Wide Web)

ICE AGE. Radical alternative to the Global
Warming Propaganda Placement. Not to be
confused with Ice Age 3, a CGI Movie. (see
Climate Change, Illusion, Science, Theory)

ILLUSION. A non-Freeman's perception
of Reality. (see Climate Change, Peak Oil,
Propaganda Placement, Statute, Tax)

iRAN. New product from Apple and Nike.
(see iRAQ)

IRAP. New country in the Middle East,
being created between Iran and Iraq.

iRAQ. New product from Apple to keep
all your iSTUFF in. (see iRAN)

LAW, LAWFUL. Pertaining to the Law of
the Land, i.e. the Common Law. Not to be
confused with Legal. (see Peace Officer)

LAWFUL REBELLION. (see Freedom)

LEGAL. (See Government, Illusion, Lies,
Police Officer, Statute, Tyranny)

LIES. The audible or textual output of a
Politician. (see Propaganda Placement)

MASTER. (see Servant)

MENTAL. What you will be called when
you try to explain that it's all Lies (from
the French Ment = Lies + All)

MONEY. (see Bankster, Illusion, Tax,
World Government)

MORTGAGE. Tool of the Banksters used
to trap a Man by the Bollocks. (from the
French Mort = Death + Gage = a valued
object deposited as a guarantee of good
faith)

NEIL, OF THE KERSLAKE FAMILY. (see
Free, Freedom, Freeman, Peace Officer)

NEW WORLD ORDER. The Old World
Order, but with lots of new Toys. (see
Bankster, World Government)

OIL. (see Bankster, Illusion, Peak Oil)

OBAMA AND BIDEN. Assets of the CIA
and a source of constant control in the
USA. (see Bankster, Politician, Tyranny)

OSAMA BIN LADEN. Asset of the CIA
and a source of constant fear in the
USA. (see Propaganda Placement,
War on [Noun])

OVER-POPULATION. (see Propaganda
Placement, World Government)

PARLIAMENT. From the French Parlez
= Speak + Ment = Lies. (see Politician,
Statute, Tax, Treaty, Tyranny)

PEACE OFFICER. An Upholder of the
Common Law. Sadly, almost extinct in
most Countries due to an influx of the
more profitable Police Officers. (see
Free, Freedom, Freeman)

PEAK OIL. A cynical ploy to exploit the
gullibility of the general public when
the Laws of Supply and Demand are
working against you. (see GOD Trinity)

POLAR BEAR. Also known as an Ice
Bear. Found to be the best Swimmer
of any Land Mammal, with increasing
numbers year-on-year. (see Global
Warming, Propaganda Placement)

POLICE OFFICER. An Enforcer of any
Policy to collect many Fees, in the form
of a Fine, or restrict Freedom by using
Kidnapping and/or Pain Compliance.
Not to be confused with the Upholder
of the Common Law, a Peace Officer.
(see Parliament, Statute, Tax)

POLITICIAN. Public Servant that would
have you believe you are Free whilst
at the same time passing new Statutes
that all non-Freemen let restrict their
Freedom or enforce Fees. (from Poly =
Many + Tick = Blood Sucking Insect)

PROPAGANDA PLACEMENT. A mass-
hypnosis to enable the introduction of
a Global Control Grid - now available in
High-Definition 3D with Dolby Surround
Sound (see Bankster, Carbon Tax, Lies,
Peak Oil, World Government)

PROTEST. Literally to be in favour of
testing the Government. Obviously the
Government will go to any lengths to
resist any testing. (see Lies, Tyranny)

PUPPET. (see Bankster, Politician, Vote)

RATIFICATION. The act of a Rat. (see
Politician, Treaty)

REFERENDUM. A defunct form of the
decision making process, where a Vote
by the general public was used for any
major issues. (see Politician, Servant)

RELIGION. An occult form of Science
that preaches the Universe was created
by a 'Supreme Being' that's much more
influence on the Earth than the Sun.
(see Illusion).

SATIRE. Using humour, irony, exaggeration,
or ridicule to expose and criticise stupidity,
particularly in the context of contemporary
politics and topical issues. (see crazation's
Law Dictionary)

SCIENCE. An occult form of Religion
that preaches the Universe was created
in a 'Big Bang', and that Man has more
influence on the Earth than the Sun.
(see Climate Change, Illusion).

SCIENTOLOGY. An occult form of Religion
plus Science created by the Science-Fiction
writer, L.Ron Hubbard (so should actually
have been called Sciencefictionology.)

SERVANT. Someone who works for a
Master. However, this relationship is
reversed by adding the prefix; Public.
(see Government, Police Officer)

SIR BOB GELDOF. Crap Singer and very
surprisingly popular Frontman for many
Propaganda Placements. (see Global
er well, everything really)

SIR BONIO. Typing Error and a bit less
surprisingly popular Frontman for many
Propaganda Placements. (see Global
er well, er again, everything really)

SOCIETY. One or more people gathered
together to fuck over the people who are
not in their Society, or their own Members
that don't understand the Rules and thus
don't know how to leave the Society. (see
Fee, Government, Statute, Tax, Tyranny)

STATUTE. The Rules that Servants impose
on their Masters. Not to be confused with
the Common Law. (see Fee, Fine, Illusion,
Parliament, Politician, Tax)

SWINE FLU. (see Propaganda Placement)

TAX. A short form of the word meaning
completely stuffed; Taxidermy. It also
has associations with the word Taxi, as
in 'taken for a ride'. (see Arse-Fucking,
Bankster, World Government)

TENDENTIOUS. Expressing or intending to
promote a particular cause or point of view,
especially a controversial one. (see Bankster,
Climate Change, Global Warming, Peak Oil,
Politician, Propaganda Placement, Religion,
Science, Scientology, World Government)

THEORY. A system of ideas that intends
to explain something. For a Theory to be
valid, it must fit ALL the available evidence.
You cannot prove a Theory, only dis-prove
it by finding evidence to the contrary, or by
simply adding the prefix: Conspiracy. (see
Climate Change, Global Warming, Peak Oil)

TREATY. A written expression of the
way Masters will be treated by their
Servants. (see World Government)

TYRANNY. A form of Government, where
ALL Freedom is removed, that is forced
on most of the population of The World.
(see Bankster, World Goverment)

VOTE. The process of choosing between 2
or more Employees of the same Banksters.
In ancient History, a Referendum also used
a Vote as a means to finding out what the
Masters wanted the Servants to do, but as
this didn't suit the Banksters, the process
has been restricted to just Ireland. (see
Government, Illusion)

WAR ON [NOUN]. Propaganda Placement
exercise to enable the increase of Tax and
restrict Freedom. (see Bankster, Illusion)

WORLD GOVERNMENT. A Global Control
Grid constructed by the Banksters. Not to
be confused with normal Governments
where at least there's the Illusion of a
choice with a Vote. (see Carbon Tax)

WORLD WIDE WEB. A trap laid by the
World Wide Spider to stop you getting
off your Arse and doing something to
actually make The World a better place.

APPENDIX A - crazation's Maxims in Law:

A Fool and his Money are the same thing.

A man that can't make a mistake, can't do anything.

An Injury to one, is an Injury to all.

Atheism is a non-prophet organisation.

Bullshit is the glue that keeps a government in place.

Common Sense isn't.

Do no harm; Cause no loss; Make no mischief.

Even if you're in a Minorty of One, The Truth is still The Truth.

Freedom is the Right to say NO!

Fucking fuck the fucking Fuckers before they fucking fuck you.

Greed costs Lives.

I am Me - I am Free - All Rights reserved.

I am not an *ist - I have no *ism

I think I'm a good Bloke - therefore, I am a good Bloke

If I were you, I wouldn't follow my Advice.

If we don't have Free Speech FOR ALL - then we don't have Free Speech AT ALL.

If you can License it, it must be lawful to do it without a License.

If you follow closely in my Footsteps, all you will see is my Arse.

If you follow in my Footsteps, you will make the same Mistakes.

If you're not living on the Edge, you're taking up too much Space.

If your Mind's not somewhere else, you're not using it properly.

Include me out.

It's just a Ride - and you can change it anytime you want.

It's unnatural to legislate against Nature.

Life's as complicated as you let someone else make it for you.

Love, Peace, Justice, for All.

Military Intelligence is an oxymoron.

My purpose isn't common.

No Servant should have control beyond their Authority.

No Victim = No Crime

Not all organic recreational 'Drugs' are good - some are great.

Only a child has to ask permission to perform a lawful act.

Religious Dogma is opinion without Truth.

The lesser of two Evils, is still Evil.

The only Freedoms you lose, are the ones you give away.

There's no (c)opyright on The Truth.

There's no Profit in Peace.

To be better, you have to be different.

Truth without evidence is still The Truth

Two wrongs don't make a right - they just make it more wrong.

War is Terrorism - but with a much, much, bigger Budget.

You can bank on a lot of things - except Banks.

Appendix B - Alert Levels:

In the event of a major Propaganda Placement
being put into effect - the following Alert Levels
will be broadcast by the World Government.

• GREEN = Shopping is generally safe.

• YELLOW = Shopping carries some risks.

• AMBER = Child was lost while shopping.

• ORANGE = Panic buying is strongly advised.

• RED = STAY HOME - shopping via Internet only!

• BLACK = Proceed directly to a FEMA Shopping Camp!

>>>> discuss this topic @ TPUC Forum >>>>