ANONYMOUS - 5th November, 2011, at 6pm

ANONYMOUS has been exposing corrupt and dubious organisations, groups and individuals for a while. However, there are those who still continue to act in unlawful and harmful ways towards the people, whether they be in the UK or around the world. The British Government is no exception!

On the evening of the 5th November, 2011, at 6pm, ANONYMOUS is calling for its supporters and thousands of others who adhere to peace, freedom an...d 'real' justice to converge outside the Houses of Parliament, in a peaceful gathering - for all the world to see - to let the Government know the error of its ways and demand appropriate action is taken by them to rectify their corrupt and perverted ways. There will be Leafleting, Speeches, Sharing facts & figures, "Free-Hugs", all in a peaceful manner (yet remaining non-compliant with any and all unlawful legislation) that is the ANONYMOUS way.

David Cameron, PM, recently stated that he and his Government are considering outlawing the wearing of ‘face-coverings’ and make it a criminal offence if worn during 'public gatherings'. ANONYMOUS begs to differ! ANONYMOUS does not consent to this unlawful 'ACT' against the people! ANONYMOUS asks the British Prime Minister to reconsider this knee-jerk reaction to recent criminal events on the streets across the UK.

In light of this fact, ANONYMOUS would warmly welcome members of any and all faiths and cultures, especially women, who wear garments that cover their faces, either partially or completely. ANONYMOUS reminds the people that (if we are to believe the official version of events) the war-on-terror was (allegedly) carried out by terrorists, ALL of whom had their faces on show at all times during the attacks on 9/11 and 7/7! Indeed, if we are to believe the official version of events, they even carried ID cards! ANONYMOUS also reminds the people that the Police wear face-coverings during public gatherings.

A message from ANONYMOUS to the Government:
This gathering is planned and is intended to be a totally peaceful event, 100% lawful and in full compliance with COMMON LAW at all times. ANONYMOUS assures the Government that it does not intend there being violence whatsoever at any time! ANONYMOUS does not condone violence AT ALL (it never has) and will not tolerate it, either from within its own numbers… or by the Police! Those claiming to be members of ANONYMOUS, but who act in a violent or provocative way towards others, cannot consider themselves to be a part of ANONYMOUS and will be handed over to the Police if they become violent. British Government, you appear to be rather concerned at the moment about the growing number of empowered British people. This has only been achieved through the open and honest education of people by free-thinking members of society with facts rather than corporate, state-sponsored, spin! This is a very good thing, as the people should not be afraid of their Governments, Governments should be afraid of their people. So, naturally, ANONYMOUS expects that there will be the usual ‘under-cover’ Government agents and ‘agent-provocateurs’ mingling amongst us, attempting to undermine this peaceful gathering and, in doing so, help to ultimately assist you - the Government - in being able to justify the implementation of Martial Law and yet further erosion of our basic Common Law and Divine rights... ANONYMOUS knows the score! However, ANONYMOUS will no longer tolerate the oppression of people by the very Governments who are put in place to support and protect the people.

A message from ANONYMOUS to the British Police:
Bearing in mind that you are sworn to uphold COMMON LAW, you are most welcome to facilitate this gathering by all of the peaceful means at your disposal. Indeed, ANONYMOUS extends a warm, welcome to you all in the hope that you may even join with us on the night and learn what is really going, things which your Government and your corporate mainstream media refuse to tell you about! However, we also ask that you, the Police, keep your oaths very clearly in mind and do not cross the line and become violent.

The 5th November 2011 is crunch time! After this date, ANONYMOUS will expect better from their, so called, ‘leaders’. ANONYMOUS is world-wide. ANONYMOUS has no leaders and there is no central organisation or individual running this 'idea'. Our numbers are so great now, that they cannot be counted! We are, quite simply, UNSTOPPABLE.

ANONYMOUS:
United as ONE
Divided by ZERO
We are Legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
EXPECT US!!!

Video evidence that they knew what they were doing was unfounded

In truth the police say one thing but mean another.
Caught on tape the corrupt camaraderie is all too evident, that they piss up the backs of those they can climb over for promotion.
I can no longer call this evil, it has surpassed evil and has become something far superior.

The saying 'forgive them father for they know not what they do' cannot be used here because they do know what they do and they relish in it.
There isn't a 'HELL' so they cannot burn in it forever and I do not wish for one, yet there IS a special place for these 'non-human' specimens.
'FILTH' a term I have come to understand and is the ONLY word that can describe such as these policy thugs.

Listen to the final section, the 'LYING' Acting Inspector.' 

This is nothing less than incitement to cause a breach of the peace and concealing evidence.

And in this 'Sergeant CW 3032 DAVID COLE's 'OWN' words from his criminal mouth he says 'Yeah' to the fact that hey have seized evidence that will prove his case was unfounded, -  a crime in mine and their books.

Will "Sergeant CW 3032 DAVID COLE" serve time for attempting to pervert the course of justice? and encouraging his fellow police constables to turn a blind eye to his comments?

For those wishing to 'HALT' the promotion and further criminal activities of this Sergeant CW 3032 DAVID COLE who is currently or was at the time of the video an 'ACTING' Inspector they should write to the IPCC and ask if they are aware of this video and what if anything has been done to rectify the criminal behaviour of Sergeant CW 3032 DAVID COLE. He should also NAME the person he was speaking with at the time because the other constable broke the law by conspiring with the 'Acting' Inspector.

This co-conspirator, if he has NOT reported that this conversation took place is concealing evidence and is therefore guilty of the same offences by association. The police are 'NOT' above the law and they cannot make it.

Back OFF! Queenie

Please feel free to copy for any blog or post in reference to freeing our country from this IMPOSTER

This is HISTORY and it is as we speak repeating itself

I have been and am an avid listener of Allan Watt and urge you to listen to this man's common sense and no nonsense approach to what we are witnessing today. I am including this, the speach of JFK at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel because no matter how many times we hear it or read it, it confirms even today what is going on in the world. Nothing has changed since this speech.

I urge you to take the time to read alan's comments 'prologue' and also to research the many topics and ideas on his web sites. I use this material in under the 'Fair use' banner and if Alan has a problem with my use I will remove the content. The article is, as is (sic) from http://cuttingthroughthematrix.net/transcripts/JFK_Video_Speech.html and no alterations not edits to the actual text has been made.

Enjoy! and Thanks Alan for your time and dedication to making this world a better place.

Namaste, phil;

========================================================================

THE CAPSTONE THAT KILLED JFK

AND

THE SPEECH THAT SEALED HIS FATE

WWW.CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEMATRIX.COM

www.alanwattsentientsentinel.eu

WITH ALAN WATT

Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – July, 2006 (Exempting Music, Speech, Video and Literary Quotes)

=================================================================================

Hello. This is Alan and I’d like to talk a little bit about the secret societies which have become a fad, this whole topic, this “conspiracy theory” which is pushed out there by the top to make it almost like a sideline hobby, which discredits the truth because history is in fact full of one conspiracy after another done by one or other groups all down through the ages.

Oliver Stone shows you in the movie JFK the group that killed the President and it’s when they meet in the park by the Washington Memorial and when they ask, “who could have had the power to do all of this,” and it pans back and the two men become minute dots on a little park bench, and from the top to the bottom of the screen on the right-hand side you see the whole monument, the symbol, the obelisk of the real secret society above all the little freemasonic institutions, the outer portico at the bottom. The real boys. The real boys that are the establishment you see. That’s who killed him.

This will be followed by a speech given by JFK at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on April 27, 1961. He gave this speech to the National News Publishers Association. It lasts about 19 minutes or so, this audio clip which will be played, and in the speech you’ll hear JFK talk about the need to have no secret societies in government because he was well aware that that’s what you have. You’ve always had it. They’re still here today and that speech was the one that sealed his fate. That was the real reason – the REAL REASON THAT HE WAS KILLED PUBLICLY. Publicly executed with “craftiness,” as the High Masons say. It was done craftily, out in the open, as he drove into the sun and his head was laid bare.

So here’s a clip from Oliver Stone first of all.

“It’s a real question isn’t it? Why. The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia, keeps them guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents them from asking the most important question, Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?”

Alan:  So there you are. There’s the actual tongue-in-cheek proof in front of your face, you see, what you do get in movies, shown to you right in the open and people cannot come to a conclusion unless it’s told to them basically, as Mr. Brzezinski said. So following right now is the actual speech by JFK April 27, 1961 to the National News Publishers Association in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, where he sealed his fate by being the first president really to come out publicly and talk about the need to get rid of secret societies, not only in government, but right through the whole society which rules us basically.

JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27, 1961 SPEECH

The President and the Press: American Newspaper Publishers Association

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

     I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

     You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

     You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

     We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

     But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

     If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

     I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

     It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

     Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

     Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

     If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

     On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

     It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

     My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

     I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

     This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

     The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

     But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

     Today no war has been declared and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

     If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

     It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

     Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

     Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

     For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

     The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

     That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

     On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

     I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

     Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

     And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

     Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

     It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

     No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

     I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

     Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

     This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

     It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

     And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Alan:  So there you are. Telling the truth can be extremely hazardous to your health. Not just in this age but in all ages. It’s interesting to note that in Dallas near Dealey Plaza where all this took place with the three intersections of the bypass forming a form of a triad – the trident, a pyramid you might say. Quite near there the local freemasons erected a monument to Kennedy’s death really and it’s up to you to decide if that was in memory of him or a boast to the high capstone boys, you see, to their total dominance because they built an obelisk inside a rotunda and on top of the obelisk they have a stone form of the fire coming out of the end of the obelisk, the fire. And down below it there’s a pool, just like at Washington’s Memorial, there’s always the fire symbol, the phallic symbol – that’s fire, spirit, energy, the driving force – and it’s reflected in the water, the female, the feminine and so they put a pool there too at Dallas to commemorate their victory, I suppose, showing their total domination of heaven and earth. That’s quite a boast for them to make, but that is the meaning behind the phallic symbol towering over its reflection in the water. The spirit and the earth, you see, heaven and earth.

It’s up to you to decide whether you can continue pretending to live under an elected government that’s supposed to serve you, or if you demand total openness as Kennedy was stating there in front of all the news publishers association; because if you cannot have openness you’ll be run by secrecy and secrecy never changes its direction. It never changes its grasp for power, its totalitarian instinct. We cannot live under secrecy any longer. If we think we can go along to get along, we’re goners.

We’ve got to come out now and demand to know all those officials who belong to "societies with secrets" as they will phrase it themselves and to know what they’ve sworn oaths to, and we’ve got to find out who’s been tapped out of those lower associations, brought into the side lodges and brought up to the higher groups, because those that join the club to run the whole world for their own offspring forever, as far as they’re concerned, they have to be exposed.

We have no choice in this matter. We can see how the world is going. We’re going into a scientific dictatorship and the science departments, all these huge international organizations are part of the control system. They’re not separate. They’re all one and we don’t have long to do this. We have to get it all out and demand openness now.

WE CANNOT LIVE UNDER SECRECY.

Secrecy by its very nature bodes ill to those who are out of the know.

Thank you for listening. Bye.

Who Killed Cock Robin?

Who killed Cock Robin?

“I,” said the sparrow,

“With my little bow and arrow,

I killed Cock Robin.”

Who saw him die?

“I,” said the fly,

“With my little eye,

I saw him die.”

Who’ll dig his grave?

“I,” said the owl,

“With my spade and trowel,

I’ll dig the grave.”

Who’ll be the parson?

“I,” said the rook,

“With my little book,

“I’ll be the parson.”

Who will be chief mourner?

“I,” said the dove,

“For I mourn my love,

I shall be chief mourner.”

Who’ll sing the psalm?

“I,” said the thrush,

“As I sit in a bush,

I’ll sing a psalm.”

Who’ll carry the coffin?

“I,” said the kite,

“If it’s not in the night,

I’ll carry the coffin.”

Who’ll toll the bell?

“I,” said the bull,

“Because I can pull,

I’ll toll the bell.”

All the birds of the air

Fell sighing and sobbing,

When they heard the bell toll

For poor Cock Robin.

(Transcribed by Linda)

History lesson (Peterloo protestors)

How much do you know about history?
Were you taught this in school?
Are police or security forces always exempt from scrutiny?

Maybe in a hundred years a blogger like me will post the truth that is not taught in school and like me those reading it will be as disgusted.
This country we call britain, UK, Erozone; soon to be:- UKC, UKD, UKE, UKF, UKG, UKH, UKI, UKJ, UKK, UKL, UKM, UKN, but historically - Albion; 'Men of the Lion', not only has it's governments subjugated its peoples; and still are, it has on too many occasions slaughtered them.
The time is coming fast when all history will be known, some will be shocked, some will defend its actions but the majority will demand our country back.

STOP THE TREASON NOW
It's never too late even for these people below

ANONYMOUS

Good evening, London.

Allow me first to apologize for this interruption.

I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquillity of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression.

And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.

How did this happen?

Who's to blame?

Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten.

More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked.

But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot

Norman Scarth

There are those out there who would rather let this man rot in gaol, I, for the record am NOT one of them.
Why would it be that some would rather this happen and I NOT?

Because Norman has a 'CRIMINAL' record.

Yes, he has a criminal record. And what he did was wrong. However did he have a chance?
What about our illustrious leader Cameron 'Call me Dave'.
As a young man, he was in a gang that regularly smashed up private property. Do we see or hear about his exploits? No he is 'SQUEAKY CLEAN' or so the LACK of proceedings against him say in their absence. Just goes to show what rich parents and connections can do for an up an coming 'WANKER'.

No, Norman barricaded himself in his house, although I am not abreast of the actual details on the circumstances, only norman can say. He was under the threat of eviction and set about protecting his right to remain in a house where he was settled.
"In 1999, the executors of a 'late Mr Denis Roberts' began proceedings against Norman to recover possession of a house at Gledhow Park Grove, Leeds, where he was living.
Norman disregarded the court order to quit, and a warrant was issued for possession, and he was warned that bailiffs would be attending on June 20 last year."

What is certain is that Norman used barbed wire and all manner of things to make entry into the house very difficult. Here is a man who was adamant he was not going anywhere and the authorities did what they know to do best they 'ATTACKED' they used intimidation in the first instance and then started to use fear of court action and when that failed they used, as always, physical abuse.

Was Normans actions illegal? it is a mute point, we do not know if the court warrant to seize goods and house was legitimate and as we know from experience most of these warrants are fraudulently produced to save time and money, one has to be careful when tackling these fraudsters, they will tell you they have the right but under close scrutiny we find they have not, 95% of the time.

The authorities 'bailiffs'  (certificated) not the pretend contracted court appointed bailiffs have authority and powers that are regulated however this authority does not include assault, and if they themselves are under threat they are trained to either deal with it or walk away. In Normans case they gained entry but was warned if they continued they would be harmed. Bear in mind this is in the 'OCCUPANTS' living quarters and at the time Norman was 75, there were 2 police officers and two bailiffs, now confronting an old man who was not in any way going to allow them to evict him, so he started up a chainsaw and wielded it a anyone close by as a warning and as a direct attack on those now inside the property.
Was he 'MAD' at the time? I would think he was bloody furious, he just wanted to stay where he was and have no interference - However don't forget we have a right in our constitution to have adequate housing and we the right to defend our property by whatever means necessary.

Norman may have taken his rights a little too far, but those in attendance that day could have simply backed off and come back another day or at least continued with negotiations. But they didn't they went in 'GUNG HO' and got burned in the process. Articles state that those bailiffs are unable to work since this incident. I suggest they were not fit for the job in the first place, they were under the impression they could do just as they wish with no repercussions, PLUS they accept orders that they themselves cannot verify because they are inadequately trained in what a WARRANT; a true warrant is.

Norman did time for this event he concluded his sentence after 4 years to my knowledge so in the true meaning of freedom Norman paid for his crime. Everyone in this case were scarred including Norman, NO! not poor Norman, he broke the first rule of the freeman principal, 'Do no HARM' however in this loaded financial crazed system we have it was not Norman who was the problem it was that the authorities could not get the finances that would have been generated from gaining access to a 'HOME' regardless as to who was put out in the street as a result. 'MONEY before PEOPLE', so who can really blame Norman for what he did, I cannot condone it, but I can sympathyse with his actions, he was up against a well oiled machine that he had helped pay for and the funds are perpetual.

Does his current sentence have anything to do with his past behaviour?

Apparently it does.

Judge Mawrey referred to Normans past conviction; a conviction that Norman paid for by his loss of liberty.

"Judge Mawrey described Mr Scarth as a man convinced he was the victim of a conspiracy, which was tested further upon conviction of wounding in 2001 and served four years in prison, followed by two years in a psychiatric hospital."

He said: “In Mr Scarth’s universe he is the noble fighter for justice and the rule of law who, despite appalling levels of official persecution, has refused to be silenced and continues the struggle, bloody but unbowed. In the real world, inhabited by the rest of us, Mr Scarth is a disturbed, clearly paranoid and occasionally violent old man who is a persistent minor public irritant.”

I SAY

quoting Socrates and two famous Quakers. 

There is no breach of the peace if what is said is merely offensive. 

Lord Justice Sedley further states: “Free speech includes not only the offensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not tend to provoke violence.”

 So For whatever reason, Norman Scarth, a naval war veteran who helped defeat the forces of Fascism and Nazism, decided to make a covert audio recording of a particular hearing , so Normans recent activity in court;  requires ALL his past misdemeanour's to be brought into the open and sentenced accordingly?

Norman broke the law in that, it was illegal, NOT 'unlawful'; of this there is no doubt. But six months incarceration for an 85-year-old: it breaks the man. And when you consider that some of our former MPs who fiddled the taxpayer of tens of thousands of pounds were sentenced to less, there is slight disquiet and sense of disproportionality.

Either we push for Normans sentence to stand or have him released, I prefer the latter however I cannot hide the fact that if his sentence was to follow through to the whole of the six months a reveiw of the sentences given to the MP's should follow.
What do you say 6 MONTHS for using a mobile phone in court is equivalent to 6 YEARS for an MP fiddling his expenses.
This is very tempting.

Namaste, phil;

Norman Scarth protest Leeds prison and senataph war memorial

We did norman of the scarth family proud the crowd was not too large however it was large enough to get our message out.
Those who could not attend missed a great event, all present expected police in numbers however there were, in total, two police (regular) and four specials. All of whom were informed of our purpose and the peaceful nature of our protest. My hat tip to the police for not being there.

There were many from around our country, we paraded banners kindly created for us, sorry I cannot remember all the names yet in the true nature of the Freeman all was shared, sandwiches were made and transport provided; the free norman bus, big red double decker.

We stood at the side of the road outside the prison and were often 'HOOTED' in support as well as being at the main gate. This part of the protest was pretty quiet but the message was given. I am sure norman was in his element inside his cell.
norman asked us to finalise the protest at the war memorial in Leeds, which we did. We all clamoured on the bus and made our way to the memorial and it was here that much photo and video was taken, we were not quiet and I mean 'we were NOT quiet'. My voice is still a little creaky after shouting to all the passers by. The megaphone was put to good use so all those in the vicinity 'KNEW' just what it was we were campaigning for. Many leaflets were handed out and we played normans speech to great effect through the megaphone.

The camaraderie was awesome and we discussed many subjects throughout the day.

We reached a large audience and put many points across re the corruption of our judicial system - again with relief there was little sign of the boys in blue. I believe because we are known not to be violent and are protesting a cause that is just and proper.

For those that were there well done, for those that could not make it, I am sure there will be ample opportunity in the future and I do believe you wished you could be there. The thought counts as much in my book but it would have been better if you could have got there, you would have had a great time and met some wonderful people.

Namaste, phil;
By the way norman had his pastoral visits denied so I was unable to get a visit. Just another turn of the screw for norman but he is made of stern stuff.

Not 'sleeping' they are comatose

You know what? The post a few days ago - Below 'SAY NO MORE' About the cabbage.
Yes that one. I printed it out and spoke to a few people about the madness behind the whole control thing and what did quite a few have to say.

Well maybe they are trying to make it easier for the growers.
The procedures have to be strict so we get good quality food.
I don't think there are that many words, not just for a cabbage, maybe there are a number of different cabbages.
We can't just let 'anyone' sell cabbages there has to be rules.

WHAT!
I thought that article was MADNESS but the responses I have had are sheer lunacy.

We truly do live among the most simple people on the planet, These guys are not 'sleeping' they are comatose.
I had to write this because if I kept this to myself 'in my head' I believe it would just blow up.

Well as you might have guessed I put them right on a few things, needless to say they went away 'INFORMED'.

Get back to ya later

Namaste, phil;

Read the article below by Geoffrey Lakeman an excellent piece of reporting, although it would have landed on his lap due to the seriousness and coverage it has.
Here we have a child protection official who was employed to monitor church groups to ensure paedophiles did not get into the groups. Okay they found 'ONE'; the official himself.
Now correct me if I am wrong. He is known to have uploaded / distributed pornographic images of children, FACT. This indicates that he is aware of other groups and individuals - He is in the loop: take it as read he knows the ins and out regardless of what he wishes to admit.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together here - How many of these groups 'HAVE' paedophiles in them? The very official who was employed to monitor these groups would have sympathy for other paedophiles.


The answer to this problem we have now is to prosecute the church for not vetting applicants properly. THEY and 'they alone' put the children in their care in danger. Start at the very top and FIRE their asses, they get the salary for doing the job and they get the responsibility - so here it is 'YOUR FIRED'.
Gaol the paedo but fire the CEO of whatever church hired him.

Church child protection chief caught with 4,000 child porn pictures

by Geoffrey Lakeman, Sunday Mirror 31/07/2011
A child protection official for the Catholic Church has been caught with 4,000 pictures of child porn.
Father-of-four Christopher Jarvis was arrested after uploading pictures of children being abused to a website.
Married Jarvis, 49, a former social worker, was employed by the church following sex scandals about pervert priests.
His job was to monitor church groups to ensure paedophiles did not gain access to children in the church’s congregations.
But he was caught by police in March with more than 4,000 child porn images on his home computer and his work laptop.
He admitted 12 counts of making, ­possessing and distributing indecent ­images when he appeared before ­magistrates in Plymouth and is likely to face jail when he returns to court for sentencing next month.
Jarvis, who has been sacked from his job as child safeguarding ­officer, worked the Diocese of ­Plymouth for nine years.
Church spokesman ­David Pond said: “Mr Jarvis was suspended from his position as soon as the diocese became aware in March of the police investigation.
“The Bishop took that action and since then the Church has worked closely with the police.”

It is the bit about being caught in march and left at liberty until now that I don't get. He had 4000 dirty pics of children and STILL he is at liberty until next month. WHAT! More to the point he was only suspended - NOT fired. Oh yes they sack hi now - I cannot think of any reason that a person should have 4000 dirty pictures of children on his PC at HOME and on his WORK laptop and no one raises the 'FIRE THE DIRTY BASTARD' Flag. 6 MONTHS and he STILL is not in goal.


From now on anyone in a position of responsibility HAS to be accountable. 'WE the PEOPLE' have no recourse to 'IGNORANCE' so neither should the authorities - Police - Judges - Lawyers - If it is GOOD for US then it is GOOD for you. As anonymous puts it:

We are Legion, 

We do not forgive, 

We do not forget,

Expect us.

The above goes for the government as well. The time is coming quick where we will expect THEM to abide by the very rules they have placed us under.
These rules (ACTS & STATUTES) no longer apply to us but before they finally go we will use them against those who seek to destroy us.
And then we will do it again with 'Common Law'.



Remember this, those who voted to go to WAR will be asked to go the countries that they invaded to 'WORK' and 'PHYSICALLY rebuild those countries. Their families and their families family will supply all the labour that will be required to ensure those who have suffered from their 'LAZY' sycophantic voting are restored and repaid - even if it takes 50 generations it WILL be done.