Thursday, 5 February 2009

The State Perverting the Course of Justice

Evonne Powell-Von Heussen spent five years campaigning for a Protection from Harassment Act which finally went onto the Statute Books in 1997. I have used section two of this Act in letters on behalf of fairly desperate people who were being telephoned repeatedly up to six times a day by Banks and credit card companies, I am pleased to say it has the desired effect.

However the goons that have taken over the Government of this country, seem to think that this piece of legistlation was such a good idea that it was used against protesters at Menwith Hill in 2001 for Harassing US servicemen by holding up a placard with 'George Bush Oh Dear' on it.

In the same year a
protester in Hull was arrested under the act for "staring at a building". In 2004, police in Kent arrested a woman who had sent two polite emails to an executive at a drugs company, begging him not to test his products on animals. In 2007, the residents of a village in Oxfordshire were injuncted from protesting against a power company's plan to fill their lake with fly ash – in case they caused alarm or distress to the company's burly security guards.

Having discovered what a useful tool it had become, in 2005 the government amended the act in a way that seemed deliberately to target peaceful protesters and smear them as stalkers. Originally you had to approach one person twice to be "pursuing a course of conduct"; now you need only approach two people once. In other words, if you hand out leaflets to passers-by which contain news that might alarm or distress them, that is now harassment.

The government slipped in a further clause, redefining harassment as representing to "another individual" (ie anyone) "in the vicinity" of his or anyone else's home (ie anywhere) "that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do". This is, of course, the purpose of protest. These amendments, in other words, allow the police to ban any campaign they please. Surreptitiously inserted into the vast and sprawling 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, they were undebated in either chamber of parliament.

George Monbiot- The Guardian

I would any of you reading this to get, buy or rent a copy of 'Taking Liberties'

This film was something that made me finally get off my arse and start getting involved before it is too late, since this film was made it can easily be extended by a further hour, with all of the restictions and repression brought in in the last eighteen months by Brown. Taking a photograph of the Police is now going to be a criminal offence, all of these restrictions are determined to stifle protest and dissent, because the Righteous are fearful.

The bastards would I am sure suspend the Constitution if we had one when the time came for a general election. If you think I am joking they have already passed the Law to do it. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004

Let me run you through some of the juicier parts

(1) In this Part “emergency” means—

(a) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,

(b) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or

(c) war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.

So basically 1a is a catchall, the Government can declare a state of emergency over anything, civil unrest, opposition to their rule anything....

Section 20

Power to make emergency regulations

(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make emergency regulations if satisfied that the conditions in section 21 are satisfied.

(2) A senior Minister of the Crown may make emergency regulations if satisfied—

(a) that the conditions in section 21 are satisfied, and

(b) that it would not be possible, without serious delay, to arrange for an Order in Council under subsection (1).

(3) In this Part “senior Minister of the Crown” means—

(a) the First Lord of the Treasury (the Prime Minister),

(b) any of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and

(c) the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Basically Gordon, Jack Straw and Jacqui Smith will make the Law

What happens if you oppose the Government as at Ackton Hall Colliery in 1893 ?

With the above doctrines of English law the Riot Act does not interfere. Its effect is only to make the failure of a crowd to disperse for a whole hour after the proclamation has been read a felony; and on this ground to afford a statutory justification for dispersing a felonious assemblage, even at the risk of taking life. In the case of the Ackton Hall Colliery, an hour had not elapsed after what is popularly called the reading of the Riot Act, before the military fired. No justification for their firing can therefore be rested on the provisions of the Riot Act itself, the further consideration of which may indeed be here dismissed from the case. But the fact that an hour had not expired since its reading did not incapacitate the troops from acting when outrage had to be prevented. All their common law duty as citizens and soldiers remained in full force. The justification of Captain Barker and his men must stand or fall entirely by the common law. Was what they did necessary, and no more than was necessary, to put a stop to or prevent felonious crime? In doing it, did they exercise all ordinary skill and caution, so as to do no more harm than could be reasonably avoided?

If these two conditions are made out, the fact that innocent people have suffered does not involve the troops in legal responsibility. A guilty ringleader who under such conditions is shot dead, dies by justifiable homicide. An innocent person killed under such conditions, where no negligence has occurred, dies by an accidental death. The legal reason is not that the innocent person has to thank himself for what has happened, for it is conceivable (though not often likely) that he may have been unconscious of any danger and innocent of all imprudence. The reason is that the soldier who fired has done nothing except what was his strict legal duty.

Basically the State will lawfully shoot you, as it did Jean-Charles De Menezes

Martial Law can only be declared in time of war and extra-legal powers invoked by a magistrate or a Mayor can only be invoked to restore order, once order has been restored the status quo ante prevails in that the Courts will exercise the Authority placed in them by Parliament.

Explain to me why in the abscence of war and abscence of civil insurrection why has the State under Labour taking all of these powers to itself.

Also explain to me why the Inspector of Constabulary is so exercised that so few of the forty nine Police forces have their contingecy plans in place today

Resist it is your duty


The Penguin said...

Seems some plod are behind the plan.

The Penguin.

The Penguin said...

Whoops, didn't word that too well.

Some Police Farces are not yet ready.

The Penguin.

All Shook Up said...

Thank goodness the web is available (at the moment) to disseminate articles like this.

Chalcedon said...

Jaysus..........the bastards slipped that out quietly didn't they? I knew they hatted us, but not to what extent.

Chalcedon said...


That would be


Anonymous said...

All Shook Up said...
Thank goodness the web is available (at the moment) to disseminate articles like this.

They are in the process of slowly but surely bringing the web to heel. Copyright and pornography are just the thin ends of the wedge.

anonemo said...


re Bliar and Obamalama on sky news.

When Bliar is talking about his first text message why does he say "I forgot to put my DAME on it", is this a coded refrence to Gordon?


Yes, you have to *love* the way in which they juxtapose serious organised crime and 'public disorder'. Is this in preparation for the Wildcat Strike on the 27th, we wonder?
-Incidentally, I'm surprised the Mail got away with posting a photograph of policemen restraining protesters...

seebag said...

Does illegal harrassment cover constantly nagging us about how much we drink, what we eat, what we feed our kids, where we smoke, and threatening us with ads that our TV will be confiscated and our car will be crushed. It does in my book, so I look forward to plenty of prosecutions of this sick apology for a government.

max the impaler said...

If the state declares war on the people, then the people must declare war on the state.And the odds my friends are on the side of the people.

it's either banned or compulsory said...

You will be aware no doubt that, at Commander level, our Boys In Blue swan of to Belfast to train in
Major Civil Disorder Training.

All that stuff used to defeat the 'IRA' will now be used against we, The People.

Sarah said...

I have posted this elsewhere but please OH (you being being my favourite blogging nasty) Please, please, please feature this post. I am not a god botherer but I found this mint. I suspect that even the bible bashers have had enough of 'free speech' when it means in a Christian Country even the Christians voice is un heard. I reckon they are fighting back. Eye for an Eye etc. Lets see how many complaints this gets. Bearing in mind it's not just Christians, it's a group of The Christian party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church. I have no God but if the 'Righteous' can do it so can any one else. Lets see how much coverage the Bollocking Bastard Cunts and the Daily wail give this one.

Dick Puddlecote said...

I watched Taking Liberties last night. It's frightening, and as you say Guthrum, could be massively extended even barely 18 months on.

A must-see.

bofl said...

if it came to a punch up then our valiant government would all run away...

the police following quickly after them......

why do you think jackboots thicko smiff has got plod 30,000 tazers on the way?

646 of them-
150,000 ish plod.....

and didnt the government of no moral compass leg them over on pay recently?

60,000,000 of us........

how the fuck are they still in power?

No 47 said...


Katabasis said...

The Civil Contingencies Act. I'm glad you brought that up.

I wrote on it here six years ago. Amazing how that seems like the distant past now.

Anonymous said...

One day, very soon the cunts of ZaNuLab will get their comeuppance.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails