DAY 4119: TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 11TH 2012.
This morning a contractor put up fences around us in Parliament Square so he could remove Boris 40,000 pound House of Flags.
The contractor confirmed in footage that we did not need to move off the grass and when the GLA complained, that he would not be moving the fences while anyone was there.
The contractor also confirmed for the cameras that our presence - on the grass - did not interfere with their work.
So today at 1.55 pm while we were waiting to appear at West London Magistrates at 2pm, in an incredible case involving corrupt police officers from Belgravia Police Station unlawfully arresting Babs on April 2nd 2012...
a phone message came through to Babs at the court, that four - more - corrupt police officers from Belgravia had just unlawfully arrested Richard in Parliament Square for an alleged breach of the peace when he refused to move when Boris Johnson demanded the fences be moved.
Belgravia Police claim that Richard has now been released while an update of todays corruption at West London Magistrates will follow.
Meanwhile here's the report from Westminster Magistrates last week.
no court stamp or judge's signature
Big Ben cast a dark shadow over Westminster this week.
Last Friday at 8am Neil witnessed a young man throw himself under a bus.
Having survived, the young man then got up and to Neil's horror, sadly ran and threw himself off Westminster Bridge, before anyone could try and stop him.
It is such an appalling tragedy that a young man should take his own life.
Our deepest sympathy goes to the young man's family.
On Thursday as a courtesy, some members of the Parliament Square Peace Campaign had attended Westminster MagIstrates Court.
So the state could continue with their vicious campaign to remove us.
Neil was appearing, with Steve Jago as his McKenzie friend.
Because, Parliament unbelievably considers it a priority to ridiculously prosecute Neil in a criminal court, over having a…. tent.
Frankly it beggars belief.
However, Neil and Steve were a legal team to behold.
And used our time to good effect.
Three minutes the hearing took.
And the two men, had three important legal points to argue that go right to the heart of/ are about reforming the fundamental nature of what is a far from legal system.
As Neil says: " You can't plan sincerity".
The brief hearing took place in Court 5 before one District Judge Snow.
1. Neil served a notice on the court that he would continue to use a tent while legal proceedings continued….
Which District Judge Snow, without lawful excuse ignored.
2. Neil then informed the court that such an obviously politically motivated "case" (where a tent had caused no offence) could only properly be heard by a jury in the Crown Court.
3. District Judge Snow was meanwhile quite…hysterical (when you consider the context of proceedings over a tent) threatening people with prison, and interestingly without mentioning legal representation or a trial, if people did nothing more extraordinary than make a err…proper record of legal proceedings (that had interestingly apparently been brought to his attention ?)
Anyway, given that legal representation is regularly illegally removed, no-one is sure quite where the problem, legally speaking, might be, in anyone making a proper record of legal proceedings.
District Judge Snow avoided the question when asked.
In fact most people would probably understand that the Supreme Court have - logically - already set the precedent, that proceedings can be recorded, which as a higher court must apply to all lower courts.
Anyway, when District Judge Snow, refused a jury trial, over the tent, Neil politely pointed out that he did not recognise the authority of the court and members of the campaign then peacefully stood up and quietly left the court.
Neil, then immediately lodged the necessary appeal.
It is quite ridiculous that District Judge Snow might believe he had any sort of authority to determine the legality of a tent that caused no obstruction, trespass or public disorder.
Three important points of law that need to be argued in a higher court are:
a) it is an abuse of process to - for example - prosecute someone for peacefully upholding law.
b) there must be a jury trial in politically motivated proceedings
c) court recordings must be done as a matter of course.
Of course, no reasonable person could of course ever convict anyone of any criminal offence, based on the witness statement of Call me Dave, who did not say anything was unreasonable when he was acting on behalf of goodness knows who on supposedly the Mayors Grassy Knoll.
However Call me Dave was very naughty in dishonestly producing a PNC of someone who was not Neil..and in fact had an entirely different name (because of course Neil has a clean PNC)
The thought we are left with this week, however, is that the state really are not helping young people as they might.
We really could all be doing much more to create a world that really does give young people a future, where the state will not.
neil's name is not ian kenneth...