QUEEN'S 'HATE' SPEECH 2015: “WE WILL NOT LEAVE YOU ALONE IF YOU OBEY THE LAW” IS ADMISSION WE WILL SECURE SECOND REPEAL (13.05.2015)
If ever NATO ‘government’ and their ‘news’ media propagandists exposed they were properly beaten by civilian society’s rule of law, this is it (and an admission that beyond their hyperbole over extending the Public Order Act 1986, we will achieve our second repeal)
a not at all 'passive' regime at the previous 'state opening'
What is a British dictatorship could not expose what is it’s own criminality more than by declaring:
“For too long, we have been a passively [massive lie] tolerant society [government is not the same as civilian society], saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone...“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach...That means actively promoting certain [either unknown or illegal] values..."
It is already a fact that the regime illegally refuses to leave those who obey civilian society's rule of law 'alone' which all the media bluster in the world cannot make legal.
Behind the media barons bluster however lies an admission that the second piece of 'legislation' the British government invented that they could not legally use against us, that was really another extension of the Public Order Act too, is going to have to be repealed !!
the cloud cuckoo land of the lynton crosby soundbite
The first 'policy' the current dictator actually announced in 2009 to win the 'corporate' vote was that he would illegally abuse his public position to try and smash our civilian resistance, before starting his term in 'public office' by unlawfully arresting Brian Haw and I, at the previous 'State Opening'.
"...Mr Cameron [current UK PM] today told Sky News' Sunday Live a future Tory government would [illegally use the entire apparatus of the violent corporate state to] take steps to have it [Parliament Square Peace Campaign] removed...
"...I am all for demonstrations, but my argument is `Enough is enough'."
In legal terms it is illegal for the regime to use the criminal law to promote personal ‘values’ in public and in particular when they are not compatible with civilian society's rule of law.
His latest 'bizarre (corporate led) ramblings' include:
murdoch & co live in mortal fear of having to make an honest living because people in the middle east learn from the iranian revolution and throw nato out
Clearly the Rigby murder is already covered by common law and has nothing to do with the Public Order Act 1986 which is what the state are really trying to change/circumvent, that Murdoch et al are not going to put on their front page.
The war mongering media barons are fronting their 'hate' campaign with MI6 asset Anjem Choudary who is a well known anti Syrian...government propagandist, singing from exactly the same hymn sheet they are.
Choudary is a media caricature living in the sewers of the MSM, who never dared go head to head with us on a loudspeaker in Parliament Square, because we would have chewed him up and spat him out, because his lies are so obvious.
anjem choudary is a well known mi6 asset who is an anti-syrian...government propagandist
The BBC & Daily Mail et al Choudary hyperbole disguises the difficulty/impossibility the British regime would have to try and change the Public Order Act...again.
"...measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy..."
This would be an overt attempt to illegally imprison people indefinitely without trial, who are not breaking any laws or legislation.
The ‘definition’ cannot however actually pass muster under criminal law, because it is a well established principle of criminal law, that we have already won in British courts of law, that an alleged ‘risk’ is a subjective term, that cannot possibly be a criminal offence.
Indeed the actual existing alleged 'offences' under S.5 (harassment, alarm and distress) & S. 14 (refusing to comply with 'conditions' on a public assembly) of the Public Order ‘Act’ 1986 which were already controversial are not imprisonable if proven.
(although S14 ss 7 ridiculously purports to have the ability to imprison an 'organizer' simply for being an organizer who refuses like anyone else to 'comply' with a 'condition' you simply do not have one 'organizer' because everyone is/should be responsible for their actions individually anyway)
Of course saying what is really going on is something media barons do not do.
It would be impossible for the British regime to try and make the penalty for ignoring a High Court ‘Order’ over an alleged ‘risk’ punishable by imprisonment (using 'Contempt') when this penalty does not exist for an actual conviction of what are minor (not extremist) alleged Public Order ‘offences’ under Section 5 & 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The Simon says Sections 5 & 14 of the government Public Order ‘Act’ were already considered to have dubious legality under criminal law, which was why the British regime invented SOCPA ss 132-138 which we forced to be repealed.
The dictators went on to claim:
“They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print...”
We already know all, and I do mean all, about that Pandora's box of the dirty tricks brigade.
We have been there, done that and won ad nauseum against the “police permission” malarkey over publishing the truth about the Genocidal British regime before with our first repeal, where the British government were trying to do essentially the same thing, before the internet grew in popularity.
a 'snapshot' showing that i did not 'reasonably believe' (and i was proved correct) i needed the 'permission' of the genocidal british regime under the now repealed socpa ss 132-138 (or s.14 public order act 1986)
There is not thus far an abundance of non-legally trained civilians who have achieved the repeal of legislation that we have proved it is possible for non legally trained civilians to do.
Both ss 132-18 SOCPA 2005 & s 142-150 of PRSR Act 2011, were only ever about the British regime trying to get around the fact that under their own Public Order Act 1986 they could not touch people 'obeying' civilian society's rule of law.
What is actually important is that the only reason that the British regime are trying to silence anyone is because what civilians are saying is: a) true and b) provides a do-able solution.
The Genocidal regime simply do not want civilian resistance that lives outside their sausage machine.
This latest MSM soundbite is an entire scam which the British regime simply will not be able to achieve, not least because that is what they have been trying to do since 2005.
The whole announcement is a bit of a woeful Lynton Crosby soundbite really because what it is really trying to say the regime could do, is try to replace a High Court jury with a ‘Judge’ again, in what is really only an admission that they will be forced to repeal the second piece of legislation they invented to try and replace the legislation we secured our first repeal over.
In fact “for too long” the British regime have sought to illegally prevent people from upholding civilian society’s rule of law to hold the Genocidal British government to account in a court of law, before a High Court jury.
There has never really been any doubt that the unelected Royal despots are wholly complicit in the Genocide of the illegal Iraq War.
all about the money: unelected despots entirely complicit in iraq war crimes
the whole tree is rotten
In fact the filthy, dirty rotten old crone on the throne made a land grab for Parliament Square in 2008, to try and get rid of us.
the unsurpassed obscene greed of the unelected royal despots (who illegitimately already claim one sixth of the world land mass) is incredible
no shit sherlock: "the queen is interested"
'Simon' has been saying do as we say not as we do for ever, when all any civilian population really wants to do is hold the British regime properly to account in a court of law before a jury over their own lying, thieving and mass murdering.
The truth is that the UK regime are illegally attacking civilian society’s rule of law because it has primacy over the violent power ‘politics’ illegally gifts itself through all manner of legislative frauds which are not compatible with civilian society’s rule of law.
The whole point about a ‘democracy’ is that the state does not have any special ‘rights’ to interfere when civilian society ‘obeys’ civilian society’s rule of law, as opposed to the legislative frauds of ‘politics’.
In fact it is society’s rule of law that exposes there is only limited public space for a few administrators (call them whatever you like including politicians if you must) to responsibly manage a few agreed public services, instead of the current free for all where simon says he can write whatever he likes to do whatever he likes to make money, which is simply a lie.
The announcement is really trying to gloss over that what is provable in a criminal court of law, is that NATO propaganda really is criminal because the express criminal purpose/intent of publishing NATO propaganda, is for NATO to murder innocent civilians.
Anyone who has ever looked at the history of NATO in the Middle East knows that NATO has not ever had any legal grounds ever for being in the Middle East.
Please note: Our long-standing civilian resistance that began on June 2nd 2001 is not a 'news' media outlet. We only publish information to help save civilian lives.