Dirty Tricks Dossier #1 (to be continued)

Day 3440: Thursday 4th November 2010.


Once upon a time in the fairytale called 'Democracy', there was supposedly a separation of powers whereby politicians supposedly did not interfere in the day to day running of the judiciary/criminal justice system.

This was obviously because people would not get a fair trial where there had been political interference.

In reality, Parliament and the criminal justice 'system' have endlessly - plotted - "to remove" Brian Haw's  24/7 Parliament Square Peace Campaign.

Bargain Basement
: Lord Liar's crapology on sale for a fiver. Well, he always was cheap and nasty.

page 233: " In May the MET had taken acton to remove Brian Haw from Parliament Square....."

Thus the following 'document' below, "Minutes From Strategy Meeting at New Scotland Yard 19th May 2006 re: (far from) "Confidential Operation",came to pass.

The document was 'disclosed' in CO/11393/2007, which is a High Court 'case' over the illegal seizure of campaign property, that the state have been filibustering over for three years now !!

The document reveals that "Both Houses (Commons and Lords in the Houses of Parliament), and Black Rod"  (usually a former member of the military who runs Parliamentary "security"), had prior knowledge of and gave their full support for police actions, in what they call an "event", that was clearly a far from "Confidential Operation".

The Minutes of the Meeting give an interesting insight into the mindset and nature of useful idiots who are always reduced to resorting to the use of force to impose their lawless 'state'.

Pictures 1-3 show page 1 of Minutes.
Pictures 4-6 show page 2 of Minutes.

NB: The comments made by the 'Gold Commander' Allison above and throughout, are both dishonest and disingenuous.

No mention here about Commissioner Blair's intention to 'remove' the campaign.....

In the full knowledge of and despite knowing that they would be bound by a House of Lords ruling in DPP v Jones 1999 which admitted that in common law, the state could not create legislation to make what was otherwise lawful, unlawful, Parliament ignored this ruling and created 'legislation' called SOCPA 2005 ss 132_138, to make/say what was otherwise lawful, unlawful !!

It is trying to make what is illogical, logical. In practise, it really doesn't work.

This particular piece of execrable 'legislation' was intended to be used as a means to use state violence to stop people peacefully
participating in democracy, in a small area of Central London, outside government.

Brian Haw had been served with a 'summons', by the police and CPS, but had not been found and was never found 'guilty' of any
criminal offence. Yet his campaign was stolen and not returned, while in the Simon Says cloud cuckoo land world of the Metropolitan Police, the 'police' arbitrarily, changed and re-changed 'conditions' that were unilaterally made up and 'imposed'.

And still, their circle of sophistry and state violence, never squared, because, SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 does not have any power of 'seizure'. The 'sanctions' under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138, included fines or imprisonment, so talk of 'enforcing', through taking persons and property, and prior to any hearing or appeals, taking place, was at the very best premature, but legally speaking, utter nonsense.

What the police did is called aggravated burglary and theft.

A threatening letter arrived from Ms Winfield (aka 'Windbag', for obvious reasons) from the Metropolitan Police Legal Services, on the night of the illegal seizure of the campaign in May 2006. This letter did not make any mention of any power of seizure that might be used.

Quite what the 'risk' might be, that is referred to above, remains at best 'subjective', and the subjective is not yet a criminal offence.

In CO/11393/2007, the 'police' had the nerve to ask me to 'agree' a witness statement written by Commander Allison so that he did not have to go on the witness stand and be under cross examination in the High Court. I refused, stating that all I would 'agree' was that Commander Allison had been a criminal for however long it was that he claimed (in his 'witness statement') to have been a 'police' officer.


This is not democracy. This is a bunch of rather self important men sitting around in a room  talking nonsense behind our backs.
If they had invited us along, because after all, it was our campaign they were discussing, then we could have put them right on important matters  such as 'law'. It is not 'Democracy' when a 'Parliament' are using 'police officers' to try to stop people peacefully participating in the most important decision making, there could be, that involves human life.


4. Quack quack, blah, blah blah at the Confidential Meeting....

"Full support of police actions by both houses and black rod."

Commander Allison et al are still Deaf, dumb and blind to the fact that Parliament and the whole criminal justice 'system' are bound by the House of Lords ruling/admission in DPP v Jones that the state cannot create legislation, to make what is otherwise lawful, unlawful.

Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, has never in fact, in over forty years been used as a police power of seizure !!!!, and was never mentioned by Chief Inspector 'Lying' Layzell on the night or in any witness statement, he made.

Police powers and the processes of seizure have to be clearly defined and are open to appeal. The police did not have any court order to seize property or persons, and they could nor reasonably have believed after forty years, that the police, could suddenly use Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act as a police power of seizure.

The Metropolitan Police and 'courts' have repeatedly refused to disclose where the property is now being stored, because indeed, what could the police do  - legally speaking - if the campaign property were returned.


The letters below are from the (former) Chair of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, his 'Commissioner' Williams and the solicitor for the Metropolitan Police Authority, David Riddle.

Dear readers will have to take with a silo of salt anything they may refer to as facts, tn their correspondence, because they have made a few shortcuts (which will be revealed in further documents) to try and sidestep/buy time over the sheer scale of the state harassment.

Clearly the Chair of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, his 'Commissioner' Williams, and the Metropolitan Police Authority 'Solicitor' David Riddle, all knew at the time they wrote the letters below, that Parliament had given "full support for police actions", which as the (former) Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police pointed out was intended, not to just downsize the campaign, but to remove the campaign, all of which was illegal.

See they got it straight up. The elephant in the room is indeed the 'illegal seizure'. Imagine if the police went round grabbing Rupert Murdoch's presses. Now there's an idea!

"highest levels"......"direction and control".....
the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police did intend to remove the campaign.

: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police's barrister, Adam Clements' 'legal' argument made in 2008. If nothing else (because he certainly doesn't do 'law'), it is entertaining.
Babs Tucker x