DAY 3699: TUESDAY JULY 19TH 2011.
Often called punitive damages, these are damages requested and/or awarded in a lawsuit when the defendant's willful acts were malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton, or grossly reckless....These damages are awarded both as a punishment and to set a public example. They reward the plaintiff for the horrible nature of what she/he went through or suffered."
I wonder how the UK Prime Minsister Mr Cameron intends to disgracefully spin in his favour the mounting body count, of now both the dead and alive surrounding phone hacking ?
It was a bit odd - procedurally - speaking that Brooks was "arrested" and supposedly interviewed for nine hours, without any allegations being put to her ???? according to her brief. Who on earth ordered/authorised the arrest ? Boris ?
Of course there is so much of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's corruption (for example) to still see exposed and explored.
how about....the police camp.CON.. not - that - difficult to open your mind to the possibility...really.
These really have been historic times to campaign at the heart of (or as we say the belly of the beast in) such a corrupt Westminster Village.
Today in Westminster I publicly explored - on a loudspeaker . the principles of justice, inherent in the social contract of any decent and civilised society.
The marvellous thing about principles of justice are that they naturally apply across the spectrum of all situations, because particular positions do not form part of the social contract.
Whether it is over war crimes or more local government operations, where there is a material interference that harms another, explanation etc is required.
My giving out public information on this concept seriously got up the nose of the fake Peace Strike/Democracy Village, who were all in a flap.
They are happy to have a localised argument on our side of the pavement, where they can do he said/she said and tell people any old garbage they like.
What they did not like was my publicly sharing on the loudspeaker, what the principles of justice involve, using various analogies, including reference to restoring our campaign to it's original position prior to their material interferences.
What their multiple quacking today showed, in following the party line that the likes of Caroline Emmerson,aka Mirthful Merryweather, were putting out, ie (Brian Haw was feeble minded and easily influenced etc etc etc) was that they are all - fully - aware of what they are doing.
In working out how to restore our campaign to it's original position through:
a) a protection from harassment order against Peace Strike/Democracy Village
b) the return of the display that was stolen on 23rd May 2006
c) our position on the grass being restored,
I pointed out to the agent provocateur Maria Gallastaegui that in addition
d) I would be seeking exemplary damages for every single day she has refused to tell the truth, since January 13th 2010, about repeatedly leaving her campaign unmanned, and by so failing to tell the truth, has meant we have been subjected to all sorts of abuse. I pointed out that the Police Camp sign publicly states the truth and where ANY of her campaign want to in any way publicly dispute this, and smear our names as liars, and so on and so forth, then that requires exemplary damages.
the evil one: trying to provoke with zero morality or .....intelligence. how about we stick to the point of exemplary damages.
And guess what. Peace Strike/Democracy Village are not in supprt of our being restored to our original position before they et al, "interfered". They have no concept of - fairness - of course.
I also pointed out that when her little mouthpieces want to walk past abusing me, for example, then that's more exemplary damages and so on and so forth.
still lying. that will be more exemplary damages
Having no morality whatsoever, the woman actually said she would try to deny that she knew I had said she was an agent provocateur !!!!!! and that I had told her to tell the truth !!!!
I said she will have a hard time denying she saw the Police Camp sign !!!!
and more exemplary damages
Then she claimed she didn't have any money. I pointed out that her quite extensive campaign was not running on thin air, but if she really had no money, then we should look at Sharia Law, because she was saying she could do what she liked and avoid justice.
and if she wants to hang around..that will be - even - more exemplary damages.
And while I was at it, I rumbled the fact that while they publicly claim they wanted to talk with us and for us to all be together, that in fact this is not true.
I said to her and four of her cronies, okay you claim that you do want us to all work together, then let's do it.
This was met with a gobsmacked silence (which to be honest was quite priceless to see) while they all looked at each other speechless, before the so called "Mark Williams" pointed out he didn't want to work with us.
I continued by saying, that if they were real, we could sign up to what are the agreed principles of justice by which we would all work, which had them ALL choking and really running like the rats they really are.
You would think that by mentioning Justice, I had held up a cross to a bunch of vampires.
I think we may have found the very - real - weakness in Peace Strike/Democracy Village.
still here ?....exemplary damages = fairness.
When I explained one principle of justice being about .....where there is a material interference that causes harm etc...one useful idiot started shouting at me that I was barking.
I smiled as I pointed out that actually I was merely repeating a well accepted principle of justice that is in a law book published by a very well known and respected Professor.
And all the useful idiots jaws dropped open, yet again.
They clearly have soooooooooooo much to learn :)
About principles of fairness...etc too.
guess what kids. we do reality. police camp = exemplary damages.
When one also piped up that I couldn't prove that they all worked together, with Ms Ashworth, for example, I pointed out that of course I could prove they all worked together.
It is absolutely clear that they are - collectively - devoid of any morality or the ability to tell the truth whatsoever, about anything.
Later on, when a group of them were by us, one of the members of their campaign asked what I wanted.
I said it is all very simple. (Is it the Sound of Music song that says " Let's start at the very beginning....it begins with A B C..."?)
"All would be quite simply resolved if Maria Gallastegui put in writing and signed, that she repeatedly left her campaign unmanned prior to May 1st 2010."
I pointed out that when she put that in writing, well then, we can all move on, and "wouldn't that be luverrly" (is that from My Fair Lady ?)..
I suspect police camp are not telling the truth. that would involve more exemplary damages !!
Anyway, I explained how material harm had been caused with our campaign being called a security risk, with our being searched and arrested over this issue, while the unmanned campaign is supposedly not a security risk. Likewise I said it kind of shows there is no point in imposing conditions when a campaign can be left unmanned. One little dear piped up with the story that because Maria is "nice to police...." (no sh** sherlock) blah di blah..
So when her multiple mouthpieces started trotting out - her - various well worn excuses about why the campaign was unmanned. I pointed out that the reasons were irrelevant to the fact.
It is interesting listening to them rolling out Madam's spiel, because either that is because they talk about it a lot (which would be odd for genuine campaigners) or they are well "briefed" (which increasingly seems far more likely).
All I asked for was an admission of the fact. Reasons/excuses were optional.
They trotted off to the black depths of one of their police boxes. I mean who would sit in a black box for goodness sakes !!! and then came back and said she refused.
Well that is ...democracy, as opposed to justice for you.
I was not - hugely - suprised.
So you want to publicly lie about me = exemplary damages.
Both she, the police & the government have too much to lose by her telling the truth, and so far down the track.
It is all about buying time, within an unlimited budget...
The goverment need their legislation to bypass due process real bad, in order to cover up their government operation.
They will not get away with it.
As I pointed out to her "colleagues", what began with a relatively small lie has been allowed to grow in to a massive lie, with very serious consequences. And they all know it.
And a member of her campaign went on and on about how he knew for a fact that the police would not get a budget to infiltrate a peaceful campaign, (which explains why they are always saying we are not peaceful). I also happen to know that PCCX674 Roger Smith claimed on July 19TH 2007, that he had "an unlimited budget to get of Brian Haws campaign". This latest stooge then went on to claim that it would only be a problem if we were on the grass ?? When we asked how he could know any of this he claimed to be a police officer, but would not sign anything to that effect with his name. Others curiously claimed police officers who are undercover do not have to identify themselves, when asked !!
Simon Over: claimed to be filth. in any sense, police or not, he was ...filth. that's more ....exemplary damages..
I pointed out that actually I am open to a number of various possibilities, including that there may be some who are police, and others from other government departments, while some may simply being paid off by a political party. And Democracy Village had a Daily Mail journalist. And well, we must not forget BBC's Permaspin.
What they are not is genuine campaigners.
And in a particularly sinister development, a member of her campaign made several rather odd comments about Brian's funeral, including claiming that photographs were taken of who was at the funeral and that his family had said they hated me.
sinister: photographing people at funerals.
I thought these were very odd things to say out of left field apropos nothing.
So naturally I said, shall we explore how it is that an unknown person with another campaign who claims to be a campaigner, came to make such comments, about something that could not possibly be in any way connected to their campaign. The useful idiot, was like a rat down a drain pipe. This was recorded.
yet the unknown with him (who oddly claimed out of the blue that undercover police do not need to identify themselves when asked !?)thinks it's okay to threaten me with violence, for photographing that she's part of a fake campaign. so that would be yet more exemplary damages to be claimed.
claimed Brian was easily influenced and couldn't make his own decisions!! and I took "control" of ...errr..our campaign - I pointed out he didn't even know Brian. he said "people" told him Brian was easily manipulated! Into what ? This pathetic little creep was unsurprisingly against fairness & justice, involving our campaign being restored to it's ...original... position. All these unknowns are truly vile and disgusting creatures. So I educated him about .....exemplary damages.
being kind of gutless, spineless and immoral = you guessed it..exemplary damages.