UK PARLIAMENT & GUARDIAN TRY & COVER UP EXISTING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNDERCOVER POLICING & INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (26.07.2015)

The Guardian are making fools of themselves by insulting people’s intelligence with their latest FOI red herring that ignores existing legal proceedings against the entire apparatus of the British corporate regime.

1. It is a matter of fact that no-one else in the UK lodged a civil counterclaim against the British government in the High Court in 2011, about the illegal use of a whole ‘Democracy Village’ of agent provocateurs etc, that was met by further legislation to try and smash our civilian resistance to try and prevent that still live claim going ahead.

european oyster: not a copper in sight attacking us using the false pretext of 'shelter' is a 'crime'

 

26.07.2015 GUARDIAN: SCOTLAND YARD 'SHUT DOWN' UNDERCOVER POLICE UNIT IN 2008, BECAUSE IT BROKE 'RULES'

 

The Guardian FOI story is nonsensical in any legal sense, because it only exposes the Metropolitan Police and Guardian covering up evidence that should have been disclosed to people involved in legal proceedings.

 

Scotland Yard did not 'shut down' the 'under cover' police unit (the very same time it was forced to transfer dirty coppers out of Charing Cross to Belgravia in 2008 to try and cover up what Superintendent Terry the Tosser et al had been up to) but rather simply changed their name.

 

Superintendent Terry the Tosser could not even begin to explain to any High Court jury why he invited me (and Steve Jago accompanied me) to a meeting with Chief Inspector Andrew Robinson on July 7th 2006, that he then wrote a 'witness statement' he illegally tried to use in court.

 

...superintendent terry the tosser seriously illegally used 'the meeting' to write a fraudulent 'witness statement' over an unlawful arrest on...march 26th 2006, in the real socpa test case i won void ab initio on september 14th 2006...

 

It was seriously illegal for the senior police officer of a police station to invite me as a law abiding member of the public, to a meeting that he did not say he would write a witness statement over, without my being 'cautioned' and or indeed given a copy of the recording that there would have to be, which is quite a bit different to his subsequent claims.

 

In legal terms Superintendent Terry the Tosser was illegally questioning me over my unlawful arrest on March 26th 2006.

 

void ab initio: terry the tosser wrote a illegal witness statement over the 07.07.2006 meeting relating to my unlawful arrest on march 26th 2006

 

Indeed what is even more interesting is that both Steve Jago and I were then unlawfully arrested on 9th July 2006, for the purposes and I quote, of Superintendent Terry the Tosser demanding that "Barbara Tucker answer Superintendent Terry's questions before she is relased" that as our lawyer Maggie Pederson pointed out were entirely unrelated to our unlawful arrests, and I declined to do.

 

2. It is a matter of fact that it is our civilian resistance to NATO that the British Parliament of all political shades specifically made legislation against not once, but twice.

3. It is unprecedented for the British Parliament to try and invent legislation against some-one who already has an existing ground-breaking counterclaim against the British Parliament, over legislation etc, which I did, and still do.

 

 

It is impossible to understand the legality of the British Parliament ridiculously ordering an ‘inquiry’ into itself, because undercover policing etc that continues to this day, is done so under the command and control of the errr...British Parliament.

It was the current UK PM Cameron who was publicly singing like a stuck pig about wanting to illegally ‘remove’ (i.e.: use the entire apparatus of the state to try and smash) our civilian resistance in 2009.

 

19.07.2009: BBC NEWS: CAMERON WANTS PARLIAMENT SQUARE PEACE CAMPAIGN 'REMOVED'.

Undercover policing does not begin and end with the Metropolitan police, while intelligence agencies are also used, with all being ordered to act on behalf of what a ‘reasonable person’ on a High Court jury would know is the lawless British Parliament.

 

steve jago doing a little bit of snorkelling here and there :)

 

It is only interesting to know how the European courts could deny (for example) someone like myself who was unlawfully arrested 48 times to try and prevent my having access to a High Court jury, that access to a High Court jury in Britain, in civil claims against the British government.


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.
 
Our information draws upon a very many years of our own unique first hand knowledge and experience of the entire apparatus of the lawless violent Genocidal British regime, used against us.