Spivey in court tomorrow

Just heard Chris Spivey charged with harassing Lyn Rigby and 4 others by his saying Woolwich a hoax with pictures of Lee Rigby photoshopped plus offensive emails sent allegedly.  Full story on his blog in his post ‘Above The Law’.

I’ll go and get the article in a minute.  See also The Daily mail coverage he received last year.  Not many bloggers get into the nationals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711721/Blogger-arrested-2am-raid-home-claiming-Lee-Rigbys-murder-anti-Islam-HOAX.html

http://chrisspivey.org/above-the-law/

Above the law

Christopher Spivey.

 

 * Apologies for any errors, I feel like shite with a stinking head cold 

On the 15th of December I wrote an email to Temporary Police Inspector Paul Ahmed, which I published on this site that very same day.

Before I sent it I had a barrister check it over who apart from suggesting a couple of minor changes said that it was fine to send.

Now, as well as sending the email to Ahmed, I also sent a copy of it to:

  • The Independent Police Complaints Commission
  • Stephen Kavanagh: The Chief Constable of Essex
  • Nick Alston: The Police Crime Commissioner for Essex
  • James Duddridge: MP for Rochford & Southend East

Out of those five emails I received one ‘official’ response and that was  from the IPCC acknowledging receipt of the email. However, I have heard nothing further from them… Which is an absolute fucking disgrace

Why?

Well, because the email that I sent was a legitimate complaint & protest about the Lies that TPI Paul Ahmed had been telling me as to the reason that he would be unable to deal with the complaint that I had lodged with the IPCC over my illegal arrests for the time being and since I had learned that this was a blatant lie I had also stated that I now wanted Ahmed removed from the investigation – or lack of it – and him added to the ever growing list of crimes that was/are being perpetrated against me and my family.

You can read the full email by clicking HERE

Now bear in mind that I had a barrister check the contents of the email before I sent it.

And as you will see, there is absolutely nothing contained within that email that is not fair comment.

Indeed, like it or not, I am a citizen of this country and I am entitled to be treated Fairly, Just and Without Prejudice… None of which have been applied to me and/or my family thus far.

Why not?

After all, having caught and confronted a VERY SENIOR POLICEMAN BREAKING THE LAW and acting in collusion with others to avert a major scandal by burying the extremely serious complaint that I made against the police, whilst others try and convict me in a kangaroo court – should these unfit for office, criminals be allowed to just ignore the fact?

And when I say criminals, I publicly accuse all 4 men – and I use the term ‘men’ very loosely – as well as the wholly corrupt IPCC.

Now, when I say that the 4 fella’s & the IPCC ignored the email, I do mean that they did not act accordingly, as set out by law… They ignored the law, because they do not think that the law applies to them.

However, they did not ignore the email.

You see, on the 19th of December, four days after receiving the email I got a court summons through the post which had been “authorised” by the Essex Chief Constable, Stephen Kavanagh – one of the recipients of the aforementioned email… In other words a malicious, vengeful court summons sent purely out of spite.

Now, you can disagree with that assessment if ya fucking like, but the facts are that the‘summons’ was without doubt hastily assembled; unless of course all court summons are issued littered with errors (as I will evidence shortly), and furthermore was issued two days after receiving a damning communication directly affecting the person who authorised the summons.

And that is despite me not being due to answer bail for the bullshit charges until yesterday (18.01.2014).

The summons itself is an MG4D “Postal Requisition” and is actually very vague. Indeed, I do not think that I have been sent all of it as there is meant to be an info pack and as far as I can work out, the procedure should have been discussed with me when I was arrested… Which it wasn’t.

In fact, I am not even eligible to receive a “postal requisition” summons since I  had bail conditions attached to my arrest. You see, everything that I have read about this type of summons states that if you have bail conditions attached then you CANNOT be charged in this manner.

10247430_687961227944493_8714831297186932926_n

The Bail Conditions

 

However, according to an Essex Mafia Police PDF (found HERE), there is an “element of discretion” where bail conditions were imposed.

Never the less, that doesn’t explain why this procedure wasn’t so much as mentioned when I was first arrested:

Postal Requisitions will replace the current process for issue of a summons to ensure
attendance at court and will streamline the original process providing greater efficiency.
Offenders considered suitable for postal requisitions will be identified at the initial arrest stage.
Once the evidence has been collected and a decision made as to suitability to proceed, the
process can be engaged without the need for the offender to return to the Police Station.

Hmmm, why do I not feel that all is above board here?

Never the less, the following is the first 2 sheets of the old fanny which was made up of 3 sheets of old fanny in total:

10884767_760313914042557_1527873471_n10881314_760313860709229_1242189382_n10859370_760313707375911_2104681015_n

Okay, now before I break those charges down, you should take into account that according to the law on postal requisition summonses:

Postal requisitions are a replacement for the summons process – the means of advising
individuals who have not been charged, that they are nonetheless required to attend court. The
requisition process includes an evidence pack which the recipient is required to read and
understand. 

Now, as I say, I never got any such “evidence pack” yet the above clearly lists “charges”, so I must have been charged … Unless I am reading the fucking thing wrong.

Never the less, lets have a look at this bullshit and how the police are wasting tax-payers money on vindictive, self serving, bollocks charges whilst real criminals go about their business unchallenged.

 (1) Harassment without violence

Now, straight off, I can tell you that I am 99 percent certain that there is no such person as Lyn Rigby. If you have read my latest article “Behind the flag” about the Glasgow bin lorry hoax, you will hopefully know what I mean by that.

You see, like ALL of the players in the Glasgow false flag, those in the Woolwich false flag are just created personas and  the person who plays any given character will have multiple other“sock puppets”. For example, the Glasgow hoax includes a person called Lucy Jane Ewing, the daughter of the ‘deceased’ Gillian Ewing.

Yet neither person exists outside of a Facebook profile. By that I mean that the person playing Lucy Jane is also the same person who is playing her sister Robyn Alexander and many other people to boot.

roof

Indeed, there were people who took part in the Glasgow Fraud who also took part in the Woolwich fraud.

Never the less, I am obviously going to plead not guilty to ALL the charges and that gives me a right to trial by jury. And obviously it will be extremely interesting to see Lyn Rigby, Sara McClure, Robert Sargeant and the convicted criminal Gavin Vitler on the witness stand.

However, I have apparently harassed Lyn Rigby – not her real name – by publishing on MY Facebook page and on MY website the following:

A) That the murder of Lee Rigby was a hoax… It was, he never existed. Woops, there I go again with my harassment. Course, there are hundreds, nay thousands that have posted on their Facebooks and YouTube that the murder of Lee Rigby was a hoax… So I am being victimised then… And Lyn must be feeling pretty harassed.

Course the onus will be on the prosecution to prove that Rigby’s murder wasn’t a hoax.

Mind you, I never said that the Rigby murder was a hoax on my Facebook. I just posted the link to the articles which is an entirely different matter. However, it appears that according to British law – paid for by you people – that SAYING THE LEE RIGBY MURDER WAS A HOAX, is now a crime… And everything that I write on my website and Facebook is aimed at harassing Lyn Rigby – NOT HER REAL NAME – and apparently I should know that for a fact… KAVANAGH YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO YOUR UNIFORM AND POSITION… Sorry Lyn Rigby, no offence meant.

Next!

B) An assertion that Robert Sargeant , Lyn’s daughter’s partner was in fact Lee Rigby… Fuck me! They are going to throw away the key.

However, an “assertion” is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as being: a statement that you strongly believe is true

So, I am being persecuted for strongly believing something to be true… Course, I most certainly DO NOT believe for one minute that Robert Sargeant is Lee Rigby… Lee Rigby does not exist, never has – not as Rigby anyway.

Moreover, I said that a fella called Robert SARJEANT was pretending to be Lee Rigby… But fuck knows who Robert SARGEANT is.

But look what happens when you replace Rigby’s face with Sarjeants.

sammm1 (1)

Course, quite who Sara McClure is in reality is also a matter up for debate. However, I will need to know because she will obviously have to be cross examined at the court case.

1

However, I also said, long before I said that Biggers Riggers was Sarjeant that he was also Karl Whittle. An ASSERTION that I stand by.

So why am I not being prosecuted for asserting that Rigby is SarJeant and not being prosecuted for saying that he is also Karl Whittle?

karlee998692_10151737415962767_1644236053_n

Now Karl Whittles death never made any sense to me and indeed I have written quite extensively about this during the course of writing about Rigby.

However, like all of these people who are ‘killed’ in hoaxes there is money to be made out of them and Whittle is no different.

The following is from his “funding” page and I have underlined the important bits:

Guardsman Karl Whittle died in Queen Elizabeth Hospital on 7 September 2012 having sustained gunshot wounds when his checkpoint was attacked by insurgents in the Nahr-e Saraj District of Helmand Province on 14 August 2012.

Born on 26 January 1990 and raised in Bristol, Guardsman Whittle joined the Army in 2009. Having completed the Combat Infantryman’s Course at the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick he moved to Nijmegen Company, Grenadier Guards, where he conducted public duties at the Royal Palaces and participated in state ceremonial tasks. Source

Now, strangely enough, Karl Whittles Facebook is still active.

Moreover, he has some very interesting friends. Lets have some photos.

23B27B3200000578-0-image-m-35_1421540153152dorrington

But I am showing off a bit and going off track to boot.

And you can find the proof of that fundraiser for Rigby, held in Whittles by clicking HERE

Course, it is also my ASSERTION that Christopher Amos is Lee Rigby. Yet I am not in trouble for saying that either… A bit fucking strange, don’t cha think.

(1) Rigby (2) Amos with a Rigby hat on. I haven’t altered the face in anyway. (3) Amos

And of course, Amos told me himself  that Sarjeant looked like Rigby… Why isn’t he in court then:

 Lee rigby, wow you’ve discovered they look a like  Source

Indeed, when I read back over mine and Chris’s chat, the more “interesting” it becomes.

Never the less, lets get back to this court summons of mine.

(c) An image of Lyn Rigby and her partner being interviewed in her home, showing photographs of Lee Rigby, with commentary asserting the the pictures of Lee are Photo Shopped and comments about the dog tag and poppy which Lyn Rigby is wearing.

Now, the photograph in question is a screenshot taken from an ITV news interview… So I am going to court for a screen shot taken from an ITV interview… And the comments that I made on the screen-shot of course.

In fact the photo found below is the photo in question that was not published anywhere else – not by me anyway – other than this site, which now constitutes a criminal offence in this country… If your name is Chris Spivey of course.

article_img-3a

So let’s break it down.

63 Burnside Crescent is a registered business address for the Limited Company, masquerading as a charity that Lyn and her business partner Kevin (kenny) Williams set up called Team Lee United Forces (they tended to leave the Co Ltd off).

However, having launched the ‘charity’ they then abruptly stopped fundraising when my evidenced was released.

Of course, you can find out information about the Company via any old company check website… Or you could just click HERE

Now, this company, which was fundraising as a “charity”, but hadn’t actually applied for charity status (and still isn’t a registered charity) had already raised tens of thousands of pounds when they stopped fundraising – which coincided with the release of my evidence against them.

Now have a butchers at this:

teamlee7

teamlee

Now to me, what I have written on these photos is much more derogatory than what I wrote on the one I am being prosecuted for…  But I really can’t think why that should be, can you?

But as I say, the “charity” is still not registered. So surely when I called Ian an idiot on that photo, I was being generous. However, since Ian states that they were applying to the Charity Commission for registration, yet as I type this, they still don’t have it, can only mean that either they didn’t bother to apply or they were turned down.

Course, it didn’t help when I revealed that Lyn’s fellow director for the “charity” was heavily involved with the EDL.

wi

Indeed, it has since transpired that Mr Williams has resigned from the “charity”… Something that he hadn’t done at the time when I exposed his EDL links.

So who is the criminal?

Untitledlyn

 

teamlee1

As for the photos that the summons mentions, well lets see the prosecution prove that they aren’t phot-shopped because I can certainly prove that they are.

And neither was their address made any more secret when they had a free garden makeover, showing the house inside and out.

Now this undeserved freebie makeover was carried out by the Forces Support Charity whom are really rather friendly with Mr Williams of the EDL.

564736_1480663775479176_1668113334_n

Again, you can read more about the Rigby ‘charity’ by clicking HERE

I should tell you though that I have much more damning evidence on the connection between dear Mrs Riggers and the EDL… I think I will save that for court though… Roger that Mr Kavanagh.

Okay, back to the summons and ‘D’ is covered in the above.

(E) Details of the Address of Lee Rigby’s sister Sara McClure.

Oh, so that is who lives in Latrigg Crescent… I didn’t know for sure.

Course, I never published the house number, because I wasn’t sure what the house number was to be honest.

Never the less, it seems that the MSM can get away with publishing photos of Burnside Crescent with impunity.

burna

Moreover, the Press association circulated the following photo:

Taken from the Huffington Post

And the Daily Mail published Lyn’s address in full in the article found HERE

The following two photos were taken from that article:

dm

Look, the Chimp has even claimed ownership of the first photo… You couldn’t make this shit up.

Course, you have to ask yourself why wasn’t I told at the police interview that publishing a photo of someones house constituted “harassment”?

Indeed, why was I not told to remove the ‘offending’ items since technically I must still have been harassing poor Lyn ever since being arrested, mustn’t I?

And the only difference between me and the MSM is that I am uncovering crime, whereas the MSM is covering it up.

(F) Photographs of members of the Rigby Family and their Christmas Tree

So, that will be the photos that I took off their Facebook profiles… You know, THE ONES THAT THEY HAD ON SHOW FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE SO AS THEY COULD PERPETUATE THE MYTH OF THE RIGBY MURDER.

Once again, the only thing I have to say until I get into court is why didn’t the wholly corrupt Essex Plod tell me to remove the offending photos… You know, the ones that anyone on Facebook could access.

(G) Suggestion that either Lee Rigby never existed or that the family is involved with MI5.

And that is a crime is it?

Whatever the fuck you do, do not claim that Lee Rigby never existed because you will be in court quicker than two shakes of a gnats winky.

And I will repeat: Lee Rigby never existed as Lee Rigby… There ya go, I have broken the law again.

As for the suggestion that the family are involved with MI5… Isn’t it the “family’s” place to sue me for that allegation? Course, they won’t do that because the family is a fraud and involved with the Security Services.

I will remind you that you are paying for this police investigation… Just sayin’.

(G) A suggestion that Lee Rigby was a rapist.

I never suggested that at all.

Indeed what I wrote is:

Am I saying that Rigby was a rapist?

No, of course I’m not because I don’t know if he was or wasn’t. Source

So, completely the opposite then.

Course, you now have to ask yourself why the person/people responsible for the allegation are not being prosecuted.

leerigbyabuse (1)389409_10200534773150850_1869416003_n

And once again, the Plod were well aware that I had published this on my site – which is not a social media site – yet they never told me that I had harassed anyone by doing so when they interviewed me.

(I) An assertion that Kevin Vitler had visited Lyn Rigby’s address the week before posting on the 15th of July 2014.

So, am I being prosecuted for publishing too early then?

However, in the event I never asserted any such thing. The following is what I wrote:

And indeed, Vitler was spotted in Burnside Crescent last week in conversation with Sandra Lord and another woman.

Sandra Lord does of course live directly opposite Lyn.. Just sayin’.

Now, someone told me that information in an email. Indeed, until he did I had never even heard of Kevin Vitler. Vitler is of course a criminal who was banned from every pub in Middleton at one time.

I have already written about Mr Vitler and his Charity fundraising at the source links I have already published on here… I look forward to seeing Mr Vitler in court too.

However, the following is from my article “Charity begins at home”:

teamlee2

Poor Paula seems to be under the misapprehension that the money is going to young Jack… However like I proved in a previous article, not only did the Rigby family totally ignore Jack at the funeral and vigil held on the day before, Lyn couldn’t even get his birthday right in one interview that she gave.

And indeed, when you read the blurb, you will see that there is no mention of Jack whatsoever.

Never the less Jennette, who charges £5 (£6 with P+P when paid into her personal paypal account) for a Lee Rigby Patch, which according to one supplier would cost around £2.50 to buy (source) gave that £2511 figure “plus some other money I collected before I left” information out on the 25th of August 2013.

Yet that figure – rounded up to the nearest pound – had somewhat diminished by the 3rd of September… At least it had according to Vitler.

teamlee2

Am I saying that they are on the fiddle.

No, I am just reporting the evidenced facts.

However, if people are happy to give their hard earned to a fella who in 2005 had the maximum ban allowed (2 years) under the ‘Middleton Pubwatch scheme’, its no skin of my nose.

Are the police investigating Vitler and his *aherm,aherm ‘fundraising’?

Are they fuck!

Now I see little reason to go through the second lot of charges since they are the same as the first only they are on behalf of Sara McClure… They do like a ‘Mc’, do these useful idiots don’t they. And as I have already shown you, Sarah McClure is a multitude of people.

The 3rd charge is in regard to a PRIVATE email: Sent by public communication network an offensive/indecent/obscene/menacing message/matter.

Fuck me, that sounds serious despite the fact that I didn’t send any emails at all on the 13/07/2014… Not one.

However, on 12/07/2014 I did send myself an email with some photos that I used in a Rigby article. The reason that I did so was because they were on my other computer and as such it was easier to do that than fuck about going from one computer to the other. All the photos were used in the article and indeed were all in the public domain… I can’t hack into their accounts don’t cha know.

So, I am being prosecuted for an email that I sent to myself… Righto.

Or if the charge doesn’t refer to that, someone sent me an email on the 14th with some information on the Rigbys and Kevin Kenny Williams.

However, I neither asked for or expected this information, so if I am not being prosecuted for sending myself an email, I am being prosecuted for receiving an email from a person whom the Plod have not so much as bothered to get in touch with.

However, this begs the question: HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU HARASS SOMEONE IN AN EMAIL THAT THE “VICTIM” IS NEVER GOING TO SEE?

As for the final 4th charge which again is in regards to emails: Sent by public communication network an offensive/indecent/obscene/menacing message/matter.

This charge relates to emails sent between Me, Wolfie, Dogman, and an IT company that was helping us out when the MIT were bombarding the site with DDOS attacks.

The following is a sample of one of those emails:

Obviously with the Lee Rigby article nearing completion (which puts an end to any doubt that Rigbys murder was anything other than a staged event and I believe/hope is going to be massive and give an awful lot of people a kick up the arse) the site needs to be safe, as the security services will most certainly try and take it down.

There were also some other emails sent to myself from myself, again all of photos relating to the Rigby/Woolwich hoax.

Therefore, I ask again: How the fuck can private emails sent between people trying to keep a website running be construed as offensive/indecent/obscene/menacing message/matter?

And there you have it. What a fucking waste of time and public money.

As for sheet 3 of the 3 sheet summons, well, have a butchers for yourself.

10863695_760313637375918_1376033506_n

Now, why the fuck has the Statement of Means been crossed out?

I can’t ask a solicitor because I can’t get one to act for me… They have all been warned against it, and I am not even fucking joking.

Course, it comes to something when your own MP, the Essex PCC, and the IPCC choose to ignore an extremely serious complaint of wrongdoing in high office. However, it totally beggars belief that a county’s Chief Constable can not only ignore that evidence, but can by way of response authorise a summons full of laughable charges.

I would therefore appreciate your support on this matter and would ask that you ALL email Kavanagh, Duddridge, Alston and the IPCC asking them in no uncertain terms just what the fuck is going on.

And I would appreciate the support of those who live near enough to me to turn up at court on friday the 23rd because obviously they are going to try and tuck me up… A film crew wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

Once again, you have a chance to make a difference… Lets go to war.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

24 Responses to “Spivey in court tomorrow”

  1. Gillian says:

    Hi Tap, I’m pleased you’ve put this story on your site. I’ve been keeping an eye on CS since last December.
    I would have posted about his expected court appearance tomorrow but wasn’t sure if you wanted to give him the oxygen of publicity again after the shameful way he wrote about you and others in December. If he pleads not guilty tomorrow the case will almost certainly go to Crown Court for trial by Jury.
    I have been surprised by the number of his followers who ‘are sorry but they can’t make it tomorrow’ followed by a variety of excuses/reason as to why they can’t make it. I don’t doubt that some of them have very valid reasons, but even so………… CS must surely be at least a little disappointed in the response from his followers.
    It’s interested how in his latest post which you’ve posted above, that he seems to be back-tracking a little on a few of his previous claims.
    As for the ‘photo-shopped’ photos and his (CS’s) claims that some people are really just the one person and somebody else is really this or that person. It’s all just speculation imho.

  2. Mark says:

    ‘Once again, you have a chance to make a difference… Lets go to war.’
    Let us. The info-war. And Tap takes up the baton. The enemy’s top tactic is to have us fight each other (and not support). Converseley, they are vulnerable to this amongst themselves. ‘How can a house stand if it’s divided’ – someone was once – proported – to have said. Standing with Spivey in war for truth and justice,
    Mark

  3. Glen C says:

    The truth is NOT a difficult concept, though some are desperately trying to silence a good man in Chris Spivey for saying it. For us to see the change this country and this World needs it is important we support Chris Spivey in exposing the lies. Woolwich was not just a hoax it was a pantomime and an insult to anybody with any intelligence. However it now appears to say so is a crime. Let’s go to War.
    Many thanks Henry for posting Chris’s article.

  4. barb says:

    Loads of support for chris on his site with people offering lifts etc nice to see . Not as in the first comment

  5. Gary says:

    A journalist covering a news story could be wrong. They could have to print a retraction. They could be reported to their voluntary to join, advisory body who might even uphold the complaint and give them a telling off, they could sue. Assuming he IS wrong he has not committed an offence. This would only be harassment if firstly it was untrue and secondly the journalist knew it to be untrue but pursued them anyway to deliberately cause distress or alarm. You don’t need to have a press card or be a member of the NUJ to be a journalist. Guido Fawkes is considered journalism, even David Icke is considered to be a journalist. Stories like this are in the public interest, if he’s wrong – sue him. Otherwise he must be afforded the same freedoms as other journalists. Newspaper reporters and TV news should be all over this, why aren’t they? Cameron talks about the repression of the blogger in Saudi Arabia who is receiving 10,000 lashes and a ten year sentence. He calls him a ‘dissident’ and says he should be freed. He says ‘Je Suis Charlie’ and says we must defend “the right to offend”. Then, back home he wants to throw the book at a blogger who is investigating the Rigby murder because he doesn’t like what he’s written? We should be out on the streets over this. Even if you don’t agree (maybe especially if you don’t agree)’with him, understand that this is where it starts, not where it ends. If we want any semblance of freedom of speech to remain they have to be stopped. We’re on a slippery slope.

  6. Tap says:

    1000 lashes (twenty weeks of fifty). Not too pleasant. Where’s Coleman gone of The Coleman Experience? No posts for six weeks. No one seems to now what’s happened. Spivey in court. Quite a crackdown all told.

  7. Norman says:

    see gillians off with her bullshit again.

  8. Norman says:

    looks like coleman could have hit the nail on the head last September with ‘are paedophiles about to fake their own deaths? hope he re-surfaces.

  9. Norman says:

    missed out politicians!!

  10. Glen C says:

    I agree with everything Gary say’s, though will add to it by saying that Chris Spivey does hold an NUJ card and anyway he first printed the articles on his OWN website nearly a year ago and at his original arrest he was NOT told to remove them. As such they are still there to see and read now. If anybody hasn’t yet read them then please do go to this link where you will find all the articles which have led to the court case…..best do it quick though before CaMORON and his cohorts gets their way and shut Chris up…..as there appear to have done to The Coleman Experience! http://chrisspivey.org/category/woolwichlee-rigby/

  11. dofornow says:

    Re Why do electronic montages?
    Is it to give false witness?
    They , by and large , describe themselves as reporters.
    It looks to me that it is down to big brother terror tactics.
    Look at the way the perverts and those who mutilate have had a free run these past years…. all down to political correctness, banged up for FA if you stepped out of line and said what was going on.
    Look at the terror tactics they used against the scientist who wore the wrong T shirt. Had him in tears ….. as well he should be in tears . He possibly had in mind what happened to one of the two who brought to mankind the secret of the double helix DNA!
    One lived most his life in relative obscurity and poverty , because he stepped out of line.
    A foreign millionheir bought his award gong at auction and handed it back to him.
    dofornow.

  12. RabbiT says:

    Having burrowed under many of the UK governments judicial bodies first hand, I can assure readers that the UK justice system has for a long time not been about justice but has become wholly political.

    Appeals are no longer about law but about whether the decision of the lower body is liked or not.

    Court proceedings, from my experience, now exist to conceal crime, that is if the crime is carried out by establishment figures against the ordinary man or woman in the street.

    I do not know or wish to consider this case in detail but as with Rusty, Robert and others, we have individuals challenging the establishment which the establishment does not like and will punish whether or not it is their lawful right to do so.

    From what I know of the current case involving Ben Fellows, it appears to me the party “perverting the course of justice” is the establishment on the basis Ben seeks to have the establishment invoke the course of justice but such is denied him.

    It appears to me you can only pervert the course of justice if the course of justice is being applied which in his case it is not.

    It therefore appears the only lawful remedy is for Ken to sue but the justice system would rather Ben be criminalised which in law he can not (unless perhaps through hate crime – the new back-door method) but they no longer care about the law.

    This is what needs to be understood.

    In my case I eventually stopped lodging defences and stopped turning up for civil hearings. I think it worked as they decided to leave me alone after that.

  13. Glen C says:

    It appears the gagging has begun. Chris Spivey had his case adjourned today until 20th February when a trial date will be set….however he has had NEW bail conditions attached which forbid him naming certain people involved in the Woolwich Hoax. Though if people read the above article closely, especially the charges, they will gather who those names are! The truth is being silenced and as RabbiT says above it appears that court proceedings are being used to conceal a crime!

  14. Gillian says:

    @barb – Yes, there is ‘Loads of support for Chris on his site………..’ but only 5 people physically turned up to show support for him yesterday.
    I understand that for very good reasons some just couldn’t be there, including Glen C who seems like a genuinely decent person.
    But what about the numerous others? I’m guessing that when push comes to shove, their backsides refused to part company with their sofas. I wouldn’t like to rely on them when the going gets tough.

  15. Gillian says:

    @Norman – Thank you for your well-argued and constructive contribution to the debate.
    You do realise that you’re allowed more than one sentence per individual comment posting I hope.

  16. Glenn says:

    @Gillian – Your views on Chris Spivey are somewhat jaundiced, but he has put his pecker on the line and has put out compelling arguments for the Woolwich “beheading” being a complete hoax.

    I would repectfully submit he has done more to hightlight the sickening behaviour of our power loving “elite” to a wider audience than your good self.

    Might I suggest throwing your acid where it belongs : namely those raping and abusing children and those abusing their “power”.

    “Divide and Rule” is their ethos.

  17. Tapestry says:

    Comparisons are odious. Gillian’s views are well and politely expressed. She is entitled to hold them. Not being able to handle constructive criticism is not a great quality. Or is spivey a god? His work is interesting and persuasive. His language is offensive. What’s the problem with Gillian wondering why he uses every expletive to present his work.

  18. Glenn says:

    @tapestry
    Comparisons are hardly odious.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone has to expect others may not share that opinion. Viva la difference.

    Chris does hit many nails on the head and is off the mark on others. His work on the Woolwich hoax has been extensive, and there are elements of what he provided that lead me to conclude it was not a true atrocity, and a false flag to focus public opinion against Muslims/Islam.

    Why not use expletives? The majority of the “Working Class” use such language, and it is that strata of society that need to be woken up from their Football, Soap Operas and other diversions from what is happening around them. They are the sleeping majority.

    Using the language Chris does will connect with them more than a middle class La Di Da mode of speaking.

    Jus’ saying. 🙂

  19. Gillian says:

    @ Glenn,
    You write, ‘The majority of the “Working Class” use such language,……’ They most certainly do not, not in my experience anyway. I believe you may be referring to what’s known as the sub or underclass (not my terms btw).

    Until 3 or 4 generations ago the majority of the working class were fully aware of how the world is really run. i.e. by the elite or dominant minority. However, with the advent of Television and other things, the PTB were able to re-programme and condition the people on a massive scale.

    The good news is that it will not take or need the awakening of the majority to be able to try and make a difference. Some, e.g. G Edward Griffin, say an awakening of just *3% of the populace would be enough to turn things around, the theory being that the unawakened would simply go with the flow, just as they always do. Or, to put it another way, people should not lower their standards, that’s assuming they had any in the first place, to connect with those who are unable or unwilling to even contemplate the fact that there is something very wrong about the way our world is run.

    * I would be more confident with 5-10% just to be on the safe side. But we already know it can be achieved by a lower number or fewer people, when the so-called elite only make up 1-2% of the entire population worldwide.

  20. Glenn says:

    @Gillian.

    In the working class area I live and in others I have worked at such language is quite common. It will of course vary from place to place.

    To my mind common sense dictates it will take a lot more than 3% of the populace waking up to the current state of things. I suspect more than your 5%-10%.

    All we can do is try to educate our immediate circles and point them in the direction of non MSM points of view, and hopefully like the ripples on a pond, this will radiate outwards getting ever bigger.

    Our political classes have lost all moral rectitude and decency for the most part as have our Security Services, Judiciary and Police.

    All of us need to remind them of that.

  21. Jennifer says:

    The coarsening and stupifying of the working class is one of the great and essential achievements of the elite. In too many working-class/benefit ‘entitled’ households true education and learning is not valued, whereby enabling the the purveyors of inadequate and unchallenging ‘education’ in creating successive generations who are a pushover to be trampled back down into a pathetic, helpless underclass.
    Yes, the working class do need to wake up, maybe more than any other – because they have so much more to lose.
    And they need to start by resisting the dumbing down and low expectation that is assumed of them.

  22. Gillian says:

    @ Glenn

    About educating our immediate circles, yes I agree and have been trying to do just that for several years now and it’s definitely become much easier of late. Many people know that something is very wrong but are not quite sure exactly why that is. They are asking questions, which is a good sign.

    I also spend a fair amount of time commenting in the msm, because that’s where the work needs to be done. It’s becoming easier there as well. For example the use of the ‘tin foil hat’ which was overused as a rebuttal is now ridiculed by many.

    I have to say that there are now many awake people that comment in the Daily Mail. The comments that are allowed to go up are reasonably highly rated too in terms of ‘up’ arrows. I’m fairly new to the Mail On-line site, but at a very rough estimate I would say/guess that about 35% of them are awake to some degree and it’s increasing on a daily basis.

    I would guess that the amount of awake people commenting in the Telegraph, where I’ve been commenting for the past four or five years is slightly higher than those at the DM. I’m not saying that because I comment there, people are awakening. I’m a lightweight in comparison to some who comment there. There are about half a dozen or so of them who are brilliant and more to the point they are highly influential too.

  23. Gillian says:

    Chris Spivey has written a very good post 30/01/2015 about the plight of the Palestinian children and also about the Holohoax.

    However, towards the end of the piece he couldn’t resist fiddling around with a photo of an elderly Jewish man and suggesting that he might have been a made up character using altered photos of Netanyahu!
    What is it with him and photos and the messing around with them?
    Someone in the comments section pointed out that it detracts from his other work when he does stuff like that. The commenter even said that it makes him appear as a disinfo merchant, or words to that effect.

    I don’t think Spivey is a disinfo merchant and I know he can post whatever he likes on his own site. I just think he should stop shooting himself in the foot.

    In a post just before the one I’ve mentioned, he posted photos of himself in a dress with fake appendages
    including a giant penis. That doesn’t really enhance his credibility either. Someone else in the comments section said he seemed to be going into self-destruct mode. He’s been under a lot of pressure maybe that was his way of letting off a bit of steam.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.