Woolwich hoax gets backing from the judiciary. Spivey gagged.

daily mirror beheading frontpage copy

It appears the gagging has begun. Chris Spivey had his case adjourned today until 20th February when a trial date will be set and to give him time to get legal representation….however he has had NEW bail conditions attached which forbid him naming certain people involved in the Woolwich Hoax.

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!


Glen Coleman


9 Responses to “Woolwich hoax gets backing from the judiciary. Spivey gagged.”

  1. Julie says:

    Let’s get back to basics. The Courts are run disproportionately by Jews and Freemasons who are “owned” by the Corporation of the City of London aka Rothschilds and all the other Jewish crime families.

    This is an interesting article.

    A billionaire donor to David Cameron’s Tory leadership campaign has been questioned under oath during Britain’s most high-profile divorce battle.

    Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish-born property developer who is said to own 40 per cent of the real estate in downtown Las Vegas, was witness-summonsed to the High Court by lawyers for Michelle Young, who claims her estranged husband, Scot, 51, has squirrelled away “a few billion at least” in offshore tax havens.

    In 2011, Mr Zabludowicz said he was “extremely disappointed” to hear he had been tricked into funding the lavish lifestyle of former Defence Secretary Liam Fox and adviser Adam Werritty, who spent his £3,000 donation travelling around the world.

    The tycoon, said to be worth £1.5 billion, was angry at suggestions he benefited from the payments.

    Mr Zabludowicz and his wife Anita own neighbouring “his” and “her” mansions on a north London street dubbed “Billionaires’ Row”.

    The properties, which a swimming pool, a gym, two cinemas, a wine-tasting venue and a wine cellar, were reportedly the venue for secret talks between Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2011.


    Jews like to riducle other regions, but the ADL, media, Governments, Freemasons and Jewdiciary will go after YOU if you do the same to the Jews. They were sued, but the CPS dropped the case.

    Poju Zabludowicz’s wife Anita Zabludowicz commissioned a sculpture of Jesus Christ with an erection which was displayed in a Gateshead Gallery.


  2. Gordon says:

    Took a look at the court summons and any lawyer could have the case dismissed on the grounds that soldier is spelled wrong. There’s no such word as “Solider.”

  3. Julie says:

    The Woolwich hoax in my opinion was an event to galvanise the British public to accept military intervention in Syria, in order to feed the Banking Cabal and support Israel towards it’s goal for a greater Israel.

    “If the interests of the Zionist regime and the powerful Jewish community were to conflict with those of the United Kingdom, who would David ‘I’m a Zionist‘ Cameron really represent? If the recent wars on Libya and Syria are anything to go by, this question need
    not be asked.

    While speaking to a 500-strong group of Jewish lobbyists in London in 2007, UK Prime Minister David Cameron declared,(1) “I am a Zionist“. He went on to add, “I’m not just a good friend of Israel but I am, as you put it, good for Jews.”

    These comments can easily be explained merely as fawning attempts to placate and appease the Jewish lobby – a necessary step for any who wish to assume high office. One has to ask the question though: why does ‘Anglican’ David Cameron conceal his own Jewish identity?

    David Cameron is not merely of Jewish descent; he hails from a bloodline that can fairly be described as Jewish royalty, yet he claims never to have known this. As he spoke to the Movement for Reform Judaism in 2010 he described his learning of his Jewish ancestry(2) as the “highlight” of his year.

    While studying the Cameron family tree in 2009,(3) Dr Yaakov Wise – a University of Manchester historian who specialises in Jewish history – found that David Cameron is descended from a highly distinguished Jewish family line (emphases added):

    And according to Dr Wise, who has been using archival material to examine the Cameron family tree, the Tory leader could also be a direct descendent of the greatest ever Hebrew prophet, Moses.

    A 2006 report by the Jewish Chronicle(4) cited here by Stuart Littlewood(5) perhaps goes some way in explaining this. The report titled ‘Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers‘ is a laundry list of powerful members of the Jewish community who donated over £1 million to David Cameron, explaining his inexplicable rise to power after a relatively mundane and unremarkable political career.


  4. Gillian says:

    It will be interesting to see if Chris Spivey complies with the gagging order. I don’t suppose he has much choice really.
    I do think the Woolwich incident was used to stir up anti- muslim opinion though.

  5. Gary says:

    Why aren’t journalists everywhere up in arms over this? David Cameron has been vociferous over Charlie Hebdo’s “right to offend” and the Saudi bloggers freedom of speech. Now we are deafened by the collective silence of our politicians and journalists over Spivey. Daily papers have on many occasions printed investigative pieces, have many times actually harassed people and often gotten their stories wrong. Why is this different? I’ve heard of those who sue for libel but never known anyone to successfully involve the Police for a criminal remedy. Even in the phone hacking trials Rebekah Brooks managed to walk away. This case is deeply worrying for many reasons, chilling effect, media silence and the future of prosecutions on the press. The case isn’t really about Chris Spivey, its about press freedom, state repression and freedom of speech.

  6. RabbiT says:

    I am not a lawyer but though I try to live a peaceful life, have been made very, very busy and have been very, very severely injured on many occasions, over extremely long periods, by unlawful, illegal and criminal activity by the legal profession, H.M. Gov and H.M. Judiciary, for the vast majority of my adult life and as a consequence have gleaned much about how this pus infested Isle we live on operates and it’s so called shepherds, supposedly there to provide the citizen with protection, are in fact the very beasts we need protected from.

    I have now examined the charges against Chris Spivey, my first observation being that he seems to have fallen into their trap, as I always did.

    Firstly he asserts he has rights. Wrong!

    He is, like us all, told we have rights but such are mere words. Here is the rub:

    They too have rights and their rights trump ours, they have the right to arrest, to judge and to injure and they will do so.

    Our lower rights cease to exist, unless convenient to them or unless subject to individuals who still possess integrity and there are some.

    Secondly Spivey makes the mistake of defending himself in so much as to provide evidence of what he is saying is true. No need in my opinion:

    The first two charges are that he has “Harassed” the complainer. I can see nothing in the charges to this effect.

    The complainer has discovered the defenders Blog and Facebook page.

    The complainer may be grieved and vexed but the decision to be so, appears to be theirs. In other words Spivey did not harass (approach) the complainer in charges 1 and 2.

    You could post as much material about anyone on-line and should they be offended the remedy is an action for defamation.

    Judge Judy herself acknowledges the internet is where you hang out such dirty laundry these days and doing so in itself does not constitute any form of injury requiring remedy.

    It appears both this legislation and this action is an attempt to make what are civil proceedings, criminal proceedings as appears to have already been done with the likes of Rusty and Robert.

    The individual (complainer/pursuer) is removed and the resources of government put in place, the penalties far more severe.

    The 3rd and 4th charges imply malicious emails.

    It is for the state to prove firstly that there were sent by the defendant and secondly that the overall intent was malicious.

    I think from reading Spivey’s article he, believes the evidence does not fit the alleged crime of the official narrative at Woolwich.

    Although not familiar with the details of the case, I am inclined, on initial examination, to agree especially in light of other such cases such as the Boston Bombing where soot is clearly being thrown onto victims as a mere stage effect.

    Final question: Where does the buck stop before we get to the judiciary?

    Charges appear to be raised by this individual:


    I defended myself against charges at work, charges in respect of benefits, charges of no hear no see no say regarding very serious crimes committed against me by said establishment.


  8. charlie says:

    He won’t be the last to be gagged but they definitely did not have the legality behind them.One needs money and a good lawyer as well which is not easy to obtain these days

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.