Dubya Bush

I’ve been wondering … and the problem is that

Spread the love

I’ve been wondering what it takes to start an investigation by the police into a crime. I would expect that it would just be reasonableness that a crime has been committed. I wouldn’t expect much interest in trivial crimes like shoplifting or minor criminal damage but I would expect more interest in more serious issues like murder, incitement to murder, terrorism, etc.

and the problem is that it’s not normal criminals that are doing this. Instead it’s governments, police chiefs and international criminals protected by privy council above-governmental dictat according to some above-law divine protocol.

Don’t look at this the protocol says … this is above justice …

Instead the privy council dictat says everyone invited to G8 2005 are above UK laws. They can’t even be arrested or questioned. They are above the law. These Neo-Con cnuts can do what they like without any legal recourse …

They can’t even be arrested or questioned

They can commit murder or mass-murder without even being arrested or questioned

If these b’stards did the 7 July 2005 bombings they could not be arrested or even questioned because of a privy council dictat made by Tony Blair

next post

Later edit: I’m very pleased that at least some journalists are better informed now. I’m not really sure that that makes any difference since I’ve been warned of journalists being carp.

I wonder if journalists were so carp that they weren’t even aware of this coded bs

Isn’t it there every day on the sun?

Continue ReadingI’ve been wondering … and the problem is that

With this blind old cnut Blunkett .

Spread the love

.. he’s a bit crap isn’t he?

Been a blind cnut all his life … and played on it?

See … I don’t have to be politically correct because I’m not a politician.

Let’s get back to Blunkett …

A ridiculous, biggotted blind man.

A little later edit: It doesn’t matter that you’re blind if you’re a Fascist: You’re still a Fascist having a good disregard for “airy fairy” civil liberties. You’re still a Fascist being a cabinet minister for Tony Blair’s Fascist government.

It occurs to me that cabinet ministers at that time are jointly responsible under the law. I want that law enforced.

[26/9/13 11.40 An improvement in infrequency and quality perhaps. Blunkett is certainly a Blairite Fascist old cnut. He’s been talking shit in a fringe meeting. As if the Blairites didn’t use fake manufactured terrorism to cow (the cows or ‘cattle’) into submission. Blair was present for the scroll of Bush. Blair & co were there every step of the way.]

Continue ReadingWith this blind old cnut Blunkett .

New tack

Spread the love

GREENPEACE SHIP RAINBOW WARRIOR SAILING FROM CAPE TOWN TO DURBAN!

Some of you – a select few – will be aware that I have very recently made some good progress researching the events of London during the early reign of the Blairs – Tonee and Ian that is. I’m making progress on the unofficial narrative of events.

I want to get it correct and well documented so it will likely take some months. In the process, I’m also addressing the causes of some other issues like rambling nonsense postings and changing tack.

Continue ReadingNew tack

UK political news review

Spread the love

Since the last UK politics news review the main issue is that the official narrative of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has been proved to be totally fabricated. Feckin wake up will you? Terrrists that hate our freedoms brought down two skyscrapers, Suicide bombers in London, JCD was not murdered by Zionist scum? Come on.

Continue ReadingUK political news review

UK politics news review

Spread the love

  • A Step Towards the Dock

    …

    The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”(2). This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter(3).

    That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair’s cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His Attorney-General warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: “self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN Security Council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.”(4) Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.

    His foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that for the war to be legal, “i) There must be an armed attack upon a State or such an attack must be imminent; ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack.”(5) None of these conditions were met. The Cabinet Office told him “A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers’ advice, none currently exists.”(6)

    Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was an act of mass murder. It caused the deaths of between 100,000 and a million people, and ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen. That Blair and his ministers still saunter among us, gathering money wherever they go, is a withering indictment of a one-sided system of international justice: a system whose hypocrisies Tutu has exposed.

    …

  • Law criminalising squatting to be challenged in court by cottage dweller

    A woman who has lived in an abandoned Welsh hillside cottage for 11 years is to challenge legislation that criminalises squatting.

    Irene Gardiner, 49, raised her family in the 500-year-old timber and stone house at Newchapel, near Llanidloes, Powys.

    Backed by lawyers in London, Gardiner is bringing a test case against the police and Crown Prosecution Service seeking assurances she will not be thrown out of the home she has inhabited since 2001.

    Her cottage, which has no electricity or running water, has been occupied by squatters for several decades.

    …

    Gardiner’s case is supported by the law firm Leigh Day & Co. The claim, to be lodged in the high court in London next week, alleges prosecution would breach her rights to personal and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

    Ugo Hayter, of Leigh Day & Co, said: “This legislation will have impacts on the most vulnerable people in society, and will be a further burden on already strained public services.”

    She added: “There is existing criminal and civil law which enables property owners to swiftly evict squatters.

    “Homeowners will derive no further protection from this new legislation. It will simply criminalise the homeless.”

    …

  • Crackdown on squatters ‘will put people on streets’

     New squatting laws have sparked fears of a rise in homelessness across Manchester.

    From today, squatting in a residential building becomes illegal – meaning anyone doing it could be jailed or fined.

    Ministers say the move will protect homeowners – and ‘slam shut the door on squatters’.

    But campaigners have told the M.E.N. most squatters are genuinely homeless and will now be left on the streets.

    They argue it is better to use an empty house rather than let it fall into disrepair.

    Currently squatting is initially treated as a civil matter, meaning homeowners must go to court to prove trespass first.

    In future, police will be able to arrest squatters on the spot. They will then face six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

    But one 38-year-old man, who has lived in squats all over the city for more than 20 years, said: “Everybody doing it is homeless. They don’t live in a flat or anything – they just get their head down wherever they can. We’re going to get more people on the streets, definitely, but at the end of the day people are not going to stop doing it.”

    …

    [edit: Uk prime minister David Cameron is also altering his cabinet today. Small changes are expected.]
Continue ReadingUK politics news review