Sunday, December 16, 2012


SALLY BERCOW resists the opportunism, blackmail, and. intimidation of Lord McAlpine....

I am so very proud of SALLY BERCOW (and, her husband, JOHN BERCOW, the 'Speaker' of the House of Commons), for refusing to pay 'out of court' settlements to Lord McAlpine following his opportunism, blackmail, intimidation, and threat. Unlike, the utterly cowardly BBC and ITV, who succumbed to that threat and paid McAlpine £185,000 and £125,000 respectively; SALLY BERCOW rejects the intimidation; and, she has instructed solicitors to defend her in court.

This takes real 'guts' and a great deal of courage. Because, to date, all Media, and, all public opinion, has sided with Lord McAlpine. In sheer misunderstanding of reality; and, falsely promoted by McAlpine and his corrupt solicitors, constantly, 'on the make'; they, have persuaded both Media and the public into believing that Lord McAlpine had suffered great harm. That, his name and reputation, had been dragged thru the mud.

Yet, the truth and reality of all of this, is that absolutely no one has ACCUSED Lord McAlpine of being a pedophile.

In the BBC TV Programme complained of; there was not one mention of Lord McAlpine. The only assertion made during this program, was made by someone who was a victim of sexual abuse; and, all that was said by him, was that he accused "a high ranking member of Mrs Thatcher's government". THE BBC NEVER EVEN MENTIONED LORD McALPINE's NAME. Yet, the BBC, in a display of sheer cowardice succumbed to the blackmail and the intimidation; and paid £185,000 rather than contesting the 'opportunistic' allegation, in Court.

In the ITV "This Morning" Programme complained of; Lord McAlpine asserts that his name was damaged when a list of names was passed over to DAVID CAMERON and, that in those few fleeting seconds, when the list was passed to him, the TV camera clearly displayed the 'names' featured in that list. No one during that program even mentioned any of the 'names' featured in those lists. And, throughout the entire transmission of that programme, no one even mentioned Lord McAlpine's name. ITV did not even ask for, or carry out any experiments to determine, the truth: that, indeed the TV viewer was able to discern and truly identify the names on that list. ITV, fearful of the blackmail and intimidation of Lord McAlpine and, considering, the favourable public opinion he was getting at that time; paid up £125,000, and settled out of court.

Until now there has been absolutely no one challenging McAlpine, to prove that his name and reputation was 'actually' damaged; by, being, 'actually’ accused, of being a pedophile.

SALLY BERCOW is the first one with the 'courage' to test McAlpine's assertions in a Court of Law. If there is TRUTH and JUSTICE in this land she cannot fail to win. Because, there is no one in the country, that can produce the 'evidence' that, McAlpine, has ever been 'directly accused' of being a pedophile. Lord McAlpine's entire, opportunism, blackmail, and intimidation, has been founded upon naught but, 'assumption' and 'speculation'. Without a shred of, Proof.

It is perfectly legal to post on the TWITTER website that in one's opinion someone might be a pedophile. It becomes LIBEL, only, when one asserts, that he or she, "IS A PEDOPHILE".

Gordon J Sheppard

Saturday, December 15, 2012


FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE AMERICAN'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

 

The Massacre of twenty little children and eight adults in the ‘Sandy Nook’ primary school at Connecticut U.S.A.

Sadly, following this horrendous tragedy and the lunatic behaviour of one American individual ‘freak’ that apparently had no respect for 'life'. We, must now all endure the usual 'knee jerk' reaction of all those who want to control, or change, the, right to bear arms.

British news commentators, especially, the presenters of Sky News, today; by, the comments they made, indicate, that they do not understand this right, set out in the American constitution.

They point out, that, here in Great Britain, following the horrors of the shooting of innocent children at a school in DUNBLANE, in Scotland, gun control legislation was brought in. And, they cannot understand the American mentality why they don't do exactly the same.

Yet, the explanation is very simple:

The difference between the American's, and, the British, is that they are true CITIZENS of the country; with all the provisions of the rightful protection of LAW; Yet, the British, are not CITIZENS; in law. We are merely, "SUBJECTS", of the British Crown.

American's have a proper 'Written Constitution", and, a "Bill of Rights", and, a "Supreme Court of Law. The "Right to bear Arms" is written into that, 'Constitution'; and, the reasons why every American has the right to own a gun, is firstly to protect themselves from attack; and, secondly, to protect the 'State' and the 'Country', from ever becoming a "Totalitarian State".

As long as "The People" have the right to bear arms, Governments can never get too big for their boots. Governments, will always be fearful, of what "The People" might do.

That is why America is a DEMOCRACY. And, why, Great Britain, is not.

The British have no protection of LAW, whatsoever:

1. They have no written constitution.

2. They have no proper 'Bill of Rights' setting out the rights and responsibilities of 'Subjects'.

3. They have no "Supreme Court of Law" where it is possible to test, question, or challenge their Parliament, from within LAW.

4. Furthermore; denied all this protection of LAW; yet, rightfully, provided with the protection of the "Reigning Monarch", sitting upon the throne, who is charged with the responsibility of honouring the "Original Contract", requiring, the 'protection of the people', from the tyranny of the 'abuses' and 'prejudice' of Parliament. The, present, "Reigning Monarch", provides no protection at all.

The "Original Contract" is the unwritten contract existing in British Law betwixt King and “The People" It's concept is abundantly clear as, 'precedent', in English LAW:

"Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord"


King James the Second was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) in 1688, for, “Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People”. In, respect of the, 'Lineal Descent', (All succeeding reigning Monarchs), the CONVENTION ruled:

"The CONTRACT is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the CONTRACT, he, too, can be Deposed".


ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the 'Original Contract' all the time she has occupied the throne.


AMERICAN'S, never give up your, "Right to bear Arms". It is the best protection of law, that you have.


If we British had that same right, possibly, today, we would not be governed by a 'coalition administration' masquerading as Government; that was not 'elected' by the People, at all.
 
If we British had that same right, we would not be governed by the domination of the political parties, and their, WHIPS, in Parliament; that has no 'legality' at all.

IF WE BRITISH HAD THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS; WE TOO, MIGHT ENJOY, PROPER PROTECTION OF LAW.

For as long as we remain, "Subjects of the British Crown" - wholly defenceless- we shall never enjoy that right.

Gordon J Sheppard

 

 

Thursday, December 6, 2012


Historical Sexual Abuse...

With the arrest and allegations against, Stuart Hall; and, his
being suspected, of, 'historical' sexual rape and assault. This, entire sex abuse 'hysteria', is now getting way out of hand.  If, this continues, at this present ludicrous pace, it will not be too long before the police start making enquiries into:

The, rape and pillage of the 'VIKINGS';

When, they invaded England, centuries ago.








Monday, December 3, 2012


LEVESON INQUIRY REPORT, and, "Freedom of the Press"

Let's have a good look at this, "Freedom of the Press"....

Is it 'freedom of the press' and 'free speech' when a female journalist of a national newspaper publishes a photograph of a woman on holiday with her husband and children, wearing a bathing costume; and, where this journalist draws the attention of the reader to the,
'flesh protruding from the top of that bathing costume'; and, then, publishes, a 'CLOSE UP PICTURE', of that condition of skin? Writing, the polemic, that this woman ‘Judy’ needs to watch her weight.

This is not 'Freedom on the Press' this is the sole intent to hurt, wound, demean, vilify, and defame.

Is it 'Freedom of the Press' when the Daily Mail publishes a photograph of a woman's legs, and, in an additional 'CLOSE UP PICTURE,' also published
;
the author of the feature particularly writes the words drawing the reader’s attention to, the 'skin blemishes' on those legs?

This is not "Freedom of the Press"; this is the sole intent to hurt, would, demean, vilify, and defame.

The Daily Mail female journalists, commentators, and contributors, do this in every issue published.

And, as the excuse, they liken this, to the publication of 'polemic' in the pamphleteering of a bye gone age.


I welcome the LEVESON proposals for some form of 'Statute’ control.

When the 'Press' talk about 'free speech', they, essentially talk only of their own freedom to repeatedly and constantly publish, hurt, wounding, demeaning, vilification, and, defamation.

I want to see an end to all of this.

Sunday, December 2, 2012


Understanding the true illegality, of the way, in which the British are governed today.



What I have always pondered, and, as yet, have never received any answers in verification to, is
why less than 400,000 Members of all the political parties in the land; should so dominate the
lives of nearly 60 Million adults. Where is it written? Where is the 'legal instrument'? That permits these less than 400,000 political party Members, dominating, every aspect of the lives, of all?

This is not Democracy.

DEMOCRACY, a true, DEMOCRACY, is government of, "The People"; by, "The People"; and,
for, "The People". Where, "The People", govern themselves.

Government by the domination of the political parties is not democratic at all.

Furthermore, in reality, and, in LAW; such Governing has no legality at all. It flouts and breaches the 'precedent' of LAW, (By which Parliament claims its "Supremacy"), by 'prejudicing' "The People"; and, this is wholly outlawed and illegal, as determined by the,

"Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

This 'Statute' makes it abundantly clear, by ‘precedent’ in British Law, that in Parliaments 'enactment' of "Article 9", and, any of the other 'Premises' of that, “Bill of Rights”; that,

"NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

The political party domination of "The People" by both Government and Parliament maintained thru the Offices Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS in Parliament; 'prejudices' "The People" because, their political party 'diktat' and instructions issued to Members of Parliament, each week, overrules and supplants, all, 'rightful influence', of the 'Constituent'. And, this travesty, is specifically, declared unlawful, as determined by the,
"Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

The British are not governed by LEGALITY at all. They are governed, by mere, MYTH.

Today, there is a "Reigning Monarch" sitting on the British throne, that has not honoured the terms of the "Original Contract' from the first day she sat upon that throne.

 In 1688, King James Ii was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION Parliament) because he was accused of "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People". The, CONVENTION determined, that, in doing this, he had abdicated the throne. They declared the ‘throne was vacant’ and Prince William of Orange became the next King. The CONVENTION further declared, in respect to the ‘Original Contract’ and, the "Lineal Descent", by ruling that,

 "The contract is as binding on the Successor as well as it was on the deposed, and, if the Successor broke the contract as well, he also can be deposed".

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured that 'contract' since the very first day she became the "Reigning Monarch". She has never 'acted' as "Head of Government", Monitoring Parliament;
in the interests of the ‘protection’ of Subjects of the British Crown.

 She has recently presided over an illegal and an unlawful creation of a, 'coalition government', that was not chosen or elected by the People at all; but, that, was foisted upon the Nation, by corrupt political party leaders assuming they could create a new government, entirely on their own. In doing this, these political party leaders wholly 'ignored' "The Peoples Vote" of the General Election of 2010, and, in this, they 'prejudiced' "The People".

 Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND did not lift a finger, in this travesty, to protect, Her Subjects, from this abuse. "The Peoples Vote" of the General Election of 2010 determined that there should be a 'Conservative' led 'Minority Government'. David Cameron was the leader of the Conservative Party at that time, and, he should have governed as a 'Minority Government'; or, he should have informed, Her Majesty, that he could not govern. Whereby, there would have been a fresh General Election; to elect a new legal Government.

 Her Majesty, the Queen, in spite of the terms of "Constitutional Monarchy" still has the right, and, duty, to intervene. She, has, the 'rightful power', to protect Her Subjects from any abuse. She miserably failed in that responsibility.
 
The true purpose of a British Monarchy is not to open new establishments, host garden parties, and travel the World promoting British products and prestige. The sole true purpose of the British
Monarchy is to 'protect' the Crown's Subjects. There is no other purpose, at all:
 

"Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord"


 The, very criterion, of the "Original Contract".

 There can be no legal dispute or argument in respect to the true role of the ‘Reigning Monarch of England’’, as determined by LAW. That role, as a priority, is to provide the protection of, “Subjects of the Crown”. And, in order to assist the ‘Reigning Monarch’, in carrying out that responsibility, the Monarch is provided with two ‘legal instruments’: “The Royal Assent” and “The Royal Prerogative”. Both, solely designed, for the ‘protection’ of the, “Subject”.

 The Royal Assent provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right to grant or refuse to grant ‘assent’ to the Laws created and passed by Parliament. (The ‘Reigning Monarch’ is required to ‘Act’ as ‘Head of Government’, monitoring Parliament, in the interests of the protection of Subjects); in this regard.

 The Royal Prerogative provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right to:

  1. Encourage Her Ministers of Government.
  2. Warn Her Ministers of Government.
  3. Whenever, the wishes of the People conflict with the actions of the legislators (Parliament); to order, the dissolution of Parliament.
In the aftermath of the General Election of 2010 when the political party leaders decided that they could ‘ignore’ the Peoples vote and create a ‘coalition administration’ entirely on their own. This, was the clear and direct evidence, that, the ‘wishes of the people conflicted with the actions of the legislators’. ELIZABETH THE SECOND, then, had the responsibility and duty, to intervene. She should have used the “Royal Prerogative” to order the immediate dissolution of Parliament. But, she did nothing. She failed to protect Her People; and, in consequence, the country today has a wholly illegal government.


CONCLUSIONS:

ELIZABETH THE SECOND has ‘Broken the Original Contract betwixt King and People”; thereby, The British throne is as vacant today as it was in 1688. When, King James II was removed from the throne.

The Offices, Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS in Parliament; ‘prejudice the people’ and, thereby, has no legality at all.

The creation of the present ‘coalition administration’ masquerading as government, ‘prejudice’ the People; and thereby, has no true legality at all.

The British, denied the right, of a ‘Written Constitution”, a proper ‘Bill of Rights’, and, a “Supreme Court of Law” whereby they can challenge the ‘executive’; and, being, denied the protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’; end up, having no protection of LAW, at all.