Censorship's only intent is to seize full control..

Demand, for the censoring of porn...

The Daily Mail reports today that a coalition of organisations are now backing the Daily Mail"s campaign for the blocking of porn on the Internet. These organisations: the NSPCC, Barnado's, Action for Children, BAAF, Beat Bullying, Children England, Children's Society, ECPAT UK, Kidscape, and, Stop it Now; all want manufacturers to install on the computers that they produce an 'opt in' censorious block, preventing access to the INTERNET, before the product is sold. Unless, the consumer specifically requests, that access. Furthermore, they want legislation, to create a law, whereby GOOGLE and other Internet Server Providers will be forced to block porn.

Many politicians, for their own vested interests, also support these objectives.

The first tool of the TOTALITARIAN STATE is to CENSOR sex and the sexual activities of Humankind. CENSOR THE SEX, of Men and Women, and, you are well on the way to seizing full control.

This totalitarianism must be resisted at all costs.

The INTERNET has been specifically created for the, FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.

In the "Realm of Ideas" all ideas are valid:
Peace is as valid as War; Communism and Facism, are as valid as Capitalism; Pornography, is as valid as the Bible; Black is as valid as White; and, Anti is as valid as Pro.

Nazi Germany attempted to CENSOR IDEAS in the burning of the books at Nuremberg and, throughout Germany in the 1930's. The Nazis were intent on CENSORING JEWISH IDEAS; but, this escalated disastrously, into the Nazis finally burning, THE JEW.

CENSORSHIP MUST BE RESISTED AT ALL COSTS WHEREVER IT OCCURS.

Gordon J Sheppard

The Big Lie...

The Ridiculous Myth Pertaining,

Re. THE BIG LIE, in respect of  “Sex within Marriage”

 

Today in Great Britain the debate rages nationally as to whether the “Law” should allow “Gay Marriage”. All bigoted opponents, to this proposition, having no conception of the right to ‘equality’ in “Law”, for all those that give their consent to, “Live by the Rule of Law”; vigorously oppose Gay Marriage, by asserting that, “Marriage is intended, for only between a Man and a Woman, and, that the prime function of “Marriage”, is procreation.

Newspapers like the Daily Mail and other right-wing Media, and, the Churches, constantly assert this ridiculous claim. The Churches rigidly insist that, ‘sex’ within Marriage by a Man and a Woman, is primarily designed, for procreation.

However, the outright damned lie, is revealed; by the mere anatomy of Humankind.

Every female born to planet earth is equipped ‘naturally thru evolution’ to possess the bodily function of the, CLITORIS.

This bodily organ of every female has no part to play whatsoever, in procreation.

Nature has provided the female with a, CLITORIS, for just one purpose, and, one purpose alone: SEXUAL PLEASURE. Inside or outside, “Marriage”, as the female pleases.

The sheer wonderful sexual pleasure the female obtains, either, thru self masturbation of the, CLITORIS, Or, by the stimulation of that organ, by, a lover; male or female.

When, the Church leaders and the Daily Mail newspaper continually assert that ‘Marriage’ is only designed for, between a Man and a Woman, and, that, ‘Marriage’ is only for procreation. Every reader of that newspaper; and, everyone, will know; that both the Churches and the Daily Mail; lie in their teeth. Or, they do not know,

WHAT A ‘CLITORIS’ IS.

The next time YOU SEE the Daily Mail, or, anyone, falsely asserting this ridiculous lie; pose the Question, and, ask them.

 

 

 

Unfair marking at Brunel University?

 Is there unfair marking at Brunel University? I believe that there is.

My granddaughter, AMY SALES, during one of her tasks in her “Creative Writing” course for a degree had to submit an essay on “Writing Ireland”. And, she was instructed, that she could write anything that she pleased. Amy chose to be very brave, choosing as her theme, “The Fear of God”.

In her paper she attempts to explain that all the ‘troubles’ of Ireland brought about by the conflict between the Catholic’s and the Protestants, and, their religions; that the true rock bottom cause or basis of this conflict, is brought about by the actual, “Fear of God”. And, in her paper (shown below) she illustrates and demonstrates some of the actual terrible ‘consequences’ of this.

I invite the reader here, to consider this: What is it that so motivates Humankind, with all the dignity of a Human Being, to so demean that dignity, as to, confess to a complete stranger, a Priest, their ‘impure thoughts and actions’? (That, impurity, as defined by the Catholic Church). It, can only be a compulsion. That, compulsion, can only be a ‘self inflicted compulsion’ because no ‘force’ is employed to compel compliance. So what is it that so compels a person to forgo all their ‘dignity’ to comply with this ridiculous demand upon the person. It is, the, “Fear of God”.

Catholics are taught from the earliest age that they must love and fear God. They are indoctrinated with the concept that in order to secure ‘everlasting life’ when the die, and, then to live forever in Heaven with their, “God”; they must confess all their sins committed on planet earth, in order to obtain absolution.  It is drummed into them from the earliest age that if they die outside of this, “State of Grace” with their sins, not being forgiven by absolution; that instead of living in “God’s” glorious Heaven; they will go straight to Hell. This, for Catholics, is the indoctrination of, the, “Fear of God”.

Amy’s paper, “Writing Ireland” is so brave, because it says something that has never ever been said before. Everyone knows that the ‘troubles’ of Ireland, both North and South, has been caused by the conflict betwixt Catholic and Protestant religions. But, to date, no one has spelt it out, or put the finger on the true actual cause of this conflict. Amy, in declaring that, at rock bottom the actual cause is the, “Fear of God”. Speaks, the, TRUTH, for the very first time.

The Brunel Examiner gave Amy a “D Minus” for this paper. And. I declare that this is clearly an ‘unfair’ marking. Amy has introduced a ‘topic’ about IRELAND, that is brand new. It actually could spark a whole new debate. This warrants more than an award of a, “D Minus”.

Amy also tells me that many other students at Brunel are also complaining about unfair marking.

So here is Amy’s paper for all the readers of this blog to decide for themselves. Read Amy’s paper, and then decide, does it really deserve a, “D Minus”.

 

Creative Writing: Essay, “Writing Ireland” – AMY SALES.

The role of women in Ireland, a Catholic country, is dominated by the indoctrinated doctrine of that religion: ‘The Fear of God’. Discuss how this affected unmarried, pregnant Irish women of the twentieth century.

Women in Ireland, in the early twentieth century, had to live with the fact that they were not considered as equals. The people of Ireland still believed that the purpose of a woman was to marry, stay at home and produce children. They did not have the right to vote, they were paid less for work than a man and were often treated as second class citizens. Living in an extremely religiously led time, women struggled to change this view due to the fact that “Catholicism defines womanhood as domestic, pure and obedient; the Irish nation adds a legal imperative that keeps them in the home”[1]. Unfortunately, this was the unanimous view at the time and therefore, any act that undermined these rules was greatly frowned upon.

“Single motherhood was considered shameful in Ireland at that time and children born outside of wedlock were discriminated against in the law and put up for adoption in large numbers. Moreover, unmarried mothers were commonly hidden and institutionalised until their babies had been put up for adoption”[2].

The above quote is echoed in a section of dialogue taken from the 2002 film ‘The Magdalene Sisters’[3]. The film depicts one institution where single mothers were sent. This particular segment is spoken by Father Doonigan as he convinces a young girl that her baby, born out of wedlock, will be unwanted by society.

FATHER DOONIGAN

A child born out of wedlock is a bastard child. Would you have him go through life as an outcast, Rose? Rejected and scorned by all decent members of society? It's a grievous sin you have committed.[4]

Several cases over the years have caused a lot of controversy about abortion, adoption and women’s rights in Ireland at the time. One particular example divided the public opinion; the Ann Lovett case. Ann was just fourteen when she died after giving birth to her stillborn son. She left school and headed towards a grotto, next to a church, to deliver the child alone. There has always been some confusion over the community’s involvement in her pregnancy; many believe that society chose to ignore the fact that she was with-child at such a young age. The incident took place just a few months after the law against abortion had been passed and some blamed this for her death. The main division, though, was religious. One side felt that the lack of catholic morals in children was the cause; others felt that it was actually a catholic repression that caused a frightened girl to experience childbirth alone. Both of these opinions were religiously led and therefore, once again religion was at the forefront of the problems.

The Magdalene asylums have caused many people to question the morals of the religious institutions and whether their role in Ireland at the time increased or hindered progression. The events that took place behind the closed doors of the Magdalene laundries have been a topic that has been discussed in depth for years.

“The focus and purpose of these early institutions was closely tied to women in prostitution or women regarded as in danger of falling into prostitution, including unmarried mothers”[5]

The role of the Magdalene asylums was to rehabilitate women and make them repent, so that their sins may be forgiven by God. Catholics felt that sins could not be forgiven unless they had been repented for; saying sorry was simply not enough in the eyes of God. Catholics have been taught through the bible that all repressed sin will be carried with them to death and therefore shall deter them from Heaven. The fear of afterlife in hell is one of the biggest dreads that a Catholic has and is the route cause for all that transpired for unmarried, pregnant women in that period.

“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”[6] 12:12-14

It was, and remains to be believed that a Catholic shall not gain access into the kingdom of Heaven if their sins have not been repented for. If someone committed a mortal sin then they were expected to pay penance and offer their souls to God, in return for acceptance into Heaven. The Magdalene asylums were an institution where young ladies were sent, by their parents or guardians, to apologize for their sins and any disgrace that they had brought upon the family. Even if a family decided to stick by their child, they would find a priest knocking down their door and explaining that it was their Christian duty to send their daughter away.

 

BERNADINE (O.S)

The philosophy here at Magdalene is a very simple one. Through the powers of prayer, cleanliness and hard work, the fallen may find their way back to Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour… Mary Magdalene founder of the Magdalene Convents, herself was a sinner of the worst kind, giving of her flesh to the depraved and the lustful for money… Salvation came only by paying penance for her sins, denying herself all pleasures of the flesh including food and sleep, and working beyond human endurance so that she might offer up her soul to God and so walk through the Gates of Heaven and live in everlasting life… Here you may redeem yourself and, God willing save yourself from eternal damnation.[7]

 

In the above quote from the film ‘The Magdalene Sisters’[8] Sister Bernadine, the head Nun at the Magdalene laundry, is welcoming the new girls into the institution and explaining how everything works. She gives the ladies a brief outline of what is expected of them while they are a part of the asylum. In this section of dialogue Bernadine uses the word “God” and other variations; “Jesus Christ”, “Our Lord” and “Saviour”, a total of five times. This use of repetition increases the emphasis and importance that there is on being a good Catholic. She also mentions Mary Magdalene, the founder of the Magdalene Convents, and enlightens the ladies about how Mary offered up her soul to God by removing all pleasures and working intensely for several years. This lady is meant to be a role model for these women; they are supposed to follow in her footsteps.

The fictitious screenplay representation of what happened to the women that were sent to the laundries shows disturbing scenes of violence and dehumanizing abuse with no discretion. The 2002 film depicts the lives of four teenage girls that have been sent to the laundries to amend their ways. During their time there, they witness and experience both physical, and sexual violence from the priests and nuns. In one particularly shocking scene the girls are on their way to the chapel and Margaret accidentally comes across a horrifying sight; Crispina performing a sexual act on Father Fitzroy.

“Margaret kneels down, spits on her finger and begins buffing her shoes. She glances down a few times at the basement window of the sacristy. She sees Crispina's head thrusting back and forth between Father Fitzroy's legs. He stands in a sweaty pre-orgasmic state.”[9]

Prior to this, Crispina had lost her St Christopher and was trying to apologise to Father Fitzroy for not having it with her. As a viewer of this, I believe that the Father is now taking full advantage of this vulnerable woman and the fact that she feels that she needs to repent for every sin; no matter how small. This is one representation of how the church was abusing these deprived women and unfortunately, it was not an unfamiliar subject. Institutional abuse was a common topic, especially abuse from within the church. This illustration of the events that occurred at the time is purely fictional, however; it is loosely based on real life stories from survivors of the laundries. One survivor, Kathy O’Beirne, recently spoke up about her personal experience at the hands of this institution and several others.

The autobiography ‘Kathy’s Story’[10] is a true story about a girl who suffered at the hands of institutional abuse. Kathy O’Beirne released her distressing story in the early 2000’s as she wanted to campaign to help other victims who had the same traumatic experiences. At the age of eight she was regularly beaten by her father. The constant attacks caused her to become a troublesome child, as diagnosed by a leading psychiatrist, and as a result of this she was thrown out of her family home. The book follows her journey and the traumas that she went through in different institutions. In a reformatory school she was a victim to rape by a visiting priest, in a psychiatric hospital the abuse continued along with electric shock therapy and finally she ended up in a Magdalene laundry. It was here that she was sexually abused by the staff and gave birth to her daughter Annie. Kathy was not even fourteen years old when she had Annie; a child as a result of rape.

In 1861, it was a criminal offence to abort a child in Northern Ireland. Had this not have been the case, several young girls would have been able to live long, happy lives instead of dying from childbirth. However, it was the case and remained so for more than one hundred years. In the 1980’s, a small group of conservatives and Catholics were worried that this Irish law, along with others, would be eliminated and replaced with European law. In the United Kingdom, at the time, abortions were beginning to be legalised under certain circumstances. The law on abortion in England stated that if the pregnant woman or unborn child was at risk, and the pregnancy had not exceeded the twenty four week period, then a termination was allowed to be given by a registered practitioner[11]. 

“In September 1983 Irish people… voted in favour of a referendum… They insisted that a constitutional amendment was the only way to preserve Ireland's distinctive moral foundation in the midst of a … growing exposure to "foreign"… influences resulting from Ireland's entry in 1973 into the European Economic Community”[12]

The referendum that was passed, banned abortion altogether within the Irish constitution. As stated earlier, just a few months after this referendum was passed Ann Lovett died as a result of giving birth alone. If this girl had been given the right to abort her child then she would not have died at such a young age. Having sex outside of marriage, especially as a teenager, was shameful. However; falling pregnant as a result of rape was also seen as disgraceful, even though contraception was completely illegal in Ireland before 1980. The X case is was one of the most famous examples of why Ireland’s laws against abortion were despicable. A fourteen year old girl claimed that she was raped by her neighbour and fell pregnant with his child. The unwanted pregnancy left her suicidal and this created a great conflict in the Supreme Court. It was eventually ruled that the mother’s right to life superseded the child’s right and therefore, the young girl was permitted to travel to England to abort the child. I believe that the only reason that the laws on contraception changed is because committing suicide is the worst sin that any human being can commit, and a continual law against contraception would lead to many more women falling pregnant with unwanted children and driving several of them take their own life.

Women in Ireland in the twentieth century came under great scrutiny if they undermined the fact that sex outside of marriage was illegal. If a woman fell pregnant outside of wedlock, regardless of the circumstances, the state would ensure that she was sent to an institution to repent for her sins. The Magdalene laundries were the most famous of these organisations. Abortion was also not an option for these women and this often ended in death, during childbirth, for many. I fell that ‘the fear of God’ is the predominant reason for the laws against abortion at the time. Catholics were so concerned with the idea of Heaven that they would do anything, while living, to please God and stop others from taking the wrong path; to Hell.

 

                                                                                                                                                      2,049

Bibliography

 

Connolly, Linda. Social Movements and Ireland, Manchester University Press, 2006, page 72

 

Davidson, Robert. Ecclesiasties and the Song of Solomon. Westminster John Knox Press, 1986, Page 90.

 

Franks, Jill. British and Irish Women Writers and the Women's Movement: Six Literary Voices of Their Times. McFarland, 2013, page 157.

 

Maguire, Moira J. Feminist Studies: The changing face of Catholic Ireland: Conservatism and liberalism in the Ann Lovett and Kerry Babies scandals. College Park, Summer 2001, Vol 27, page 335.

Mullan, Peter. The Magdalene Sisters. Scottish Screen, 2002.

 Mullan, Peter. The Magdalene Sisters: Screenplay. Scottish Screen, 2002, Page 9, 16-17 and 64. http://www.lexwilliford.com/Workshops/Screenwriting/Scripts/Adobe%20Acrobat%20Scripts/Magdalene%20Sisters.pdf

 O’Beirne, Kathy. Kathy’s Story. Mainstream Publishing Company Limited, 2005.

 

Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee to establish the facts of State involvement with the Magdalene Laundries: Chapter 3: History of the Magdalene Laundries and institutions within the scope of the Report

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/MagdalenRpt2013

The Law and Ethics of Abortion: BMA Views. November 2007, page 1, 1.1.

 www.bma.org.uk

 

---

[1]Jill Franks, ‘British and Irish Women Writers and the Women's Movement: Six Literary Voices of Their Times’ (McFarland, 2013, page 157)

[2] Linda Connolly, ‘Social Movements and Ireland’ (Manchester University Press, 2006, page 72)

[3] Peter Mullan, ‘The Magdalene Sisters’ (Scottish Screen, 2002)

[4] Peter Mullan, ‘The Magdalene Sisters: Screenplay’ (Scottish Screen, 2002, Page 9) http://www.lexwilliford.com/Workshops/Screenwriting/Scripts/Adobe%20Acrobat%20Scripts/Magdalene%20Sisters.pdf

[5] Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee to establish the facts of State involvement with the Magdalene Laundries: Chapter 3: History of the Magdalene Laundries and institutions within the scope of the Report

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/MagdalenRpt2013 (April 2013)

[6] Robert Davidson, ‘Ecclesiasties and the Song of Solomon’ (Westminster John Knox Press, 1986, Page 90)

[7] Peter Mullan, ‘The Magdalene Sisters: Screenplay’ (Scottish Screen, 2002, Pages 16-17)

http://www.lexwilliford.com/Workshops/Screenwriting/Scripts/Adobe%20Acrobat%20Scripts/Magdalene%20Sisters.pdf

[8] Peter Mullan, ‘The Magdalene Sisters’ (Scottish Screen, 2002)

[9] Peter Mullan, ‘The Magdalene Sisters: Screenplay’ (Scottish Screen, 2002, Page 64)

http://www.lexwilliford.com/Workshops/Screenwriting/Scripts/Adobe%20Acrobat%20Scripts/Magdalene%20Sisters.pdf

[10] Kathy O’Beirne, ‘Kathy’s Story’ (Mainstream Publishing Company Limited, 2005)

[11] ‘The Law and Ethics of Abortion: BMA Views’ (November 2007, page 1, 1.1)

 www.bma.org.uk

[12] Moira J, Maguire ‘Feminist Studies: The changing face of Catholic Ireland: Conservatism and liberalism in the Ann Lovett and Kerry Babies scandals’ (College Park, Summer 2001, Vol 27, page 335)

Libel trial judgment McAlpine -v- Sally Bercow

From:	GordonJ Sheppard
Sent:	24 May 2013 21:30:53
To:	News @ Sky (news@sky.com); Tessa Jowell MP (jowellt@parliament.uk)

 I give my unqualified and unreservedly support to SALLY BERCOW; she is the only one to have had the guts to challenge the intimidation and blackmail of Lord McAlpine and his lawyer, Andrew Reid, who have been making a fortune out of false libel claims.

 Both the BBC and ITV, wholly gutless, succumbed to this intimidation and blackmail, and, foolishly, and,  without any justification at all, they paid out huge sums of money by, 'settling out of court'. To the false claims, that McAlpine made.
And, the consequence of that sheer cowardice has resulted, in both McAlpine and his lawyer getting away with securing big financial rewards from their blackmail; never ever having to prove their allegations in a Court.
SALLY BERCOW was having none of this. She refused to submit to this intimidation; and she defended herself in the Court.
Sadly, and wholly corruptly, she was on a very sticky wicket from the start. Not, because she was guilty of libel; but, because a corrupt 'establishment' Judge, would never find in her favour, because, he had to corruptly give his support to a. Lord of the Land, a pillar of the establishment.
No one has libelled Lord McAlpine at all.
No one has actually accused him of anything.
Mr. Justice Tugendhat's judgement was positively absurd.
SALLY BERCOW merely posed a question in her tweet.
But the judge ruled that it was libel.
The judge refused to accept, that SALLY BERCOW's tweet was merely asking a question.
Yet, the very first word of her tweet, (in posing that question), was the word, "WHY".

Justice Tugendhat either hasn't the intelligence to know that, the word "WHY", IS POSING A QUESTION.
Or, he is so corrupt, he ignores the word "WHY"; and, pretends, that the word “WHY” does not exist in the tweet at all.
We live in Great Britain today, where the common people, have no protection of law at all.

We have a "Reigning Monarch" sitting on the throne charged with the duty to protect the Crown's "Subjects" by honouring the terms of the "Original Contract"; yet she provides no protection at all.

We have a rotten and corrupt and an unlawful 'coalition administration masquerading as government'; that was not 'elected' by the People at all.

We have the political party rotten and corrupt and, 'unlawful', offices, procedures, and practices of the political party WHIPS in Parliament; that 'prejudice the people'; and, thereby break the law every week; by flouting and breaching the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

We have a corrupt Judiciary that for 324 years has conspired to deceive the British People by denying the rightful challenge to an 'elected' Parliament; conning the People into believing that it is "LAW" that prevents that challenge. Yet, the "Bill of Rights 1689", (the, very 'Act' whereby Parliament even gets its "Supremacy"), that makes it abundantly clear that by 'precedent of law' anyone may challenge Parliament in the Courts; whenever Parliament, PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

Britain today is a sewer of corruption. The inevitable consequence of the DESPOTISM that always prevails, wherever, and whenever, there is a MONARCHY in the land.

Gordon J Sheppard  

DESPOTISM

 When despotism has established itself for ages in a country, as in France, it is not in the person of the King only that it resides. It has the appearance of doing so in show, and in nominal authority; but it is not so in practise, and in fact. It has it’s standards everywhere. Every office and department has it’s despotism, founded upon custom and usage. Every place has it’s Bastille, and every Bastille it’s despot. The original hereditary despotism resident in the person of the King, divides and subdivides itself into a thousand shapes and forms, till at last the whole of it is acted by deputation. This was the case in France; and against this species of despotism, proceeding on through an endless labyrinth of office till the source of it is scarcely perceptible, there is no mode of redress. It strengthens itself by assuming the appearance of duty, and tyrannizes under the pretence of obeying.

-------------------------------------------

 O! Ye that love mankind!  Ye that dare oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth!  Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her as a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart.

Oh! receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind!

 

 Thomas Paine       “RIGHTS OF MAN”    (published in England 1791)

 

 

The libel trial: McAlpine -v- Sally Bercow..

Leading Libel Judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, must stop Lord McAlpine’s false libel claims. He must uphold the defence of, SALLY BERCOW.

 Judge Tugendhat must closely examine, not only, the case, McAlpine –v-Sally Bercow; he must also closely examine everything else McAlpine and his legal team have been up to recently making similar, exact libel claims. He must look closely at, all the previous blackmailing and intimidation, they have employed, in order to force those that they accuse, to settle out of court.

Lord McAlpine, and his corrupt legal team, has been intimidating and blackmailing many people and, institutions, such as the BBC and ITV, into ‘settling out of court’ huge financial settlements or, face the threat of horrendous expense, in legal litigation defending themselves in court. And, they have been making a fortune out of that process. When, actually, Lord McAlpine’s, ‘name’, has never even been mentioned, or published at all.

On November 2^nd 2012, the BBC ‘Newsnight’ program transmitted a report of an investigation it had been conducting into an allegation that, allegedly, young boys had been sexually abused in a Welsh care home. McAlpine’s name was never mentioned. But, during that program it was suggested that a prominent ‘politician’ of Margaret Thatcher’s government, was the abuser.

 Lord McAlpine, and, his legal team, immediately seized this opportunity to sue the BBC for ‘libel’. Yet, the BBC had never once even mentioned his name. The BBC weighed up the threat of the huge expense of litigation, and the likely public opprobrium, whilst a defence would be presented to a court in a lengthy trial; and, so, dishing out a settlement of £185,000 of ‘public statutory licence fee’ money that, ought to have been used for the making of BBC programming, in settlement of that ‘threat’; appeared to be the easiest option.

On the 8^th November 2012 during the ITV program “This Morning”, Phillip Schofield, the presenter of the program, passed over to David Cameron, the Prime Minister, a document, which he claimed was a ‘list of names’ of alleged paedophiles, claiming that this ‘list’, he had obtained from the Internet. The passing of this document to the Prime Minister, was so fleeting, and lasting only a few seconds of duration; yet, Lord McAlpine and his legal team recognized a yet, further opportunity, to make another false libel claim; and, cash in. They, asserted, that during the passing of that document to the Prime Minister, the list of names upon it included Lord McAlpine’s name; and, that during the passing over of that document, the TV viewer could clearly see his name displayed. They sued ITV for libel.

I happened to have been recording that, “This Morning”, transmission on my DVD recorder/player. And, so when all the fuss over this incident ‘hit the headlines’ I replayed that recorded program in ‘slow motion’. This revealed that it was absolutely impossible to see clearly, any ‘names’ on that list. So, why did ITV settle that libel claim? ITV paid McAlpine £125,000, for nothing. Because ITV, just like the BBC, were fearful of the high expense, and the public opprobrium that might result in defending “The Truth”  in any trial in a Court. McAlpine’s blackmail and intimidation had succeeded again.

SALLY BERCOW is the only one so intimidated, who has had the guts and the courage to resist; that is why she is now defending herself in, “McAlpine –v-Sally Bercow”, in a Court of Law.

Two days after the BBC “Newsnight” program was transmitted, SALLY BERCOW posted a tweet on Twitter. The words posted on that website were these: “Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*”

Lord McAlpine alleges that this is libel. But, it is not libel at all; SALLY BERCOW has not accused Lord McAlpine of anything. In her tweet, she merely poses a question; which, in the view of all the rumours that were in circulation at that time; was a legitimate question, to pose. It was merely a flippant tweet.

But, McAlpine seized the opportunity, to blackmail and intimidate, and, to grasp more money again.

Judge Tugendhat, in judging “McAlpine –v-Sally Bercow” must take into consideration all of the blackmailing and intimidation activities of Lord McAlpine and his legal team previously, as the true motivation, for pursuing this action against SALLY BERCOW. Was, McAlpine truly libelled? Was, he actually accused? Or, is this trial merely another ‘opportunity’ for McAlpine and his legal team, to make more money?

It is the previous activities of the blackmailing and the intimidation of McAlpine;

That, reveals the, TRUTH.

Gordonj

 

WORST HOME SECRETARY THE UK HAS EVER HAD...

THERESA MAY, the worst, Home Secretary, the UK has ever had.

 

Theresa May, feted and applauded by Media and the political establishment, as being so brilliant that she could be in line to be the next leader of the Conservative party; and, a possible Prime Minister; yet,  in truth, and, in reality, she is undoubtedly the worst Home Secretary the UK has ever had. Her negligence and, her incompetence, in that ‘office’; has been beyond belief.

Here is just one instance of that grave, almost criminal, negligence:

Yesterday, 17^th May 2013, the Daily Mail published four photographs of criminals that had hacked into computers. Committing, the, “CYBER CRIME”, that, worldwide, today, everyone who owns a computer, so fears.

The Daily Mail reports:

“Working from their bedrooms, often in their parents’ homes, they accessed the confidential details of 26.4million Sony customers and 74,000 would-be-X Factor contestants in the United States. They released police officers’ personal details onto the Internet after an attack on Arizona state police, and, in another raid, they left the Website of Britain’s Serious Crime Agency disabled for 12 hours.”

“They boasted about their ability to attack high profile targets, including Sony, the FBI, and the UK’s Serious Organised Crime Agency. They attained such ‘celebrity’ status on the internet, one of them even bragged: “We are God’s now.”

 

Ryan Cleary, 21, was jailed for 2 years 8 months.

Ryan Ackroyd, 26, was jailed for 3 years 6 months.

Jake Davis, 20, was ordered to serve 2 years in a young offenders unit.

Al-Bassam, 16, was given the sentence of, 1 year, suspended; but, ordered to carry out 300 hours of unpaid community work.

Thus, all these four computer hackers were dutifully punished.

 

Yet, another, British computer hacker, GARY McKINNON, who, committed a far worse “CYBER CRIME”, hacking into the “American National Defence Computers” at the Pentagon, in Washington; and, damaging, ‘nine of those computers’, to such an extent that technical experts at the Pentagon reported that it was just about the worst case of ‘hacking into their computers’ that they had ever seen. This, British ‘computer hacker’ in doing and, ‘admitting’, what he did; put at risk, the ‘national defence’ of everyone living in the United States. And, the damage he caused to those computers was so severe, it was estimated to be in the order of several hundred thousands of dollars, in order to carry out repair.

Yet, when the Americans requested his extradition, in order that he should stand trial in the United States for this offence; ‘where the actual crime and break into those computers’; had taken place; in the United States:

Britain’s, ‘brilliant’, Home Secretary;  let’s, GARY McKINNON, get off; Scott-free.

McKinnon and his mother blackmailed this, ‘brilliant’, Home Secretary into believing that, McKINNON would commit suicide if he was extradited to the United States; and, foolishly, and, in being wholly, negligent, in the carrying out of her ‘duties’; she believed that threat; and, she refused the ‘wholly lawful’ extradition of that criminal, to the United States.

Furthermore, even, though, McKINNON, had admitted the ‘crime’; THERESA MAY, did not put him up for trial, in the UK.

THE SHEER HYPOCRISY IS STARK VIVID AND CLEAR: Four young boys, computer hackers, were ‘rightfully’ jailed yesterday for their, ‘CYBER CRIMES’. Yet, McKINNON, committing a far worse ‘CYBER CRIME’; thru the sheer negligence and irresponsibility of, THERESA MAY; He, gets away with that crime, Scott-free!

 HOME SECRETARY?       

THERESA MAY, is an absolute disgrace.

Note: PRESIDENT OBAMA wholly responsible for the security of every American citizen; was also negligent, in this matter. He has allowed a CYBER CRIMINAL who hacked into the “National Defence Computers” at the Pentagon; and, damage those computers; to get away with that crime Scott-free. OBAMA, ought to have forced the British Government to extradite GARY McKINNON; so that he would stand, trial, for that crime in the United States.

Final Note: It was stated during the trial of the four who were jailed yesterday, that they had attained ‘celebrity’ status on the Internet. Actually, all that value the ‘Internet’, as being the home of FREE SPPECH and FREE EXPRESSION, ought to condemn every computer hacker; because, it is their arrogance and, their belief, that they are, “God”; that threatens every computer user. If, YOU, value the Internet; report every computer hacker, that you see.

 

Should the British quit the European Union?

Should the UK leave the European Union?

 

With all the present hype and hysteria prevailing at this time promoting the leaving of the Euro Community and, it’s governing laws; the, British, must not be conned into believing that they, and, their country, would be better off, if they did.

The British People ought to ask themselves the question why are politicians so het up about this? And, why are they promoting that Britain, should quit Europe now? Just ask yourselves, why?

The reason is very simple: all parliament and politicians, the establishment, and much of British Press and Media, as well; are promoting the leaving of Europe; solely because they want absolute domination over our lives. They, absolutely loathe the European Community and, the, “European Human Rights Act”. They, loathe, the very idea, that a European Government should be in a position, to dictate our laws. They repeatedly complain about this, all of the time. They, want to endorse and establish the status quo where ‘The People’ have no protection of law at all.

 WAKE UP TO THE REALITY:

The British People should wake up to the ‘truth’ and the ‘reality’ that the “European Human Rights Law” is the only protection of “LAW”; that they have:

·         The British, have no ‘Written Constitution’.

·         The British, have no access to a proper ‘Bill of Rights’ setting out the rights and responsibilities of Subjects.

·         The British, have no “Supreme Court of Law”; where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the abuses and the prejudice of Parliament, from within law.

·         Furthermore, although there is, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, the, “Reigning Monarch”, sitting upon the British throne who is charged with the responsibility to, honour the “Original Contract”, and, provide the ‘Crown’s Subjects’ protection from this abuse.

·          ELIZABETH THE SECOND, provides no ‘protection’ at all. (See (1) below)

·         In consequence, the British, have no protection of law whatsoever.

·          The current only protection of law that they have, is the “European Human Rights Act”.

THINK VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE VOTING TO LEAVE THE EURO COMMUNITY.

At present, this is the only protection of “LAW” that you have.

 

(1)    Those doubting the true role and duty of the ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the British throne; they should ask themselves, what is the true purpose and intent of the two legal instruments provided to the ‘Reigning Monarch’: the, ‘Royal Assent’ and, the ‘Royal Prerogative’? Both are solely designed in order that the ‘Reigning Monarch’ is able to protect the Crown’s Subjects. They have no other intent or purpose at all. The ‘Royal Assent’ provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with the right to approve or refuse approval to the Laws created and passed by Parliament. The ‘Royal Prerogative’ provides the ‘Reigning Monarch’ with three options in order to protect the Subject: (a), to encourage Ministers of Government. (b), to warn Ministers of Government. And, (c), whenever the wishes of the Crowns Subjects are in direct conflict with the actions of Parliament or Politician; to order, the immediate dissolution of Parliament.

Those doubting the true existence and true validity, in law, of the “Original Contract” ; and, the ‘Reigning Monarch’s’ obligation in law, to comply; they need only to read the history of England, during the period of the “Glorious Revolution”. The CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 removed King James the Second from the throne for, “Breaking the Original Contract” betwixt King and People”. The CONVENTION declared, that the throne was vacant, and, that, James II had abdicated the throne. Prince William of Orange became the next King. But, the CONVENTION went even further in respect to the “Lineal Descent”; (all subsequent ‘Reigning Monarch’s’ in the line of succession); by declaring that, “The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the  Deposed, if the Successor breaks the Contract, they too can be Deposed”.

Sadly, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has not honoured the “Original Contract” , all of the time she has occupied the British throne. In truth and reality, thereby, she abdicates the throne.