INSTITUTIONALIZED RACIST

INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM, and, Mrs Doreen Lawrence...

The terrible tragic death and murder of STEPHEN LAWRENCE does not provide his mother, Mrs Doreen Lawrence, with special 'positive discrimination' advantages to have private consultations with the Home Secretary, Theresa May; or, to have private conversations with Bernard Hogan-Howe the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; where she can dictate the way investigations are to be carried out.

Peter James, the so-called whistle-blower who has asserted that he was instructed by Senior Police Officers whilst he was acting covertly, to find 'evidence' to, "Smear the Lawrence Family"; either lied in his teeth; or, he was paid by some source of Press or Media to say what he did. Or, he lacked the intelligence to interpret correctly the actual instructions he had been given.

H was probably instructed to investigate the Lawrence family. NOT TO SMEAR THEM.

And, the police had every right to investigate the Lawrence family.
In every murder or very violent crime it is normal practice for the police to investigate the victims family. Probing and investigating the family of a victim, often produces valuable information about the victim. In the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation, there was every reason to explore the lives of the Lawrence family. Because, there was every indication, that they were decidedly, 'anti-police', and, possibly, even, 'black racist'. Stephen Lawrence's photograph, where he is giving a 'Black Panther', "clenched fist salute" requires some clarification, in this regard.

Following the attack on Stephen Lawrence, resulting, in his death; the great speed with which the anti-racism brigade took charge, and, IMRAN KHAN was appointed as the family's solicitor, left many questions to answer. In all the questioning of the family, Mrs Doreen Lawrence objected, and investigators were directed to pursue all enquiries with this solicitor. She even adopted the very same attitude during the official Inquiry. She specifically objected to being examined as a witness, by, declaring, "Why should I be questioned?” Even, though she attended that Inquiry as a witness.

I particularly now detest seeing Mrs Doreen Lawrence, or, hearing her name; because every time I see her, or, read about her, in news Media; the phrase, "INSTITUTIONALIZED RACIST" flashes before my eyes. And, this is the corrupt and rotten phrase dreamt up, and, contrived by the judges of the, "Stephen Lawrence Inquiry"; that, has done this country very great harm.

This idea of 'institutionalized racist' was dreamt up and was intended to be used against the police, before even one word of 'evidence' had been heard. Throughout this whole 'Inquiry' the police evidence was treated with contempt and even ridicule. There was great sympathy for Mrs Doreen Lawrence, who has lost her son in the most terrible way; and the 'Inquiry' was motivated by that, as its chief objective. The 'Inquiry', without even considering the consequences of what they were doing, condemned the police, and recorded for history, that, condemnation; by declaring that the entire police service was, 'institutionalized racist'.

The corrupt politicians and, the 'anti-racism brigade' seized on that declaration with glee. For, it provided, that all the advantages of 'positive discrimination', were now theirs for the taking. And, WOW, how they have cashed in.

The politicians with large Black and Muslim constituencies; in order, to prove that they are not racist have seized every opportunity to heap 'positive discrimination' advantages upon those that they represent. For, all 'positive discrimination' heaped upon this community in the nation; 'negative discrimination’, disadvantages, have been heaped upon everyone else.

 Today, the 'Black' community even holds to the belief that it has the sole and exclusive right to certain words in the English language: the word, "Nigger" is constantly used by the Black community in conversation; but, they deny the use of that word, by, "LAW"; to everyone else.
This is the absurdity of the consequences of, "Institutionalized Racism".

Ever since the very instant the phrase was first created by the corrupt judges of the "Stephen Lawrence Inquiry"; the police have been terrified of being accused of racism. In consequence the police have been virtually 'immobilised' from carrying out its proper role.

Before any charges of 'racism' are levelled at anyone; I suggest the 'Blacks' and their political organisations look first at themselves. Nothing is more racist, than the, "Black Policeman's Association". It’s very declared objectives are racist: to 'improve and look after the interests of black policemen.' Furthermore, why isn't there a, "WHITE POLICEMANS ASSOCIATION" ?

Today, both LAW and JUSTICE in our land is rotten and corrupt.
Even Juries, Newspapers and News Media, are influenced by the concept of 'institutionalized racism' and, the sympathy, for, Mrs Doreen Lawrence. That is why in the "Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial", two young men have been convicted and now serve a life sentence in prison. Yet, in the forensic evidence presented in that trial, there was every reason for, reasonable doubt. See details here:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14870269-a-grave-injustice

Mrs Doreen Lawrence, (though, it be, not her fault), and, the corrupt declaration of the "Stephen Lawrence Inquiry"; has corrupted, the very life of our country today.

Gordonj

A grave injustice...

STEPHEN LAWRENCE TRIAL – An unsafe conviction.

I do not know if Gary Dobson is guilty or not of the murder, or, of participating in the murder of Stephen Lawrence. What I do know with, one hundred per cent accuracy, is that he now sits in prison serving a life sentence; yet, he did not get a fair trial.

The police had subjected all the suspects clothing shoes etc. For, forensic examination and, repeatedly this revealed nothing incriminating at all. And, for a time, everything then went quiet. Then, suddenly the police announced, that they were concentrating on new investigative techniques and, that they were extensively, resuming the investigation again. Then, wholly ‘miraculously’ the forensic scientists announce, that, ‘one tiny micro spot of Stephen Lawrence’s blood’, had been found, on the collar of Gary Dobson’s shirt.

The company, LGC FORENSICS, had been paid by the police to undertake forensic examination into the JILL DANDO murder investigation. The Metropolitan Police had paid them £587,383,00 to carry out this work. They were unsuccessful and the murder investigation has been dropped.
I ponder how much they were actually paid to 'fabricate' the evidence in the "Stephen Lawrence" murder trial?  How much were they actually paid?  To rig and create false evidence, in the creation of that, "just one tiny micro speck of blood”, which they allege, they found, on the collar of Gary Dobson’s shirt?

Now, this 'evidence' must have been fabricated, because it was wholly impossible for only, "just one tiny micro speck of blood", to have got on that shirt, in the manner they claimed.

The injuries Stephen Lawrence received:
There were stab wounds to a depth of 5 inches (13cm) on both sides of the front of his body, in the chest and in the arm. Both of these stab wounds severed auxiliary arteries. The deep penetrating wound of the right side of his body also caused the partial collapse of the lung.

With these wounds the 'evidence' that only, "just one tiny micro speck of blood", was found on GARY DOBSON's shirt, is an absolute impossibility.

Had the forensic investigators found several or many 'tiny specks of blood' or, the "smearing of blood" there might have been some element of truth; but to claim that only, "one tiny micro speck of blood", was found; indicates 'fabrication' of that evidence.

When someone is stabbed so seriously inflicting the wounds to them as shown, in the 'injuries' as described to Stephen Lawrence, as above; blood would have been gushing from those wounds in a solid stream, or, in a very fine spray. Pumped out continuously, until the heart, stopped beating. Further, the injury 'evidence' indicates that, his lung had been penetrated; so it is likely Stephen Lawrence would have been gasping for breath, and, at each gasp, he was likely to be coughing up blood in a spray.

From the injuries he received, anyone being very close to him would have been spattered with this fine spray.

It is therefore absolutely impossible for only, "one tiny micro speck of blood" to be found on that shirt.

Jury Criteria:
 “Every one of the twelve might feel morally certain of guilt; but moral certainty is not legal certainty; and unless there is the legal certainty, that, certainty of proof, which removes every reasonable doubt; a prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.”

In, this ,"Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial", absolutely no one can establish, GUILT, beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is quite possible and, possibly even feasible, that these 'accused' did murder Stephen Lawrence.

But, they cannot be found GUILTY of the crime, where there is evidence to prove; that there is 'reasonable doubt'.

GARY DOBSON and DAVID NORRIS did not get a fair trial.
The Jury found them GUILTY because all the publicity about the 'accused' urged the conviction of DOBSON and NORRIS. The vicious pre-publicity of the trial, mounted in a calculated campaign against them, by newspapers such as the 'Daily Mail', were intent on their conviction. And, it was this corrupt 'influence' upon the Jury; that, caused the jury, to be so 'negligent' in considering the evidence.

All my life I have loathed 'injustice'.

For me, even, ADOLF HITLER, would deserve a fair trial.

This "Stephen Lawrence Murder Trial" was a travesty of, JUSTICE.

Gordonj

ELIZABETH THE SECOND BREAKS HER CORONATION OATH

The Coronation Oath of the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England.

 It is interesting that with all this current fuss about ELIZABETH THE SECONDS long reign and her Coronation anniversary celebrations, what an utter fiasco and a sham it all is. Every 'Reigning Monarch' of England sitting upon the throne is required by 'precedent of law' to honour the "Original Contract". This is the 'unwritten contract' existing in English law, designed for the protection of the "Subject".

 

“Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord,

 for the protection of the Liege Lord”

KIng James the Second was removed from the English throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament) for, "Breaking the original contract betwixt King and People"; and, the CONVENTION declared, that he had abdicated the throne and thereby the throne was, Vacant.

In respect to the "Lineal Descent", (all subsequent 'Reigning Monarch's' sitting upon the English throne), the CONVENTION ruled this:

"The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the original contract, they too can be deposed".

 

It is my assertion that ELIZABETH THE SECOND has broken her Coronation Oath.

 ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the "Original Contract" throughout her entire reign. I therefore remind the British People of the promise she made when she swore the Coronation Oath: 

 

THE OATH

 

All British Monarch’s, before the Altar of God,

Swear this sacred and solemn Oath,

At their Coronation.

 The Queen, having returned to her Chair (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4^th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,

 

 Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

And the Queen answering,

             I am willing.

 

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

 

 Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

 

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

 

 Archbishop. Will you to your power, cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

 

 Queen. I will.

 

 Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

 

 Queen. All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar,, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel of the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words,

 

Queen. The things, which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

             Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

 

 The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to the her Chair,

And the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.

 

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

 

The most important line of this ‘swearing of the oath’ as far as the British people are concerned is the very first line promise of the Queen, to, “Govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. Which, in truth, and, in reality; she fails to do. And, it is interesting to note that during the “Queen’s Speech” delivered by ELIZABETH THE SECOND, at each ceremonial “Opening of Parliament”, Her Majesty, prefaces every paragraph of her speech, with the words: “My Government”; “My Government will do this”, or, “My Government will do that...”

But, it is all a wicked sham. ELIZABETHE THE SECOND, does not “Govern Her People” as by ‘precedent of law’ she is required to do.

Every ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England occupying the British throne is required by ‘precedent of law’ to honour the “Original Contract”. This is the ‘unwritten contract’ existing between King and Subject founded upon the principle that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord”. Whereby, all, “Subjects of the Crown”, are required by law to give allegiance to each ‘Reigning Monarch’, for as long as a Monarch shall reign. And, whereby, in return for this allegiance given; the ‘Reigning Monarch’ provides the protection of the Subject; protecting them from the tyranny, of the abuses and the ‘prejudice’ of Parliament. Even though this ‘original contract’ is unwritten, it is fully established and enshrined in law, by the, ‘precedent of law’, whereby, King James the Second, was removed from the throne.

In 1688 the CONVENTION (Parliament) removed King James II from the throne; for, “Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People”. The CONVENTION ruled: that thereby he had abdicated the throne, and, in consequence, declared, that the throne was therefore vacant. Prince William of Orange was offered the throne; and, he became the next King.

 In February 1688, The CONVENTION mounted a very important debate, “The Debate at Large”, held between both Lords and Commons; in the ‘Painted Chamber’ of the House of Commons; specifically to debate the words “Abdicate” and “The Throne is Vacant”.

 The outcome of this debate resolved that both Lords and Commons agreed that James II had indeed abdicated the throne and, that, the throne was vacant. But, during this debate two very important criteria in respect to the protection of “Subjects of the Crown”, became established, in English law.

The Speaker of this debate, HENRY POWLE, said this:

“It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection; and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant."

And, in respect to the ‘Lineal Descent’,

All, subsequent ‘Reigning Monarch’s’ sitting on the British throne, and, the original contract; the CONVENTION ruled thus:

“The contract is as a binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the contract he too could be Deposed”.

Sir George Treby said:

"I beg leave to say something to what this Noble Lord has last spoken unto : When I call this Point of the Vacancy of the Throne a Conclusion, I did not mean altogether to exclude Abdication from being a Conclusion from the Particulars enumerated before; for, indeed, it is in the nature of a double Conclusion : One, from the particular Facts mentioned, That thereby King James has Abdicated the Government.

The other, from the Abdication, That thereby the Throne is Vacant: By the Instanced Acts, he hath Abdicated the Government; and by his Abdicating the Government, the Throne is Vacant. As to the rest of that which his Lordship is pleased to say, I perceive he does (as he must) agree to me, That a King may Renounce by Acts, as well as Wards or Writings"..."when he doth Violate, not a particular Law, but all the Fundamentals; not Injure a particular Person in Religion, Liberty, or Property, but falls upon the whole Constitution it self, What doth all this Speak?

He therein in faith,

I will no more keep within my limited Authority, nor hold my Kingly Office upon such Terms. This title I had by the Original Contract between King and People; I Renounce that, and will Assume another Title to myself; That is, such a Title, as by which I may Act, as if there was no such Law to circumscribe my Authority.

Where shall any Man come to have Redress in such a Case as this, when the Malefactor comes to be Party, unto whom all Applications for Relief and Redress from Injuries should be made, and so he himself shall be a Judge of his own Breaches of Law."..."It is because the King hath thus violated the Constitution, by which the Law stands, as the Rule both of the King's Government, and the Peoples Obedience, that we say, He hath Abdicated and Renounced the Government; for all other particular Breaches of Law, the Subject may have Remedy in the ordinary Courts of Justice, or the extraordinary Court of Parliamentary Proceedings : But where such an Attempt as this is made on the "Essence of the Constitution", it is not We that have brought ourselves into this state of Nature, but Those who have reduced our Legal well-established Frame of Government into such a state of Confusion, as we are now seeking a Redress unto."

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

Note: This conference “The Debate at Large” setting out all the speeches of both Lords and Commons can be accessed in a FREE e-book format provided by ‘Google Play Books’ here:

 https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Debate_at_Large_between_the_Lords_and_Commons_?id=382mr1i0OC4C&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImJvb2stMzgybXIxaTBPQzRDIl0.

Reading this entire debate, laid out in clear and specific detail, one can easily determine the true responsibilities, as, are required by law, of each ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the English throne.

Each ‘Reigning Monarch’ is required by precedent of law to protect all “Subjects” of the Crown.. And, in order to carry out that duty and role, they are provided with two ‘legal instruments’ that have been specifically designed for the protection of the people.

These are, “The Royal Assent” and “The Royal Prerogative”.

 The Royal Assent provides the right and duty to monitor and vet the laws and Bills passed by Parliament, in order to determine that they have been created ‘honestly’ and without corruption; and, that they are in the interests, of “Subjects” of the Crown. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ using this power, may grant or refuse to grant ‘assent’; as the case may be.

 The Royal Prerogative provides each ‘Reigning Monarch’ with three options designed to protect the people:

 

1. To encourage Ministers of Government.
2. To warn Ministers of Government.
3. Whenever the wishes of the people are in direct conflict with the actions of the Legislators, (Parliament); to order the immediate dissolution of Parliament.

Sadly, Her Majesty the Queen, has been very remiss in carrying out this duty.

 

In the General Election of 2010 the ‘Peoples Democratic Vote’ determined two things: (a), that no political party should have a ‘majority’ in Parliament; and, (b), that there should be a “Conservative led Minority Government”. This was the clear and specific, ‘wishes of the people’ declared by that democratic election vote.

 

However, the leaders of the political parties, elected to parliament in that election, did not like that result. So they determined that they could, ignore the peoples vote, and, then to proceed to create a ‘coalition administration masquerading as government’, entirely on their own. In ignoring, ‘The Peoples Vote’ in this way, they, prejudiced the people; and, thus, they flouted and breached the, precedent of law, set out in the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights1689/The Said Rights Claimed,” (Shown below).

 

Here was the clear and emphatic ‘evidence’ that the, “Wishes of the people were in direct conflict with the actions of the Legislators”. Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, failed to intervene. Her Majesty ought to have ordered, the immediate dissolution of Parliament.

She did nothing, and, consequently she failed to protect her “Subjects”; and, thus, today, the British people are being governed by a wholly illegal coalition administration; that has no legality at all.

 

I, issue a direct challenge to any and all that claim that this present coalition administration has the lawful validity to govern. I, challenge them to produce, the actual ‘legal instruments’ that verifies the legality. I, assert, and, contend, that there is no such legal instrument, in existence, at all.

 

There are two further specific instances where ELIZABETH THE SECOND has failed to protect “Subjects of the Crown”.

 

The WHIPS political party activity in Parliament.

Her Majesty the Queen knows very well that the WHIPS in Parliament ‘prejudice the people’.

The WHIPS political party diktat and instructions issued to Members of Parliament each week overrules and supplants all rightful influence placed upon Members of Parliament, by the Constituent. This 'prejudices the people', thereby, flouting and breaching the, “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689”, in the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed. Yet, she has done nothing at all to ‘protect the people’ from the travesty of this abuse.

 

The JUDICIARY, and the conspiracy against the People..

Her Majesty the Queen also knows very well that the Judiciary has conspired against the People by constantly refusing to allow the testing, questioning, and, the challenge to Parliament in their Courts. Persistently proclaiming for this denial, that, “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, as the law, prevents such challenge. But, both Her Majesty, and, the Judiciary must be fully aware that, for Parliament to ‘enact’ “Article 9”, or, any of the other “Premises” of that Bill, Parliament may not ‘prejudice the people’. Therefore, whenever Parliament does ‘prejudice the people’; anyone may challenge Parliament, in the Courts.

Yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has done nothing, to protect the people from this abuse.

 

Here is the text of the paragraph in the, “Bill of Rights 1689”, that provides this obligation upon Parliament when ‘enacting’ “Article 9”,

 The, “Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

Finally, there is the ‘myth’ of, “CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY”, to resolve.

It is claimed by many that, ‘Constitutional Monarchy’, relieves or prevents the “Reigning Monarch” from carrying out this ‘protection’ of the People. That, the, obligation of complying with the, “Original Contract”, only applies to an, “Absolute Monarchy”;. And, that, the ‘Reigning Monarch’, now today, has no obligation to comply.

 

Yet, this is pure ‘myth’ and fantasy. Because, as long as a ‘Reigning Monarch’ sits upon the English throne, they will always be bound by the “Original Contract” to protect the People; and, failure to provide that protection, abdicates the throne. The legal precedent, of the, “Bill of Rights 1689”; the abdication of King James II; and, the reality of the, “The Glorious Revolution”, seals that obligation; in, LAW.