The Investigatory Powers Bill..

Surveillance Powers

"THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL"

Prime Minister, THERESA MAY, in presenting and supporting this Bill; asserts that the "bulk gathering of information and the surveillance of Internet browsing" is absolutely necessary to protect the country from terrorism.
The question to be asked, therefore, is this: Should we trust the 'bastards' that are "browsing our lives" and carrying out this surveillance. Here is my response:

WHO CAN I TRUST?

As a designated "Subject of the Crown" in my country; NOT A CITIZEN; I have no protection of "LAW" whatsoever.

I have no access to a, "Written Constitution"; "Bill of Rights"; or, "Supreme Court of Law", where I can challenge the 'abuse' of parliament, from within LAW.
The, 'Reigning Monarch', QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND; even though charged with the responsibility of honouring the "Original Contract" requiring the protection of the people; has not once honoured that 'contract', throughout her reign.
In consequence: I have no 'protection of law' at all.

So, WHO CAN I TRUST?

I certainly do not trust the Queen.
I do not trust Government, that repeatedly creates and establishes "LAWS" "BILLS" "ACTS" and "MOTIONS" in 'elected' parliament today, in exactly the same way; as HITLER and the NAZIS created their own "LAWS". The terrible laws, which, brought about, the horrible consequences of the Holocaust and World War Two.
I do not trust Parliament.
I do not trust Members of Parliament.
I do not trust the political party WHIPS in parliament; that have no true legality at all.

I do not trust; and, cannot ever trust the British, JUDICIARY; because they have:
purposely and repeatedly "Conspired to Pervert the Course of Justice" and deceive the British people; ruling that, "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" is, "ABSOLUTE" law; when it is not. Thereby, ruling and denying, all challenge to the 'abuses' of parliament, in the Courts.

When, in truth and reality; and, by 'precedent of law' set out in another paragraph of that very same 'BILL', “THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED”, this actually verifies that, "ARTICLE 9" is not, ABSOLUTE, at all. This paragraph actually asserts that it has the supreme ‘authority’ over all the “Premises” of the Bill; and, further determines, that when parliament ‘enacts’, “Article 9” or any of the other “Premises” of the Bill; that, “NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE”.

I do not trust: GCHQ and all the so-called, "National Security Services".
I do not trust the, POLICE, which, through my very own 'experience' of them, has proven, that they are not 'trustworthy' at all.

The crux of the matter is this: Is all this ‘surveillance’ really all about as claimed, the ‘prevention of terrorism’?

Or, is it about protecting totalitarian government, the Monarchy, and the ‘Establishment’, from dissent and political subversion?

Is it really all about restricting our FREEDOM and our own ‘political freedom’, in order to deny, dissent and subversion?

 

“When the People shall grow weary of government they can exercise their democratic right to amend it or their revolutionary right, to overthrow it.”

President Abraham Lincoln – 1^st Inaugural Address.

 

Sick and tired of all this sham of a DEMOCRACY and MONARCHY drastic action is now required.

 

Read my book "DEMOCRACY" available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1500465984

 

Read carefully and sign this petition: https://www.change.org/p/her-majesty-the-queen-challenging-elizabeth-the-second-right-to-sit-upon-the-throne

LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP ELECTION - Who can vote?

This 'Appeal Court' ruling must be challenged by a Superior Court; here are the reasons why:

 

The Appeal Court ruling in respect to who may and who may not vote in the Labour Party Leadership election is wholly corrupt. It is founded entirely on 'political' BIAS criterion; and not upon true, "LAW". The Judges have merely 'corrupted' LAW; replacing this essential criterion; by their very OWN and, the NEC, political bias.
 

Their judgement declared: "A member's entitlement to vote in a leadership election is not a product of him or her simply being a member, but is the result of him or her being a member who satisfies the precise eligibility criteria defined by the NEC and any freeze date provisions set by the NEC in the timetable for the election."

Please note: "who satisfies the precise eligibility criteria defined by the NEC" ?

BUT, NOT WHEN THAT "NEC CRITERIA" IS PROFOUNDLY CORRUPT.

BUT, NOT WHEN THE "NEC" CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE A 'VESTED INTEREST' IN THE OUTCOME OF THAT ELECTION; and, purposely conspires to rig that 'criterion', to ensure its own objectives are achieved.

Here, the NEC has its own political vested interest; it introduces 'corrupt criterion' for voting in this leadership election, specifically because the 'NEC' has its own 'vested interest' to ensure that JEREMY CORBYN is defeated in that election.

Virtually the entire “Labour Parliamentary Party" wants to defeat JEREMY CORBYN in that election.

 

In a properly conducted "DEMOCRATIC ELECTION"; everyone who 'signed up' to join the Labour Party, HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THAT ELECTION. And, especially, when, 'prior to signing up and joining the party’; they were 'instructed' that they had the right to vote.

This "Corruption of Law" exercised here by these Appeal Court Judges calls into question the entire 'legal’ eligibility and, 'integrity', of the entire British Judiciary;

(A), Are their ruling's determined by actual 'LAW' ? Or,
(B), Are they determined by their own particular 'vested interests' where they; 'conspire to pervert the course of justice'; in order to suit and secure their own political objectives?

We should apply this 'test' for the 'integrity' of the Judiciary, here:

"The Bill of Rights 1689"

EVIDENCE establishes that the Judiciary determines and rules that "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" is, ABSOLUTE.

 

Article 9" reads as follows:

"That the Freedome of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament"

Yet, the Judiciary interprets this, and, determines and rules, that, 'under no circumstances', can parliament be 'questioned', in the courts. 

This establishes beyond all reasonable doubt; that here the JUDICIARY, specifically "Conspires to pervert the course of Justice" and deceive the British people; because, the JUDICIARY 'must know' that "Article 9" is not, ABSOLUTE. Anyone reading and interpreting the "Bill of Rights 1689", correctly; must know, that "Article 9" and all the other "PREMISES" of this Bill is wholly dependent on the conditions set out in another paragraph of the Bill known as, "The Said Rights Claimed".
 

“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”

 

NOTE: This paragraph "The Said Rights Claimed" specifically instructs parliament; and, (all reading the Bill); that,

 

A, That, "The Said Rights Claimed" has the ’authority' over all the other "PREMISES" of the Bill.

 

B, That, when parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" or any of the other "PREMISES" of the Bill; that parliament, "OUGHT NOT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

 

Therefore, by, "precedent of law", anyone, has the right to test, question, or challenge parliament in the courts; if and whenever parliament "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

 

HERE IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE FULLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE BRITISH JUDICIARY IS CORRUPT.

 

Gordon J Sheppard

 

PORTON DOWN

SKY NEWS is featuring a report about this 'totalitarian governments' very SECRET chemical weapons establishment at PORTON DOWN. Here is the poem I wrote about this 'filth' several years ago.

“Porton Down”

(Her Majesty’s Government Chemical Weapons Establishment)

 

 

What did you do today Daddy?

 

Mummy and me had a lovely time

We went to the park

The sun was bright, the clouds were white

The sky, was Oh! so blue

There was nice green grass

Beautiful flowers, big tall trees

Singing birds and buzzing bees

What did you do today Daddy?

  

The Scientist:

 

I had a lovely time today darling

I tested X today, darling

I wore a pure white coat, black rubber boots and gloves

And a shiny black mask

I squirted X on a little white rabbit

And I watched it kick, scream, bleed, vomit, squirm and die

Nobody questioned, nobody asked

I can but wonder why

I had a lovely time today, darling

I tested X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.

What did you do today Daddy?

The Workers:

 

I had a lovely time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I pressed a button; I turned a switch; I pulled a lever

I picked it up; I put it down; I turned it round;

I inspected it;

I poured it out; I bottled it;

I stored it;

I only typed the work schedules; I only made the tea;

I only manned the switchboard, anyone can see;

I lifted it; I moved it from here to there;

Where’s it going?  I know not where

As long as we are alright, darling, I just don’t care

I had a lovely time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.

 

What did you do today Daddy?

 

Parliament:

 

I had a boring time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I sat in the House of Commons, the People’s Parliament

I saw the WHIPS today, darling, and voted as was meant

Forgive me, darling, I’m not bold

I vote, the way I’m told

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I must wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling

 

What did you do today Daddy?

Everyman:

 

Today, as everyday, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I conformed

I paid my taxes

I obeyed the law

From life and responsibility, I abstain

From participation, I withdraw

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling

 

What did you do today Daddy?

The dissident.

 

Today I saw news on TV and I despair, darling

In dissent, I tried once more

To stop all war

In hearts and minds, darling

I’m sick, I cannot think, I cannot bear

Those Kurdish children, dead, just lying there

Hear the protests “We’re not to blame

For this crime committed, in our name”

Yet, all are guilty, just the same

I try each day to stop X, darling

If I say ‘NO’ I have my say

Taxation, if I refuse to pay

Will stop all wars, darling

From screaming ‘STOP’ my throats real sore

Participation, tis the Rule of Law

I’m so tired

I’ll try and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.

  

When I wrote this, I wrote “X” as above. We now know it to be, “VX”

Its real name isn’t important. What is important, is to recognize, that in the life of Humankind, it seems, that there will always be an “X”

 

Throughout my life I have always wondered: How can any Human being become involved in the filth and obscenity of the creation and production of conventional, nuclear, or chemical weapons? 

 

How do they do it? - And - What do they say to their children when they go home each night; when that child says:

 

What have you been doing today, Daddy?

 

For myself, I am convinced: If you are involved in the creation of weaponry - in any way - YOU, are always responsible, for what those weapons do.

 

Gordonj