Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 558 Location: Lancashire
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:43 pm Post subject:
The police Constables oath is what gives the power to enforce common law, and only to uphold the peace.
Police Constables are not mandated to enforce anything other than common law.
Statute Law is not common law, therefore police Constables are not mandated to enforce Statute Law.
Statute Law is enforced by officers, which denote their private corporate status, not having taken the Constables Oath they cannot claim to enforce the law, to do so leaves them impersonating a Police Constable, a criminal ACT.
For a Police Constable to then support all none oathed enforcers is to leave the Police guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal ACT.
The statute criteria all coming under ACTs of Parliament, are seperate from common law, as such one has to enter into contract with the statute for it to then leave you at the mercy of those who operate for statute law, its a contract in which you give power of attorney to those who make claim against you and then to suffer the rules relating to that claim, which you give permission for they to enforce.
But remember Police Constables cannot enforce Statute Law.
The real telling aspect to the nature and control of all things statute, comes in the understanding that the Crown itself through its Admiralty...is the controller of all things statute, and the reason why all institutions which take oath to the Crown are now swiftly behaving contrary to their common law oath, which is their only mandated role, and happy enforcing and supporting the statute merchant regulations.
They have been trained that this is correct.
Here is the second video of the interview at the Jobcentreplus :
I would ask you understand, I do not claim to be expert in law, but who is? I have tried my best to understand it from that which is available, though I did study land law many years ago and understood well that common law is mostly based on old cases which are similar to that which is before the common law court, they use such old cases to determine the right course of action and better understand what rights are ours.
The Judge under common law is the Jury, the judge with wig is a usurpation of our common law, we have to keep in mind the assault on our system has been systematic since the 1066 conquest
We have the right to make common law claims against any institution or fellow countryman, this is our common law right made so by Henry II, the first Plantagenet King of England, yet he only absorbed what came forth from Lindisfarne under King Oswald, and being a King, Henry shifted the Oswald freedom for the people, to his kind and the future needed for the powerfull Barony, so Henry II was the first move to usurp the Lindisfarne common law with the Ionian statute script for the bloodlines, the Templars were the military order to ensure this was so, they operated for Rome.
Lindisfarne Christianity is not Roman Christianity per say, the man responsible was an Ionioan Irish rebel and set forth the British Christianity at Lindisfarne, which was then protected and expaned by King Oawald when he returned to Northumbria.
The best I can say as it relates to the statute over common law, is I am using what I currently understand in action against :
Lancashire Constabulary
Lancashire County Council
Lancashire Resilience Forum
Lancashire Fire Service
Peel Park School
Jobcentreplus
The truth about statutes does seem to be correct in the investigations ongoing so far.
Hope this expands the whole issue and raises yet more questions and debate. _________________ KEEP IT REAL
Last edited by Life on Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 558 Location: Lancashire
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:14 pm Post subject:
To attempt to better understand the difference between ACT and Enforce :
An ACT, is the passing of a script through Parliament, that is all., they call the script; 'legislation'.
Parliament is the peoples administrative body set forth to administer the will of the British people under common law, if the government pass ACTS, it has no power over the people unless it is absolutely the will of the people....but then it would be common sense law, common law.
Here we see the real reasons for the Killing of the King and the Civil War.
Therefore ACTS have niether power nor a claim against the people.
The trick has been to have the people believe a 'script' (legislation) is the power (a law) under which all the people must 'ACT'.
If they are successful, then the script indeed becomes an ACT of the people who ACT the script, it becomes real, it becomes the reality.
common law enforcement is a means by which the peace of the nation can be upheld, to allow sound political debate to agree on a change of law or ideal, without the country sliding into violent civil war.
From the elites perspective, the Peelers were created to prevent any and all riots against their power, to get angry is now controllable under the idea of keeping the peace.
But in its time it was not so clear that to create a Police Service would lead to what we have today, because :
We the People have a right to :
to The Highways
to Bear Arms
to Protect Ones Family and Property
to A Fair Judgment From Our Piers
Also our Constitution makes demands of We the People :
to Fight all Tyrranny
to Expose all Treason
to Protect these Lands
Under these rights the role for the Peelers was slight indeed :
What need had we to call the Peelers if we had trouble, we sorted it our ourselves.
Who was looking for a driving license when we have a right to the highways?
The role for the Police has been incrimentally expaned by writing scripts over and above our natural rights as we the people.
So we are at best better to make the Police Constables shift back into their mandated role as keepers of the peace only, we break down the statute ACTS by ceasing to enter into contract with them _________________ KEEP IT REAL
The information reported as violating privacy is at 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------
We would like to give you an opportunity to remove or edit your video so
that it no longer potentially violates the privacy of the individuals
involved. You can edit your video by removing names and other personal
information from the video's title, metadata or tags. Annotations or
marking the video as private are not acceptable forms of editing and your
video will still be at risk of removal. Please edit or remove the material
reported by the individual within 48 hours of today's date. If no action
is taken, the video will then come in for review by the YouTube staff and
be prohibited from being uploaded again.
If the potential privacy violation is contained within the metadata or
title of the video, you should be able to edit this content without video
removal. If the potential privacy violation is within the video content,
the video may have to be removed completely.
Protecting a person's privacy is protecting their personal safety. When
uploading videos in the future, please remember not to post someone else's
image or personal information without their consent. Personal information
includes things such as names, phone numbers and email addresses. For more
information, please review our Community Guidelines at
http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines?hl=en_GB and our Safety
Centre at http://www.youtube.com/t/safety?hl=en_GBRegards,
The YouTube Team
End of Message
The persons so named are guilty of criminal acts, they are public servants and from my advice relinquish all privacy protection.
The guilt is within the videos for all to see, therefore how can they possibly claim the right to privacy?
Yesterday April 29th, I noted that youtube had stopped the statistics on both videos and removed almost a thousand views from one of my older videos, so it is obvious to my good self that they do not want their New Deal deception from reaching the people, after all Camerons agenda is based in creating 'compulsory volunteers' from the jobless.
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:31 pm Post subject:
Environment Agency Enforcement Officers
In the Catch (fishing) magazine issued by the EA we have a picture of 2 burly EA licence Enforcement Officers asking to see an anglers rod licence. They are wearing body armour and have police style utility belts. Failure to produce a rod licence will result in a big fine,a criminal record and your name and address appearing on their website. Scare and control tactics of our leisure time. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 558 Location: Lancashire
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:03 pm Post subject:
Hello fish my good man.
And then we have the ever more police looking 'Highways Agency', damn annoying when you have to slow down from 150 to 70 all in one go...... only to find it is another impersonator.
Ask for their Oath and watch their faces.
The Highways Agency I see soon to become the private security for NM Rothschild when the motorways are handed over for 100 billion, yet I note they are getting good old taxpayer to fund all the new fangled cctv and such first..
very naughty and not clever, you southerners have a lot to answer...... _________________ KEEP IT REAL
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 9:43 pm Post subject:
I'm a bit concerned. Where has this chap's face gone?
Manchester police are notoriously masonic.
When are we going to remove these deeply evil freemasons from powerful positions?
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:14 pm Post subject: Strathclyde Taser Pilot Row Continues
The Police Oracle online at www.policeoracle.com report that there is anger as Scottish Taser police apparently told ‘you have immunity’...
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Strathclyde-Taser-Pilot-Row-Continues _24621.html
"A new row has flared up about the use of Tasers by frontline police officers after suggestions from the Scottish Government that the pilot running in Strathclyde is lawful because police are covered by Crown immunity, reports The Herald newspaper.
Opposition politicians and civil rights groups reacted with alarm to the claim that officers are immune from prosecution. They warned that it would be dangerous and wrong to take such an approach.
There is also concern at disparities between this statement and those made in Parliament earlier this year in which Crown immunity was not mentioned and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill told MSPs that decisions on Tasers were for individual police forces.
The Herald revealed last month that a 50-page legal report, by a leading QC commissioned by Amnesty International, warned that Scottish ministers should have given written authorisation before any new schemes to arm police officers can take place.
Amnesty’s calls for the Taser pilot to be suspended and for ministers to set guidance have been supported by Labour and the LibDems. Alan Miller, chairman of Scotland’s Human Rights Commission, and Tam Baillie, the Children’s Commissioner, also backed calls for a halt to the pilot.
However, Strathclyde Police believe the pilot is lawful and they and the Scottish Police Federation have argued that Tasers will protect officers from a growing number of assaults.
Strathclyde Police Authority was given the guidance by Government officials on June 8 after concerns were raised about the legality of the pilot.
In a memo to authority members, Stephen Curran, convener of Strathclyde Police Authority, wrote: “Strathclyde Police Authority received official opinion from the Scottish Government that the police in Scotland do not require ministerial approval to possess or use Taser because of the effect of the principle of Crown immunity.
“Based on the legal argument advanced by the Scottish Government, Strathclyde Police Authority is satisfied that no written consent is required from Scottish ministers for the deployment of Taser.”
John Watson, Scottish programme director for Amnesty International, said: ““If this represents the Scottish Government’s justification for their position on the Taser pilot, then why did they not say so before?
“The Scottish Government position rests on the idea that police officers are not subject to any law which does not specifically name them. This is simply wrong, and would beg the question as to which other laws the police do not need to obey.”
“Amnesty believes that Tasers have a role to play in modern policing but the right place for these weapons is in the hands of specialist and highly trained firearms officers rather than with ordinary officers on the beat.”
Tony Kelly, a human rights solicitor, warned that claiming Crown immunity for officers is wrong and does not remove the need to be compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
He said: “Police officers cannot claim Crown immunity. They hold office under the Crown; they swear allegiance to the sovereign. That does not make them servants of the Crown – a very peculiar position with very peculiar consequences. One need only pause for a moment to think of the consequences of police officers claiming immunity as Crown servants for the very notion of the rule of law.
“Would they be immune from prosecution and from civil suit? And why has it not been claimed thus far? It has been unequivocally stated in the leading textbook on constitutional law that police officers are not servants of the Crown.”
Liberal Democrat justice spokesman Robert Brown said the position adds chaos to confusion. He said: “The Scottish Government are coming up with more and more bizarre arguments to justify their position.”
James Kelly, Labour’s community safety spokesman, said: “We want to see our police officers properly protected, but it is vital we ensure whatever steps taken are within the law.”
Campbell Corrigan, assistant chief constable of Strathclyde Police, said: “Our position is that the chief constable has the lawful authority to carry out the Taser pilot and that it is ECHR compliant.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: “The Scottish Government’s position remains that the deployment of tasers is an operational matter for chief constables and their use must be justifiable and necessary.”
So allegedly, but not surprisingly there is opposition within the ranks to the growing Police State's use of force by the legitimisation of taser use. So, if this is happening in Strathclyde how many other Forces have opposition to it?
Hilz _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Queen if you are not prepared to look after your subjects, how are your subjects going to look after you?
Also is Bilderberg and other secret meetings treasonable or not? _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 558 Location: Lancashire
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject:
Here is how you converse with any and all security operatives should they enter your path outside of any common law breech and for events which do not nor shall breech the peace :
Please Note :
The following information has no bearing on the Freeman on the land movement, if one is free one does not need to join any organisation which contradicts the idea of freedom.
Also the freeman movement is so under apprenticeship to British Lords, aka no freedom save that to which they are protected by the Lord under which they are apprenticed…
Great Britain : How To Converse With Security and Police Constables
The following information has no bearing on the Freeman on the land movement, if one is free one does not need to join any organisation which contradicts the idea of freedom.
Also the freeman movement is so under apprenticeship to British Lords, aka no freedom save that to which they are protected by the Lord under which they are apprenticed…
I've seen that, where they think/led they need permission from lawyers to right out affidavits.
(Edit)
Quote:
Prison is Statute Law …. Jail is common law
Under true Common Law there are no prisons because it causes loss to people who have to provide the prisons and maintain and run them (But has become a source of corrupt profit) A Schaeffer Cox video touches on how prisons should work, with people who commit petty crimes put out of the community for a time and then losing all the benefits of that community which is something worth joining ( grafting into) when viewed as a whole (No deprivation and therefore no reason to steal or commit crime in order to survive -JAH).
That's exactly why they have brought in an anti swearing law in Queensland. Push, shove etc. to get a swear and bingo! _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:03 pm Post subject:
God help our poor little army cadets when they have guns pointed at them instead of camera phones. _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 558 Location: Lancashire
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:21 am Post subject:
In Profile : The Freeman Movement
Quote
Prior to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill receiving Royal Assent on 12th November 2009, admittance was restricted to sons or apprentices of Freemen. The Bill stripped away gender restrictions to give daughters equal rights to the Freelage by inheritance.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:39 am Post subject:
Documentary featuring David Icke, Michael Tsarion, Jim Marrs, Peter Taylor, Greg Nikolettos, Dean Donaldson, and Terry Boardman. This film investigates the illuminati agenda, we look at its roots and expose the truth behind media blackouts, false flag operations, the writings of visionaries such as George Orwell and HG Wells, the human micro-chipping agenda, the illuminati bloodlines and much more
It is a shame aright, but this is the nature of mind control, it only works if the one under control believes what they are presenting...
Well if it is a death star what are we supposed to do about it?
It has been there a long time..... and by all accounts there used to be two, so did he destroy it in a past life?
Perhaps when he was Francis Bacon's brother, or was it when he was a general in Napoleon's army, or perhaps when he was Socrates.
Sorry David but this needs to be addressed and I did warn you at the beginning of the year it was going to be painful
he has taken a very old Chinese doctrine or has been fed it, and made it manifest into a five sense reality, suggesting he is as fixed to the material as ''Alex John Wayne Jones''.
If I remember the doctrines correctly they speak of man being moon food... and a thesis on the Moons effect on mans psyche as it reflects the Suns energies creating the hall of mirrors.
(Edit)
Icke even starts of with the statement of that the technology had not even been invented then, which is not true.(Re: 1984 Revolution Trailer video)
Plain Tales from the Hills (published 1888) is the first collection of short stories by Rudyard Kipling.
Excerpt only:
Quote:
THE BISARA OF POOREE.
Little Blind Fish, thou art marvellous wise,
Little Blind Fish, who put out thy eyes?
Open thine ears while I whisper my wish—
Bring me a lover, thou little Blind Fish.
The Charm of the Bisara.
Churton insisted upon The Man who Knew taking the Bisara of Pooree as a gift. The Man took it, went down to the Cart Road at once, found an ekka pony with a blue head-necklace, fastened the Bisara of Pooree inside the necklace with a piece of shoe-string and thanked Heaven that he was rid of a danger. Remember, in case you ever find it, that you must not destroy the Bisara of Pooree. I have not time to explain why just now, but the power lies in the little wooden fish. Mister Gubernatis or Max Muller could tell you more about it than I.
You will say that all this story is made up. Very well. If ever you come across a little silver, ruby-studded box, seven-eighths of an inch long by three-quarters wide, with a dark-brown wooden fish, wrapped in gold cloth, inside it, keep it. Keep it for three years, and then you will discover for yourself whether my story is true or false.
Better still, steal it as Pack did, and you will be sorry that you had not killed yourself in the beginning.
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 558 Location: Lancashire
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:18 pm Post subject:
The following is written proof our Constabulary's are being forced or rather coerced into a dual role, against the Oath and constitutional powers we give to Constables :
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 Posts: 558 Location: Lancashire
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject:
And for even more disgusting..... here is a video I made on Friday 16 September 2010, it shows how the police to which the councils and corporate trusts speak of when they lay siege against you under statutes, are not the police we mandate :
They say I am launching terror from my back garden and that I am very naughty for educating the children of their rights under common law :
Impersonating a Constable : Hyndburn Homes ‘acts’ Fraudulent
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject:
Life wrote:
And for even more disgusting..... here is a video I made on Friday 16 September 2010, it shows how the police to which the councils and corporate trusts speak of when they lay siege against you under statutes, are not the police we mandate :
They say I am launching terror from my back garden and that I am very naughty for educating the children of their rights under common law :
Impersonating a Constable : Hyndburn Homes ‘acts’ Fraudulent
LOL Educational and entertaining video but i dont want to encourage you.
_________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Since 1995 a total of 55 officers have opened fire on and killed members of the public. Tory MP and security expert Patrick Mercer said that officers should be identified in cases where they drew weapons
The identities of just two police officers involved in 33 fatal shootings have been made public in the last 15 years, a Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed.
Since 1995 a total of 55 officers have opened fire on and killed members of the public, but in only two cases have their names been revealed.
The figures can be revealed as the inquest into the death of 32-year-old barrister Mark Saunders continues – and the policemen who shot him dead in May 2008 are allowed to remain anonymous while giving evidence.
The trend was criticised last night by Tory MP and security expert Patrick Mercer who said that officers should be identified in cases where they drew weapons.
And a barrister who represents bereaved families at inquests said the odds were stacked in favour of the police.
Divorce lawyer Mr Saunders, who was drunk, was gunned down by marksmen in a hail of bullets after he opened fire with a shotgun on his neighbours’ homes from a window of his £2.2 million Chelsea mansion.
Giving evidence at the inquest on Friday, one member of the firearms team said he did not shoot at Mr Saunders because he ‘could not justify it’.
It is up to coroners to decide whether to grant anonymity to police officers and there is nothing explicit in the law to help them reach a decision. The coroners’ ‘bible’ – Jervis On Coroners, first published in 1829 – says ‘any departure from open justice must be a stringently regulated exception.’
It says neither a ‘wholly irrational’ fear of possible reprisal against a police officer, nor a ‘vague and unspecified threat’ is enough to justify the granting of anonymity. And when a police witness is allowed to hide his or her identity, ‘this does not lessen the court’s task but instead increases the need for vigilance,’ says Jervis.
But the laxity of the system has come under growing criticism and last night barrister Stephen Simblet, who specialises in representing bereaved families at inquests, called for new rules to be drawn up.
He said: ‘At the moment the odds are stacked in favour of the police. It is likely that not only the individual officers will be represented by lawyers at the hearing, but also their force and sometimes the local police authority.
‘There is a tendency for coroners to be outweighed by the sheer number of lawyers making the application for anonymity. All these legal representatives will have been paid for by the taxpayer.
‘It seems to me that public money is being invested in trying to cover things up rather than get to the truth. Police firearms officers are given the extremely rare privilege and responsibility of being allowed to carry a gun on the basis that they are trained, controlled and properly briefed.
Divorce lawyer Mark Saunders was gunned down by marksmen in a hail of bullets
‘If we don’t know who they are, how do we know, for example, that a particular officer may not be suffering from psychiatric problems or taking drugs? I would like to see stricter, case-specific reasons (for granting anonymity) based on actual, real and substantiated concerns rather than a feeling that they might be some form of unidentified risk to an officer’s safety.’
Mr Mercer said: ‘Every police officer wears an identification number on their uniform. The reason for that is that they are easily identifiable to members of the public. If that is the case in normal circumstances, I do not see why officers should not be identified in cases where they draw their weapons.’
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said its policy was not to name officers involved in fatal shootings unless they were charged with a criminal offence.
And a Police Federation spokesman said: ‘Firearms officers are often involved in sensitive covert and overt operations. Revealing their identity could threaten their safety and the safety of those around them when deployed on such operations.’
Inquiries by this newspaper revealed that since 1995 there have been only two fatal shooting cases in which police marksmen have been named.
One involved Andrew Kernan, a schizophrenic shot dead near his home in Liverpool, in July, 2001. At a coroner’s court, PC Michael Moore said he decided to shoot Kernan with a high-powered rifle when the 37-year-old refused to drop a 3ft-long Samurai sword.
At the inquest – where no order was made to keep secret the firearms officers’ names – PC Moore described how he and fellow police officer Glen Mitchell had hoped to restrain Kernan with a CS spray, but failed to do so.
A four-year investigation by the IPCC cleared the Merseyside firearms officers from blame and said they had acted ‘bravely’ under the circumstances.
In the other case, PC Chris Sherwood was acquitted of murder and manslaughter after the death of James Ashley, 39, who was shot in front of his girlfriend while he was naked and unarmed.
Sussex Police admitted negligence after the killing at St Leonards in West Sussex, and Paul Whitehouse, the chief constable, resigned. PC Sherwood said he had opened fire in self-defence.
But in 31 other fatal shootings, the identities of police marksmen have been kept secret.
They include that of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, who on July 22, 2005, was shot dead by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers on board a tube train at Stockwell in South London in the belief he was a suicide bomber. Mr de Menezes was shot in the head seven times.
Following an investigation by the IPCC, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that no charges would be brought against any officers in connection with his death.
Other infamous cases include that of Diarmuid O’Neill, 27, an unarmed IRA suspect, who died in a hail of bullets when police raided his home in Hammersmith, West London. No officers were named and no charges were laid against police.
And in September 1999, decorator Harry Stanley, 46, was shot dead as he walked home carrying a table leg in a plastic bag, which police officers mistook for a gun.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:50 am Post subject: 101,248 stopped under anti-terror laws - zero arrested
Police stopped 101,248 under anti-terror law last year - but didn't make a single arrest
By James Lyons 29/10/2010
Police used anti-terror powers to stop and search more than 100,000 people last year - without making a single terrorism-related arrest.
Officers used Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 101,248 times but just 506 of those stopped were taken into custody and none on suspicion of plotting terror attacks.
Home Office figures yesterday also revealed that no terror suspect was held for more than 14 days before being charged, just half the 28-day limit brought in by the last Government.
Both measures face being swept away in a review of Labour's anti-terror laws by Home Secretary Theresa May who has said they "ride roughshod" over civil liberties.
Campaigners claim the figures prove stop and search powers are being abused and should be scrapped.
Shami Chakrabarti, of civil rights group Liberty, insisted Section 44 was a "crude and blunt instrument" that was also counter-productive.
Ms Chakrabarti said: "It costs us dearly in race equality and consentbased policing with very little in terms of enhanced security."
Four out of five searches were carried out in London with almost a fifth made by Transport Police. Six out of 10 people stopped were white, 17% were Asian and 10% black.
The total number of searches was down by 60% on the previous 12 months when officers stopped more than a quarter of a million people in the wake of the failed attack on the Tiger Tiger nightclub in London's West End.
Total terror arrests were also down from 190 in 2008-9 to 173 last year, separate figures showed. Just 52 of those were charged and only 25 with terror-related offences.
Since the September 11 atrocities in the US nine years ago 261 suspects have been charged in Britain under anti-terror laws. Some 199 have been prosecuted with 127 cases ending in conviction. Seven more await trial.
The figures came as MI6 spymaster Sir John Sawers - known as C - came out of the shadows yesterday to reveal a third of his budget now goes on fighting international terror.
But in the first public speech by an MI6 chief he rejected claims British agents had been complicit in torture by foreign intelligence agencies.
Sir John said: "If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action. "And we do, even though that allows terror activity to go ahead." _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
One minute in, video shows the Police horse charge on students, school children (and parents coming to collect their school children kettled up all afternoon)...
BBC just mentioned this video on BBC breakfast (and said "the video claims to show...") - make up your own mind.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
