Advanced Disclosure / Press Release
Dear Sir: S.O.S.
XXX





sir ian blair: you are The Weakest Link - goodbye!
- anti copyright
Statement of Charity Sweet: expert independent witness on corruption - Part I of 4; including the Baa Baa Baa statement for your education and reading entertainment






















7896 words
my opinion/my mind/my heart/my words
Batman, get Robin... someone send out the Bat signal from London!
The Joker is loose in the Metropolis!



sir ian blair: YOU ARE the weakest link.

...GOODBYE!

Attention:

sir ian 'the Joker' blair
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
Scotland Yard
London, England

'super-corrupt' Superintendent ian terry "t*sser" who loves to torture peace protesters
Caring Cross Police Station
Charing Cross
London, England

c/o Caring Cross Police Station
Charing Cross
London, England
02073217711

c/o Belgravia Police Station
Where I understand there are some good men and women of honour, real 'coppers' and 'bobbies', please be an independent eye witness willing to testify in a court of law.
Belgravia
London, England

c/c:

Mr. Brian W. Haw
Parliament Square
London, England

The 'amazingingly beautiful' Barbara Tucker
Parliament Square
London, England

Queen Elizabeth II
Please bring home your army. Please return our nation's sons and daughters immediately and safely home to us. Please.
Buckingham Palace
London, England

Princess Diana's boys XXX
c/o Kensington Palace
London, England

The Independent newspaper
London, England

The Guardian newspaper
London, England

The Evening Standard newspaper
London England

The Sun Newspaper
London, England

Mr. and Mrs. Tony 'the war criminal' Blair
Hell is as long time a blazing'...
10 Downing Street
London, England

Judge Which-face
"Is this Westminster-gate?" - Mr. Brian W. Haw

"How can this court case possibly continue, your honor, when the police have stolen almost all of my evidence? How can this trial possibly continue?" - Mr. Brian W. Haw

The police have stolen the evidence and property of Brian W. Haw; notably needed for your (apparently and hopefully not) 'kangaroo' court of breaking exactly whose illegal conditions and his curious trial. He previously displayed, openly and publicly, said evidence of GENOCIDE and retained his personal legal property against the above noted JOKER and the above noted government/war criminals, for almost 5 years, until it was needed for these and other trumped up, ridiculous charges imposed by sir ian blair and somehow (clandestine dawn raid involving 78(?!) police) stolen by said policing farce, in collusion with and on the behalf of our muppet/puppet/dictator Prime Minister - Tony 'the Toad' Blair.

2 + 2 = 4 in any language. A + B = C? C'a va? Tu compris? Est-ce que tu as une mal a la tete?(sp?)

Beauty may only be skin deep and in Tony's case and in this 'law' suit against Mr. Brian W. Haw and free speech, within these duly noted 'special' circumstances - ugly is straight through to the bone! 'Abuse of process' ring any bells? Do you understand what 'advanced disclosure' means? The tainting of evidence and the event of a mistrial have both been known to occur in English law and therefore exist in reality and do apply in this case specifically. Do you need to purchase a dictionary or to borrow a book of law? The Bible perhaps?

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. - the Bible

Satan/the devil is the father of all lies in many of today's world religions while God rules the heavens and the earth. The earth does not belong to an evil bunch of liars; the earth was created for all the world's children to live in peace in a loving environment - it's not supposed to be a living hell for most children and a bed of roses for the elite few 'adults' who govern democracy unjustly. Illogical. Irrational. Unreasonable.

"How big is your brown envelope, your honor?" - Mr. Brian W. Haw and Mrs. Charity Sweet in unison.

Your Honor, please grow some English 'bollocks' and throw this 'B.S.' case out of the window and into the rubbish heap where it belongs. Please dismiss all charges against Mr. Brian W. Haw and return his personal property and legal documents immediately, accepting that a theft has taken place - no joke, whatsoever. Until the application of the conditions, let alone the justification for the conditions is argued in the High Courts of this land, punishing Mr. Brian Haw, let alone incarcerating him, is completely out of the question due to an obvious corruption and gross abuse of the legal processes.

Next...

Please CHARGE sir ian 'the JOKER' blair and the 'super-corrupt' ian terry with grand theft of artwork, collusion, corruption and the attempted murder of free speech.

A bench warrant is also demanded by the English public for Mr. and Mrs. Tony Blair and all well-known co-conspirators of war crimes against humanity. All persons to be held without bail; namely everyone who voted to bomb Iraq as a pre-emptive strike of war, against Nuremburg laws, or those who would still, to this day, defy democracy and would deny free speech, aiding and abetting SOCPA and ASBO legislation against humankind.

All assets of said criminals to be seized and sold at auction. All monies to be confiscated and returned to the English public education and healthcare coffers - and especially back to the English grannies and the old age war pensioners. All war criminals to be banished from English soil to a completely isolated, deserted island and all segregated from global societies permanently for all time. Parked up with the pedophiles of society would be a just dandy idea - a male island and a female island, both seas apart/separate and safe-guarded by the Navy.

A peaceful society would not ever allow their kind the chance to breed, ever again. The returned soldiers could help to keep them in line as I am certain would be their pleasure; to truly protect all our nation's children from the vilest creatures of society. They can grow their own food and sort themselves out. All honorable and good, men and women, deplore a pedophile and/or a lying, skeezy, wormy politically-motivated, money-oriented conniving treasonous b*stard or b*tch, as whichever the case may be.

"It's too late for two-faced apologies." - Damian Marley; Bob's boy from Jamaica, the former and present-day American slave colony.

Please show your true face and do what is right and just by democracy, courage and truth, your honor.

Please shame the devil and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, your honor, as you are sworn to God, on the Bible, to the people and paid by said people to uphold the rights of the children and the people above and place them firmly before the interests of the government and big business - the greedy and the few.

Westminster Magistrates Court
Westminster
London, England

ken livingstone
As Mayor, please speak out for the people of this great city of London. Please speak up for peace and free speech. Please.
* All note: please make sure everyone listed receives advanced disclosure of this statement.
Mayor of London
London, England

The War Crimes Division of Scotland Yard
Knock, Knock.
Is there anyone there, please? Can you help, please? Please?
Scotland Yard
London, England

Royal High Courts of Justice
London, England

The Home Office
Westminster
London, England

The House of Lords
Westminster
London, England

The Houses of Parliament
Westminster
London, England

District Judge Evans
Horseferry Road Magistrates Courts
a.k.a Westminster Magistrates Courts
Westminster
London, England

The 'vulgar' DpG – The Diplomatic 'plastic' Protection Group
Westminster
London, England

The 'crooked' cPs – The Crown Prosecution Service/persecution system
Westminster
London, England
September 6th, 2006

Dear Sir:

S.O.S.

I believe the first thing I need to do is to clearly define some words in my own mind. That would be a good place to start when attempting to decipher the murky world of "anti-terrorist" law and the world of Blair and Blair - the naughty pair - the lepers of London and civil liberties or should I say... the liberators of civil disabilities as may be a more politically correct way of approaching the matter. Definitions are a must when approaching the law. Apparently, the first definition of the 'crappy' Oxford Dictionary, which has eliminated the noun 'free speech' from its concise tenth (hard cover) edition contents hence defecating on the English language and democracy herself, is the rule of thumb where Tony's modern, new and improved English law is concerned. (That was a mouthful!)

Words are very important in my mind. I recently purchased a white t-shirt with three words on it that has received a few comments from society. It started a rather interesting lengthy conversation the other day. The conversation began, "What does that mean?” I replied that it is a rather impolite way of saying, "Hell No!"

I thought it was just a North American colloquialism. I was informed that the English understand where this Canadian transplant, with her English roots, is 'coming from'.

£2.99 Oxford everyday dictionary - old small paperback - containing a definition of 'free speech'

colloquialism: noun a colloquial word or phrase

colloquial: adjective (said about a word or piece of language) suitable for ordinary conversation but not for formal speech or writing

That's odd. I always assumed that colloquial meant a phrase pertaining and relevant to/understood mainly within a certain geographical area and associated within a region of people with a common language; is generally slang as opposed to grammatically correct. 'Monkey see, monkey do', as an example.

The three monkeys posed in a sculpture generally is recognized everywhere as it artistically depicts the combined words and saying 'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' with three individual monkeys sitting collectively, side by side. Each little monkey has both of their hands placed over their ears, eyes, and mouth respectively. An assumed meaning behind these three little dudes could be that if you don't hear about evil and you don't see it and you don't speak about it - you won't know about it; in essence; evil won't exist. If no little monkey talks about evil at all and no one sees it and no ones hears about 'it', how could 'it' possibly exist? Quantum physics clearly states that things must be observed and quantified in order to be perceived as part of reality.

exist: verb 1. to be present as a part of what is real

real: adj. 1. actually existing, not imaginary 2. actual or true 3. genuine, not imitation

imaginary: adj. existing only in the imagination, not real... unreal, fanciful fictitious, invented

imitation: adj. 2. something produced by copying or imitating something from a Latin word imitari meaning 'to copy'

You could make another assumption of meaning behind the three monkeys. All knowledge of evil could be eradicated by simply completely ignoring evil and refusing it to be allowed to be imitated in any given way. If it can't be seen or heard or spoken about, the assumption one is left with is a non-existence of evil which seems highly unlikely given today’s over-sexualized greedy mentality of most warmongering nations involved in weapons trading. Or, it could artistically depict that once these three little monkeys heard what they heard and saw what they saw, they said what needed to be said and the evil wasn't tolerated anymore. Art is like poetry, it inspires differing meanings in different people. Words can be very artistic, by nature - they paint a picture.

The phrase on my t-shirt is, "DO I FCUK". It is a French Connection U.K. brand t-shirt. There is no question mark at the end of the statement. While it appears to be a question, there is only a grammatical reference to a question of thought in the use of the word 'do'. Do I swim? Do I bike? Do I love my children? Do you read? These are all phrases that raise a question mark at the end of each thought expressed in a questioning format, complete with the proper punctuation mark needed - a question mark.

We all know that the logo FCUK is a cheeky way of printing the "F" word from the English language which is pretty much globally understood to be the word 'f*ck'(replacing the * with the vowel 'u'. It is a slang word and a dirty word, as I was taught by my mother. As an adult, I now understand it to be a colloquial word. It was generally known in society as a foul word and not acceptable to be said within the public media; i.e. television or radio. It is certainly not acceptable to be used within a court of law or legal documents when addressing members of the legal community unless quoting the words of a statement given by an individual. You could quite rightly get arrested by an officer of the law in many countries, whether it is in its English form or whatever translation of language, when combined with the threee letter word 'off'. Now I am being cheeky.

Where I come from in Eastern Canada, the Maritime Provinces to be specific, we use the phrase "Do I f*ck!" as an exclamatory remark of disgust and objection to an unreasonable question, especially when the question is of an insulting nature. If I were to take personal affront to a man asking me a ridiculous question that insulted my intelligence say...

"Do you have permission to" sing a song?

"Do I f*ck!" I thought in my mind.

Did a police officer of the Diplomatic detachment of the Police of the Metropolis of London threaten, once again, to have me arrested and therefore separated from my child, interrupting me from singing a song, "You are my sunshine", to my youngest daughter, for an 'offence' that is only reportable and not arrestable by definitions contains within SOCPA legislation? Was he abusing his powers and the laws of justice? Did someone ask him to approach, abuse the law - question, bully and threaten me? Was it on sir ian's behalf or am I being completely paranoid? Do I need permission to sing a song in public areas, specifically outside - exterior to any public or privately owned building, in a free and democratic society, providing no foul language is used? "Do I f*ck!"

'Hell no!' is a more polite response within the accepted morality of general society than the above noted phrase and yet still wouldn't be regarded as a remotely polite response within a court of law. The response "Hell no" would have certainly gotten me arrested last Thursday afternoon. I simply exerted my knowledge of the SOCPA Act and clearly stated that Joe Coppo was abusing the SOCPA legislation and his assumed position of power over my freedom of speech. I carried on singing, as usual. He said goodbye and toodled back to his position behind the gates.

Do I need a courts permission to wear a t-shirt that bears a logo outside a courtroom? "Hell no!" Inside a courtroom, I would assume that a FCUK t-shirt would not be deemed appropriate attire by any persons sitting in judgment of those individuals accused of crimes.

"DO I FCUK" - French Connection U.K.

There is little opposition to Capitalism and the wearing of branded items of clothes within a Capitalistic society, which may be by their artistic expression, offensive in nature.

Here is hoping we are all 'on the same page'; another colloquialism that delivers the assumption that should we all be reading the same book by the same author, we have all read up to the same page in said book and have therefore read the same information and have a shared understanding of the grouped meanings of these words - a common knowledge.


'Ask a stupid question - get a stupid answer' is another good saying. Is a saying is a colloquialism?

saying: noun a well known phrase or proverb

The correct response to the question of whether a saying is a colloquialism is - possibly yes, possibly no. The words that combine to make a ‘saying’ are also known as phrases. Certain phrases, certain people use, generally, in certain geographical areas. The question of colloquialism depends not where the saying originates from but whether the phrase is suitable for formal speech or writing.” Is it f*ck!" is a variation of "Do I f*ck!” both are sayings and colloquialisms - not suitable for formal speech and writing.

formal: adj. 1. strictly following the accepted rules or custom 2. following a set structure or form

Providing a phrase is suitably in line with the accepted rules and customs of a democratic society, is a phrase just a phrase or is it a security risk? Given a phrase is not suitable to be expressed in public due to the use of foul language and/or that it would be found to be offensive to the majority of said public, i.e. racial slurs, is the verbal expression of certain phrasings that incite hatred towards a specific segment of society an arrestable offence?

The phrase 'Ask a stupid question - get a stupid answer' is acceptable in public and might not be in a formal setting and therefore, by accepted definition, is possibly a colloquialism depending upon whether respect is an accepted formal standard. I would assume the correct grammatical expression of that phrase as an assumption and a complete sentence would be, "If you ask a stupid question of a person, you will receive a stupid answer in response." Ask a stupid question - get a stupid answer.", is a shortened version and is grammatically correct and I do not believe it is acceptable at a formal level of society as formal or proper English due to the implied cheekiness and lack of respect that specific statement creates. The saying implies that only stupid people ask stupid questions and therefore deserve stupid responses.

proper: adj. 3. according to social convention, respectable

respectable: adj. 1. honest and decent; of good social standing


decent: adj. 1. conforming to the accepted standards of what is moral or proper, not immodest or obscene

immodest: adj. not modest, indecent

indecent: adj. offending against generally accepted standards of decency
obscene: adj. indecent in a very offensive way. synonyms: indecent, pornographic, coarse, filthy, dirty, vulgar, and smutty

offense: noun 1. breaking the law, an illegal act

offensive: adj. 1. causing offence 2. disgusting or repulsive
offensive: noun a forceful attack or campaign

disgust: noun a strong feeling of dislike or revulsion

repulsive: adj. 1. disgusting... revolting, repugnant, repellant, vile, hideous, loathsome, obnoxious

pornography: noun pictures or descriptions that are intended to stimulate sexual excitement

pornographic: adj from a Greek word porne meaning 'prostitute' and graphy from a Greek word graphia meaning 'writing'

f*ck: not to be found in my old paperback Oxford everyday dictionary... perhaps because the word is pornographic and obscene and the noun 'free speech' was still defined?

Concise tenth edition Oxford dictionary - hardback - lacking a definition of 'free speech'

"fuck: vulgar slang verb 1. have sexual intercourse with" ... loads of definitions and phrasings offered... of Germanic origin - 16th century

£2.99 Oxford everyday dictionary - old small paperback - containing 'free speech'

vulgar: adj. 1. lacking refinement or good taste 2. rude or coarse 3. (old use) to do with or used by ordinary people

rude: adj. 2. indecent or vulgar 3. roughly made, not sophisticated

ordinary: adj. usual or normal, not special... commonplace


sophisticated: adj. 1. having refined or cultured tastes or experienced about the world 2. complex or elaborate 3. able to understand complex issues

Getting back to my French Connection U.K. t-shirt... by definition f*ck is a pornographic vulgar word. 'F*ck off' is a colloquialism that would not be acceptable in a court of law or as a response to an officer of the law. 'F*ck you' as a phrase could and would have the ability to insult pretty much anybody who understands the meaning of the saying. 'Do I f*ck' as a phrase, a verbal statement of response and a colloquialism is most probably an arrestable offence in England, when spoken directly towards an officer of the law.

I do not believe society accepts men who are supposed to be respected within our society for their roles as protectors of society to be sworn at. I am certain it must be an arrestable offence; regardless that I have been informed by Inspector Lyons of the Charing Cross division of the Metropolitan police that a man who thumps an officer will serve very little time, if any. He also told me he teaches his children that it is a hard, cruel world during a conversation in which I attempted to report an assault committed against Steve Jago at the gates to 10 Downing Street, by an officer of his police station, Charing Cross, witnessed by myself and my two children and many other independent witnesses at the gates of number 10 Downing Street and clearly filmed by an independent member of the 'news' media. (can be found on the internet on the indymedia UK site - thank you rikki for your talent of always being at the right place at the right time and for your anti-capitalist spellings and reporting of the real news from London, without political bias.)

Opposed to Inspector Lyons, I teach my youngest daughter the names of flowers, her times tables, respect and the value of honesty. She sees the corruption of the beauty of nature, the value of knowledge and the kindness respect regenerates, for herself.

respect: noun 1. admiration felt towards a person or thing that has good qualities or achievements

respect verb 1. to feel or show respect for a person or thing... admire, revere, look up to 2. agree to abide by a rule, agreement etc.

good: adj. having the right or desirable properties, satisfactory 2. appropriate or suitable 3. morally correct virtuous 4. strictly following the principles of a religion or cause 5. kind 6. well behaved

bad: adj. of poor quality or a low standard 2. unpleasant or upsetting 3. serious or severe 4. wicked or evil... immoral, corrupt villainous, sinful

F*ck is not a good word - it is a bad word. I think that is what we still teach the children at school. I do not believe the children are permitted to swear at their teachers and are generally reprimanded and/or punished for the use of foul language towards a person within society who is employed to educate. I do not believe swearing is tolerated within most daycares of the infants of today's Capitalist society. Doesn't Pete of Big Brother fame have issues and perhaps mainly a disease associated with the inability to control his outward expression of inappropriate words which sometimes includes 'swear' words?
swear word: noun a word considered offensive or obscene

Which brings me back to...

free speech : noun the right to express your opinions

... and democracy.

democracy: noun 1. government of a country by representatives elected by the whole people 2. a country governed in this way from a Greek word demos meaning 'the people' and cracy from a Greek word kratia meaning 'rule'

demonstration: noun 1. demonstrating 2. a show of feeling 3. an organized gathering or march held to express the opinion of a group publicly

demonstrate: verb 1. to show evidence of something, to prove it

demonstrative: adj. 1. showing or proving something 2. expressing your feelings openly

Concise tenth edition Oxford dictionary - hardback - lacking a definition of 'free speech'

demonstrate: 1. clearly show the existence or truth of - give a practical exhibition and explanation of 2. take part in a public demonstration; 16th century from the Latin verb

demonstrat, demonstrare meaning to 'point out'

demon(1):noun 1. an evil spirit or a devil

demon(2):noun a police officer (Australia, New Zealand), 19th century apparently from Van Diemen's Land, an early name for Tasmania




SOCPA - the Serious Organized Criminal Protection Agency or is it...
The Serious Organized Crime Prevention Act... I am uncertain.

Section 134 - The Authorization of Demonstrations within the Designated Area - which curiously happens to also be the main area of central London containing the tourist sites most tourists are likely to visit and most London tourist buses are likely to cruise by, if not stop at... ironic. Harks me back to the Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., when the 'state' cleared the city of all vagrants, issuing one way bus passes so as to put forward a pleasant 'bum'-less society to the visiting nationals. WTF?

Sub section 3. conditions may be imposed and specified in the authorization relating to a demonstration which are necessary to prevent the following in the

COMMISSIONER'S r.e.a.s.o.n.a.b.l.e. OPINION... yada, yada, yada. This statement implies that the Commissioner is the only person who may authorize and the only person who may impose specified conditions and that his opinion is reasonable. In order to have a reasonable opinion, one would have to demonstrate a reasonable mind through reasonable actions which is simply not the case. sir ian blair has shown himself to consistently be the JOKER of the Metropolis of London in his curtailing of 'free speech' - the right to express opinions publicly. He has consistently shown and proven himself to be a most unreasonable excuse for an English officer of the law and a poor example of a 'male' member of the human species.

Conditions may be applied should there be r.e.a.s.o.n.a.b.l.e. cause to assume it would be necessary to prevent:

a) hindrance to the entrance of parliamentary buildings. The 5 year longstanding protest of Brian Haw of Parliament Square provided absolutely no hindrance to the entrance of Parliament on any occasion, at any given point in the past 5 years (1825 days, 43,800 hours, or 2,628,000 minutes) and yet was limited to three meters in length and one meter in width? Who are the individuals who believe they have the right to limit the amount of evidence of GENOCIDE displayed to the public? Is limiting evidence reasonable? I understand that metric is not the accepted term of measurement used in the English Court rooms; I could be mistaken. I believe all the road signs in England limiting speed are designated in miles per hour and all speeding tickets are given out in miles over the speed limit. Has any other demonstration been met with such brutal limiting forces? The pot smokers had as much space as they liked and were free to smoke their weed. Is there only a limit to the amount of evidence of genocide that may be presented to the public?

Reasonable or irrational?

irrationalism: noun a system of belief or action that disregards rational principles

b) a hindrance to the proper operation of parliament. Once again, over a 5 year period, Mr. Brian W. Haw has never stopped parliament from carrying on willy-nilly, exactly as they pleased, despite the Nuremburg laws of 1945 that clearly state, as valiantly noted in the courtrooms of this land by Chris Coverdale, and define genocide as a war crime as well as pre-emptive strikes of war by any democratic government. Both activities are illegal in relation to the laws of England and both war crimes are treasonous to the nation thereof. When reporting a crime, as is every citizen’s duty, under said Nuremburg laws, is it reasonable for an official of the law to ask the reporter of said crime as to whether or not he has applied for permission to report said crime? Permission is required to report a crime? In ian and Tony's world, is reporting a crime without permission from the perpetuator of the crime a crime in itself and can it be perceived as a demonstration of 'free speech' - another crime? Is that a reasonable question I just wrote or does it sound completely farcical and
illogical? Reasonable?

c) serious public disorder

£2.99 Oxford everyday dictionary - old small paperback - containing 'free speech'

disorder: noun 1. lack of order; untidiness or confusion 2. a riot 3. an illness

serious: adj. 4. causing great concern, not slight

c)(cont'd) Is the public the slightest bit concerned regarding the relatively few people of this nation exercising their right to free speech? Is it a crime to confuse someone - create a little confusion in their mind? Isn't that what politicians and propaganda spin doctors do every day in one country or another, utilizing the generally monopolized 'news' media as a weapon of propaganda, somewhere in the world? Is this where democracy has come to? Politicians can blatantly lie though their teeth and Steve Jago may not hold up a board with a few quotes from George Orwell lest he be illegally detained on trumped up charges of assault against an officer of the Metropolis after he, himself was assaulted by an officer of the Metropolis of London? Reasonable?

"In times of universal deceit it is a treasonous act to speak the truth." - George Orwell

Barbara Tucker could not possibly be conceived to cause a riot simply by wearing a pink sparkly banner declaring "peace love and justice for all". Is her pink banner a threat to public order? Does Barbara Tucker pose a serious public threat to the order of the public? Is that a reasonable question to ask? How many times has Barbara Tucker, Steve Jago or Brian Haw been victimized and bullied by various officers of the law? (Babs - 59 times I believe). Is that a reasonable question to ask of a democratic society? Has sir ian blair ever accepted or admitted that an application to protest has been received, by himself, from Barbara Tucker, despite numerous court hearings and wasting of public funds; despite numerous emails and legal letters that have been exchanged through umpteen hands? Is that reasonable and is sir ian demonstrating his ability, or lack thereof, to reason reality from his own imaginary world?
Brian Haw has resided at Parliament Square day and night for over five years, just across from street from where Tony and the boys have eroded over 1000 years of law, there not being one terrorist incident at said location nor any assaults or acts of violence, except by officers of law against peaceful protesters. Is that a reasonable statement, a statement fact, a statement or a statement of fiction. Who is behaving sanely and whom are the lunatics? War does not bring peace; It just sells more weapons, makes more money, kills more children and brings more wars.

d) danger to property. The only property that has been damaged is that of the people which was gifted to Brian Haw and damaged by agents under direct orders from sir ian 'woof woof' blair. I would ask of the artist Mr. Banks as to whether he believes his gifted artwork, valued at some £50,000, was treated in a fair and reasonable fashion when it was removed carelessly, to say the least, in a clandestine early morning raid on 'free speech' that could only be perpetuated by the Joker himself. Is this a reasonable way to go about enforcing limitations to freedom of expression and/or speech as allowed for under the Human Rights Act, Article 10 and/or 11, I believe? Reasonable? Logical?

logical: adj. to do with or according to logic

logic: noun 1. the science of reasoning 2. a particular system or method of reason 3. a chain of reasoning regarded as good or bad

e) a disruption to the life of the community.

community: noun 1. the people living in one place or country and considered as a whole 2. a group with similar interests or origins 3. the state of having interests in common

e)(cont'd) I will assert that working in the community is not the same as living in the community by definition of each and every word of that statement. I will again assert that Maria and

Brian lives at Parliament Square as Brian Haw 's address is recognized by the Royal Courts of Justice to be Parliament Square. Maria is also known to the Metropolitan Police as residing at Parliament Square. On occasion, various other individual have made a conscious choice to live at Parliament Square for periods of time and have been recorded by several CCTv cameras as doing exactly that.

I would assert that the community must only be treated as a whole without neglecting one individual who abides within the 'designated area' specifically including peaceful protesters. Lastly I would assert that bullying tactics of a broad range have been used against a small segment of said community under the direct orders of sir ian, a.k.a. the JOKER or Tony Blair's political lap dog. I will assert that the only disruptive force within said community are the actors of this political police farce - notably the Charing Cross branch who have been known to have behaved in an deplorable fashion, in the past; curiously and specifically since the introduction of SOCPA. I would question whether bullying is a reasonable tactic for an officer of the law towards a peaceful member of society and the community. I question whether the Senior Officer of the Police of the Metropolis of London is reasonable to tolerate and condone bullying.

BULLYING: verb to use strength or power to hurt or frighten a weaker person... threaten, intimidate, coerce, domineer, tyrannize

BULLY: noun a person who tries to hurt or frighten people who are weaker

POWER: noun 1, strength or energy 2. the ability to do something

... to do something i.e. 1. illegally arrest a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable offence and only a reportable offence (Cuba? Russia? China? England? - dictatorships?) 2. illegally threaten to arrest a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable offence and only a reportable offence a.k.a. a breach of the peace - to incite fear - an arrestable offence 3. illegally physically threaten and/or physically harm a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable offence and only a reportable offence a.k.a. assault, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm - all arrestable offences 4. illegally arrest and detain a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable offence and only a reportable offence for any indeterminate amount of time a.k.a. kidnapping - an arrestable offence. Reasonable?

f) security risk.

security: noun 1. a state or feeling of being secure

secure: adj. 1. safe, especially against attack from a Latin word securus meaning 'free from worry', from se meaning 'apart' and cura meaning 'care'

f)(cont'd) In a democracy, is a verbal attack reasonable? Threatening someone verbally in order to cause or instigate fear is not a reasonable act in a safe democratic society.

Threatening to physically harm someone through dialogue is not reasonable in a safe and secure environment. Is accusing the government of a war crime considered a reasonable verbal attack? Is a reasonable display of evidence in the pictorial form known as photography and/or illustrated through artwork on canvass a security risk?

Did Maya Evans not grieve on queue at the appointed hour and minute as stated by the government as a time to grieve and therefore was her statement of the dead soldiers of this illegal war a security risk?

Is it reasonable for me to witness a gaggle of female cHARING cROSS police officers drive off only one group of several VISITING tourists, from Parliament Square, who sat peacefully and filmed Parliament and the tower that contains the bell, little known to many, named Big Ben. Please correct me if I am wrong.

When I have seen so many groups film parliament at various times of the twenty-four hour solar cycle, is citing the area as a "high security risk" a reasonable explanation for rude behavior, bullying tactics and general poor form as officers of the policing community? Was it reasonable of me to assume that their only crime was that they were black and were obviously, to myself, Moslem? Did I really witness a hate crime of a racist nature on behalf of those cows on bikes against peaceful tourists - a visiting sector and representatives of another community? Is institutional racism reasonable? Is it reasonable to assume that bullying a race or a religion goes against the laws of this multi-cultural society Tony Blair has for sale?

I met two famous comedians last Thursday. One was Mark Thomas from England and the other was from the Sudan, Africa. I don't find the Joker that heads the Met funny in the least. Are 'free speech' and/or the wearing of clothing recognized as an ethnic dress code and/or religious expression in attire truly a security risk in a democratic society? If sir ian blair truly believes the act of expressing the God given right of free speech is a security risk, is he a reasonable man? If so, I assert the man has 'lost his marbles', and I use the term 'man' loosely, regardless.

g) a risk to the public.

risk: noun 1. a situation involving the chance of suffering injury or loss 2. the possibility that something unpleasant will happen

risk: verb 1. to expose something to the chance of injury or loss

g)(cont'd) Is it reasonable to assume that someone will get hurt at the hands of a verbal assault - the most unpleasant angle of free speech? Can sticks and stones really break your bones? Yes... and bombs are made for certain destruction of human life. Will name calling ever really truly physically hurt someone or place them at risk of physical injury? Possibly, should the situation out of hand into physical violence. i.e. the behavior of some members of the Charing Cross Police station, not all.

Could the public loose something by being offered the opinions of its members of the community? Their ignorance, perhaps?

Are the presences of any group of individuals who obviously share a common bond to the naked eye a security risk or a risk to the public?

Have the reasoning abilities of sir ian blair, or lack thereof, ever been demonstrated to be, in the present or in the past, of a reasonable nature therefore indicating his capacity to hold a reasonable opinion ? I think not.

reasonable:adj. 1. fair and sensible 2. in accordance with reason, not absurd.

reason: noun 1. a cause, explanation or justification for something 2. the ability to think, understand, and draw conclusions 3. person's sanity 4. good sense or judgement;

common sense

absurd: adj. having little sense, ridiculous or foolish... silly laughable, ludicrous, preposterous, nonsensical; from a Latin word absurdus meaning 'out of tune'

pervert: verb to turn something from its proper course or use 2. to cause someone to behave wickedly or abnormally

I BELIEVE sir ian blair IS COLLUDING WITH tony blair, TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY; ABUSING SOCPA LEGISLATION, demolishing the what should be clearly defined lines between police and politics (lest we become a police state, God forbid!) AND INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE ENGLISH PUBLIC THROUGH THEIR CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF A LACK OF ABILITY TO REASON REALITY FROM THE IMAGINARY PERCIEVED THREATS OF TERRORISM CONCIEVED WITHIN THEIR OWN DIMENTED PSYCHES.

pervert: noun a person whose sexual behavior is thought to be abnormal or disgusting.

PERVERTS ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS OF SOCIETY: ALL PAEDOPHILES MUST immediately BE CLASSED AS DANGEROUS OFFENDERS - SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THOSE WHO COMMIT MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER; PERMANENTLY ISOLATED FROM ALL SOCIETIES CHILDREN and ALL SOCIETY FOR ALL TIME.

Do I need permission to have an opinion and to speak my mind or to sing a song?

"DO I FCUK" - French Connection U.K.


sir ian blair: do you exercise your free speech, power and authority regularly and freely or are you someone's pet monkey trained to dance on queue?
one ringy-dingy... two ringy-dingy...

tony... pick up the phone you soul-less monster. I do not approve of your war-mongering in this day and age, in this country or any other for that matter. War Kills Children.

Weapons are an evil abuse of the tax paying public funds While old English folks starve and freeze to death, you are too busy annihilating the social healthcare system for your 'Blue Cross' insurance buddies from over yonder pond to take any care and pay any attention to what is happening in your own country of origin - you simpleton. You stupidly are dumbing down the ordinary Joe Public's children's education system; pissing on democracy and what so many honorable men, women and children gave up their lives to protect - FREEDOM from ignorance and LIBERTY to be at peace. And you have the nerve to set how many 'nonses' free into the communities to molest our children again and again and again? You help protect the rights of those evil bastards over the rights of our children while you send our soldiers to kill other people's children - intentionally? Kiss my ass you evil, intolerant, arrogant, ignorant, phony, war-mongering, despicable sack of shite.

- Charity Sweet:


"stop inventing crimes and admit your own" on a plain white otherwise blank illegal placard

- anonymous author/artist of said placard, photographed physically supporting, as a lone individual, said placard above the sometimes green grass of Parliament Square in opposition to SOCPA and Tony Blair, its author; in unity and solidarity with Mark Thomas and Brian Haw and many, many other like-minded individuals as an expression of free speech and democracy in action and art.


sir ian blair on Barbara Tucker and her peaceful message of peace, love and justice for all - "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

- Harry: a kind representative and shining example of the witty, intelligent youth of England; a protester for peace














Sincerely,





Charity Sweet

















'wake up and smell the coffee'

anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging Brian W. Haw, Parliament Square, John Catt, Mark Thomas, Ziggy Abu and FCUK - all equally, greatly inspire free speech

www.howtobeanarmsdealer.com







N.B. It has been suggested to me that Broadmoor Prison would be a most appropriate secure location for Prime Minister Tony Blair should he feel there is a 'serious risk' posed to his security by some very peaceful and intelligent members of the community of London - members of the pacifist community a.k.a peace protesters; commonly known for their creative, peaceful tactics as well as being the lifeblood of any democratic society/community; specifically, those who permanently or temporarily reside within the 'designated area' assumed by said quasi-democratic government to be of a 'high security risk' to Mr. Tony Blair: the chief quasi-honest 'Nazi' leader in command of English 'pseudo-democracy', himself.

All hale fuhrer Tony! Hail Blair!

Kiss my ass once again, Tony.

I am not politically correct nor politically corrupt.

Word Wars you want? It's like having a battle of wits with the witless, you asinine fool. Without your corrupt 'nonse' judges on the bench and your 'politically corrupted' henchmen police... where would you be? Broadmoor, if not The Hague.

More the fool you... there are still good judges, good police officers, good reporters and good people in this great nation of England, despite your globalized efforts to corrupt society. Long live the English pound note! Stuff the EU, globalization and the New World Order - a one world system of completely corrupted 'nonse'nsical, irrational, illogically perverted government!

May HP sauce always be made on England's shores, not in America; no disrespect intended to the citizens of the U.S.A - definitely disrespecting your politicians as my own. Inevitably, Tony, you and your cronies will be the ass of English society for making an ass of English law.

Want some good advice? Stay away from da' cocaine - it gives folks irrelevant, inconsequential, false feelings of grandeur.

consequent: adj. happening as a result

consequence: noun 1. something that happens as a result of some event or action 2. importance; to take the consequences to accept the results of your choice or action from a Latin word consequi to 'follow closely'

hypocrite: noun a person who pretends to be more virtuous than he or she really is; from a Greek word meaning 'acting a part'

hypocrisy: noun falsely pretending to be virtuous

- Tony: F*CK you, your minions, and Bushy Boy from across the pond too.

virtuous: adj. having or showing moral virtue; good, moral, noble, righteous, upright

- God save the peace! S.O.S. Save our souls - please.

Ain't free speech a beautiful thang?

My baby girl received, yesterday, the Head Teacher's Award - a certificate and a medal for "Fantastic improvement in literacy and numeracy." How happy a mummy am I? Ballet starts soon... yippee! And my boy is going to boxing tonight for the first time. His grand father won many trophies in the British Royal Navy; for that and cross country running. I have already been told that his left foot and he are "rare as rocking horse shit" by a coach from Charlton, when he was just nine years old. I take pride in raising my children - my family. The world must change for the better, for them and for all the world's children.

There can be no doubt - change is the one thing that cannot be stopped. The sun raises its head to a new dawn every single day you are blessed enough to open your eyes and take a breath. What you do with that day belies where you lay your priorities and where your heart stands. I personally believe peace and free speech are worth demonstrating to the public and the politicians as worthwhile priceless gifts from the past, for the future. That's why today is called the present - it's a gift. It should never be allowed to be stolen from any child of any nation. Gifts were meant to be given.

Blair and Blair, the naughty pair, need to admit they are responsible for the theft of many, many priceless gifts given to Mr. Brian Haw and the world from the children and parents of the world, for his strength of mind and courage of heart, in aid of peace and justice for all humankind.


What I and what we, as peace protesters, do is for the children and the future, from the charity of our hearts, as my mum taught me to do and she was always right; not for gold and silver, acclaim and/or brown envelopes.


"I don't care was made to care and all the people who followed"

- my mum; as taught to me as was taught to her, by her mum


"Who took all Brian's stuff, mummy?" - my daughter

"The police." - me

"Why did the police steal all Brian's stuff mummy? That was naughty."

- my seven year old daughter. She saw how large the display of evidence had become the day before the dawn raid in which it was illegally taken and this was her first comment to me, the next day, when approaching Parliament square from some twenty to thirty feet away. She knows right from wrong. Do you?


Forever seeking that story of "The 100th Monkey" of kindness within the reality of the psyche of all humanity - Peace to everyone, everywhere, always. And the world... could be a better place...

- a mom and member of humankind






Kindest Regards,




Charity Sweet
XXX


















anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging the persistent efforts of Princess Diana Spencer, Steve, Babs, Chris, Maya, Mark, rikki, Eric, 'Mary Poppins' of Parliament Square, Maria and Brian and many more enlightened reasonable logical minds

















The Baa, Baa, Baa Statement
anti copyright Charity Sweet















1032 words
Baa, Baa, Baa: Tony’s Liberal Sheep


News Item: All Cabinet Sheep MUST support “genocide” in the political barnyard. Baa, Baa, Baa.

Some years ago on the Happy Farm in the land of the political cronies we have seen some political sheep follow their master, the political sheep-herder, into supporting ‘genocide’. It would have been a sight to behold; these woolly headed Cabinet Ministers all Baa, Baa, Baaing on cue when their shepherd and political ewe ram herds them all in the direction of the barnyard NONSEnse; watching them rise from their sheepish positions and bleating Baa, Baa, Baa, which means YES, YES, YES in Liberal lingo, to this deviation of law called ‘genocide.’

Hear them bleat: “We’re Liberal sheep and we can bleat, and you know where to find us. Following Tony, your pal - our crony, leaving our principles behind us.” This is a true Baa Baaing statement. The Liberal sheep, having no principles, just followed their sheep-herder as the sheep are fed, watered and housed in the ‘well guarded’ Happy Farm Houses. Some of the sheep have been there for years and have no desire to lose any of their feedstuffs and perks at the political trough. You see, ‘good’ sheep always follow their master’s voice. Baa, Baa, Baa. The political shepherd and his political lap police dog lead the way for the sheep to follow.

“WOOF, WOOF, WOOF!” barked Sir Ian Blair, the political lap police dog as he sent 78 British bull terriers to remove ‘free speech’ and all traces of ‘genocide’ from the SQUARE. “We must protect the ‘rights’ of those who are different from us sheep. We are a ‘non-discriminatory’ and ‘tolerant’ Funny Farm of ‘equality’, subject to the invented Barnyard rules of our Charter.”

Baa, Baa, Baa bleat the Liberal cabinet sheep in unison. Then they will all sing in bleating sheep language, “We’re Liberal sheep with no Bo Peep and we don’t know where to find her. But we’ll follow the Blair’s, the naughty pair, we’ll vote yes - we don’t need a reminder.” Hey, a nice tune from a bleating good herd.

A few years before that song and dance, on another Funny Farm where everyone is ‘Lordly’ and small ‘c’ conservative, those sheep had voted against lowering the legal age of sexual consent for homosexual males. In fact,,, three times the ‘Lordly c’ Farm said, “NO!” to the Happy Farm Houses. The ‘c’ sheep had no intention of changing this accepted ‘normal’ age of consent for homosexual males. But many of Tony’s cronies, were going Baa, Baa, Baa in support of this perversion of the ‘law’. And so, it came to be, Tony and his barnyard buddies invoked their very first Act of Parliament, effectively over-riding the ‘c’ sheep, and lowered the legal male/male age of sexual consent. Now that’s Baa Baa Baarking mad!

Tony says it’s all about ‘freedom’ and ‘security’. Funny Farm watcher’s have wondered if mad ‘Cow’ disease has infected the Blair’s and most of the other sheep for this sheepish behavior. Some humane animals are worried that perhaps these political sheep have swallowed their own sheep dip, resulting in a poisoning of their minds.

At one point, even the QUEEN BEE, had to remind Tony that the Army Ants were ‘hers’ and not ‘his’ - no ‘his and hers’ allowed. Could there be an explanation for this mind madness in the sheep? Rumor has it; there is a worry of mad ‘Cow’ disease in the Happy Farm Houses. A recent news headline said: “Mad Cow Disease found in German goat.” (NAZIsm?/HITLER? Ringing any bells folks?) Which raised the question: Did the German ‘goat’ interfere with the English ‘Cow’, and if this happened, could Liberal sheep get infected as well?

These are strange times on the Funny Farm, indeed. Still, this mad ‘Cow’ disease should be very worrying to the Liberal sheep. If this disease could jump from a ‘goat’, it could jump to a sheep as well. And wouldn’t that be ‘goat’-awful. (Hey, isn’t that an awful pun?) But here’s hoping no German ‘goats’ have infiltrated the Happy Farm Houses. Certainly, our Liberal sheep are acting very strangely. It would appear they are unable to think for themselves anymore. Their shepherd has trained them to stand up on their hind legs and show their support for ‘genocide’. Are they again planning to be Baa, Baa, Baaing YES to this in sheepish language denying ‘free speech’? Their shepherd says no sheep exemptions allowed.

Could mad ‘Cow’ disease have infected these cabinet sheep? Is their a German ‘goat’ loose in the Happy Farm Houses and chasing the sheep? If so, could the ‘goat’ be charged for sheep interference? Could this be an animal ‘hate crime’? Mad ‘Cow’ symptoms do attack the brain and can cause unnatural behavior to the thought processes. Does this mean the Happy Farm Houses across from the SQUARE will need to be QUARANTINED?

This is a very worrying situation for the inhabitants of the Funny Farm currently governed by the Happy Farm Houses. Who will run the Happy Farm if all the cabinet sheep are QUARANTINED? Would some other Liberal turkeys take charge? Is this ‘1984’ or 2006? Is this England or ‘Animal Farm’? These are important questions that need answers.

Hopefully, Tony, the ‘master political sheep-herder’, will hold a news conference and declare there is no mad ‘Cow’ or German ‘goat’ infecting his sheep and that they are all healthy to vote ‘stand trial’ for ‘genocide’ and a ‘failure of duty to protect all God’s children - small and great’ as this is no bull poop. Baa, Baa, Baa. The Liberal sheep have all been ‘swined’ and dined and now all must join in a celebration song of a sheepish victory: “We’re cabinet sheep who have lost their way, Baa, Baa, Baa. Liberal sheepsters not really free, Liberals in the grip of Insanity, Lord, have mercy on such as we. Baa, Baa, Baa.” What will the QUEEN BEE say?

(Paraphrasing, with apologies to Stephen Gray and the Whip and Poof oops I meant Whippenpoof song.)
Anti copyright acknowledging the farcical/genocidal/eugenical British/American/Canadian
Baa Baa Baarking mad government