Hiya,

As a mum, I was wondering if you were interested in a meeting my 8 year old Maranda is having with her Member of Parliament on February 15th, 2008 regarding the issues of a child's right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly as it is currently floundering beneath the current SOCPA 2005 legislation that has no prescribed processes as dictated it must within HRA 1998.

When any human right is interfered with by the state - there must be clear and legitimate aims for interfering with these rights and there must be precribed process; the crown is also duly bound by HRA 1998 in reality; whether they agree in law or in court is another question that is yet to be seen.

Below are 3 recent letters as sent to Sir Ian Blair - the Chief of Police, Jacqui Smith - the Home Secretary and Chief Inspector Wheeler of the 'events' dision of Charing Cross as lead by PC Roger S. Smith.


Sincerely,

Charity XXX
07950 133463



25 January 2008


Sir Ian Blair
Commissioner of Police
Scotland Yard
10 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG

Fax: 02072302133
email:  NEWSCOTLANDYARD.@MET.POLICE.UK


C/C:
Chief Inspector Ian Wheeler
CX - Charing Cross Police Station
Agar Street
London
WC2N 4DH



Dear Sir Blair,

Please read attached letter that was sent by myself in response to a letter sent to myself as a response to my daughter Miss Maranda Cameron’s compliance with the Metropolitan Police Force policy, completion of SOCPA notification form, and hand deliverance of said form to Charing Cross Police Station, on the below noted date of 18, October, 2007.

I look forward to your personal authorisation of my daughter’s right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as already guaranteed within HRA 1998, within 6 days as per SOCPA 2005 which I believe to be incompatible with HRA 1998.

I have posted a copy of this by way of the mailman, by way of email and I have also sent it by fax.

I trust that you will pass a copy on to Chief Inspector Wheeler regardless of whether he has done you the same courtesy in the past.

Until I am offered evidence under which lawful authority you are delegating your authority, I must reasonably assume that you are personally responsible for the letter or notice of authorisation that my daughter filled out your form, in order to receive, some three months previously.

I think we have been more than patient.

Regards,

Mrs. C. Sweet




03 November 2007


SOCPA Authorisation

Chief Inspector Ian Wheeler
CX - Charing Cross Police Station
Agar Street
London
WC2N 4DH


Chief Inspector Ian Wheeler:

Thank you for your letter dated October 30th and post marked October 31. I note my daughter Miss Maranda Cameron's notification form was completed and hand delivered on October 18th, 2007 at the same time, on the same day, to Charing Cross Station, as myself and my friend, Carolyn Emmerson. I am informed that Carolyn received her letter of authorisation some time last week and I received mine in today's post, dated October 24th, 2007 and post marked November 2nd, 2007.

I assume you or Detective Superintendent Peter Newman will also be writing a letter to my daughter, at either of your earliest convenience, as she is most excited to be receiving mail through the post and has been expecting a letter such as the one I received from yourself today. Her SOCPA experience will prove to be a most interesting lesson in civics and the role of an up-and-coming citizen of England, participating in a democracy, as she experiences it – from the perspective of an eight year old child.

Maranda has handed in a completed form as per the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act legislation states the required information to be given and the Metropolitan Police Force suggests; we are both waiting for an answer.

I understand from Metropolitan Police Form 3175A and SOCPA that the Commissioner may impose conditions on her rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. As I have received this letter from yourself, I am compelled to issue a response on behalf of my daughter, as her mother and the person who truly has her best welfare at heart.

I understand the SOCPA legislation states that conditions may be imposed if the Commissioner perceives or believes or assumes that the following must be prevented:

a) Hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster. Sir, I can assure you as can the Head of the Metropolitan Parliamentary Police Force, that I have never, in the past two years of being watching from various angles, from various CCTV cameras and dealt with by numerous police officers, ever obstructed the Queen's Highway nor moved with the public, out of the way of any incoming or outgoing vehicles of Parliament nor as a responsible parent would I place my daughter in such a ridiculous situation. It would be foolish to play hopscotch in the middle of any road or entranceway where one is expected to be moved on. I also have absolutely no desire to be mowed down by any manner of vehicle as I am a mother of three beautiful children and neither would I knowingly place my child in the way of an oncoming vehicle.

b) Hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament. I cannot see how children playing nicely could halt the proper operation of Parliament. Parliament could learn a thing or two from the children, I would dare to say.

c) Serious Public Disorder. Are children playing nicely or learning creating serious public disorder?

d) Serious damage to property. I can assure you that children playing nicely will do nothing but inspire the smiles on the face of London and will cause no destruction of property.

e) Disruption to life on the community. I believe that art only adds to the life of the community which is why children are generally encouraged to play with each other nicely – a lesson Maranda believes the adults could do with learning.

f) A security risk in any part of the designated area. Are children ever a security risk in any shape or form? Is being a child now a potential crime?

g) Risk to safety to members of the public. Once again? Is it risky for the public to be exposed to children in the community, in public? Is it not pleasant to stroll through an area where children are busy painting, or drawing or skipping and playing?
I have read the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act and do not accept that the Act allows for ageism - discrimination based upon age.

My daughter's form was filled out with the help of Mr. Chris Coverdale and she gave great thought to the answers she gave. Her questions were answered in the same fashion as myself and Carolyn Emmerson. I see no reason why myself and my child should have to attend a meeting so as she may be interrogated by yourself so as you may "ascertain your (and Maranda's) intentions and understanding of this application".

I kindly decline your offer of a meeting and would appreciate yourself or another officer from the 'events' division of Charing Cross Police Station to post a letter of authorisation to my daughter, at your earliest convenience, with or without conditions as the Commissioner may see fit to impose on a child and/or children.

I look forward to hearing your response at your earliest convenience.



Regards,



Mrs. C. Sweet


17 January 2008


Government Consultation on SOCPA 2005

Attention:
The Home Secretary of England - Ms. Smith

Managing Protest around Parliament
Public Order Unit
Home Office
5th Floor Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Dear Ms. Smith,

I hardly know where to begin.

Please find enclosed a copy of the Bill to repeal SOCPA 2005 by Baroness Miller of Chilthorn Domer; secondly, a copy of the Website repeal-SOCPA.info - a mainstream, reasonable, intellectual written observation of the issue at hand to which I agree completely; lastly, a letter from myself to Chief Inspector Wheeler to which neither myself nor my daughter have yet received a response to regarding her notification and her outstanding notice of authorisation to which the Commissioner of the Metropolis of London is lawfully bound by SOCPA 2005, to give within 6 days.

As the Commissioner is the only officer who may impose conditions and has not as yet offered any proof to myself that he has delegated his authority as I would reasonably request of him should he delegate his authority, I am assuming that Sir Ian Blair is personally responsible for the neglect to authorise my 8 year old child to her rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly to which I believe, as a mother, you have absolutely no lawful right to interfere with.

I understand the Human Rights Act was brought into English domestic law in 1998 which binds the Crown and employees of the Crown and that any interference with any of these rights must have a clear legitimate aim and be prescribed in law. There are no prescribed processes within SOCPA 2005 and the only clear aim I can see of this ludicrous legislation is not legitimate and deeply unlawful as it is, in reality, been placed by the Parliament and penned by Tony Blair under the past Home Secretary, as a gag order on political dissent; firstly, upon freedom of speech and presently, freedom of assembly is being placed under ‘attack’ by the present Home Secretary.

I reasonably want to know exactly who I am dealing with and understand exactly under which lawful authority that party is acting. I do not believe that to be an unreasonable request.

It is my understanding that this legislation was quoted in Parliament as “a hammer to crack a nut” in reference to Mr. Brian W. Haw whose father was one of the first soldiers to enter the horrors of the Bergen-Belson concentration camp and rescue the victims of the Nazi Regime; an honourable deed one must concede.

Mr. Haw has been to Cambodia and born witness to ‘the killing fields’ from another war of another generation, yet another human tragedy of which most of humanity is capable of understanding should they dare to understand the reality of cause and effect., the natural laws of physics.

If you any doubt in your mind whatsoever with regard to the unfettered powers that have been disgracefully put upon certain objectionable members of the Metropolitan Police Force, I insist that you spend 5 minutes of your precious time within your consultation to view this video of events from last Saturday’s peaceful protest against the gag order on free speech and banning order upon freedom of assembly you are attempting to hang like a black cloud over this great nation of free thinkers.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2008/01//389502.wmv
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2008/01//389531.wmv

The Nuremburg Principles clearly define what a war crime is. The International Criminal Court Act of 2001 defines personal criminal accountability including conduct ancillary to genocide which this government has reduced paying taxes, in support of an illegal war, to.

The Statutes of Rome 1998, specifically article 25, clearly define criminal responsibility with regards to aiding and abetting, including providing the means to commit, war crimes.

As England was the founding signatory and Australia became the 60th member state to ratify this lawful attempt to shield human life from crimes of war, one would assume that the freedom to express these facts is what is utmost in the mind of Mr. Brian W. Haw amongst many others he has inspired in his cries for the brutalised peoples of Iraq – genocide is a war crime and Gordon Brown as well as Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmith and many others, are war criminals and should be immediately detained and sent for trial at the Hague for their complicity in war crimes against humanity through their use of depleted uranium and various other absolutely horrendous weapons of this grossly illegal war.

It is of great national and public importance to repeal the SOCPA gag order on free speech, which is vital to the future police state this nation will be placed under should SOCPA be spread like the plague over the nation. To remedy the past is to remove such a gag order from the people in a truly free and truly democratic nation.

I look forward to your personal response at your earliest convenience. Upon receipt of this letter it is presumed that the above noted legislation will be completely read and understood by those involved in the business of working for crown and country, upholding both national and international law and entirely personally accountable to said legislation.



Regards,


Mrs. Charity Sweet

I pulled this little gem off of wikipedia.


Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions (30 November 2007)


Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] EWHC 3019 (Admin) (30 November 2007) This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellant was convicted under section 132 (1) (c) of the Serious Organized Crimes and Police Act (SOCPA) of being within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, carried on unauthorised demonstration by herself in a public place in a designated area, namely Parliament Square. Her defence was that Mr Brian Haw had invited her to join him in his demonstration. He gave evidence on her behalf to that effect. The magistrate said: "Had I accepted this evidence (which I did not) it would have been argued that the allegation that she had 'carried on an unauthorised demonstration by herself ..... ' could not have been made out, and further more (in my view incorrectly) that it would provide a defence by saying that as Mr Haw is safe from prosecution anyone who joins him is also safe." The question posed by the magistrate was: "Was it lawful under section 6 (1) HRA to convict the appellant?" The Administrative Court held that SOCPA was not incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (specifically, Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly)), and Ms Tucker's conviction was therefore lawful.


In this case, irrefutable evidence was offered regarding Babs and Brian wearing matching book-end pink sparkly banners and DJ N. Evans refusing to accept the truth of the evidence and reality.


There is a pattern of judges refusing to believe the truth as in the contempt case of Haw and Tucker at Southwark Crown Court with QC Rivlin who refused to accept that Babs was ill on the day of supposedd shouting and contempt of court, just like Evans refused to accept that Babs was with Brian. Rivlin refused to accept that I was listed on the day and my case was adjourned or that I was even present or not present on the day of the alleged contempt offences, as the case may be.

A funny co-incidence is that I am to appear before his sideshow, the Rivlin freak-show of a Crown Court, on Feb. 7, 2008 regarding my conviction pertaining to this summons for standing outside the gates of Downing Street with an old wooden English door gratified with the words free speech, faith, hope and charity.

I am an artist.

I was exhibiting art.

Bollocks to Goebbels Brown.

Repeal SOCPA.

Collateral damage? One of the basic principles of international humanitarian law: that military action must distinguish between military targets and civilian targets.

Fourth Geneva Convention

Part I. General Provisions
This sets out the overall parameters for GCIV:
• Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.
• Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
• Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations with in the State in whose hands they are.
• A number of articles specify how Protecting Powers, ICRC and other humanitarian organizations may aid Protected persons.
Protected person is the most important definition in this section because many of the articles in the rest of GCIV only apply to Protected persons.
Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the American Administration's interpretation of unlawful combatants.

Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War
Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons
Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.
The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in part, in response to experiments by German and Japanese doctors during World War II, of whom Josef Mengele was the most infamous.
Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.
Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. This right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right of return" and has been reaffirmed in later international treaties and conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

International treaty for the renunciation of war

The 1927 Kellogg-Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, and remains a binding treaty under international law. In the United States, it remains in force as federal law (see U.S. Const. art. VI).

As a practical matter, the Kellogg-Briand Pact did not live up to its aim of ending war, and in this sense it made no immediate contribution to international peace and proved to be ineffective in the years to come; the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, and the German invasion of Poland in 1939, were prime examples of this. However, the pact is an important multilateral treaty because, in addition to binding the particular nations that signed it, it has also served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat[1] or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it[2], are unlawful.

Notably, the pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace — it was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II.
The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations Charter, which states in article 2 paragraph 4 that
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The consequence of this is that after World War II, nations have been forced to invoke the right of self-defense or the right of collective defense when using military action and have also been prohibited from annexing territory by force.

Mr Chris Coverdale making wars history

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GxL2M5wpFQ

Charity Sweet XXX