It's really odd that the only person to complain and claim to be a victim of my gob regarding the use of a megaphone outside the Houses of Parliament happened to to a copper, albeit off duty...

It's really strange that her testimony is directly in contradiction to the seven police officers that are witnesses on the day... she has been telling porkie-pies and it's still a criminal offence to talk shit in a witness statement that is being used in the courts... she should know better, silly cow.

At least the officers are telling the truth albeit they cherry-picked the statements I used and did not put them into the appropriate context in which I used them.

The officers neglected to state that I explained the Nurembourg Principles that were written after WW2 to prevent further war crimes from committed by any governments in power...

They neglected to reference my reference to the Kellog Briande Pact which numerous countries signed renunciating war and specifically war crimes...

They neglected to reference the Treasonous Acts of this government and the complicity of the Metropolitan police farce under Sir Ian Blair suppressing the war crime investigation crime report that is never to be investigated and certainly won't be reported...

They neglected to reference their own crimes of misprision of treason as to be aware of treason and not act is a crime in itself...

They neglected to reference the fact that paying taxes has been reduced to a war crime in itself as under Article 25 of the Statutes of Rome, providing the means for a war crimes - paying taxes or fines to a government that is committing war crimes - is also in intself, a war crime.

They left out a few bits and at least I can say that they are for the most part honest in their recollection of the truth, albeit selective. Impartial eveidence collecting is not the strongest point of the MET, I have learnt, collecting evidence as to innocense and/or guilt.

Yes I did say Bollocks on numerous occasions, specifically bollocks to Blair...

I wonder if the English public still assumes the right to publicly say bollocks when 'bollocks' is the most appropriate term to use when addressing this government.

Should my use of the word offend the public - causing harrassment, alarm or distress or is this a huge steaming pile of shit otherwise known as BOLLOCKS?

I welcome any response and any debate regarding these matters of bollocks.

Article 10 - Human Rights ACT 1998 - Freedom of Expression

Do I have the right to say bollocks on English soil in front of Parliament or not?

Charity Sweet XXX