Mayor of London & Agent provocatuers v Brian Haw's PSPC
babs tucker | 28.06.2010 23:35 | Liverpool
A PUBLIC INQUIRY THANX into:
a) which part of DPP V Jones 1999 & the reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE do the state not get?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm
a) which part of DPP V Jones 1999 & the reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE do the state not get?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm
THE MAYOR & AGENT PROVOCATEURS V BRIAN HAWS PARLIAMENT SQUARE PEACE CAMPAIGN
A PUBLIC INQUIRY THANX into:
a) which part of DPP V Jones 1999 & the reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE do the state not get?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm
b) the illegal use of agent provocateurs to – repeatedly - bring “proceedings”.
(it is not good enough for Justice Griffith Williams to sidestep the issue by saying any injunction can apply to unknowns – when the issue is it is illegal to bring – let alone such serious ‘proceedings’ through the use of agent provocateurs)
In a very small area of central London, Parliament, the Metropolitan Police, CPS, Judiciary and quite a few London ‘human rights’ law firms, have been eternally sidestepping the fact that is admitted in the House of Lords ruling DPP v Jones 1999 that the state cannot interfere in a reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE.
The state cannot lawfully treat people differently in a small part of Central London. The same law regarding what is the reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE must apply throughout the country.
On 29th June 2010, in what is sure to be the latest sidestep by Justice Griffith- Williams who demonstrated previous spectacularly bad form, towards Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, while he was sitting with the current President of the Supreme Court Lord Philips of Maltravers (Genocide – what Genocide ?) in Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin) (06 August 2007) will deliver another “ruling” at 2pm in the High Court in HQ10X01980, HQ10X01981.
This time the politician and oil traders darling will give his - judgement – over whether a politician: ie Boris can arbitrarily get a High Court Injunction to send anyone to prison who dares to peacefully campaign in a PUBLIC SPACE, in a small area of Central London outside err...government.
This has been rather a curious “case” for all manner of reasons.
The fairy tale that is currently (not) being spun (entirely smoothly) seems to be that SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 which used to apply to all of Parliament Square now just applies to the pavement while Boris’s replica bye-law, applies to the grass.
Refer: Democracy Village’s bestest friend, the current Commissoner of the Metropolis, saying in the Evening Standard on 26th May 2010:
Met Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson said it was not the job of the police to evict the campaigners: “We need to make sure that the Met does our job and does not undertake other people's responsibility. That land is owned by the Greater London Authority and it is for them and the Mayor to decide what they want to do with it.”
While the Mayor claims he doesn’t give authorization without authorization under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 from the police first !!!!
In the free for all where everything ‘applies’ to the PSPC, the fact that the Commissioner of the Metropolis is claiming that SOCPA does not apply to Parliament Square GREEN seems to have escaped the attention of ALL the lawyers.
And god knows what the Conservative leader of Westminster Council a Mr Barrow was on about when he said: “We're delighted that Boris is getting on with it and what's necessary now is that we actually change the law. We have got to get to grips with this.”
There is of course considerable irony - that while the Mayor has authorized the astonishing amount of 250k to “enforce” a bye-law through injunction proceedings in the High Court, the MET are conspicuously refusing to “enforce’ the no alcohol bye- law.
So solicitors and barristers from Bindmans, Garden Court Chambers, Birnberg Pierce and Doughty, have been dancing around all over the place with all manner of things, while avoiding like the plague – the obvious – a Declaration of Incompatibility regarding SOCPA 2005 ss 132- 138 & Boris’ by- law that in any event replicates SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138.
A Declaration of Incompatibility regarding SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 and the bye-law would bring the situation in line with the rest of the country & Brian Haw could rely on HIS identical case in WCC v Haw 2002 (which applies the principles of DPP v Jones) where Brian Haw was found to not be an unreasonable obstruction in a PUBLIC SPACE.
Proceedings that could hardly be said to have been brought expeditiously against PSPC, have illegally been bulldozed through at enormous speed, in breach of Article 6 of the HRA, using “CPR 55”, which clearly did not apply to PSPC, which has been using public space in Parliament Square – both - on the footpath and the green for NINE years. The fact that there is a counterclaim which would involve the option of a JURY trial instead has – also - been swept under the carpet, as the judge refused to allow time for even particulars of claim in the counter claim to be served.
Ken Livingstone had a go at PSPC, twice on 17th & 18th August 2007, and again on 17th October 2007, all without any two - way dialogue or any court orders; a fact that has been breezed over by the court.
All the more extraordinary, when you consider that the Land Registry shows that a first registration of ‘title’ for Parliament Square was not made until 19th February 2008.
I guess nothing is surprising in the latest land grab by the state whose far from ‘legal system’, has after all unilaterally ‘imposed’ itself by force on millions of innocent civilians throughout the world for hundreds of years.
Brian Haw is of course the first man in hundreds of years of UK colonialism/globalisation to consistently stand out side government telling them what they are doing is wrong, while promoting the universal message of “Peace, Love & Justice For All”.
http://www.brianhaw.tv/index.php
Apparently, all of this, is outside Parliaments’ own and indeed some people’s sphere of experience/consciousness.
I guess no state has ever truly “allowed” Freedom of Expression. It is just a warm and fuzzy concept attached to the equally false idea of democracy – created so people feel okay about themselves.
“I will not live within the lie, I don’t do denial and I refuse to be indifferent to the suffering of my fellow human being.”
I am saying: “We need a universal system of justice that protects the people – everywhere - from business and government.”
If human beings can create a global community of business, then equally we can create a universal system of justice that protects the people – everywhere - from the mass murderers in business and government.
PSPC chose not to be associated with the Democracy Village who I see as essentially promoting just another capitalist lifestyle of alcohol and drugs unsurprisingly under the banner of democracy, because democracy claims to be everything for everyone, while it really is about a few making a killing (out of the suffering of the many).
I think the label of democracy is probably often used as a distraction to not talk about & sweep away what is really important, which is justice for everyone.
If you can get away with mass murder as governments are, it hardly seems surprising to me, that everything, everyone else complains about happens.
------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of AGENT PROVOCATEURS.
An agent provocateur may be a police officer or a secret agent of police who encourages suspects to carry out a crime under conditions where evidence can be obtained; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion and be convicted of the crime.
A political organization or government may use agents provocateurs against political opponents. The provocateurs try to incite the opponent to do counter-productive or ineffective acts to foster public disdain—or provide a pretext for aggression against the opponent (see Red-baiting).
Historically, labor spies, hired to infiltrate, monitor, disrupt, or subvert union activities, have used agent provocateur tactics.
Agent provocateur activities raise ethical and legal issues. In common law jurisdictions, the legal concept of entrapment may apply if the main impetus for the crime was the provocateur.
------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that on 13th January 2010, - in reply to police caution at Belgravia Police Station, - I named Maria Gallastegui as an agent provocateur specifically in Parliament Square. This was in relation to my “arrest” during an illegal search under S17(1) e PACE Act 1984 on the previous State Opening on 18th November 2009, when unusually, Maria Gallastegui, Simon Moore and a Dean Puckett were also present.
A trial that was suddenly illegally vacated was due to take place on 29th April 2010.
If that trial had taken place on 29th April 2010, a) I could not have been “arrested” again at the latest State Opening on 25th May 2010, nor b) could the proceedings regarding Boris have been brought as I have claimed through the illegal use of agent provocateurs.
The very many members of Democracy Village who were present in the Royal Courts of Justice on 21st June 2010, developed collective amnesia that Justice Griffith – Williams illegally threatened me with contempt of court when I fronted up on 21st June 2010 and publicly named Maria Gallastegui (who had chosen not to be present while the GLA had refused to name her as a Defendant), Chris Coverdale, Simon Moore and the (far from) ‘Friend’ aka Ian Hobbs (who were present) as agent provocateurs and demanded to give evidence against them, where at least the three who were present could then be cross examined on that basis and a judicial decision arrived at, over what is – legally speaking - a very serious matter.
My solicitor, who then asked the 'court' to withdraw from ‘representing’ me along with my barrister on 22nd June 2010, asked to speak with me and during this brief instant, Tony Benn was quickly installed on the witness stand in my place and my giving evidence against agent provocateurs, blocked, because of course any evidence of agent provocateurs had to go first.
Democracy Village also developed collective amnesia that after Tony Benn had said Brian Haw was a hero who was before his time, Brian Haw had reminded Tony Benn that TB knew he was appearing for “controlled opposition” etc.
It remains that I am entitled to a public hearing to present evidence of agent provocateurs, and have witnesses cross examined to arrive at a proper judicial determination that it is for example (seriously) illegal to (repeatedly) bring criminal or in this case civil proceedings through the use of agent provocateurs.
It is of course pretty ghastly that the state has provided legal aid to defend the use of agent provocateurs, who have been joined at the hip to us in these High Court “proceedings”….
A PUBLIC INQUIRY THANX into:
a) which part of DPP V Jones 1999 & the reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE do the state not get?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm b) the illegal use of agent provocateurs to – repeatedly - bring “proceedings”.
(it is not good enough for Justice Griffith Williams to sidestep the issue by saying any injunction can apply to unknowns – when the issue is it is illegal to bring – let alone such serious ‘proceedings’ through the use of agent provocateurs)
In a very small area of central London, Parliament, the Metropolitan Police, CPS, Judiciary and quite a few London ‘human rights’ law firms, have been eternally sidestepping the fact that is admitted in the House of Lords ruling DPP v Jones 1999 that the state cannot interfere in a reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE.
The state cannot lawfully treat people differently in a small part of Central London. The same law regarding what is the reasonable use of PUBLIC SPACE must apply throughout the country.
On 29th June 2010, in what is sure to be the latest sidestep by Justice Griffith- Williams who demonstrated previous spectacularly bad form, towards Brian Haw’s Parliament Square Peace Campaign, while he was sitting with the current President of the Supreme Court Lord Philips of Maltravers (Genocide – what Genocide ?) in Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin) (06 August 2007) will deliver another “ruling” at 2pm in the High Court in HQ10X01980, HQ10X01981.
This time the politician and oil traders darling will give his - judgement – over whether a politician: ie Boris can arbitrarily get a High Court Injunction to send anyone to prison who dares to peacefully campaign in a PUBLIC SPACE, in a small area of Central London outside err...government.
This has been rather a curious “case” for all manner of reasons.
The fairy tale that is currently (not) being spun (entirely smoothly) seems to be that SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 which used to apply to all of Parliament Square now just applies to the pavement while Boris’s replica bye-law, applies to the grass.
Refer: Democracy Village’s bestest friend, the current Commissoner of the Metropolis, saying in the Evening Standard on 26th May 2010:
Met Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson said it was not the job of the police to evict the campaigners: “We need to make sure that the Met does our job and does not undertake other people's responsibility. That land is owned by the Greater London Authority and it is for them and the Mayor to decide what they want to do with it.”
While the Mayor claims he doesn’t give authorization without authorization under SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 from the police first !!!!
In the free for all where everything ‘applies’ to the PSPC, the fact that the Commissioner of the Metropolis is claiming that SOCPA does not apply to Parliament Square GREEN seems to have escaped the attention of ALL the lawyers.
And god knows what the Conservative leader of Westminster Council a Mr Barrow was on about when he said: “We're delighted that Boris is getting on with it and what's necessary now is that we actually change the law. We have got to get to grips with this.”
There is of course considerable irony - that while the Mayor has authorized the astonishing amount of 250k to “enforce” a bye-law through injunction proceedings in the High Court, the MET are conspicuously refusing to “enforce’ the no alcohol bye- law.
So solicitors and barristers from Bindmans, Garden Court Chambers, Birnberg Pierce and Doughty, have been dancing around all over the place with all manner of things, while avoiding like the plague – the obvious – a Declaration of Incompatibility regarding SOCPA 2005 ss 132- 138 & Boris’ by- law that in any event replicates SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138.
A Declaration of Incompatibility regarding SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 and the bye-law would bring the situation in line with the rest of the country & Brian Haw could rely on HIS identical case in WCC v Haw 2002 (which applies the principles of DPP v Jones) where Brian Haw was found to not be an unreasonable obstruction in a PUBLIC SPACE.
Proceedings that could hardly be said to have been brought expeditiously against PSPC, have illegally been bulldozed through at enormous speed, in breach of Article 6 of the HRA, using “CPR 55”, which clearly did not apply to PSPC, which has been using public space in Parliament Square – both - on the footpath and the green for NINE years. The fact that there is a counterclaim which would involve the option of a JURY trial instead has – also - been swept under the carpet, as the judge refused to allow time for even particulars of claim in the counter claim to be served.
Ken Livingstone had a go at PSPC, twice on 17th & 18th August 2007, and again on 17th October 2007, all without any two - way dialogue or any court orders; a fact that has been breezed over by the court.
All the more extraordinary, when you consider that the Land Registry shows that a first registration of ‘title’ for Parliament Square was not made until 19th February 2008.
I guess nothing is surprising in the latest land grab by the state whose far from ‘legal system’, has after all unilaterally ‘imposed’ itself by force on millions of innocent civilians throughout the world for hundreds of years.
Brian Haw is of course the first man in hundreds of years of UK colonialism/globalisation to consistently stand out side government telling them what they are doing is wrong, while promoting the universal message of “Peace, Love & Justice For All”.
http://www.brianhaw.tv/index.php Apparently, all of this, is outside Parliaments’ own and indeed some people’s sphere of experience/consciousness.
I guess no state has ever truly “allowed” Freedom of Expression. It is just a warm and fuzzy concept attached to the equally false idea of democracy – created so people feel okay about themselves.
“I will not live within the lie, I don’t do denial and I refuse to be indifferent to the suffering of my fellow human being.”
I am saying: “We need a universal system of justice that protects the people – everywhere - from business and government.”
If human beings can create a global community of business, then equally we can create a universal system of justice that protects the people – everywhere - from the mass murderers in business and government.
PSPC chose not to be associated with the Democracy Village who I see as essentially promoting just another capitalist lifestyle of alcohol and drugs unsurprisingly under the banner of democracy, because democracy claims to be everything for everyone, while it really is about a few making a killing (out of the suffering of the many).
I think the label of democracy is probably often used as a distraction to not talk about & sweep away what is really important, which is justice for everyone.
If you can get away with mass murder as governments are, it hardly seems surprising to me, that everything, everyone else complains about happens.
------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of AGENT PROVOCATEURS.
An agent provocateur may be a police officer or a secret agent of police who encourages suspects to carry out a crime under conditions where evidence can be obtained; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion and be convicted of the crime.
A political organization or government may use agents provocateurs against political opponents. The provocateurs try to incite the opponent to do counter-productive or ineffective acts to foster public disdain—or provide a pretext for aggression against the opponent (see Red-baiting).
Historically, labor spies, hired to infiltrate, monitor, disrupt, or subvert union activities, have used agent provocateur tactics.
Agent provocateur activities raise ethical and legal issues. In common law jurisdictions, the legal concept of entrapment may apply if the main impetus for the crime was the provocateur.
------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that on 13th January 2010, - in reply to police caution at Belgravia Police Station, - I named Maria Gallastegui as an agent provocateur specifically in Parliament Square. This was in relation to my “arrest” during an illegal search under S17(1) e PACE Act 1984 on the previous State Opening on 18th November 2009, when unusually, Maria Gallastegui, Simon Moore and a Dean Puckett were also present.
A trial that was suddenly illegally vacated was due to take place on 29th April 2010.
If that trial had taken place on 29th April 2010, a) I could not have been “arrested” again at the latest State Opening on 25th May 2010, nor b) could the proceedings regarding Boris have been brought as I have claimed through the illegal use of agent provocateurs.
The very many members of Democracy Village who were present in the Royal Courts of Justice on 21st June 2010, developed collective amnesia that Justice Griffith – Williams illegally threatened me with contempt of court when I fronted up on 21st June 2010 and publicly named Maria Gallastegui (who had chosen not to be present while the GLA had refused to name her as a Defendant), Chris Coverdale, Simon Moore and the (far from) ‘Friend’ aka Ian Hobbs (who were present) as agent provocateurs and demanded to give evidence against them, where at least the three who were present could then be cross examined on that basis and a judicial decision arrived at, over what is – legally speaking - a very serious matter.
My solicitor, who then asked the 'court' to withdraw from ‘representing’ me along with my barrister on 22nd June 2010, asked to speak with me and during this brief instant, Tony Benn was quickly installed on the witness stand in my place and my giving evidence against agent provocateurs, blocked, because of course any evidence of agent provocateurs had to go first.
Democracy Village also developed collective amnesia that after Tony Benn had said Brian Haw was a hero who was before his time, Brian Haw had reminded Tony Benn that TB knew he was appearing for “controlled opposition” etc.
It remains that I am entitled to a public hearing to present evidence of agent provocateurs, and have witnesses cross examined to arrive at a proper judicial determination that it is for example (seriously) illegal to (repeatedly) bring criminal or in this case civil proceedings through the use of agent provocateurs.
It is of course pretty ghastly that the state has provided legal aid to defend the use of agent provocateurs, who have been joined at the hip to us in these High Court “proceedings”….
babs tucker