Bollocks 2 Blair - genocide is a war crime
Bollocks to the MET - mugging, assaulting and kidnapping me in front of my child.
What goes around comes around and there is gonna be hell to pay for the actions of some members of the MET!
What in God's name must the good officers of the Met think when they witness their colleagues abusing women and the law in broad daylight?
Sir Ian Blair - Bollocks to you for bringing the good officers of the Met into disrepute for your criminality! Bollocks to you!
Bollocks to the MET - mugging, assaulting and kidnapping me in front of my child.
What goes around comes around and there is gonna be hell to pay for the actions of some members of the MET!
What in God's name must the good officers of the Met think when they witness their colleagues abusing women and the law in broad daylight?
Sir Ian Blair - Bollocks to you for bringing the good officers of the Met into disrepute for your criminality! Bollocks to you!
Formal Complaint – Statement of Fact ‘Whiteboard Crime’
Attn:
Tony Bliar
Sir Ian Blair c/o Scotland Yard
Superintendent Terry c/o Charing Cross Police Station
Senior officer at Marylebone Police Station
Senior Officer at West End Central Police Station
On May 1, 2007, the following occurred:
A. Illegal seizure of personal property:
A piece of my artwork on a whiteboard was illegally seized tantamount to a mugging. Said property was later returned on the same day from Charing Cross Police Station (CX) only after my eight year old daughter was demanded to be present to sign for said property. (?)
The mystery of the ‘whiteboard crime’ begins…
I would assume that the majority of the Metropolitan Police force is familiar with Mr. Brian W. Haw and his Peace campaign located at Parliament Square, Westminster, London, England.
Mr. Haw’s “demonstration” as the word is currently undefined within SOCPA legislation – the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act – is an “authorized” “demonstration” although being exempt in a reasonable rational sense of the legislation and despite no longer currently being recognized as such given the current political climate of the judiciary.
Under current state imposed “conditions” of Sir Ian Blair, Mr. Haw is currently “allowed” 19 members of humanity to be physically present with him in Parliament Square to support him in his “allowed” 3meter X 3meter X 1meter heartfelt expression of his humanity – a campaign for global peace. This is a complete nonsense in my mind.
54% of the Channel 4 viewers who participated and voted for their choice of the award ‘Britain’s most politically inspiring individual’ chose Mr. Haw which reasonably suggests that numerically speaking, more than 54 people in Great Britain alone, support Mr. Haw, let alone globally, as he is world renown and globally supported despite said people not being physically present in Parliament Square.
How could 19 people realistically resemble or possibly represent the global call for PEACE he has sustained for almost 6 years, which he alone has inspired within humankind?
Regardless of that fact, I as a human being and a mother of 3 children, including my children are guaranteed Freedom of Assembly through Article 11 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) as penned into English law in 1998 by Mr. Tony Blair. As such, my youngest daughter and myself were legally entitled to peacefully assemble together at Parliament Square and play hopscotch on the pavement.
Regardless of that fact, on May, 1, 2007, it was clearly asserted by various members of the public including Mr. Haw and Mrs. Tucker that I was present as part of the “authorized” “demonstration” of Mr. Haw, as one of his 19 “allowed” supporters – my youngest daughter being another supporter. I was further falsely arrested at CX, while in cells, for “demonstrating ‘outside’ the SOCPA zone as the same arresting officer who had already violently assaulted me on the pavement, did not have a ‘Scooby do’ clue as to what he was talking about or what he had been told to further arrest me for. Malicious? Hmmm…
He was only doing as he was told to do by which idiot(s)?
I am an artist and I was clearly exhibiting a piece of artwork.
Only the day before, I had chalked my artistic expression, as also guaranteed through Article 10 of HRA - English Law, onto the pavement of Parliament Square, in front of the statue of Winston Churchill – PEACE IS POSSIBLE.
On numerous occasions the Metropolitan Police (the MET) have threatened to arrest me for criminal damage (?) for drawing pictures on public pavement, where free access is granted to the public, with “washable sidewalk chalk” causing me harassment, alarm and distress – an assault by legal definition.
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God” - the Bible.
This particular phrase warrants some thought when assessing Tony’s crap legislation SOCPA – a gag order on FREE SPEECH.
I fail to understand the rational behind such asinine behavior. One does not expect to be threatened with arrest and a criminal record for drawing pictures that will disappear with the next rainfall.
The first movie I ever saw in a movie theatre was ‘Mary Poppins’. I do not remember any member of the police force, in any scene from that movie, threatening Dick Van Dyke with arrest.
The state is making a farce of the police, which is completely unacceptable in my mind. The police are a vital organ of any civilized society including doctors and nurses and firemen and ambulance drivers etc. and should be treated with respect, no be ordered by their superiors to commit criminal acts.
I would assert that the while the majority of the Met are just and decent people simply trying to do their job and uphold the law, there are numerous ‘bad apples’ who enjoy abusing their position of power against the peaceful public. I believe the correct terminology for such ‘people’ to be sadists and masochists.
N.B. It has also been brought to my attention that many Met officers are not comfortable with enforcing SOCPA as they are being made fools of and scapegoats for the state, reducing policing to a farce.
B. Assault and Battery:
Using “pain compliance” techniques on a pacifist until she uses profanity solely directed at her attackers instead of physically retaliating to said violence in order to create an offence and further entrap a peaceful member of society is unreasonable, to say the least.
All officers present on May 1, 2007 were clearly and loudly, verbally warned that any use of physical force would be legally deemed an assault and battery, should and injuries be sustained which is exactly what happened.
Numerous, various officers publicly exhibited absolutely disgraceful behavior on behalf of the state within exactly what legal framework without any provocation not any justification.(?) I assert that this was an ‘ARREST TO ORDER’.
I am presently covered in bruises and my skin is broken is various places.
C. False Arrest:
I was falsely arrested for ‘breach of the peace’, which is “taking the piss”, for swearing at my attackers instead of crying out in pain?
For the love of God, I was physically attacked by a gang of ‘men’ – 20 OFFICERS, in broad daylight, in a place of public access, while my property was illegally seized with violence.
All officers present for said planned attack were causing my daughter harassment, alarm and distress interestingly deemed an assault against a child within English law and reality.
This entire fiasco took place within 2 meters of my 8-year-old child.(???)
Absolute sheer madness.
D. False imprisonment:
In front of my child, I was kidnapped as reported and recorded by a 999 call to Scotland Yard on the day.
The police terrified my child through assaulting her mother in her presence, right before her very eyes. The MET made her cry and then denied me my right as a mother to soothe her distress and console her fears by placing my arms around her due to the fact that my arms were secured in rear-stack handcuffs with various officers using “pain compliance” techniques to force my compliance to exactly what?
My Human Right as guaranteed by Article 5 of HRA - English law, was squashed by the booted foot that was stomping on my shoulder in order to force me and my face into the pavement.
The Met have no authority to abuse the public in such a fashion, to subject a mother to such degrading and inhumane treatment in front of her child, in full view of the public present.
It is my clear understanding that the actions of any public authority are legally obliged to incorporate Human Rights into their workplace and into their actions as a SERVANTS OF THE PUBLIC.
Have the Met taken leave of their senses? I have a very clear right to pose this question.
E. Child endangerment:
My 8-year-old child was forcefully abandoned by the Met in Parliament Square, in central London, with an impending ‘neo-nazi’ march about to begin.(?) This fact cannot be legally justified.
When all officers present for the attack had been watching me for at least one hour beforehand while planning their assault, and were entirely aware that I was present with my daughter, an 8 year old child, why did not any officer enquire as to her welfare until I had arrived at CX? She had just witnessed her mother being mugged, assaulted and kidnapped.
Exactly what time was I illegally arrested and what caused the gross delay of arrival at CX? Could it have possibly been the traffic jams that were caused by said “fascist” march?
Once again, have the Met taken leave of their senses?
The Met have purposefully endangered my child and quite literally, physically stomped all over our human rights which I, as an intelligent woman and a mother, will simply not tolerate.
Conclusion:
Over the past few weeks, I have explained to numerous, various police officers, PCO’s, the RIOT SQUAD (sent to deal with a woman exhibiting art?) etc. the following:
Sid and Nancy, specifically the SEX PISTOLS created an album ‘Never Mind the Bollocks’. The title of this album was challenged by the state in the High Courts and the British slang word ‘bollocks’ was exonerated from the realms of profanity and deemed merely rude.
Sid and Nancy won their case of ‘Never mind the bollocks’.
The rather lame excuse so often used by Met police of “context” regarding the expression of “bollocks” is not a rational excuse nor reasonable legal justification for said illegal seizure of my personal property, let alone the ridiculous events of criminal behavior by police.
The ludicrous assertion of various officers of the state to “comply” without any legal justification nor any sound reasoning is pathetic and makes a mockery of democracy and nonsense of English law.
The state using physical violence including ‘pain compliance’ techniques in assaulting a peaceful member of the public, in a place of public access, for exhibiting art and playing hopscotch, is lunacy.
The Met police challenging a High Court ruling on the pavement, using brute force and criminal behavior, to say the very least, is a very clear abuse of unfettered powers granted by exactly who?
Is exhibiting art a criminal act in English law?
Is it a criminal act to peacefully stand with a whiteboard penned with black ink, created by a mother and daughter, that makes the public smile?
“Bollocks 2 Blair”
“Genocide is a war crime”
- Charity and Maranda XXX
-
I have the legal right, a moral duty to my children, and clear parental justification to make this statement.
Charity Sweet XXX
Attn:
Tony Bliar
Sir Ian Blair c/o Scotland Yard
Superintendent Terry c/o Charing Cross Police Station
Senior officer at Marylebone Police Station
Senior Officer at West End Central Police Station
On May 1, 2007, the following occurred:
A. Illegal seizure of personal property:
A piece of my artwork on a whiteboard was illegally seized tantamount to a mugging. Said property was later returned on the same day from Charing Cross Police Station (CX) only after my eight year old daughter was demanded to be present to sign for said property. (?)
The mystery of the ‘whiteboard crime’ begins…
I would assume that the majority of the Metropolitan Police force is familiar with Mr. Brian W. Haw and his Peace campaign located at Parliament Square, Westminster, London, England.
Mr. Haw’s “demonstration” as the word is currently undefined within SOCPA legislation – the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act – is an “authorized” “demonstration” although being exempt in a reasonable rational sense of the legislation and despite no longer currently being recognized as such given the current political climate of the judiciary.
Under current state imposed “conditions” of Sir Ian Blair, Mr. Haw is currently “allowed” 19 members of humanity to be physically present with him in Parliament Square to support him in his “allowed” 3meter X 3meter X 1meter heartfelt expression of his humanity – a campaign for global peace. This is a complete nonsense in my mind.
54% of the Channel 4 viewers who participated and voted for their choice of the award ‘Britain’s most politically inspiring individual’ chose Mr. Haw which reasonably suggests that numerically speaking, more than 54 people in Great Britain alone, support Mr. Haw, let alone globally, as he is world renown and globally supported despite said people not being physically present in Parliament Square.
How could 19 people realistically resemble or possibly represent the global call for PEACE he has sustained for almost 6 years, which he alone has inspired within humankind?
Regardless of that fact, I as a human being and a mother of 3 children, including my children are guaranteed Freedom of Assembly through Article 11 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) as penned into English law in 1998 by Mr. Tony Blair. As such, my youngest daughter and myself were legally entitled to peacefully assemble together at Parliament Square and play hopscotch on the pavement.
Regardless of that fact, on May, 1, 2007, it was clearly asserted by various members of the public including Mr. Haw and Mrs. Tucker that I was present as part of the “authorized” “demonstration” of Mr. Haw, as one of his 19 “allowed” supporters – my youngest daughter being another supporter. I was further falsely arrested at CX, while in cells, for “demonstrating ‘outside’ the SOCPA zone as the same arresting officer who had already violently assaulted me on the pavement, did not have a ‘Scooby do’ clue as to what he was talking about or what he had been told to further arrest me for. Malicious? Hmmm…
He was only doing as he was told to do by which idiot(s)?
I am an artist and I was clearly exhibiting a piece of artwork.
Only the day before, I had chalked my artistic expression, as also guaranteed through Article 10 of HRA - English Law, onto the pavement of Parliament Square, in front of the statue of Winston Churchill – PEACE IS POSSIBLE.
On numerous occasions the Metropolitan Police (the MET) have threatened to arrest me for criminal damage (?) for drawing pictures on public pavement, where free access is granted to the public, with “washable sidewalk chalk” causing me harassment, alarm and distress – an assault by legal definition.
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God” - the Bible.
This particular phrase warrants some thought when assessing Tony’s crap legislation SOCPA – a gag order on FREE SPEECH.
I fail to understand the rational behind such asinine behavior. One does not expect to be threatened with arrest and a criminal record for drawing pictures that will disappear with the next rainfall.
The first movie I ever saw in a movie theatre was ‘Mary Poppins’. I do not remember any member of the police force, in any scene from that movie, threatening Dick Van Dyke with arrest.
The state is making a farce of the police, which is completely unacceptable in my mind. The police are a vital organ of any civilized society including doctors and nurses and firemen and ambulance drivers etc. and should be treated with respect, no be ordered by their superiors to commit criminal acts.
I would assert that the while the majority of the Met are just and decent people simply trying to do their job and uphold the law, there are numerous ‘bad apples’ who enjoy abusing their position of power against the peaceful public. I believe the correct terminology for such ‘people’ to be sadists and masochists.
N.B. It has also been brought to my attention that many Met officers are not comfortable with enforcing SOCPA as they are being made fools of and scapegoats for the state, reducing policing to a farce.
B. Assault and Battery:
Using “pain compliance” techniques on a pacifist until she uses profanity solely directed at her attackers instead of physically retaliating to said violence in order to create an offence and further entrap a peaceful member of society is unreasonable, to say the least.
All officers present on May 1, 2007 were clearly and loudly, verbally warned that any use of physical force would be legally deemed an assault and battery, should and injuries be sustained which is exactly what happened.
Numerous, various officers publicly exhibited absolutely disgraceful behavior on behalf of the state within exactly what legal framework without any provocation not any justification.(?) I assert that this was an ‘ARREST TO ORDER’.
I am presently covered in bruises and my skin is broken is various places.
C. False Arrest:
I was falsely arrested for ‘breach of the peace’, which is “taking the piss”, for swearing at my attackers instead of crying out in pain?
For the love of God, I was physically attacked by a gang of ‘men’ – 20 OFFICERS, in broad daylight, in a place of public access, while my property was illegally seized with violence.
All officers present for said planned attack were causing my daughter harassment, alarm and distress interestingly deemed an assault against a child within English law and reality.
This entire fiasco took place within 2 meters of my 8-year-old child.(???)
Absolute sheer madness.
D. False imprisonment:
In front of my child, I was kidnapped as reported and recorded by a 999 call to Scotland Yard on the day.
The police terrified my child through assaulting her mother in her presence, right before her very eyes. The MET made her cry and then denied me my right as a mother to soothe her distress and console her fears by placing my arms around her due to the fact that my arms were secured in rear-stack handcuffs with various officers using “pain compliance” techniques to force my compliance to exactly what?
My Human Right as guaranteed by Article 5 of HRA - English law, was squashed by the booted foot that was stomping on my shoulder in order to force me and my face into the pavement.
The Met have no authority to abuse the public in such a fashion, to subject a mother to such degrading and inhumane treatment in front of her child, in full view of the public present.
It is my clear understanding that the actions of any public authority are legally obliged to incorporate Human Rights into their workplace and into their actions as a SERVANTS OF THE PUBLIC.
Have the Met taken leave of their senses? I have a very clear right to pose this question.
E. Child endangerment:
My 8-year-old child was forcefully abandoned by the Met in Parliament Square, in central London, with an impending ‘neo-nazi’ march about to begin.(?) This fact cannot be legally justified.
When all officers present for the attack had been watching me for at least one hour beforehand while planning their assault, and were entirely aware that I was present with my daughter, an 8 year old child, why did not any officer enquire as to her welfare until I had arrived at CX? She had just witnessed her mother being mugged, assaulted and kidnapped.
Exactly what time was I illegally arrested and what caused the gross delay of arrival at CX? Could it have possibly been the traffic jams that were caused by said “fascist” march?
Once again, have the Met taken leave of their senses?
The Met have purposefully endangered my child and quite literally, physically stomped all over our human rights which I, as an intelligent woman and a mother, will simply not tolerate.
Conclusion:
Over the past few weeks, I have explained to numerous, various police officers, PCO’s, the RIOT SQUAD (sent to deal with a woman exhibiting art?) etc. the following:
Sid and Nancy, specifically the SEX PISTOLS created an album ‘Never Mind the Bollocks’. The title of this album was challenged by the state in the High Courts and the British slang word ‘bollocks’ was exonerated from the realms of profanity and deemed merely rude.
Sid and Nancy won their case of ‘Never mind the bollocks’.
The rather lame excuse so often used by Met police of “context” regarding the expression of “bollocks” is not a rational excuse nor reasonable legal justification for said illegal seizure of my personal property, let alone the ridiculous events of criminal behavior by police.
The ludicrous assertion of various officers of the state to “comply” without any legal justification nor any sound reasoning is pathetic and makes a mockery of democracy and nonsense of English law.
The state using physical violence including ‘pain compliance’ techniques in assaulting a peaceful member of the public, in a place of public access, for exhibiting art and playing hopscotch, is lunacy.
The Met police challenging a High Court ruling on the pavement, using brute force and criminal behavior, to say the very least, is a very clear abuse of unfettered powers granted by exactly who?
Is exhibiting art a criminal act in English law?
Is it a criminal act to peacefully stand with a whiteboard penned with black ink, created by a mother and daughter, that makes the public smile?
“Bollocks 2 Blair”
“Genocide is a war crime”
- Charity and Maranda XXX
-
I have the legal right, a moral duty to my children, and clear parental justification to make this statement.
Charity Sweet XXX
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
What is this load of bollocks?
08.05.2007 14:13
chappie was learning guitar and played his daughters song peaches and cream...
teacher told him on telly "that's bollocks"
will someone please remove Sir ian's head from Tony's arse?
XXX
From :
Sent : 08 May 2007 14:20:25
To :
Subject : Your e-mail message was blocked
| | | Inbox
MPS automated content monitoring gateway has
stopped the following e-mail for the following reason:
It believes it may contain unacceptable language, or
inappropriate material.
Message: B464087280000.000000000001.0001.mml
From:
To:
Subject: Formal Complaint - Whiteboard Crime
Please clean-up or re-phrase the message and send it again.
Charity
Don't dare say you didn't recieve it...Mr. IPCC
08.05.2007 14:16
Sent : 08 May 2007 14:06:42
To : "Charity Sweet"
Subject : RE: Formal Complaint - Whiteboard Crime
| | | Inbox
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment : ole0.bmp (0.04 MB)
Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). This is an automatic email to acknowledge receipt of your email, a member of our Customer Service Team will respond to your email in due course.
If you would like further advice on how to make a complaint, the complaints process or to view our frequently asked questions please refer to the 'complainants' section
of our website :
Regards,
Customer Services
Charity Sweet
Bollocks 2 Blair
08.05.2007 14:20
Sent : 08 May 2007 14:19:01
To :
CC :
Subject : Your email message was blocked
| | | Inbox
The following email message was blocked by MailMarshal:
From:
To:
Subject: Bollocks was proven in the high court not to be profane - deal with it
Because it may contain unacceptable language, or inappropriate material.
If you believe the message is business related, please send a message to
Charity Sweet
Solidarity
08.05.2007 14:49
Well Said!
winge winge winge
04.10.2007 14:45
wave your "art" around shouting bollocks
but dont blame the met for the lack of your duty of care for your 8yr old
dont act all bolshy and antagonistic then winge about bruises
you dont know how detached you are!!
those officers stop pathetic art fags like you getting stabbed and mugged by 11yr olds every single day, then they stop your precious 8yr old getting doped up and forced on the game...
and if you think im saying anything but what is really waiting out there then i truelly do pitty you.
feel free to rant at me
im off to work for Her Majesty now. . . .
proud im making a difference
HMP L.L.
deak
RE: winge winge winge
17.01.2008 03:32
Do you realise that Ms. Sweet had not actually broken any laws with her actions? Therefore why did the Police feel the need get involved? You praise the Police for performing the hard task of protecting the public from harm. But where was the threat to the public caused by one woman, her daughter and a whiteboard? Surely the 20 Officers involved in this incident might have been spending their time better if they had been tackling the muggers and drug dealers you mention in your post? Or do you think they should be "given a break" every now and then and be allowed to vent their pent-up anger at a non-violent campaigner who poses no threat to anyone and is not even breaking the law? I personally think the Police should be able to find less agressive ways of relaxing down on a slow day.
Or even better, if the Police purely stuck to doing their job of keeping the public safe from harm, then I doubt they'd draw as much criticism as they do. But they don't. They're human like every one else and suffer from the same prejudices and weaknesses as all of us. Yes it's a hard job, and yes it's un-realistic to expect the Police to be perfect all the time. But it's also unrealstic to expect people to put up with it when when they make mistakes. Ms. Sweet is allowed to "winge" all she wants. It's part of what makes this country a Democracy and not an oppressive state. And yes, Deak, you're allowed to have your own opinions too. But that doesn't mean this particular opinion of your's is valid.
People like you are not only part of what's wrong with this country, but the world in general. You really think that because someone is a Civil Servant and works in a sector which benefits the public that they should be able to abuse and even break the law for their own benefit? Just because the Police have chosen to do a more dangerous job than most does not give them any more right to break the law than anyone else.
However, since it appears from your signature that you work for Her Majesty's Prison services, it's hardly suprising you respect authority over freedom, regardless of what that authority does. There were many people like this working for the Nazis during Wolrd War II who at the end of it all claimed they were "Just following orders". I'm sure they took no pride or pleasure in following those orders whatsoever.
Likewise; feel free to rant back if you can still find some way to justify your position. But rant back at me and not at poor Ms. Sweet who has already suffered enough harrassment from your kind.
Blodge