Statement of Mrs. Charity Sweet – 17/04/08
Att: City of Westminster Maggots Courts, District judge Wickham
To Whom it May Concern:
What is this bollocks? Public Order and detained in police custody for over six hours?
It is my clear understanding that Public Order Section 5 has a maximum penalty of a level 3 fine with regards to sentencing. I was attempting to make a cup of tea at the exact time of my arrest, as CCTV will show, should it be available. Exactly how many CCTV cameras were on me on the day of my arrest at Parliament Square until I was escorted into a police car outside the Palaces of Westminster… and yet no CCTV is available as it would prove my calmness of demeanor?
BOLLOCKS!!!
Do I have the right to say bollocks or not?
Is it only reasonable that I would be caused harassment, alarm and distress in the knowledge that I was, yet again, being unreasonably detained and questionably unlawfully detained, and yet I remained calm and reasonable during my 6 hour arbitrary detention. I remained co-operative when a further attempt was made to deny me of my liberty on false grounds and remand me to prison until today's arraignment and clearly pointed out the falsehood of the allegation that the head of Parliamentary police – Parry – would clear up and insisted that he be telephoned immediately.
On May 5, 2006, I was also arrested for saying "bollocks". I was further arrested for breech of bail when there was understandable confusion surrounding my bail date and time. Both charges were dropped and yet the idiot behind the custody desk at Belgravia police station felt he could send me to Holloway for a few weeks after producing a piece of paper that said that the charges were live.
Funny that – it was Parry who called up and cancelled the warrant while I was in cells last time. Lucky for me, I had only spoken to him at the Westminster Maggots court, on the day, regarding making certain that these false charges were removed from my record. If I hadn't have had that conversation on the day, they would have sent me to Holloway over more bollocks?
BOLLOCKS and more BOLLOCKS!!!
I refuse, point blank, to enter the docks as I will not further be denied my liberty in relation to a summary offence, relying on the Human Rights Act 1998 article 5(4) specifically guaranteeing my right to challenge the legality of my detention.
Archbold 2007 Section IV – HRA 1998:
16-43 Right to liberty and security: Article 5
16-55 Habeus Corpus: Article 5(4)
16-57 2. Everyone charges shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty
3. (b) Everyone should have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence
Archbold 2007 IV 63
Tiexa de castro V. Portugal 28 E.H.R.R. 101 (post 16-68a)
(i) It is not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure it's citizenz into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. Such conduct would be entrapment, a misuse of state power and an abuse of the courts.
(ii) … every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent the abuse of its process the courts can ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress citizens of the state.
(iv) … the doctrine of the abuse of process is re-enforced by HRA 1998.
The doctrine of abuse of process enables a court to stay proceedings when it would not be fair to try a defendant; one situation would be when the proceedings result from the executive action that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.
Bollocks to Brown!
Gonads to Gordon!
Genocide is a war crime both in international and national law! The people demand a referendum on Europe and MERCY for all the people.
Breeches of Human Rights:
Article 7. - no punishment without law
Article 9. – freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10. – freedom of expression
Article 11. – freedom of assembly
Article 14. – prohibition of discrimination
Sincerely,
Charity Sweet XXX
Att: City of Westminster Maggots Courts, District judge Wickham
To Whom it May Concern:
What is this bollocks? Public Order and detained in police custody for over six hours?
It is my clear understanding that Public Order Section 5 has a maximum penalty of a level 3 fine with regards to sentencing. I was attempting to make a cup of tea at the exact time of my arrest, as CCTV will show, should it be available. Exactly how many CCTV cameras were on me on the day of my arrest at Parliament Square until I was escorted into a police car outside the Palaces of Westminster… and yet no CCTV is available as it would prove my calmness of demeanor?
BOLLOCKS!!!
Do I have the right to say bollocks or not?
Is it only reasonable that I would be caused harassment, alarm and distress in the knowledge that I was, yet again, being unreasonably detained and questionably unlawfully detained, and yet I remained calm and reasonable during my 6 hour arbitrary detention. I remained co-operative when a further attempt was made to deny me of my liberty on false grounds and remand me to prison until today's arraignment and clearly pointed out the falsehood of the allegation that the head of Parliamentary police – Parry – would clear up and insisted that he be telephoned immediately.
On May 5, 2006, I was also arrested for saying "bollocks". I was further arrested for breech of bail when there was understandable confusion surrounding my bail date and time. Both charges were dropped and yet the idiot behind the custody desk at Belgravia police station felt he could send me to Holloway for a few weeks after producing a piece of paper that said that the charges were live.
Funny that – it was Parry who called up and cancelled the warrant while I was in cells last time. Lucky for me, I had only spoken to him at the Westminster Maggots court, on the day, regarding making certain that these false charges were removed from my record. If I hadn't have had that conversation on the day, they would have sent me to Holloway over more bollocks?
BOLLOCKS and more BOLLOCKS!!!
I refuse, point blank, to enter the docks as I will not further be denied my liberty in relation to a summary offence, relying on the Human Rights Act 1998 article 5(4) specifically guaranteeing my right to challenge the legality of my detention.
Archbold 2007 Section IV – HRA 1998:
16-43 Right to liberty and security: Article 5
16-55 Habeus Corpus: Article 5(4)
16-57 2. Everyone charges shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty
3. (b) Everyone should have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence
Archbold 2007 IV 63
Tiexa de castro V. Portugal 28 E.H.R.R. 101 (post 16-68a)
(i) It is not acceptable that the state through its agents should lure it's citizenz into committing acts forbidden by the law and then seek to prosecute them for doing so. Such conduct would be entrapment, a misuse of state power and an abuse of the courts.
(ii) … every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent the abuse of its process the courts can ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress citizens of the state.
(iv) … the doctrine of the abuse of process is re-enforced by HRA 1998.
The doctrine of abuse of process enables a court to stay proceedings when it would not be fair to try a defendant; one situation would be when the proceedings result from the executive action that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.
Bollocks to Brown!
Gonads to Gordon!
Genocide is a war crime both in international and national law! The people demand a referendum on Europe and MERCY for all the people.
Breeches of Human Rights:
Article 7. - no punishment without law
Article 9. – freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10. – freedom of expression
Article 11. – freedom of assembly
Article 14. – prohibition of discrimination
Sincerely,
Charity Sweet XXX
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
was there
09.06.2008 21:35
The whole thing was almost ruined by some one close by shouting through a megaphone in a clear attempt to put them off and suppress their demo, if they hadn't been encouraged to sing louder by a passer by.
I agree that saying a rude word and ending up in court is silly, but when taken against such a clear attempt to disrupt someone clear right to freedom of both expression and speech.
if you see it witness it!
Harry purvis
Test cases in which people got away with swearing at police
10.06.2008 08:32
There was another one in the news a while back in which a man used the word fuck, he might have even told a copper to fuck off, his lawer argued that the policeman present should be able to hear such language in the line of his job and the man got off scott free, can't find the story online, nut I know it was printed in the mainstream press, and SWP paper (i am not SWP!) maybe Anarchist Federation put it in resistance aswell?
Good luck
x
fly Posters
sweet - thanx! XXX
12.06.2008 17:05
Charity
e-mail:
charitysweet@hotmail.co.uk