Good Niggers, Bad Niggers, Good white Trash - Who is still paying for Slavery!

The decent Black "West-Indian" people see this 'black'  man as a "Black-woman-hating, sell-out, Nigger". 

Who decides who is a good nigger and who is a bad one?

A racist newspaper called the Daily Mail, reported that a racist asian man, (a muslim), called a 'Black' BBC reporter a 'slave'. (Daily Mail staff have clearly been reading my blogs recently).

The racist asian man, was the brother of another racist asian man who had raped one woman, and who had committed a number of rapes and sexual attacks in Oxford, and the surrounding areas.

The incident, where the racist asian muslim had called the 'Black' man a 'slave', happened outside a magistrates court where the cameraman was attempting to speak to the police. The racist asian muslim, had deliberately got in the way of the cameraman, obstructing him in his job.

The racist muslim asian, was later arrested, when the incident was reported to the police by the 'black' cameraman. Strangely, the racist mulsim asian man, complained that the 'black' man was 'aggressive' and that the 'black' man was disrespected by whites because they had no backbone to fight back.

The racist asian muslim was convicted of a 'racially aggravated crime'. So good then, isn't it?

Well, noe because, the asian racist wasn't lying, he was telling the truth. Whites and their asian side-kicks, do see Black people as slaves. The animal was not lying. Remember this is the brother of a mass rapist, and he feels confident enough to tell the world, that "blacks are slaves".

However, I suspect that the 'black' cameraman, reported in the racist Daily Mail, is either himself a mixed-racist, or a 'trustworthy' ,'tame',  'black' man who is married to, (i.e. meaning for whites - controlled by) a white woman.
er
That is the only way, that a British newspaper, would 'accept' or 'belief', that a 'black' man (or woman) could be a victim. He has to have his 'invalid' statement verified by a white woman, or man. Otherwise his statement has no legal standing or meaning.

Which brings us to the issue of defines a 'good Nigger' and who defines a 'bad Nigger'. It seems to me, that the only person's hand' in which the gift of 'believablity' and 'truthfulness'  are in, are the racist newspapers and their racist editors, racist judges, racist unions, racist magistrates, racist politicians, racist civil servants, racist local authorities, the racist police and the mother of all racists - parliament.

In plain tongue, "Good White Trash" - GWT's, the Good Old Girls and Boys of the Establishment.

Every body, (eventually) went up in arms because the 'good' 'black bwoy', Stephen Lawrence, was murdered by some white racists, (with their police connections). This was a terrible case. The law was even changed o reflect our shock and horror.

However, the GWT were unhappy. There has never been a successfully prosecuted race-hate case that involves a full Black person, in Britain, in the who of the history of the who 'race' industry in Britain,. Yes, I did say zero wins! No Black person has ever been identified as a victim of racism in Britain. In plain tongue, there is no such thing as racism in Britain.

There have been Black women, convicted or racism, and racially aggravated crimes against racist whites asians, and asian muslims, but never a case where a Black person has ever won, much been allowed to proceed with a race case in Britain, much less Europe.

So I decided to look at this issue of who decides! Who decides, whether a case goes a head? According to reports, the Prime, minister, and his idiot cabinet.

Hang on! Did I hear, that a case does not proceed on merit, or on the fact that the victim wants to proceed, but whether or not some anonymous fool called the prime minister 'agrees' that the case goes ahead.  Did I find out that at that point the police, MI5 and MI6 start to 'investigate' the victim, and that the Director or Public Prosecution and Attorney General get themselves involved?

That means that the legal system, judges and magistrates are not impartial. In fact, that means that they are corrupted. Oh, what a suprise!

Apparently cases are 'decided' with the help of the likes of the racist Mr Paul Dacre, of the racist Daily Mail rag. If he (any old newspaper editor, that's scraped off the streets),  decides that  "the uppity, nigger, slave, bitch",  'Marcia' (the mythical medusa-like 'aggressive' 'Black woman'),   is 'good', then she may proceed. Otherwise, give her hell!

This begs the question, who is the overall controller?There can be only one answer - their queen.

So so be it, their queen is our problem. Their queen needs to be addressed. Secret dodgy 'intelligence file' circulated far and wide, idiot, ignorant racist  newspaper editors who are quite happy to flog outrageously false stories about Black , dark-skinned newspapers to justify their existence. And all to the glory of their racist queen!

And they want me to turn the other cheek on this one!

I have a conviction, based on trumped up charges of using  'racially aggravated" words, 'threats...causing alarm and distress...' etc.

In this case I lodged a complained against a group of approximately ten racist asian muslim men, WH Smith  in Euston station, London, who, amongst, other things, called me a "Black bitch",  a "Black Kuffir" and a "slave".

Instead of them being picked up, I was arrested, held for 16 hours without access to legal advice they were given cups of tea, the DPP,  the attorney general, the PM were contacted. And then at the last minute I was informed that I was being charged, (which led to a conviction) of the aforementioned crime.

It may be of interest, to know, that the majority of people charged and convicted of this charge, are dark-skinned Black people. The most, noted (publicised) recent case, was a dark-skinned Black woman, who was convicted of  the  racially aggravated  race-hate crime of "using words that caused alarm, distress, and threats, etc" for calling racist asian woman, a "coconut". Yes, you heard correctly, calling a racist asian woman, a "coconut".

The racist asian woman, ( a conservative), had pulled the plug on a slavery project, in Bristol, UK.  The dark-skinned Black woman,had been (unbeknown to her) put under surveillance by MI5. She too was a elected council member. The Black woman had been filmed in the council chamber, airing her disappointment in the racist asian woman, since, she (the dark-skinned Black woman), had assumed that the asian woman considered herself 'black'. Since the racist asian woman was the final decision-maker, it was a shame that a 'coconut' had betrayed 'Black' people.

These convictions seemed to be aimed at labelling politicised, culturally positive, dark-skinned  Black women as "terrorists". These spate of countless convictions of Black women, ( and no doubt men), happened after the UN and the British government had declared that they would fight anti-Black racism, would deal with bringing to book anyone in authority who promoted of encouraged crimes against humanity (including crimes of aggression, genocide and ethnic cleansing, etc).

And yet the UN and the British government, were operating as a joint criminal enterprise to kill off the argument of slavery legacy, reparations and repatriation. even to the point of falsely nameing every Black person in Britain a "Schizophrenic". A disease, that was checked during the medical checks, given to every Black person who came Britain, pre- and post world war.

Every Black person coming to Britain, had to be of perfect fitness and health. And yet, by process of osmosis, and living in White society, "every" Black, man, woman, and child is "schizophrenic". Therefore, this means, that Brixton and the borough are the centre of the world's maddest people. Lambeth has the highest number of mentally disordered people in the world. Lambeth is the Mecca of Maddess!

How could this be? This would mean, that everyone in WHO should be more than worried. But they weren't!

So lets look at the facts, who, historically are mad, and a bunch of schizophrenics - The British royal family of cause! Simple.

So, they are schizos, alll the Georges, prince Charles, Andrew, Eddy, Harry, Anne, their cousins, their children, the lot, and Black people, end up being labelled the thing!

Why?

The answer, is again deceptively simple, they want the Black caribbean diasporans, to stop pressing the argument of Slavery, reparations, etc, because the royal family of Britain, was the main people behind that ultimate crime against humanity. They done it!

Alongside, their aristocratic, and european cousins, brothers and sisters, etc. Did I hear something about the jews funding slavery? Did I hear something about the bankers? Did I hear that the Jews want a pound of my Black flesh like their criminal banker brother Shylock?

Oh, so that's why they want to defame, discredit and then identify 'all' Black people as 'mad'.  Me thinks, we need re-examine who is really discredited - I think, the head of the 'firm' is the queen.

So tell, her to expect to see me soon.

Defence of Christian Marriage - one man one woman

The British Parliament is rammed with a strange odd-ball combination of nuts and liberal political correctors.

Their latest ruse is to attempt to intimidate the public through their idiot agents, such as their secret 'intelligence' service, their police forces, their useless social services and even their NHS doctors. These parliamentary legislators,  are all trying to convince the entire country that sadistic homosexuality and paedophilia are "Human Rights" that deserve special protection.

This movement appears to be led by an "establishment" group of sick hard-core Zionist racist Jews aided and abetted by their side-kick mates. They 'lay' down the legislation, that at first appears benign, until the day a normal person challenges them. Then hey presto! They come out all guns blazing.

Just have a look at parliament's 'Joint' Human Rights Committee, and see how many of these eyesore racist Black-hating Jews pack the place. Christians with any influence do not feature. For comfort, they have incorporated a Nigger so that they can not be accused of 'racism', but that is exactly what they are "racists".

These are Jews who are oppressing Christians and Rastas, who dare not to agree with their sickness of promoting sodomy.

Yesterday, (Thursday 10 March 2011), we heard that an elderly, old-school, Black Christian couple (of Jamaican background and heritage), were "banned" from ever foster children again. This caring couple have been married for over 40 years, and have fostered over one hundred children in the past, without any problems. Until, that is, 2007, when the 'legislation changed'. They were informed that they had been permanently banished from the land of fostering because they would not actively promote homosexuality or men having sex with children.

The minister for Children, Tim Loughton, feigned horror at finding out that there are so many children in care, with only a slim chance of adoption. These children were apparently stuck in care because, "...no one want them". However, instead of making it smoother for decent normal people to foster or adopt these vulnerable & needy children, guess what he focuses on? Homosexuality and 'blacks'.

The public were 'reassured' that something was "being done" when the British government decided, (in combination with a few guilt-ridden white women, who had given birth to abandoned mixed-racist children) that the 'solution' was to "allow" white's and homosexuals to adopt "Black" children.

The government confidently informed us, that this 'barrier' to fostering and adoption was being removed "in the best interest of the child". They even went as far as to explain to us, that these "Black" children would stand a better chance in life now that it had been formerly agreed that 'white middle class-types' were free to bring up this lost generation of "Blacks" - ( or more accurately their anti-Black mixed-racist off-spring).

However, the real targets of this 'new' approach were exposed, when Tim Loughton (minister for Children) came to Brixton for a publicity/photo opportunity. Mr Loughton was pictured condescendingly 'patting' the heads  two dark-skinned Black children, whilst being 'supervised' by a snowy-haired white racist female social worker.

If a picture spoke a thousand words, this picture said it all. Loughton was in Brixton (Lambeth) to promote the taking away, nay, the forcible 'removal' of healthy, full Black, dark-skinned, West-Indian (i.e. Black English of Jamaican descent) children from their Christian or Rastafarian parents. If there were any doubts as to motive, then here was the clear evidence.

The racist British government, through their shop-bought media links, had tugged, just enough on the heart-strings of the public, to illustrate why this policy was needed. They visually 'explained' that these "Black" children, were in "danger" from their own kith and kin. Society was 'saving-the-heathen' from themselves. The white man, was again, rising to the challenge, and lifting the white man's burden.

The public being asked, "would it not be better and even a kindness, for these Black children to be ripped from the bosom of their families in newly the gentrified (i.e. de-niggerfied) Brixton?" Would it not be better to put these 'uncivilised' souls into "loving lap and arms" of some white sadistic homosexual and his 'civil partner'? Anything was better, than letting them 'suffer' in Rachman-style neglected housing with parents who had been ravaged by the awful affects of permanent unemployment and economic racism.

How could anyone object or argue against the notion that these 'unwanted and abused' Black children would be better treated by two or three lesbians sharing one bedroom or  five or six 'caring' gang-banging transsexuals? Would not these sexual deviants have 'empathy' with these Black children, who, like themselves, had "gone through identity hell".

Notably, there was no mention of the live ethnic cleansing or genocide or crimes of aggression being carried out against the entire Black Caribbean community of Lambeth. No-one mentioned that these crimes against humanity was being 'led' a vicious,mentally-disordered sadistic homosexual, (Cllr Steve Reed) or that the sexually 'ambiguous' prince Charles, dragging his various regeneration, 'community',  architectural, and  police initiatives behind him, had ensured that Black people, were compelled to live under a cloud of permanent fear, suffering and unemployed. No one expressed concern that the Black community and other disadvantaged people were consequently economically stressed and politically excluded.

And then, no one was brave enough to speak of the queen, and how she was culpable because she had turned a blind to this rank genocide.

Brixton, the geographical centre of Lambeth, the international home of  British African-Caribbean diasporans -  was having every cultural, historical and physical reference to their existence, slavery, the slavery legacy, reparations and repatriation, 'rubbed out' by these thuggish cultural bandits.

The area was "flooded" tens of thousands of  unruly immigrants by the criminal, Phil Woolas, former immigration minister under Tony Blair. Lambeth council was paid vast sums of money by the Cabinet Office, the DCLG, the Home Office and even the department of Education, for aiding and abetting in the joint enterprise of  killing/eliminating Black English people of  Caribbean descent from the landscape.   It was at this point, that the area was "flooded" again, only this time, with young aristocrats, masquarading and 'middle class;.Those from the eastern european block, africa, and latin america were only there as cannon fodder for votes. They were dependable for the new chosen one.

Incredibly, they even failed to mention the physical manifestation of  Prince Charles's homosexual  fantasy regeneration scheme, known as "Vauxhall City".

This was to be the new Sodom & Gommorah, The British "Sun City",  "a heaven on earth". "Vauxhall City" was to be a place where, sadistic sodomites could move freely amongst themselves, and rub shoulders with their cult leader,  "The Sun King", prince Charles.

 Imagine, from 'Westminster village'  (i.e. the House of Commons and the House of Lords), to mid Streatham,  from one end of  Brixton Road to the other, one would be spoiled for choice. One could start, by being 'punished' in the 'torture chambers' opposite the MI5 building, which themselves are placed conveniently close to Vauxhall's  'pleasure gardens' - for those who prefer tiny little girls.

If that did not suffice, then one could stop off for a taste of those legally adopted picanninies - 'little Black boys'. Or if that was not to ones taste, then one could move onto those exotic "Big Black ugly Nigerians, with all those cuts in their faces", delicious!. what ever your predilection, you will be provided for.

All perversions, all sick requests catered for in the biggest tourist spot in the Olympics, "Vauxhall City", in good old Lambeth town!

We have subservient hispanics,  would sir like a white rent boy ripe for 'roasting?  We have them all. A wheel-chair bound disabled lesbians duo for blow-jobs?  Not to worry, we have a couple hanging around the back streets, raring to go! And that's just for starters.

Let us not fool ourselves, this is not a joke, this is a potential reality. The London Olympics are around the corner, in 2012. Every is enthusiastic to make lots of filthy lucre, by either selling property or sex. We can guarantee that every 'satanist', every 'swinger', every potential royal or aristocratic mass murdering killer, intend to have have a free for all in Lambeth.

That is why, the British government, smeared and defamed real Rastas. Giving the impression that everyone was a dope addict, coiled like a spring, ready to rape any passing white maiden they could get their hands on.

Only the propaganda missed out a vital piece of information. The property, that contained their Rasta Temple of worshipped had been valued at a conservatively cool £12 million.

The genuine rastas, had been subjected to sustained attacks from the police and the legal profession, and had been inflitrated by untold agent provocateurs. The average rasta would not have been told by their racist solicitors, that they were sitting on a goldmine. All the genuine rasta would have known, is that they strongly believe in God, and in the Black Christ, who had been crucified first time, and was due to return again as the King of Kings, Lord of Lord, King of Africa, and Emperor of the world.

They would not have realised that those in High Places, would have become fixated and obsessed with them, and keen to see them dead. This why, under Tony Blair's watch, the Rastas
 had bombs thrown at them by the states police and secret services, some were torched, and others were fire bombed, until they were 'run out of town'.

Concerned members of the public, of all colours, were informed, that this was not a religious temple, but a drug-den. I interviewed many innocent types who had been gassed during the numerous police attacks, and nearly every single one, was a simple worshipper. Nothing more, and nothing less. To this day, they ask why some of them were taken to the local mental asylum or "to Tony Blair's police station at Charing Cross for secret interrogation". They still want to know how it is possible for the British government to get away with bombing their own citizens with complete impunity?

It may be of interest to the reader to know that key component of their religion, is that they believe that Haile Salassie was that manifestation of the living Black Christ. For these practitioners of rasta, they believe in  peace and love. They also believe that men should strictly having relationships with women and women with men. Homosexuality, is both anathema, an abomination and the ultimate sin. This position is non-negotiable.

Therefore it may come as a great surprise to the reader, that sadistic homosexuals would make a bb-line for these "Big Black men". Homosexuals would make sordid and crude physical attempts to molest these men. Apparently, these Black men were seen as a challenge , since it is considered a coup, to convert a Black man. Black men are considered 'real men'.

However, these rough and crude attempts are a waste of time with the vast majority, since, they believe in God. No genuine rasta man would ever indulge in homosexuality. However, there are those who masquarade as rastas, who are small-islanders, (such as Barbadian) who bow to the white man, They are more than happy to accommodate this sickness. The other group that attempt to feign Black man-hood, are drug addicts.

These are usually, half-caste and Black men, who have been brought up an all-white area, who do not know, or even like Black people, but they see the effect on white people, on seeing a rasta man, and they use 'rasta' as a shield. These are not rastas, these are street prostitutes and rent boys who have been exposed to to corruption from an early age. They are only to be pitied.  It is these victims of paedophiles, that are most likely to interact with, and be accepted by the likes of prince Charles, and his cousin (and fellow latent homosexual) David Cameron.

On the matter, of state responsibility and state players impunity, they are legally, adviced, reinforced and protected Black-hating judges, magistrates, barristers, and senior civil servants (e.g. Sir Gus O Donnell - a man who works in the Cabinet office). They support and back the Director of Public Prosecution - the corrupted Keir Starmer, and the Attorney General, formerly, the Black-hating mixed-racist Baroness Scotland, and presently, the Black-hating, Conservative, latent homosexual, Dominic Grieve. Add to the mix the entire House of Lords, and the Privy Council, and "Willy, Wally Wanker, Job done!

If the reader takes the time to read the discussion on the link below on the Race and Religion Bill, they well see that certain names were around table. Specifically, you will note, that the parliamentary committee was ramped up with homosexuals, with a good sprinkle of muslims/asians, plus and their helpers. There was not one genuine Christian, and definitely no Rastas.

So now it is time to take a stand. Those of us who live by a Christian, Nazerene or even the more loose rasta ethic need to stand up for marriage between one man and one woman. We need to take a stand against sadistic homosexuality and paedophilia.

These creatures of satan are not playing, they mean to win, and they are playing for keeps. They will not hesitate to use violence, witchcraft, race supremacy and tribalism to attain their sick diabolical ends.

Just attend parliament and see the SPG's or the gunmen of the Special Territorial Police death-squad in action. Go and have a look, Every single one of them look like some mad red-faced, trigger-happy, alcohol-fuelled satanist. Indeed, if I were asked directly, I would repeat the description.

These angels of death are the protectors of those in the inner circle of evil. Therefore Christians must be aware that they are dealing with a kind of animal, that most would not have come across before.

I for one, was appalled when I was subjected to a mock execution dead in the middle of the foyer area of Portcullis House, in parliament. It was the most horrific and traumatic experiences I have ever had. I would not wish it on my worst enemy. However, under the protection of God, (who they hate), I survived 6 or seven cowards pointing their guns directly at me head.

It was soon after this mock execution, that I successfully obtained a super injunction against the then new head of the UK's Met police, the uncouth animal, Sir Paul Stephenson, for torture and harassment. Apparently, "it was a miracle" that the top policeman in the UK could be sent to prison if he personally, or he instructed or counseled any of his agents or any secret security agent  to harassed or interfer with me anywhere in Britain, or in parliament. And yes, included a specification that he would go to prison if I were harassed by the police, etc.

This is how far these creatures will go to deceive the public. Oddly, enough, these powerful people will conceal their sordid secret perversions in open vision. It is as if they are aroused by hiding their  twistedness in the wide open.

Who have would suspected that Prince Charles had ill-intent, and indeed murder on his mind, by him visiting Brixton last year? Especially as he was accompanied by his 'harm-less' horsey' wife Camilla.

Who would have connected his sexuality, or his questionable mental-state with the widely-reported genocide of the African-Caribbean population of Lambeth and across the wider UK?

Who would have guessed, that this his royal hubrisness mens rea, would be to oversee the building and 'reclamation' of the 'royal' Lamb-Beth  - 'House of the Lamb') for his own sick personal hedonistic reasons?

Who would have been aware that he intended to built his 'Solomonic Temple', among the lay-lines of Brixton, in the House of the Lamb, as a monument to himself and his fellow perverts?

Which normal person would think that the first in line to the throne, would pick an apparent, 'dump' a 'ghetto; like Brixton, to reach his nirvana? Who could imagine this mentally-disordered and troubled Prince (and his perverted cohort) attempting to find a place, where they could unburden their sick minds in a ghetto, in a place where he hates and resents the people, and he intends to his "Garden of Babylon" in homage to the "whore of Babylon"? This is mind-blowing stuff.

And to think, that for all of this time,  there were very few people, in a position, or prepared to, put themselves on the line, to stop these useless, unloved and odd-fellows from harming the public and themselves.

 Indeed, how does one tell the queen that she has useless mad children? (she knows).

How does one spell out that, despite these people being grown men, they are utter failures, who are a cause of great concern, because of the harm and pain they have deliberately inflicted on the innocent?

How does one tell a mother that she has failed, by producing failures? How does one tell an "untouchable" they they are touchable, and that despite this no-one wants to know them? What a shock it must be when the 'firm' has been sussed, and the public finds out that they are dealing with the Emperor's new clothes.

 There is no passion and there is no love for them, for they do not walk with God. God's love, joy or happiness, does not reside with them, they habitat with evil.
 These are feeble beings tormented by an all-consuming hate & jealousy, caused by witnessing God love in manifest.

How can anybody call themselves 'royal' when they insult and further cheapen themselves by sending out an army of assassins, defamers and intimidators to scare the people?

This is beneath contempt. To insult your own citizens by claiming that they are 'mad', 'delusional'  or 'seeing things', is well below the belt. Especially if the false accusers are the holders of  those very conditions/disorders. This is  far beyond the pale.

Therefore, there we find that that the people have no choice. This anti-social behaviour is no expression of God's unconditional, and so must be punished severely.

Everybody knows that the Golden Rule is   'first do no harm to the people', this rule has been breached. There can be no rescue plan for this,crime, there is no atonement or forgiveness for this heinous abuse.

Only God's 'chosen and annointed' can apply the punishment, that means, and innocent child,  a victim or those who have been bathed and disinfected in the special light of the Sun. The list of crimes are mounting.

Presently, the UK media has told the public that their Queen is 'fully behind' her paedophile son, Prince Andrew and his convicted American Jewish paedophile friend Jeffry Epstein.

Then we find out that British prime minister, David 'Bullingdon Club' Cameron, is against Christians and Nazarites who do not promote sodomy. It should be noted that British men who go to 'public schools', like Eton, are obliged to be homosexuals. This homosexuality, is compounded and reinforced in universities like Oxford & Cambridge, where they meet, their 'Uranian' lovers (usually their much older homosexual professor) where they are taught how to disguise their homosexuality when they go out into the 'real world.

This means that they cut a deal with women of their class and race, where the wife 'accepts' her husband's sodomy, for exchange of one or two children, and a grand house, and perhaps a title.

Unfortunately, Princess Diana, was a  'non-co operator', and as a consequence she paid the ultimate price.

Since Britain does not have a written constitution, we are exposed to all the dangers of the freak-filled British parliament.  All a sodomite has to do, is walk through the front door, and "Bob's his uncle". The deal is done.

Britain now need fighters to be begin libbering up to set down our Christian position through the legislature. We need our own Defence of Marriage Act, here in the UK, as well as a piece of legislation that can explicitly Defend and Protect Christians.

Presently, extremist and perverted Muslims, Arabs and Asians, have joined their pervert friends in 'high places' working in a pincher motion to eliminate Christians. The same has occurred with the Church of England - the place is rammed with sodomites and their supporters.

I have no hesitation in confirming that Britain has been ravaged by Muslim and Jewish extremists, at the expense of Christians and Christianity.  Britain is now officially classified as a Muslim caliphate. Have a look at the website below for guidance.
http://www.domawatch.org/index.php

Also see the 'debate' held in parliament on the Racial & Religious Bill.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/e/st050629/pm/50629s01.htm

Meanwhile we will start working on the strategy. Enough is enough! No more rolling over.

There is a God, and as with the first Sodom & Gommorah, the proposed Sodom and Gommorah of Brixton will be destroyed, along with its filthy inhabitants. This time the people will square the circle.And the square will meet the plumb.

Iraq War Definitely "illegal" - Goldsmith Legal Advice to Tony Blair on 30 July 2002

A secret document released on 30th June 2010 by the ongoing Iraq Inquiry's chair, Sir John Chilcot, shows that early legal advice given to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was unequivocally definitive in saying that any proposed war in Iraq would be "Unlawful" on all grounds.

The basis of war, or more accurately "use of force" could only be based on three premises:

1. Self-defence

2. Exceptionally, the avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or

3. Authorisation by the UN Security Council.

The then, Attourney General, Lord Goldsmith, advised that:

"regime change may follow from a legitimate use of force but cannot of itself be justification for military action".

In plain language, to start a war on the basis of regime change would be illegal, and could not be justified simply for military reasons. A war in Iraq would be unlawful, and internationally unacceptable.

On the matter of "imminence" of an attack, one must remember the '45 minutes to attack' headlines all over the front pages of British newspapers.  I remember women, pushing their young toddlers to nursery that morning, scared out of their minds that Britain would be covered in bombs in just 45 minutes. As these groups of mothers walked along discussing the papers, I heard a mother say, "...if they could kill all the children in 45 minutes...we need to do something to protect them and ourselves". The other mothers nodded in sincere aggreement. There was not one dissenter. Everyone was tense that day at receiving the bad news.

The reason I mention this, and the reason why this conversation is very important, is because the whole country seemed to be on 'red alert'.

So we come to the issue of self-defence and "imminence of attack".

Attorney General, Goldsmith advises that force may be used only if  "there is an actual and imminent armed attack; use of force is necessary i.e. the only means of preventing an attack; the force used is proportionate".

None of these scenarios were ever the case here.

Goldsmithh goes further and says that "The development of WMD is not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence". He also tells Blair that there are no grounds for "regarding an Iraq use of WMD as imminent".

In other words, there is no reason to assume that the Iraqis have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), much less have WMD's in "use". WMD's were also not a good enough excuse for the 'self-defence' "imminence" defence to start a war with Iraq. Goldsmith also appears to open up the notion that if the Iraqis had WMD's, they could not 'used' them anyway.

According to military personnel, WMD's  cannot be launched 'quickly' and without the world knowing that they are being prepared for launch and attack.

There is some discussion about UN Security resolutions that relate to Kuwait. However, any retrospective or as Goldsmith puts it, "revival" of any of those resolutions as an excuse for war would fit into the "unlawful" camp, where the legality of any war is concerned.

Goldsmith's legal advice is that "A new UN Security Council resolution explicitly authorising the use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter would plainly be the most secure, and preferred, legal basis for military action in the current situation".

Goldsmith discusses the issue of "a material breach of ceasefire conditions the authorisation to use force under resolution 687 revives". It is pointed out that the 'revival' of UN resolution 687 would be limited to only a very short period of time. The resolution was only to be achieved to arrive at a "ceasfire" and nothing else. It should be noted that when it was used in the Kuwait situation, it was controversial then.

The use of UN resolution 1205 during the Kuwait war, was acknowledged. 1205 was used in that case because of  Iraq's "cessation of cooperation" with UNSCOM which constituted a "flagrant violation" of ceasefire conditions" and therefore grounds for use of force.

There then follows a discussion about advice Goldsmith received from his predecessors, "John Morris and Charles Falconer". They explicitly tell Goldsmith that there should be a breach of ceasfire conditions and that the Security Council should find those breaches so grave, as to be sufficient to "undermine the basis or effective operation of the ceasefire".

In regards to UN SC resolution 1205 (1998), it did not contain any explicit authority for use of force". The the 'revival' option in both instances di not apply.

The document makes references to "threats to peace...breach of the peace or act of aggression..." and the restoration of international peace and security. It was noted that the Security Council "remained seized of the matter..."

Goldsmith advises explicitly, that resolutions 687, and 1205 cannot legally be relied upon, since (at the time of writing), these resolutions were three years old, and in effect redundant. He then reiterates that the use of force would be "unlawful" without a new Security Council resolution.

Goldsmith talks about giving Iraq an "ultimatum", but says that this would not be a legal basis for any action where use of force is concerned.

Lord Goldsmith closes his letter, with mention of the use of the UK military capabilities (including soldiers lives), and says "we would therefore need to be satisfied in all cases as to the legality of the use of force".

He then copies his letter to the Foreign and Defence Secretaries.

So there we have it, clear evidence, the original legal advice was rigid in its clarity. The Iraq war would be illegal and "unlawful", if there was no new UN Security Council resolution to ensure that "use of force" (war) could be taken with the aggreement of the world.

Therefore, the public now has to ask how we are going to deal with those who were found to have duped the country, and lied to the military, in a bid to grow their personal bank-balances, and their status?

Lets see what Sir John Chilcot comes up with in his recommendations. If he does not hold with the public, if he does not chime with their increasing outrage, as the evidence is exposed. I dread to thing of the back-lash against him, and the whole inquiry team from the public.

Westminster Council propose new SUS laws to ban and criminalise the homeless. Soup kitchens to be smashed up!

Westminster council are proposing to bring in new SUS laws that ban the homeless from the borough. The food company Pret a Manger , has send a press release to Westminster council objected to such callous actions, and saying that they will continue to give end-of-day food to homeless charities. Well done them!

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1531643-stopping-westminster-council-banning-rough-sleepin?ref=comments

Freeze the assets of Tony Blair's 'charities' as assets of crime

There is growing concern that war-criminal Tony Blair is getting away with murder. Vote for his ill-gotten gains to be frozen and seized by the authorities and re-distributed among his victims.

See 38 Degrees petition. Don't be afraid, sign it!

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1565397-freeze-tony-blair-s-assets-and-stopReturn to list of posts-the-activities?ref=title

Urban Regeneration and Architecture Must be People-Centred and Inclusive for Success.

A Black Star over All Africa.

Joe Montgomery, Honorary President INTA and Director General of the British government's Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) explains the need for people-centred, all-inclusive "City" development policies for good economic development and happiness.

See interview below:

Superstar Mr Joe Montgomery
former Director General
 for the British government's
Department for Communities & Local Government
and now newly appointed
CEO Europe for The Urban Land Institute. 

See:


1. International "Happiness" Day
 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.48/REV.1&Lang=E


2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8q2ux6cThg

Also see documentary on how the British government and Whitehall actively promote the economic, civil, political and social exclusion of certain parts of the community on racial & religious grounds:

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3sL09gQPKs

or

Torture UK Collude Domestic Renditions International Crimes.wmv

A Letter to Tony Blair - Stop Covering Up and Release Documents for Iraq War

Thursday 20 January 2011.

To Mr Tony Blair
Former Prime Minister of UK
Tony Blair Foundation

Mr Blair

I am writing to you because I am extremely concerned that Britain was taken into the Iraq war on a false mandate. I attended the Hutton Inquiry on the death of Dr David Kelly, and have also attended the presently ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

Based on the evidence and the facts, I must conclude that you made decisions that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Many of these lost lives are British and Commonwealth personnel.

Since I have an elderly relative who was in the RAF during the second world war, I have a level of awareness of those people who made sacrifices in the name of advancing freedom, peace and civilisation. These Defenders of democracy and peace, appear to have made the ultimate sacrifice, only to be betrayed by you.

I have recently read in the newspapers that a man who works in the Cabinet office, a man called Sir Gus O'Donnell, has claimed that he has the authority to decide what is in the "public interest". The newspapers say that this person has not 'authorized' the release of documents that relate directly to you and former US President, George W. Bush in relations to the Iraq war. There are also claims that you directly intervened and interfered with the Inquiry protocols by blocking access to these documents. In other words, you refused to give your permission for the public to see these documents.

I have spoken to many people on this matter, and everyone is appalled and sickened by this wrong-headed decision. I have been on the bus and on the tube, and several people have said that you are yet again covering up and hiding information that has a direct impact on Sir John Chilcot's Inquiry. Since this is a public inquiry, and the public want to know, these documents should be released to the public.

The public have a very strong and personal interest in these matters.

Therefore, I request that you release these, and all relevant documents that can give the public a candid and full view of events. I must add, that since I too, was a victim of a "sexed up" intelligence and security report, I too have a very public and imperative interest these documents.

Mr Blair, you now benefit from your claimed faith in God. You advance the ideology that you are a man of peace. However the real test of a man who professes a belief in God through his Catholicism is whether he is blameless as a steward of God. Giving your consent to the release of all documents to the Chilcot Inquiry will reassure the public that you have a little honour.

Yours Sincerely

Marcia Simpson-James
Director
The Carbon Philter Institute
London.