BCG Newsletter March 2015

#thetimeforaction

Firstly, a very warm welcome to our new supporters. What a revealing last month this has been. At long last, the truth is slowly emerg- ing about the wholesale cover-up by the police and security services of the most Contents hideous crimes committed by MPs and VIPs. We appear to be witnessing a total breakdown of the judicial system, with courts not following correct procedures, Political Prisoners 2-3 private courts pretending to be crown courts, gagging orders to silence witnesses. MPs of the coalition voted to stop whistle blowers having immunity from the OSA – Manifesto Pledges - An 4 Affront to Democracy what twisted minds would decide that? Houses are stolen from their owners by fraudulent paperwork, with the police in the main unable to confirm the validity of Spring Conference 5-8 court paperwork. Newspapers are not reporting cases that are in the public interest. The BBC with its deep involvement in geopolitical destabilisation continues its Grand Juries at Telford: 9-12 What Next? wicked mantra. Justice for All! 13-15 It is perhaps worth recalling Ayn Rand’s open letter to Americans in 1941 about fifth columnists, which coincidentally has also appeared in another newsletter: General Election 2015 – 16-178 "Are you the kind who sits at home and moans over the state of the world — but Flying Columns and The Golden Pinocchio Awards does nothing about it? Are you the kind who says that the future is predestined by something or other, something he can't quite name or explain and isn't very clear Misconduct in Public Office 19-26 about, but the world is doomed to dictatorship and there's nothing anyone can do Richard III 27 about it? Are you the kind who says that he wishes he could do something, he'd be so eager to do something — but what can one man do? Are you the kind who are Squiggle-Gate 28-29 so devoted to your own career, your family, your home or your children that you will let the most unspeakable horrors be brought about to destroy your career, your English Constitution 30-37 family, your home and your children — because you are too busy now to prevent them?" Ministerial Veto/ 39 Is common purpose the fifth columnist movement of the UK? Power of the Media Britain's Forgotten Finest 40 But amongst this despair there are positive signs. The UK Column / BCG Spring conference was a great success and with the empowering of the people by reintro- Patent Review 41-46 ducing the Grand Jury System we are hopefully entering into a new phase, where we the people can start holding to account the unlawful and traitorous elements Contact/Letter from Aus- 47 within our country. tralia Wishing you well The BCG Team

@constitutiongrp www.britishconstitutiongroup.com Tell, Write and Share Political Prisoners

Robert Green sentenced Aberdeen 4th March 2015 By Brian Gerrish Imprisoned twice and held under house arrest for nearly one year Robert Green is an enemy of the Scottish state. His crime? Exposing child abuse, and in particular the horrific rape and abuse suffered by Aberdeen youngster Hollie Greig. Despite no investigation by Grampian police, despite Alex Sal- mond's personal office losing or destroying key documents, despite former Procurator Fiscal Elish Angiolini threatening those reporting the case, it is Robert who has now been found guilty in Aberdeen Sheriff's Court. Robert's crime was to breach an anti-harassment order served on him ear- lier to stop him reporting the Hollie Grieg case. The breach occured because he wrote to the constituency office of Alex Salmond Member of Scottish Par- liament and named names in order for his committee to have the same information concerning the case already provided to Salmond in person. His sentence was 250 hours community service and a lifelong gagging order on any mention of Hollie Greig case or any other child or adult who may come forward having suffered or having evidence of abuse. Welcome to justice in Scotland.

Why we must never forget Melanie Shaw by Brian Gerrish

For those of you who may not know Melanie Shaw she is a very brave lady. Raped and abused from the age of 3-4 years old by members of her family, she was passed to the ‘care’ of a foster family who also abused her. She was then taken into the care of Beechwood children’s home Nottingham where she was abused until she was finally allowed to leave. Denied any help to find a job she then succumbed to a life of drugs and the streets. Most of us cannot even imagine what she has suffered. Many simply cannot bear to hear what she has experienced, never mind worry that she is presently making financial profit for the Directors and Shareholders of Sodexo private prison. Yet one kind man took Melanie under his wing, looked after her, gave her a lovely home and fathered a child she loved. Strengthened by a stable family home and the passage of time, Melanie then found the courage to speak out about her abuse and those of many other children at Beechwood children’s home Nottingham. The local police took her evidence seriously and started Operation Daybreak - they soon admitted that up to 150 children were likely to have suffered. Many other children’s homes were implicated.

Page 2

Far from being protected, nurtured and praised Melanie Shaw was quickly returned to prison. It would seem that Nottingham police became nervous when she discovered that they had lied over their interviewing of witnesses. Fitted up with charges of arson and criminal damage, Melanie was sentenced to 3 years community service and branded mentally ill. Her real sentence was to start when she returned home. Tired, distraught and still suffering post traumatic stress from her abusive history, she was denied any help from Nottingham Social Services or Mental Health Services. Credit where it is due though, Nottingham Social Services had previously been remarkably efficient in taking her son into ‘care’ after she was charged with the arson offence. Alone without access to money, except for that provided by the generosity of the UKColumn readers and other members of the public, Melanie was subjected to repeated harassment by the police. Intimidating telephone calls, followed by police cars in public, her house broken into by heavyweight police in black, arrested for visit- ing the bank, Melanie was brutalised by the very public services that claim they are there to protect. The stress took its toll and she became volatile - but who wouldn’t? Her unpredictable behaviour allowed Not- tingham police and the Crown Prosecution Services to cook up more charges - unlawful imprisonment of a para- medic two offences under the Communications Act. Further charges of breaching her probation service conditions were also concocted, however these were later dropped. Returned to HMP Peterborough after a secret court hearing, Melanie has repeatedly been denied her desired legal representation - that of her trusted and capable Lay Legal Advisor. Instead she has been bullied by the Judge into using VHS Fletchers law firm, who happen to be the very people she sacked for their poor perform- ance and unqualified staff in her first trial. Now incarcerated in the same Sodexo prison that has previously denied her medical treatment, pushed her into solitary confinement, bullied her and denied her basic human rights, Melanie is now being blocked from receiving telephone calls or letters from those who can help her. She is due to appear in court for a ‘mention request’ on 8th May 2015. The next hearing will then be 18th May for a case management hearing. In the meantime, and as Sodexo’s profits rise, we must never forget Melanie Shaw or her vicious treatment at the hands of the British State. Why? Because when there is no justice or law, any of us could be next.

Why not support Melanie by writing to her? Her address is below and she will appreciate any contact from supporters.

Melanie Shaw No A4126DE Peterborough Prision Saville Road Peterborough PE37PD

Page 3 Manifesto Pledges — An Affront to Democracy JG

The inter-party pre-election bickering has started. Each party trying to outdo the other with juicy promises – but should we fall for it? Of course not! But it is worth casting our minds back to February 2008 when Stuart Bower, accused ministers of a breach of contract and mounted a legal challenge over the government’s refusal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (as promised in the labour manifesto). The court case took place in Brighton County Court and was presided over by Judge Paul Gamba. Mr Bower lost his case and was ordered to pay £2150.00 in costs, the judge struck out the case ruling that it was a political rather than a legal matter.

There are a few points about this case that are noteworthy and worth recalling.

Oddly the claim was brought, citing Article Three of the Human Rights Act - guaranteeing the right of free elections. How- ever, the government said an alleged failure to fulfil a manifesto promise fell outside the laws under which the claim was being brought.

During the case it was argued that the Lisbon Treaty was effectively the same as the European Constitution, on which the government promised a public vote at the 2005 general election. The government claimed the treaty, (which had already been signed by EU national leaders in Lisbon) was far less radical and should be decided upon by Parliament, rather than voters. Of course this was a lie, both the EU constitution document and the Lisbon Treaty were the same in cause and effect and at the time I had a case lodged with the parliamentary ombudsman accusing David Milliband of misleading the public about that very point - eventually my case was closed as also being political.

But from a constitutional viewpoint it was argued, quite rightly "The effect of the Lisbon Treaty is to transfer governance of this country to a body that does not owe allegiance to the Monarch and is not accountable to the people of this country.”. It was also argued that the government had usurped the Crown's authority by signing the Lisbon Treaty, raising fundamen- tal constitutional questions. This is an interesting point which is really at the heart of the matter.

The Queen has by her coronation oath sworn:

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? Queen: I will.

Giving away our historic right to self governance is a clear breach of the coronation oath – it is not her country to giveaway. In addition, The Bill of Rights states : ”no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm“. – a clear breach of the law?

Mr Fenton, who represented Mr Bower said: "It is quite clear that the government cannot do more than what the Crown can do, so whatever the limitations apply to the Crown apply also to Parliament.”. That point was dismissed by the government saying that it was not a judicial issue and that ministers were exercising the Crown's powers.

From my point of view, the most memorable comment was made by Barrister Cecilia Ivimy, (instructed by the government). She stated "A manifesto promise is incapable of giving rise to a legally binding contract with the electorate. It is a point which is so obvious that I don't want to labour it."

Therefore election promises will continue to be cast iron lies – an affront to democracy.

Page 4 Spring Conference - A Grand Jury

A big thank you to those who attended the Spring Conference in Telford. The feedback we have received has been very positive, with only a few minor niggles. The speakers were all fantastic and the atmosphere electric . Although much of the content was deeply unsettling,it is necessary that we hear the truth first-hand however from We are hopeful that with the successful reintroduction of the Grand Juries we will start returning power back to ‘we the people’ and begin to take an active role in clearing out the establishment cesspit. John Hurst has written an article titled ’Grand Juries at Telford—What Next?’ which starts on page 8. It explains the rational behind the Grand Jury system and how we get our authority.

I thought the event was a huge success and very Some Tremendous Feedback well organised

The variety of topics covered was remarkable as was the quality, content and sincerity of the speakers. I enjoyed it as this was the first time I had been, I found everyone I talked to, friendly and helpful. Thanks for a great weekend.

What a wonderful opportunity to, at last get to know "my family". One of the good things about UKC/BCG was the atmosphere was one of serenity, and a calm sense of purpose. Never felt that before, not even at the AVs.

I thought the conference was a huge success in giving people hope for the future by seeing so many like minded people, those who know the truth of what's going on can feel very isolated because after all we are thought of as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

Page 5 Conference Videos—Now Online

The Spring Conference videos are now online and ac- cessible at: http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/conference/ spring-conference-2015

Page 6 Conference Photo Gallery

Page 7 Conference Photo Gallery

Page 8 Grand Juries at Telford: What Next?

By John Hurst

As followers of the British Constitution Group and the UK Column newspaper will know, Grand Juries were convened on the last weekend of February 2015 at Telford to investigate misconduct by Crown officials who were alleged to have “suspended the law or the effect of the law” contrary to Articles 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights 1688 by failing to cause justice to be done. The word “Justice” means to recognise rights and punish wrongs and the main focus of the weekend was child abuse. The juries were convened on ancient customary authority acknowledged by the Coronation Oath Act 1688 and historical precedent from Magna Carta: It's Form and Contents, by William Sharp McKechnie: William the Conqueror established the principle that criminal trials should (in the normal case) begin with indictment of the accused by a representative body of neighbours sworn to speak the truth. This was merely a systematic enforcement of one of the many forms of inquisitio already in use: criminal prosecution was not to be begun on mere suspicion or irresponsible complaints. The jury of accusation (or presentment), instituted in 1166, has continued in use ever since, passing by an unbroken development into the grand jury of the present day... This principle was acknowledged in Magna Carta 1215, a peace treaty settled by trial by battle between King John and the people which has the force of an Act of Parliament but since it was not made by a Parliament cannot be infringed by one: 39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. 40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice... The authority of Magna Carta and Grand Juries were confirmed in “Statute the Fifth (1351)” by Edward the Third which is a statute in force: IV None shall be taken upon Suggestion without lawful Presentment; nor disfranchised, but by Course of Law.

Course of Law. ITEM, Whereas it is contained in the Great Charter of the Franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned nor put out of his Freehold, nor of his Franchises nor free Custom, unless it be by the Law of the Land; It is ac- corded assented, and stablished, That from henceforth none shall be taken by Petition or Suggestion made to our Lord the King, or to his Council, unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful People of the same neighbourhood where such Deeds be done, in due Manner, or by Process made by Writ original at the Common Law; nor that none be out of his Franchises, nor of his Freeholds, unless he be duly brought into answer, and fore- judged of the same by the Course of the Law; and if any thing be done against the same, it shall be redresseed and holden for none...

Note the words “unless it be by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful People”. The distinction is important because the requirement for “indictment” to be by a Grand Jury is held by main stream lawyers to have been “impliedly re- pealed” by a later statute, the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933. Careful examination of that Act finds no mention of “Presentment” however so the 1351 statute remains in force as far as “Presentments” are concerned.

Page 9 What then is a “Presentment”? The authoritative “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” has the answer: THE next step towards the punishment of offenders is their prosecution, or the manner of their formal accusation. And this is either upon a previous finding of the fact by an inquest or grand jury ; or without such previous finding. The former way is either by presentment, or indictment. A presentment, generally taken, is a very comprehensive term; including not only presentments properly so called, but also inquisitions of office, and indictments by a grand jury. A presentment, properly speaking, is the notice taken by a grand jury of any offence from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the king... Note the words, “the notice taken by a grand jury of any offence from their own knowledge or observation”. It is now necessary to refer to legal authorities from our American cousins. It should be remembered that they were originally Englishmen and that they have preserved their rights as such better than we did on this side of the Atlantic. The legal basis of many US Judgments is founded on UK historical precedents. To quote "If It's Not A Runaway, It's Not A Real Grand Jury" by Roger Roots: A presentment is a grand jury communication to the public concerning the grand jury's investigation. It has tradi- tionally been an avenue for expressing grievances of the people against government. In early American common law, the presentment was a customary way for grand juries to accuse public employees or officials of misconduct. While an "indictment" was normally thought to be invalid without the signature of a government prosecutor, a presentment required no formal assent of any entity outside the grand jury. In early America, a presentment was thought to be an indictment without a prosecutor's signature and a mandate to a district attorney to initiate a prosecution... See ORFIELD'S, supra note 22, at 392 n.16 (noting that "[t]he common law powers of a grand jury include the power to make presentments . . . calling attention to actions of public officials, whether or not they amounted to a crime)...] A “Runaway Grand Jury” is defined in the same article is:

loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtu- ally eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself. Note the words “independent” and “self governing”. That must include, I submit, the authority for loyal subjects to organise themselves into Grand Juries spontaneously and by right when individuals become aware of criminal conduct. Blackstone gives an account of the qualifications required of Grand Jurors and how they are to proceed: They ought to be freeholders, but to what amount is uncertain... However, they are usually gentlemen of the best figure in the county. As many as appear upon this panel, are sworn upon the grand jury, to the amount of twelve at the least, and not more than twenty three ; that twelve may be a majority. Which number, as well as the constitution itself, we find exactly described, so early as the laws of king Ethelred... WHEN the grand jury have heard the evidence, if they think it a groundless accusation, they used formerly to endorse on the back of the bill, “ ignoramus ;” or, we know nothing of it ; intimating, that though the facts might pos- sibly be true, that truth did not appear to them : but now, they assert in English, more absolutely, “ not a true bill ;” and then a party is discharged without farther answer. But a fresh bill may afterwards be preferred to a subsequent grand jury...

Page 10 If they are satisfied of the truth of the accusation, they then endorse upon it, “ a true bill ;” The presentment is then said to be found, and the party stands presented. But, to find a bill, there must at least twelve of the jury agree : for so tender is the law of England of the lives of the subjects, that no man can be convicted at the suit of the king of any capital offence, unless by the unanimous voice of twenty four of his equals and neighbours : that is, by twelve at least of the grand jury, in the first place, assenting to the accusation ; and afterwards, by the whole petit jury, of twelve more, finding him guilty upon his trial. But, if twelve of the grand jury assent, it is a good presentment, though some of the rest disagree. And the presentment, when so found, is publicly delivered into court... Upon which (production of a Presentment by a Grand Jury) the officer of the court must afterwards frame an indictment, before the party presented as the author can be put to answer it... The burden of proof for a Grand Jury is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. When sufficient credible evidence has been obtained from members of the Jury or a witness to substantiate a case to answer the Jury may vote on the matter. No further witnesses are required. The presence of the accused is not necessary. Petit Jury trials require the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) and the rules of natural justice apply. That then is what was achieved at Telford. Presentations were made about corruption and inaction by various Crown officials. Persons present decided to form themselves in four Grand Juries. They swore themselves in and debated the mate- rial which they had already seen. They called witnesses and examined them, elected Foremen and voted according to their consciences. Three out of four produced Presentments. The first found a case to answer of misconduct in office against a police constable who placed unjustifiable conditions on a victim of the North Wales Care Home case which prevented her from exercising her Common Law right to petition the Crown for redress of her grievances. The second found a case to answer of misconduct in office against a senior official of the Independent Police Complaints Commission who refused the right to have justice to a victim of criminal misconduct by police officers.

The third found a case to answer of misconduct in office by a Home Office minister in instructions given by him to Chief Constables to deny individual’s right to possess arms for their defence. The fourth jury apparently (jurors are sworn to secrecy) were unable to reach a verdict by 12. So what happens next? The first answer is noted above [t]he common law powers of a grand jury include the power to make presentments . . . calling attention to actions of public officials, whether or not they amounted to a crime)... The author suspects that officials in the lower Courts are unlikely to know much about the subject of Grand Juries. They need education and guidance from the top of their hierarchies.

As it happens, both the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor have recently expressed commitment to the Rule of Law in speeches on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta 1215. On the 23rd February this year, the Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, speaking at the Global Law Summit, said: In 1215 no one could have foreseen the significance of what can best be described as a peace treaty between our then ruler, King John, and those rebelling against him. As students of history will know, Magna Carta failed to achieve its immediate aim – but yet has had a profound influence on the development of justice and the rule of law, first in this country, next, as Churchill said, through becoming part of the ‘joint inheritance of the English- speaking world’...

None of these issues raised by the two principles of the rule of law and access to justice is easy. Some are very uncomfort- able not merely to governments but to others such as corporations with immense economic power. But the task requires a commitment from us all, governments, legislatures, lawyers, judges, businesses and citizens. There can also be no doubt that some will try to obstruct this commitment to the rule of law. To others it will merely be inconvenient. As to obstruction, our duty is clear; the obstruction must be fought against and removed; obstructions to justice are a denial of justice as Magna Carta teaches…

Page 11 In the words of one of my most illustrious predecessors as Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, it is essential ‘for peace, order and good governance’ that we maintain the rule of law... I am confident therefore that over the course of the next three days our discussions will be of the highest quality. I am equally sure that we will consider in detail how Magna Carta’s principles can be applied to shape our futures. In doing so we must I think, remember something else Sir Winston Churchill once said when he was recalling, amongst other things, Magna Carta’s inheritance. He reminded us all that when we did so – when we talked of the rule of law, genuine access to courts of justice – that we must ‘preach what we practice [as well as] practice what we preach’. Let us indeed. In doing so we will not simply secure Magna Carta’s inheritance for the coming century, but rein- force the centrality of justice to our societies and to our global world in the way I have outline. At the same event, the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling had this to say: This event is the beginning of a whole year of celebrations to mark 800 years of what is quite a remarkable document . That document, signed on the fields by the Thames at Runnymede in 1215, as part of a truce between King John and his feuding barons, has become a foundation stone not just for our legal system, but for many other coun- tries too. Nation after nation now derive their legal traditions from that piece of parchment. Within that document you will find cornerstones of our legal system. No official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. The principle of a fair trial that survives to this day. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs or other officials only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well – a principle that still underlies our system for appointing our judges today. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. A pledge to keep a corruption-free system that remains vital to this day. However, ladies and gentlemen, not everything stands the test of time. Some of the provisions are definitely a bit time expired. Like the promise by the King that he will stop taking firewood from his subjects without their permission. Or that he will remove fish weirs from the River Thames. But those core principles agreed 800 years ago are still the heart of the legal values and traditions of this country. Indeed, one of most remarkable legal minds of last century, Lord Denning, described Magna Carta as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".

I am proud that Magna Carta has been one of the UK's greatest exports: it has inspired and formed the basis of so many legal systems and it is cited and invoked whenever and wherever basic freedoms come under threat. I am also proud that the great legal tradition continues. The United Kingdom is respected throughout the world for the strength of its legal system, for the skills and knowledge of its judiciary and courts, for its consistency and stability as a legal jurisdiction. Fine words indeed, by a Judge and by a Politician (Mr. Grayling is the first non lawyer to be appointed Lord Chancellor).

I propose, as a first step, to submit the Presentments to these gentlemen giving notice that Grand Juries are back and to require them to ensure that the lower Courts are aware of their responsibilities. That is what Attorney –Generals Practice Directions are for. At the same time I will make the accused aware of their position as accused persons with all that implies for their personal bonds or liability insurance and status as operational officials. Further developments in the lower Courts will be reported as they occur. Page 12 Justice for All! By Sarah McDonagh ex-JP

When, in May 2006, I was appointed Justice of the Peace (JP, or Magistrate,) I was appointed by the Queen – it was therefore a Royal Appointment and the then Lord-Lieutenant of Sussex, Hugh Wyatt was involved in the solemn Swearing In ceremony representing Her Majesty’s physical presence. A Royal Appointment just like the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister were also Royal Appointments – representing the separation of powers, Monarchy, Judiciary and Government. In April 2006, under the ‘Justice for All’ initiative, the Constitu- tional Reform Act had added the Lord Chief Justice to those under direct Royal Appointment; but there had always been other Royal Appointments such as those for the Armed Forces and the Police. So on the face of it this didn’t seem alarm- ing. As with every other Monarch back to Richard I in 1195, Elizabeth II’s Coronation Oath made her responsible for any damage caused by public riot. Thus her need for JPs sprinkled about the country to Keep the Peace directly on her behalf, acting in loco Regina; because unaddressed crime inevitably leads people to taking the law into their own hands potentially leading to riot. So the role of a JP judging evidence of crime in court was originally an adjunct to their primary role to Keep the Peace. This role was hugely incentivised by lessons leant from the French and then the Russian Revolutions – the people will only take so much injustice. Particularly the British People who have never been slavish in their outlook. .The significance of my Royal Appointment was that I took my Oath directly to the Queen, in other words not, like the Judges who always took an Oath to the Lord Chief Justice who in turn now took an Oath to the Queen. And like the Lord Chief Justice I had the Royal Prerogative – I could ‘Humbly petition Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth the Second to command Her Lord Chancellor to look into this . . . and any other matter as he deems fit.’ In the spring of 2007 I had occasion to speak to Malcolm Watts who was then Head Magistrates’ Branch at the new Judi- cial Office shared by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The Constitutional Reform Act had caused more bother than I’d first imagined: JPs now had to be appointed from all walks of life and the local Bench Chairman could no longer suspend or fire them. So the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Shire were faced with the prospect of hoards of JPs driv- ing white vans as a permanent fixture. Steps had to be taken and one of those steps was taken against me; until Malcolm Watts forced the Bench Chair to allow me to sit regardless of his own opinion. In telling me to stand up to the Bench Chairman in the future Mr Watts reminded me that I had the Royal Prerogative and he explained exactly how it worked. Born in 1947 I grew up knowing about the British Constitution because of the Queen’s Coronation in 1952. There was much discussion on the Constitution, both at home and at school. Rightly or wrongly, in those days school history lessons were almost exclusively about kings and queens. We might have been sadly uninformed about how a medieval serf proba- bly felt about his children; but in the political history of royalty we were deeply immersed. In some depth, I later covered the Bill of Rights for ‘O’ Level History. The details do not stay in the memory but the general principals do. If I’d answered then that Britain is a Parliamentary Democracy pure and simple, I’d have failed the exam. No, we are better than that. We are a Constitutional Monarchy, governed by a process of parliamentary democracy in line with Common Law. This was taught partly to inform us about our individual rights when we grew up. But Common Law and the Bill of Rights is very silent on certain important issues: Rights for women? None. But husbands have their marriage vows to comply with to provide sex and sustenance for life. Do we want that now? Under Common Law a marriage vow is a legally binding commitment not an excuse for a party. And the actual words matter. So to swear to be married to someone until one of you wants a divorce would be perfectly okay as long as that’s what was said at the ceremony.

Page 13 However, that the Queen should hold all the power and yet none of it, is a beautiful paradox usually only found in nature. The intricate interaction of checks and balances, of an organism capable of righting itself in a crisis, is reminiscent of a great river, or a volcano; or perhaps a manned sailing ship. Does the ship keep the men afloat or do the men keep the ship afloat? Well both. Yes, but which is more important? Neither, the sea (like the people) is sovereign under its natural law. You can never trust the sea not to riot so it must be respected. However, it is easy to see how in the early years of the new millennium, to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair all this ar- chaic Constitutional stuff must have seemed terribly Uncool. Not at all a natural fit for Cool Britannia. Without any malice, Thatcher’s Boy-who-never-grew-up must have been flummoxed. He didn’t like the look of it. He liked Justice for All as a Cool Idea. He liked the look of the Euro – the Euro was Cool. Going to war against a Middle Eastern Ty- rant was very, very cool! Being best friends with George Bush wasn’t quite as cool as being best friends with Bill Clinton – Bill and Hilary, Tony and Cherie. How cool was that? Ultra-Kool!! But the British Constitution? Perhaps he tried spelling it with an ultra cool ‘k’ but Konstitution didn’t look cool either. So he left it lying around until the Judiciary found it. Aha! They pounced – just what we always wanted! It had always really pissed them off that piddling little JPs had this supe- rior constitutional status. And it’s easy to see their point of view. Why on earth should Mrs Ima Nobody JP from Littlehamp- ton have anything at all status-wise, over The Hon Mr Justice Terribly-Important? She can approach the Queen while he has to wait in line? In June 2008 I wrote to Malcolm Watts to formally invoke the Royal Prerogative because of the several instances of blatant corruption I’d witnessed on the Bench.

On one instance I’d sat with a JP in heavy disguise to hide his identity as he obeyed a Masonic Grief and Distress signal from a police officer who’d just completely screwed up the false evidence he was giving against an innocent man. A man who, as a result, was found guilty as charged. I had heard evidence go uncontested in court (so therefore accepted as true by both sides) of severe and unprovoked Sus- sex Police physical brutality against a man handcuffed behind his back, deemed by Sussex Police to be potentially suicidal – the only reason they came to his caravan home in the first place was his potentially suicidal status. He was in court because while being assaulted, he’d spat at the officer who was assaulting him. What else could he do to defend himself? At the behest of his solicitor he pleaded guilty; so naturally we fined him and then awarded his police assailant generous financial compensation to be paid by the permanently injured man. And, though this was four years before Jimmy Savile was exposed, I had a strong suspicion, from other cases, comments made in retiring rooms and in the Bench newsletter that organised paedophilia was behind this small number of blatantly corrupt cases. I wrote to Malcolm Watts with my Royal Prerogative request. He then wrote a report dated 9 July 2008 covering the gist of my concerns to the then Lord Chief Justice, Nicholas Phillips. He later sent me a copy. I was not at my best just then because in the meantime Sussex Police had decided I was not, as my husband said, on a few days holiday without a phone; but potentially suicidal and/or murdered by the said husband. Much disruption followed. These very disorientating events are also in Malcolm Watt’s report to Lord Chief Justice Phillips.

Instead of receiving the expected reply to my request, on 23 July 2008, The Hon Mr Justice John Griffith Williams suspended me from sitting. He says in his letter he was acting directly on behalf of Lord Chief Justice Phillips, and I have no reason to doubt him. There were no complaints against me but I was dealt with by the new Office for Judicial Complaints. Well and truly dealt with. Malcolm Watts was powerless to intervene; but he did help me with advice. Then in January 2011 I was e-mailed by a third party that Malcolm Watts had relocated to another job, one with nothing to do with JPs; so he would no longer be able to advise me.

Page 14 Justice for All! cont

I eventually won an appeal to the Judicial Ombudsman on multiple procedural failings and this should, by law, have exoner- ated me. So they only finally managed to get rid of me in July 2012 through the good offices of the then Lord Chancellor, Rt Hon Ken Clarke MP acting above the law. Funnily enough I’d always quite liked him; and I’d only just e-mailed him on his MP e-mail address to explain I was being stitched up and why – but he sacked me anyway on the grounds that I had not shown the circumspection required of a JP. Then as 2012 turned into 2013 the Judiciary pulled its final masterstroke. There had been complaints about the effective- ness of the Office for Judicial Complaints housed at the MoJ. Complainants were not happy and JPs were being treated more harshly than Judges. So, from their Olympian heights at the Royal Courts of Justice the Judiciary took over Judicial Complaints, via an entirely independent body of course – the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office housed at the Royal Courts of Justice. They have a very nice website which explains everything very clearly. From 1 January 2013 – no doubt in the spirit of Devolution – the previously separate Benches of England and of Wales were amalgamated into the one Bench of England & Wales, Presided over by The Hon Mr Justice Peter Henry Gross. Strangely he is listed with previous Welsh Presiding Judges (one of whom is Judge Griffith William’s late father-in-law – it’s a small world.) While on the equivalent list for England the post of Presiding Judge is shown as vacant since 2012 – you’d think he would be shown on both wouldn’t you? Or is this a stealthy Welsh takeover? The current Lord Chief Justice is Lord John Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Another Welshman! And my case has been peppered with Welsh names from the local Lord- Lieutenant’s clerk, John Williams to Judge Griffith Williams seated above the snow line, down to Ch Supt Wayne Jones at Sussex Police. And my suspicions of paedophilia – my witness accounts of corruption? Well, mostly they were ignored. But in 2009, after a lot of pestering from me, they were definitely read by HH Judge Paul Tain who did find the remarks in the Newsletter, for instance: Question: What’s the definition of the word AVAIL? Answer: Useful for an ugly woman [ha-ha – more treats below,] a tad inappropriate for a Bench Newsletter . . . but okay elsewhere?

Many thanks to Sarah for an excellent and informative article shining a light on the inner working of the politics within magistrates system. It seems that no ‘public body’ is free from the infestation of corruption and blessed with an internal ‘independent ‘complaints system. It of note that Sarah was taught about the constitution at school— time to change the school curriculum? Ed

Enfield Magistrate Court

Credit A R Driver /wiki

Page 15 General Election 2015 – Flying Columns and The Golden Pinocchio Awards By Justin Walker

ALERT! LET’S GET OUT ONTO THE STREETS WITH THE TRUTH! Going after our self-serving and treasonous politicians on the hustings - filming these lying puppets of the global banking elite as they're suddenly confronted publicly with the truth!

INTRODUCTION Fed up with being lied to by our politicians? Disgusted by their childish behaviour? Appalled by their arrogance and personal greed? Well, if you are, you're certainly not on your own! And what about those politicians where the evidence is mounting that they've committed actual treason against the British people? And even worse, what about the appalling evidence that is now coming out thick and fast that links some Establishment politicians, both past and present, with the appalling abuse and even the murder of children? Our country is in one hell of a mess! Its sovereignty - that is the ability to govern and defend itself - is going down the pan! The criminal debt-creating private bankers have our system-serving politicians firmly in their pockets. It really doesn't matter which of the leading political parties you support, the leaders have all been thoroughly corrupted by the enormously complex and extremely invasive global financial and corporate legal system that has been allowed to ensnare and enslave humanity using thoroughly unlawful and dishonest means. The time has now come for the decent people of our country to rebel and bite back with the truth - not aggressively, but by harnessing the characteristics that the British people are well known for.....humour and cheek! Over the coming weeks, up until polling day on May 7th, how would you like to publicly confront and expose these self-serving and treasonous politicians square on and bring them down to earth with one hell of a bump....whilst having tremendous fun in the process? Well, you can! And all you need is some sort of digital camcorder and two or three like-minded friends who are also deter- mined to expose these wrongdoers and so get the truth out. Acting like a sort of military ‘flying column’ – that is a small highly mobile and motivated force that is capable of utilising its minimum resources effectively so as to achieve maximum effect – this simple initiative could easily sabotage the well-laid election plans of the major political parties thus exposing to the British electorate the enormous lies and subterfuge that currently pervade and effect our country’s decision-making processes. But before we start getting out onto the hustings with these ‘flying columns’, we need to understand properly what it is that we are all actually up against. We need to understand how this financial and legal system actually works and how our political processes have been deliberately hijacked in order to distress and collapse our country from within. And we are not describing here so-called 'conspiracy theories' - everything that we will be challenging our politicians on is based entirely on absolute truth and actual historical precedent. WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON! Detailed and painstaking research, coupled with the evidence of brave whistle-blowers and insiders, reveal that there is an external and secretive 'influence' - a hidden hand if you like - that effects all aspects of our society and our country's governance today. It is a corporate and criminal influence which causes our democratic process to now lack accountability, transpar- ency and integrity. Owing to the deliberate complicity of the 'bought' mainstream media (especially the BBC), it is an influ- encethat remains almost completely hidden from the British people and if nothing changes quickly we will once again see the British electorate going to the polling stations to cast their votes whilst wallowing in a sea of complete ignorance as to what is really happening to them. The reality for more than ninety-nine per cent of the British people is that this corporate legal and financial system has, by using entrapment and deception, become unlawfully embedded into our tried and tested constitution of Common Law and ancient traditions. The hub of all this intrigue and chicanery is the financial centre of the world, the City of London, supported by an international network of secret societies (Freemasonry etc.) and so-called and little known elitist 'think-tanks' such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission.

The actual mindset behind this 'influence' would appear to lack any empathy whatsoever towards the human condition; indeed, decent-minded people could well describe this mindset as being evil. The actual numbers of people involved, including the system's 'useful idiots' (politicians, economists and journalists 'in the know'), are hugely less than one per cent of the world's population, but despite this, their main endeavour is the pursuit of complete global governance on their terms - terms which are truly Orwellian, shocking and completely undemocratic! Page 16 To achieve this total control over us, we have all been entered unwittingly into their completely contrived ‘global economic race’ and put onto a treadmill of mass mindless production in order to meet mass mindless consumerism. Our overall happiness and well-being are most certainly not their priority - our unquestioning compliance and allegiance to their financial system for making huge profits for 'The City' and the 'one per cent' most certainly is. In order to achieve this enormous control over us, the corporate and banking elite (they even call themselves the New World Order) have plotted and manoeuvred covertly since the creation of the Bank of England in 1694. They are now finally in a position to directly control almost all of the world's money supply. This has been mainly achieved by the creation of a global network of sixty national, but privately controlled central banks, all of which are overseen by the very little known, secretive and unaccountable Bank for International Settlements which is based in Basle, Switzerland. By applying what is termed 'fractional reserve banking' - that is the creation of money completely out of thin air as debt by the private banks and financial institutions and then charging interest on something that never actually existed (fraud in other words) - the global elite have given themselves the unlawful financial wherewithal to plunge nations, communities and families into unsustainable levels of debt - and debt, as we all know, is an excellent mechanism by which to control people and nations. However, there is excellent news! We have now been alerted to an Achilles Heel embedded in their appalling plan to control us all. We have been made aware by insiders of a huge and effective solution that will completely collapse the global elite’s house of cards. There is, as history has shown, one essential truth that will stop the so-called New World Order dead in their tracks. And what is that essential truth? It is that any sovereign nation’s government in the world has the ABSOLUTE right to issue and control its own debt-free and interest-free money through its treasury (based on the wealth and potential of that nation) in order to provide the liquidity needed for a prosperous and vibrant economy that meets the needs, security and happiness of that nation. Intelligent and targeted taxation is then used by a government to take excessive money out of the economy so avoiding any possible problems with inflation. It's not rocket science - it's all ridiculously simple and it has been done before with great success! And it's the 'big secret' the City of London do not want people to know! And in Britain we have the perfect historical precedent to prove this - the 1914 Treasury-issued Bradbury Pound! ( http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/ campaign/bring-back-the-bradbury). And so what does all this mean for the British people? What would the restoration of the Bradbury Pound do for the British economy? Well, it means that the 'deficit' the politicians of all parties talk about is a complete and utter lie! The 'national debt' is also a complete and utter lie! Our cutbacks in defence are provably treasonous as they are also based on a complete and utter lie! It means that the NHS can be funded properly without having any deficit problems whatsoever. It means that the vulnerable in our society can be properly looked after. And it means that we have the debt-free liquidity needed for a vibrant and prosperous economy where the debt-creating criminal bankers have absolutely no say or involvement whatsoever! In other words, any politician spouting rubbish on the hustings about the need for ‘austerity measures’, ‘deep cuts’ and ‘deficit reduction programmes’ can either be ridiculed as being an uninformed fool or exposed as a traitor working for the global banking and corporate elite! There is quite definitely no grey area here, it’s black and white and the bottom line is this - sovereign governments do NOT, repeat NOT, have to borrow money from the private banking and financial sector! And we have history on our side to prove this!

SO LET'S GET OUT THERE AND HAVE SOME FUN! It's time to get this essential truth out and it must be done in a humorous and peaceful way that will have people chuckling in the streets. And if the people are chuckling, they are not showing fear. And if they are not showing fear, the system that needs people to be fearful, collapses! So the last thing the global elite and their ‘useful idiots’ in Parliament want is for us, the people, to be out there with cameras filming them on the public hustings squirming when confronted with the real truth about money creation. The leadership of all the major parties are implicated, including UKIP (Nigel Farage will have nothing whatsoever to do with the restoration of the Bradbury Pound) so they must all be challenged without fear or favour. MPs going for re-election are at their most vulnerable on the actual hustings as they are out on a limb and do not enjoy the levels of support and back-up that is usually available to them within the ‘Westminster bubble’. And they all know that just one ‘knock-out’ question badly answered on camera could make the difference between victory and defeat for them. And if they know they are defending a completely indefensible and criminal economic system that ordinary decent people are now waking up to, this will make them doubly nervous!

Page 17 General Election 2015 – Flying Columns and The Golden Pinocchio Awards cont

And when it comes to what these ‘knock-out’ questions should be, all aspects of the global elite's skulduggery and wrongdo- ings should be considered. Apart from challenging the politicians about restoring the debt-free Treasury-issued Bradbury Pound, there is also now the enormous issue of provable criminality being practised in our courts where judges, lawyers and bankers are seemingly working in cahoots to knowingly steal for personal gain. Last year many thousands of homes were re- possessed by bailiffs acting for the banks leaving devastated home owners and wrecked families. However, it has now come to light that most of these repossessions were criminally fraudulent as corrupted courts, judges and legal teams have used and are using provably falsified documents. This is a huge ticking time bomb which, along with the Bradbury Pound and the appalling abuse of children by Establishment figures, is going to blow apart the whole rotten system that seeks to control us. THE GOLDEN PINOCCHIO AWARDS! So we now come to the Golden Pinocchio Awards. It doesn't matter how important a politician thinks he or she is, they are extremely vulnerable and weak when they are seen begging and grovelling for votes from their constituents on the hustings. Over the coming weeks the known wrongdoers (a list will be put out shortly) must be sought out in their constituencies and challenged publicly in front of their constituents with deadly ‘knock out’ questions. As soon as footage comes in of our mainstream politicians lying/running away/ squirming/ losing it when they are confronted with the truth, that footage must go viral by putting it up immediately on every social/alternative media site we can think of so that millions of people have the potential to wake up to what's really happening to them before they vote. And to add to the fun, the top ten filmed 'incidents' will be judged and at a special 'Golden Pinocchio' awards ceremony at the Autumn British Constitution Group conference, the creators of the best footage will receive their 'Golden Pinocchios' in the absence of the targeted politician not turning up. So there we have it! This is our chance to all have some mischievous fun at the expense of the traitors who are deliberately destroying our country's well-being and sovereignty from within. And if this idea does go viral, then it is just possible we may influence the actual outcome of the General Election. So the question must be, will you, who is reading this, join us and help us get the truth out in the next few weeks? We can only break through and win if everyone does their bit! Being a keyboard warrior is one thing, getting into the actual face of the enemy on the streets when they are at their most vulnerable, is quite another! AND FINALLY, HERE’S THE ONE ‘KNOCKOUT’ QUESTION THE TREASONOUS POLITICIANS DO NOT WANT TO BE ASKED: To expose the criminal corporate system right across the board, every parliamentary candidate and every defending MP must be asked this one question – how they answer will either expose their enormous ignorance about money creation and the reality of the so-called ‘deficit’, or it will expose their enormous complicity with the City of London and the globalist banksters: Why should a completely sovereign nation like Great Britain have to borrow money from the private financial sector when history has clearly shown that such a nation can embrace national credit and issue and control its own debt-free and interest-free money in order to provide the proper liquidity needed for a happy, industrious and prosperous debt- free nation? Other suggested questions that the politicians need to answer on film will follow very shortly, as will practical advice on how get the better of the politicians on the hustings. Finally, this ‘flying columns’ initiative has come about because like-minded and decently-motivated people know it is now the right time to come together. At the moment the following groups have agreed to be involved but other campaigning groups are more than welcome: www.responseuk.org ; www.debtbuddy.com ; www.getoutofdebtfree.org ; www.ukcolumn.org ; www.britishconstitutiongroup.com

If you have any queries or suggestions, please email: [email protected]

Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Richard III

As has widely been reported in the news, Richard III has now been reburied at Leicester, below is a short history about him.

Richard III (2 October 1452 – 22 August 1485) was King of England from 1483 until his death in 1485 in the Battle of Bosworth Field. He was the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty. His defeat at Bosworth Field, the last decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, marked the end of the Middle Ages in England. He is the subject of the fictional historical play Richard III by William Shakespeare. When his brother King Edward IV died in April 1483, Richard was named Lord Protector of the realm for Edward's son and successor, the 12-year-old Edward V. As the young King travelled to London from Ludlow, Richard met and es- corted him to lodgings in the Tower of London where Edward V's brother Rich- ard joined him shortly afterwards. Arrangements were made for Edward's coronation on 22 June 1483, but before the young king could be crowned, his father's marriage to his mother Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid, making their children illegitimate and ineligible for the throne. On 25 June, an assem- bly of lords and commoners endorsed the claims. The following day, Richard III began his reign, and he was crowned on 6 July 1483. The young princes were not seen in public after August, and accusations circulated that the boys had been murdered on Richard's orders, giving rise to the legend of the Princes in the Tower. There were two major rebellions against Richard. The first, in October 1483, was led by staunch allies of Ed- ward IV and by Richard's former ally, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham; the revolt collapsed. In August 1485, Henry Tudor and his uncle, Jasper Tudor, led another rebellion against Richard. Henry Tudor landed in southern Wales with a small contingent of French troops and marched through his birthplace, Pembrokeshire, recruiting more soldiers. Henry's force engaged Richard's army and defeated it at the Battle of Bosworth Field in Leicestershire. Richard was struck down in the conflict, making him the last English king to die in battle on home soil and the first since Harold II was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Richard III's remains were buried without pomp. The original tomb is believed to have been destroyed during the Reformation, and the remains were lost for more than five centuries. In 2012, an archaeological excavation was conducted on a city council car park using ground-penetrating radar on the site once occupied by Greyfri- ars, Leicester. The University of Leicester confirmed on 4 February 2013 that the skeleton found in the excavation is that of Richard III, based on the results of radiocarbon dating, a comparison with contemporary reports of his appearance, and a comparison of his mitochondrial DNA with that of two matrilineal descendants of Rich- ard III's eldest sister, Anne of York. In 2015, it was decided that Richard's remains were to be reburied at Leicester Cathedral,[8] despite feelings in some quarters that he should have been reburied in Yorkshire.

Source: with thanks wiki

Page 27 Squiggle-Gate

Below is reproduced another excellent letter from Gillian Swanson to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service(COPFS). Some of the correspondence received from the COPFS has not had a legible signature, just a squiggly line, with no clue about the identity of the sender.– thus Squiggle-Gate. Who is the mystery writer?

8 March, 2015

Your Ref: R009620

Response and Information Unit, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, 25 Chambers Street, EDINBURGH, EH1 1LA

Dear Squiggle,

Open letter: your claim that the Crown Office has fulfilled its duty in relation to the Hollie Greig case

Thank you for your e-mail dated 5 March 2015, in reply to my letters dated 30 January, to Ms Catriona Dalrymple, and 31 January, to Ms Helen Knipe.

Firstly, I believe that, in order to ensure that correspondents know exactly whom they are dealing with, it is a legal requirement that those unable to write their signature clearly should supplement it with a printed version. Despite the fact that you have identified yourself only with a wavy line, you have failed to add any printed interpretation. I will therefore assume that I am continuing to address Ms Dalrymple, in her capacity as Head of Policy at the Crown Office, and to hold her personally responsible for the opinions stated.

With regard to your refusal to deal with Mr Pattinson’s inquiries, Ms Dalrymple, I can only say that it is widely felt, among the law-abiding public, that misapplication of the Data Protection Act, along with wilful misinterpretation of the term ‘harassment’, serves only to pervert the course of justice.

With regard to your continuing assertion that the Hollie Greig case has been thoroughly investigated, I would ask you to confirm the following assumptions, which follow inevitably from this claim:

1. when a case of rape is reported, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary for the police to question the alleged perpetrators without delay;

2. when a case of rape is reported, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary for the police immediately to search the homes of those named for corroborative evidence;

Page 28 3. when a case of rape is reported, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary to seize and examine the computers of those named at the earliest opportunity;

4. when allegations of rape are supported by evidence from well-respected medical and psychological experts who unanimously confirm not only that systematic abuse has taken place, but go so far as to name two of the most likely perpetrators, you, as representative of the Crown Office, believe it right to dismiss their testimony and allow those named to leave the country;

5. when a school doctor twice reports an under-age girl to be at risk, and that girl’s headmaster - one of those subse- quently named as a serial rapist - consistently fails to alert the child’s mother or to take any steps to protect her, you, as representative of the Crown Office, believe this to be the normal behaviour of a responsible, and guiltless, person;

6. when a case of rape is reported by a girl with speech difficulties, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe it is necessary to supply her with support during police interviews, but are happy to use her handicap, in this respect, to discredit her spoken evidence;

7. when a case of repeated multiple gang rape over many years is reported by a young girl who also names seven fel- low victims, you, as representative of the Crown Office, do not believe that, in view of the Scottish law regarding corroboration, it is absolutely essential that the police question those she has named immediately.

8. When an acknowledged victim of rape receives a substantial award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Au- thority, you, as representative of the Crown Office, feel justified in continuing to maintain that the allegations on which this award was based were fully investigated and found to be false.

These few points do not come even close to scraping the bottom of the barrel with regard to the extraordinary behaviour of police, Crown Office and, indeed, the Holyrood executive where this case is concerned. However, I would be grateful if you would confirm in writing, within 20 days, that such are, indeed, the premises on which you, as representative of the Crown Office, decide whether a case of rape should be prosecuted. You may, of course, at some point be held personally responsible for subscribing to them, should an inquiry into child abuse in Scotland find them wanting. Following orders is no excuse for failing in your professional duty to uphold the rule of law.

Yours sincerely,

Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Unsustainable UK Debt Payments

Quotable quote: Thanks to Larry Robson

““One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.” Thomas B. Reed

Notices

Links to past newsletters http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/sites/default/files/documents/BCG-Nov-Dec2014.pdf http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/sites/default/files/documents/BCG_Newsletter_Jan_2015.pdf http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/sites/default/files/documents/BCG_Feb_2015_Newsletter.pdf

Changing Your email Address?

If you are changing your email address please do not forget to update your profile on the website—otherwise you will miss out on any mailings.

Forgot Your BCG Password?

If you have forgotten your password for the BCG site you can automatically reset it by clicking the ‘Request new password’ which is below the User Login panel.

Page 38 Ministerial Veto

Section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, contains a statutory override or veto, which is vested in minsters and the Attorney General. This veto allows the government to block FOI requests. The first ministerial veto was issued by the then Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, on 23 February 2009 regarding the contents of the legal advice on military action against Iraq. Two subsequent vetoes were issued protecting communications on devolution issues and a fourth on. A fourth veto was issued on 8 May 2012 blocking the release of the NHS Transitional Risk Register and a fifth in July 2012 blocking extracts from Cabinet minutes on the military action against Iraq in 2003. A sixth was on 16 October 2012, relat- ing to the release of correspondence from Prince Charles to Government departments. This has prompted a Court of Ap- peal judgment on 12 March 2014 quashing the veto, which has just been successfully appealed. A seventh veto was issued in January 2014 in respect of HS2 documents. More details about the legislation can be found at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/53

The power of the media exposed

Many will have watched the news footage of millions of people marching in Paris, with the various heads of states leading the procession. However the reality of the camera shot is below.

Page 39 Britain's Forgotten Finest

The Fellman @ Nick Green

Destruction of the Motor Industry @ Nick Green

Page 40 This months Patent Review shows the carburettor patent taken out in 1936 by C N Pogue. What is of note for this patent is that it is a vaporizing carburettor, that is the fuel is pre- heated before entering into the engine cylinder, which apparently enabled mileages of up to 200 miles a gallon to be achieved. Ed

Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Contact Details Reasserting our Constitution The BCG The Annex Scott Lodge About the BCG Scott Road Plymouth We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. That PL2 3DQ right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason 01752 478050 having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service. Justin Walker - Campaign Director - [email protected] Alan Kelly - Admin - [email protected] The purpose of the BCG is to reclaim our lawful right to self gov- John Galloway - Energy - [email protected] ernance. This in the first instance requires a total withdrawal from the European Union. Get Involved—write an article

If you have any articles, suggestions or letters for the newsletter please send them to John Galloway for inclusion in the next edition. This is you newsletter, let’s make it work.

Recommended Viewing

Join the BCG If you would like to support us why not join? Website: http://www.ukcolumn.org www.ianrcrane.com www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/join-the- bcg

A view from Australia Some Irrelevances

One of the after effects of cyclone Pam may be the price of bananas. The last time this area saw wide- spread damage to banana plantations the price of bananas, in some places, rocketed to $30.00 per Kg! Queensland produces in excess of 250,000 ton- nes of bananas each year which is worth in the region $500M gross value.

Did you know that in the 1930s Loretta and Charles David used to race greyhounds with monkey jockeys? The couple took over two years to

train the monkey and dog duos at vast expense. They used to travel to the various racing tracks and the spectacle proved to be highly popular with the punters.