Darren Pollard – Domestic Extremist or Lawful Rebel? [Updated – 10/10/2009]

[Edit] Small update (at the bottom) – 22/09/2009

[Edit] A lovely endorsement from Darren Pollard: – 10/10/2009

Yeah slimline, the guy who likes what I do so much he starts a blog creating the perception I’m seen as a ‘domestic extreemist’ and then saying ‘no he’s not.’

Why have a dig at me in this thread? You know why eh! Because I go out and get the job done. You just create a ‘perception’ you’re trying to do something. And yeah, I read your letters and notices in various threads. Be interesting to see you post an achievement that you have overcome standing up for yourself against the system?

Perhaps you could go out with a camera & talk to the police yourself, show us all how it’s really done!

Keep the controvesy going, you’ll just get my info more attention, cheers!

Source: http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5879

Thanks for the kind words of appreciation … mate! – slimline66

***

Here is yet another example of another ordinary member of the public who on speaking out against the tyrannical actions of those that purport to “represent us” (by controlling our actions no less!), is forcibly silenced and taken off our streets. Not only was he arrested (more than once), he and his partner are being threatened with the removal of their children from their rightful place, with their natural parents … do as we say or we’ll take away what is most precious to you,  your children … nice!!!!

Darren is charged with the heinous crime of … wait for it … DOMESTIC EXTREMISM … which is more correctly defined as SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE WRONG DOINGS OF YOUR COUNTRIES “AUTHORITIES”. So basically, its either “agree with their wrong doings, or not, but keep very quiet about it like a good little programmable robot” or “speak out, protecting your rights and the rights of others (which our fore fathers and their families suffered great losses to attain … anyone remember WW2 … I’ll bet if those soldiers killed were alive today, they would think “what the fuck did I give my life for?”) and be branded a CRIMMINAL, a DOMESTIC EXTREMIST!”.

Democracy eh, don’t you just love it.

No wonder the Arab countries don’t want it FORCED on them.

The law of this country is built on the foundations of the people fighting for their right to live their lives peacefully and without threat or interference from the conquering forces … the imposed “authority”.

But in those dark ages, force was necessary to defend the claims of industry; and such a force these municipal societies possessed; for their towns were not only defended by walls and gates vigilantly guarded by the citizens, but oft-times at the head of their fellow freemen in arms, the mayor, aldermen, or other officers marched forth in firm array to assert their rights, defend their property and teach the proudest and most powerful baron that the humblest freeman was not to be injured with impunity.  It was thus the commons learned and proved they were not objects of contempt; nay that they were beings of the same species as the greatest lords. – Susanna Watts – A Walk through Leicester (page 86)

The rights of slaves were also recognised:

Villeinage was, however, not absolute slavery. It was only to his lord that the villein was in this humble relation. Towards all others he was free, and had the rights of a freeman ; consequently, by flight into other parts of the country many villeins escaped from their state of bondage ; and though the lord had a legal right to reclaim them, his pursuit must often have been ineffectual. The indulgence also of many lords granted their villeins many indulgencies, which gradually ripened from customary privileges into legal rights. Many lords emancipated their villeins ; and by these and other modes the peasantry gradually emerged from the condition of serfs to that of free labourers. – Edward Shepherd Creasy – The Textbook Of The Constitution: Magna Charta The Petition Of Right And The Bill Of Rights (page 9-10)

The law isn’t a mechanism to keep the people of a nation in bondage nor to punish the individual or group for speaking out against tyranny (see DOMESTIC EXTREMISM!). The law should stand for what is TRUE and JUST.

The English law existed not to control the individual but to free him. It was on the side of the subject against those – whether usurping politicians or common criminals – who wished to bend him unconsenting to their will. All the great constitutional crises of the English, therefore, were experienced as violations of the law. They would characteristically end with a reaffirmation of the law and a charter guaranteeing the rights of the individual against the usurpers. The first of these charters – Magna Carta of 1215 – expressly affirmed ancient rights and freedoms, and demanded that the king be subject to the law. It was entirely in the English conception of monarchy that, when King John tried to evade the charter which he had signed at Runnymede, the barons renounced their allegiance and offered the crown to Louis, heir to the throne of France … Roger Scruton – England:An Elegy (page 121)

Every single person has an absolute duty to stand up and fight tyranny. Each and every one of us are obliged to make our voices heard on matters of public concern whether the “authorities” agree with you or not … and I don’t know about you, but I see a hell of a lot to be concerned about. Peacfull, orderly and within the law is the correct way to go about protecting your rights and the rights of the individuals of our nation. It is in the interest of our children and future generations that the people of our nation rebell against tyranny and fight for what is right. That right has been crimminalised and given the title DOMESTIC EXTREMIST and I DENY that title. I prefer the title LAWFUL REBELL and as a LAWFUL REBEL in the state of LAWFULL REBELLION I will continue to speak out against tyranny and the “nanny state” (as it is politely called in THEIR media) until those good people (there’s got to be some … hasn’t there?) kick the arses of the bad apples out and start acting as they should – AS OUR REPRESENTATIVES, NOT OUR CONTROLLERS!!

In Hubbard v Pitt [1975] 3 All ER 1, to which my Lord, Lord Justice Glidewell, has already referred, Lord Denning at another passage at pp 10D to 11B said as follows:
“Finally, the real grievance of the plaintiffs is about the placards and leaflets. To restrain these by an interlocutory injunction would be contrary to the principle laid down by the court 85 years ago in Bonnard v Perryman and repeatedly applied ever since. That case spoke of the right of free speech. Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority — at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy. Our history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights. Most notable was the demonstration of St Peter’s Fields, Manchester, in 1819 in support of universal suffrage. The magistrates sought to stop it. Hundreds were killed and injured. Afterwards the Court of Common Council of London affirmed ‘the undoubted right of Englishmen to assemble together for the purpose of deliberating upon public grievances’. Such is the right of assembly. So also if the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern. As long as all is done peaceably and in good order without threats or incitement to violence or obstruction to traffic, it is not prohibited: see Beatt v Gillbanks. I stress the need for peace and good order. Only too often violence may break out: and then it should be firmly handled and severely punished. But, so long as good order is maintained, the right to demonstrate must be preserved. In his recent inquiry on the Red Lion Square disorders, Scarman, LJ was asked to recommend ‘that a positive right to demonstrate should be enacted.’ He said that it was unnecessary: ‘The right of course exists, subject only to limits required by the need for good order and the passage of traffic’. In the recent report on Contempt of Court, the committee considered the campaign of the Sunday Times about thalidomide and said that the issues were ‘a legitimate matter for public concern’. It is time for the courts to recognize this too. They should not interfere by interlocutory injunction with the right to demonstrate and to protest any more than they interfere with the right of free speech; provided that everything is done peaceably and in good order.

This is what it means from the Lawful Rebellion point of view:

  • There is an AFFIRMED UNDOUBTED RIGHT to gather and voice objections on MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.
  • The public SHOULD, AT WILL, and WITHOUT PERMISSION OR HINDRANCE, exercise these rights, but ONLY LAWFULLY, PEACEFULLY AND WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION.
  • The law recognises and understands that it is the only way to make the “authority” aware of their wrong doings by giving them a (peacefull!) kick up the back side until they make amends.
  • The law recognises and understands it is dangerous and potentially deadly to force people to keep quiet.
  • THE RIGHT IS SO JUST AND INALIENABLE THAT THERE ISN’T THE NEED TO HAVE IT “ENACTED”. It just IS.
  • It’s a common law right, therefore to exercise this right is lawful.

Conclusion: The legal term DOMESTIC EXTREMISM contradicts what is an undeniable lawful right, making it a tyrannical rule that is open to abuse … and in FACT, IS abused.

Darren has now been released. 8)

In Hubbard v Pitt [1975] 3 All ER 1, to which my Lord, Lord Justice Glidewell, has already referred, Lord Denning at another passage at pp 10D to 11B said as follows:
“Finally, the real grievance of the plaintiffs is about the placards and leaflets. To restrain these by an interlocutory injunction would be contrary to the principle laid down by the court 85 years ago in Bonnard v Perryman and repeatedly applied ever since. That case spoke of the right of free speech. Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority — at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy. Our history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights. Most notable was the demonstration of St Peter’s Fields, Manchester, in 1819 in support of universal suffrage. The magistrates sought to stop it. Hundreds were killed and injured. Afterwards the Court of Common Council of London affirmed ‘the undoubted right of Englishmen to assemble together for the purpose of deliberating upon public grievances’. Such is the right of assembly. So also if the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern. As long as all is done peaceably and in good order without threats or incitement to violence or obstruction to traffic, it is not prohibited: see Beatt v Gillbanks. I stress the need for peace and good order. Only too often violence may break out: and then it should be firmly handled and severely punished. But, so long as good order is maintained, the right to demonstrate must be preserved. In his recent inquiry on the Red Lion Square disorders, Scarman, LJ was asked to recommend ‘that a positive right to demonstrate should be enacted.’ He said that it was unnecessary: ‘The right of course exists, subject only to limits required by the need for good order and the passage of traffic’. In the recent report on Contempt of Court, the committee considered the campaign of the Sunday Times about thalidomide and said that the issues were ‘a legitimate matter for public concern’. It is time for the courts to recognize this too. They should not interfere by interlocutory injunction with the right to demonstrate and to protest any more than they interfere with the right of free speech; provided that everything is done peaceably and in good order
Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Darren Pollard – Domestic Extremist or Lawful Rebel? [Updated – 10/10/2009]

  1. Hat’s off Slim !!

    No wonder you’ve been busy you are certainly the best sort of patriot ! .. You keep encouraging pride in who we are!

    {Don’t give ’em too much praise tho’ or they’ll think they’re the bee’s kneees and start getting complacient}

    Well put, you’ve not been far off frequency so far !

    • Dave I absolutely “poo poo” (with venom no less!) your saying that I am a patriot. I am not.

      It’s best not to associate yourself with “labels” as it leaves you open to abuse or misunderstandings by those that identify with a different label … if you see what I mean. It also causes divisions or sides, which need defending, which isn’t productive.

      What I am though is in Lawful Rebellion (is that a contradiction? … I don’t think so) which is first and foremost, a natural and healthy state of mind.

      Its not a state of mind that can be forced. There is nothing special you have to do to get this state of mind. It just happens and it just is. Its the state of mind where you suddenly and without warning, just notice (and by definition you can’t stop your self from “just noticing” things can you?) things going on around you don’t make sense, (some people call it “waking up” … I don’t) then asking yourself “why it doesn’t make sense when ordinary everyday things DO?”

      BTW: If anyone reading this is thinking “what the fuck is this all about”, a small dose of “The Jeremy Kyle Show” or “Big Brother” or “The BBC Snooze” or …. can work wonders for your understanding if you are not sure if you have this state of mind. If you look at it and SPONTANEOUSLY think “THIS IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF SHIT!!”, then you have it and you are well on your way to seeing reality as it is … the fog is starting to lift … so, congratulations and welcome!

      Thanks for your comment Dave, I DO know what you meant by it … and I do appreciate it.

  2. Everybody had better get off their comfortable back sides and their comfort zone before this gets any further, what was that poem now:

    “In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

    And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

    And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

    And then… they came for me… And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

    This is starting to happen folks, I no longer live in the UK for many reasons, this is one, the “powers that be” control you and you do nothing together, why?

    Organise runs on the banks, leverage your power, someone rightly said, by staging protests, nothing happens, they ignore you mostly, except if its only one person like Darren. but leverage your power, especially now that the Country is in deep doo doo over money, organise huge runs on banks. Now that is leverage. and it’s legal.

  3. Hi Slim,

    I said type of patriot, but as you clarified, you knew what I meant. It is pretty obvious what type of an Englishman you are ! We are made of good stuff … we’re still here ain’t we ?

    I like the book about Leicester – page 86 ! .. the only one you can’t read … I’ll give this some time when I get my eyes sorted out, this is where I live.

    Dave.

  4. To clarify the thread subject …

    Domestic Extreemisim:
    http://www.netcu.org.uk/de/default.jsp

    MI 5 ??… Terrorisim ?

    Where is that clip again ? let’s have another look …

    He should have let the copper stae what the offence was ..

    “A proper protest, under section 5 (I assume public order) .. is an offence with a megaphone. We need to be given prior notice, the council and the planning department still has ####.. to use a megaphope without lettinmg us know is an offence”

    As Darren went out with a camera, presumably expecting to be pulled for excersising our right of free speech .. When the opportunity arose to debate it with the police, he didn’t let them clearly state their misguided authority.

    So they banged him up in Winston Green prison for yawping and being baligerant towards them.
    If I had gone out with the intent on excersising my right to the limit, I would certainly have arrived boned up on exactly what our rights are, and the possible contentions against what I was doing.

    Let’s check out public order ‘act’ .. especially section 5 ..
    http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Public%20Order%20Act%201986%20%281986%20c%2064%29%20Sect%204A,%205,%206.htm

    What do you think ? … I didn’t see anything about a megaphone or prior permission there anywhere !

    He should have let them show their ingrorance.

    Dave.

    • Dave, I think having read what Lord Denning confirmed in the Hubbard v Pitt case, using the excuse of it being illegal to use a megaphone and arresting that person is hindering and suppressing a lawful act, which in its self must be unlawful?.

      Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority — at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy.

      The people have an affirmed right that does not need to be enacted, to voice objections so long as it is done peaceably, in good order and without obstruction. The whole idea of protesting is that the people are MAKING THEMSELVES HEARD BY THE “AUTHORITY”!!!

      In retrospect, Darren could have been a little better prepared for contact with the police and the fact that he wasn’t shows us all how much we all still have to learn about our rights … and how to communicate them effectively. As I’ve said before, we will all learn from Darrens experience – and triumph! 🙂

  5. Animal rights activists in Nottingham campaigning against the sale of Foie Gras in the city have found themselves the targets of police repression. On the evening of Friday December 14, campaigners were told that they could not use a megaphone, with the police citing Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 as their basis for this prohibition.

    http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2236942

    Didn’t find megaphone here either….

    Was Darren insighting public disorder ?

    You wre right Keith, something is wrong here !

    Dave.
    PS Mac’s a Geordie .. opposite side of what town, as you’ve mentioned Slim ?

    • If you’re looking into the wording of statute then this might be of use:

      In Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v. Hill (1881) 6 App.Cas. 193, this House determined that an Act of Parliament which authorised an asylum did not authorise the asylum to commit a nuisance. Lord Blackburn said, at p. 208:

      “It is clear that the burden lies on those who seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away the private rights of individuals, to show that by express words, or by necessary implication, such an intention appears.”

      Which basically says in this context, if they say they have a firm belief that they have the authority to arrest you for using a megaphone then they should be able to prove that firm belief by showing with “express words” the source of that authority … the wording in the statute.

      Remember, English law dictates that you can do ANYTHING which isn’t forbidden.

  6. Hey Keith,

    Let’s compile o bundle of documents to take along on a similar excersise to Darren’s.

    This guy went out on a limb, unprepared, unreheased .. no hindsight … Yeah, well the guy has given us hindsight.
    If we supply the proof and the education up front, who knows, there might be a couple of dozen Darrens prepared to test if they would like to rt it on again ! .. me possibly included .. even tho’ I know they would love the opportunity to slap me and my life about to F### again.

    Let’s finish the job and supply the shield !

    Dave.

    • Justice Holland in the High Court in 2007 stated that: “Protest is lawful; the use of a megaphone as an adjunct of lawful protest is itself lawful. The starting point is unfettered freedom to engage in so much amplified protest as is neither intimidating or harassing.” HLS Group Plc v SHAC 2007 WL 919475 [2007] EWHC 522 (QB) QBD.

      The rest of the text can be found here: https://thesecretpeople.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/everythings-not-ok/

      It might be best to start a thread over at TPUC to get other people’s idea’s and perspectives too … many minds and all that!

      I’ll leave it with you …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s