[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!
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  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)