Evangelist Michael Overd and Sergeant Neil Kimmins

The email below was sent to Avon and Somerset Police this evening.  It’s self explanatory, but additional relevant material can be found online in the archive of the Somerset County Gazette.  I await a response…

To: ssntauntontowncentre@avonandsomerset.police.uk

CC: amanda.hirst@avonandsomerset.police.uk

“Mr. Michael Overd and Sgt. Neil Kimmins

” Dear Sir,
I’m a journalist; I write regarding Phil Hill’s recent Somerset County Gazette article headlined “Public urged to video preacher”.
In the article Sergeant Kimmins is quoted as describing Mr Overd’s message as “abuse” and he is also quoted as asserting that Mr Overd manifests as “being hostile” towards the public.  In the article Sergeant Kimmins is also quoted making reference to “Homophobia”.
I have a few questions for Sergeant Kimmins please:
(1)  Sergeant Kimmins, it appears you favour homosexual behaviour over the sexual morality advocated by Mr Overd.  Are you a practising homosexual?  Or are you a political activist for the homosexual lobby?
(2)  Exactly why do you consider Mr Overd or his message to be hostile or abusive?  What has Mr Overd said or done that you consider to be hostile or abusive?
(3)  Exactly what do you mean by the word “homophobia”?  If by this word you mean ‘hatred of homosexual people’, what evidence do you have for attributing any such hatred to Mr Overd?
(4)  What law(s) do you believe Mr Overd may have broken or be breaking?
(5)  Why have you not charged Mr Overd with anything to date, given that you’ve made statements to the press which appear to imply that you view Mr Overd as a criminal?  Is such conduct – i.e. your remarks to the press – not prejudicial?  Moreover, is such conduct not defamatory of Mr Overd?
(6)  It’s unusual that you haven’t charged Mr Overd with anything, and yet have made what appear to be highly prejudicial comments to the press.  Furthermore, any prosecution of Mr Overd would likely receive a lot of media attention.  How would you respond to comments that you’re an attention seeker with an axe to grind, that you’re seeking to stir up the public against someone you’ve taken a personal dislike to?
(7)  In view of all current policing concerns in regard of Taunton town centre, how high a priority is silencing Mr Overd for you, in comparison with, say, preventing and detecting thefts, assaults, criminal damage, drug dealing or drunk/disorderly behaviour?
(8)  Do you wish to suppress the freedom of speech of any other person, besides this Christian evangelist, in Taunton town centre?  If so, who and why?
(9)  Have you ever been a participant – whether in or out of police uniform – in a ‘gay pride’ march or similar homosexual event?
(10)  Public ‘Gay Pride’ events might reasonably be viewed as ‘homosexual evangelism’ – i.e. publicly encouraging others towards homosexual behaviour (just as Mr Overd, a Christian, publicly encourages others towards the behaviour he approves).  Plenty of people take offence at ‘gay pride’ events.  In your own words, what do you think about public displays of ‘gay pride’?  In particular, do you have anything negative or critical to say about ‘gay pride’?
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Mr. Richard Carvath. “
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ISIS in the UK: the fears of MI5

My quick comment on the ISIS threat to the UK is here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , ,

Alex Salmond and Robert Green

In my time, I’ve seen some serious corruption in and around British courts.  I know of social workers kidnapping babies from perfectly decent parents through our secretive family courts.  I know plenty of proven instances of bent police officers; I even know of entire police forces operating as official policy the non-enforcement of the law.  I know of police raids on the homes of [the dwindling number of] serious investigative journalists in the UK – not to mention the random searches of such journalists’ persons and vehicles.  I know of unchallengeable, sweeping powers – powers intended for terrorism – being used by the authorities to hinder and silence journalists.  I know of sectionings (i.e. forcible detentions in psychiatric units) or attempted sectionings, completely ‘out of the blue’, of perfectly sane and normal people… but who just happen to have made an enemy of a police officer, a social worker or anybody else with the power, directly or by proxy, to destroy their victims via the illegal application of the Mental Health Act.  And sadly, most of the time, the bad guys – the bent police officers and others – get away with it [in this life], because they know the system, belong to the network and have the financial resources, the professional status and legal expertise to crush the average man on the street.  Furthermore, they know that the feeble British press – which today, despite the advent of the internet, is poor at serious investigative journalism – is unlikely ever to report their dirty deeds, or allegations of their dirty deeds, in any particular case (and indeed, if anything is reported, are more likely to report a bent police officer’s fabrications unquestioningly, as most press reports of crime nowadays are simply verbatim or slightly re-worded press releases from the police).  The extent of the corruption which exists in the UK today was once the preserve of banana republics and tin-pot tyrannies, but now it is very much day-to-day reality here.

Within the UK, it seems Scotland leads the way in pioneering judicial corruption, and in the suppression and manipulation of the mainstream press.  One of the worst cases I’ve ever seen is the long-running saga of Robert Green and Hollie Greig.  In fact, I only started writing this blog post to make the following observation… it is very interesting to note that Robert Green’s trial, originally expected last month, has been set back (by six months!) to January of 2015, which is of course many months after the imminent Scottish independence referendum.  Just a coincidence?  Looks a bit fishy to me.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A sensible policy (35 years ago)

3DT1979(c)RCarvath It’s fascinating to spend time in the archives, and vital to understanding how and why Britain came to be in the present state.  This week I went back to 1979; the above image (the DT, 13 June 1979) is from the day after the first budget of the new Tory Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe.  How times change, and, where the marriage-based family is concerned, not for the better.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , ,

Impending doom for the Tories


UKIP continues to grow in Tory heartlands and the evidence is everywhere to be seen.  The rise of UKIP doesn’t amount to a full-scale ‘revolution’ – yet – but there’s no doubt many Tory associations are now in crisis as grassroots conservatives jump ship and newcomers are nowhere to be seen.  The Conservative Party is in crisis, largely because it ceased to be either socially or economically conservative a long time ago, and, since David Cameron’s hijack of the party, more and more grassroots conservatives have concluded enough’s enough.  Tory party membership has collapsed since David Cameron took the helm, to the point where many local constituency associations are now so weak that it’s no longer possible to muster enough activists or cash with which to mount a proper grassroots election campaign.  CCHQ’s refusal to disclose the party’s total membership is confirmation the Tories are dying and will likely lose the 2015 General Election, despite the obvious deficiencies of Ed Miliband.  A party hierarchy which betrays its own members doesn’t deserve to have any, and a party the very name of which is a lie will struggle to win the support of voters.  The current ‘Conservative’ Party really ought to be re-named the Homosexual Party or the EU Party or something else honest, as claiming to be a conservative party isn’t fooling any real conservatives any more.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boris Johnson lied to the High Court

Contrary to the recent judgement of Mrs Justice Lang in the case of R v Transport for London and the Mayor of London Ex p. Core Issues Trust Limited [2014] EWHC 2628 (Admin) – I find that Boris Johnson did indeed lie to the High Court.

In May of this year Boris Johnson submitted a signed witness statement to the High Court in which he claimed: “I did not instruct TfL to do anything”

This statement by Boris Johnson is a lie.  Now, it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that Boris Johnson would lie to the High Court, but what really beggars belief is the fact that Mrs Justice Lang chose to accept what is obviously a barefaced lie.

There is no reason to suppose that Mrs Justice Lang is mentally deficient, or that she doesn’t have a perfectly good grasp of the meaning of the word ‘instruct’ – and so the just, reasonable and fair-minded person can only conclude that Mrs Justice Lang knew full well that Boris Johnson lied to the High Court but chose to exonerate him anyway.  There’s a word for this kind of behaviour and it begins with C.  When justice is miscarried as flagrantly as in this case, it brings the High Court into disrepute and causes right-minded citizens to view the judiciary with contempt.

This case centred on Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s decision to ban from London buses an advertisement which he and the homosexual lobby disliked.  On the 12th April 2012 Boris Johnson took the credit in the press for banning the advert, but two years later he lied to the High Court with his claim that he didn’t instruct TfL to do anything.

At the time Boris Johnson instructed TfL to pull the adverts, his Communications Director wrote that “Boris has instructed tfl to pull the adverts” [in an email reply to Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes] and, just a few weeks later, Boris Johnson also wrote [to Hazel Blears MP] stating that TfL were “instructed” by him to ban the adverts.

This evidence was available to Mrs Justice Lang but, perversely, she chose to accept the argument made on behalf of Boris Johnson by his lawyers that when he instructed TfL to pull the adverts this didn’t actually mean that he had instructed TfL to pull the adverts at all, but only that he had expressed his opinion on the matter, an opinion which need not be obeyed!

So, Boris Johnson had told the media he was responsible for banning the adverts, and explicitly told an MP in writing that the ban was “instructed” by him personally, but subsequently told the High Court that he didn’t instruct TfL to do anything.  It is crystal clear that Boris Johnson lied to the High Court, and truly remarkable that Mrs Justice Lang chose to accept the ridiculous and laughable claim that instruct doesn’t mean instruct but instead can mean whatever Boris Johnson wants it to mean, such as to opine, to suggest, to advise… but definitely not to instruct!

Tellingly, Mrs Justice Lang delivered her abominable judgement having declined cross examination of Boris Johnson and refused computer forensic checks as to the accuracy of his statements.

In the context in which Boris Johnson and his spin doctor used the word instruct – and especially given Boris’ boasting to the press of his action – the word instruct can only mean instruct and it cannot possibly mean anything else.  Instruct means instruct (i.e. command); it doesn’t mean anything other than instruct; it cannot mean to merely suggest.

As Boris Johnson once quipped, “My policy on cake is still pro having it and pro eating it!”  Well Boris, Mrs Justice Lang let you get away with it, but, speaking on behalf of every right-minded person in the real world, we all know you lied.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blair and his heir

Though I consider the man and his legacy thoroughly bad, Tony Blair’s political career and accomplishments (such as winning three General Elections) are nothing if not remarkable.  During his ten years as Prime Minister he was a dangerous, destructive figure both at home and abroad, and he remains so to this day.  It’s seven years since Blair left office, but he’s never really gone away.  The PM who was central to and instrumental in destabilising and devastating the entire Middle East became, on leaving office, in an irony beyond satire, a UN/EU ‘peace envoy’ to the Middle East.  It would be laughable if it were not so sad, since Blair is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless people.  But of course Teflon Tony has got away with it once again (in this life at least), as the possibility of justice effectively died, just a few days ago, when it emerged that the Chilcot Inquiry has become the Chilcot Whitewash.

I will always keep an interview with Blair by the Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber (FT Weekend Magazine, 1st July 2012).  It’s a worthy article, and though it’s two years old by now, many of the insights offered into Blair remain valid, such as, “There is an urgency, even a frustration about Blair.  … Blair still wants to be at the centre of attention.”  Well, Blair’s lust for attention has been temporarily satisfied with a glut of media coverage today, including The Times front page, headlined, “Blair tells Europe to wake up” (which is what prompted me to blog this).  The pro-EU Blair is clearly very worried about the ongoing growth of popular political opposition to Britain’s continued EU membership, particularly in the wake of UKIP’s recent electoral triumph.  For Blair, a British withdrawal from the EU is an untenable and illegitimate political aspiration for anybody to hold, and I’ve no doubt he’s as keen as David Cameron to encourage the ‘far right’ fallacy with which Tory CCHQ spin doctors and the mainstream media’s propagandists attempt in desperation to smear UKIP.  Indeed it could be that an attempt to kill UKIP and sustain the Conservative Party becomes Tony Blair’s next big crusade.  After all, UKIP has become a major threat to David Cameron, and Cameron really is the ‘Heir to Blair’.  I’d be very surprised if Tony Blair actually wants Ed Miliband to beat David Cameron in the 2015 General Election.  If Cameron is ousted next year and the Conservatives annihilated, it will be a setback for Blairism.

The scale of the challenge facing Blair and fellow pro-EU, social/economic liberals wishing to save the Tories is huge.  The Tories are dying, as they have been dying for many years, and perhaps only a vote for Scottish independence in the referendum later this year can give the Tories any hope of obtaining an outright majority in Westminster ever again.  The Conservative Party long ago ceased to be conservative – in either social or economic terms.  (At best it might be said, relatively speaking, that the Conservative Party’s current leadership remains, tangibly, though only slightly, more favourable to economically conservative policy than the Labour Party.)  There is abundant evidence of the long-term decline of the Conservative Party and, by extension, of the increasing likelihood of its future demise as a major party.  The Conservative Party is manifestly no longer a conservative party and the Tories have treated their own members and conservative voters with contempt and hostility for years.  Now the worm is turning.  It’s small wonder that the party’s membership numbers are in freefall.  It’s not even possible to be genuinely and openly conservative in the contemporary Conservative Party; indeed, to hold and express orthodox conservative views leads quickly to marginalisation within or expulsion from the party.

The best example of the truth that the Tories do not represent socially conservative opinion was David Cameron’s forcing the redefinition of marriage into law last year.  And as to economic conservatism, if the protection of the UK’s economy and financial interests (by the exercise of sovereign power yet to be regained from the EU, to which the Conservative Party is not committed) is not the defining economic-conservative issue of our time, I don’t know what is.  Peter Hitchens hit the nail on the head in his Mail on Sunday column yesterday: “Ukip has grown from nothing in a few short years because thousands of Tories have had enough of being taken for granted by a party that despises them and their concerns.  Many of them are never coming back.  Tory membership and local organisation, which were in deep trouble anyway, have come close to collapse, especially since David Cameron forced same-sex marriage into law.  But above all things, Tory voters have realised that the mass immigration which is transforming the country before their eyes cannot be stopped as long as we stay in the EU.  And they have grasped that the Tories are apologists for the EU and will never try to leave it.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , ,