What’s happening with this story? Well, plenty that I know of, and plenty that I don’t. Even if this story were free of reporting restrictions (both generic family court restrictions, and injunctions specific to this case), I can’t speak of that to which I am not party – though I can well imagine where things are going in this case – but I can speak, albeit without disclosing names or evidence, of what I do know.
The burden upon me (and others) to withhold names and facts is not my doing, of course; rather, this suppression of the truth is the will of the State. That I cannot give names, and that I cannot back up my assertions by publishing the facts, means that, thanks to the family law State tyranny, this article is open to the charge of being little more than an unsupported opinion piece.
That may be so, but I know what I know – I know the truth of this case – as based upon the facts in my possession, and I take heart from the fact that though I cannot simply and straightforwardly publish the truth (yet), activity on social media in recent months clearly demonstrates that many thousands of people have not believed the State-approved narrative. If you’re one of those thousands to have seen through the police’s and court’s lies, one of the thousands to have said ‘The Judge’s version of events makes no sense, it’s clearly biased and illogical, turning the truth upside down; in fact, the Judge’s version is utterly ridiculous’ – if you’re one of the thousands of sensible people: Well Done.
Interestingly, despite the full backing of a biased Judge and the State, and despite the opportunity to have an unrestricted statement published by national media, the side of him – i.e. the Child Abuser – has mustered only a handful of people to support his Facebook and Twitter propaganda. It’s very telling that whilst thousands of people back the innocent person, only a few dozen of his family and friends have been willing to take the Child Abuser’s side online (and, of course, some of these supporters are only doing it because if he goes down, so might they).
That isn’t what normally happens: the State’s silencing of its innocent victim together with the one-sided reporting of the State’s family court propaganda in the mainstream media will usually result in the general public swallowing a Judge’s lies and/or a Judge’s factually-incorrect opinions without question. I really cannot emphasise enough that one of several remarkable things about this case is the public’s reaction: it speaks volumes that for once, thousands of people have spotted the lies and identified themselves as standing with the innocent victim.
What then, do I know? Based upon facts and intel which I regret cannot be disclosed at this time, I am firmly persuaded that:
(1) he is a Child Abuser, as are some of his friends and family, and he has abused not only his own children but also other children in the UK and abroad;
(2) the Judge in this case is bent;
(3) the police force responsible for investigating children’s allegations made against him failed in its duty to conduct a proper and thorough investigation;
(4) she and her children are wholly innocent victims of yet another family courts atrocity.
Now, you may or may not agree with my four assertions as to the truth. In a sense, it doesn’t matter, because the only thing which does matter is that the Judge has abandoned the truth in order to pursue and enforce the exact opposite of a just and fair outcome in this case, in the worst interests of the children. The Judge is, we may reasonably assume, in the process of destroying the lives of the innocent whilst favouring the child-abusing guilty. And in all probability, the right outcome in this case won’t happen because – regardless of the truth, which has already been discarded, and worse, inverted by the Judge – justice generally is denied to child abuse victims in our corrupt family courts. Given it’s the norm that justice is denied to child abuse victims by the family courts, logic has to ask why this particular case would be a candidate for concluding any differently to all the other stitch-ups.
Which leads me to my final point in this brief article. Just think about it. You are a big-time, serial Child Abuser. Thanks to some bent coppers and a bent Judge, you get away with your crimes – for the time being. The bent Judge may even give you sole custody of your child abuse victims, leaving you free to carry on abusing the children, free to pass them round other child abusers, and free to make child pornography. But – and it’s a big but – though you’ve escaped the noose for now, a lot of people now know all about you, your criminal activities and networks. Justice seekers know about you. Child protection campaigners know about you. Victims’ and survivors’ groups know about you. Journalists know about you. Police officers, serving or retired, know about you. Solicitors know about you. Thousands of people know you’re a Child Abuser. In view of that reality, how do you think life is going to pan out for you in the long term?
Justice – real justice, true justice – is always served in the end. Though justice may tarry awhile, no man can escape the day of judgement ordained for him. Better to repent before it’s too late.
Two of the four ‘Bristol Preachers’ – Don Karns and Adrian Clark – were previously cleared of charges of public disorder, but, at the end of a trial at Bristol Magistrates’ Court, lay magistrates have today convicted the other two Christians – Mike Overd and Michael Stockwell – of public disorder offences.
COMMENT: The convictions of Overd and Stockwell are wrong verdicts according to law.
In July 2016, the four Christian men were preaching – quite lawfully – about their Christian beliefs in a public place in Bristol; they were certainly not bent on causing any trouble. They were not violent and did not incite violence. They spoke no profane words.
In Britain we cherish liberty and the rule of law. We do not live according to yobs’ mob rule. Police officers are supposed to uphold the law and protect the right of law-abiding people to speak in public – not side with the mob against public speakers whom the yobs want to silence.
It’s yobs and mobs that engage in public disorder – not peaceful Christian evangelists.
In the modern era, the persecution in Britain of Christian public speakers (and others) began with the Public Order Act 1986. Football hooliganism and serious industrial strife were the context in which this law was introduced.
The Public Order Act 1986 was never intended to silence or make criminals of Christian street preachers (or others) peacefully expressing their beliefs in public.
Expect an appeal against these wrongful convictions…
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 'Hate crime', Adrian Clark, Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Bristol Magistrates' Court, Broadmead, Christian, Don Karns, Evangelist, Freedom of Speech, Journalist, Michael Overd, Michael Stockwell, Mike Overd, Public Order Act 1986, Richard Carvath