Response to Long Kesh inside out article

After reading an article in relation to the PUP by Charlie Freel, on the Long Kesh Inside Out website, I felt compelled to respond.
I must place on record from the outset that I agree with much of what Charlie says, however I think it could be directed in a different manner. I do not intend to stray into my views or vision of the PUP, because that is not my place as I am not a member of the party. I simply wish to highlight the positive work of Julie Anne Johnston.

I have in the past published articles calling for the principles of ‘For God And Ulster’ to be adhered to and it is a matter of record that I oppose gay marriage and the dilution of biblical principles. I believe in Protestantism and am extremely uncomfortable with left wing politics or socialism. My views on that are well known and I do not intend to rehash them. That is not what this response is about.

I believe that Julie Anne Johnston has been a breath of fresh air for working class loyalist communities- her political views differ from mine on a massive scale- however her genuine belief in doing what is right for her community and her desire to stand by people who need support is unquestionable.

I am writing this blog not to defend Julie Anne’s politics or the politics of socialism- which I oppose- but instead to defend Julie Anne as a person.
She is genuine, caring and by all accounts an extremely effective constituency worker. She has time for everyone and on a personal level she was straight out offering public support to me and in contact to see if she could help with the contrived political case against me.

Julie Anne has never sought to aggressively push her political or social views down anyone’s throat and she is a rare breed on the left wing of politics- she preaches tolerance and she shows tolerance of others viewpoints, even if she is opposed to them. She practices what she preaches.

I will continue to articulate my political views and vision of loyalism, which are different than Julie Anne’s, but I will support her right to continue to promote her views & visions. I think to personally attack her is grossly unfair and I think that someone who is working as hard as Julie Anne is for the loyalist community deserves nothing but praise and support.

Jamie Bryson

Advertisements

Ombudsman statement puts an end to the ‘tea and buns touts’

Today’s statement by the Police Ombudsman puts a swift end to the PSNI practice of holding ‘quiet conversations’. This perverse tactic has long be used by the PSNI to garner information from those community representatives who would be ‘friendly’ with the PSNI.

It has been a practice of bending the law with a nod and a wink, a practice of manipulating communities and abusing the notion of ‘common sense policing’. It is a practice whereby the PSNI sit down with friendly community faces, who are singing the correct political tune, and discuss how to get rid of those within the community who don’t play to the correct political tune. The genesis of trumped up charges against non compliant or problematic political activists begins in these little tea and buns gatherings.

I am pleased to say these days are over. It is a sad day for the tea and buns touts, no more will they be wined and dined in the Police stations whilst making allegations and pleading with the PSNI to remove political activists who dare to interfere in their funding gravy train.

Gerry Kelly MLA requested as a defence witness

15/01/2015

Dear Mr Kelly,

I am emailing to request you to voluntarily attend Belfast Magistrates Court on 11th February 2015 to act as a witness for my defence in the case against me which is listed for contest. I will also post a hard copy of this letter to your constituency office, however for expediency I am initially emailing my request.

On a number of occasions in your role as a representative on the Northern Ireland Policing Board you took to task ACC Will Kerr about the weekly walks from East Belfast to City Hall during the Union Flag protests. You stated that these walks were illegal and should be stopped, that is your view and you are entitled to it however what is relevant for my case is how the ACC responded to you. Upon examination of the minutes it is clear that the ACC made clear that the PSNI were not aware of the legislation, indeed you published a blog stating that the PSNI were illegally facilitating weekly walks and saying that the ACC had been unclear about the laws around the Public Processions Act. It is clear from all the minutes of the policing board meetings, as well as public statements issued by yourself, that you- as a policing board member- were given the impression that the PSNI did not have the power to stop the weekly walks. Indeed this position was re-iterated by ACC Will Kerr in an interview he gave to a journalist from the Irish News.

This issue is of vital importance to justice and presumably in your role as a policing board member you would be keen to ensure that justice is done in this case, and indeed every case. You have spoke many times about equality, I believe that I deserve equality under the law, surely you would agree with this?

I would assume that the PSNI will been extremely keen to ensure you do not attend as a witness in this contest- I would however remind you that your civic duty is to serve the citizens of Northern Ireland, not to serve the PSNI or their interests. You clearly said at the time that the PSNI were facilitating what you viewed as illegal processions, therefore I am simply asking you to attend court, as a policing board member and explain how you came to that conclusion.

It is somewhat bizarre that the PSNI now adopt the position that the weekly walks were illegal and they always knew this- if this is indeed the case then they knowingly mis-led the policing board, of which you are a member, by telling them that they were unaware if the walks were illegal or not.

If you take the decision that you will not come to court and perform your civic duty then I will be left with no option but to ask my legal team to seek a witness summons to compel you to attend. I must also place on record that I will be submitting the policing board minutes and blogs written by you as evidence in my defence and therefore I am sure you would be keen to be in court to clarify your position on the matter.

Regards

Jamie Bryson

Opinion piece on decision to investigate RUC/MI5

The recent announcement that DPP Barra McGrory has requested an investigation into the RUC & MI5 should come as no surprise to anyone.

This decision by Mr McGrory is a political one- and given the lack of resistance from the DUP, it appears to me that this is the second down payment on the Stormont House Agreement.

There is no doubt in my mind that Barra McGrory was appointed as DPP with a nod and a wink from the DUP- a surrendering of one of the key mechanisms of justice to placate the IRA.
We seen evidence of just how far the Government have went to appease the IRA when we heard that Tony Blair took decisions based not upon the law- but what the political ramifications of such decisions would be. His revelations that arresting Rita O’Hare would have been unhelpful to the peace process shines a light on the dark murky world of this so called ‘process’.

Hold the velvet glove approach to Rita O’Hare and other pro agreement republicans in comparison to the state sanctioned and state sponsored murder of Billy Wright, who was murdered for no other reason than he opposed the agreement.

There have also been grave injustices perpetrated by MI5 and the security forces against loyalists who refused to toe the line- the Government security services didn’t exclusively collude in the murder of republicans or loyalists- they colluded in the murder, discrediting and vilification of anyone- loyalist or republican- who refused to toe the line the Government wanted.

MI5 continue to harass, demonise and vilify anyone who speaks out against the political status quo. They treat pro agreement republicans with kid gloves, while taking an entirely different approach to republicans who oppose Sinn Fein. I draw a distinction here between armed dissident republicans and those republicans whose only crime is holding an anti agreement viewpoint. They should be allowed to articulate and express that viewpoint in a peaceful and lawful manner without the state seeking to quash their right to free speech.
The same is true within the loyalist community- pro agreement loyalists are left alone whilst anyone who holds a political viewpoint that could upset the ‘process’ is hounded, criminalised and marginalised. This is MI5 in action and it doesn’t matter whether you are loyalist or republican.

The attempts to demonise the RUC stand in stark contrast with the state sponsored attempts to rewrite history which portrays the IRA as the ‘good guys’.
There were many good men in the RUC who have been betrayed by the Belfast agreement and sold out by the Government- there were also some who would have pulled the trigger and shot a loyalist just as quickly as they shot a republican.

MI5 are not there to uphold the freedoms and to protect the citizens of the UK- they are there to protect the interests of the Government of the day. They seek not to serve but to control.

Everyone is entitled to justice and equality under the law- my problem is that it seems some are more equal than others and that justice is more often than not weighted, measured and tailored for political convenience.
If Investigations into the RUC are found to be required then surely the same can be said about investigations into the IRA?
If Barra McGrory is going to launch a crusade into dealing with the past then he needs to discharge this duty impartially- and that means pursuing his former clients in the IRA just a rigorously as he is pursuing the British security forces.

Facts of my case- Is this is persecution? You decide!

I will allow people to look at the facts below and judge for themselves what is going on- love me or hate me I am entitled to fair & open justice and equality under law.

• First person ever to be charged with Serious Crime Act (hate preacher charges) when the offence alleged to be encouraged is a summary only offence.

• One of only two people, the other being William Frazer (who’s charges have been dropped) to spend even a single day in jail on the basis of an unnotified public procession charge. I ended up serving an effective 2 month sentence on remand.
If I pleaded guilty now the law would not allow any greater sentence to be given- with the credit for a guilty plea I would have served the absolute maximum sentence possible.

• Strictest bail conditions ever imposed anywhere in the United Kingdom. Only person who’s conditions came close was Abu Hamza- the Islamist hate preacher!

• Longest running Magistrates case in PPS’s legal history. Evidence was there on the day of my arrest and two years later the PSNI & PPS are stalling trying to move the goalposts.

• After my defence being ready for 2 years to run the trial- the PSNI & PPS, who stalled for 2 years with what has now been proven to be lies- are demanding that the trial now takes place right in the mouth of when my baby boy is to be born. The Judiciary are facilitating this and whilst they were happy to adjourn and adjourn, even when it was proven they were being lied to, but when a compassionate request is made for a suitable trial date they refuse to budge.

• First time the burden of proof has ever been reversed using this legislation. I am forced to PROVE my innocence. The ECHR should trump this but Judge Fiona Bagnall is refusing my right to appeal her decision- instead demanding that the trial runs regardless of whether it is in breach of my human rights.

• Whilst others have been charged for breaches under the public processions act, they have been judge by one standard of proof- I am to be judged to a higher standard thus ensuring I am treated entirely differently than anyone else charged with this same legislation.

• They tried to remove my legal aid in July 2013 to force me to abandon a legal appeal in the High Court. After I decided to represent myself and proceed regardless- they panicked and reinstated my legal aid.

• I am the subject of daily PSNI harassment with every officer who sees me now producing their standard issue blackberry phone, or police notebook, and detailing what I am doing and who I am with.

• Those close to me are also subject to daily harassment and are being followed by the PSNI and one man has been approached by dubious security force individuals on three occasions.

• I am in receipt of high grade intelligence assessed threats to my life.

Judge REFUSES right to appeal horrific decision

In yet another outrageous abuse of lawful process I have this morning been informed that Judge Bagnall has refused me a right to appeal her outrageous and oppressive decision to reverse the burden of proof in my politically contrived case.

Where else in any civilised western democracy would you be refused the right to appeal a lawful decision to a higher court?

Judge Bagnall is saying that the trial should run and if we don’t like the reversed burden and I am found guilty, which I most certainly will be given it is almost impossible to win with a reversed burden, then I should raise the issue with a County court judge on appeal. This is of course providing at that stage she would actually allow an appeal.

This issue is a preliminary point of law- it materially effects how my defence will be run- so to suggest that you would run a case and then re-run the case in the opposite direction on appeal is laughable, ludicrous and even the most elementary child would understand that the trial and evidence would be irreversibly prejudiced.

What this is really all about is ensuring that I cannot take the witness stand- because on an evidential basis it will effectively guarantee I am found guilty. Judge Bagnall doesn’t want me appealing the decision because it is patently obvious that it will be overturned, so the aim of the powers that be is to get us to run the trial with a particular line of defence and then come appeal be forced to run the same defence even if her decision to reverse the burden is overturned. This in their mind will keep me off the witness stand and allow the PSNI ACC to wriggle out of answering a summons to attend.
I don’t think so!

They continue to fail to grasp that I do not care for the consequences, I care only for what is right and I continue believe in the cause that has landed me in this politically contrived case.
Even if I condemn myself I WILL take the stand and I WILL expose every single one of them!

There is no easy way out, there will be no deals. They can do their worst, however they are exposing their political agenda and the perceived lack of judicial impartiality in this country more and more with each outrageously oppressive attempt to silence me.

The TRUTH about North Belfast parading panel!

There has been many sham fights over the past few weeks since the iniquitous and perverse Stormont House Agreement.

Five months ago I publicly said that Peter Robinson had already made a deal with the SOS, he would sacrifice North Belfast in return for SF accepting welfare reform and the devolution of corporation tax. Robinson was pulled about this by Edwin Poots in an executive DUP meeting- Poots and others were sacked the next day.

After the Stormont House betrayal the DUP, SF and the British Government realised that the DUP needed some way of absolving themselves of blame for the betrayal of parading and specifically they needed a route out of the ‘graduated response’. It was agreed that the SOS would collapse the panel, the DUP would make some public noise and then the SOS would publicly throw the blame onto the ‘smaller parties’, making it seem like the DUP were the great champions of loyalism whilst the ‘smaller parties’ were to blame.

This is an entirely contrived sham fight designed to strengthen the hand of the DUP and to give them some cover for their epic rollover!
Of course the demand of a panel was never going anywhere- the DUP asked for the SOS to propose this to get them a way of appeasing those who actually wanted a ‘graduated response’- all the while they knew full well that after the Stormont House Agreement the panel would be scrapped.

Never trust the DUP- seldom has this province ever seen traitors of their kind. It is all smoke and mirrors.

Court ruling explained

Court ruling explained:

In this ruling the PPS sought to rely upon the word ‘prove’ contained in section 6 sub section 8 of the Public Processions Act 1998.
This is the first time the PPS have sought to reverse the burden in a parade related case and indeed the only relevant case law in terms of a reversal of the legal burden on the defendant was in cases involving the misuse of drugs act and the terrorism act.

The courts overriding duty from the inception of the ECHR is to ensure the right to a fair trial is upheld (Article 6) therefore if a piece of legislation being interpreted a particular way would infringe Article 6, the court has a statutory duty to read down that legislation to make it compatible with ECHR.

In my case I am charged under the public processions act 1998. A number of persons have already been charged for allegedly taking part in the same procession/s as I am alleged to have been part of, and yet they have been acquitted using the statutory defence contained within section 6 sub section 8 of the public processions act 1998. In these cases the evidential burden was read down to make it compatible with Article 6.
In my case however, for the first time ever, the court are refusing to read down the burden to make it compatible with ECHR and therefore that leaves us in a situation whereby you will have a number of people charged with the same offence, at the same place, on the same date, in exactly the same circumstances and yet one person will be judged by one evidential burden whilst all the rest were afforded the right to avail of the statutory defence in section 6 subsection 8, with the protections enshrined by article 6 granted to them.

This clearly makes a difference between one citizen and another and I must ask, if everyone is equal under the law and equally subject to the law, then why am I being judged to a different standard than anyone else charged under this legislation?
Why was charges against my co-accused, William Frazer, dropped when the so called ‘evidence’ against him was identical to mine? How can one case meet the evidential threshold and the other not?

It is also important to note than no one else has ever been sent to prison for a single day for an offence under the public processions act 1998, yet I have already served what amounts to a two month sentence on remand for this and am yet to face a trial. Once again why am I treated differently than all others?

The Judges ruling also referred to wider political and societal concerns relating to parading and this clearly shows that the judge has went beyond her remit and rather than focusing on the matter at hand she has stretched herself to creating a wider political context for my case. That is interference in the judicial process and is wholly inappropriate.

This ruling has wider implications for parading in Northern Ireland and will adversely affect all bandsmen and women.
It will set a legal precedent in terms of the burden on the defendant and make it almost impossible to defend yourself against any allegation of a breach of a parades determination or breach of the public processions act legislation in general.

Landmark legal ruling shows Judiciary have lost the run of themselves

Today’s ruling in the words of Judge Bagnall will have ‘massive implications’ for parading in N.Ireland.

In my view it is outrageous and listening to Judge Bagnall’s ruling it is clear in my opinion that she has allowed herself to become a political instrument of the Government.
She repeatedly stated how important the ruling was to help the police keep the peace and prevent disorder. That has nothing to do with justice and I can only conclude that the Judge- for one reason or another- has allowed her impartiality to be swayed by the political powers that be.
That of course is only my personal opinion, which I am entitled to hold, but I would not be surprised if this particular Judge quickly rises up the judicial ranks within the coming years.

It is totally in contravention of the ECHR and what is even more embarrassing is that this is the first time that the Government have succeeded in superseding the ECHR in a parade related case.
Why have they only sought to reverse this burden in my case?

It is clear that this is not only a political show trial but a legal test case whereby the Government are bringing their full weight to bear upon the Judiciary. A weight the judiciary evidentially cannot cope with in my opinion.

I will continue to fight this sham and to expose those I who believe are manipulating justice for personal gain or political purposes.

Whilst no one in the history of the UK has ever been jailed for this kind of offence, Judge Bagnall compared my case to a case involving the terrorism act. That in itself shows quite clearly that the well paid civil servants in the judiciary have lost the run of themselves.

I will now go straight to the court of appeal and can only hope that the principles of judicial impartiality and justice can be found there because I believe they are seriously lacking in Belfast Magistrates Court where it seems the judiciary have buckled under the weight of political pressure.

Court Update- Is the Judiciary politically compromised?

Tomorrow in a special sitting of Belfast magistrates Court the judge will give her ruling on the preposterous attempts by the PPS, which is headed up by the IRA’s former solicitor Barra McGrory, to change the burden of proof for cases related to the Public Processions Act.

This ruling will have massive ramifications for all parade related charges and if the PPS are successful it will effectively remove the reasonable defence that was initially included within the legislation. It is oppressive and it is ludicrous, yet it is no more than I have come to expect from the PPS who along with the PSNI are operating to a political agenda to ‘protect the process’.

This cases has now trundled on for over two years in one of the longest ever running magistrates cases. It is bizarre given that all the so called ‘evidence’ was in the PSNI’s possession over two years ago. The cost to the public purse has been astronomical.

I believe the Judiciary are supposed to stand as the final bulwark between freedom and tyranny, yet I do not hold out much hope of the judiciary protecting the law abiding Protestant people from the political persecution being waged against Ulster Protestants.

Tomorrow’s ruling will shine a light on whether the judiciary are indeed impartial or whether some judges are merely part of the politically compromised cabal that abuse the system of law and justice for political purposes.

If the Judge allows the PPS to shift the goalposts- for the first time ever in a parade related case- then not only will it become clear that I am being treated vastly differently and being judged on a different evidential burden than anyone else who has been charged before me, but it will show that this entire farce of a case against me and the internment of many Protestants has been carried out with a nod and a wink from a sympathetic judiciary.

I will continue this legal fight as far as it can possibly go and it is my aim to expose this entire so called ‘justice’ system for the sham that it is.

It is also interesting to note that the Police Ombudsman are stalling on releasing a report into a number of complaints I made which alleged serious mis-conduct, corruption and possible illegality on the part of senior PSNI officers. Why?

I believe that the attempts to change the evidential burden are at it’s core an attempt to make it counter productive-from my point of view- for me to take the witness stand. They don’t want what I have to say coming out in open court.
For the same reason the Ombudsman are stalling on releasing their report.

I can assure the PSNI & PPS that I will not rest until the corruption that lies at the heart of the so called ‘justice’ system is exposed.