The perversion of Policing & Justice stemming from the Hillsborough surrender!

Since the devolution of policing and justice in 2010 there has been a gradual worsening in the relationship between the PSNI and the Protestant community. This relationship was always a shaky one given that the PSNI sprang from the heinous Patten reforms that dismantled the RUC and furthermore allowed for the demonization and vilification of that once proud Police Force. 

I have long since held the view that during the Hillsborough agreement, which I feel should be more aptly named the Hillsborough surrender, an underhand deal was made that handed the levers of justice to Sinn Fein in exchange for them supporting a cross community candidate for the justice ministry. Sinn Fein’s prize was that a person of their choice would be appointed Director of Public Prosecutions and the person they choose was Mr Barra McGrory, the former solicitor of choice for the majority of the IRA Army Council and also the man chosen to corporately represent the IRA On the runs! Mr McGrory got slightly confused about what his exact role was in devising the perverse OTR scheme and his evidence to the NI Select Affairs Committee was contradicted by the report by Lady Justice Hallet. The DPP has not taken kindly to me expressing this particular narrative about how he came to be DPP, he used tax payers money to engage a private legal firm to send me a threatening legal letter threatening civil action unless I withdrew my comments about what I perceive to be the biased nature of the PPS. I replied informing Mr McGrory that I would look forward to him serving papers on me and that I would be more than happy to seek full disclosure on the exact secret agreements at Hillsborough castle and Mr McGrorys speedy rise to his current lofty position. I heard no more on the issue. What does that tell you? 

It is in this context that Protestants have been relentlessly pursued by the PSNI and PPS, former members of the RUC, UDR and British Army have also been pursued all the while IRA terrorists have comfort letters, Royal Pardons and failing that the PPS would find insufficient grounds to prosecute any pro Agreement Republicans anyway! 

We have republicans caught as part of an operation to plant a bomb and the PPS drop the charges to cigarette smuggling. One would find it hard to believe this would happen anywhere else in the world! We have men caught with semtex and guns and have charges dropped due to insufficient evidence. Then we have Protestants who are hauled before the courts for playing a flute or walking the Queens highway. In my own case the PPS changed the law so as just to prosecute me, forcing me to prove my innocence. It was that extraordinary that even the justice committee have been shamed into investigating just what on earth is going on. We have the Pride of Ardoyne being prosecuted for playing a flute in their community where they are wanted and where our culture is celebrated, meanwhile we have the PPS refusal to prosecute the Druids for nakedly sectarian comments. We see the caution handed out to Royal pardon recipient Gerry ‘bomber’ Kelly for jumping in front of a police landrover and presiding over a baying mob trying to smash their way into the landrover, contrast this with flag protestors who are locked up for the crime of ‘provocatively waving the Union flag’. These are just some examples but if they don’t cause you to realise that there is something seriously wrong in this country then you are blind or worse still, you just simply refuse to see! 

The judiciary play along with the farcical persecutions mounted by the PSNI and PPS. At times even in the face of the most blatant evidence of police corruption, lies and abuse of process- the judiciary more often than not turn a blind eye! They raise no cause for concern when PSNI object to bail for IRA victims with no criminal record and happily agree to bail for Sean Hughes, the former OC of the South Armagh brigade of the IRA! 

Then we see the PPS refusal to even entertain charging Gerry Adams. We had the ludicrous situation whereby Barra McGrory, Gerry Adams former solicitor, went through the motions of asking Gerry Adams other former solicitor, John Larkin,  to review the decision not to charge him. This was meant to take two weeks. It has been almost two years. If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable. 

Of course it’s been just over a year since the PPS also received a separate case file in relation to Gerry Adams- 12 months on and no decision has been made! The file is no doubt buried somewhere, the PPS desperately trying to work out how they can gently slip it out under the door with the file stamped ‘must not prosecute’.

All of the above is a snap shot, a small number of examples of the biased and one sided nature of justice in this Country. People need to wake up and realise just how deep the IRA;s writ now runs in this Country and those in power need to strongly challenge the perversion of justice and somehow undo the horrendous betrayal at Hillsborough, the betrayal that allowed the surrogates of the IRA, Sinn Fein, to get their bloody hands on the levers of policing and justice! 
They won’t stop until they have destroyed every band, every lodge, every parade and eventually every Ulster Protestant!


Bloggers, bloopers and bores- the rise of the ‘politicos’ and pretend ‘journalists’

There seems to be a new group of people, a bit like an exclusive club, who have bandied together and  who describe themselves as “politicos”. This group of people is an assortment of bloggers, social media enthusiasts and it now seems pretend journalists. I am a regular blogger myself, but I blog to express my political viewpoint and to agitate against the Agreement I so strongly oppose. I am clear and unashamed about that. I am not a politico and nor am I a journalist. Some of these bloggers, most of whom are peace loving tree huggers (seems to be a core condition of acceptance into this exclusive social group) now describe themselves as journalists. 

In a most bizarre situation, I could apply to the NUJ and be granted membership on the basis of my blogs. Yes, imagine how absurd it would be to have me propped up on the media bench in the courtroom or attending press conferences to ask questions. It is however no more bizarre than some of the lunatics who split their time between sitting at home ‘blogging’, attending tree hugging rallies and slithering around party conferences being considered as journalists. 
The thing about traditional journalism is that there is some element of accountability, and in nearly all cases there are legal remedies open to challenge traditional media. They have accountability through their editor and the press complaints commission. The “politicos” and “bloggers” are unaccountable, they have no editor and really they want to enjoy journalistic privileges just because they buy a notebook and pen and post a picture of it on twitter. I can go down to the sports shop today and buy a Manchester United shirt, get Bryson 7 printed on the back and kick a ball around my garden; it doesn’t mean I play for Manchester United! 

Blogging is not journalism, what paper in the United Kingdom would print some of my blogs? I would say none of them because they wouldn’t have a big enough legal budget! That is why I am a political agitator and to express my political views I use blogging and social media to spread my message, to write what I believe to be the harsh brutal truth that traditional media couldn’t publish. That is precisely why I am not a journalist. Yet if my blogs were more flowery, cloaked in more pandering language and sought to please everyone then the “twitterati” and “politicos” would consider me one of their own. They might even describe me as a “journalist”. How absurd. Think about it for a moment, the only difference between me and the rest of the ‘bloggers’ is that my political views are deemed extreme. So the logic of that is if the peace loving, tree hugging bloggers are accepted as ‘journalists’ well then so should I be. Now let that sink in, would anyone seriously describe me as a journalist? Of course they wouldn’t! 

This social group of “politicos” is a nonsense. It is a group of tree hugging nerds who have come together to pander to each other and assist in making each other feel like important political and media contributors. Of course they also band together like attack dogs to challenge traditional values and they cannot wait to leap on the next band wagon of ‘progression’. The ‘politicos’ went into overdrive attacking Jim Wells. The comments by Mr Wells were for the most part disgraceful and wrong. The claims about abuse were wrong and should I point out equally offensive to single parents and unmarried couples, but that was lost in the gay rights frenzy that followed. What about single parents rights? Or unmarried couples rights? 

As much as Jim Wells comments were wrong, if I were him I wouldn’t for one minute have bowed to the lynch mob of ‘politicos’. They could have had all the rallies and stuck up all the posters they wanted and I would not have resigned. Jim Wells should have resigned in his own time, if he felt it was the right thing to do, not because of some social media and tree hugging campaign against him. 

The institution of the traditional media is an important part of our society, the right to a free press has been a vital part of the fabric of our democracy since the days of the Magna Carta. It would be a shame if this proud institution was allowed to be sullied by amalgamating traditional media with a bunch of hysterical bloggers and allowing them to take on the title ‘journalist’. They aren’t journalists and nor am I. To prove this point I will apply for membership of the NUJ- there is no reason to reject me, and then I can swan about the media benches of the court, political conferences and just about any event going and blog from there as a journalist. Of course this would make a mockery of journalism, so it is about time someone made the distinction between a band of hysterical nutters calling themselves ‘politicos’ and ‘journalists’ and proper bona fide journalism. It won’t be long before the next bandwagon the tree huggers jump on is ‘equality for journalists’. At this stage it will be hard not to be a journalist, given that most people possess a pen and paper somewhere in their house!

PSNI refusal to arrest Fennell highlights the clear disparity in policing!

It comes as no surprise to me that the PSNI have yet to take any action against self proclaimed dissident Republican Dee Fennell following his encouragement of terrorism and ‘armed struggle’ during his oration at a republican terrorfest in North Armagh last week. 

There is provision under the terrorism act of encouraging future acts of terrorism- I would submit, and I believe any right thinking person would agree, that calling for armed struggle in 2015 is an act of encouraging future terrorism and therefore seriously in breach of the prevention of terrorism act. 

Let’s also remember that William Frazer and myself were remanded into custody under the provisions of section 46 of the serious crime act for allegedly encouraging an illegal act. The act we were accused of encouraging? An unotified public procession! The use of this legislation was ludicrous, laughable and made a mockery of the justice system however what is good for the goose is good for the gander- so why is this legislation or the terrorism act not being used to arrest IRA terrorist Dee Fennell who is encouraging people to take up guns and bombs? 

I was a threat to national security for peacefully protesting according to the PSNI- yet they take no action against those calling for terrorists to take up arms! 

The PSNI also couldn’t wait to arrest Ruth Patterson at her place of work for making a Facebook comment- why is the law different when it is a loyalist? 

This incident serves to once again highlight the clear disparity between the policing of loyalist communities and the policing of republican communities. The confidence in the PSNI within the loyalist community is at zero. This further serves to highlight the partial policing of the PSNI and given the recent revelations of collusion between the PSNI and INLA along with the ongoing concerns around the IRA’s former Solicitors role as DPP, there are real and genuine concerns that policing and justice is weighted heavily against the PUL community. 

All elected Unionist representatives should be up in arms demanding the immediate arrest of Dee Fennell. Everyone should be equal under the law and equally subject to the law- so if it is good enough to lock up Willie Frazer, Ruth Patterson and myself then it is certainly good enough to lock up Dee Fennell! 

Concerned ‘residents’ seeking to be offended as parade passes peacefully! 

Today’s parade passed of largely peacefully. It was unfortunate that some hate filled nationalist ‘residents’ resorted to hurling abuse and issuing empty threats. I did however expect nothing less from the so called ‘concerned residents’. I can be certain that if I threatened to cut someone’s throat, the PSNI would have me locked up before the words had finished coming out of my mouth. Once again it seems the law applies to some people, some of the time! 

Sinn Fein, the surrogates of the murderous IRA, complained that the parade was an hour late. How bizarre- they were unhappy that they had to stand for an extra hour waiting to be offended. If they were that bothered why not just go on home? 

Sinn Fein also complained about the choice of hymn. They have asked for prosecutions. I would assume that even the PPS would have a hard job mounting a prosecution for the playing of Glory Glory Hallelujah. A hymn book provides a defence that even the PPS couldn’t abuse the law to get around! Even if they once again reversed the burden of proof, they still would have no chance of a prosecution. If others view Glory Glory Hallelujah as another kind of song then that is a matter entirely for them. 

Following the IRA terrorfest yesterday it is rich for Sinn Fein to be making any kind of complaint in relation to lawful & peaceful Apprentice Boys parades! 

Ashers case exposes the open ended, ambiguous and fatally flawed notion of ‘equality’ 

The recent Ashers case has highlighted the fatal flaws with the so called ‘equality agenda’. The gay rights case against Ashers in my view seeks not to be treated equally, but instead for the rights of the gay community to trump the fundamental right to freedom of conscience which is enshrined within the European Human Rights Act 1998. 

The problem with the notion of equality is like much of the legislation that supposedly underpins it; ‘equality’ has no boundaries, no parameters and is completely ambiguous. It can mean almost anything to any person. It is in essence bad law because it is unclear and is open to wildly different interpretations. 

There are those who undoubtedly would be supporters of the gay rights movement who have recognised that the case against Ashers has done serious damage to their ‘cause’. The left wing gay rights movement aggressively rant and rave about religious fundamentalists yet their own behaviour suggests that they seek to ram their views, their sexuality and their ‘equality’ agenda down everyone else’s throat. 

A minister would refuse to marry a Christian and a non-Christian because it is against Biblical teaching so if we follow the notion of equality there should be a movement that seeks equal rights for Christians and non Christians in terms of the right to be married. 

Similarly I had a conversation with a person yesterday who is a supporter of gay rights, not of the case against Ashers mind you. When I asked the person if they would support the right of a man to marry three adult women, providing all willingly agreed, they responded that they would not because they felt that demeaned the women. This sums up the attitude of the left wing equality agenda, if it suits someones purpose and they agree with the cause then equality should mean that the cause they support should be granted whatever it is they demand, yet perversely in this example this equality activist would deny four consenting adults the right to marry because it doesn’t sit well with their personal viewpoint in regards to women’s rights. So my question is who decides when equality applies and when it doesn’t? Who marks the boundaries and who decides when it goes too far? And quite simply, what does equality actually mean? 

Define it; articulate it and follow its logical path and you will find that it means whatever a person wants it to mean. So in this regard, and staying with the notion that everyone is equal, then who has the right to judge another and say no to their demand for equality, in relation to any subject? Is it the court of public opinion? Is it society’s current moral compass or is it the court of law? 

Should equality- whatever that in reality actually means because it is so fluid and so open ended that anyone can twist it to suit their agenda- trump the rights to someone’s freedom of conscience? Do the equality activists, and especially the gay rights movement, demand that fundamental human rights are trumped by the whims of one section of society? And how do the equality activists pursuing the aggressive gay rights agenda propose to reconcile that with the right of a Christian and others in society to oppose activities that go against their sincerely held religious beliefs. 

You see, the equality argument is illogical and it is self-defeating because at its core equality will more often than not have to make a judgement call on which section of a communities rights trump another section of the communities’ rights. It is human nature for people to have sincerely held different views on almost every issue, so therefore the notion that everyone can have what they want all of the time is illogical. It is a conundrum which has arisen due to much of the legislation brought in by New Labour, legislation that flooded through Parliament but was in reality poor and extremely open ended law. Those laws are only really coming to a cross roads now and are beginning to be challenged via the judicial process. The problem is that because the equality law is so open ended and ambiguous, the the will of parliament is not clear, therefore the judicial system is placed in a situation where it should never be- it must interpret a law that has no clear boundaries and which has little legal precedent, make it compatible with ECHR and uphold the notion of equality at the same time. 

I can’t help but feel that the judiciary are being given the impossible task of doing what parliament has, as of yet,  been unable to do and pass legislation that clearly defines what equality is and where the boundaries of it are. Of course the judiciary cannot pass legislation, that it outside their powers, they are simply there to interpret the legislation passed by parliament.

This leaves us in a situation whereby the judiciary must tread carefully so as not to subvert the will of a parliament which really has no clear view on the issue. It is a minefield and there is no end in sight. 

The Ashers case will open the floodgates one way or another and the fault lies not with those in the gay rights movement, they only sought to utilise open ended legislation to the advantage of their cause, the fault lies with those who put this legislation into effect and opened up pandora’s box!

How will Pandora’s box be closed in regards to this subject? I don’t see how it can be. Society must accept that due to competing views and competing rights that all of the people cannot be happy all of the time, therefore the question is how do we ‘distrubute’ equality in the fairest possible way? Is it through the democratic will of parliament passing legislation setting clear boundaries? Yet even I would concede that this leaves the door open for discrimination against minoritiy groups.

So what is the answer to the enigma of equality? I think that no one really knows and no one really has an answer that will please everyone- therefore the current notion of equality is defunct. It needs reframed in a new context and a fair system for challenging discrimation brought forth. At the moment parliament are passing the buck to the judiciary, the judiciary will pass the buck back to parliament and in the meantime the row over the competing rights will trundle on!