Sacco and Vanzetti: The other famous Boston frame up?
Kudos to BrassCheckTV for surfacing this video. It’s an important part of America’s history, studied widely in education, and a cautionary tale about the federal government’s penchant for manufacturing radicals.
|
Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update
| REPOSTING FROM REAL WHITBY:
Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update Say No To Joe – Read About It Here Regular readers of Real Whitby will know that on the 28th of March, Scarborough Borough Council wrote to our Internet Service Provider demanding that they to terminate our website hosting service. Three contributors to the site, including myself, were also threatened with legal action on the same day, also over allegations of wrongdoing that SBC has not specified. This was done without any prior warning or any previous complaint to Real Whitby. On the 31st of March, Real Whitby wrote to Scarbrough Borough Council, asking it to specify which articles it objected to and why, so we could consider any complaint and the possibility of resolving this by issuing a correction, retraction or apology. Twenty one days has elapsed and we have not had any substantive response. I am therefore writing with an update on my original article on this attempt by Scarborough Borough Council to arbitrarily impose press censorship. It appears that Real Whitby’s offer to resolve things amicably is being ignored. Accordingly, I have written to all of the present 48 Scarborough Borough Councillors (except Councillor Chatt, at his request) bringing this matter to their attention in an Open Letter, asking them to ensure that Scarbrough Borough Council either sets out what its complaint is, or withdraws its threats of legal action. The Open Letter is set out below for your information. I have had no response as at the time of publication. ~~~~~~~ Dear Councillor, Following the failure of Mrs Lisa Dixon, Scarborough Borough Council Head of Legal and Democratic Services, to provide a substantial response to correspondence within twenty one days, I am writing to you in an open letter concerning her letters before action demanding the closure of the Real Whitby Website. The chronology of events is as follows It is unclear from Mrs Dixon’s vague and unspecific letters if her allegations relate to some or all of the following issues covered in the local and national press following investigation by Real Whitby: Or to other matters. The public response to these events has been that Whitby Town Council has passed a motion censuring SBC for trying to close down the Real Whitby website and prevent freedom of speech. Private Eye has also criticised her actions and, having taken legal advice, has confirmed that the allegations made by Real Whitby, that Mrs Dixon describes as “malicious, untrue and defamatory” are in fact “accurate”. We are confident that this response reflects public and press opinion should the matter go to Court, particularly as those Councillors who wish to proceed with a High Court action will be subject to cross examination on all of the above matters, should it come to that. To try and resolve this, Real Whitby wrote to Mrs Dixon on the 31st of March, asking her to specify which articles she objected to and why, so her views could be considered and a correction or apology issued if this was appropriate. Her eventual response to me was “I do not intend to enter into correspondence with you at this at stage in relation to any proposed legal action to be undertaken by the Council”. It therefore appears that having issued a letter before action, attempting to close down Real Whitby and threatening its contributors with civil and criminal legal action, Mrs Dixon is unwilling or unable to specify what her complaint is, or participate in any attempt to resolve the matter by discussion. The current situation therefore causes me the following concerns: Click to access Forward%20Plan.pdf Click to access Forward%20Plan.pdf Mrs Dixon has confirmed: “For your information the legal action to which you refer was not discussed at the Cabinet meeting of 26 March 2013, nor was any motion or report tabled in relation to it. The issue of the letter did not require Cabinet approval. Councillor Kenyon did not instigate or suggest the sending of this letter.” The Key Decisions List on the 26th of March 2013 called for a decision by the Cabinet on the 23rd of April. However, on the 28thof March 2013, Mrs Dixon nevertheless wrote threatening legal action, i.e. 26 days before the Cabinet was scheduled to come to a decision. The current situation is bizarre, in that SBC is maintaining its position that the Real Whitby website should be terminated to our ISP, whilst publicly denying this in the press and to the public. It appears that appropriate procedures were not followed to authorise the threats of legal action and although Real Whitby responded promptly and reasonably offering to discuss SBC’s concerns, SBC is refusing to confirm what the grounds for its dissatisfaction are, or which Councillors and/or Officers claim to have been defamed and have authorised Mrs Dixon to threaten legal proceedings in their name, or which functions the Council is unable to fulfil. It is a legal maxim that allegations which are unsupported by evidence are worthless. This matter has obviously been completely mishandled. The letters have achieved nothing other than to increase the numbers of people accessing the Real Whitby website and its profile nationally on the one hand, and to cause alarm and distress whilst bringing the Council into even more public disrepute and ridicule on the other. To achieve a sensible resolution, I would ask that you raise this matter and ensure that either Scarborough Borough Council provides a list of the articles it deems to be offensive, indicating precisely which comments they are referring to, along with a list of the associated complainants, or alternatively it withdraws the threats of legal action and corrects the statement. Because of the public interest in this matter I have written to you in an open letter, which will be published this evening. I will publish any response or rebuttal SBC or any Councillor wishes to make public. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely, Timothy Hicks Related Posts Real Whitby: The ‘PRIVATE EYE’ Collection NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Joe PLANT NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Brian SIMPSON Scarborough Council By-Election Countdown (4) NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor David JEFFELS NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Bill CHATT NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor John BLACKBURN SBC Press Censorship: more incredible revelations NYCC Election Preview – County Councillor Janet JEFFERSON NYCC Election Preview – Cllr Peter POPPLE Posted by Real Whitby on April 22, 2013. Filed under Featured,News,Scarborough Borough Council. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry Say No To Joe – Read About It Here 21 Responses to Attempted Termination of Real Whitby: Update kathleen parkerReply April 23, 2013 at 7:45 am SBC are a joke,they’re watching each others backs,afraid of losing their cushy jobs after May2nd! We need a complete change,we need people who will look after our interests and NOT line their own pockets. Sam BuckleyReply April 23, 2013 at 8:02 am Councils, as public bodies, are not legally able to sue for defamation. Individual councillors or officers can, but they have to do it using their own resources – neither the authority nor the finances of the council are available to them. Martine YatesReply April 23, 2013 at 8:22 am What a sorry excuse for a council. The puppets are dancing, that’s for sure, a classic example of mass denial. Keep up the good work, corruption and lies should not be the standard by which our public servants carry out their duties. James MillerReply April 23, 2013 at 9:09 am Both spot on except one phrase in Kathleen’s post; ‘SBC are a joke’. They are not, I am afraid, a joke. There is an old adage ‘If they had a brain they ‘d be dangerous’. Change that slightly to ‘If they had sly cunning they’d be dangerous’. That, they have got. Sam BuckleyReply April 23, 2013 at 10:14 am P.S. See the House of Lords decision in Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers [1993] Jonathon ChapmanReply April 23, 2013 at 11:52 am Is Timothy Hicks the owner of this organ or just a common-or-garden ‘corruption buster’ contributor? Is “news magazine” the official definition of the RW website? I ask because whenever I have tried to compare it to a news organ, Glenn chimes in to remind me that RW is just a community discussion forum and therefore not comparable to a news organ. This clarification is welcome. And, for what it’s worth, having initiated a couple of defamation lawsuits I can tell you that the fist question a judge will ask the plaintiff is what action he/she/it took to mitigate the damage of the alleged defamation. The plaintiff must be able to show that it took action to have the offensive material removed or taken down. It seems that SBC has taken the necessary mitigation steps and now presumably considers the matter sub judice. Tim HicksReply April 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm Dear Mr Chapman, Thank you for your contribution. To be clear, SBC have not confirmed what articles they consider to be defamatory and so we are unable to take any mitigating action. This is plainly stated in the article above. I am not the owner or editor of Real Whitby. Regards, Tim Tim ThorneReply April 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm “And, for what it’s worth, having initiated a couple of defamation lawsuits” You’ve come back! I figured you’d left for pastures new. I see your Shylock sock is still busy on LSE, trying to convince people to buy SXX. Are you paid by York Potash to big up their stock? Is that what Prototype Communications does, Simon? Carolyn WittReply April 23, 2013 at 12:09 pm Carry on doing what you are doing, eventually SBS will realise that neither YOU or us Whitby folk are willing to sit back & say or do nowt, use your votes wisely Whitby. Bomber HarrisReply April 23, 2013 at 12:21 pm Have you seen this Jonny ? James MillerReply April 23, 2013 at 1:56 pm Hey Bomber. Someone called Simon Chapman puts what are described as ‘long rambling posts’ on there. Do you think it is any relation? Bomber HarrisReply April 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm He’s also taking legal action against every man in the world. Real Whitby needs to throw him off, hes a serial troll mick wardReply April 23, 2013 at 12:28 pm Well done. About time this political climate of theft needs adressing at every level. Where can I donate please george conwayReply April 23, 2013 at 5:53 pm I, as a newcomer, am also interested to know if Tim Hicks is a Whitby resident or resides elsewhere. If it is the latter what motivates him to undertake the actions he does via Real Whitby website and why does Real Whitby entetain someone who does not have a local interest. How many more Tim Hicks are there? Tim ThorneReply April 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm Hi Colin. Tim HicksReply April 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm Dear Mr Conway, Thank you for your comment. I am not a Whitby Resident. I do not normally submit articles on Whitby, these are mainly run by Nigel and Tim. I have commented on this story because I am being threatened with legal action, which I hope you would agree gives me a right to comment. I am motivated by a specialist interest in investigating corruption and fraud. There is only one of me and so far as I am aware I am unique. Best regards, Tim Real Whitby WebmasterReply April 23, 2013 at 8:40 pm As site owner, I entertain him because he is good, extremely thorough, dedicated to working against corruption, professional, very well educated and writes in a way people can understand. Thanks for your interest. Bob RobertsReply April 23, 2013 at 6:24 pm Just where does the Scarborough News stand in all this furore? Surely Freedom of Speech is valued by all journalists, whether they be amateur or professionals. Would the Scarborough News under it present leadership have denied the Sons of Neptune for their relentless quest for cleaner seas simply because its controversial? It was Martin Niemöller who said: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– If the SBC Stasi get away with this then the Scarborough News can kiss goodbye to its freedom of speech which one day they may well be in need of. george conwayReply April 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm Mr Hicks, you are only threatened with legal action, I imagine, as you have both chosen and been allowed, to put yourself into this position by writing articles that in some way relate to Whitby, if not why would the owners allow you to use this site in the first place? Regards Real Whitby WebmasterReply April 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm It was contrary to the public interest that organs of government, whether central or local, should have the right to sue for libel because any governmental body should be open to uninhibited public criticism and to allow such actions would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech. The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the council from the Court of Appeal’s decision (the Independent, 21 February 1992; (1992) QB 770) that a local authority cannot maintain an action for libel. It was of the highest importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech. ‘The chilling effect’ induced by the threat of civil actions for libel was very important. Quite often the facts which would justify a defamatory publication were known to be true, but admissible evidence capable of proving those facts was not available. That might prevent the publication of matters which it was very desirable to make public. Real Whitby WebmasterReply |
Lord Monckton Research – Is the State guilty of Child Kidnap?
| Social workers are still too keen to split up families, says Christopher Booker. Daily Telegraph 4 July 2009
One of the most disturbing features of life in modern Britain has been the extraordinary powers given to social workers to seize children from their parents, too often – when those powers are abused – supported by the police and family courts. What makes this still more alarming is the legal bar on reporting these episodes, supposedly to protect the children, which again too often works to protect the social workers themselves at the expense of the children. Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who, as a hereditary peer, does not sit in the Lords, but has passed his dossier both to an active life peer and to this column. Until six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Jones, as I must call them under reporting restrictions, lived happily with their three young children, two sons and a daughter, aged under 13. Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside. The headmistress agreed to this, but, concerned about other children’s safety, contacted the local police, who in turn passed on their concerns to social services. The result of this was that, on May 18, when Mr and Mr Jones, accompanied by their younger son, arrived at school to pick up their daughter, they were met by a group of strangers, one as it turned out a female social worker. She asked, without explaining why or who she was, whether he was Mr Jones. When she three times refused to show him any ID, he was seized from behind by two policemen, handcuffed and put under arrest. He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of “a number of concerns”, he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and “sectioned” under S.2 as of “unsound mind”. His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services. Mrs Jones was allowed to return to an empty home that evening. Mr Jones was permitted to attend court two days later, to hear the magistrates grant an interim order for the children to remain in the care of social services. Because he was “sectioned”, he was not allowed to speak. The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained. On May 28, Mr Jones appeared before a mental health tribunal which, after hearing all the facts relating to his case, gave him a complete discharge. He returned home to his wife and immediately contacted his MP, a local MEP, lawyers and others he thought might be able to help, one of whom set in train the investigation by Lord Monckton that led to this story appearing here. Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday. The voluminous dossier setting out this extraordinary sequence of events not only includes lengthy statements from Mr and Mrs Jones but copies of detailed statements by the social worker and policewoman most closely involved in the case (along with a good deal more circumstantial evidence). The only reason offered in these documents for the abduction of the children is Mr Jones’s “delusional belief system” that special care should be taken of his children because of their elevated family connections. The only harm done to the children is their very evident unhappiness at being separated from their parents. It must be hoped that the court this week recognises how grotesquely this tragic case has been blown out of all proportion, and rules that a loving family should immediately be reunited. Source: PunishmentWithoutCrime |
America 0 Terrorism 1 The War On Terror Is Over. America Lost.
|
By James Corbett It has often been observed that the war on terror is unwinnable. After all, how could a war on an abstract noun ever have its “Mission Accomplished” moment? It is, according to this wisdom, meant to drag on forever. Just because a war can’t be won, however, doesn’t mean it can’t be lost. The truth is that the war on terror is over. And America has lost. Just look at the images of the Watertown lockdown. A city under a supposedly “voluntary” lockdown that was in fact enforced by bands of roving SWAT team members going door to door, forcibly removing people from their own homes at gunpoint. Whatever the use of the word “voluntary” might mean in this case, I defy anyone to differentiate these images from a martial law scenario. And yet, amazingly, the media does not show us images of enraged Bostonians. It does not interview those who were treated this way by the SWAT teams. It does not ask those people directly affected what they think, or report on dissent. Instead, we are shown images of mindless celebrations orchestrated to the score of that age-old chant of the mob that has lost all capacity to reason critically: “USA! USA! USA!” Surely it is a mob far under the hypnotic spell of the mainstream fear programming that can cheer the destruction of their own rights. It is even more perverse that this destruction is being done in the name of two bumbling college-age boys who, it must be stressed, have yet to be proven guilty of anything. The irony seems to be lost on much of the American population that scenes like these are precisely what the all-pervasive “terrorist” boogeymen supposedly want: a people so enslaved to the fear of their own shadow that the actions of two hapless misfits can cause such chaos and the disruption of so many people’s lives. This irony is certainly NOT lost on a government that has tried its utmost to make people afraid of the so-called terrorist threat over the past decade. Yes, the terrorists hate you for your freedom. So who are the terrorists? And who is trying to take away your freedoms? If terrorism is the use of violence to further political ends, then the real terrorists by definition are the ones who are ramping up the fear after each and every incident in order to shape the public’s perception. Has some shadowy group of scary bearded men with turbans really caused the American population to cower in fear at the first sign of a homemade explosive anywhere in the country? Or has the government and their cronies in the media primed the population to be afraid of something that, statistically, is less likely to kill someone on American soil than a bee sting? In the end, the questions answer themselves. All that is needed is reflection over what we have witnessed play out over the past week: an Orwellian two minutes of hate directed not at these boys– about whom almost nothing is known except for their previous contact with the FBI–but at the ghost that has been haunting America’s nightmares ever since the Bush Administration conjured them into existence. These ghosts will continue to haunt the American population until they, and their like-minded allies around the world, choose to wake up from the nightmare. After all, you can’t win a fight against a ghost. You can lose one, however. The events of the past week have proven that much. This article first appeared in The International Forecaster newsletter. |
Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty
 Ron PaulInfowars.com April 22, 2013This week, as Americans were horrified by the attacks in Boston, both houses of Congress considered legislation undermining our liberty in the name of “safety.” Gun control continued to be the focus of the Senate, where an amendment expanding federal “background checks” to gun show sales and other private transfers dominated the debate. While the background check amendment failed to pass, proponents of gun control have made it clear they will continue their efforts to enact new restrictions on gun ownership into law.While it did not receive nearly as much attention as the debate on gun control, the House of Representatives passed legislation with significant implications for individual liberty: the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). CISPA proponents claim that the legislation is necessary to protect Continue reading → |
BOSTON BOMBING – How doctor’s daughter became the Muslim convert widow of Boston bomber: Terrorist husband ‘brainwashed’ her and she gave up her dreams of college to have his baby at 21
| Katherine Russell, the widow of Boston bomb suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was ‘an all-American girl who was brainwashed’ by her extremist husband according to one schoolfriend.
DailyMail.co.uk Today MailOnline has gained the first glimpse and pictures of the early life of the woman who, according to those who knew her best, was ‘totally transformed’ by Tsarnaev. At high school her personal motto was ‘Do something about it or stop complaining’. She dreamed of going to college and joining the Peace Corps. She urged her friends to ‘lighten up and enjoy the small things,’ in life.   Transformed: Katherine Russell, the American wife of marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is pictured left in her school book and, right, leaving the house she shared with her husband in Cambridge Instead she met Tsarneav, 26, a disenfranchised man who came to America from his troubled homeland of Chechnya who rapidly had her in his thrall. By the time she was 21 she had married him and borne his child, Zahara, now three. She had converted to Islam, hidden her tumble of chestnut hair beneath the hijab and undergone a change so profound that today few friends profess to truly understand it.
Source: DailyMail.co.uk
|
Hackers Hijack CBS To Claim Obama Involvement in Boston Bombings
Hacktivists expose media’s refusal to report on private operatives at Boston bombings
The mainstream media’s refusal to report on images showing private military operatives on the scene of the Boston bombings carrying heavy backpacks prompted hacking group the Syrian Electronic Army to take matters into their own hands by hijacking CBS 60 Minutes’ Twitter account and sending out tweets exposing unanswered questions behind this week’s attacks. “The attack occurred while a “48 Hours” special about the Boston Marathon bombings was airing on the Continue reading → |
How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption – Daily Mail 2008
 Adoption Curves (Photo credit: Nathan Laurell)
Can you believe it when the Daily Mail prints it? How Social Services Paid Bonuses to snatch babies for adoption – already in January 2008:
The author Sue Reid who began studying forced adoptions in 2003 writes furthermore:
|
SafetyPAD’s First Response App to Be Deployed at Boston Marathon
| Firehouse.com April 15, 2013[Editor’s Note: This article was posted 3 days ago.]Boston EMS is deploying a new, off-the-shelf, lightweight mobile device for the first time at the Boston Marathon on April 15. The platform, from SafetyPAD, is intended for use in mass-casualty situations gives EMS personnel the ability to carry into crowds and assess a patient upon arrival, document in realtime, transmit data to transport units before they arrive, and other features. Boston EMS will utilize the new Android-based program for bike and gator teams along race route. This article was posted: Monday, April 15, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
UM Coach: Bomb Sniffing Dogs Were at Start, Finish Lines for “Drill”
| Local 15 TV April 15, 2013 [Editor’s Note: Just as with the Madrid bombing and 7/7 bombings in London and countless others, a drill coincides with the real event. This is done so that if the compartmentalized operation is exposed the operatives executing the attack can simply claim they were part of the drill.] University of Mobile’s Cross Country Coach, who was near the finish line of the Boston Marathon when a series of explosions went off, said he thought it was odd there were bomb sniffing dogs at the start and finish lines.
“They kept making announcements on the loud speaker that it was just a drill and there was nothing to worry about,” Coach Ali Stevenson told Local 15. “It seemed like there was some sort of threat, but they kept telling us it was just a drill.” |
Boston marathon bombing happened on same day as ‘controlled explosion’ drill by Boston bomb squad
| (NaturalNews) Two bombs have rocked the streets of Boston and reportedly injured 22 marathon runners (two have reportedly died). It’s too early to know the cause of these explosions, but you can rest assured both the state and federal government will try to use this tragic event to blame whatever convenient enemies are most advantageous for the government.
|
Age of Autism: MMR and the Crumbling Façade of the British State
 By John Stone
Truth is a hard game and when people start admitting it you scarcely know where it might end. Today, the BBC and the United Kingdom Department of Health tacitly admitted that a key finding of the GMC hearing against doctors Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch was false, to wit that the Wakefield Lancet paper of 1998 was identical to a study commissioned by the Legal Aid Board: with that finding out of the way – dismissed as it was Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court in the appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith – then many of the other accusations against all three doctors crumble to dust. This is the wording of the BBC report: Dr Wakefield’s study considered whether there was a link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease. It focused on tests carried out on 12 children who had been referred to hospital for gastrointestinal problems. ———————-
———————- Dr Wakefield was also paid to carry out another study at the same time to find out if parents who claimed their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. Some children were involved in both studies. However, this study was not the abandoned one that the GMC panel insisted on in its findings: The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition. Obscenely, the GMC panel deliberated for three years over this falsehood and yet such is justice that it has only been over-turned in the case of one of the doctors. However, it really is time that the manufacturers of these official deceits started answering questions. For instance, why – if MMR was safe – were such disgusting perversions necessary to protect its reputation? Source: Age Of Autism |
Anti Oligarch 