An off the cuff comment on our Facebook page caught my eye yesterday. It was from an OF backer and they stated that sooner or later OF would be credited in Parliament for all that we are doing to make the justice system more… just.
It’s a well-meant sentiment but I assure you now that the last thing the establishment would ever want to do is give credit to or acknowledgment to an organisation like this. I’m not bothered about credit but it is important to understand why your establishment would not credit an organisation like OF.
The simple fact is that they wouldn’t want to encourage it and the reason they wouldn’t want to encourage it would be that it’s working. They do not want that. They do not want people who are able to organise and build and create in this way – for decades now successive governments have destroyed community and beaten people’s morale right down. Easier to control a population that is demoralised and atomised.
The last thing they want is anything external to the establishment which inspires, motivates, brings pressure to pass and makes the people feel that perhaps all is not lost after all.
This is why they would never credit us. They have seen what we have built in 12 weeks and it worries them how far we have come in that time. When they expected us to lose interest or run out of material, we actually vastly increased our public backing and added far more material. When they calculated that we could only get so much from one single story and then we’d dry up – they were gravely wrong. Instead we not only sustained that one story for the entire summer but we have evolved it so that we now speak on behalf of ALL victims of animal and child abuse whose perpetrators have been permitted to walk free after being convicted. Especially all those since Michael Gove took over as Justice Minister since that would be a contemporary starting point.
Because we have gradually went from this one case to representing all those let down by this disgusting and diseased justice system our following is growing. We still lead with the Frankish brothers case but on the back end of it we are now a voice for the voiceless, we are doing this for all victims of abuse that have been sold down the river by the self-serving popinjays in Parliament.
What will concern the establishment most is that they are not equipped to deal with an organisation with this type of strategy. They are like robots who are programmed to only deal with a certain style of dissent from the people.
They can deal with general disorganised moaning – they just ignore it. They can deal with people sending polite little letters and polite little petitions. They can also ignore that. They can deal with acts of large scale violence – this hands them the moral high ground and allows them to demonise the dissenters.
What they are not so well equipped to deal with is a movement that clearly and obviously uses psychology as a multi-faceted tool. They would rather have a group that went and daubed graffiti over a car than one that deals a great deal in psychological warfare. They would rather someone had blackened the Frankish boys’ eyes back in April because then the state could do what it so loves to do – give a harsher sentence to the guy who did that than the sadistic brothers were given.
They would probably LOVE us to do something like that and it infuriates them that we have not. It drives the state insane that we are not following the usual media script of a “lynch mob”. They absolutely despise the fact that we have played it that way and they resent the fact that we have started this culture of redistributing funds given to us into things that are good and worthy (there will be far more of that to come).
They fully understand that had they dared to try ‘shut us down’ over our plane and truck campaign that it would be a massive own goal. People would see it as an affront to democracy, so they had to sit and seethe about it. Likewise with much of the written content on here. They would love us to state that we are about to nuke their house and they hate the fact that we are only exposing the shortcomings of the establishment and serving as a ‘public health service’ by allowing people the right to know what sort of people are near them.
When the state expect violence we provide psychological warfare instead.
When the state expect graffiti and vandalism we provide a powerful psychological video instead – then show it to tens of thousands.
When the state expect completely stupid threats against MPs we instead shine a light on them and just tell people the truth about a given MP.
We call them out for their own limp inaction over very serious matters. We haven’t even started on that part of the strategy yet, not in earnest. But we will. We will most definitely not relent in terms of Daniel and Andrew Frankish. However, it is clear that we must now accept and understand that it is directly due to these very well paid MPs (especially those in government) that all freaks like them are at liberty today. It is for that reason we shall ruthlessly and without remorse shame any such individual that shirks responsibility in this matter. When we said “No more sadists on our streets” it wasn’t a slogan – it was an instruction and one with the weight of any decent man or women behind it.
Because Cameron threw his toys out the pram a vacancy has been created for a Prime Minister. It should be the greatest honour bestowed on anyone. That’s what it should be and the people deserve no less. However they do get less – MUCH less. Indeed they get men and women who totally DIShonour the role. Just wait until Wednesday when the seven year and £10 million ‘Chilcott enquiry’ is finally unveiled. Rest assured it will be one giant whitewash that ends with “no one really being to blame”.
We presently have five people that want to be PM. We don’t get a say or vote. Nope. That’s reserved only for them. Here are the 5 people that aspire to the role:
Theresa May, Liam Fox, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, and Andrea Leadsom.
In all truth I have only really heard of two of them to any degree. The others are almost a total mystery to me. Let’s at least have a look into each.
Gove. It may surprise many but back in the late 90’s Gove was an open supporter of the restoration the the death penalty. I suppose that means there was at least a time when he didn’t have a soft outlook toward the worse of people. He stopped mentioning the subject after that, probably because he felt society would have a gigantic seethe if someone like Peter Tobin was hung. Maybe he was right at the time, we have gone through this insane phase in which we want to wring our hands and feel sorry for the perpetrator. “Muh upbringing” etc. That’s a habit this society needs to break – and fast. Since those days Gove has been pretty upwardly mobile on the career front.
He is presently Justice Minister, one of the most senior positions in the government. Oddly he claims to have “no power”. Weird. Doesn’t seem to me has has tried too hard given that it took weeks and weeks for him to reply back to another MP.
He has done this though…
“Gove also removed the 12-book limit on prison books introduced by Grayling, arguing that books increased literacy and numeracy, skills needed for making prisoners a “potential asset to society.” The move, effective from September 2015, was welcomed by Frances Cook of the Howard League for Penal Reform.”
Hurrah for that then. There’s Gove’s massive plan to turn sadists into reformed characters – give them a copy of Wind In The Willows and all will be well. If only the brothers had access to more books then none of this would have happened. If only former Eton student Andrew Picard had read a book then his penchant for material of dogs raping babies could ALL have been prevented.
Still. He’s probably financially honest.
“Over a five-month period between December 2005 and April 2006, Michael Gove claimed more than £7,000 on a house bought with his wife Sarah Vine, a journalist, in 2002. Around a third of the money was spent at OKA, an upmarket interior design company established by Viscountess Astor, PM David Camerons mother-in-law”.
Gove Summary: Probably started out in politics with some good intentions then sold out entirely for personal aspirations. In his role as Justice Minister he is on record as saying he has no powers relating to justice. But he did have the power to claim £7k toward furnishings bought from OKA – owned by Cameron’s mum in law. No nepotism there then.
Its also worth looking at the other four. When there is a new PM it will likely mean new roles for the four that miss out.
The favourite to win is Theresa May.
As far as I know she is not yet on record as saying she has “no power”. She’s the current Home Secretary. Right from the off you can see she has little interest in community protection and safety. If I were a police officer I’d see her as no voice for me.
“Speaking at the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) conference on 29 June 2010, May announced radical cuts to the Home Office budget, likely to lead to a reduction in police numbers..”
Because that’s just what people need – even less police resources. Things are a utopia so it’s a luxury to invest in silly things like the police.
“In July 2010, it was reported that May had corresponded with Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of the missing child Madeleine McCann. In August 2010, May attended a private meeting with Mr and Mrs McCann to discuss their case”.
Well that is a given. It’s almost a case of who HASN’T met with them to ‘discuss the case’. They were also friends with Freud. Who just so happened to be in Portugal at precisely and exactly the same time as Madeline.
We’ll be holding her to this pledge though:
“the way we police in Britain is not through use of water cannon. The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”
Well, we shall organise the communities to give her the consent to take sadists off our streets. Noted.
At least she is honest and doesn’t lie though:
“On 29 August 2014, the British government raised the terrorist threat level to “severe”, as Prime Minister David Cameron and May warned a terrorist attack was “highly likely” following the coming to prominence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. May admitted that, although the threat level had been hiked to the second-highest possible, there was no intelligence warning of an imminent attack”
This is was okay but not enough.
‘In April 2015, May told the BBC she was “very concerned” about the decision not to prosecute the Labour politician Lord Janner over allegations of historical child sex abuse. Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that although there was enough evidence to bring charges against Janner, he was unfit to stand trial’
Then we have Liam Fox;
This sounds sooooo fantastic. Please sign us up.
“In March 2010 Fox appealed Sir Thomas Legg’s decision that he had over claimed £22,476 in mortgage interest payments. Fox immediately repaid the money, then appealed the decision. Fox’s appeal was rejected and the decision was upheld by Sir Paul Kennedy, a former high court judge.”
Gets better though:
“In March 2010, Fox admitted breaking parliamentary rules on two occasions by visiting Sri Lanka on a trip paid for by the Sri Lankan government without declaring the trip in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in the required time of 30 days and failing to declare an interest in Sri Lanka when asking ministers how much UK aid had been given to Sri Lanka.”
What’s not to like? Clear leadership material. Almost like Napoleon.
“During October 2011 Fox’s relationship with a close friend, Adam Werritty, attracted extensive media attention and eventually led to Fox’s resignation. Werrity, some 17 years younger than Fox, had been best man at his wedding, had lived rent-free in Fox’s flat, and been involved with him in business and in the conservative Atlanticist think-tank The Atlantic Bridge. While Fox was Defence Minister, Werrity had visited Fox at the Ministry of Defence on many occasions, had accompanied Fox on numerous official trips, attended some of his meetings with foreign dignitaries, and had used official-looking business cards which said he was an “adviser” to Fox, all despite having no government post or security clearance”
It starts well at least:
“During the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal, it was reported that Crabb had claimed £8,049 for refurbishments to his flat in London that were carried out from July 2006. He sold the flat the following year and switched his second home expenses to the house he had recently bought for his family in Pembrokeshire, allowing him to claim back £9,300 in stamp duty and £1,325 a month in mortgage interest for almost a year – while designating another London flat he was renting with a fellow MP as his main home.”
And he’s clearly a people guy…
On 2 March 2016, Crabb voted with the government to reduce by £30 per week the amount paid to disabled people newly placed in the cohort of recipients known as the ‘work-related activity group’ from April 2017. Crabb’s constituency office was vandalised afterwards, with graffiti asking: “Why do you hate the sick?” seen on its facade on 12 March.
Sounds like the sort of women you can trust:
“Following her appointment, it was discovered that Leadsom had placed her shares in a buy-to-let property company, which she had started with her husband in 2003, into trusts for the benefit of her children. This is a move that is commonly used to avoid inheritance tax. She also took advantage of offshore banking arrangements for the property company in an apparent contradiction to George Osborne’s attempts to crack down on tax avoidance..”
She may as well chew a toothpick and get a pin striped suit…
“There was further criticism when it was revealed that she had received a series of donations totalling £70,000 from a firm based in London but owned by her Guernsey-based brother-in-law, Peter de Putron, via a holding company in the British Virgin Islands tax haven.”
That’s the five people who are considered (by someone) to be the five best contenders to lead Britain in the whole country.
Whoever gets it had best be of a mind to stop letting sadists, paedophiles and sexual deviants live freely among normal people. They had best be of a mind to start locking them up as standard and for a LONG time. If they do not then their tenure may be a short one.
Pictured: The very cream of British politics. Apparently.