CHRIS SPIVEY – HARRASSED 26/08/15 – + “DEAD MAN WALKING” + more

 

Aug262015

Harrassed

Christopher Spivey

 

(UNEDITED AT MOMENT)

Ahead of Thursday’s  sentencing, here are THE TRUE FACTS of what has really taken place since July 30th 2014, ALL OF WHICH CAN BE EVIDENCED. Please share this report far and wide because next time it could be you caught up in a nightmare from where there appears to be no escape.

(1) I was illegally arrested at 1:30 AM on the 30th of July 2014 for “Suspicion of harassment” by four very aggressive police officers. The four thugs, despite knowing that my then 1 year old grandson was in the property illegally entered and began an illegal search, ending with them illegally seizing my computers, a mobile phone, a keyboard and mouse, and a DVD writer. I was then illegally detained for a total of 19 hours. Therefore, there should never have been a court case and disregarding that fact, the evidence should have been deemed inadmissible.

(2) The facts listed in number 1 are evidenced thus:

• A complaint was made, allegedly to Greater Manchester Police on the 16th of July 2014 by Witness A
• An arrest request was then made, allegedly by the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to Essex Police on the 17th of July 2014
• In the two weeks that followed the GMP request on 17/7/14 and my actual arrest on 30/7/14, Essex Police did not bother to apply for an arrest or search warrant despite being able to obtain both in around 6 hours.
• Instead, they came mob handed specifically to arrest me (as evidenced in the police witness statements) at a time which violates CODE B of PACE, following a briefing sometime between 11:30PM on the 29th of July 2014 and 1 AM on the 30th of July 2014, where my photo and description was handed out.

• When I refused to let them in because they had no warrants, one of them illegally used Section 32 of PACE to arrest me whilst the other three barged past me into my home.
• Not only was the policeman abusing Section 32, he was also using it illegally as Section 32 of PACE only allows for a search of an arrested person’s home and seizure of their property if the offence that they are arrested for is and INDICTABLE offence. “Suspicion of harassment” is a SUMMARY offence.

• Neither myself or my daughter Stacey were allowed to supervise the search, despite it being our right to do so.
• I told Stacey to film the police officers at which point one of the officers told her that if she did they would also take her phone with them when they left – violating Stacey’s right to do so. 
• After spending around half an hour finger tip searching my daughter’s bedroom where my then 1 year old grandson was sleeping, 3 of the officers went to search my living room whilst myself and Stacey were held prisoner by the 4th officer, in Stacey’s bedroom.
• The three officers spent over one and a half hours in my 16ft X 14 ft living room but missed a laptop computer, a computer hard drive and various memory sticks, non of which were hidden. The police have never told me what they were doing in there for 90 minutes, but it certainly could not be searching.
• Knowing that I was going to be taken, Stacey had phoned two friends up to come and sit with her. The police would not let them in until the both provided their names, addresses, and DOB’s.
• After completing the 9o minutes in the living room none of the officers bothered to search my bedroom, the bathroom, the kitchen or the walk-in hallway cupboard.
• A police car was then brought into the spacious car park outside of my flat block, from where it had been parked out of sight way up the road and the computers were loaded into the back in what appeared to be unsealed bags.
• I was then taken to a car parked way up the road and taken to Southend Central at approximately 4:30AM
• I was not interviewed until around lunch time and the 60-90 minute interview was conducted by CID despite the offence only being a summary offence, normally dealt with by a PC.
• I was then locked up again until around 6PM whereby I was released on bail with CONDITIONS.
• Before I left the station I lodged a complaint about my arrest, the search and seizure and the four aggressive officers.

(3) On the 30th of July 2014 – whilst I was still in custody – the social worker Nicole Miles began an assessment report on my grandson Clayton, based on a (later proven) malicious referral made by the police following my arrest. I believe that the police had hoped to find drugs or something else illegal in Stacey’s bedroom – hence the fingertip search – in order to allow them to get the social services involved. When they found nothing, they resorted to fabricating reasons to make a referral.

(4) Despite starting the assessment on the 30th of July, Nicole Miles did not receive the referral until TWO DAYS LATER on the 1st of August. This begs the question as to how did she know to begin the assessment on the 30th of July, on matters that were nothing to do with the SS yet seemingly important enough for Nicole Miles to inexplicably start her investigation before I had even been released from custody.

(5) When Nicole Miles came to visit I refused to cooperate on the basis that the reasons given in the malicious police refusal and “suspicion of harassment” were nothing to do with the social services. Miles, left but then tried co-opting the help of Clayton’s health visitor. Unfortunately for Miles, I get on extremely well with Clayton’s health visitor who has been around our home on numerous occasions. I believe that she quickly saw through the insidious nature of the referral and SS involvement and refused to have anything to do with it. The assessment was therefore terminated.

(6)I was subsequently told, no less than 5 (FIVE) times in writing by Essex Police, Detective Chief Inspector, Paul Ahmed (the person tasked with investigating my easily evidenced complaint) that my complaint COULD NOT be investigated until the investigation was completed and any court action dispensed with. This then is a case of a very senior police officer investigating serious misconduct taking place within his own force. It should also be noted that had my extremely serious complaint been investigated it would immediately have put a stop to the police investigation and there would never have been a court case, let alone a conviction.

(7)I was once again illegally arrested and my property illegally searched on the afternoon of 6th of October 2014, by THREE plain-clothed police officers who categorically told me that they had only come to talk. Once again they had come WITHOUT arrest or search warrant after “illegal images” were allegedly found on my computers which had been illegally seized on the 30th of July 2014. However, the police had informed the Social Services that I had been arrested on the 1st of October, hence they once again started an assessment on my grandson Clayton on that day, which they could not in fact begin for another 5 days until after I had been arrested. The police then -once again – incorrectly informed the social services that I had been arrested on the 3rd of October, three days before the event actually took place. This proves – for reasons previously documented and evidenced and briefly documented once again below – that the social services were working in cahoots with the police on a conspiracy to snatch my grandson Clayton.

(8) When I refused the three officers entry they used a battering ram to break down my front door as well as one of them kicking down my back gate and smashing my bedroom window. Again the police knew that my teenage daughter and infant grandson was on the premises. You need to ask yourself why it had taken the police 2 months to find these “illegal images” and why they blatantly came to arrest me without a search warrant and an arrest warrant both of which can be obtained within 6 (SIX) hours. Watch and listen to the video below and hear how terrified my daughter is. Try and imagine yourself being branded as a nonce… And then tell me how would you feel especially so with you being innocent. 

(9) The paperwork for this illegal arrest states that I was [illegally] arrested under Section 17 of PACE. Section 17 of PACE can only be used under extreme circumstances such as somebody being in danger of serious personal harm. However, one of the three police officers is clearly seen & heard on videotape above, stating that I had been arrested under Section 32 of PACE. Moreover, despite being handcuffed, the officer was to out of breath to read me my rights

(10) One of the officers then carried out a search which lasted no more than 5 minutes and consisted of a glance around my bedroom and the same around Stacey’s bedroom. He did not look in the walk-in hallway cupboard, the kitchen, the bathroom or the living room where i was being held. The hallway cupboard has around 30-50 photo albums in it, all of which could have contained photos of naked children for all that the officer knew. The living room contained THIS COMPUTER that I am writing on, as well as the laptop, memory sticks and hard drive that the 4 thug coppers missed on July 3oth. There are also over 1000 cased DVD’s in the living room, each case could have contained child porn, as well as 6 spools of recordable DVD’s which could have contained child porn. There was also a digital movie camera in the drawer. Yet the copper never so much as gave the room a second glance and NOTHING at all was taken in evidence. 

(11) Despite my front door having been battered down and unusable for 2 months (finally fixed in December 2014), my bedroom window smashed (and not fixed until December 2014) and my back gate being kicked down, the police wanted me to sign a declaration stating that they had caused NO DAMAGE

(12)  I was later contacted and sent video evidence by someone who had been arrested by the same three officers, who – on film – subsequently attempted to strangle the man in the back of their unmarked police car causing evidenced bruising to his throat. Whilst the attacking police officer screamed: “I am going to fucking kill you” with his hands around the victim’s throat, the other two officers are seen blatantly trying to shield the assault from the person attempting to film it. You are best listening with headphones and the volume turned up.

(14) It has since come to light and is clearly evidenced that this 2nd [illegal] arrest, carried out on evidence blatantly planted by the police on my illegally seized computers, was not done to discredit me (hence the police refusal to say why I had been arrested when asked the reason by the press), but was done with the clear intent of furthering a joint conspiracy by the Essex Police and Castle Point District Council Social Services, to have my grandson taken into care as a means of shutting me up.

(15) This clearly evidenced conspiracy, tantamount to kidnapping my well looked after, thriving, bright, happy and very much loved grandson thus ruining my life, my daughter’s life and most importantly the life of my infant grandson began at the time of my 1st arrest on the 30th of July 2014 and the conspiracy must therefore have been hatched before I was even arrested.

Can you imagine how scared and confused he would have been had I not taken steps to thwart the SS stopping them taking him into care?Can you imagine the fate he faced as we all know what happens to children in care? Can you imagine how devastated my daughter would have been?

(16) The social worker, Nicole Miles and her boss Julie Robinson then arranged – behind our backs – a case management meeting with the police with a view to raising the assessment, supposedly being carried out under Section 17: A child in need to a Section 47: Protection order. This was because I had refused to let my daughter agree to them looking at her medical records. Because of this refusal, the social workers [wrongly] assumed that we had something to hide and FRAUDULENTLY using the guise of carrying out a Section 47 investigation (which allows the SS to view medical records without permission) they went ahead and accessed Stacey’s records – thus breaking the law on data protection, an offence which carries up to 7 years in prison.

(17) However, at the case management meeting with the police being held with a view to raising the Section 17 assessment to a Section 47, the police vetoed the proposal stating that I was not a danger to Clayton.

(18) Despite the assessment NEVER being raised to a Section 42, Nicole Miles has indicated on the assessment that this had always been the case, thus had I not thwarted their efforts by catching on video, Miles & Robinson blatantly lying to me time & again, and the case reached court there would have been no question that Clayton would have been taken into care.

(19) Because the police (who were obviously working in collusion with the SS) had made the referral to Miles & Robinson on the 1st of October 2014 – after which the assessment was started straight away, inexplicably on the assessment report that had been started on the 30th of July (on a malicious referral by the police made on the 1st of August) and which Miles had inexplicably kept for 2 months despite the assessment being terminated – meaning that Miles MUST HAVE KNOWN that I was going to be arrested again sometime in the coming months – the assessment had to end BY LAW on the 20th of November.

(20) However, because I wasn’t arrested until the 6th of October, the social workers had to lead us to believe that the assessment was started on the 6th of October. Bear in mind that you do not get to see the assessment until it is completed whereby the social worker goes through it with you on the day it is to be submitted. The fact that the assessment was started 5 days prematurely which the police and the SS were desperate that we should not find out about for obvious reasons, hence the strategy meeting with the police arranged for the 24th (see 2nd photo above) was pointless because the assessment had already been submitted on the 20th.

(21)  Miles and Robinson then arranged a [pointless]meeting with us for the 25 th of November so as they could go through the assessment with us – despite unbeknownst to us at the time that the assessment had been submitted 5 days earlier. However, instead they just left a copy of the assessment with us – by now they were well aware that I was no mug.

(22) When I came to read the assessment the following day, I quickly picked up on all the above, plus other Blatant lies and the fact that the assessment was incomplete (at least our copy was). Of all the shameful lies contained within the error filled report, one of the worst was the fact that it was stated that I posed a future risk to Clayton – despite me not having been charged with anything and the police stating to Julie Robinson that I was no danger, hence the assessment was never raised to a Section 47.

(23) What follows is a tape recording of Stacey speaking to Nicole Miles on the phone. Miles had desperately tried to avoid taking the calls knowing that they would be in connection to the many anomalies in her assessment of Clayton. And while it is obvious that Stacey had Miles in a fluster, only being 19 at the time, Stacey did not grasp the full impact of the assessment being completed on the 20th of November whilst Miles and Robinson kept up the pretence of the assessment being on-going. Nevertheless, Miles quickly changes the subject. Moreover, although Stacey has my first arrest date wrong, stating that it was the 31st, you will still hear Miles panicking as she tries to explain how the assessment was started on the 30th yet they did not receive the police referral until the 1st of August.

(24) What follows is a video of the second phone call between Stacey and Miles where Stacey pulls her about the raising of the assessment to a Section 47. You will note that Miles tries to bluster that the assessment was raised to a Section 47 at the strategy meeting held with the police on the 21st of October (also scroll up to the relevant screen shot) where the police in fact vetoed the motion being as they considered me no risk to Clayton (which they could state with confidence since they had been the ones who planted the photos on my computers) thus the assessment was NEVER raised to a Section 47 at any time – proving that Miles & Robinson broke the law by illegally accessing Stacey’s medical records.

(25) At the meeting between ourselves, Julie Robinson and Nicole Miles – instead of coming to discuss the assessment before it was submitted (which had already been submitted) – brought along a woman called Jan Dakin. At this meeting, Robinson said that we had to trust them, which I pointed towards Miles and said “how can we trust you when I have her on film blatantly lying to us on several occasions”? Robinson – nodding her head – replied “we will have to talk about that errrrr” and nodded towards the garden, meaning that we would have to talk about it in private where I couldn’t record her… We never did.

(26) Instead of talking about the assessment – which was just left with us when they left – Robinson said that if Stacey would go to five 1 hour sessions with Jan Dakin, then as far as she was concerned that would be the end of the SS involvement with us, no matter what the outcome of the police investigation was. However, the meetings were to be held away from our home, with only Stacy in attendance – in other words, somewhere where we couldn’t film and where I could not be there to protect Stacey whilst they stitched her up.

(27) However, we agreed – after which I briefed Stacey thoroughly and provided her with a voice recorder with the instructions not to tell Dakin that she was recording unless she asked. I should point out that if a person is doing their job properly, honestly and with integrity then what possible reason could they have for not wanting to be recorded. After all, to do so would protect both sides. Indeed, in my 20 years of being a Tattoo Artist, customers companions have filmed me tattooing countless times with me never once denying a request to do so. Therefore, once you listen to the following recording of that first meeting between Stacey & Dakin, I feel sure that you will agree that we were right to record and we were right to suspect that there was an ulterior motive to the sessions.

(28) Stacey attended the next arranged meeting with Dakin, whom if she had spoken to her boss about Stacy recording, then she certainly didn’t let on. Instead she once again asked Stacy if she was recording to which Stacey confirmed that she was, after which Dakin again terminated the session. We then received the following letter saying that Stacey had completed the work – although she hadn’t even started it – and the case was now closed. 

(29)  The two Social Workers involved in the joint conspiracy with Essex police, to kidnap my grandson are now being investigated by their governing body, the HCPC for this very serious offence – although I strongly believe that the investigation is being whitewashed. Interestingly enough, I received an email from the HCPC just the other day in response to my earlier inquiry as to why the two Social Worker’s, Nicole Miles & Julie Robinson had not been suspended whilst this very, very, serious complaint, backed by solid, indisputable evidence and made by myself and many, many other concerned members of the public was being investigated. The HCPC’s response was that the complaint did not involve sexual misconduct or drug abuse on the social workers part. Therefore, I can only assume that the HCPC do not view two of their social workers conspiring with the police to steal and ruin an innocent child’s life and illegally accessing DATA  (punishable by up to 7 years in prison) serious enough to warrant the suspension of social workers on their register.

I should just point out for clarification in regard to that email (below), that my friend Mrs Marshall – a very experienced registered social worker – had made the long slog from Blackpool in order to sit in at a meeting between ourselves, Miles & Robinson to ensure that they did not try anything underhand.

(30) In December 2014, I was made aware by a practicing Barrister (not a member of my legal team) that Chief Inspector Paul Ahmed had been blatantly lying to me and my complaints – which would immediately have put a stop to both the police investigations into harassment and the illegal images – could indeed have gone ahead. The same Barrister also confirmed what I had already come to suspect, namely that all the big legal firms had been warned “from high up” not to defend my case Prior to my first court appearance in January 2015, I had written to over 30 law firms all of whom replied that they could not help me as they were all to busy.  

(31) I therefore immediately wrote to Inspector Paul Ahmed, as well as The Independent Police Complaint Commission, The Essex Chief Constable, Stephen Kavanagh, The Essex PCC, Nick Alston, and my MP James Duddridge, informing them that my complaint was deliberately not being investigated and that I now wanted Paul Ahmed’s conduct included in my complaint since not understanding the rules of complaint procedure is not a defence open to ANY police officer, as is clearly stated in the Police & complaints procedure handbook. I also quoted the applicable relevant sections set out in the police complaint guidelines handbook as well as those applicable by law. I then had the aforementioned barrister check the letter for accuracy before sending it on the 15th of December 2014. You can read that letter of complaint by clicking HERE

(32) The only reply to the letter sent by email was from the IPCC, who sent an automated acknowledgement that they had received the email

(33) On the 17th of December 2014, two days after I had sent the email, the Essex Chief of Police, Stephen Kavanagh took the highly unusual step of ordering a Postal Requisition Summons to be drawn up ordering me to court on January 20th 2015 for two counts of Harassment without Violence (1 committed against Witness A, 1 committed against Witness B) and two counts of sending a malicious communication (1 committed against Witness A, 1 committed against Witness B)

(34) There can be no doubt that instead of doing the right thing, this postal requisition summons was sent with malice and as the Essex Chief Constable, Stephen Kavanagh’s ‘fuck you’ for me having had the audacity to point out that Essex Police were deliberately not dealing with my very serious complaint. Indeed, the very fact that the hastily drawn up summons was compiled two days after receiving my letter of complaint and more than a month before I was due to answer bail for the harassment charges is testament to the fact

(35) The 4 charges are all summary offences thus adding greater weight to the fact that I was illegally arrested on the 30th of July 2014 . Remember, Section 32 of PACE only allows for a search and seizure of property if the offence that a person has been arrested for is an indictable offence. Therefore, the prosecution action should have been halted at this juncture – if not earlier.

(36) A postal requisition is a court summons sent by post and I was not eligible to be summoned by this method because two of the conditions needed to qualify for a postal requisition were not met. Those conditions were (A) A person must be informed before being released from custody following their arrest, that they are eligible for summons via postal requisition.(B) That the person must have no bail conditions attached to his release.

(37) I was not informed that I was eligible for a summons via postal requisition and I DID HAVE bail conditions attached to my release from custody. Therefore I was NOT eligible for a postal requisition summons. Indeed, the very fact that I was summoned this way means that I have NEVER been officially charged with the offences that I have now been convicted of.

(38) Judge Andrew or John Woollard (his name is a mystery that even the MSM cannot get to the bottom of) took it off his own bat – after obviously looking at my website – to ask the police officer in charge of the investigation, CID Detective Constable Adam Coombes, whilst he was on the stand under oath, if I had been summons via a postal requisition. When Coombes answered “yes”, the case should have been dismissed yet Judge Woollard made no further comment to Coombes affirmative.

(39) The prosecution case consisted of over 650 A4 photocopies of my articles and 5 witness statements (Two from Witness A, One from witness B, one from Witness C and one from Witness D yet the charges only apply to Witness A & Witness B). How can you determine where the specific offence is within 650 plus photocopied pages?

(40) To date, I have not been officially told what the specific crime was in those 650 pages.

(41) Only one of the five witness statements – the one allegedly made by Witness A, which made up the original complaint of harassment, allegedly taken by the Greater Manchester Police; allegedly on the 16th of July 2014 – was made before my arrest on the 30th of July 2014.

(40) This means that I have NEVER been arrested or questioned for the two offences (1 count of harassment without violence, 1 count of sending a malicious communication) for which I have been convicted of, relating to Witness B, whose witness statement was not taken until the 3rd of August 2014 – Four days after I had been released from custody.

(41) All 5 witness statements are either not signed or have not had the signature witnessed or are signed in the wrong place or have not got the case number on or have not been signed underneath the last line of text where a statement ends half way down the page leaving the statement open to having more added to, and as such all 5 of the statements should all have been inadmissible – a fact that Judge woollard was made fully aware of. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the police were not present when the statements were taken and that statements were re-written, which I cannot show you due to my bail conditions.

Nevertheless, the following are two examples taken from the statements. There is not one single page of the 20 odd pages that make up the statements that is correct and complete.

(42) In regard to the 650 plus photocopied pages of my articles that the Prosecution were also relying on as evidence, it is highly significant that I was NEVER ONCE asked to remove these articles in the year between my arrest and the case coming to trial. Therefore, logic dictates that either there was NO OFFENCE committed within those 650 plus pages or I was guilty of harassment every single day of the 365 days that the case took to come to court, yet I have never so much as once been arrested or questioned on this matter since 30th of July 2014.

(43) Judge Woollard was blatantly biased and hostile towards me from my very 1st appearance in court in January 2015. It is indeed significant that I had a judge in charge of my case for the summary offences, obviously being heard in Magistrates court. On the 4 days immediately prior to my first appearance – for which I had not been able to secure legal representation – I had been extremely ill and confined to bed. When I attended court at 9:30 AM, the duty solicitor stated (without being told) that I was clearly unwell and that she would have a word with the judge and get me moved up to first on the list. Judge Woollard’s response to that request was to keep me waiting all day for my 5 minute plea hearing appearance and I did not in fact leave court until nearly 5 PM that day. Moreover, the same duty solicitor told me in front of 3 witnesses sat with me, that I would never be allowed to win this case.

(44) I stated to my friends who had come to court with me that day, that I would now have Judge Woollard at every appearance that I made – a fact that I was subsequently proved to be correct about. At various court appearances that I have made on these harassment charges, Judge Woollard has been seen by myself and others to roll his eyes and tut when talking about my point of view and defence of the case. Indeed, I am totally without doubt in my mind that Judge Woollard was specifically selected to oversee my case with a mandate to find me guilty at all costs.

(45) Judge Woollard has a proven track record of finding people guilty who have highlighted government corruption, usually on some other flimsy, unrelated charge

(46) After thwarting the attempt by the police and SS to ruin our lives by taking Clayton into care, the planted “illegal images” tellingly disappeared, the charges relating to those illegal images dropped and tellingly, a Judge has since refused – in a court of law – to allow my legal team access to the police forensic reports on the computer hard-drives of my illegally seized computers – which would prove that the images were either planted or never even on my computers. The CPS have however unbelievably charged me with TWO images – ONE LEGAL and ONE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN AND HARDLY LIKELY TO SPARK PUBLIC OUTRAGE.

(47) In charging me with the two images, the CPS has gone against their OWN prosecution guidelines (they rarely prosecute for less than 20 images and never prosecute for less than 4), yet are still intent on taking me to CROWN COURT for possession of 2 (TWO) images. The first one is called “Klara and Edda belly dancing” which is by Nan Golding and owned by Sir Elton John and has TWICE been deemed LEGAL in a BRITISH COURT OF LAW (2001, 2007). The photo remains perfectly LEGAL today as proved by a quick Google search should you wish to do  make one by typing the name of the image into your search bar.

(48) The proof that the photo is legal can be found in the BBC report found by clicking HERE, although following the year long investigation, the CID have been unable to find out what took me seconds. Interestingly enough the newspaper article found at that link states the following:

“Even if the photograph was now considered to be indecent, a defendant would be able to raise a legitimate defence, given that the photograph was distributed for the purposes of display in a contemporary art gallery after having been deemed not to be indecent by the earlier investigation.”

(49) Klara & Edda belly dancing is a disgusting photo that I censored (although I didn’t have to) and used in a couple of articles. I used it to highlight child abuse and the kind of perverts who own this type of disturbing “art”. That fact is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to anyone who reads my articles. However, in 2013 (a year before my first arrest) a Detective Chief Inspector, Gary Biddle contacted me via post about this and other photos, asking to meet me due to the possibility that the photos may be illegal images. He sent this letter – which also clearly states that he understood why I had used the images – after twice coming to my door to talk about them.

(50) I did not respond to the letter on the basis that if the images were illegal then the police would send someone round to tell me to take them down. If however they were legal – as I knew that they were – then there was nothing to talk about. Nevertheless, it is a bit sinister that a DCI would want to meet me to discuss the matter, although in the event I never heard from Biddle again – hence the photos MUST have been legal.

(51) The CPS and Prosecution know about this letter and have even found their own copy. I know this for a fact because the prosecution have to by law disclose the evidence that they are going to rely on in court as well as the evidence THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO USE. It was little surprise to me that the prosecution are not going to bring this letter up in court.

(52) The 2nd image is deemed as being mild “beastiality”  and I have never been arrested or questioned about the image. There can therefore be NO DOUBT that the reason for this court action that cannot possibly succeed (if the trial is not rigged) is malicious and is going ahead on the back of [Legal] evidence (in the case of the golding photo) gathered illegally.

(53) On July 1st 2014 (if memory serves, but it may have been the 4th), four weeks before the start of the trial, a case management hearing was held in which myself and my supporters were sent [deliberately] to the wrong court (Chelmsford Magistrates). Although I was certain that Chelmsford was to be the venue, a trusted friend had double checked on the day prior to this court appearance that the case was being heard in Chelmsford. However, when myself and supporters arrived at Chelmsford Magistrates (a good 30-45 minute drive from my home) at 9.30AM, we were told that the case was in fact being heard at Southend Magistrates court (a mere 10 minute drive from my home). Nevertheless, I was still able to make the hearing at Southend Magistrates despite being half an hour late.

(54) At a further case management hearing held on the 10th of July 2014, the Prosecution led by one of the most senior prosecutors in the country, Tony Abel – who just so happens to also be a part time high court judge – asked Judge Woollard to rule that his four witnesses should not have to testify in person and that their witness statements should suffice (known as hearsay evidence), a motion that my woefully inadequate barrister opposed on the grounds that (A) it is my right in law under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act to face my accusers in court and (B) a witness statement cannot be cross examined in court and as such it would be impossible for me to get a fair trial without the witnesses appearing in person.

(56) ALL of the witness statements were littered with blatant, easily provable lies and had the witnesses been made to take the stand, they would ALL have committed easily provable perjury – a crime punishable by a term in prison.

(57) I CAN prove that at least 3 of the 4 witnesses are at best dishonest verging on criminal. Amongst the many, many blatant lies in all 4 witness statements are:

• Witness A: Insinuates that I hacked her Facebook to steal her photos because her FB was set to private. However, I took screenshots of the photos which clearly show a globe symbol meaning that anyone can see them… This should have been enough to null and void Witness A’s statement.
• Witness B: Claims I harassed her in a FB msg (this was the only msg that I have ever sent to any of them and I was very polite). Witness B did not answer and I did not contact her again. The msg was sent in July 2013 but Witness B did not think to report it until over a year later, 4 days after my arrest… This should have been enough to null and void Witness B’s statement.

 

• Witness C: Claims that I contacted him multiple times and I was abusive to the point that  he felt threatened. I have never ever contacted Witness C but Witness C has contacted me AND MY DAUGHTER abusively on 3 or 4 occasions of which I  provided proof in court. However, it is telling that in the prosecution evidence bundle, they have left the first part of a copy of our ‘conversation’ out so as it can’t be seen who instigated the chat. However, I had a copy of the conversation in full which I produced in court. Moreover, DC Coombes had already admitted under oath that Witness C started all of the conversations, some of which I never even responded to. Moreover, Witness C was posting taunts on my Christopher C Spivey FB page before I had even been released from custody on the 30th of July 2014… This should have been enough to null and void Witness C’s statement.

• Witness D: Claims that I contacted him on Facebook introducing myself as a “cheap tattooist for bikers” after he had accepted my friend request. I have NEVER EVER sent Witness D a friend request and neither have I EVER spoken to him through any mode of communication. Indeed, whilst giving evidence I asked for proof of Witness D’s claims, in the same way that I just provided the chat logs for conversations between me and Witness C, when proving who contacted whom. I also made it quite clear to Judge Woollard that it was for reasons such as this (blatant lies made with no collaborating evidence) that the witnesses needed to be here so as they could be cross examined, adding that by not ordering the witnesses to attend, he (the Judge) had denied me a fair trial… Judge Woollard made no reply. However, the following screenshot makes a mockery of Witness D’s claim… This should have been enough to null and void Witness D’s statement.

There you have one lie from each of the witnesses, I can promise you that there are many more. And as I mentioned earlier, none of the statements should have been admissible because of the various irregularities on each. Indeed, apart from the first Statement allegedly written on the 16th of July, all the other statements were written after my arrest meaning that I have never been arrested or questioned about the contents. All of the witness statements are written in the exact same colour ink and I believe that they were all written by the same person – two people at most.  

(58) However, the Judge Woollard sided with the prosecution and ruled that the witnesses did not have to appear, breaching my Human Rights under Article 6, and meaning that the witness statements, despite them all being littered with easily provable lies would now stand as FACT, thus denying me any chance of a fair trial.

(59) That ruling meant that I now faced the prospect of a trial which should never have been allowed to go ahead due to the many breaches in the rule of law, for four misdemeanor offences, to be presided over by a blatantly biased judge as opposed to three magistrates, without even so much as the flimsy safety net of a jury, prosecuted by one of the most senior barristers in the country; more used to dealing with serious organised crime and who also sits as a judge, based on Witness Statements made up of blatant lies which was by now accepted as being fact, made by 4 people of whom (A) there is strong evidence to cast doubt that they are who they are claiming to be (B) There is strong evidence to suggest that 3 of the 4 are involved in criminal activities

(60) Following that ruling, my woeful legal representation – whom I now half suspect had been ordered to deliberately sabotage my case, based on too many facts to list – immediately began preparing to submit a judicial review with a view to having Judge Woollards disgusting ruling on the witness non-attendance overturned on the grounds stated above (my human rights had been breached under Article 6 of the HRA, it was now impossible for me to get a fair trial) along with another important point of law, namely what is called “an inequality of arms” – in other words, the prosecution had the creme de la creme of barristers whilst my legal firm had not even been granted funding for legal counsel based on the fact that the charges were summary offences.

(61) A further hearing was held on the 17th of July 2014 which neither myself or my legal team were informed about. To date I have not been informed what went on at the hearing.

(62) On the morning of the 30th of July 2015 – the first day of my trial – my barrister, Mohammed Bashir told me before we had even entered court that although he “would do his best, I would still be found guilty”.

(63) The first 40 minutes of the trial was taken up with Mohammed Bashir arguing that I could not possibly be given a fair trial and that the judge should adjourn the trial until the judicial revue in regard to the witnesses having to appear, had been heard. Indeed, my solicitor, Tasmin Malcolm had previously tried to get a postponement when she had applied for the judicial review, only for her application to be somewhat mysteriously turned down.

(64) Judge Woollard also refused to adjourn the trial on the very flimsy grounds that I might not be granted legal aid to fight the appeal (judicial review) despite Mohammed Bashir categorically stating that he would be representing me in the appeal even if legal aid funding was denied. He also said that he had asked time and again for a good reason that the witnesses should appear but got none. That maybe true but that was the fault of my barristers. Indeed, I even asked my solicitor to intervene when the [deliberately?] clueless barrister was fucking my case up. However, it was not for me to provide a good reason that the witnesses should appear, it was for Judge Woollard to have a good reason that they shouldn’t.

(65) Mohammed Bashir absolutely destroyed the one and only witness, Detective Constable Adam Coombes in regard to the unlawful way that the investigation had been carried out. Judge Woollard simply took no notice of the admissions that Coombes was forced to admit. These included:

• All video’s, pictures, comments, etc were all taken from the mainstream media or were in the public domain.
• I had not encouraged or incited anybody to commit any criminal activity.
• That Witness C had contacted me first.
• Agree that the witnesses did not have to go on my website
• He was forced to admit that he didn’t know why they did.
• Admit that the witnesses or anybody else including the police had never asked me to remove anything.
• Admit that the witnesses could have got an injunction ordering me to take the offending posts down, but they didn’t.
• When asked why it took the witnesses over a year to complain, he answered “I don’t know”.
• When asked why it took the police two weeks to arrest me following the complaint he again answered “I don’t know”
• He was forced to admit that I was arrested without search or arrest warrant.
• When asked why the police had violated Code B of Pace and arrested me at an unacceptable hour, he was again forced to answer “I don’t know”.
• He was asked if there had been any assault, or violence, or harassment to the witnesses since my arrest to which he admitted that there hadn’t been… Hence the witnesses claim to me causing them alarm and distress was unfounded. 
• When asked if he had checked if there were other websites making the same claims as me he admitted he hadn’t. There are in fact tens of thousands all claiming the same as me.

(66) Despite myself never being served with the precise evidence that the prosecution were going to rely on in court, taken from the 650 plus pages of articles photocopied from my website, which I had never been ordered to remove, it quickly became obvious that the prosecution evidence spanned a period from the 23rd of May 2013 to the 11th of November 2014. This is very significant for many reasons:

• Firstly, a complaint of harassment should be made within 6 months of the act. Therefore anything relating to a period before January 2014 should have been inadmissible.
• Moreover, since the one and only time that I have been arrested and questioned in regard to this case was the 30th of July 2014, there should have been no evidence used against me in this case that pertained to any date thereafter – including the two charges against me relating to Witness B which were catalogued by the police on the 3rd of August 2014. The prosecution bundle shows that evidence was still being added on the 11th of January 2015 despite me being [illegally] summons on the 17 of December 2014.
• For the prosecution to prove harassment they have to show a course of conduct that the accused should have known constituted harassing somebody. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Witness A and Witness B (whom the 4 offences relate to) knew about this website on or before the 18th of July 2013, yet no complaint was ever lodged until the 16th of July 2014 – one year later. And even then, there was no warning from the police in that two week period between the complaint being logged on the 16th of July and my arrest on the 30th of July, that I was and had been pursuing a course of conduct that was tantamount to harassment – as is the normal police procedure to do so. Therefore, since no one contacted me or told me to stop in that period between the 18th of July 2013 and the complaint being logged on the 16th of July 2014 and then the period between the 16th of July and the 30th of July 2014 – how could I have possibly known that what I was doing was pursuing a course of conduct tantamount to harassment?
• The Malicious communication in the case of Witness B refers to ONE private message that I sent her on Facebook on the 18th of July 2013 in which I asked her very, very politely if she would be prepared to talk to me in my capacity as a journalist. She did not answer the message and I never made any attempt to contact her again. Therefore, if that messaged was not logged by the police until nearly 13 months later, how could the message possibly be construed as a ‘malicious communication’? Indeed by her own admission, Witness B states that she ignored my communication because she thought that I was a “weirdo”, whilst making no mention that the Facebook message had caused her distress or alarm.
• The Judge made it quite clear to the court that I was NOT a journalist. He deliberately did this so as I could not use the Journalist’s defence against charges of harassment that state that someone is not guilty of harassment when in pursuit of detecting or proving a crime. However, there can be no doubt whatsoever that I am indeed a journalist (see HERE) and that I was detecting and proving a crime
• The Malicious communications in regard to Witness A are in the form of a mock-up photograph of the front page of the Sun newspaper which someone made and posted on my Facebook page linked to this website. I believe that I am right in saying the the spoof headline of the Sun front page went viral and appeared on hundreds if not thousands of people’s facebook pages. Indeed, at no time did Facebook deem the image obscene, offensive or likely to cause harassment. It should also be noted that I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the day to day running of my Facebook page (not to be confused with my Facebook account on which the spoof image did not appear). However, the fact that I did not remove that image from my Facebook page was subsequently deemed as a malicious communication by Judge Woollard.
• The second Malicious Communication in regard to Witness A came in the form of a Facebook page made by someone alleging a crime and a Youtube account made by someone alleging the same crime as that of the Facebook page. Neither were anything whatsoever to do with me, but the fact that I added a screenshot of both in order to present a balanced view to the blatantly partisan view expressed by every national newspaper, somehow constituted me being responsible for making those two accounts and me being the person alleging the crime, in Judge Woollard’s opinion – despite DC Adam Coombes stating whilst under oath that the accounts were absolutely nothing to do with me.

(67) I have just typed into the Google search bar, asking if the person at the centre of the court case was guilty of that aforementioned crime – which brought up 298,000 results (0.43 seconds), yet I am the only person to have been convicted of questioning as to whether he was or whether he wasn’t to which I had clearly stated that ‘I didn’t know the answer’. Indeed, I had only added the information for the sake of balance. I have also just asked Google if the event that took place which was at the centre of the court case, was a false flag – bringing up 338,000 results (0.37) seconds. Coombes admitted on oath that I was not responsible for the allegations, yet as head of the investigation he should have checked how many others were writing up the same information as me.

(68) Witness A and Witness B allege in their witness statements that I got hold of and used their private photos in my articles. I can prove that all of the images that I used were in the public domain – a fact that given the statements made by Witness A and Witness B, they MUST have known that the Facebook photo settings used on the photos in question were set so as anyone can view them.

(69) There is also the allegation that I published the addresses of Witness A and Witness B. In regard to Witness B, I published the name of the road (but not the house number) that she lives in along with a photo of a row of houses which is no different to what the MSM do everyday and what they themselves have in fact done to me. Indeed, there was a posting on Twitter of my full name address and phone number, retweeted by hundreds, inciting violence against me and my family. I personally informed the police on the 28th of July 2014 at 2:24PM about this Tweet and no action was taken. I have never incited violence against anyone. I only published the name of the road to highlight the fraud that was taking place.

(70) In regard to the address of Witness A, I did not publish this address until after it became the address of a registered company. Publishing the address of a registered company is not an offence. The reason that I published the address of this company was in the pursuit of uncovering a crime, namely the company was posing as a charity and despite not being registered was receiving thousands of pounds in donations. Once this evidence was released in an article, the Charity ceased fundraising. However, it should also be noted that I hold proof that the Daily Mail printed this address in full (including the house number) in 2013 – long before the premises became a registered business and which WAS a criminal offence. I also hold proof that the Daily Mail published the same address in full (including the house number) on the 30th of July 2015.

(71) There can be no doubt that the guilty verdict against me in this illegal court action was decided long before the end of the trial by the fact that Judge Woollard did not even go through the pretence of retiring to consider his verdict. Instead he launched straight into his 15 to 20 minute guilty verdict as soon as my defence counsel had finished summing up. The Judges speech was far too detailed to have been ‘off the cuff‘.

(72) Judge Woollard has made it clear that he is considering a custodial sentence when I return to Chelmsford Magistrates for sentencing on the 27th of August 2015, despite there being a run of blatant harassment cases in the MSM recently with none of the harassers jailed despite some of them being found guilty in a Crown Court. Yet I have clearly not harassed anybody and still have the shadow of a prison sentence hanging over my head.

The following are but a few examples of the many cases of harassment far in excess of anything that I have done yet the perpetrators avoided prison. They are all from the same Source:

A 34 year old man was charged with harassment. He had no previous convictions. The police recorded stalking behaviour over a nine month period. Not all was proved in court but the evidence was extensive and included text messages, letters, requesting cosmetic surgery material be sent to the victim by mail order, attacks on the victim’s and the her family’s cars at home and at work places. The offender actually flew to another country to send letters to the victim to make her believe they came from her current partner. There was an arson attack on the home of the victim’s extended family whilst they were at home. The offender and victim were never actually in a relationship but the offender wanted to be. The victim was unaware of where the letters and texts were coming from for the first few months and the offender actually befriended her for some time. He received an eight week prison sentence suspended for 24 months with 12 months supervision and 200 hours unpaid work. He has not participated in any programmes. The man was described as high level of risk at MAPPA, was difficult to work with and had narcissistic and psychopathic traits. The court report author requested a psychological assessment but the court refused and instead imposed a supervision order. There is concern that without specialist guidance the work probation did with him might be counterproductive and increase risk.

A 44 year old male was charged with harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He had previous convictions for theft, driving with excess alcohol and criminal damage. He has been breaching restraining orders since 2003. He admitted that his relationship with the victim had been violent and received two cautions for assault during the course of that relationship. The victim says she was punched in the face and that he was continually verbally abusive towards her particularly following excess bouts of alcohol. He received a suspended sentence for nine months plus a two year community order with a condition that he participate in a domestic abuse programme.

A 53 year old male was charged with harassment and burglary. He had one previous conviction for harassment. He has a history of making phone calls to his ex-partner, following her when she was visiting friends, sending test messages that he knew where she was. He broke into her home and stole notebooks and accessed her computer. He was then found hiding in her garden. This was all over a period of 12 months. He was given a 12 month community order with a condition that he take part in a domestic abuse programme. He did participate in the programme but it made little difference to his behaviour. He breached his order by phone but the victim refused to allow the police to confront him about his behaviour. Probation has experienced difficulty with her disclosures coupled with her refusal to make them formal.

A 39 year old man was charged with harassment. He had a number of previous convictions including acquisitive crime, sexual abuse of a half-brother, threats to kill and domestic violence. The stalking behaviour has been going on for three years. He received a community order for two years. 14 He is said to have been responding to supervision by focussing on his sexual abuse, his poor attachments and his addiction to drugs. Probation believe he may be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. The perpetrator comes from a professional background and was able to express feelings well compared with most others convicted of similar offences. The victim also came from a professional background and was able to put forward an articulate victim impact statement, which again is thought to be rare.

A 28 year old male was charged with harassment. He had no previous convictions. The stalking behaviour involving following and phone calls had been going on for two months. He received a 24 month supervision order. He has not attended any programmes. The victim had made two previous complaints to the police before the matter was actioned.

A 36 year old male was charged with harassment. He had no previous convictions. His relationship had broken down in autumn 2010. The offender then persistently harassed the victim until she reported it to the police in April 2011. He would continually attend at the victim’s property, almost on a daily basis. He caused damage to property by smashing windows and doors and breaking and entering. He also threatened to set fire to the victim’s house on several occasions. He would also follow her to friend’s houses and then ring her and say he knew where she was. On at least one occasion he hid in the boot of her car whilst she drove to a friend’s house using keys that he had kept. He was given a 12 month supervision order and a condition that the do 100 hours unpaid work, and an indefinite restraining order. He has participated previously in community programmes but only unpaid work. It is of concern to probation that it took seven months before the behaviour was reported to the police.

A 50 year old male was charged with harassment. He has previous convictions for actually bodily harm. The stalking of the victim has been going on for 14 months. For the index offence he received a six month community order plus a three month curfew. He has not participated in any programmes. A restraining order is in place for 12 months expiring in late 2012.

The Study concludes:

The range of sentences handed down reflects how serious stalking behaviour can become and why the courts must take previous offending into account. Virtually all those given three months or more involved serious violence, attempts to kill or even homicide. These cases show how offending behaviour can escalate and the absence of mental health treatment. In every case the pattern in stalking involved following, unwanted and unannounced visits, threats, texts, emails, unwanted gifts and attention over a period of many months or even years. The remaining 41 perpetrators were given community sentences, although eight had not yet been sentenced or were on remand. The sentence for breach of a restraining order tended to be stated in days or week rather than months or years. They were usually for less than 12 months and

Yet I have harassed no one, have no previous convictions for harassment or sending malicious communications, and that is not to mention that the charges should have been dismissed time and again, yet the Judge considers my 1 polite Facebook message to Witness B worthy of a prison sentence!

(73) Since August 27th is beyond the 21 day period to put in an appeal against a conviction, the blatantly biased Judge Woollard is now going to pass sentence knowing that I have put in an appeal against conviction largely based on his blatant disregard of the law.

(74) I have had to put the appeal in myself since I appear to have been abandoned by my solicitor who has totally ignored my emails and despite promises from other staff at the law firm, that they will ensure that she rings me back – being as she is never there when I call – she has not done so to date.

(75) I was sent a prosecution disclosure bundle last week – as required by law – in regard to the two image trial in September which my solicitors had received before my harassment trial yet had inexplicably held onto for 3 weeks. Now bearing in mind that the 2 trials are linked by my illegally seized computers, what was interesting about this bundle was that tucked away at the back was a list of the evidence that the prosecution were not intending to bring up in court. And one of the items on that list was the fact that it had not been the Greater Manchester Police who requested Essex Police arrest me… It was in fact the Metropolitan Police who had done so.

(76) Therefore, the immediate question to spring to mind was “why on earth would Witness A – a Manchester resident – make a complaint to a London police force about a fella from Essex? Makes no sense, although it does to me, but because my bail conditions prevent me defending myself – or put another way protect the guilty – I can’t tell you why.

(77) There can be no mistake because after submitting a FOI request to the Met police, it turns out that the [illegal] witness statement made by Witness A (allegedly on the 16th of July 2014) is partly typed with an illegal handwritten addition is done so on a Metropolitan Police witness statement sheet. Moreover, it is blatantly obvious that the date stated on the witness statement which formed the initial complaint filed by Manchester resident, to the Metropolitan Police about a man in Essex has been added sometime after the statement was compiled as it is written in different handwriting, by someone with a much heavier hand using a pen with a much darker shade of black ink.

(78) In turn, you also have to ask yourself why I, the Court, the Press and every person following the case has been deliberately led to believe that The Greater Manchester Police are responsible for ordering my arrest. For example, the following is a direct quote from an Essex Police Spokesmen which was quoted in nearly all of the nantional newspapers:

“He is at Southend Police Station helping officers with their enquires. The arrest relates to an allegation of harassment via social media which has been referred to Essex Police by Greater Manchester Police.” Source

(79) The evidence that I collected over countless hours in a period of a year and a half is indisputable when read properly and as a whole. I have now been ordered to remove the evidence from this website – not because it is harrassing anyone, but because your government does not want you to know what they are really doing.

(80) When Judge Woollard had finished summing up in the trial, the prosecutor, Tony Abell – one of the country’s most experienced barristers and a part time high court judge to boot, who took the time off from prosecuting serious organized crime and multi-million pound fraud cases in order to prosecute me for a misdemeanour, gave Judge Woollard his view of the case to assist him in handing down an appropriate sentence, as is required by law. Tony Abell told Judge Woollard that this case was “high end” – a blatant lie because I have not harassed anyone and harassment at the “high end” comes under Section 4 and is an either way offence triable in Crown Court. Indeed, you only need read the examples above of harassment as a summary offence to realise that my case, at worst, is the very lowest of the low end. Tony Abell, then added – with perverse pleasure and in lieu of me having no previous convictions – that some of the photos that I had used in my articles were of Witness A’s  and witness B’s children (whilst neglecting to point out that the photos were all in the public domain and only used as proof that a hoax was taking place) before stating that I go on trial in September for possessing illegal images of children – which despite being a blatant lie, the inference is there for all to see.

Now, I can state that I have no regrets and would do it all again in the blink of an eye. A government filled with corrupt, thieving, paedophiles who are working to our detriment is not acceptable by any standards.

However, in uncovering the truth I do expect to have your support and backing… Therefore, I would ask that you share this report far and wide, keep sharing it and then share it some more…

You can find a full break down of the court case by clicking HERE

Those then are the TRUE facts all of which either have been or can be evidenced and anyone who thinks that treatment is acceptable in this country needs a serious reality check.

Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to people being taken away in the middle of the night by military type thugs without the need for any warrants, based on a single allegation made without evidence of a misdemeanour.

Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to the police kicking down your front door in the middle of the day without warrant on evidence that they themselves have planted without any recourse and under the protection of the law courts.

Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to children who are very much loved and well cared for, being taken from innocent parents, guilty at best of a misdemeanour, and placed in care homes where they are left to the mercy of paedophiles.

Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable is giving their consent to the jailing of someone who questions the government narrative on any given subject.

Indeed, anyone who agrees that the above is acceptable can have no gripe when they are jailed for calling someone a liar in a private forum that the aggrieved has had to actively seek out to see if the slur was true.

NONE OF THE ABOVE IS EXAGGERATION.

You should be aware that what this abomination perpetrated against my family is every bit as bad as the crimes against humanity being committed in countries such as China, North Korea and Belarus.

You should also be aware that a petition started by someone over the persecution of me and my family at the time of my court trial was removed without any forthcoming explanation by the petition website.

There is clear, photographed evidence that another petition started by someone in protest at the persecution being aimed at me and my family is having many signatures removed from it, despite the petition website denying the fact.

The petition currently stands at 2362 and I would urge you all to sign it which you can do by clicking HERE

Bizarrely, those in charge really believe that people are as thick as shit… Although there could actually be some foundation to their belief.

It is vitally important that as many people as possible attend the sentencing court date on the 27th of August if for nothing else than to be seen to oppose the Police state that we live in. I realise that this is hard for some of you but it is REALLY important that you do make every effort to be there.

I also appreciate that some of you have ailments and are not up to the journey. That is fine, if that is the case I wouldn’t expect you to.

I further appreciate that the transport cost to some is a problem but maybe something can be sorted out as there is always car sharing. Indeed, I am sure that if you let Dogman or Lisa know where you are coming from they will do their best to put you in touch with someone else coming from nearby.

And should that not be possible, a very kind lady in Australia has donated £30 to add to the £50 already donated to a travel fund for people who cannot afford to travel to Chelmsford Magistrates. That is £80 so far with the promise of more to come.

*That total now stands at £180.

Think on, it is only one day that you need to put yourself out – one day that could make a significant difference to how yours lives and the lives of future generations pan out.

It is in fact fair to say that this disgraceful court decision has achieved a bit of unity in the Alternative Media and that is surely a good thing?

Indeed I understand that Henry from the Tap has been supportive of me as have aangirfan – although to be fair, the latter always has been. Never the less, a massive thank you to those two sites.

Danielle La Verite and Billy Carlin’s support has never wavered, thank you both.

A big thank you also to Ian R Crane who altered his ‘Crane Report’ schedule in order to to have me on his show, which you can watch by clicking HERE

Ian has also told me that he will definitely be attending the sentencing on August the 27th and I believe that Danielle intends to do the same.

Open Your Mind Radio were also kind enough to give me an interview so as I could get the word out about the injustice that has and still is taking place against me and my family. You can hear that interview by clicking HERE 

And of course, a big thank you to Dr Nick Kollerstrom for all of his help.

On a brighter note, I have been asked if I fancy speaking at next years Glastonbury Festival… It would be proper fucking rude of me not to wouldn’t it.

After all, it isn’t often that an uncouth, crack-pot fantasist with aspirations to be a journalist gets such a prestigious offer is it… Just sayin’.

 

By Needlz • Written by me • 15

Fucked if I know

source: http://www.chrisspivey.org/harrassed/

————————————————————————————————————

Friday, 21 August 2015

Chris Spivey- Dead Man Walking.

Chris Spivey is a dead man walking. Tragic news to his family, Chris Spivey has arrived at theterrible conclusion that the only way the Powers that Be can save themselves is to murder him while he’s in custody at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

Spelt out in crystal clarity in his latest article ’They Shoot Horses Don’t They,’ Chris Spivey proves beyond all reasonable doubt that not only is he is a victim of injustice, but he’s also earmarked to be murdered in Prison- in the not too distance future.

Spivey’s harassment conviction is built upon two counts of malicious communication against Lynn Rigby and Lee Rigby’s sister.

The first relates to ONE AND ONLY ONE Facebook message he sent on the 18th of July 2013 in which he was extremely polite and when he got no answer, did not attempt to contact the witness again.

The other malicious communication charge relates to a mock-up of a front page of the Sun newspaper, which was published on his Facebook Page.

(It’s interesting to note that “a Matt Taylor” was named in the court’s transcript as being the person responsible for posting the mock Sun newspaper front page. It has since been admitted that it was in fact posted by Lisa Pea, a member of Spivey’s administrative team.)

Chris Spivey maintains his innocence on this count claiming, “I DID NOT make this spoof page and never even acknowledged it. The person responsible posted it on my Facebook page that I do not have any dealings with in regard to things that people post on there.”

Guerrilla Democracy News accepts full responsibility for this picture

You would have thought the case would have been dismissed on these two points alone, but the miscarriage of justice runs deeper when we learn that the witness statements used to convict Spivey haven’t even been signed by those person(s) who wrote them.

Rather than shying away Spivey is maintaining his contention that all the witnesses who testified against him ARE’NT who they claim to be.

“All four witnesses are of easily provable dubious character with clear evidence relating to criminal behaviour.”

Here is what Spivey has to say on the subject:

“Here is the way I see it.

The prosecution fought tooth and nail using one of the country’s top barristers to keep their OWN four witnesses out of court… Why would they do that?

My aherm, aherm Barrister ignored all that I told her as to why the witnesses should appear i.e their witness statements were a tissue of easily exposed lies and as such, were they to be repeated under oath would mean that they would have committed perjury. And in any event, the witnesses are not who they pretend to be.

I therefore knew that if the witnesses were made to appear then the trial would not have gone ahead… The case would have been dropped.

However, the Judge, completely ignoring the rule of law sided with the prosecution – ruling that the witnesses be spared being torn to bits on the witness stand – thus blatantly denying me the right to a fair trial.”

“THE WITNESSES ARE NOT WHO THEY PRETEND TO BE.”

Propabably the most controversial statement to make related to the Woolwich incident is the claim that virtually every personality involved was an MI5 inspired creation – a crisis actor!

Spivey plans to appeal his conviction but in doing so he knows better than anyone that he’s signed his own death warrant.

Over to Spivey who explains:

“An appeal means that the witnesses WILL HAVE TO APPEAR NO MATTER WHAT because the appeal will be held in a Crown Court with a jury and will be based on the above facts.

And like I said, had the witnesses been made to appear then the case would have been dropped, not least because the witnesses – as the Crown fully knows – are not who they claim to be, are of dubious character and have alleged easily provable lies in all four witness statements… Therefore, they now have a real, real crisis on their hands because unlike the trial, they can not drop the appeal hearing and if that goes ahead, then it is not an understatement to say that at the very least, the outcome has the capacity to bring down the government.

Therefore, the only way to stop the appeal going ahead – which they have to at all costs – is if I am dead… Hence the forthcoming prison sentence.”

LATEST NEWS.

Sourced from Spivey’s Facebook status update.

“Guess who has been asked to appear at the Glastonbury Festival next year?

If I am still alive of course!

The following is a link to video footage of yesterday’s event in London where Dr Nick Kollerstrom handed a letter into the ministry of Justice in protest at the persecution of me and my family by the British Government.”

Transcript of the harassment trial of Christopher Spivey 30th-31st July 2015 at Chelmsford Magistrates Court. 

The trial began at about 10.20am, and the next 40 minutes consisted of Spivey’s barrister asking the Judge to postpone the trial until a Judicial Review application had been processed. Spivey’s barrister argued, that the trial would be ‘unfair’ because he could not ‘challenge the witnesses, because they were not there’. The barrister argued that the pictures of the Rigby family, their homes and addresses were not ‘private’ but already in the public domain and therefore could be downloaded by anybody. He also argued that Spivey, was ‘a journalist, therefore he had freedom of expression.’ The judge then asked if he could have a copy of the application for Judicial Review and was given a copy by the defence. He noticed straight away that it was not stamped and asked why. The Defence explained that the application for legal aid to pay for the application and legal costs to process such a form had still not been authorised. However it will be lodged either today (30th July) or tomorrow. The Judge said he disagreed with the Judicial Review application because at every court appearance he have always asked why Mr Spivey wanted the witnesses present and he had never received a satisfactory response to his question. He said that he felt that there was enough authority to proceed with the trial, and he would weigh up the hearsay evidence regarding its merits. The prosecution then outlined the case against Spivey, quoting from his Police Statement, “they don’t have to read it (the Rigby family)………… I have freedom of speech” The prosecution informed the court that there was ample evidence 1that Spivey’s article had caused harm and distress to the family, and either he knew it would or should have known. Spivey had deliberately targeted Lee Rigby’s mother and sister, and his comments were more than irritating. He acknowledged that Spivey had freedom of speech, however, section 10. 2 of the Harassment Act informs us that this also carries certain duties and responsibilities. Spivey’s comments were ‘bizarre’ and could have only come from a ‘crank’ and had caused alarm and distress and this all equalled harassment. The prosecution then read out Lee Rigby’s mother’s statement: We were now rebuilding our lives (family)…. How her Facebook site was/is private…. The Sun `hoax’ headlines front page…. She read the comments alleging her son was a rapist….. The website destroyed (her) happy memories” Then Lee Rigby’s sister`s statement was read out: “Contacted by Spivey via Facebook….. Claimed he had evidence of a hoax…. I Did not accept his `friend’ request` because I thought he was weird…… I looked at his website…. Spivey had published photos of me/family/home ….. I wondered how did he get my children`s names?….. I felt at risk, now may have to move” Mr Amos’ statement was then read out: “I am angry…. He used photos from my Facebook page….. Spivey sent messages…. I answered because I was intrigued…. (I felt) threatened, like I was being accused of being in on the hoax…. He exposing Rigby family fraud…. Spivey said that they will kill you not me, I have a high profile” Mr Vitler’s statement was then read out: “Spivey contacted me… He looked like a cheap tattooist for bikers… Photographs (of Spivey) freaked him out… I Felt like someone was watching me” 2The defence barrister then realised that his ‘bundle’ of documents were different than the Prosecution and Judges. The Judge commented that the management of papers by the CPS had been far from adequate since the start of Spivey’s court appearances. DC Coombes then was sworn in to give his evidence, reiterated all the points from the four statements to the Court. Spivey’s Barrister then asked about the article regarding the assertion that the soldier was a ‘rapist’ and it was confirmed by DC Coombes that it was not Spiveys’ article. The policeman confirmed with a simple “yes” that in all his investigations all video’s, pictures, comments, etc were all taken from the mainstream media or were in the public domain. The barrister then referred the DC to pictures of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in the bundle. Asking first did he know that they were her funeral pictures? Answer, “I don’t know”. The barrister said, “Please believe me it was”. There were two photos of the funeral one implying a large crowd at her funeral, was photo shopped by the Mainstream Media. The next one that was in the Alternative Media, was of a very sparse crowd. Did he notice Spivey’s comments about the pictures? He replied “Yes” The DC also confirmed that Spivey’s publication of the families addresses, had not encouraged or incited anybody to commit any criminal activity. The DC also confirmed with a simple “Yes” that Mr Amos contacted Spivey first. The DC also agreed that the witnesses did not have to go on Spivey’s website (all four witnesses). When asked why they went on the website? The DC answered “I don’t 3know”. He was then asked, if the family ever asked Spivey to take posts down? He replied, “No”. He then said that the family could have got the posts taken down by an Injunction and this was confirmed by the DC. The Barrister asked why it took over a year for them to complain. The DC replied, “I don’t know” The barrister continued with questions such as: “Why did it take the police two weeks from the instigation of the complaint to Spivey’s arrest?” “I can’t account for why”. “In those two weeks before his arrest was the family asking why has he not been arrested yet? ” “No” He asked if there had been any assault, or violence, or harassment to the family since Spivey’s arrest? The DC replied, “No”. The next day, Friday morning, the DC was back in the dock. Spivey’s Barrister informed the court that Spivey was arrested with no search or arrest warrant. The DC confirmed that no other websites were checked regarding the Rigby families material, he said that it was not relevant to check other sites. Spivey then was sworn in. He was asked by his barrister about his background. The Judge asked about his dealings with the Sovereign Independent Newspaper, “how big is it’s circulation?” 4Spivey’s Barrister then asked Spivey the purpose of his website, Spivey’s response was, “to make comments not published in the mainstream media.” He asked Spivey to go to the bundle – “What was the purpose of the picture of Prince Charles being told by you to fuck off?” Spivey replied, “To attract attention”. He then asked if Spivey ever got any negative comments on Facebook. Spivey confirmed he had. The barrister asked about which subjects received such comments, and gave the example of Rolf Harris. Spivey replied that the comments were made by “organised trolls”. Spivey then stated that everything he writes is sourced, he analyses the evidence and then writes his opinions. His writing style was simplistic in nature, designed for his target audience, which he stated was “like speaking to somebody on a building site” (a previous occupation of his). He admitted to photo shopping photos of Lee Rigby to evidence his opinion they matched up with other persons. He claimed he did not target the Rigby family, there were numerous other websites regarding Woolwich. Spivey was asked if he knew the Rigby’s were looking at his site. Spivey replied, “No” Spivey said, “Amos contacted me…… Amos said, Come on big boy”. Spivey confirmed that he had never contacted Mr Vitler in any form whatsoever, nor had he contacted anybody to take a picture of Vitler. The Sun ‘mock headline’ was posted by a Matt Taylor as anybody can post on Spivey’s Facebook account. Spivey had been threatened with violence regarding various posts and subjects on Facebook in the past. 5He said: “his website, comments on his articles and his forum pages were only able to be accessed by subscription.” The subscription comprised of giving a valid email address. He had moderators who ran his site, he just wrote. The barrister asked how many hits he has had since he has started in 2012. Spivey responded, “10 and half million, and yesterday I had 15,000 hits”. The Judge asked, “Could the same people make multiple hits?”, Spivey replied, “Yes” Spivey was asked by his barrister, if he actively sought or engaged the Rigby family to view the site? He confirmed that he had not. Spivey said that he only knew that he was alleged to have harassed the family, at the time of his arrest. He never wanted to cause harassment. The Prosecution then questioned Spivey regarding his Facebook account and website, and implied that ‘links’ posted on his Facebook page were a kind of advertisement for his webpage. The Prosecution suggested that the ‘mock’ Sun posting on his Facebook page, even though posted by Matt Taylor had then been ‘adopted’ by him by not deleting it, and asked if Spivey agreed with its content. Spivey replied that he had, “No feelings one way or the other”. Spivey was then asked if he had attended the “Two Michaels” Old Bailey Trial, or informed the police, or defence solicitors for the “Two Michaels” that he could help the trial by revealing what he had discovered. Spivey responded, “No” 6 Spivey said his intention at one time was to present all his evidence to a Police Station. The Judge then asked Spivey, “Did you ever consider the possibility that you could be wrong?” Then asking, “did you not consider the hurt caused to the Rigby`s if you are wrong?” Spivey answered that his motive regarding exposing Woolwich as a hoax, was to publicise how anti – muslim feelings were being stirred up in the country, plus he wanted to expose the negative prospect of rewarding of the security services with a multi-million budget to further erode freedoms. The Judge then said this Rigby conspiracy was, “extremely wide”. He suggested that MI5 must have got everybody on board from the Old Bailey judge to the witnesses of the murder. Spivey used the example of Pearl Harbour to illustrate that cover ups do occur, in that it is now common knowledge that the Americans allowed this to happen so they could enter the Second World War. The Judge then asked Spivey his views on 9/11, 7/7, Tunisia and the Holocaust. Spivey replied he did not believe the Government narratives on all of these occurrences and he also informed the Judge that his daughter was Jewish. The Prosecution then asked Spivey if he agreed that the death of a son would upset the parents. Spivey confirmed that he agreed. Spivey also agreed that such a death would upset a half sibling and would be upsetting if the death was also violent and unexpected. The barrister then asked Spivey what was the purpose of inviting the sister to make contact. Spivey answered, “To get a story out…. I am a journalist” 7 The Judge then said that the sister had received his request, “out of the blue, and didn’t know you from Adam, and don’t you think she would check you out as an Investigative Reporter by checking your site…..” The Prosecution then asked how come so many agencies of the State have got it all wrong regarding Lee Rigby. Spivey responded with, “My job is for the good of the people”. The Prosecution then asked about the personal comments regarding the picture of Lee Rigby’s family home and also about Spivey’s’ comments about the allegations of rape. The Judge asked about Spivey’s comment, “9 times out of 10, I am usually right” in relation to the rape comments. The Prosecution then asked about his research for his topics. Spivey informed the court that all material used is in the public domain. Spivey confirmed that he is an internet campaigner because all our freedoms are being taken away. Spivey also confirmed that he had a Press Card and he was registered and that there was a Code of Ethics. Spivey then left the dock. The Prosecution then began his summing up: “….abundant evidence regarding the Lee Rigby family…. (That caused) alarm and distress… would have known or should have known it would cause alarm or distress” The Prosecution stated that there was definite targeting by Spivey. Informing the court that since the cases of harassment in 2001 and 2004, the “effect of publishing does not have to be direct”…. You can be found guilty even if you say, “don’t tell the person this”…. “In terms of Freedom of Speech, Spivey has crossed the line….” 8 “He was/is an obsessive conspiracy theorist who thinks he is free to act in this manner with impunity.” The Defence then summed up. The prosecution to prove their case had to prove Spivey was wrong in his opinion of the Woolwich incident. There are difficulties with “big events”, where people question the facts, the example he used were the Moon Landings. People can analyse the same evidence but come to different conclusions. The picture of the Rigby family at Christmas was freely available to the public. The home address was sourced by means of Companies House. The person who took the picture of Mr Vitler was never traced by the Crown to seek his motive. There was no evidence on Spivey’s computers when checked by the Police, nor that he had encouraged or incited anybody to do anything to the four witnesses, plus there was no evidence of the targeting of these individuals. Spivey had written about the whole Woolwich incident, the Rigby story was just a small piece in his essays. The Barrister stated the legal test for Spivey was, “was he aware he should not have done it”. Giving the example of the Rapist accusation which was removed the next day by Facebook. The Defence stated that fourteen months had passed from the first post about the Rigby`s to the date of Spivey’s arrest. No action was taken to take down Spivey’s publications. Spivey has never been asked by anybody to “please take it down” to the present day (31st July). Lee Rigby’s mother did not indicate in her statement when she first 9saw Spivey’s website, and how many visits she made over this 14 month period when the articles were up. Again the test for Spivey was whether he knew he was harassing anyone. Mr Amos in his statement never indicated that Spivey had “overstepped the line” and he was going to tell Mrs Rigby. In the same way the sister was never asked, “When did you view it?”, and how many times over this fourteen month period. Spivey had not asked anybody to, “Go and sort them out”, although he acknowledged that Spivey had contacted the sister, “only once”. The website was for his opinion only, he is a journalist not a “nut job”. Spivey’s comments on the mainstream media give an alternative opinion which are all his own views and assertions. After Spivey’s barrister finished his summing up, the Judge immediately delivered his summing up of the case and gave his verdict. Spivey, in the Judge’s opinion, in the ‘Reasonable Person’ test, had harassed the two family members of the Rigby family. There had been, “a course of conduct to those people, likely to cause distress… (Spivey) should have known” In the interest of Justice there was no reason for the Rigby family to attend court in his view. In the Judge’s opinion the website and Facebook account was the real issue, not Woolwich. Then he stated that Spivey considers himself a journalist, who questions stories from the mainstream media and by, “just looking at photos can say 9/11, 7/7, Pearl Harbour, Tunisia did not happen, and Lee Rigby was not murdered or was not real”. The Judge then said, “All in the (Woolwich) case have been seriously misled by MI5…..a massive conspiracy” “He (Spivey) thinks, “without a shadow of a doubt, I am right, and 10everybody else is wrong”. The Judge then said it is not for him to take a view regarding Woolwich, the test for him was just regarding the harassment of the two Rigby family members. He then said that Spivey was “a journalist with no code of ethics to speak of.” He debunked public figures and others, in his view in a “very unpleasant manner”. He had made personal, and unattractive remarks about the Rigby family and was guilty. The Prosecution then said that Spivey had planned this harassment over a long period, it was ‘high end’. The court costs to Spivey would be £3,980. He produced a Restraining Order for the Judge to order the take down all offending material on Spivey’s website by 12 midnight on the 31st of July. The Defence was then asked by the Judge to prepare a pre-sentence report as custody was an option. He also informed Spivey, that if he took the whole site down, then this could be used in mitigation when sentencing him on the 27th August.

source:  http://guerrillademocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/chris-spivey-dead-man-walking.html

——————————————————————————————————

Chris Spivey on the Woolwich Psychodrama + Boston Bomb Hoax – Good Vibrations # 21 w/ Mark Devlin

 1stageofawareness

———————————————————————————————————————————–

http://embed.bambuser.com/broadcast/5692264

1 Chris Spivey Trial – 30 July 2015

http://embed.bambuser.com/broadcast/5692644

2  Chris Spivey Trial – 30 July 2015

mhoust42

yesterday at 21:28 [31 July]

Bad news Chris found GUILTY and http://chrisspivey.org going to be taken down at midnight! This is VERY sinister

source: http://bambuser.com/v/5692644?page_profile_more_all=1

————————————————————————————————————-

Conspiracy theorist ‘claimed Lee Rigby’s murder was a hoax and terrified his family by publishing their addresses online’ – D. Mail

• Chris Spivey, 52, from Rochford, allegedly claimed soldier, 25, did not exist
• Self-styled journalist said relatives had doctored family photos, court told 
• He allegedly said murder was conspiracy to incite anti-Islamic messages
• Spivey denies harassing Fusilier Rigby’s mother Lyn and sister Sarah 

By Steph Cockroft for MailOnline

Published: 09:25 EST, 30 July 2015 | Updated: 07:15 EST, 31 July 2015

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180080/Conspiracy-theorist-claimed-Lee-Rigby-s-murder-hoax-terrified-family-publishing-addresses-online.html#ixzz3hgY6Y8H4