UK government chilling attack on free speech # je suis chris spivey

love him or hate him?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150315062152/http://chrisspivey.org/category/politicians/

This website is not authorised contributed to or connected to Chris Spivey in any other way,  I neither know him personally nor have had any contact with him at all. However I have set up this website in support of Chris Spivey and the blaten injustice of the proceedings against him and his family.

In summary Spivey published an article outlining the inconsistencies in the official account of the woolwich attack n which Lee Rigby was allegedly beheaded. What actually happened that day is clearly in dispute but a case has been made by Spivey and others that no one was actually killed that day therefore the bereaving family probably don’t exist as would be the logical conclusion having established that the evidence suggests the killing did not take place and certainly not as the media portrayed it.

The inconsistencies with the official account have been documented by countless people and only the first few have been added to this site, along with video evidence etc. Pease view the work of these people and give it careful consideration before condemning spivey for  harassing a family he and many others believe were created for the purpose of the false flag narrative.

If you are unaware of what a false flag attack is a full explanation referenced and complete is offered in the reading material on this site surrounding “operation Gladio”.

If having viewed the material you still believe that he is guilty I thank you for yor time and commend your willing ness to actually view the material and make your own informed decision.

Given the events and the persecution of Chris Spivey and the events following his publication in conjunction with re inconsistencies of the event,  I think the information is accurate and will be supporting Chris Spivey in anyway I can.

Anyone else that would like to help support Chris Spivey could please consider.

http://chrisspivey.org/ muster at chris spiveys website

The Chief Magistrate’s Office,
Westminster Magistrates’ Court
181, Marylebone Road,
London,
NW1 5BR.  [email protected]

Dear Chief Magistrate

Dear Sir
I wish to make a complaint against Judge John Wollard who presided at the trial of Christopher Spivey (case no – 421400531044).

Mr Spivey tried to obtain the services of several legal practices in the Southend area but had no joy. This he perceived was due to his notoriety related to denouncing Woolwich as a `false flag` incident.

At every Court appearance Mr Spivey has asked that the four witnesses to his supposed crime appear at his Trial. The reason, is the same as any `reasonable person` would want, for his counsel to be able to question them directly about their statements. Mr Spivey is adamant that two of the witnesses would be committing perjury if they spoke under oath and admitted to certain aspects in their official Police Statements.
Again, would any `reasonable man ‘who is being prosecuted by the might of the State want to be charged and convicted just on Hearsay evidence?
Would any `reasonable man` think who has Mr Spivey harassed?
 

The two members of the Rigby family were never asked fundamental questions regarding how they `felt` harassed. The Investigating Officer (D.C Coomes) admitted that all video`s, pictures, comments were all taken from the mainstream media or were already in the public domain. Nothing used was totally private to the family.
The Officer also admitted that no incitement or harm of any kind had occurred against any of the witnesses due to Mr Spivey’s exposé of the Woolwich Hoax.
The Officer could not give a specific date(s) when this harassment by Mr Spivey had occurred, or why it had taken over one year to arrest Mr Spivey after he had published his first exposé of the Woolwich Hoax.
The Officer also admitted that before criminal charges were made, solutions such as asking Mr Spivey to take the offending posts down, or using a legal injunction to ensure that the posts were taken down had not been considered a more fitting and conventional manner of dealing with this perceived harassment.
The Officer also could not elaborate as to why the Police had to arrest and damage Mr Spivey’s property and confiscate his goods for such a misdemeanour in the dead of night.
I think the `reasonable man` thinks of harassment of a crime that needs dealing with a.s.a.p. or it’s not harassment.
 

Mr Spivey is a journalist, the Rigby family was only a small part of his exposé of the Woolwich Hoax. I believe there are thousands of comments regarding Woolwich by numerous authors but Mr Spivey is the only author that has been charged in this way and his is the only site investigated by the Police nationally.
Would not the `reasonable man` think that Mr Spivey is in fact being harassed by the State in this case?

I think that Mr Spivey, if he had the opportunity to appear before a jury, would have been found not guilty, what `reasonable man` would convict a journalist on hearsay evidence only?
 

I would ask that the trial of Chris Spivey be examined closely and re assessed in regard to the aforementioned legal issues. In addition to how the legal issues pertain to how this case has been handled, there are, I believe other issues of importance.

Irrespective of the views of a large portion of the population there are an increasing number of “conspiracy theorists” that believe there is a sinister aspect to this and other recent events.

Public trust has been eroded in the judiciary as the child sex abuse “conspiracy” becomes more apparent. If Chris Spivey is not seen to receive a balanced and fair trial for this event respect for the judiciary and particularly those involved irreparably, political figures come and go, but a complete breakdown in the public perception of our most revered representatives would be catastrophic.

I and others feel strongly that Chris Spiveys trial should be reassessed and given further thought, although I have no legal background and so could not tell you how to move forward I hope it is in a way that preserves your personal integrity and that of the judiciary you represent.

Kind Regards

The following is a legal opinion offered to a Chris Spivey support group

“Grandfathers for children’s right to be children”

Yours Sincerely

Paul Clifford BSc, Dip Ed

Definition of an ‘admissible witness statement’

To be admissible (allowed) in court section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 1967 states for a witness statement to be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding, other than committal proceedings, it must:

* be a formal written document of a person

* be a set of facts relating to a certain event, or events

* be signed by the person who makes it, to confirm that the contents of the document are true, this is known as a statement of truth, and

* have had a copy served on the other parties before the trial.

If all of the above apply, the witness does not always need to attend the trial to give oral evidence. But once they have made a written statement they may be called on to attend court and give their evidence in person. The jury do not see witness statements so the evidence contained in them will either be read out by counsel or be given orally by the person who has given the statement.

When you can produce a witness statement as evidence in court

To be admissible in court, evidence must be relevant to a fact which has to be proved, or disproved. Every fact, and document relied upon in court must be proved by admissible evidence.

You can produce a witness statement as evidence in court when:

* The relevant conditions in section 9 of the CJA 1967 are met:
** This allows the defence to agree to a statement being read at trial where it has been served in advance to them. For more information on the act, see related link.

* Section 116 or 117 of the CJA 2003 applies:
** This allows first hand hearsay and business documents to be admitted as evidence.

*Schedule 1 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) applies:
**This allows a written witness statement to be read in court as evidence without further proof.
** This happens where both the defence and prosecution agree on what is written in the witness statement.

Section 9 of the CJA 1967 only applies to statements taken in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service lawyer will decide what statements are to be used under section 9, and what exhibits will be produced as evidence.

When you cannot produce a witness statement as evidence

A written witness statement is not admissible on its own as evidence at trial if the defence do not agree with the evidence that has been written within it.

How the statement is used in court

The statement will be read out at the hearing, only if it has been agreed by both the prosecution and defence. This allows for evidence to be given without having to call the witness to attend. If there is no agreement, the statement will not be read out in court.

A witness may refer to specific documents in a statement and these documents or items of evidence will be ‘produced’ as exhibits in the case. Any document or object referred to as an exhibit and identified in the statement will be treated as if it has been produced by the person who made the statement.”

I’m wondering if it is significant enough to have a mistrial declared on the grounds that the Judge failed to follow the correct procedure. I find it difficult to believe that everyone at the trial who was legally qualified could have been unaware that what was done appears to have been illegal.

Now move on to Pages 9, 10 and 11 in the Home Office document, which I have again combined for convenience:

“Taking a witness statement in the UK

This section tells you what you must do when you take a witness statement in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Which form to complete and storing the witness statement

If you take the statement in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, you must record it on an MG11, see related link: The MG forms.

If you take or receive the statement in Northern Ireland you must make sure you sign the additional declaration.

You must keep the original copies of all witness statements in the case file and send copies to the Crown Prosecution Service.

What you must tell the witness

Before a witness signs a witness statement you must always explain:

* the perjury clause to them before you take the statement

* a statement taken in this form meets the legal requirements, and so they may not need to attend court:
** but you must make it clear the Home Office cannot guarantee they will not have to attend the court because the court, and the defendant, have the right to call any witness to attend and give oral evidence.

Drafting the witness statement

When you draft a witness statement you must make sure:

* it is concise and to the point

* you only deal with matters within the witness’s direct knowledge, and
** as far as possible, it is in their words.

You may find it helpful to take notes before you begin writing the witness statement. When you question the witness you must make sure you:

* ask all relevant questions to satisfy your duty under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, and

* pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry whether they point towards or away from the suspect.

For more information, see related links:

* Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

* Manual of guidance, and

* MG forms.

Sign and check the witness statement

You must always give the witness the opportunity to check the contents of the statement and make any corrections before they sign it. The witness must sign the declaration at the top of the statement and beneath the last line of the text in the statement.

You must make sure the person making the statement:

* consecutively numbers and signs all the sheets, and

* initials all alterations and deletions.

If you need to read the statement to the witness

You must insert the following clause at the end of the statement:

‘(Full name of witness) being unable to read this statement, I (name of officer reading the statement) of (official address) read this statement to him or her before they signed it.’

When you finish taking the witness statement the witness must sign it and you must provide them with a witness information pack. For further information see related links: Witness information pack, parts 1-4.

If the witness may have committed a crime or becomes a potential suspect

If you have reason to suspect a person may have committed the offence before you take the witness statement, you must not treat them as a witness and must interview them under caution.

If a witness becomes a potential suspect in the course of you taking a witness statement you must stop and offer to interview under caution.”

From what I can recall from a very brief view of the witness statements, there may have been deviations from the requirements. I had the impression there were no crossings-out and the content of all the statements reminded me of what I call ‘police speak’ – emotionless, bland, standard phraseology.

Thank you for reading this far your genuine interest is highly valued, Paul