Who I Am And What I Do!

My name is James Goddard I’m right wing activist, citizen journalist & content creator. I started my journey into activism back in January 2018, I felt I could no longer stay silent and I was unhappy with the road our society, country and it’s politics were going down. So I started posting online blogs to Facebook and I was surprised with the number of views I was getting, I mean 80k to 100k views on some videos on Facebook I was pleasantly surprised. So I carried on blogging and researching then I was contacted by Tracy Blackwell who told me the horrific story that involved the murder of 3 boys, I then spent the next year working with Tracy on her cause, we traveled up and down the country raising awareness as to what really happened to Josh, George and Harry.

I’m proud to say that over the past 18 months I’ve been a part of some really great events, counter protests, days of action and debates, it’s been a long and difficult journey, but I wouldn’t change a thing. I truly believe that everything happens for a reason.

Anyway back to Who I am and What I do, I made mainstream media headlines back in Dec 2018 and January 2019, when I approached the Remain MP Anna Soubry, in total there were two ‘incidents’ or ‘conversations as I like to call them. Basically I called her Nazi in one of the conversations and the 2nd incident was enough for me to be arrested by the Met Police after over 150 MP’s wrote to the commissioner Cressida Dick and demanded that I be arrested. Bearing in mind the MP in question had gone on national television calling me a racist, fascist and said that I should be sorted out, which I perceived to be a threat against myself. Oh, I forgot to mention that we sang ‘Soubry Is A Nazi’ whilst she was being interviewed, anyway it’s hardly the crime of the century is it, I’m not sure it’s even a crime but there you go, that’s the British Justice system for you, utterly flawed and very biased in favour of the metropolitan elite.

Before the 2nd Soubry incident I had been a part of the formation of the Yellow Vests, we started in December 2018 and I believe the protests are still taking place some 9 months after they began. I am no longer apart of the Yellow vests or a member of any group to be in fact. I work independently as a Citizen Journalist using the free speech platform www.3speak.online as well as YouTube, however 3speak is the only platform that truly believes in FREE SPEECH.

Anyway back to the story, so I was arrested for the 2nd time in February for an incident that happened between myself and a photographer who would appear to have ties to Hope Not Hate and various other leftist organisation. Long story short, I was arrested at a later date from the incident on the charges of common assault and threatening words or behaviour. I was then banned from Manchester City Centre as well as being banned from London, Broxtowe constituency as well as my hometown Leicester, with the bans implemented from both the Met Police & GMP it wasn’t exactly ideal.

For the months leading up to my trial the Police continually played games with myself, they doxed me by releasing my bail address to the mainstream media who in turn made it public, there was no need for this as this put my life in danger as well as the kind family who had offered me a place to stay, due to the Police forcing me out of my mum’s house. I’ve had 2 wrongful arrests and spent 32 hours in Police custody because of their errors, mistakes or plain stupidity.

At Manchester magistrates a judge found me guilty of common assault against the photographer, i pushed his camera out of my face and that was enough to land me an £880 fine and a restraining order, he found me not guilty of the ‘threats’ however the point here should be this matter only went to court because of GMP they actively sought ought Goodman to prosecute me because of rising escalations between the right and left. There words not mine.

Now in regards to the Soubry trial i was offered a deal, it took hours of negotiating and thinking. It was a hard decision to make, I truly believe I made the right decision for myself. I’ve heard and seen people say that I should of gone ‘Not Guilty’ and I understand why people think that, however I don’t believe calling some one a Nazi is worthy of going to prison over.

Either way I will continue on in my quest against the Globalist backed Far Left and the violent, savage Mohammadans. I have no intention of ever shutting up. The Establishment have taken away my ability to lead a normal life also I now have to watch my back everywhere I go as I’m a target. My aim is to continue battling as an activist and also to carry on my work as as an independent citizen journalist.

If you would like to support my work please consider making a monthly donation using the link below it’s greatly appreciated and really does help with the costs of getting about to report on the Loony left!

https://donorbox.org/silenced-no-more

To keep up to date with my latest content please subscribe to the following channels.

Telegram Channel:https://t.me/jamesgoddard89

YouTube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGxFNMDlSqlWWCEYHQypruQ

3Speak Channel:https://3speak.online/user/jamesgoddard

43 Comments on "Who I Am And What I Do!"

  1. great site and keep up the good work fella

  2. George Hartley | August 10, 2019 at 15:48 | Reply

    I set out to enjoy your interview with Jayda Fransen only to find that you are both traitors who support the genocide of the indigenous people of Britain through being outbred by racial strangers who will never be us. We will be a minority in our own country by 2050 thanks to the ethno-suicidal liberal views of people like you. Sikhs and Hindus have now been in this country for decades and are still Sikhs and Hindus and marry wives from India where their loyalty will alway lie. I don’t know what your perverted definition of being English is, but it has to be based on total ignorance of who we historically are. How can you and her spread the poisionous lies and multiracial narrative of the state about some false future Marxist utopia where all races except Muslims will all become just like us and live happily ever after? You need to fucking wake up Goddard to the deliberate replacement of the people of Britain which you and Francen work for every day.

  3. “What starts in America ultimatly comes to Britain.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJh7Ye1Qvc8

  4. Who are the far right and why has no-one ever seen them? Apart from a handful of working class patriots like the National Front and the skinhead punks who, knowing nothing about national socialism posed as far-right, (most of whom are now in wheel chairs or old folks homes) the actual far right are generally middle and upper class ethno-nationalists, often with university degrees, often with double-barelled names, with a far deeper education and knowledge about the truth of history than the uneducated, naive, working class. The working class are easily fooled by the Big Lies of the rootless cosmopolitan transnational wandering elite who control the media and entertainment, fashion and football, and who have brainwashed them to fight for them and their ethno-state, and to do so while fighting the far-right’s attempts to save European nations for almost exclusively European people as European ethno-states. Civic nationalists adore diversity and strive along with the communists to create an equality brown Britain. Civic nationalists believe most of the lies about the second world war they were taught in school and on the BBC or in Hollywood films, for example that Churchill was a hero and the Holohoax was real, issues they strictly restrain themselves from honestly investigating, or do not have the education in order to carry out real research. Like the communists they label everyone fascist with zero understanding of what fascism actually meant historically outside the war propaganda they swallowed whole. Most ethno-nationalists are actually democrats but reject Judeo cultural-Marxist Talmudic laws and want to return to common law. Unlike the working class they have not lived with diversity and so have not committed miscegenation and very, very rarely have mixed-race in their families. Unlike the cucked working class Civnats they openly despise Megyn Markle just for being mixed-race and polluting the royal bloodline. The reason the two sides do not meet is largely due to the cowardice of the working class civic nationalists, who need to believe the Jewish Hollywood stereotypes of the ‘far-right’ so that they can kneel down and pretend to be holier-than-thou to the enemy and say “I’m not far-right I’m just right, I’m a good Goy Mr Rothschild don’t send your MI5 after me!” And they do this even as the enemy who wants to replace them with the third world, and whose flag they fly, and who are behind mass 3rd world immigration, treat them like dogs nevertheless. However, as the genocide of the indigenous people of Britain becomes clearer and the more and more apparant, and the ADL style Jewish rule Kalergy designed for the British people become more clear, the plan for them to become enslaved and mixed race and ignorant becomes more obvious, the civic nationalists will either become ethno-nationalist or die at the hands of diversity. While the handful of non-white patriots like big John Lawrence will be welcome to remain, the majority of non-indigenous, non-European people in Britain (and for that matter across all Europe) will be sent back to the their ancestral homelands. “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, white countries for everybody?” Ethno-nationalists will NEVER accept that Civic nationalist policy. Demographics is destiny. Import the 3rd world and become the 3rd world. The virtue of the working-class civic nationalists is that they take to the streets, something the right never do, even to fight for Brexit. But the far-right being largely middle-class are the officer class will, when the time comes, lead the working class into the battle for Britain and to victory. But for now they have too much to lose materially by doxing themselves, and little to gain as the streets belong to the working class and the left.

  5. John Hurst. | May 29, 2019 at 12:01 | Reply

    Hello James. Another article, this time on the surrender of the British armed forces to the EU. It also covers the common law immunity of soldiers from prosecution:

    Is it lawful for British armed forces to be subject to foreign control and what are the responsibilities and rights of individual members of the Forces when tested?

    A secondary issue is the lawfulness of sending Forces abroad and undermining the defence of the Realm.

    A third issue, which I will not progress here, is the Bill of Rights prohibition on funds raised by taxation being used for purposes which Parliament did not agree to.

    It is axiomatic that if The Sovereign is placed in control of the Forces by the common law it must be unlawful for the present incumbent to relinquish that control. That by the Coronation Oath Act 1688:

    “The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,

    Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?

    The King and Queene shall say,

    I solemnly Promise soe to doe…”.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/6/section/III

    In other words, a Sovereign may not lawfully give agreement (Royal Assent) to a statute which breaches the law and customs of the Kingdom.

    Now consider the Military Oath (not taken by members of the Royal Navy but binding in law on them also):

    Military Oath.

    “I ____ swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true
    allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and
    Successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully
    defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and
    Dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of
    Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors and of the Generals and Officers
    set over me.”.

    Note the twice repeated “ Heirs and Successors”.

    “Heirs” is a legal term with a specific meaning. “Successors” is a broader term including “ One who follows or comes into the place of another…”.

    My understanding of the reason why “successor” is included in the Military Oath is the Treason Act 1495, otherwise known as the “Rex de facto statute”.

    With the usual cautions about relying on Wikipedia, below is the text of an article on this topic as it stands at the time of writing 11/51 hrs on 02/11/2017. Following the article are some of the references referred to in it. Blackstone is the most authoritative.

    What I have in mind is the concept that no member of the armed forces may be required to transfer his allegiance to another legal entity away from the de facto Sovereign and the 1495 Act protects him from retribution.

    A person with legal standing could test this proposition by Judicial Review.

    Treason Act 1495

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Act 11 Hen 7 c 1 (sometimes informally[1] referred to as the Treason Act 1495[2] or as the Rex de facto statute)[3] is an Act of the Parliament of England which was passed in the reign of Henry VII of England. The long title of the Act is “An Acte that noe person going wth the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason.”[4][5] The Act states that a person serving the king de facto for the time being is not guilty of treason, or of any other offence, if he wages war against the king de jure. William Blackstone wrote that the Act is “declaratory of the common law.”[6][7] It is still in force.
    Henry had become king after defeating Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485. However he backdated the start of his reign to August 21, the day before the battle, enabling him to prosecute anyone who had fought under his rival, and to execute them for treason. This was highly controversial at the time, since it meant that, in a future battle, anyone who fought for the rightful king against a usurper would be at risk of execution if they lost, and this might undermine their courage in battle and their loyalty to their king. Nevertheless, Henry VII had his way at the time as Parliament was then in no position to oppose him (although later that year a general pardon was issued to those who had fought for Richard[8]).
    However, ten years later Henry’s position on the throne was sufficiently secure that he could afford to grant Parliament what they wanted, when in 1495 they passed a bill to prevent the treason laws from being abused in this way again. The resulting Act is still in force today, and was applied to Scotland in 1708.[9]
    The Act was cited by Sir Harry Vane in his treason trial in 1662 following the Restoration. He was one of those accused of serving with Oliver Cromwell against the king during the English Civil War, and in his defence he relied upon the Act. However the court ruled that the 1495 Act was only intended to protect those who fought for a king, not to protect republican rebels who fought to abolish the monarchy. He was convicted and executed.
    Other countries
    In New Zealand, section 64 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides that obedience to the laws of a person with “possession de facto of the sovereign power” is protected from criminal responsibility.[10]
    Leonard Casley of the Principality of Hutt River (an unrecognised micronation in Australia) used this Treason Act to his advantage by declaring himself a prince, thereby purporting to protect him from prosecution by the Australian government.[11]
    See also
    • High treason in the United Kingdom
    • Treason Act
    References and notes
    1.
    • The Act has no statutory short title.
    • Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice. 1999. Page cv.
    • Talmon, Stefan. “Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile”. Oxford University Press. 1998. ISBN 0-19-924839-7. Page 44, footnote 1.
    • Text of the Act 11 Hen. 7 1495 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk
    • Annotated original text, scroll down to (E)
    • William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, chapter 6 (1769)
    • A precedent had been set when Edward IV became king in 1461 and Parliament declared that his deposed predecessor, Henry VI, had never been the rightful king, but “to avoid great public mischief” also declared him a king de facto, and people continued to be punished for treason against Henry (except for assisting Edward in deposing him). State of Connecticut v. Carroll (1871) 38 Conn 449, “The American Law Register (1852-1891)” vol. 21 no. 3 (new series vol. 12) p. 170
    • 1 Hen.7 c. 6; The Statues at Large, vol. IV, Danby Pickering, Cambridge University, 1763, page 24
    • Treason Act 1708
    • New Zealand Legislation
    • Macbeth, Alex (24 April 2010). “A man’s Hutt is his castle”. The Age. Retrieved 20 May 2014.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1495

    Confirmation that the 1495 Act is a Statute in Force from legislation.gov.uk:

    The Act 11 Hen. 7 1495

    Persons serving the King for the Time being, in War, shall not be attainted of Treason, &c.

    “…That it is not resonable but ayenst all lawes reason and gode conscience that the seid subgettis going with their sovereign Lord in Werres attending upon hym in his persone or being in other places by his commaundement within this land or without, any thing shuld loose or forfeite for doyng their true dutie and service of alliegeaunce: from hensfourth no maner of persone ne persones whatsoever he or they be, that attend upon the King and Sovereign Lord of this lande for the tyme being in his persone and do him true and feithfull service of alliegeaunce in the same, or be in other places by his commaundement, in his Werres within this lande or without, that for the same dede and true [X1service] of alliegeaunce he or they be in no wise convycte or atteynt of high treason ne of other offences for that cause by acte of Parliament or otherwise by any processe of lawe, wherby he or any of theym shall [X2mowe] forfeit life landes tenementes rentis possessions hereditamentis godes catelles or eny other thingis, but to be for that dede and service utterly discharged of any vexacion trouble or losse; And if any acte or actis or other processe of the lawe hereafter therupon for the same happen to be made contary to this ordynaunce, that then that acte or actes or other processes of the lawe whatsoever they shall be, stande and be utterly voide…”.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen7/11/1/section/I.

    The extract from Blackstone referred to in the Wikipedia article (I have inserted paragraphs for clarity, the original does not have them) :

    “1. “WHEN a man does compass or imagine the death of our lord the king, of our lady his queen, or of their eldest son and heir.” Under this description it is held that a queen regnant (such as queen Elizabeth and queen Anne) is within the words of the act, being invested with royal power and entitled to the allegiance of her subjects:9 but the husband of such a queen is not comprised within these words, and therefore no treason can be committed against him.10 The king here intended is the king in possession, without any respect to his title: for it is held, that a king de facto [in fact] and not de jure [by right], or in other words an usurper that has got possession of the throne, is a king within the meaning of the statute; as there is a temporary allegiance due to him, for his administration of the government, and temporary protection of the public: and therefore treasons committed against Henry VI were punished under Edward IV, though all the line of Lancaster had been previously declared usurpers by act of parliament.

    But the most rightful heir of the crown, or king de jure and not de facto, who has never had plenary possession of the throne, as was the case of the house of York during the three reigns of the line of Lancaster, is not a king within this statute, against whom treasons may be committed.11

    And a very sensible writer on the crown-law carries the point of possession so far, that he holds,12 that a king out of possession is so far from having any right to our allegiance, by any other title which he may set up against the king in being, that we are bound by the duty of our allegiance to resist him.

    A doctrine which he grounds upon the statute 11 Hen. VII. c. 1. which is declaratory of the common law, and pronounces all subjects excused from any penalty or forfeiture, which do assist and obey a king de facto. But, in truth, this seems to be confounding all notions of right and wrong; and the consequence would be, that when Cromwell had murdered the elder Charles, and usurped the power (though not the name) of king, the people were bound in duty to hinder the son’s restoration: and were the king of Poland or Morocco to invade this kingdom, and by any means to get possession of the crown (a term, by the way, of very loose and indistinct signification) the subject would be bound the his allegiance to fight for his natural prince today, and by the same duty of allegiance to fight against him tomorrow. The true distinction seems to be, that the statute of Henry the seventh does by no means command any opposition to a king de jure; but excuses the obedience paid to a king de facto.

    When therefore a usurper is in possession, the subject is excused and justified in obeying and giving him assistance: otherwise, under a usurpation, no man could be safe; if the lawful prince had a right to hang him for obedience to the powers in being, as the usurper would certainly do for disobedience.

    Nay farther, as the mass of people are imperfect judges of title, of which in all cases possession is prima facie evidence, the law compels no man to yield obedience to that prince, whose right is by want of possession rendered uncertain and disputable, till providence shall think fit to interpose in his favor, and decide the ambiguous claim: and therefore, till he is entitled to such allegiance by possession, no treason can be committed against him. Lastly, a king who has resigned his crown, such resignation being admitted and ratified in parliament, is according to Sir Matthew Hale no longer the object of treason.13

    And the same reason holds, in case a king abdicates the government; or, by actions subversive of the constitution, virtually renounces the authority which he claims by that very constitution: since, as was formerly observed,14 when the fact of abdication is once established, and determined by the proper judges, the consequence necessarily follows, that the throne is thereby vacant, and he is no longer king…”.

    Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) Sir William Blackstone
    BOOK 4, CHAPTER 6 Of High Treason
    https://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-406/#fn14u

    Not referred to in the Wikipedia article, but relevant to understanding the present situation, is what happened to the 1661 Militia Act:
    Charles II, 1661: An Act declaring the sole Right of the Militia to be in King and for the present ordering & disposing the same.
    Recital that the Command of the Militia, and of all Forces by Sea and Land, is the undoubted Right of His Majesty;

    IV. Proviso against compelling Subjects to go out of the Kingdom.
    Provided That neither this Act nor any matter or thing therein contained shall bee deemed construed or taken to extend to the giving or declaring of any Power for the transporting of any the Subjects of this Realme or any way compelling them to march out of this Kingdome otherwise then by the Lawes of England ought to be done
    http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol5/pp308-309#h3-0004

    Returning to Wikipedia:

    The King’s Sole Right over the Militia Act 1661 was an Act of the Parliament of England (13 Car. II. c. 6), long title “An Act declaring the sole Right of the Militia to be in King and for the present ordering & disposing the same.” Following the English Civil War, this act finally declared that the king alone, as head of the state, was in supreme command of the army and navy for the defence of the realm.
    It was repealed, except for part of the preamble, by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863; and in full by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Sole_Right_over_the_Militia_Act_1661

    Note the use of the 1969 Act. As I have said before, the late 1960’s were when the conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution became visible.

    I would appreciate some Peer review of this document.

    John Hurst.

  6. John Hurst | May 29, 2019 at 11:50 | Reply

    Hello James. Here is an article that I wrote on the Rape of Chelsey on Sunderland:
    1. An Open Letter to The Northumbria Constabulary.
    Chief Superintendent Noble,
    This is an “Open letter” sent in the interests of justice and public order.
    I am not a lawyer. My police service began before the Crown Prosecution Service was invented. I have some information for you concerning the following statement apparently made by you. It appears that you are misdirecting yourself about the law relating to prosecutions.
    In writing to you I am mindful of section 91 of the Police Act 1996 (Causing disaffection) which states that it is an offence for any person to cause, or attempt to cause, or to do any act calculated to cause, disaffection amongst the members of any police force, or to induce or attempt to induce, or to do any act calculated to induce any member of a police force to withhold his services.
    I shall be arguing that someone has perpetrated this crime and got away with it since 1985. I too was a victim but retirement and the Internet have allowed access to information which was previously known only to a few insiders.
    Incidentally, police pensions (In payment or anticipated) may be forfeited following a conviction for, amongst other things, treason. Disregarding the subject’s constitutional rights is treason. The common-law right to petition the Crown for redress of grievances, and not be blocked by officials, is recognised as a constitutional right in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights and is immune from “Implied repeal”. That should get your attention.
    I understand from YouTube that a large number of Geordie hard men are unhappy with the decision not to prosecute in the “Chelsey Wright Case” and are blaming the police. You appear to be of the opinion that the Crown Prosecution Service bears responsibility:
    Quoting from the Northumbria Police web site:
    “Chief Supt. Ged Noble, the Southern Area Commander at Northumbria Police, said:
    “Reporting on social media about a complaint of a serious assault in Peel Street Hendon last year has grossly misrepresented the facts. Northumbria Police fully and properly investigated the matter and ensured the victim was treated with compassion, expertly supported and kept updated.

    “On receiving the complaint, Northumbria Police made early arrests and conducted an extensive investigation. Officers sensitively gained the complainant’s recollection of the event, secured CCTV footage, interviewed independent witnesses and obtained DNA and other forensic samples.
    “In accordance with regulations the suspects were bailed pending the results of forensic tests and following the result a full file-of-evidence was passed to the CPS, who alone have statutory responsibility to make a decision on whether or not criminal charges are brought.
    “The CPS took the decision that no action should be taken, in accordance with the evidential test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors…”.
    Before doing this research, I would have agreed with you. Not any more.
    There are substantial grounds to argue that the decision to refer this case to the Crown Prosecution Service was unjustified. Permit me to explain.
    As is well known, there is a body of law concerning the correct interpretation of Acts of Parliament. The common-law rules on this subject include the principle that no Act should be considered in isolation as this authority confirms:
    “Implied ancillary rules
    I end this opening chapter by pointing out that elements in the legal thrust of an enactment may be left unexpressed by the drafter. Often, they are to be treated as imported because of a general presumption based on the nature of legislation. This is that, unless the contrary intention appears, an enactment by implication imports any principle or rule of law (whether statutory or non-statutory) which prevails in the territory to which the enactment extends and is relevant to its operation in that territory. This may be referred to as an ‘implied ancillary rule’.
    An Act of Parliament is not a statement in a vacuum. Parliament intends its Act to be read and applied within the context of the existing, corpus juris, or body of law…”.
    F.A.R. Bennion. Understanding Common Law Legislation. Page 99.
    Oxford University Press 2009.
    Earlier in his book, at page 80, the late constitutional lawyer Mr. Bennion has this to say:
    “It is the function of the court alone authoritatively to declare the legal meaning of an enactment. If anyone else, such as its drafter or the politician promoting it, purports to lay down what the legal meaning is the court may react adversely, regarding this as an encroachment on its constitutional sphere. Lord Wilberforce stated the classic position:
    Legislation in England is passed by Parliament, and put in the form of written words. This legislation is given legal effect on subjects by virtue of judicial decision, and it is the function of the courts to say what the application of words to particular cases or particular individuals is to be. This power, which has been devolved on the judges from the earliest times, is an essential part of the constitutional process by which subjects are brought under the rule of law—as distinct from the rule of the king or the rule of Parliament; and it would be a degradation of that process if the courts were to be merely a reflecting mirror of what some other interpretation agency might say . . .”. 
    In other words, the law is what the Courts decide it is, not the latest Act of Parliament looked at in isolation.
    I wish to draw to your attention a Supreme Court decision in 2012 which clarified the legal status of prosecutions following complaints made by members of the public to police.
    The Judgment was R (on the application of Gujra) (FC) (Appellant) v Crown Prosecution Service (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 52.
    Here is Para. 12:
    “12. In 1829 came the first step towards putting the police on a statutory, albeit only regional, footing. It was the Metropolitan Police Act of that year (10 Geo 4, c 44) and it established the London Metropolitan Police. It was followed in 1856 by the County and Borough Police Act (19 & 20 Vict, c 69), which required every county and borough to have its own constabulary. This improvement in the organisation of the police seems to have been the spur to their assumption of responsibility for most prosecutions. Technically, however, the prosecuting police officer was just another private prosecutor…”.
    The importance of this insight is, I submit, that it allows correct interpretation of the Act of Parliament which authorised the Crown Prosecution Service, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (The 1985 Act).
    The questions as I see them are:
    1. Is a criminal complaint made by a private person to police required to be prosecuted by the CPS in all circumstances?

    2. What is the effect of a “Discontinuance” by the CPS?

    3. Can police assist the complainant to undertake a private prosecution as happened before the 1985 Act came into force either without passing it to the CPS or in the event of a “Discontinuance”?

    Here is section 3 of the 1985 Act:

    “3 Functions of the Director.

    (1) The Director shall discharge his functions under this or any other enactment under the superintendence of the Attorney General.
    (2) It shall be the duty of the Director [F1, subject to any provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1987] —
    (a) to take over the conduct of all criminal proceedings, other than specified proceedings, instituted on behalf of a police force (whether by a member of that force or by any other person);…”.

    Moving on to section 6 of the 1985 Act:

    “6 Prosecutions instituted and conducted otherwise than by the Service.

    (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, nothing in this Part shall preclude any person from instituting any criminal proceedings or conducting any criminal proceedings to which the Director’s duty to take over the conduct of proceedings does not apply.

    (2) Where criminal proceedings are instituted in circumstances in which the Director is not under a duty to take over their conduct, he may nevertheless do so at any stage…”.
    This means Section 6 specifically preserves private prosecutions. The “Part” referred to in section 6(1) includes sections 1. to 15.
    That includes section 10:
    “Guidelines for Crown Prosecutors.
    (1) The Director shall issue a Code for Crown Prosecutors giving guidance on general principles to be applied by them—
    (a) in determining, in any case—
    (i) whether proceedings for an offence should be instituted or, where proceedings have been instituted, whether they should be discontinued; or
    (ii) what charges should be preferred; and
    (b) in considering, in any case, representations to be made by them to any magistrates’ court about the mode of trial suitable for that case.
    Note the words “Whether they should be discontinued…”.
    Therefore, the relevant section properly interpreted must, I submit, lead to the following conclusions:
    Section 5, correctly interpreted, actually only allows police to refer to the Crown Prosecution Service cases “Instituted on behalf of a police force”.
    That, I submit, must mean that only cases that are initiated by members of police forces (For example after direct arrests by constables acting on their own authority) are required to be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Section 10 allows the CPS prosecutor to “discontinue” that case. Such an event does not however prevent a private prosecution being undertaken because sections 5, 6 and 10 are all in the same “Part” of the Act. That is the plain meaning of section 6(1).
    Taking over a case, either from the police or otherwise per section 6(2), and then stopping it altogether would be “precluding” a person from instituting criminal proceedings and that would be contrary the 1985 Act and the well-established right of the subject to petition the Crown for redress of grievances per Article 5 of the Bill of Rights.
    The “Code for Prosecutors” is just that, a code, and does not allow suspension of the law or the effects of the law. The “Metric Martyr” Judgment covers this:
    “62. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998….
    63 Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test…”.
    I submit, the same principles will apply to The Crown’s prerogative power exercised by the Attorney General to decide nolle prosequi (not to prosecute) where there is some serious doubt about the case.
    That is because it was established in De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1915] (‘De Keyser’) per Lord Atkinson at pp. 539-540, that:
    ‘when . . . a statute …is passed, it abridges the Royal Prerogative [and the] prerogative power to do that thing is in abeyance’…”.
    It seems to me that the Crown’s common law prerogative nolle prosequi remains because it was not repealed by the wording of section 3(1) of the 1985 Act which only mentions “enactments”:
    “ 3 (1) The Director shall discharge his functions under this or any other enactment under the superintendence of the Attorney General…”.
    In other words, the common law power of the Attorney General not to allow any prosecution was not transferred to the Director whom he “Superintends”.
    The Director may “Discontinue” a specific case where for example there is at that time insufficient evidence but only the Attorney General has the common law nolle prosequi power to stop prosecutions altogether.
    I submit that in the event of a “Discontinuance” by a CPS official a private prosecution may still be conducted assisted by police if necessary.
    Note the high level of the decision maker required for nolle prosequi who, as a political appointee and not an anonymous official, must take political responsibility for so serious a decision.
    A power to “Discontinue” a case is not a power to block the subjects access to the Courts expressed in plain language on the face of the Act.
    Taking all these arguments together, I am of the opinion that the lady in question should have been assisted by police in the private prosecution that she initiated as was routine before the 1985 Act came into force and that it would be lawful, and good police work, for them to assist her from now on.
    The right to conduct a private prosecution was described in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 3 All ER 70 as a “Useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law”.
    I would say that it is more than “Useful”, it is essential to restoring public confidence in the police generally and, particularly after the Manchester bomb attack, urgent.
    Incidentally, there is no requirement for private prosecutions to satisfy the Code for Crown Prosecutors for the obvious reason that they are not Crown Prosecutors. The common-law requirement for “Some credible evidence” is the standard and the court procedures are covered by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 which are available online.
    If anyone (including senior officers) tries to tell the present generation of constables that they may not assist in private prosecutions, that they do not have the duty and necessary powers to uphold the law, then for the reasons given above that is a crime in itself.
    I urge the present generation of constables to use your investigative skills on the Internet, which was invented by but was not available to, earlier generations.
    You will find that until the 1980’s it was possible for politicians and senior public officials to commit the most despicable crimes and evade justice. One of the tools that was used was corrupted interpretation of legislation that purported to take the authority to prosecute away from the public including the police.
    It has taken a long time waiting for the right cases to be put before them but the Courts have now rectified the situation and upheld the common-law rights of the subject.
    I suggest that police forces check whether they have any members who joined before 1985 to give guidance on reinstating the traditional scheme. If none are available, retired former Court Inspectors would be ideal.
    It is time for police to uphold the decisions of the Courts and restore the rule of law. They should cease “Withholding their services”, assist rather than hinder the victims of crimes and let Juries decide guilt or innocence. Over to you.
    If you do not, you may find that Grand Juries will bring you to justice, if the hard men do not get to you first. Google “Grand Juries UK”.
    One more thing, say “No” to Bump Caps.
    Copyright. John Hurst. May 2017.

  7. John Hurst | May 29, 2019 at 11:47 | Reply

    Hello James, John Hurst here. Here is my article on the arrest of Tommy Robinson last year. I have tried to get this information to him without success. I do not know why.

    ” I have been wondering why the lack of legal commentary on the Tommy Robinson situation.
    IMHO from a police perspective the arrest was legally dubious for several reasons.
    The first is that the threshold for anyone to make an arrest for breach of the peace was clearly not met. The UK supreme Court have ruled on this recently in a case where police used this to clear vagrants away from the venue of a Royal Wedding:
    “4.The power of the police, or any other citizen, to carry out an arrest to prevent an imminent breach of the peace is ancient, but it remains as relevant today as in times past. The leading domestic authorities on the subject are the decisions of the House of Lords in Albert v Lavin [1982] AC 546 and R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2007] 2 AC 105. There are important safeguards for the citizen, in order to prevent breach of the peace powers from becoming “a recipe for officious and unjustified intervention in other people’s affairs” (in Lord Rodger’s words in Laporte, at para 62). The essence of a breach of the peace is violence. The power to arrest to prevent a breach of the peace which has not yet occurred is confined to a situation in which the person making the arrest reasonably believes that a breach of the peace is likely to occur in the near future (quoting again from Lord Rodger in Laporte, at para 62). And even where that is so, there may be other ways of preventing its occurrence than by making an arrest; there is only a power of arrest if it is a necessary and proportionate response to the risk…”.
    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/9.html
    Note the last sentence:
    “There is only a power of arrest if it is a necessary and proportionate response to the risk…”.
    In a video of the arrest of Mr. Robinson that I have seen, one of the constables touches his radio earpiece and says words to the effect of “My information is that your Livestream is a breach of the peace”.
    Taking the phone away from Mr. Robinson would have solved that one, the arrest was unjustified and therefore unlawful.
    Also, the conviction for “Contempt of Court” was legally doubtful. The Criminal Justice Act 1925 says this at section 41(2)(c):
     
    “a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid…”.
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86/section/41
    Filming only in the street would not be caught by this. Again, a video shows Mr. Robinson asking a constable “Am I alright to film here (the street)?”. The answer was yes. That introduces an element of doubt about the arrest and that constable should have been called to give evidence.
    Regarding the matter of trial by Judge, it is a clear usurpation of power and a suspension of constitutional law. The same thing happened to Anthony Carlin in Northern Ireland. My attention has been drawn to these authorities for that proposition:
    “Bearing in mind that Tommy Robinson’s charge was one of criminal contempt of court, you may find it useful (this is a US quotation, but the Supreme Courts of all common-law jurisdictions have comity, i.e. mutual respect of each other’s findings) to quote this lawful dissent, by a grand old Southern Democrat, from the political verdict of the majority US Supreme Court bench in a case (US v. Barnett, 1964) on whether juries are needed for contempt of court cases:…”.
     “It is high time, in my judgment, to wipe out root and branch the judge-invented and judge-maintained notion that judges can try criminal contempt cases without a jury.”
    — Justice Hugo L. Black
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#Criticism
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/681
    There is more, the justification which Mr. Robinson consistently gives for filming persons on bail for serious offences is caught by the defence of “Duress of circumstances”. His stated intent was to save life and limb.
    Because the Judges are “Guardians of the Coronation Oath”, Mr. Robinson could have relied upon Article 5 of the Bill of Rights:
    “Right to petition.
    That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall…”.
    Halsburys Laws of England confirms that the right to Petition was included in the Bill of Rights because of the “Seven Bishops” case:
    “419. Accountability to the public: petitions.
    In cases where no illegal act has been committed, and consequently no action lies, but where the subject deems himself unduly oppressed by the sentence of a judge or the conduct of an official, the law of the constitution has provided a remedy by petition to the Crown. The exercise of this right cannot be denied, since it is the right of the subject to petition the monarch, and all commitments and prosecutions for so petitioning are illegal1.
    1 Bill of Rights s 1. The necessity for such a provision was proved by the Seven Bishops’ Trial (1688) 12 State Tr 183. As to petitions for pardon see para 825 post. As to the monarch see para 351 et seq ante. As to the Bill of Rights see para 35 note 3 ante…”.
    Here is an account of the “Seven Bishops” trial. This passage shows what, I submit, the constables who were receiving instructions by radio should have done and also covers Mr. Robinson actions, as a loyal subject:
    “Truly, my lord, Mr. Attorney was very right in the opening of the cause at first, that is, That the government ought not to receive affronts, no, nor the inferior officers are not to be affronted; a justice of the peace, so low a man in office, is not. For a man to say to a justice of the peace, when he is executing his office, that he does not right in it, is a great crime, and Mr. Attorney said right in it: but suppose a justice of the peace were making of a warrant to a constable, to do something that was not legal for him to do, if the constable should petition this justice of the peace, and therein set forth, Sir, you are about to command me to do a thing which, I conceive, is not legal; surely that would not be a crime that he was to be punished for: for he does but seek relief, and shew his grievance in a proper way, and the distress he is under..”.
    http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16880630a.htm
    An issue here is whether or not the constables were acting on their own authority or on directions of the Judge. My recollection of this is that a constable comes under the authority of a Judge in a Courtroom so the definition of the place is again relevant.
    Our wise ancestors in 1689 to just this sort of situation into account in the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act:
    “And bee it enacted by the King and Queenes most excellent Majestyes by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in this present Parlyament assembled and by authoritie of the same That all and singular the Acts made and enacted in the said Parlyament were and are Laws and Statutes of this Kingdome and as such ought to be reputed taken and obeyed by all the People of this Kingdome…”.
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/2/1/section/wrapper1
    Note the words “ought to be reputed taken and obeyed by all the People of this Kingdome…”. This is a constitutional statute that applies to us all, not just Crown Officials.
    If Mr. Robinson was objecting to the laws being suspended to allow serial rapists bail and constitute a danger to the public he could, and should, have had his petitions heard by the Judge.
    As it happens, Petitioning was tested recently by Graham Moore. Late last year he was arrested for petitioning The Sovereign outside Buckingham Palace which is legally Royal Park territory. He was charged with a breach of the Park Regulations concerning gatherings.
    He put forward Article 5 of the Bill of Rights as his defence. The Crown Prosecution Service then offered no evidence and the case was quietly dropped. He was testing a plan to start a campaign to petition The Crown outside all official buildings nationwide. Sounds like a good idea to me.
    I am aware of the reservations which many persons have about Mr. Robinson being a Zionist Agent but there is some force in the maxim “My enemies enemy is my friend”.

    John Hurst.

  8. It’s interesting that I googled your name to find this website, and found nothing.
    It’s only when I used DuckDuckGo that your site turned up as the first result.
    Proof again that there is something very wrong with Google and the world in general!

    • James Goddard | May 14, 2019 at 12:18 | Reply

      Apologies Paul for the late repsonse, I’ve only just seen the comment. How did it go?

  9. William Shackleton. | April 11, 2019 at 15:30 | Reply

    James, I sent you two messages through Wakeup UK regarding a hangout, I don’t know if you received them. If not could you contact me through my email? Thanks.

  10. John Dolotko | March 27, 2019 at 21:44 | Reply

    Good to see you back online James.

  11. Janet Creighton | March 27, 2019 at 21:30 | Reply

    Well done James! Behind you 100%!

  12. Donna sexton | March 27, 2019 at 20:36 | Reply

    Welcome back x

  13. Amanda Smith | March 27, 2019 at 20:01 | Reply

    Keep up the good work exposing the truth.

  14. Christopher lewis | March 27, 2019 at 19:34 | Reply

    GOOD LUCK FOR THE FUTURE. KEEP FIGHTING THE FIGHT FOR US IN THE UK.

  15. Promis Christodoulou. | March 27, 2019 at 19:29 | Reply

    Congratulations to you for not giving up.

  16. David massey | March 27, 2019 at 19:17 | Reply

    Wish you all the best in your new venture

  17. Well done James, wish you all the best in what you do.

  18. You need an email subscribe button, monkey mail integrates for free👍

  19. Kevin Selkirk | March 27, 2019 at 19:02 | Reply

    Keep me informed

  20. Andrew Ainsworth | March 27, 2019 at 18:59 | Reply

    Hi James Saved to favorites.. Good luck with the New Nazi Court system..

  21. mark desmond | March 27, 2019 at 18:39 | Reply

    good luck and keep at it this is our Cromwell moment which if our democracy was still intact would never have happened.
    will be in London friday

  22. Looking Good.:D

  23. Graham Stevens | March 27, 2019 at 18:11 | Reply

    Well done james this will make things a lot easier.
    Keep up the great work you are doing.
    True Patriot !

  24. Following ..Goodrich s.wales

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*