Sourced from UK Blasting News
Sourced from UK Blasting News
I’ve been blogging since 2012 and across my three top blog platforms, I’ve attracted over 3 million views, having posted about 2,000 blogs. A top writer in the alternative media, I’m making my own contribution in bringing the sick and evil regime which controls our lives, to it’s knees.
Sussex Police in conjunction with Katy Bourne, their Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) have banned my blog on grounds of harassment.
It all started when I called Katy Bourne a liar. Which is my God given right to do so, considering on the day before the 2016 PCC election she wrote on a sponsored Facebook post; that she’s never “claimed for expenses during her term in office.”
I know its a blatant lie because her office publicly published her expense claims which shows that she had indeed claimed expenses while during her term in office.
Katy Bourne is paid £85,000 a year to hold the Chief Constable to account, to set the police priorities and to administer a £250 million budget. Can she be trusted with this immense responsibility while she lies about £385 worth of expenses?
According to the official definition of harassment, anyone can call another person a liar if;
Its the truth, so much so that the Independent Police Complaint’s Commission (IPCC) have launched a criminal investigation into Katy Bourne, which is on-going and is expected to report it’s findings soon.
Its in my honest opinion because when I first discovered Katy Bourne had claimed expenses, (after promising the public she wouldn’t), I wrote her an email highlighting this error, to which she acknowledged her “error” and refunded a £322 train fare to Birmingham.
I’m exposing a crime, because as the IPCC investigation acknowledges; to make a false statement to influence a PCC election is a criminal breach of s106 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983.
As I’ve made clear on many occasions. I have not harassed anyone. I have simply delivered an extra layer of public scrutiny, which Katy Bourne welcomed when she pledged her Oath of Office.
Since taking on the mantle of Shadow Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (SSPCC) following the election of Katy Bourne in 2012, many people have approached me with their stories of police corruption; which have all been chronicled and reported on the SSPCC blog platform.
The fact that my blog has been banned, means that these stories have been banned too.
My SSPCC blog was originally banned in July 2016; but I successfully argued for it to be reinstated due to the IPCC investigation, which vindicated my claims Bourne lied to the public.
On the 12 July 2016 you removed my blog, www.shadowsussexpolicecrimecommissioner.blogspot.co.uk from the internet, citing HARASSMENT as the reason for .
Now rather than approach me personally, Bourne, the Police and Mark Streater (her number one) prefer to complain about me behind my back, and use more devious means to silence me.
You wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the 24 cases of misconduct Streater investigated in relation to Sussex Police; he found all 24 cases to be ‘unsubstantiated,’ requiring no further action.
A complaint that the electorate was misled over the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner’s expenses is being investigated by the police watchdog.
Since getting my blog back up and running, I thought I’d won and that it’ll be the end of it…
Hence I posted a further three blogs calling into question the involvement of Sussex Police in the 2015 Shoreham air-show crash and the 2016 Camber Sands tragedy.
Cover up : Noun 1. an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime. There can be no denying …
Do you remember the fuss about two Sussex Police officers taking a selfie at the scene of the Shoreham air-show crash and sending it to a colleague with the hash-tag – Human Barbeque? Read mo…
Camber Sands has been visited by sun seekers for a hundred years and then all of a sudden, six fit and healthy young men die with-in a few weeks of each other.
I can only assume Streater contacted the Google Blogger’s Team and used the ‘Harassment’ card for a second time.
I fervently deny harassing anyone; just as I fervently deny being a paedophile.
Read more: Matt Taylor fervently denies being a paedophile.
Sussex Police have banned a blog on grounds of harassment against Katy Bourne, the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (SPCC)
Exposing Corporate Frauds and Bringing Down the Chain Of Command Within the Lies Corruption Money Laundering and much more.
Freedom Talk Radio Listener based award-winning community radio station serving The Highlands Of Scotland and the towns and villages within the Caithness And Sutherland Areas.
Our name comes from Freedom Talk Liberty Justice. We broadcast Talk Radio hit music from the last 50 years plus specialist programmes, news and local community information, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Unlike commercial radio, Freedom Talk Radio is a community station.
This means we are a non-profit organisation. We are here to inform and entertain the people about how to avoid the injustices of the world as well as playing an active part in the community and providing training opportunities.
Cover up : Noun
1. an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.
There can be no denying there is a cover-up in place to hide the truth about the Shoreham air-show crash.
Its not a conspiracy theory, it’s happened.
High Court ruling: Police refused access to pilot statements over Shoreham Airshow crash.
An attempt to prevent Sussex Police discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime on the 22 August 2015, at the Shoreham air-show, has been made after The High Court refused Sussex Police access to records held by the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB), about what happened on that fateful day.
Specifically; Sussex Police are being prevented to know exactly what the pilot, Andrew Hill said in the moments after the crash, and what the data from the flight recorder revealed. The Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Giles York has been granted a copy of the cockpit footage, which former AAIB investigator Phil Giles says will provide the police with enough information to conclude their investigation.
With the public left scratching their heads as to why the AAIB are keeping crucial evidence secret, Sussex Police appear to totally understand. Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz said, “We accept the reasons why our request has not been granted in full.”
But the public are none the wiser
A spokesman for AAIB said, “The AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their release. We note today’s judgment and will now release the film footage to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.”
As the comments from the public point out:
While some members of the public are left guessing as to why Andrew Hill’s comments immediately after the crash are not being used in evidence:
The general consensus from the public:
Even Andy McDonald, the Shadow Secretary for Transport, said:
Andrew Hill – The Miracle Man
Mystery has surrounded the Shoreham air-show crash from the very out-set. Just how Andrew Hill miraculously survived the immense fire-ball without a cut or a graze is a miracle.
At the time the AAIB report said the aircraft broke into four main pieces which came to rest close together approximately 243m from the initial ground contact, in a shallow overgrown depression to the south of the A27.
The report goes on to say that investigators are not sure whether Mr Hill attempted to eject from the craft or was forcibly removed due to the significant impact. Investigators wrote: ‘During the initial part of the impact sequence the jettisonable aircraft canopy was released, landing in a tree close to the main aircraft wreckage. During the latter part of the impact sequence, both the pilot and his seat were thrown clear from the cockpit.’
Andrew Hill has been at the centre of the police investigation into the Shoreham Air-show disaster which claimed the lives of 11 men one year ago.
He spent weeks in an induced coma but miraculously survived and has since made a full recovery.
He was first spotted on his feet again last October when he was pictured walking in jeans and denim shirt, carrying a water bottle.
Police interviewed him under caution last December. He was not arrested. Then five months after the August 22 tragedy, images emerged of him driving a £40,000 Porsche Boxster.
Having already uncovered a cover-up involving Sussex Police, it comes as no surprise that they find themselves embroiled in another.
The country’s leading conspiracy researcher Chris Spivey has been vocal in his belief that the Shoreham air-show crash was a false flag event in the same league as the 7/7 London bombing, the Woolwich murder and the Paris attacks.
He said in his article “The Shoreham Plane Crash Part 1” dated 09 September 2015
“The Shoreham plane crash is without doubt the most easily pulled apart government hoax that I have investigated to date.
Indeed, it would seem that the more ambitious the hoaxes get, the more the script writers have to try and shore the old fanny up with the usual tell tale signs that point to a fraud having been committed – which is a bit of a Catch 22 situation for them really.
Mind you, it is no exaggeration to say that the Shoreham Flight Shite needed a lot of shoring up and as such every single indicator of a government hoax had to be brought into play… Or at least it did in their minds.
But all the same, having said that I also have to say that the hoax was a mighty ambitious project by anyones standards – especially going on their past Am-Dram efforts – and indeed, it must doubtlessly have taken an awful lot of planning as well as having been a logistical nightmare to set up.”
In light of Chris Spivey’s allegations that not everything is what it seems, I asked Sussex Police to comment on his allegations and this is how they responded:
I write in connection with your request for information relating to Shoreham Air Show.
I can confirm your request has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested.
Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Sussex Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question; and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
The exemptions applicable to the information refused are;
Section 30 – Investigations and proceedings conducted by the Public authority.
Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to consider the public interest to ensure neither confirming or denying information is held is appropriate.
Overall Harm in Confirming or Denying that Information is held
Modern-day policing is intelligence led which is particularly pertinent with regard to any current investigation. The National Intelligence Model is adhered to by all police forces across England and Wales. It is a business process with an intention to provide focus to operational policing and to achieve a disproportionately greater impact from the resources applied to any problem. It is dependant on a clear framework of analysis of information and intelligence allowing a problem solving approach to law enforcement crime prevention techniques. To confirm whether or not Sussex Police has carried out a specific investigation would undermine the ongoing operation..
The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built. The Police Service has a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those than plan to commit crime. By confirming whether or not a specific line of enquiry has been used could directly influence the stages of that process, jeopardise current investigations, HM Coroner’s investigation, prejudice future law enforcement, the judicial process and any subsequent civil proceedings.
In order to fully investigate incidents it is vital that the police have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to assist in the investigative process to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of offenders who have committed offences.
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
Confirming or denying that information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public improving their knowledge and understanding of the investigatory process and may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to assist with investigations and reduce crime which could assist with the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, as all police investigations are publicly funded, confirmation that information is held would provide transparency with regard to the allocation of force budgets.
This in turn would highlight where police resources are being targeted and the public are entitled to know how public funds are spent, particularly in the current economic climate.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that any other information is held
Confirmation that information is held would prejudice how investigations are carried out in the future by revealing details of investigative activity. This would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and affect Sussex Police law enforcement capabilities. Confirmation would also undermine the partnership approach to investigations. To disclose where these investigations are being undertaken to the world would seriously undermine the prevention or detection of crime and the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying whether information pertinent to this request exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, various tactical tools may be used to gather information relating to high profile investigative activity.
Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor any investigative activity and specifically current and ongoing investigations could weaken that process.
In addition any disclosure by Sussex Police that places an investigation at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in us. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information exists.
No inference can be drawn from this refusal that information is or isn’t held.
Or in other words; its none of your business and we wouldn’t tell you anyway!
“The Shoreham plane crash is without doubt the most easily pulled apart government hoax that I have investigated to date.”
While Chris Spivey contends that the people who died that day were MI5 constructs and that the whole event was a staged event for reasons not yet fully understood; others like leading ufologist Richard Lennie and astrophotographer John Walson, pointed the blame to a UFO collision.
Sussex Police were quick to reply to the UFO crash theory by saying how “very grateful” they were for the information, but not so forthcoming when accused of being involved in a cover-up. (of which it appears they are becoming quite adapt in doing so.)
Make no mistakes, a cover-up is in full swing and everyone knows it.
Even local MP’s are calling for changes to the law after hearing that Sussex police were refused access to potentially crucial information about the cause of the Shoreham Airshow crash.
Brighton Pavilion MP and joint Leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas said: “This judgment appears to hinder a crucial police investigation into this tragic incident, and it could set a worrying precedent. We need an open justice system that best learns from the past and prevents tragedies like this occurring.”
While Portslade and Hove Labour MP, Peter Kyle said “We are testing the boundaries of this law but that shouldn’t prohibit giving the families of victims the justice they need. If they can’t sort this out then maybe the law needs to be re-examined.”
Unrelenting in his goal of covering up what actually happened that day, Justice Singh said allowing police access to the statements made by Andy Hill would cause a “serious and obvious chilling effect which would tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the candour which is necessary. This would seriously hamper future accident investigations and protection of public safety by the learning of lessons which may help prevent similar accidents.”
He also denied access to details of experiments and tests because the reports were likely to be made public in the AAIB’s final findings and because there was “no reason why the police could not themselves investigate”.
James Healy-Pratt, the head of aviation at Stewarts Law lawyer who is representing six victims’ families, welcomed the judgment as a “significant development” which he hoped would speed up the investigation.
He added: “There are no real surprises here and this is the expected result.”
Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz from Sussex Police said the ruling would allow his team to progress the investigation, adding: “We understand legally this case is without precedent in England and Wales and we accept the reasons why our request has not been granted in full.”
“As we have said before, this is an extraordinarily complex investigation, but we remain committed to finding answers for the families and friends of those who died.”
The very fact the AAIB have with-held information which Sussex Police went to the High Court to release, tells us the power struggle which is going on behind the scenes. As the Queen herself once alluded to; there are dark forces at work in this country of which the public have little or no knowledge about.
In much the same way that six healthy fit young men do not drown in rip-tides off Camber Sands, so too, doesn’t a pilot survive unscathed from an infernal fire ball which disintegrates his plane and kills 11 men on the ground.
The AAIB know the truth but they aren’t telling us.
Be it a UFO collision or a false flag event; there is a cover-up in full swing regarding the Shoreham air-show crash and that’s a fact!
Child abuse is the vile crime which holds the perverse British Establishment together.
Nearly every day more and more evidence is coming to light that demonstrates the huge and monstrous scale of child abuse in modern day Britain.
Take for example the news story in the Daily Mail this week, “There are so many paedophiles in England and Wales that they cannot all be jailed, a police chief warned today.”
Even Queen Elizabeth II has been implicated in the disappearance of 10 native Canadian children in 1964.
Our nation’s best loved children presenters have been exposed as dangerous paedophiles, as have our best loved politicians and entertainers.
Child-abuse is all around us, being committed by the world’s most prominent people, behind the shadows and within touching distance of us all.
According to the NSPCC there are currently over 57,000 children identified as being abused in the UK today. Though most alarmingly is that the NSPCC go further to admit that they don’t exactly know how many children in the UK are being abused, making 57,000 a conservative estimate.
Remember the then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister Theresa May, revealed that child-abuse is “woven, covertly, into the fabric” of British society and the then Prime Minister David Cameron said children in Britain have suffered sexual abuse on an “industrial scale”.
Do you remember when the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) reported the disturbing news that more than 1,433 suspects have been identified by police, including politicians and celebrities, probing historical child-abuse sex allegations?
Of the 1433 suspects, 216 are now dead, 261 as people classified as having public prominence, with 135 coming from TV, film and radio.
These perpetrators are still at large; free to do as they wilt to the most vulnerable people in our society.
Even the most skeptical observer must admit that a child-abuse cover-up is in full swing.
The then Home Secretary, Theresa May, set up a child-abuse enquiry to fail. Losing one Chairwoman is a mistake; losing two is a failure and losing three is a cover-up. – The Three Witches of Child-abuse Cover-up – Lady Butler-Sloss, Fiona Woolf and Lowell Goddard.
This is not with-standing the scandalous deletion of child sex abuse testimonies of thousands of victims. Blamed on a ‘glitch,’ all testimonies submitted through the government’s official inquiry website set up by Theresa May, were ‘instantly and permanently deleted’ before reaching staff.
The level of incompetence and failure is criminal.
The world’s greatest whistleblower, Greg Hallett from New Zealand, tells us that the world is run on shame. Political leaders are put into positions of power by influential banking cartels, who are easily blackmailed due to their history of sexual perversions and child abuse crimes.
We must never forget that our Prime Ministers are given their position and power by the Queen. Meeting the Queen once a week, 52 weeks a year clearly demonstrates that Queen Elizabeth II is at the center of Government and knows exactly what’s going on in any given day.
Lets never forget what The Coleman Experience blog has to say about our illustrious Queen, Elizabeth II:
“Beloved monarch Bettie is what you might call the UK’s number one brothel ‘madame’, much like Cynthia Payne or Ghisele Maxwell.”
All evidence paints Buckingham Palace as the Den of Peadophila. You only need to look at the Queen’s Knighthood list, which more and more resembles a sex registers list.
We are taught that our nation’s secret services are the best equipped and intelligent in the world. Everyone who is put forward to a Knighthood is thoroughly vetted and investigated.
To imply MI5 and MI6 never knew Jimmy Savile was a dangerous paedophile is an insult to our intelligence.
Lets us never forget that Jimmy Savile was also Knighted by the Pope John Paul II.
This is what The Coleman Experience has to say about the Queen’s Privy Council:
“The Privy Council is actually a key component of this country’s vast and sordid VIP child-raping ring.”
Greg Hallett is vocal in his contention that the Windsor Royal family was infiltrated by a known paedophile in the guise of Lord Mountbatten. As uncle to Prince Phillip, it was he who placed a paedophile at the heart of the Royal family, a paedophile who since has gone on to spread his criminal perversion to his sons and daughters.
As The Coleman Experience is quick to remind us, “Her whole family is packed full of paedophiles and they love nothing better than raping, torturing and then murdering children in batshit rituals that add a little frisson to their dull lives.”
Now I don’t know about you, but from my point of view (as once a Royal Military Policeman, of whom I pledged an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, to kill and die for country,) I am appalled and shocked that our Royal family are connected with known paedophiles and are accused of being Satanic cult members, who regularly commit abuse and murder of children.
These are the most gravest allegations which anyone can make to another. Being born into a Royal family brings no defence from the long arm of the Law.
Read more: Arrest Warrants issued against David Cameron and Queen Elizabeth for sexual crimes against children.
It seems to me that British society is living in a daydream in which everything is rosy and bright. That our Queen is a sweet old lady who loves her subjects and country and that our Parliamentarians are honourable fellows who bend over backwards in the interests of the electorate they represent.
Alas it is all a fraud because you only need to lift up the veil of deceit, and looking underneath realize there is a wealth of allegations and conjecture that not everything is what it seems.
The bottom line is that we, us, as a nation, every man and women calling ourselves a British citizen, are failing our children
Shame on all of us. All our hands are painted red with the blood of the victims of whom we turn our ears, eyes and backs to.
Brighton’s Chief Reporter from The Argus newspaper, Emily Walker, has launched a scathing attack against ex Royal Military Policeman and independent parliamentary candidate Matt Taylor, for waging a vendetta against Sussex Police.
Having reported on Katy Bourne and cases of police corruption since 2012, Matt Taylor has become Katy Bourne’s greatest critic, who claims to be adding an extra layer of public scrutiny and accountability to elected PCC’s.
With all criticism of Katy Bourne being systematically wiped clean from the internet, Mark Streater, Katy Bourne’s reported lover and Chief Monitoring Officer, has made harassment and defamation complaints to Youtube, Google and UK Blasting News.
From being called a ‘fake,’ to a ‘fraud’ to a ‘liar,’ Matt Taylor has publicly called Katy Bourne a variety of defamatory names, but says he has done so because “its in the public interest that this information is made public.”
Emily Walker writes in disagreement, “The majority of what you said is libellous and cannot be substantiated.”
Whilst libel is a civilian matter; neither Katy Bourne or Sussex Police Chief Constable Giles York has ever commenced private civilian action against Matt Taylor for being publicly called ‘liars’ since 2012.
Having continuously and repeatedly made the claim that both Katy Bourne and Giles York have lied while in public office, Matt Taylor is under the impression that both Katy Bourne and Giles York acknowledge they have lied by not initiating libel proceedings against him.
Emily Walker continues, “As you now appear to be investigative journalist I am sure you now understand libel law well enough to see the legal issues of your claims.”
Matt Taylor says in response, “I respect all libel and slander laws and always present serious allegations and claims, with its matching evidence. The truth is on my side and no one can agree with the truth.”
Katy Bourne has recently come under fire for lying about her expenses during the second Police and Crime Commissioner elections in 2016.
The latest scandal to hit Katy Bourne and Giles York is the very serious allegation that Sussex Police officers aided and abetted fake baliffs in evicting a disabled woman and her family from their family home of 20 years.
Matt Taylor maintains he hasn’t broken any libel laws and has demonstrated evidence of his claims, by insisting his information has been sourced from the primary witness in the case.
He said, “The evidence is Juliette’s testimony. How can I be guilty of libel when she is happy to repeat her claims in a Court of Law.”
While Emily Walker counteracts, “Whilst I did feel that Juliet’s case warranted investigating to be sidetracked by your vendetta against Sussex Police without any evidence that they were complicit in this clouds the real issues affecting her.”
Accusing Matt Taylor of harassing The Argus staff, Emily Walker makes her distain of his unique investigative journalism, “As you now appear to be investigative journalist I am sure you now understand libel law well enough to see the legal issues of your claims. In your role as a journalist should I assume you are now dealing with Juliette’s story and we should stay out of it? There is no need for you to continue to harass other Argus staff about this story.”
Matt Taylor – Investigate Journalist – www.taylorservices.org.uk
Matt Taylor responds to the claim of vendetta against Sussex Police, Giles York and Katy Bourne, “I dispute that all my claims against Sussex Police are libellous. I take great steps in substantiating everything I claim with evidence.”
Matt Taylor continues to plead for Juliette’s case.
“Please don’t stay out of this story… Juliette and her family need you.
I’m just an amateur journalist picking up stories which people can’t get help from anywhere else.
Please don’t let my involvement in this matter, stop your own investigation.
I will back off and will stop harassing your staff (though I dispute I’m harassing them; I only sent a couple of emails which can be deleted in a moment. To accuse me of harassing Argus staff is a bit strong and you have no evidence to substantiate this libellous claim against me!)
Lets remain friends and not enemies.”
To which Emily Walker kindly replied:
“Ha, okay matt.
Technically if I dont publish the claim that you are harassing us then it can’t be libel. But the libel lecture’s over!
We can stay friends!”
Other claims by Matt Taylor include: