Harassment, and examples in and by Ukip
.
Please Be Sure To .
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
To Spread The Facts World Wide
.
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable!
.
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.
For the record the CPS defenition of Harassment, and examples in and by Ukip senior members & ‘dubious’ police!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
just for the record I thought it might be of help in the pursuit of the truth to note the OFFICIAL definition of Harassment as supplied by The CPS on their web page:
There is a great deal more information should you require it.
This does make it look very much as if the law is being abused by members of #Ukip in collusion with seem, by any standards, to be a collection of corrupt police officers.
It rather looks as if the ruse of threatening or bringing charges has been used, not with a view to seeking justice but with a view to suppressing discussion and facts – sheltered behind the all too frequently used pretence of the need for silence based upon ‘Sub Judice’! Is this a desperate move to try to hide criminal behaviour?
Harassment
In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the ‘causing alarm or distress’ offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and ‘putting people in fear of violence’ offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.
Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.
The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.
A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.
Closely connected groups may also be subjected to ‘collective’ harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.
Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as ‘stalking by proxy’. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.
For the original full CPS details of this
CLICK HEREI understand that notwithstanding the apparent abuse of law, as similarly used by the police use of terrorism laws to prosecute actions that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism as with their defence for murders they carry out and assaults where they claim operational secrecy requirements to shelter their criminal actions and no rational or reasonable prosecution occurs viz the brutal police assault on the news paper vendor Ian Tomlinson, which resulted in his death or the totally iresponsible use of lethal force that led to the execution of Charles de Menenez on the London underground.
I gather that there have been around a dozen OFFICIAL complaints made regarding the abuse of the law and criminal nature of the treatment of Jasna Badzak – all with full evidence and clear provenance. One wonders what the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) will do to try to obfuscate their clearly documented involvement and wriggle out of prosecution!
As an example I yet again draw your attention to the fact that not only did Annabelle Fuller indubitably steal a Blackberry phone device, correspondence and a House of Commons Pass – which is clearly a ‘security issue’ but she has freely and openly admitted she stole the items from the flat of Andrew Bridgen MP.
I am given to understand that it is all too likely that in order to cloud the issue she invented the implausible allegation that she had been sexually assaulted by Andrew Bridgen despite the fact that they were in the presence of a responsible third party and desp[ite the fact that despite the early hours of the morning she made two phone calls to Nigel Farage!
Surely with the mass of compelling evidence they have it is the duty of the police to arrest and charge Annabelle Fuller. I make this comment of my views based on the fact that it was announced in the press that the police wwere making enquiries three weeks ago
CLICK HERE and the fact she had stolen the items was knownon the day she was stopped by security leaving the building!
I understand that a very clear statement that Annabelle Fuller was targeting Andrew Bridgen outside the pub earlier that day was obtained from a senior Ukip elected member, which may explain some of the machinations currently taking placve to out individuals at the moment!
Just how long do the Met take to investigate a security crime?
Surely with the weight of evidence put before the authorities on this and many other matters it is time Ukip computers, Annabelle Fuller, Nigel Farage, Gerard Batten, John Moran, Douglas Denny and others were arrested, is it not, and just why havn’t they been?
Perhaps we will get some answers as a result of The Mayor of London’s Question time today where Boris Johnson is scheduled to be asked two specific questions related to these matters!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Reclaim YOUR Future
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
to Reclaim YOUR Future
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
TWITTER: Greg_LW
Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
Ukip-vs-EUkip 
We welcome comments but reserve the right to moderate & refuse libelous or offensive comments and those we choose to delete when written by unidentifiable individuals hidden in anonymity in a cowardly manner to defame or abuse. No comment has EVER been barred or deleted which is genuine & clearly authored by a named & identifiable individual. You will note many comments made have been commented on and even corrected by the blog owner. We welcome genuine comments.