All Mainstream Media is Trauma Based Mind Control and Predictive Programming

[strengthandcourage]

All of it. This includes both news media and entertainment/fiction.

 

Absolutely all of it is designed to imprint us and get us familiarized with the new cages and prisons we will be living in in the near future, or simply to upset and traumatize.

 

Simultaneously, each of these forms of media also highlights how we can DEFEAT those who seek to imprison us.

 

This is the gambit of the evil-doers in power: THEY MUST TELL US EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO TO US, AND NEVER IMPOSE ANYTHING WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY WE ARE SUBJECT TO IS ONLY WITH OUR CONSENT. WE CAN OPT OUT AT ANY TIME.

 

For example, with face masks. None of us have to wear them or use them. Ever. All we have to do when questioned, is to simply state: "medically exempt." Or, you can just ignore them. Game over. Now, if you choose to "fight" against face masks when you could simply ignore this pseudo-requirement on absolutely solid legal and moral grounds, then you face hazards and risks associated with fighting any phantom: you can never win.

 

You can't defeat something which doesn't exist: example: "coronavirus."

Edited August 10, 2020 by strengthandcourage

[Seeker]

I do wonder if the mask Snapchat filter was predictive programming, it was such a popular and widely used filter, subconsciously makes people who tried it out familiar with how they’d look with a mask on, a couple of examples from google images

[Michi713]

The other night late at night I sat alone in front of the TV for about half an hour.  Wanted to zone out. 

When the commercials came on there was this pulsing of light.  First it was random, then midway through the commercials it took on a definite pattern, like a morse code situation.  
 

The lights were fixed into the commercials.  I covered my eyes after a minute cause it hurt, but my brain was still being affected despite averting my eyes.  It was like pulses in my head.  Then it went away and the commercials resumed as normal.  

[Orange Alert]

35 minutes ago, Michi713 said:

The other night late at night I sat alone in front of the TV for about half an hour.  Wanted to zone out. 

When the commercials came on there was this pulsing of light.  First it was random, then midway through the commercials it took on a definite pattern, like a morse code situation.  
 

The lights were fixed into the commercials.  I covered my eyes after a minute cause it hurt, but my brain was still being affected despite averting my eyes.  It was like pulses in my head.  Then it went away and the commercials resumed as normal.  

 

You have been subjected to Speed Learn.

 

From The Prisoner, 53 years ago.

 

[Mr H]

I would like to add one to the original list, which I was pretty ignorant of until fairly recently.

 

A lot of History is completely fake with the purposes of propaganda also.

[Michi713]

26 minutes ago, Orange Alert said:

 

You have been subjected to Speed Learn.

 

Oh no this is horrible!   What did I learn?  Doritos, Joe Biden good man.

[Orange Alert]

46 minutes ago, Michi713 said:

Oh no this is horrible!   What did I learn?  Doritos, Joe Biden good man.

 

Doritos, Joe Biden good man.

 

I can't watch TV as I really find it noxious.  If someone has the TV on in their house, the adverts, the news and very much else broadcasted is quite unpleasent.  I suppose, I have what ex-smokers commonly experience, is that they can't stand the smell of cigarattes once they have detoxed.

 

When I see all the mask compliant people, even wearing masks out in the street, those who have fully bought into the COVID cult, I say to myself, with a chuckle, they have been watching too much TV news and adverts.

 

 

 

 

 

[shadowmoon]

15 hours ago, Orange Alert said:

 

Doritos, Joe Biden good man.

 

I can't watch TV as I really find it noxious.  If someone has the TV on in their house, the adverts, the news and very much else broadcasted is quite unpleasent.  I suppose, I have what ex-smokers commonly experience, is that they can't stand the smell of cigarattes once they have detoxed.

 

When I see all the mask compliant people, even wearing masks out in the street, those who have fully bought into the COVID cult, I say to myself, with a chuckle, they have been watching too much TV news and adverts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have cut my tv viewing down to virtually zero,  switched it on the other day & lasted about 2 minutes before off it went.

Just been looking at the dailymail site.. its the usual "some bimbo in her bikini prances around the beach." BUT the majority of these bimbo's now have masks on.. p.r.o.g.r.a.m.m.i.n.g

 

[Smokestack Lightnin']

On 8/10/2020 at 5:28 AM, strengthandcourage said:

All of it. This includes both news media and entertainment/fiction.

 

Absolutely all of it is designed to imprint us and get us familiarized with the new cages and prisons we will be living in in the near future, or simply to upset and traumatize.

On 8/10/2020 at 5:28 AM, strengthandcourage said:

For example, with face masks. None of us have to wear them or use them. Ever. All we have to do when questioned, is to simply state: "medically exempt." Or, you can just ignore them. Game over.

Simultaneously, each of these forms of media also highlights how we can DEFEAT those who seek to imprison us.

 

This is the gambit of the evil-doers in power: THEY MUST TELL US EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO TO US, AND NEVER IMPOSE ANYTHING WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY WE ARE SUBJECT TO IS ONLY WITH OUR CONSENT. WE CAN OPT OUT AT ANY TIME.

 

For example, with face masks. None of us have to wear them or use them. Ever. All we have to do when questioned, is to simply state: "medically exempt." Or, you can just ignore them. Game over. Now, if you choose to "fight" against face masks when you could simply ignore this pseudo-requirement on absolutely solid legal and moral grounds, then you face hazards and risks associated with fighting any phantom: you can never win.

 

You can't defeat something which doesn't exist: example: "coronavirus."

 

[Smokestack Lightnin']

"For example, with face masks. None of us have to wear them or use them. Ever. All we have to do when questioned, is to simply state: "medically exempt." Or, you can just ignore them. Game over."

 

Something tells me that you really haven't grasped the reality of what's happening outside your own home. 

 

 

 

[strengthandcourage]

 

 

She was subject to force not because she was not wearing a face mask, but because she was resisting arrest. In the videos above, you notice two things:

 

1. she admits that she was confrontational and abusive towards the officer, she gave him the middle finger, when the officer asked why she was not wearing a mask.

2. the officer attempts to restrain her, either because he is concerned about a possibility of her attacking him (see no.1), or because he was initiating an arrest. 

3. she has refused to comply by showing ID, and/or exemption, been verbally abusive, and is now resisting arrest after possibly several lawful orders. 

4. she kicks a second officer repeatedly

5. the officer rolls her over to her back to handcuff her in a rather gentle sweep.

6. He appears to sit on her lower back and butt, which would not restrict breathing, and probably not painful if his weight is on her bum

7. the citizen then rolls back on to her stomach, and refuses to comply several times to arrest. He attempts to control her neck (unnecessary as wrist control is what he's after).

8. the citizen is interviewed later, and is clearly not injured, and is smiling throughout the post arrest interview

9. it is unlawful for a citizen to interfere with the lawful activity of a police officer. Police can lawfully order citizens to move away from an officer or officers effecting an arrest.

 

 

That is certainly not a strategy I would recommend or try personally. Police can lawfully order a citizen to provide identification and it may be lawful to require documentation of an exemption (I doubt it, but possible). 

 

If you do not comply with lawful orders by an officer, you are subject to arrest, period. If you are verbally or physically belligerent, and the officer fears for their safety, you can be lawfully restrained. 

 

The officer utilized some degree of force, grabbing her by the arm, and the woman then clearly resisted, and then the officer escalated use of force. A choke hold is probably excessive in this case regardless. Sitting on her lower back which did not restrict her breathing is almost certainly not. 

 

Having said that, it is quite clear that almost every western country is operating unlawfully, treating guidelines and recommendations as if they were lawful, which is almost always unconstitutional. 

 

However, this does not give citizens a right to abuse officers, resist complying with lawful orders or to resist arrest after having done so. 

 

So this woman in no way shape or form followed the model I indicated. 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by strengthandcourage

[Mr H]

Mainstream media is disgusting and evil. I don't use those words lightly. Something should be done about them. They actually have an ethical role to play to challenge the state, and they don't do it and are now part of the state... Really riles me...

 

Beautiful song by Mike Love on this type of control.

 

 

[EnigmaticWorld]

On 8/10/2020 at 4:48 AM, Seeker said:

I do wonder if the mask Snapchat filter was predictive programming, it was such a popular and widely used filter, subconsciously makes people who tried it out familiar with how they’d look with a mask on, a couple of examples from google images

 

It's crazy how so many people are willing to trade their biometrics for some stupid gimmicky filters, especially when the app has a spook as a logo.

[Smokestack Lightnin']

11 hours ago, strengthandcourage said:

 

 

She was subject to force not because she was not wearing a face mask, but because she was resisting arrest. In the videos above, you notice two things:

 

1. she admits that she was confrontational and abusive towards the officer, she gave him the middle finger, when the officer asked why she was not wearing a mask.

2. the officer attempts to restrain her, either because he is concerned about a possibility of her attacking him (see no.1), or because he was initiating an arrest. 

3. she has refused to comply by showing ID, and/or exemption, been verbally abusive, and is now resisting arrest after possibly several lawful orders. 

4. she kicks a second officer repeatedly

5. the officer rolls her over to her back to handcuff her in a rather gentle sweep.

6. He appears to sit on her lower back and butt, which would not restrict breathing, and probably not painful if his weight is on her bum

7. the citizen then rolls back on to her stomach, and refuses to comply several times to arrest. He attempts to control her neck (unnecessary as wrist control is what he's after).

8. the citizen is interviewed later, and is clearly not injured, and is smiling throughout the post arrest interview

9. it is unlawful for a citizen to interfere with the lawful activity of a police officer. Police can lawfully order citizens to move away from an officer or officers effecting an arrest.

 

 

That is certainly not a strategy I would recommend or try personally. Police can lawfully order a citizen to provide identification and it may be lawful to require documentation of an exemption (I doubt it, but possible). 

 

If you do not comply with lawful orders by an officer, you are subject to arrest, period. If you are verbally or physically belligerent, and the officer fears for their safety, you can be lawfully restrained. 

 

The officer utilized some degree of force, grabbing her by the arm, and the woman then clearly resisted, and then the officer escalated use of force. A choke hold is probably excessive in this case regardless. Sitting on her lower back which did not restrict her breathing is almost certainly not. 

 

Having said that, it is quite clear that almost every western country is operating unlawfully, treating guidelines and recommendations as if they were lawful, which is almost always unconstitutional. 

 

However, this does not give citizens a right to abuse officers, resist complying with lawful orders or to resist arrest after having done so. 

 

So this woman in no way shape or form followed the model I indicated. 

 

Your guidelines are all fine and dandy if you happen to come from a nice middle class family, work in a bank and have been sheltered throughout your life from all forms of state abuse. I've read a few books now on the dark side of Britain and wonder why these people don't lash out more. The thousands of female children who were drugged and gang raped by Pakistani Muslims for example. which had the police arresting victims (for being drunk and their fathers for complaining.)   If you don't follow Crimebodge's channel on, YT you should.

Personally, I  wouldn't give the police the steam of my urine in most cases.

Here, a 21 year old is guilty of uncouth behavior by sticking her finger up at this policeman. He should understand that most people detest the police now because a lot of them love being aggressive with the public because they can get away with it. There were two of them FGS. I've seen two police detain six or seven people in London.

Judging by the boyfriend's dress style, they look more hippy than hyper. Half the police out on the streets are just brain dead thugs now like this guy. She probably said she was exempt while showing the finger just because of his aggressive attitude knowing that she was in the right. As for laughing during the TV interview....immaturity, and excitement at being on national TV and global internet.  I hope both officers are booted out. The female could have intervened but as usual with female police officers, they only rush in (with their mouths) as soon as any situation is controlled. Absolutely useless !    

Edited August 13, 2020 by Smokestack Lightnin'

[Seeker]

3 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

It's crazy how so many people are willing to trade their biometrics for some stupid gimmicky filters, especially when the app has a spook as a logo.

Lol I never even thought about the logo  

[EnigmaticWorld]

6 minutes ago, Seeker said:

Lol I never even thought about the logo  

 

Yeah the official story is that the logo is called Ghostface Chillah, based on Ghostface Killah of the Wu-Tang Clan, and just like a ghost, you can only see the Snapchat images briefly before they disappear. I'm not buying that though, but maybe I'm just being paranoid. lol

Edited August 13, 2020 by EnigmaticWorld

[Michi713]

@Orange Alert

 

Made my family watch the first episode of The Prisoner last night and my kid loves the “big gum bubble!”

[strengthandcourage]

5 hours ago, Smokestack Lightnin' said:

Your guidelines are all fine and dandy if you happen to come from a nice middle class family, work in a bank and have been sheltered throughout your life from all forms of state abuse. I've read a few books now on the dark side of Britain and wonder why these people don't lash out more. The thousands of female children who were drugged and gang raped by Pakistani Muslims for example. which had the police arresting victims (for being drunk and their fathers for complaining.)   If you don't follow Crimebodge's channel on, YT you should.

Personally, I  wouldn't give the police the steam of my urine in most cases.

Here, a 21 year old is guilty of uncouth behavior by sticking her finger up at this policeman. He should understand that most people detest the police now because a lot of them love being aggressive with the public because they can get away with it. There were two of them FGS. I've seen two police detain six or seven people in London.

Judging by the boyfriend's dress style, they look more hippy than hyper. Half the police out on the streets are just brain dead thugs now like this guy. She probably said she was exempt while showing the finger just because of his aggressive attitude knowing that she was in the right. As for laughing during the TV interview....immaturity, and excitement at being on national TV and global internet.  I hope both officers are booted out. The female could have intervened but as usual with female police officers, they only rush in (with their mouths) as soon as any situation is controlled. Absolutely useless !    

 

Now you have changed your tune quite a bit. You claimed I was not portraying the situation accurately. The reality is is that you took a small fragment of a video and claimed it was an instance of police brutality. Far from it.

 

Now you claim that anyone can behave in any manner they like, as long as the person subject to their illegal behavior is unlikeable or unpopular. This claim is out of touch with reality. Citizens must behave lawfully. There are instances where police do not, and I disagree with this but so far the "rights" of some officers to lie in specific situations has gone unchallenged. 

 

But now you are making the claim that total anarchic lawlessness is always justified if a target is unpopular or deemed unlikeable in your subjective opinion. This position is without merit. This is what has led to BLM and antifa looting, rioting, pillaging, murders and assaults of every kind. 

 

The reality is that a citizen failed to comply with lawful orders from a police officer. Once you do so, you are subject to arrest. After being subject to arrest, she resisted arrest, which is another crime. Third, she was not "choked." The officer utilized neck control without restricting her breathing. The sweep as I mentioned, was as gentle a sweep as I have ever seen. The officer further controlled her movements by applying his weight in a manner in which injury to the citizen would be impossible. Neck control doesn't look good, it's not necessary, but an officer can absolutely escalate force when a suspect resists lawful arrest.

 

The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times. However, the "suspect"/citizen did not. An officer can ask a question. An officer can require someone to identify themselves. This is lawful. Pretty much everything the officer did was "by the book" appearances aside.

 

And why did you bring Paki rape gangs into the conversation?!? That is so far off topic it is laughable.

 

And the appearance of the boyfriend? It's irrelevant also. 

You keep changing your argument and introduce ancillary irrelevant points to distract from the fact that no, you don't grasp the reality of the situation because you refused to gather the relevant facts in the first place.

 

After the relevant evidence was introdued you now claim that anyone can do anything to anyone at anytime regardless of the law as long as you "don't like them." This is completely ludicrous, by any standard. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by strengthandcourage

[Smokestack Lightnin']

2 hours ago, strengthandcourage said:

 

Now you have changed your tune quite a bit. You claimed I was not portraying the situation accurately. The reality is is that you took a small fragment of a video and claimed it was an instance of police brutality. Far from it.

 

Now you claim that anyone can behave in any manner they like, as long as the person subject to their illegal behavior is unlikeable or unpopular. This claim is out of touch with reality. Citizens must behave lawfully. There are instances where police do not, and I disagree with this but so far the "rights" of some officers to lie in specific situations has gone unchallenged. 

 

But now you are making the claim that total anarchic lawlessness is always justified if a target is unpopular or deemed unlikeable in your subjective opinion. This position is without merit. This is what has led to BLM and antifa looting, rioting, pillaging, murders and assaults of every kind. 

 

The reality is that a citizen failed to comply with lawful orders from a police officer. Once you do so, you are subject to arrest. After being subject to arrest, she resisted arrest, which is another crime. Third, she was not "choked." The officer utilized neck control without restricting her breathing. The sweep as I mentioned, was as gentle a sweep as I have ever seen. The officer further controlled her movements by applying his weight in a manner in which injury to the citizen would be impossible. Neck control doesn't look good, it's not necessary, but an officer can absolutely escalate force when a suspect resists lawful arrest.

 

The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times. However, the "suspect"/citizen did not. An officer can ask a question. An officer can require someone to identify themselves. This is lawful. Pretty much everything the officer did was "by the book" appearances aside.

 

And why did you bring Paki rape gangs into the conversation?!? That is so far off topic it is laughable.

 

And the appearance of the boyfriend? It's irrelevant also. 

You keep changing your argument and introduce ancillary irrelevant points to distract from the fact that no, you don't grasp the reality of the situation because you refused to gather the relevant facts in the first place.

 

After the relevant evidence was introdued you now claim that anyone can do anything to anyone at anytime regardless of the law as long as you "don't like them." This is completely ludicrous, by any standard. 

Judging by your prickly reaction, it sounds like you have never experienced any form of malevolence whatsoever by morally bankrupt police officers. Your justification of this video leads me to assume you are actually in the police or perhaps retired (whereby you will be telling all newly  acquainted people you meet that you were a prison officer to obviously avoid the shame.) 

 

For the sake of clarity here I will believe you are an innocent member of the public.  I will address your points chronologically. 

 It was not a small fragment of the video - rather it was all of the footage that was quite disturbing. 

 

2. "Citizens must behave lawfully".

Laughable in the extreme! Are you seriously telling me that in a country like Britain or Australia where many hundreds of thousands (probably millions over time) of children have been subjected to establishment paedophilia, Satanic / Masonic child abuse rituals (SRA) and where the perpetrators are judges, politicians, police chiefs and top lawyers committing the most heinous  crimes upon the most vulnerable in our society, that they should grow up to be 'law abiding citizens' ? If that really is the case, you should contemplate another career.  

 

3. " so far the "rights" of some officers to lie in specific situations has gone unchallenged." 

What planet are you on? Have you ever watched 'Crimebodge' (Rob Warner) on YT or looked at his web site? His drive, rationale and angst in producing such great work in confronting the police in the streets and the courts emanated from the time a couple of knuckle dragging neanderthals in uniform who thought that they could do what they liked with him simply because he had an argument with his wife one day. He learned the law, applied it in the streets and the courts and now the police will come nowhere near him but he produces videos of police aggression regularly to help others. He told me this personally in an email when I bought his books (for a ridiculously low price...£10 for three. ) Lawyers charge you £300 an hour just to sit in their fucking leather chair staring at their pearly white capped teeth for the same information. 

 

4." But now you are making the claim that total anarchic lawlessness is always justified if a target is unpopular or deemed unlikeable in your subjective opinion. This position is without merit. This is what has led to BLM and antifa looting, rioting, pillaging, murders and assaults of every kind." 

 

NO! Allow me to expand your intellect please. What has led to people joining rancorous groups like BLM and Antifa to indulge in rioting, pillaging and looting is millions of pounds paid into the leaders bank accounts from George Soros, AT&T, Cisco and Pepsi Cola. It's a really weird thing I know but if someone pays you mind blowing, life changing, staggering  amounts of money, you tend to do the little things they ask...a bit like mercenary soldiers you understand in the old traditional wars. Black Lives Matter began their lives as the Black Panthers in the 60's where their mission was to kill policemen (and they did that successfully). Then they morphed into the Black Liberation Army led by a woman who was charged with the murder of a security guard during a bank job, received 16 years in prison but managed to escape where she still hides out in Cuba.   

 

5. "The reality is that a citizen failed to comply with lawful orders from a police officer."

 

Wrong! Since when was it law not to wear a mask?  2,3,4 weeks?? What you fail to understand here is that the person being choked to death and fearing for her life was wearing clothes of her own choosing. Hear me out now. She did not wake up that morning and put on clothes that she was told to wear in order to look alike and think alike her colleagues or peers. She demonstrated an independent mindset unlike the officer who blindly and dutifully obeys his paymaster without question. Are you likely to submit yourself to a person who is told what to wear every day? 

What you have to grasp here is that if this law was brought in on some spurious order from some psychopathic billionaire controlling your rancid politicians who the likes of you subjugate yourself to,  what's to say that next week, killing people will be perfectly acceptable and legal in the eyes of those psychotic bastards. The police are there to protect the establishment and big business not members of the community.   

 

6.  "After being subject to arrest, she resisted arrest, which is another crime. Third, she was not "choked." The officer utilized neck control without restricting her breathing. The sweep as I mentioned, was as gentle a sweep as I have ever seen. The officer further controlled her movements by applying his weight in a manner in which injury to the citizen would be impossible. Neck control doesn't look good, it's not necessary, but an officer can absolutely escalate force when a suspect resists lawful arrest."

 

She resisted arrest because she was completely legal...she had a medical certificate which allowed her to be exempt from wearing a mask. She was not choked as you rightly say, but at the time of being throttled did it ever actually cross your mind that she actually thought she was going to be choked to death. (1 nod for no and 2 nods for yes.)  

The 'gentle sweep' as you say is extraordinary language. This brain dead costumed buffoon was just pissed that his little uniform and his authoritative tone didn't quite resonate with a person so more advanced in intellect. (What the fuck is a sweep anyway.)  He'd obviously worked his way up the career ladder from a night watchman on a building site to the police and was angry with this little miscreant. 

Neck control doesn't LOOK GOOD! Well now, I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I'm willing to wager that 'neck control' DOESN'T FEEL TO GOOD either. 

 

7. "The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times." 

 

Agreed! Many people have died in police custody but not many police have been charged. In fact the figure in the UK is ....0. However, while three yobs were rightfully sentenced to 6 years in prison for the manslaughter of PC Andrew Harper inside a few months, we await he outcome of the knucklehead in costume who tazered the footballer  Dalian Atkinson ....and for every Dalian Atkinson case there will be many more we never here about.  The officer was in the wrong because the victim was actually in the right due to her medical exemption. If she had a knife and reached into her pocket and thrust it up into the jaw of the officer killing him while coming under such an unwarranted attack, would she have been charged with murder?  

Self defense is 'by the book' believe it or not. 

(Many people carry knifes and other weapons now who wouldn't have in the past since rape and murder by illegal immigrants have been allowed to happen with impunity. The same people who allow those people in also pay your salary.) 

 

8. "And why did you bring Paki rape gangs into the conversation?!? That is so far off topic it is laughable."

 

Spoken like a true denier and an advocate of multiculturalism.

The Pakistani rape gangs were brought into it just as a reminder to you that there are tens of thousands of young people who were let down massively by the entire political and judiciary systems. I don't know where you are but in Britain, people just like this victim had their lives destroyed in crimes so unprecedented that it's almost unbelievable. Then of course your paymasters (if you are/were a police officer) were also raping and abusing children for decades which is how and why the immigrants got away with it for so long. Of course if you are a police officer, (and I'm beginning to suspect you are not due to your exemplary spelling,) then your mind will not be sufficiently receptive to the plight of others - nor will you be aware of the atrocities your pay masters carry out so that you and your family have food on the table allowing you to taint the sewers with your excrement.     

 

9. "And the appearance of the boyfriend? It's irrelevant also." 

 

Not so since the police officer would not have jumped and attacked this person so vociferously had she walked out of a corporate building or bank in a 'power suit', designer sunglasses and a Guchi handbag. You see...the police are quite weak in some respects, i.e. they shit themselves if they think the victim may have the necessary clout and support to launch a legal case destroying the policeman's career,  propelling him back faster than a speeding bullet to Block A on the building site as a junior night watchman. 

 

10." After the relevant evidence was introdued you now claim that anyone can do anything to anyone at anytime regardless of the law as long as you "don't like them." This is completely ludicrous, by any standard. "

 

What relevant evidence? I have no idea what you are talking about here. 

 

Please take on board what I say here. I sincerely hope you are not a police officer otherwise I will have wasted an hour writing all this. 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Smokestack Lightnin'

[strengthandcourage]

3 hours ago, Smokestack Lightnin' said:

Judging by your prickly reaction, it sounds like you have never experienced any form of malevolence whatsoever by morally bankrupt police officers. Your justification of this video leads me to assume you are actually in the police or perhaps retired (whereby you will be telling all newly  acquainted people you meet that you were a prison officer to obviously avoid the shame.) 

 

For the sake of clarity here I will believe you are an innocent member of the public.  I will address your points chronologically. 

 It was not a small fragment of the video - rather it was all of the footage that was quite disturbing. 

 

2. "Citizens must behave lawfully".

Laughable in the extreme! Are you seriously telling me that in a country like Britain or Australia where many hundreds of thousands (probably millions over time) of children have been subjected to establishment paedophilia, Satanic / Masonic child abuse rituals (SRA) and where the perpetrators are judges, politicians, police chiefs and top lawyers committing the most heinous  crimes upon the most vulnerable in our society, that they should grow up to be 'law abiding citizens' ? If that really is the case, you should contemplate another career.  

 

3. " so far the "rights" of some officers to lie in specific situations has gone unchallenged." 

What planet are you on? Have you ever watched 'Crimebodge' (Rob Warner) on YT or looked at his web site? His drive, rationale and angst in producing such great work in confronting the police in the streets and the courts emanated from the time a couple of knuckle dragging neanderthals in uniform who thought that they could do what they liked with him simply because he had an argument with his wife one day. He learned the law, applied it in the streets and the courts and now the police will come nowhere near him but he produces videos of police aggression regularly to help others. He told me this personally in an email when I bought his books (for a ridiculously low price...£10 for three. ) Lawyers charge you £300 an hour just to sit in their fucking leather chair staring at their pearly white capped teeth for the same information. 

 

4." But now you are making the claim that total anarchic lawlessness is always justified if a target is unpopular or deemed unlikeable in your subjective opinion. This position is without merit. This is what has led to BLM and antifa looting, rioting, pillaging, murders and assaults of every kind." 

 

NO! Allow me to expand your intellect please. What has led to people joining rancorous groups like BLM and Antifa to indulge in rioting, pillaging and looting is millions of pounds paid into the leaders bank accounts from George Soros, AT&T, Cisco and Pepsi Cola. It's a really weird thing I know but if someone pays you mind blowing, life changing, staggering  amounts of money, you tend to do the little things they ask...a bit like mercenary soldiers you understand in the old traditional wars. Black Lives Matter began their lives as the Black Panthers in the 60's where their mission was to kill policemen (and they did that successfully). Then they morphed into the Black Liberation Army led by a woman who was charged with the murder of a security guard during a bank job, received 16 years in prison but managed to escape where she still hides out in Cuba.   

 

5. "The reality is that a citizen failed to comply with lawful orders from a police officer."

 

Wrong! Since when was it law not to wear a mask?  2,3,4 weeks?? What you fail to understand here is that the person being choked to death and fearing for her life was wearing clothes of her own choosing. Hear me out now. She did not wake up that morning and put on clothes that she was told to wear in order to look alike and think alike her colleagues or peers. She demonstrated an independent mindset unlike the officer who blindly and dutifully obeys his paymaster without question. Are you likely to submit yourself to a person who is told what to wear every day? 

What you have to grasp here is that if this law was brought in on some spurious order from some psychopathic billionaire controlling your rancid politicians who the likes of you subjugate yourself to,  what's to say that next week, killing people will be perfectly acceptable and legal in the eyes of those psychotic bastards. The police are there to protect the establishment and big business not members of the community.   

 

6.  "After being subject to arrest, she resisted arrest, which is another crime. Third, she was not "choked." The officer utilized neck control without restricting her breathing. The sweep as I mentioned, was as gentle a sweep as I have ever seen. The officer further controlled her movements by applying his weight in a manner in which injury to the citizen would be impossible. Neck control doesn't look good, it's not necessary, but an officer can absolutely escalate force when a suspect resists lawful arrest."

 

She resisted arrest because she was completely legal...she had a medical certificate which allowed her to be exempt from wearing a mask. She was not choked as you rightly say, but at the time of being throttled did it ever actually cross your mind that she actually thought she was going to be choked to death. (1 nod for no and 2 nods for yes.)  

The 'gentle sweep' as you say is extraordinary language. This brain dead costumed buffoon was just pissed that his little uniform and his authoritative tone didn't quite resonate with a person so more advanced in intellect. (What the fuck is a sweep anyway.)  He'd obviously worked his way up the career ladder from a night watchman on a building site to the police and was angry with this little miscreant. 

Neck control doesn't LOOK GOOD! Well now, I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I'm willing to wager that 'neck control' DOESN'T FEEL TO GOOD either. 

 

7. "The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times." 

 

Agreed! Many people have died in police custody but not many police have been charged. In fact the figure in the UK is ....0. However, while three yobs were rightfully sentenced to 6 years in prison for the manslaughter of PC Andrew Harper inside a few months, we await he outcome of the knucklehead in costume who tazered the footballer  Dalian Atkinson ....and for every Dalian Atkinson case there will be many more we never here about.  The officer was in the wrong because the victim was actually in the right due to her medical exemption. If she had a knife and reached into her pocket and thrust it up into the jaw of the officer killing him while coming under such an unwarranted attack, would she have been charged with murder?  

Self defense is 'by the book' believe it or not. 

(Many people carry knifes and other weapons now who wouldn't have in the past since rape and murder by illegal immigrants have been allowed to happen with impunity. The same people who allow those people in also pay your salary.) 

 

8. "And why did you bring Paki rape gangs into the conversation?!? That is so far off topic it is laughable."

 

Spoken like a true denier and an advocate of multiculturalism.

The Pakistani rape gangs were brought into it just as a reminder to you that there are tens of thousands of young people who were let down massively by the entire political and judiciary systems. I don't know where you are but in Britain, people just like this victim had their lives destroyed in crimes so unprecedented that it's almost unbelievable. Then of course your paymasters (if you are/were a police officer) were also raping and abusing children for decades which is how and why the immigrants got away with it for so long. Of course if you are a police officer, (and I'm beginning to suspect you are not due to your exemplary spelling,) then your mind will not be sufficiently receptive to the plight of others - nor will you be aware of the atrocities your pay masters carry out so that you and your family have food on the table allowing you to taint the sewers with your excrement.     

 

9. "And the appearance of the boyfriend? It's irrelevant also." 

 

Not so since the police officer would not have jumped and attacked this person so vociferously had she walked out of a corporate building or bank in a 'power suit', designer sunglasses and a Guchi handbag. You see...the police are quite weak in some respects, i.e. they shit themselves if they think the victim may have the necessary clout and support to launch a legal case destroying the policeman's career,  propelling him back faster than a speeding bullet to Block A on the building site as a junior night watchman. 

 

10." After the relevant evidence was introdued you now claim that anyone can do anything to anyone at anytime regardless of the law as long as you "don't like them." This is completely ludicrous, by any standard. "

 

What relevant evidence? I have no idea what you are talking about here. 

 

Please take on board what I say here. I sincerely hope you are not a police officer otherwise I will have wasted an hour writing all this. 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

 

Again, your facts are totally wrong. It is clear that you will engage in both:

 

1. ad hominem attack (irrelevant)

 

2. factually incorrect statements.

a. failure to provide identification, a lawful order, subjects you to arrest or at least detention (the former in this case), at officer's discretion

b. failure to comply with any lawful order of an officer subjects you to arrest

c. verbal and/or physical belligerence subjects a citizen to arrest

d. not showing medical documentation COULD be interpreted as failure to comply with a lawful order.

 

Failure to comply with ANY lawful order subjects one to detention or arrest. In this case, the citizen not only failed to comply with one, but also resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer.

 

Bringing up anything about paki rape gangs, the appearance of the boyfriend, ad hominem speculation, are all irrelevant to this case.

 

Again, she was NOT arrested for not wearing a face mask. She was arrested for assault, resisting arrest, and failure to comply with one or more lawful commands from an officer.

 

Repeating your erroneous statements over and over again doesn't make you right. It just means you keep stating inaccurate, false statements over and over again. This is precisely the strategy of the Orwellian police state you claim to despise. Two birds of a feather, it turns out. Along with the irrelevant name calling to distract from being wrong....

 

...you're a broken record quite frankly. Best get that checked out before it becomes a habit.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

3 hours ago, Smokestack Lightnin' said:

Have you ever watched 'Crimebodge' (Rob Warner) on YT or looked at his web site? His drive, rationale and angst in producing such great work in confronting the police in the streets and the courts emanated from the time a couple of knuckle dragging neanderthals in uniform who thought that they could do what they liked with him simply because he had an argument with his wife one day. He learned the law, applied it in the streets and the courts and now the police will come nowhere near him but he produces videos of police aggression regularly to help others. He told me this personally in an email when I bought his books (for a ridiculously low price...£10 for three. ) Lawyers charge you £300 an hour just to sit in their fucking leather chair staring at their pearly white capped teeth for the same information. 

 

Crimebodge is awesome and tells it like it really is. Been following him for quite a while. 

Makes me wonder why I or anybody else hasn't started a Crimebodge thread on this forum to spread the word. 

BC 

[Orange Alert]

7 hours ago, strengthandcourage said:

The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times. However, the "suspect"/citizen did not. An officer can ask a question. An officer can require someone to identify themselves. This is lawful. Pretty much everything the officer did was "by the book" appearances aside.

 

The officer behaved lawfully for the most part.  So, it was not lawful then.  An officer can ask, but a citizen has the right to stay silent.  The arrest technique was bad, brutal and a joke, any semi-trained fighter could get out of that hold and finish the issue with ease.   The movements of the cop were like some crazed, robotic pyschopath who had lost it.  I look forward to seeing that policeman being busted down to a toilet attendent.

[rooey]

oi don't ruin a good thread with bickering on an off topic subject, makes you look like agents. 

[rooey]

the colors and our association with those colors and what they correspond to, is something that tv and media uses. they want to cause dissociation and take people away from genuine feelings and actions. Hence even in australia, people are being advised at gatherings to not use strong voices or break into song 

[strengthandcourage]

41 minutes ago, Orange Alert said:

 

The officer behaved lawfully for the most part.  So, it was not lawful then.  An officer can ask, but a citizen has the right to stay silent.  The arrest technique was bad, brutal and a joke, any semi-trained fighter could get out of that hold and finish the issue with ease.   The movements of the cop were like some crazed, robotic pyschopath who had lost it.  I look forward to seeing that policeman being busted down to a toilet attendent.

 

Escalation of force is allowed. Theoretically, you should only use as much as is required to effect arrest.

 

Neck control looks bad, but clearly, there are no injuries of any kind suffered by the citizen arrested. She was in high spirits during the ensuing interview, and clearly egged on and antagonized the officer in order to elicit as extreme a response as possible.

 

Overall, the officer performed with reasonable restraint. Again, neck control is poor PR but not necessarily poor policing. These are instantaneous judgement calls and there is literally no way in those inclined to convince them that any form or degree of force is justified.

 

Notice that your characterization makes no note of any action that officer took. Grabbing an arm, a gentle sweep, sitting on her bum, none of this is even remotely dangerous. Neck control looks bad but left no injury. The officer was in the right, and there was little he could have done to prevent a violent reaction on her part. 

 

The reality is, police have little choice to comply with the directives of superiors, or they themselves will be fired. It is up to their superiors to give top down orders instructing their officers to either obey the Constitution or not. In Australia, the directives are clear. In some counties and cities, sheriffs have taken the opposite approach, which I commend. 

 

Right now, if you choose to escalate rather than defuse a situation with a police officer, you risk a physical confrontation, one which are very likely to lose.