They shoot horses don’t they.


Christopher Spivey


Here is the way I see it.

The prosecution fought tooth and nail using one of the country’s top barristers to keep their OWN four witnesses out of court… Why would they do that?

My aherm, aherm Barrister ignored all that I told her as to why the witnesses should appear i.e their witness statements were a tissue of easily exposed lies and as such, were they to be repeated under oath would mean that they would have committed perjury. And in any event, the witnesses are not who they pretend to be.

I therefore knew that if the witnesses were made to appear then the trial would not have gone ahead… The case would have been dropped. 

However, the Judge, completely ignoring the rule of law sided with the prosecution – ruling that the witnesses be spared being torn to bits on the witness stand – thus blatantly denying me the right to a fair trial.

The trial should not have gone ahead anyway as I was illegally arrested which was all but admitted by the visibly nervous investigating officer Defective Cuntstable Coombes whilst being cross examined on the witness stand.

The judge also allowed inadmissible evidence which related to evidence published 15 months before the complaint for which I was arrested was made and as such can not possibly have constituted being a crime, hence it would not have taken so long to become an issue had it been harassment.

There is no question that the witnesses did not know about this ‘evidence’ and since it was not an issue until 15 months later it could not possibly constitute harassment.

Evidence dating up to November 2014 was also used in court meaning that I had never been arrested on or questioned about that evidence since the one and only time that I was arrested and questioned was on the 30th July 2014 – therefore any evidence used after that date should have related to further charges which I should have been arrested for and questioned about.

In regard to two of the four offences (1 count of harassment without violence, 1 count of sending a malicious communication), this relates to offences that I have never ever been arrested for or questioned about and were not dealt with until the 3rd of August 2014 which was 4 days after I had been arrested and questioned for the one and only complaint made before my arrest which was made on the 16th of July 2014… Yet the judge saw fit to proceed with those other two charges.

The witness statement that relates to those two charges that I have never been arrested for or questioned about had not been signed by the witness and as such should have been inadmissible. The witness is of easily provable dubious character.

The malicious communication in regard to this witness for which I have never been arrested over relates to ONE AND ONLY ONE Facebook message that I sent on the 18th of July 2013 in which I was extremely polite and when I got no answer, I did not attempt to contact the witness again. Had it been in any way malicious, why was it not reported as such until nearly THIRTEEN MONTHS LATER and post dating my arrest by 4 days?

The other malicious communication charge relates to a mock-up of a front page of the Sun newspaper, which the Sun published on their Facebook Page. I DID NOT make this spoof page and never even acknowledged it. The person responsible posted it on my Facebook page that I do not have any dealings with in regard to things that people post on there.

The spoof page was plastered on many, many places over the internet.

The other 3 witness statements are not countersigned meaning that ALL FOUR witness statements should have been inadmissible in court… Yet the judge ignored the fact.

I have NEVER been formally charged with any of the four charges that I was convicted of due to the fact that I was sent a court summons by postal requisition which is not applicable to someone with bail conditions.

Moreover, the evidence that this postal requisition relied on was approximately 650 pages of photocopied articles taken from this site.

I was never once told to remove these articles in the year that the case took to come to court. Therefore the evidence could not possibly have amounted to harassment or else I would have been guilty of harassment for 365 days following my arrest.

The judge – after obviously looking at this website – took it off his own bat to ask DC Coombes whilst he was under oath if I was summons by postal requisition to which Coombes was forced to admit that I was. Despite Coombes doing so the judge continued with the trial.

All four witnesses are of easily provable dubious character with clear evidence relating to criminal behaviour.

Despite there being an appeal already submitted to force the witnesses to appear in court, the blatantly biased judge still went ahead with the unlawful trial on the basis that I might not be afforded funding for counsel to appear at the appeal hearing. This was despite the fact that my barrister clearly stated to the judge that even if I was turned down for legal aid he would still appear for me at the appeal hearing.

The judge then blatantly ignored that fact and ordered the hearing to proceed thus denying me the right to a fair trial.

After a trial has heard all of the evidence, the prosecution will sum up their case followed by the defence counsel doing the same. The judge will then retire to mull over his verdict. In my case, the judge did not retire to consider his verdict but instead launched into a 15-20 minute speech immediately after my barrister had finished summing up. That speech – given the wording – in which the judge delivered his guilty verdict could not possibly have been off the cuff, thus indicating that he had prepared it before the evidence had all been heard.

This would tie in with what my barrister said to me before the trial had even started, namely that Judge Woollard was going to find me guilty.

Now here is the thing.

Judge Woollard and TPTB knew without doubt – given my position on the witnesses – that should I be found guilty that I would appeal.

An appeal means that the witnesses WILL HAVE TO APPEAR NO MATTER WHAT because the appeal will be held in a Crown Court with a jury and will be based on the above facts.

And like I said, had the witnesses been made to appear then the case would have been dropped, not least because the witnesses – as the Crown fully knows – are not who they claim to be, are of dubious character and have alleged easily provable lies in all four witness statements… Therefore, they now have a real, real crisis on their hands because unlike the trial, they can not drop the appeal hearing and if that goes ahead, then it is not an understatement to say that at the very least, the outcome has the capacity to bring down the government.

Therefore, the only way to stop the appeal going ahead – which they have to at all costs – is if I am dead… Hence the forthcoming prison sentence.

As I pointed out to you the other day, there have recently been a number of high profile cases of harassment reported on in the newspapers – all of which have involved direct contact with their victims, and some having been tried in the crown court, yet no one has gone to prison.

Indeed, I have heard from a fella tonight who was recently convicted of harassment for the 2nd time which was again perpetrated against the same person. The second conviction came about only two months after the first conviction for harassment yet he still only received a four months prison sentence SUSPENDED for two years.

Yet despite punishments having to be consistent by law and bearing in mind the fact that I have harassed nobody, the judge is still going to send me to prison.

So, unless – given the above facts – someone can come up with a different scenario, my death is the one and only way that they can now continue to take the piss.

I won’t run, I won’t hide, I do not fear.

Bring it on.