Saturday, 3 March 2018

Sussex Police vs @pperrin - the beginning of the end...

Dear Ms K*** (officer of the Sussex Police),

I am finally in a position to start to counter your vindictive, personal, nasty and outright evil campaign against me.

Your outright lies, duplicity and misinformation are plain by comparing the live recordings against your deceitful notes.

As I said right at the start, everything about the matter was in the public domain right at the start, before you arrested me - either you had a case from day one or you didn't - there is no case now, so you never had one, there was no reason for arrest.

But to please the press you arrested me anyway - and then spent six months trying to 'fit me up'.

I broke no law, every competent person involved agrees that I broke no law the first legal advice you got (having lazily not bothered to get advice before the arrest) says there was no legal case -- only *you* ever tried to prove otherwise.

You have the arrogance to send me a letter 'warning' me where free speech becomes illegal - but *you* are the only person who is not competent to judge!! Everyone else knows my tweets were legal, only *you* thought otherwise.

I said I had broken no law, your legal person said I had broken no law, the CPS said I had broken no law -- only *YOU* said otherwise, it is you who needs advice, instruction, education... Your ignorant and arrogant letter when you admitted defeat and could raise no charge against me, was so impertinent as offered me advice... wake up lady, it is you who needs to take advice, not me - it is only you who was wrong!

Anyway - there is a long way to go, but the evidence is massing against your nasty,vindictive, corrupt attack on me (a simple, innocent, pleb) and I intend to be compensated in full.


Paul Perrin (the innocent victim of your hate).

p.s I have *** your name so posting this all over social media isn't 'personal'.

Thursday, 1 March 2018

Jewish Bolshevism - canard or fact? And is Islamic Momentum/Corbyn history repeating?

The principle of an unhappy people residing in an others land and it causing problems does seem to be coming around again - while radicalised Jews in eastern Europe/Asia joined the Bolsheviks and sought (successfully) to destroy the Tsars Russia. today in western Europe we have radicalised Muslims joining ISIS to overthrow the West, and joining Corbyn's Labour/Momentum to overthrow the UK.

Is Communism a Jewish conspiracy?

It is not something that had particularly interested me so I had never looked up the details, but in alternative social media (the bit that isn't policed by the same corrupt people who police our old media) it fairly regularly gets mentioned.

Of course the fact alternative social media isn't policed doesn't mean it is all correct or true - but it does mean you get to see all the views and information that our lords and masters would rather was kept quiet whether it is true or not. So you have to research and decide for yourself what is to be believed, but at least you are not starting with all the information (and then some) - not just the parts that they establishment think will lead you to agree with them.

My knowledge of the Russian Revolution is not extensive, but basically...

A bit after WW1, in 1917, the Tsar had managed to piss off enough of the wrong people that a political group known as the Bolsheviks oversaw a revolution, shortly after which the Tsar and his entire family were secretly killed and their bodies hidden so there could be no 'shrine' for his supporters to venerate.
The Bolseviks were a socialist/communist movement, inspired by the works of Carl Marx (who had lived about 50 years earlier).
After the revolution the Joseph Stalin (or just Stalin to his friends and enemies) rose to the top of the Communist leadership and ended up removing and killing off all competition to his position, including most of the original Bolsheviks.

So... Googling 'were the bolsheviks jewish', the first result was a wikipedia link...

Ok... I thought this was really funny -- that 'Jewish Bolshevism' was considered antisemitic and anti-communist... It suggests both that Jews are tainted by being associated with Communism, and at the same time Communism is tainted by being associated with Jews...

However it did say it was a canard (that the accusation is false), so I read further -
Some scholars have grossly exaggerated Jewish presence in the Soviet Communist Party. For example, journalist David Aaronovitch quotes Alfred Jensen as saying that in the 1920s "75 per cent of the leading Bolsheviks" were "of Jewish origin".[better source needed] According to Aaronovitch, "a cursory examination of membership of the top committees shows this figure to be an absurd exaggeration".[21]

Ok, so the leadership were claimed to be 75% Jewish, but Aaronovich says a cursory examination would show this an 'absurd exaggeration. -- Well following the link, hoping to see that 'cursory examination' I was disappointed... the link is the the article that is quoted, but talks about 15% of Bolshevik 'officers' being Jewish, but doesn't talk of  the leaders...

At this point I checked on Marx himself - while he wasn't a practicing Jew, his father (sometime before his birth) had converted from Judaism to Protestantism to 'escape the constraints of anti-semitic legislation'...

Back to the leading Bolsheviks etc... Googling further... it turned up some articles in leading Jewish oriented publications that say that Jews were behind the revolution! Although does go on to say it wasn't specifically because they were Jewish.

Google turned up this article that looked interesting covering the whole issue, but is from (what turns out to be) a contentious organisation - Theresa May banned its leader from entering the UK! - but the quotes and facts can be simply double checked.

That article did turn up some interesting quotes from the time - including an article by Winston Churchill basically, again, saying that the Bolsheviks were primarily (cultural) Jews, but the revolution was not innate to their culture/religion but was a reaction to them being persecuted - this seems to have been the basis of his support for Zionism, a nation state for the Jews.

By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.

So there you have it! Seem to outcome from this search is that, yes Jews were behind it, but not because they were Jewish but because they were persecuted.

Later of course, Hitler dealt with his concerns about Jews with gas chambers, Churchill dealt with his concerns about Jews by supporting the creation of Israel.

The principle of an unhappy people residing in an others land and it causing problems does seem to be coming around again - while radicalised Jews in eastern Europe/Asia joined the Bolsheviks and sought (successfully) to destroy the Tsars Russia. today in western Europe we have radicalised Muslims joining ISIS to overthrow the West, and joining Corbyn's Labour/Momentum to overthrow the UK.

Wednesday, 28 February 2018

Theresa May - a #Brexit'eer Genius? #BrexitSaturday

I have posted this in various places since late last year, I put it here for reference!

The theory goes like this...

Theresa May has deliberately ensured that every reamainer line of attack/resistance is fully exhausted so once brexit happens no remainer can say they weren't given every opportunity to raise challenges and have them heard. So come brexit no rational person can have any complaint.

Theresa May has deliberately let the EU set the negotiating agenda so there can be no complaint that the UK hampered the process leading to the final outcome, it has been 100% EU driven - but done in the knowledge that the EU have zero chance of delivering any deal in time... so ensuring that the UK gets a 'no deal brexit' entirely due to the EU's incompetent managing of the process.

So come brexit we leave with no special deal (just WTO), and remainers and proEU bods have nothing to criticise the UK for because they were given every opportunity and ran the negotiations.

Well... thats how the theory goes... what do you think?


From The Sun newspaper:

This article sets out that with about one year to go to Brexit Saturday when we awake to spend our first full day in an independent UK, (30th March 2019), the whole basis of the EU exit agreement and divorce bill has been thrown into the air...

I refuse to accept that there is any 'divorce bill' to pay, and I want to leave the EU with 'no deal' - we can trade with them under WTO terms just as we shall with most of the rest of the world.

Take the Brexit Pledge - hold Ms May to her word (she may appreciate your support!!) - Brexit means Brexit, by Brexit Saturday. Print, buy,send, deliver pledge cards as far and as wide as possible - this is the next line in the sand and it MUST hold.

Print this yourself or you can buy this as a postcard - singly addressed and posted to you, or a pack of ten, for you to address/use as you please - from

Thursday, 11 January 2018

Regulation revisited?...

My Grandmother - Child Safety Entrepreneur

In the 1960's after a spate of child deaths from nighties catching fire my Grandmother setup a business making and selling non-flamable nighties - she did this because she was horrified at the accidents, she was skilled as a seamstress and she wanted to make a living.

Government Intervention

In the mid 60s the UK parliament caught up with what was happening and introduced laws on the flammability of children's nighties.

Laws relating to fire retardant fabrics for clothes and furnishings have been updated many times since, here are some of the more recent.

But it is not cost free

However this is not a zero cost issue - flame retardant treatment is expensive and significantly puts up the price of treated fabrics, here is a mumsnet discussion on the horrendous price of childrens cotton nighties...

And there is health and the environment

Also it has now been found that some of the flame retardant treatments use chemicals that  may be damaging to people health and to the environment.

Times change, homes have few naked flames today

Another consideration since the start of this issue is that houses now have far fewer naked flames and sources of ignition than they did back in the 1960's. Houses tend not to have open fires (unless for display), they are not lit by gas, candles are not used for lighting to bed etc. In fact, in a modern house apart from gas hobs (and for a cup of tea a kettle is more likely to be used anyway) the only naked flames are likely to be from scented candles and old-school cigarettes/lighters.

So the question should be whether the legislation is still appropriate and could it actually be cut. If course there is a knee-jerk reaction against removing something that supposedly makes children safer, but in a science based, evidence driven world it really should be looked at from scratch...


I started on this subject because an EUphile was giving the EU credit for making childrens nighties in the UK safe. Which is clearly not true as the UK had already started on this in the 1960's before we joined, but I also found a comment in the Mumsnet discussion (linked to above) which says...

Northanter Sat 22-Oct-16 20:26:33
Europe has different flame retardency regulations for nightwear. It is possible you could buy some from an online retailer in, say, France, and get them sent.

But sometimes you come up against regulations against importing them altogether.
If you or any acquaintance are planning a trip to Europe, you can ask them to get you one (or several, in lots of sizes!) - you can usually get them pretty cheaply in H&M or C&A in France and Belgium at least, probably elsewhere too.

So suggesting that the UK laws have been stricter than the EU laws all along!

ps. And they have similar discussions  in the USA...

Friday, 15 December 2017

Take the Brexiteers Pledge!

The Brexiteers Pledge

No later than 11pm 29th March 2019 I will not recognise any EU derived authority in the UK, anyone who seeks to enforce such authority is a usurper and a tyrant, I declare them my enemy.

And here is an unsigned one - print off some copies, get people signing, make it into badges, armbands, t-shirts, put it in your hat band!- spread the word!

ps. The wording is inspired by a quote from Pierre Joseph Proudhon (see more of his quotes here that was hung on my 4th  year form room wall, and I always remembered - along side 'Desiderata' -- I'd have gone with 'If', but Mr Farrah my form tutor was the boss!

Wednesday, 13 December 2017

Police - criticised for lack of arrests, so will now arrest just about anybody - they don't care who!

There was a report not so long ago criticising the police for arresting far fewer people now that they used to...

But also that in some areas arrests were going up!

And then I saw this report on a 'drugs bust'...

Notice - eight people were arrested... but two were 'released on bail' and six were 'released under investigation'.

What is the significance of this?

Well if you are 'released on bail' the police have 28 days to make a case and either charge you or let you go - they do this if they actually think they have a case and can do the paperwork in the next four weeks (if they need more time they have to satisfy a judge in court that there is in a case and it really does need more time).

But if you are 'released under investigation'  there is no time limit! the police need never actually make a case against you - you could be left under their supervision for the rest of your life with no charge, no discharge without judicial/court intervention and no right to judicial/court intervention - all this on the whim of one investigating officer!

'Released under investigation' is quite a new device, created by the nasty and stupid current prime minister Theresa May when she was Home Secretary - and while it is good she no longer has that role, she appointed Amber Rudd an even nastier and stupider person to replace her.

This came about because of a few high profile cases (such as Cliff Richard) where very slow police progress meant they were left 'on bail' for very, very long periods of time (years) - all the time having to be renewed by a judge/court every 28 days.

The 28 day limit was an excellent safeguard against our ever more officious and unreliable police services -- because a judge was regularly called in to decide if the police were actually working properly, or just persecuting an innocent individual. This ties in well with traditional English justice, from Magna Carta and before, where no man could be subject to legal/state action without a fair hearing and due process.

Theresa May, being a very stupid person, has no understanding of such issues and sees no need for the public to be safeguarded against the likes of her and her kind. So she simply ripped the courts out of the process and gave the police discretion to judge themselves - amazingly enough the police always think they are doing the right thing... something we know to be false as their faults are proven by every case and bail hearing that has ever gone against them!!

Theresa May's 'Released under Investigation' is an absolute step towards a police state - which the police have seized with gusto.

Every decent Englishman (male and female) should be very, very concerned. Theresa May cannot be trusted, and if we lose the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) before we have a proper replacement there will be nothing stopping the government, state and police becoming the tyrants they so want to be.

Friday, 8 December 2017

Sussex Police given a good kick in the nuts...

I win, I beat the bastards.

It took six months, but even with out their huge resources I ran rings around them and made the look like the twats they are.

Having arrested me six months ago and strung me along ever since, they the couldn't find anything to charge me with with.

This is no surprise - unlike Sussex Police Officers, I am an honest, decent person, so of course there is nothing I can be charged with!!

The letter saying they failed to stitch me up, so have to let me go was interesting in several ways -- apart from being dated the 24th November but postmarked the 1st December (why the delay?) - it says the Crown Prosecution Service told them that my tweets were *not* grossly offensive (of course they aren't only a Sussex Police Officer retard, or a Labour councillor could be such a moron to think otherwise).

But... I wasn't arrested (or interrogated) 'on suspicion of posting grossly offensive tweets' - but on 'suspicion of posting tweets likely to stir up religious or racial hatred'... So clearly they knew the original arrest couldn't be justified, so changed what they were trying to fit me up with by switching to a whole new charge... bastards.

In my interview under caution - which I will get a copy of and post on-line - I said I believed the whole thing was politically motivated (it was Labour councillors who attacked me), clearly the police were part of this politically motivated action, or they would have investigated my complaint...

As I was 'released under investigation' I was banned from communicating with the councillors at risk of 'interfering with witnesses' (a very serious criminal offence), but now I can do what ever I please as a free English man. So suing the arse off the police and council are right up there near the top of my list... But I have to get my details removed from the PNC, local arrest records etc... it the mean time I am bringing hell down on them.