This blog-post is an opinion piece: I have had no direct involvement in the ongoing case of Mr. Michael Overd upon which I am about to comment, I have never had any contact with Mr. Overd and I have never witnessed Mr. Overd preaching in public. That being clear...
In 2012 there is surely no intelligent and informed British person left in the UK who is not well aware that there is a 'war' going on between the militant HPs on the one hand and British Christians on the other. The militant HPs are waging an aggressive war against Christians as part of their quest to normalise homosexual-perversion in British society and to silence any dissenting voices which peacefully maintain the moral truth and the heterosexual reality of humanity. There are numerous examples of this escalating HP persecution of Christians in the UK in recent years; I might cite the recent case of Christian hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull, or the recent case of Christian counsellor Lesley Pilkington - who was unquestionably set up by homosexual activist Patrick Strudwick. I myself was targeted by Greater Manchester Police in their attempted suppression of my perfectly legitimate free speech back in 2009 when, as a Parliamentary Candidate, I blogged about rival candidate Matthew Sephton [the head of LGBTory] and referred to him as a "homosexual pervert" - which was of course both a 100% factually accurate statement and a dictionary-definition-correct application of the English language. [See also the Heterophobia PDF dossier in the Carvath web archive.] The HPs want to silence any criticism of homosexual behaviour and they want to re-engineer the English language to normalise the homosexual-perversion. The most serious assault yet upon the English language is to come next month when Prime Minister David Cameron will attempt to legislate in order to re-define the word Marriage. Since time immemorial the word 'marriage' has only ever been applicable to that special heterosexual relationship which is the exclusive lifetime union of one man with one woman - but 'conservative' David Cameron has suddenly decided he knows better than God and the entire history of the human race and so he is hellbent on re-defining the word 'marriage' so that two men or two women can pretend to marry in what I will be describing as a Perviage if the madness actually comes to pass in Parliament this year.
Somerset street preacher Michael Overd will stand trial before Taunton Deane Magistrates next Thursday 9th February on two charges being brought against him under the Public Order Act. From what I know of the case [press reports], it is my belief that Michael Overd is innocent of the charges being brought against him. It is also my belief that Mr. Overd will probably be found guilty [wrongfully, as I believe] on both charges, as I will now explain...
I've been a political activist and a Christian for many years and I have been party to several miscarriage-of-justice cases in which innocent people have been set up. I consider it an uncontentious assertion that there is now ample evidence of militant homosexual activists having exploited various UK laws in recent years as part of organised and coordinated attempts to set up and attack British Christians - and moreover that these activists have picked their targets with an eye on the possibility of generating high-profile media coverage for their cause. As an experienced political activist I know very well that innocent people are set up all the time; it is not an uncommon abberation but a growing phenomenon in the UK. I would say it is certainly not unknown for British police officers to fabricate and testify to verbal statements they deliberately and falsely attribute to an innocent defendant, and I would say it is standard practice for British social workers (and similar, such as nurses and doctors working in mental health) to fabricate statements - and even actions - and falsely attribute them to innocent people caught in their grasp. Such acts of criminal malfeasance are not by any means uncommon in the UK today, and they typically take place when the perpetrators are confident that they will get away with setting up their victim at no risk to themselves. A typical scenario might be one in which one innocent man finds himself in a situation with two police officers and the police then cook up a story about what the man said: in court it is the word of one defendant against that of two police officers (and no prizes for guessing which way the verdict is likely to go in 9 out of 10 cases tried before lay magistrates). Another typical scenario might be that of any person who has a dispute with a social worker being virtually guaranteed to have a report written about them by that social worker littered with things they never said or did: as I've already opined, to lie about people in written reports and court appearances is standard practice for social workers, mental health workers and probation officers. It is very easy indeed for a person of perceived higher status and in a position of trust to fabricate for their own ends completely false statements/actions attributed to an innocent person of significantly lower social status and lacking the ability and money to defend himself against and to expose the lies in court or in the press. Such acts of malfeasance are often motivated by an ideological prejudice and hatred for the victim: for example, the atheist mental health nurse fabricating medical notes about a Christian; the pagan social worker fabricating a report about a Christian parent; the homosexual police officer giving false evidence against a Christian, etc.
Now, what happens when somebody makes up a false accusation against a Christian? Well, on the basis of my considerable experience as a political activist, I would say that most people of an anti-Christian disposition and attributing a false statement to a Christian will come out with one of several cliches which they think are how Christians speak and are thus plausible and therefore likely to be accepted by third parties as credible. I would say that one of the all-time classic cliche lies is that evangelical Christians go round saying to people 'You will rot in hell' and 'You will burn in hell.' And lo and behold, these phrases are exactly what Mr. Overd will be defending himself against next Thursday. At next Thursday's trial the prosecution will contend that Mr. Overd told the HP complainants that they would "Rot in Hell" and "Burn in Hell" - and not only that but also that Mr. Overd has a track record for coming out with such statements as alleged in previous complaints against him. Unsurprisingly, at his appearance before Taunton Deane Magistrates in September last year, Mr. Overd absolutely denied using any of the phrases like "Burn in Hell" attributed to him by Prosecutor Dean Lampard and categorically stated that he: "...did not say those words." Also unsurprisingly, when pervert-propaganda 'newspaper' Pink News reported Mr. Overd's September court appearance, it did so under the headline "Christian street preacher told gay couple to 'burn in hell'" I would be genuinely amazed if Mr. Overd had been spouting "Rot in Hell" and "Burn in Hell" phrases at HPs as he preached in the street - as is alleged. I'd be amazed as a political activist and I'd also be amazed as somebody who has been an evangelical Christian for 14 years.
As an evangelical Christian of 14 years, I have never, ever heard any evangelical Christian in private conversation, at church or in the general public arena come out with a "Rot in Hell" or "Burn in Hell" phrase about HPs. It is a complete myth that Christians might speak in this way. As a Christian I am publically well known as a strident critic of the militant HP agenda on the internet, and I am well known for using potent satirical language in relation to LGBT issues, and even I have never come out with "Rot in Hell" or "Burn in Hell" phrases about HPs in satirical top gear! Assuming as I am that Mr. Overd is a genuine Christian, I have absolutely no doubt that he is telling the truth that he: "...did not say those words." I strongly suspect that Mr. Overd has been deliberately targeted and set up by a group of HP activists. It is clear that Mr. Overd was a regular street preacher on the same patch and presumably he would've been observed by HPs several times before the alleged incident with the complainants; indeed the Prosecutor's reported reference to previous complaints against Mr. Overd would tend to confirm the likelihood of such a supposition. As a regular street preacher Mr. Overd was clearly a potential target for HP activists - and if he was preaching alone and without recording himself then he was all the more vulnerable to attack. Whilst [on the basis of what I know of the case] I believe Mr. Overd to be innocent, my gut feeling is that there is a high risk of him being [wrongfully] convicted on both charges at his trial next week, mindful as I am of the following factors:
(1) The trial is at a Magistrates' Court (not a Crown Court). Lay Mags means amateur 'justice' on the cheap. Mags trials are generally hurried affairs and there are no verbatim transcripts taken or recordings made of proceedings, potentially handicapping the conduct of the defence during the trial and definitely detrimental to the pursuit by the defence of an appeal in the event of a wrongful conviction.
(2) To the best of my knowledge there will be only one principal witness for the defence, namely Mr. Overd himself, but two principal witnesses [the complainants] testifying against him for the prosecution. Two against one is an uphill struggle before amateur lay magistrates.
(3) I assume that Mr. Overd will choose to represent himself at his trial (as he did when he appeared in September). Not for nothing do they say 'The man who represents himself has a fool for a client.' Innocent as I believe him to be, Mr. Overd will have an uphill struggle defending himself against an experienced and professional Prosecutor - especially if the court staff take an unsympathetic view of him and the magistrates don't have a clue about either the law or trial procedure (as is not uncommon for lay magistrates).
God be with you Michael...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment