[Diggers350] Seizing Travellers’ Homes, Neutering Protest : Priti Patel’S PCSC Bill Should Be Called ‘The Police State Bill’

[Tony Gosling]

Seizing Travellers’ Homes, Neutering Protest: 
Priti Patel’S PCSC Bill Should Be Called ‘The Police State Bill’

https://tlio.gn.apc.org/policing-crime-sentencing-and-courts-pcsc-bill-should-really-be-called-priti-patels-police-state-bill/

<https://tlio.gn.apc.org/policing-crime-sentencing-and-courts-pcsc-bill-should-really-be-called-priti-patels-police-state-bill/>14 
JULY 2021 
<https://tlio.gn.apc.org/author/tony/>TONY 
GOSLING 
<https://tlio.gn.apc.org/policing-crime-sentencing-and-courts-pcsc-bill-should-really-be-called-priti-patels-police-state-bill/#respond>LEAVE 
A COMMENT

Since Margaret Thatchers introduction of 
paramilitary policing in the Miners Strike 
(1984), Battle of the Beanfield (1985) and 
Wapping print workers dispute (1986) the number 
of UK ‘Bobbys on the beat’ has fallen to virtually zero.

Policing has become more arbitrary during the 
Coronavirus Act (2020-21) period where 
unprecedented intrusion into peoples homes on the 
rumour there may be an unauthorised visitor, and 
violent police action against certain types of 
demonstration, while facilitating others, has led 
many to point out that the British police have become a political force.

<https://thebristolcable.org/2021/03/bristol-protest-police-violently-shut-down-peaceful-sit-down-occupation-college-green-police-crime-bill/>
[]


<https://thebristolcable.org/2021/03/bristol-protest-police-violently-shut-down-peaceful-sit-down-occupation-college-green-police-crime-bill/>24Mar21, 
BRISTOL: Police violently shut down peaceful sit 
down occupation of College Green

Now in July 2021 the Police Crime Sentencing and 
Courts Bill is about to receive the royal assent. 
The Home Secretary Priti Patel, whose bill it is, 
was previously 
<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/08/priti-patels-meetings-cancelled-as-pm-considers-sacking-her>sacked 
as a likely Israeli agent for 14 undeclared 
meetings with top Israeli government officials 
when Secretary of State for Overseas Development (DFID) in 2017.

So here is a selection of the lawyer and 
traveller groups’ responses to, and briefings on, the bill.


The Good Law Project has summed the failings of the bill up as follows.

• The police already have a wide range of powers to deal with protests.
• The Bill marks a “significant departure” from 
the historic approach to the policing of protests 
under the Public Order Act 1986.
• The advice shares our concern that the 
Secretary of State has the power to effectively 
prohibit “entire classes or types of protests” 
and has the power to set a low bar for what 
constitutes ‘significant disruption’ to the 
community or organisation – although how that 
power will be exercised remains to be seen. This 
includes defining the phrase in ways that would 
cover a picket or trade union demonstrations 
(even though their very purpose may be to cause 
disruption in order to draw attention to concerns around working conditions).
• The Bill broadens the circumstances in which 
police can impose restrictions on public 
processions and assemblies, including the 
introduction of a new “noise” criterion. All of 
this is likely to have a chilling effect on protests.
• Whether or not the legislation is incompatible 
with the European Convention on Human Rights 
(ECHR) may well depend on the restrictions 
imposed in specific circumstances, but the new 
provisions increase the possibility of protests 
being regulated in ways that could interfere with 
the rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/how-peaceful-vigil-sarah-everard-turned-violence-met-police-clapham-common-b924177.html>
[]


<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/how-peaceful-vigil-sarah-everard-turned-violence-met-police-clapham-common-b924177.html>13Mar21 
CLAPHAM COMMON: How the police turned peaceful 
vigil for Sarah Everard to violence


Full article: The return of the Policing Bill

<https://goodlawproject.org/news/return-of-the-policing-bill/>The 
Government’s legislative agenda for the next year 
– set out in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech – 
contains a series of deeply troubling measures, 
from plans to introduce Voter ID to a piece of 
legislation to prevent ‘no platforming’ at 
universities. They masquerade as confected 
solutions to non-existent problems. But in fact, 
they are worse – they are transparent attempts to silence opposition.

But these proposals, deeply concerning as they 
are, risk overshadowing the more immediate danger 
of the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing 
and Courts Bill (the “PCSC Bill”) being pushed 
through without robust opposition. The Bill is 
set to return to the House of Commons in the next 
couple of weeks for what is known as the Committee Stage.

We commissioned advice from Phillippa Kaufmann QC 
and Anita Davies at Matrix Chambers on the part 
of the Bill that deals with protest rights, and 
we promised we would publish that advice. It can 
now be <https://glplive.org/PPCS-advice>accessed here.

The advice confirms some of our deep worries 
about the protest provisions in the Bill, but 
also highlights that the defining battle will be 
around how the Home Secretary exercises her 
powers under the Bill to define certain key 
phrases such as ‘significant disruption’. The 
definitions of these key terms will effectively 
set the tone for how protests are policed from now on.

Below are some of the key findings from the advice.
    * The police already have a wide range of powers to deal with protests.
    * The Bill marks a “significant 
departure”from the historic approach to the 
policing of protests under the Public Order Act 1986.
    * The advice shares our concern that the 
Secretary of State has the power to effectively 
prohibit “entire classes or types of protests” 
and has the power to set a low bar for what 
constitutes ‘significant disruption’to the 
community or organisation – although how that 
power will be exercised remains to be seen. This 
includes defining the phrase in ways that would 
cover a picket or trade union demonstrations 
(even though their very purpose may be to cause 
disruption in order to draw attention to concerns around working conditions).
    * The Bill broadens the circumstances in 
which police can impose restrictions on public 
processions and assemblies, including the 
introduction of a new “noise”  All of this is 
likely to have a chilling effect on protests.
    * Whether or not the legislation is 
incompatible with the European Convention on 
Human Rights (ECHR) may well depend on the 
restrictions imposed in specific circumstances, 
but the new provisions increase the possibility 
of protests being regulated in ways that could 
interfere with the rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.

And that’s just the protest provisions. There 
are, of course, other aspects of the Bill that 
should concern all of us – including the proposed 
criminalisation of trespass in a way that 
<https://www.gypsy-traveller.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Briefing-on-new-police-powers-PCSCBill-and-CJPOA-002.pdf>disproportionately 
impacts Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) 
communities, and the fact that the plans for 
policing and sentencing are likely to further 
entrench 
<https://www.criminaljusticealliance.org/blog/coalition-warns-new-policing-and-sentencing-bill-will-deepen-racial-inequality/>racial 
inequality in the criminal justice system.

We are continuing to speak to MPs on both sides 
of the aisle to highlight our concerns. But if 
the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, introduces 
regulations of the sort anticipated, Good Law 
Project will bring or support legal action, 
alongside other civil society watchdogs, to try 
to stem our alarming slide towards authoritarianism.

It is only with your support that we can continue 
to hold Government to account. If you would like 
to make a donation, you can do so <https://goodlawproject.org/donate>here.


THE CRIMINALISATION OF TRESPASS

Community Law Project

<http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/news/the-criminalisation-of-trespass>http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/news/the-criminalisation-of-trespass
Posted by clp-admin 17th March, 2021 News
Legal Briefing on Proposals to Criminalise Trespass
By The Community Law Partnership
<http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/news/the-criminalisation-of-trespass>Thanks 
to Marc Willers QC and Tessa Buchanan of Garden 
Court Chambers and to Abbie Kirkby of Friends, 
Families and Travellers for their comments on this paper.
The Travellers Advice Team at Community Law 
Partnership are very interested in hearing from 
any Gypsies and Travellers who may be adversely 
affected by the proposed new criminal offence. We 
would encourage people to phone us on our Advice 
Line which is 0121 685 8677 Monday to Friday 9am to 1pm.

1. THE PROPOSALS
In November 2019 the Home Office launched a 
consultation entitled ‘Strengthening police 
powers to tackle unauthorised encampments’. On 
8th March 2021, the Government finally produced 
their response to that consultation and you can 
find that response here: 
<https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments/outcome/government-response-to-the-consultation-strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments-accessible-version>https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments/outcome/government-response-to-the-consultation-strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments-accessible-version. 
After publishing the response, the following day 
the Government included the new criminal offence 
of trespass in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and 
Courts Bill (PCSCB) which has already had its 
Second Reading on 15th and 16th March 2021. You 
can find the Bill here: 
<https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf>https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf.
This new criminal offence, and the other proposed 
changes to the existing provisions of the 
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 
1994, cover both England and Wales.
In summary, the PCSCB will make it a criminal 
offence for someone with a vehicle residing or 
intending to reside on land without the consent 
of the occupier of the land to fail to comply 
with a request to leave the land in a case where 
that person’s residence or intended residence has 
caused or is likely to cause significant 
disruption, damage, or distress. If the person 
fails to leave the land or, having left, 
re-enters it, he or she can be arrested and his 
or her vehicle (i.e. his or her home) can be impounded.

2. WOULD THE CRIMINALISATION OF TRESPASS BE LAWFUL?
It seems to us that the proposed criminalisation 
amounts to an unlawful breach of Articles 8 and 
14 ECHR. Article 8 enshrines the right to respect 
for a person’s private and family life and home. 
This includes his or her traditional way of life. 
Article 14 contains the right not to be 
discriminated against in the enjoyment of other 
Convention rights. The measure is an obvious 
interference with the nomadic way of life of 
Gypsies and Travellers and is also obviously 
discriminatory against these minorities. It is 
difficult to see how the measure is proportionate 
in light of the concerns set out below and especially the following factors:
(i) Alternative Sites
Many Gypsies and Travellers still have to resort 
to unauthorised encampments because of the 
continuing lack of permanent and transit site 
provision (including emergency stopping places) 
in England and Wales and a collective failure by 
national and local government over many years to 
develop arrangements such as ‘negotiated stopping 
agreements’ which would ensure that lawful stopping sites were provided.
(ii) The Government’s positive obligation to 
protect Gypsies and Travellers’ traditional way of life
In Chapman v UK [2001] 33 EHRR 399, the European Court of Human Rights stated:

the vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority 
means that some special consideration should be 
given to their needs and their different 
lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory 
planning framework and in reaching decisions in 
particular cases
To this extent, there is thus a 
positive obligation imposed on the Contracting 
States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the gypsy way of life
 (para 96)
In the case of London Borough of Bromley v 
Persons Unknown, London Gypsies and Travellers 
and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 12, the Court of 
Appeal, in upholding the refusal of the High 
Court Judge to grant Bromley a wide injunction 
against Gypsies and Travellers, stated:
Finally, it must be recognised that the 
cases
make plain that the Gypsy and Traveller 
community have an enshrined freedom not to stay 
in one place but to move from one place to 
another. An injunction which prevents them from 
stopping at all in a defined part of the UK 
comprises a potential breach of both the 
Convention and the Equality Act
 (para 109).
(iii) The lack of public support for the measure
It is clear from the Government’s response to the 
consultation the majority of respondents 
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed measures.
(iv) The lack of Police support for the measure
It is particularly significant that the majority 
of Police forces that responded to the 
Government’s consultation exercise did not want greater powers.
(v) Chilling effect
The Government suggest that the legislation is 
only designed to address encampments that cause ‘disruption or distress’.
First, we find their explanation somewhat 
disingenuous. In their Frequently Asked Questions 
factsheet it is stated at page 4:
The Government’s view is that criminalisation of 
intentional residence on land without consent and 
the extension of existing powers in 1994 Act will 
provide Police with sufficient powers to 
effectively and efficiently enforce against a 
range of harms caused by some unauthorised 
encampments. The offence and strengthened Police 
powers could also deter unauthorised encampments 
from being set up in the first instance (our emphasis).
Secondly, not only can the offence be committed 
by someone who is said to be ‘likely to cause 
significant damage or significant disruption’ but 
it can be committed once they have been given a 
notice to leave not just by a Police Constable 
but also by the occupier of the land or a 
representative of the occupier. Thus the occupier 
of the land ( who could be the landowner or a 
leaseholder or licensee) or their representative 
can effectively turn a Gypsy or Traveller into a 
criminal by the giving of this notice. Moreover 
they risk being arrested and losing their homes 
without any Court having to conclude that they are guilty of the offence.
Thirdly, it may be said that the Gypsy or 
Traveller in question could simply challenge the 
assumption or declaration that they are likely to 
cause significant disruption or significant 
damage at the time that the request to leave is 
made but the reality is that if they were to do 
so they would then put themselves at risk of 
being arrested and having their vehicles (their 
homes) impounded. In those circumstances the vast 
majority of Gypsies and Travellers will feel 
obliged to leave the land without delay.
Finally, whereas the Police currently have a 
discretion as to whether to use their existing 
powers under CJPOA 1994 s61 or s62 A to E (in the 
latter case where there is a suitable alternative 
pitch available), they may feel obliged to make 
arrests and impound vehicles if they are informed 
that a criminal offence has taken place.

3. EXISTING POLICE POWERS
It is important to note that (1) the Police 
already have extensive powers to move on 
unauthorised encampments and (2) the Police do 
not support the strengthening of their powers of 
eviction which are currently contained in the CJPOA 1994.
CJPOA s61(1) states:
If the senior police officer present at the scene 
reasonably believes that two or more persons are 
trespassing on land and are present there with 
the common purpose of residing there for any 
period, that reasonable steps have been taken by 
or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and –
(a) that any of those persons has caused damage 
to the land or to property on the land or used 
threatening, abusive or insulting words or 
behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his 
family or an employee or agent of his, or
(b) that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land,
he may direct those persons, or any of them, to 
leave the land and to remove any vehicles or 
other property they have with them on the land.
This existing provision is already draconian 
since it enables the Police to evict an 
encampment at very short notice. Even where the 
Police are arguably exercising their powers 
unlawfully, it can be difficult to bring a 
challenge due to how swiftly the eviction can take place.
However, this power is somewhat ameliorated both 
by Government guidance on the question of 
managing unauthorised encampments (which stresses 
the need for the assessment of welfare 
considerations and alternative locations) and by 
very important guidance from the Police 
themselves, namely Operational Advice on 
Unauthorised Encampments (National Police Chiefs 
Council, 2018). This guidance stresses that the 
Police have a discretion as to whether or not to 
use their powers. Therefore, they may use their 
powers if an encampment is causing significant 
anti-social behaviour or if there are crimes 
occurring but, in other circumstances, may decide not to use their powers.
CJPOA 1994 s62 A – E relate to circumstances 
where there is a suitable alternative pitch 
available. Given the continuing lack of transit 
site provision (albeit that there has been a 
small increase in such provision over recent 
times), these provisions are of limited practical 
relevance and we will not discuss them further here.
It can certainly be concluded, at the very least, 
that the existing Police powers of eviction are 
sufficient. There is absolutely no need for them 
to be increased as the Police themselves accept.

4. THE PROPOSAL TO CRIMINALISE TRESPASS
Clause 61 of the PCSCB introduces a new offence into the CJPOA 1994 as follows:
60C Offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle.
(1) Subsection(2) applies where –
(a) A person aged 18 or over (“P”) is residing, 
or intending to reside, on land without the 
consent of the occupier of the land,
(b) P has, or intends to have, at least one vehicle with them on the land,
(c) One or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) is satisfied, and
(d) The occupier, a representative of the 
occupier or a constable request P to –
(i) Leave the land;
(ii) Remove from the land property that is in P’s 
possession or under P’s control.
(2) P commits an offence if –
(a) P fails to comply with the request as soon as reasonably practicable, or
(b) P –
(i) Enters (or having left, re-enters) the land 
within the prohibited period with the intention 
of residing there without the consent of the occupier of the land, and
(ii) Has, or intends to have, at least one vehicle with them on the land.
(3) The prohibited period is the period of 12 
months beginning with the day on which the request was made.
(4) The conditions are –
(a) In a case where P is residing on the land, 
significant damage or significant disruption has 
been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of P’s residence;
(b) In a case where P is not yet residing on the 
land, it is likely that significant damage or 
significant disruption would be caused as a 
result of P’s residence if P were to reside on the land;
(c) That significant damage or significant 
disruption has been caused or is likely to be 
caused as a result of conduct carried on, or 
likely to be carried on, by P while P is on the land;
(d) That significant distress has been caused or 
is likely to be caused as a result of offensive 
conduct carried on, or likely to be carried on, 
by P while P is on the land (our emphasis).
Someone who commits the offence can be arrested 
and their vehicles (i.e. their homes) can be impounded.

5. CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEW OFFENCE
The new offence is deeply troubling, for several reasons:
(A) Even a single Gypsy or Traveller travelling 
in a single vehicle will be caught by this 
offence. When the powers in CJPOA 1994 were first 
being debated in Parliament, it was stated that 
the powers were intended to deal with ‘mass 
trespass’. We have now come to a stage where even 
a single Gypsy or Traveller will be caught by these draconian provisions.
(B) As mentioned above the ‘request’ to leave the 
land can be made by the occupier of the land or a 
representative of the occupier. This is a very 
important difference as compared to the current 
powers under CJPOA 1994 s61. The existing powers 
can only be exercised by the Police, which means 
that a person only faces criminalisation once 
they have disobeyed the instruction of a law 
enforcement official. Under the new offence, a 
person can be criminalised for disobeying the 
instruction of a private citizen. Moreover, 
whilst the Police are – or should be – motivated 
by concerns such as protection of the public and 
preservation of public order, the private citizen 
will be motivated by the protection of his or her 
personal interests as an ‘occupier’ of land. To 
criminalise what has previously always been a 
civil dispute between private citizens is alarming in the extreme.
(C) As currently drafted (and unless any guidance 
changes this) this request does not appear to 
have to be in writing. This is extraordinarily 
casual given the draconian results that may follow.
(D) The period during which the Gypsy or 
Traveller is effectively banned from the land in 
question is extended from 3 months (as it is 
currently under the 1994 Act) to 12 months. For 
those Gypsies and Travellers who have no 
alternative but to resort to unauthorised 
encampments, there are, in effect, very few 
potential stopping places in any one area. The 
extension of the time limit to 12 months 
effectively creates a kind of wide injunction 
covering the relevant areas where a Gypsy and 
Traveller might be able to stop in other circumstances.
(E) The interpretation section defines ‘damage’ to include
(a) Damage to the land;
(b) Damage to any property on the land not belonging to P;
(c) Damage to the environment (including 
excessive noise, smells, litter or deposits of waste)
‘Disruption’ is defined to include interference with:
(a) A person’s ability to access any services or 
facilities located on the land or otherwise make lawful use of the land, or
(b) A supply of water, energy or fuel.
These definitions are vague and could potentially 
include a very wide range of issues. Moreover, it 
is unlikely that judicial clarification will be 
forthcoming soon, because Gypsies and Travellers 
will not want to risk potentially being arrested 
and getting their vehicles impounded in order for 
them to go to Court and find out what the Court 
decides is meant by ‘damage’ or ‘disruption’. 
Moreover, the offence can be committed, as 
discussed above, if damage or disruption is only ‘likely to be caused’.
(F) There is no specific attempt to define what 
‘significant’ means. This is a word which, in 
another context, has caused confusion and 
necessitated a definition by the Court of Appeal 
(Panayiotou v Waltham Forest London Borough 
Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1624). The lack of clarity here is concerning.
(G) Additionally there will be amendments to 
other powers in the CJPOA 1994 including adding 
on to ‘damage’ under s61(1) (see above) the words 
‘disruption or distress’. The period of time 
during which you must not return to the land 
following a notice under CJPOA 1994 s61 is also 
extended to 12 months. Section 61 will also be extended to cover the highway.

6. LOBBYING AND CAMPAIGNING
It will be very important, of course, for Gypsies 
and Travellers, Gypsy and Traveller national and 
local groups and those others supporting Gypsies 
and Travellers in this vital matter to take 
forward the strongest possible campaign and now 
to lobby Parliamentarians as the PCSCB passes 
through Parliament. It is noted that the 
Government seem intent on rushing this Bill through.
Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT) have 
already put together an impressive array of 
materials on this matter which you can find on 
their website at: 
https://www.gypsy-traveller.org/news/government-announces-plans-to-introduce-harsh-laws-for-roadside-camps/
FFT have produced an excellent briefing paper and, in summary, they state:
• The measures outlined in the PCSCB will further 
compound the inequalities experienced by Gypsies 
and Travellers, needlessly pushing people into the criminal justice system.
• The powers will disproportionately affect 
specific minority and ethnic communities and are 
likely to be in conflict with equality and human rights legislation.
• The case for action is flawed. An enforcement 
approach to addressing the number of unauthorised 
encampments overlooks the issue of the lack of 
site provision – there is an absence of places 
where Gypsies and Travellers are permitted to stop or reside.
• There are other solutions to managing 
unauthorised encampments, such as negotiated 
stopping, whereby arrangements are made on agreed 
permitted times on stopping and to ensure the 
provision of basic amenities such as water, sanitation and refuse collection.
• The definition of a Gypsy or Traveller in 
planning terms requires proof of travelling – 
without which you are not assessed as needing a 
pitch or get planning permission, but will 
essentially be prohibited from travelling by law.
• Police bodies do not support the criminalisation of trespass.
• The majority of respondents to the HO 
consultation opposed more police powers.
• There are very little in the way of measures to 
mitigate harm from the proposals.

7. WALES
We note that these provisions will apply in Wales 
too. The Welsh Government has taken a much more 
positive approach to Gypsies and Travellers than 
the Westminster Government in recent years, and 
especially since the duty to meet the assessed 
need for Gypsy and Traveller sites was enacted in 
the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 s103. That being so 
we hope that the Welsh Government will support 
the call for this proposed new offence and the 
amendments to the CJPOA 1994 to be withdrawn.

8. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this new offence (leaving aside 
the other amendments to the existing powers in 
CJPOA 1994) would be sufficient to make life on 
the road for Gypsies and Travellers impossible 
and, thus, drive them from the roadside in 
England and Wales for the first time since 
Gypsies appeared in Britain in the early 16th century.
We hope that the campaigning and lobbying from 
Gypsies and Travellers and their supporters will 
lead to the relevant clauses being removed 
completely from the Bill. If these clauses and 
especially if the new criminal offence is brought 
into force, then we think it is clear that a 
legal challenge will come forward immediately to 
these draconian and inhumane provisions. Once 
again we would urge Gypsies and Travellers 
potentially affected by these provisions to 
contact us. We would urge all those who object to 
these provisions to join with the Gypsy and 
Traveller national and local organisations in 
their campaign against this awful piece of legislation.

Community Law Partnership
23rd March 2021
For full details about the current state of the 
law please see Willers and Johnson eds. Gypsy and 
Traveller Law (Legal Action 2019).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20210714/f7469216/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4ac2adf3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 81275 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20210714/f7469216/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4ac2ae41.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 88381 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20210714/f7469216/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, 
he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and 
gave to them. 
<http://biblehub.com/luke/24-31.htm>31 And their 
eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he 
vanished out of their 
sight.  http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/24.htm 
'Capitalism is institutionalised bribery' TG
https://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry/videos
"And I think, in the end, that is the best 
definition of journalism I have heard; to 
challenge authority - all authority - especially 
so when governments and politicians take us to 
war, when they have decided that they will kill and others will die. "
--Robert Fisk
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q/videos
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://www.thisweek.org.uk
http://www.911forum.org.uk
http://www.tlio.org.uk
Download, donation only, Tony's three watermarked 
books http://www.bilderberg.org  - My books https://payhip.com/TonyGosling
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvPbHiqhLtpNWA_cg_1NULw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMn9GM4atN3t7AHJBbHMR0Q
https://www.twitter.com/TonyGosling
https://www.facebook.com/tony.gosling.16
You can donate to support Tony's work here http://www.bilderberg.org/bcfm.htm
Or buy Tony's three ebooks for £10-£15 here 
https://payhip.com/TonyGosling or paperback here 
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254963338161
TG mobile +44 7786 952037

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/pipermail/diggers350/attachments/20210714/f7469216/attachment-0003.html>