Thursday, 27 August 2015


With Chris Spivey relieved he hasn't been sent to jail, but facing a £3000 fine for telling the truth, to Richard D Hall who's looking for a sponsor to air his RichPlanet TV on Sky Channel 192; we all need money to keep the wolves from the door.


While I'm lucky enough to receive a reoccurring payment from A. Smith of £2.00 a month, of which I'm immensely grateful, and wish to take this opportunity to thank A. Smith for doing so; but PLEASE SIR/MADAM CAN I HAVE SOME MORE?

I have also been fortunate enough to be given money from:
  • Wonderland
  • Team Setchfield &
  • JLW
Thank you... I truly appreciate your kind donations and they have helped keep the wolves from the door; but PLEASE SIR/MADAM CAN I HAVE SOME MORE?

With no one else to blow my trumpet except myself; please let me remind you that I've been single handedly and voluntarily held Sussex Police and its Chief Constable to account since November 2012.

Katy Bourne has been paid £85,000 a year for doing a job she has thoroughly failed to do. Her Chief Executive Officer, ex Sussex Policeman Mark Streater has been paid £82,000 a year for keeping Katy Bourne in the dark, while ensuring the corruption deep in the heart of Sussex Police is allowed to continue.

Surely, my work as the Shadow Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner deserves a donation?


As Chris Spivey says in his defence of asking for public donations:

Keeping this site going, takes an incredible amount of my time and effort. Other commitments mean that finding the time to do so is not always easy. A small donation per week, would certainly take a lot of the pressure off me and leave me free to concentrate exclusively on this site and give you the hard to find info you deserve.”


In my capacity as the Editor of Guerrilla Democracy News I am the only alternative news outlet to comprehensively cover and publicise:
  • The News at AV5.
  • The Moai and John Wanoa.
  • Chris Spivey
  • Paedophiles in Parliament
  • The Master Criminals aka Queen Elizabeth II
  • Richard D Hall
  • Ancient British History and King Arthur II


While my readership numbers come no where near the likes of Chris Spivey and don't even show up on any figure collecting websites; I do achieve impressive figures with my Youtube videos.

This video won the Short Amateur Film Category at the recent Bases International Film Festival organised by the Miles Johnson.

This one has clocked up an impressive 62,438 hits in just over a year.

When Sussex Police realised they were being secretly filmed, after arresting me for saving an old man's life. With 33,777 hits, surely it deserves a donation.

When the BBC Licence men come calling. 32,681 hits and climbing.

Onto my most controversial youtube video and the one which has surprised me the most, because I would have thought I'd be arrested by now for posting it.

Suffice to say nothing much has changed since March 6th 2015, when I wrote:

Please if you can spare some money, please send it my way. I won't beat around the bush. I'm desperate.

While I'd love to carry on writing for Guerrilla Democracy News and holding Sussex Police to account, the wolves knocking at the family door make it impossible.

I'm looking for work. I've applied for a few speech writing jobs which I'm confident of being invited to an interview. And I'm keeping my neck above the murky waters, by taking on agency work as a morning cleaner, dishwasher and barman.


Again, blowing my own trumpet because no one else is, I have been mentioned in the same sentence as Chris Spivey, Bill Maloney and Brian Gerrish. Surely that's worth a donation in itself?

I wouldn't ask you if I wasn't in dire need, but if you have more to spare please please please donate it to me!


Wednesday, 26 August 2015


Clayton, Chris & Stacey Spivey
Ahead of Thursday’s  sentencing, here are THE TRUE FACTS of what has really taken place since July 30th 2014, ALL OF WHICH CAN BE EVIDENCED. Please share this report far and wide because next time it could be you caught up in a nightmare from where there appears to be no escape.
(1) I was illegally arrested at 1:30 AM on the 30th of July 2014 for “Suspicion of harassment” by four very aggressive police officers. The four thugs, despite knowing that my then 1 year old grandson was in the property illegally entered and began an illegal search, ending with them illegally seizing my computers, a mobile phone, a keyboard and mouse, and a DVD writer. I was then illegally detained for a total of 19 hours. Therefore, there should never have been a court case and disregarding that fact, the evidence should have been deemed inadmissible.

Sunday, 23 August 2015


Shoreham air crash: Police fear death toll 'may rise' just look at this next to the jet seconds before it crash in closed air space
Shoreham air crash: Police fear death toll 'may rise' just look at this next to the jet seconds before it crash
Posted by John Lenard Walson on Sunday, August 23, 2015

With the death toll raised from seven to eleven, disturbing evidence has been reported by respected ufologist Richard Lennie and astro-photographer John Lenard Walson, that the tragic Shoreham airport crash of yesterday may have been caused by a collision with a ufo.

UFO captured just before impact
Richard Lennie writes on his Facebook status:

“I'm going out on a limb here but with 4 hours of checking a video of this air crash from Shoreham I'm convinced the cause of the crash was from an unidentified flying object, In this case a white sphere hitting the under belly of the aircraft as it performs it's loop thus taking the vintage Hawker Hunter jet out of control. There is a mark on the right flap of the wing where the sphere seemed to hit, maybe this is the cause of the crash..!
There are so many anomalies in this video that it's just unbelievable..!! R.L.
My sincere condolences go out to all the family and friends who lost loved ones.!”

Victims confirmed dead so far include footballers Matt Jones, 24, and Worthing United FC footballer Matthew Grimstone, 23.

With Sussex Police pushed to the very limits of their operational abilities, a major operation is still underway which will see the main artery into Brighton, the A27, closed until well into next week.

Praised for the swift response of emergency services, the former RAF pilot of the downed Hawker Hunter jet Andy Hill, remains in a critical condition in the Royal Sussex County Hospital having been pulled alive from the burning wreckage.

While no one can under-estimate the horror to befall the innocent souls lost, ufologist and ufo abductee, Richard Lennie maintains his belief that a ufo collision was to blame.

“I would say the ufo was playing with the plane as they always do and this time it got it wrong, game over.! It was only a question of time. That's why I have been saying ''is our skies safe''..!”

Richard Lennie - Ufologist
Sussex Police have been informed of the situation and are said to be 'very grateful' for the information. They have since made a public announcement that no further footage of the crash be posted in social network sites.

“Yesterday onlookers filmed footage from the Shoreham aircraft crash - some have posted this footage online. Some of this material could be very distressing for the families and loved ones of the victims, so we are asking for anyone with footage to please consider their thoughts and feelings before posting. If you’d like to help with the investigation by supplying this footage to us please do get in touch by emailing your contact details and details of what you filmed/photographed (not the actual footage) to”

The Queen - by Rania Alammar.

A film written by Rania Alammar made in 2014 about the case of Princess Diana with a whole new assumption.. The film mainly raises the question of an (ABDUCTION) case and not death. for more information visit:


Patrick Cullinane in discussion with Sir John Paterson on his recent arrest and upcoming trial and on his work in exposing the massive financial fraud going on in Britain today via the fine detective work of Gorden Bowden.

Friday, 21 August 2015

Chris Spivey- Dead Man Walking.

Chris Spivey is a dead man walking. Tragic news to his family, Chris Spivey has arrived at the terrible conclusion that the only way the Powers that Be can save themselves is to murder him while he’s in custody at Her Majesty’s pleasure.
Spelt out in crystal clarity in his latest article ’They Shoot Horses Don't They,’ Chris Spivey proves beyond all reasonable doubt that not only is he is a victim of injustice, but he’s also earmarked to be murdered in Prison- in the not too distance future.
Spivey’s harassment conviction is built upon two counts of malicious communication against Lynn Rigby and Lee Rigby’s sister.
The first relates to ONE AND ONLY ONE Facebook message he sent on the 18th of July 2013 in which he was extremely polite and when he got no answer, did not attempt to contact the witness again.
The other malicious communication charge relates to a mock-up of a front page of the Sun newspaper, which was published on his Facebook Page.
(It's interesting to note that “a Matt Taylor” was named in the court's transcript as being the person responsible for posting the mock Sun newspaper front page. It has since been admitted that it was in fact posted by Lisa Pea, a member of Spivey’s administrative team.)

Chris Spivey maintains his innocence on this count claiming, “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.”
Guerrilla Democracy News accepts full responsibility for this picture
You would have thought the case would have been dismissed on these two points alone, but the miscarriage of justice runs deeper when we learn that the witness statements used to convict Spivey haven't even been signed by those person(s) who wrote them.
Rather than shying away Spivey is maintaining his contention that all the witnesses who testified against him ARE’NT who they claim to be.
“All four witnesses are of easily provable dubious character with clear evidence relating to criminal behaviour.”
Here is what Spivey has to say on the subject:
“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.”
Propabably the most controversial statement to make related to the Woolwich incident is the claim that virtually every personality involved was an MI5 inspired creation - a crisis actor!
Spivey plans to appeal his conviction but in doing so he knows better than anyone that he’s signed his own death warrant.
Over to Spivey who explains:
“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.”

Sourced from Spivey's Facebook status update.
"Guess who has been asked to appear at the Glastonbury Festival next year?
If I am still alive of course!
The following is a link to video footage of yesterday's event in London where Dr Nick Kollerstrom handed a letter into the ministry of Justice in protest at the persecution of me and my family by the British Government."

Transcript of the harassment trial of Christopher Spivey 30th-31st July 2015 at Chelmsford Magistrates Court. 

The trial began at about 10.20am, and the next 40 minutes consisted of Spivey's barrister asking the Judge to postpone the trial until a Judicial Review application had been processed. Spivey's barrister argued, that the trial would be 'unfair' because he could not 'challenge the witnesses, because they were not there'. The barrister argued that the pictures of the Rigby family, their homes and addresses were not 'private' but already in the public domain and therefore could be downloaded by anybody. He also argued that Spivey, was 'a journalist, therefore he had freedom of expression.' The judge then asked if he could have a copy of the application for Judicial Review and was given a copy by the defence. He noticed straight away that it was not stamped and asked why. The Defence explained that the application for legal aid to pay for the application and legal costs to process such a form had still not been authorised. However it will be lodged either today (30th July) or tomorrow. The Judge said he disagreed with the Judicial Review application because at every court appearance he have always asked why Mr Spivey wanted the witnesses present and he had never received a satisfactory response to his question. He said that he felt that there was enough authority to proceed with the trial, and he would weigh up the hearsay evidence regarding its merits. The prosecution then outlined the case against Spivey, quoting from his Police Statement, "they don't have to read it (the Rigby family)............ I have freedom of speech" The prosecution informed the court that there was ample evidence 1that Spivey's article had caused harm and distress to the family, and either he knew it would or should have known. Spivey had deliberately targeted Lee Rigby's mother and sister, and his comments were more than irritating. He acknowledged that Spivey had freedom of speech, however, section 10. 2 of the Harassment Act informs us that this also carries certain duties and responsibilities. Spivey's comments were 'bizarre' and could have only come from a 'crank' and had caused alarm and distress and this all equalled harassment. The prosecution then read out Lee Rigby's mother’s statement: We were now rebuilding our lives (family).... How her Facebook site was/is private.... The Sun `hoax’ headlines front page.... She read the comments alleging her son was a rapist..... The website destroyed (her) happy memories” Then Lee Rigby's sister`s statement was read out: "Contacted by Spivey via Facebook..... Claimed he had evidence of a hoax.... I Did not accept his `friend’ request` because I thought he was weird...... I looked at his website.... Spivey had published photos of me/family/home ..... I wondered how did he get my children`s names?..... I felt at risk, now may have to move” Mr Amos’ statement was then read out: “I am angry.... He used photos from my Facebook page..... Spivey sent messages.... I answered because I was intrigued.... (I felt) threatened, like I was being accused of being in on the hoax.... He exposing Rigby family fraud.... Spivey said that they will kill you not me, I have a high profile” Mr Vitler's statement was then read out: “Spivey contacted me... He looked like a cheap tattooist for bikers... Photographs (of Spivey) freaked him out... I Felt like someone was watching me” 2The defence barrister then realised that his 'bundle' of documents were different than the Prosecution and Judges. The Judge commented that the management of papers by the CPS had been far from adequate since the start of Spivey's court appearances. DC Coombes then was sworn in to give his evidence, reiterated all the points from the four statements to the Court. Spivey's Barrister then asked about the article regarding the assertion that the soldier was a 'rapist' and it was confirmed by DC Coombes that it was not Spiveys' article. The policeman confirmed with a simple “yes” that in all his investigations all video's, pictures, comments, etc were all taken from the mainstream media or were in the public domain. The barrister then referred the DC to pictures of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in the bundle. Asking first did he know that they were her funeral pictures? Answer, "I don't know". The barrister said, "Please believe me it was". There were two photos of the funeral one implying a large crowd at her funeral, was photo shopped by the Mainstream Media. The next one that was in the Alternative Media, was of a very sparse crowd. Did he notice Spivey's comments about the pictures? He replied “Yes” The DC also confirmed that Spivey's publication of the families addresses, had not encouraged or incited anybody to commit any criminal activity. The DC also confirmed with a simple "Yes" that Mr Amos contacted Spivey first. The DC also agreed that the witnesses did not have to go on Spivey's website (all four witnesses). When asked why they went on the website? The DC answered "I don't 3know". He was then asked, if the family ever asked Spivey to take posts down? He replied, "No". He then said that the family could have got the posts taken down by an Injunction and this was confirmed by the DC. The Barrister asked why it took over a year for them to complain. The DC replied, "I don't know" The barrister continued with questions such as: "Why did it take the police two weeks from the instigation of the complaint to Spivey's arrest?" "I can't account for why". "In those two weeks before his arrest was the family asking why has he not been arrested yet? " "No" He asked if there had been any assault, or violence, or harassment to the family since Spivey's arrest? The DC replied, “No”. The next day, Friday morning, the DC was back in the dock. Spivey's Barrister informed the court that Spivey was arrested with no search or arrest warrant. The DC confirmed that no other websites were checked regarding the Rigby families material, he said that it was not relevant to check other sites. Spivey then was sworn in. He was asked by his barrister about his background. The Judge asked about his dealings with the Sovereign Independent Newspaper, "how big is it's circulation?" 4Spivey's Barrister then asked Spivey the purpose of his website, Spivey's response was, "to make comments not published in the mainstream media." He asked Spivey to go to the bundle – "What was the purpose of the picture of Prince Charles being told by you to fuck off?" Spivey replied, "To attract attention". He then asked if Spivey ever got any negative comments on Facebook. Spivey confirmed he had. The barrister asked about which subjects received such comments, and gave the example of Rolf Harris. Spivey replied that the comments were made by “organised trolls”. Spivey then stated that everything he writes is sourced, he analyses the evidence and then writes his opinions. His writing style was simplistic in nature, designed for his target audience, which he stated was "like speaking to somebody on a building site" (a previous occupation of his). He admitted to photo shopping photos of Lee Rigby to evidence his opinion they matched up with other persons. He claimed he did not target the Rigby family, there were numerous other websites regarding Woolwich. Spivey was asked if he knew the Rigby's were looking at his site. Spivey replied, "No" Spivey said, "Amos contacted me...... Amos said, Come on big boy". Spivey confirmed that he had never contacted Mr Vitler in any form whatsoever, nor had he contacted anybody to take a picture of Vitler. The Sun 'mock headline' was posted by a Matt Taylor as anybody can post on Spivey's Facebook account. Spivey had been threatened with violence regarding various posts and subjects on Facebook in the past. 5He said: "his website, comments on his articles and his forum pages were only able to be accessed by subscription." The subscription comprised of giving a valid email address. He had moderators who ran his site, he just wrote. The barrister asked how many hits he has had since he has started in 2012. Spivey responded, "10 and half million, and yesterday I had 15,000 hits". The Judge asked, "Could the same people make multiple hits?", Spivey replied, "Yes" Spivey was asked by his barrister, if he actively sought or engaged the Rigby family to view the site? He confirmed that he had not. Spivey said that he only knew that he was alleged to have harassed the family, at the time of his arrest. He never wanted to cause harassment. The Prosecution then questioned Spivey regarding his Facebook account and website, and implied that 'links' posted on his Facebook page were a kind of advertisement for his webpage. The Prosecution suggested that the 'mock' Sun posting on his Facebook page, even though posted by Matt Taylor had then been 'adopted' by him by not deleting it, and asked if Spivey agreed with its content. Spivey replied that he had, "No feelings one way or the other". Spivey was then asked if he had attended the "Two Michaels" Old Bailey Trial, or informed the police, or defence solicitors for the "Two Michaels" that he could help the trial by revealing what he had discovered. Spivey responded, “No” 6 Spivey said his intention at one time was to present all his evidence to a Police Station. The Judge then asked Spivey, "Did you ever consider the possibility that you could be wrong?" Then asking, "did you not consider the hurt caused to the Rigby`s if you are wrong?" Spivey answered that his motive regarding exposing Woolwich as a hoax, was to publicise how anti - muslim feelings were being stirred up in the country, plus he wanted to expose the negative prospect of rewarding of the security services with a multi-million budget to further erode freedoms. The Judge then said this Rigby conspiracy was, "extremely wide". He suggested that MI5 must have got everybody on board from the Old Bailey judge to the witnesses of the murder. Spivey used the example of Pearl Harbour to illustrate that cover ups do occur, in that it is now common knowledge that the Americans allowed this to happen so they could enter the Second World War. The Judge then asked Spivey his views on 9/11, 7/7, Tunisia and the Holocaust. Spivey replied he did not believe the Government narratives on all of these occurrences and he also informed the Judge that his daughter was Jewish. The Prosecution then asked Spivey if he agreed that the death of a son would upset the parents. Spivey confirmed that he agreed. Spivey also agreed that such a death would upset a half sibling and would be upsetting if the death was also violent and unexpected. The barrister then asked Spivey what was the purpose of inviting the sister to make contact. Spivey answered, "To get a story out.... I am a journalist" 7 The Judge then said that the sister had received his request, "out of the blue, and didn't know you from Adam, and don't you think she would check you out as an Investigative Reporter by checking your site.....” The Prosecution then asked how come so many agencies of the State have got it all wrong regarding Lee Rigby. Spivey responded with, "My job is for the good of the people". The Prosecution then asked about the personal comments regarding the picture of Lee Rigby's family home and also about Spivey's' comments about the allegations of rape. The Judge asked about Spivey's comment, "9 times out of 10, I am usually right" in relation to the rape comments. The Prosecution then asked about his research for his topics. Spivey informed the court that all material used is in the public domain. Spivey confirmed that he is an internet campaigner because all our freedoms are being taken away. Spivey also confirmed that he had a Press Card and he was registered and that there was a Code of Ethics. Spivey then left the dock. The Prosecution then began his summing up: "....abundant evidence regarding the Lee Rigby family.... (That caused) alarm and distress... would have known or should have known it would cause alarm or distress" The Prosecution stated that there was definite targeting by Spivey. Informing the court that since the cases of harassment in 2001 and 2004, the "effect of publishing does not have to be direct".... You can be found guilty even if you say, "don't tell the person this".... "In terms of Freedom of Speech, Spivey has crossed the line...." 8 "He was/is an obsessive conspiracy theorist who thinks he is free to act in this manner with impunity." The Defence then summed up. The prosecution to prove their case had to prove Spivey was wrong in his opinion of the Woolwich incident. There are difficulties with "big events", where people question the facts, the example he used were the Moon Landings. People can analyse the same evidence but come to different conclusions. The picture of the Rigby family at Christmas was freely available to the public. The home address was sourced by means of Companies House. The person who took the picture of Mr Vitler was never traced by the Crown to seek his motive. There was no evidence on Spivey's computers when checked by the Police, nor that he had encouraged or incited anybody to do anything to the four witnesses, plus there was no evidence of the targeting of these individuals. Spivey had written about the whole Woolwich incident, the Rigby story was just a small piece in his essays. The Barrister stated the legal test for Spivey was, "was he aware he should not have done it". Giving the example of the Rapist accusation which was removed the next day by Facebook. The Defence stated that fourteen months had passed from the first post about the Rigby`s to the date of Spivey's arrest. No action was taken to take down Spivey's publications. Spivey has never been asked by anybody to "please take it down" to the present day (31st July). Lee Rigby's mother did not indicate in her statement when she first 9saw Spivey's website, and how many visits she made over this 14 month period when the articles were up. Again the test for Spivey was whether he knew he was harassing anyone. Mr Amos in his statement never indicated that Spivey had "overstepped the line" and he was going to tell Mrs Rigby. In the same way the sister was never asked, "When did you view it?", and how many times over this fourteen month period. Spivey had not asked anybody to, "Go and sort them out", although he acknowledged that Spivey had contacted the sister, "only once". The website was for his opinion only, he is a journalist not a "nut job". Spivey's comments on the mainstream media give an alternative opinion which are all his own views and assertions. After Spivey's barrister finished his summing up, the Judge immediately delivered his summing up of the case and gave his verdict. Spivey, in the Judge’s opinion, in the 'Reasonable Person' test, had harassed the two family members of the Rigby family. There had been, "a course of conduct to those people, likely to cause distress... (Spivey) should have known" In the interest of Justice there was no reason for the Rigby family to attend court in his view. In the Judge’s opinion the website and Facebook account was the real issue, not Woolwich. Then he stated that Spivey considers himself a journalist, who questions stories from the mainstream media and by, "just looking at photos can say 9/11, 7/7, Pearl Harbour, Tunisia did not happen, and Lee Rigby was not murdered or was not real". The Judge then said, "All in the (Woolwich) case have been seriously misled by MI5.....a massive conspiracy" “He (Spivey) thinks, "without a shadow of a doubt, I am right, and 10everybody else is wrong". The Judge then said it is not for him to take a view regarding Woolwich, the test for him was just regarding the harassment of the two Rigby family members. He then said that Spivey was "a journalist with no code of ethics to speak of." He debunked public figures and others, in his view in a "very unpleasant manner". He had made personal, and unattractive remarks about the Rigby family and was guilty. The Prosecution then said that Spivey had planned this harassment over a long period, it was 'high end'. The court costs to Spivey would be £3,980. He produced a Restraining Order for the Judge to order the take down all offending material on Spivey's website by 12 midnight on the 31st of July. The Defence was then asked by the Judge to prepare a pre-sentence report as custody was an option. He also informed Spivey, that if he took the whole site down, then this could be used in mitigation when sentencing him on the 27th August.

Sunday, 9 August 2015


Chris Spivey is back. A national hero to many and a nasty internet troll to mass media newspapers, the controversial writer has bounced back on the internet with a vengeance.

Having declared “That’s all Folks” following his conviction of harassment against Lee Rigby’s family, Chris Spivey has posted an article “I Am I Said” in which he sets out in crystal clarity how he’s been fitted up by a corrupt establishment for telling the truth about such false flag events as the Woolwich beheadings, the Glasgow bin tragedy, the Tunisia terror attack, 7/7 terror attacks and many more.

Unfortunately, that situation is not getting any better as it is now becoming blatantly obvious to me that the ‘Establishment’ is not content with shutting me up – they are in fact after crushing me and my totally innocent family.”

Squashing disturbing rumours he had committed suicide Chris Spivey has sent out the signal that he’s back and he’s back for good.

The site is still up and running and will continue to do so even if I get sent to prison for a crime I didn’t commit…”

Many thousands of others went into mourning facing the prospect of never reading a Chris Spivey article again.


Words don't do justice to the sadness I feel today. Our community is broken our hopes that we could fight and make a difference are gone. Our voices have been silenced. And the implications for this country don't bare thinking about, Chris Spivey has been a true warrior, and to his and his families detriment fought the system better than anyone ever. I fully support and understand his decision, there is only so much one man can take, and to take his reputation the way they have saddens me so much. Where will the disenfranchised the disillusioned the disheartened go now, when they need help?” - Lisa Pea

I have not meet Chris in person but a have been reading his site for years and I will greatly miss him and will thousands of others.” - Kylie Healy, Long time reader from Perth, Western Australia.

It’s a sad day man, don’t ever think you were alone and nobody was standing up, we are a few at a time. You helped so many see just how rotten this world really is. If this is truly your last post then you will be missed. Our thoughts are with you.” - Neil Smeaton

Gutted.” - Gareth.

Mind you, while thousands mourned, others rejoiced at the good news.

This week the news that Chris Spivey is in court, convicted of harassment of members of the family of Lee Rigby, the soldier who was murdered at Woolwich, has cheered me up immensely, and I do feel that, if Chris Spivey, as he has been warned, does end up with a custodial sentence, justice will have been done and a stand made for freedom of speech. Which is the excuse Chris Spivey uses for writing his obscene, deranged drivel, now mercifully deleted from the internet.

Due to Chris Spivey's appearance in court this week he has deleted his blog, immediately the airwaves are fresher and clearer, the ether seems brighter and easier to communicate within, maybe just imagination but I for one am relieved that Chris Spivey's obscene, unpleasant and untruthful blog is no more.” - Sharon Gifford aka Mother Damnable.

Chris Spivey is a cunt. A gargantuan cunt. A pig-ignorant, barely literate, inarticulate conspiracy theorist cunt with a website on which he posits his ridiculous theories that pretty much every major national disaster and/or world tragedy is a hoax staged by “crisis actors” sponsored and arranged by the government of whichever country the event takes place in.” - A cunt who cunts cunts!

Sam Cameron is Elizabeth Owens
Chris Spivey is a LUNATIC To even suggest that this family is involved in a conspiracy like this is beyond words or imagination. This is a slap in the face to the memory of their loved one. OMG.” - Michelle Lee.

With his articles littered with profanities, Chris Spivey has earned himself the reputation of being the leading and most controversial writer in the Alternative Media.

Championed by Guerrilla Democracy News as the person most likely to trigger a British revolution, Chris has come under sustained criticism for putting forward the suggestion that a company of crisis actors are instrumental in virtually every major terror attack in the world.

A step too far for many readers is the suggestion that Sam Cameron doubled as Elizabeth Owens, a witness at the 7/7 inquest and that widow of alleged 7/7 bomber Samantha Lewthwaite, was a crisis actor who played Rebecca Rigby in the Woolwich event.

While Chris exposes many more crisis actors by using a Face Comparison application, other researchers carry on where he's left off suggesting actor Jonathan Pryce is Pope Francis. While I'm stunned at my resemblance to Barry from East enders!

Jonathan Pryce is Pope Francis - Barry from Eastenders is Matt Taylor

His contention that nearly all the happy family pictures of Prince William, Princess Katie and their son Prince George are photoshopped is a contention too far.

Many believe Chris Spivey has lost all credibility., but as so often the case, when you follow the evidence, no one knows where you’ll end up.


It's a measure of Chris Spivey’s character and conviction that he's prepare to journey down the proverbial rabbit’s hole and share with the world everything he finds along the way.

The same can be said about David Icke and his contention that those in power are actually shape shifting reptilians from another dimension.

Either way, Chris Spivey put his reputation on the line and in doing so has revealed a story unbelievable to many and the ultimate truth to others.

Shying away from the one subject which certain people want him to address, (The Hampstead case) Chris Spivey has hit out against his critics who say he isn't a journalist.

In his latest article 'I Am Said I,' and feeling somewhat insecure after the recent national backlash against his work, integrity and character, he said:

“So what is a journalist?
Well, according to Merriam-Webster a Journalist is:
(A) A person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
(B) A writer who aims at a mass audience
(C) Someone who keeps a journal.
So in regard to category A, it is pretty safe to say that I am a writer.”

Before going onto rightfully boast;

“My website – [] – is currently ranked at 210,052 in the world, 10,649 in the UK, 10,968 in Australia and 472,491 in the USA… Which trust me, is an altogether fucking brilliant ranking.”

Guerrilla Democracy News is the first to admit grabbing onto the coat tails of Chris Spivey to boast it's own readership numbers. The acclaimed 'Who the Fuck is Chris Spivey?' remains a reader's favourite and tops the most viewed blog on a daily basis.

As Chris Spivey mentions in his article 'I Am I Said' about his new found nemesis Jimmy Jones the Outlaw:

You see, Jones is apparently crowing about how heavy his webshite traffic is, yet he is too dumb to realise that it is only people coming to see what the fucked up faggot is saying about me as opposed to new found supporters.”

Its true for Guerrilla Democracy too. Having reported comprehensively on Chris Spivey, its fair to say that if you type “Chris Spivey” into Google's search engine, you will find at least two Guerrilla Democracy News blogs about him.


While his loyal supporters accuse me of “taking the piss;” I prefer to think 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.'

From a personal point of view; I hold no shame or guilt in “taking the piss” out of Chris Spivey. It certainly doesn't mean I don't support him or that I wouldn't move Heaven and Earth to come to his defence.

The very fact that I've never personally gone up to support him at any of his court appearances shouldn't give the impression I don't care.

We all have our own families to care for; and having blown all my money helping a grumpy old git defend himself against Sussex Police corruption and keep his home free from criminal thugs; I literally don't have the money to spend on a train journey up to Essex.

I didn't appreciate being pulled up by him for making friends with another nemesis of his, Tom Cahill. We all have to deal with our critics and protractors, and the fact I choose to deal with Tom Cahill by offering my hand of friendship is none of Chris Spivey's business.

Further to which I didn't appreciate being treated like a naughty school boy for questioning his refusal to address the Hampstead case, only to be chastised for not turning up to support him, while others did.

Who I support and who I don't has fuck all to do with you or anyone else... However, now you have brought the subject up, I don't remember seeing you at my court case last month... Course, shouting your mouth off at me is a sure fire way of losing mine.”

As far as I'm concerned I can be a supporter of someone without having to agree with his or her's every word.

Chris Spivey looking goofy
Take John Smith's comment for example:

Why did you choose such unflattering pics of Spivey when you claim to be a supporter?”

In the same way as 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'; I actually choose to use this picture because I believed it showed Chris Spivey's fun side.

Perhaps its just a natural talent I have to wind people up the wrong way. Though one thing is for sure; after 40 plus years of doing it, I'm not about to stop any time soon.

Taking a tip out of Chris Spivey's book, a voice in my head is asking- “Who is this blog about? Chris Spivey or me?”


Sunday, 2 August 2015

The Crown Of Thorns by Fabooka De Stait.

For Steph Cockshaft of The Daily Mail and The State:

Chris Spivey
So, tell me, just by whose standards is the world going to accept the context of "Deeply Unpleasant Conspiracy Theorist?"
Is Christopher Spivey a theorist who has studied a deeply unpleasant conspiracy, or is he someone the establishment would like to class as deeply unpleasant for daring to venture a lot deeper than most into the behind the scenes workings of our national propaganda machine?
Whatever way you try to look at the very ambiguous points raised, it also seems that the state and the media it controls have tried their very best to dissuade the general public from having any intention or right to question very disturbing and far-fetched events such as 9/11 and 7/7.
Unbelievably, it appears that those who rule may actually be attempting to steer public opinion into not accepting any of the alternative and very valid theories surrounding these instances for fear of being branded as someone like Chris Spivey - a man who they have done their best to destroy by way of character assassination and not following their own obligatory procedures or contemplating evidence that may more than dispute their pre-conceived ideas and offerings, that they would like everyone else to imbibe after having swallowed without question. It is nothing to be ashamed of to be very wary of the official versions of 9/11 and 7/7. Indeed, neither is it anything to be wary of to be speculative of someone supposedly being shot with an AK 47 over 30 times in Tunisia and not having a mark on them. This would be especially pertinent, given there are a number of areas of concern relating to Israeli interest in the country and a possible very substantial oil find, under the sea bed that may be worthy of international attention.
Is it by the standards of a corrupt and murderous government, that has been proven to be full of paedophiles, fraudsters and warmongers who never seem to quite find themselves in the dock, due to their deeply entrenched positions within the upper echelons of our rancid society that we are meant to accept the soiling of Chris Spivey's reputation?
If so, are we then going to allow this wholly biased and vindictive defamation to be presented by the equally libellous and corrupt Rothermere family and their politically corrupt media machine, so as we can all willingly accept falsehood as fact?
In claiming that Chris Spivey stated Lee Rigby did not exist, let us be quite clear that he postulated that the man presented to the world as Lee Rigby, was more than likely not of the actual name Lee Rigby, inasmuch as he was really Lee McClure. This assessment was not without a fair degree of evidence to back it up, by way of voters list details and several other pieces of information. So, please let us not highlight misleading statements so as to demonize somebody who did a very thorough and analytical investigation of the circumstances surrounding this staged event: and it was a staged event in that it was pre-planned by whoever was involved. Whether the public face of the two Mikes is responsible for the act or not, they were still partly responsible for actually creating the circumstances for it to take place.
Thus, it can be seen that Mr. Spivey made claims based on thorough analysis and observations that went far more in depth than the shallow brief that was presented to the general public by the media and those who control them. In addition, there is no doubting that many of the pictures of the supposed soldier, who in all fairness was more than likely only a cadet had been altered by graphical tools such as photoshop: who was responsible for allowing them to be viewed in the public domain with such obvious anomalies is very difficult to say, but there can be no doubting the fact that many were presented in a manner that would suggest they had been touched up and or altered in numerous ways, and there is quite simply no disputing of this matter.
Sound bites flounced to the public by the likes of the Daily Mail should quite simply be taken with a pinch of salt. Make no mistake about it, Chris Spivey did not initiate any campaign against the likes of Lyn Rigby the day after this alleged attack. The reality is that the topic was up and open for debate on the very popular web site of Mr. Spivey, just like it was for many other groups within the Alternative Media, other online communities and even the somewhat ignorant general public through their main information sources. So, this in itself is a complete lie and an obvious besmirching of a man based upon an agenda that is out to do him no good in any way shape or form. Hundreds of thousands of people became aware from a multitude of sources that there were indeed many inconsistencies surrounding the official story. It is not our fault that people have blood splattered hands in one film and in the next they are shown as fresh and clean. It is not our fault that the testimonies of the likes of the later to be sectioned, Ingrid Loyau Kennett, had more holes in them than a Swiss cheese - so let us not try and taint the issue with aspects that are actually irrelevant to the prosecution’s stated case.
Tony Abell, the C.P.S. employee, responsible for a scathing attack may have indeed felt the actions of people discussing or not agreeing with an official narrative were deeply unpleasant and menacing. He would do, wouldn't he, as his livelihood depends on securing the views of the warped state in controlling the disposition of the population by way of cajoling, and if that is not possible, by way of subterfuge and coercion.
Let us all be in no doubt, that the website, although very popular was in fact a closed environment in that it had to be sought out if you wished to view the contents held therein. So, just because a group of like-minded individuals happen to discuss some very unpleasant and criminal acts in a forthright and grown-up manner in such a place - it does not constitute their actions being classed as harassment of anybody in any circumstances whatsoever. Further to this, it should be quite apparent that Mr. Spivey did nothing underhanded at all, in analyzing supposed residences of the Rigby family; in that he used information that had previously been printed and orally transmitted by the national press itself.
Even with a number of site visits totalling around 10,000 per day (verified) a mention of an address on that site would reduce any alleged fear to a miniscule amount as opposed to having your address stated and presented in photographs via multiple national newspapers and television channels. So, it can be appreciated that such an insinuation is completely laughable from whatever aspect you try to view it. As there would be a far higher likelihood of a lunatic who reads the national press doing something just for the hell of it and without any reason to an address such as that which was shown, even possibly just for the case of gaining sick notoriety.
Why would Mrs. Rigby be crying for weeks over her publicly known address being used to illustrate information based articles 'online' when she was perfectly happy for the same details to be all over the country for everyone to see via the medium of television? In reality the only reason would be as a result of her not finding what was said as being conducive to the story she wished to promote and have accepted by a nation. This was so evident, that the woman had no qualms at all about her home being featured in a garden make-over show even though Chris Spivey was writing what he was writing at the time. So, it is simply not a genuine example of her sorrow, in that if she never felt safe she would not have been too concerned about getting the garden enhanced to a very high standard and having it once again shown on national television. It simply does not equate, no matter how you try to look at it.
Yes, if Chris Spivey is guilty of anything, it is of expressing his opinion and putting it up for appraisal on his own website and nothing more. Where in the world would such an act be classified as a crime, except in what is or is rapidly becoming a Post Orwellian state?
Our very same government and judges wish to decry many nations for doing similar things to people who express views that are not in line with the state approved doctrine. A similar example would be trying to condemn Putin's Russia for imprisoning the likes of Pussy Riot for a couple of years when their very own courts sentenced a man to similar period for simply putting his artistic slant on a less than flattering picture of The Queen. Thus it can be easily seen that there is far more to the concerted effort to malign Chris Spivey than meets the eye. Furthermore, nobody should fall for very pernicious and yet weak suggestions that Chris Spivey personally had anything to do with mock-up news headlines that were presented as if they were from The Sun Newspaper, as he simply did no such thing. Once again, all he did do was use and give the opportunity for people to view some other assessments of the Woolwich incident. It was not Chris Spivey at all, who was responsible for the initial presentation of this material.
Again, in the very poor journalistic efforts displayed by those incompetents at The Daily Mail, we see very out of context comments from Mr. Spivey so as to allude to him as uncaring or insensitive, when nothing could be further from the truth. And whether the system likes it or not, which they most certainly do not at this time - people do have a right to free speech. There is no point the Mail decrying free speech, when they are allowed to distort information and get away with it with impunity, like they and their affiliates always have done. There was nothing 'Bizarre' about the genuine researching and analysis taking place on in respect to Woolwich, nor was it the case for numerous other websites by way of doing the same, even if they were somewhat less effective and convincing.
Is it criminal for a researcher or investigative journalist to approach somebody such as a family member to seek clarification on issues so as they do not say something out of turn or very incorrect now, is it? After all, many news establishments do such things and they go a lot further and carry out far more sinister actions in order to secure their information - as we all know. Yes, from hacking peoples' phones, to infiltrating communities and even to stalking dead girl's family members, those at the helm of your so called, glorious 'Free Press' have done it all. In addition to this, they are very seldom interested in doing such things with the aim of uncovering the truth as opposed to enhancing the bank balance of themselves and their very dubious employees. So let's not judge too harshly in this case, nor accept the rhetoric of the easily corrupted and easily misled, in that they like to have their job of misleading being as comfortable for them as possible so as they can easily mislead the populace.
Let it be explained to all concerned that yet again, any attempt to erode Chris Spivey or his reputation is rather easy to refute. Especially the report that Chris stated Rigby was a rapist; which was only used by way of referencing a page that had been promoted to specifically to call Rigby, in the first place.
Revelations and allegations relating to Facebook activity are also presented in a disturbing manner so as to further tarnish him. Indeed, friends of the Rigby family, after they had made their complaints that sought to prevent Mr. Spivey from contacting them, continued to besiege his website and his Facebook page - so much so, that I myself had to inform Christopher Amos that by way of doing what he was doing and Chris Spivey not being allowed to talk to him, he was only disproving the basis for his allegation by way of showing himself to anyone and everyone as the vicious and malicious fool he was, as he gloated. Thus, he was not too bothered about what was said or interacting due to his own actions. That is very obvious and should not be dismissed under any circumstances.
As well we all know, on one of Chris's previous court appearances he had such a significant amount of support that it did seem to worry those who were in charge of their biased proceedings and in the latest debacle only around half a dozen were actually allowed in to view the show trial, which was based upon easy to disprove statements.
Why does District Judge Woollard have to quiz anybody over their beliefs on other issues, if he is supposed to be so intent on finding facts that he very comfortably dismisses in order to save his own position and that of the corrupt state that pays him his £135,000 salary? Fair enough, he may have wanted to gain a grounding, but if he failed to accept fact, and prevented a fair trial to begin with, why would he be interested for any reason other than to affirm in his own mind that these beliefs held by Mr. Spivey and many others are something to be quashed by those who work for the system and are part of it?
He was found guilty of being offensive was he? By people whose business is dealing in murder abroad and the institutionalized killing off of their own old age pensioners, as they also steal 10,000 children per year from families in order to supply their insidious conveyor belt of those who are to be abused? Wow!!! Well that would certainly worry me, and so it is best I get my priorities in order, don't you think?
To be fair, I am of the opinion that Jenny Hopkins, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS East of England could not convince me of the clarity of drinking water. People are allowed their free speech and we shall fight for it all the way - well, at least those like myself shall do so, as I can't really speak on behalf of the numerous traitors and weaklings who pretend they are part of what is supposed to be the online or bona fide Alternative Media in this country. Their actions seem to be of very shrinking violets when faced with the full weight of oppression from those they are meant to be challenging in the first place. So why half of them even pretend to bother, when such important and disturbing state abuses are left unchecked is quite simply beyond my comprehension.
If Mr. Spivey is to be classed as criminal for uncovering advertisements for false charities, illegal activities and links to right wing organizations then so is everyone who commented and addressed those issues. However, let us not forget that the real problem is that such activities were allowed to be covered up and in order to preclude Mr. Spivey from obtaining the right to question his false accusers and their state assistants in person - and what a surprise that is to us all. So, I will go with that he was well within the boundaries of his right to free speech if you do not mind - whichever way you try to paint it.
Upsetting assertions surrounding the act would not be as big a worry to me if my family member had been murdered, let me tell you all that for nothing. And, to be honest, this actually sounds much like another very interesting case that is heavily promoted by the state, which is that of the very strange McCann family, in that nobody appears to have the right or the sense to question them in a workmanlike fashion, least of all the police, who are apparently doing their best to avoid the obvious to a greater extent than I have ever witnessed.
In summation, the fact is that it is crystal clear for all but the most myopic to see that Chris Spivey has had to be seen to be made an example of. There are no misunderstandings with regards to this, in that he and his family are the ones who have been harassed via the machinations of big society and big brother as well as being physically and mentally abused by its very knowledge-lacking minions. All has been done, so as to achieve an underlying aim that is very Cultural Marxist in nature and dispersed through the land via Common Purpose infiltration of the judicial system and all of those who seek to uphold it in all of its failings and false morality.
That ultimate aim is to seek to the reduction in ability or knowledge of those who are to be controlled. That is it; nothing more and nothing less, as all other options are on the table for those in power once that objective has been achieved, and they will therefore stop at nothing to secure it.
People like the supposed Lee Rigby, nor his rather strange family and their friends are of concern to those at the reins of power. Many of us know this, and are aware that such people do not care, as long as they feel they are being praised or supported by those who would like us to believe that their very clear ideas for us all have to be seen to emanate from the assumption that weak and manipulated authority somehow constitutes the truth, innate goodness and all of its very illusive benefits.
Well, you won't be fooling me, or preventing me from stating it anywhere, anytime or in any place, no matter how hard you try to bend millions of tiny minds. I mean, for argument’s sake, what is going to happen when I have twenty friends around for a get-together and we end up a little loud in my house as we then start to discuss such things with the same take on them? Is the smart T.V. going to record all that data and send it back to Thought Police H.Q. so as we can expect a visit from the public order enforcers and those who think we need some mind altering, so as to appear normal?
Whatever you do, don't laugh, as all who are silent will be deemed responsible for the furthering of the journey along this path. You wait and see!!!
You’re welcome.....Fabooka De Stait.

Please show your appreciation with a donation.