Tactical Retreats

Tactical retreats can serve a great many purposes …

Firstly, they can, as you posit in your question, withdraw a unit from engagement and otherwise save it from destruction and/or to fight another day.

Secondly, and tangentially, they could also be undertaken to withdraw a weary or otherwise tired unit, thereby sustaining its combat effectiveness.

Third, a unit could withdraw because they felt themselves to be at a disadvantage, like the terrain, or because they lacked forces/numbers, or weapons, or reinforcements.

Fourth, a unit could also withdraw to gain an advantage, like a movement to more advantageous grounds and/or a better position or situation.

Fifth, and most interestingly, a withdrawal could be a well designed trap!

 

Helping others help themselves

COVID LIES

Funeral Director exposes truth about fake Pandemic 

D-DAY

On this day 35 years ago I was summoned to the main office where Peter Howarth announced: "there's a warrant here for your train". "Train"? I asked. "Yep... you're off lad". Two minutes later David Birch walked in rattling the van keys smiling. "Come on Darren, your train leaves in 20 mins we don't want you missing it do we"? My mouth was agape. I walked upstairs to my dorm put my stuff in a rucksack threw it over my shoulder and made my way downstairs, then outside to the minibus. No goodbyes no handshakes no hugs nothing. Just me, Birchy and the minibus.

Birchy dropped me off, "try and look after yourself Darren lad, it's a fucking jungle out there". I turned around to say goodbye but he was already driving off. I handed the ticket to the man behind the glass window. He stamped it and I walked onto the platform. Someone had left a newspaper on the bench, The Daily Post, 6th June 1983. The train pulled up, I lit a fag opened the door and stepped on board. I found a seat next to the window and watched as Wrexham faded into a small spot and eventually from sight. I began to cry.

Arrival at Chester station was 20 mins later. A quick train swap and I was on the train to Llanfair PG. Another home, another life another episode. This time it was going to be different. I was going to get a job and meet a girl and enjoy my life away from social services.


30 years later and it feels like yesterday. Upon arrival at the halfway house/home, one of the helpers at the establishment commented "you know what day it is don't you Darren?.... It's D-Day, you could call it Daz's Day". I have every year since. Every year, every June 6th has been Daz's Day.  Today is no different.

RIP to all those who've failed to reach this far, you're forever in my thoughts.

Grandparentage

Let me introduce my grandson Jax. Born on the 9th June. Now, if ever there was a reason to fight the fight I've been fighting for so, this is him. The past few years have been a hard lesson. The next few might be too. But things have changed, resentments no longer control the psyche. Logic rules.

The End Game

I'd like to thank the ICO for their findings and dismissing the Guardians appeal on this matter. The disclosure concerned was a fabricated false and fake document which was created in or around 1991/2. My signature was forged by someone who I believe to be David Rose, (secret paedophile I am 'a former MI5 agent' who 'specialises in fixing tricky problems which are inconveniencing the more conservative parts of the Establishment – by using spin, disinformation and pure lies'.), news reporter of the year in the Society of Editors British Press Awards for 2015. He dismissed my approaches in the same year and has failed to explain to me why his name was on the article of September 1992 in which words from the fabricated document were copied from and used in the 1992 article.

The wording was such that it alleged I took part in a rape at the age of 11. There was no rape, no rape victim, and no gang rapists. There was a girl (14) who had sex with 3 boys(14,15,15)  whilst I was in the area. She consented and as far as I witnessed she enjoyed the experience. She never complained to the authorities (she was in care with me) or the police. There was no investigation because there was no crime, other than all four involved were underage. This information hasn't previously been available to the public. Neither has the fact that, the only other humans apart from those involved, who were aware of these details of the event were policemen/women from North Wales police. 

I told the police about it in August 1991. It was supposed to be in my original police statement about my time in care. Only the author of the fabricated document and the police know how it arrived in David Roses possession. My guess? It was created to discredit me as a witness against Gordon Anglesea. I could place him at Bryn Estyn and I was credible. A jury would have believed the truth from me. The police knew it and so did Anglesea's Masonic brothers. Ask yourselves this-Why, if Laverty was worth enough to feature on the same Observer piece that was spread over two pages- why wasn't he worth it enough to call as a witness at the 1994 libel trial? They couldn't afford to have me in the witness box on their behalf because they'd previously written that I was a rapist at the age of 11. Furthermore, how could the same article appear on twitter 20 years later when the archivists at from the Guardian, according to Stephen Pritchard, have stated that the archived version of the article has never been accessed? I'm happy to share the e-mail should anyone need clarification. So where did it come from? I know not. Only a select few have that knowledge. The lawyers and the heads of both the Guardian and the Observer are among that select few. 

They thought they could ruin me and Stephen Messham (who also featured in the 1992 two page spread about Gordon Anglesea). You know what happened to Steve, not once, but twice they ruined him and his mind. They never came close to doing the same to me. I was and still am too strong and tenacious to let another human ruin my mind. If you've met me you'll agree. 

The Guardians readers editor Stephen Pritchard (officially and unbelievably their ombudsmen) was contacted by or contacted a hack  on October 5th, 2016. After speaking on the telephone he disclosed the forgery with the hope of increasing my chances of conviction on fabricated malicious stalking charges. The disclosure was made via e-mail. There is no other way it could be shared because it only exists in digital form. There is no date on it and no-one has ever seen an original. That is a fact. During legal arguments, the head of legal for the Guardian couldn't deny it. Now, however, anyone could have it. 

Am I making this up? I shit you not, every word is fact. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, welcome on stage Esther Baker. Forever the victim Baker lays into me. Her police statements are pure gold for a future novelist. She was clearly coached by the spooks from Exaro, the police (from three forces) and the Lantern crew. She goes on about me tweeting about hoisin sauce and roasting ducks and thought she could convince a jury that I was actually tweeting to her about being "spit roasted". Then she goes on to claim that she knows that the term refers to be fucked in the doggy style whilst giving a blow job. This is what I was being accused of, there's more of similar lies from Poulton. One day when I'm dead you'll get to see it all. Each and every one of my accusers can't make the truth into lies. The ones who've chosen to use the article to justify and boost their hatred of me have only given me the strength that I never knew I had. You're all to blame for this blog remaining online, all to blame for creating a more resilient Laverty than previously existed. 

Those who chose to swim alongside me against the tide have also struggled. My haters are their haters because they chose to believe and challenge what was being put out there about me. Well, thank you, haters, for introducing me to some amazing people. Without your hate and bile and lies about me, I wouldn't have been given the opportunity to have been blessed with their courage and tenacity and friendship. Long may it continue. That said, I've come across a large number of absolute nutters in the past five years too. Too many to mention. They only wanted to help but failed to understand the gravity of my situation. I hope they're reading this and beginning to understand it a bit more now. It really does read like fantasy to many because of the depths it goes to. There's far more to offer but this isn't the place. Maybe YouTube or a similar platform. You can look into my eyes and judge for yourselves.

This isn't the end of the matter. Imran Kahn QC, arguably one of the most respected QC's in the UK and further afield, has been instructed and is in the process of finalising a legal letter of intent. The letter will be arriving on certain doorsteps in the not too distant future. Rest assured it'll be made public once completed. Those who ignore Imran's declaration will face severe consequences. That's not a threat, it's a promise. Imran knows the DNA of my case and has every intention of dealing with those who continue to use the fabricated article as a weapon against me. Those who allow the publication or availability of the article are not excluded from legal action. Those residents living outside the UK but in Europe will also have to face the legal consequences. There are no borders to stop the courts from dealing with you. 

Additionally, I believe a crime has been committed by the Observer readers editor. His actions fit the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Whether or not he gets charged, and based on my previous dealings with the police I don't expect he will, he has to live with the fact that the intent was there. He intended to sway the juries mind into believing I was a rapist. All based on the document that was faked, forged and fabricated by his newspaper. He involved himself in a criminal court case and intended to cause serious harm to the administration of justice. It's there in black and white. If you or I acted in the same way, we would be in front of a judge in less than five minutes. Jail would follow. 

So, for now, I'll let you digest the above. Be rest assured though, I have the comprehensive details of addresses and contact details for each and all of those who've chosen to share, publish, tweet or retweet the fabricated article. All the evidence is online. You know who you are. Be careful what you wish for. If I managed to persuade the Guardian to remove it from their archives, I can certainly manage to deal with each and every one of you individually. I won't even have to leave the house unless it's to face you in court.

Guardian-Letter of Regret

So now we're at the stage where the article isn't available, it's proven to be fabricated and it's been removed from the archives. The disclosure of the fabricated information was to Sonia Poulton who then passed it on to the police who then passed it on to the CPS. They thought they could bolster the prosecution/police's case against me. Ooops.

"is not in any way usual business practice on the editorial side of GNM." I should hope not! 

Whilst any doubters are at it they may wish to contact the Ombudsman at the Observer, Stephen Pritchard. Ooops maybe not, he's the one who disclosed the information. 

A Crime is a crime is a crime even when the criminal is an institution

I've been taking advice from legal eagles.

1.The actions of the Readers Editor of the Observer have been found to have breached the Data Protection Act 1998. Despite an appeal by the Guardian, the ICO still ruled that they had breached the DPA 1998.

2. A document that Stephen Pritchard forwarded to a prosecution witness in my case had been contested and challenged for some 10 months prior to Pritchard sharing it. Ergo, he knew the contents had been challenged and part of that challenge was my assertion that it had been fabricated by someone. Why on God's earth would he share it knowing that I had claimed it was a fake. Why indeed? Maybe to pervert the course of justice? All the signs are there to suggest it was for exactly this reason.

3. Additionally, Pritchard's claim that the document was a legal affidavit fell on its face when it was compared to a bonafide legal affidavit. For example, any legal affidavit would probably have the date it was made on it somewhere. Not in this case, the document is undated. Not only that but throughout the pages, there are corrections and other scrawls that don't have any initials next to them. A real legal affidavit it is not.

4. Despite the offer of damages running into the thousands of pounds and a letter of regret the Guardian still refuse to disclose the origins of the document. They also refuse to acknowledge that the document is still out there and could be shared at any time to anyone. I have no way of knowing if it is already out there online.

5. Now, if you or I had behaved in such a manner, what do you think the consequences would be? If you or I had a tendency to pervert or had intended to knowingly pervert the course of public justice, do you think we would have been prosecuted? I think we would be facing a prison sentence should we be convicted. And rightly so.

6. Is there press immunity from prosecution? It would seem that thus far, justice has yet to be meted out to some who deserve it. Additionally, because the Guardian repeatedly refuse to accept what's staring them right in their faces and continue to act like an ostrich; Are they not as guilty as the man they employ and continue to support by denying me the right to clear my name? I doubt the readers would disagree with me.

7. As for any future legal action, I have been assured by the Guardian's lawyers that I will be liable for all their costs, interest included. But, only if I lose. Charles Prestwich Scott wouldn't recognise any of those involved in this saga as anyone who shares his values.

The values he described are: honesty; cleanness (today interpreted as integrity); courage; fairness; and a sense of duty to the reader and the community. From here


Judge for yourselves using the CPS guidance.
I'll update this entry as time passes.



Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences
The following factors will be relevant to all public justice offences when assessing the relative seriousness of the conduct and which offence, when there is an option, should be charged. Consider whether the conduct:


Perverting the Course of Justice

was spontaneous and unplanned or deliberate and elaborately planned;
was momentary and irresolute or prolonged and determined;
was motivated by misplaced loyalty to a relative/friend or was part of a concerted effort to avoid, pervert, or defeat justice;
was intended to result in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice;
actually resulted in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice.

Examples of 'serious harm' include conduct which:
enables a potential defendant in a serious case to evade arrest or commit further offences;
causes an accused to be granted bail when he might otherwise not have;
avoids a police investigation for disqualified driving or other serious offences;
misleads a court;
puts another person in real jeopardy of arrest/prosecution or results in the arrest/prosecution of another person;
avoids a mandatory penalty such as disqualification;
results in the police losing the opportunity to obtain important evidence in a case.

In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutions for public justice offences should usually go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.

Perverting the Course of Justice
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:

does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.

The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.

Disclosure or Deceit?

Imagine discovering that a National Newspaper had supplied an un-dated, fabricated/conflated confidential and contested affidavit to try and assist with having me locked up. The very same affidavit that was put forward as an excuse for publishing that I was a gang rapist and abuser of children. There's no date, there's no official legal recognition and it has a dodgy signature.

Then try to imagine an e-mail which confirmed the sharing of such an affidavit by the reader's editor of the newspaper was deleted from the unused material supplied by the prosecution/police to the defence side in a criminal case. Could happen, could it? Watch this space

Oops, nearly forgot. Then try also to imagine that the Information Commissioners Office found that the paper had breached at least three of the Data Protection Act's regulations by sharing the affidavit.

Quantum

Traditionally, awards in data protection cases have been low: before 2014 the greatest award for distress in an English reported case was £750 with a nominal £1 being awarded for financial loss (Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance4). Contrast this with awards in privacy cases, such as in the leading case of Gulati & Ors v MGN Limited5 (confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Representative Claimants v MGN Limited6), where the court awarded various celebrities who were victims of phone hacking between £72,500 and £260,250 to compensate for the distress they had suffered.

The issue for defendant solicitors, where a claimant solicitor conflates claims for misuse of private information and breach of data protection obligations, is reconciling the level of awards for distress in the leading privacy cases with awards for distress in DPA cases.
from here
Data Protection Act Breaches

Observer Article Removal.

I'll just leave this here shall I, fatty? I'm just popping to the loo.

For those that don't know, Fat Al continuously relies on an article which was removed from the Observer archives. He thinks by tweeting it repeatedly that it will return to the public arena and all of a sudden people will believe he is the best campaigner in his batshit mental world. He normally tweets it when I've published something about him or his fat arsed mates. He left the UK under a cloud of darkness involving a thirteen-year-old and a bag of chips apparently. Far be it for me to speculate about the truth behind the lurid allegations this twitter account has made public. The real batshit crazy nutter-bus passengers have as much idea about the truth behind the allegations as I do. But who cares about the truth anyway? 

The hard truth is that most of the time, newspapers will reject your request to have an article unpublished. News organizations’ primary responsibility is to report objectively, not to protect your online reputation, and they themselves may face criticism if they unpublish materials too readily. A search of the Observers archives will evidence no sign of the article that was removed as a "gesture of goodwill" by the editor. I'm very grateful for the gesture but argue that the creation of the article is FFF- fabricated and or fake and or and false and or all three)

Removing content from external sites is notoriously problematic. Getting a newspaper to remove defamatory information is possible (though not easy), and when that information is deleted, Google will automatically stop showing it in search results. Newspapers are an important historical resource, and they’re proud of this fact. They’re generally quite hostile (as opposed to "gestures of goodwill") to the idea of deleting or removing published articles.

Typically, when information published is factual news, the most important factor in determining whether removal is possible is who the webmaster or news organization that published the content. In most circumstances, the only way to get factual news stories removed is to contact the organization or webmaster that published or is hosting the content. Whether a particular organization will remove an article will depend heavily on the internal policies of that particular organization and how convincing your reasons are (such as having evidence which proves the news article is FFF) for having the content removed.

You only have one shot to get it right and to remove news articles from the internet. Most news organizations are initially not very receptive to removing, editing, altering, or correcting content. However, if you take the correct approach and are able to make a persuasive case as to why your particular request should be granted many webmasters will be happy to comply, as it will be the right thing to do.

While the best case scenario for a party harmed by a defamatory news article is complete removal of the article from the internet, media companies may offer some other options. For instance, if the harmed party can obtain a judgment that states a story is false and defamatory, some media companies may be willing to request that it be de-indexed from search engines (e.g. Google). 

Moreover, media outlets may offer to correct or update a story if the requesting party provides proof of an inaccuracy or a new development. I'm working on this. The biggest new development so far is the emergence of an affidavit that isn't an affidavit by any description. Firstly, it's un-dated. Secondly, it's not signed by those who would have signed it as a legal affidavit i.e. solicitor, lawyer, paralegal or anyone who knows how to write their name. Thirdly, I'd never had sight of it until January 2016. Fourthly, any examination of it would show some very odd marks and scribbles, unsigned corrections are evident throughout the document.


Make your case, and make it well. There’s usually no legal reason to get an item taken down, so you’ll only succeed if you ask respectfully and eloquently. If they do remove the item, they’ll be doing it as a favor to you. Or as in my case "a gesture of goodwill".

https://www.reputationdefender.com/blog/privacy/how-remove-negative-information-and-news-articles-web

https://www.minclaw.com/how-to-remove-news-articles-from-google-and-internet/

E-mail from Stephen Pritchard (Readers Editor, Observer Newspaper)