Firstly, I'll kick off by recommending a look at this page: http://drjn.co.uk/ which is very informative regarding the 7th EU treaty, and well worth a read - it was written in 2005 (the timeframe is useful to know). Considering Tony Blair's last ditch effort before he left no 10 to have the 7th EU treaty ratified without a referendum - I believe that time is of the essence.

Once this 7th treaty is ratified, dissent & protest will not be tolerated, and sites such as this will likely be illegal. I'd recommend "The Real Face of the European Union" as a good documentary for demonstrating exactly how the British public were sold a dummy when they voted for entry into the then "European Common Market" in the referendum. If the EU was indeed benign, there should have been no need for the "bait & switch" tactics clearly used in misleading the public into voting for something other than what we have been given. The Google video can be viewed at the end of this post, or else it can be downloaded as part of this torrent: Click to view attachment

As things currently stand in the UK, many drivers are already painfully aware that they are merely cash-cows - and also the test pilots for new, restrictive anti-liberty legislation. The first people to lose their right to silence, thereby being forced to incriminate themselves - without first being read their rights (of course) are the motorists. The European Court of Human Wrongs ruled on Friday morning that we no longer have the right to remain silent, and need not be read our rights before being forced to sign a statement of self-incrimination that may be used against us in a court of law (full judgement). With the implementation of S172, this effectively now means that "innocent until proven guilty" has been turned on its head - "guilty until proven innocent" is the new order.

Regarding Friday's judgement from the ECHR which overturned our right to remain silent, the prevailing expectation amongst motorist rights groups was that they did not expect this decision at all - after all, it is in contradiction to the human rights laws handed down from Europe, which are supposed to supercede the authority of any contradictory domestic law (which is at best very tenuous, in this case).

!!! A large press conference was scheduled to announce the court's decision, handed down on Friday at 08:30 BST, outside of Piccadilly station in West London. Of course, this was immediately after the new spate of "terrorist attacks"; Piccadilly station was therefore closed for this event, and many reporters abandoned coverage of this monumental EU court decision in favour of covering the "terrorist threat" at nearby Haymarket station instead. As we well know, this sort of diversionary tactic is frequently used to cover up news of great importance, while creating a sensationalist smoke-and-mirrors story for the benefit of newspaper headlines.

Other deeply suspicious circumstances surrounding this latest "terrorist threat" also benefits our government's ongoing false-flag terrorism campaign; following the latest announcement that ALL of the suspects are connected with the NHS in some manner, we are now supposed to believe that we cannot trust any Muslims whatsoever - not even professionals whose daily employment is saving lives. This really is a most odious development, and to say the least, I am deeply skeptical about the government / MI5's level of involvement in all of this. Further, it should be noted that the website that predicted the London bombs is claimed to be an Intelligence Agency front - other jihadist forums claim that Al Hesbah is infiltrated and controlled by ISI (i.e. the CIA) & the Saudis.

Back to the ECHR decision: due to motorists being specifically targeted, they have a very high degree of awareness of the creeping legislation & loss of liberty that threatens us all. Although this BBC article states that "The judges also pointed out that UK law made it clear that no offence has been committed if a car owner can prove that he or she did not know, and could not be expected to know, who was driving the vehicle.", in reality, this is quite simply not the case, and several police forces are guilty of actively preventing the Registered Keeper from knowing that there was any alleged offence committed until (or even beyond) the legal 6-month limit for bringing a prosecution to court.

Naturally, by the time 6 months have passed, it often becomes impossible to remember who was driving a vehicle on a given date, and in these instances many courts are NOT upholding the "no offence committed" defence of inability to remember or ascertain the identity of the driver so long after the event. Millions of law-abiding citizens are now being criminalised each year - regardless of whether or not they actually did commit the alleged offence.

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't drive, I should point out that braking / swerving is not always the most appropriate action for safely avoiding danger of an impending accident - accelerating clear of the danger is also a valid, and very often much safer option for all around. Since the introduction of speed cameras (stealth taxation) Britain's road safety record has steadily worsened, and the propaganda figures for the supposed benefits of "scameras" are grossly exaggerated. Statistically, their presence often has a highly negative effect on safety, and proposed government research into the claims of "safety benefits" of speed cameras had to be scrapped when preliminary findings showed that scameras frequently worsen road safety: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf (other articles available on the forums - here)

The Real Face of the European Union: