This is a blog designed to share current thoughts.

Monday, April 07, 2014

Court Case three- The Crime of using a Megaphone Near a Station

I had been rather enjoying performing outside of Euston station. It’s a major London station and like most stations, the large area outside the station is owned by Network Rail and is ‘controlled’ by 30 pages of ridiculous byelaws. It was fun reading out the very byelaws on the megaphone bringing attention to their absurdity.


Most of the time, it was well received. On one occasion the duty manager - Barry - came up to me, having observed me for 20 minutes and expressed his admiration for what I was doing. Turned out that his hobby was public speaking (in his case about World War 2)

But sometimes the network rail staff would object and I may or may not obey them.

A charming officer, Sanjay, approached me once, saying he had seen me previously and wondered what I was doing and why. I got out my camera and recorded the conversation and attempted to explain what I was doing.

On one occasion, a network rail employee approached me and asked whether I had permission to use the megaphone. I told him that I did not need permission and repeated his claims through the megaphone. I think he felt a bit intimidated (understandably) so he went to call Network Rails lapdog – the BTP (British Transport Police) A small crowd had gathered by now and the police officer called was Sanjay. I was on a roll and instead of obeying Sanjay, I claimed I did not need permission and continued speaking. The crowd were getting right behind me and eventually he snapped and asked for my details. As usual, I questioned whether I had to give them to him and he threatened me with arrest if I didn’t supply them. I asked for the exact wording of the law but he could only come up with a rough guide. He claimed he didn’t need to tell me the exact wording.

As I didn’t have the time to go through the arrest, I gave him my name and he reported me for this so called crime. 

Several weeks later I received the kind invitation (summons) to Caesar’s Palace. I don’t think we give enough respect to Uncle Caesar. He’s awfully clever and got it all sewn up with all sorts of  tactics, tricks and illusions. One of the tactics upon which he operates is intimidation. There are many tricks based on this tactic. You receive a summons with a big emblem of the crown in the middle and its little you versus all of them. The feeling I get in my stomach when I receive one of those letters is not a pleasant one.

I put a message on facebook that I was going to this hearing asking for anyone to come along for support. Several friends agreed to come including a couple – Helen & Fabrice -  who had recently got their case dismissed. Helen had been ‘caught’ on camera going 36 in a 30 zone (nobody on the clear road at the time) and she required the prosecution to prove that the law applied to HER. She went through all the hoops they put in the way (Uncle Caesar ain’t lying down without a fight after all these years) and eventually got the case dismissed. We had a chat and she came loaded with a file full of great questions to use in court.
One of the most insightful comments I have had about the legal system was from a law professor who said ‘It’s like Alice in Wonderland.’ And indeed so it is which is part of their tactics. So in a sense, the only thing that I am prepared for is the unexpected.

To me court is just a theatre with great actors who don’t even know theyre acting. They have costumes as well (all members of the Law society have 30 pages of correct costume rules) Intimidation is part of the act. They take it all very seriously (only whilst they are in open court but if you hand around between cases or before and after, you will often find them joking about. I would recommend anybody to dress in smart black attire and sit in court rooms. Get there just as the court opens as that part is quite revealing. Take a notepad and start to analyse the proceedings from a psychological, financial and spiritual perspective. Plenty of good stuff to keep you busy.

One of the ways I look at it is that they re like wizards using spells to create the outcome which is to their advantage. These spells are very powerful. My experience is that even though I can talk in front of thousands of people from all backgrounds and hold myself in front of all sorts of intimidation including police intimidation, in their place of business, the spells are so strong, its very difficult to break them and to see through the illusion. I think that wearing a carefully selected costume can help break the spell. I ended up playing the part I was dressed to be like they were. I chose to wear tails, black trousers and a white shirt with built in black collar. I waltzed into the court (well its actually just a room) and started chatting to the clerk. A short middle aged woman of African looks, she said to me ‘Oh I see we have a character here!’ to which I responded – I presume its ok to be a character in here. Are there any other characters here? You seem like one too! The viewers gallery was full with people who had come to support me and I think that can also help.

They invite you for 9.30 am or 1.30 pm for their sessions. They invite everyone for that time so they quite happily keep you waiting for hours. This is just for the first hearing which is the ‘pleading.’ Pleading? Don’t slaves plead? For the first court case when I arrived I had no idea what was going on. I ended up hiring a barrister just for the plea part. He was pretty useless and of course makes his money whatever happens.

Back to last Thursday and case three. I meet up with Helen and Fabrice and go through their questions, picking some out for me to use. They were to be my Mackenzie friends which means they would sit next to me and court and I could consult with them during the case. We had to ‘apply’ for them to be my MF. I had noticed the night before when looking at the witness statements that there was actually no evidence that I had even violated their ridiculous rules. Their rules state that Without written permission form the railway authorities, it is against the byelaw to sing or use an amplifier to the annoyance of anyone.’ Nowhere in the statements of the police officer or network Rail employee did it say I had annoyed anyone. So I was tossing up whether to go the route of getting them to prove the law applied to me or to simply ask for the case to be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

And now to the most important part of the experience in my view - meditation. For me the meditation is about letting go and seeing what comes up when I quieten the mind. It’s also about sending compassion to the actors in court. Despite the fact that I think they are committing ‘crimes’ against the people, I think that most of them have no idea that they’re doing anything wrong. If I hold resentments towards them, it will firstly poison my system and secondly it will probably seep out when I am in there. As a result of the meditation, I decided to go for case dismissal first and then other tactics if that didn’t work.

I asked to speak to the prosecutor. She hadn’t arrived yet but when she did, she looked like she was about to go onto a Hollywood film set. A young attractive woman of Afro Caribbean appearance emerged wearing a tight fitting black outfit and made up to the hilt and I thought to myself – if I am going to be screwed by the system, at least it will be in style!

I told her that I was going to ask for the case to be dismissed due to lack of evidence. I said that nowhere in their evidence did it say that I had annoyed anyone. I added that in fact the officers evidence indicated that everyone was enjoying it and getting behind what I was doing. Of course she hadn’t even seen the file yet. They never do. They just rely on what the Police send them. Which of course is another part of the corruption. She told me that she wasn’t ready yet and that I could do what I liked.

I noticed he go out of the court and get on her phone and got a friend to follow her out and listen in. She was trying to figure out what to do and eventually came back in and told me that she was withdrawing the case which was rather good news.

We sat and witnessed two cases which were frankly pathetic. The friends who had come to watch couldn’t believe what they were seeing. The ‘defendants’ were being put into a locked glass cage (dock) before even pleading. The first guy was a young man form Somalia with no previous. He had gotten drunk and not paid his train ticket and tried to get through the barrier. The ticket inspector had taken out his phone to take a picture of this terrible criminal and the guy lunged at him and broke his mobile phone case! FIFTEEN POUNDS worth (I doubt it really was as much as that.) He allegedly spat at the guy but missed. For these things he was convicted and charged a large fine he could ill afford (on benefits) It was ridiculous.

Then the prosecutor said she was withdrawing the case due to ‘losing the files’ which is her way of covering up lack of evidence. I tried to get costs but the Magistrates said only if I had got legal advice from a ‘proper’ law society firm. That sounds a bit like a monopoly to me. I gave up at that stage as I thought I was rather lucky to have had the case withdrawn. The Magistrate smiled and made a joke about my singing and I offered to sing for them in court. They laughed and politely declined.

Friday, November 22, 2013

A Message for Russell Brand - the text

This is a warning. Listening to the sounds and watching the images on the screen could lead you into a trance state of love. It could melt all your defences leaving you open to what is being said here.

By now we may have already lost some people.  Those people probably do not pay much attention to the meaning of words – the words they use. They don’t know how important the meanings are.

Take the word trance. Webster definesit amongst other things as a ‘half-conscious state, seemingly between sleeping and waking, in which ability to function voluntarily may be suspended’

How many of us can say that this does not apply to me right now? How many of us can say that I function voluntarily? How many of us are not in a state of trance – a trance which tells me that I have to hang on to everything especially my money?

So this is an attempt to undo the trance you are in already. To de-hypnotise you.

You are free to turn this off at any time. If you choose to listen and watch that is your choice and nobody has forced you.

This is a message to Russel Brand and anyone else who has got this far.

Before I begin, the reason that I have not got my face up on this – is to do with anonymity. Russel – you know anonymity, which is not about hiding – it’s about putting principles before personalities.

For me, laughing away the system is the only way I can cope with looking at the monster head on; the only way I can open myself to the possibility that something vey different is going on – very different from what we are trained to believe or taught.

So lets create a fellowship of creatives, get some tokens behind us and start really hitting hard with our creativity. I and a few friends alone have more  ideas than we could possibly implement on our own. We need artists and musicians, poets and comedians, rappers and cameramen, Muslims and Jews, Christians and Hindus, Atheists and Agnostics, Gay and straight and confused. Right brainers and left brainers. We need academics and non academics. We need dreamers and people who manifest dreams. Anarchists and statists. Ok maybe saying we need statists is taking it a bit too far.

So lets talk about the uncomfortable bit . Money.

** Russel – you and others speak about a redistribution of wealth. Just a reminder that there is already a massive redistribution of wealth taking place right now.  From the poor and middle classes to the rich and stinking rich.

So if we want to see it redistributed the other way, don’t we have to start by demonstrating that letting go is scary but healthy and feels powerful when we do it? If we want the billionaires and trillionaires to let go, don’t we also have to let go?

** This is an invitation to you Russel, to Sting and other celebrities who were meant to have woken up, and to all of us, myself included, to let go of 10% of something. Could be a weeks income, a month, a year - could be 10% of liquid assets. And it means our letting go of control of that money.

What you do with that money is your decision. Lets not forget, its only IOU notes or digits on a screen. However whatever money is collected in this particular fund, will be used for creative projects. I commit to putting into the pot 10% of something mentioned above –I haven’t decided which one yet.

And we’ll create small groups of creatives and put it to good use. Having fun will be a top priority! And of course there will be a subversive message in all that we do. Each project will be paving the way for a metamorphosis to a new yet unknown system, slowly easing away the strings from those who currently pull them - those so in need of our love and compassion – the parasitic class many of whom are very unwell.

We have been entranced to hold on to our money because of our programming of fear. We are already in that trance. This is a different trance. One that may restore our ability to act voluntarily.

I don’t want to make this too easy. After all, we are being invited to make a conscious voluntary choice to let go of 10% of something. I don’t want to entice you by making it too easy to contribute. If you want to contribute, contact me. Lets avoid having to pay PayPal a large chunk and a crowdfunding site another chunk. They have enough money already.

If we knew the truth, which is that I am beyond all division, that we are all one family and that there are no strangers on earth we would know that by giving we give to ourselves.

In a moment you will bring your focus of attention back to your surroundings and you will be back there, ready to give.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Megaphone Court Case Report

I arrived at court and after a late appearance by Michael Snow, who clearly believes he is a District Judge (rather than a human being). He immediately ordered me to stand to the side where ‘defendants’ stand. I felt like a two year old. He was definitely exerting his authority or as I would describe it, engaging in his power fetish.  He said if anyone recorded the proceedings on their phone he would send them to the cells. He clearly had something to hide although I am not sure he knew that.

I felt completely intimidated and started chanting my favourite affirmation/prayer. ‘Grant me the serenity, to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can , and the wisdom to know the difference.’ I definitely wouldn’t be able to change this man. The cold and calculated way he did ‘business’ sent shivers down my spine.

At the first hearing that was meant to be the trial, the District Judge had decided that the bylaw itself could be challenged but she clearly didn’t want to have to make the decision so she adjourned until 9th September. The plan was for the legal challenge to take place first, and if our challenge was successful, there would be no trial.

Michael Snow had other plans. Perhaps he had a golf match in the afternoon or a fetish club visit planned, or maybe he just thought it made sense, but he decided that we would need to hear the evidence first because he thought the legal challenge was dependent upon it. I cannot see how that is the case because it is the principals that count, not the particulars of the case. My friend Jeremy the barrister and I agreed that it should be in that order. I wonder whether and when he planned this, because when I think about it, it is a lose-lose situation for any District Judge of the lower court to rule on this smatter. Either they rule against the bylaw in which case their beloved provider of bread and butter – Westminster Council –will be upset and will appeal, or they will rule in favour of the law in which case we would appeal at the High Court. So he was rather clever. If he heard the evidence and it didn’t stand up, he could dismiss the cases and then he wouldn’t have to rule on the law itself.

My experiences in court have taught me much. Once again, the expect the unexpected especially when dealing with devious lawyers. Once again, the true colours of the legal system and how it is used and abused by these big Corporations were revealed. They had sent me a letter back in July with a long paragraph explaining how they were going to return my megaphone (because they stole it unlawfully) and then at the end inserted a one liner saying that the council intend to apply to the Court to amend the charges against me to add the words ‘by a person annoyed or disturbed or’  after the word desist.
The original charge said ‘after being requested to desist by a person acting on behalf of a person annoyed or disturbed by the operating of a megaphone’

I didn’t take much notice of this so it was rather a shock when they pulled this out of the hat. They had obviously realized that they had no witnesses. The people he claimed were annoyed were not to be in court so we wouldn’t know exactly what they were annoyed about. If it was the content of what I was saying, the case would fall. So they changed it to the council officer himself, James Joyce, to being annoyed!

The judge allowed it to stand because they had sent me a letter. Another trick which was to backfire (unless it was all planned.)

So James Joyce was called to the stand. They asked if he was religious and he said yes, so he swore on the bible to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think it would have been more accurate if he would have said ‘nothing like the truth.’

The prosecution barrister then started asking him leading questions. Were you annoyed when Mr Shine was using his megaphone? He paused for a moment and then said ‘yes!’ Were you able to have a conversation whilst he used his megaphone? (pause) ‘No!’ What was Mr Shine saying? He was saying anti capitalist things! (I very rarely mention the word capitalism) He told a fat woman that she shouldn’t eat in McDonalds!’ At that stage I was shaking my head. I would never ever do that to anyone. It was a complete joke. It was so obvious that he had been primed and prepared and told what he would be asked and how to answer.

Then I started with the 3 pages of questions I had prepared. I asked him what he had said to me exactly on the occasion of the first alleged offence. I was on a bollard on my megaphone. He said he had asked me to stop as people were annoyed. He then said that I did stop and that he read me the byelaw and that then I carried on. ‘So I did stop when you asked?’ Err – yes but you carried on. As I questioned him more he became very confused. He had prepared his original statements 2 months after the first occasion and then he had completely changed his tack to himself being the one that is annoyed. (The police have to have a higher threshold for feeling alarm harassment and distress when they deal with public order but here the prosecution were using a trick by changing it to him. Surely his job is to serve the public and not worry about his own annoyance.) Nowhere in the original statements did it mention he himself being annoyed. So he got lost in the lies and deception. He also had to claim that it was not what I was saying that was the problem but the noise level and yet he complained that I was making fun of Westminster council (as if that’s against the law). There was a funny moment. The first incident took place on  November 15th when he claimed he told me to stop. Then there was an incident on January 17th. That was where he got the police to come along and I forgot to meditate and I let them force me to give details. But on that occasion I was not asked to stop. In fact I wanted to get away and kept trying to. They admitted that I hadn’t contravened their byelaw on that occasion. I had asked him why then, on that occasion, did he confiscate my megaphone. He was fumbling around for an answer, digging himself into a whole. The judge then made a funny suggestion. ‘Did you believe, Mr Joyce, that once you had asked Mr Shine to stop in November , that this order continued to hold forever more and perhaps THAT is the reason you confiscated the megaphone without asking him to desist?’ he thought for a second and then said ‘Errm Yes!’

When I finally finished with my questions, the judge said that he had to dismiss both cases because the witness was unreliable. He had been keeping a careful tab on things and pointed out all the contradictions in the witnesses evidence. He was annoyed but he wasn’t. He claimed McDonalds had complained yet he claims he personally was annoyed. Michael Snow then started to gather up his pencils and said that he couldn’t possibly hear the challenge to the law because there was no evidence. Jeremy challenged this but Michael was already half way out of the room.

The corruption in the system seems rife to me. The idea that a big Corporation like Westminster Council can spend tens of thousands of pounds taking an individual like me to court with no downside to themselves is obviously completely corrupt.
The idea that this organisation can then get a barrister privately to take on a case against freedom of expression is corrupt and as the barrister claimed 'he had to take the job by the rules of his trade!'
The idea that the judge and the system have one rule for themselves and another for us seems corrupt to me. At the end of the case, I asked for compensation. I had spent dozens of hours on it - should I not be compensated ?
Thats the tip of the iceberg.

But the people are too busy watching x-factor to care it seems.

Jeremy was very disappointed that he had done so much work for nothing. But it turns out that this is the best possible outcome. Watch this space.

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

Latest Fun with Westminster

Here's my latest correspondence to the head of legal services at Westminster Council...

Dear Nicola
I hope you had a wonderful summer holiday. We went to Spain – near Barcelona. Did you go anywhere nice ?
Please pass on this email to Peter Large. He is welcome to show it to whomever he wishes. Its on public forums already.
You are welcome to read it, but unless you consider yourself as someone who has a GSOH, I wouldn’t bother.
Please pass my best wishes to the council employees – it can’t be easy.


Dear Mr Large
Thank you for the skeleton arguments that you send to my friend Jeremy Rosenberg. I am cc'ing him in with this and have not consulted him first. 
May I begin by stating that I aim to live my life under the guidance of one simple law with which anyone of sound mind and all major religious thinkers would agree. ‘Treat others as you would like to be treated.’
I like to receive intelligent, humorous and challenging emails and letters. So I felt I should treat you as I wish to be treated.
WARNING: You may already be getting annoyed. In fact, reading this email may trigger the same level of annoyance as reading legal communications can trigger in normal people.
Knowing that there are Westminster Council City employees (not all) that have a rather low annoyance threshold, from here on, you are on your own. You do NOT have to read a word more of this. My advice would be to stop reading before you actually get annoyed.
If you are still with us Mr Large, there now follows my skeleton argument from a moral, ethical and logical perspective in the form of questions - all of them sincere and genuine. I would appreciate it if you could answer all of them to the best of your ability. The more you answer the more money you can save for the beloved citizens of Westminster you claim you are ‘protecting’ from me, by reducing my need to ask these questions to the judge during the case.
To anyone else reading this, please genuinely ask yourself the questions posed below and send me your answers. This invitation includes anyone employed by  Westminster City Council.
1. Would you agree that its just basic common decency to answer my genuine questions especially given how much aggravation I have had as a result of your actions for this so called ‘annoyance.’?
2. Given that you are a public servant, are you not required to respond to genuine communications from members of the public of which I am one?
3. Am I entitled to a just and fair hearing ? (Skip to question 5 if your answer to this is Negative!)
4. Assuming that the answer to 3 is affirmative, please answer the following. I have been advised by EVERY member of the law society that I have asked, including judges, barristers, lawyers, and even Jeremy Rosenberg my dear friend working pro bono,  to employ a top QC if I want to substantially increase my chances of winning here. Bearing in mind that Westminster Council have clearly got an endless budget to deal with such frivolous matters (*see below)  and I do not, would you deny or confirm that this is fair or just?
4a. I was summonsed by yourselves twice. Every lawyer I asked recommended that I plead guilty and understandably so. This is because if I plead guilty, I would have been given a small fine (perhaps £100) and a few more pounds in costs. If however I do not plead guilty, I am up against the system, may be liable for the full £500 fine, plus costs of thousands (you deliberately informed me that by the time of just the plea hearing, you had amassed costs of £1300) plus my own time out (which is worth approximately £200 per hour) plus court costs plus my own legal costs. Again, assuming that the answer to 3 is affirmative, can you deny or confirm that you sincerely believe that this could be called fair or just?
5. Do you expect me to understand the skeleton arguments full of twenty pages of legalese?
5a. Do I need to understand the law in order for it to be used against me?
6. Am I permitted to question the ethics of the so called law?
6a. Do you care about the ethics of the so called law that you enforce?
7. Please list the ethical questions that you think are brought up by this case?
8. Just to remind you, my plea indication was ‘You Prove it.’ Do you deny or confirm that this includes proving jurisdiction especially in a private prosecution? (Skip to question 9 if you confirm this)
8a If you claim that you do NOT need to prove jurisdiction, if I were to make a claim against you in a Beth Din (Jewish Court of law) would you accept their jurisdiction or would you demand that they prove it?
9. I maintain, that just like with most rules and regulations in most cultures and religions, consent is required and I do not consent to the rules and regulations of YOUR society. I certainly do not consent to a rule that gives authority to ANYONE to force anyone else to stop singing in public just because someone is annoyed. As I said, I go by the simple guideline of treating others as I like to be treated. Given that I do not consent, can you prove that I do not need to consent to be governed by this rule even though Theresa May and many others (**see below) have said many times that we are policed and governed by consent. Can you prove to the court that this does not mean my individual consent?
9a. If it does not mean my individual consent, what exactly can it mean?
10. If being a nuisance is being left in the hands of any member of the public to decide, am I able to complain about Corporations that far surpass the category of nuisance. Some of them are health hazards to body and mind like McDonalds (body and mind) or Hollister (mind) and to force them to stop being a nuisance?
11. Given that it is impossible NOT to be ignorant of the law because the words are ambiguous and not even lawyers are sure what they mean, please explain the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ in reference to this case?
12. You claim that its not the content of what I say but the volume at which I say it. Leicester Square regularly hosts film premiers which can go on for hours with noise and music and big PA systems. Can you confirm or deny that these corporations are permitted to be a nuisance as long as they pay for it?
13. Is this a criminal or civil matter?
13a. If it is criminal, can you show me the injured party?
14. Are you claiming that James Joyce being annoyed counts as part of this rule? If yes, this gives him more power than the police because even the police are expected to tolerate a higher level of being alarmed or harassed than the general public. Do you see that as a problem ?
I have kept this communication a lot shorter than your so called skeleton arguments. I look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to respond should you need further clarification. 
Yours sincerely 

Danny Shine

I believe the frivolity of this case is obvious, but it is being concealed from both the public and those in court. As you will find out if this case gets that far, James Joyce at first believed that that ‘making a noise so loud and continued as to be an annoyance’ is against the law. This is NOT the case. The breaking of the law is only when someone DISOBEYS a member of the public. I have expressed my art hundreds of times in London and on most occasions if I am asked politely to move somewhere else and there is some reasonable explanation as to why, I will move on even if I do not agree with the principle. So this case is just about two occasions when I allegedly refused to obey James Joyce’s orders. Is it justifiable to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on that?
I have written to the Commissioner of the Met Police stating publicly that I do not consent to statutes that require our consent and require us to be members of society.
Below are the quotations….
Consent is required, as stated by Teresa May MP, Home Secretary & Minister for women and equalities, on the Mainstream BBC news when she stated, “the way we police in the UK is by consent”.  YouTube “England riots - Theresa May on whether to use army”, 9 August 2011.  
She also said “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.'”  The Daily Mail, 9 August 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023932/London-riots-2011-Theresa-May-rules-tough-action-vigilantes-defend-shops.html
“A strong connection between police and public is the foundation of policing by consent”. 
Metropolitan Police Website 
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/mopc/ - under the section entitled "a voice for the public”.  
(recently that website has not been available.  The information is also displyed at the Home Ofice website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/speeches/a-new-era-for-policing)
Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said:  "Before we have any inquiry we have a kneejerk reaction from the prime minister. We have real concerns about direct entry to the police service as we believe that in order to understand and appreciate the importance of policing by consent and the style of operational policing in this country, everyone should start at the rank of constable.  We also have an entirely different legal system in this country to that used overseas and it is imperative that senior officers and leaders in policing have a real working knowledge of it." 
The Guardian newspaper, Wednesday 20 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/20/cameron-us-police-chief-british
Rechard Auladin (JP - Enfield), Deputy Chair (2004-2008) & current Member of the Metropolitan Police Authority said: "… it is back to this business of policing by consent. You cannot enforce any policy on members of the public" at the Conformation Hearing Committee on 15 February 2010 in which London Mayor Boris Johnson proposed Rechaud Auladin as Vice chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority.  
http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/assemmtgs/2010/plenarymay13/item04g.pdf  (p8).

Thursday, August 08, 2013

Everything is OK (as long as you do as you're told)

Monday, July 01, 2013

Story Time with Danny

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Script of Video - The subliminal messages behind the Chris Huhne Affair

Before I made this video, I was thinking about whether it is useful to even talk about this and I decided that it may make it useful by my encouraging myself and others to ask questions. So I invite you to pause the video at the points where I ask questions and firstly close your eyes and meditate on them and/or look them up on the web. For those of you who don’t live in the UK or are smart enough to realize that the so called NEWS may be a form of propaganda and therefore avoided, I wanted to discuss the story of Chris Huhne which is all over the British Press. He is firstly a flesh and blood human like the rest of us and he happens to be a member of the UK Parliament. 10 years ago he was caught by a speed camera and he got his wife to take the points so that he wouldn’t be banned or so that his insurance wouldn’t go up. This brings me on to the subject of crime. What is crime ? Is it a crime to deceive ? Under what circumstances ? Can there be a crime without a victim ? What I see going on here is something very clever and devious which could be conscious or unconscious. What he has admitted to is Perverting the course of Justice. What do those words mean. Again, please pause this video think about the words. Then turn to the internet. Do we have justice ? Is it not already completely perverted ? Do the super rich have any influence on how law is practiced ? Who set up this system in the first place and why ? Is telling a lie about who was driving a speeding car a crime or is it something more to do with money ? Do speed cameras work at reducing our speeds or do they primarily create revenue ? Who benefits from the revenue they create ? I don’t want to ruin good questions with poor answers but I will share n answer or two that popped into my head albeit under the influence of various others. To me a lot of this is about the use and abuse of language. Crime is a word. It is a word like all words which seem ambiguous. But to me whatever you call it, my desire is to live with others in a way that we respect each others property by not stealing it using force, and respect each others bodies by not hurting them or even worse killing others. So to me that word points towards an act which is perpetuated against a flesh and blood human – either towards his body or his property. Therefore there of course must be a victim. According to this definition, Chris Huhne’s act of saying his wife drove the car is not a crime. There is no victim. However, could it be that Chris Huhne has been to some extent complicit in some very serious crimes according to the above understanding of the word ? This big story seems to me to be continuing the drip feeding of conditioning us to believe that (a) crimes do not need a victim (b) that there is a course of justice which is not perverse (c) that the system itself is not endemically perverse and deceitful (d) that the system is not protecting deceitful practices by Corporations and people in Governments (e) that the other MPs are not involved in serious crime on a daily basis either knowingly or unconsciously So here are some more questions. What is extortion ? Could taxation be a form of extortion whose ends do not justify the means ? Would you willingly pay full taxation if it was voluntary ? Could it be that Chris Huhne and his colleagues are responsible for extorting money from millions of flesh and blood UK residents, many of whom live in conditions he would not tolerate ? And then he and his colleagues take said money, give it to their friends who work in the banks but worse than that spend billions on tanks, fighter jets, missiles, drones, guns, and wages for young men, send them to countries far away under, shall we say questionable grounds, and thousands of men women and children are killed as a result ? And this man faces jail for lying about who was driving !! So isn’t it clever how the press portray this as if its such a great restoration of public trust in the justice system when really what it does to us subconsciously is scare the crap out of us because we have all been deceitful – its part of being human. Personally I do my very best to avoid physically hurting anyone or stealing their property (although I realize that by buying many of the things I buy I am benefitting from some form of abuse) and I do not think it is immoral to lie about who was driving a car that got flashed by some money making speed camera. So we have all done deceitful things and this story is saying ‘we can go back as long as we like – 10 years and get you and you could be put in jail ! Put in jail for deceit ? Why ? I thought jails are to keep dangerous people away from us ! If deceitful people are dangerous we should all be locked up and the politicians in a high security prison !

Friday, July 06, 2012

Glasgow Central

I was standing in Glasgow Central Station with the 'everything is ok' sign and someone came up to me and expressed gratitude for what I was doing having seen some videos. He subsequently wrote me a message saying how it had cheered up his otherwise 'hellish' morning. I thought I would query what he meant by hellish. This was his response. I like the typos - who decides what is correct SPELLing anyway ?...... Danny by "hellish" i simply mean the state of the collective mind in Glasgow. ive worked with many "class" of people in my life, made money then feel of the ladder, i try not to judge people by their money or apparent position in the system, but often it feels like the people who have made the most, have the most to loose. language is powerful and symbols the root of that perhaps, we pick up on body language in the city, what is says to me is deeply depressing. the psychological symphony in action, mental dissonance defined by laws and meaningless moral constructs to be resolved by , and only by consonance you have no control over. the complete lack of self, or even power. if that electricity went of hell would break out, then who is the real man on earth ?. ive worked out on paper everything i know and it all adds up to paradise being taken from me by a violent man/men, we think we are clever but when i look at a wild gorilla on film i feel we are very poor. thanks for the question Danny, sorry i cant expound in a more profound way like your son !, your sons comment of "you are powerless" was one of the best bits of film i have seen in recent years. i was recently asked by a 5 year old girl, "why do i have a girlfriend". I told her "because i love her" luckily shes not quite developed all the philosophical "ideas" about "love" yet haha. Cheers Danny, i really think your work is important, i hope its a good journey, you are an inspiration and beacon.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012


I did not write this. Just passing it on..... Open letter to the media, My name is Claire O' Sullivan from Waterford in Ireland. I'd like to make a statement. I have a 5 year old son. I am currently hiding away with my son to protect him from the authorities ( HSE, Gardaí, courts etc.) because of the, illegal, unlawful, uncaring and heavy handed way I have been dealt with by the authorities, which has all stemmed from me not consenting to the school age vaccinations (MMR {measles, mumps & rubella}, & tetra vac 4in1 {polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus}). I do have genuine concerns about these vaccinations, following my own research and listening to the views of many others including medical professionals Who have shared some of these concerns with me, for example about the possible links with autism, for which there is now credible evidence and the long term effects on children's immune systems. A good place for most people to start, would be to ask the HSE or GP for the insert leaflet that comes with the box that the vaccination is contained with and taking the simple step of looking at the ingredients and what the medical officials call side effects, which are quite simply possible serious effects. This is just one place to start with research. These vaccinations are NOT mandatory in the republic of Ireland. All parents are given a consent form to sign in a consent or "I do not consent section". I chose not to consent, I feel that I am acting in the best interests of my child and my decision is to protect him. I have every right to make this decision as the primary carer, natural mother, sole custodian and legal guardian of my son. However, my son's father (who is not a custodian, but a legal guardian, (ex-partner), has consented to both vaccinations and has pushed for them to be administered. His motives for which I believe are more for argument sake with me and not for the best interests/protection of our son (which many will believe) .this may become clearer as I explain further what has happened so far. So when the vaccinations were due to be carried out first of all, there was some communication between myself, HSE and my son's father re; me not consenting to the vaccinations. There was minimal communication between his father and I (the father's choice) as he was not willing to discuss the matter in full with me with an open mind, willing to consider all aspects surrounding the vaccinations e.g. Documents released, evidence, studies from other parties (outside of the HSE), vaccine ingredients etc. He was insisting to go ahead with it because it was what HE felt was best and because the HSE and my son's GP had recommended for the vaccines to be administered, he felt he didn't have to look into it further. Consider this scenario: If someone handed you a drink and said give this to your child to drink, Would you (1) give it without question, or would you want to know more about what it contains (for your child's safety) and make a decision either (2) not to give it at all (because of lack of knowledge and trust) or (3) decide to investigate the ingredients further with an open mind. I at the time was torn between (2) and (3) because of some conflicting information I had come across and I still am. However, I also believe whole heartedly in the most natural approach possible to health care, which immediately people will recognise this as a problem for authorities (for reasons, we can go into further, if I am asked at a later stage, once my son's case has been dealt with). So I insisted that I did not consent and my son's father insisted that he did consent, and I feel it is most unfortunate that he was unwilling to further his own research on the issue. Keep in mind that this is not mandatory, despite my attempts to press him to do so. Some weeks later, I had received contact from my son's father asking me was I going to go ahead with the vaccinations or not. I reminded him that I did not consent and that the authorities had this on file. He replied, that I had left him with no choice, when I asked what he meant by this, he did not reply. The next contact I received about the issue was to my horror, a summons to the district court. I had adjourned the first date and there was a new date set for the 23rd of May. When I attended on that date, (we both represented ourselves) I was refused the company of a McKenzie friend in the court (this is a basic right, everyone is entitled to be accompanied by a McKenzie friend, but I was denied this). I asked the judge to allow the issue to be dealt with outside of court and for the father to co-parent as this should be a family decision and it is wrong for the courts to be involved in it. The father argued that he had been willing to discuss but I insisted to the judge that he hadn't and that he was lying. So I requested that the judge allow us time to discuss the issue in private. The judge granted this, but we had to return to inform him what had been discussed. Outside of the court room, but still on site, I had asked the father to discuss the matter with me on mutual ground and tried to persuade him that it be best if we set a date and time or we could even leave the courts and deal with it ourselves that same day, in private. To which he would not agree, he insisted that the matter was that he wanted the vaccinations and I didn't so it was to be heard in court that we didn't need to discuss it further. I appealed to him that I had major concerns re: ingredients of the vaccinations and that I had spoken to the GP Dr. Cormac O' Nuailain and he could not answer some of my questions. I asked him did this not concern him and what questions had he asked? But he replied that he didn't care and that he was happy with the fact that the HSE were recommending it and that was all he needed to know. He insisted that we go back into the court room to have it heard. To cut a long story short with how it was dealt with on this particular occasion, Judge David Kennedy refused to allow me have the right to hold my decision as the natural mother/guardian/custodian of my son and took the position to make a decision on my son's behalf against my will. He proceeded to sign the order; I insisted that he sign a disclaimer to at least accept responsibility for his actions to sign the order against my will. He refused to look at my disclaimer, he even laughed at me and the father laughed at me. He signed it despite me still questioning him on his decision and said it's signed now, so you can appeal it with the circuit court. I appealed the case with the circuit court. I served a notice of appeal on the father. The courts office informed me that there was no further date for hearing in the circuit court until the autumn (more like November). I was told I would be given sufficient notice, but that the order still stands even though a notice of appeal has been filed. So, moving forward, on the 7th of June, I had received a letter in the post, to notify me to be in court the very next day. On the 8th June. I was unprepared, no representation and had no arrangements made for childcare, work, other issues. So I had asked a solicitor to ask for an adjournment due to the severe short notice of less than 24hrs. (If I had been away, I would have missed the date, been marked as a no show, and my appeal would not have been heard). Judge faherty on this day granted the appeal to be adjourned to the 14th June, the following week. I had time to get legal representation then because of this. On the 14th of June, my solicitor and Barrister presented the case to Judge Alice Doyle of the Circuit court in Clonmel. Extensive paperwork from the barrister was discussed between the judge and the barrister on legal acts and statutes and the constitution to prove that the courts had no jurisdiction to interfering this case. The judge expressed that she felt constrained by the law to act in what SHE felt was the best interests of the child, and decided to rise on it and look at the paperwork that the barrister had provided. What I understood from what she said was that she was taking a personal stance on the matter and not acting impartially for both parties (which is what a Judge is supposed to do). She even asked me did I know someone with Polio because she did and it's a horrible disease. I did not know at the time, but since then I have become aware of a gentleman who is wheelchair bound from the age of 7 following his polio vaccination... but however, on this day the legal issue and constitution was what the barrister wanted to address and we felt that the judge would have allowed another hearing for another date (full day) to address the issues surrounding the vaccinations. The judge however made what appeared to be a personal judgement to affirm the order from the district court and even advised the father to get legal aid as he may need to be more prepared if we were to seek further remedy via Judicial review. On this day, I was under duress to decide and make judge and father aware of my plans to either pursue judicial review or not, to suit father. So, due to lack of options at the time and the fact that the legal team had told me that it could cost me tens of thousands to pursue, I was forced to say that I was unable to pursue, solely due to financial difficulty. Over the weekend 16th& 17th June, I was made aware that I do have further option to represent myself and present papers for grounds of judicial review, relief sought and compiled an affidavit to accompany this to tell my side of the story of the unjust decisions that took place in both district and then circuit court. I decided to go ahead with this as my son's safety is paramount to me and I felt that I would regret it if I hadn't tried to protect him further. So on Monday 18th I presented myself to the high courts and made an application.to which I was refused and the legal acts/statutes plus article 41.1.1 from the constitution was ignored and I was turned away. I was expected to be back in Waterford from Dublin within ten minutes to carry out the order to vaccinate my son. I was completely distraught and shocked by the decision and wanted to still pursue it further and continued to receive legal/lawful advice on the matter. The courts were acting illegally and more importantly - unlawfully going by all of the advice that I had been given, my belief as a mother to the right to protect my child and I believed that the courts were violating the constitution which was a huge issue and I didn't understand why and I still don't. I returned to Waterford to be with my son and decided it was best to take us both away from the situation and spend some time together while I was deciding how best to press the matter further. To my disbelief, I had been told that the Gardaí had instantly begun harassing my family and friends as to where my location is with Thomas, even though I had passed message on that I was overwhelmed and was just taking a few days away with my son while I was thinking of what to do further on with the courts. I did not want to give up on my fight to my right and my son's right for me as his natural mother to protect him. The police have also gained entry to my house illegally/unlawfully and not only that but they have allowed family, other associates and my ex-partner enter the house while doing so. They did not have permission to enter my home. I believed they used my families' vulnerable emotional nature to suit themselves to gain entry to my home. Do they not realise that this behaviour has worried me even more for my son's safety and our rights are being violated. Everyone involved is terrified. So the position that I am in now is that I am in even more fear than before for safety of everyone involved and my family and friends are under constant harassment. This should not be happening, nobody should be put in this position of fear and have their rights violated. I want the public to know my side of the story and the extent of the situation. We need to support each other to ensure our families are safe and hopefully I will get Justice signed: Claire O' Sullivan

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Will Someone help me get some cream for my athletes foot ?

Yesterday, myself and Julian, a yoga practitioner, continued our series of Retail Yoga, with visits to Ann Summers, Adidas and Boots. The boots visit was the most interesting. I took out Julians Yoga mat, laid it out in the middle of the store and started doing sit-ups and push ups and finally came to rest with some meditation. Julian filmed me very overtly and the security were soon there telling us that we weren't allowed to film. Julian ignored this order and within a couple of minutes a security guard had snatched my phone that he was using to film. I lost my cool and tried to grab it back making a scene in the shop. They ushered us downstairs and tried to get us into a little office but we refused. They called the Police. When the sole rather short WPC arrived, She informed us that she had been called out for 'assault on a member of staff!!' We spook to a manager who calmed things down a fair bit and then the WPC spoke to the security staff who still were in possession of my phone demanding that I wipe the footage. I refused and the officer eventually returned the phone and said that they wanted me to delete the footage but she knew that she could only request. I replied that I would not put any images of their security staff up on Youtube. After a few minutes, 3 more officers arrived ! You know how dangerous meditation can be. They said the original call was for shoplifting and assault. I guess it would have been a bit embarrassing to call the police out because some guy was meditating without permission ! Just before we left the shop, we were handed a piece of paper without our names on (we refused to give them) but signed by them banning us form all Boots stores nationwide forever !! So much for well being.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Sharing the fun

I think its about time that we share the fun that this society offers us.
I have an idea to create a facebook page or better still a website which anyone can contribute to with ideas for educational pranks.

I have loads of ideas for this and I am convinced that once I get the ball rolling, others will also have many.

Many of these ideas will be 'prank' calls but educational in purpose. Anyone can add o his pool of ideas and anyone can put them into practise and we would then encourage people to record what they do and put them up on youtube or soundcloud if its just audio perhaps.

Please let me know if you want to get involved.

Friday, August 12, 2011

camerons irony


Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The Ego and the Unrest (AKA riots)

So I spent some time in Camden town speaking to Police officers and young people. And I have been thinking about the violence and in particular I have been thinking about my thinking about the violence.

I spent time with a friend of the family who is a criminal lawyer (read that as you choose!) She said that she was in court today and that the Majistrates had been given instructions to refuse bail to anyone arrested at the unrest including those with no previous, of good character and where there is no evidence. I was furious and said so. My wife then did what she so often does. Disagreed with me. I watched myself start to get angry and then began to laugh at myself. I told her that I really appreciate it when she does that because it trains me to notice my attachments to my beliefs. My experience is that attachment to any beliefs causes me suffering so why bother ? Instead I can just remind myself of my new mantra given to me by someone I met this week - the mantra is 'I dont know'

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Charlie's 911 u-turn part 2 (part 1 is on youtube!)

Reading some of the comments on my last video about Charlie’s u-turn has led me to think that perhaps I should stick to what I do best – performing with my megaphone and signs and interviewing/interacting with random people.

But I just felt I wanted one more stab at this subject.

I have been accused of various things here, Self indulgence, having a big ego and missing the point of peoples’ questions.

I am indeed self-indulgent. I am not sure if that is a crime but if it is, I plead guilty. I also do have an ego. Actually, I am not really sure if there is such a thing. Its just a word trying to describe a concept. But if it does exist I sure have one. And there seem to be various schools of thought as to how to relate to this concept in others and myself. Some say get rid of it completely. Others say embrace it.

With regards to the final point about my missing the point, I think that comment is also accurate. People were asking my thoughts about Charlie, not because they worship my every word but simply because they think that because I was in partnership so to speak with Charlie, perhaps I have some information which would explain his change of mind which they find difficult to understand.

I think I did miss the point. This is because I am very sensitive to the whole guru worship thing. It is really the last thing that I want because it seems to me that it is not healthy for anyone involved.

I must say that since I have been doing this, the overwhelming majority of people that recognise me and come up to me on the streets do not do so with some sense of being star struck but instead they just seem happy to meet me and often express that the films touched them or inspired them to do something etc. I do feel very uncomfortable when people ask to have a photo with me and I often attempt to discourage them. So this fear affects the way I perceive things which should explain the previous video to some extent.

I actually don’t know Charlie that well. I am not even sure I know anyone well enough to explain how their mind works. Most importantly, I don't even know how my own mind works so I simply do not understand his change of mind. The films we made together did not mention 911 to my knowledge so perhaps its really none of business.

Even though I don’t know him, I do have experience of being in the limelight and it has some very big downsides for me. If I could do what I do in disguise like the anti terrorist, I would. It really messes with the mind. I have all these people adoring me or adoring the IMAGE they have of me in their mind, others hate me (eg the police bike video in which people wished I would die in an accident) and people accusing me of all sorts of other things – being patronising, condescending etc. Its enough to drive anyone crazy in a mad world to start with. I can only imagine what Charlie is going through right now and it can't be pleasant. People sit behind their keyboards in the safety of their homes and fire off vindictive comments, most if not all of which are projections and don't seem to be aware that there is a human being on the receiving end just trying to make head or tail of things.

When I notice myself attacking someone, if I have enough awareness to catch myself in the act, I notice almost always that I am 'being' what I despise. Not the most healthy way of being.

Monday, April 04, 2011

The Bike Incident

Now where on earth do I begin ? Do I even begin ?

Firstly, my intuition tells me that defending myself is not the best idea for reasons obvious to some.

This short film has obviously stirred up a hornets nest and there are so many angles from which to look. There's the psychological angle - mine,the PCs and the commentators, the legal angle, spiritual angle (related to 'freedom') and philosophical angle and probably many others

Before I begin, I actually want to apologise to PC Stout. At first, I gave the film to a film editor I know to blank out his face and number but I then allowed myself to be persuaded to put it up with him on it. I do regret that now. Although in a way, I think I embarrass myself as much as he embarrasses himself.

The psychological

I had a great co-counselling session with a friend on Friday and his observation was along the transactional analysis model. He said it was a classic case of PC Stout being the critical parent and myself the rebellious child. This mean that neither of us were free but stuck in our roles. I apologise therefore for being difficult. I dont apologise for answering questions, even difficult ones, but my tone was not loving and compassionate and for that I apologise. I do agree with the comments who say he was just doing his job. The problem is, what exactly is his job and how has he been trained to do it ?

The Law

One of the primary motives for putting up the film was to help us all question our understanding of the law, what it is, how it operates and how it is being 'policed' This is how one commentator put it...

The police and their civillian colleagues believe in a primary school style law.

They are the teachers and you are the pupil.

But once you are a big boy, with your big boy pants on, you're an adult.

Teachers can't tell adults what to do, only ask.

This school style law is optional, but works well on the consenting.

This world is full of every type, some love to be dominated and punished.

They have every right to love it and every right to defend it.

Dan has his big boy pants on, thats all.

The opening gambit of PC Stout which is of course common, was 'Do you know why I have stopped you ?' For me, the problem with that question is that (a) it is designed to trap me into self incrimination. It is also very condescending - surely one would never speak like that to a friend or an equal. It sets up this conversation whereby I am the naughty boy and he is the grown up telling me off.

I then tell him my lawyer advises me to be silent. If I were more skilled, I could have simply shut up at that point. I think that would have been powerful.

He then keeps on asking self incriminating questions like 'Why shouldn't I give you a ticket ?' etc

I ask if I am obliged to answer that. I then make a crucial point which I only learned very recently. I do not have to take the paperwork. I never have to accept anything from them. He doesn't know this which is why he answers 'of course you do' to my question.

I then quiz him about getting my details. He doesn't seem to really know the law about this and I quiz him more. I did not decline to give my details. i just kept on asking questions. Remember , the whole clip is only 4.5 mins long !! He often avoids answering my questions and again quite typically keeps on repeating his. He then changes the whole thing to a 'request' which is quite clever because anyone can request anything they like from anyone else. I could have requested he takes his clothes off if I wanted to ! I am aware of that trick so I ask if its a request or an order.

Eventually he gets so angry he lunges for the camera and I intuitively leave the scene in fear of my cameras health and my own. Had he not done that, I would have supplied my details and left him to put this through the system. To the best of my knowledge, he would have found it hard to nail me because it was his word against mine which is not enough to prove anything. Or maybe he would have and I would have had to pay a fine.

This leads me to the precautionary principle. And to the psychology of some of the vicious comments.

Firstly, here is a comment from someone...

The PP (which fits into the Hegelian Dialectic) has been so drummed into everyone's brains we don't even notice.


The PP says that Danny should be locked up anyway for *nearly* causing mass murder with his cycling terror and subsequent OJ style evasion of justice. Yet no mention of the ACTUAL mass murder and justice evasion happening right now all over the real world!!

Real atrocities are downplayed while threats of terror are overblown.

I would like to ask any of the commentators who said things like 'I hope he gets killed on the road !' or other crazy and nasty things....

have you ever....

(a) driven whilst on a mobile ?
(b) TEXTED whilst driving ?
(c) been through a red light driving ON PURPOSE

Surely, these things are far more dangerous than going through a red light on a bike (in my case allegedly) - I wonder why you are so angry ? could it be projected anger when you know yhou do things far worse ?

And do any of you eat meat ? If so, i could argue that you are party to the killing of billions of animals, often living in terrible conditions and you the audacity to judge me for going ALLEGEDLY running a red light when nobody is claiming I have harmed a living soul ?

And if you people out there are such fans of the law and its being upheld, how about this (this applies especially to police officers)

take a look at this government webpage


Print it out and read it on the toilet (then wipe your backside with it) but before you do, read it carefully especially the definition of terrorism. You will see that the British army's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya seem clearly to fall under the Uk Governments own definition of terrorism. In this case, if any of you pay tax or know anybody else who does, and you havent reported them to the police, you are committing an offense (see part III terrorism propert - duty of disclosure)
Now compare the actual killing and maiming of thousands perhaps millions of people with the POTENTIAL hurting of another with a bike running a red light ! See what you are missing folks ! Its all so very clever.

The Spiritual

This to me is a big one - all words are just pointers. To me this points to many things and nothing including freedom. We seem to be losing our freedoms and being set upon by a police FORCE. Why is it called a force ? As I begun to rock the boat a bit, I noticed that many police officers were no longer acting as peace officers but instead seemed to be acting against me. As mentioned bove, it is very common for Police officers to talk down to us like naughty school children. This is part of a whole culture of bullying. (see http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot#p/search/4/_KxUkRdjD3k)


Saturday, April 02, 2011

Police Bike Video - responses

Because youtube only allow a few words in the comments section, I thought I would create a page here with some of the messages i have received, many of them supportive and deep, sensitive and highly intelligent.
I start off with a couple of the typical angry ones comments...

Danny you are clearly the sort of prick who gets off on acting like a small child who knows he's done wrong. Your behavior here is appalling and you come across as an irritating tool. The cop is sadly unable to keep his cool but your rantings would have been enough to have to push anyone over the edge. I can imagine one day you will get smart with the wrong person and end up battered in a ditch. Good luck.


Anyone that thinks this cyclist is a douchebag is a copper? No, many of us watch cyclists act like idiots all the time, and just hate pushy ones that think they can break the law (run a red light) and not have to deal with the consequences of breaking that law. Simply put, this cyclist proved to EVERYONE how much of a douchebag he is as both a rider and a human being.


Danny, I suspect the harsh judgements against you have a lot to do with a completely DIFFERENT kind of law you are breaking. That of male/ patriarchal socialized behaviour.

You are actually challenging the very patriarchal basis of society - of civilization - as perfectly represented by the policeman!

You are doing this by opening *yourself* to more 'feminine' traits such as communication, negotiation, compromise, reconciliation, common sense, compassion/ empathy, fluidity, passion...

I think a lot of the attacks are from men who feel threatened by the idea of embracing such 'feminine' (actually just balanced) values, so they defend/ justify patriarchy by regurgitating their indoctrination.

One comment connects Danny's attitude/ philosophy with 'murder' and 'the release of rapists' (Freud would love this!). On this bloke's channel are videos of himself driving recklessly through the countryside in a penis - I mean in a sports car!

It seems those who are still stuck in this patriarchal mindset are getting v. defensive about this HUGE shift towards a more expansive consciousness where female energy is more elevated again (ie balanced) and male energy is less dominant (again, balanced).

Their reaction can be seen in these comments and in the police state/ NWO etc all of which labels anyone who is widening their world view as criminals, anti social, terrorists etc

people need to let go :)



As I mentioned in the comment section, I have been in a terrible traffic-accident with my child, and I am disabled because of it.
My leg may cure for 90-95 % but that will take years.
My child (8 at that time) had 'only' a bump on his head, but he was very moved by everything.

This has given me a different perspective on many things in our current society.
The woman that hit us, had to stop.
She made a terrible mistake and hit the gaspedal instead of the break, and she hit us so hard we landed 25 m further.

I have done a lot of soulsearching on everything.
The one thing that is crystal clear to me, is what I mentioned in my reactions:
Our society is like a pressure-cooker.
This woman made a mistake, she did not commit a crime, but was treated as a criminal.

Your video has given me a lot of stuff to feel and think about.
It helps me to let go.

And yes, I was a bit confused you would be able to run a red light, and then not look at your own choice to do so.
You left out that part.
Now you have mentioned not remembering the red light in your second video, it all becomes more clear and human.
I can relate to that:
I have crossed streets and discovered a few times:
oh sh*t, that was a red light.

In my opinion, that is the stress-vibe of traffic and our sick system that forces people to suppress so much, it makes peoples awareness woolly.

I think that you touch a very sensitive topic with your video.
I am not superwoman, so I am not able to have a perfectly clear vision in traffic all the time:
I am woolly sometimes.
I am stressed sometimes.

And I do my best to not let that get to a level where it gets dangerous, I rather walk when I am aware that I feel woolly.
But I am not 100% certain I will never cause an accident myself.

Most people would prefer that nobody can bring them in danger in traffic.
That is what you have touched:
That deep fear.
In the bashing I saw you and PC Stout getting punished for that terrible fear:
I have to participate in traffic, but I cannot rely on the choices others make.
And others don't trust me.
Many laws make criminals of people who make mistakes.
Nobody wants to be a criminal.
Nobody wants to make a mistake.

Forgiving and understanding is very rare in the public opinion, it does not get in the news when something like that happens.
Most people don't think it is possible.
They just want to defend their lives, and punish the ones that threaten that.

So you have touched a red button I think.

I hope you un-confuse very smoothly, and that you make a beautiful experience out of it.


Letters I receive

I thought it woud be useful to compile some of the messages I get of support for what I do. I may include the odd abusive one as well for the sake of balance. NOt decided on that one yet. I received this one on FB today. It is amongst hundreds I have received over the years of similar tone and content...

Dear Danny

I trundled upon you through your police camera action video. Firstly great video and its a shame that you feel threatened in such a way that you cant show the video any more.

Through that video for one reason or another i looked at your other videos. Especially the everything is ok stuff. I love them and the way that you get folk thinking.

I feel like i have snapped out of a long deep sleep. Something deep inside me has changed. My Ideas on Authority, life, why are we here, understanding.... have all changed in just a few days since i saw that police camera action video. Its not just that video but the Everything is ok thing that's got me asking questions...

Through your videos I've been introduced to Charlies stuff and find his videos inspiring. Also I've found the wearechange.org videos inspiring.

I cant sleep at night because i have lots of questions and cant find answers... your fault i must add :-)

Anyway I feel I owed it to you to tell you how much you have woken me and that i owe you a big man hug.

Best Regards,


Hi Danny,

I understand that you are busy, and please don't feel obligated to answer my message. I am not trying to stroke your ego, nor do I expect you to take this to heart, or guide me in any way, but I feel that I have to tell you something.

My name is Allister Douglas. I am a 20 year old, non-religious Canadian, and I am on a self-propelled journey to enlightenment, and happiness. I have a dark mind, I experience little emotion, and I have lived life fairly unhappily. Lately I've felt the need to change it.

I have learned a lot in the past year or so about a lot of things including myself, human life, ego, where we all stand in the big picture, and much more. I know I am young, but I have learned more in that year than ever before.

I have noticed that you pour a lot of emotion into your day, and it strikes me that you truly care about the people around you. I find this amazing because most men that I know are hard as stone and don't let emotion get to them ( including myself. ) I would like to say that I admire your sensitivity, as it is not the average sensitivity. Your sensitivity equals pure strength in my evaluation.

Besides your strengths, I have learned a lot from you by watching some of your videos. I have learned things that cannot be taught, nor can they be explained. I have not only learned by your words, but also your actions. Your personality has slightly shifted my way of seeing, and in my opinion it was in a positive direction.

I feel drawn to you probably because we share a lot of the same opinions that you express in your videos. There are many things I would like to ask you, but you don't strike me as the type of person that would push your opinion, or share your deep inner thoughts with a stranger, so I will continue on my journey as I am, and not limit myself to your image.

If I saw you in the street I would walk up to you and shake your hand politely and transfer all of my appreciation from my eyes to yours without words, and walk away, but since I will never meet you, I want to thank you now.

Thank you for being you, and teaching me unknowingly. Thank you for your intelligence, and inner beauty. Thank you for allowing me to detect beauty, thank you for your strength and bravery, thank you for pouring your heart out to happiness journeymen like myself, and thanks for reading my selfish expression.

Have a wonderful life Mr. 'Shine'. You are an inspiration.



Saturday, March 05, 2011

Advice for action

Every so often I am asked for advice as to how to start doing similar actions to what I do on the streets of wherever.

I am not really into giving advice. Perhaps I prefer to call them tips or ideas.

Firstly I would choose something that you really enjoy doing. Now you may not know if you would enjoy something unless you try it at least once but you will probably know when you try it.

If using a megaphone doesn't attract you then there are many other things you can do. i spent 3 years just standing still on busy streets or places with my 'everything is ok' sign. You are more than welcome to copy this or anything or get your own sign idea. You could use it as an opportunity to meditate. I often took a step ladder with me . It sticks out more.

You can up the ante by going inside places like restaurants or art galleries with the sign and see what happens.

If you dont even fancy that, why not create some interesting leaflets to give out. If you want to help people think for themselves then fill the leaflet with questions rather than statements. Perhaps here in the comments people could suggest ideas for the type of questions that might be interesting for people to contemplate.

You could of course also just try with megaphone.

Wherever you go and whatever you do its always good to take a camera with and also print out of the law regarding filming.

If you choose to go straight for the megaphone, its best to do it together with at least one other so he/she can do the filming and also so that if the police come, you can support each other.

So regarding the police, I have a far less antagonistic approach than I used t. in fact if there is a copper in the vicinity, i often will go up to him/her and INFORM (not ask) them what I am just about to do. they really like it when you do that. Otherwise do some research regarding giving details etc and watch the anti terrorist about asking questions. Be the master by always asking questions, however its very tough at the beginign as they are quite sly without even knowing it.

Hope that helps

Have fun

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Letter from a brave man in court

Hello Readers (said in a pretentious manner)

I just received a fascinating message form a youtube viewer and I wanted to put it out there.

Many of you will have heard about the 'freeman' or sovereignty movement around the world. I kn ew about it before my court case but didn't feel I knew enough and understood enough to be able to withstand the onslaught of the (il)legal system. who aint just going to let a few clever guys ruin their game without a fight.

I think that anyone who is brave enough to take the system on I am sure those who have would agree that you must first and foremost completely know and understand your stuff. The way to test it in my experience si to go to courts as often as you can and test it out on lawyers and barristers and even clercs by just catching them here and there, tell them that you are going to court for something or that a friend is and that you are going to say this and that. You will then experience a taste of what it will be like in court. Finally, if you want to try it our perhaps its best to do it on something like council tax for which the punishment is simply paying the bill ! Its a good way of practicing

Anyway, here is the letter he sent which you can also use. I would be fascinated to hear form any barristers or lawyers who read this. I suspect I know what they will say.

From Rick...

In Georgina Ontario Canada, I was charged with driving without a Valid drivers license, in-valid plates, un-registared vehicle, and "Obstruction of Police" (a criminal charge with a max. 2 year sentence attached to it) I was arrested violently for protesting the removal of my personal property by pointing a camera at these arresting officers and forced to stay in a cold jail cell over-night and into the next day. My prescription sunglasses were stepped on and destroyed as were some other personal affects and my camera damaged. No restitution has been offered by the York Regional Police to date and am not expecting it anytime soon. I had been awaiting the opportunity to challenge this fraudulent de-facto court system and criminal Police organization for 3 years and decided to do just that by defending myself and did. Here is the outcome.

On Oct 19th, while in the court room, and after not rising for "her worship" and submitting to their (the courts) jurisdiction that way, the court clerk yelled at me and called for the police. I calmly walked out of the court and sat just outside on a bench, watching as the police came swarming. 10 officers all together I believe is what there were in total. Once they finally exhausted all of their top notch investigative skills and found that I was the guy who didn't "Rise" for "her worship", ( it was comical watching them looking up and down the halls for me) they attempted to intimidate me with threats of arrest to which I replied with " if you touch me, you will be charged with assault under the common law, I have not consented to your jurisdiction" They didn't touch me but continued their techniques of intimidation which continued to fail. When the older Police officer, senior member I guess, came to me and informed me that I would be going back into the court room and would rise when my name was called, I replied with " are you trying to force me to commit perjury?" He replied with "absolutely not" Changing his method of technique, he stated that I would "behave myself" as well as a bunch of other commands, ending his tirade with "do you understand" to which I replied with "No I do not understand" he then proceeded to go through it all again asking at the end again if I " understood?" I again replied with " No, I do not stand under your jurisdiction" - game over.
They called the NAME of the trust again while I was being detained and threatened by the policy enforcers. When the NAME didn't appear in the court room, the judge issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the NAME. When the policy enforcers asked me my name, I replied with " I go by Dad, son, bro, and Rick among others" and handed the birth certificate to them stating that " this is what you are looking for" and that they had "No claim of jurisdiction over me the human being"

After all of that, I went back into the court to remain in honor and settle the issue with the TRUST/ the NAME. They had me surrounded by 7 policy enforcers in yet another attempt to intimidate me into submission to their jurisdiction. I should also add that they had by now cleared the courtroom and had my guests, and members of the public, leave the court room. I was left alone to deal with this without the benefit of witnesses. It failed and they remanded the case to another courtroom with another judge. Meanwhile, keeping in mind the whole time, the crown council, a very confident and cocky women for the previous cases, was quite visibly nervous in dealing with me and was fumbling over her words, even referring to the birth cert that I offered into the court, as a "drivers license" from the province of New Brunswick. I corrected her promptly and she stood corrected in front of the court. This woman would not face me directly in either courtroom on either day.

My case was then remanded to another court and another day as the older lady judge didn't know how or want to deal with me. My case was set for Nov 10th 2010. When the NAME was called, I came into the court room and stood just behind the bar. When told to approach, I stated " I am fine here, I choose not to cross the bar" They said they needed me to because they "could not hear me" I replied with " That's ok, I can speak up, I have a loud voice" That was that. I was then asked if I the NAME (first and last names) and I replied with, " I am the Agent for the capitalized name and I claim common law jurisdiction" like I had done during the previous court appearance on Oct 19th. They didn't want to hear that and asked me a couple more times if I was the NAME (first and last names) and I again repeated " I am the Agent for the capitalized name and I claim common law jurisdiction" The judge reacted as if he was annoyed and asked me to sit down and he would deal with me later. I didn't sit down and gathered my stuff up and went back outside the court room and sat down on a bench awaiting the NAME to be called once again. I short while later, we see the older police constable that was giving me such a hard time, and by the way, he was taking down notes about me, including what I was wearing and staring at me while doing it before the appearance in court. He along with a few others made a bee-line for a small office outside the court. I watched them as I sat outside the court go into that room and after about 5 mins, they came out of that room, went back into court and very soon after that The NAME was called again.

When it was all said and done, the NAME was called ( I was seated once again outside on a bench) and they attempted one last time to trick me into accepting the TRUST as me, the flesh and blood human being and failed. The legal aid attorney came to me and asked if was going to be hiring a lawyer, I replied with " No..?" She then asked "will you be applying for legal aid?" ( Begging for legal aid ) and I again said " No..?" That was it, they gave up and the floor was then handed over to the "other" crown council, one who could deal with what had to be done, where he went on to explain to the court ( or rather, save face) that although the charges were legitimate, they felt that the case should have been held in a lower community court and that even though the criminal charge of " Obstruction of Police" was a valid charge, after their looking into of the case, they were "withdrawing the charges" Judge says to me, the flesh and blood human being "you are free to go" to which I replied " while looking at the people seated next to me " of course I am..thank you"

It is important to note that I did win and that weren't going to admit to the entire court room of seated pawns that I was right and they were playing a game that I had a full knowledge of and this is why they addressed the court the way they did, by stating "that they felt the charges were legit" etc..

It so important for people to hold their ground. I was so very nervous before going in and leading up to the day, but once I was in the court room and began standing my ground, a calm came over me, both times. I encourage everyone reading this to do your homework, it isn't hard to do. I am not an academic, I am a musician, but have a tenacity and a spirit that will never let me down and never has. I work hard at it and you can to. If people learn and spread this knowledge everywhere to all they come into contact with, you will be doing more for your future and the future of your children than any and every soldier did in any war, for this is what will bring about freedom and peace for all men on earth.

I wish I could help everybody out there in need and by writing up this transcript of what went down and how I handled it, I hope to do just that. Help.
Do your homework but keep my transcript close at hand. Refer to it. When you have your own success, please do the same. My heart goes out to those who have been accosted and treated awful by this heartless system. I understand your pain and your fear of it. Use your fear and find strength in my words to take on this battle. If you can't, then don't and don't worry about it. There will be other ways to contribute to this battle for human dignity.