Grimstock’s Archives

The SpannermenUnpicking the Stitch-Up


Home——The 369 Ritual——Background Information 1 / Background Info 2 ——Archives 1 / Archives 2

The Spannermen had been chosen and designated as victims to be gaoled to be sentenced to 369 months imprisonment to be split amongst 9 of them in 1983 – 6 years before the matter of what to charge them with had been decided upon, and prior to any relevant videotape evidence being obtained in 1984.
The choice of the Spannermen as victims in 1983 had only secondary interest with any SM practices they had, or would be engaging in, but primarily of concern was their association with an address in South Wales, at which a threatened and targeted whistleblower had at the time sought temporary refuge and isolation following the sale of his home in Cheshire; (his reporting of problems and revelations later found to have probably and inadvertently put a spoke in the wheel of the secret Westminster Paedophile ring and of the larger Intel operation involving that scandal at the “Bryn Alyn Community” ).

“If there is one thing people do NOT want to hear, it is the truth.” – Jordan Maxwell

Spanner Case Background

The Stitch-Up

The Non-Existent Murder Investigation

The Fake Cover Story over the Targeting of the Harford Address and a 1983 video, Intended to Protect Margaret Thatcher’s Retaliation against Whistleblowing from Discovery.

The Origin of the Video

Search Warrants

False Claims

Identification of the Spannermen

The Spannermens’ Experience

The Snuff Movies

Lack of Investigation

LSS – Justice without privilege

spanner case background

I believe the Spanner case had been merely part of a 7 year long sacrificial Crown/Church of England 369 ritual mostly disguised as a police investigation, and involving the fraudulent transferral of costs totalling many millions of pounds onto public funding of the Spanner case in order to seamlessly finance hundreds of raids with secret society police officer initiation and psychopathic training encompassing the nationwide sacrificial slaughter (during the period 1983 to 1990) of over 100 uniquely targeted and innocent gay men, and all the direct and indirect costs that happened to become involved in that satanic escapade by falsely costing all expenses – whilst also blaming them onto the seemingly pointless investigation and the unlawful imprisonment of 9 Spannermen. The slaughtered victims had been mostly selected, contacted and dated (for execution) covertly through gay SM contact magazine adverts, perhaps together with prior knowledge in a few cases. There had also been collateraI damage related to the total number of deaths during the operation. I believe that (over) 66 of the deaths had been officially recorded as home suicides, with the 66 ID’s used and named years later in court at a Spanner case preliminary hearing as (66+16 Spannermen=82 – at middle of page 165) the fictitious Spannermen “nationwide ring, (although there had been no such connections at all), and the other (over) 36 extremely violent deaths recorded as unsolved murders in various private, secluded and secured locations. The whole ritual and statistics had been intended as a 111 curse on gay men, whilst at the same time, offerings to Saturn expecting wealth in return. Closure of the ritual had been undertaken and sealed/ locked through the Old Bailey sentencing in 1990. The Spannermens’ innocence had been betrayed through secret society/ Crown allegiance by continuance of the unlawful prosecutions to prevent the ritual being thrown into disarray in it’s final stages. From the fake search warrants through to the prosecutions and false imprisonments, the unlawfulness of the whole scam had been kept secret from, and never mentioned to the unlawfully chosen, cursed, shamed and humiliated victims/(defendants) at any time. The Old Bailey completion and closure of the Spanner case could not be heard prior to late 1990, due to the slaughter of the final 3 victims to be used as a curse and seal ending by mid-1990, and the case was then followed by Royal honours (in various and seemingly unconnected forms [as one example]) for participation being conferred from December 1990. The specifics of the case had initially required that 16 men be raided and charged, with one of those dropped prior to trial in order to complete the 666 number at the start, with statistics of both 9 and 15 men together with 369 months and 639963 closure resulting from the trial.

“The right to bodily integrity is given by your creator, and not by your government” (World Freedom Alliance)

It had been an essential requirement of the ritual that the 9 men should be entirely innocent of any wrongdoing (within the framework of the operation) prior to their incarcerations. The unlawfulness of the prosecutions had therefore been intentional, and had not stemmed from any oversight nor procedural failures, but had indeed been dependent upon the acquiescence to Crown demands of all those involved.

The minimum total collective of victims of the ritual (111 [my calculation] from 102 (99+3) deaths + 9 jailings) had been intended as a 111 curse on gay men, with 3 of the deaths; the final three corpses (refer to both Part 8 of the ritual and to the possibly relevant “West London Murders 1989/1990” ) which I believe had been used as a presiding lock, seal, and curse (as 1+1+1=111) upon the ritual, case, statistics and verdicts to prevent tampering with or overturning of any results, whilst also cursing all victims and gay men.

the stitch-up

The Entire Stitch-Up of the Spannermen, who had been prematurely chosen as “victims” to be jailed six years earlier, and of which 9 men had to be sentenced for a total of 369 months prior to any possible reason then being found for charges leading to incarcerations, (see video link below), eventually leading to the tenuous utilisation of a law (S.47, and others of the O.A.P.A. 1861) that had never been intended to govern sexual interactions between consenting adults, and the sell-out by their “own” barristers, both by convincing the men to plead “guilty”, and by the blanket silence over the fake Crown search warrants used to raid the men in 1987, and then the later character assassinations once most of them had passed away, and intended to convey the belief that they had all been naive and ignorant in letting the police raid their homes without a search warrant, with a fake cover story used over the source of the original video found by police -and referred to below- intended to thus illustrate and portray their naivety. I expect there to be several different versions of these non-events being used. I fully believe that the purpose of the compilation tape put together by police and used in court had originally been intended to include snuff movies et al in that compilation, but eventually only the Spannermen I believe were perhaps depicted, although this has never yet been verified by anyone who knew them, due to the police refusal to release evidence.

The Non-Existent Murder Investigation

The Spanner Case was only a cover for the main operation, by stealing the limelight with something connected, but of a different outcome to the agenda of the cull. It’s purpose was to disguise the cull (and the costs) as part of the Spannermen investigations, and to cause suffering and hardship differing in severity to 9 of/to 16 men. In this video, from 11.00 minutes into the interview, it is stated that the Operation (with “hundreds” of raids) had already been running for about 7 years “investigating the Spannermen”, from an address book at a cost of around £4 million prior to the assault charges being decided on (although this merges both the culling operation and the Spanner case, I do not believe refers to the 16 Code 9 Spannermen raids in 1986/87, where only initial Common Law charges had been made, but I believe identifies the official CPS/DPP (full-and decided) charging in September 1989), as the seven years could then run from January 1983 (with the culling operation merged) to September 1989 charging. It is claimed in that video that the OPB were already in possession of the original videotape in 1983, “about 7 years prior to the Spannermen charges being decided” (September 1989 minus “about 7 years”) and were asking the owner to identify the men involved, although it is also claimed that there had already been an earlier murder investigation, which had been dropped at an earlier date, – (and which I believe to be incorrect), – as if there had actually been a murder investigation, (and I can also confirm there had not) then the identities of the men involved had been of prime importance at that point, and not afterwards, once the investigation had been dropped. (*see below) The claimed “murder investigation” (with officially claimed date of 1987 – but only existent in the fake cover story, and not in reality), had only been a ploy used from 1986 to 1987 against some of the Spannermen in order to persuade and entice them (and thus entrap upon raiding) into offering indiscreetly volunteered statements detailing and concerning their “consensual rough sex” (apparently intended to assist the police in order to help solve the (non-existent) inquiry into a (non-existent) murder); and so trying to avoid the threat of torture and murder charges being brought against the Spannermen themselves; but in reality, intended merely to obtain those detailed SM encounters/ statements;- (and at that time, the Spannermen believed (and quite rightly so, I might add) that consensual rough sex was not unlawful per se) – and then for the police to immediately charge them with violent assaults outlined in those statements, under the O.A.P.A. of 1861, under the Common Law jurisdiction of the Church of England. Full Crown Prosecution Service charges and arrests only came two years later, in September 1989.

*Additionally, it would not be possible for a potential murder of an either known or unknown victim/case to be dropped without the identities of all involved to be already known, and therefore discounted. So the claim that the OPB were seeking the identities of those depicted in the video once the murder investigation had already been completed/dropped is therefore simply neither plausible, nor possible, as even one ID only would have led them to the remainder. That leaves us with the conclusion that a murder investigation had certainly NOT occurred at that point in time, (as the decision to drop the “murder investigation” -as “nobody had been killed”-(refer to 10.50 to 11.10 of the video) could only result from locating and confirming the identity of the living and believed victim[s]); and on that basis, relates instead to the period 1986 to 1987 – the Spannermen raids during which the identities had then become known, and the claim of “murder investigation” had merely been a ploy to charge the Spannermen, and had neither been a genuine belief, nor was it related to any previous murder investigation of the Spannermen, as the matter had been shelved for several years until 1986.

However, this information obviously does not align with the video inadvertently surrendered to Manchester Police in 1984 via Gay Galaxy, but seems to imply there had also been an earlier video seized. Nevertheless, if that particular information in the video is indeed correct, (and this is indeed a possibility) – apart from the 1983 falsely claimed “murder investigation” – then it may only link/refer to the businessman targeted from/whilst visiting the Harford address in 1983, and then suicided in 1984, and thus identifying a clear link with the OPB prior to the death, and not with any Spannerman as such.

The Fake Cover Story

I would therefore categorize the claim of a video being the cause of the investigation of the Spannermen from 1983 onwards (which depicts the true start date of those investigations) as merely a cover of protection of Margaret Thatcher’s Premiership in order to deflect attention from the fact that the targeting of the Harford address had been due to November 1983 indirect retaliation against whistleblowing (and not a video) coming perilously close to exposing corruption and illicit ministerial affairs, and which had later been more fully exposed to the public scrutiny through Scallywag Magazine in the 1990’s. This is also confirmed through the facts that there had been NO earlier “murder investigation”, and also the investigation could only have commenced through the identities and addresses of the men being known, which had only been forthcoming in 1986-1987 , 3 to 4 years later, unyet the address had been targeted from 1983 onwards.However, the actual operation/ritual had been ongoing since the beginning of 1983, and the Spannermen later added in November that year as the victims chosen for the scheduled switch to incarcerations victims from the 1986 end of the code 6 executions, leaving only the later reasons for the jailings to be decided on. This is also confirmed through the varying methods of Intel surveillance which first began in December 1983 at Harford, and continued through to mid-1991. The first video of the Spannermen that had been obtained by the OPB in 1984 (“surrendered to Manchester Police” via a Gay Galaxy classified advert unknowingly responded to by Colin) only came several months AFTER the men had been chosen as victims for incarceration, thus negating the false official narrative of a video being the cause of the investigation. Although this date coincides with the apparent “suiciding” of the Harford visitor (early 1984), may suggest the possibility of 2 videos having been obtained should interrogation of the businessman have been involved (as claimed in the video and regarding identities), then he would not have known the participants apart from the Harford resident as he was not of the Spannermen group. However the fact remains that Colin was raided months before the other Spannermen also indicates the identity of the video source and where identities would have then been disclosed. That late ’86 raid ties in perfectly with the scheduled end of code 6 and the start of code 9 of the operation/ritual.

The Spannermen had only been identified by Colin in December 1986, when he was first raided prior to the other Spannermen raids which later followed. This video therefore then comes right on the mark with dates and appears to be on track with minimum funding costs, although it is claimed the earlier raids were originating from an address book (and not from magazine adverts – and there also exists here the possibility that an address book also belonged to the Harford visitor who died in 1984). Well, of course this information relates to the Spanner case and neither the culling nor the hundreds of raids were anything to do with the Spannermen investigation. However, the “seven years” had included shelving of the Spannermen case for 3 years until completion of the code 6 culling, ending code 6 = 1+9+8+6 = 2+4 = 6. Much of the information given in the interview is false and misleading piffle as the original video submission had gone to/come from Gay Galaxy in Manchester, and by the Police’s own admission had been “surrendered to Manchester Police”. I can also confirm the Harford search warrant was for “snuff movies”. With his comments (at 21.30 of the video) that:“there were no (Spannermen) search warrants” and “the Spannermen were naive and ignorant” (in letting the OPB into their homes),(**see below) I think not as naive and ignorant as he may be, as the search warrants had claimed the purpose of the raids, albeit based on lies:- However, the legitimacy of those warrants may be challenged, but they did indeed exist. Surely it was the job of the Spannermens’ advisors to check validity of the paperwork as basic groundwork prior to the trial? They only had to ask their clients in order to confirm that warrants had been used. However, from personal experience, I can assure anyone that the Spannermen were anything but “naive and ignorant”, – far from it!

Is this Spanner Trust lawyer (in his virtue-signalling cult masonic garb) therefore intimating the search warrants issued were fake? (if so, then that’s par for the course with Hames, I’m afraid!) – and if so, then why was this not mentioned nor challenged in court at the time?

– and why has this been kept secret so far? – Well, I shall tell you why – For the same reason this lawyer has given a fabrication of some details of the circumstances/background of the Spannermen case for one! Although, credit where it is due; he has indeed supplied a few confirmations of the truth/ real story too, and which had previously not been stated publicly by anyone other than myself. – The start date of “about 7 years” prior to CPS charging being one example of this.

– Prudential interests, perhaps? Sell-outs and appeasers all? – well maybe not all, but certainly this cult appeaser for one. Had the Spannermen been denied justice – due to Crown/Regina/secret society allegiance and manipulation – even by their own barristers, (through avoidance of potentially highly-damaging contentions against the Crown prosecution regarding fake Crown search warrants ), by keeping that matter off the table and secret, thus preventing the whole ritual being thrown into disarray, and resulting in acquiescence to the acceptance of a Crown proposal to the defence teams only, that the Spannermen had permitted access for the raids of their own accord, through “naivety and ignorance” and that there had been no search warrants? However, “naivety and ignorance” cannot be claimed or defined against highly intelligent individuals when faced with monumental levels of corruption of officials within public office whom are fully supported in that denied corruption by the State and Crown through the entire scam of statute law and Acts of Parliament (please refer to Maritime Admiralty Law).

The Origin of the Video

Unwarranted character assassination is often used by the courts and secret societies in order to try and justify perverted claims and decisions. The cock and bull story about the source of the videos from “the man driving the car in North Wales” from 9.00 of the video, I can confirm as utter and complete nonsense and lies. As I have explained many times, the original video had been inadvertently sent to Gay Galaxy magazine (controlled by Manchester Police) in 1984. The reason for the cock and bull story about the videos is merely to try and portray the Spannermen as “naive and ignorant” in order to back-up the false claim about the Spannermen giving the police permission to search their homes in 1987, and also to steer attention away from the Gay Galaxy magazine, which had been both the source of the original tape and a source of the code 6 culling victims; and the emphasis on “a naive man” is again repeated after the false claim of him inviting the police into his home at 10.00 of the video.(**see below) in case you missed it the first time round! The original video had been obtained from an advert in a gay magazine. Additionally, the false claim that the police who stopped the car in North Wales had later gone to his home – where he “invited” them in is pure invention if nothing else, as in those days-1980’s- North and South Wales Police were two different forces, and South Wales was outside the jurisdiction of the North Wales force, and there had been nobody related to the Spanner case who was living in North Wales during the 1980’s. Only South Wales police had some (minor) involvement with the Spannermen, and which had not been related to any evidence in the case, but merely facilitating the OPB where arrests and charging had been made, and a comment had been made by a senior officer at Lampeter Police Station, Dyfed in 1989 (during Michael Hames’ visit), of “Who does he think he is, coming in here ordering everyone around?”. – (Well, of course, in his (unofficial) official capacity of Witchfinder General, Hames was a Crown official and therefore (unofficially) higher ranking than a State official).

Since the video-stated matter of legal advice being potentially unwisely given by barristers over the “guilty” pleas,(at 13.40 of the video) perhaps that should also be a focus of attention too, as it would possibly appear to come under identical considerations. Had the matter of these fake search warrants (of which the existence now appears to be denied by the above lawyer) been brought up in court by the Spannermens’ barristers, the whole case should have then been thrown out. However it should also be remembered that the raids when items were seized with search warrants in 1987, were under Common Law in order to lay charges against the men under S.47 and others of the O.A.P.A. 1861 ( under the Common Law Jurisdiction of the Church of England Witchfinder General, Michael Hames). The arrests were made over 2 years later under Statute Law in September 1989 when full CPS charges had been laid against them by the Head of OPB of the Metropolitan Police, Michael Hames, and as I recall had then been arranged by telephone appointment at the local police stations.

Search Warrants:

Should the argument about fake search warrants now apparently shift to verbal abuse and insult of mostly deceased men with the claim from 21.30 of the video, (*see below) that the 16 Spannermen were all “naive and ignorant”, and had allowed/invited the entry to their homes in 1987 without a search warrant; This cult-appeaser’s statement on camera is intended to both damage the Spannermen’s reputation whilst also attempting to throw attention away from the fact that over 100 gay men had apparently also been slaughtered in the operation. However there are a few half-truths thrown in along with the garbage, so i have sifted out what I believe to be correct and what is not.

No warrants?……….Then since there had been no incidental arrests made, nor valid warrants used, nor stolen goods involved, nor suspects detained nor sought on any of the premises, nor any other lawful reason to obtain search and seizure powers, the police were merely as uninvited ransacking gatecrashers at the homes, and not welcome (and additionally subject to a restriction to Common Law [as religious police] (at 8.10 of the video, and please also refer to Operation Spanner Dissected under “Witchfinder General”) on that particular occasion,- i.e: 19th Century law), and as such had no powers under the prevailing circumstances to carry out any search and seizure on the various premises targeted, and therefore statements demanded of the men and all related items, videos and evidence seized at the time were therefore inadmissible in court, as they had all been obtained unlawfully. Consent is irrelevant, although none had been given. An unlawful police procedure could not be sanctioned by a member of the public in any case. The men had all suffered a travesty of justice over many years, in addition to any personal and financial losses. Doors had only been opened (and under threat of destruction if not opened) to prevent 8 to 12 burly men punching and kicking the doors in the cases that I know of. Search warrants were only shown fleetingly to the Spannermen once entry had been gained. The purpose and intention of the Spannermen being added to the existing ritual as “victims” had never been to treat them fairly, nor in accordance with any rules, but to cause deep and lasting despair amongst all the Spannermen. The OPB would therefore have relished the opportunity to smash the front doors of each of the men with full Crown approval. Operation Spanner had been a sacrificial ritual only disguised as a genuine police operation. Entry had thus been gained unlawfully and under threat with a total disregard for standard and lawful procedures by the Crown. This important Crown ritual involving years of planning would not have been stopped in it’s tracks after 8 to 12 men in 3 or 4 cars had travelled a 3 to 4 hour drive only to be informed that entry was refused 16 times, and anyone who believes that is essentially “naive and ignorant”. Replacing a front door and/or frame can cost many hundreds of pounds, and is normally non-recoverable if damage is by police,(excepting where damage is to the wrong address), and in the case of a private tenant usually results in eviction. It was never consent that the police were seeking. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any crime committed in any statement or video seized unlawfully, as it had long been an established practice, over many centuries, that consensual “rough” sex involving consensual bodily harm had never been interpreted as a crime, (thus confirmed through the complete absence of any relevant precedence in the case) providing that the persons involved were legally able to consent to those actions. This had also been confirmed through the fact that copies of the Spannermen S/M videos had also all been seized at the Horwich Spannerman’s address by Manchester Police prior to the 1983 start of the ritual (operation) during another matter, and those videos had all been returned to the owner shortly after as “permissible”. The fact that there had been no relevant precedence does not indicate that there had been no such indulgence in similar practices before the Spanner case, but merely that those actions were not previously considered to be unlawful. The lack of precedence (of consensual “rough sex”) itself had therefore already indicated precedence of the matter NOT being eligible for punishment through the courts.

false claims

No authority or consent/ permissions had been given for the searches, and there is NO EVIDENCE at all related to this false claim (*see below). Additionally at Harford, no permission nor appointment had been given nor requested to come onto the 5 acres of private land with 3 car loads of police in the first instance thus putting the notified (by large sign) and present guard dog and other animals at risk of injury or death. The searches and seizures had not been incidental to an arrest, as with the April 1987 raid the arrests had only occurred in September 1989, two and a half years later. A Common Law restriction was in place at the time, as the police were then officially merely issuing assault charges under the OAPA 1861 on behalf of the (Crown) Church of England Witchfinder General, and not from the (state) OPB of the Metropolitan police. The matter in official documents had been referred to as “raids” which implies furthermore that the state had been complicit in the intended visits being official and the unlawful intrusions into the homes by force if necessary. The intention had therefore been all along to force entry should that be necessary, particularly since no appointments had first been made with the men, prior to a 3 or 4 hour drive to reach the addresses. An important pre-scheduled Crown ritual spanning 7 to 8 years would not have been stopped in it’s tracks by a member of the public refusing entry.

(*unless, of course, documentation has now – since the demise of most of the Spannermen – been unlawfully altered to accommodate those false claims, potentially causing the withholding of this documentation for yet many years hence, to avoid discovery – a minor task for the cult, and one which happens all the time). Since it relates additionally to ritual sacrifice of the common people, then copies of all documentation should be first verified and/or challenged if necessary by interested parties, prior to all documents being archived with a Common Law Court for safekeeping, until such time as full details of all ritual victims have been recorded and publicised/made known for the people in order to avoid any subterfuge prior to the information being released. “All” victims should also include those who were killed but rejected for ritual purposes.

I do not believe that this lawyer would have purposely invented these fictitious stories about the Spannermen raids for any good reason, although I do believe that they have indeed been invented; so in the case that he has not falsely created these events from his own imagination, but merely passed that (false) information on; or alternatively merely used them to illustrate fictitious information intended to deceive; I am therefore left with no alternative to a conclusion as follows:

**I therefore have good reason to believe that documentation relating to the Spanner Case and Operation may possibly have already been tampered with and falsified, and additionally or alternatively, that the stated facts of the written judgement relating to the raids on the 16 Spannermen as it now stands (whether agreed between legal representatives or not), bears little resemblance to the evidence presented in Court in 1990.

**However, I believe Part 8 of the ritual had been intended also to include punishment of any interference with the results. – Please refer to that lock, seal and 111 curse by the Old Bailey.

It was not consent that the OPB had needed to proceed in such circumstances, but rather authorisation by VALID warrant in the absence of alternative powers. However, greater losses had been suffered by over 100 other victims and families through the hidden sacrificial execution of those men, claimed by authorities to be “suicides” or “unsolved murders”. The only “naivety and ignorance” being displayed here is through the belief that people would actually swallow this crap about the integrity (claimed naivety and ignorance) of mostly deceased highly intelligent and some highly capable and highly-skilled, good, honest and trustworthy hard-working men. Utterly shameless behaviour nonetheless. That he claims he holds intimate details of both a (fictitious) traffic stop and (fictitious) information about what had happened at someone’s front door – which only a colleague of a/the fictitious Spannerman could possibly have acquired in such circumstances, (except he is not) displays a personal ignorance about the Spannermen themselves- and the facts of the case- and demonstrates his falsely presumed ignorance of those watching the video. The fake elements of his story (added to some truthful facts of the investigation) are attempting to bend the truth in such a way as to cover the unlawful procedures by the Crown, courts and police, whilst tarnishing the reputations of the Spannermen, and at the same time trying to take attention away from the source of seizure of the original tape – the Gay Galaxy magazine, which had also been used for the Code 6 culling operation (1983 to 1986), and which had been involved with soliciting the Spannermen tape by post for the OPB in 1984.

identification of the spannermen

Identification of the Spannermen: Colin Lasky (the source of the original video) would have been the one to identify the other Spannermen and the raid on his address in Pontypridd occurred in December 1986, only a few months before the other Spannermen raids had started. However, the businessman visitor to Harford had been claimed to have committed suicide in early 1984 “following a police raid”, but had apparently not been named with the other code 6 (Part 2) “suicides” mentioned in court (as “66 potential defendants” – the fictitious Spannermen “nationwide ring”) a few years later, so it is a possibility that this death may have been hidden possibly due to the taking of his address book information that needed to be kept secret (lest people twig the reason for, and circumstances of, the death). If that should have been the case, it also then identifies – as from both the threats made against the whistleblower and the trespassing incident in 1983, that the Harford address was certainly chosen as the main target for the Spanner case; and means that the whistleblower was either being tailed or tracked, or surveillance reports were being made from the vicinity in real time in December 1983, as the trespassing had occurred only a few hours after his arrival, and also perhaps therefore explains both the 8 years Intel involvement there/ the threats made against his person in November 1983, and also possibly indicates the “singular 1” (the businessman) identified at the end of the paragraph following the Wiki quote about the Michael Boothe killing in the “various parts” section. It would also confirm close ties between Intel services and John Allen (child trafficking), whose agent was doing the trespassing at the isolated property whilst the businessman’s car was parked outside (along with others).

An address book would only have been required where the victims personal friends had been targeted, – in other words, the Spannermen’s personal contacts only. This would then confirm the above video’s accuracy with the Spannermen being investigated from 1983 onwards prior to the official 1987 start, and running concurrently with the code 6 cull. This is entirely correct and aligns perfectly with what I already know. There is also the possibility that other items may have been taken from the 1984 suicided businessman’s address in Buckinghamshire, and that there is reason now to believe this killing had most certainly been linked to the investigation of the Spannermen, (and not to the suicided 66 code 6 sacrifices due to it’s absence from that list), and would perhaps then indicate complete desperation and almost monumental failure in finding a good reason or connection to charge the Spannermen with something worth 369 months sentencing totals, as the businessman was not from the main Spannermen group. However, the alibi for the cull – (the Spannermen raids and case) could not be scheduled until 1987 due to the logistics involved, in any case.

the spannermens’ experience

The Spannermen’s experience and knowledge in Operation Spanner had not been of the operation itself, (during which all the main victims of code 6 had been slaughtered by 1986), but of the later code 9 Spanner case investigation, trial and sentencing from 1986 to 1987 on –“The Spanner Investigation had been launched following an “inquiry” into adverts in gay magazines. The “inquiry” (operation) had involved culling (ritual sacrifice) of advertisers and responders to gay magazines. The “investigation” had been the investigation of the Spannermen, who had been targeted and selected from 1983/1984, and that matter was then shelved for three years until the Spannermen raids in 1986/87. That is explained in further detail in Operation Spanner Dissected. The “inquiry” into gay magazines had been part of Operation Spanner. (refresh that page if necessary). Neither would any of them have been aware of the covert code 3 culling operation which both ran in the background to the case, and finally concluded several months before the Old Bailey trial had started.

Once my preliminary research of Operation Spanner had been available online in early 2017, on the David Icke website, no time had been wasted in putting Roland’s story on record in a cult-commissioned “cult award-winning” slideshow together with a much more detailed Wiki entry supposedly representing “Operation Spanner”, (falsely dated where necessary) to support the investigation starting from 1987), in order to try and counteract my information as Roland’s story commenced in 1987, although neither Roland’s personal experience nor the original Wiki write-up had seemingly been of interest to the cult prior to 2017, so this had come as a wonderful bonus arising both from and to my efforts and research, as Roland’s story had indeed warranted the telling in his own voice prior to any further disclosure and revelations. The counter attack on my work had also used other methods uninvolved with Roland’s story.

the snuff movies

The Snuff Movies: There does still remain however, a slim but distinct possibility that another 1 or 3 {or 1+2} of the mentioned victims somewhere within the totals may relate to an additional or secondary matter (possibly regarding the making of snuff videos of children or gay men for the cult, as per pre-trial press releases {scroll up a little) – according to my calculations, but are now hidden within the cull [or jailings] (*see below)- although perhaps this hidden result may not have been originally intended, and perhaps indicating a disclosure problem arising prior to the media publicity of the case itself. Certainly the compilation video the police produced for the Old Bailey hearing had been completed with Gregorian Chants background music, presumably to provide continuity to the compilation of acts devoid of any sexual content, intimating that the acts had been satanic rituals, and thus perhaps also indicating that the intention had originally been to claim that the “violence” had led to the deaths of some victims, and therefore possibly with the original intention to also include within that compilation extracts from snuff movies where identity of the victims could not be determined (vis a vis – the pre-trial press releases). Nevertheless, the whole of the crown ritual had been well-prepared in a thoroughly practical way with all the groundwork laid out and completed in advance ready for the initiates, the Witchfinder – and later the courts – to just step in and carry out their required “tasks”. There is no doubt the sentencing had been used to provide closure and sealing of that sacrificial ritual precisely to plan.

*There had been adverts placed occasionally in “Gay Galaxy” during 1983/1984 seeking gay men as victim participants to “act” in snuff films. Since the purpose of the ritual was to manifest wealth ( mostly for the Crown) and status for all concerned, the question that arises here must also be asked – and related to those particular adverts in Gay Galaxy, (and also to the fact that certainly some of the code 3 deaths are believed to have been loosely based initially on the wishes of the victims) – if any of the deaths/killings had actually been filmed, and the recordings sold as highly-priced “gay snuff” amongst the elite?/- and if so, also possibly the question of – if the filming crew (as witnesses) had perhaps later been victims? also then arises – or had the intention originally been to include either other existing film, or these snuff movie excerpts into the Spannermen compilation tape as evidence? – Just a thought, nevertheless, due to possible coincidences present here! The accumulation of wealth arising from the misfortune of others has always been a trait of the crown. The goal had been to achieve 369 months total in sentencing statistics for 9 Spannermen, so perhaps the snuff films inclusion had been considered to have been too much to equate to 369 months total amongst 9 men. I therefore believe that the Spanner case may have also been an attempt (as a problem-reaction-solution exercise) to falsely manipulate via the media, and stir up hatred against gay men in order for the criminalisation of homosexuality to be brought in to satisfy the expected and demanded cries, wishes and fears of the general public. However, the media-based campaign pushing this onto front page splashes full of lies prior to the case backfired in any case during the trial, and the fictional story had not been “bought” by the public, and had been proven to be just a pack of lies once exposed during the Old Bailey prosecutions.


It is a great pity that with the exception of the Spanner case and trial, most often incorrectly referred to as Operation Spanner – (an intended and identifiable cult-appeaser trait when applied knowingly – when in full knowledge of the culling), the operation has seemingly not attracted research or investigative journalism of any depth on this subject matter since the “investigation” took place (possibly due to the effectiveness of that misnomer); though most people with at least half a brain cell on active duty would perhaps agree that the prosecution of such a tenuous and contentious borderline case itself – and the massive costs involved of between £4.5 and £6.5 million up to 1989 alone (and since that date, apparently reducing over time (according to the media) whilst only the opposite could possibly occur) – probably belies something much greater and hitherto undisclosed.

Justice without privilege

The Lawyers’ Secular Society – justice without privilege.

R v Brown: twenty four years on, a critical secular perspective

In his second and concluding article about the notorious case of R v Brown, LSS member Dr. Peter Bowen-Walker makes the case for a secular legal system.

In Part 1 the attention of the reader was drawn to comments made recently by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, who opined that the courts were largely secular in nature and that where in the past judges had allowed religion to influence their reasoning they may have “[got] themselves into difficulties”.

This concluding article argues that the controversial judgment in R v Brown [1] can be better understood if it is viewed as one of those judgments where unconscious religious bias clouded the normally objective and rational views of respected judges.

Viewed from a secular perspective, the intemperate moralistic and paternalistic language, the comments on seemingly irrelevant but emotive matters (such as bestiality), the clearly expressed indignation and disgust of their Lordships, and the unjustifiable catastrophising (despite lack of evidence), can all arguably be explained by the culture-shock experienced by these “establishment” men when their “establishment” morality was offended.

When the socio-cultural milieu of these judges is considered, it is evident that religion, and in particular the Anglican religion (with its homophobia and arguably irrational views on sex) played a role, and still does play a role, in the day to day lives of judges and the courts despite recent pronouncements to the contrary.

It will not be argued that their Lordships were explicitly homophobic or biased, but since the decision in R v Brown eventually came to be decided as a matter of public policy and on what was “in the public interest” rather than through an interpretation of the black letter law, then what “maketh the man” (the underlying values and unconscious biases) matters.” Read More.

Return to Top of Page

%d bloggers like this: