Peter “Powderkeg” Power
Preface:
Peter Power a man who is number one on my list of people that should be intensively questioned about the July 7 bombings in London 2005, is a man of two identities.
One is the public face – that of the serious (an unelected of course) “anti”-terror professional who apparently the country needs to defend it from dangerous Muslims of who, possess wondrous powers of summoning from the ether, grand quantites of purified chemicals with which magical bombs are created, or fanatical Muslims that really should just learn to sit down quietly whilst Aznar BuSh bLiar and little Jonnie Coward gorge themselves on Abu Graib pictures and figures of 1,000,000+++ slaughtered.
The other face is the face Peter would rather you didn’t know, and the establishment are going very far to hide.
Even from what information warriors have gleaned (our thanks to them), Peter’s two faces are in such opposition to each other that questioning and investigation into the whole of this mans life and those around him, becomes even more pressing.
In fact the breadth of Peter’s dichotomy has inspired plans for the the latest potential dot com megabuster, which is an improved version of facebook called: 2facedbook. Here’s a picture of Peter at its secret launching on 7th July 2005. If you look closely enough you can see that actually the hairs on the back of his neck are not standing upright at all!
Here’s an extract about Peter’s amazing life, best consumed from the source…
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
I have previously accused you of libel and note that you continue to publish defamatory information that is also libellous. I retired after – not before – the CPS (not the DPP) made a decision that no
prosecution was required. Remove what you have said or I will, without doubt, take action against you with no further warning.
Peter. Thank you for taking time out from your busy and secretive life to comment on my little blog.
Here’s my reply: Sue me!
You think you can intimidate me? LOL. By thinking that, you are very ignorant about me and the main purposes of this blog. I must admit, a certain Monty Python scene involving the castle of Guy de Loimbard comes to mind.
You see, I have decided to take a stand against: lies, deception, spin, secrecy, state sponsored terrorism, elitism, oppression, manipulation, intimidation, fear, judicial corruption, parliamentary corruption, and also against the very scum that creates those very detestable skittles in the first place.
It is because people have been steered to live in fear and away from standing up for what is right, it has lead to the current nightmare situation allowing a hideous creature (whose attributes I list above) to manifest which exudes tyranny from almost every pore. This beast does not just appear in places like Stockwell tube station or Forest Gate, but in many parts of the world to the point where between 1 and 3 billion people to live in crushing poverty, and where for example, reports indicate a 2005 UNICEF study revealed that 30,000 children die each day due to poverty.
Enough of this madness!
By your past actions and recent comments left on for example the excellent July 7th truth website (a website containing facts and questions that put the governments catalogue of slop, a.k.a. – ‘the official narrative’ to shame) and your threats made here, you have widened your span of categories (listed above) for me to oppose.
In fact you give me heart to press on further in my actions, by the fact you yourself are trying to increase the tension on the thumbscrews to maintain that sickening veil of secrecy the beast would rather hide behind.
As regards to what you say. I’ll male {correction: make} some comment about it here.
You say: “I have previously accused you of libel” – That is an outright lie. You have never accused me of libel. When you repeating {correction: repeat} that allegation in court you will be perjuring yourself.
Although shady, you are not a dumb man and I’m pretty sure you chose your words reasonably carefully in saying “…I will, without doubt, take action against you” rather than “take legal action against you” Ho ho. Good try. The legality of “general threats” would make an interesting case for sure. If you accuse me of libel, aren’t you under some kind of obligation to inform me what is libellous? Please feel free to produce that information here and I will examine it, because I fail to see libel in reports saying you retired (which you forgot to mention was on the grounds of ill health) before any decision by the CPS (or DPP) on whether or not to prosecute you. If what you say is correct, and I will check it, then it is erroneous, ergo, should and will be corrected, but it is not libellous.
I ask you if the sequence of events, i.e. “retirement before CPS (or DPP) decision” as you describe, was part of any ‘package’ relating to the Dorset Police Force seeing the back of you?
To further clarify the situation, it would also be helpful if you publicly revealed what the investigation concerning your good self as about, while you were in the PUBLIC service.
I feel those points would do wonders in resolving these pre 7-7 issues.
I will end this reply with the following few paragraphs.
If this modern economic/political and religious {correction: illusory-religious} beast along with its apparatchiks take legal against me, even if it results in a custodial sentence then so be it. I have already recognised and accepted that it will take political sacrifice to bring about the removal of this dreadful rotten situation that lies before us today. I hope any action you take against me would inspire others to see the parts of this beast, and rally strongly against it. Even if it doesn’t, I have the eternal personal satisfaction and sense of pride that I stood up against that I believe is a serious malignancy in the human race today.
Most sensible people can understand the immense significance of what you said, and I quote: “…we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!” and the obligation you now hold NOT to smokescreen or remain silent about events of that day.
If on the other hand you would be forthcoming about your public role, past and present (as any public servant should be), and openly lay out your role and knowledge about an appalling slaughter which killed at least 52 innocent people (possibly 56 people) on July 7th, then I and others, would to hear about it and would welcome your dialogue most warmly.
Thank you for your very well received comment.
That’s telling him
The Dorset Echo said on 2 Sep 1993:
“He was suspended following an internal police inquiry earlier this year after which a file was submitted for consideration to the Director of Public Prosecution.
A Dorset Police spokesman said Supt Power’s retirement grounds were “confidential”.
She added “Supt Power is entitled to an ill-health pension. His retirement does not affect any liability for action by the DPP”.
and that Peter Power’s leaving date was 26 Sep 1993.
The Dorset police are saying that the decision had not been made by 2 Sep 1993.
The DPP/CPS decision could have been made between these two dates.
I invite Peter Power to give the date of the decision by the DPP/CPS.
Libel, what libel?
Thank you numeral.
I would be most grateful of you could spread the word about this thread to others you know, so they too may learn about Mr. Powers disputing of events in which he was suspended.
Many regards…
lw.
http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=2577&view=findpost&p=13545426
and
http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=350&view=findpost&p=13545481
My previous post was just a couple of links to the J7 forum about Peter Power’s comment.
The word is spreading.
numeral.
Ta. I appreciate it.
It will help Peter to efficiently to get his point across rather than laboriously trawl through numerous blogs leaving the odd ambiguous threat here and occasional lie there.
Pleased to help you Pete.
We can spare his time so that he can retreat back into government sanctioned secrecy, back in the shadows where he obviously prefers to reside, in a similar way to what this wee chappie liked to do… http://tinyurl.com/23lzde
It’s always the busiest people who can find the time, apparently. Since when is discussing a newspaper article libellous? Since we live in a world where people are forced to campaign for the truth and denied the transparency, openness and sincerity that we have every right to expect from those who draw a salary from serving us, I guess.
There seems to be an assumption that people have some kind of personal vendetta against Peter Power, but I would imagine there are quite a few of us having a problem with anyone hitching a ride on the ‘terror threat’ gravy train. It concerns me to think of anyone making their living from sustaining the required fear level from terrorist boogeymen designed to reduce the population to quivering wrecks only too happy to submit their freedom in return for DNA databases, increased surveillance and the insidious locking up of innocent people.
A simple “You’ve made a mistake” would suffice, instead of resorting to threats and intimidation, which surely carry the risk of fuelling further suspicion and speculation.
In between all these blog visits and perpetual TV appearances reminding us all to hide behind the sofa after we’ve handed over a bit more liberty to the state, there certainly seems to be an unmitigated commitment to make us all fear the bang.
Unfortunately I have no www access until monday, so can’t reply to anything till then.
Hope you all have a good weekend.
Cheers.
A crisp fiver says Mr Power, when referring to earlier accusations of libel, is confusing the author of this blog with Christopher Bollyn…
http://www.bollyn.com/index/
There’s been an active, and occasionally bizarre, discussion on Mr Power’s Wikipedia entry which suggests that Mr Power, or a friend of Mr Power, is under the impression that only one particular group wants to get to the bottom of claims he made on radio on 7/7
Far from it
You just can’t make a public broadcast on the day 56 people are killed claiming the most improbable of coincidences took place without expecting people to call for an explanation of those claims
Looking at that Wikipedia discussion, attempts to write off Peter Power’s statements on 7/7 as being insignificant are, to put it mildly, disingenuous
Peter Power himself stated that the coincidence of holding terrorism drills in the same stations and time as 7/7 caused the hairs to stand up on the back of his head.
Not just you Peter, not just you
Hi lwtc247,
You are to be commended for your bold and principled stand in response to Power’s comment.
Peter Power: “I have previously accused you of libel and note that you continue to publish defamatory information that is also libellous. I retired after – not before – the CPS (not the DPP) made a decision that no prosecution was required. Remove what you have said or I will, without doubt, take action against you with no further warning.”
Mr Power appears to be getting a little confused in among all the crisis management, back-peddaling and endeavouring to cover-up the missing three years of his working life. It is true that Power has threatened someone before, however that threat was issued to someone by the name of Chris Bollyn who took J7’s original research and turned it into something else entirely. You can read Bollyn’s article here.
A few points to help clear this up. The Director of Public Prosecutions heads the Crown Prosecution Service so, essentially, we are talking about one and the same body. The Dorset Echo of 23rd April 1993 claimed:
“He [Power] was suspended following an internal police inquiry earlier this year after which a file was submitted for consideration to the Director of Public Prosecution“.
The Sunday Times on 8th August 1993, stated:
“The Crown Prosecution Service has been sent details of an investigation into a senior police officer with the Dorset force. Dorset police confirmed yesterday that Superintendent Peter Power, the officer in charge of the west of the county, has been suspended on full pay since April but refused to outline the allegations against him.”
The primary issue here is not whether it was the DPP or the CPS, for they are, to all intents and purposes, the same thing.
The crux of the matter is instead the simple fact that neither the DPP nor the CPS have files submitted to them for consideration of good or public-spirited behaviour. Files are only submitted to the CPS/DPP by the police when they determine that they have sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute criminal activity. Indeed, the CPS web site states:
The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales.
A secondary issue is the manner in which Mr Power has omitted from his curriculum vitae any mention of his nettlesome stint with the Dorset Police and his potentially criminal activity that resulted in his suspension, investigation and, ultimately, the submission of a file to the DPP/CPS.
Peter Power needs to understand that if he manages to silence lwtc247 there will be 10 of us to take his place, and if he silences those there will be a 100 more to take their place. Do you understand Peter? There are a lot of people who are just fed up with you and the rest of the terror industry and their malignant contamination of public life. To paraphrase John Lennon, we just want some truth – an endangered commodity in Britain 2008.
Hello all. Well, Peters comment has invigorated me to make ways and means to get back online today, so I’m currently spending Sunday in someone elses house on a rather nice broadband line – and taking to opportunity to d/l a few political videos too :)
Thanks for all the support you have shown. It really is heart warming. Echoing somewhat Kier’s post, I want to say Peters threats relies on fear – that you or I fear him or any action he may take, and the fear of the consequences of any action. This is critical. The thing is, I DON’T fear him one little bit. I managed to break the fear cycle some time ago. I guess many of you have also broken free of the poli-fear and the cognitive chains it seeks to impose. It’s great (not without some pain, but far better than would otherwise be). To those still in fear, what is better living 80 years of liberation or 80 years under fear with the prospect of leaving those you leave behind also living with fear? If you fear people like Power, you grant them, errrm… power over you (Is Peters name a stage name???) it’s easy to become enslaved by them, and that’s exactly what they want.
@ Radical IslMI5t – thanks for the link. I’ve never seen it before, but I have now!. Here’s a snippet from one of its sublinks… “Power is connected to Mayor Giuliani and his consulting company. Power serves on a Canadian advisory board with the mysterious Richard J. Sheirer (or Scheirer), Giuliani’s vice president and the former director of New York City’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) originally created by Jerome Hauer.” [1] – Well well well, who’d have thought. Another ‘Power coincidence’ – of course.
Stef raised the suggestion the poster may not be Power. The thought occurred to me too. If it isn’t him, then are there legal implications to making threats under someone’s name? Power leaves his URL as visorconsultants, yet his post makes no reference to Visor Consultants so is Power (shady but not dumb remember) trying to intimidate me further by making it seems like a company will be coming after me too? Hummm… But sorry Peter, still not afraid mate.
Thanks to StefZ for publishing a linking story on his blog, and thanks to Anon @ 5:12 pm for offering solidarity.
I think Peter Power is analogous to WTC7.
@ The Antagonist (February 23, 2008 at 2:56 pm)
Sorry, Ant, but once again your post was put in line for moderation. I didn’t realise it until a few minutes ago, and I haven’t learned how to adjust moderation yet. Anyway, thanks for your razorlike post. It’s quite clear (in conjuction with other contributors here) that Peters lie and that his threat is baseless.
And numeral (February 23, 2008 at 10:19 am) your links were also held for moderation – so sorry. But well done for the FOI requerst relating to important dates on this matter.
What say you Peter? And may I ask what exercises you are currently planning?
Peter.
I have some good news for you. Since you issued your general threaat, my small blog has recorded the largest number of visitors in its history, and also, quite a lot of activists and political observers have linked to this page.
One benifit to you is, the answers you provide to the few qestions raised above will now be seen by a lot of people so you will be able to convey your message/s efficiently.
I look forward to your reply.
A bit late but I put a post up here suggesting an amicable solution
Peter Power said:
“I retired after – not before – the CPS (not the DPP) made a decision that no prosecution was required.”
With reference to the file submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service following the police investigation into Peter Power’s activities while in the employ of the Dorset Police, the Crown Prosecution Service has stated:
“I can confirm that from this record it would appear that the file was received by the CPS on or about 19th/21st July 1993. There is also an indication that a decision on how to proceed with this case was made on approximately 28th October 1993.”
The Dorset Echo of 2nd September 1993 stated:
“A West Dorset senior policeman currently under suspension from duty is to retire early on medical grounds. Superintendent Peter Power (42) will leave the force on September 26.”
26th September 1993 is 32 days before 28th October 1993, which would seem to suggest that Mr Power’s “retirement”, apparently on medical/health grounds unconnected with the police investigation, occurred over a month before the CPS reached a decision on how to proceed with his case.
On 22 Feb Peter Power wrote:
“I retired after – not before – the CPS (not the DPP) made a decision that no prosecution was required.”
A FOI request to the CPS has yielded the following:
“From: Freedom of Information Unit
Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request (Ref 1204)
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:33:10 -0000
I refer to your Freedom of Information Act request dated 23 February 2008 for information about the case file of Peter Power, ex Superintendent at Dorset Police.
Please note that due to the passage of time it is most likely that this file was destroyed in accordance with the CPS records retention policy in place at the time. The CPS has located an archive record and there is an indication that this file would have been retained for a period of 10 years and then subsequently destroyed in 2003.
[b]Additionally, I can confirm that from this record it would appear that the file was received by the CPS on or about 19th/21st July 1993. There is also an indication that a decision on how to proceed with this case was made on approximately 28th October 1993. Without the case file I am unable to confirm when this decision was communicated to the police. However, I would assume that the decision was communicated to them shortly after the CPS’s decision had been made.[/b]
The decision would have been made by a Crown Prosecutor and not by Dame Barbara Mills, who was the Director of Public Prosecutions for the CPS at that time.”
“I retired after – not before – the CPS (not the DPP) made a decision that no prosecution was required.”
Why, at the age of 42??????????????
Had he sorted the whole crime thing in dorset?
As to be expected, LWTC has chosen to take a courageous stand against the tyranny now eating away at the heart of our society and people. There is no mistaking the rot that has set in. The blatant use of official secrecy to cover even the minutiae of information from public view. Its an old story.
We, in the truth movement, because that is what it is, the desire for truth and universal justice, Must constantly wade through the tape and traps, the mire of collusion where money meets greed and lust for power and control overrides the want for peace and liberty. Until there is full transparency, we will continue this fight.
In all honesty, we have been expecting this type of attack for a long time, and this is not the first time I have heard the word libel thrown about. The powers that be are worried that this movement is gaining strength and is undermining their monopoly on information. We can all smile warmly at this development.
Two things I have noticed from the blog and comments trail
1. “Please note that due to the passage of time it is most likely that this file was destroyed” Most likely is not good enough. If the record exists, where is it, if it was destroyed, when and where? It may be small eggs, but I cannot imagine the archiving system of the CPS would be that loose. I tcertainly wouldn’t be if they were prosecuting you.
2. “it would appear that the file was received by the CPS on or about 19th/21st July 1993” There must be a reference number for the file and its location,. The assumptions being mentioned here are based on what?
Yes antireptilian.
Before I start, I want to say I loved your last posts on your blog, but didn’t have the time to compose a suitable reply.
I also found it strange that files might have been destroyed and whether they were or not is not known!
Also the exact date of receipt is strange. Is it not standard practice for secretaries to stamp “date received” on mail?
there should as you say also be a reference number – a paper chain.
I often get the feeling that info provided in FOI requests is a) given grudgingly b) made as vague as possible to just clear the hurdle of ‘yes, info was provided’. All of which is another example of the rot that is present in our society.
Once more, you correctly say the resistance to this rot is building and it is heartening to see so that even from just a relatively small number of people who are ‘active’ in this resistance, that their actions have had very big consequences in striving for the truth to come out.
Imagine if the millions who marched in Fev 2003 were as active now? I am sure a much better, less elitist society would result.
It is, surely, more than just a dream!
I wonder why the paper would report that the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) received the report instead of a prosecutor in the CPS.
The Antagonist is your best bet for trying to find an answer to that question. It does however suggest (at least to me) a certain network of cables in which Old Boy Peter is a part.