Tuesday, 29 May 2018

Six years in prison for posting on social media!


Mark Collett produced this excellent and clearly set out exposition of the establishment's latest plans to further criminalise the British people.

Thus, the legal system will be waiting with a even more punitive set of penalties if we dare to confront the New World Order's immigration agenda, whereby millions of people wholly unlike us enter (have entered) and take over (have taken over) our world.

Mark says:
"New proposals by the Sentencing Council are pushing jail sentences of up to SIX YEARS for that those who post material to social networks that is deemed ‘politically incorrect’. Find out how you can fight back against this anti-democratic legislation and prevent these guidelines from being officially adopted in British courts."
He then provides us with the Sentencing Council’s proposals:

And the means of complaint if we are so minded.

I was so minded. Here are some of the things I said in my response to the Sentencing Councils proposals.
"It seems to me that the sentencing council wishes to create a legal environment where FACTS that the government wishes kept hidden, if published by a whistle-blower,  can see that whistle-blower jailed for six years. 
If this is NOT true, please explain... 
This seems like an establishment plot to prevent information reaching the general public that may alert them to a globalist agenda that would have the world populated by people of white, Christian European stock inundated by people of a different racial, religious and cultural composition. 
Please explain the problem folks like you have with the truth. If it's true, we should say it, shouldn't we? If the truth might warn the unwary we should tell them, shouldn't we? 
Aren't those who would prevent needful truths from emerging, morally and spiritually aligned with those who foist a murderous Communist system upon the peoples of Eastern Europe for 69 years? 
We don't want propaganda, we want the facts. We don't want cover-up, we want clarity. And, most of all, we don't want people like you determining what we can and can't think... 
And what we can and can't know."
9. Do you have any comments on the sentence ranges and starting points?
"Six years for telling truths a malign establishment doesn't want told? Please explain why the indigenous Briton should welcome such a free-speech restricting, anti-British proposal."
10. Do you agree with the aggravating and mitigating factors? Please state which, if any, should be removed or added.
"I put 'no' because, although the above seems at first glance to be OK, I don't trust you. Please explain why I should."
12 and 13. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the assessment of harm? Please give reasons where you do not agree.
"I put 'no' because, although the above seems at first glance to be OK, I don't trust you. Please explain why I should."
14. Do you have any comments on the sentence ranges and starting points?
"Just this: don't criminalise free speech, particularly where that speech is truthful and relays information the globalist establishment wants kept under wraps."
15. Do you agree with the aggravating and mitigating factors? Please state which, if any, should be removed or added.
"'Race, religion,' etc. are code words in 'White World' for 'get Whitey.' This terminology is only ever used to prosecute white people and is therefore, by definition, 'racist' itself. 
But who cares about that? Double standards galore have always applied in PC World. Ever since 'Cultural Marxism' was invented then exported from the Frankfurt School in 1923, you guys have been at it. How many of us do you wish to jail? All of us? How many more prisons are you prepared to build? Would you really bang up a million furious Britons? 
It's not just Big Brother who's watching now, folks. The watched are watching too."
16. Do you have any other comments regarding the content and structure of the draft guideline?
"Yeah. Scrap it, it smacks of anti-British Bolshevism. Treachery, treason, betrayal. That's how the majority will view your actions if you press on with this latest turn of the screw."
17. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the assessment of culpability? Please give reasons where you do not agree.
"The whole thing is intended to bear down even harder on those who would protect the indigenous population of the UK. Upon those who would publish facts that might endanger a malevolent global project that has already begun to see the white majority downgraded and replaced in their own homelands. 
And, of course,  'the whole thing is intended to bear down even harder upon... the indigenous population of the UK' itself. Don't think we don't know what you're up to, ladies. Your machinations are nothing if not obvious."
18. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the assessment of harm? Please give reasons where you do not agree.
"Don't trust you. Why would I agree with folks I don't trust?"
19. Do you have any comments on the sentence ranges and starting points?
"Common assault? Yeah, jail the brutish, we don't mind that."
21. Do you agree with the sentence levels and ranges for the aggravated offence, and the inclusion of a separate sentencing table?
"'Racially and religiously aggravated offences' were invented to intimidate and criminalise the indigenous, white population of the UK and have been used, almost exclusively, to bear down upon that section of the community. This disgusting terminology is, therefore, 'racist' itself and should be dispensed with."
27. Do you agree with the approach to assessing the level of aggravation present in an offence? 
28. Do you agree with the sentence levels and ranges for the aggravated offence, and the inclusion of a separate sentencing table?
"I believe the sentencing council itself is 'racist.' (Term popularised, in its pejorative sense, by the mass murdering Russian Revolutionary, Leon Trotsky) Every last 'race' and 'hate' law invented by people like yourself since Home Secretary, Frank Soskice, (a Russian immigrant himself) introduced the initial legislation in 1965, has only ever born down upon the indigenous, British lowly. 
You will know this. Why would the Sentencing Council criminalise us even more with this pernicious agenda? Did those who criminalised us previously care for us? Do those who wish to criminalise us further care for us? Of course you don't. You care for those you serve. And you do not serve the British people, that's for sure."
30. Do you have any other comments regarding the structure and content of the draft guideline?
"Yes. As previously stated I think there is an anti-British, anti-White agenda at play here. You wish free speech stifled because too many are exposing this agenda and, if the New World Order elite allow publications of the hidden truths to continue, the whole rotten edifice will come tumbling down. I think you're very foolish in allowing yourselves to be associated with the wishes of the Global Few. 
So be it. You take their side, I take that of the British people, the truth, whatever it may be, and those who tell it, whoever they are."
34. Do you agree with the approach to assessing the seriousness of the aggravated offence, and to the penalty uplifts proposed?
37. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the assessment of culpability? Please give reasons where you do not agree.
38. Do you agree with the proposed approach to the assessment of harm? Please give reasons where you do not agree.
"The Race Laws should be expunged from the statute books. They are themselves 'racist,'  in so far as they were intended to bear down upon the native, white population of the UK, and them alone. Those who proposed these laws and guided them into law should be charged with treason, hauled before the courts and prosecuted to the max."
Hatred offences - sentence ranges and starting points.

39. Do you have any comments on the sentence ranges and starting points?
"Apparently, 'hatred' is whatever someone who wants to accuse another of a 'hate' crime says it is. Which leaves those who wish to silence the whistle-blower, you in this case, with ultimate room for manoeuvre. Why don't you just create a law that says, ' we, the captains and sergeant majors of the Global Few, the trillionaires, the New World Order, the Masters of the Universe, will jail whoever we damn well please!' 
At least then, everything would be out in the open. But 'out in the open' is not your way, is it? The 'under the carpet' brush and, if that doesn't work, the six-year sentence, that's your thing, isn't it? 
But what if 6 years doesn't work either? Will you revert to a nineteen twenties and thirties type solution and the bullet in the back of the head to sort out those who don't care for your policies?"
35. Do you agree with the aggravating and mitigating factors? Please state which, if any, should be removed or added.
"Remove anything that refers to race or religion!"
Hatred offences - Aggravating and Mitigating factors.

40. Do you agree with the aggravating and mitigating factors? Please state which, if any, should be removed or added.
"No. Remove all of them. They are 'racist' and intended to silence the indigenous Briton alone."
41. Do you have any other comments regarding the structure and content of the draft guideline?
"How do you sleep at night?"
42. Are there are any other equality and diversity issues the guideline should consider?
"Yes. Try not to pander quite so much to every last minority as you batter the heterosexual, white British man who doesn't agree with your hard left policies. I mean, we've had 60 years of this so we're all quite practiced in seeing the stone bl**ding obvious now. Really, the partiality is way too easy to spot."
That's all, folks!

Check out 'Six Years in Prison for Posting on Social Media!'

Saturday, 26 May 2018

A vengeful state was waiting?

On 25 May 2018, Tommy Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Court House for, according to the police, 'breaching the peace.'

However, a few hours later, he was jailed for contempt of court, in that he had failed to abide by his bail conditions, not for a breach of the peace. Apparently, by reporting, via a live Facebook feed, on an ongoing trial, he could have prejudiced the outcome of that trial, as lawyers for the defendants could have argued that their clients right to a fair trial had been compromised. As a result, guilty men could have been freed. Tommy had been warned thus at a previous trial by Judge Heather Norton (he was given an 18-month suspended sentence):

"In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as ‘Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists’ and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside."

So, I guess those who don't like Tommy doing what he does have a case. Tommy arguably broke his bail conditions. Thing is, why wasn't he quietly warned off, told to go about his business and steer clear? Well, I guess we all know the answer to that one. THEY 'don't like Tommy doing what he does.' So when that gilt-edged opportunity arises to stop him doing it...

Anyway, within hours, he had been brought before a court and sentenced to 13 months in jail. Do you get that? Arrested, tried and sent to jail for a substantial period of time, all within a few hours! Bit harsh, don't you think? And VERY unusual. But then we're talking Tommy Robinson here, not Abdul Mohammed or Sir Joseph Average.

Here's something I don't get. Tommy gets done for reporting on the trial of certain individuals. Because such reporting might have 'prejudiced the outcome' of that trial.' This being the case, why is the mainstream media, who routinely report these matters, (though not nearly enough) NEVER held to account as Tommy was? The BBC had, in fact, already published the names AND addresses of the defendants who, at that point, had not been found guilty, in April 2017!

Isn't a massive double standard being applied here?

Isn't the fact that Tommy Robinson now languishes in a British jail a scandal? Perhaps I have it wrong. Perhaps he was sentenced and imprisoned for something other than breaching his bail conditions. If so, it would be nice if the authorities could clarify the matter.

Personally, I think his latest videos may have irritated the powers-that-be to a considerable degree. They are hard-hitting and, I think, very effective. It makes me wonder whether THEY were looking to GET TOMMY as a result. Maybe the police presence outside Leeds Crown Court was coincidental. Maybe his arrest was just another case of justice being served in a PC age. Maybe the system had every right.

And maybe, just maybe, if he wasn't set up, a vengeful state was, at least, waiting... and hoping.

Check out Tommy Robinson's latest videos.




The reaction to Tommy's imprisonment was immediate.

With very little advance notice, a large crowd of protesters gathered outside Downing Street to voice their outrage and concern.


The mainstream media has not reported on Tommy Robinson's imprisonment or the protest that followed.

They have an excuse, I suppose. A gagging order was issued, preventing coverage of much of this affair. And a cynical and censorious fourth estate would, undoubtedly, cite that order as the reason for their silence.

So why the gag?

1) So an ongoing trial would not be prejudiced?

2) To prevent people finding out that an English man had been jailed for publicising factual information the establishment wanted kept under wraps?

3) Some other made up b***ocks?

You decide.

When those whose behaviours you condemn rule the roost, you may need some luck to survive.

Tommy, of course, has enemies at both ends of the spectrum. In prison and out.

Will the one protect him from other?

Doubt it.

All the best, Tommy.

UPDATE

On Tuesday 29 May, this was emailed to me by the Canadian website, THEREBEL.media:
"On Friday, Tommy was reporting from outside the court house in Leeds, where an accused Muslim rape gang was on trial for repeatedly raping British girls as young as eleven years old. Tommy was broadcasting on Facebook, from his cell phone.
Tommy was very careful: 
He did not set foot on the court precinct.
He did not call the men “rapists”, but rather called them “accused rapists”.
In no way did he interfere with the trial, which was on its final day.
When Tommy mentioned the names of the accused rapists, he was reading from a BBC website — so the names were clearly public information, on the state broadcaster. 
Tommy did nothing wrong. 
But suddenly, seven police officers swarmed Tommy... They said he was causing a disturbance, which is absurd, he was by himself on the street, with only a cameraman and a friend. 
But it got worse. Much worse. 
Within hours, Tommy was summoned before the judge. (Geoffrey Marson, QC) Tommy’s long-time lawyer was not informed of this. Rather, the court appointed a lawyer who didn’t know Tommy and wasn’t an expert in the specialized law of contempt of court. In a matter of minutes, Tommy was sent to prison — with a 13-month sentence.  
He is now in HM Prison Hull."
British justice, eh?

Or should I say, 'British injustice.'

Yes, I think I should.

P.S. Reporting restrictions have now been lifted on this case.

Thursday, 28 December 2017

British police - 2017

This is what is protecting us from the bad guys.

 This is what our politicians have designed to keep us safe.

If you ever wondered why the police, these days, seem more concerned with 'racist' tweets than burgled houses, here's you're answer.

Is this OK by you?

If you're a snowflake, a crybaby, an anarchist, a Marxist, an ANTIFA militant, a Hope Not Hate or LGBT activist, a BBC bigwig, politically correct or you're a common or garden criminal, it may well be.

If you're the man on the Clapham Omnibus, 'Disgusted' of Tonbridge Wells or Joe and Jane Average, I doubt it.

Finally, here's something an unusually honest MP said back in 2009.


The political elite determine the state of our society.

They also determine the state of the forces policing that society.


Wednesday, 27 December 2017

Top tweets of 2017
















Thursday, 21 September 2017

What has Islam given the UK?

Politicians and the mainstream media regularly insist that mass immigration has benefited Britain.

But has it? Has the importation of peoples with a very different outlook and lifestyle improved things for the indigenous majority?

How, for example, could 7/7/2005 and the atrocities perpetrated at the Manchester Arena and on London and Westminster bridges in 2017 possibly be said to have benefited the victims and their loved ones?

Please register your opinion in the poll.

What has Islam given the UK?

1) Enriching diversity?

2) Terrorism (at least 23,000 terror suspects are being monitored in the UK, including 400 who fought for ISIS in Syria); honour killing; the mass rape and prostitution of British children; child marriage; female genital mutilation; polygamy; hate preachers; acid attacks; postal vote criminality; Sharia law; Sharia patrols; no-go zones; Trojan Horse schools; trafficking; breast ironing; homophobia; mosques; burkas; benefit dependency; ethnic cleansing; race law; preference on social housing waiting lists; the mass takeover of corner and high street stores; professional offence-takers; political correctness and contempt for British values; heritage and identity.

What has Islam given the UK?
Enriching diversity
Terrorism; grooming gangs; hate preachers etc.
Poll Maker

If you could also register your vote in this Twitter poll, I'd be grateful:

POLL: What has Islam given the UK?

Thank you.