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!'
No comments:
Post a Comment