Nationalist parties unable to put the political establishment on the defensive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NgRxunKAT0M

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/emma-west-%E2%80%93-victim-multicultural-judicial-system

Instead of whingeing about persecution, nationalist parties should have demanded to know why the CPS deliberately exacerbated racial tensions, instead of fining her for breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly.

It is patently obvious that over-charging her with s 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 was deliberate and malicious and not in the public interest.

The legal phrases of malicious prosecution and abuse of process come to mind.

Shame I ain't Media Spokesman for the BNP, eh?

God forbid that Nick Griffin should allow anything constructive to be done to help the white working classes apart from whingeing about Muslims.  

Nick Cohen asks: Should Britain submit to a de facto blasphemy law?

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/nick-cohen-islam-film-censorship

He says NO, conveniently forgetting that we already have the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 as well as section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

What Emma West said was blasphemy if you are a godless liberal.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf0q9n6r-EY

To a liberal, hate-speech is blasphemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

How typical dishonourable and disingenuous to say that gratuitously insulting people and ideas non-liberals find sacred is OK, but not the other way round.

Holocaust Denial, anyone?

Reporting restrictions ordered by the Recorder of Croydon on the Emma West case

Reporting restrictions have been imposed on the Emma West under s 4 Contempt of Court Act which the Recorder of Croydon ordered.   I tried to find out his name, but for some reason the woman  I spoke to, Jo, refused to give this to me.  I was assured that there is only one Recorder of Croydon, however.  

Emma West herself was not in court as this is only a matter listed for a mention - in other words the hearing today was about case management.

A senior barrister has now taken over from David Ewings.  

He is David Martin-Sperry.

http://www.charterchambers.com/Barrister/2DF483BD/David_MartinSperry.aspx

UK laws that infringe the First Amendment

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:


"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."


S 38(1) of the Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010



38 Threatening or abusive behaviour


(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a) A behaves in a threatening or abusive manner,
(b)the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and
(c) A intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.


(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that the behaviour was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.


(3)Subsection (1) applies to—
(a)behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things done, and
(b)behaviour consisting of—
(i)a single act, or
(ii)a course of conduct.


FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Repealing s 5 of the Public Order Act would affirm free speech in Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment,_alarm_or_distress

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/public-order-act-repeal-section-5_b_1209096.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/crime-insult-public-order-act

That is what I would suggest if I were leader of the BNP.  Shame I am not, isn't it?

Yes, it is indeed a shame that I was expelled just for saying I would neither wish to bring up a severely disabled baby nor pass the cost of its upkeep on to the British taxpayer.  It is a very great shame that a party that is supposedly promoting the interests of white people is too afraid of having a sensible discussion about Eugenics and its sworn enemy Feminism.  

But then the BNP, itself a victim of a lack of free speech, does not itself believe in free speech either and most of its members no longer believe in its existence or practice it.  

And that is why the leader of the BNP - to whom it has not occurred to defend free speech - has said nothing about repealing section 5.  

And that is why the BNP will get precisely NOWHERE.  

Emma West charged with s 4A of the Public Order Act 1986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_scale#United_Kingdom

If found guilty she could be imprisoned for up to 6 months or pay a fine of up to £5,000.

This is the way the government intends to deal with anyone who complains loudly and publicly about immigration using the Public Order Act, even when it is quite obvious that what Emma West did caused no public order problems on 18 October 2011 for she was only arrested her after manufactured outrage was generated when it was posted on YouTube on 4 December 2011. 


res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Emma-West-arrested-Tram-Experience-footage/story-14020313-detail/story.html

Her prosecution is clearly politically-motivated by a Director of Public Prosecutions who is openly and unashamedly a supporter of the Labour Party to whom immigrants are its clients.

Is it the role of the DPP to initiate a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment of a woman with a history of self-harming to intimidate those who wish to complain about immigration into silence?

Of course not.   

Free speech anyone?  But I think Censorship laced with State Intimidation is the preferred tipple of the liberal political establishment who have betrayed the white working classes, treated like the badly-brought up illegitimate children whose sexually-liberated free-loving parents now wished they had smothered at birth.

I still like to think a good lawyer would get her off and get Keir Starmer sacked as Director Public Prosecutions for an act of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, or at any rate get the decision of the CPS to prosecute her judicially reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_imprisonment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution

Is the BNP getting together a decent firm of lawyers to see that she doesn't get fucked over by the liberal establishment?  Is it fuck.

David Ewings of Ewings & Co is her brief.   http://www.ewings.uk.com/criminal.html

He seems perfectly competent to me except that he seems all on his lonesome own, and maybe Emma West needs someone bigger and better like one of the firms listed at
http://www.legal500.com/c/london/crime-fraud-and-licensing/crime to show she is not going to take any shit from the cunting liberal establishment with their trumped-up charges and their manufactured outrage.

If only I were the leader of the BNP, eh?  But I'm not, so white working class people had just better curl up on the ground and protect their head with their arms while taking more kicks to the head by the liberal establishment and their immigrant voters to whom they gave so many British passports.   Cos that is the way things are now.

Deuteronomy 28:43.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/28-43.htm