If anything should arouse deep concern it is the politicisation of the British judiciary and its opposition to the interests of the British people. Since the rise of the New left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste” united by central ideas like anti-White racism, bias for the EU and Globalism. They have not transcended prejudice and discrimination but changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!
The two main issues are the protection of terrorists and disgustingly the protection of child molesters, euphemistically known as paedophiles. This was not always so – it has developed in the last thirty or so years.
Some Comparisons
In 2005, The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009), for criticising Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.
The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954, reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss. Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.
I always think of that case when I see naïve or malicious people disputing Enoch's point in his Rivers of Blood speech of the elderly lady driven from her home.
Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives:
“I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”
(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.)
In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented:
“It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.”
(Guardian, 2 August 1969.)
In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds:
“Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer ... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars ... All immigration must stop ... The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life.”
(India Mail 02.03.95).
Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.
Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published What Next In the Law. The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. Lord Denning wrote:
"The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out."
Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.
The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.
Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian Cultural Marxist concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and as “intrinsically counter - majoritarian....should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.
Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people, but there are more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments against traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the British people.
Soviet-Style Oppression
In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 until November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”
Another morally corrupt judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist organisation was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny when he introduced Soviet-style techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations of The Macpherson report. (2)
Recommendation 12. “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.
Recommendation 13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment. Investigate “non-crimes”! This totalitarian ploy criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work with totalitarian methods.
Recommendation 14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.
Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.
Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.
The Recommendation states: ”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.” (2)
Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”
War on the Family
The judiciary also attack the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption, legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is against traditional values.
In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family judge.
Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family: “Family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship."
The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this twisted thinking means that they were not born what they were born but what they say they were born.
The feminist/communist hate campaign against the traditional heterosexual nuclear family has been an ongoing thing since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.
Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.
Ironically, the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges support the pro-father Sharia courts.
They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.
Promoting Sharia law
As part of the elites Islamification programme in December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.
In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.
Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights
In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce.
Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a Muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? The appeasement of Islam leads to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the Cultural Marxists like to think it would.
The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior. I think it’s more accurate to call it Cultural Nazism against White heterosexual males.
Britain – World Centre for Terrorists
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn Britain into a world centre for terrorists who use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!
They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.
The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back too their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought against our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.
Protecting Terrorists
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred on the streets of Finsbury Park even though the Yemen had requested his extradition for terror offences. The judges refused to extradite him because of his human rights. Britain has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists due to Human Rights legislation bias in their favour - that protects them and our benefits keeps them in luxury while they carry our their recruitment of terrorists.
A lgerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!
In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.
In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”
Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.
Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!
Even in County Courts judges make biased judgements. A pensioner wrote to me that a District Judge at Dudley County Court, penalised him with £430 costs for getting a hearing date wrong despite being in the early stages of dementia and having protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, another judge upheld the penalty. The problem, he thinks, is that he tried to represent himself for being discriminated against but the judges, who are usually former solicitors, awarded costs against him because the other side had a solicitor.
Defending Child Molesters
The one issue that does show the British judiciary as corrupt, immoral and at war with the British people is their repeated taking the sides of child molesters against the victims. Just recently there have been several sickening examples. In its report the Daily Mail used the fashionable euphemism “paedophile”.
On 10 July, Andrew Townsend, 51, of Hulme, Manchester, who had downlloaded child pornography so appalling that the judge could not look, but she still did not imprison him. There is no protection for British children.
The judge said that what he did was not a victimless crime, but:‘You must be aware the subjects of these images are not indifferent to what is happening to you. The public must be made aware of just how infectious this material is.’ Yet she rejected the option of sending Townsend to prison and instead gave him a three-year community order. Because there is treatment available that will be beneficial to him.
The Judge who gave child molester Stuart Hall a mere 15 months was forced to resign after being caught visiting a gay brothel in 1996. He resigned as part-time recorder of Bolton and gave up his position as the top lawyer for the Inland Revenue. He apparently, went into a ‘dark room’ in the club with a leading doctor and a hospital porter. Five years later the pervert was reinstated, and is now a senior judge.
Hall had admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls between 1967 and 1986, the youngest just nine years old. Russell said: ‘You have given pleasure to millions of people as a local television presenter in the North West, nationally in the It’s A Knockout series, and as a highly regarded sports commentator.”
After the announcement, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: “I asked the court to consider the multiple offending by Stuart Hall over a prolonged period of time which involved numerous victims.
On 2nd August 2012, Judge Francis Gilbert QC was appointed resident judge at Exeter. He is a serial lenient with child molesters, handing out light sentences, bail, and overturning verdicts.
On 13th July 2011, he released six footballers imprisoned for raping 12 year old girls after a ruling that their 2-year sentences were “excessive”. The men had admitted charges of rape against two 12 year old girls in a park late at night. Mr Judge Francis Gilbert QC ruled that being imprisoned was inappropriate as it was a ‘difficult’ case. The men were released, their sentences cut to one year and suspended. Rather than protect children the judiciary protect child rapists.
Only sixteen days later, Anthony Milsom, described by the trial judge as a “manipulative and predatory” sex offender, was jailed indefinitely for public protection. Milsom admitted a series of offences dating back to the early 1990s like sixteen counts of possessing indecent images of children, twenty-one of of making indecent images, and five charges of indecent assault on a little girl when she was aged between four and eight. Milsom had newspaper cuttings murdered children Milly Dowler, Sophie Hook, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
His sentence amounted to life but appeal court Judges including Gilbert cut it to just three and a half years.
Parliament had to introduce an appeal against lenient sentences – to protect children as the judges will not do so,. The way to protect children is by imposing severe sentences that that signal to sickos that this sort of crime is not worth trying. By their acts these evil people forfeit any claim to be treated as human. The morally corrupt British Judiciary is something we must campaign against to restore law and order in this country which the judges are destroying. (4)
1.https://www.facebook.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
2.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/
These are just a few examples of how judges protect paedophiles
3.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
A judge who provoked outrage by jailing Stuart Hall for just 1
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/
4.http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/
https://www.facebook.com/
www.facebook.com
No comments:
Post a Comment