Tag Archives: Crown Prosecution Service

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Conservative Friends of Israel, daily blog, David Irving, diary blog, free speech, historical revisionism, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Diary Blog, 3 July 2020

42 Comments

A word about Alison Chabloz

My latest blog post about Alison Chabloz, to include more about her recent appeal victory, has been slightly delayed for extraneous reasons, but will be published soon.

As I blogged a couple of days ago, the Crown Prosecution Service has surrendered, having now decided not to offer any evidence against Alison at the planned 10 July appeal hearing (which might anyway have resulted in another adjournment) at Derby Crown Court. The matter has now been taken out of the list. Alison has won. She has defeated both the suborned CPS and the malicious “CAA” [“Campaign Against Antisemitism”] Jew-Zionist conspirators (who may now find themselves in trouble for attempting to pervert the course of justice).

More details when my blog post about the persecution of Alison Chabloz by the “CAA” (mainly), and about the general war on free speech in the UK, is published.

David Starkey

More “me-too” “liberal” repression and groupthink: Starkey has been sacked, by any other word, from his several university roles, and dropped by publishers.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jul/03/david-starkey-dropped-publisher-racist-remarks-harpercollins

This is not only hypocrisy, but a kind of sub-Stalinism. Once the “heretic” or “enemy” is identified by the persecutors, he (or she) is removed from jobs or statuses, denounced by those wanting to curry favour with the powerful, or by brainwashed nobodies etc. In terms of our sick contemporary society, the Twitter mob and the like, egged on by the officially-mandated scribblers and TV talking heads.

Starkey won a scholarship to Cambridge University from Kendal Grammar School, and received a First Class degree from Cambridge at a time when that was unusual, i.e. before degrees (and especially Firsts) had been devalued and made all but meaningless.

Those criticizing Starkey are usually of lesser academic attainments; persons such as the scribbler and talking head Piers Morgan, a product of a comprehensive school followed by Harlow Technical College.

What makes the Starkey persecution slightly remarkable is that, in the past week, an Indian agitator and inciter of hatred towards white people, Priyamvada Gopal, was actually promoted to full professor at Cambridge after saying and tweeting that “white lives don’t matter“, a declaration of war on the British people, on all European people.

I do not agree with everything Starkey says, but I respect his honesty, something in short supply in our increasingly (intellectually-) dishonest society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starkey

Starkey is not alone, even in the ranks of historians. David Irving was probably the first victim. His very ill-advised libel action against the Jewess and hard-core Zionist, Deborah Lipstadt, brought both the international Jew lobby and “antifascist” “useful idiots” down on his neck. Irving should have shrugged off her insults (remember Oscar Wilde…) and/or taken other action.

After the Lipstadt case, in which she was funded by the international Zionist lobby, Irving’s books were not only withdrawn from sale in bookshops (many are however available via Amazon etc and also on the author’s own website: http://www.fpp.co.uk/), but also many print runs were pulped by the publishers; a number were even burned. The Jews aping the “Nazis” (German National Socialists) once again, and as usual only in the most negative ways.

I link here to Irving’s Wikipedia entry, though it is clear that the Jew element, very strong on Wikipedia (because that way they can mislead millions via tendentious editing) has been unable to conceal its bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Others faced similar attack in recent years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton

Working hours

I have blogged, both in recent days, and years ago, about how the workaholic society should become, not the 1960s sci-fi “society of leisure”, but a “society of measure”. I see now that the general public are thinking about other ways of organizing the work-leisure boundaries. Millard and the People!

In fact, you could keep a 40-hour week and yet reduce the working week in terms of days, by simply having a 10-hour work day, 4 days per week.

Advantages? Less strain on public transport, on roads etc. Less stress on employees, because they would be off-duty 3 days each week (and if Sunday were made to be, once more, a true day of leisure, with shops closed, so much the better). Less cost to employees in terms of train tickets and car fuel etc.

Disadvantages? Not many. Less convenience in shopping, maybe, if all retail employees had the same day off.

Selection of tweets seen

Very true; at first, no-one knew anything much about Coronavirus. We were shown “news” reports of Italian towns with no-one moving except elderly couples having their lonely once a day evening walk through shuttered streets. The fear factor was palpable. It was whipped up throughout much of Europe by dictatorial governments, toytown police bullying ordinary citizens for doing completely harmless things, and by a compliant and uninquisitive msm.

Talking of the msm, have many noticed the sheer volume of System propaganda supporting the “Black Lives Matter” campaign? Sky alone has shown ads frequently about it and promoting it. Commercial ads are more subtly pushing home the same message.

The Great Replacement. White Genocide.

More tweets

Hungary is a good country, from what I have seen. Admittedly only there for about a week, and never saw Budapest itself, but I drove from Romania to the pleasant small city of Szeged (near the Serbian border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szeged; the Hungary-Serbia frontier is only about a mile from Szeged), spent 3-4 days there, then drove North-West; stayed several days in a special suite at a former Soviet-style “sanatorium” (hotel, basically), overlooking Lake Balaton’s Western end. I swam in the lake, and drank palinka (fruit spirit) at the bar which had a small bust of Lenin on the bar top! Perhaps a kind of joke. This was in 2001. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Balaton

Budapest is probably one of the few cities left that I both have not visited and would like to visit. Others? St. Petersburg (top of the list), maybe Istanbul (I have seen much of Turkey and Turkish Cyprus in visits totalling about 4 months or so, but never Istanbul); maybe Oulu (Finland); maybe Copenhagen; maybe Lugano (Switzerland). Can’t think of many others. Ah, Baden-Baden…

Tweets

God, what a zoo London is now! Admittedly, much of it was not much better in the 1980s.

Midnight music

Despite the name, female and a French Canadienne…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Coulthard

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Conservative Friends of Israel, David Icke, David Irving, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Labour Friends of Israel, Mark Lewis, Nick Griffin, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

A New Director of Public Prosecutions Takes Up His Role as Head of the Crown Prosecution Service

2 Comments

scan25

Max Hill Q.C. is on the brink of taking up his role as D.P.P., in succession to Alison Saunders. It is too early to say what his official attitude will be in relation to political “crime”, “thought crime” and freedom of expression. While he has made some quite liberal remarks in the past in connection with Muslims, Islamists etc, he has also referred to “far right fanatics”, a meaningless phrase which is often used by Zionists and their msm doormats to label social nationalists and others.

Already, the unpleasant Zionist fanatics of the so-called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or “CAA” (themselves under police investigation for stalking, harassment and abuse of charitable status) have taken to Twitter etc in an attempt to put pressure on the new DPP. They want him to prosecute anyone criticizing Zionist individuals and groups under the UK’s draconian laws against so-called “hate speech” etc. Indeed, one of their doormats in the msm (himself apparently a Jew) has already publicized on Twitter and on the LBC (radio station) website a file relating to various “cases” where the police and/or CPS have not prosecuted mostly rather innocuous tweets and other online postings.

The Zionists of the CAA are using the entirely unrelated shooting event in Pittsburgh, USA to try to shut down legitimate freedom of expression in the UK…and are being aided and abetted by other Zionists in the decadent UK mass media milieu.

The new DPP, before he listens to any of the CAA’s nonsense, should bear in mind that, quite apart from the various alleged illegalities perpetrated by CAA persons (and which are currently under police investigation), the CAA has made a number of frivolous and indeed malicious complaints (to the police, to the CPS, to Twitter etc) against quite a large number of people, including David Icke, Al Jazeera TV, the Jewish anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon, and even against me. In fact, in its 4+ years of operation, the CAA has only scored two “victories” of any significance, to wit against Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) and against the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz (who is in any case presently appealing both conviction and sentence).

The CAA’s membership numbers are secret, but thought by many to number only a few hundred, certainly not many more if its Parliament Square and other demonstrations are anything to go by. Crowds numbering between 50 and 200 individuals.

In order to assist Max Hill Q.C. and his staff in any deliberations, I commend my own experience of victimization by these Jewish-Zionist and pro-Israel fanatics. The events described took place in January 2017, so nearly two years ago now, and the blog post dates from about 18 months ago.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

Notes

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/anti-corbyn-charity-and-petition-under-investigation

Update, 19 February 2020

The Jew Stephen Silverman of South Essex, the so-called “Head of Enforcement” at the “CAA” (“Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fake charity,  and who was exposed in open court (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) as a pseudonymous troll and stalker of women, has recently been complaining that the DPP will not meet with Silverman or his colleagues (who include Joe Glasman, an evil snooper, and Stephen Applebaum of Edgware, North London, soi-disant “film critic” and house husband; Applebaum was also a very malicious and pseudonymous troller and stalker of women before he was exposed).

If it is true that the DPP will not agree to have his ear bent by the CAA trolls, it must be because, at long last, the CPS (and police?) are waking up to the maliciousness of these Jews, and to their politically-motivated “lawfare” against those with whom they disagree (“those whom they hate” would be more accurate).

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Carl Benjamin, Colin Robertson, Count Dankula, David Icke, free speech, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Meechan, Millennial Woes, Nick Griffin, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Sargon of Akkad, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

The New UK Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines on “Hate Crime”: Thoughts and Suggestions

12 Comments

Background

Yesterday, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced updated and expanded “guidelines” on how the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with so-called “hate crime”. These new guidelines have been heavily criticized as, in effect, creating new and tyrannical law, despite the fact that the guidelines are neither primary nor secondary legislation.

In this blog post, I examine only those aspects of relevance to socio-political tweeting etc, meaning in practice those with a racial or religious element.

Part of the concern around the guidelines revolves around Alison Saunders herself. Many regard her as a sinister though incompetent figure, a “graduate” (member) of the pervasive and infiltrative organization (some say “cult”) called Common Purpose. In 2013, when Alison Saunders was CPS chief for the London area, a Freedom of Information request was made as to her connection with Common Purpose. At first, the reply was affirmative, but that was then altered to negative:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commohttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commo

The answer is relevant to the new CPS guidelines because the motto of Common Purpose is “Leading Beyond Authority”. In other words, the citizens of the UK cannot rely any more on law or decent public administration, because organizations such as the CPS, full of “CP” “graduates”, will, it is suspected, manipulate the regulations etc in order to achieve a desired (by them) result.

Definition of “Hate Crime”

It is vital to note that there is no statutory (or accepted Common Law) definition of “hate crime”:

“A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws.” [Wikipedia]

Wikipedia continues: “For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.”

In other words, there must first be a crime as designated by law and only then can that alleged crime (if one of those “specified”, i.e. assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) be treated by the police and CPS as a “hate crime.” The new guidelines reflect that existing position:

“The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”

It will be noted that there must first be a criminal offence. If there is not, then it matters not at all how “unfriendly”, “prejudiced” etc is the alleged perpetrator.

Further, sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether any crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is “racially or religiously aggravated.”

Incredibly, while the police and/or CPS will “flag” a case as a “hate crime”, “it is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim’s perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending.”

So a crime which is “flagged” at first as a “hate crime” but for which flagging there is eventually no evidence, will still be treated, in Court, as a “hate crime”, resulting (on conviction) in a far more severe sentence. How can this be regarded as in any way just?

The guidelines now continue:

“If the case passes the evidential stage and it is a case of racial or religious hate crime, or it is motivated by discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, or religion or belief, it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest.”

This is a hardening of the position taken in the earlier CPS guidance and may mean an increase in the number of prosecutions. However, there is still a requirement for a substantive crime to have been committed and there is still a requirement for sufficient evidence to support prosecution. New crimes have not been created, but the danger is that zealous CPS and –especially– police persons will get the bit between their teeth and start to ignore the basics in their quest to hunt the witches. Anyone who has read the outpourings of the UK police forces online recently will not be reassured as to their objectivity in this respect. There is an unthinking “me-too” political correctness abroad, one which seems impervious to logic, argument, reason or plain commonsense.

Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge

The CPS legal guidance for its staff can be found here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

The full details can be found via the above link but one key element is that there must be one or more identifiable “victims” of the “crime”. In other words, if there is no identifiable victim, then the matter falls in respect of the “hostility” required under the relevant statutes.

How the CPS regards freedom of expression

“In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.”

Other Thoughts

It is noteworthy that the body of the new guidance neither mentions nor lists the Communications Act 2003, s.127 as among the statutes utilized in the prosecution of “hate crime”. However, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.145 and 146 (see hereinabove), anyone sentenced for having posted a “grossly offensive” tweet (etc) under the 2003 Act can receive a sentence uplift if the offending tweeting (etc) had a “hate crime” element (the maximum sentence being 6 months’ imprisonment, though the usual sentence is non-custodial).

One cannot analyze these matters without noting that the Zionist special-interest lobby is likely to try to pursue its political ends by abusing the new guidelines. Readers are referred to my own experience of January 2017:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

Advice for Social Nationalists

I advise a defensive approach. Malicious persons, notably Zionists, try to make provocations by saying offensive things online, eg on Twitter, then (if the interlocutor replies in similar vein), reporting to Twitter, Facebook etc and even to the police. I have found that the easiest way to deal with such nuisances (in the short or medium term) is to block them (on Twitter), which tends to avoid conversations and disputes. It also means that it is much harder for the Zionists to report a tweeter to Twitter. I myself have seen, in the past few years, several Zionists lamenting that “he blocks us, so we cannot [make false accusations].” Yes, it means that the individual tweeter cannot answer back to the lying allegations the Zionists often make, but the solution is simple: just do not care what they may write about you! I don’t…

In other words, just try to avoid having any conversations with malicious Zionists or other nuisances online. Make it hard or impossible for them to make false or malicious reports to Twitter (etc) or the police.

In respect of tweets not specifically addressed to anyone, it is more difficult for those wishing to destroy freedom of expression to report them to Twitter or (a fortiori) to the police, so long as there is no evidence of direct incitement within the meaning of the relevant (1988) Act.

In extreme cases, just protect your tweets. You can also pre-block any obvious Zionists on Twitter (and most of them are indeed very obvious…).

The ultimate and longer-term protection for social nationalists lies in future relocation to “safe zones”, as I suggest on my website: http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities, which will then limit the powers of the wider State.

In essence, the new social media guidelines are indeed another nail in the coffin of free speech in the UK, but are unlikely to stop socio-political comment online– which is why the conspiracy –and behind Alison Saunders stand Theresa May, Amber Rudd, secret groups, the whole #NWO and #ZOG farrago– is trying to get the big online platforms signed up to repression.

In the end, the net result of this latest silliness is likely to be a tsunami of pointless and/or malicious complaints to the police.

Update, 29 April 2019

Since I wrote the above blog post, Alison Chabloz has been convicted under Communications Act 2003, s.127, and is appealing (at time of writing, to the Divisional Court). However, the “guidelines” which are the subject of the article above do not seem to have had much practical effect in terms of changing prosecution or sentencing policy.

Update, 21 November 2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/right-offended-does-not-exist-judge-says-court-hears-police/

Update, 17 January 2021

Much water under the bridge in relation to the Alison Chabloz case(s). To find out more, please use the search function on this blog.

In relation to repression of free speech generally, and as I predicted in the main article above, the ZOG strategy has been, not so much a tightening of laws criminalizing individual free speech, but a campaign of getting the major plaforms of social media to police free speech without any law having to be passed.

Thus we see that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are simply expelling socio-political dissidents, and so removing both their inherent citizen-rights to free expression and (in the case of the prominent few) their online incomes. We have seen such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, David Icke, David Duke etc removed or largely removed from online platforms, the same also happening to less prominent people.