Tag Archives: Hate Crime

Diary Blog, 27 August 2021

Afternoon music

Tweets seen

At what point does a rubbish bin become a powder keg?

“Feinberg”…

Jew, of course…

Every. Single Time.

As I have mentioned before in the blog, those whom I knew in the mid/late 1970s and afterwards, and who used cannabis, all more or less dropped out of society, though most were sufficiently insulated by money not to fall to the bottom of society. They were mostly able to find a niche here or there, or marry into —at least some— money…

I myself was never a smoker of any kind of cigarettes, though I did enjoy Havana cigars when I had a girlfriend who used to bring me some quite often from various places, via duty-free shops. 1980s.

More music

More tweets

Thank God for that. Here’s hoping all will now go well.

Exactly.

Again, quite right.

Late tweets

More accurately, with most of the disadvantages of a “Communist” (socialist) system, but few of the benefits.

A sharply cunning but basically simplistic woman. One thing she did have, though, which the present government of clowns entirely lacks— decisiveness (and executive ability).

“Miliband”. Once again…

Every. Single. Time.

As I echoed in the anecdote about Afghanistan in yesterday’s blog post.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9934313/Pen-Farthing-escapes-Kabul-200-cats-dogs-forced-leave-Afghan-staff-behind.html

Late music

Diary Blog, 23-24 August 2021

23 August 2021

Tweets seen

As I predicted long ago. Now that Twitter has expelled most of the really interesting tweeters (among them, if I may be so immodest, me), and now that anyone not pro-System and pro-Israel is expelled if discovered, it has become very much an “echo chamber” for those of System-conformist views. Rather boring, and very predictable.

That point about “mental illness” is a good one: so many of the pro-Israel, Jew-Zionist and/or “antifascist” tweeters have mental problems (often severe). I lightheartedly pointed that out years ago: see https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/07/18/theyre-coming-to-take-me-away-ha-ha/.

Quite right…

Clown cops. Do they have a Twitter account yet?

Were Moses alive today, he would be regarded as a dangerous “far right” extremist, as well as “intolerant” of the newly-normalized sexual and socio-economic liberties. The followers of the Golden Calf would have him arrested, convicted and punished for “hate speech” and incitement to violence (etc). Makes you think…

Late music

24 August 2021

More tweets

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the Australian public actually believes the bs being pumped out by the new Australian “woke” police state and its compliant msm propagandists.

…and none dare call it treason…

Diary Blog, 23 May 2021

“Antisemitism” is not a crime

That Metropolitan Police reply to the Jew troll Twitter account, “@gnasherjew”, displays an ignorance of the law irritatingly common among the police today.

Crown Court and other judges in, for example, the Alison Chabloz cases, have made it clear time after time in recent years that “antisemitism” is not a crime in England. Not a “hate crime”, not any kind of crime.

The same goes for so-called “holocaust” “denial” (an incident of historical revision and/or revisionism).

To use the language of the old-style bank managers, it is “disappointing” that the police, charged with upholding the law, so often now seem not to know or understand what the law actually is…

Woodentops.

See also: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/.

Inflation

Well worth reading: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9608017/PETER-HITCHENS-remember-inflation-wrecking-lives-coming-back.html.

Afternoon music

“Tommy Robinson” attends pro-Israel demonstration/march

Twitter is full of the fact that the fake “British nationalist” known as Tommy Robinson has attended the quite small pro-Israel march in London, estimated as fewer than 10,000 (I think), compared to the 200,000-strong anti-Israel march recently.

[Update, same day: Seems that I was too generous (arguably a fault of mine); the pro-Israel march in London today was in fact only about 1,500 in number; Israelis, other Jews, and a few pro-Jew doormats. See https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/free-gaza-from-hamas-british-jews-rally-against-terrorism-in-central-london/]

I notice that the (((occupied))) msm photographed today’s march mostly close-up, to make it seem better-attended than it was.

“Robinson” is a political irrelevance, of course. Even a couple of years ago, when his profile was higher, his vote in the European elections (NW England) was only 2.2% [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#Political_activities].

The pro-Israel “activists” of that sort (others being “Prison Planet” Watson, Katie Hopkins etc) are just a distraction; wastes of space.

The Jews who organized today’s small pro-Israel demonstration (only 1,500 attended, out of 250,000+ Jews in the UK), have issued statements criticizing “Robinson” for having attended. They despise him, yet there he was, literally wrapping himself in the Israeli flag! What more can he possibly do to try to ingratiate himself with “them”?

In fact, was I too generous in thinking that the crowd today numbered even 1,500?

Some Jewish newspapers have said “thousands” attended…Well, I think that we know that “their” arithmetic is often very inflated and contrived!

Other tweets seen

My own assessment of Owen Jones, from early 2019: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/01/04/a-brief-word-about-owen-jones/. See also: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/05/19/peter-hitchens-and-his-views/.

Is this somehow surprising, when Hollywood is 99% controlled by Jews?

To each his own…

Late music

Diary Blog, 10-11 December 2020

10 December 2020

Ursula Haverbeck

Ursula Haverbeck was very recently imprisoned yet again, at the age of 92, for expressing “forbidden” views on aspects of modern history. A modern version of the heresy trials of 500 years ago.

A martyr for freedom of expression.

https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=afvzCgwFe10

Bad joke

Heard some “expert” on BBC Radio 4 Today. The education of UK children had to be prioritized (re “the virus”), said he. What education would that be? In the UK, children and young people are in school or similar training for 13 years. Can we really say that those 13 years are used properly? Not only by the pupils but by society? I think not, in most cases. The whole thing needs a rethink.

Today then continued with a piece by the Chief Rabbi! The propaganda never stops, in this country. That short daily quasi-religious piece is done at least once weekly, if not more often, by Jewish rabbis etc, yet Jews are only a fraction of 1% of the population. About 1 out of 200 at most. Disproportionate in the extreme.

Tweets seen

Some of the bastards trying to get to the UK. Invaders. Enemies. Any helping them are also enemies.

The last true Pope was either John Paul II or Benedict XVI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

John paul 2 coa.svg
Coat of Arms of Benedictus XVI.svg

https://ianrobertmillard.org/2018/12/10/tv-ads-and-soaps-are-the-propaganda-preferred-by-the-system-in-the-uk/

https://ianrobertmillard.org/2018/11/15/when-reality-becomes-subjective/

Late music

11 December 2020

Early tweets seen

…and Ukraine is, outside Israel, the most obviously ZOG state in the world…

Another example of how police and CPS waste public resources pursuing fake “hate crime”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9041725/Mum-called-trans-woman-Twitter-CLEARED-wrongdoing.html

https://ianrobertmillard.org/2018/11/15/when-reality-becomes-subjective/

Leaving aside the juridical element, I have wondered for some time what is happening in society, not just in the UK but worldwide, that so many people are now attempting to “change sex”, especially (it seems) male to female. Is it something genetic? Karmic? Is it “something in the water”? Maybe something to do with the cocktail of chemicals now synthesised and released into the environment?

More tweets seen

Looks like even some of the System newspapers are getting sick of the pushy Jewish lobby, exemplified by the fake charity known as “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”]. Note also how an “apology” is demanded. “They” love to force “apologies” out of non-Jews. It has the effect of devaluing the apologizer and psychologically crushing him or her. The “demand” for “apologies” is a constant; look at the situation vis a vis the Jewish/Israel lobby and the UK Labour Party.

Israel, as a state, is no worse, and in some respects better, than the states that surround it. It is, of course, a fake state from one point of view; contrived, even more so than city-states such as Singapore or, say, Monaco.

For me, the objection to Israel (leaving aside how it was founded on the basis of terrorism, theft, robbery, trickery, and the expropriation of Arab Palestinian lands, is that Israel is more than a state. It is the centre of a global hub, the middle of a spider’s web of fraud, theft, conspiracy and worldwide political manipulation, using both the Jewish communities in many countries, and also non-Jew agents and catspaws (and “useful idiots”, in Lenin’s phrase), to exploit the peoples of the world.

Is the real centre of that web in Israel, or in the Jewish “communities” elsewhere? I rather think the latter, in fact.

For example, when I myself was in Kazakhstan (1996-97), I had considerable —almost daily— contact with both the British Embassy (which was walking distance from my home) and —to a lesser extent—the local diplomatic milieu generally. I met several of the ambassadors and got to know one or two personally. I certainly recall, apart from the British Ambassador, the American, Australian and Pakistani, as well as several lesser diplomats in various missions.

I never met the Israeli one, but was told by an Israeli businessman (an ex-IDF general) that Israeli ambassadors are very carefully controlled and evaluated by their bosses. They are judged on the quantity and quality of their contacts in a very precise way. From what I heard, at least, it seems that an Israeli embassy does not operate in the way of a normal one, but more like a rezidentura of the old KGB.

Look at those two tweets above, by a leading UK-based (ex-Israel) Zionist, who has been heavily involved in commentating and other activities relating to the Labour Party and to UK “antisemitism”.

His claim re. Israel is that it is “multi-ethnic”. That is true in the sense that there are numerous ethnic groups there. It is a “false truth”, though. It would be absurd to think that any group other than the Jews control everything of importance in Israel.

I think that that is how “they” see the world in general. They have no wish to “convert” the world to Judaism (and the strictly religious ones at least say that that is not possible anyway —including those Ethiopian “Jews”). They do not even wish to kill non-Jews, in general. What they do want is to exercise general world control, and to fruitfully exploit the world for, mainly, their own benefit.

My view? I do not agree to them controlling the world.

Sweden

Interesting podcast

More tweets seen

Exactly.

Capital Ring

Capital Ring waymarker post.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Ring. Interesting. I did not know. When I was younger and usually fitter, and lived on and off in London, I had similar ideas.

More tweets

An interesting exchange, pointing out as it does the immense social changes in Britain in the 20th Century, and brought about, partly, by the two world wars.

I have no idea what “Mailchimp” is, but I take it that we are talking about the latest censorship, or “private-public partnership” for a “police state” (as it used to be called.

That chart is an overview. Much of rural Britain, and even of suburban Britain, is still British. Regions such as the South West (outside Bristol) are largely untouched, even today.

Look at the tweet below: wants European children to be even more brainwashed…

Hard to respond except with laughter, at this stage…

Below, another one of his pearls of “wisdom”:

That’s rubbish. I knew a number of women who had bank accounts, yes in their own names, in the early 1970s.

Never rely on random “facts” seen via Google searches…In fact, a small number of women had accounts even in the 17th Century, though it is true that few had accounts prior to 1882; but by the 20th Century that was fairly common (in the UK).

https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritage/subjects/women-in-banking.html

Yet that idiot’s tweet has had 33,000 “likes” in two days! Fake “news”…and the Twitterati lap it up.

Actually, relatively few men (maybe under 50%) had bank accounts either until fairly recent times. I recall seeing a statistic in the newspaper in the early 1970s, to the effect that only 25% of UK people had bank accounts (though many had building society or Post Office accounts, which at the time were different).

One called Rudd (which I in fact knew already). I have always wondered whether Amber Rudd is part-Jew, though I have, at present, insufficient information. She was certainly a paid-up member of the Israel lobby.

Afternoon music

I quite recently posted this symphony; I post it again because the composer, a New Zealander, is all but unknown in the UK, undeservedly.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Lilburn]

Late tweets seen

Such bridges for animals (and occasional people on foot) are a great step forward.

[bridge for animals and walkers over M25 in Surrey, south of London]

More late tweets

Late music

Sentencing As Virtue-Signalling

I do not often blog about criminal court cases, but this one caught my eye.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-16/sad-man-jailed-for-daubing-racist-graffiti-on-african-familys-door/

On the face of it, a clear case, with no doubt about the immediately-relevant facts. The defendant admitted to the crime and was sentenced to a year in prison. There are some nuances, however.

Obviously, criminal damage cannot be tolerated, and it is certainly not very nice and certainly not very polite to daub words on the door of a neighbouring dwelling; but to my mind the sentence was harsh.

The defendant was sentenced to a year in prison and will therefore be released in 6 months’ time, possibly earlier. The chances are that he will lose his local authority home. I have no idea what possessions or companion animals he may have, but unless he has friends or family somewhere to look after them, they too will be lost. He will come out of prison with nowhere to go, and may not be rehoused if some local penpusher decrees that he made himself homeless by his own actions.

That is part of the background. Then we have the point that the defendant had no previous convictions save for a silly one, 27 years previously, involving a “sick-note”.

In view of the fact that the local authority would probably take the crime to be a breach of lease terms or conditions, and so would take away the defendant’s home anyway, would it not have been more just simply to have given this defendant a suspended sentence?

This looks like kicking a man when he is down. At the same time, we see the courts daily giving thugs, thieves etc non-sentences. Of course, this was a “racial” crime…the courts have obviously been told to treat any offence having a “racial” element more seriously (harshly), in an attempt to keep the doomed multikulti society from falling to pieces.

I noticed, also, that the victims were from the Congo. Again, I do not know the full facts, but it is odds-on that what we have here are either “refugees” or economic migrants who have left Africa in order to settle in the UK. Odds-on, again, that the British people (including the defendant) are paying for the victims to live here and breed.

The case above reminds me of one about 25 years ago in Hammersmith, in which a man was driven half-mad by the incessant noise of blacks and their “music”, parties etc in the flat above his dwelling; so much so that he burned them out, killing several. He got a sentence, I think, of about 10 years for manslaughter and arson. Again, the act can scarcely be “justified”, perhaps, but it can be understood. Legally, provocation does not exist and provides no defence in such a case. In real-life terms, though, I think that many will feel a little sorry for such a defendant.

There is a further point: the defendant in the immediate case in question felt the need to say that he is not “racist” (perhaps after consultation with solicitors or Counsel). So even he himself felt the need to “virtue-signal”! If he or his advisers thought that a display of “contrition” and “I’m not racist” protesting would mitigate the sentence, they seem to have been mistaken.

There is also the point that, as hundreds of thousands of blacks and browns etc flood into the UK every year, and as politicians bleat about the “need” to destroy what is left of the countryside in order to build little boxes for migrants on agricultural land and forested land, very many fully-entitled British people are homeless (after today’s sentence, add another one, 6 months down the line).

I am at present also preparing a blog post about Peter Hitchens, who thinks that the UK is doomed in terms of its present society. I suppose that most of us hope that he is wrong. I also suppose that he is probably right.

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

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.