Nearly 70,000 Britons Convicted of Hate Crimes Over Six-Year Period

by W.F. Price on January 10, 2014

I recently found an article that claims 55,000 British people were convicted of hate crimes in 2011, but that seems to be an error. Rather, it appears that 55,000 people had been convicted by 2011, with that number increasing to around 68,000 by 2012. Nevertheless, this was shocking to me. That’s a whole lot of people, but according to the Crown Prosecution Service, it isn’t nearly enough, because hate crimes are “underreported” (evidently, the correct number of prosecutions should be on the order of a quarter million per annum). Measures to increase prosecution include, among others, distributing hate crime action material to teachers so that they can identify child hate criminals in their classes and advice to prosecutors on how to best proceed against mentally ill or retarded hate criminals.

In the vast majority of these cases, no harm was done to person or property, although it appears that a great crime against liberty has been committed by the CPS.

Here is an alarming case study, in which secret witnesses (who also had an axe to grind) were used to determine whether a religious publisher had broken the law:

This year saw the first successful prosecution of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. A jury at Derby Crown Court convicted three men in January 2012 of going beyond the legitimate promotion of religious values because they intentionally set about stirring up hate on the grounds of sexual orientation by producing and distributing a leaflet which was threatening.

The prosecution made use of lay witnesses, from the gay community who received the leaflet and gave evidence about the effect of its receipt and the fact that they were threatened by its content. Special measures (screens) were applied for in respect of the lay witnesses and, due to the level of press interest, a press direction was obtained so that the names and addresses of witnesses could not be published.

The law says: “for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices, or the urging of people to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.” This is the freedom of expression defence which means if a juror concludes the document may amount to no more than criticism of homosexuality and/or urging people to refrain from homosexual activity, then it would not be threatening.

The judge in passing sentence said: “Our population is made up of people of all colours, creeds and cultures. For the vast majority of the time, the vast majority of us get along together very well and the greatest freedom that we all enjoy is to live in peace and without fear.

The law has evolved and adapted to protect that freedom. In particular, laws have been passed to prevent written material being distributed which is intended to stir up hatred. This has proved necessary because a small minority of our broad community sometimes seeks to stir up hatred against their fellow citizens merely because those fellow citizens are perceived to be different in some way.”

What really puzzles me here is that this level of censorship and repression is what one might expect during wartime, but Britain is not involved in a major war. Or is she? Perhaps the war is against her own people. Those accused of “stirring up hatred” are to be referred to Britain’s Counter Terrorism Division, which determines the fate of citizens who are alleged to have used unlawful speech.

In case you were wondering, the overwhelming majority of people turned over to authorities are indigenous Britons:

The majority of defendants across all hate crime strands were men (82.9%).

73.9% of defendants were identified as belonging to the White British category.

54.2% of defendants were aged between 25-59 and 28.9% between 18-24.

10-17 year olds involvement as defendants continues to decline from 23.1% in 2007/08 to 14.1% last year.

I don’t know how anyone can include Britain in the “free world” with a straight face any longer. The term is a sad anachronism; today just about all that separates CPS from the Cheka is the troikas used for summary executions back in the 1930s. Let’s hope it doesn’t go there.

{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }

Livingwell January 10, 2014 at 10:10

And that is why we revolted against British Rule.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14
Troglodite January 10, 2014 at 10:11

Seventy thousand [70000] mass-hallucination crimes backed by agitprop declaring their being underreported surely means a lot of bureaucratic staff processing and paper administrations … all for fees, wages, contractual pay, salaries, benefits and emoluments packages magicked out from thin air.

It doesn’t take a statistical econometrician to see all the above costs only unsustainably being met by mass state borrowing, mass state taxation, mass state money printing and other new voodoo forms.

Remember that absolutely nothing material is actually ever produced under Socialist Ponziism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 10, 2014 at 10:36

Livingwell
And that is why we revolted against British Rule.

Grand prize winner, non sequitur category.

The British had a mostly benevolent influence on their American colonies (e.g. the French-Indian Wars) and the causes of the American Revolution are not what you were taught in public school.

W. F. Price
The term is a sad anachronism; today just about all that separates CPS from the Cheka is the troikas used for summary executions back in the 1930s. Let’s hope it doesn’t go there.

Let’s hope. If you’re inclined to believe the testimony of Larry Grathwohl, an informant who infiltrated the Weather Underground terrorist group, there are those who wish to replicate the Bolshevik revolution in the West. Some even think one of them is in the White House. That’s crazy talk of course.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
keyster January 10, 2014 at 10:48

Muslims are over-running the UK. There are portions of London where you can walk all day and never see a native caucasian – Londinistan they’re calling it.

They’re skillfully exploiting political correctness by appearing to be offended by anything culturally British. But who’s standing up for the “haters”, who are obviously hated? Aren’t they entitled to their opinion in the public square of common discourse?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 5
Dan the man January 10, 2014 at 10:50

@Charles Martel Yes, the Britain of today is not the Britain of the 18th century. I have been reading some things that, say you are right about the history, I was taught in school.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
chinesefootsoldier January 10, 2014 at 12:32

Diversity and conflict go hand in hand, and no amount of talk about love or tolerance will ever change this. At this point, anything labelled offensive in Britain is probably a good thing for that country. Besides, knowing the UK what passes for hate is likely some ridiculously minor thing.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8
Tam the Bam January 10, 2014 at 14:48

Fundamental burr under the Owners’ saddle is the vast population they farmed to make them rich via the Factory System is now pretty much unemployable, and the Empire which fed the hands at low cost is long gone. In fact the new empire on the block, the EU, has deftly succeeded in acually inflating the basics for the proles. Quelle surprise.
Since the fixed costs of the farm-bred hands have been rising inexorably, due, not particularly ironically, to the gouging demands of those self-same rentiers (who deserve at all costs to be kept in the style to which they have become accustomed, don’tchaknow), dirt-cheap sweated foreign labor has been imported hand over fist, as fast as they could prod them off the boats, and no questions asked.
Famine Irish and Cleared Highlanders at first, then “Russian” Jews, Chinamen, West Indians, Indians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and now Poles, Baltics, Bulgarians and Romanians. Literally millions, over the years.
Now I worked out a while back, England is the size of Alabama. And into it has been shoehorned the combined pop’ns. of NY, PA, NJ, MA, ME and ME.
Denmark is a comparable size, and has the population of .. Scotland, or Ireland, all ordinary European countries, with populations which don’t exceed their carrying capacities by a factor of ten or more.
Think about that.
Then realize that all business lobby groups, and the electable parties, are screaming even now that more visas, more starving illiterate 3rd world peasants , more young unemployed from the Accession/former SovBloc countries simply must be hauled in by hook or by crook. “Or we won’t be able to pay your pensions .. “-type shroudwaving.
Who will pay the future welfare costs of the New Brits is never, never answered.

The rump of the unemployed natives are paid off by the Welfare State, and this rackety old institution is now coming under unsustainable stress due to its very attractiveness, in a Europe and indeed a world of open borders (or as near as dammit), since the tax receipts that keep it in business decline as more locals are tossed aside in the race to the bottom.

And consequently those Rulers with more acute antennae for possible trouble in store are becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Any fool can see the dosh is going to run out, and not in the long run, either. The historical response has always been to dial up the repression, seeking out Sedition everywhere, and eventually ends up with Yeomanry and sabres.
A lot of these “hate crimes” seem to be pissed-up students tweeting intemperate abuse fer tha lulz, or perishin’ football chants on the terraces. A few are Muz fanatics doing what they love to do.
One thing is very apparent. The nobs are right to be a little skittish, and seek control BAMN. It can’t go on like this. Too, too many rats in the box.

On a good day I think, yeah, could go to Mme Guillotine, or gibbets full of landowners and landlords along the Thames all the way out to The Marshes.
On a bad day, I shudder and think, could go Pol Pot.
Watch this space.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 10, 2014 at 14:49

O wow sorry guys, seem to have got a leetle carried away there …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Strind January 10, 2014 at 15:42
geographybeefinalisthimself January 10, 2014 at 15:44

The United Kingdom (as well as Canada) does not allow any of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church to enter the country due to the fact that they link virtually everything they protest to the LGBT community (despite this and their view that everyone outside their congregation is going to hell, they run one of the most successful law firms in Topeka, KS), but the United Kingdom is still not doing anything about Muslims in the United Kingdom who basically share the same view that homosexuality should be a capital offense. The only difference is that the WBC views the Qu’ran (I don’t remember if I put the apostrophe in the right place or not) as “an idolatrous piece of trash.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner January 10, 2014 at 16:12

Dear All:
To read a discussion about utter oppression of free speech in Canada imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada as per opposition to homosexuality, see this link: http://www.henrymakow.com/. The link displays the evidence of homosexuality activism.

Canada is essentially the same stuff as the U.K., just another pile.
.
.
.
The Supreme Court rules that the truth is not enough of a defense. Underlined 3 below. If the group is declared a “vulnerable group” you are guilty without any proof needed. Underlined 1. The fact that you can’t defend yourself against charges that have no need of proof does not cause a problem. Underlined 2.
=============================================
A Human Rights Industry Hack Crafts A Judgement Gagging Christians in Canada by Paul Fromm

January 1, 2014
rothstein.jpg
A Human Rights Industry Hack Crafts A Judgement Gagging Christians in Canada by Paul Fromm

Supreme Court of Canada Justice, Marshal Rothstein, left, wrote the Whatcott decision earlier this year censoring criticism of homosexuality and claiming Canadians know all about the harm of undefined “hate speech.” Rothstein used this alleged but completely unsubstantiated claim of Canadian understanding as an excuse to censor truthful and proven statements (backed by peer reviewed studies) articulating the harms of homosexual behaviour.

“The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups (AKA homosexuals) justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm.1 The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. As such, the legislature is entitled to a reasonable apprehension of societal harm as a result of hate speech. The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision.2 Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.3″

— Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marshal Rothstein, writing the judgement against Bill Whatcott’s flyers which provided accurate medical information on the downside of homosexuality and Christian polemics on the sinfulness of the homosexual lifestyle.
=============================================
From http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
justeunperdant January 10, 2014 at 17:18

Free in this time and age is an illusion. Freedom only exist within a chaotic state such as the one you see in the wild. Some will say that you are never free because you are a slave of your instinct of reproduction. If you want real freedom, you want a complete collapse. With freedom comes insecurity. Few can live as a free man because it mean you are alone and on your own.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Michael January 10, 2014 at 19:14

Well, y’all are still deluding yourselves that, because you believe you live in a free world, things should be different but they are not. You believe all that PC thoughtcrime crap is somehow a glitch in the system that you have to protest against. It’s not. That is what is behind the facade, and nothing more. You people who value fairness and human decency and care about their continued existence are in the minority now. You may as well stop fighting against this windmill and start thinking about how to ensure you have a future in this harsh world.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Ted January 10, 2014 at 19:21

“populations which don’t exceed their carrying capacities by a factor of ten or more.”

Personally, I blame the Archers.

When Dan started out, he had a Clydesdale horse. One horsepower, but ultimately solar powered and sustainable. Now it’s all tractors. Hay has been supplanted by diesel. Because the horses weren’t eating half of it all, the food output doubled. So, you could get the carrying capacity to something realistic.

But no, they doubled the population instead. Now they have to keep the oil flowing, just to eat. The troubles in those overseas countries will continue.

And doubling the population wasn’t done with home resources either. That’s why they need to appear so very, very much to respect diversity &c &c.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lurker January 10, 2014 at 21:32

I would say that the totalitarian impluse in British, American, and Canadian soceities is nothing new. I mean in the mid 19 century and the early 20th century, you had the moral vice squard that used to raid places that they didn’t deem acceptable. In the 1940s- 50s, you had McCarthyism. And now you have Political Correctness.

History shows when ideas spread that go against what the elites have in mind, they will do anything to destory it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
greyghost January 11, 2014 at 01:29

looks like the UK is finished.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
DCM January 11, 2014 at 02:26

Britain attacks its own patriots. That’s common in the modern West.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 11, 2014 at 04:49

Now then Ted, I do hope Dan’s hoss wasn’t one of those that died in the fire along with Phil’s first wife?
The reason the great horses like Clydesdales were supplanted by Grey Fergies after the War up here was endemic “grass sickness” in the ’30s. Maybe because town muck was being substituted for on-farm manure, or Chilean guano (phosphate dressing).
Nothing for it but to shoot the poor creatures, thousands per year. (I have talked to men who’ve buried wives and children, been in the worst wars imaginable, and nothing affected them like having a revolver put between the beast’s ears). Often the only motive power on the farm, and with the Depression, ruin ensued for many. Never mind, there’s another war on, let’s join up lads …
Of course the new machines wrecked the carefully-set tile drainage, and only the introduction of artificial fertilizers saved the day (oil-based, or a byproduct of the Norwegian hydro-electric schemes).
Hmm, do I detect a smidgeon of topic drift ..?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Walhaz January 11, 2014 at 04:51

Never been there, though from what I’ve read, it seems like Britain is a decaying society – even more so than the US. I feel sorta bad for them.

BTW, STRIND’s link to the Mandela arrest article is a good example of sheer fu****g insanity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 11, 2014 at 04:52

@greyghost
Well, we can only dream, can’t we?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Norm January 11, 2014 at 08:54

Micheal Savage is banned from the UK. I guess some people over there got offended by his truth. There are suspicions that someone in the US govt. provided misinformation to the UK which got him banned. Was it Jefferson that said “In times of deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.”

Wonder how Obama is going to handle the passing of Ariel Sharon? After all Obama seemed very upset when Morsi was toppled in Egypt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
DCM January 11, 2014 at 11:19

Savage is Jewish, so since the Moslem savages were pissed because the UK banished a couple of terrorists the government picked a Jewish US conservative to harass in hopes of looking fair and gaining their enemies’ good will.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 11, 2014 at 15:34

@DCM
“in hopes of looking fair and gaining their enemies’ good will”
..is the cap and hem of it. Ain’t nobody that can ride the tiger quite like the Norman aristocracy.
They’ve always been strangers in a strange land, a hated minority where-ever they’ve landed, and have only survived as overlords for the last thousand years here (if you count Edw. I Confessor, on the grounds that his mama was one, and he was all set to hand the joint over as a going concern to his rellies au sud de la manche, if’n that upstart Godwinson hadn’t turned renegade).

Well that, and utter ruthlessness, up to and including genocide.
Ole Ariel Sharon could have taken a tip or two from them, if he wasn’t so into hating the “British”. ‘Sakes, just ask the Irish, or the Sicilians, for starters.
Could be one of the reasons the English tend to be averse to manning the barricades? They know fine well what happens, once the tweedy horse-stinking gloves come off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 11, 2014 at 15:38

.. Duh. [cont.] .. renegade) by mastering the art of pointing at the other guys. And running away to their castles.
As you were, chaps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ted January 11, 2014 at 18:04

“do I detect a smidgeon of topic drift ..?”

No, not really. I do wonder why immigration was encouraged so much, though. Maybe because you think you’re more powerful with more bodies on your side; or maybe just to undercut wages with more competition. Given that you want to increase the population, just how can you do it?

The days of 8-child families are gone. The natives aren’t close to self replacement. Immigration is the answer. But with it comes a danger: the possibility that you can easily distinguish different groups in the population. That can be exploited by divide-and-rule politics, well understood and enthusiastically used by the British – in other countries, of course.

That’s why it’s so important to minimize differences in the home population. Either suppress “hate crimes” now, or look forward to a future of endless internal civil strife between the Rebels and the Regime, funded and armed by outside interests.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 11, 2014 at 19:32

Au contraire, Ted my dear old thing, au contraire. What the game seems to be, re Britlandshire, is to actually maintain all possible differences between the various onshored peoples, religion, language or color notwithstanding. Under the slimy and sinister penumbra of “multiculturalism”.
Prevent any meeting of like minds, and most of all, obviate any degree of integration in a kinship sense. Which throughout Isles history has been the unspeakable, and unspoken, 3-phase third rail of society. People here, men and women alike, will fight like insane devils till Doomsday for their clans, “names”, “blood”,etc. , up to and beyond any rational object. Worse than gypsies. Look at the Tudors (them off the telly). It’s not a “race” thing, either. For ex., as a trivial and easily comprehended case, all the black slave lads (it was almost exclusively young men) brought here even as late as the 18th century managed, by one means and another, to melt away into the silent, sober, pallid masses (who say nowt, and care less). And miraculously, have many living descendants. Who through the comedic workings of genetic recombination and statistics, are, except to the knowledgeable native eye, utterly indistiguishable from the rest of the peasantry. (I can give you surnames if you’re curious). And they are, when push comes to shove, pretty much protected, since they own that priceless jewel, kin, and a Name. The one ring that binds us all. And the Masters .. fear.

A state of affairs the Owners seek to inhibit at all costs. Even if it means giving up their own religion, culture and language. Divide, and Rule, as you say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Catpain Krik January 12, 2014 at 10:37

Keyster, in the UK recently (London, to be specific) there was publicity over a self-declared “Muslim Patrol”, where gangs of Muslims would walk the streets at night imposing what they called Sharia Law. This involved, among other things ordering people to hand over any alcoholic drinks they had, abusing and harassing people they thought to be gay, and ordering women to dress “appropriately” when out and about.

They imposed their rules on Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and declared the areas they patrolled to be “Muslim areas”.

As far as I can tell nobody has been charged with any offence, not least with any so-called “hate crime” (despite their abuse of gays); it seems the definition of hate crimes only applies if those though to be responsible are white…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Ronald McDonald January 12, 2014 at 18:02

I value Tam the Bam’s contributions as much as any one else, but I wish he would write in plain English. He obviously feels that writing with excessive use of parenthesis and italics, helps him make his point and results in a quirky, individualistic style. This might be the case when one is writing for certain types of magazines; but in this publication it doesn’t work. Reading his work is sometimes is very tedious because it doesn’t flow with ideas very well. Whenever I encounter this style, I tend to skip it altogether and never get the gist of what the writer is saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
gender foreigner January 12, 2014 at 20:26

Dear Catpain Krik January 12, 2014 at 10:37:

Yup, for sure. Today, societies are composed of two kinds of parts: groups with rights to harm and groups with responsibilities to be harmed. The ultimate right-to-harm group is the female and the ultimate responsibility-to-be-harmed group is the male. Muslims are honorary women as are coloreds and homosexuals, whereas, for example, whites, Anglo Saxons and Christians are honorary men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Walhaz January 13, 2014 at 01:39

^^^^^^^^^^
It would be funny if someone told the Muslim fundamentalists in Britain they’re “honorary women” in the eyes of white liberals. They would go apes**t.

Then…. how should the white liberals handle that? Lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 13, 2014 at 04:44

Bugger. That was me, of course.
See what I mean? About being in a confounded rush before I’m interrupted, again?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 13, 2014 at 04:59

@Ronald Macdonald-
I suppose beauty must be in the eye of the beholder, for, with certain exceptions, I find Tam’s writing to be utterly comprehensible. At least in comparison to those who have clear ideas but who’s prose is occasionally broken, such as joeb and PAN. Admittedly he sprinkles his verbiage liberally with the Limey version of pithy gonzo adjectives, but for the most part these are easily dismissed, and I have mentioned on several occasions that his ruminations would make entirely acceptable guest articles.

Frankly, I am disgusted by the mainstream media’s attempts to cater to the lowest common denominator, with the concomitant lack of any sort of style and basic insulting of the intelligence of the demographic in question… Tam’s commentary seems to be aimed at the exact sort of individual that is this particular media’s clear target, mainly the slightly intellectually above-average male… if this stresses the comprehension of the below-average (read female) commenter then this appears to be all to the good.

But if you’d like a summary, he said “Diversity is not strength. That’s a scam put on by greedy bastards who know they have to keep people fighting among themselves over stupid shit. If men ever got together in the way they used to do, over clan, family, and religious lines, the bastards know they wouldn’t last a heartbeat.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 13, 2014 at 05:08

Basically those in power are technically correct, although ruinously short-sighted. Forcing diverse groups together TEMPORARILY puts them at each other’s throats, preventing the louts from getting ousted, and providing clear demarcations for people to fight.

Of course, in the long run, this NEVER works out for those in power, as evidence by the Romans, the Egyptians, the Mesopatamians, the Greeks, the Turks, the Nazis, the Russians, and a huge number of other empires…. all of whom practiced moving large groups of mutually conflicting ethnics together in order to keep them infighting and ignoring the excesses of those in power. This ALWAYS backfires, and the emnity gained by the power blocs by their heavy-handed ‘assimilation’ is NEVER relieved by such infighting…. they simply go to war with each other and take the power mongers with them, or temporarily set aside their differences in order to remove the offending thorn and then return to their prior remoteness. Diversity is weakness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 13, 2014 at 16:35

Still discussing an acceptable house style, I see.
I did post a semi-considered reply, but rather predictably forgot to add my identifiers, and it’s in mod hell or binned as spam. Hence the even more deranged than usual non-sequitur post above deserves some explanation.
Maybe it’ll pop up in the fullness of time, but if not.
If people find my brain-dumps irritating, then so be it. I’m no cafeteria feminist, agonizing over her deathless prose. Scroll on, my brothers, if it looks like shit, it probably is.
I’m a fucked-up old carpenter who barely knows how to work this machine, two-fingered. And my fingers hurt like hell, been running repro moldings by hand. The gin&bitters I’m treating it with ain’t helping neither, I suspect. I don’t have time, or the brainpower to sit and edit things, and Miss MacAuley gave up in despair over teaching me grammar about fifty years ago. Wouldn’t know how, anyway.
Fucksake, do you need a degree to qualify as a Man nowadays?
Where’s da GBFM when ya need him, eh?
And Badge, I really like joeb’s stuff too, it’s not market-tweaked for consumption.

Fuckin A, I did it. No brackets or dots.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Opus January 15, 2014 at 04:44

Have I not been saying at The Spearhead how bad it is in Great Britain on many previous occasions. The proposed amendment to The Public Order Acts is that any form of nuisance or annoyance is to be made a criminal offence, and the test of whether a person is annoying or has made a nuisance of himself is to be that of the subjective view of the ‘victim’. People believe that the purpose is to curtail the activities of Christian Street Preachers.

My Russian friend who came here in the Seventies said to me that he now looks round to see who may be listening and speaks in muffled tones and only to selected individuals. He also say that that was how the Soviet Union was at the time he left. Can there be any greater criticism of The (euphemistically named) United Kingdom than that. He is proposing to return to Russia.

It is very dangerous because one never knows in the heat of the moment what one might say, and so one keeps ones head down, hears nothing, and says nothing. One man was successfully prosecuted for saying to a City Policeman (who was on horseback) that his horse looked gay. Many others have been prosecuted for Tweets.

The Gay Mafia, Muslim sympathisers and Feminists control the Home Office and Heterosexual Christians are made to feel that they are irrational bigots. Diversity is deep-throated even to schoolchildren and a six year old was arrested for racism. The successful prosecution of a married couple who ran a B&B – that is to say people who let one room in their own home for a night – who refused lodging to a flamboyant pair of men, was brought to humiliate Christians (which they were). Christians are now an oppressed majority; Homosexuality is considered the morally superior sexuality.

I have always spoken most highly of your 1st Amendment, but in the past it was never needed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
John January 15, 2014 at 11:07

“Hate” is just a leftist code word for conservative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
crypter27 January 17, 2014 at 17:24

This article was so good I had to send it to my friends on youtube,I’m glad I don’t live in the UK.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: