According to the British Sentencing Council’s definitive guidelines on the imposition of custodial sentences:
• A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
Furthermore, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, part 12, chapter 3, para. 9 (5), states:
Before making a suspended sentence order imposing two or more different requirements falling within subsection (1) [mine has no less that five], the court must consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, the requirements are compatible with each other.
And again quoting from the above guidelines:
• A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.
At my conviction last May, District Judge John Zani was fairly precise in his indication that my offences were serious enough to warrant custody. My musical malice had “on the face of it”, passed the custody threshold and therefore I was facing a spell behind bars or – as it turned out – a custodial punishment in the form of a Suspended Sentence Order including slave labour plus four other requirements.
Are these requirements compatible? Not really. Forced labour plus a 12-month social media ban plus a fine prevent me from earning a crust. The strangest part of my order is the 20-day “Rehabilitation Requirement Activity” (RAR). Let me explain.
For the fifth time in 12 months, I walked free from court again yesterday – this time in a breach trial brought against me by the National Probation Service (NPS) for refusing to comply with the slave labour part of my Suspended Sentence Order.
First off, a brief explanation is necessary regards the difference between a Community Order (CO) and a Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). As one District Judge commented in a research paper published in 2008:
‘Well, prison is an ever-present part of one isn’t it [the SSO], but not of the other, and that’s the difference in a nutshell. There’s a real threat. As I see it, a Community Order is – look, we’re trying to help you – and anything to do with imprisonment is – look, we’re trying to threaten you.’
Mainstream coverage of social media “offences” is highly dependent on who is the “offender” and who is the “victim”. Certain “racially-motivated” offences are hardly mentioned, whereas others earn swathes of column space and even prime-time TV coverage. Councillors and even members of the aristocracy are not spared the glare of negative publicity and my own case has generated plenty of interest. But for some reason, yesterday’s announcement by the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority that media lawyer Mark Lewis is to be prosecuted in a disciplinary court has not been mentioned by any mainstream sources at all. *
In a statement made following yesterday’s news, Lewis said:
It is a matter of great principle that one can respond robustly to intimidating racist death threats.
After briefly following me ca. 2011/2012 on Twitter, Lewis then blocked me; thereafter unblocking me to engage in what can only be described as abusive (on his part) spats.
Lewis’ robust responses culminated in his presence in court, seated next to my CAA accusers last June for sentencing, no doubt in the hope that I would be led down to the cells and then to prison.
So, let’s take a look at some of the history which led to this week’s turning of the tables.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of “anti-Semitism” isn’t working. Firstly, the term “anti-Semitism” is a misnomer: “Semitic” defines a group of Middle Eastern languages including Arabic and Hebrew. Jewishness is neither an ethnicity, nor a religion. It is simply a mindset. Those whose mindset betrays adherence to the cult of Jewishness i.e. those Jews and non-Jews who consider “Jews” to be a race, are often the ones crying wolf when it comes to allegations of “anti-Semitism”.
During the years I spent teaching in Swiss secondary schools, in-training days were often orientated towards how to motivate a class of musically mixed-ability teenagers to sing together tunefully and with conviction. One of these training days I remember in particular, given by a male colleague who, during a football World Cup championship, had filmed all the participating teams singing their respective national anthems. The lesson was clear: more often than not, teams who sang with passion and heartfelt conviction went on to gain satisfactory results.
International sporting events have long been one of the subtle ways by which Globalists have been able to implement their agenda of mass non-white immigration into European countries. Most noticeable in football, cricket and athletics, multiracial “national” teams have in recent decades become increasingly present on track, field and pitch. Can a cricketer, for example of Pakistani origin born in England, truly harbour the same patriotism for his adoptive country than an Englishman born and bred in England whose northern European genetic makeup is an integral part of his origin and identity?
Sporting professionals who happen to be British citizens born of foreign parents have the choice whether they compete for Britain or for the country from which their parents originated. Is this fair? Does this not raise questions of possible conspiracy? Would this be one reason why English national teams in so many disciplines tend to produce disappointing results?
By Gerard Menuhin, reproduced with kind permission.
ABOUT TRUTH and HATE
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
We all know the expression ‘the truth hurts’. The truth can indeed be hurtful, but secure, grounded people can accept it and even grow when they hear the truth.
However, truth doesn’t mean the same to everyone. Whereas to the overwhelming majority of the world’s population ‘truth’ represents what actually happens or has happened and is therefore vital to all relations and transactions, to a minute, rootless but vociferous minority of professional victims, ‘truth’ is a flexible concept, to be used expediently.
As a matter of policy, to gain an approximation of the truth, it’s usually wise to invert everything this minority says. That is to say, when they claim something, particularly when they accuse others of something, that assertion must be assumed to define their own actions and attitudes. They don’t invariably lie in the accepted sense of making something up, they just stand the truth on its head. How to explain this?
Let’s take it step by step.
Ben Weich in this week’s edition of the Jewish Chronicle confirms the gist of my previous post: police have received yet another vexatious complaint from the usual suspects and are therefore obliged to fulfil their duty and investigate my heretical comments regards Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. On and on it goes…
Today, I would like to comment on the atrocious double standards being applied by the English court system when it comes to so-called ‘hate crime’. I will return to foreign justice systems in a future article, specifically dealing with the current plights of Ursula Haverbeck and the Schaefer siblings in Germany (not forgetting Horst Mahler and Gerhard Ittner), as well as that of Canadian free speech advocate, Arthur Topham.