Showing posts with label Injustice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Injustice. Show all posts

Sunday, 8 July 2012

Burglars in jail don't burgle, shocked researchers find

New research shows, quelle surprise, that if you don't release burglars from jail, they don't burgle as much.

Will this impress the Gadarene Swine in charge of the criminal justice system (falsely so-called)? Highly unlikely. I don't think anyone's quite sure how truth works its way through the labyrinthine defence mechanisms of denial, sub-marxoid sociology and cynical apathy erected around those bureaucrats.

I look forward to additional studies on the effects on the crime rates of shooting burglars in the act of burglary. It may be just a hunch, but I'm sure this would also work as a reduction strategy. Perhaps the Home Office could return our fundamental, constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in order to facilitate some research?

Now, take a look at this run-of-the-mill news item from the United States:



The British equivalent of this story would feature an old man dead, or lying in a hospital bed, his face purple and swollen, his daughter tearfully describing how his war medals had been stolen.

Thursday, 14 June 2012

Tagging: Accessory to Murder

‘They can do anything that they want because the law won’t do anything. The police do their job – they take them in – but they just have to let them go.’

So says the mother of murdered Steven Grisales, responding to reports that the youth who stabbed her son to death for nothing did so after the bureaucrats and rule-writers of the so-called justice system had done everything in their power to ensure that the violent criminal was free to kill. They refused to punish him for robbery or burglary or any of a catalogue of offences, so now they are forced, at least for a little while, to finally do something.

Friday, 1 June 2012

It was the porn wot dun it

A twelve-year-old boy rapes a nine-year-old girl. Who's to blame? Well, according to the judge, certainly not the boy, who indulged the boy's plea that it was the internet porn wot dun it, and those who are seeking to clamp down on the freedom of the internet are happy to let justice be sacrificed in order to back up their case.

It is indeed true that the internet has widened and facilitated access to porn, just as it has to all manner of information, but even if we accept without question that porn has a corrupting influence, we are still obliged to deal with a violent young offender, who has shown himself to be a danger to others. The judge may choose to believe that the crime was his response to viewing the porn, but this is not a usual or natural response, and if the child is capable of this crime now, what should we expect in the future?

In a humane society, there are no easy answers to how to deal with dangerous young criminals, but exonerating them of all responsibility is no answer at all.

Saturday, 28 April 2012

Conspiracy to burgle

Police are (not) seeking the accomplice of a prolific burglar and convicted rapist. 'Judge' Carol Hagan (above) was instrumental in helping criminal Jason Reed from escaping from Bristol Crown Court with a slap on the wrist.

Friday, 23 March 2012

Graham Mitchell - Victim of Monstrous Injustice: Update

Not here, but at Anna Raccoon's, who has dug into how exactly someone, acquitted 20 years ago, can find himself facing extradition for killing a man who is still alive.

The European Arrest Warrant is one of the clearest examples of how this country's membership of the European Union has been used to nullify long-established protections against the violence of the state.

Let us not accept the Nuremburg Defence when it comes to this treasonous attack on justice. Yes indeed, vile scum like Graham Watson MEP, who boasts of his involvement in having the 'legislation' enacted, are guiltier than most, but guilty also are the pen-pushing Judas trash and black-uniformed goons who have taken this ludicrous warrant from the Portuguese authorities and used it to attack an innocent man.

We are told that the UK government are 'looking into the matter'. What that means in reality is FUCK ALL. The Tory Party and even more so the Lib Dems, of which vile scum Graham Watson MEP is one, are instrumental in implementing this rape of our Magna Carta rights. See below for details:


Sunday, 25 December 2011

SOPA Dope

Check out this video for the truth behind the attempt to use copyright infringement to castrate the internet. In this case it's the USA, but these things are always getting arranged at treaty level.



Video uploaded by on 22 Dec 2011.

Go to http://onecandleinthedark.blogspot.com and http://www.cbsyousuck.com for thousands of pages of evidence and links to the original source research on the Internet Wayback Machine.

Hat tip: Aangirfan

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Judge get it wrong again

Three and a half years for breaking into a house and holding a family hostage with a machete is not sufficient.

Elsewhere in our judicial car-crash, award for most ridiculous defence plea goes to Christopher Millington QC who told the court that Jayden Copeland-Marks (nickname 'Murder'), who gate-crashed a party and shot the host in the face with a sawn-off shotgun:
'He was a virtual stranger at this party and had no ill feeling towards anybody. He has shown genuine remorse.'
I would suggest that shooting someone in the face was a pretty sure indication of ill-will.

Update: I could go on all day. Here's another monstrous sentence: 3 years for beating a two year old child to death. Unbelievable.

Monday, 12 December 2011

If they had a brain, they'd be dangerous

There should be a law against being a copper and being this dumb, but I must say, young Jules does his generation proud, standing up for his liberty like a true Englishman.

Saturday, 10 December 2011

Longest sentence yet for rioter! Not long enough

Some piece of trash looter has been handed two and a half years for his crimes. The Guardian reports this using the judicial slang of 'five years', which we all know means something less than half of that.

This is apparently the longest sentence yet, which just goes to show that for all the bluster about getting tough, the justice system has done what it always does: treat the criminals as victims of a cruel, unequal society.

These scum are lucky I'm not major of London. I'd have handed out guns to the shop-keepers and paid a bounty for every looter.

Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Tram woman: unlikely martyr

Talk about over-doing it. The woman who mouthed off on the Croydon tram is now remanded in custody, after being detained for a number of days, for what? Being rude and abusive in public, no more, no less. Big fucking deal.

A fitting punishment would be for her to have been kicked off the tram and banned by the tram company. They would be well within their rights to safeguard their customers from foul-mouthed tirades. That should be the end of the story. If an additional slap on the wrist for breach of the peace or what have you were deemed necessary, then so be it, but are there not bigger fish to fry?

According to the beak, she's being remanded in custody for her own protection. Now, what does that say about the matter? It seems almost to condone violence against her, to imply that violence would be an understandable response.

We all know that the legal establishment doesn't give a flying fuck to protect the public from real criminals. Whenever you read of someone getting stabbed to death, you can guarantee that the perpetrators have criminal records as long as your arm, but they are set free until such a point as they force the hand of our indulgent authorities.

The only laws that matter are the common laws, not the bullshit that recent governments have instigated. As such, as noted, she is no doubt liable to be found in breach of the peace, but anything over and above that is politically-motivated social engineering.

Friday, 25 November 2011

Is there an anthropologist in the house?

The history of Junior Henry's treatment at the hands of the judiciary is mystifying. He is obviously, demonstrably, a vicious, dangerous enemy of society. There is no mitigation, there is no justification. Even for those who seek explanations for his vile acts in factors external to himself, there is still no escaping the reality that he poses a threat to everyone unfortunate enough to encounter him, and thanks to the judiciary, that threat will be manifest in two years time.

Leaving aside how we should administer justice for the moment, morally-speaking he deserves to be stabbed multiply and left to bleed in the gutter, and whatever sentence is passed on his crimes should take this into account.

This blog has attacked judges many times. On this occasion, I cannot summon the indignation. I have not the ability to explain the workings of the judge's mind. Hence the post title. Perhaps a team of anthropologists could be sent in, and by applying the methods used in analysing obscure New Guinean tribes and their belief systems, we could discover how this judge came to the conclusion that two years incarcerated at public expense is a fitting response to this man's war on the rest of us.

Saturday, 12 November 2011

EDL need to challenge the unlawful arrests in Westminster

Whilst I am no particular fan of EDL, it seems they are being used as the canary in the coal mine for the overt authoritarianism of the state police. How else are we supposed to interpret the arrest of 170 people who were doing nothing wrong, breaking no law and not in any way likely to break any law?

Whether or not you share the EDL's view of our nation, what cannot surely be doubted is that the members consider themselves patriots, and as such - and as evidenced by all their official statements on the matter - they were not in Westminster to cause trouble but to pay their respects to the nation's war dead. Although it is no doubt the case that a poppy-burning salafist would have provoked a reaction, there is not one shred of evidence that any of the arrested were doing anything wrong.

Consulting the Great Oracle (Wikipedia), I learn:
"In England and Wales, breach of the peace is not an offence, in the sense that it is not punishable either by a fine or imprisonment either at statute or common law and nor do proceedings for breach of the peace give rise to any conviction. In England and Wales, constables (or citizens) are permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows for the police or the public to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when it is reasonable to believe should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur."
This is very important. We were told, through the media, that the arrests took place "to prevent a breach of the peace" NOT a further breach of the peace. If words have meanings, it is clear that the only occasion that someone can be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace is if they are already committing or have already committed such a breach.

EDL have some thinking to do. My advice to them would be to pool their resources and get some proper legal advice and challenge the lawfulness of these arrests. They must be mindful of being manipulated as 'useful idiots'. They might also want to re-think who the real enemy is - the authoritarian state.

(P.S. According to that Wikipedia clip, citizens have the same power of arrest, so next time maybe EDL should arrest the cops on the same charge.)

Friday, 11 November 2011

Why were EDL members arrested?

There's something very fishy in the arrest of 150 EDL supporters for the crime of ... err ... what exactly? According to the Graun, the fuzz stepped in and arrested 150 "to prevent breach of the peace". So ... not actually for breach of the peace.

The cover story is that the EDL members, in London to pay their respects on Armistice Day, were planning to steam over to St Pauls and ... what? Commit a breach of the peace?

However, this does not square with EDL's comments prior to the day.
"To those of you who will still be attending London in the morning to pay your respects,‭ ‬please make your way to Westminster and not Kensington as originally planned.‭ ‬We wish to remind you to conduct yourselves accordingly by dressing smartly‭ (‬suit and tie if possible‭) ‬and acting respectfully and responsibly.‭ ‬This is not an EDL march and EDL colours/hoodies and banners should not be bought along.‭ ‬Above all wear your poppy with pride‭!"
This article discusses the government's proscription of Muslims against Crusades, so the plan to disrupt the poppy burners was no longer necessary. Thus, as far as I can see, the EDL had only one objective - to align themselves with the sentiment of Armistice Day, which dictates respectful behaviour. Getting into fights at St Pauls Cathedral would hardly be fitting. Also these arrests took place in Westminster, two miles down the road, outside the jurisdiction of the police in Westminster incidently.

Sunday, 6 November 2011

Antique gun collector jailing stinks of malicious prosecution

Here's a guy with 140 legally held firearms, and he's raided, prosecuted, convicted and now jailed for two years for holding four air rifles without the 'proper certification'?

Bullshit. Here's my guess: the police didn't like the guy holding guns so they raided him looking for something, anything to bust him, so they could grab his property, thereby sending a chilling effect through other gun collectors.

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

"A terrible day for free speech in this country"

The country in this case being Australia, where journalist Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of writing something that some people didn't like, specifically mixed-race people who self-identify as Aboriginal. Reading what he actually wrote, as an Englishman, it's difficult to grasp what line he crossed, if indeed there is a line at all. Sure, those whom he named didn't like it, but so what? There's no right not to be offended, right?

Wrong. The judge in the case may claim that such controversial subjects are not off-limits, but he has just declared them off-limits. His ruling means that anyone discussing race issues will be risking legal action. The consequence is that whatever tensions exist, and the fact that the subject is controversial indicates that there must be tensions, will continue to exist, as they cannot be openly discussed.

Readers can peruse the article for themselves, but here are some quotes, which run contrary to the judge's ruling:
I'm not saying any of those I've named chose to be Aboriginal for anything but the most heartfelt and honest of reasons. I certainly don't accuse them of opportunism, even if full-blood Aborigines may wonder how such fair people can claim to be one of them and take black jobs.

I'm saying only that this self-identification as Aboriginal strikes me as self-obsessed and driven more by politics than by any racial reality. It's also divisive, feeding a new movement to stress pointless or even invented racial differences we once swore to overcome. What happened to wanting us all to become colour-blind?
The article ends with:
To me, this blacker-than-thou offends the deepest humanist ideals. And our "enlightened" opinion is debased when it takes a Casey Donovan, a mere Australian Idol winner, to hint at the healthier truth, saying she's proud of being Aboriginal, but "proud of being half-white, too".

In fact, let's go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let's be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal?
Brother, if you're so thin-skinned that the above is offensive, you better watch that Aussie sun.

Hat tip: The Humble Servant

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Tom Woods on the futility (etc.) of the war on drugs



From back in May, after Ron Paul made the case against the Federal drug war, and was attacked with the usual misrepresentations.

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Another judge-assisted homocide


Q: What is appropriate punishment for a man found guilty of raping two women at knifepoint and considered, unsurprisingly, to be very dangerous?


Wait, wait! Before you answer, imagine you like dressing up in ridiculous 18th century costumes, that you don't give a fuck about the victims of this vicious criminal, or the future victims that you are about to make inevitable by your answer to this question, you're probably a bit bored, you're probably waiting to get off to your appointment with Madame Whiplash who's going to tie you to a bed and spank you for being a naughty boy, or perhaps defecate upon you because that's what gets you off. In short, imagine you're an average judge.

A: Three and a half years should do it. I'm sure he deserves another chance. It's not like he'd murdered anyone. Yet.

Thanks judge.

Friday, 29 July 2011

Reminiscing about Labour in power

Let it never be forgotten just how bad Labour were in power, and how we are still blighted by them, and will be until we take out all their legislation, build a massive pyre and burn it to ashes.

Alas, their cowardly cousins now in charge, who differ oh so very slightly, lack the conviction or desire to do this, but prefer to continue adding to the monstrous statute with their own pet legislative projects, and it falls to a private member to attempt to remove this dune of dunderheaded tyranny one grain at a time. Thus (again from El Reg):

A private member's bill proposing to decriminalise offering musical instruments without a licence received its second reading on Friday. The, er... what? You may well ask.

The Licensing Act of 2003 introduced bans on unlicensed musical instruments appearing in public. The law, intended to promote musical events at small venues, must be one of New Labour's most absurd and bureaucratic legacies. Leaving a piano in a school or church hall without the necessary paperwork and approval risks a £20,000 fine and six months in jail.

Labourites, how are you liking your legacy? Where are you, anyway? Come and defend your stupid laws. Leave a comment. Explain to me what the fuck is the matter with you.

Friday, 22 July 2011

Poor old Plod

Apparently the cuts to the Police 'Service' will lead to a rise in crime. Maybe. But then, maybe it's time to take a new approach to crime, by which I mean an old approach to crime - you know, the one that actually worked.

As I noted below and have noted similar many times before, you can be A PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERER LITERALLY and they'll let you out of jail to continue your murdering. You can rape children and they'll give you another chance - NOT ONLY THAT THEY'LL LET YOU OUT EARLY, THEY WON'T EVEN HOLD YOU FOR THE FUCKING JOKE SENTENCE THE WIG HANDS DOWN. You can be a career burglar and all the 'justice' system will do is lock you in with your Play Station for a couple of months and out you get. It's not difficult to work out the problem here. There are people lying in comas that are capable of spotting it.

What the police are doing, when they're not filling in forms, is chasing after people they know very well, because they've already arrested them many times before, and each time the fucker gets let go to continue to fuck with other people.

I don't blame the common police for this, of course. It is the fault of the judiciary, the CPS and the Fabian scum who have disemboweled our justice system, to whom I say; You've had your chance. We've tried it your way and it doesn't work. So fuck off back to your ivory tower with your marxist sociology books written by cunts.

I feel better now.

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Another case of corporate manslaughter by the Parole Board

The Daily Mail covers the life sentence passed on a man for a double murder. It also notes he was already sentenced to life in prison some years earlier, but that the Parole Board let him out, leading to at least two further murders.

The control-freak state never ceases to find new ways to 'keep us safe' by spying on us and violating our liberty. What it is never prepared to do is the most simple and obvious things, such as KEEPING CONVICTED PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERERS LOCKED UP FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR SENTENCE.

Thus I propose again that the members of the Parole Board who set this man free be held accountable for the key role they have played in at least two murders. Only when such people are held responsible for the consequences of their actions will they act in a responsible manner.