One of the most frustrating aspects of the British legal system is how groups and individuals can launch private prosecutions against people, even when authorities have decided there is no case to answer.
The Zionists have been much more thorough and clever than were the Nazis. The Zionists take false flag to a new level and, I would guess, have an extensive fifth column embedded in most western governments. Certainly Starmer and some of his colleagues, in retrospect, appear to have been Zionist plants to take over the Labour Party.
As these litigation-happy arseholes like to say, “The process is the punishment.” They don’t really care if they lose these cases and are even happy to pay costs when judgements go against them because their real aim is to ruin the lives and careers of those they baselessly accuse and spread a climate of fear among people critical of the genocidal apartheid state they love so deeply.
"my understanding of anti-racism charities is they are supposed to raise awareness, not prosecute people": It is standard for some charities to aggressively prosecute. The RSPCA is one:
"Based on extracted management information data, the RSPCA has initiated 15,070 prosecutions since the Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force in April 2007. This figure is taken as of September 2024 in line with published statistics." (Animal Welfare: Prosecutions, Question for Ministry of Justice, UIN 43185, tabled on 1 April 2025)
The RSPCA is an example of why charities perhaps shouldn't be able to mount prosecutions. It has been heavily criticised for the aggressive and frequent use of private prosecutions, particularly against the working class. Same goes for the CAA.
Adjectives. Emotive descriptions. It's what we love novelists for. They draw us into the emotional field that they inhabit when they write their works. Fuck, I use them in my blog as well. And, because I am British, I sometimes underuse them too.
The recent sentencing of a child molester was reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation's Radio 2 news as involving "harrowing witness testimony", and it forms an interesting case, because I do not in any way endorse the acts of the prisoner at the bar in that case. And I agree that the testimony may well have been "harrowing" to those who were present. But I wasn't present. The man was sentenced based on testimony, and the judge described the facts as being the worst in the history of the court.
I don't want to belittle the crimes of which the man was found guilty, but I cite the case as one that presents difficulty: one in which it is hard for me to maintain an even keel, even when contemplating facts that are repugnant.
It is the BBC's embrace of the words "harrowing" and "worst ever" that makes me want to ask "Why are you telling me what to think about this?" "Did the judge wade through the entire case history of the Old Bailey to arrive at his conclusion, or is he just 'spouting off'?"
"Baying" invokes an image of wolves howling at the moon. If a crowd had bayed at the accused in the child abuse trial, would you have approved or disapproved? Would you have wanted to see the events before passing judgment? Or would you have nodded in approval, saying, "If it's in the papers, it must be true"?
Thanks as always for your excellent reporting, Mr. Hale. I am glad in Mr. Hunter's case, the prosecution failed in their attempt to discredit him and lost their case, though there wasn't really one to begin with
A word of caution: there isn't a "British" legal system (it's the systems of Northern Ireland, England & Wales, and Scotland). I presume, since the facts took place in Edinburgh, that this prosecution was raised in Edinburgh, under Scots law. Is that right? Scots law, when I studied it, was resilient to private prosecutions. But they are sometimes necessary, especially in an age when the legal system itself gets used as a weapon by the State.
My ex was raped at his workplace as a 17-year-old boy in Germany. He took his complaint to the police and was informed by the Staatsanwalt that no prosecution would be raised because it was "not in the public interest to do so". He did not have the means to raise a private prosecution even if it had been available. The State blocked his access to justice, and he could do nothing about that. One has to bear those cases in mind when one takes a stance against private prosecutions.
On the other hand, I do remember Mrs Whitehouse and Gay News.
"The question many of us have is why are lawyers who appear to work for a foreign state allowed to exploit our legal system?"
Allow me.
Could it possibly be because your legal system set up the state in question as Fort Zion in the wild east to control the Ottoman oil and Suez, siphon for draining Asia's wea£th?
Just as it set up its chain of Fort Apaches by usurping native Turtle Island identities to co£oni$e the 'wild west' with it's Hollywood mythologies under the white stet$on from its New Eng£and WA$P base.
Interesting that Al Qaeda translates as 'the base'....of operations....to viviseKKKt and conquer.
But then, Ireland was the original overseas £aboraTory...where they even tore out our teanga, so we're licenced to make ye o£de Bruti$h Vampire eat it's own words. We've had the full mi££ennial reich to study the methodo£ogi€$ of Ang£o-$axon perfidioU$ crimina£i$ation of the target victims. Balfour incorporated the Rot$chi£d banKKKing white-co££ar mercenary war-cu£t $ponsor down our dark ages to give it it's judaic $pin of legimate return...myth tru£y does move mountains...of Moo£ah A£mighty. They topped it up by sponsoring and arming Adolf, then funne££ing the traumatised survivors in for indoctrination their fellow Semitic Arab brothers are the enemy, not the WASP European supremicism they've corra££ed them into.
The Zionists have been much more thorough and clever than were the Nazis. The Zionists take false flag to a new level and, I would guess, have an extensive fifth column embedded in most western governments. Certainly Starmer and some of his colleagues, in retrospect, appear to have been Zionist plants to take over the Labour Party.
The biggest allies of the Nazis always the Zionists.
Yea the Zionists have surpassed their Haavara agreement allies
Two sides of the same bloodstained coin, in my view
Doppelgängers
Well said and agreed totally, Mr. Stockton
As these litigation-happy arseholes like to say, “The process is the punishment.” They don’t really care if they lose these cases and are even happy to pay costs when judgements go against them because their real aim is to ruin the lives and careers of those they baselessly accuse and spread a climate of fear among people critical of the genocidal apartheid state they love so deeply.
🎯
"my understanding of anti-racism charities is they are supposed to raise awareness, not prosecute people": It is standard for some charities to aggressively prosecute. The RSPCA is one:
"Based on extracted management information data, the RSPCA has initiated 15,070 prosecutions since the Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force in April 2007. This figure is taken as of September 2024 in line with published statistics." (Animal Welfare: Prosecutions, Question for Ministry of Justice, UIN 43185, tabled on 1 April 2025)
charities are required to remain politically independent and must ensure that political work does not become the focus of the charity
The RSPCA is an example of why charities perhaps shouldn't be able to mount prosecutions. It has been heavily criticised for the aggressive and frequent use of private prosecutions, particularly against the working class. Same goes for the CAA.
SPCA is not anti-racism. It's against animal cruelty. Might be hair-splitting, but just saying.
Thanks for this important information, Ricky.
Zionists conflation of Judaism with their death cult is the only anti “semitism” I see here.
Most likely they’re not even Semitic as the Palestinians are.
Zionism is the biggest antisemitic hate group and the main reason for an increase in anti Jewish sentiment.
A good man, and a great comedian. Fuck Israel.
Can Hunter sue them for harassment? They need to be taught a lesson.
Adjectives. Emotive descriptions. It's what we love novelists for. They draw us into the emotional field that they inhabit when they write their works. Fuck, I use them in my blog as well. And, because I am British, I sometimes underuse them too.
The recent sentencing of a child molester was reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation's Radio 2 news as involving "harrowing witness testimony", and it forms an interesting case, because I do not in any way endorse the acts of the prisoner at the bar in that case. And I agree that the testimony may well have been "harrowing" to those who were present. But I wasn't present. The man was sentenced based on testimony, and the judge described the facts as being the worst in the history of the court.
I don't want to belittle the crimes of which the man was found guilty, but I cite the case as one that presents difficulty: one in which it is hard for me to maintain an even keel, even when contemplating facts that are repugnant.
It is the BBC's embrace of the words "harrowing" and "worst ever" that makes me want to ask "Why are you telling me what to think about this?" "Did the judge wade through the entire case history of the Old Bailey to arrive at his conclusion, or is he just 'spouting off'?"
"Baying" invokes an image of wolves howling at the moon. If a crowd had bayed at the accused in the child abuse trial, would you have approved or disapproved? Would you have wanted to see the events before passing judgment? Or would you have nodded in approval, saying, "If it's in the papers, it must be true"?
Thanks as always for your excellent reporting, Mr. Hale. I am glad in Mr. Hunter's case, the prosecution failed in their attempt to discredit him and lost their case, though there wasn't really one to begin with
Such is life in the UESR (Union of European Socialist Republics) - free speech is casualty #1.
A word of caution: there isn't a "British" legal system (it's the systems of Northern Ireland, England & Wales, and Scotland). I presume, since the facts took place in Edinburgh, that this prosecution was raised in Edinburgh, under Scots law. Is that right? Scots law, when I studied it, was resilient to private prosecutions. But they are sometimes necessary, especially in an age when the legal system itself gets used as a weapon by the State.
My ex was raped at his workplace as a 17-year-old boy in Germany. He took his complaint to the police and was informed by the Staatsanwalt that no prosecution would be raised because it was "not in the public interest to do so". He did not have the means to raise a private prosecution even if it had been available. The State blocked his access to justice, and he could do nothing about that. One has to bear those cases in mind when one takes a stance against private prosecutions.
On the other hand, I do remember Mrs Whitehouse and Gay News.
"The question many of us have is why are lawyers who appear to work for a foreign state allowed to exploit our legal system?"
Allow me.
Could it possibly be because your legal system set up the state in question as Fort Zion in the wild east to control the Ottoman oil and Suez, siphon for draining Asia's wea£th?
Just as it set up its chain of Fort Apaches by usurping native Turtle Island identities to co£oni$e the 'wild west' with it's Hollywood mythologies under the white stet$on from its New Eng£and WA$P base.
Interesting that Al Qaeda translates as 'the base'....of operations....to viviseKKKt and conquer.
But then, Ireland was the original overseas £aboraTory...where they even tore out our teanga, so we're licenced to make ye o£de Bruti$h Vampire eat it's own words. We've had the full mi££ennial reich to study the methodo£ogi€$ of Ang£o-$axon perfidioU$ crimina£i$ation of the target victims. Balfour incorporated the Rot$chi£d banKKKing white-co££ar mercenary war-cu£t $ponsor down our dark ages to give it it's judaic $pin of legimate return...myth tru£y does move mountains...of Moo£ah A£mighty. They topped it up by sponsoring and arming Adolf, then funne££ing the traumatised survivors in for indoctrination their fellow Semitic Arab brothers are the enemy, not the WASP European supremicism they've corra££ed them into.
Merry KKKri$tMars.