Do Not Resist Us!

bobby III am very uneasy about the arrest and incarceration of Tommy Robinson. Yes, he has operated on the fringe of legality. Indeed, he carries a number of convictions which can be seized upon to paint him as a figure deserving of little sympathy, if any. On this occasion, he was in apparent breach of a probation order in relation to a previous conviction for contempt of court. Standing outside the court, he was picked up by seven police and bundledinto a paddy wagon for “breaching the peace”, a transparently ridiculous charge as is clear in the You Tube video. Before the judge, he was found guilty of breaching his probation, summarily convicted, sentenced to thirteen months imprisonment and bundled without further ado into prison.

Undoubtedly, as Janet Albrechtsen has pointed out, Robinson was guilty as charged. But here we come to the heart of our worries. The vast majority of British people still assume the law is blind and impartial. But a growing minority now sees the law as weaponised, a potent item in the Left’s arsenal with which it is waging and winning its culture war. The total media blackout imposed by the judge (lifted on appeal), left the sinister impression that Robinson was being “disappeared” with an efficiency any Argentine general from the bad old days might well have admired. The message could not have been more explicit: report on what the court did to Robinson and you will end up occupying an adjoining cell. Is there any other way to describe that ruling but as government-sanctioned intimidation.

Worse still is that Robinson is only the most conspicuous example in a pattern of abusive state power. Here is another example of unconscionable police behaviour. On his site, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, who has been permanently banned from entry to the United Kingdom, has posted videos from a middle-aged woman named Amy, arrested by police for alleged homophobia. The video below captures the entire case in miniature. The opening footage captures Amy politely asking police in Hyde Park why Muslims are allowed to pray when religious ceremonies and services are specifically prohibited? Subsequent footage captures police officers entering home and placing her under arrest.

Chillingly, the male officer can be heard repeatedly ordering, “Do not resist us! Do not resist us!” This in the land that gave the world Magna Carta.

Moreover, British police exhibit remarkable efficiency tracking down Facebook users who share posts critical of Islam. A man visited by police recounts:

The officers themselves were polite and reasonable enough, however their message was somewhat chilling: it was insinuated that if I continued to post material which could be considered critical of Islam or offensive to the practices of Muslims, I could potentially be arrested for ‘hate crimes.’

Equally chilling was that I have no idea how they obtained my personal information and they weren’t willing to disclose this information during their visit.

Another example: this one appearing beneath the headline “Rees-Mogg fan ‘warned by police’ for posting content that is critical of Islam”:

The owner of a Facebook page praising the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has told their followers that they have been visited by two police officers who provided ‘advice’ that included a warning to stop posting content that is ‘critical of Islam.’

According to an update on the page called The Church Of Mogg, the page itself was frozen by Facebook for two weeks, and the owner was advised that they could face arrest for ‘hate crimes’ if any further content of that nature is posted in the future.

Perhaps one of the most worrying parts of the Facebook post is that they say they have no idea how the local police obtained his details without some sort of court order or similar legal action.

At the time of writing, this question remains unsolved.

The post states:

As you will all now all be aware, I was visited last week by two local police officers who wished to provide ‘words of advice’ regarding supposed Islamophobic content posted onto this page, which was itself locked and suspended for a fortnight.

The officers themselves were polite and reasonable enough, however their message was somewhat chilling: it was insinuated that if I continued to post material which could be considered critical of Islam or offensive to the practices of Muslims, I could potentially be arrested for ‘hate crimes.’

Equally chilling was that I have no idea how they obtained my personal information and they weren’t willing to disclose this information during their visit.

Contrast this police “efficiency” with an utter failure in the administration of law and justice. From the Mail Online of April 1, 2018:

Prosecutors told a Telford grooming victim’s father they couldn’t prosecute the alleged abuser because the 13-year-old had consented to have sex with the man, according to uncovered documents.

The letter was discovered after papers were handed over to the Home Office as part of the ongoing investigation into what may be Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child abuse scandal.

It was sent from the Crown Prosecution Service to a father in 2016, and stated the branch couldn’t prosecute the man because although the young girl may not have wanted to have sex, she agreed she would.

‘Also at the time this took place the suspect held a reasonable belief that she was over the age of 16.

‘In her statements to the police she was clear that although she may not have wanted sexual intercourse with the suspect, she agreed to do so.’

Last Monday, it was announced that the National Independent Inquiry into Child Exploitation would talk to grooming victims as part of its ‘Truth Project’.

It came about due to claims that cases were mishandled by authorities in the Shropshire town, with many perpetrators going unpunished, and reports that similar abuse was continuing in the area.

MP for Telford Lucy Allan has slammed local police and the Crown Prosecution Service in wake of the letter, saying the evidence she’s compiled from victims and their families shows ‘a failure to understand the nature of grooming’ on the officials’ parts.

Pointing to the letter, she said using the defence of consent suggests the departments don’t understand how ‘a young person of 13 or 14 does not have the capacity to consent in a situation like that.’…

Notice a pattern here? Whilst critics of Islam risk being arrested and charged, authorities are happy — nay, eager — to overlook expressions of hate and intolerance by preachers of jihad.

Without the impartial administration of law and justice, the United Kingdom puts at risk an essential foundation of any free society. In doing so it has done more than risk a gradual slide into a quasi-totalitarianism — it has actually removed the chocks and encouraged that descent to gather pace. Yes, I am very worried about Tommy Robinson’s arrest and imprisonment. So should you.

15 thoughts on “Do Not Resist Us!

  • Jody says:

    I shall get my solicitors – Sue, Grabbit and Run – to make an opinion on this for me!

  • mburke@pcug.org.au says:

    I disagree. I interpreted Jody’s comment to mean that it’s no longer safe to express an opinion without legal advice. Recent history throughout the English-speaking world tends to confirm this as a fact of modern life. In that context, there’s nothing inane about Jody’s comment.

  • jabdata@bigpond.com says:

    The point of concern is that lawyers draft our law. AlanIO

    • Greg Williams says:

      A bigger concern is that politicians enact it!

    • Mohsen says:

      Who should be drafting our laws, then, AlanIO?

      • whitelaughter says:

        For *centuries* laws were passed without lawyers being involved – with the result that they were clear and easily understood. If laws need to be translated into legalese to prevent their misuse or to protect them from linguistic drift, fine, but the originals should be in plain English. The absurdities of legislation, with phrases such as “the Act shall be know as the Act” that make a mockery of the law! If nothing else, all of this pointless verbiage could be shifted to the Acts Administration Act 1901.

        • Mohsen says:

          Thanks, whitelaughter!

        • mburke@pcug.org.au says:

          Way back when dinosaurs roamed I was an articled clerk in a country legal practice. My boss answered my bleats to the effect that legalese was impenetrable BS, and why weren’t the laws written in plain language that everyone could understand, by sending me to research S.92 of the Constitution which, with admirable clarity and apparent simplicity, said – in main part:

          “92. On the imposition of uniform duties and customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.”

          • mburke@pcug.org.au says:

            Bah. Trigger finger.

            At that time, during the early 1960s, lawyers were making vast fortunes in the courts in what was probably the most litigated section of the Constitution. It might still be the case, but the subsequent approval for lawyers to act on a “no win, no fee” basis, and in potentially even more lucrative class actions (then deemed by Law Societies as professionally unethical) probably gives them less incentive to go after S.92.

  • Robinoz says:

    The degradation of the British Legal System is indeed worrying. It’s almost as though there is a greater power (maybe Middle Eastern creditors) who are controlling the UK, Australia and other countries and forcing our governments to accede to their wishes.

    Fortunately, at least in one state in Australia (Qld, and hopefully others), a person under the specified age of consent, cannot consent to a sexual act. I’m surprised if this isn’t the case in the UK.

    When freedom of thought and speech is not allowed because of religious or other reasons, we are on a slippery slope and the lives of those hundreds of thousands who died to ensure it was in vain.

Leave a Reply