I was sent an e mail this morning from someone concerning a posting by the demented harridan and banshee Sharon Ebanks
(daughter of black West Indian immigrant Radwell Ebanks http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaymercury/news/tm_objectid=17216617&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=family-secret-of-bnp-s-sharon-name_page.html - note the jawline, she looks just like her dad )
which had been posted on the website of the known Marixist and red grass Peter Rushton. In the post on Rushtons website the demented banshee had made accusations that I had drafted up the letter to Mike Easter which had been the basis of his dismissal from the BNP.
As usual this was complete bollocks. I have had ZERO input on the Mike Easter case and as usual this was pure crap disseminated into the sewers of the internet to feed the rats that infest the sites where it was posted. The fact that any Nationalists have any time at all for the insane ramblings of this ethnically 'diverse' lunatic in the grip of an ethno-masochistic psychosis amazes me. Then again the gullibility and stupidity of some British nationalists is amazing to behold.
This is a woman who actually sent the BNP officer responsible for dealing with her disciplinary an e mail that said she was going to be represented in her BNP disciplinary Tribunal by 'a Chief Constable ' !!!! The word 'delusional' comes to mind. Either that or she was going to be represented by the Chief Constable of the West Midlands - which raise some interesting questions in itself.
Over the years I have seen the tide of nationalism ebb and flow and seen what strange creatures have washed up on our shores.
Take Adrian Davis for example, the Barrister who represented David Irving in his libel case a few years ago and helped him lose his home and savings. The only winner was Adrian Davis who got his legal fees. Irving later called Davis 'incompetent' on his website.
This a man who recent escapades include ;
1) Taking on a libel case involving Tess Culnane that lost her £80,000 pounds. Luckily the Liberal Democrats took pity on her and decided not to take her house from her. The ony winner was Adrian Davis who got his legal fees.
2) Taking on a libel case for Jay Lee that resulted in him having to drop his right to claim damages from the ASLEF union for unlawful expulsion ( a case which I won in the Employment Tribunal ) with the net result that the only winner was Adrian Davis who got his legal fees.
3) Taking on a case for John Tyndall to get him back into the BNP after he was expelled that resulted in costs for the BNP and also costs for John Tyndall ( the ony winner again being Adrian Davis who got his legal fees )
4) Taking on the Chris and Barry Roberts case against Searchlight which resulted in them having to pay £150,000 in costs and having to sell their houses. The only winner was Adrian davis who got his legal fees.
5) He is presently taking on the Simon Shepherd and Luke Farrell case. Though Simon Shepherd and Luke Farrell are obviously people with significant mental health issues ( Simon Shepherd is particularly fond of Cannibalism stories on his insane website and is well known as one of the world leading misogynists )the fact that Adrian Davis has been hired to represent them perhaps should be entered in their please for mitigation as proof of the extent of their illness.In the first pre-trial hearing on the important issue of the courts jurisdiction as regards posting on an internet server and website located in the US, the judge held that the comments posted by Shepherd and Farrell were within the jurisdiction of the Uk and therefore within the jurisdiction of the court to hear.
What amazes me is that so far no-one has realised the implications of this decision by the Judge to allow the case to go ahead. It means that whatever you post on the internet in the UK, regardless of where the server or website is physically hosted in the world, then you are liable under the Public Order Act 1986 in Britain for those comments.
Though the POA 1986 was never designed to cover the whole planet, and was enacted before most people had even heard of the Internet, the judge has held that the whole world now comes under the remit of the POA 1986. Talk about judicial activism and legal creativity. Thanks to the work of Adrian Davis this means the Internet has now come under the remit of the UK law. The last refugse of free speech in the so called Free World which was the internet ( " If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky )has now been lost to the enemy of all those that cherish and value free speech.
This means, in the event of them being found guilty, that the Internet is no longer a place where free speech reigns. Thanks Adrian - great work ( NOT ! )
The Chris and Barry Roberts case was also a particularly interesting case to examine. The case against the BNP activists Chris and Barry Roberts was heard before Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, a long time member of the British Communist Party and President of the British Institute of Human Rights with links to Liberty and Amnesty International.
Under the dicta enshrined in the Pinochet Principle in Re Pinochet (1998) http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990115/pino01.htm the Judge should have withdrawn from the case as a long time member of the Communist Party can scarcely be said to be ambivalent to nationalism and nationalist activists in their court.
This is what the case dicta says ;
" 2. Apparent bias
As I have said, Senator Pinochet does not allege that Lord Hoffmann was in fact biased. The contention is that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased, that is to say, it is alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias.
The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. This principle, as developed by the courts, has two very similar but not identical implications. First it may be applied literally: if a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. The second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome, but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial, for example because of his friendship with a party. This second type of case is not strictly speaking an application of the principle that a man must not be judge in his own cause, since the judge will not normally be himself benefiting, but providing a benefit for another by failing to be impartial.
In my judgment, this case falls within the first category of case, viz where the judge is disqualified because he is a judge in his own cause. In such a case, once it is shown that the judge is himself a party to the cause, or has a relevant interest in its subject matter, he is disqualified without any investigation into whether there was a likelihood or suspicion of bias. The mere fact of his interest is sufficient to disqualify him unless he has made sufficient disclosure: see Shetreet, Judges on Trial, (1976), p. 303; De Smith, Woolf & Jowel, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th ed. (1995), p. 525. I will call this "automatic disqualification."
" The rationale of the whole rule is that a man cannot be a judge in his own cause. In civil litigation the matters in issue will normally have an economic impact; therefore a judge is automatically disqualified if he stands to make a financial gain as a consequence of his own decision of the case. But if, as in the present case, the matter at issue does not relate to money or economic advantage but is concerned with the promotion of the cause, the rationale disqualifying a judge applies just as much if the judge's decision will lead to the promotion of a cause in which the judge is involved together with one of the parties. Thus in my opinion if Lord Hoffmann had been a member of AI he would have been automatically disqualified because of his non-pecuniary interest in establishing that Senator Pinochet was not entitled to immunity. Indeed, so much I understood to have been conceded by Mr. Duffy. "
This rule for Judges is in place in order to ensure that there is no chance of any judicial bias in legal cases. The law requires that Judges ‘ Must not appear biased or impartial ‘ .
The Judges past adherence to the Communist cause in the Barry and Chris Roberts case meant the Judge was not fit to hear a case involving well known Nationalist activists for the BNP involved in a libel case against a well known Communist election candidate and Communist supporter - this being the convicted liar and thief Gerry Gable of the Searchlight magazine. The fact that the Judge is president of a legal group that supports left wing legal proffesionals who use the law for political purposes should also have meant he should have withdrawn. But instead of withdrawing from the case Judge Sir Stephen Sedley , and the other two judges on the bench hearing the appeal, found against the BNP members and at the same time ‘clarified‘ the position of the libel laws in the UK to ensure that the Roberts brothers and other British Nationalists in the future did not come under its protection. In effect the judgement said ' Searchlight can now print any old load of lies and bollocks it gets off the internet and publish it with impunity '.
If one employee of Searchlight is sitting in one room of Searchlies office in London posting lies on Stormfront under the psuedonym 'Hitlers Left Bollock ' such as saying that a BNP member is hiding the body of Heinrich Himmler in their fridge and that said body of dead nazi defrosted and was present at the RWB and signing copies of Mein Kampf, then Searchlies can now print that in their rag and not face being sued by the person they name as storing the body in the freezer. The good judge has give the media and searchlight a license to peddle as much bullshit about the BNP as they wish and now they need never fear being sued.
What a farce.
The Roberts Brothers were not told of the Judges political affiliations. The law required that Judge Sir Stephen Sedley do one of two things ;
1) Either withdraw from the case
2) Disclose his past affiliations to the Communist Party and give the claimants the right to decide whether he should withdraw.
Neither was done. But at the same time neither was the judge challenged by adrian Davis as per his suitability to hear the case.
Judge Sir Stephen Sedley was the senior Judge on the appeal hearing the Roberts case, this meant his comments and opinions would have borne great weight with the other less senior judges hearing the case. The fact he neither withdrew from the case , nor was he challenged by Adrian Davis as per his suitability to hear the case, is a disgrace.
The British Institute of Human Rights on its website even hosts articles attacking the BNP !
Also one of the current trustees of the Institute of Human Rights is Geoffrey Bindman of Bindman and Co, the same legal firm that represented Shahid Malik ( now a Labour MP ) in his libel case against former BNP activist Steve Smith.
In 2005 the CRE Deputy Chair Sarah Smith gave a speech at the Institute of Human Rights - and this was after the CRE had said it was going to target the BNP.
Now the question is - why didnt Davis challenge the Judges right to hear the case ?
What is very interesting is that Adrian Davis and Lord Justice Sedley had met before - it was Judge Sedley that refused David Irving permission to appeal his libel case.
Now isnt that an interesting coincidence - Lord Justice Sedley refused Irving permission to appeal his case and Adrian Davis was Irvings barrister in the libel case.
For those that are interested Adrian Davis posts on Stormfront under the name Insurgent - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=408864