Kangaroo courts

One of the central themes in Robert Bolt’s A Man for all Seasons was conscience, and acting according to it but another was that when you rely on the state and the law to protect you, it’s what we’d call today a conservative view and not a little naive.

For so many of us on this side, ruled by the Rule of Law and not by the mob rule of laws [see Blair and Brown for the plethora of those], it is bewildering just how the Law is abused. Supposedly rational people, we look on in horror at this sort of person [it’s unpleasant but please invest a few seconds listening to her]:

What we have there is some truly evil muvvers up above who rule us, using henchmen like that Waters to whip up baying mobs into a frenzy in order to bring down someone standing in their way.

Where is the Rule of Law there? Where is any sort of justice? What the hell is this Grand Jury anyway? You convene those, supposedly, when there have been gross crimes, e.g. Clinton’s Benghazi and email actions, with FBI collusion or with Obama’s Fast and Furious. You have to have a crime first, rather than convening something in order to find out if there is any crime anywhere.

There is the proper function of national institutions and then there is the hijacking and mocking of those institutions.

A personal tale

Very soon after I came back here in 2008, having missed a decade, not unlike Rip van Winkle, I was caught in something I’d never seen before. I’d read about it – Jeffrey Archer’s First Among Equals had a chapter on such things.

In the book, Andrew Fraser, Labour, had done something to offend the union bosses and political jackanapes and he, the sitting MP, was called to give an account of ‘his actions’. It was a beat-up from start to finish. Some of you might recall that the book had some wonderful artwork of the various characters and one picture which stood out for me was the local constituency nobodies all seated behind a long table as he came in – they looked uncannily like a Salem Witch Trial, with suitably long faces and in a manner of a priori execution.

In short, they were there to do him in at this kangaroo court, this star chamber – justice was the last thing on their minds.

Similarly a couple of years later, I saw a clip of Boris Johnson as mayor. Now look, no one is defending Johnson overall in the things he did but on this occasion, he went to a meeting stacked with Labour nobodies and it was quickly apparent it was not a ‘meeting’ at all but a Grand Jury, which wished to go into his whole history from A to Z.

He got up and left. What struck me again were the pseudo-grave faces as they had decided they were judge and jury on the career of B Johnson, gross over-reach, it had nothing to do with the minor issue they officially wanted discussed.

Just to get my own personal anecdote out of the way, I was forced, as many of you are, to attend a government course of some days, which was the greatest waste of time and paper I’d seen in many a year and no one was taking it seriously – everyone went through the motions, parrotting diversity buzzwords to get the tick in the box and there was much banter.

If I mention that I was with two ladies, that comes into it in a few moments. Some girl was holding forth about her singing and dancing – she was apparently in some band, people were commenting and I said well, are you going to give us a demonstration? Jump up on the table and go for it, it’d be far more interesting than anything else here today.

That caused a bit of mirth, especially with the two ladies I was with who, incidentally, were both mothers, who also worked part time and who were trying to ‘improve’ themselves – respect, kudos to them.

Three days later, I had a letter asking me to come in and discuss a ‘serious matter’.

I did go in and as I walked in the room, it was Andrew Fraser all over again. They were arrayed behind a long table, the head of the department was there, also the toerag who’d been taking the course [one of the new pussified males, in many ways worse than feminazis], one other I knew and a couple of others.

WTF, methought.

It opened with me not being accused but actually convicted of an act of sexism, was there anything I wished to say before sentence was pronounced?

Hang on, hang on, what exactly am I meant to have done? Gross sexism, yes but what exactly am I accused of? Specifically.

Never I mind?

Well I jolly well do mind – you’ve convened a tribunal here, a jury – yes you have, this is not a preliminary Q&A nor anything like that – and you won’t even say of what I’m accused, nor who accused me.  That is illegal.

You’re not bound to tell me who my accuser is? Yes you are, you’re very much bound to tell me. Pardon? Her identity must be kept secret to protect her?  From what?  I’m not to go near her?

Are you aware, I asked them, that that little minx was also boasting at that session that she’d diddled a school she’d been in out of £10,000 in compo, plus she’s accused your department of … [and I listed the details].

Irrelevant you say? Not to do with this case? The man who ran that course, sitting here now, was three feet from us when that happened, he heard all of that and he never mentioned those other things to you? Nor that there was an atmosphere of banter in there the whole time, which is the context in which everything was said?

I left the room, they consulted and decided not to proceed. But I’d ‘better not do it again’.

What worried the hell out of me all the same were three things:

1. There was no due process being followed here, just lip service to concepts, buzzwords according to their interpretation.

2. The warning not to go anywhere near her was tantamount to being preconvicted of harassment, which is character assassination, slander. I replied that it was dead easy to stay away from that female as she’d only ever turned up to that one session and I know you’re going after her for that alone.

How did I know? Never you mind, it’s not relevant. Oh, it’s relevant now, is it?

3. This whole thing was nothing to do with the pretext, it was all about my perceived general insubordination and failure to show ‘due respect’ to my ‘superiors’. And because those ‘superiors’ were ‘women’, they drew conclusions just as if they’d been black.

That’s what this had all been about and that’s the moment I completely altered my approach in the new, ruined UK I was discovering – never saying anything, watching every word I said from then on anywhere I went officially, and obliquely complimenting any female leftist I had to deal with along the way.

You can call that sexist, I call it survival against what are, in those roles, monsters.

I then went to work investigating that little bint who’d tried it on and presented a dossier to them a week later. They’d made a grave mistake pinning their hopes on that little madam. As for my two friends, the two ladies, they’d been grilled about me too but hadn’t played ball. Why would they?

And that’s where it was driven home that there were two entirely different species of women in the UK now – those who were good, the ones I remember from yesteryear – and this new, ultra-feminist, rabid civil service type.

Let’s get off that and onto Alan Dershowitz:

In addition to falsely accusing their political enemies of criminal conduct, some extremists, who are determined to see Donald Trump indicted, have come up with a new weapon: accusing those who disagree with them of “racism.”

It began when I said in public what every experienced criminal lawyer was thinking in private:

“The second one [grand jury] is important because of where it is. It gives the prosecutor the power to indict in the District of Columbia, which is a district that is heavily Democratic, and would have a jury pool very unfavorable to Trump and the Trump administration.

So it gives the prosecutor a tremendous tactical advantage… The District of Columbia is always solidly Democratic and has an ethnic and racial composition which may be very unfavorable to the Trump administration…”

You can read that one for yourself, I’m more concerned about the beat-up here. This is germane to the issue:

What anyone on the Deplorable/conservative/libertarian side must realize is that unless he or she is in good health, is strong, hasn’t had a heart attack or similar, doesn’t suffer fools and is a halfway reasonable reader and investigator – a tall order expecting that of the general population – then those bastards mentioned above are going to ride all over that poor sod and all sorts of kangaroo courts are going to silence him or her.

I’m not saying that that ‘table top’ comment was in order – it was part of general banter and not any serious issue – but it does highlight what they’ll do to you if they can and if you think there is the slightest justice in that, then I have a battleship to sell you.

It ain’t nuffink to do with justice, not a sausage. This is all about power and beating down anyone who disagrees.

Google

We’ve all seen the spectacle of the dismissed geek who mouthed off a bit but have you seen the people who did it to him? Here is the head honcho of the ‘team’ who did it:

Something of note – Twitter has placed a lock on her twitter account so that anything she tweets cannot be deleted or challenged, whereas Twitter itself regularly messes with Assange’s account, taking him down, blocking, removing supporters.

Oh, and by the way:

And here is dear Michelle’s ‘team’ of starry-eyed youngsters at Google in the diversity department, trainee monsters all:

Q.E.D.

Implications

Do these need to be spelt out? It’s nothing less than the suppression of dissent and the hijacking and using the tools of justice to twist around and push propaganda.

And yes, Hitler does spring to mind. And no, no one is going to do what so many Deplorable pundits say will happen and all rise up – as Laura Ingraham says for example in the US, as Judge Jeannine says.

No, ladies, no one is going to combine – everyone has his or her own life, usually a working life or else they’re decrepit and/or in poor health.

It ain’t gonna happen, it’s a pipe dream.

All that’s going to happen is that those writing blogs such as this, plus the readers, are going to be tracked down and marked to be picked up and re-educated. Don’t forget I came back from Russia where I’d seen the end result of this approach.

In order to save our civilization, in other words, it’s not going to be enough for the ordinary person to merely indicate a view or stay shtum to self-protect. The very nature of the way those bastards operate against us, the ordinary person will end up being some sort of superhero – just as ordinary people did in WW2, reluctant heroes.

Do we have it in us to do this? For if we don’t, then you know what is going to happen. Pastor Niemoeller had some things to say on it, as did Edmund Burke earlier.

By the way, Godfrey rises from the ashes: @EverydayLibFem

1 comment for “Kangaroo courts

  1. Ted Treen
    August 10, 2017 at 11:37 pm

    Damn! I thought “Lib Fem” was an abbreviation of “Libidinous Female”.

    How very disappointing.

Comments are closed.