The principle of inhumane treatment, simply because authorities don’t like you
Let’s imagine the egregious Gina Miller got hers for her well out of order actions and was sent to prison along with the rest of the obstructive, treasonous Remoaners.
Of course I’d support that she be charged with trying to overturn the result of a national plebiscite. However, if I then read on social media that she’d been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced, all within four hours, that in fact they’d changed the charges between the arrest and trial, that she had not been allowed counsel but had been appointed a populist lawyer at the last moment to defend her, someone no way guaranteed to be fair and impartial, then I would certainly not support that.
If it further came out that she had been moved from a safe prison to a prison heavily anti-her type, then I’d certainly start moving in defence of her rights and if I heard that:
1. She had had to request solitary confinement to escape being harmed and even murdered;
2. Other prisoners were allowed to her metal door, belting on it, shouting obscenities day and night;
3. They’d been allowed at her window out onto the world to spit through the bars at her, meaning she had to close it in the heat we’ve just been having;
4. Someone on the prison staff had three times left the cell door slightly ajar and those prisoners out of their cells …
… then I’d be up in arms on her behalf, no matter what she’d previously done. There’s not the slightest doubt about that and I’d say many would join me in so doing. Because that is not only unlawful and outrageous, but it is inciting murder.
This issue is as old as the hills, it was the centrepiece of Bolt’s Man for all Seasons – the whole principle of British justice. In the US, they have a thing called the Constitution to protect people, here we have nothing which can’t be ignored by judges.
Caolan Robertson tweets:
Tommy Robinson has just revealed he was placed in a cell OPPOSITE the prison mosque. Where excrement was thrown through his door often. As well as screams and taunts by the high Muslim population. This was clearly set up to destroy his mental health.
Ezra Levant does not dwell on the release of TR but does get down to the inhumane treatment meted out, the cruel and unusual nature of it. I doesn’t matter a damn if you don’t like Robinson or his past, that is simply not the point here – did it take a Canadian to come to London to point this out?
The principle of being high profile or not having a machine behind you
Tommy Robinson certainly does have clout nowadays – tweeter Martin Cole reports:
Tommy Robinson Gives POWERFUL Interview with Tucker Carlson:
The high profile Ezra Levant, of Rebel Media, also states:
300+ people a minute are watching this shocking interview of Tommy Robinson. That’s 5 per second. It’s going viral. It’s becoming an international scandal.
It very much is and it’s TR’s only real defence – that he’s now too high profile to touch. But do you remember the story of Melanie Shaw [search this site for the post]:
Very similar case, no publicity machine behind her, just a plea for help. Why is no one taking up her cause? Not pretty enough?
That could be you or me, dear friend.
The principle of habeas corpus and not a rush to judgment
Between Rumpole and Perry Mason, the presumption of innocence is a principle in our legal system which has been well established for a long time, the only bulwark against kangaroo courts and star chambers.
Paul Embery, tweeter:
I hold no candle at all for Tommy Robinson. But we should all be deeply alarmed at the appeal judge’s scathing assessment of how he was imprisoned so hastily and without being given the opportunity to prepare a defence. The law should apply equally, to everyone. No exceptions.
In TR’s case, footage shows the judge laughing in an upstairs room, looking down, surrounded by police officers. A minute later, they arrest him on one charge and then change it between then and the court case a couple of hours later, at which the judge did not even look at more than a few seconds of what TR was being charged with, let alone all the other legal anomalies, and denying him legal representation of his choice.
Tweeter Legiron wrote:
It doesn’t matter what you think of Tommy Robinson. What matters is – if they can do this to him, they can do it to you. All it takes is a little wrongspeak. Are you so very sure you’re totally safe? One wrong word, a thoughtless comment … Gotcha.
If that disproportionate and essentially wrong treatment can happen to him, and if even commenters on this blog can support that on the strength of the wrongheaded judgement of this Secret Barrister is a very worrying thing for our protection.
Also, look closely at Sarah Champion’s treatment by Labour and for what? She demanded something be done for justice for the thousands of raped underage girls and for that, her career has ended.
As with Legiron, I don’t give a damn who it is – I’d even defend Alistair Campbell’s right to a fair trial and safe incarceration if convicted, right up to his execution day and then on that day, it would have to be humane, which is more than he was towards all Blair’s victims.
The ghost of Niemoeller is very much hovering over this matter – that if you fail to speak out and defend anyone at all wrongly treated under our system, then you are well underway to living in a totalitarian state … and those words are not just bandied about.
What’s in a name?
I can’t believe someone at this site tried to put up a case that because his name Stephen Yaxley Lennon has questions about it, that that constitutes reason to suspend habeas corpus. One is tried on the current charge, not something from the past and not on your name.
There is one ground on which to question a name – if the real name is probably involved in the matter being investigated, prejudicially, plus that name is being actively hidden. A hypothetical example is if someone who sets up a day care centre for kiddies in Europe is connected with the name of, say, Solvay, then there is good cause for concern if the matter being tried is paedophilia [see the post The Missing Children at OoL].
The only reason the name Drumpf is of any relevance is if it is also the name of a powerful German Bruderheist family such as the Warburgs etc. But if the names don’t lead anywhere criminal, then what’s the point of including that in your argument?
Tommy Robinson may one day turn out to be an establishment plant, a ruse to cause conflagration in the society, to flush out the latent rebels in order for the state to arrest them. Might be, might not be.
But that does not alter one iota the flouting of justice and the nature of cruel and unusual punishments creeping into our justice system … because you or I could well be next.
This clown in the clip below, to his credit, calls out his own and other media’s failure to act on the “grooming” gangs, a misnomer if ever there was one – they’re establishment plus Muslim rape gangs of underage children – but what reason does he give for taking up the cause now?
So “populists” can’t “hijack” the cause for our “nefarious” purposes. What an idiot: