Griffin - Collett retrial set for May 15th

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 17 February 2006 20:59.

So, Dennis Healey’s famous advice about stopping digging has been ignored. The Home Office and the CPS just can’t resist putting Nick Griffin and Mark Collett back in the dock.

Perhaps they feel they have no choice - the sanctity of the MultiCult cannot be preserved if BNP members can legally tell one another that Islam is a wicked religion.

Perhaps they only really care that their private, Marxoid prejudices are exercised. After all, with the Anti-Hunting Bill the left was happy to turn the toff-hating, cuddly fox-loving public into veritable hunt supporters. It has a long tradition of self-indulgent gesture politics regardless of cost.

In any event, the judge has named May 15th for the start of the trial. That will be eleven days after the Council Elections to be held at the beginning of the month. The BNP is hoping for a good showing as a result of the first trial. As I said on February 2nd, none of this is going to get any easier for the Crown.

I suppose the chances will increase of a few arrests in connection with the hate protest held outside the Danish Embassy in London. I can already hear the bearded ones’ brief wearily explaining to the court that sorry, sorry but no offense, mate, and the placards were just meant to illustrate how those peaceful, brotherly, vibrant people see Mr Rose’s blasphemous cartoons. But Nick and Mark could be inside by then, of course, if the new jury is more Pee-Cee than the last one.

We don’t know the balance of the original jury’s opinion on the live charges. The impression given by Griffin on his Free Speech Blog was that no prospect of agreement existed at all. Obviously, the judge accepted that or the charges would not have been quashed. One might be over-confident in assessing the chances of a successful prosecution this time as distinctly low. Over-confidence in legal matters is never advisable, but in the absence of any known grounds for the Crown’s optimism - any new evidence or new witnesses - it does look that way.

Bear in mind also that a second trial for Griffin and Collett is a trial also for the Establishment. A collapse or another failure to agree a verdict - or, of course, Not Guilty verdicts - would be a huge propaganda coup for the BNP while the CPS and police would be compromised by their clear political bias. There is a lot more riding on this than the fate of two minor British politicians.

Whatever drove the decision to press ahead, this prosecution has “dangerous” and “unwise” stamped everywhere. Expect the media to greet it with a marked lack of enthusiam and to report it with minimal interest.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 03:13 | #

I suspect (and I dont think I’m alone here) that this obviously political decision came from the very top. The Marxian logic behind the legislation which allows such prosecutions is racially alien and its adoption in legal terms is total anathema to both English Common Law and the Roman/Germanic principles upon which other White legal systems are based.
If the government lose this one, we can prepare ourselves for future cases of this type being tried without a jury and this will doubtless coincide with more women/minority judicial appointments from so-called human-rights barristers’ chambers.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:38 | #

Send them to the gas chambers! I know we have some in the USA, that is, if they can’t be found in Europe.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:27 | #

Al,

The suspension of jury trial already exists, of course, in the Diplock Courts of Northern Ireland. To carry it over into non-terrorist criminal trials on the mainland might seem to be no greater leap than the suspension of Habeous Corpus - but that too is terrorist-related. Terrorism rightly occupies a unique place in the heirarchy of politicians’ nightmares. I am not sure that the failure to imprison BNP activists quite ranks with it yet, mad as noonday dogs as all (white) anti-racists are.

I suppose the government would have to demonstrate an inability to obtain guilty verdicts through the institutional racism of juries and the society at large from which they are drawn. There’s plenty of groundwork laid for such a conclusion. The legal profession itself has fallen under the petty Robespierres’ suspicion. See here and here. The wider orgy of middle-class angst about IR has been great fun. See here, here , here and here. Professor Heinz Kiosk is alive and well.

But still I don’t think all this is enough to put Nick Griffin in front of a latterday Diplock Court in Leeds. It would turn him into the Mandela of the North! Not, of course, a black communist one, though.

Posted by Matra on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:27 | #

The Diplock courts were necessary in Northern Ireland due to the sectarian nature of the society. Even without jury intimidation working class RCs and Prods would have been reluctant to convict ‘our own kind’ of killing one of ‘the other’ especially at a time when both communities felt (correctly) that they were being targeted.

Unlike Northern Ireland where the sectarianism is inherent the growth of similar community tensions and conflict on the mainland is due to government policy over the past few decades. A day may well come when trial by jury is suspended in Great Britain not only for terrorism offences but for all crimes as it may be the only way to get convictions when the defendant and accused are of different ethnic groups. The British should have learned from Northern Ireland that ethnic diversity leads to sectarianism, which in turn leads to the curtailment of civil liberties by the managerial state.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:42 | #

Knowing that creating even more skeptics and deniers will be the inevitable consequence of criminalization of Holocaust denial, one has to wonder why the powers-that-be are doing it.

The Holocaust has become an industry in its own right and it simply perpetuates itself as noted by Norman Finkelstein in his book, Holocaust Industry. And as a result, there is tremendous pressure from organised Jewry to maintain the status quo as regards these laws.

The Anti-Defamation League alone spends millions lobbying in favour of laws that oulaw Holocaust “denial” (in truth any expression of skeptcism about the official story - even though the official story has also changed countless times since the 1940s).

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:27 | #

A bit of BNP Agit Prop, not bad.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/cartoon.pdf

Posted by Amalek on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:52 | #

Fred—As to nomenclature, many thoughtful Jews, including anti-Zionists, prefer the less loaded Hebrew word ‘Shoah’ (catastrophe or disaster) to refer to the undoubted persecution of their brethren by Nazi Germany during WW2.

This preference also conveys sympathy for their semitic cousins the Palestinian Arabs (the ones Golda Meir said did not exist) who refer to their expulsion from Mandate Palestine in 1948 as ‘al-Naqba’ (‘catastrophe’ in Arabic).