Breaking news: Rightwing nutjob bloggers proved wrong as judicial sense prevails
Paul Clarke, the bloke gound guilty of firearms possession last month, will not be going to prison after all.
All the outraged nutjob bloggers and their commenters who went round saying that his conviction and fast-approaching five-year prison term were entirely reflective of Britain under ZanuLiebour will no doubt be blogging and commenting to say how wrong they were to jump to conclusions without first bothering to looks at any of the facts.
Yeah, I’m sure they will.
Categories: Law
Was listening to the chap on the radio. Actually, from what was said by the local police and by himself, there may have been grounds for being suspicious even if not for actually convicting him.
Apparently he’d been investigated by the police before, on several occasions, including house searches under warrant. And there was a delay between him finding the weapon and handing it in, which the CPS questioned.
It’s been a funny old week all round re right wing nut jobs and police and firearms and evidence and such like.
Two Met Police employees in trouble re allagedly concealing evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case.
Meanwhile similar accusations against Kent Police re the 22.9.89 IRA bombing of Deal Royal Marines Barracks were accompanied by Baroness Scotland deciding that Kent Chief constable is her preferred choice for civilianization.
It also emerged that Jean Bultot had been an instructor on bogus military courses run at said Deal Barracks between 1975 and 82. In 1982 Brigadier Mike Harvey of the ARMY had the effrontery to report to MI5 that he thought the Royal Marines at Deal Barracks were getting it a tad wrong and that the wrong sort of right wing nut job was involved there.
Earlier this year (Tom Newton Dunn) The Sun exposed James Shortt as bogus former SAS. Rather embarrassing as he was consultant on Cabinet Bunker Security. Of course it was he who ran the bogus “Combat Training Team Royal Marines” at Deal Barracks all those years ago.
Evidence, complaint and informatioon has flowed towards the first black Chief constable. Unlawfully modified shotguns, unlawful sub machine guns, unlawful live fire training at two Kent civilian ranges. Possible involvement of IRA affectionate right wing nut jobs.
What has this all to do with the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Possibly a relevant question is gun supply to right wing nut jobs and allaged expulsions by BNP in Kent of members getting involved with armed paramilitary training with another rightwing nut group. And of course the fact that at the time Kent Police conducted their investigation into Met handling of the Lawrence case they were refusing to comply with a call for inquiry and report into the matters above (Deal Barracks security history and IRA bombing etc) made by their own Police Authority).
Jack Straw, presumably most anxious to deny Stephen Lawrence justice whilst promoting the myth of institutionalized racism, protected the Kent inquiry, into Met handling of the Lawrence case, by refusing to compel the inquiry called for about Kent Police handling of Deal Barracks security complaints, evcidence being allegedly stolen at the bomb scene, Reliance Security being exempted from the bombing inquiry, range and firearms offences and gun supply chain.
So now we see the juxtaposition again. The Stephen Lawrence case getting attention whilst a Govt minister protects a Kent Chief constable. (Just as Jack Straw protected Kent Chief constable Phillips re Lawrence Inquiry and later by civilianizing him rather abruptly into an alleged sinecure)
If in the background to BOTH the Deal Barracks bombing case andthe Stephen Lawrence case there is common ground of gun running then let’s get it in the open eh ? I support justice for Stephen Lawrence and for the 11 Royal Marines murdered at Deal Barracks 1989.
I abhor the fact that Stephen’s death was exploited to promote a myth of institutionalized racism. One of the casualties of that exploitation was Justice for Stephen.
The first time I encountered the concept of “Intitutionalized racism” was 1971 when I got a Home Office commendation for spotting it as a red herring in research into peer pressure effects on we trainee constables. Yes it was invented as a red herring to test for compliance and gullibility. We kinda thought then it is too good a red herring to go away it will wait in the Home Office archives until one day a gullible Home Secretary, with no experience save education establishments and debating chambers, will fail its gullibility test and promote it to bogus reality.
In the early part of the 20th Century a similar mass hysteria manifested. Hun agents in the establishment. Institutionalized hunophilia if you like. And a century before that it was mass defection of secret societies to Napoleon .. Institutionalized republicanism if you like.
Well in fairness there were Jacobin societies in the UK, during and after the French Revolution.
1799 Unlawful Societies Act.
“All the outraged nutjob bloggers and their commenters who went round saying that his conviction and fast-approaching five-year prison term were entirely reflective of Britain under ZanuLiebour”
Check the archives of the Soapbox, Paul. I admit I was originally wrong on one detail: I thought the law was a result of a trend which started with Michael Howard in the Home office. I admit I was wrong: it was far earlier — the 60s, although it’s fair to say that Labour did make the law even worse in government. However, I — and in fact, many others who I have read on this particular example — have not attributed it to New Labour whatsoever.
“will no doubt be blogging and commenting to say how wrong they were to jump to conclusions without first bothering to looks at any of the facts.”
…speaking of not bothering to look at any of the facts…
Are you aware that Clarke still gets a criminal record out of this? That he carries a 12 month suspended sentence? All this, despite the fact that how he *procured* the weapon was never scrutinised in court?
You assume that all people voicing concern about this believed Clarke to be innocent: I don’t. I admit that at first, I thought it likely; I’m less certain than I was. But this is immaterial — in fact, if Clarke did procure the weapon illegally, it makes this case even worse: the court was unable to test it, so the end sentence might have been too lenient.
This is concerning from the perspective of a good judiciary. Because it is a strict liability clause, the police have far more power to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent than the judiciary actually do. The fact is that the law is ludicrous, whether you consider Clarke to be guilty or innocent is immaterial.
You can check the archives of TDS if you like, but you’ll find that I acknowledged all feedback and attempted not to “jump to conclusions”. I specifically stated when blogging to voice my concern that I did not know whether Clarke was innocent or guilty, and moreover, did not view that as the point.