EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE ETHNIC MAJORITY

An open and shut case?

Mistrial by Media

 

The conviction, in 2012, of Messrs Dobson and Norris of the murder of Stephen Lawrence has highlighted a number of very serious issues.

It is evident that the political Establishment was determined to stitch up these men (no angels, admittedly) at almost any cost, including taking the desperate measures of abolishing our time-honoured ‘no double jeopardy’ rule of English common law and setting a dangerous prededent of retrospection in the application of the change. Furthermore, the campaign of defamation waged against Dobson and Norris by the ‘mainstream’ media over many years made it impossible for them to receive a fair trial.

The Establishment maintains a conspiracy of silence about the disproportionate preponderance of English victims of racially aggravated murder over English perpetrators of racially aggravated murder. Indeed, it is responsible for creating this horrific situation, through its policies of encouraging the mass immigration of ethnic aliens from lands where life is cheap and institutional discrimination in their favour and against the indigenous peoples of Britain, particularly the English.

The Establishment operates a double standard where race is concerned.  Where, unusually, the victim of a crime is black or Asian and the alleged perpetrator English, the police and CPS treat the crime as racially-motivated as a matter of course and comprehensive media coverage is guaranteed.  But where, much more commonly, the victim is English and the alleged perpetrator black or Asian, the police and CPS rarely, if ever, treat the crime as racially-motivated and the national media will not publicize the crime, “in the interests of community cohesion,” to quote their hypocritical cant.

We, the English, demand equal treatment under the law.

This hard-hitting video speaks the truth and boldly: if you’re a member of the ethnic majority in Britain today, you’re a second class citizen, whose life and limb are at the mercy of ethnic aliens.

This post was written by

24 Comments on "EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE ETHNIC MAJORITY"

  • Steve Gray says

    Yes it proves that often there is a dual or parallel justice system that works one way if you’re white & another if you are not.

    You need enough white people to get annoyed about it & demand equality under the law.

    Until then expect it to get worse.

    Why is the white man missing from adverts with couples, because he’s redundant!

    • Andrew says

      It’s not a white v non-white issue, as you appear to be suggesting. Many of the ethnic alien immigrants, who receive special treatment which is denied the indigenous peoples of our country (particularly the English), are white, for example.

  • Steve Gray says

    Also consider the Night stalker, he was not white but I bet his victims were!

    • Andrew says

      Don’t you know they were?

  • Steve Gray says

    I would also say that you shouldn’t use the word “ethnics” in that way as we are all ethnic in one way or another.

    Even the phrase “ethnic minority” is misleading as in some areas (of the UK) now, whites are the ethnic minority.

    Maybe use white/non white, European, African & Asian to describe people?

    • Andrew says

      I never use the word ethnics; ‘ethnic’, as an adjective, certainly; ‘ethnics’, as a noun, no.

      One should use the word English when referring to people who are English. The ‘mainstream’ media try to pretend that the English are not a distinct ethno-nationality (which of course we are) by using the generic term white as a substitute.

  • Steve Gray says

    Consider the RIPA legislation, which is meant for terrorism but is used by councils to prosecute people over bins!

    Which is a form of “Mission creep” I guess.

    Also consider the fact that the Dobson/Acourt gang were thugs who attacked white people but nothing much was done about that, assuming the press reports are largely correct.

    So that is further evidence of PC bias.

    But this gang are not white heroes.

    • Andrew says

      Whoever said that Dobson and Norris are heroes? Certainly not me.

      I have said that they did not receive a fair trial and nor did they. Their convictions are unsafe and should be quashed, as no doubt they will be in due course.

      Dobson and Norris are neither heroes nor martyrs. They are, however, victims. They are just two more (albeit now notorious) victims out of many, sacrificed on the altar of the Establishment’s policy of anti-English discrimination.

  • The police were told to spend millions to nail the young lads over the stephen lawrence fiasco, they entered and put secret miniature cameras in all their homes, with listening devices, they opened their mail and the mail of freinds and family, monitored emails and phone calls of approx 70 people, having spent this money they almost had to find them guilty. The boss of MI5 said he would have liked that money wasted on this for national security from foreign nationals coming in to the UK

    • Andrew says

      Not only did the police spend all those millions of pounds of public money but they spent and are still spending it to no avail. Not one piece of incriminating evidence was obtained as a result of all that covert surveillance.

      I believe more of the truth about this case will emerge eventually. It is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice of our time, made all the worse for being politically motivated.

      Thank you for commenting.

  • Roger White says

    There is in English society a smouldering resentment about the way we have been inundated against our expressed will by millions of foreigners. I think Stephen Lawrence was an innocent victim who died because that resentment translated suddenly into violence.

    This doesn’t mitigate what the murderers did, but helps us understand it.

    • Andrew says

      Thanks for your comment, Roger.

      It’s not only the invasion of millions of ethnic aliens from the Third World that causes resentment, but the fact they are stealing our country from us. Everything is geared in their favour and against us. The invaders are promoted to key positions in society by an earlier wave of invaders. And we are told by the ethnic alien dominated political and media Establishment that we are bad people for wanting to keep our country and prevent its being stolen from us. We are expected to collaborate in our displacement by ethnic aliens. To resist our dispossession is stigmatized as ‘racist’!

      The English are treated as if we did not exist as a people. There are many more murders of Englishmen by black and Asian immigrants every year than there are murders of blacks and Asians by Englishmen. And yet only the rare instance of the latter is deemed to be ‘racially aggravated’ and given huge publicity in the media. The many murders and rapes committed by the immigrants against the English are hushed up and given minimal publicity in the national news media.

      The first and indispensable requirement for overturning and reversing this state of affairs is an accurate understanding of it. Only Patria provides this, as well as the means of organizing politically for effective action to save our country.

  • Nonames Nopackdrill says

    Taken from your own article –

    ”It is evident that the political Establishment was determined to stitch up these men (no angels, admittedly) at almost any cost, including taking the desperate measures of abolishing our time-honoured ‘no double jeopardy’ rule of English common law and setting a dangerous prededent of retrospection in the application of the change.”
    .
    I am not a member of your organisation although I do have sympathy with your viewpoint but I must say that you do yourselves no favours by publishing things like the above paragraph.

    The double jeopardy rule which you refer to has been enshrined in law for a long time, namely you cannot put somebody on trial for the same crime twice. There has always been the provision if new evidence comes to light after the first trial and acquittal you may be tried again with the new evidence being considered.

    This is exactly what happened in the Steven Lawrence case, new evidence became available after Norris and Dobson were originally acquitted which is why they were tried a second time.

    You are attempting to portray this as if the law was changed just to allow this prosecution and that it was changed retrospectively. That is simply untrue and by doing so you undermine what is otherwise a good argument.

    Likewise, your man in the street conducting interviews regarding the Lawrence case as compared with others. The question he asks is totally loaded to the point that there is only one possible answer, the one he wants the interviewees to say. Again, this undermines his argument and I’m sure a simple open question would have got the same answer.

    • Andrew says

      Thanks for your comment Nonames. I’m afraid your assertion that ‘…there has always been the provision [that] if new evidence comes to light after the first trial and acquittal you may be tried again with the new evidence being considered’ is incorrect. This ‘provision’ was introduced by the second Blair government’s Criminal Justice Act 2003 and is a dangerous departure from the time-honoured practice of English common law.

      I’m not ‘attempting to portray this as if the law was changed just to allow this prosecution and that it was changed retrospectively’. That is exactly what happened. May I suggest that you do some research into the Stephen Lawrence case? If you do, you will see that my statements regarding the abolition of the ‘no double jeopardy’ rule and the retrospective application of the change are factual and well founded. I recommend Robert Henderson’s erudite essay which may be read here http://www.patria-uk.org/i-accuse/.

      I disagree that the vox pop asked leading questions. The interviewer simply asked members of the public whether they had heard of Richard Everitt and Terry Gregory and then whether they had heard of Stephen Lawrence. The disparity in the answers illustrated the difference in the scale of publicity accorded the murders by the media.

      • Nonames Nopackdrill says

        Thank you for the response, Andrew.

        I am retired now but I did spend 34 years working within the British criminal justice system.

        It was way back in 1977 when I studied law but even then the ‘double jeopardy’ rule was that you could not be tried for the same crime twice unless new evidence came to light after the first acquittal. That has always been the case; it is nothing new.

        It may well have been written into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 but the principle has always been there under Common Law, much in the same way as Murder was always an offence contrary to common law, there was never an act of parliament saying that murder was an illegal act.

        With regard to your interviewer, yes, I agree the first questions he asks, ‘have you ever heard of Terry Gregory or Richard Everett’ as compared to Steven Lawrence is fine. It’s the supplementary question – ”If I was to tell you that Richard Everett and Terry Gregory were white lads killed by ethnics, why do you think the authorities gave the Steven Lawrence case all the help and resources needed over and above other murders in London?’

        That is very much a leading question to which there is really only one answer.

        I totally agree with the point he is trying to make, it’s just unfortunate that he asks it in this way.

        • Andrew says

          Hello Nonames

          I will not ask in what capacity you spent thirty-four years working within the British criminal justice system.

          This is what Wikipedia has to say on double jeopardy:

          England and Wales

          Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

          Pre-2003

          The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict persisted as part of the common law from the time of the Norman conquest of England; they were regarded as essential elements of protection of the liberty of the subject and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings.[1] There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent [Emphasis added], to the rules:

          The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.[23] A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following appeal against conviction by a defendant.[24] A “tainted acquittal”, where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.[25]

          In Connelly v DPP ([1964] AC 1254), the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are “special circumstances” proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of “special circumstances”, but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.[26]

          A defendant who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated form of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first conviction.[27] By contrast, a person who had been acquitted of a lesser offence could not be tried for an aggravated form even if new evidence became available.[28]

          Post-2003

          Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if “fresh and viable” new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report “Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals” (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that “the exceptions should […] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify.”[29]

          Both the Home Secretary, Jack Straw and Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, favoured this measure.[30] These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the Criminal Justice Act 2003,[31][32] and this provision came into force in April 2005.[33] It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to “new and compelling evidence”.[34] Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, William Dunlop, was initially acquitted in 1991 and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.[35][36]

          On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Julie Hogg’s murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[36][37][38] Dunlop pleaded guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[39]

          On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery in 2009 of compelling new evidence (Thompson’s blood on Weston’s boots) he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.[40]

          It should be clear from the above that your assertion that ‘…the principle has always been there under Common Law…’ that one could be tried more than once for the same crime if ‘…new evidence came to light after the first acquittal’ is incorrect. A moment’s consideration should make it clear that the weakening, effectively the abolition, of the ‘no double jeopardy’ rule, was what made the 2003 Act so controversial.

          I take your point about the leading nature of the supplementary question to which you refer. I would point out, though, that questions phrased in such a way are the staple fare of journalism.

          I also draw your attention to the correct spelling of Everitt and Stephen.

          Thank you again for commenting.

  • Nonames Nopackdrill says

    I have reprinted part of your own ‘copy and paste’ from Wikipedia below-

    In Connelly v DPP ([1964] AC 1254), the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are “special circumstances” proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of “special circumstances”, but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.

    So clearly there could be a second trial after an initial acquittal in certain circumstances, for example if new evidence came to light as far back as 1964. The Blair government included it in Criminal Justice Act 2003 but the principle had been there since at least 1964 and probably for many years before that. This was a ruling by the Law Lords in 1964 which would suggest that such a decision had been made and that decision was being challenged.

    As I previously said, I learned of this in 1977, 26 years before the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

    • Andrew says

      Nonames, please read the following extract again:

      England and Wales

      Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

      Pre-2003

      The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict persisted as part of the common law from the time of the Norman conquest of England; they were regarded as essential elements of protection of the liberty of the subject and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings.[1] There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent [Emphasis added], to the rules:

      The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.[23] A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following appeal against conviction by a defendant.[24] A “tainted acquittal”, where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.[25]

      How is the foregoing consistent with your claims, firstly, that ‘…you could…be tried for the same crime twice [if] new evidence came to light after the first acquittal’ and secondly,’That has always been the case; it is nothing new’? The answer is that it is not consistent.

      Note that: prior to 2003 there were only three exceptions to the principle of double jeopardy, only two of which could be used to re-try a defendant who had been acquitted in an earlier trial; one of these two exceptions related to summary cases only and the other to interference or intimidation of witnesses and/or jurors; all three exceptions to the double jeopardy principle which held sway before 2003 were relatively recent.

      The decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in 1964 upheld the general principle of double jeopardy and did not specify the ‘special circumstances’ in which the principle might be set aside. In this context ‘special circumstances’ no doubt referred to the first and third of the exceptions listed in my previous paragraph, namely, ‘wrong in law’ or ultra vires in a summary case and witness or juror intimidation, or other interference.

      The pre-2003 exceptions to the double jeopardy principle were few and recent and crucially they did not relate to new evidence against a defendant coming to light after a trial. The 2003 Act has made it much easier for the Crown to circumvent the principle, turning an important common law safeguard of the individual’s liberty into a dead letter, through the insidious encroachment of Roman law in the interests of continental despotism.

  • Bojangles says

    ‘Where, unusually, the victim of a crime is black or Asian and the alleged perpetrator English…’

    Oh dear! You get that ‘black’ isn’t an ethnicity, don’t you? Neither, for that matter, is ‘Asian’.

    • Andrew says

      It all depends what you mean by the word ethnicity – or race. The words may be used to refer to a single nationality, such as in the phrase ‘the English race’. Or they may be used to refer to an aggregate of nationalities which have some feature in common. Clear now?

      • Bojangles says

        But never is it used to refer to the colour of one’s skin. It’s like you try so hard to say you guys aren’t racist, and yet it just seeps through. That much is clear.

        • Andrew says

          You’re mistaken. The term ‘Black and Minority Ethnic’ often appears in official documents. Why would the bigots of the race relations and ‘equality’ industry use this term if they did not intend it to refer at least in part to colour?

          And who tries ‘…so hard to say…[we]…are not racist…’? Who cares what you and your ilk think of us? Go and peddle your phony, meaningless labels and your Anglophobic claptrap to the fools who pretend to take them seriously.

  • Bojangles says

    ‘…against the indigenous peoples of Britain, particularly the English.’

    I’m embarrassed for you. Do you know what indigenous means?

    • Andrew says

      Clearly the word indigenous cannot be taken literally and everyone living in Britain either arrived there, or is descended from people who arrived there, at some point or another. But, this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Why do people speak of ‘native’ Americans or Australian ‘aborigines’? They do not, certainly, mean that these people emerged from American or Australian soil. What they do mean, however, is that these people are the oldest recorded inhabitants of their homelands, the first people that can be named.

      In the case of Britain, there are indeed indigenous people that were named by ancient writers, viz, the Britons and Picts. No traditions for the immigration of these people exists, although their immigration can be inferred on linguistic grounds (Britons were Indo-European speakers). There were certainly other people before them, whose names are lost to memory, but whose genetic trace may persist in the current inhabitants. There are also non-indigenous peoples that arrived there a long time ago, ie, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Scots, Danes, Norwegians and Normans and their arrival was noted by historians. Finally, there are people that arrived in Great Britain more recently, eg, Poles and Pakistanis.

      Is there any way to distinguish between all these groups?

      Clearly, one possible distinction is chronological: groups that arrived earlier are more indigenous than groups that arrived later. However, this is a relative difference, which does not allow us to make a sharp distinction between indigenous and foreign. 50 generations certainly earns you more “native” points than 2, but no obvious demarcation of indigenousness exists.

      However, the main distinction is between groups that developed in situ and groups that arrived from elsewhere. The English are descended from a bunch of different sets of people, but as a people they developed in the country that came to be known as England.

      In that sense the English are indigenous to England, not because their genes didn’t arrive from elsewhere (they did), but in the sense that they became a people in the land itself. Different people were grafted onto the English over time, but they became English in an ethnic sense by being grafted onto them, and not by simply co-existing with them while retaining their own identity.

      Dieneke’s Anthropology Blog

      Patria says:-

      The English were originally the people of the three allied Germanic tribes of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, very closely kindred folk who spoke the same, or a closely related language and who had the same culture and religious beliefs and practices.

      The Danes, who arrived in England a few hundred years after the English, were genetically virtually the same Nordic people, their language being so similar that they were able fairly easily to understand one another. The main difference between the English and the newcomers was religious, the English having embraced Christianity while the Danes initially remained heathen.

      The Normans were of largely Danish ancestry, but they were Danes who had benefited from their geopolitical situation, as the conquerors of a part of the Frankish domain, to improve their military technique and the efficiency of their government. Their language had also changed over time, becoming more like that of the people they had conquered and less like that of their own Danish ancestors.

      One should also not forget the Celtic Britons and the even earlier inhabitants of Britain, whose genetic legacy remains to a greater or lesser degree within the people whom we should now describe as English.

      http://www.patria-uk.org/the-english-became-a-people-in-england/

Leave Your Comment