This is just a very quick comment on the Linda Jones case. My assumption is that Linda Jones will appeal against her conviction. Sentence wasn’t given with verdict; Jones has been referred to probation for pre-sentence report. I believe the conviction is wrong.
I have covered many trials. I’ve seen miscarriages of justice before. I have to say that Linda Jones’ wrongful conviction is arguably the worst miscarriage of justice I’ve ever witnessed personally.
Without exaggeration, without hyperbole, I would describe Judge Annabel Pilling’s verdict as outrageous, perverse and bizarre.
For the record, Linda Jones is Jewish, born in England – the daughter of Polish/Belgian Jews who came to London following the pogroms. Jones’ aunt survived the Holocaust; Jones’ grandparents were murdered by the Nazis.
Judge Annabel Pilling convicted the elderly and diminutive Jones of the racially/religiously aggravated harassment of not one but two young Asian Muslim men.
Pilling chose to believe the testimony of the two Muslims over the testimony of the defendant and five defence eye-witnesses.
Pilling specifically convicted Jones of telling the Muslims that they were ‘terrorists with guns in their pockets’. Jones denies this. Having heard the trial, I do not believe Jones said any such thing.
The Muslims approached Jones – not the other way round. One of the Muslims was chiefly attracted in the first instance to the Beit Nitzachon display (where Jones was) by the presence of the flag of Israel. This Muslim, according to the Muslims’ own testimony, had to be pulled back by his friend.
Am I to believe that the female, diminutive and elderly Messianic Jew, Linda Jones, was the one harassing the two young Muslim men, aged 21 and 24, amongst others she supposedly harassed that day? I know a word for this sort of claim, beginning with B and ending in T.
Pilling played the ‘smiling assassin’ in this trial. I was watching her closely. She let the mask slip only once over two days, but I spotted it.
The issue of the display of the flag of Israel was central to this trial. Alan Burdis-Smith (for the CPS) and Pilling were both careful to emphasise that de jure there is nothing illegal per se about displaying the flag of Israel in public in Britain, but, it’s my considered opinion that in finding Jones guilty, Judge Annabel Pilling strongly implied that any public display of Israel’s flag in Britain is a de facto criminal incitement of Muslims and a de facto ‘hate crime’ against Muslims.
I had a fascinating conversation with barrister Alan Burdis-Smith during a recess. Mr Burdis-Smith has advocated in many cases of Section 4 charges and Section 4 (a) charges (Public Order Act 1986). In Burdis-Smith’s long experience of such cases, Linda Jones’ case was the first time he had ever had a case which revolved around the disagreement between proponents of Israel and proponents of ‘Palestine’.
Make no mistake about what was really on trial here: the flag of Israel; and the freedom of British Jews to manifest and speak about their faith and identity in Britain today.
This trial was also yet another battle in the war of ‘Palestine’ upon Israel, of Muslims upon Jews. It was actually disgusting to witness Linda Jones standing trial for and being wrongfully convicted of such an evil and absurd charge.
I put the judiciary on warning that there is a rogue in their midst. The verdict against Jones beggars belief.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized
and tagged 'Hate crime'
, Alan Burdis-Smith
, Annabel Pilling
, Beit Nitzachon
, Crime and Disorder Act 1998
, District Judge Pilling
, Freedom of Speech
, Hertfordshire Constabulary
, Public Order Act 1986
, Racially aggravated
, Religiously aggraved
, Richard Carvath
, Section 28
, Section 4 a
, St Albans
. Bookmark the permalink