Geoffrey Dickens MP accused Casson Coven of Kathleen Waugh murder

PDF: KathleenWaugh2018
(See also: Who Killed Kathleen Waugh?)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Petition to Sadiq Khan: please stop asian muslims attacking white mum

A petition to Sadiq Khan regarding attacks on a white mother and her children by Asian muslims in London is here.  You may wish to consider signing and supporting this petition.
In publicising this petition, there is one element of it which I must make note of, however: I do not endorse the petition’s use of the language of ‘hate crime’, and, by extension, in using the language of ‘hate crime’, the implied acceptance of ‘hate crime’ ideology.
I despise the ideology and language of ‘hate crime’.  Though it is now an established ideological and cultural concept in the minds of many, and a practical reality in our criminal justice system, the ‘hate crime’ concept is both evil and wrong, and I wish to make it clear that I personally do not accept the legitimacy of the idea, much less the way it is manifested in our society today.
The ‘hate crime’ concept is a tool by which to divide people and set people against each other; it is a radical, revolutionary weapon by which to destroy civilised society.
In particular, the ‘hate crime’ concept’s primary purpose is to facilitate attacks upon Christians, and upon those who adhere to orthodox Christian moral standards, or are similarly socially conservative in outlook or lifestyle.
The ‘hate crime’ concept is closely related to other destructive ideologies which I do not endorse, including multiculturalism and – to coin an unwieldy word (to make the point I’m talking about ideologies, or ‘isms’) – ‘equality-and-diversity-ism.
(I know that any intelligent reader will understand exactly what I’m talking about.)
The main target of ‘hate crime’ ideology – which is a thought crime ideology – is Christians, and Christian culture, so I’m extremely wary of embracing or even implying my acceptance of something which I actually detest, and recognise as being bad.
I am of course against hate in any form, towards any person.  But I do not believe that a perceived or actual motive of hate should form the basis for special categories of criminal offence.
Criminal intent is of course of relevance to various legitimate criminal charges, either in the proving of the charge or in the defending against it, but I do not hold with the idea of a ‘hate motive’ being formally incorporated into criminal law.
The focus of criminal law is or ought to be concerned overwhelmingly with the act – an act which is considered to be wrong, in and of itself – and not with any accused’s social, political or religious beliefs.
That’s why I support the above petition insofar as it seeks justice in relation to what look to be allegations of criminal assault (or similar), but I have no interest in associating myself with accusing the Muslims involved of a ‘hate crime’, because I am ideologically opposed to accusing anybody of a ‘hate crime’.
I can make a very good guess as to what the motives of the Muslims accused in this case might be, and I might further judge those motives to be in some way ‘hateful’, but in terms of associating myself with accusations that they are criminals, I am concerned only with what they do – not what they think.  I am concerned only with whether they’ve criminally assaulted or intimidated the alleged victims, not with their Islamic beliefs.
Whilst their Islamic beliefs may be relevant – even directly relevant – to their alleged criminal conduct, I believe an assault is a criminal offence because assault is wrong and ought to be dealt with as a crime, regardless of whether the accused is black, white, English, Polish, Jewish, Jamaican, mohammedan, catholic, Christian, homosexual, heterosexual or whatever.
Assault is assault.  That’s the crime.  Any motive for criminally assaulting another person is a bad motive.  There is no need for introducing special categories of ‘hate crime’.
The ‘hate crime’ concept, and the widespread acceptance of it, actually serves to legitimise the idea that most people in society – no matter who they are – are in some way motivated by hate for others in society who are in some way different to them.
The real purpose of ‘hate crime’ ideology is to serve to classify an orthodox biblical worldview as being morally abhorrent, something which is intrinsically full of hate for other people, and also to set everybody against each other, breeding fear and mistrust.
In summary, I’m saying sign this petition because it alleges that serious crimes are being ignored, not because the accused persons happen to be Muslims, or Asians.
The alleged crimes are wrong because the alleged crimes are wrong, and need dealing with for that reason – not because of what the accused persons may be thinking about what pleases their god.
It is true, I think, as the petition suggests, that if the ‘boot were on the other foot’ the police would’ve acted differently – making the point, correctly, that when it comes to ‘hate crime’, some groups are ‘more equal’ than others – but, in agreeing to that narrow point, I do protest the broader problem which is that ‘hate crime’ mentality is bad for everybody, Asian and white, Christian or Muslim.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brief response to BPAS abortion advocate Ann Furedi

Queen of the baby-slayers, BPAS boss Ann Furedi, has made some interesting remarks about liberty on Spiked online.  This is my brief response.
Furedi argues that ‘buffer zones’ are not an attack on free speech.  According to Furedi: “The right of freedom of speech does not mean the right to say anything, at any time, to any person, in any place.”
On the contrary, that is exactly what freedom of speech is, in any public place, in the British tradition of civil liberty.
Anything less than that is not free speech but rather is restricted – it is speech which has been subjected to censorship and suppression.
In principle, British liberty is such that anybody can lawfully say whatever they like, whenever they like, as often as they like, on any public highway (e.g. Mattock Lane), provided what is said is not a criminal incitement to violence, and as long as the public highway is not obstructed for other users.*
This is an English common law right on any public highway.  It is reasonable and fair.  It is one of the hallmarks of a tolerant, civilised society.  And it is as British as British can be.
The purpose of the speech is irrelevant.  It may be political protest.  It may be to advocate a particular religious belief.  It may be to advise or warn, persuade or dissuade other individual members of the public about something.  It could be anything.
Free speech means free speech (or else it is not free speech), regardless of what is said, why it is said, who says it and who hears it.
(*  The only other restriction on free speech is that it does not amount to a licence for libel.  And it’s also worth noting that until the 1960s cultural revolution, free speech was not understood or accepted as a licence for pornography.)

 

Furedi doesn’t even address the point that ‘buffer zones’ are a fundamental attack not only on freedom of speech but also, critically, upon freedom of assembly and the legal status of English public highways.
Under English common law, the public has what is essentially an absolute right of passage and re-passage along any public highway.
If the State is now to prohibit certain categories of people from their lawful use of a public highway, then this tears up centuries of English common law and fundamentally redefines the legal nature of a ‘public highway’.
Enforcement of PSPOs means that the public highway is no longer the public highway.
Instead, Mattock Lane is now supposedly a Public (but no pro-lifers, catholics or Christians) Highway.
Whatever next?
Will the Labour Party bosses of Ealing Council decide to ban Jews from the public highways next?  Persons with Down’s Syndrome?
Poor people?  Welsh people?  White people?  Anybody else they don’t like, for whatever reason?
Quite apart from the fact that Ann Furedi, Sister Supporter and Ealing Labour stand for the mass murder on an industrial scale of unborn babies (the Auschwitz SS would be very impressed), they are also enemies of cherished, hard-won British liberties who seek to destroy freedom of speech for all, and to rip up ancient, and quintessentially English, common law which enshrines the rights of the public to our Public Highways.
Ann Furedi is wrong, wrong, wrong.  ‘Buffer zones’ amount to a new attack on unborn babies (and their families), an attack on freedom of speech and assembly, and an attack on the public status of public highways.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anna Veglio-White tweet censored for alleged ‘hate’

What a farce.  A perfectly decent, factual and lawful tweet of mine about Anna Veglio-White was attacked last night.  And Twitter, the socially-liberal, left-leaning media platform, went along with it.  (See screenshots.)
Why must the truth about Anna Veglio-White be suppressed?  Everything in my blog-post describing Miss Veglio-White’s Facebook content is factual and accurate.
Sister Supporter leader Miss Veglio-White has become a public figure.  The public has a right to know relevant information about her background and character, especially given that she is involved in campaigning on controversial social/political subjects (promoting abortion, and suppressing lawful freedom of speech and assembly).
In a way, it’s no surprise.  Sister Supporter stands for the suppression of lawful freedom of speech, so to seek to suppress lawful reporting about Miss Veglio-White fits the mould.
I was obliged to delete the tweet, under sufferance, or else remain a Twitter outlaw, bound and gagged for exposing the truth.
Thankfully, Twitter won’t be able to suppress my lawful freedom to speak on Mattock Lane in Ealing, where I intend to offer pro-life literature to the public in the coming weeks and months, in defiance of the evil and lunatic PSPO law.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ealing PSPO buffer zone: Pro-lifers are right to break the law

Pro-lifers are right to break the law which will ban them from a London street.  To save life trumps obedience to bad law.  Civil disobedience is justified and necessary.
Further reading: CivilDisobedience02Mar2018(c)RCarvath
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why the Ealing abortion buffer zone PSPO is wrong

My basic stance on the proposed Ealing buffer zone PSPO is here.
The zone is unjustified and unnecessary – but is politically-motivated; it mocks British liberty, and will cause suffering to pregnant mums (by hindering pro-life counsellors).  It is unjust, bad law – to be met with legal challenge and civil disobedience.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortionists’ darling Anna Veglio-White: she who must be obeyed?

It’s instructive, if unpleasant, to become better acquainted with 25-year-old pro-abortion Londoner Anna Veglio-White via her public Facebook.  And what will you find revealed there?  Well, it’s a delightful, hedonistic world including skulls and Slayer images, references to assholes, semen and a spit roast, strange masks and drawings (such as what appears to be a purple Satanic dragon), a Jimmy Savile joke, a reflected selfie showing Veglio-White’s [thankfully be-knickered] ‘undercarriage’, and a photo of Miss Veglio-White on her back, on a public pavement, simulating sex with another.
Whilst pro-life pavement counselling is not to be tolerated, it seems there’s little else that Miss Veglio-White won’t have happen on the pavement.  In one Facebook remark, Miss Veglio-White writes of a friend’s father’s semen in her eye.  In another remark, Miss Veglio-White describes herself and a friend as “filthy bitches”.  What a lovely young London lady she must be.
And the decency and maturity flows wherever she goes.  Miss Veglio-White’s Instagram is called getyourknitsout.  (Which phrase might the witty knitter have had in mind when she thought that one up?)  It all tends to paint a character portrait of a woman who won’t succeed in persuading pro-lifers to abandon their life-saving work.  Furthermore, hardly a good role model for any decent young woman in Britain today.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,