As long as it is one on one.
"As long as it is one on one"And that is where 16 year old Henry Webster made the mistake of thinking that other people from different cultures a world away from our own think like us. Fair play is an alien concept as he was soon to find out.
Dismissing claims that his friends shouted racist insults at a gang of Asians prior to their assault on him, he described how during the school day he had been taunted by five Asian pupils on at least two separate occasions. He went on to say;
"They were trying to taunt me into a fight."Big mistake Henry.
"When they asked if they wanted a fight at the tennis court, I said as long as it's one on one."
Four teenagers - Wasif Khan, 18, Amjad Qazi, 19, and two boys aged 15 and 16, who cannot be named - have pleaded not guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In total 16 people have been charged in connection with the assault.
James Patrick, for the prosecution, said: "For those there, it made a sickening sight, the sort of thing which you would expect to see in a Quentin Tarantino film - certainly not at a school in a village in Wiltshire." But is it still Wiltshire?
Mr Patrick said: "It was to be a fair fight. But he had not reckoned on the fact it was not to be one-on-one. As he came into the playground he was attacked by a group.
"He was knocked to the ground, he was kicked, punched and repeatedly hit over the head with a hammer."
A second trial will be held in February.
Kamren Khan, 19, Javed Khan, 20, Mizanur Rahman, 20, Roubel Meah, 20, Aqduss Rauf, 18, Bilal Yaqub, 18, Mahbob Ali, 18, and two youths who cannot be named are also accused of conspiracy to commit grievous bolidy harm.Well you know what I think and I suspect you think the same. Only the British National Party has the answers to today's problems. If you want a return to a country that still respects fair play, you know who to support.
Tags:
3 comments:
Paul is the real deal, his story just appeared in the Bedfordshire Sunday edition. No British press print stories without researching with the relevant source, in this case they contacted the cops. I really need to be back in Britain to help you guys out. I feel like such a tool stuck out here. Watching my people become enslaved.
http://www.bedsonsunday.com/bedsonsunday%2Dnews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=248045
Web blogger faces 'racial incitement' arrest
Police are threatening to arrest an internet 'web blogger' for incitement to racial hatred the minute he returns to Britain.
Paul Ray, who 'blogs' as 'Lionheart', left Britain for an undisclosed location in the Middle East two years ago.
He claims he was receiving death threats which made it impossible to stay in his home town of Luton.
Since leaving Britain, he has regularly updated his blog with news and opinions on subjects such as the heroin trade, Islamic fundamentalism and police corruption.
On January 3, Mr Ray received an email from Bedfordshire Police which he has since posted on his website.
From Hate Crime officer Ian Holden, it read: 'The offence that I need to arrest you for is 'Stir up Racial Hatred by displaying written material' contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.
'You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent.
'Paul I will see you on the 19/02/08 when I will tell you everything that you need to know.
'Due to being out of the office for six weeks I will not have access to my email as of tomorrow 04/01/08.'
A spokesman for Bedfordshire Police said: "We are aware of this particular internet site and we are taking action."
I have a message to pass onto LionHeart from someone I am not adding names though and I tried to email it to LionHeart today but for some reason the email didn't go through.......................
I would like to act as a McKenzie Friend for Lionheart if he would allow! I am pretty sure he has done nothing wrong after reading his website. This is clearly an abuse of police power and authority and actually and the fear placed in him by the e.mail from the copper, would it seems constitute assault at the very least. At common law a person does not need to be touched but simply put in fear of his safety. I am pretty certain that sending an e.mail, obviously intended to cause psychological concern would constitute assault too as per recent legisalation. I also happen to believe that the arrest would constitute false arrest with false imprisonment under the buggers' own legislation!
We can certainly get a case going under the Army and Police Acts that forbid a serving soldier or officer to obey an illegal order. There is also the 'Rule of Law' principle that states that legislation must not be directed towards a particular individual or group. I am pretty sure of my ground too!
Tell Lionheart that he should e.mail the officer concerned and demand on what evidence he has cause to believe that an imprisonable offence has been committed. If he cannot justify this or from where the evidence has been obtained, the officer cannot under Habeas Corpus and the HR act carry out an arrest (S.78 of PACE 1984 and Goswell vs Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis 1998). Indeed the officer concerned himself commits an offence at Common Law, as the arrest or threat of it constitutes an assault in itself and allows Lionheart to arrest the officer himself at Common Law (although tell him not to use violence for Christ's sake).
Any Detention is unlawful and so the burden of proof is upon the officer concerned to show he was justified, not on LionHeart!
In Spicer vs Holt 1977 (case law) Lord Dilhorne the Judge stated- 'Whether or not a person has been arrested depends not upon the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases'
I would argue that the officer's action in sending the e.mail constitutes such a case. A Breach of the Peace needs to be threatened by the officer concerned.
In Regina vs Howell (1981) a breach of the Queen's Peace, the Court ruled that
'Wherever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance'
The threatened arrest of Lionheart would seem to fall within this case ruling, namely that the arrest itself under Habeas Corpus and the fear generated by the email, would constitute an assault upon him by the officer. One does not have to touch the individual but simply place him in fear of his safety or loss of freedom under false detention.
The fact that Lionheart is now fearful of returning to the UK, would be the basis of this assault and abuse of his official postion by the officer concerned. At the very least Lionheart can sue for substantial damages. And I would make sure that Lionheart makes this very clear to this officer! See Goswell case 1998 above.
In the case of Walters vs WH Smith and Son 1914, the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. This hits at the very basis of the situation.
If Lionheart can prove he has not committed a crime simply because he is telling the truth IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, there is ground for prosecution of the officer for false arrest and detention and the force concerned. Lionheart should have a very strong case in fact! (S24 of PACE 1984).
The officer has to have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. A private person cannot arrest somebody simply on suspicion but I would argue that this officer has no grounds and that due to the circumstances, Lionheart's exposure of the sitution in Luton, the death threats and the exposure of POLICE CORRUPTION that he could claim harassment and vindictiveness on the part of the Force concerned. Under the evidence rules he could claim that under the PACE 1984 S78(1)
' In any proceedings, the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it'
Given the clearly suspicious political nature of this affair, Lionheart might be able to establish reasonable grounds to the effect that the circumstances surrounding his situation, may give cause for reasonable concern about the background circumstances that led to the threat of bringing this case before a court, in that he is a well known opponent of Moslem criminal actvity in Luton and that it seems apparent, that the police maybe trying to win brownie points to show themselves as good multiculturalists and supporting 'social cohesion' by making Lionheart a convenient example, in which case the whole ballgame changes and he can prosecute or sue the police for malicious prosecution.
Their case would argue from the point of view of whether he had intended to incite violence. Under 'Actus non facet reum, nisi mensit rea' (no intent no guilt), common law clearly states that Lionheart is not guilty unless he meant to stir up trouble.
I have also seen why the police are after him!
It is his use of language-talk of civil war and all the other stuff-
One has to be very careful when writing like this! Lionheart still has done nothing wrong though provided he believes with reasonable grounds, that what he has written is the truth in the PUBLIC Interest.
The peculiar context of Luton would also be a very strong defence to the charge! He is in the midst of it so such language, written under the direct threat (he must establish this fact) and duress- for example the Moslem threats to his life etc in his locale, it would be perfeectly justifiable to write as he has done in defence of his person, in that he used reasonable force to defend himself through such writing in the context surrounding him!
In other words the situation he faces daily and the fact he has had to seek safety abroad are all evidence, that he reasonably felt his life was in danger. So his writings were his only means to preserve his own safety and that of his neighbours under the Islamic violence and duress threatening him on all sides.
Hope this mssage gets to him!
Free Spirit....
I am also offering my service as a McKenzie Friend...I have experience in this field having been found NOT GUILTY of a charge of GBH with intent against a number of black defendents. My brother applied to be a McKenzie Friend and was turned down on account he was connected (related) to the accused.He was a co-defendent!
We were both acquited of all charges after the prosecution offered 'no evidence' despite 8 witnesses and their statements!
A court will allow a Mckenzie Friend only if the "Friend" is not related to the accused or linked to the alleged crime.
A McKenzie Friend also has the right to have a professional legal expert present in court. Did you know that?
Post a Comment