authoritarianism | hertsengdem.org

The trial of Emma West on two racially aggravated public order offences has been put back to 5 September to allow further medical reports ( http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Trial-alleged-YouTube-tram-racist-Emma-West-moved/story-16543355-detail/story.html). Her trial was meant to take place on 17^th July but a request for a further adjournment was granted on 13 July.

I have been unable to discover whether the prosecution or the defence asked for the further adjournment, but whichever it is the delay is extraordinary . Ms West pleaded Not Guilty on 17 February and her trial was originally scheduled for 11 June (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17073198).

The 11 June date was missed when the first adjournment was granted because of a wish for extra medical reports. That was surprising enough , because there had been four months between Ms West’s plea of Not Guilty and the request for the adjournment, ample time to get any medical reports. If the 5 September date is kept six months will have passed since the Not Guilty plea.

The further delay suggests the authorities or her own lawyers are trying to wear Emma West down by extending the wait so that she will eventually plead guilty out of fear or exhaustion. The authorities are always terrified of a full trial on such charges because it reveals the naked repression of the British elite and gives a public voice for dissent from the politically correct narrative of multiculturalism. As for the defence, English lawyers these days are almost always loth to put up any defence which challenges such charges on the grounds of the right to free expression or offers a justification for dissent from the politically correct narrative.

The only other reason for such a delay I can think of is that the authorities hope to force her to plead guilty by preparing social service reports which say she is not a fit mother and these take rather a long time to acquire . If so, they could get the reports and then either give her a choice of keeping her children by pleading guilty (and by admitting her crime proving she is a fit mother who will not hand on racist attitudes because she has “seen the pc light”) or continue to plead Not Guilty and lose her children.

There has been very little on the web about this further delay and the only media report I could find is the Croydon Advertiser one quoted in the opening paragraph.

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC1

22 12 2011

Dear Lord Leveson,

Piers Morgan indubitably lied to the Inquiry (20 December) when he claimed that he had never illicitly received information from the police. On 25 November I submitted a series of complaints backed by documentation to the Inquiry. These were definitely received by the Inquiry because an acknowledgement was sent to me.

My submission included a letter from Piers Morgan to the PCC in which he admitted that the Mirror had received information from the police illicitly. I include a copy of that letter below with the relevant passage highlighted. As Morgan refers to it in his letter to the PCC, I also send you a copy of the article I wrote in response to the Mirror story. This Morgan refused to publish.

Because Morgan gave his evidence to the Inquiry under oath, he added perjury to his original criminal offence of illicitly receiving information from the Metropolitan Police. I ask you to take action against Morgan for this perjury and to recall him for questioning about his receipt of illicit information from the Metropolitan Police, both in terms of that which he admitted to in his letter to the PCC and the extent of the practice generally during his editorship of the News of the World and the Daily Mirror.

In my submission I asked to give evidence in person. You have failed to answer that request to date. However, I see from the Inquiry website that you are seeking, amongst others things, the following for module 2 of the Inquiry:

“The Inquiry would be interested in the experiences of the victims of crime and the public more generally, who feel that they have been adversely affected (perhaps through a data leak or breach, or through the reporting of a case) by the current relationship between the press and the police, with examples where possible. The Inquiry would also be interested to receive submissions in relation to this issue on whether it is felt that the current investigation and complaint regime are adequate to properly address instances of this type”. http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-Questions-Module-2.pdf

The evidence which I have already given the Inquiry relating to Piers Morgan and the subsequent failure of Scotland Yard to meaningfully investigate the crime – the officer responsible Det Supt Jeff Cutis admitted to me that the “investigation” had been closed without anyone at the Mirror being questioned – indubitably falls into this category of information. This case has the great advantage for you of having objective and categoric proof of both the Mirror’s receipt of illicit information from the Metropolitan Police and the failure of the Metropolitan Police to meaningfully investigate my complaint about the illicit disclosure of information. The full details of these events were supplied in my submission of 25 November.

You are asking for applications for Core Participant status for Module 2 of the Inquiry to be made by 13 January. Please treat this email and my original submission of 25 November as an application for Core Participant Status.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email by return.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

For the text of Morgan’s letter to the PCC see http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/piers-morgan-lied-to-the-leveson-inquiry/

For the Mirror story see http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-failure-to-charge-piers-morgan-with-illicitly-receiving-information-from-the-police/

For my response to the Mirror story see http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/moral-simpletons-target-innocent-man/