Wednesday, 4 January 2012

Double Trouble

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have had doubts about Stephen Lawrence's trial, this from Tim Worstall:

No [I'm not happy about it], not because I’m some scumbag racist, no, not because it’s a bad idea that murderers go to jail. Rather, this:

But in 2005 a chink of light emerged when the double jeopardy rule was abolished, meaning the men could be re-tried.

Double jeopardy is one of our protections against them. Us as citizens against those who would rule us.

The abolition of it leaves us open to continual prosecution: if they don’t manage to get a jury to convict us first time they can just try and try again.

This is a very good example of why hard cases make bad law. That racist murderers go to jail, Hurrah!

That all 65 million of us are stripped of a protection in order to do so, Booo!

I couldn't agree more. Yes racists scumbags deserve justice and nor do I have much sympathy for Norries who allegedly has had a hard time whilst inside, but double jeopardy was there for a reason - a very good reason. As with the RIP Act used against petty crime or terrorist legislation used against innocent football fans, the slippery slope is obvious, we all will be next: tried and tried again until they get the right answer.


  1. Please WfW, don't accept the epithet 'racist' for anyone. Someone is a criminal or they aren't. Someone is a killer or they aren't. Once we accept the socialist agenda, of categorising people as 'racist', we are complicit in their plans. The two people who have been found guilty of the killing of Mr Lawrence, may or may not have been racist; that's immaterial; they may have or not have killed him. The legal system has ensured that they have been found guilty. I don't claim to like them or even think they are cherubim. But we, as a society (white and Christian) have done something very wrong this day. They may be the worst beings on this earth, but we pay people to prove it. Those same people have been subborned by the political class to give the people a result that is deemed to be deserved. It's really scary to me.

  2. Apologies. That's the second time I've referred to you as WfW, when I meant to say TbF. Not intentional,more my mental limitations.

  3. @JiC No worries about the WfW bit :-)

    I agree that someone is either a killer or not, but racism is a mitigating factor - they stabbed him because of the colour of his skin, I think that's pretty apparent. No different to killing a woman because of misogynistic views.

    I do agree with you though about a socialist agenda, where genuine cases of racism (such as this) are over shadowed by the left's determination to try to shut down every argument with that very accusation.

    What the left don't (in the main) appreciate is that life is full of greys - they see everything in (ironically) black or white - either you're with us or against us.

    I don't subscribe to that view at all but in this particular case I'm happy to call the murderers of Lawrence as racists.

  4. I'd say that pre-1997, most of the population of our country were on the side of justice, regardless of race or colour. I'd say that the socialists forced us to have an opinion about race, where before that we mainly didn't. I'd say that once you force people to take sides, you can't blame them for what they decide. I'd say, bring in millions of sub-civilised entities and then expect us to conform to their behavioural norms and then denigrate us for no doing so, then the seeds of hatred have been sown. I hate multiculturalism. I hate socialism. I hate what has been done to us as a nation. I want us to return to what we were. I want to dislike someone for being a twat, and not be accused for being a racist. There are many white people I encounter on a daily basis who I don't like,but that's not racist because we are all white. I hate multiculturism. I hate mass immigration. I want to walk my streets and not see muslims in their provocative garb. I want to go to my local shops and only hear English. I want my country back. And if I have to I'll kill for it.

  5. The whole idea of a special category of "hate crime" or "racially aggravated offence" is contrary to the principle of equality before the law. In practice, it is mostly used against white aboriginals and hardly ever in so-called "black on black" offences - such as assaults by Afro Caribbeans on Asians(which are quite common in some areas). It is very occasionally invoked in "black on white" offences (which are also common in some areas).

    The court has discretion as to whether to invoke it or not. So, if I punch someone on the nose, that is assault and I might go to jail for up to two years. If, at the same time, I say "Take that, you black/Muslim (or whatever) bounder!" the court MAY decide that the assault is " racially aggravated" and I could then go to jail for five years.

    In a recent case in Leicester the court declined to invoke this provision against a group of Muslim girls who had committed a very serious assault against a white girl.

    By and large the thought crime of "racism" is a politically manufactured construct, designed to keep whites quiescent and afraid to speak their minds in the face of demographic invasion.

    Murder is murder, Assault is assault and the motivation is frankly immaterial to the seriousness of the offence. Queen Elizabeth I refused to "make windows into men's minds". The same principle should apply under her namesake.

    Nobody would seriously expect the Stephen Lawrence case to have been pursued so determinedly if the victim had been white and his murderers black.

    As in Apartheid South Africa, the majority is being accorded official, second class status.