Robert Henderson, England Calling, July 2, 2013
In November 2011 Emma West was arrested and subsequently charged for a racially aggravated public order offence. The charges concerned her public denunciation of the effects of mass immigration whilst on a tram in Croydon, a suburb of London.
After playing her for nearly twenty months, the politically correct British establishment have finally landed their fish: Miss West has not only been found guilty but mentally ill. She has been given a two year community order for two years and been bound over to keep the peace. The community order is likely to concentrate on probation supervision and “treatment” for her “offending” behaviour. In addition she has been given a mental health treatment order for assaulting a constable dealing with the case.
This is the best of all outcomes for the British elite, because not only have they avoided a contested trial, her words of resentment at what had happened to her country are now officially deemed to be the result of mental illness amplified by taking two and a half times the recommended dose of the antidepressant Citalopram. In addition, she had drunk one large glass of wine. More on the antidepressant later.
In addition to these PC goodies, Miss West has been persuaded to make a Maoist style admission of fault, including the truly mind-boggling statement by her barrister David Martin-Sperry that the support she had been offered by the likes of the BNP and NF had ‘deeply distressed’ his client and, coupled with the pressure of the trial, led her to try and take her own life on three separate occasions. Really, Mr Martin-Sperry? The support of people who share her views on immigration drove her to attempted suicide?
As for citalopram, the common side effects do not include aggression. Indeed, the common effects on mental state are more likely to be either sedative (the drug may create drowsiness) or anxiety. Other common effects are problems with concentration and memory. Aggression can be associated with the drug but it is very uncommon (1 in 1,000 takers experience such an effect according to the NHS guidance).
The video of part of the Croydon tram incident does not show Miss West either being mentally confused or exhibiting an uncontrolled aggression. In fact, bearing in mind she had her six-year-old son with her and was surrounded by many racial and ethnic minority people, she demonstrated a distinct command of herself. To ascribe her complaints, as her barrister did, to the effects of the drug plus the wine producing “unusual ideas”, is dubious in the extreme because her demeanour did not suggest she was in the grip of a drug-induced frenzy. Moreover, what is “unusual” about being appalled by the effects of mass immigration? The drug “explanation” of course fits in with the politically correct idea that no one could have such views if they were of normal mind.
The Killer Fact
The killer fact in the case is this, the authorities did not bring her to trial while she was offering a plea of NOT GUILTY. The not guilty plea was maintained for a very long time (19 Months) until June this year (19 months) when doubtless ground down by the delay and the constant threat of having her son taken from her, she changed her plea to GUILTY. That removed the embarrassment or worse of having a contested trial on the subject that the British elite fear most: honest talking about immigration and its consequences.
Consider what the supposedly liberal, ostentatiously caring powers-that-be were prepared to do to a seriously ill woman to avoid a contested trial. Her psychiatric history is lengthy and severe (she had been receiving treatment for depression since she was 18) and includes suicide attempt. She also suffered the rarity of being “sectioned” (taken into residential psychiatric care against her will) for treatment not long before her episode on the tram.
Despite this medical background, she was refused bail when first arrested and was originally remanded for more than a month (she was released after eight days following protests) in the highest security woman’s prison in England HMP Bronzefield. Contemptibly, the authorities tried to claim her custody was for her own safety despite the fact that Miss West had not claimed she felt under threat. She then went through the torment of having her case scheduled no less than seven times before changing her plea to guilty, while all the time living with the threat of having her son taken away. Indeed, she is still living with that because the social services may decide she is unfit because she has exhibited in their eyes “racist tendencies”. Furthermore, according to her barrister “There have been threats to burn her house, she has been physically assaulted and beaten to the ground outside her home.” It would be interesting to know if her assailant is being prosecuted.
Her Barrister did his best to get the case thrown out:
[Martin-Sperry] even unsuccessfully applied to the Attorney General for a ‘nolle prosequi’.
This would have terminated proceedings and is most often used where the defendant is physically unfit to be produced.
Mr Martin-Sperry said the Crown Prosecution Service, which rejected all attempts to have the proceedings discontinued, had mishandled the case and was making an abuse of process application when a compromise was reached.
He added: “At the back of all this there is a woman who is really now not being prosecuted but persecuted, which is not a word I use lightly.”
Julius Capon, prosecuting, said: “While Ms West has been on bail she has attacked and injured others, including her husband.
“It’s all very well to say that the Crown’s position is intransigent but, while we can look on the defendant with a certain amount of sympathy for her condition, the evidence against her is overwhelming and she has no defence.”
Judge Warwick McKinnon, the Recorder of Croydon, said: “It seems to me that some heads need to be bashed together.
“People are getting in entrenched positions and losing all sense of proportion. This case is in danger of careering out of control.
That report shows exactly how out of the ordinary this case was. The authorities could have reasonably dropped the case on the grounds of her mental health. They could have offered her a police caution, which would not only have ended the case quickly but would have left her without a criminal record. Cautions are routinely given to burglars and even to rapists, so the relatively minor charges Miss West faced (far less serious than burglary or rape) would have been well within the police cautionary remit. Instead she was, in her barrister’s apt words, persecuted for the better part of two years until she offered a plea of guilty. That is how obsessively ruthless the politically correct are when they have power.
But the point is not whether Miss West was or was not guilty of the crimes with which she was charged. Rather, it is that she had committed no crime in any society which calls itself free. For her to be prosecuted because she publicly expressed her feelings about the invasion of her country through mass immigration tells its own sinister tale, namely, this is something that is no longer permitted in a public place. To see how extreme the present situation is try to imagine how any individual or group in England, however reasonable or controlled in their language, could make an unambiguous public protest about the effects of mass immigration and not run the risk of prosecution or fail to be condemned by the mainstream media and politicians as anything but “racists”, “extreme right-wingers” and “fascists” and “Nazis” who are utterly beyond the Pale. Would any group which advocated an end to mass immigration be allowed to march in support of that idea? Frankly I doubt it.
What Miss West was protesting about was the most profound treason because that is what the permitting of mass immigration is. Unlike conquest by force, those who settle through permitted immigration into the country and their descendants cannot be evicted as a conqueror by force might be evicted, either by killing the invader or forcing them back to their own land, with the absolute moral right in the matter resting with the invaded.
Mass immigration permitted by the rulers does not provide any such moral clarity. It is both insidious because it takes place over a long period (which makes it difficult resist initially because the numbers are small) and because allows the ethnic and racial groups which see themselves as separate from the native population or are seen as separate by the native population to constantly chip away at the natural restraints which prevent large numbers of people entering an advanced modern state such as Britain. An ideology such as multiculturalism is encouraged. Ethnic and racial minorities constantly demand more privileges and rights. The liberal elite goes along with the idea willingly for quite a time then becomes a prisoner of their ideology as to admit the policy was disastrous means that the pack of multicultural cards collapses. By the time settlement reaches the level which Britain now experiences, a society has one of two choices: to carry on and eventually sink into ethnic/racial war or to remove of the politically correct elite from power and replace them with people who understand human nature both individually and in the mass.