25 February 2008

Putting my arrest into context

Foreword: My Grandfather and his father before that, fought for Queen and Country on the battlefields of the World for the protection and preservation of the British homeland and its way of life in their generation.

Now in this generation the enemy that has declared War against Our Queen, the Nation and its people is not in a far off Foreign field, it is camped deep within our own land and is conducting modern warfare against us on a daily basis.

As a British citizen, who was once proud of my homeland and all that is enshrined within it, I have stood up and spoken out against this modern military enemy that is conducting a guerrilla war within my own community, has threatened my life personally and which has declared war upon the Nation.

Am I not within my rights as a British citizen to defend myself and my homeland from a foreign enemy that is conducting modern warfare against my society?

For my actions I have received death threats from the Moslem enemy and because they were not up to the task of fulfilling their threats towards me, they turned to the British State to silence me, who now wants to arrest me and possibly imprison me for this blog on their behalf.

You can search through this blog and you will not find one call from me to commit acts of violence, and you will find not one piece of glorifying terrorist acts, yet I am being arrested, with a possible prison sentence of anything up to 7 years.

What does this say about my homeland?

It is not safe for British citizens anymore, those of us whose forefathers built and shaped the Nation into what it was a generation a go, we are being driven out of our land by our modern civil enemy and the State apparatus that is a tool in our enemies hands.

Listen to telephone conversation 1 on this post, and you will hear the glee in the officers voice that they have a charge against me and an arrest for me:
Police phone conversation

You can search through my site and all you will read is my righteous words of truth based upon facts, against the modern Islamic enemy of the British State, and if you search it with a fine tooth comb you will find something that falls under some draconian British law, the same as if you searched any blog or even any mainstream newspaper for the matter.

Look at the information exposed by Militant Islam Monitor on this article relating to the Luton Moslem community and their website, yet no action is taken against those who promote it: The Babar Ahmed campaign from Luton

There was an excellent TV documentary made by Channel 4 last year called "UnderCover Mosque", it showed the shocking vile hatred that is being promoted within Mosques in Birmingham, Mosques aligned to the British government that are promoted as being a voice of moderation within Great Britain.

There is calls to Holy War, calls to murder, calls to commit treason against the Queen and British State, there is the justification to paedophilia and the glorification of murdering British troops who are fighting for the British homeland.


The British State want to arrest me and possibly imprison me for this Blog of truth.

Watch this film for yourself at the bottom of this post and then you work out in your own mind what is happening and whether Bedfordshire police are justified in arresting me or whether the Queens Prosecution Service has any right to bring charges against me considering they took no action against any of those captured on video.

I was going to write my own post on this Undercover Mosque fiasco and compare it to my own case, but I have found an excellent article from Family Security Matters that puts everything into context.

How to lose the War on Terror
By Adrian Morgan
Family Security Mattes

August 21st 2007

In January, I wrote about a documentary which was screened in Britain on January 15th. This show, entitled "Undercover Mosque," was screened by Channel 4 on its "Dispatches" strand, and was produced by Hardcash Productions.

The one-hour documentary showed the results of an undercover journalist's secret videotaping over four months at the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, in the West Midlands. The documentary can be found on Hot Air and on YouTube, with a transcript here. A downloadable QuickTime file (106 mb) can be found here.

The Green Lane Mosque (Masjid), situated at 20 Green Lane, Small Heath, Birmingham B9 5DB, is the headquarters of the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, a group controlling 41 mosques in Britain. The Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith has been officially registered as a UK charity (Number 272001) since January, 1976. At the time of writing, the charity has not filled in its financial returns for 2006 or 2007. It was revealed in a 2005 BBC documentary to express extremist ideas on its website. In 2005 it stated that Muslims should "be different from Jews and Christians" whose "ways are based on sick or deviant views concerning their societies".
Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith also claimed that attending "Christmas… First of April lies, birthday parties" could lead to Muslims being consigned to a "permanent abode in the Hell Fire." Ahl-e-Hadith and its 41 mosques were among the 400 groups "represented" by the Muslim Council of Britain, which was co-founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood member Kemal el-Helbawy.

The Channel 4 documentary "Undercover Mosque" showed preachers at the Green Lane mosque, such as American preacher Abu Usamah Adh-Dhahabi. This individual is shown advocating the murder homosexuals by throwing them off mountains, and saying: "No one loves the kuffaar [non-Muslims], no-one loves the kuffaar, not a single person here from the Muslims loves the kuffaar, whether those kuffaar are from the UK or the U.S. We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of kufr, we hate the kuffaar." He called all non-Muslims "liars," stated that women are "deficient" and praised Osama bin Laden: "He's better than a million George Bushes, Osama Bin Laden, and he's better than a thousand Tony Blairs, because he's a Muslim."

Other aspects of the documentary, whose consultant was the respected journalist Martin Bright, are described in my earlier article. There is nothing in the documentary which differs from other serious documentaries – extracts from DVDs on sale at various mosques are shown, and preachers are shown making hate filled and extremist statements, without dubbing or narration.

Despite the authenticity of the documentary showing preachers at Green Lane and other mosques exhorting Muslims to hate non-Muslims, with one preacher at a mosque in Sparkbrook, Birmingham, showing support for the Taliban murdering a British Muslim soldier, West Midlands Police have taken the astonishing step of trying to have Channel 4 PROSECUTED for showing the documentary. Initially, the police had considered prosecuting three of the preachers featured in "Undercover Mosque." They decided not to press charges against the preachers of hate, but moved on to try to have the makers of the documentary charged.

Continue reading: How to lose the War on Terror

Watch it for yourself "Undercover Mosque"


Ducky's Here said...

Put this in context --- you're a phony.

Anonymous said...

well ' Ducky' - no profile, no real name , I have a word of advice for you.....

I think you need a new copy of 'Men Only' because obviously you have tired of wanking to the images in that, as you have time to come trolling away on here.

Go get another copy - perhaps 'Gay Boys Only' might be better suited to you.

Also, you might like to try Clearosil for all those teenage spots that you have - is that why you are so sad and lonely ?

Lionheart said...

Exactly Paul, he comes on here everyday seeking my attention.

I hope he is not!!

What a horrible thought.

Anonymous said...

Lionheart, I hope you are still here in the states. With the Anglican Church kowtowing to the Muzzies now, I don't see much hope for the UK. What is going on with you is totally obscene. Feel free to email me (just comment on my blog)Lionheart, if nothing else to vent some frustration. I have started including you and the UK in my prayers.

I'll put this in context Ducky, you are an Islamofascist Pig and all your coming on here and harrassing this man does is lend creedence to his claims about harrassment. Go back to where you came from and play your games.

Anonymous said...

Ducky is a long term Internet troll.
That is someone who has a compulsive disorder that requires them to target blogs and sites that are in some way antagonistic to him/it.
He used to frequent a blog called
The Beak Speaks, where he was tolerated to the extent of being alowed to make his/it's sarcastic and occasionally witty punchlines.
He claims to be rich, with a variety of works of art, and a Porsche.
He has problems the poor dear.
Please pay no heed to him.
His little jokes are quite harmless.
If you diss him though, he goes all anal and his pecker packs a nasty little nip and is quite infective.
Ignore the little flapper, please.

Anonymous said...

For my tuppence worth,
Have you been told what specific law you are said to have broken?

If you are being arrested under the recent laws "Racial and Religious Hatred Act " then it must be shown that you had "criminal intent"
The following information clarifies that from reports of 2006.
You clearly had NO criminal intent as you refer generally to a specific group of identifiable terrorist sympathisers and their criminal cohorts.
You are therefore doing a public service in making the public aware. The fact that you mention a particular ethnic type is a matter of fact within the town you describe. These people are not Poles or Irish for instance.

February 1, 2006

<< Celebrating the amendments made in the Lords and kept in by MPs in a one-vote victory last night, Mr Atkinson said: "I could not be more pleased with the final version of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill that has now passed through parliament. From it, it seems to me, everybody gains.

"Those who seek to threaten religious communities will know that such behaviour has now been outlawed and those who have sought to retain the right to criticise and ridicule religious beliefs and practices now have those rights enshrined in legislation in a manner never previously achieved."

Thanking MPs and organisations such as the National Secular Society and the Barnabas Fund, along with the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance, who all campaigned ceaselessly against the legislation, he said: "Something I feel that I have learnt over this long campaign is that hate legislation, no matter how well intended, is never more than a mechanism to paper over the cracks in society.

"Of course, I would sympathise with anyone who says, 'I would rather look at the wallpaper than the cracks', and if such legislation can provide short term comfort to vulnerable communities, that is all to the good. But it will never provide any solutions to the ills of society. In the absence of other action, behind the paper, the wall will continue to crumble."

BBC Wednesday, 1 February 2006, 11:34 GMT

The new Racial and Religious Hatred Act has made it an offence to stir up hatred on religious grounds and amends the law on encouraging racial hatred.
It applies to the display, publication, broadcast or distribution of words or behaviour that is likely to stir up religious or racial hatred.
Under previous hate law, Christians and Muslims did not get protection because they were not considered to constitute a single ethnic block.
Prosecutors must still prove a criminal intent behind the words, rather than simply "recklessness" as the government had originally proposed before the bill was debated.

Wednesday, 1 February 2006, 11:34 GMT

Q&A: Religious hatred law
The government has suffered a double defeat over its plans to ban people from stirring up religious hatred - which means a "watered down" version of the new offence becoming law.

What is this new law?

The new offence is designed to stop hatred being whipped up against people because of their religion - not just their race. It would ban people from intentionally using threatening words or behaviour to stir up hatred against somebody because of what they believe.

Don't current hate laws cover people's religion?

Sikhs and Jews already have full protection from incitement because the courts regard them as distinct races. But Christians, Muslims and others have not been given the same protection because they do not constitute a single ethnic block. Northern Ireland has its own laws to deal with sectarian discrimination between Protestants and Catholics.

Isn't it already illegal to discriminate on religious grounds?

There are already Europe-wide regulations banning religious discrimination in the workplace, while the Human Rights Act incorporated the concept of religious freedom into British law. Judges can also impose higher sentences if religion is a motive for a crime - such as an arson attack on a place of worship.

And isn't incitement already a crime?

There is an offence of incitement which says that it is unlawful to try and persuade someone to commit a criminal act. Critics of the new offence say this older law could be used easily against bigots trying to whip up hatred or violence against believers.

What if someone hates a religion because they think it's a threat?

This was at the heart of the criticisms of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. Those opposed to the law argue that it would be impossible to say X or Y religion damages British society because, in doing so, they may be accused of inciting hatred.

What is the government's defence?

Ministers say the test for what counts as incitement is high enough to ensure that robust and free debate about beliefs can continue as before. And they reject claims from campaigners, including comedian Rowan Atkinson, that the original plans would have stopped people telling religious jokes.

How did the Commons defeats change things?

The final version of the laws contains specific freedom of speech safeguards aimed at ensuring people can only be found guilty if they intend to stir up hatred. And they would ban only "threatening" words and behaviour, not things which were merely critical, abusive or insulting.

What were the specific amendments?

The first defeat, by 288 votes to 278, was aimed at ensuring the new laws would not affect the current racial hatred laws. The second vote, which the government lost by 283 votes to 282, said the law should only criminalise "threatening" behaviour, not things which were just "abusive and insulting". It also means people can only be prosecuted if they intend to stir up hatred - not if they are merely "reckless".

How was Tony Blair defeated?

With a majority more than double the 26 rebels the government theoretically should not have lost. But it seems the whips just underestimated the scale of the rebellion, so agreed to let at least 15 Scottish Labour MPs apparently be away from Westminster campaigning in a by-election. Ministers suffered two defeats - one of them by only one vote: that was the one the prime minister himself missed.

How much will the new law be used?

That remains to be seen. Any prosecution would have to be approved by the attorney general, the government's chief law officer. Ministers say the small number of prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred (fewer than 100 in three years) demonstrate the law can be applied sensibly. >>

Perhaps the words of this lady are relevant,
"In a democracy there is no right not to be offended"
Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty

If on the other hand you are being charged with an offense falling within the other legislation
" "incitement to racial hatred" "
then the arrest could only be justified on any words referring specifically to an ethnic group.
You mention the Pakistanis specifically, but again, it cannot be said that any other group are relevant when all the reports you refer to are specifically to do with that group.
If you were to be prosecuted on the grounds that you are referring to that group, then all the reports from which you glean your information would have to be looked into. This would in effect be a ban on reporting matters of public interest. I'm sure even the BBC would object.


"Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the by the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.

This offence refers to:

1 * deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
2 * distributing racist material to the public
3 * making inflammatory public speeches
4 * creating racist websites on the Internet
5 * inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent".

This then must be the nub of the matter.
These questions must therefore be answered, by the Prosecution Service and if tried, by a jury of peers.

If it is said you provoked hatred of a racial group, was this Deliberate?
Can it be demonstrated beyond all doubt (as it is a criminal case)that you have acted to provoke" And can it be proved beyond all doubt that this was deliberate?

Secondly, is what you have distributed specifically racist?
Again, how can you separate the material facts from those of that specific group that are engaged in the activities on which you report.
It would be like reporting a football match but not being able to mention the name of the teams! Ridiculous.
Thirdly, this part is irrelevant.
Fourthly, you have not created a website, as a blog is an online diary. A totally different species of creation. Furthermore, again, is the content of your blog racist?
You have obviously specifically mentioned one group more than any other, simply because they are the predominant group within the area of your town and simply because that group are at the hub of the activities you describe. These are facts, simply.
If we take the definition of "racist" as follows
"1. racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
racial - of or characteristic of race or races or arising from differences among groups; "racial differences"; "racial discrimination"
2. racist - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion"

Then we must ask on what grounds you specify the racial terms you use.
As you have been threatened by members of a race, are you not simply responding to a racist attack on yourself? Have you been discriminating against a race" Or reporting on, and defending yourself and your Nations values against attacks which are themselves essentially racist aginst non-subscribers to a religious belief, and a specific set of religious values.
Under what terms does a person have the right to respond and defend their own person, religion and Nationality.
Considering the immense damage caused both emotionally and physically by a specific group of a specific racial and or religious orientation, in blowing up 52 innocents citizens on the streets of Britain, and the posting of wicked images on the internet of brutality against those who do not belong to that group or belief system, it begs the question as to how a reasonable person such as a juryman, would expect an affected individual to respond.
It would seem that your remarks are not specifically racist as they are not made with the intent of them being to differentiate between races but are a matter of reporting of fact.
Fifthly, the matter as to whether you have indeed "incited inflammatory rumours about an individual or ethnic group.
As what you write is taken from the mouths and pens of Govermnent Ministers, MI 5, serious writers, an official reports, I doubt whether these could be described as rumours.
If this is challenged, it will be up to the prosecution to show that these individuals exist and have suffered harm, and that the ethnic groups concerned have not been complicit in activities that warrant such reporting.
As most of the cases you mention are themselves subject to police investigation and many have indeed been prosecuted, it can hardly be called "rumour"
Reports emanating from Intelligence Services cannot be deemed rumour either.
If in extremis such a notion of rumour could be projected over the known facts, then it still remains to be proved that you intended the purpose of "spreading racial discontent."
As you specifically claim that you are sounding a warning call as to the nature of what is unfolding within these ethnic groups, and the dangers it poses to this generation and those to come, your intent is clearly one of doing what a loyal subject must do, ie, stand firm to the moral and legal principles of the Nation, against those that seek to subvert the rule of Law and commit acts intended to damage the Crown.
What jury could find you guilty?
It would be an arduous and tiring fight, and you would be entitled to at least the same lengthy and detailed defense as those that benefit from the protection ,of British law, having demonstrated their intent to cause public harm.
I would think that it would migrate to the highest Courts of Appeal and would cost millions in legal fees.
The Government could suffer immense damage as you call Ministers to account for statements they have made.
It is plain that you have been seen as a case with which the Government can impose it's will with a bludgeoning club.
Perhaps even the "clunking great fist" of the Gordon Brown, as described by his old sparring partner Tony Blair.
It is nice to know we are in such company as we read your words.
Whether you could withstand the immense pressure, I know not.
Whether you could remain uninjured in the prison system, I know not.
You have been singled out because your words come from your heart and at times have flown close to danger, for you clearly do not possess the oratory skills of the likes of the dastardly foes that call for the Queen to be cut down, and for freedom of expression to be silenced, though they themselves exploit their speech making talents to steer just outside what is legal.
If and when you return, this case will make history, one way or another.
Meanwhile, they hope you will be cowed into silence as they process you like a common criminal, and in doing so they hope to silence any British voices of opposition to enforced subjugation by an alien rule.
They cannot though silence the free voices of America, and many other zones, and though there are doubters of you there, what may transpire will serve as a clarion call that they too are not safe forever, as the same threat grows like storm water around their thresholds.
You shall prevail Lionheart, have no fear.

Celtic Crusader said...

Lionheart, try to gain as much info on Nick Griffins case. I am sure it amounts to or has many similarities to yours. He won hus case - so studying the arguments, if you can find the transcript of the case somewhere, could be the key to successful outcome for yourself if it goes the distance.


Lionheart said...

Im not going back to England Celticcrusader, ive done all i can do, ive offered to do more, and the police want to arrest me.

Im not going back to Great Britain, that is not my homeland anymore, its a place ruled by tyrannts and traitors carrying out the will of the tyrannts.

Celtic Crusader said...

Also look into Germany and its stance on scientology. I am not sure if they have succeeded in banning it or are in the process of trying to - as they are trying to classify it as a cult, harmful to the interests of German citizens. Seeing as Germany is an EU member this may have relevancy to your defence if taken to EU level. Also it may have implications for islam itself in Britain or Germany or the EU. If there is logic here then things are possible.

Anonymous said...

Why forget your father who concieved you; why dismiss the generation between the great jewwars?

This is the fight. Demographic. Racial. Conceptive. Breed to win.

We are animals in competition for environment. Erase the jewish notion that they are just too "exreme" for you and other nonsense. Islam is just a reflection of their genetic imperative.

Anonymous said...

You have been reading too much David Ervine, anon.
It is too late to "breed to win" as you put it.
Before that has effect, we will be fighting to feed ourselves.
The Anglo-Celtic-Latin races have by far the highest level of industrial capability and invention.
Perhaps we should be preparing to win the future wars for food and water and oil.
Yours is an old argument, this thing that somehow the Jews control everything.
Who are the Jews?
Are they yesterdays Chinese?
Because that it where we should be looking, there and India.
They are the emerging powers now, and to think that somehow Zionism can control what those billions will be doing is plain daft.
Jew hating belongs in the same dustbin as does worshiping a book.

Brian H said...

You're battling "Islamophobiaphobia".

Maybe you can get the whole law pitched. Get a competent anthropologist and geneticist on the stand, and demolish the term "race". It's a pure colloquialism; there is no such thing. Not that you are inciting hatred against any ethnic group etc. in any case.

Lady Cincinnatus said...

Come back to America, the last hold out against the spreading jihadist global war for Fascist Islam and the Tyranny of Muhammad. We'll need all the good guys we can get.

Anonymous said...