Emma West has been remanded in custody until 3rd of January when she will appear at Croydon Crown Court (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tram-race-rant-woman-court-052333359.html). By 3rd January she will in, effect , have served a custodial sentence of 37 days, [RH She was released on the 15th December after 8 days following protests] regardless of whether she is found not guilty or found guilty and given a non-custodial question. 37 days is not far short of being the equivalent of a three month sentence which, in England, automatically attracts a 50% remission. It often takes burglars in England to be convicted three or even more times of burglary before they receive a custodial sentence.
Miss West has also been separated from her children who may well have been taken into care and will have the great trauma of both wondering what is happening to them and whether they may be taken off her by our wondrously politically correct social services.
Bizarrely, Miss West is being held in what is to all intents and purposes a category A prison HM Bronzefield* in Middlesex. A Category A prison is the highest security prison and is reserved for “prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security”. For someone charged with an offence which could have been dealt with in a magistrates court to be remanded to such a facility is truly extraordinary.
The court’s excuse that she was being held in protective custody to protect her from attack is both sinister and absurd. Unless Miss West is kept in solitary confinement, she will be in more danger in the prison than she would be on bail because there will be black and Asian prisoners in the prison who will be violent because any category A prison will contain such prisoners . If she is being kept in solitary, that would be unreasonable because it will adversely affect her mental state and be a de facto punishment in itself. The general Category A regime is also severe . Both the imprisonment of Miss West and the use of a Category A prison suggest a deliberate policy of intimidation by the authorities designed both to undermine her resolution and send a most threatening message to every white Briton.
Compare and contrast her treatment with that of a criminal case which was decided on the same day that Miss West was further remanded. Four Somali Muslim girls - Ambaro and Hibo Maxamed, both 24, their sister Ayan, 28, and cousin Ifrah Nur 28 – viciously attacked a white British girl Rhea Page, 22. They were charged with Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), having torn part of Miss Page’s scalp away, knocked her to the ground and repeatedly kicked her, including kicks to the head (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p). Miss Page was left traumatised and lost her job as a result of the lasting effect the attack had on her.
The maximum penalty for ABH is five years. The judge Robert Brown sentenced the attackers to six month suspended sentences plus 150 hours of unpaid community work, except for but for Hibo Maxamed. She needs dialysis three times a week for a kidney complaint and received a four-month curfew between 9pm and 6am instead of the 150 hours work. The sentence was absurdly light for a serious case of ABH. Indeed, the crime could well have been judged to have been the more serious Grievous Bodily Harm , which, if it is with intent, carries a potential life sentence. .
Despite the fact that they were screaming “white bitch” and “white slag ” at Miss Page, the attack was not treated as a racially motivated and hence aggravated crime. Had it been treated as racially motivated the sentence would have been more severe.
The judge is reported as saying that he took into account the fact that Miss Page’s partner Lewis Moore, 23, had used unreasonable force to defend Miss Page. No details of this “unreasonable force” appear in media reports, but the mind does boggle a bit at what could be considered “unreasonable force” when four girls are savagely attacking a man’s girlfriend . The judge also made allowances for the fact that the girls had been drinking and had behaved as they did because as Muslims they were unused to alcohol (I am not making this up, honest”).
There was an attempt by Nur to claim that Mr Moore had been racially abusive. The prosecution did not accept this. However, let us suppose that he had been racially abusive in such circumstances could any rational person think it was unreasonable?
The Mail reports that “After the sentencing, Ambaro Maxamed wrote on her Twitter account: ‘Happy happy happy!’, ‘I’m so going out’, and ‘Today has been such a great day’.” They are under no illusion that they have got away with it.
So there you have it, no jail and the crime is not treated as racially motivated and the culprits effectively put two fingers up to Miss Page. If this was a plot used in a work of fiction it would treated as absurd. Actually, in the monstrously politically correct world that is modern England the writer of such a plot would almost certainly have been accused of racism.
This type of grotesque double standards in the treatment of white Britons and blacks, Asians or even white immigrants is commonplace. Another good example occurred when white Christopher Yates was murdered by an Asian gang who were heard to make racist comments such as “That will teach the white man for interfering in Paki business.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4416988.stm). The Judge Martin Stephens bizarrely did not say the crime was racially aggravated because “Between you that morning, you attacked people of all races, white, black and Asian”, this being based on the evidence that “They racially abused a black resident and then moved on to a curry house where they assaulted an Asian waiter”. Note that they did not racially abuse the Asian waiter. Moreover, it is mistaken to lump all Asians under one heading. The assaulted Asian could have come from a different ethnicity.
Apart from the disparity in the treatment of white Britons and ethnic minorities by the law, there is the striking difference in the behaviour of politicians and the mainstream media in reporting allegations of white and allegations of ethnic minority racism. An attack by a white assailant on a black or Asian is routinely accepted as racist without any meaningful proof, the simple fact of it being a white assailant and a black victim being taken as proof enough. The reverse is the case where the assailant in black or Asian and the victim is white. There is also a massive difference in the elite response to white on black and black on white assaults or verbal racial abuse. Politicians and the media remain very quiet when the alleged racist is black, but are incontinent in their eagerness to condemn the alleged white malefactor. The never ending Stephen Lawrence saga is the prime example of the latter behaviour.
A striking fact about Emma West’s case is the limited media coverage and the nature of what exists. There have been press reports but very surprisingly little in the broadcast media and the press coverage is mostly straight reportage of the court hearings rather than comment. It is not difficult to imagine what would have happened if a black woman had been treated as Miss West has been treated. The media would be swamped with opinion pieces emphasising the black woman’s struggle against white racism, the historical legacy of slavery, her impoverished circumstances and so on.
Miss West has opted for a jury trial rather than being dealt with by the magistrates so presumably she will plead not guilty. The danger is she will be intimidated by her incarceration in a Category A prison , the pressure put upon her by an army of criminologists, social workers and possibly her own lawyers and, most contemptibly, by threats that her children will be taken away, to engage in a Maoist-style public confession of fault , with a plea of guilty and the ghastly stereotyped statement so common these days read by her lawyer after the conclusion of the case. This would be along the lines of how the views do not represent what Miss West actually thinks, claims she has many black and white foreign friends and attributes her words on the train to provocation, stress , drink or drugs, thus implying that no sane person who was in a normal state of mind could possibly hold such views. Let us pray that it does not happen.
The message of Emma West’s treatment is simple: Britain’s ruling elite are terrified of anyone who will not accept the liberal credo, because the liberal’s fantasy multicultural, politically correct society is only sustainable while no one is allowed to point out that the emperor’s new clothes do not exist.
* Bronzefield is not technically a Category A prison for the simple reason that in 2004 the Government closed the only Category A women’s prison in England. That was the women’s wing at Durham Prison. The 100 or so prisoners in the wing – which number included the most notorious serial murderess in Britain Rose West – were reclassified so they could be moved elsewhere, viz:
” A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We are going to assess all the women in Durham and we hope that the Category As can be held as “restricted status” rather than Category A.
“Restricted status” is a security category between top level Category A and medium level Category B.
Prisons Handbook Editor Mark Leech said: “Durham female wing, as the chief inspector says, should be closed and I’m pleased to hear it will be – what happens to Rose West now though is another story.
“With the closure of Durham female wing there is no other prison in England and Wales which can take Category A female prisoners.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3751075.stm)
Rosemary West was transferred to Bronzefield.
If you wish to support Miss West you can write to
C/O HMP Bronzefield
Miss West’s solicitor is David Ewings . He can be contacted at David.Ewings@CharterChambers.com
33 John Street
The details of the Croydon Magistrates Court which keeps denying Miss West bail are:
Chairman of Croydon Magistrates Court: Ian McNeal
Tel: 0208 686 8680 or 0208 603 0448
Website: h t t p ://thelawpages.com/contactus.php
Or write to:
Croydon Magistrates Court
There are reports circulating on the web that Emma West’s protests against the consequences of mass immigration were sparked by a black passenger spitting near her and her son. I have not seen any mainstream media report of this so for the moment store it away in your mind but treat with caution.
Update 13 12 2011
A protest outside HMP Bronzefield was held 2 December 2011, viz.: http://www.demotix.com/news/951463/prison-protest-calls-release-tram-rant-woman-emma-west
Bail was denied on 6 December 2011 on the grounds that Emma West was being held in “protective custody” despite evidence being supplied that she was under no proven threat, viz:
“Emma West: An eyewitness account from Carlos Cortiglia
On Tuesday the 6th of December, in Croydon, the Crown Prosecution Service was caught red-handed. The excuse given not to grant Emma West bail on the grounds that Emma and her family were in danger was highly questionable.
I was there and can provide a full account of what happened in Courtroom 6 at the Croydon Magistrates Court.
Relatives of Emma West, listening to the shameful fabrications of the Crown Prosecution Service, shaking their heads saying ‘it is not true, it is not true, we were never threatened, the family has received no threats whatsoever and we have not been attacked’.
A news blackout followed. Neither the BBC nor Sky Television, nor many others who were there, informed the public what happened today at the Croydon Magistrates Court.” www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/emma-west-eyewitness-account-carlos-cortiglia?mid=54
Emma West was granted bail on 13 December when mysteriously the threats to her were judged to have disappeared: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/13/emma-west-granted-bail-racist-tram-rant-viral-video-croydon_n_1145551.html?mid=5519155
Could it be that she was released because another demonstration was planned, viz.:
Emma West – Show of Support Saturday 17th of December – http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/the-editor/1468-emma-west-show-of-support-saturday-17th-of-december
Miss West will stand trial on two racially aggravated public order offences, one with intent to cause fear. She will next appear in court - Croydon Crown Court – on 17 February 2012
Her bail conditions are that “ she does not travel on a tram within Croydon and Sutton, lives and sleeps at her home address and does not comment on the case. ”