The oppression of Emma West : the politically correct end game plays out

Robert Henderson

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 of this 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 event ( 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.

This entry was posted in Culture, Immigration, Nationhood, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to The oppression of Emma West : the politically correct end game plays out

  1. Edward Cline says:

    Excellent analysis of Emma West’s plight and persecution by the entrenched Left in Britain. But it isn’t over for her yet. They’ll continue persecuting her until she can’t take it anymore.

  2. vicki says:

    My father fought in WW2 for democracy and freedom of speech and to stop us being invaded. So now we have bloody doo gooders with their pc views come and rip the heart out of why all those men died! Shame on those pc idiots!

    • Edward Cline says:

      Vicki: It does no good to try and shame the Lefties and the politically correct. Because they claim that morality and virtues are “relative,” the concept of shame has no meaning to them. They see themselves as “doing good,” even if “doing good” means the sacrifice of actual, pro-West, pro-life values. When Islamic radicals blow up innocent people in the name of Allah, they say they’re “doing good.” When the State persecutes an individual for speaking his mind (claiming that his words inflict the equivalent of physical harm, which is balderdash), the State claims it’s “doing good.” No individual acting for the State in that capacity can be made to feel “guilt,” because force and fiat law are on their side. No individual possessing the least quantum of self-respect would work for the State in any capacity, be it in the moral relativism-corrupted judiciary or in the ranks of the police. Which is why the British establishment is populated with insouciant cretins.

    • aussieoyoyoy says:

      And every year they rant on about ‘Least we forget’. Well sorry, they already have. Our new leaders have Sold out for money, power, greed.

    • Jeff Strand says:

      Vicki, your father fought on the wrong side. And the good guys lost the war. Now we are paying the price and having to live with the consequences.

      “I was Europe’s last hope.” — Adolf Hitler

  3. Edward Cline says:

    Further to my previous comment: I had no idea of the scale of political and judicial pressure that she had to endure. The government intended to make an example of her and its pressure was unrelenting. She had no legal or moral counsel that really counted for anything. The government had unlimited financial and institutional resources to browbeat and badger her until she caved; she had nothing but her own certitude, but that wasn’t enough. She was a victim of the State’s “painless” auto de fé or “jugement du feu.” Or shall we call it “state terrorism”?

  4. John Devon says:

    How miserable it is living in this once great country. To attempt to discuss any aspect of Islam and the fear many have of it results in hysterical charges of racism. We have a young soldier behead on our streets and every reason apart from Islam, which the murderers claimed they were acting under was put forward. Two or three weeks later a Muslim woman was reported stabbed to death by her Muslim husband. In fact she was behead but it was reported as a stabbing, presumably to prevent feelings against British Muslims becoming even more heated.

    We cannot trust the papers, the BBC is so left wing as to not justify watching its news broadcasts and for reasons no one understands, the indigenous, born in Britain Briton has become a second class citizen in his own country.

    Burn a Quran and you go to jail, but if a Muslim burns the emblem of our war dead – the poppy, a meaningless fine is imposed.

    But not only is the indigenous Briton discriminated against in favour of the minorities in his own country, he has to cope with membership of the European Union, something which openly describes itself as an autocracy, another word for which is a dictatorship. On a daily basis we are losing what the United Nations describe as our right to self determination and suffer constant attacks from the EU who wish to fly their bloody flag anywhere they possibly can in place of our union flag.

    We have tens of thousand ward dead who gave all their yesterday so we could have our todays and today we have three political parties hell bent on surrendering our sovereignty to what is almost a communist state which had virtually destroyed Europe and flat lined its economy.

    I sincerely believe that our only hope is that one day the people will awake from their nightmare and toss their whole bloody miserable existence into the English channel or North Sea.

    There seems to be no other alternative left now other than to fight for our country, our history, our flag and our culture.

  5. josep[h brennan says:

    The poor British have gone crazy. That woman lives in Nazi land

  6. Reimer says:

    if it wasn’t for all the goodies I still have lying around I could start to compare Britain’s situation with that of the Central & Eastern European states immediately post-WW2, as Stalin’s proxies began to dominate and consolidate.

    No, surely not…look at all these trinkets…

  7. Pingback: Links and news for July 2 2013 – 3 | Vlad Tepes

  8. perfectchild says:

    Thank you for keeping the news on Emma up to date. I defend her right to free speech and of those who overstayed their student visas, got pregnant, a Housing Association flat and affirmative action into a council job to vocalize their displeasure to her of being in their country and their local community.

    The UK has spend the last twenty years of intense education, (the Universities being the Masdrassas that everyone now go to), from baby to adult to make the Model Socialist without property or personal identity except that which they may be rewarded by entitlement to receive.

    For example. A child is given an school Parent Presentation for being the most ‘likable’ (I kid you not, I went to the event), or for doing better than they did before. Now, there have been studies on how informing a child how clever they are actually demoralizes them because no child or adult should ever be referenced to how they someone else feel. But that continued drip-drip from the slimey face sticker to shooting or kissing the baby is the Marxist Agenda.

    You thoughts are not your own. What you think, is government copyright.

    And the reality is, they simply make truth-tellers and non-conformists ‘mentally ill’. Russia and China and North Vietnam and Korea send their dissidents to correction centers and their psychiatrists sign them off.

    Common purpose agencies and quangos have placed the hypnotized into every high place. The private employers are now the employees’ welfare workers. Giant enterprises will be the only ones that can afford it, with their tax breaks. Small one-person businesses with short-term contracts against the mediocrity and inefficiency of the State.

    Truth be told, religion, communism and sexual-identities are all mental-needs with narcissists at the tops and bottoms. Homosexuality was expunged from the list of sexual deviencies. No cure found… just removed. For group-think and Community Leaders is their goal for a Centralized Authority. To nudge people into conformity. Don’t belong to a group, and there must be something wrong with you.

  9. Pingback: England: The Canary Has Died | freedomisfabulous – from freefabulousgirl

  10. Pingback: Power of the Apostate | A child can see ...

  11. Just Wondering says:

    Mr Henderson — have you seen the way the state is treating Tommy Robinson of the EDL?

    Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, receives numerous death threats via Twitter. When he retweeted some of them, the Bedfordshire Police took prompt action to track down the threatening tweeters, arrest them, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law…


    A few days ago Tommy tweeted the following:

    @bedspolice just called me to say don’t retweet death threats or I’d be arrested as they cause people distress? I ****ing kid u not!

    Mr Robinson is not a Guardian-reader, didn’t go to Eton and work in PR like Mr Cameron, and didn’t have a Marxist millionaire Poppa like Mr Miliband, but I think he understands what awaits the UK rather better than Guardian-readers, Mr Cameron or Mr Miliband.

    • Mr Robinson is being harassed unlawfully by the state. The best thing to do in such circumstances is to make it clear to the authorities that if charged with a criminal offence relating to race or immigration you will plead not guilty and fight it. The authorities fear a public discussion about race and immigration so the odds are they will not take the matter as far as a trial. If Emma West had kept to her Not Guilty plea eventually the charges would have been dropped.

      The only thing I would say to Mr Robinson is don’t give hostages to fortune to the enemy by being crudely abusive.

      • Just Wondering says:

        Mr Robinson is being harassed unlawfully by the state.

        Yes. With the full support of the Guardian and the other liberals, who only bleat about the state’s abuse of power when it suits them to. But it’s the same state monitoring our emails and phones and for the same reasons.

        If Emma West had kept to her Not Guilty plea eventually the charges would have been dropped.

        Eventually might have meant a v. long time. That she stuck to her guns for so long is admirable. That the “liberals” at the Guardian and BBC gave her no help is typical.

  12. Matthew Dunnyveg says:

    Liberalism, as was the case with communism, is where the state declares war on its own citizens. And, as was the case with communism, anybody who objects to this warfare is deemed mentally ill. The Russians overthrew their oppressors. Are we going to do the same, or are we going to wake up one morning to find we no longer have a country?

    • Edward Cline says:

      Matthew: The Russians didn’t really overthrow their oppressors. Soviet Communism simply reached a dead end and collapsed as a result of the arms race. In the interim between Gorbachev and Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin and his ex-KGB group were planning on taking over Russia. Which is what they did. The Federal Security machine replaced the KGB, but in all essence, it’s the same police state apparatus. It carries out assassinations at home and abroad. Russia is now governed by an authoritarian regime. Men-in-the-street had little or nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviets, and they have little or nothing to do with sustaining Putin and Company. However, “libralism” as it is understood in the West, will always without fail, if not opposed, default also to oppressive authoritarianism.

  13. David Brown says:

    just wondering – the BBC and Emma West see
    The BBC seem to have items on racism on the news every week especially after a report of an ethnic crime story which the could not avoid some reporting of.

  14. Sarah says:

    Just a few points for starters…

    “Miss West has not only been found guilty but mentally ill” – This is incorrect. As you rightly go on to state, Miss West pleaded guilty – she was not “found guilty”.

    “Really, Mr Martin-Sperry? The support of people who share her views on immigration drove her to attempted suicide?” – I don’t see any reason whatsoever to disbelieve the statement made by Mr Martin-Sperry. As you fail to mention, the article in Croydon Today you reference includes quotes from Emma West’s friend who says that Miss West was simply trying to be confrontational, and is not racist. Why do you therefore assume you know what Miss West’s views on immigration are? The majority of the general public do not want to be associated with the BNP and NF publicly, and I find it nothing short of amusing that Miss West, whose cause was so vehemently adopted by those parties, does not want their support.

    “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).” – Very uncommon does not mean never. Emma West could easily have been that 1 person in 1000.

    “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.” – You have misunderstood. The “unusual idea” was the idea that it was acceptable to rant and rave in a deliberately racist and inflammatory way on a crowded tram. The consequences and merits of mass immigration would never have been debated in a trial, as whether her concerns were legitimate is not important to a charge of racial harassment.

    “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.” – Whether Miss West herself felt she was under threat is not important. The fact is she was, as the endless death threats and bile she received proved. The fact she felt herself not to be at threat of violence simply proves that she was too vulnerable to not be protected.

    “Would any group which advocated an end to mass immigration be allowed to march in support of that idea? Frankly I doubt it.” – Why don’t you try it? Organise a legitimate peaceful march, alerting the authorities to your intentions (as the BNP and EDL do) and I’m sure you’ll be fine. As long as you don’t start bottling people like the EDL do, that is.

    “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.” – People who come out with this sort of statement truly don’t appreciate the freedoms we enjoy every day in this country. Of course she committed a crime, and of course our society is free. The others in that tram had the right to enjoy their journey without being screeched at and harassed in a racially motivated way. Laws against hate speech are not incompatible with a free society, they help it.

    “What Miss West was protesting about was the most profound treason because that is what the permitting of mass immigration is.” – No, that is what you are protesting about. Show me the quote from Miss West saying “I was making a conscious protest against the treason that is mass immigration.” That is the interpretation groups like the BNP and NF put on her words, and whose support she rather hilariously does not want. She was a woman with a history of depression and mental issues on more than double her medication dosage who was having a rant and her racist tendencies came out.

    Overall I would give this article a D – more accuracy needed and deeper analysis of the facts, your arguments are too shallow and skim over important issues. Also try to avoid referencing your own website as supporting evidence, it doesn’t work. I look forward to your next effort.

  15. David Brown says:

    so Sarah you really think that she was put in prison for her own protection .This was a false pretext used by the lying CPS and the lying magistrate Gerald Ellis morally guilty of false imprisonment..Maybe if they had found a Thompson travel holiday guide in her home the lie to refuse her bail would have been she was a serious flight risk.

    so Sarah you really think she was prosecuted for being rude for two minutes to some people on a tram. Fact the transport police happened to be at the next tram stop one passenger complained and the escorted her onto another tram in the direction of her home. No passenger made in formal complaint at the time. Seven where later witnesses for the defence .
    The self evident reason she was relentlessly prosecuted and persecuted was because of the youtube video clip.As for pleading guilty to a lesser charge where she would not run the risk of prison as opposed to the original charge well if you had a ten per cent chance of being convicted

    • David Brown says:

      of something where you could go to prison as opposed to a lesser none custodial charge what would you have done ,regardless of guilt or innocence ?

      • Sarah says:

        Absolutely I believe she was put in prison for her own protection. As her defence lawyer has stated, her home was later burned to the ground. The video clip was viewed 11m times. People were hugely angry and disgusted with her, and threatened her.

        “The self evident reason she was relentlessly prosecuted and persecuted was because of the youtube video clip.” – I never said anything different, I am sure the massive amount of hits on that video clip and the public outcry at her actions played a large part in the decision to prosecute her. The CPS prosecutes on behalf of the people after all.

        As far as your second point goes, what I would do is of a moot point here. Further, I would be interested where your “10 percent chance of being convicted” comes from. As far as guilt or innocence goes, she is plainly guilty, and the plea deal being accepted by the prosecution was a good outcome for her.

        I think that addresses all your points.

    • Edward Cline says:

      Emma West was pursued, prosecuted, and persecuted for thought-crime and speech-crime, chiefly as a warning to anyone else who objects to dissolution of British culture and society by mass immigration. That’s the long and short of it. Half a century ago the kind of treatment she had to endure from the State would have been unthinkable. It has come full circle now, and to think and to speak and to even tweet without risk of retaliation by the State are now the “unthinkable.” That’s happening here in the U.S., as well.

  16. David Brown says:

    Sarah her house was not burned to the ground if it had the police should be investigating arson or attempted murder. Their investigation into the New Addington Gary Hayward case has been incompetent google it up.
    . There was a good chance that depending on the ethnic make up of the jury she would have been found not guilty. So if someone posted a threat against the lying magistrates in this case the state would have to take them into protective custody.
    What was she guilty of being rude to tram passengers or the youtube video.
    According to a recent poll on the BBC about 75% of the public think there is to much immigration . The liberal elite have an agenda of population demographic change.Emma West was a soft target
    used to intimidate the public. People in this country are scared to voice their concerns openly because at the very least they could loose there job or have their business boycoted by state funded customers.

  17. Sarah says:

    *Threatened to be burned to the ground, my apologies.

    “There was a good chance that depending on the ethnic make up of the jury she would have been found not guilty” – So is your 10 percent figure made up then? You see, I happen to think there is a good chance she would be convicted. Funny that. Luckily it doesn’t matter as she has admitted her guilt.

    “What was she guilty of being rude to tram passengers or the youtube video.” – She is guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence, not ‘being rude to passengers’ as you so blithely put it. The youtube video helped facilitate her prosecution by the public outcry it sparked and serves as evidence of her guilt.

    “According to a recent poll on the BBC about 75% of the public think there is to much immigration.” – Link please. Also you don’t see 75% of people racially harrassing people in public do you? Which is good, because it’s idiotic, and you will be prosecuted as Miss West was, especially if you’re stupid enough to do it when it’s obvious people will be filming you.

    “Emma West was a soft target used to intimidate the public.” – She was guilty of a crime, and has confessed her guilt. Since when was prosecuting someone for a crime some kind of conspiracy?

    “People in this country are scared to voice their concerns openly because at the very least they could loose there job or have their business boycoted by state funded customers.” – *Lose. Also you should tell these people to get better employment lawyers.

  18. David Brown says:

    Sarah here is the link also see links on my youtube has many videos on mass -immigration such as a camacorder tour of Peckham and another near Wembly stadium showing the demographic de-construction of England. You admit that Emma West was not really prosecuted for being rude to some tram passengers but what was in effect said on youtube.

  19. Sarah says:

    “You admit that Emma West was not really prosecuted for being rude to some tram passengers but what was in effect said on youtube.” – Errr yes. What was said in that video on youtube was what she actually said. I don’t see the difference between her “being rude” (an insulting understatement) and the video – they’re the same thing. The video is of her saying words, you do realise.

  20. David Brown says:

    You really believe that the refusal of bail was, not because the state wanted her jailed straight away. but for her own protection, Due to a threat posted in the web, However ten days after her arrest , when the video was still getting lots of hits on youtube the pretend threat to her safety had magically ceased.The day the press reported she was being remanded for a month for her own safety there was another story in the press. The public contrasted the two cases hence the state decided to release Emma West. Do you know what the other story was?

    The video so called rant was not the evidence of her abusive words it was the reason she was prosecuted. None of the tram passengers made any formal complaint to the transport cops who happened to be at the next tram stop and escorted onto another tram.

    As you consider yourself a legal expert can you tell me, i really do not know, would someone be able to read Enoch Powell speech s on immigration out at Speakers Corner or would they be at risk of a racially motivated public order offence.

    • Sarah says:

      I’ve already answered your first question, yes I do believe she was refused bail for her own protection. You keep using euphemisms in your arguments – “due to a threat posted on the web”, as if that’s somehow not a real threat. Of course it is, in case you haven’t noticed the internet is rather catching on.

      I do not know what the other story was. Enlighten me, it sounds like another fun socialist Marxist conspiracy theory.

      “None of the tram passengers made any formal complaint to the transport cops who happened to be at the next tram stop and escorted onto another tram.” – Doesn’t matter. Prosecution can still go ahead even if people didn’t complain. As I said before, the CPS prosecutes on behalf of the people. There was a public outcry after that video, people wouldn’t have stood for her not being prosecuted. This might come as a shock to you, but most people are against what she did.

      Your last question – yes.

      I hope that all helps.

  21. First my last question you mean anyone reading out Enoch Powells so called rivers of blood speech at Speakers Corner – would be risking prosecution. Is this what you mean by YES?

    The day the three magistrates refused her application for bail , even going through the pretend charade of discussing it among them selves this happened,uk/news/uknews/crime/8937856/Muslim-women-not-used-to-drinking-walk-free-after-attack-on-women.html google up -reah page somali
    the national press Mail , Telegraph , Sun even the Guardian received lots of e-mails contrasting this with the treatment of Emma West. No doubt the same home office who had ordered her jailing on any false pre-text ordered the court the grant her bail .

    Why not telephone the chairman of the bench – who had refused her bail – why the supposed threat to her safety ceased four days later . Come on tel 0168911678

  22. David Brown says:

    my last question first – you mean if someone read out his so called -rivers of blood speech – at speakers corner they would risk prosecution – is that what YES means?

    The day the Croydon magistrates went through the charade of pretending to talk among themselves before refusing her bail application -on the lie pretend grounds of for own protection – this took place same day

    The press as in Mail, Telegraph and even the Guardian received lots of e-mails and calls as did the home office who had ordered her imprisonment on any grounds. Just four days later the threat to her safety had magically vanished Croydon court granted bail.

    Why not confirm this with the magistrate who refused her bail Ian McNeil here is his phone numbef tel 0168911678

  23. Sarah says:

    Your first question first – no. They would be fine. Why don’t you go an do it.

    I don’t read the Daily Mail, I frankly consider them hugely biased in all their stories. You say the threat to her safety magically vanished “just four days later” – four days after what? Do you mean after they received “lots of emails and calls”?

    Why don’t you confirm it with the magistrate. I really don’t see why you’re giving me phone numbers and asking me to call him up – are you actually serious?

    The bottom line is, this woman pleaded guilty to a racially aggravated public order offence. Would you be defending her right to free speech if she was a Muslim woman in a hijab who went psycho and started effing and blinding at all the western whore women who were uncovered? Somehow I think not. Just because her views happen to agree with yours doesn’t mean she’s innocent.

    Incidentally I’ve noticed that your argument has now narrowed to whether or not she should have been refused bail, which is not some sort of inalienable human right (as you seem to think it) – once again, I’ll take that to mean that you accept all my previous points as uncontested.

    • Sarah says:

      I’ve just actually looked at your davidsfirst blog – are you an actual adult? I stopped calling people “evil” and insulting them for their looks when I was about 9

  24. David Brown says:

    First i would not want someone engaging me on public transport in unwanted conversation. Late alone abusive, However this was a minor incidence , Nothing more would have happened if a few hundred people had watched the you tube film . It was millions , along with the leftwing twitter raptors for whom racism offends the idealistic religion of a diverse utopia.

    As to the Daily Mail at the time of her refusal of bail on false pretext on their web site they put into next to the Somali girl gang attack in which the white bitch was actually harmed. The CPS pretended it was not racially aggrivated. However you can see on a previous post i commented on recent Daily Mail selective use of readers comments , I sent the comments editor an e-mail about it contrasting it with readers comments on the Labour supporting Daily Mirror . Google up.
    You can also find immigration comment of mine – google Peter Hitchens blog immigration. Note subsequent Mail story gave cross section of readers comments.

    As to to what i call the Protective Custody lie scam . I suspect the home office ordered her immediate jailing because millions around the world heard about the demographic de-construction of England. After the riots the Justice Clerks sent an e-mail that all charged in relation to it should be refused bail . The CPS wanted to intimidate Emma West into pleading guilty so she could then be jailed. By refusing her bail under the outright lie that it was her own protection -from a mob with blazing torches? She faced at the point longer jail time for her own protection , she was remanded for a January 3 video link hearing crown court trial months later, then if she pleaded guilty.

    • David Brown says:

      sorry laptop cut off – if she pleaded guilty she would have less jail time than waiting on remand to plead not guilty. This was the true motive of the protective custody lie scam to intimidate her into pleading guilty

  25. Sarah says:

    “However this was a minor incidence , Nothing more would have happened if a few hundred people had watched the you tube film” – I completely disagree. You keep trying to paint it as “minor”, as “just being rude to some people”, as if you’re saying, come on guys what’s the big deal? Have you watched the video? Her behaviour was disgusting and could have been traumatic to people witnessing it, and also to her child who she gave no thought to. Like I said, what she was saying is the equivalent to an extremist Muslim woman going off on one about how all uncovered women are whores.

    Your second paragraph doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying that Miss West was released four days after the Daily Mail ran that story? RE your claim about their selective posting, it’s not relevant to the issue we’re discussing.

    ” The CPS wanted to intimidate Emma West into pleading guilty so she could then be jailed” – Again, I have no reason or evidence whatsoever to believe this. Bail is not a right, much less if plausible threats are being made against someone, as we know they were in this case (her defence lawyer pointed it out in the article referred to in this original ridiculous post).

    “if she pleaded guilty she would have less jail time than waiting on remand to plead not guilty.” – Annoying, isn’t it? But that’s the way our system works. If she cared so much about her innocence and believed in it she would not have pleaded guilty. You paint her as some sort of weak silly woman who was intimidated by the big bad prosecutors – have you seen the video? This is anything but a weak woman, this is a woman with a history of violence, who was filmed being abusive and aggressive to people in public, and who had no qualms about assaulting a police officer. You really think she would have been found not guilty? It was filmed. Her defence lawyer must have been counting his blessings that the prosecution offered that plea deal, because the evidence against her was absolutely overwhelming.

    Frankly over this series of posts you haven’t provided any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory that this was all a big stitch up with the CPS cackling and rubbing their hands and saying “yes! We have successfully silenced those who disagree with the demographic reconstruction of England, hip hip hooray!”. What happened here is very simple – a woman went off on a racist rant, which is against the law, and she has pleaded guilty and been punished for it. If you are so protective of free speech then I hope you supported Abu Qatada’s right to preach whatever he wanted while he was in this country.

    • Lurker says:

      Sarah. Yet again I would ask you to go through the Emma West video and state clearly what are the words that are illegal and at which point they are said (mins & seconds). Its very simple.

    • Denis Hall says:

      Don’t know who you are Sara and I don’t think I really care – but you have a lot to say for yourself. I wonder if you have stopped to think about where this is all going and what the effect might be – not of the persecution of Emma West but of the issue that caused her to let out deeply held and “taboo” beliefs on a tram. The reality is, she is one of tens of millions of Europeans globally who feel threatened by out of control immigration and this assault on their culture. Unlike Emma West they are more and more turning to secretive and underground ways to express their concerns among like minded people, and this means that there is now an undercurrent in society worldwide that I believe will soon explode into view.

      It is the belief of all western leftist liberals that we should respect these various third world cultures and be sensitive to them. Conversely – the same respect and sensitivity is not afforded to Europeans or their culture at any level except in the privacy of like minded associations.

      Consider for a moment, that the concept of “Multiculturalism,” means that somewhere, sometime, some group of people, liberal academia with connections and power, decided that it was ok to sacrifice a culture to this terrible social experiment. As it happens it was our European culture, sacrificed to an untried dogma, and within that philosophy we are expected at the same time to protect and preserve other cultures, whose purity is apparently considered more important than ours. This is the elephant in the room and it seems that it is ignored – no matter how much evidence emerges that the experiment is a disaster.

      The very militant of these various immigrant groups has made it very clear that they mean to take over, and they are working very effectively towards that end. If you think that that – and the probable reaction, is not a recipe for trouble on a level that will make the Emma West controversy no more than a grain of sand on a desert, then you have your head in that very sand.

      Just as in the early thirties, people like Churchill tried to warn Britain and Europe that trouble was on the horizon – people and events are trying to warn us now – and we are assiduously ignoring it, just as they did in the thirties. Emma West is just a little symptom that lets us see the illness for what it is, and the state and the politically correct wanted to hide it. It’s a feeling that’s just festering away and becoming more livid every day. The Governments know its there – you know its there – I know its there and the convener of this discussion knows its there. Trying to rationalise this with smarty-pants debate about the pros and cons of this individual case ignores the real problem – Multiculturalism is turning into a social disaster that will make WW2 look like a walk in the park. But just see what you can do to suppress debate Sara – and you will help increase the head of steam it has.
      Good luck with that.

      • Edward Cline says:

        Two thumbs up for your reply, Denis Hall. Yes, the plight and persecution of Emma West is but a small symptom of a revolt against multiculturalism, and especially against state-sponsored and state-enforced multiculturalism. Multiculturalism purportedly seeks to revere and “respect” all cultures, no matter how primitive or barbaric or banal. And the leftist champions of multiculturalism follow the formula laid down by Ellsworth Toohey, the arch villain of Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead. As he explains his method to one of his wiling victims, a third-rate architect he once held up as the apex and measure of architectural genius: “Don’t set out to raze all shrines — you’ll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity — and the shrines are razed . . .” Islam is not only a mediocre culture, it is viciously barbaric, yet Westerners are expected to “respect” it. Mexico’s culture is third-rate, an amalgam of the Spanish and pre-Columbian culture. Quebec’s culture is second-rate, derived from the French. But the subject here is basically Islam, and its imposition on a far superior Western culture not chiefly by Muslims, but by the left/liberal establishment in academia and in politics who enable and empower the mediocrities in all realms, but most especially in ideology. Their goal is not simply to reduce, say, British culture to the same level as the Islamic – but to dissolve it altogether. But it is British culture – or what was once British culture – that they use as the measure of the Islamic. “See, they’re on the same level, what hubris we harbor by claiming ours is the superior!” But as the Islamic culture rises in prominence and especially in politically correct and politically enforceable prominence, the British sinks lower and lower until it will be out of sight and dissolved. No measure of “superiority” is left but the top-most mediocre. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and Galloway made no bones about their desire to encourage the dissolution of British culture, to see it stirred into a mixture of mediocre cultures until it became indistinct and unrecognizable. From the persecution of Emma West we go to the public beheading of Lee Rigby.

    • pictograph says:

      I think Jack as it about right. Robert Henderson isn’t debating the guilt or innocence of the accused Sarah. He’s drawing attention to a politically-driven prosecution. Politically driven prosecutions demonstrate an absence of impartiality. Absence of impartiality threatens legitimacy. If you reject this suspicion you either [a] have faith the justice system works or [b] have faith it works to deliver politicized outcomes you favour.

      When [in, I think, 2009] a Blackburn curate was beaten half to death by a half-crazed asylum-seeker whom many witnesses had observed walking down the middle of the main road shouting about killing a white man the judge decided it wasn’t a racially motivated attack. When last year three muslim women launched an unprovoked assault on an English girl at a London taxi rank, screaming ‘kill the white bitch’, the bench reached a similar conclusion. The defendants were drunk. Muslims being unused to alcohol they had probably taken leave of their senses temporarily. So that’s all right then.

      The ‘evidence’ you’ll demand, the strategic game lefties always play when they’re in a corner, is plentiful. Do the research. I cannot speak for this journalist but I suspect Ayn Rand’s observations are probably germane to what he’s saying: “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws…..But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.”

      This was an argument on a bus – a minor infraction blown out of all proportion by the determination of our anti-English state to leave whites in doubt about their place in the new dispensation.

      Perhaps ethnic self-interest and sex explain your position to some extent. I see you denounce press ‘bias’ where conclusions differ from your own, then rebuke Robert Henderson’s apparent failure to understand that truth cannot be determined by the extent to which one share someone’s political sympathies.

      Women are dear creatures, of course, but subject to the dictates of fashionable sentiment are apt to burden themselves with things they don’t understand, so that one expects analytical shallowness to some degree. My advice is to stay calm and look a little deeper. A modicum of discernment, for example, would tell you there are no ‘conservative’ or ‘right-wing’ newspapers. Globalism is a communist project. Newspapers align themselves with public sentiment for strategic purposes, to maintain an illusion of free and fair ‘democratic’ debate – yes, even the Mail, a rag the Left pretends is irredeemable in spite of its railroading two men for the murder of Saint Lawrence, cynically inviting legal challenges it knew neither were in a position to afford. The Mail’s coverage of immigration is pure sleight of hand as well if you examine the viciousness with which it demonizes anyone urging remedial action. It even, albeit somewhat half-heartedly, promotes the value of motherhood among greedy, deluded women against an unrelenting editorial line that lauds careerism [child neglect] and which regularly mingles upskirt photography with scorn for ‘outdated sexism’.

      My two penn’th anyway.

    • Middle Englander says:

      Interesting comment, Sarah. Yes, very much so, and well worth considering in some future time when the pendulum has finished its current swing. Thank you.

  26. Jack says:

    You have ‘no reason or evidence’ to believe a number of things you seem nevertheless to regard as facts. The CPS prosecutes on behalf of the people because the law says that is what it does? Well I suppose if you read Orwell you can’t say you weren’t warned. Even more disingenuous is the idea that a gathering of white anti-immragation protesters might escape the consequences hinted at in the article. Your grounds for believing ‘most people’ disagree with Emma West’s behaviour [links? Evidence?] are probably more a matter of bald assertion than anything. You are aware of course that disapproving of her behaviour is not the same thing as disagreeing with the sentiments she expressed. I know you wouldn’t want to confuse the two. In the end it rather boils down to what the woman said, and what she said [as Lurker implies] amounts to very little from any reasonable libertarian perspective. ‘Traumatic’? Grow up. Several of her targets responded in kind, presumably able to claim the sort of provocation that affords no case for self-defence where whites are concerned. Robert Henderson is describing a political stitch-up. He is right to. Guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law is reduced to a matter of semantics once that law has been subverted, in which case we are entitled to draw conclusions independent of the sort of proof conditions antagonists like you would be likely to demand. As Americans say: if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck……Oh and do stop criticizing spelling and grammar. It’s peevish, ill-mannered and [even if you’re a man] so, so girly.

  27. David Brown says:

    Remember Somali girl gang who kicked white bitch in head where not charged with a racially motivated offence

  28. Denis Hall says:

    I would like to extend this discussion and I hope that “England calling” will allow me to take that liberty.
    I want to make this rather long-winded comparison.
    Emma West, while not being the greatest example of The Global Western/English culture, nevertheless succinctly expressed what so many people say in private, and many more quietly think – about the issue of multiculturalism. She behaved within the now outdated bounds of our culture and spoke out angrily when confronted with one of these people spitting on the floor in front of her and her child. She used words as forceful and sophisticated as she could find from her cultural conditioning and background. She expressed in these words her dissatisfaction and never resorted to violence or threats of violence. She never called for or incited violence. She asked them why they didn’t go back to where they came from and she was entirely colour-blind in that question because she specifically mentioned Polish people, who when last I looked were predominately white. That question gets asked daily all over the planet by millions of people. In Australia I have been asked that question by another white person when I expressed dissatisfaction with something Australian.
    So Emma is clearly not happy about the cultural situation she finds herself and her son in. Had she been having a go at a bunch of people smoking or drunk she would face no charges – but she wasn’t – she was making a statement about something much more important. She was annoyed by what the authorities have done to her culture – and these very Multiculturalists attacking her in retaliation on the tram – and now in the wider public arena, would argue that “Culture” is absolutely basic to human sense of wellbeing and happiness when considering the wellbeing of any other culture – except “White” culture. We all know that’s true don’t we.
    If a Pakistani expresses unhappiness with the way his culture is treated he will be on the BBC with a plethora of nincompoops fussing around agreeing with him, criticising the “dominant” culture and offering him solace. Can anyone deny that? Well can they? Why can Emma and millions of other white people not be allowed to express their dissatisfaction about what has been done to their most precious culture by this social engineering. Why ever not? It is that very “White” culture that these people are fighting to get into because it is more desirable than their own. And if that’s politically incorrect and not the case, what is the reason?
    And just think – part of the very ethos of that “White” culture is – free speech – and now in situations of this ilk it has been curtailed at a level reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
    I do go on.
    I started out to make a comparison – and here it is.
    On the other hand, we have the way that some of the people Emma was objecting to, show their dissatisfaction with the cultural environment they find themselves in – and in a lot of cases – forced their way into.
    They are now in the disaster of what’s left of our European Culture, and they clearly don’t like it when it is not fussing about them and offering all kinds of sensitive advantages. At the low end they are rude to us in the street, behind a counter, in a pub, in traffic, and in the neighbourhood we share with them. Then at the next level they react by waving placards that tell us they want us to be beheaded and tortured because we don’t believe in their religion. They do it in the streets and they make no bones about it. They are very active and very threatening. This kind of protest is a disturbance of the peace. It incites violence and it is nothing other than “Hate Speech” writ large. In the light of that and the fact that the authorities do nothing about it – why should Emma not believe that it was ok for her to speak out about her feelings?
    And as for me – I agree with her and feel that this immigrant behaviour is insensitive to my culture, and so do many others – and this insensitivity will someday turn to action.
    How come a placard saying, “Behead those who insult the prophet” is not hate speech? Can someone answer that? Perhaps all knowing Sara knows the answer.
    Then further to that there is the high end of the way these people we have provided asylum and welfare to, can express themselves and their dissatisfaction with our culture and us. They do it by beheading Lee Rigby in the street – running down and cutting a man’s head off in the street and before dozens of witnesses and even ask them to film it – and the media censor out the word “beheaded” from almost all news reports in case it incites violence. Incites violence? Too late I think. Violence has already been done and an innocent man is dead in the street, wife and children without husband and father and the media have found a new reason to lie to us. This particular tragedy gave a clear name to this innocent victim of islamic violence and caused a reaction almost as great as the train and bus bombs that killed so many people. This is I think because it was targeted to a single person from a particular section of our society who are there to protect us – rather than being random attack on innocents. The army’s first reaction was to tell soldiers not to wear their uniforms. Go and hide they said, this is our fault for wearing a uniform? Really?
    Such cowardice on the part of the authorities – such disingenuousness on the part of the media – such blind stupidity on the part of the multiculturalists – such immorality on the part of government.
    I am so ashamed of them all.
    And can any sane person be surprised that there are people who think this is a problem caused by out of control immigration from cultures where murder, mayhem and corruption are seldom brought to justice in any meaningful way, where women are treated worse than animals and where other religions and races are clearly in danger?
    So at that moment when we heard of Lee Rigby’s barbaric murder, many millions more of us looked on silently, added this to all the other atrocities committed by muslims world wide, and felt even more helpless and even more vulnerable. Even the least informed among us know that something is dangerously wrong and that the problem seems insurmountable – and that there will be a price to pay.
    What can we do? Do I believe that there will be a day when the whole multicultural reality gets behind various barricades and goes to war? I sure do because it is clear to see. To say it won’t is just wishful thinking.
    Just wait for the day when it all unravels and say – “I told you so.” Then you will need to decide which side you’re on.
    Then another way is to recognise it, talk about it honestly, and consider white people as what they are in what will be the most difficult global conversation ever. They are the people who developed this Global Culture in the first place and the people who came to believe in tolerance and goodwill to other races – and propagated those ideas.
    In fact – if you think about it – the only culture ever in human history to actually be that high-minded and magnanimous.
    They are also the people who developed the economies, the academia, the technology and the ethos that provides for millions of these people on a daily basis. Without the “White” people in this conversation there will be no point.
    If you got to here – thank you for your perseverance.

  29. david brown says:

    re the corrupt lying Croydon magistrates refusal of bail under thee lying pretence it was for her own protection. A few months back the magistrates association used the freedom of information act to obtain figures for people given police cautions instead of being charged before a court. What about using thIs to request the following figure. What percentage of non violent cases are given bail against the opposition of the CPS. Are any accused granted bail at all if not any hearing re a bail application is nothing more than a charade.

  30. david brown says:

    here is a new story where a women got into a brief argument with a migrant . She too was charged with a racially motivated public order offence . Again not because of a complaint from the from an alleged victim but because of a youtube video.

  31. Denis Hall says:

    I imagine arguments like this take place every day – and it will often be the other way around with the immigrant screaming abuse at an English person, (and sometimes physical abuse which is statistically more likely to come from immigrants from third world countries and many times to go unreported.) (people on busses may well be less likely to film an immigrant who is abusing someone for fear that they will be attacked and their phone camera stolen.)
    The difference in all this – and it is a dangerous difference, is that the law will ignore the part played in these incidents by any so called “Minority.” The Authorities see the indigenous people as being more “powerful” and therefore give favour to the immigrant regardless of any provocation. (As with Emma West – I read that her outburst was precipitated by one of these people spitting on the floor of the tram in front of her.) The other important thing about this is that the State, through the auspices of the Police, are trying to not only turn a blind eye to the dangerous level of discord between the indigenous English and Immigrants, but are only using the law against the indigenous people whose culture actually produced these laws that were intended to protect people.
    No such laws exist for the protection of non-indegenous people in any of the countries where these people come from. They must think we are such idiots to turn on our own like this. But for all that – I am pleased that this woman was found not guilty – as should have happened with Emma West.

  32. “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.”

    Not true, “racism” is now the most serious of all crimes – any criticism of the Dogma of Innate Racial Equality (DIRE) is an evil deed that is equivalent to apostasy or blasphemy in Islam. Oprah Winfrey has called for the death of racists and, since judicial death penalty is outlawed, she has surely set the ball in motion for it to become permissible for anti-racists to take the law into their own hands – if it is not already acceptable to do so.

  33. Pingback: News links for Nov 23 2013 – 2 | Vlad Tepes

  34. Dan says:

    WW2, what a cruel trIck played on the ordinary Briton. Told we would all be transported to Poland by the Labour-Tory wartime government, only to end up colonized by Asians anyway.

    Dig up their graves and put their skulls on pikes.

  35. Our freedoms are being eroded away – freedom of speech, freedom to protest peacefully, freedom to raise our children as we -the parents – see fit……and so the list goes on. The Britain I grew up in, the one which my Dad fought for – all but gone. However it is not too late for the people to rise up and fight for a Government that is FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE – not these two faced poltroons who seek only to feather their own nest and wield their powers as they see fit. People power is great… What would have happened if Churchill had kow-towed to Germany in 1939 – what a great man and magnificent leader who brought us through that conflict. There are no such men that we can turn to any more.

  36. david brown says:

    here is a new youtube video incident on public transport these people will not be hunted down by England hating raptors on twitter. The BBC news site run numerous hostile articles on the Emma West case but will probably try and bury this story.

    I might be an idea if people sent a Christmas card to the protective custody lie scam JPs in the Emma West case. asking them if they have the moral integrity to resign.
    Gerald Ellis 23 Oakwood Avenue Purley CR8 1AR
    Ian McNeil 13 Oakhill Road Orpington BR6 0AE

  37. david brown says:

    just an update on my above post. The two men charged with kicking the women unconscious have been bailed. There is no mention of this case on the BBC web site probably will not be this will be played down , The BBC web site run a number of stories on the Emma West case

  38. Pingback: If there had been no post-1945 mass immigration into Britain … | Living In A Madhouse

  39. Pingback: If there had been no post-1945 mass immigration into Britain … | England calling

  40. Pingback: If there had been no post-1945 mass immigration into Britain … | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  41. Pingback: If there had been no post-1945 mass immigration into Britain … – JumpSeek

  42. Pingback: Without Mass Immigration We Would Not Have…. |

  43. Pingback: The persecution of Emma West continues | England calling

  44. Pingback: The persecution of Emma West continues | Living In A Madhouse

  45. Pingback: See mass migration for what it is – invasion | Living In A Madhouse

  46. Pingback: Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election | England calling

  47. Pingback: The Madhouse Update | ElderofZyklon's Blog!

  48. Pingback: If there had been no post-1945 mass immigration into Britain … (Robert Henderson) | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

  49. Pingback: In the West  with easy contraception and abortion humans need security to breed | Living In A Madhouse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s