Over this article and the next (published tomorrow), we will explore the true significance of the ruling in the case of the Filton Six. Mainstream media propagandists, the government and the Establishment, their favoured social media commentator partners—whose reach is amplified by the algorithms, and the corrupted echelons of the judiciary, are desperate to deny reality.
This a Substack comment thread freely open to all. It is intended to provide a space for productive dialogue.
Everyone is free to comment. Please be civil and courteous to each other. Have a laugh, use irony, whit, sarcasm, whatever you like. Argue your point, show your evidence. But please do not be personal, abusive, or accusatory just because someone disagrees with or questions you.
Personal abuse will result in one warning. If abuse persists, after the warning, the abusive account will be blocked and permanently barred from commenting on my Substack posts.
Please, only reply to this message if you wish to alert me to abusive behaviour.
Yet another twisted, Zionist sympathising UK judge lets his prejudices interfere with his impartiality. No surprises there, as the innocent Palestinian body count grows ever higher.
I'm curious to know when the trial of the Minerva Elite - (the private guards at the company) - individuals, for assault and battery, is happening? ;-P
Yes. I'm sure there are some places where a proper jury can really be found. My experience of jury service was, I suspect, more common. One of our number was himself due to be in front of the judge a week after he'd been a jurist...not being "convicted (yet)" meant he qualified. 4 of the others were clearly in a cabal...when I challenged the bimbo in that set that her decision needed to be independently reached and not "I think what they (sic) think. She got shorty, & the ring leader made a threat. I wasn't having any of this and voiced clearly that I wasn't going to change my mind for anything. To that point I got out my very thick book and set to reading...this provided some comfort for at least 2 of the other jurers not to be intimidated. There was silence in that room for a very long time. The bully eventually relented and said they (sic) would make their decision at the end of the next hour...('they' had to make a concession to those of us who were immoveable). Laughably, the judge commended us for taking so long to consider the case before us (little did he knows there was none). My suspicion is, it is getting harder to get bully gangs onto juries. Call me cynical.
So if defenceless, unarmed Judge Johnson, his family, children, and all the prosecutors and their families were being murdered in a genocide - would it be unlawful to take action to stop this?
This is what the judge thinks, although maybe his imagination is limited by his not being a brown skinned, poor, Palestinian.
Thank you Iain for your diligence regarding this fiasco. It proves how desperate the UK is to squash judge & jury trials. I suspect, we in Canada, will soon be facing the same challenges.
Surely there is a case to be brought against the judge for misconduct in a public office and/or perversion of the course of justice - the latter in particular being obviously the most serious crime a judge can possibly carry out. See also the members of the judiciary involved in the Julian Assange case, including the Lord Chief Justice (a fat fucker, I believe, and probably involved in the child abuse network I wouldn't wager).
On another note, I wonder about the members of the jury who 'couldn't reach a verdict' - do they not understand the basic fucking point of law that it's either 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' or 'not guilty'. If they can't say 'guilty' then logically it must be not guilty! Duh!
There should be professional jurors on every serious trial who can point out these bloody obvious facts. Miscarriages of justice must happen every day because of the jury system - or rather, stupid people on juries. I would be seriously worried if I had to go to court faced with a jury. Yes, of course the judges and barristers are no better, but the point remains. I would certainly want to be judged 'by my peers' - but my peers are intelligent people, alphas and betas, not fucking epsilon semi-morons.
Ditto universal suffrage - stupid people are the problem. It's not the democratic system that's the problem at all. If you remove the influence of all the stupid people then the system would work perfectly. Because you'd have to be stupid to keep voting for all these establishment fuckers. There's no other explanation for it.
I think Johnson should be prosecuted, or at least disbarred, but also that there is no chance that he will be. With regard to the jury not reaching a verdict, this does not imply that individual jurors could not reach a verdict. A majority 10:2 verdict was required. So a hung jury could mean a 9:3 verdict where the majority thought them either guilty or not guilty but a sufficient minority (3 or more) held the contrary view.
I'm afraid stupid, average, people are the only defence against evil powerful people. There is no other way of doing it. This jury did not convict. Jury trials are better than the alternatives.
Except stupid average people are not capable of defence, by definition. Being incapable of resistance is part of the definition of 'stupid' and 'average'. That's my point.
If that means the species is fucked, then so be it. It was nice while it lasted, until the monotheists took over. Once upon a time the species was young, it had dreams. But no more.
I don't think there is any reason to think any of the jurors stupid or average. But I take your wider point. However, if jury service was widely deemed to be an essential part of citizenship and governance, and the duty to serve justice was a social imperative then I can envisage a shift in education towards teaching children to think critically precisely because, as adults, it would be their duty to serve justice on a far more frequent basis than it is today.
Absolutely - I think we've discussed before how essentially it does come down to education (and upbringing too I suppose) - in a better educated society there wouldn't be such an issue with stupid people.
Which, naturally, is why the PTSB sustain the dumbed down anti-education system. Yet another thing to blame Thatcher for.
Hi Iain. Subs won't let me reply. The blocking was removed after a while though. I shared your email instead. There's a lot of annoying verification requests there.
And this is why dismantling the Zionist owned judiciary, political class, and Media etc is so important. And quickly, before the State's Appeal is bludgeoned through. In the meantime the surveillance will continue for possible future prosecutions.
You may be aware of this similar case iny hometown of Derry in 2006, when nine activists entered the local Raytheon plant and allegedly caused "criminal damage" . The ruling, and I paraphrase, was that opposing was crimes is not itself a crime. I still have the poster on my kitchen wall!I'm sure the barrister in the Fulton case is aware of this president.
Trolls and bots are not welcome!
********************************
This a Substack comment thread freely open to all. It is intended to provide a space for productive dialogue.
Everyone is free to comment. Please be civil and courteous to each other. Have a laugh, use irony, whit, sarcasm, whatever you like. Argue your point, show your evidence. But please do not be personal, abusive, or accusatory just because someone disagrees with or questions you.
Personal abuse will result in one warning. If abuse persists, after the warning, the abusive account will be blocked and permanently barred from commenting on my Substack posts.
Please, only reply to this message if you wish to alert me to abusive behaviour.
Thank you.
Yet another twisted, Zionist sympathising UK judge lets his prejudices interfere with his impartiality. No surprises there, as the innocent Palestinian body count grows ever higher.
Thanks for this informative account.
I'm curious to know when the trial of the Minerva Elite - (the private guards at the company) - individuals, for assault and battery, is happening? ;-P
I feel that this whole story would make an amazing documentary film.
Yes. I'm sure there are some places where a proper jury can really be found. My experience of jury service was, I suspect, more common. One of our number was himself due to be in front of the judge a week after he'd been a jurist...not being "convicted (yet)" meant he qualified. 4 of the others were clearly in a cabal...when I challenged the bimbo in that set that her decision needed to be independently reached and not "I think what they (sic) think. She got shorty, & the ring leader made a threat. I wasn't having any of this and voiced clearly that I wasn't going to change my mind for anything. To that point I got out my very thick book and set to reading...this provided some comfort for at least 2 of the other jurers not to be intimidated. There was silence in that room for a very long time. The bully eventually relented and said they (sic) would make their decision at the end of the next hour...('they' had to make a concession to those of us who were immoveable). Laughably, the judge commended us for taking so long to consider the case before us (little did he knows there was none). My suspicion is, it is getting harder to get bully gangs onto juries. Call me cynical.
So if defenceless, unarmed Judge Johnson, his family, children, and all the prosecutors and their families were being murdered in a genocide - would it be unlawful to take action to stop this?
This is what the judge thinks, although maybe his imagination is limited by his not being a brown skinned, poor, Palestinian.
Thank you Iain for your diligence regarding this fiasco. It proves how desperate the UK is to squash judge & jury trials. I suspect, we in Canada, will soon be facing the same challenges.
Surely there is a case to be brought against the judge for misconduct in a public office and/or perversion of the course of justice - the latter in particular being obviously the most serious crime a judge can possibly carry out. See also the members of the judiciary involved in the Julian Assange case, including the Lord Chief Justice (a fat fucker, I believe, and probably involved in the child abuse network I wouldn't wager).
On another note, I wonder about the members of the jury who 'couldn't reach a verdict' - do they not understand the basic fucking point of law that it's either 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' or 'not guilty'. If they can't say 'guilty' then logically it must be not guilty! Duh!
There should be professional jurors on every serious trial who can point out these bloody obvious facts. Miscarriages of justice must happen every day because of the jury system - or rather, stupid people on juries. I would be seriously worried if I had to go to court faced with a jury. Yes, of course the judges and barristers are no better, but the point remains. I would certainly want to be judged 'by my peers' - but my peers are intelligent people, alphas and betas, not fucking epsilon semi-morons.
Ditto universal suffrage - stupid people are the problem. It's not the democratic system that's the problem at all. If you remove the influence of all the stupid people then the system would work perfectly. Because you'd have to be stupid to keep voting for all these establishment fuckers. There's no other explanation for it.
Rant rant rant.
I think Johnson should be prosecuted, or at least disbarred, but also that there is no chance that he will be. With regard to the jury not reaching a verdict, this does not imply that individual jurors could not reach a verdict. A majority 10:2 verdict was required. So a hung jury could mean a 9:3 verdict where the majority thought them either guilty or not guilty but a sufficient minority (3 or more) held the contrary view.
Fair point...
Ultimately we can't actually know what happened in the jury room. Still, where's Henry Fonda when you need him, eh!
I'm afraid stupid, average, people are the only defence against evil powerful people. There is no other way of doing it. This jury did not convict. Jury trials are better than the alternatives.
Except stupid average people are not capable of defence, by definition. Being incapable of resistance is part of the definition of 'stupid' and 'average'. That's my point.
If that means the species is fucked, then so be it. It was nice while it lasted, until the monotheists took over. Once upon a time the species was young, it had dreams. But no more.
I don't think there is any reason to think any of the jurors stupid or average. But I take your wider point. However, if jury service was widely deemed to be an essential part of citizenship and governance, and the duty to serve justice was a social imperative then I can envisage a shift in education towards teaching children to think critically precisely because, as adults, it would be their duty to serve justice on a far more frequent basis than it is today.
Absolutely - I think we've discussed before how essentially it does come down to education (and upbringing too I suppose) - in a better educated society there wouldn't be such an issue with stupid people.
Which, naturally, is why the PTSB sustain the dumbed down anti-education system. Yet another thing to blame Thatcher for.
Why has Substack apparently decided to block sharing of this post?
Has it? Can you add more?
Hi Iain. Subs won't let me reply. The blocking was removed after a while though. I shared your email instead. There's a lot of annoying verification requests there.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Excellent post. Looking forward to part 2.
Thank goodness for our jury service the people rule
And this is why dismantling the Zionist owned judiciary, political class, and Media etc is so important. And quickly, before the State's Appeal is bludgeoned through. In the meantime the surveillance will continue for possible future prosecutions.
Thank you Iain.
Thank you for theis useful analysis, Iain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_9
You may be aware of this similar case iny hometown of Derry in 2006, when nine activists entered the local Raytheon plant and allegedly caused "criminal damage" . The ruling, and I paraphrase, was that opposing was crimes is not itself a crime. I still have the poster on my kitchen wall!I'm sure the barrister in the Fulton case is aware of this president.
Quite a story-- thanks for the report!