Political prisoner Peter Lynch died in prison – apparently committing suicide (though the authorities have neither confirmed or denied that) - after being sentenced to thirty-two months for shouting at the police and holding an anti-Establishment placard, neither of which are illegal – in what was clearly a politically-motivated, cruel and unusual punishment designed to intimidate the majority of the British people who have some broad sympathy with views Mr Lynch was expressing.
Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase in common law describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts, and being arbitrary, unnecessary, or overly severe compared to the crime. The arrest and sentencing of Peter Lynch meet all these criteria and is, therefore contrary to common law.
The sentence was obviously humiliating and caused suffering and pain and was equally obviously meant to do just that. In comparison, in many cases involving leftists, like the head of the hate-mongering fascist group laughably named Hope Not Hate’s clear incitement to violence, and the vicious assault on the police in Manchester airport, neither of which even led to charges, it is clearly unusual and overly severe.
Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, who if it is true Lynch did commit suicide, is in my view guilty of judicial manslaughter – indeed the whole damned judiciary and government is guilty of corporate manslaughter – acknowledged than he did not attack the police but jailed him for shouting “racist and provocative remarks” and calling the illegal immigrants put up in hotels at our expense “child killers”. He also called them “scum” – a word commonly used by Labour MPs to describe Tories. “You are protecting people who are killing our kids and raping them” he shouted at the poor, overly sensitive wilting-violet riot squad cops engaged in lashing out at protesters with batons, while holding a placard that described the police, MPs and judges as corrupt.
Lynch – from Rotherham and deeply disturbed by the Muslim rape gang scandal the Establishment, Kneel Starmer to the fore, tried to cover up - was also accused of inciting violence, but that seems to me to be preposterous, the crowd needed no incitement, and in some video-footing, it was the police – acting in a diametrically opposite manner to that adopted when it is Muslims demonstrating and acting violently – who were inciting violence.
And so, in what is almost certainly an Establishment-orchestrated policy, common law, common sense and common decency have been abandoned and cruel, unusual and savage sentences have been handed out to anyone the State deems ‘far right’ - that is patriotic conservative British and, therefore, despised and feared by the State, even more so if they are working class like Peter Lynch.
And it seems to me that the whole legal profession was in on it, with ‘defence’ lawyers routinely telling those arrested to plead guilty, ostensibly to avoid even longer sentences, in contrast to the legal advice given to that Labour councillor filmed advocating cutting right-wing throats. He pleaded not guilty.
The proven liar Kneel Starmer and his fellow Gang members, the judiciary, police and most of the MSM deny it of course, but anyone with half a brain even a moderately independent mind can see that the Establishment has embarked on an extreme two-tier justice and policing policy. There are just too many instances of it to plausibly deny.
Take, for instance, the cases of Lucy Connolly and the violent Muslim gang waving Palestine flags that attacked a pub in Birmingham, with one white drinker being hospitalised with a lacerated liver.
Lucy Connolly, a woman with a history of mental illness following the death of a child, was jailed for tweeting and quickly deleting a post that can, in all honesty, be construed as an incitement to violence, but in those circumstances can anyone honestly say that folk actually were so incited; she was reacting to events not directing them. Lucy Connolly received 31 months in prison.
That same judge, Melbourne Inman KC, later sentenced one of the Muslim mob that attacked the pub, filmed violently attacking the man later sent to hospital, to just 20 months. And this pattern has been repeated around the country. It is blatant and it is deliberate, and it is designed to intimidate. If this were Russia, or China, the mendacious MSM would be howling with outrage, rightly calling it oppression by a tyrannical State.
The Establishment dismisses this of course, arguing that the August demonstrations were unusually violent (ignoring, for example, the more violent Harehill riots by ethnic groups, when the police ran away and let them get on with it).
A former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent Parm Sandhu - the first non-white woman to be promoted through the ranks to chief superintendent - said the “primary reason for the differing police responses lies in the nature and scale of the violence involved. Recent violent disorder in the UK has been characterised by significant aggression and direct attacks on individuals, often motivated by racial, religious or immigration-related animosities,” she wrote, ignoring the many riots between Hindus and Muslims and concentrating only on protests by whites, which she says “go beyond lawful protest and enter the realm of criminal violence, necessitating a stronger police response” – again ignoring the fact that the police actively facilitate widespread anti-Israel, pro-proscribed terrorist organisation Hamas protests, where vile racial chants are common but ignored, with very few arrests being made and the police adopting an entirely non-aggressive attitude in distinct contrast to the highly aggressive attitude they often adopt to white, pro-British protesters.
But this diversity hire former top cop has maybe shown us what we should be doing, we far right non-violent thugs. She went on to say that “In contrast, many Gaza-related protests and those by Extinction Rebellion have predominantly (my emphasis) involved non-violent civil disobedience. While these protests can cause public inconvenience and disruption, they rarely escalate to the level of violence seen in other demonstrations … and …climate protesters might have glued themselves to roads or climbed bridges – which certainly posed risks to themselves and inconvenience to the public – but they did not target individuals for harm.”
So folks, that is the way to go, predominantly non-violent civil disobedience. Anybody got any superglue to spare?
.