"Collett" on sentencing Guidelines consultation

[NomenNescio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=somLOE-Z7QI
Six Years in Prison for Posting on Social Media
"Collett".
6. It's that favorite number again.

I watched a couple UK Column News last week but it's largely Palestinians
and gibs for a nuthouse internee. Nothing on South Africa, Nothing on
Bedford Turner or Chabloz cases which concern "free speech", an odd
omission, maybe they're waiting for verdicts before reviewing.Some for
their Media On Trial.

[NomenNescio]

NomenNescio <Nomen...@not4spameinrot.com> wrote in
news:XnsA8EF2617AB...@217.17.47.19:

Six Years in Prison for Posting on Social Media.
Mark Collett.
Published on May 17, 2018.

[TRANSCRIPT--to be treated as a draft subject to verification by the
reader. Time stamps approximate. Please remove if objection received from
the copyright holder (and memorialise the fact of deletion).]


[00:00]
Six years in jail... not for grievous bodily harm, not for assault, not
for selling Class A drugs to children, but 6 years in jail for sharing
something on social media that the government deems Politically
Incorrect.

Six years in jail is the proposed maximum sentence put forward by the
Sentencing Council in their latest set of proposals titled "Public Order
Offences Guidelines: Consultation" and these proposed six year sentences
will be handed out to individuals who share social media posts that are
deemed hostile towards a race, religion or sexual identity. The new
guidelines drafted by the Sentencing Council also propose a _minimum_
punishment which is again, a prison sentence, but this time of 26 weeks.
The Sentencing Council's Public Order Offences Guidelines Consultation
was published on the 9th of May this year and I have placed a link to
their website in the description below. From this link you can download
the full document and read their press release on the document.

But what _is_ the Sentencing Council? Well, I read this from their
website and I quote: "The Sentencing Council for England and Wales
promotes greater consistency in sentencing, whilst maintaining the
independence of the judiciary. The Council produces guidelines on
sentencing for the judiciary and criminal justice professionals, and aims
to increase public understanding of sentencing".

So these proposals aim to lay out "guidelines" that will promote
"consistency" and these particular proposals have been made in relation
to the Public Order Act which prohibits activities intended or likely to
stir up hatred against minority groups,

[02:00]
which includes racial groups, religious groups, and those of minority
sexual orientations, including transgender people. The consultation
period on these proposals will run until the 8th of August this year.
Following that, definitive guidelines will be drawn up and those
guidelines will be used in courts in England and Wales.

The proposals on how sentencing will be determined are quite clear: there
are 2 factors that must be considered by judges when handing down
sentences. These factors are "culpability" and "harm".

Firstly, let's look at culpability. "Culpability" is split into three
brackets which are high, medium and lesser and we're going to focus on
the _high_ culpability category, but you're of course welcome to read the
full document for yourself to understand these proposals fully. I read
this from the proposed Sentencing Guidelines, and I quote:

"High culpability: the factors proposed were identified as factors
increasing seriousness of offences in the limited numbers of cases
available for analysis. Among the cases analysed there are a number of
"hate speech" type offences where inflammatory speeches were given by
influential figures with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.
Other cases involved publication on YouTube of content inciting serious
violence towards particular racial or religious groups, websites being
published including abusive and insulting content, with some activity
continuing over a long period of time and intended to reach global
audiences. The Council considers that activities of the type listed
represent the highest level of culpability for these offences,

[04:00]
as they demonstrate a serious intention to stir up hatred towards
particular groups."

There are some very worrying terms used within that section on "high
culpability": the first is "influential figures". This suggests that
sentences will be harsher for those who have large followings or where
posts or uploaded content has been viewed a large number of times. This
is also bolstered by the following definition relating to uploaded
content and again I quote: "Intended to reach global audiences". So, if
an individual has a large following and has uploaded content that was
intended to reach a global audience, like, say, a YouTube video--and
YouTube is specifically mentioned within this section--that individual
could well fall into the "high culpability" bracket when being sentenced.

"High culpability" also takes into account the period of time over which
the individual has been publishing content. So if someone was to post a
video that reached a global audience and that video was part of a long-
running series or posted to a channel that had been active for several
years, all of those factors _could_ see that person being punished to the
full extent of these proposed guidelines.

Now let's move on to the second category defined within these guidelines:
"harm". "Harm" is split into two categories which are simply referred to
as category 1 and category 2. Again, we will focus on the guidelines for
category 1 offences which are as follows, and I quote:

"Harm category 1 factors.
The proposed factors are intended to reflect the most serious harm which
could be caused by this offence. The ways in which these offences can be
committed are wide-ranging,

[06:00]
which the factors reflect.
The Council considers that the most serious harm present in these
offences would be cases where activity is encouraged which threatens or
endangers life, as well as cases involving widespread dissemination of
material and/or a strong likelihood that many would be influenced."

Obviously, this definition includes cases where people are encouraging
activity that threatens or endangers life and from my point of view, that
is not unreasonable. Anyone using a platform to call for the murder or
physical harm of others should indeed be prosecuted. After all there are
plenty of Islamic extremists and left wing activists that call for
violence. It just seems as if the police are less inclined to pursue
charges against these groups when they are the ones issuing any kind of
threat. However, the part of this definition that is the most worrying is
the following, and again I quote:

"Cases involving widespread dissemination of material and/or a strong
likelihood that many would be influenced".

So if you were involved in a case of "widespread dissemination of
material" where "many would be influenced", then you could well be placed
into category 1 when it comes to causing "harm" under this definition;
however the term "many" is not defined. Is it a thousand? Ten thousand?
One hundred thousand? Or even a million? Because if "many" is defined in
the low thousands, or even hundreds, that could literally affect almost
_anyone_ with a Facebook, Twitter or YouTube account.

The proposed culpability and harm categories then form a matrix which
allows for a judge to assess what sentence someone, who was found guilty
of an offence, would receive.

[08:00]
So someone who ended up being judged as having "high culpability" and
whose offence fell in category 1 when relating to "harm", would face a
sentence of between two and six years in prison.

So let's break this down. How could you end up in the section of the
matrix that would have you staring down the barrel of a six year prison
sentence? Well, quite simply, if you are an influential figure, a term
that isn't defined but could easily be someone with a few thousand
YouTube subscribers or Twitter followers; if you are someone who is
producing material intended for a global audience, which could be simply
uploading a YouTube video or maybe producing a meme for Twitter, and, if
the content you produce goes on to be viewed by "many people"--again,
"many" is not defined--you could be facing _six years in jail_.

But what kind of content would you need to actually post to get yourself
arrested? Well that's very subjective. In fact I made an entire video
about this issue called "Britain's Soviet-style Hate Crime Laws". It's
linked in the description below. In this video, I read from the British
College of Policing's booklet called "Hate Crime Operational Guidance".
This document explained exactly how the police were to address and
investigate so-called "hate crimes". There were two very important things
to take from that document.

Firstly, there is no legal definition of what a "hate crime" is. A "hate
crime" is any criminal offence which is _perceived_ by the victim or any
other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards another
person based on an issue such as race, religion or sexual orientation.
Whether a crime is a "hate crime" or not

[10:00]
all falls down to the perception of the victim or in fact any other
person and that other person doesn't even have to be an onlooker or even
be present when the incident takes place; they can simply have heard or
read of the alleged incident and interpreted said incident as being
motivated by hate and contacted the police to tell them so.

Secondly, when someone reports a "hate crime" to the police the
guidelines laid out in the aforementioned document do not require the
person who reports a so-called "hate crime" to provide any evidence to
the police to back up their claims that the person committing the alleged
crime was motivated by "hate" and regardless of how ridiculous or far-
fetched those claims may appear, the police are not allowed to challenge
the claim that the alleged crime was motivated by "hate".

To hear about all this in detail please do watch my previous video as
it's a very important topic. But from that short summary, it is clear to
see that the way the police investigate so-called "hate crimes" isn't
based on facts but instead on feelings; and the police officers
investigating these "hate crimes" aren't allowed to challenge those
feelings or demand any facts to back them up. So for an individual to be
arrested for sharing something on social media, and for that individual
to be potentially looking at a lengthy jail sentence, all that needs to
happen is for someone to report that social media post to the police and
claim that the social media post in question is a "hate crime". At the
very least the police would have to investigate their claim without even
challenging it. There is no definition of what can or cannot be posted to
social media. Whether your post will be investigated as a "hate crime"
is all down to the _perception_ of those who view it,

[12:00]
and whether they report it to the police as a "hate crime".

And even if what you posted was 100% factual and contained no commentary,
simply statements of fact, that would be no defence in this sort of
prosecution. Liberals are already referring to certain facts as "hate
facts". These are of course facts that liberals _feel_ may cause one
group of people--those of European descent--to be--how can we say it--
wary of other racial or religious groups. So if you were someone who had
a large following on Twitter and you were to post a meme that merely
stated the fact that 1400 White girls were systematically groomed and
sexually abused by Moslem men in the town of Rotherham in England, and
then someone reported you to the police over that post and reported it as
a "hate crime", that tweet would not only be investigated as a "hate
crime" but because of

--the size of your twitter following,
--the number of people who viewed the tweet,
--the intended global reach of the tweet, and
the fact that it could--and I quote--"stir up hatred towards particular
groups" (and in this case the particular group is a religious minority),

that could satisfy all the conditions in these proposals for you to be
sentenced to spend the best part of a _decade_ in prison.

What you have just heard isn't taken from the pages of a dystopian novel
or the script of a dark Sci-fi film about an oppressive police state.
Everything stated in this video comes directly from documents that are
used by the police and the judiciary when dealing with so-called hate
crimes. This is sadly the grim reality of laws that are being tightened
in order to prevent any public discourse over topics deemed

[14:00]
"politically incorrect" by our internationalist puppet politicians.
Politicians that are turning Britain into a Politically Correct police
State--a State where the police prioritise feelings over evidence. A
State where if someone is reported to the police for wrong-think, the
police must investigate that report and cannot challenge the person
making the report. A State where facts are deemed "hate", and a State
where posting facts or opinions to a social network can land you with a
jail sentence that would historically be associated with crimes such as
manslaughter, grievous bodily harm or sexual assault.

But it doesn't have to be this way and there is actually a way to stop
these proposals becoming a set of official guidelines. These proposals
are currently in a consultation process and that consultation process is
open to all members of the public. I have left a link in the description
below to the page where members of the public can respond to these
proposals and I urge _everyone_ to participate in this consultation and
let the Sentencing Council know how _utterly_ ridiculous, open-ended and
anti-free speech their proposals are.

This is where you can make a difference. Make sure your voice is heard.


Thank you for listening. If you enjoyed this podcast please help spread
the message by liking and sharing it on social networks. If you want to
hear more from me, please hit the subscribe button as new videos are
posted every week. You can also read my book, "The Fall of Western Man".
It's available as a free ebook and in both hardback and paperback and all
the links are in the description below. Finally, if you want to join in
the discussion with me, feel free to add me on Facebook and follow me on
Twitter. Also you can now follow me on Gab, Minds]] and Bitchute as well.
Everyone's welcome.

[END OF TRANSCRIPT.]



Links referenced in the video and its webpage:

New proposals by The Sentencing Council are pushing jail sentences of up
to SIX YEARS for that those who post material to social networks that is
deemed ‘politically incorrect’. Find out how you can fight back against
this anti-democratic legislation and prevent these guidelines from being
officially adopted in British courts. The Sentencing Council’s Proposals
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/public-order-consultation-
launched-on-sentencing-guideline/

How to Complain & Register your Objections to these Proposals
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/consultations/public-order-
consultation/

Britain’s Soviet Style Hate Crime Laws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ8WPzu_u9U

Register your objection to these proposals, you CAN make a difference!
You have until the 8th August 2018 to have your say. Please circulate
this video & make sure as many people participate as possible.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/consultations/public-order-
consultation/?

[END OF WEBSITE NOTES AND LINKS.]



NB: from the Consultation document (from which see addresses etc):
"A series of consultation meetings is also taking place. For further
information please use the "Enquiries" contact details above."

[NomenNescio]

NomenNescio <Nomen...@not4spameinrot.com> wrote in
news:XnsA8EF2617AB...@217.17.47.19:

Here's a Transcript of the Collett talk that preceded the one on the
Sentencing Council's Guidelines Consultation - "EXPOSED: Britain's Soviet
Style Hate Crime Laws."





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ8WPzu_u9U

EXPOSED: Britain's Soviet Style Hate Crime Laws.
Mark Collett.
Published on March 29, 2018.

[TRANSCRIPT--to be treated as a draft subject to verification by the
reader. Time stamps approximate. Please remove if objection received from

the copyright holder.]


[00:00]

With each passing week more and more people are being arrested and
prosecuted for "hate crimes". As such it's actually quite important for
people to understand what constitutes a "hate crime" and how the police
go about investigating such crimes.

The first thing I want to make clear about the term "hate crime" is that
it is an emotive and politicised term which is actually rather imprecise
and not legally defined, and as I go further into explaining how "hate
crimes" are investigated you will see just how _serious_ this issue is.

The term "hate crime" was obviously coined for several reasons. One of
them was to create a two-tier legal system. One tier of this new legal
system deals with less serious offences, simply known as crimes; and the
other tier deals with more serious Soviet-style political offences known
as "hate crimes". Because if someone walks up to you and stabs you
thirty-two times in the chest because they just wanted to, that's now
less of a crime than if someone walks up to you and stabs you thirty-two
times in the chest because they were motivated by "hate". What's more,
if somebody walks up to you and stabs you thirty-two times in the chest
because they just wanted to, that might now be a less serious crime than
someone walking up to you and punching you on the nose _if_ the person
throwing that punch was motivated by "hate".

You see, once a crime is deemed a "hate crime" it must be investigated
more vigorously and punished more harshly, despite the fact that the
actual quantifiable damage caused to the victim might not in fact be as
serious as the quantifiable damage caused by another more heinous crime
that wasn't motivated by "hate". And there is now a diktat from the Home
Office

[02:00]

stating that the investigation of "hate crimes" _must_ be prioritised
over the investigation of other crimes.

And of course "hate" is being used as a tool by Politically Correct
thinkers, in this case Politically Correct thinkers at the British
College of Policing, and these people have come up with what they call
the "Five Monitored Strands of Hate Crime". And essentially these
Monitored Strands are brackets which a "hate crime" can fall into and
they are:

1. disability;
2. race;
3. religion;
4. sexual orientation;
5. transgender.

I believe they are listed in alphabetical order as listing them in
importance may be construed as a "hate crime" in itself by some!

Now I took this information from the British College of Policing's
document titled "Hate Crime Operational Guidance". As always it's linked
in the description below and this is one document that all Nationalists
in the UK want to download and digest so you get a full grasp of how
crime and policing have been politicised. And as you will soon see,
policing these so-called "hate crimes" is very subjective rather than
objective.

The first worrying thing to take from this document is the following, and
I quote:

"There is no criminological consensus on the definition or even the
validity of the concept of hate crime, but it is important that this
policy has a framework".

And yes you did hear that correctly: there is no consensus on even the
definition _or_ the concept of a "hate crime". Yet this despite how
inconclusive the first part of that sentence was, the sentence concludes
that there must be a framework for dealing with "hate crime" despite
"hate crime"

[04:00]

not even being properly defined or even considered valid by some legal
experts.

At this point if I hadn't provided the link to the document this comes
from many people would actually think that this was too insane to be
real. But prepare to go down the rabbit hole even further as it all gets
_much_ worse.

The Hate Crime Operational Guidance then goes on to state, and I quote:

"Hate crimes and incidents are taken to mean any crime or incident
where the perpetrator's hostility or prejudice against an identifiable
group of people is a factor in determining who is victimised."

So the first thing to note is there are two different groupings here: a
"hate crime" and a "hate incident". Both are defined in a very similar
manner, however a "hate incident" is, and again I quote from the
document:

"A non-crime incident that is motivated by the perpetrator's
hostility or prejudice against an identifiable group of people."

And that in itself sets a very worrying precedent--the police are
investigating and cataloguing non-crime incidents based on perceived
prejudices. Which then goes on to beg the question: Where is that
information stored? And who has access to it?

In layman's terms, people who haven't broken the law but may have said
something the State deems Politically Incorrect are now being placed on
police databases so presumably the State can monitor them. And this can
have a real world effect: anyone subject to a CRB check for employment is
likely to be turned down for their application if they were found to be
on one of these lists.

The second thing to note is that all of this rests on

[06:00]

proving the perpetrator's hostility or prejudice towards someone based on
either disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender
issues. That in itself is a very grey area. How can one truly
understand a person's motivations and prove those motivations beyond
reasonable doubt? Is it always possible to know someone's motivation?
Are these motivations thoroughly investigated? Are those accused subject
to background checks? Does the accuser have to back up their assertion
with facts? Does the individual being accused have a chance to defend
themselves against such allegations? Well, the British College of
Policing begins to lay out how they will deal with the issue of proving
prejudice or hostility in _their_ definition of a "hate crime" which is,
and I quote:

"A hate crime is any criminal offence which is perceived by the
victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice
based on a person's race or perceived race; or a hostility or prejudice
based on a person's religion or perceived religion; or a hostility or
prejudice based on a person's sexual orientation or perceived sexual
orientation; or a hostility or prejudice based on person's disability or
perceived disability; or a hostility or prejudice against a person who is
transgender or perceived to be transgender."

And there you have it: a "hate crime" is any criminal offence which is
"perceived" by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a

hostility or prejudice towards another

[08:00]

person, based on one of the five aforementioned categories that the
police currently monitor.

So there is no actual solid definition from the police of what
constitutes a "hate crime"; it all falls down to the _perception_ of the
victim or in fact any other person, and that other person doesn't have to
be an onlooker or even be present when the alleged incident takes place;

they can simply have heard or read of the alleged incident and
interpreted said incident as being motivated by "hate" and contacted the
police to tell them so.

Quite simply, if someone sees or hears of you committing an alleged crime
or an incident and believes that alleged crime or incident to be
motivated by "hate", then you have, according to the British police,
committed a "hate crime" or a "hate incident".

The police don't define this; the alleged victim or any other person who
may or may not have viewed what occurred defines whether it is a "hate
crime" or a "hate incident" based on their own personal and highly
subjective perceptions. And if you think I am joking or taking this out
of context or misinterpreting the document for my own ends, I will read
you exactly what the document in question has to say about this, and I
quote:

"For recording purposes the perception of the victim or any other
person... is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a
hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime.
The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief,
and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this
perception. Evidence of the hostility

[10:00]

is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime
or hate incident.

Crimes and incidents must be correctly recorded if the police are to meet
the objective of reducing under-reporting and improve understanding of
the nature of hate crime. The alleged actions of the perpetrator must
amount to a crime under normal crime recording rules. If this is the
case, the perception of the victim, or any other person, will decide
whether the crime is recorded as a hate crime. If the facts do not
identify any recordable crime but the victim perceived it to be a hate
crime, the circumstances should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident
and not a hate crime.

It is necessary to provide sufficient evidence for the prosecution to
prove hostility to the court for a conviction to receive enhanced
sentencing. However this is not required for recording purposes."

So when an incident occurs, whether it is recorded and investigated as a
"hate crime" or a "hate incident" is based on the perception of the
victim or any other person who may or may not have witnessed it. So if
you see someone shoving another person in the street and report it to
the police as a "hate crime" without having _any evidence_ of such or
even knowing the context of what is going on, the police have to record
that incident as a "hate crime". But the document goes further; if the
victim of an alleged "hate crime" reports that crime as a "hate crime",
not only do they not have to justify or provide _any evidence_ to back up
that assertion, police officers or staff are not allowed to challenge
this.

So here we have a set of Guidelines

[12:00]

that do not require the person who reports a so-called "hate crime" to
provide _any evidence_ to the police to back up their claims, and
regardless of how ridiculous or far-fetched those claims may be, the
police are not allowed to question them. And even if the evidence of the
alleged crime--not the motivation but the actual criminal act--points to
the fact that no actual crime has been committed, the police still record
the occurrence as a "hate incident" and the accused is still put on a
police database because someone else regarded them to be motivated by
"hate" without having to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up that
assertion.

The Politically Correct commissars are crafting a Soviet-style legal
system that isn't based on facts--a legal system that isn't based on
reasoned evidence; and are actually going down a direction that seems at
odds with the age-old English legal foundation of innocent until proven
guilty. This new legal system will not be objective and the rules of
this legal system will not be directly quantifiable. This legal system
will be subjective and defined by any individual and their personal
interpretation of an event or incident. This new legal system won't be
based on facts but on feelings and the police officers investigating
incidents or crimes won't be allowed to challenge those feelings or
demand facts to back them up.

What's more, even those who haven't been proven guilty, those who haven't
committed a crime, will have their details recorded; they will be added
to a register of those who have been accused by others of "hating".

[14:00]

This legal system will create a new crime: a crime of being motivated by
"hate" and that crime will be punishable to a greater level than regular
crimes, to the point where even those accused of such things will be
added to a database and presumably be monitored in some way by the State.

All of this might sound like part of a plot from a dystopian novel, but
it is not; this is sadly the reality of living in modern-day Britain.
Facts are replacing [sc: replaced by] feelings; feelings cannot be
challenged. Those accused of being motivated by "hate" are presumed
guilty and even if they are found innocent they are put onto government
lists. This isn't justice; this is Soviet-style tyranny and the end of
the rule of law. This is the tyranny of the multicultural Politically
Correct liberal system in which we live.

Thank you for listening. If you enjoyed this podcast please help spread
the message by liking and sharing it on social networks. If you want to
hear more from me, please hit the subscribe button as new videos are
posted every week. You can also read my book, "The Fall of Western Man".
It's available as a free ebook and in both hardback and paperback and all
the links are in the description below. Finally, if you want to join in
the discussion with me, feel free to add me on Facebook and follow me on
Twitter. Also you can now follow me on Gab, Minds and Bitchute as well.
Everyone's welcome.

[END OF TRANSCRIPT.]


Links referenced in the video and its webpage:

"The British College of Policing’s Hate Crime Operational Guidance
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Hate-Crime-
Operational-Guidance.pdf

My book, The Fall of Western Man is now available. It is available as a
FREE eBook and also in hardback and paperback editions.

The Official Website:
http://www.thefallofwesternman.com/

FREE eBook download:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3cctZ95PDYZTnRjSUd5VUtRR2c/view

Hardback Edition:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-collett/the-fall-of-western-
man/hardcover/product-23018477.html

Paperback Edition:
http://amzn.eu/9LaS7HN "

[END OF WEBSITE NOTES AND LINKS.]

Transcriber's note: see also for related Sentencing Council Consultation
(comments to be delivered before 8 August 2018):

https://archive.org/details/SixYearsInPrisonForPostingOnSocialMedia

[Lapp1987]

NomenNescio <Nomen...@not4spameinrot.com> wrote in
news:XnsA91F28138D...@217.17.47.19:

> NomenNescio <Nomen...@not4spameinrot.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA8EF2617AB...@217.17.47.19:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=somLOE-Z7QI
>> Six Years in Prison for Posting on Social Media
>> "Collett".
>> 6. It's that favorite number again.
>>
>> I watched a couple UK Column News last week but it's largely
>> Palestinians and gibs for a nuthouse internee. Nothing on South
>> Africa, Nothing on Bedford Turner or Chabloz cases which concern
>> "free speech", an odd omission, maybe they're waiting for verdicts
>> before reviewing.Some for their Media On Trial.
>>
>
> Here's a Transcript of the Collett talk that preceded the one on the
> Sentencing Council's Guidelines Consultation - "EXPOSED: Britain's
> Soviet Style Hate Crime Laws."
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ8WPzu_u9U
>
> EXPOSED: Britain's Soviet Style Hate Crime Laws.
> Mark Collett.
> Published on March 29, 2018.
>
>

......
>
> https://archive.org/details/SixYearsInPrisonForPostingOnSocialMedia

Maybe the UKC News better review the guidelines or do they have 'official
dispensation'....?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlZM1DbZJpk&t=29m40s

UK Column News Friday July 13, 2018 - ff to 29m / 40s

Rehashing for the tommytards that Tommy aka Yaxley-Lennon, aka Harris,
aka...? is a zogbot whose latest actions potentially could have resulted
in a mistrial get-off, but then in inimitable form UKC's Gerrish from his
safe White enclave in the South West starts preaching that left-behinds
should picker up for a big kumbayah hug.

Here's a truly pathetic (as in pathos) piece, listen after several
minutes for just a hint of what life is like for the left-behinds

https://archive.org/details/SteadSteadmanAndTessCulnaneNationalistUnity