Published On: Tue, Oct 13th, 2020

National Action Series; Part Seven: the UK Government’s pyrrhic victory precariousness

Share This
Tags

In March, when four people were convicted (with jail sentences handed down in June) for being members of the so-called proscribed terrorist organisation, National Action, it was a news landscape incident that was overshadowed by “Covid-19”. Although, when UK Government set itself on the course that would culminate in this event it would have wanted the full media exposure, as things turned out, however, it surely would have been happy for the obscurity. The conviction was obtained at the second time of asking, with the first trial, which had taken a good deal of the first half of 2019 to execute, having failed to move a jury to find the accused guilty. At the time, it was another failure in a broader scheme (with the character “Tommy Robinson” being deployed in the mainstream) to create an association between Brexit and the “far-right”, so that having the country leave the EU could then be portrayed as the will of violent and vile extremists†. With National Action, the effect would prove the cause: some people would go to jail, therefore they would have had to have been guilty. It would follow that, although the millions of others who, by association through support for Brexit, were not in prison, they would be suitably vilified. And so, although the retrial somewhat missed the boat for its primary purpose, it became a case of UK Government bullheadedly getting its way in the end, because it’s just unthinkable that British people should ever be allowed to get the scent of the wounded UK Government’s blood, and it needs to be seen to deal ruthlessly with people it has had a mind to make an example of.

The reader will find the assertion about the attempted Brexit as act of the “far-right” demonization discussed in more detail in the previous parts of this series, and the back story of this particular case in Part Six: Spare us the cutter, couldn’t cut the mustard, from whence the following paragraph does a passable job of summarisation:

There was also something very odd about the trial of the other four suspects. The corporate-media kept reporting a piece of data that the court was evidently generating that just wasn’t true. Given that the general method of convicting alleged National Action membership has by necessity involved asserting that any expression of neo-Nazism, or anti-Semitism is a proof of desire to be in the gang, this inaccuracy definitely created an impression about one of the defendants – Alice Cutter… – of more wannabe dedication than there might well have been. Thus, if it was not a case of corporate-media misrepresenting the trial for the sake of the court of public opinion, then there was something wrong with the trial. In fact, the extent of the problem that the issue suggests is not one that should be fully discussed at this juncture, given the four accused are going to be retried in January, 2020, and further observations need to be made at that time.

In fact, the dubiousness of the first trial has been surpassed by miles in the second, so we can now talk about what was wrong with not one but two trials: in both, a very serious matter regarding complete absence of evidence. The charge against the four who were on trial was that they were members of Nation Action after it was banned in December 2016, but evidently (from corporate-media reportage and reported firsthand account, as we shall see) this was not shown. Again, in the retrial, as in the original, there was a dependence on character assassination, and this time it was ramped up with material that hadn’t been produced at the first trial. Naturally, the author suggests that this evidence had not existed at the time of the first trial and has been invented since, or it had been too sensitive (in terms of a suspected linkage of National Action with the British Army, which is a strong clue for the organisation’s military-intelligence origin),and it was produced as a flourish of desperation borne from that aforementioned bullheadedness.

It goes without saying that this time around, there was still a big problem with corporate-media, now evidently ordered to reveal some happenings in the trial at its cessation, rather than producing material as the trial was ongoing. Obviously, this was so there could be no examination of proceedings in real time. When it finally did cover the trial, corporate-media busied itself in a dishonest effort to make it appear that alleged activity as membership of National Action took place after the banning, even though there could not be any getting past the fact that National Action had been abandoned by its membership after 2016 (in the first trial, the court was read an email to various recipients, including some of the defendants, that informed them that “anyone… caught breaking the NA proscription or advocating for NA or even holding any NA memorabilia… will be kicked from the group”).

Furthermore, the thrust of the prosecution was a circular proof, and the establishing of guilt by association with ideas that were to be identified as belonging to someone who must, by dint of having them, be a member of National Action. We know that the trial must have been executed by the prosecution like this, because in his summing-up, Paul Farrer, QC, the name of the corrupt official who had been presiding over the shambles, said something astonishing (source):

Following proscription, you were not prepared to disassociate yourselves from the vile ideology of this group and you therefore defied the ban.

The problem with this should be self-evident, but if the reader does not see it, the four were on trial for being members of a proscribed organisation, and not for having any kind of ideology. And some inside information, via “radicalisation & far-right extremism expert” (see his full profile here), Benjamin Raymond, and his very valuable Twitter publications, offers a little more detail:

A defendant summarised the evidence to me; 50% of it was on WW2, 30% on other people’s (not on trial) conversations and what they owned, 10% on moonman (music), and 10% on the defendants.

(link).

The mention of World War II rings true, given how in both trials it was made out in the corporate-media that guilt was indicated by the attitudes of the accused with regards war crimes committed by the Germans (and their allies in many nations). Again, wanting to collect Nazi memorabilia and even believing that “Hitler was right” may be distasteful, but it doesn’t prove membership of a particular club. And if we really did send people to jail for glorifying war criminals, then the prisons would be full of people who collect the dreadful commemorative coins that have Winston Churchill’s all-the-rations-eating, fat face on them.

While FBEL, in its coverage of National Action, is looking at the signs which show it to be a UK Government operation, what Raymond does better is to raise the horror with which everyone should look upon these National Action trials just at face value. They serve to show that everyone is a potential victim of UK Government abuse. All it would take is tiny adjustments made to the criteria by which certain ideas are deemed unacceptable, and anyone who the State doesn’t like can be made a terrorist out of. This is how the National Action trials should have been informing people, but they most certainly have not. In 2019, if people were getting upset about a corrupt justice system, it was because “Tommy Robinson” and the following industrial complex had engineered a crisis.

Moreover, if this most recent trial was typical, National Action trials have been rigged against the defendants, showing us that when UK Government doesn’t like us, and then criminalises us, it will break the rules to put us in jail. The following is from another Raymond tweet:

What is most crucial to understand is that unlike any previous trial is that the central part of the case rested in it’s entirety on speculative evidence, the defendants having to prove a negative.

The nature of this speculation was guilt by association for which there was no hard evidence either. The Judge did not allow the defence to mention under threat the existence of any individual acquitted [of National Action membership] – while the prosecution relied heavily on guilty pleas.

(link 1, link 2).

If the reader isn’t clear about what is written here: the judge created bias in the jury against the defendants by allowing the prosecution to talk about the precedent set in previous trials where those accused of being National Action membership were convicted, but would not allow the defence to talk about the precedent where those accused of the same “crime” had been acquitted.

If corporate-media reportage is anything to go by, the accused in this retrial would also undoubtedly have been let down by their representation. The example, which we should suppose to be typical, that the reader is asked to look at is reported in the Independent article linked to above, and is referring to Alice Cutter, one of the defendants on trial:

Cutter’s barrister, Liam Walker, said she had been a “20-year-old racist, antisemitic waitress” at the time, who was vulnerable and lacked maturity.

He claimed she had been “groomed”… and that her shocking statements on Jews were “cries for attention”.

“The ‘Miss Hitler’ moniker will haunt her for the rest of her life,” he added.

Here Cutter’s defence attorney is arguing within acceptable parameters desired by the court so as to secure her conviction. He is arguing that if Cutter was a member of a proscribed terrorist group, it was because she was a victim. As Cutter’s barrister should well know, this is not a defence. On the other hand, if Liam Walker had argued that whatever she may be in terms of her attitudes towards Jews, it was no evidence that Cutter was a member of National Action, then he would have been doing what he was meant to.

But this is not the first time that comment has had to be made about the failure of Cutter’s defence; in Part Six of this series, there was discussion of an occasion in the first trial where there was acquiescence  by Cutter’s representation to certain characterisation by the prosecution which was established with a fiction, and that should have perhaps caused a mistrial in its own right. It was concerning the matter of the so-called “Miss Hitler 2016 beauty pageant” and the fact that Cutter did not win it, and it looks like that in this retrial, Cutter’s defence team were at it again. The “‘Miss Hitler’ moniker” is one that belongs to the winner of the competition, not Alice Cutter. If Cutter’s defence couldn’t do a very simple thing and refute this incrimination, it was not very serious about clearing her of the charges.

And it’s the fact that Cutter was still being called “Miss Hitler” which reminds that she was the person who was supposed to have been used as the gimmick upon which to create a strong and persevering public perception. Indeed, it would have very important to UK Government that, at last, she could be seen to have been punished. As such, we can suppose that this is why she perhaps suffered from the most dramatic new information that was introduced at the retrial for the purpose of upping the level of character assassination: an image of her doing a Roman salute behind a National Action flag when she’d all along denied ever being a member. We will discuss what looks like evidence created after the fact in the next article in the series. And then, in the article after that, there will be a look at the doings of Mark Jones, who was preposterously styled “Granddaddy Terror” this time around (Jones is a boy of 25), and who has now, in new material which was used to further incriminate him, been connected to the neo-Nazi battalions in Ukraine that have been fighting the Novorossiyans. This area, of course, is one where the US and UK military have been meddling surreptitiously as part of covert hostilities against Russia. Naturally, the author wonders if Mark Jones is an ex-soldier.

 

† National Action were inextricably linked to the issue via the Brexit false flag; i.e. the incident involving the apparent murder of Jo Leadbeater (“Cox”) [use the search box to find FBEL’s coverage]. The subject of the linkage is discussed over again in this series, but since there was recently an article in these pages regarding The Times as a military-intelligence organ, it is interesting to look at the National Action Wikipedia entry, and see it recording how the spies at The Times were creating the association in the month ahead of the banning:

In November 2016, The Sunday Times reported that National Action was supporting Thomas Mair, the murderer of the Batley and Spen Labour MP Jo Cox, posting “only 649 MPs to go!” on social media.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image