Sunday 9 January 2022

The Sunday Ishmael 9/01/2022

Sir Thomas More:     This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? 
The law-felling process is well underway, as our judicial system moves from the Rule of Law to the Rule of Values. As Sir Thomas More said, we're safer under the rule of law. 
Meet the lawyers with the chainsaws:
Liam Walker, Doughty Street Chambers
“One of the most determined and direct advocates, he is both fearsome and utterly fearless."  Chambers and Partners 2020/21
 Liam represented Sage Willoughby
  • He argued that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

  • He asked the jury to consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

  • He asked the jury to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would be a disproportionats infringement of their rights under Articles 9,10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler [2021] UKSC 2 

    Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, Matrix \Chambers

     "Frighteningly clever. Tactically brilliant and able to look at something from so many different angles.”  LEGAL 500

    Blinne represented Rhian Graham
    She argued that slavery was a bad thing and that the conditions under which slaves were transported were horrible. She called in aid George Floyd's death under the knee of the arresting police officer. 
    Raj Chada, Hodge Jones & Allen
    "He is an out-of-the-box thinker and is tactically astute." Legal 500 2022
    Raj represented Jake Skuse.
    He argued that the criminal offence was the statue remaining in place. 
    Tom Wainwright, Garden Court Chambers
    Very experienced. He's like a terrier - he doesn't give up." Chambers UK, 2021

    Tom represented Milo Ponsford.
    He argued that removing the statue was like removing a cancer. 
    So these  four fearless, fearsome, frighteningly expensive, out of the box terriers between them have managed to persuade a British jury that the night is the day and the sun is the moon.
    The Colston Four: Willoughby, aged 22, Graham, 30,  Skuse, 33 and Ponsford, 26, were charged with Criminal Damage, after being identified as prominent in the removal of a public statue from its plinth by forcibly dragging it and then rolling it into Bristol Harbour, causing damage to the statue and the railings in the process, and necessitating public expenditure in retrieving the statue from the Harbour and taking it to a safe place - a museum, where it remains, broken and daubed in paint.
    Criminal damage occurs when someone unlawfully, and intentionally or recklessly, damages or destroys property belonging to another person. This would include arson, forced entry into a property, graffiti on a public building, but, following this verdict in the Bristol Crown Court, no longer the destruction of public property.
    The offence of Criminal Damage was established in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. For conviction to be achieved, the following elements must be established: 
    • Damage (temporary or permanent) was caused. 
    • That damage occurred to property. 
    • The damaged property belonged to another. 
    • The damage was caused without lawful excuse. 
    • An intention to cause the damage, or recklessness as to whether damage would be caused.
The jury found the defendants not guilty. This is clearly a perverse verdict, aided, abetted and encouraged by the Fearsome, Fearless, Expensive, Out of the Box Terriers. A verdict is perverse when the jury clearly refuses to follow the direction or instruction of the trial court upon a point of law, or where the verdict reflects highly emotional, inflammatory or immaterial considerations, or an obvious prejudgment with no attempt to be fair. 
This perverse verdict must be appealed and set aside without delay - not as some establishment backlash against woke youth, as asserted by the charmless Ms Graham, at 30 years old clearly no longer a part of that demographic, but simply to protect us all, including the Appalling Colston Four, against the winds that would blow across this land in  the absence of Law and the supremacy of Values.
Because Values depends entirely on whim, fashion and who has the upper hand at any moment. That J.K.Rowling? Trash her, even though she has said nothing but the simple truth. That mrs ishmael? Throw milkbottles at her windows - the ones with petrol in.
Whereas the Law - as the French proverb has it: "La Loi est la Loi, si vous etes Mède, Perse ou Juif."


The conspirators to perpetrate Criminal Damage planned their actions the night before, over drinks: Mr Willoughby said in Court: "If you can call a very vague conversation the night before while we were having a few drinks a plan, then yes. I have been signing petitions since I was 11 years old to have that statue removed. I spoke to my elders about it. I was, quite frankly, laughed at - they said they had given up signing petitions because nothing was ever going to happen."


Pretty damning: intention, and a knowledge that removing the statue was not carried out with the consent of the city officials (presumably the owners of the statue), who had been petitioned by Willoughby for its removal for 11 years and had stood firm against it. 

You would think that having achieved a perverse verdict that could have devastating implications for all of us in terms of the law protecting our property from damage by those intent on its destruction, The Appalling Foursome would have the sense to shut the fuck up about it. Not so. 

Rhian Graham has been ranting about the "demonisation" of young people: she is quoted as saying: "The war on woke is a feeble attempt to find another scapegoat - a sort of mythical enemy to blame everything on.... woke is a colloquial term for being aware of social injustice...... young people who care about equality and making the world a better place."

 She went on to compare herself and her crew with the illegal actions of the suffragettes, forgetting that the suffragettes were subjected to the rule of law, and served sentences. Whereas The Colston Crew has merrily avoided the consequences of their actions and is chortling about it. Of course, they have not achieved this landmark Perverse Verdict. They quite clearly could not find their arses with both hands. Nope, that was a triumph for their expensive and distinguished lawyers, who, unless something is done to appeal this right old mess, will have achieved the accolade of having turned the law of the land upside down, inside out and back to front.


As mr ishmael always said: First thing we do, is we kill all the lawyers.

RUMPOLE NEWS. 6/1/12 ishmael smith
Q: What do you have if you bury six lawyers up to their necks in sand?
A: Not enough sand.

 Mr Michael  I-will-never-take-silk Mansfield, QC
radical lawyer and  staunch defender of civil liberties, but not everyone's, only those of people who are paying him. Cunt. The thinking man's Imelda Blair.

Warning against over-reliance upon forensic science to secure convictions, Michael Mansfield in the BBC Scotland Frontline Scotland TV programme Silence over Lockerbie, broadcast on 14 October 1997, said he wanted to make just one point:
"Forensic science is not immutable. They're (sic) not written in tablets of stone, and the biggest mistake that anyone can make—public, expert or anyone else alike—is to believe that forensic science is somehow beyond reproach: it is not! The biggest miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom, many of them emanate from cases in which forensic science has been shown to be wrong. And the moment a forensic scientist or anyone else says: 'I am sure this marries up with that' I get worried."   Mansfield, here, quite definite that forensics are not the dog's bollocks, after all. 
and from News Shopper: “Stephen Lawrence family lawyer questioned over evidence in 1990s court hearings”
A LAWYER acting for Stephen Lawrence’s family has been questioned over how evidence in the murder of their son was handled during court hearings in the 1990s. Michael Mansfield QC appeared at the Old Bailey today where Gary Dobson, aged 36, and 35-year-old David Norris are on trial for the 1993 murder. Both defendants claim clothing seized from their homes after the murder and garments from Mr Lawrence have been contaminated over the years.
They deny killing Stephen Lawrence.
Jurors heard Mr Mansfield had represented the family in a 1996 private prosecution at the Old Bailey, a 1997 inquest at Southwark Coroner’s Court and a public inquiry in 1998. But he denied handling any of the clothing seized from suspects in those hearings, saying police had been in control of them. Mr Mansfield said: “I wouldn’t do it myself because obviously there’s a risk of contamination.” He said the first trial had not lasted long, adding: “From my recollection I don’t remember any exhibits, save one and that was a weapon in a box.” Under cross-examination by Dobson’s defence barrister Tim Roberts, he was asked about a transcript from the inquest in which Mr Mansfield had asked Dobson: “Do you recognise this jacket?” Mr Mansfield replied: “I can’t be specific because I might not have had anything in my hand at all.” He said that if the jacket had been held up, it would have still been in the windowed brown paper evidence bags used by police.
See, wonderful, ain't it, fair makes your heart glow, how lawyers can advance both sides of an argument, depending on who's paying them, and mean them both very sincerely - forensic science is not immutable, apart from when it is being used to convict two lowlifes who were never, in any event, going to  get a fair trial.  And clothing - and forensic evidence on it - can be contaminated but not when it is  in a very special sort of  brown paper bag and handled by an eminent QC.  The evidence in the Lawrence murder trial, however, despite being seventeen years old and having admittedly been mishandled, well, now,  that was immutable, cast in stone, all that stuff.
Q: How do you greet a lawyer with an IQ of 50? 
A: Good morning, your Honour, Mr Justice Treacy.

There can't be too many people of jury service age in the country  who are unaware of the almost two decades of accusations of murder made against Mr Dobson and Mr Norris et al, of the widely screened video recording of them fantasising -  but not enacting -  racialist atrocities.   (All of those here gathered who regularly call for various forms of politician dismemberment must pray that they never appear, charged with anything, before Hizonner, above, for such will be deemed by him as proof of their wickedness and deserving of an extra two years in jail.) Most will have heard of, if not read, Mr Dacre-Fuckpig's front page outburst calling Mr Dobson and Mr Norris Murderers! and defying them to sue him and his shitrag, the Daily Mail, as though they could afford to sue anyone;  most will know, too, that MediaMinster regarded the failure of the private prosecution of these two gentlemen as nothing short of scandalous, so scandalous that the law must be changed in order to put them on trial again.  Most will, in short, have been bombarded by a relentless campaign from MediaMinster, the filth and from the victim's family and friends insisting that these two (and others) despite having already been acquitted were as guilty as Hell.  Seeing as how everyone on the country had been told over almost twenty years that these two were guilty, how on Earth were they ever to get a fair trial? But fair trials don't interest our modern, whoreson, jackanapes lawyers, like Mr Coleman's Mustard, above. Convictions, that's the thing, convictions count towards  a proper career,  can't beat a good conviction and a heavy sentence,  good for the govament, good for skymadeupnewsandfilth, good for Old Bill.  And that's what really matters. All rise. Mrs WOAR insists on a previous thread that the Lawrence cops actually got it more or less right, insofar, at least, as the evidence allowed them so to do, and that prosecutorial waters were muddied by a clamorous race relations industry; mr jgm2, like most of us, remains intuitively -  for how can it be otherwise, the accused not having had a fair trial - convinced of the guilt of Norris and Dobson, others lament the lack of orchestrated, pseudo-political activity in the case of the lonesome death of  non-BrightALevelStudent Ian Tomlinson, and many others;   a poor old bloke, separated, who liked a drink, somehow less important than a son of intolerable, pushy, motormouthing parents, his public killing by an officer of the state not giving rise to the sustained crescendo  of Abbottisms, Howeisms and Phillipsisms, one is almost tempted to propose that the killing of Steven Lawrence was  hijacked by career racists of the third kind,  people like Mrs Lawrence, who would remind us daily, if she could, of her loss, her pain. I always remember that guy, in the Remembrance Day Enniskillen bombing, Gordon Wilson, whose daughter died in his arms, and who had no words but of forgiveness, and contrast him with today's whining, vengeful publicity-seeking harpies.
The two anthologies of the works of mr ishmael and his young friend stanislav: Honest Not Invent and Vent Stack are available to buy for mere money from Lulu or Amazon. It is cheaper to buy from Lulu. Register an account with Lulu to save a couple of quid, as going straight into the link provided below seems to make paypal think it's ok to charge in dollars, and apply their own conversion rate, which will put the price up slightly for a UK buyer. Once the new account is set up, follow our link; a pop-up box asks for age confirmation - simply set the date to (say) 1 January 1960, and proceed. (If you type the title, the anthology will not appear as a search result until the "show explicit content" box - found at the bottom left by scrolling down - has been checked.  You may also see the age verification box, as above, at this point.) 
 The full title is "Vent Stack love from stanislav" by ishmael smith, and the cover you'll see is red with white titles and a picture of Buster the Previous Blog Dog having a green thought in a green shade. 

Link for the paperback:


shorter link, which might make it easier if you wish to paste it into an email and tell a friend:

 Honest, Not Invent is available in paperback or hardback.
Link for Hard Back :

Link for Paper Back

At checkout, try PROWRITINGAID15, WELCOME15 or TREAT15 in the coupon box, which  takes 15% off the price before postage.  If this code has expired by the time you reach this point, try a google search for " voucher code" and see what comes up.  
With the 15% voucher, the book (including delivery to a UK address) should cost £10.89



Mike said...

The fault in the Colston case lies with the jury. They must have had a collective IQ still in single figures. If the appeal is heard by a judge only, then I can see how it cannot be overturned. A barrister once told me that far from 12 good men and true, juries were a lottery, and easily swayed. Can't completely blame the lawyers: for a thousand an hour I would argue black is white, and they get paid regardless of result. Forget any notion of justice, for starters. Consider the Assange case.

mongoose said...

It isn't just the jurors fault though, is it, mr mike? "Be on the right side of history." Is about a ha'p'orth short of a threat. I'd birch the bastard who uttered it. And I'd kick the arse of the Judge who let it by without rebuke.

Our real problem is the destruction of honour and truth. Consider slavery. Slavery existed in every nation from the beginning of the world until about 150 years ago when the Fucking Brits decided to end it! And then the Yanks very nearly laid their New Jerusalem on the altar of completely ending it. But nobody dare say this - except here.

All is villainy and fact-checked cant. We need some hangings. Andy Pandy first, Crazy nancy second, fox-killing Jocyln next...

Mike said...

Down Here, mr Djocovic has just been released. I'm not one of his fans, but his treatment down here has been an absolute disgrace, totally politically driven (there was a public backlash against his exemption, and then our PM Morrison waded in with his big mouth - this is an election year). The judge spoke quite pointedly, and gave the Govt 2 fucks. All in all, very refreshing.

mrs ishmael said...

Slavery continues to flourish, particularly in the Gulf States, where young black women are enticed to leave family and village on the promise of lucrative employment, but find themselves working for a wealthy family non-stop and sleeping under the table. It exists in Britain. The Office for National Statistics tells us that there were 5,144 modern slavery offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2019.
I'm with the frighteningly clever Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh. Slavery is a bad thing, demeaning slaves and their owners. Such a shame these woke "young" people do not concern themselves with the enslavement and abuse of people here and now, in their own country, their own time, their own city.
My purpose here was not to support the preservation of ugly statues to historic businessmen, but to support the rule of law. This verdict by an exceptionally stupid and over-emotional jury has given the green light to rioting and the destruction of property. What the fuck has the death of George Floyd at the knee of an American cop in America got to do with the deliberations of an English jury considering an act of criminal damage in Bristol? Fortunately, no-one was hurt; but that such things can happen with impunity should make us all shiver.
I am not physically able to defend myself, my dog, my car and my property against a determined mob. That is why we have police, the courts and the rule of law. Or had.