Friday the November 3rd was the 2nd day of the trial. The prosecution presented its “evidence” against the defendants. It showed what the BBC secretly filmed and brought up its arguments.

There is no doubt that this trial is politically motivated. The people of the prosecution were kind enough to give us a written copy of their arguments. I found it hard to believe that in a country that claims to be a democracy, that goes as far as to impose its so-called democracy by force on other nations, the crown prosecution can bring up such preposterous charges against her majesty’s subjects. They could at least have the decency not to insult the public and make the charges look real!

Here are a few passages of the prosecution’s case:

…That is not to say, and it is not the Prosecution’s position, that no debate on these topics should be allowed: of course it should…

…We acknowledge that criticisms of the behaviour of others can, in appropriate circumstances, be justified, even where those criticised are of a different racial backgound….

What the law does not allow, as words of the indictment plainly spell out, is the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words with the intention of stirring up racial hatred or whereby racial hatred is likely to be strirred up.

In other words: Nick and Mark were entitled to talk about the subject of racial abuses against indigenous Britons by radical Muslim gangs. But they had to do it in a way that wasn’t likely to stir hatred! What the prosecution didn’t do, was to say how they should have done this.

Now comes the better part:

The reasons, in a multi-cultural society, are almost too obvious to require elaboration… The fact is that we are a multi-cultural society.

In other words, people in the U.K. have to give up their most basic freedoms, like free speech, for reasons which are so obvious that they don’t require elaboration.

Even better:

You will all know, to a greater or lesser degree, from your own general knowledge of the political scene, that the BNP is perceived by some to have fairly extreme news on issues of race, immigration and asylum

I’m sure they meant “views“. We all make mistakes. But isn’t it amazing that a Frenchman who hasn’t even finished school and who learned English as a 4th language, found this error within 15 minutes! To make things worse, this is the second version of their “OPENING NOTES”.

Shouldn’t the people in the U.K. expect the Crown Prosecution to prosecute real criminals and proofread what they write?

E.d’Aubignosc