Samantha Dixon, MP
Chester North and Neston
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
23rd January, 2025
Dear Samantha Dixon, MP
On November 18th, 2024, a former military colleague of mine, Daffron Williams, was “jailed for anti-Islam Facebook posts”, the BBC reported. I look back on my time in the British Army, and remember Mr Williams, with whom I spent six months in Iraq in the same eight man tent, at the military base outside Basra. We were in the same platoon, and often struggled side by side against Britain’s enemies.
I am writing to you after my attempts to use the ‘Find a Prisoner’ service, which the Prisons and Probation Service recommends. So far, the service has failed to provide me with Mr Williams’ current address, which I think is one of England and Wales’ prisons. I wrote to the Prison and Probation Service in November, and also in late December, using the online service. I received a reply on the 27th December 2024 in response to my second application, asking whether I wanted anyone else to know his address. My first application, in November, has had no response at all.
I would like you to ask your government to look into it, asking why a prisoner in Britain seems in this case to be held incommunicado, not only deprived of liberty, but also of the right to letters or visits.
It is a related matter, but only tangential to my request, that I have examined the reasons why Mr Williams was given a two year prison sentence, and prior to his trial, a long period on remand, in the first place. His trial and imprisonment revolves around his posting on Facebook, a cartoon of a traditional muslim man as imagined in the popular imagination, and, another cartoon of a Christian knight next to a traditional symbol of Britain, namely a lion. The BBC reported that he said he:
“is only racist ‘to those who suck the life out of our culture. As a culture we are too nice and soft. […] They want us to be Islamic, that's why they are here.’
“In another post he wrote, ‘Come on guys, it's time to stand up. Everything our ancestors, our grandparents and parents fought for is gone, don't be scared.’ (Collette Hume, BBC News, 18th November, 2024).
I have thought about these things for a while now, and they seem to me to be political statements. It was a political decision to allow Islam to operate inside Britain. It is also a political decision to allow immigration into Britain. Parliament has discretion to either forbid or allow immigration according to its policy. Parliament also has discretion over what political ideologies can operate inside Britain, and Islam is among other things a political ideology.
By the time this matter arrived at court Williams had already been forced to accept that he was guilty of something; he was put on re-education courses. But in the circumstances of the time, when many children had been killed and injured by a person from a family originating in Rwanda, the matter of how to react and comment on immigration ceased to be a political matter and became a judicial one.
It had been determined by the Prime Minster at the time, that any objection to immigration policy of an impassioned sort, would be dealt with by the courts, and under his direction courts took control of politics in some cases. So, Williams’ actions were dealt with as if they were a crime, when they were actually political statements of dissent, which can never be criminal. It seems to me that it was only because he had no faith in the political process to prevent harmful immigration and changes to his culture, that he spoke in a more general way and at random: he spoke politically. After all, he did not himself do any physical damage to anything, nor joined any kind of conspiracy to do anything; he never acted in a criminal way.
I accept that the judge in the trial found him guilty of something. But that seems to me to have depended largely on political pressure by the Prime Minister at the time; and, because Williams had already spent so long in prison on remand, to deny him a prison term would have implied he was wrongfully arrested and detained in the first place. So the judgement was, on this account, made for the judge in advance.
Additionally, the court’s judgement seems to me to have turned a blind eye to the political element of Williams’ behaviour; I mean in those posts, Williams is calling for Parliament to do something. The BBC reported: “A third image depicted a group of men in traditional Islamic dress chasing a crying child in a Union flag t-shirt in front of the Houses of Parliament.” It is my view, that the judge must have studiously ignored this, turning a blind eye to how Williams was calling on Parliament to act. Instead, the judge said: "[It was] your intention to incite serious violence. You knew exactly what you were doing, your posts were intentional."
By contrast, to me it seems obvious, that when Williams said “Come on guys, it’s time to stand up, etc.” on a public forum, he was also or principally calling on you, his MPs, his representatives in Parliament, to stand up and to do the right thing. Specifically, totally to put an end to the murder of children by foreign people in Britain, and to stop the changes which are taking place in our country because of certain types of immigration into places where we live. Whether you want to agree with him or not, he is addressing you, and he is making a political statement.
In summary, I think Williams is what you should call a political prisoner, either from judicial negligence, or by a political decision to crack down on dissident opinions; and that he has been tried and jailed because he expressed his political beliefs in an impassioned way. Like many of us, he did not want certain types of immigration into our islands, and like me, he thinks that a certain type of belief and behaviour traditionally foreign to Britain, should be outlawed. He is in prison now because he said this and believes this.
To return to my original point, can you please look into the matter of why I have not been given his address for correspondence. It has now been around ten weeks that I have been waiting for the Prisons and Probation Service to reply to my request. It may be that he himself does not want to share it, but I cannot know, either way, because I have heard nothing.
You will certainly agree with me, I hope, that his being a political prisoner cannot be the reason for this silence. I simply want to offer my old friend some reassurance, and to explain to him that he does not appear to us to have deserved a prison sentence, although he has manfully undergone one. If there is any problem with writing to political prisoners in your view, please let me know.
Yours sincerely
Jason Powell
--
--
--
6 February 2025
Former Royal Marine was accused of inciting racial hatred by his own Member for the Sennedd. His own member of parliament accused him of breaking the law, when he expressed political opinions.
He had made a social media video in which he said, that people should ask their politicians to stop illegal and mostly foreign male immigration to England and Wales.
Arrested and charged by the police and the 'Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service', he pleaded not guilty, and was put on remand for three weeks, before being fitted with a tag.
At the hearing yesterday, the jury found him not guilty after seventeen minutes of deliberation. ---
--
--
16th February 2025
NATO started the war. The Biden Whitehouse and previous administrations were mucking about in Ukraine from at least 1994. They knew no Russian of any political stamp would tolerate this.
The permanent US State Dept. by 2019 were openly advocating making Russia bankrupt and making the Russian nation collapse. By wriling up the Belorussian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Syrian, and Caucasian people, so that Russia would over-extend.
Another part of the strategy was, to cast doubt on the Russian state’s legitimacy, arouse internal Russian dissent, defame the Russian people across the world.
Station nuclear and other missiles along the Russian border, and carry out full scale NATO exercises along Russia’s border.
All of these and more have constituted a new attempt to defeat the ‘USSR’ for a second time.
When in 2021 another provocative step toward bringing Ukraine into NATO was made, Russia objected, drafted a treaty for consideration (which was ignored by NATO and the US), then in an act of desperation, Russia invaded Ukraine.
It was a small scale, Special Military Operation. It was politics by other means.
Peace talks were convened in Istanbul in April 2022. Russia retreated in an act of goodwill. Peace and Ukrainian neutrality were agreed upon in Istanbul, according to all the participants.
Full war broke out only in April 2022, when Mr Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister went to Kiev, and according to the Ukrainian negotiators, said to Kiev: ‘Let’s fight’. Britain and the US and NATO will ensure that you win the war. ‘Just fight!’ He told the Ukrainians.
Over three years of fighting, there have been more than one million Ukrainian military casualties. Nobody know who will rebuild Ukraine’s infrastructure and housing stock. Russia now holds four additional regions of Ukraine. The population has almost halved.
This was a NATO operation, a certain globalist neo Conservative operation. The proxy war was embraced by the US as a means of weakening Russia. Prominent US politicians said so from the start in 2022. Now, after this NATO embarrassment, there is little chance that NATO will survive. They have lost, and been unmasked.
In 2023 the Secretary General of NATO admitted in public at a NATO meeting, that Russia were only interested in Ukraine being neutral. “They gave us a treaty, requesting no expansion of NATO, and Ukraine to be neutral. Of course we didn’t sign that treaty. In fact we expanded NATO”, Soltenberg boasted.
Russia has proven to be the third wealthiest nation, after only China and the US by measure of PPP. This measure indicates survival and military power. In 2024, Russia recruited 430,000 additional infantry regular soldiers: more than the entire professional US Army, in one year. Meanwhile, the British Army decreased in size by a net 2,000 men in the same year.
We have all been lied to, on policy. The British state is still lying to us about these matters.
Donald Trump does not lie. He sees things as I see them. Trump has an easy time talking and thinking. His policy is to stick to the facts, unlike his demented predecessor, whose long term dissimulation and vicious policies, led to his actual dementia.
Hopefully, the two honest politicians of our time - Trump and Putin - both nationalists and loyal to their people, will arrange peace now.
I would like to see a new British administration, similar to those now in power in the US and Russia. Nationalist, patriotic, masculine, Christian.
It was clear three years ago how this would end. And most shamefull of all: although most British people and politicians supported and funded this war, none of them died. They let Ukrainians die instead.
--
--
--
25th February 2025
I've been listening to Professor David Betz giving a prediction of the next five years of British history. He is a professor of War Studies at University College London. He has advised government on counter-insurgency, both the British and foreign governments.
The study and practice of counter-insurgency is a British government and British army specialism. When leaving the colonies or the empire, and when dealing with Ireland, the British developed a keen and pragmatic interest in how to stop a nation from collapsing. He is interested in explaining that Britain is itself now an unstable country, and it is likely to collapse. Strangely, successive British governments have almost encouraged the instability.
Because it has gone on for so long, the bad government and the failure to spot the classic causes leading to failed states, have had effects which are now irreversible. The same can be said for many countries in the West; Canada's government has said that a civil war is likely in that country within a time frame of five years. Betz says the same time frame applies to the United Kingdom.
Our future will be characterised by uprisings and civil war. Signs of instability and the failure of the state were first seen in a drastic way in 2016, and Brexit. The population of Britain vote one way, but the government went the other way, regardless. A second marker of instability has been the end of the financialisation of the British economy. There is effectively nothing left to sell. The third sign of inevitable British national collapse is the failure of Multiculturalism.
By multiculturalism, we mean non-European immigration. We take no stance on this, but let's see what will likely happen due to government's refusal to listen to the people, the unstoppable economic decline, and the ill effects of a failed policy of mass immigration. The governing class has thorughout all of this acted more like an imperial authority than a government of a collective national state: they have arrogated the right to distribute funds and wealth as their role, rather than consulting the people for the sake of the social contract.
The civil war will break out most likely due to the industrial rape gangs. These gangs, and the way the state has colluded with them, has drained out whatever little social coherence and social capital there once was in Britain. The industrial rape gangs have undermined the government or the state's legitimacy. The rape gangs have already drained the country of its final legitimacy, but what will spark the war will be some kind of martyrdom in prison by a protestor against them, or, the deaths of more children at the hands of immigrants.
This week, The Prime Minister has said that the biggest threat to Britain now is, our own military power against external enemies. But Betz and people such as myself don't really think Russia or China are nearly so much of a threat as the internal threat. Multiculturalism has given rise to a threat. We are a polarised country, made of factions, a divided society. There is no social capital or trust - it is all gone. The pre-political heart and soul love of the country has been drained out of us. The white native population has meanwhile been downgraded.
Downgrading of a particular group - for the native English are now just a particular group among many - is a classic cause of civil war. A previously dominant faction loses its stature and identity, and starts the war. For a civil war to begin, there must be a dominant faction with a sense of grievance. The native English are going to be the cause of the civil war. They are a 'white identity movement', who threaten to start the war.
At first, they will probably engage in a dirty war. The phrase is used about the South American type of civil unrest - unrest which is not quite a classic war. There are lots of deaths, but no obvious conventional fighting. Violence is diffused - and carried out by death squads which target media figures, judges, lawyers, politicians. In a dirty war, the state reacts with repression, surveillance, and secret operations.
Later on, the war in Britain will roughly become a war between the largely rural white areas, and the large cities. The insurgents will attempt to starve or cut off the cities, and cause systemic failure - with the aim of outlasting the chaos and the urban collapse. They will do this with the aim of regaining power over those cities at a future time.
The first impulse of the native English will be to reverse large scale demographic change of the population. To force foreign people's either to starve and die, or to leave the country. The second reason for attacking the large cities will be, to punish the governing class who have failed to maintain the social contract.
It is unlikely, at the start, that any group will form which will have the aim of murdering, or actually harming individuals. But insurgents will find it easy to cut electricity lines, disrupt internet access, damage access roads, destroy gas and oil pipelines into the large cities.
The cities will be an easy target. Betz says that several English cities are on the spectum for being 'feral'. There are no-go areas; there is negotiated police presence; and the governance of them is corrupt. London is an example, but there are many others. A city is characterised as a community which is not self-sufficient. So, to deprive it of its supplies would cause it to quickly descend into total chaos, economic heart-attack. When the residents of the cities spread out into the wider country, then the third stage of the war will begin - when the sides will organise and mobilise.
--
Alongside the multicultural population of Britain, the government will be the target of the war. Decades of government in Britain have failed to protect the borders against marauding cross border raiders. Or to protect the most vulnerable - the nation's children. Compounding this, the government has largely covered up its own negligence at all levels, including the police.
Additionally, the government since Mrs Thatcher at least, has encouaged predatory capitalism, extraction politics - to tax the middle class to pay for the decline of national income from productive exports. The working class has already been annihilated. In order to enforce the multicultural idea, the government introduced a two-tier police, and a politicised judiciary. A partisan and an incompetent police 'service'. Recent efforts to shut down the independent media, and to blame social media and even 'the Russians' for unhappiness about the government and multicultural are bound to fail.
And all of this takes place in an era where the geo-strategic situation is precarious and changing, along with economic emiseration. The cities of England are already barely functioning or non-functioning, although they are not quite as bad as 2003 Mogadishu. -- Nothing can be done to stop the collapse of Britain into civil war within the next five years. A single spark could set it off, and then it will gather speed, and like a boulder rolling down hill, the further it goes, the more damage it will do. The spark will likely be another child murder, more industrial rape gangs, the death in police custody of a British nationalist, something like that.
What remains is to make preparations: remain healthy, and plan for the very worst. Leave the large conurbations. Make friends with your neighbours so that you can trust them to do guard duties while you try to get some sleep in the chaos.
The state should prepare an emergency plan to protect Britain's cultural monuments; plan to retain at least a core or control over the chaos; and hide the nuclear and biological stocks away so they cannot be accessed or sold or used.
Also, external states will attempt to interfere, aiding one side or the other - or even taking the opportunity to invade.
-- What culture was it that we needed, or which once held us together? The racial aspect of our people and the sense of private property, of the land belonging to us; our Church; our King.
--
--
--
4th March 2025
Back in February 2022, I was the first to say, that the West had gone a bit too far into eastern Europe. It's always been my position, that western interfence in foreign places is a bad idea. See, in my view, our government always go about it with two faces: the one they show, which is all smiles and liberty; and the one they hide, the real one, which is about stealing and harming other countries. It wasn't always like that. In past times, the West invaded places directly, with an army. These days, its done with coups, payments, arranged riots, and fantasy stories about WMDs and liberating women, and so on.
When I've had my personal ups and downs, I've been happy to see The West (this Britain we find ourselves in, now) get pushed around in Ukraine.
In 2003, I knew what was going on with the 'WMDs', because I know how the US and the UK operate. They make up stories of good, evil, or liberation and freedom, then they invade or overturn societies. Our class of professional politicians, who over longer periods in office these days become psychopathic, have had the aim of crippling Russia for decades. It's a long term goal to overturn if not invade Russia. See what happened to Iraq? That. At the same time, with every successive year, our country has become less fit to fight. Not only less fit to fight, but less like our actual own country. It used to be a masculine, orderly, Christian country. What is it now?
There's not enough men in the armed forces, after decades of despising our beloved British profession of arms. So, by this time, when we have moved to the stage where, on Sunday this week, after our Prime Minister has agreed with other European leaders to put a "peace keeping" force in Ukraine, that there have also been widespread talks about Conscription. We need conscription, people like General Sherrif (ret.) says, because we have so badly neglected the armed forces, that they are almost useless.
Let's be clear: our society as a whole dislikes the armed forces so much, dislikes the English and Welsh men so much, that over the past decades, they reduced the patriotic occupation of soldiering down to nothing. And the same people who did that, now panicking that the destruction of Russia is not going to plan, are now going to force young and immature men, who don't know what it is all about, to put on uniform. Like some sort of soft totalitarian propagandised youth movement, bent on doing harm overseas, they would be.
--
Who is in charge of Britain? Let's see what Zelensky thinks of them. Did you see how hurt Zelensky was at the weekend? Why was he unable to contain his anger? He called the US President and the Vice President 'ladies of the night' under his breath, in his native Russian language. Why? Was he so angry because he was being bullied? Was his anger aroused because he felt he must stand up for his country? Not at all.
Zelensky felt angered, because he was unable to spit out the words which ought to have been on the tip of his tongue: "YOU PROMISED me that we would win. That's why we've been fighting and dying all this time. BORIS JOHNSON promised me that the US and NATO and the UK would make us win this war! Where is Johnson now? Where is Victoria Nuland? Where is she? She promised me the US would beat Russia, and that we would win. That is why we stayed the course. That is why we didn't accept the peace terms at Istanbul in April 2022, when no one had yet died and nothing had been lost! That is why we all died!"
That's where his anger comes from. This was a Western war on Russia, using Zelensky as the heroic leader of a proxy army. They had planned to defeat Russia in the field, and had fought for that reason. Zelensky was wondering why he had got involved in that demonic plan, and why the people who had orchestrated it, namely the US, were now pulling out.
What you saw there was the failure of yet another British foreign invasion, another botched US interference mission - in Ukraine this time. And a man, Zelensky, who is entirely aware of how much it cost his friends and neighbours, and the men who got slaughtered for it - for that demonic scheme.
--
Let me tell you, I am very tempted to spend the next few years trying to stop any volunteering to the British armed forces. I have no idea how. But it must be done.
There's a scene in 'This is England', the film of 2006 which Spence Beynon loved so much, where one of the protagonists points to his head and then his heart and then his guts, shouting:
"This is England, and this is England, and this is England!" That character is saying that, for all he knows, a man is what makes a country, and a country belongs to a man.
He said something later which I could never understand until this year. He said that the Falklands War was a rich man's war, a treasonous war, and that it had nothing to do with the people and the country. He said the Falklands veterans were fools. The brave soldiers were idiots who had been played. They thought they were fighting for England, but they weren't.
It was a paradox, for me. How can you be militantly patriotic, and not admire the war?
What is going on when a man demands that soldiers stop fighting for Thatcher, is, that he is demanding a military policy which derives from our actual interests. Thatcher's war, which I otherwise approve of, is approved of by me for the sake of the glory it brought us. The gallantry, the machinery, the unbelievable good luck. But the men were not serving England when they went there.
That film was about the relatively meagre numbers of West Indians and Asians in Britain in 1982. It was about immigration and the British government's bringing a foreign and anti-British, anti-Christian people into the country. The film was also about the depravations people were experiencing because of the failed economic and industrial policies of internationalist British leaders.
The rulers of Britain had failed to look after the people of the country. The soldiers in the Falklands, the skinhead says, were not fighting for or from England; they were fighting for a totally rotten, treasonous government. An anti-Queen was in charge of their war and their country.
I feel the same would be the case in 2025: but, as in all other things, infinitely worse, so much worse.
Let's see how near to conscription and the invasion of Russia's 'Borderland' we are. Kaja Kallas is the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; she is also Vice-President of the European Commission. She is head of European security.
On Sunday this week, she wrote: ‘Ukraine is Europe! We stand by Ukraine. We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor. Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.’
What will it mean that youths and older men are going to be facing Russians near the Russian border because of this woman? It is the most appalling thing, to get through the door of the British Army these days. It is a scandal. But that's another matter; that's just dysfunctional Britain.
What is less well known or understood, is something people talk about a lot, but which there doesn't seem to be any adequate way of expressing: you can never give it the right amount of emphasis. It is this:
Britain does not deserve troops! Britain will certainly actually punish soldiering, and soldiers! It will lock veterans up, it will actually kill some of them; I know this. It will tacitly assume they are bad and damaged. It will show extreme prejudice against them in daily life, in employment, in the courts. It will continuously accuse British men of being in need of re-education. Britain's soldiers in the future will be subjected to trials. The whole culture is against them. And worse than this: they will be going overseas while foreign men take their homes and women.
If the British men were truly to be called on, wouldn't it be necessary first, for the sake of their pride and peace of mind, that foreign men were prevented from coming to replace them? Yes. But our personal England, our Army, our land and our reasons for living and dying, don't come into it.
There seems to be no adquate way of expressing this horror-film situation, where Britain's youth is going to be shifted out, and replaced by youths from distant lands, other than through poetry, as they do in the myths: we find ourselves in something like the death of the land when the king dies. Like in the Arthur cycle of stories where the country sickens and dies while the leader lies bleeding. The land is dead. It is stricken with a plague. The four horsemen of the apocalypse have visited. There is a famine, and a bad evil king is in charge of the land.
I am tempted to spread this message and stop any conscription. But then, a country so badly injured might not be able to tolerate much more loss.
--
--
--
27th March 2025
True story. I saw this last week, and wanted to post it on Facebook or wherever I could. See how Putin throws the pen at the oligarchs, see how he makes Deripaska, the owner of Rusal, sign the document. The oligarch walks off with Putin's pen, and is forced to give it back.
But I thought better of it, and thought that this video would needlessly irritate people; how could they understand why I think Putin is a great politician? You don't want to hear it, and it serves no one to just post a video without any occasion.
But lo! Today, there are reports that the owners of the Scunthorpe plant of British Steel are going to shut the plants down. It is more or less a done deal. Our version of Oleg Deripaska is going to shut down the plant and sack the workers.
Now, in 2009, Deripaska, schooled in British investments and in how industry is run, he shut down the Rusal plant outside Leningrad. The population of the town, who all worked there, protested fiercely. Deripaska made the same excuses that British Steel's owners are making. He laid them off, and left them without jobs or pay.
When Vladimir Putin heard about the situation and the protests, he called a meeting with the oligarch, and forced him to reopen the site and pay the outstanding wages for the period of shut down.
"If you don't reopen it, I'll reopen it. We'll nationalise it."
Deripaska has been known, as a typical westernised Russian, to have recently and publically complained that Russia should stop the war against NATO.
--
Another thing to note is, the British oligarchs (Indians, actually) have already shut down Port Talbot's blast furnaces. These steel plants at Scunthorpe are owned by a Chinese company. They call themselves 'British Steel', but they are actually called 'Jingye'.
In an article for The Spectator this week, there is another attack on Putin and Russia, by Lisa Haseldine. She attacks Putin, and can barely conceal the meaning of her article: she says "Russia promised to become Westernised. But there were signs from the start that things would go wrong."
She means to say what men like Kier Starmer mean to say: Russia was going to be like Britain. And then it all went wrong! They remained Russian, and had their own steel works, their own aluminium plants, their own workers working for their own country!
Forgive me for being so nationalistic and for loving my neighbour so much; I'm just thinking like a soldier and a politician for my own nation. It's considered a fault; I admire how Putin looks after Russia.
--
I have some other observations about England and Wales, which are probably unpalletable now, given how things are done around here these days. But people are begging to know why things are taking such a downturn across the land, and I understand very well.
The things which made Britain special were not many, but they were heavy duty. First there was the Class system. It was not a caste system: that is, you could be upwadly or downwardly mobile, and the class of your birth was not your final classs, as it is in Caste systems. But there were classes. And there was also an Elite of ultra talented 'classless' men who naturally worked For the Upper Class: with music, scientific activity, military daring, political brilliance, bold exploration, poetry and high art.
If we still had that, we'd be feared and respected around the world, regardless of how rich we were. But it's gone, largely by the introduction of an international spirit and an international poulation. That loss is to me a painful daily and immovable pain. Britain has no meaning now that it has no Class System. There's nowhere to rise to, nowhere to fall, and hardly anything like a common culture to feel at ease with each other in.
The other thing which made us special was our religion. We were Christian, and we had our own national Church, with the King in charge. That's also gone, and for that, everyone is in despair; many people don't know it yet, but they are utterly adrift and will pay very much for cursing and despising God. We already are being ruined by it. See how the Americans despise us. And I mean 'us', all of us.
Being Christian used to mean also being militaristic, proud of your country, arrogant toward your enemies; it meant being judgemental, harsh and hard to the stupid and the shamelessly idle. This is paradoxical, since Christians are supposed to be meek. I remind you: you are meek in your relationship to God, but to your enemies, savage. That's what Trump expects of real men, and he's right.
--
--
--
4th April 2025
Mrs Letby's legal representative has put a document before the Criminal Cases Review Board. In it, a panel of 14 international paediatric and neonatal experts say that there was “no medical evidence to support malfeasance” in any of the cases heard at Letby's trial.
He also has a report from seven medical experts who say that the case for insulin poisoning is unreliable.
My photo is of the Blacon interview room in Chester, with which I am familiar. If you aren't, then you must be better than I at evasion and discretion. The police aren't raised or trained to respect the traditional man or his family; nor do they have any interest in 'sons of the soil' such as you and I. And they don't think private property is important either. They take no interest in thefts; but they do like coming into your house with handcuffs and their gas cannisters, given the opportunity.
--
My issue is, I don't like Cheshire Police; I don't think they do a reasonable job. I pay £215 per year for them, and my dealings with them have been prejudicial against men such as myself. They aren't police in the old sense; they don't protect the community: they are merely left wing activists who get their instructions from left wing government.
I would like to propose that I pay an extra £215 per annum for a proper protection force, one with local loyalty, and an interest in protecting private property, and respecting the private life in general. The police are meant to follow my principles and do my job for me, of standing guard for my family and my locality; the police are meant to be doing the jobs I am too busy for. That's the principle on which they are paid for by me.
I have found that, on the contrary, they are an employment agency for diversity and equity of opportunity among people who would once have been considered unfit for any duty; employment is offered to the officers so that they can engage in social reform along broadly socialistic anti-nation lines.
--
But we find out what they have been doing with my £215 per annum. Have they been patrolling? Have they been getting to know the local money launderers, or stopping the drugs in Chester, sorting out how many illegal foreign nationals are roaming about hte town, or dealing with out of town people stealing your van?
Not at all. Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes, who ran the investigation into Mrs Letby, said the other day, that he has been doing a six year investigation, with 70 officers, 32000 pages of evidence, interviews with more than 2000 people. Multiple medical experts were consulted, he boasted. There's your money! That's where the old police went, then. All of it spent on a case where there is 'no evidence'.
--
When Mr Hughes disclosed his ideas further, he said that the case should not really be discussed any more. Lucy Letby should just rot in jail for fifteen lifetimes, on the basis of no evidence. He did give his reasons for wanting no more discussion. The usual dodge: it upsets the families, and people shouldn't talk about court cases, in case the jury in any future hearing might be affected.
--
It embarrasses me, that the same people I see from time to time speeding past my house, or once in a while patrolling through Chester with a couple of loaded sub-machine guns cradled in their arms, are happy and more than happy to let a nurse remain in prison, and miss out on an ordinary life, because so much time has gone into confecting a case, so much incredible attention to detail has been expended, that it would be a shame to let it all go to waste, or to admit it was an oil tanker of a case that they couldn't turn around.
A new system of police is what is needed. Bring them in, and when they are in place, gently let Detective Superintendant Paul Hughes and his like go and do whatever these bogstandard leftist humans do in their retirement.
--
Everyone is aware that there's no evidence about Letby, now. So Hughes has one more thing to say to people like me, which I wish to counter. He says that people like me have an opinion on the case, "much of it ill-informed and based on a very partial knowledge of the facts and totality of evidence".
My response to him would be that I question his intelligence; what looks like knowledge and facts to him, does not look like evidence of crime to me. Hughes no doubt makes a big deal about procedure and the calibre of his expert witnesses. That makes no difference to me, either; there are a lot of dull stupid over-promoted people in high places. I want evidence of Letby's crimes, and there is none.
Hughes tells you his priorities. Good kindly socialist left wing ones: "Our priority is to maintain the integrity of our ongoing investigations and to continue to support the many families who are affected by this". Not interested in the facts, nor justice. Just the integrity of the endless wasteful investigations, with a sprinkling of intervention into families; not to mention the good sentiments and social work, to make it all nice and politically correct.