Patriots On Trial – John Banks takes on the system at Doncaster Magistrates Court

  Justice in Doncaster

On Wednesday 04 July I attended a civil hearing at Doncaster Magistrates Court, where a prominent patriot and political activist, John Banks, was fighting to defend his freedom to protest against the Islamisation of our country.

He was also there to defend his right to forcefully criticise government policies – and to criticise those organs of the state complicit in perpetuating those policies whilst at the same time trying to cover-up a well-orchestrated programme of enormous injustice against the British people.

I have known John a long time, both as a political activist and as a friend, and I have long felt that the systematic persecution of such patriots and political activists should be reported on and openly discussed so that “we the people” can realise the extent that the State will go to suppress the righteous indignation of ordinary citizens who see what is unfolding right in front of them and who wish to warn others of the inevitable outcome, which may well extend to civil war on our streets within a generation.

John Banks has a long and honourable history of standing up and saying the things that the State would rather not have said or broadcast. I have attended several events where John has given powerful and impassioned speeches concerning not only the Islamisation of our country, but the attempted cover-up of one of the most outrageous scandals of our time – the rape and trafficking of thousands of our young and vulnerable children by predatory Muslim rape gangs – or as the media would say – “grooming gangs” as detailed in the 2014 book “Easy Meat” by Peter McLoughlin.

Needless to say, John has had to contend with some of the worst things that the State has been able to throw at him, and on this occasion he was required to appear before Deputy District Judge Russell in a civil hearing to determine whether he should be jailed for breaching the terms of an ASBO.

An ASBO is short for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order. These were originally devised to deal with children and teenagers whose rowdiness occasionally got out of hand, and rather than to subject them to the full criminal court process, it would deal with behaviour that “caused -or was capable of causing – harm, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.”

“Any person.” Not “any reasonable person.”

Any person who was, or could have possibly been, or who could claim to have been “alarmed or distressed” by the actions of John Banks or any other individual, could have his complaint dealt with via a legal process resulting in an Anti-Social Behaviour Order. It is not difficult to see how easily this process could be abused to suppress thoroughly justified and politically motivated protests by patriots such as John Banks.

On this occasion at Doncaster Magistrates Court, the police were trying to argue that John was in breach of an ASBO issued when he made a political protest that was deemed not to have met evidential standards that would have justified criminal charges.

This was serious. If John had been found to be in breach of his ASBO, he could be facing six months to two years imprisonment, and this was at a time when various political activists such as Jayda Fransen, Paul Golding and Tommy Robinson had recently been jailed on various trumped-up charges – all of which fell into the category of “activities that make the State look bad when it has become obvious that the State has become derelict in its primary duty of keeping its citizens safe.”

On the morning of Wednesday 04 July, the police opened their case by playing some CCTV recordings of John Banks speaking at various rallies in Manchester, Rotherham and Sunderland. There were snorts of derision from the public gallery when it became obvious that the police prosecutor was unable to get to grips with the “ClickLink” video system designed to communicate CCTV recordings to everyone in the courtroom, and even  more so when the bundles of documents comprising the evidence against John were presented to the judge, as they were hopelessly disorganised.

Eventually the police prosecutor had to resort to playing the CCTV recordings on his laptop, once to the judge, and once to the defence counsel and the rest of us in the public gallery. Full marks for improvisation, I suppose, although one could easily see that the judge was not impressed.

The CCTV recordings admittedly showed John using “colourful” language to denounce the Islamisation of our country, and to denounce the predatory behaviour of increasing numbers of Islamic grooming gangs.

He was also very scathing concerning the seeming inability of the police, social services and government to effectively deal with the increasing problems that have been caused over the last 20-30 years as a result.

However, at no time was John seen to be inciting murder or mayhem, and he was careful to draw a distinction between Muslims as people and the ideology of Islam itself. He only said what many of us already knew – that if things kept going the way they were, then we were headed for very dark times indeed, and that we were now in a perilous situation that could have easily been avoided if only the State had not been guilty of gross dereliction of duty in its failure to keep its citizens safe.

After much discussion back and forth between the police prosecutor and the judge, it eventually transpired that one of the CCTV recordings was missing. A courier was dispatched to track down the errant CCTV recording and in the meantime the trial was momentarily postponed.

During the break I was able to chat with John Morley, who was acting as an advocate for John Banks. I told him that I wished that I had had him representing me at my trial at Southwark Crown Court in 2017. He would have made short work of Fiyaz “Fizzy Bollocks” Mughal in the courtroom.

Eventually the errant CCTV recording was delivered to Judge Russell and the case resumed. The police prosecutor argued that John had been obstructing the police in their duty of arresting Jayda Fransen at a public rally, however Judge Russell appeared to acknowledge the argument put forward by the defence that on the contrary, the CCTV recording showed that John was merely trying to have Jayda escorted through the crowd towards the police lines in a safe manner, and that there was no attempt to obstruct the police.

Despite our initial forebodings, Judge Russell found that although John Banks’ actions undoubtedly constituted “behaviour causing, or capable of causing harm, harassment, alarm or distress to any person” under the current wording of the Act relating to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, the case was not strong enough to allow the police to exercise their “powers of arrest” in this instance.

Not only that, but as the original ASBO had come with no time restrictions, the Judge set a limitation of twelve months for the duration of the ASBO. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the police prosecutor, who having seen defeat snatched from the jaws of victory in terms of having John summarily arrested, had argued that the ASBO should at the very least have been kept in place for an extended period of time.

I was pleased -as I am sure most of John’s numerous supporters who were present at the hearing were pleased -to see John emerge from the Court a free man (albeit with a twelve-month restriction on his political activities.)

In my opinion both John Banks and his advocate John Morley deserve medals for heroism in the face of the enemy, although I doubt whether our current spineless Prime Minister Theresa May would agree. We will probably not see a nomination for Lord Banks of Doncaster any time soon. However, the battle to save our country continues, and as the old Buddhist saying has it – “Never underestimate the power of one drop of water. On its own it may seem insignificant, but over time it will wear away the biggest stone, or fill the largest ocean.”

Tim Burton

Please donate whatever you can afford to my Legal Defence fund:

http://www.paypal.me/followthecat

Your contribution will help to overturn an unjust conviction.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *