Whether you are a fan of the Britain First group, or like me and some others who don’t fully agree with either their politics or their methods of activism, we should all be able to come together, not matter what our view on Britain First as a party, to see that the sentences that have been imposed on two of the leadership team of Britain First, are draconian to say the least. The sentences of imprisonment and the whole case against the Britain First leadership seem to be in whole or in part, politically motivated. According to one source, Tommy Robinson, the decision to proceed with this case went right up to the Attorney General’s office. This appears to me to be quite an unusual step to take for what could be a minor ‘each way’ case, that is one that can be tried either in the lower Magistrates Court or in the higher Crown Courts with the case decided by a Jury. I have to say that if this is true and the Attorney General did become involved in this case, then it is evidence that the government are desperate to stifle the growing objections of ordinary British subjects to the many problems that have been brought to the UK by the savagery of Islam.

Following their convictions at Folkstone Magistrates Court in a dubious ‘hate crime’ case brought against Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding, Ms Fransen was gaoled for 36 weeks and Mr Golding for 18 weeks. They were convicted by Magistrates of various ‘hate crime’ charges of ‘religious harassment’, although some of charges that were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service were thrown out by the Magistrate, Judge Justin Barron. Ms Fransen was convicted of three of the charges and Mr Golding convicted of one charge.

A BBC report on the case quoted Judge Barron as saying:

“He told the court the pair were “well-known”, “controversial” and “generate their own publicity”, but his verdict was based “solely on admissible evidence heard in court”.

He said their words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.

“I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the case [in Canterbury] for their own political ends.

“It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.”

Yeah we know that Britain First are master publicists and although I don’t agree with them politically, they should have an absolute right to point out simple truths, truths backed up by evidence and the historical record, that the ideology of Islam is a worthy and well deserved target of public and private hostility. The religion and migrant background of those targeted by Ms Fransen and Mr Golding were not irrelevant factors. There is plenty of evidence that a large number of Muslim migrants have not exactly behaved as model citizens of the United Kingdom. They have raped and murdered and committed atrocities, the motivations for these crimes committed by Muslims can readily be found in Islamic scripture and culture.

The heart of this story goes back to another case, that of a gang of Afghan Muslims ‘refugees’ who ran a kebab shop, the 555 in Ramsgate, Kent. One night a drunken and lost 16 year old girl entered the shop looking for directions. But, instead of helping this frightened and lost child, the four Muslim savages brutally gang raped her on a dirty mattress in a room above the shop. These Islamic savages, one of them allegedly an illegal migrant, were arrested by police later when the girl made a complaint of rape to them. These savages were eventually questioned, charged and brought before the courts.

Inexplicably, these savages, at least one of whom could reasonably be seen to be a flight risk, were given bail. These savages, who apparently had a very strong DNA based case against them, were even allowed to go back to the same kebab shop they had raped the girl in and open it up again. In my view there were compelling reasons for remanding these savages in custody such as the fact that they were potentially dangerous, the crime with which they were accused was a serious and violent one, there was DNA evidence to show that a conviction might be likely and that because of the nature of the defendants there could be a risk that at least one of them would not turn up for trial.

There followed much, justified in my view, public anger about the fact that these dangerous savages had been given bail when they should, for our protection, been remanded in custody. There was further anger from members of the public when it was revealed that not only were these Muslim savages out on bail for offences that would invite remand in custody if the defendants were non Muslim, but that their kebab shop was open and was still full of young British girls who hung around it. It also appears that local people in the Ramsgate area knew little about what these savages were accused of doing and if they did they may have felt powerless to stop any further potential victims from being abused. After all if the police didn’t object to bail for these savages can people honestly expect that the police would take seriously their objections to the presence of these savages or their concerns about the safety of their children? It may well be that either local people had not bothered to inform themselves of what had gone on in the 555 kebab shop or the police went out of their way to ensure that they didn’t know, probably for ‘community cohesions’ reasons of course?

The upshot of the ludicrous and dangerous decision to grant these savages bail during the run up to the Crown Court trial and during it, was that Britain First decided to protest both about the Islamic savages themselves and to warn people in the local area what sort of scum the 555 kebab shop was harbouring. The protest itself seemed relatively mild, there was a bit of shouting and a bit of banging on the window of the paedo Muslim’s kebab house. There was also an incident at the house where Kelli Best, the girlfriend of one of the Muslim rapists was living. She made the claim that the baby she was pregnant with was stillborn because the Britain First activists ‘knocked on her door and rattled’ the door handle. She also claimed to the court in Folkstone that her toddler had been ‘traumatised’ by the Britain First activists shouting for her boyfriend, the rape defendant Tamin Rahmani. I’m not sure I really buy Kelli Best’s claims. Yes, stress can cause stillbirth, but I would contend that on this occasion there was more stress coming from the trial of her boyfriend, a boyfriend she stuck by right through the trial (which should tell us a little bit about her character) than any that could have come from Ms Fransen. As for her toddler being traumatised, well that’s sad, and I wish it had not happened as children should not suffer because of the sins of their fathers, they really shouldn’t.

However, as sad as Kelli Best’s stillbirth and traumatised toddler are, I have heard or seen little after searching online to show that Ms Best has made any statement that showed any sympathy or concern for the victim of her depraved boyfriend Tamin Rahmani. Although I have sympathy for Ms Best’s children, I find I cannot have any sympathy for her as a person. It takes a special kind of low-life individual to become voluntarily involved with a man like Rahmani, and then stick by him even as the gory details of his heinous crimes are revealed, both during the lead up to the trial and the trial itself. I believe from reading the various press reports into the case of Ms Fransen and Mr Golding, that the possibly dubious claims made by Ms Best of harm done by Ms Fransen may account for the greater length of her sentence.

Another part of the protest carried out by Britain First was the distribution of leaflets in the areas where the defendants lived and elsewhere in the area. These leaflets apparently warned people that some nasty Muslim rapists had been bailed awaiting trial and were living or working in the area. This leafleting is the sort of non-violent direct action that many people would feel was perfectly morally acceptable, I don’t agree with shouting and banging on people’s doors (it’s too easy to get the wrong door for one) but leafleting is about as peaceful a protest you can get. But, because the leaflets mentioned ‘Muslims’ and ‘rapists’ in the same context, it suddenly, for the State, becomes a much bigger deal than it ever would be otherwise. I doubt very much if leaflets warning people about a non Muslim alleged or convicted sex offender would attract either the attention of the State that the case of Ms Fransen and Mr Golding has done, nor would it probably end up with a similar sort of custodial sentence.

With this case the State is showing both that they know that Britain has an Islamic sex crime problem and furthermore they are worried that more citizens will find out about this problem and get angry about it. This decision by the Government and the legal and prosecuting agencies to take a decidedly cowardly route to ‘keeping the peace’ by shooting the messengers like Ms Fransen and Mr Golding, amply demonstrates this. If you take away the ‘religious’ aspects of what the Britain First activists have done and discount the possibly dubious claims by Ms Best, then all we really have to lay at the door of Ms Fransen and Mr Golding are offences of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace at the lower end of disorderly behaviour with the intent of harassment at the higher end. With Breach of the Peace a Magistrate may really only have been able to impose a bind over order on the defendants and with harassment, Sentencing Council guidelines would range from a low level community order to 26 weeks gaol. However, add the religious aspect to one of these harassment charges and especially if the target is from the Muslim community and then the pro-Islam bias in Britain’s current legal system starts to show through, with harsher more punitive sentences.

It is plain to me and will be plain to others, that these Britain First activists have been gaoled in order to intimidate others into shutting up about Britain’s growing Islam related problems. The government wish to silence public debate on the issue of Islam in British society and are desperate to quell the growing and justifiable anger at what the followers of the ideology of Islam are doing to this nation and its people, hence the truly draconian sentences handed down to Ms Fransen and Mr Golding by the court. Those who wish such silence on our part whilst a significant minority of Muslims rape our children and plot our deaths, should not be rewarded with any sort of victory. We need to keep speaking about the threat posed by Islam wherever and to whoever we can.

Her Majesty’s Government would do well to ensure that Ms Fransen and Mr Golding are kept safe whilst in custody as they will no doubt face a great deal of danger from Muslims whilst incarcerated. The government should take effective steps to ensure their safety because there are, for a number of reasons not least the high profile nature of Britain First, many more eyes than usual focussed on Ms Fransen and Mr Golding. These eyes will not all belong to those with goodwill towards this pair. There will probably be contracts put out on them whilst they are inside and the risk of harm coming to them is very high. There are also probably many more people who are sympathetic to the aims of Britain First or who are otherwise opposed to the problems caused by the ideology of Islam, looking at this case and worried about the security of Ms Fransen and Mr Golding. There certainly seem to be more eyes on Ms Fransen and Mr Golding than have kept watch in the past over similar cases such as that of Kevin Crehan, a man gaoled for a year for putting an England flag and a bacon sandwich on the steps of a mosque and who mysteriously died in prison. There are probably even more people observing this case than took note of the various legal travails of Tommy Robinson. Should harm come to this pair whilst inside, then the government will have to be made to answer by way of peaceful protest, the question as to why they pushed so hard to imprison for such lengthy periods those who have only indulged in a bit of shouting, door banging and leafleting? If harm does befall Ms Fransen and Mr Golding, then I fear that this may spark off the sort of violent retaliation against ordinary Muslims, who may not be involved in jihad or Islamic sex crime, along with those who may be perceived by their attackers to be colluding with Islam. This is something that I and others have both repeatedly warned about and which naturally I would decry. If there are those in government and the adminisphere who think that an inmate murdering or harming Ms Fransen or Mr Golding would be the end of the matter, then they could find themselves very much mistaken. At the very least, news of injuries or worse to Ms Fransen and Mr Golding could be the initiator for widespread protests.

Those in authority may have thought that by ensuring that Ms Fransen and Mr Golding were gaoled the problems of the growing anger at the depredations of Islam would go away. Unfortunately I don’t think they would be correct in that assumption. By gaoling Ms Fransen and Mr Golding all the government have done is create legal martyrs and it could be feeding public anger about Islam rather than helping to diminish it.

Ms Fransen and Mr Golding may not be my cup of tea politically, but I shall still pray for their safety whilst in the less than tender arms of the British state.