Animal rights activist, Debbie Vincent, sentenced to 6 years in prison

by fred Sun Sep 07, 2014 19:16

you are probably right bobby!
again, solidarity to Debbie and other wrongfully imprisoned activists who have been victims of political policing.

by Bobby Sun Sep 07, 2014 09:30

'Zionists' aren't real then Mike? Your comments are so sketchy it's weird..

Anyway, solidarity with all those in prison, and I'm glad people are also finding the time to discuss so many things that have no relation to this story.

by fred Sun Sep 07, 2014 03:50

quick answer

(1) there IS a racist connotation because their lives ARE clearly less meaningful than white people in government calculus and western media because they are brown skinned and many are of largely arab descent..

(2) I certainly DONT work with zionist murder apologists but I might consider working with others who are not quite so abhorrent to be around and so morally bankrupt that they can readily be apologists for ethnic cleansing and the death of thousands. Thats far too much compromise in my book

Usual patronising tone mike. It's tiresome

by Mike Fri Sep 05, 2014 13:36

In the last day before departing (turns out wife doesn't have to work today so more time for packi)

That's not "ironic" usage but twisting meaning. Using the term"brown" (without prior consent) oppressed => brown at the same time the term "racist" is being thrown about IS going to be taken to have been meaning brown -> oppressed (being oppressed BECAUSE brown).

However, there is a much deeper problem with our trying to communicate. SOMEHOW you managed to interpret what I have been saying .......

"I see you are an advocate of the Leninist notion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
I am not so enamoured of this approach myself. i prefer to choose my allies more carefully. those who have moral compasses that would readily allow thousands of deaths in an ethnic cleansing murder spree with hi tech US ordinance would not be the kind of people I would wish to ally with, even for just one issue. "

That indicates you really aren't getting what I am trying to say. I am asking how do you work with UNFRIENDS who happen to be on the same side on some particular issue that is very important to you. Perhaps the reason you aren't understanding is your decision, it isn't HOW because it's NOT (you DON'T work with them).

Which of course raises another question, how do you expect to get large numbers together in support of anything? It might be possible to disrupt an established order with a small committed minority, but not to implement your own alternative. You have to look at questions like this assuming others might act as you do (you won't cooperate with them on any issue unless they are with you on all your other issues; they won't work with you unless you are on board with theirs).

Since you may well actually be "animal rights" we could use that example.
1) How do you work with "environmentalists" who are often on the same side but can be on the opposite in specific instances? (because their concern is not with individual animal lives but species and the ecosystem as a whole community). An example of an "on opposing sides" situation might be dealing with an invasive species.
Since I assume you are anti "Zionist"
2) How do you work with "Zionist" animal rights people on an animal rights issue? Or do you not work WITH them but that leaves a wide range of alternatives. A range from "work alongside separately without direct cooperation" to "sabotage their separate efforts because they are "enemy". Understand now why I said take time to think? I was asking "HOW" because it isn't a simple decision "NOT"; there are lot's of very didferent possibilities for that "not".

Quite the opposite from a Leninist, I disbelieve in the possibility of getting people united on all issues across the board. Instead I imagine decisions would need to be made on an issue by issue basis depending on shifting ad hoc majorities for this or that issue. I'm an anarchist.

by Fred Fri Sep 05, 2014 09:31

I want you to think about that more carefully, and also think about the implications of other things you are saying (for example, what are the implications that you see/think of the Palestinians as "brown people"? (Leave aside that we should have no basis for prejudice based upon amount of skin pigment, but the Israeli vs Palestinain conflict isn't about race, the Israelis don't perceive themsleves as being a different color. neither are different in appearance than any of the other Mediteranean peoples -- do you perceieve Sicilians as "brown people"?)

My use of the term "brown people" is intended to be sarcastic / ironic. In the sense that, all too often the west (and I include Israel in this!) only consider a life worthwhile if it is a white person. witness the interminable whining about a bunch of bankers and lawyers and their unfortunate employees in 9/11. Whereas a large multiple of this number of "brown people" have died in Iraq, Syria, Libya and nearly as many died in gaza (2/3?) with only a tiny fraction of the outrage and much bending over backwards in a captive western media to give Israel, the murdering aggressor "equal time". Sickening!

since you are an American you probably don't really understand sarcasm or irony so I'll let you off this time.

If I used the term "unpeople" instead as john pilger does, would that perhaps clarify things for you?

I see you are an advocate of the Leninist notion that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
I am not so enamoured of this approach myself. i prefer to choose my allies more carefully. those who have moral compasses that would readily allow thousands of deaths in an ethnic cleansing murder spree with hi tech US ordinance would not be the kind of people I would wish to ally with, even for just one issue.

Enjoy your trek!

by Mike Novack Thu Sep 04, 2014 20:16

You seem to feel that it is going to be possible to be working with people with whom you are in agreement, moral agreement, across the board. That you would not be able to trust them, to work with them, on an issue upon which you are in agreement otherwise.

I want you to think about that more carefully, and also think about the implications of other things you are saying (for example, what are the implications that you see/think of the Palestinians as "brown people"? (Leave aside that we should have no basis for prejudice based upon amount of skin pigment, but the Israeli vs Palestinain conflict isn't about race, the Israelis don't perceive themsleves as being a different color. neither are different in appearance than any of the other Mediteranean peoples -- do you perceieve Sicilians as "brown people"?)

But OK, back to the main thing. I want you to consider these theoretical questions. It isn't me and you so when I say "you are" in the examples I mean "assume that you were". Also keep in mind that my examples may have different class assumptions than you might make. For example, over here, hunters are much more likely to be blue collar than upper or middle class (but fishing less predictable).

1) Assume you are an animal rights person. Assume that there is a labor dispute where you work. How can you march the picket line in solidarity with your co-workers when they spend their vacation in the woods after deer or off fishing. How can you trust such "moral defectives" if some of them suggest maybe a little bit of less than legal, like some divert the watchman while others glue the main gate shut.

2) Like "1" except it's not actually your co-workers, but you want to support them. Should you? (considering that they are anaimal murderers)

It is possible if you are young and new to this you haven't yet been faced with the reality that your allies in one fight might be on the other side in another. Let me assure you, stick around long enough and you will experience it. Look at your own national history, Irish nationalist history. Sorry, but not all Republicans over on the left, as you should know full well by how things turned out. But put yourself in their shoes, imagine, for example, your were there to make a decision, take part in Easter 1916 or not. Various factions whose only point of agreement was independence fiom England. How about EVEN if you knew how it was going to turn out? Should the leftist nationalists stayed home?

Take your time to think (I'll be away hiking in the mountains --- need a Nature recharge every now and then)

by fred Thu Sep 04, 2014 05:38

Assuming what you say is the truth then I'm glad to hear that you have engaged in NVDA and CD against corporate and government forces in the environmental movement.

to address a couple of your other points:

We are not going to be on the same side on all issues NOR are we going to be on opposing sides on all issues. The idea that we could be united on all issues is hopelessly naive. Because I am "Zionist" (partisan in a tribal conflict) gives you close to zero information on where I would be on any other issues.

Actually you are wrong there. It's very revealing.
Because if you are willing to be an apologist for the murder of thousands of brown people in gaza by Israel as we have recently witnessed then your moral compass is truly fucked up and obviously could not be trusted on ANY other moral issues if you could justify this heinous atrocity

Here I have told you that I am not "animal rights" while indicating "environmental". But not being FOR animal rights doesn't mean I'm against them except in the fairly rare (but unfortunately real) situations where consideration of the lives and welfare of individual animals conflicts with the interests of species and the environment as a whole.

If you can justify in your head the ethnic cleansing and the deaths of thousands of innocent people in gaza then the deaths of 140 billion animals (each year !!) who have no voice at all should not pose a problem either so I'm not surprised you're not for animal rights.

So if you think I am "establishment" you are dead wrong. .

Not terribly convinced yet . But I do hope I'm wrong Mike

As somebody who has not ever been caught doing anything illegal (again, except for CD) don't you think I might have a say about doing things smarter.

Yes, assuming it was true, and not just a back story you made up as cover to allow you to keep undermining AR activists
while pretending to be on their side. Internet state Saboteurs can be pretty creative and devious these days! ;-)

About infiltrators, I have a nasty thought I can't shake. Sometimes it helps to look at things from the other side and I know that were I in law enforcement and in charge of a program teaching infiltrators learn how to do their job, I know I'd want to send them for their first "practical field experience" venture among us animal rights and environmental radical folks. Because if they muff the job, just a bad grade, a failed case, not dead like when later they are sent in to infiltrate organized crime, drugs, smuggling, cockfighting, poaching, etc. In which case the numbers of infiltrators assigned to us might be ar greater than our "fair share". Less experienced but lots of them.

Thats a great get out for the state there isn't it mike?. So...Instead of being authoritarian thought police cracking down on democratic free speech and dissent which threatens a corrupt status quo, they are merely using activists as a cheap training ground so their men are trained without risk.

Like I said....creative ;-)

by Mike Novack Wed Sep 03, 2014 18:20

"as for the rest of your comment,judging by your commentary on this site, I seriously doubt very much if you ever engaged in an action in protest against state or corporate entities that was illegal. If anything you are a defender of state terrorism (israel) and the status quo."

a) I certainly engaged (and still engage) in protest against state and corporate interests.

b) I certainly would NOT tell you (or anybody else) about any those that were illegal while not being CD (doing CD you are normally prepared to face the consequences openly; in some situations may attempt to escape, but if/when caught not to complain about that).

c) We are not going to be on the same side on all issues NOR are we going to be on opposing sides on all issues. The idea that we could be united on all issues is hopelessly naive. Because I am "Zionist" (partisan in a tribal conflict) gives you close to zero information on where I would be on any other issues. Here I have told you that I am not "animal rights" while indicating "environmental". But not being FOR animal rights doesn't mean I'm against them except in the fairly rare (but unfortunately real) situations where consideration of the lives and welfare of individual animals conflicts with the interests of species and the environment as a whole.

So if you think I am "establishment" you are dead wrong. Remember I am probably a lot older than most of you, been out there on the line before you were born, possibly before your parents were born.

d) As somebody who has not ever been caught doing anything illegal (again, except for CD) don't you think I might have a say about doing things smarter.

e) About infiltrators, I have a nasty thought I can't shake. Sometimes it helps to look at things from the other side and I know that were I in law enforcement and in charge of a program teaching infiltrators learn how to do their job, I know I'd want to send them for their first "practical field experience" venture among us animal rights and environmental radical folks. Because if they muff the job, just a bad grade, a failed case, not dead like when later they are sent in to infiltrate organized crime, drugs, smuggling, cockfighting, poaching, etc. In which case the numbers of infiltrators assigned to us might be ar greater than our "fair share". Less experienced but lots of them.

by fred Wed Sep 03, 2014 05:40

Those of us who choose to work using underground doing seriously illegal actions have to study the ways and means.

er,,,, there is an inherent assumption that Debbie actually was doing something "seriously illegal" in that statement. It's the old "have you STOPPED beating your wife lately?" fallacy. Nice one. Did you learn that in the Hasbara manual? :-D

Any reasonable reading of the article and comment from bobby would seem to indicate otherwise.

The woman just agreed to speak on behalf of others (who may or may not have been engaged in an" illegal action". They have not been put on trial ) and as a result was made an example of and sent to prison for 6 years with an ASBO for another 5

Judge instructed the Jury. They did what they were told. After all, all animal rights activists are terrorists far worse than ISIS according to the MSM aren't they?

Pure political policing. I've seen violent rapists get more lenient sentences than that.

as for the rest of your comment,judging by your commentary on this site, I seriously doubt very much if you ever engaged in an action in protest against state or corporate entities that was illegal. If anything you are a defender of state terrorism (israel) and the status quo.

Perhaps the bit where you spoke about some of "us" being agents rings true though!

If you think I'm being unfair then fine, why not tell me what illegal actions you engaged in against state or corporate entities. No incriminating details of course! Just the broad outline will do, ;-)

by Mike Novack Tue Sep 02, 2014 13:25

"Wo's paying you,", that's insulting.

OK, let's begin from what IS in the article and comments.

"The activists who had been operating underground had asked Debbie - a well known animal rights activist - if she would speak on behalf of them. When Debbie went to speak to the representatives of the CEO/director/boss-man, she was arrested by an undercover.

There were two others charged with conspiracy, and to prove Debbie was a co-conspirator, the prosecution/cops had produced receipts ('evidence') for DIY bits (pipes etc) which Debbie had purchased to fix toilets and sinks in a social space (of some shape or form) also used by her 'co-conspirators'/co-defendants. "

OOP's, unless had been done VERY carefully, looks like they had her dead to rights. The first part that she took on the role of delivering the blackmail demands and the second related to that she knew them. And so the judge probably directed the jury along the lines of "IF you decide those were the facts you must convict" (though at least here, juries are still sovereign).

Maybe it might help if I give an example of how it might be arranged for somebody to deliver the demands while having a valid defense. Suppose she had been able to claim something like "received a letter in which was another sealed letter with instructions to deliver that opened to so and so". I am not saying not ACTUALLY more in the know, but have a plausible story for the claims "did not know from whom" and "did not know what this was all about" so grounds to deny being a co-conspirator.

GET COMPETENT! Those of us who choose to work using underground doing seriously illegal actions have to study the ways and means. Memoirs of WW II underground folks can help. Study of more recent legal cases might help to see what failed to lead to conviction. Assume that at least some of us are going to be undercover agents of the enemy. Failure to learn lessons means more of us end up in jail. At least over here, the most disappointing things has been the all to high a percentage of those caught willing to accept deals for lighter sentences in exchange for testifying against the others. Sounds like not in this case so count blessings.

by Bobby Tue Sep 02, 2014 00:41

Thanks Mike, I don't think I need to present anything to anyone. I have my views on the state and other large and powerful institutions, and I support all the actions of anyone resisting, sabotaging or interrupting business as usual. I support Debbie, and the actions of those who are now victims of the state's justice mechanisms. I don't really have much sympathy for justice, judges, fairness, or brutal 'incarceration', and I really don't see why you care so much about how, or why this particular case happened in it's details.

Capitalism and prisons are bad, very very bad.

by fred Mon Sep 01, 2014 23:58

Nice of you instruct activists on what they need to do in order for you to accept their point of view as valid Mike. How patronising.

The fact is they don't need some Israeli apologist framing their debates for them while cunningly letting the state off the hook.

You conveniently frame the discussion so that everything the law does is somehow beyond question wheras everything activists do / did / said was wrong. All under the fake cloak of some caring american that "just wants to help people get their articles straight"

I guess you get plenty of practice with that particular "framing" tactic while defending Israel after one of their murder sprees in gaza

Funny, in my experience of reading your posts over the years, when pushed, you never seem to support any of the causes you "criticise constructively" in this way. Very odd that eh Mike?

Well, no matter what nitpicking and bullshitting you engage in here to undermine activists who post here, to any right thinking person, 6 years plus another 5 years ASBO is totally disproportionate to what Debbie did and this was clearly political policing and sentencing designed to send a chill through the animal rights activist community.

So go back to defending Israel's murder campaigns and stop trying to undermine hard done by activists like Debbie. Isn't it enough that she has to spend six years in prison without having also to read your disgusting nit picking state apologist crap on this website if she ever happens to visit here.

by Mike Novack Mon Sep 01, 2014 23:11

Was it over a matter of fact or of law that the judge gave the jury "marching orders" (though at least over here a jury CAN ignore such instructions).

"The activists who had been operating underground had asked Debbie - a well known animal rights activist - if she would speak on behalf of them. When Debbie went to speak to the representatives of the CEO/director/boss-man, she was arrested by an undercover."

Here you need to explain this "on behalf of". If by that is meant she was delivering the demands, negotiating, then yes, I can see the judge instructing that would as a matter of law that made her part of this. Devil in the details, as I can see possible defenses but those might require not knowing the primary defendants or the nature of what she was delivering. For example, say she received an anonymous letter with instructions to deliver an enclosed letter (which she was not to open or otherwise know the contents of). Usually it is journalists so used. In which case those receipts mentioned would come into play (if sharing a space with people, more difficult to argue didn't know them).

I haven't seen the transcript. You might want to present parts of that. Or the judges instructions if you feel they were too biased. There may also have been some "matters of fact" in dispute, but there your gripe should be with the jury
since they decide which witnesses to believe and which doubt.

by wageslave - (personal capacity) Mon Sep 01, 2014 22:06

Thanks for info Joe (apart from the hidden trolling of course)

Yes it looks like bristol indymedia servers have been accessed by police
and are now being monitored

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Anarchist-website-Bristol-....html

Article is not exactly sympathetic but it gives the general story without having to access the actual site

Looks like anonymous posters (very possibly the police themselves?) were posting material designed to discredit Bristol IMC and give police an excuse to move on the site.

Further info here:
Bristol indymedia site under state attack again as ISP served court order by UK police

Quelle surprise, eh joe and others? (!!)

Rather ironic you posting this considering your own relentless campaign in the commentary to try and undermine and discredit indymedia Ireland. Your friend "Tom" has been asking about you recently. He's also been busy posting fake posts under false names and relentlessly attacking us in the commentary while you were away. Are you tag team trolls or something? ;-)

Were you yourself by any chance involved in the Bristol police operation too? Because you certainly seem to always have your finger on the pulse in such matters!

Here's some background about Bristol IMC's history with US / UK "law enforcement"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Media_Center

They certainly made some powerful enemies!

It seems if you try to work in independent media giving a platform for an alternative take on world and local events, you will be infiltrated, attacked and undermined using any underhand means possible. We've had our share of all that here too, and it seems it still continues through the likes of JoeMc and Tom (and his many socks) and others.

Well know this:
From here on we will be taking a tough zero tolerance policy to our attackers and trolls in order to protect genuine article posters, activists and their event notices on this site.

-W

by JoeMc - Bambora Mon Sep 01, 2014 13:35

[misinformation, off topic material and trolling of editors removed from comment]

Indymedia UK reported on 27th August 2014 that:

2The Police have physically accessed the Bristol Indymedia server.
Last week we heard from our web hosts that the police had a court order to access the Bristol Indymedia server. We don’t know for sure, but assume that our web hosts have complied with the order and given the police this access.
We consider this server to be compromised, users should assume that from this point on the Police have access to the IP address of anyone accessing this site.
In light of this it is unlikely that open publishing of news items will ever be re-enabled as it would require complete re-installation of the server.
We are going to leave the calendar on for now, but note that it is likely that IP addresses are now being recorded and accessed by the Police.2

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/

by Bobby Sun Aug 31, 2014 13:36

I spoke to a comrade from Bristol a while back - from when Debbie was convicted but not sentenced - and with the best of my memory this is what I was told.

Debbie was convicted without any substantial evidence at all; unanimously in a trial by jury in which the judge asked/suggested that she be convicted. The case was that activists had allegedly stolen some personal possessions of the CEO (or it could have been the director of the company) and they were basically blackmailing the boss to cease operations - or something to that effect. The activists who had been operating underground had asked Debbie - a well known animal rights activist - if she would speak on behalf of them. When Debbie went to speak to the representatives of the CEO/director/boss-man, she was arrested by an undercover.

There were two others charged with conspiracy, and to prove Debbie was a co-conspirator, the prosecution/cops had produced receipts ('evidence') for DIY bits (pipes etc) which Debbie had purchased to fix toilets and sinks in a social space (of some shape or form) also used by her 'co-conspirators'/co-defendants.

Hope that helps a bit

by Mike Novack Sat Aug 30, 2014 15:28

What does any of THAT have to do with the shortcomings of the original article? For example, presuming you knew she was being convicted as a co-conspirator, what would "not being there" have to do with the price of cheese. Presuming this just another case of the great and the small receiving different treatment by the legal system, what does THAT have to do with the fact this was an "animal rights" case?

Remember I am NOT talking about her case directly but the article asking us to give support. You need to give us reasons to believe she IS being treated unreasonably. You want to present the reasons why we should conclude she was not a co-conspirator, why we should conclude differently than the jury which witnesses were telling the truth and which lying. Or you need to present reasons why we should conclude her sentence far above what is considered reasonable for the charges she was convicted on. That could be difficult if this is the "blackmail-extortion" case that I do know something vague about as such cases not for somebody's financial gain or a political/legal matter are very rare and even the political/legal sort are rare; though there is where I'd attempt comparison to see if her sentence unreasonable as "blackmail to make a person do or refrain from doing". Might be hard to find cases with which to compare sentences.

by Art Sat Aug 30, 2014 01:03

Mike. Your understanding of the reality of the conspiracy laws is flawed. Once you are charged with conspiracy in the UK, it is a case of all hands to the establishment pump, to get a conviction, especially if one found oneself in the situation of the venerable Debbie. There is a two tier legal system in operation regarding conspiracy laws in the uk.
The Mcmartin preschool trial USA comes to mind here. The relevant bit I am referring to can be verified at "McMartin preschool Trial 1987 to 1990" on the web. The appellant says to her lawyer " They are putting on witnesses they now are lying", and her lawyer retorts " The law is only for the little people, when we break the rules we go to jail, when they , the system break the rules they go to lunch and so on.

Mike if you want to get an education on the workings of and implementation of the UK conspiracy law anomalies, please peruse " The Scottish Affairs Parliamentary Committee" Inquiry, on blacklisting in employment
.
From the published reports you will see that the big titled names in the construction companies are immune from prosecution, solely because they hold power and make big donations to political parties. If anyone thinks they cannot also manipulate the judiciary, think again.

If you still cannot see what is really going on then there is no explanation possible for you. Alternatively you may see the injustice and unfairness of Debbies conviction and join any campaign to restore her freedom.

Regards

by Mike Novack Wed Aug 27, 2014 15:55

I'm afraid your understanding of what civil disobedience is all about and mine perhaps stems from my being over here where the tradition is from.

Civil disobedience is ALWAYS permissible and whether "justified" depends only on the person carrying out the act AND their willingness to face the consequences. So MY position on any animal rights question is irrelevant to whether I consider a CD action by an animal rights person "justified".

But I'm afraid we have a different understanding about what "justified" means in this context. To me, that means doing the act and accepting what would be REASONABLE legal consequences for the act. Again let me repeat, if the act isn't illegal then it isn't civil DISOBEDIENCE.

Thus we rightly should complain if the consequences turn out to be beyond what could be considered reasonable. And THAT was what my original comment was all about, the almost total lack of information that would enable a reader of he posting to judge. Yes, described the legal sanction imposed but NOT "what for" (what was she convicted of? what was the act? in what way was she connected to the act if not directly present?). Those were all necessary parts of the story if the intent was to show she was being treated unreasonably.

I suspect your meaning of "justified" is along the lines of "and shouldn't face legal sanctions" for the act of CD, and like I said earlier, I think that is a misunderstand of what makes an act CD. Now there IS a legal defense that goes by the name "necessity" but that is a very specialized defense with definite situational requirements. Extremely rare to be able to meet all of those requirements. I haven't yet seen an animal rights case where the requirements have been met (but defense disallowed).

by fred Tue Aug 26, 2014 23:32

ok mike, well do you think Civil Disobedience for animal rights is justified?

go on, surprise me. :-D

by Mike Novack Tue Aug 26, 2014 14:07

I hadn't said anything about her case directly.

I was criticizing the reporting of the case. I was indicating that what was said was insufficient for an intelligent reader to draw any conclusions.

Look, a "civil disobedience" action is by its very nature not legal. If legal, then it would be civil obedience. And a sentence imposed could be inappropriate to what the accused had done. But the article didn't say anything about what she was convicted of doing and on what basis.

I was saying that the reporting (the article) was at fault. You consider that the persons reporting should be considered "underdogs"?

Or are you saying that "because her cause is just" (and she is an underdog) we are supposed to think that she was harshly judged and sentenced. Heck, for all I can tell (given the almost total lack of information) perhaps she was being treated extremely leniently >

Where in what I have been writing do you see me suggest that the "animal rights" folks should not be doing CD or even more illegal actions (for it to be CD you have to do it openly, turn yourself in). But that is a very separate question from whether they should be tried if caught (the non CD sort) or receive no sanction for the CD sort.

by fred Mon Aug 25, 2014 18:55

Wilfully can't see the wood for the trees as usual
where activists vs corporate profits and the state are concerned Mike.
And happily defending the status quo bullies with your niggling.
Did Huntington have an Israeli connection perchance?

by Mike Novack Mon Aug 25, 2014 18:22

If you said what she WAS convicted of (and on what basis)

Simply saying "not present at the point of the act" isn't nearly enough. There are many ways the law would consider a person as having taken part even though not there.

For just one example (and I am NOT saying this is what was involved with THIS case)

Persons B, C, and D traveled to place E to carry out illegal act F. Person A bought their train tickets, fully knowing the purpose of the trip. In MY jurisdiction (I don't know your law) person A could be convicted as an equally guilty co-conspirator. Possible defenses for A would be "I did not know the purpose of the trip" but not "I wasn't myself there".

by Art Sun Aug 24, 2014 16:42

Debbie was found guilty despite the Judge not finding her guilty of any actions herself. So much for British law being Adversarial. It seems that Lord Denning was right when he said "Judges are secretly briefed by the Lord Chancellor, there is supposed to be a separation of powers, there is no separation" Lord Denning was Master of the Rolls at the time. The courts are now, tools of the corporations, to ensure they put a plug in the mouths of people with legitimate concerns, especially relating to the treatment of our fellow species that cannot speak for themselves.
This case is just another example of a miscarriage of justice, that should be appealed, by demands for accountability from the lawyers who sought a prosecution in the first place, otherwise it is welcome to the Orwellian nightmare depicted 1984, with "thought police" running the system.