Total Visits

Friday, 18 May 2018



I recently spotted that the anonymous Establishment entity calling themselves the “Sentencing Council” was proposing to dramatically increase the sentencing for those who infringe against the British State’s clamp down on free speech.  Here is the English Democrats’ submission on this matter:-

Dear Sir

The English Democrats submission to your consultation is firstly to observe that your Sentencing Council document fails to disclose details of the participating membership of the Council or their relevant interests, such as religion, ethnicity, national identity, racial group, sexuality, etc.  This cannot be right if there is be any transparency or openness in your “consultation”.  You also do not make clear how the members of the Council were appointed and whether there is any transparency in the appointments system.  Again this is another inappropriate lacuna in your document. 

Your consultation starts off with a series of dubious and unsupported assertions about the growth of “Hate Crime”.  So far as we are aware there are in fact no objective figures for the extent of the actual commission of “Hate Crimes”.  Instead what you report is merely the produce of encouraging the reporting of “Hate Crime” and recording all such reports however bogus they may actually be.

What is however known is that the politicisation of policing by the British Political Establishment continues apace in England, which of course is the only part of the “United Kingdom”, which instead of being self-governing, is directly ruled by the British Government.  This establishment is self-interestedly seeking to clamp down on the rising sense of English National Identity.  The results of the 2011 Census showed that 60.4% of the people of England regard their National Identity as “English only” and not “British”.  This was an unwelcome development for the British Political Establishment which has been increasingly directing police resources to clamp down on English free speech.  This is in sharp distinction to the traditional English liberty whose traditional attitude can be encapsulated in playground expression “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me!” 

The already somewhat un-English and authoritarian legal restrictions on free speech are rendered not only logically incoherent but also nakedly political by the Aggravated Offence Provisions.

In the circumstances, whilst we have nothing to say about the more serious offences involving violence or the threat of violence, we strongly object to your unaccountable body seeking to impose stiffer sentences on those whose exercise of free speech is only treated as a crime if what is said offends Left/Liberal Internationalist/Globalist anti-nationalist/multi-culturalist, anti-English, politically correct opinion.  Conversely when patriots and nationalists are viciously smeared we are told that this must be accepted as legitimate expressions of Free Speech.  The lack of balance and equivalence between these approaches demonstrates that you are seeking to do nothing more than to further politicise the criminal justice system in support of the British Political Establishment rather than on the basis of rationality or dispassionate objectivity. 

Yours sincerely

What do you think?  Do put in your own submissions because the more people that object the more likely the Establishment is to drop the idea!  Here is their email address to complain to:-


  1. Dear Robin
    thankyou for the message which does not surprise me, its the Conquest/Crusade all over again, when the French-Normans the stormtroopers of the new Roman Catholic Church who destroyed our English Church of the Western Rite which is under the Orthodox church and the French-Normans imposing feudalism, we have had this attitude at the seat of government of them and us and any change in our society has been brought about by us the English as we see even now they want desperately to destroy and silence us just the same as their invaders tried to achieve all those centuries ago.
    What do we do we do as our forefathers showed us carry
    on and follow our Christian faith.

  2. Er, the details of the make up of the council are on their website

  3. Dear Mr Tilbrook,

    Strikes me there is a fundamental point here, not included in your above letter, but which you might include in future letters to the Sentencing Council: hate legislation effectively gives special privileges and protections to religion, Islam in particular, which is not available to other movements and organisations.

    That is, people are free to make thoroughly obscene and offensive insults of political parties, the royal family or atheism with no fear of sanction. Those sort of insults undoubtedly “stir up hate” to some extent. But the authorities are totally unconcerned about that. That is evidence that the authorities are not actually concerned about hate at all. So what is their motivation?

    Well every bricklayer and plumber knows the answer to that, though the political commentators writing for broadsheet newspapers evidently don’t have to brain to work it out. What is going on is as follows.

    Muslims are a vicious and violent lot: Home Office figures show that Muslims are about a hundred times more likely to commit terrorist offences than Hindus, Catholics, Athiests, etc. Muslims are thus likely to respond to criticism with riots and similar. The authorities do not have the resources to deal with that, especially given recent cuts to police numbers. The authorities therefor cave in to Muslim demands and grant religion, Islam in particular, special privileges.

    Further evidence as to the validity of the latter “cave in” theory comes from the fact that that form of cave in is clearly part of a pattern. For example female genital mutilation is illegal. But the NHS logs thousands of instances of it every year, while there has not been one single instance of anyone being prosecuted for that crime.

  4. 1) page 42 etc, aggravating factors including: 'Offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public'. Why the blanket preference for State employees/officers whether or not 'customer facing'?

    2) page 49, "Section seven: Racial hatred offences and hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation."

    "Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some
    offences. However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending,
    the Council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences."

    A most sinister pronouncement. Just what do the Council's members think justifies this?

    3) discriminatory enforcement: Section 4A example. On its face doesn;t that have the potential to embrace the unremitting drumbeat from the advertising industry of White Woman/Black Man pairings? So the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan is not merely an idle invention. And what do Black women make of the 'preference' so expressed of their men?

    The apparat is intent on racial destruction. This is treason.

  5. I want to see at least a few District Judges and Magistrates resigning over this trend.

    Mark Collett - Six Years in Prison for Posting on Social Media
    May 17, 2018

    Whatever his source, the content seems plausible on its face. But the pretext of the proposals is not "political correctness" it's the unspoken agenda of genocide.

    PS: Why the magic/occult "6"? Did this proposal come from a passel of chartered surveyors with a fond attachment for the duodecimal system?

  6. And it's confirmed - England and Wales with population of 60, 70 million+ cannot furnish its own Head of Serious Fraud Office and has to import foreign labour for the job:

    Indubitably a Friendly Alien.

    1. It is far older statecraft than Machiavelli that mercenaries are better instruments of tyranny than are citizens as the career of Dionysius the Elder 432 – 367 BC the tyrant of Syracuse shows (

  7. Transcript of the Mark Collett video added:

    Comments (just say NO!) to address stated in the Consultation Document linked here before 8 August 2018

    Note it says also that "A series of consultation meetings is also taking place. ..."

  8. EXPOSED: Britain's Soviet Style Hate Crime Laws.
    Mark Collett.
    Published on March 29, 2018.

    --Transcript of the above Mark Collett video added to the audio version here:

    This video gives some background on the substantive provisions of the offences in relation to which the Sentencing Council consultation (previous comment) is being held. It really is an extraordinary predicament we find ourselves in if Mr Collett's summary and evaluation are even only broadly correct.

    btw: concerning the "College of Policing 2014 Hate Crime Operational Guidance", isn't a "guideline" that mandates the police not to query the reasonableness of the grounds for a "victim's" perception of a "hate crime" in breach of the ruling in

    - so far as, e.g., it purports to eliminate or limit the discretion of the police to investigate (and for the CPS/other to prosecute) for the offence of wasting police time, perverting the cause of justice etc etc...?

    Have the legal profession's journals addressed any of this or is the whole subject just being swept under the carpet as per usual, to be wheeled out and applied by the courts to luckless patriots and with no reporting of the outcome (jail) in the media?