David Craig, on October 20th, 2017You’d better be sitting down before you read today’s blog. Otherwise you might fall over and hurt yourself and then blame me for your injuries.
It’s official – Izlumic terror attacks committed in Britain are NOT considered to be ‘hate crimes’ – but if you (as a white indigenous Brit) criticise anyone for any of the five bases for a supposed ‘hate crime’:
- race or ethnicity
- religion or beliefs
- sexual orientation
- disability
- transgender identity
Or if you use satire or make a joke about any of these five themes, then that’s a ‘hate crime’ and you’re in trouble.
Let me explain:
I’ve written before about how the invented concept of a supposed ‘hate crime’ is just a thoroughly dishonest way of our rulers preventing anyone criticising their policy of censorship, thought control and race replacement. Just to remind you, here’s the official definition of a ‘hate crime’:
As you can see, pretty much anything you say, write or do can be construed as a ‘hate crime’ as long as there is just one twat who claims either that they are offended or that they believe someone else might be offended. Apologies that the above is difficult to read, but the key words are “which is perceived by the victim or by any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice….”. So, if I think you’re hostile to someone or prejudiced against them for their religion, appearance, sexuality or whatever, you are automatically guilty of a ‘hate crime’. Why? Because I say so.
So, you might think that someone mowing down innocent pedestrians on Westminster Bridge because of their religious hatred or stabbing innocents to death because of their religious hatred or setting off a bomb at a concert at Manchester Arena because of their religious hatred would be committing a ‘hate crime’. Right? No, wrong!
Here’s another official document which helpfully explains that the West-hating Moozerlum who murdered twenty-two innocent people (many of them children) and injured another 250 in the Manchester Arena bomb attack was NOT committing a ‘hate crime’:
The key words here are “terrorist activity (such as the Manchester Arena attack) may be targeted against general British or Western values rather than one of the five specific strands, so….it would not be covered by this statistical collection (as a hate crime). Conversely the Finsbury Park Mosque attack did appear to be against a specific religion so would be included as a hate crime for the purposes of this collection”.
Have you got that? Any attack by our friends from the religion we all admire would not be considered as a ‘hate crime’ because it would be considered as an attack “against general British or Western values rather than one of the five specific strands” of ‘hate crime’ -�race or ethnicity; religion or beliefs; sexual orientation; disability; transgender identity
But any attack by a white indigenous Brit – bacon sandwich on a mosque steps, for example – clearly would be a ‘hate crime”.
Isn’t this wonderful? Using our rulers’ definition of a ‘hate crime’, with the killing of MP Jo Cox and the man who died of a heart attack in the Finsbury Mosque attack by a white Brit, this means that two people have died in ‘hate crimes’ by white extremists in Britain whereas no people have been killed in ‘hate crimes’ by our Moozerlum friends because Jihadi attacks are not considered as ‘hate crimes’.
This conveniently allows our rulers to claim that right-wing extremism is more dangerous than Izlumic extremism.
Are we being shafted? Yes we are!
Oh, and in case you didn’t know about it, here’s the 140-page (yes 140 pages!) guide to supposed ‘hate crimes’ produced for the police college.
No wonder real crime (not supposed ‘hate crime’) is shooting up out of control and our police are so utterly useless.
Look upon it and despair!
Category: 
There is a lot of responsibility on your country. (This was written by Clive Staples Lewis The Space Trilogy )
Britain created so much evil and madness that it now struck you with a ricochet.
sorry that this is hurting the ordinary people
Some Muslims are hostile to gays however the police probably have a way of not recording such as a hate crime.
We should watch Home Secretary Amber Rudd dangerous liberal keen on establishing controls on the web under false pretexts such as protecting children or stopping terrorists.
So they dont record running someone down with a truck as a hate crime because its against general british values?
Is that about the jist of it?
Allow me to state that I believe that position to be complete and utter bollocks!
Simply for the following reason.
Its obvious that a mental moozie targetting mainly white people is commiting a hate crime because its aimed squarely at their RACE!
The other obvious reason is that most white people arent of the moozie religion, rather being catholic,CoE, buddhist,Jedi or atheist, the fact that some innocent moozie may have gotten in the way and become a victim is of no importance when the primary objective of an attacker is to kill as many whites as he can, the unfortunate moozie was simply collateral damage.
Hence an attack against these white folks is quite obviously a crime perpertrated in the name of hate.
Thes moozie attackers hate all other religions…HATE CRIME!
They hate all other racial groups…HATE CRIME!
They hate all other sexualities…HATE CRIME!
So theyre motivated by hate of all others….just in case TPTB dont f*cking get it.
We get it, why the f*ck dont they?
Do they REALLY think we wont express our opinions just because the state thinks they can pull the wool over our eyes?
Do they think we wont evenyually say “F*ck this shit!” and kick off against the invasion, subjugation of us and attempts to control our thoughts?
They have a shock coming over the next few years, i reckon poop is going to hit many fans before too much longer and no amount of bullshit made up legistlation will stop it.
Mark my words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNa2E0enGIE
How does your government react to such statements? Very interesting. Thank you
I put in a request for information. This is the response I got.
“As we have received several requests about the death of Mr Crehan we are providing a response that answers all queries within those requests.
I can confirm the PPO is currently investigating the death of Mr Crehan. We were notified of his death on 27 December 2016 and began an investigation into the circumstances. This was then suspended on 5 January 2017 because of a related police investigation, and because we did not know the cause of Mr Crehan’s death. Both of those issues are outside our control and do sometimes affect our fatal incident investigations, meaning they are suspended for several months.
In June, we were told that the police investigation had concluded and that we were given the results of post-mortem examinations, which helped us consider how to handle the case. In light of these developments, we unsuspended our investigation on 12 June and set a new target date for our initial report of 5 December 2017. This new date takes into account the period we were unable to work on the case when it was suspended.
There are no delays to the investigation for reasons other than the above and we will meet the new target date we have set unless there are other issues outside of our control.
As we are still investigating Mr Crehan�s death we are not in a position to share our
conclusions, but please be advised that we publish all fatal incident investigations on our
website when our report is finalised and the inquest has taken place, including�our
conclusion and recommendations.
We have been asked if we know the cause of Mr Crehan�s death. It is not the PPO’s role to
determine this. Our role is to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death and
identify lessons the prison can learn.�The cause of death is determined by a coroner and
jury following an inquest. We have not yet been told had the date of Mr Crehan�s inquest.
You have the right to appeal our response if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found
in the �How to Appeal� section attached at the end of this letter.”