In a frugal age where we are fighting for job security and the government claims to be spending money on mental health but those dealing with mental health like myself with PTSD, sometimes we must be resilient and find a way to overcome this trauma alone. I have been on a waiting list for two years now and still have not heard a peep from any care provider. On one of my videos I discuss why I never tell my family or friends about what happened to me and with that being the case it means I am pretty much self-reliant in terms of overcoming the trauma I experienced.
It took me a year to recollect my traumatic experience, which I have learned is quite a normal reaction, especially so since I underwent brain surgery the week following the rape (unrelated). But when I started having flashbacks it was the scariest time I had ever experienced. Devastated by it all I spoke to friends who all turned their backs on me, and a family member, a hard-core leftie also used the knowledge to make threats toward me, “I will call social services on you and have your son removed if you say racist things like migrants should speak English again. You’re a racist and you will bring up a racist!” were typically the threats I received from that person, leaving me feeling untrusting of, well pretty much anyone and everyone.
Inevitably, with having no one close to rely on I had to heal inwardly and to do this I started writing. I had no idea I could write like I was doing. Not that the writing was particularly good, it wasn’t but I wrote vast amounts. I clearly had a lot of pain inside (and still do) and I needed to divulge it somehow. So, I sat at my laptop and typed away. I didn’t really have any objectives at first within my writing. There was no purpose to it, no story to tell, no information to provide. I just wrote for the sake of removing the awful toxicity I felt within.
I would often just write a thousand words or so and save the pieces as short stories until eventually the short stories became longer. I had started critically analysing a lot of information I was reading also to the point where I became suspicious of everyone in authority. Well why shouldn’t I? They had let me down along with some many people. Really is any government reliable? I guess you would call me a suspicious conspiracy theorist, only I don’t believe those people deserve the harsh tag they receive.
As I started researching a lot of past issues clicked into place. Despite my rape being by a migrant, the Jimmy Savile incident along with the omission by the BBC really hit me hard. I was only a child but able to understand. Why on earth would a British Institute support the likes of Jimmy Savile, I remember wondering in those early years. And these large corporations have always left me feeling uneasy ever since. However, at that time Rotherham grooming gangs had just been reported and I had become suspicious of the authorities. My research took me back to the sixties for institutional child abuse and beyond.
So along with my own trauma I was learning about the trauma millions of other people had suffered through the neglect and omissions of our governments, authorities and institutions. I was displeased, to put it mildly. This displeasure was often what I wrote into the short stories. Perhaps it was my way of writing my own experience and trying to find a happy ending for it. Who knows? Perhaps it was just my way of trying to understand what was appearing to be a very wicked world.
One day I wrote a simple sentence. It read “Why would they do that?” and at that point my mind started working overtime. It was difficult for me to get to sleep that night as I just couldn’t understand why the people had acted the way they had, with the information I told them. The following day I wrote for four hours and the same the following day and the day after. This continued for six weeks and by the end of those six weeks I had written a 90,000-word fictitious story. Pretty impressive having not long undergone brain surgery.
Although I wrote a novel sized story, I have never looked at it properly. I know what it is about. It is a story of excuses. Words explaining why people treated me the way they did and my own mind trying to place these people in a positive light, and play tricks on me. Every person who ever hurt me was written into the story with a positive sometimes heroic reflection. And all those who had been kind or unknowing were painted as the bad people within the story. I was clearly gaslit by my own understandings of the world and society. I’m not sure what that says about me at the time from a psychological point of view, probably brainwashed and indoctrinated, but what I do know is that I felt much better for writing it.
I improved both emotionally, psychologically and I felt great pride. I had just written a novel length story in six weeks. That was something I had never thought to do in my life but here I was having achieved something I had never expected. Yes, I felt complete and utter pride. I’m not sure I would like to read the story now. It is so personal and written from a very harmed mind. I know it is a very dark satire story of underground crime. I know the thoughts and emotions behind it. But I suspect now that I have managed to remove that toxicity on to print, there is now no good reason for me to revisit it.
But that is my short story about how writing helped me get through trauma. Have you ever achieved something you never thought possible as a coping mechanism for trauma or depression?
There is a lot of scepticism flying around currently about the practices within the higher education system, especially in America. Many are concerned about the exhaustive student fees and others fear the Marxist indoctrination they sense taking place in the universities. So, it is worth considering if there is the possibility to ensure the ability to learn at a higher educational level without paying the extortionate costs or receiving the much-feared Marxist indoctrination. It turns out there is a way, however it is worth considering you won’t get a certificate or qualification for your time but just the knowledge. This is how you get a higher education for under £500 and without indoctrination.
Many people are selling their old school books on internet sites such as eBay, Amazon, Gumtree etc. This is all good and well but how do you know what to read? More than that how do you know you have learned the information adequately if there are no set questions or exercises to test this knowledge? There is a way and I over estimate it to cost at £500 but I have been able to obtain an entire university degree for £7.63 including P&P, and it was completely legal.
So, what did I buy? I have bought full length Open University courses from various retail sites. Why is Open University so good? Open university is a global online university which even takes on students who have not obtained secondary education. This means the material is very easy to read and within the modules it will state which text books need to be read alongside the module books. These cost an extra fee if you decide to buy them, but the total spend will still likely be less than £500.
What is particularly good about this material is that the books contain exercises to test your knowledge and understanding of the information you have read. Admittedly there is no tutor to look over what you have written, mark it or give you feedback, however what you can do is type in the questions to a search engine and sure enough you will come across various essay websites to make a comparison. Another consideration is that with certain courses you may find you need a subscription to access certain tools needed for studying and resources. Also information could be outdated depending on the course you choose, such as computer technology for example. This means you won’t get the full course privilege. There are various courses available with the Open University, including mathematics, science, art and design, creative writing, social science, psychology, law, history... the list just goes on.
Obviously reading up a degree level course takes a lot of time and effort. You won’t receive financial assistance while you read the books and you won’t receive any celebratory/qualifying certificate either. This means it is something that takes a lot of self-determination to stick it out and read, which isn’t very easy without a physical award. Sometimes that certificate is necessary, and knowledge isn’t reward enough. But for those who enjoy reading this could be right up your street.
As someone who has done this myself, I have really enjoyed it so far and have felt a lot of pride in myself for doing this. I am currently reading the psychology course although I haven’t participated in the exercises. I have also bought the creative writing course as I have a love for reading and writing. Writing was something I did as part of my own therapy after my traumatic experience, in which I managed to write a 90,000-word fictitious story in less than six weeks. I have since started writing another story but yet to finish it. So understandably a creative writing and psychology course would be of interest to me. The creative writing course cost me £7.63 off eBay and the psychology course cost £23.00 including P&P also Ebay. I have noticed Philosophy course books go for a much higher price as do Masters courses at a cost of around £100+. It is also note worthy that some sellers sell each module (course year) separately.
So, this is how we can all get a low cost higher education without the indoctrination or shoulder burdening loan. What do you think? Is it something you would consider? Is it something you feel you have the self determination for?
I am very clear that I am anti-establishment rather than a political loyalist. This may deter many from taking any interest in what I have to say, but this article is not written to persuade you into my own political rationale. It is now more than ever most important to think critically about what you have read or watched if it is portrayed as factual. Luckily we live in a time where the resources to do such research are at our finger tips, but unfortunately we also live in a time where the majority of peoples time is consumed by work. With the immediacy of information available we should be able to do a little critical analysis of the information fed to us despite our ever increasing working hours. This post is to give you some tips on how to analyse the information provided to us as factual, be that through the news media, documentaries, studies, academia, and various other representations of fact.
· Always important to fact check the author of a piece. What is their background, what is their academic and society/cultural interests? Who do they work for, and who is financing their work? Investigate those financial supporters and their intentions. Also consider the financial capability of all those related to the pieces and how that might affect the writing.
· Consider who the target audience is. Are they writing to appease a specific audience? Do they use language specifically used within their community or audience?
· What are the aims and objectives of the source of information? Does it provide a conclusion? Does the evidence provided in the piece allow for this conclusion? Is it emotionally based or factually based? Do the statistics provide generalisations overall or gain greater depth of types of individuals within the group being discussed?
· How does the mode of the publication influence the approach or style adopted by the author? Is it an article with the flexibility to provide an emotional conclusion, assuming the audience is inclusive to the knowledge and emotions of the article or is it an academic study providing statistics and assuming the audience require further information on the specific language used, perhaps providing a glossary and such.
· What is the sociological context of the piece? Is it concentrated or generalised? Does it take into consideration generalisations or concentrated origins within the piece? Is it legal, environmental, regimental, economical based? What is the origin and scope of the information provided?
· What are the key arguments for the piece? How persuasive are those arguments? Are arguments persuasive for emotional or statistical reasons or both?
I hope you can spend a few moments after watching or reading any factual presentation considering these questions and critically analysing pieces in the future. With many losing trust in the mainstream news as of recent times due to obvious bias shown, many are understandably turning to the use of alternative media or academic studies. However, critical analysis still needs to be applied in all areas of society where factual information is provided, including education.
Are these things you consider yourself? Do you consider any other questions while providing critical analysis of a piece? Let me know in the comments below.
Do our votes represent us as individuals? During the Brexit referendum the mainstream media frequently remarked or implied that those who voted for Brexit were racists. There are many reasons for a person to back Brexit. The fishing industry, to reject unelected bureaucracy, to reduce red tape regulations, to prevent immigration. People will seethe at the latter reason, calling people who reject immigration racists or xenophobes. As a member of the working poor this is a very unfair assumption to make. People who are working poor also want the opportunity to have a family and a future, and to have these opportunities these people need jobs and opportunities. If those jobs are going to immigrants undermining the legal wage, then the people voting against immigration have good reason to vote that way.
I strongly oppose war. It kills thousands if not millions of innocent civilians and displaces even more civilians. It is inevitable these refugees will have to leave their countries and the cultures they adore and be placed in a society and culture which they find hostile to their own belief system. I find most wars created by the West are illegal and poorly reasoned and I do not wish to be part of any stage of the war process. That means I refuse to allow for my vote to help enable war. I feel very strongly about this. I respect other cultures in their own society or if they come here without the expectation or need to change our society. But most preferable to me is that we do not create war within these cultures and societies, but instead we let them live their lives peacefully.
Being aware that the two main parties always go to war. To avoid my vote going towards war (war will inevitably be used by the left as reason to invite mass migration as they have done with opposing cultural society) I feel that now in this political climate, the only way to ensure my vote doesn’t go to war is to vote a fringe party. My vote had always gone to small left political parties such as the Green party, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrats. In recent years there have been more coalitions between the main two parties and smaller fringe party's, therefore increasing the risk of my vote supporting war. I’m now left with one option to oppose war, which is to vote for a far-right fringe party. That’s right a ‘racist’ party. Why? Well these far-right parties have been tainted with the racist brush now. This means that they are undesirable to provide a coalition to the two major parties, which inevitably means my vote doesn’t support war or the devastating world wide effects of war.
There are two ‘far right’ party’s now. UKIP which I would likely support and For Britain, which I likely won’t support if I know UKIP is still tainted. Obviously, my voting has not been loyalty based and has not been based on any real political views other than opposing war. It seems to me that to vote against war, i.e. vote to protect people of different ethnicities in their own countries from our outrageous governments, bankers and greedy corporations who all profit from war, I in turn get called a racist. I received some fantastic advice as a new voter when I turned eighteen; "Hold no political loyalty. You will become a crazed fanatic if you do and by holding no loyalty you get the political parties to work for your vote- as they are meant to, and not just taking your vote for granted." I loved this advice and stuck to it, only reading the manifestos of the smaller left party’s. It is clear to anyone that I want to protect people and I have no problem with race, but it is incredible how people can skew and taint the votes of people who want to do the right thing.
So, I leave it with you. Does your vote or what others perceive your vote to represent, portray the person you are? Do you believe it does for everyone?
I have revealed I have a young son on my Angry Foreigner interview. I'm quite keen to keep him private, due to the sensitive discussions I am having about my own experiences. For me, single parenthood wasn't something I ever wanted but if I think about all the unfortunate instances that have happened it can feel very overwhelming and I think in those cases people may be prone to sinking into a deep depression, or at the very least feel immense self-pity. For me, although I’m aware of the unfortunate circumstances I have had to face, it is important to address them individually and with plenty of time between each obstacle I have faced. Addressing them as the individual circumstances for which they are helps me personally rationalise everything.
On another level, I don’t wish to place emotional opinions upon my son with regards to his father as I don’t believe that is mentally healthy for anyone, so all I have to say on this is that my son has a healthy relationship with us both and I expect that will be maintained throughout his life as he is loved very much by us both. Unfortunately, this situation wasn’t to be a tradition I had hoped for, but I got a beautiful son out of this situation regardless. As an alternative for this lost tradition I have turned to a faith school which will teach good traditional values, despite my atheism. Faith schools are however the latest target of the left. I believe there are likely many single parents who are disappointed with their inability to provide the traditional family and hope to turn to faith schools for the same reason. These faith schools are threatened by the left to be removed from society and they are also being pressured to embrace the transgender ideology into their system. Something else I hoped to divert by choosing a faith school, however this one hasn’t been affected as of yet.
To briefly explain the situation, myself and my son’s dad had planned to get married and have a family. Pregnancy was something I was cautious of due to my own health being an epileptic, but I had been reassured it would be okay for me to go through with pregnancies with the correct planning and medical attention. The plan was to get married and have our family and we were engaged at the time. It took a year of planning with regards to correcting the medication in preparation for the pregnancy and the medical professionals were confident the seizures would subside during pregnancy. We conceived almost immediately after all the preparation before we got married. Unfortunately, the seizures during pregnancy became worse, to the point where I was experiencing seizures every 15 minutes. It was a scary time for both myself and my partner and no doubt added immense stress to our relationship. Regardless, I gave birth to a premature boy three weeks early by C-section. He weighed a healthy 8lb even though he was 3 weeks premature so I imagine full term he would have been so big I would have struggled giving birth to him. The relationship fell apart for many reasons, many external and we were no longer able to continue the fun-loving relationship we had previously enjoyed. I found myself as a single mother and he found himself to be a weekend dad. Something neither of us intended.
In this post I want to concentrate on my own pain as ‘the single mother’ and the judgements that label brings with it within society today. The label provides humiliation from both the left and the right of politics. I perceive both sides as seeing themselves as particularly virtuous providing no room for human error whilst simultaneously excusing their own human errors. This is likely why I have never held any political loyalty throughout my life but always sought to look deeper. But before I approach a deeper level of searching I always think it is important to introduce the surface level of myself and who I am.
Through the left I experience pity from those who are social justice and who like to provide excuses and support, often for their own ego. Some feminists go as far as to say they deliberately set out to be single mothers because children don’t need fathers. I somehow expect this is a defensive reaction to the fear that they realise they may have to resort to science or lone adoption to gain their family. Nothing wrong with that but to me it proves a sense of anxiety that the traditional family will not happen for them. I say defensive reaction because we can all reject the basic idea of the family, but the very basic idea of the traditional family almost seems unobtainable to many these days with the pressure of finding income to pay bills and the necessity to work exhaustively to achieve mass consumerism.
I do not agree that single parenthood should be something society should aspire to. I do not believe it is helpful for pitying social justice fiends and feminists to be overly praising single parents. For me it sets a tone and an unhealthy, financially suicidal tone. I always notice how these feminists are high achievers, and I applaud them for achieving in such a competitive world, but it really isn’t wise to discredit the very basics of a family, just because you have the financial means to disregard it. It is these people who claim they are representing single motherhood. Well don’t! Please don’t claim feminism on behalf of single mothers. We don’t all agree with your notions. Please don’t claim to be a representative of single mothers. You’re not! Most single mothers are switching off their heating when their children go and visit their fathers and sitting in the cold under blankets. We are living on cheese on toast and eating the left overs of our children’s meals. Single mothers as a whole do not live the life you pretend we do.
Most single mothers are within the working poor, just like myself. But the working poor mother’s voices are silenced in preference of those who are successful such as JK Rowling. It is almost an encouragement to young influential girls that they can have it all without the help or support of a man. I wholeheartedly disagree. From my experience a man is an essential part of the family unit not only for financial help but for consistency, a child's need for love on demand and reassurance. I watch the left promoting single parenthood as if it is a breeze. It isn’t. These fashionable, successful single mothers are not the rule but instead the exception. They likely have a traditional family upbringing and supportive parents who help them. I encourage all women not to get absorbed by this falsehood of the single mother life. The traditional family, the very basic necessity is by far the most ideal circumstances so please don’t be swept away by the fairy-tale stories and aspire for this life.
And what about the right? Well they are tough on us. Really tough. Which is probably why these leftie ‘representatives’ feel the need to come out and celebrate single parenthood. They likely feel defensive and protective of their own identity. So how is the right so harsh? Well as if single parenthood isn’t tough enough, I have to deal with their obvious and loudly sounded disapproval. The judgemental accusations were difficult to cope with at first. They aren’t statements of fact made to your face but rather statements of assumptions made through whispers amongst like minded conservatives for the most part. Those who do speak to single mothers vocally offend so many because they use generalisations and statistics to represent an individual. Those representations are often hateful generalisations such as “psychopaths”, “welfare scroungers” or something of the like. Widows are not frowned upon. Mothers who are victims of rape are never mentioned. Are victims of rape meant to marry their rapist to gain approval from the right? What about abuse within the family? Is that to be suffered for the sake of strict conservative values? The inflexible expectation of humans within the right is one of the most off-putting aspects of the right for me. This expectation is now becoming more apparent in the left with their regime like legalities to prevent hurt feelings. Has this been in retaliation to the inflexibility of the right? Both sides have become much more extreme in recent times. A more evident war exists between the two sides than ever before. And we still have migrants, mass rapes and wars to contend with.
I’m disappointed in my life position as it is now. I’m disappointed that I didn’t manage to achieve the seemingly attainable family I had thought that one day I might. Having said that, I would like to embrace that disappointment without the left making excuses for me. I feel better for admitting that disappointment, so why is it so hard for the some left to allow me to do this? Could it be that they want to pretend throughout their life that they have never experienced disappointment in themselves? Is feeling disappointment in yourself a prospect so many want to avoid? Is it somehow wrong? Even when really all you are doing is accepting it and moving on. Why would this be? As for the right, I feel the rigid inability to accept human error is leading us morally into the equivalent of a hard core Islamic society. If that were to be the case, then why the hell aren’t these radicals welcoming Islam as part of this extreme conservative movement? It is no wonder as I explain my concerns regarding the world today, I end up with more questions than answers. But to reiterate, I am disappointed I couldn’t provide my son with the seemingly achievable, but I am okay with saying that, and I don’t need excuses made on my behalf.
The UK is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) and Northern Ireland. Devolution is where certain legislative and executive powers are transferred over from Westminster Parliament, over to the UK entities of power in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Celtic nations. The majority of power is retained in Westminster making it a Unitary State, whereas in America the power is retained at sub state level making it a Federal State.
Devolution came in prominence with the Irish Home rule at the end of the nineteenth century but there has been a fight for Independence from Scotland since 1700’s in order to make their own laws etc. Since the early 1500’s Wales has been treated in legal terms as part of England creating an ongoing struggle for independence and devolution. It wasn’t until the 1990’s that devolution did take place for the Celtic nations so obviously the battle to gain authority to make own laws in these Celtic nations has been a struggle for centuries. Only recently have these nations been able to provide their own laws (still with restriction).
The UK never had a written constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights has become the UK constitution in many ways which comes from EU law. EU law runs supreme above UK laws made in Westminster. So, considering the centuries of struggle to ensure devolution, the possibility to make their own laws in their own land, how insulting might it be that a person with brown skin and a different religion can go over to one of these Celtic nations (who have only recently become devolved) and insist on practising their own laws with immediate effect? After these centuries of waiting you would expect a Celtic national feeling deceived perhaps even taunted by the prospect that someone could have such an immediate expectation.
So why can the brown Muslim man force this with such immediacy?
The brown, Muslim person can claim racism due to their different skin colour and claim discrimination as they practice a different religion, threaten to take the nation to the European Courts where they will inevitably win. Evidently these migrants can ensure their laws with the click of their fingers through discrimination laws, whereas the white Celtic national continues to have to wait to get their independence. Of course, the laws show with this example the unfairness of human rights. The example shows how human rights laws work in favour of new minorities and against existing natives.
Ultimately it proves the supremacy of Sharia in the UK under the human rights laws. It is an example of how one being can bypass all this existing legislations and negotiations which the Celts had to deal with over the centuries, and what the natives ancestors had fought for over the centuries. For myself as a Welsh nationalist, I find this ability to bypass in this way an absolute insult as I’m sure many of my Celtic peers from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales also feel.
Luckily, there are not many Muslims who live in the Celtic nations, but rather reside in England. Celts can be reluctant to befriend strangers, being quite suspicious, coming across possibly as cold. For this reason and for the sake of devolution it might be worth continuing to be suspicious and therefore cold to new arrivals.
With regards to Scotland and their fight for freedom, the idea that they would like to stay in the EU is quite baffling to me and I would need it explained. The laws would run supreme to their own which they have fought so hard for and therefore Brussels will make the ultimate decisions regarding Scotland as opposed to the Scottish themselves. Despite the money which comes from the EU to support the nations, Wales did vote a majority to leave the EU. It may be that Wales still don’t feel they have achieved what they set out to achieve, and it is important to get it done faster now in an attempt to save their jobs and prevent too much change to their existence. It could be that the Welsh don’t want to provide such courtesy to someone after their own long, hard battle just because of someone’s skin colour or religion.
Social media hate crime is covered in English and Welsh law under three existing legislative Acts. These include the Communications Act 2003, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. To prosecute an alleged perpetrator CPS (Crime Prosecution Service) needs to provide enough evidence to ensure intent to the crime as well as prove it is in the public interest the alleged perpetrator should be sentenced.
There are four categories of offences;
1) Communications constitute as a threat of violence to person or property.
2) Communications constitute as harassment or stalking, control, coercive behaviour or blackmail (including revenge porn).
3) Contempt of Court Act, Sexual Offences Act or and Breach of restraining order or bail.
4) Grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.
It is worth mentioning here that the use of incorrect legislation by CPS could result in an insufficient sentence. An example of this would be the case R v GS (2012). In this case the defendant published explicit internet chat discussing fantasy of incestuous, sadistic, paedophilic sex acts upon young and significantly young children. Had CPS used another legislation to prosecute the defendant, a harsher sentence would likelier have been given. It is worth questioning by that standard, how and why CPS can get it so wrong?
So, let’s look at the interpretation of “grossly offensive” and “indecent or obscene character”. Gross indecency is interpreted in the Oxford Dictionary of Law as a sexual act considered more than ordinary. Indecency is interpreted as conduct that the average person would find shocking or revolting. A judge may politically lean to the left in their interpretation of the meaning, but the population (therefore the average person) as we see in the current political climate, a small majority lean more to a right/alt-right political leaning. The judge should therefore take the average person’s leaning above his own.
This is very important to take into consideration when reviewing a sentence as a sentence could be argued if it is incorrectly assumed how the average person perceives the definition of shocking. If more people are convinced to come to the alt-right, then surely judicial precedent will also have to change?
Another concern is that the defendant must be proven to either intend the message to be grossly offensive, indecent or obscene or be aware of it. So now you have a less sensationalised understanding which the newspapers insist on, I would like to turn your attention on to the flaws of concentrating on social media hate crime and then finally my thoughts on the Count Dankula case.
A case was brought against a police force for arresting a rape victim for supposedly reporting false allegations. The victim had not lied and was found to be telling the truth. The victim prosecuted the police force under Article 3 of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) for degradation. This case interests me because clearly the victim would have been traumatised therefore dealing with the mental health condition Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and will have likely brought a claim under Article 14-discrimination, alongside it.
The definition of disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 states
-if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Article 3 prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No exceptions and no limits. Article 14 discrimination must be used in conjunction of another right, for example discrimination with degrading treatment whereby no reasonable adjustment is made for mental health so inflicting anxiety on the defendant.
With mental health issues ever increasing in men and children, I believe many more cases could be brought against the police for degradation and discrimination by those suffering with mental health issues. The reason being that those who make the complaints have no idea if the person posting the perceived offensive post could be suffering with a mental health condition. The arrest itself could be a breaking point for some people who may have posted something in a fit of rage, trauma, depression etc. If this does happen and I believe it will, the floodgates will open and with our police forces already financially stretched and our courts overly backlogged due to no legal aid and therefore self-representation, this will likely have a hugely negative affect on our authorities.
Lastly, with this knowledge I would like to address the current case regarding a YouTube personality known as Count Dankula. He had trained his dog to Nazi salute as a joke to irritate his girlfriend as she praised their dg to be sweet and cute. He chose to train it to do the most vulgar thing he could think of and posted it to the internet. While I don’t condone what he did, I would like to focus on my thoughts on whether I believe he will be sentenced for this act.
Intent can be proven on this case, so it is a matter of whether it is in the public’s interest that he is sentenced. I am unsure of his criminal history if any, but supposing he does have a criminal history it is far likelier he will get sentenced. If not, that leaves us to question if it is in the public interest. The ‘average person’ is noticeably thinking differently in this new age of populism. That means the judge would have to bare this in mind. It isn’t about pleasing minority voters (although I suspect from other cases this does come into sentencing) but about the average person’s thoughts on what constitutes ‘shocking’.
With the new change to society in their tolerance and political thinking, I don’t believe a judge can presume in this case that it is in the public’s interest to sentence this man. If he does get sentenced without previous criminal convictions, I expect to see civil unrest and uproar.
I’m interested in your thoughts on this case, whether you see the political and societal change that I do and if you think sentencing this man if he is free of previous convictions would create unrest within society or perhaps put society back in its place and be a warning to those who step out of line? Also, what are your thoughts on discrimination cases being brought against the police or government with social media hate crime?