by John Ward
Lampoon: deliver a sharp, often virulent satire directed against an individual or institution; a work of literature, art, or the like, ridiculing severely the character or behavior of a person, society, etc.
There is a young chap – I assume he is young because he admits to being only a Junior Barrister – who holds forth to all and sundry (with matinées on Saturday) on subjects of legal exactitude. He writes under the exciting nom de plume of The Secret Barrister. He’s no dope: in both 2016 and 2017, the Secret Barrister was named Independent Blogger of the Year at the Editorial Intelligence Comment Awards.
My problem with his double victory is the word ‘independent’. This is based on several observations, but chiefly the obviously Left-leaning sneer with which he writes, born of an equally clear superiority complex that is, these days, common to almost all bourgeois Leftists.
His most recent post – you can view it here – is thorough and well informed….and as such, I would unhesitatingly recommend it to anyone in search of the explanation (perhaps I should say rationale) as to why “Tommy Robinson” now finds himself behind bars.
However, so tainted is the anal legal analysis based on TSB’s We Know Bestideology, it does require a health warning before reading it. The warning would have several bases – including raised blood pressure and the dangers of breathing toxic hatred – but in the end, reading it for yourself is the only sure way to make your mind up on why and how this international man of mystery makes his mind up on stuff.
Forgetting the content of the excellent legal interpretation, I offer this equally exact audit of the Sneer Score in his post as follows:
‘Knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, Nazi-themed march on Downing Street, for the edicification of his cult, four Asian defendants, ye of little brain, far-Right blogs, ingenious conspiracy theories, propagandist rants, the ballad of St Tommy, and uncompromising beatdown of idiots and liars’.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I put it to you that, were the Secret Barrister to use such terms while publicly prosecuting a defendant in a Court of Law, even the most novitiate defence counsel would be jumping up and down to object to the judge more frequently than a much sought-after tart’s knickers.
Examining TSB’s linguistics in more detail, first of all I do not see the presence of Union Jacks in marches (sparsely covered by the MSM and therefore largely hearsay) as evidence of “Nazism”. Secondly, I deplore the use of “Asians” as a term, which is on a par with “blacks” as a description of ethnicity and is offensive to my many Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese friends. Third, “rant” is a term commonly used by those without a solid argument to counter perfectly logical analyses. And finally, I worry about people called to the Bar who speciously characterise their opponents as those who must be ‘beaten down’ as ‘idiots and liars’. That seems to me to be stereotypical language more suited to the public bar of the Brownshirt & Odessa pub in downtown Santiago.
Having gone off on one a bit, TSB seems to spot that his ideological slip is showing, attempting to explain away his gratuitous insults as follows:
‘….Ordinarily, I do my best in these posts to embrace rather than alienate in an effort to explain or persuade. But cases like this, involving co-ordinated transnational campaigns disseminating blatant falsehoods about our legal system and gaslighting the public are, I feel, different. And call for a different approach….’
Somewhere in the Supreme Court, a judge is laughing fit to burst. Transnational campaigns? A different approach? Good luck with that in an appeal case.
There are other huge holes in his analysis. For example, he quite rightly points out that “Robinson” was in contempt because of past stupidities and the serial nature of the rape crimes on trial demanding further imminent trials. Yet it seems not to occur to him that the sheer number of defendants just might suggest that the ‘knuckle-draggers’ have a point.
Equally, The Secret One is withholding evidence when he designates the defendants as ‘Asian’. They are all Islamic Pakistanis. Finally, he omits any reference to the senior local political figures allegedly involved in the trial, and the reality of a police force keen to keep secret its role in turning a blind eye to mass rape.
To be fair, TSB does not see these things as falling within his remit. But as a soi-disant “objective” source of information, he is offering a biased view of events to the jury. In short, he is that worst of all animals, an ideologue barrister. That should, surely, be an oxymoron for any State aspiring to equality before the Law.
One day, this young man born long after the real Nazis were defeated may well become a judge. If so, I would suggest to all those brought before his Eminence that they should bear the following in mind:
- Don’t hold an independent opinion
- Don’t be working class
- Grovel a lot
- Expect your defence statement to be treated as a rant
- Show your knuckles above the dock at all times
- Accept that you are Mr K and this is a showtrial.
Politicisation is the cancer of our age. We have politicised media, politicised police, politicised governance, and a politicised judiciary.
I hold no candle at all for “Tommy Robinson” as a person. But it just so happens that his views on the issue of Islamic rape in Britain are empirical. It is a fact that the politicised BBC denies this endemic problem within Britain’s Pakistani community. It is a fact that one man’s anger over this in relation to the political class was directly responsible for Jo Cox’s death. It is a fact that ambitious policemen going on courses about how to be a diversity leader care more about promotion than they do about the anger among the citizenry. And it is a fact that successive British governments refuse to come clean about Jihadism and Islamic rape in our culture because they dare not offend military allies and lucrative arms customers in the Middle East.
Secret Barrister 007 would do well to acknowledge that reality.