The Truth About Anti-Brexit Former High Court Judge

Only days ago I was invited by Your Brexit to write for them. The idea of someone who happens to be half Irish, writing for a publication dedicated to freeing Britain from ruler ship by foreign powers… bring forth an interesting question…. do you think it’s possible to die of Irony Poisoning? Far be it from me to turn down the opportunity to participate in such a uniquely glorious paradox.

So while searching about for subject matter I came across various reporting upon the Fawcet Society and it’s lead investigator on a study into whether or not Brexit would weaken the anti-discrimination laws. Now, being an America: I can assure you, I am profoundly accustom to propagndic scare mongering of the highest order.

The red threat, the satanic panic, mad cow disease, west nile virus, swine flu, avian flu, killer bees, zika virus, sars virus, super super gonorrhea and the piece de resistance: cunnilingus is now linked to throat cancer. Take my advice lads, do not even attempt that excuse: not only will it not work but you will find yourself exiled from the marital chamber for a protracted period of time.

Scare mongering aside, I decided to look into this lead investigator, find out what her history is and anything of interest in her background. Is she a partisan wolf in sheep’s clothing or does this report reflect genuine unbiased investigation? If the later, rather than the former, are there any gaps or legislation which could easily assuage the Fawcet Society’s findings?

Low and behold, ladies and gentlemen: I cannot be certain as to whether I’ve tumbled down a rabbit hole or stumbled through the looking glass. What I found was the single largest and most egregious example of criminal conspiracy and judicial misconduct in the entire history of the English judicial system. I warn you, do not entertain even the faintest glimmer of a hope that these statements have been hyperbolic. As you will see, very shortly, I only just barely escaped the realm of understatement.

While researching the good Dame Laura Cox, I found she was in fact the lead author of the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” published by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB). As reported by the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. So why would this be of interest? The Equal Treatment Bench Book was a document issued in September of 2010, which instructed all judges across the entirety of the United Kingdom, to give convicted female criminals lighter sentences than men would receive for the same crimes.

Now if you were read that statement and questioned “Isn’t discrimination based upon sex blatantly illegal?” You would be correct, absolutely unquestionably and unequivocally correct, as the law will show you.

Equality Act of 2010, Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 6.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(6) If the protected characteristic is sex-”

uk_law_1

A glimpse into the Equality act of 2010 renders an important note to follow. The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) published the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” exactly 1 month before the Equality Act of 2010 was instituted. Could be coincidence, however, it seems rather suspicious does it not?

The Equal Treatment Bench Book, which instructed judges across the UK to intentionally give female criminals lighter sentencing, was published in September of 2010. The equality act of 2010 was instituted October 1st of 2010.

The Equality act of 2010 is quite explicit, and directly worded and absolutely prohibits unequal treatment or discrimination based on race, sex, religion or any other factors. The earlier anti-discrimination law for gender disparity would be the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

In fact, if we search the Equality act of 2010 we find that the law specifically states any activity to occur before October 1st of 2010, would be determined as a breach of law by one of the earlier applicable law or laws.

“If you were subjected to unlawful treatment (eg discrimination, harassment or victimisation) before 1 October 2010, the Equality Act won’t apply. Instead, you’ll be covered by the legislation that was in force at the time.”

anti_equality

Consider, if you will, if the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) had published the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” just two months later: the Equality Act of 2010 would have just been implemented. Everyone and their second cousin twice removed would be well aware that the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” was in direct violation of the law. By publishing the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” 1 month previous to the Equality Act of 2010, they did so while the active legislature in place was The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a law few people would have been familiar with.

Again I say: “Could be coincidence, however, it seems rather suspicious does it not?”

So let us delve into the applicable law in effect at the time. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, CHAPTER 65, Section 2. “Sex discrimination against men.” Sub section 1.

“(1)Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite.”

anti_equality2

Oh my, saving a bit of ink I see, very well. Let us look at Section 1 “Direct and indirect discrimination against women”.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, CHAPTER 65, Section 1. “Direct and indirect discrimination against women” Sub section 1 and 1A.

“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a woman if—
(a)on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, or”

anti_equality3

In Section 2 of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 we find that all rules applying to women, also apply to men and in the section on sexual discrimination against women it specifically states and I quote “on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man”.

According to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, “Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite.”

So let us apply the women’s section to men as it is applied to women, as the law specifically states we are supposed to. I shall here in present both laws “with such modifications as are requisite”.

Women.
“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a woman if—
(a)on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, or”

Men.
“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a men if—
(a)on the ground of his sex he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat a woman, or”

As you can see, the Equal Treatment Bench Book issued by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) indefatigably instructs Judges throughout the UK to violate the sex specific anti-discrimination law, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, in providing women lighter sentencing than men.

Every judge to comply with the orders set forth by the Equal Treatment Bench Book constitutes not only conspiracy to commit a crime, but squarely, by the letter of the law, condemns every aforementioned compliant judge as joint principals in that crime.

Crown Prosecution Service “Conspiracy
The essential element of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement by two or more people to carry out a criminal act. Even if nothing is done in furtherance of the agreement, the offence of conspiracy is complete.

The actus reus is the agreement. This cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, s/he is still guilty of the offence.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.

For the ingredients of conspiracy, see Archbold 33-1 to 33-20. ”

uk_law_2

Crown Prosecution Service “The parties to an offence
Where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to the offence may be principals (D1) or secondary parties (accessories / accomplices) (D2).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea. If two or more persons do so, they are joint principals.”

anti_equality4

There after – every single man who was denied this lighter sentencing was, by law, admittedly discriminated against in that court. By official order, the court treated him “less favourably” than the court “would treat a woman.”

Not only is the entire Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which issued the Equal Treatment Bench Book guilty of violating the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but there after upon the institution of the Equality Act of 2010, until the present day: every judge to apply this lighter sentencing of women has been a complicit and active participating principals in a criminal violation of federal law. As such, every man denied this new lighter sentencing has, under the law, been discriminated against by the court which sentenced him – and has a case against the judge which sentenced him: on the grounds of discrimination.

Equality Act of 2010, Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 6.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(6) If the protected characteristic is sex-”

uk_law_1

Not only is it Dame Laura Cox who led the charge to commit an untold and unfathomable number of federal violations to the law: lets not forget it is also Dame Laura Cox who led the Fawcett Society in “investigating” whether or not Brexit will reduce the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws. The very woman who authored the Equal Treatment Bench Book instructing judges to violate anti-discrimination law has also been responsible for producing propaganda that Brexit will harm anti-discrimination laws.

Oh yes, my Dame, we have seen how much stock you put into anti-discrimination laws being followed. We know precisely how much you value the rule of law. You who so flagrantly violate the anti-discrimination laws in favor of your ideology and issue forth orders that others must violate anti-discrimination laws as well.

Dame Laura Cox, you are finished, madam, excuse yourself from speaking on matters of the rule of law. Your word carries no weight upon the topic: for you are in fact a criminal who has to her record an untold tens of thousands of violations of the law. The only things which should be remembered of you: is your despicable lawlessness, your repugnant hypocrisy and your embarrassing disgrace.

Here your sins laid bare, for all the world to see. The dirty secrets and the criminal activities you committed hoping would never be realized or come to be known: at last, are thrust into the light of day.

You, Dame Laura Cox, a former high court judge: have more violation of the law to your credit than perhaps any human being to set foot or breath air upon your Island Nation since the gilded age in which Roman centurions referred to it as Britannia.

radicalfeministarticle-2383275-1B1DE4F5000005DC-148_306x423

Published by

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Deontological Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s