How many times have they moved since April? If you included all their hotels and guest homes it must be six or seven. Its not even so much that a baying mob converges with pitch forks – it tends to be more that the home owner doesn’t want to let to them once informed as to what they have rented out to.
No landlord in their right mind would choose to have them in their property, if only due to the baggage that follows them around. The only landlords that willingly let to them are those that are kept ignorant to their true identity.
It should really be an offence to do that and the BLA should themselves be lobbying Parliament on behalf of its members. Isn’t that what such an organisation are meant to do, advocate on behalf of its members? I’ll assume members must pay some sort of fee to join, so I would have thought such funds would be used by the BLA to address this matter. We haven’t asked them to or anything – but as an organisation they shouldn’t really need it laid out.
The truth is that no one in their right mind wants these bros in their street or neighbourhood. Mothers don’t want AF living in a residential area next to a school. Dog owners and vulnerable people don’t want DF living among them, not under their real names and not under assumed names. Nobody wants them in all of Britain.
The reaction wherever they went would be about the same. Its not that people don’t want them for no good reason or due to some sort of blind hate. People don’t want them for entirely fair and understandable reasons. I don’t think communities should accept being fobbed off by local council officials and police spokespeople speaking in cliches and patronising you with “We understand that some people may be frustrated but..”
You should have the right of freedom of association and if a street or community is being forced against their will to take them in then you are being denied that basic freedom of association. You now have no choice but to potentially run into them and you now have no choice but to accept that your community has been made less safe at a stroke.
Its not like everyone in the community can move out. Housing shortages often force people to remain in an area they may not otherwise choose. The least they should expect is that their safety and freedom of association not be impaired by the state forcing them to accept convicted sadists.
I am sick of seeing traditional working class areas becoming dumping grounds for all the trash that shouldn’t be at large but that the Government would rather process and try to forget about.
These communities have absolutely no chance of elevating themselves if local and national Government insist on using them as some sort of giant social cess pool. And who suffers when the predators strike out? Its the most vulnerable in those communities.
There was a time when an elderly person could feel very safe in their home. I’ve lost count of the cases where some sexual predator has broken in and RAPED someone of around 80yrs of age. This is an off the scale abomination. How many old people really feel secure in their homes these days or going to the ATM? It would once have been seen as an absolute sin to hurt or steal from the elderly. In 2016 this unspoken rule has been replaced by a culture that sees the old as fair game to rob, beat and even rape.
How many people, esp in such communities, would feel totally at ease with their children being out of sight? How many are concerned about pets like cats being out and free (as they ideally should be)? How many unknown Frankish types might be living in your street tonight – who knows what their history is?
The wealthier the area the more safe the residents are. You’ll note that the brothers aren’t exactly renting houses in Mayfair. They are restricted by socio economic factors and those restrictions lead to them being dumped into areas that might be seen as traditionally working class and poorer.
With wealth also comes more choice. Not everyone in a place like Darlington or B Auckland has the money to pick and choose where they live. They want to make the best of where they are. They have to. Then along come social workers and the state and drop an unspecified number of reprobates, sadists, and sex offenders into the community.
They do this in full knowledge that there will be victims (obviously). Don’t think they somehow just don’t realise. They realise but their weak counter argument is that they have a legal obligation to house them. If thats the case then this legal obligation is something that must end. The legal obligation should at least have exemptions and caveats built into it, one of which would be that you lose your right to be housed if you are found culpable of certain heinous crimes.
There should no longer be any state obligation to such people and there should be no money taken from the public in order to do this. They can choose a cardboard box or they can buy a house somewhere remote – go live there. They can do the lottery, win it, then move in to a gated community where MP’s reside.
As things stand the state do not punish such people. We know this only too well. The state also tend not to punish those caught in possession of class A child abuse material, two thirds are given a non custodial sentence.
Not only do the state not punish them but they punish YOU by giving them homes and new names and special protections. All to keep people free whose sole purpose in life is to find a victim again. This is insanity.
Here’s another insanity. Many times when we do an OP we have to pay VAT. Thats about 20p in the £ that gets taken from us (you) and is stolen by the treasury. The self same treasury who then use such funds to spend on the very systems we seek to abolish (such as home curfews).
Thats how big a scam and a shake down your so called ‘democracy’ is. We are literally forced to pay a system that we are lobbying against. We are conducting a private transaction with someone providing a service and somehow the state believes this entitles them to take 20%. We would not mind if we knew it was being used to build work camps to banish people like the brothers in. We very much do object when a % of it is effectively used to pay for their homes and food.
The problem for AF and DF is the very system that has created them with its pathological leniency will actually be their downfall. Consider this. If we had a less cucked justice system when they were sentenced and they’d each gotten four years, I honestly don’t think there would be an OF, I don’t think the public anger would have endured this long.
People would still have been repulsed but they would feel consoled to some extent by the idea that each was going to lose a fair portion of their liberty and emerge with a prison record.
The brothers could have done their time, come out, and assuming there was no repeat, they could possibly have got on with their life. There would not be the number of internet hits you get for them. There would not have been nearly 6 months of press coverage. Their faces would not be burned into the public psyche as they are.
All they’d have needed to do is say goodbye to freedom for a few years, try to use that time well, then come out the other end and avoid ever doing anything like it again.
So in many ways a system that ruled with a rod of iron (but fairly) would actually have been better for them than a lenient system which appears to give them a free pass, but instead just makes their situation many times worse for longer.
Their names and faces are now out there – forever. The public do not feel they have come close to paying their debt, which is why the public remain enraged.
All of this moving around and cloak and dagger cannot be a picnic. All of that could have been avoided with a tougher system that had given them some serious jail time. We would not have any real margin to get enraged if in fact they were locked up for a period of four years. That would be a reasonable sentence for such a thing so there would be no cause to feel cheated.
There would be no need to spend time trying to find out where they go next – the public would feel satisfied to know they were secure and under lock and key.
The state could and can avoid all of this tension and stress by simply doing the right thing. There is no cost argument here at all. That is a total red herring. Even if it costs a grand a week to keep someone in prison, set that against the cost of them having two separate tax payer funded homes, their collective benefits, the cost to help keep their identity a secret, the cost to the police when people inevitably object to having them close by. Not to mention the cost of the tag and the home curfew.
If any politician ever tells you that cost is a factor in people like that not being sent down – they are ignorant or lying. Besides, there are some things more important than money.
A Government that is ultra liberal toward people like AF and DF is mentally ill. Only an entity that was mentally ill would think it a reasonable idea to let such people go free, then relocate them in areas that already have their challenges.
Its either a collective mental illness from the Government or its a pure act of malice, since they are not stupid – they are well aware that such types are a danger waiting to happen again.
These current policies we have, the present laws and sentences, they are the work of those who are mentally ill or malicious. Take your pick but they definitely are not the work of those with moral fibre and a sense of the spirit of the law.
When a local authority knowingly allow such people to live anonymously among you what they are saying is that your rights end where the needs of the evil begin. Doesn’t matter that they may present a threat to you or your loved ones. All that matters is that they are afforded a home and all the benefits that go with one.
If a community rise up and object to predators in their midst what does your state do? Do they rush to take your side? Do they eagerly invite your solutions? Of course not. Instead they move heaven and earth to pander to them and that includes instructing officers to protect them.
What further proof do you need that you live in a system which is designed to protect and even elevate the worse of people while penalising or trying to censor the best of people?
You can put it all down to total ignorance and naivety on the part of the entire Government, but I very much doubt they cannot see with their own eyes that such predators placed anonymously in generally working class areas is not an act of charity or justice – its like using human weapons of mass destruction to destroy communities and its as good as letting them loose to prey on your children and pets. How is that NOT an act of malice? How is it not an act of malice with an economic element built in (don’t dare be poor, the Government may force a Frankish among you)?
When does incompetence become malice? When there is foreknowledge. The Governments have foreknowledge that such offenders present a danger. They have data, research, think tanks and advisor’s to tell them – even if they themselves are ignorant. They also know that letting them walk free from court is a wholly unpopular position. They also know that they work quietly with local authorities to absorb these people into a new community.
Whose benefit do you think they are doing all that for? Is it for your benefit? Is it for the benefit of the victim? Clearly it is not. It only benefits the offender and it benefits the state if they can be shown to have malevolent intentions.
What would you do if you wanted to fuck up the leafy neighbourhood that many politicians reside in? You’d force a bunch of junkies, degenerates, sadists and predators there. Then just let nature take its course.
You wouldn’t need to do anything else as the people you’d just added to their safe havens would create the chaos for you. This is precisely and exactly what the authorities do to you – they dump these dangerous people next to you and take away your right to even easily know.
Liam White is 22, soon to be 23. Under that name he could easily have found himself an unsuspecting g/f in B Auckland. A single parent. A girl with a dog she’s had for years. She would have zero idea what she was getting into and who she was really letting into her house. Her right to know and her freedom of association removed by a Government obsessed with protecting the liberties of the worse of people.
The only hope such a girl would have of avoiding that very possible situation would be if she so happened to read this page and follow our stuff. If she did not then she would be placing herself (and her loved ones) in danger.
At any given time the Government can easily prove that they are prepared to stop acting maliciously. All they need do is what we ask for – put in place tough sentences that would serve as both a deterrent and a real punishment.
If they keep on neglecting to do so then they cannot possibly be surprised when there is an organic reaction to this. Not even they could be that mentally disconnected.
If they are not prepared to stop peddling this malicious lenient sentences then in all truth they simply do not deserve to Govern.
Only a party that was openly committed to doing so should be considered fit to Govern. It should be almost a cross party position that they must take on – mandatory prison terms for people like them.
A much more robust approach that puts the people and community first and the perpetrator a poor second.
You deserve this
Now go out and demand it