Posted on 02/01/2003 10:57:22 AM PST by vannrox
British Man Denied Parole, Ruled "A Threat to Burglars" Tony Martin is not a worldly man. He has never been to San Francisco. Its probable that hes never even been to London. Hes a middle-aged man who, until two and one half years ago, lived a quiet, unexceptional life in a remote farmhouse in Norfolk, one of Englands least populated counties. Because he lived alone in a place without neighbors, and was judged, by their own low standards, to be faintly eccentic, he became the target of local Gypsy raiders, who broke into his home and robbed him several times. Each time, Martin called the police, who sometimes turned up an hour or two later, or didnt turn up at all, citing the distance theyd have to come. After each robbery, Martin responded by boarding up more windows and jamming the doors. He had no neighbors to turn to for help. Fatefully, in August 1999, two Gypsies broke into Martins home while he slept. In a blind panic the 55 year-old Martin took his gun out of the cupboard, crept down the stairs and fired three shots blindly into the dark, intending only to frighten them away. One wounded 30 year-old Brendan Fearon. The second shot killed 17 year old Fred Barras. Subsequent forensic evidence proved his assertion that he fired in the dark in a blind panic. Martin then called an ambulance and made the only phone call to police that ever caught their attention. Martin became a hero in Britain, a country where self-defense has been legislated away in a mush of Princess Diana-esque "emotional intelligence." This is a country where private citizens were outlawed from keeping a gun after a madman broke into a Scottish school and killed several children a few years ago. One madman and millions of law-abiding, sane people were deprived of their ancient right to self-defense. When only the police and the military are armed, the authorities tend to become distanced from the ordinary, unarmed citizenry, and unquestionably the police have become less responsive and less friendly in recent years. A fund established for Martins defense was overwhelmed with contributions. Natural justice was once again thwarted when Martin was found guilty of murder. In the face of public fury, the charge was later reduced to manslaughter and his five year sentence was reduced by one-third. But Martin had done no wrong by any civilized measure of judgement. He has now served two and one-half years and he came up before the Parole Board two weeks ago. Martin has been a cooperative and untroublesome prisoner. He keeps to himself, but shows no hostility to other prisoners or the guards. But he was refused parole because he has failed to show remorse. He refuses to go along with the thought police. He still thinks he had a right to protect himself and his property. If hed shown remorse and expressed Clintonian pain for Fred Barrass death, he would be out today. But hes made of sterner stuff and refused to wrap himself in the mantle of political thought fascism. That he has shown no remorse led the Orwellian Parole Board to refuse him freedom on the grounds that he poses a "threat to burglars." At the same hearing, authorities cited another damning cause for refusal of parole: "He tends to think things were better 50 years ago." This sentiment surely puts Martin in the land of the sane. Who doesnt think things were better when parents werent afraid to allow children to walk to school, when there was general respect for law and order, when there were no hordes of illegal immigrants begging with their children in the streets and subway stations, when police took threats of life and liberty seriously? Tony Martin seems a good deal more tethered to reality than the British Parole Board. Finally, the Parole Board sneered, "He doesnt seem to be up to speed with the 21st Century." Well, heaven forefend! Lock him up forever and throw away the key! Society needs to be protected from people who are mildly out of kilter with the new century! Tony Martin was said by a friend to have been "depressed" by the judgement. This case take place against a background in which, a month or so ago, a senior member of the judiciary handed down "guidance" that judges should no longer send "first time burglars who didnt use violence in the course of their burglary" to prison because British jails were "too overcrowded". They should, instead, be given community service sentences. So now the word is out to ambitious British burglars everywhere: First times free. Later the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior legal figure in Britain (a political appointee of Tony Blair) stated, in response to outraged letters to the newspapers, that he couldnt believe most people wanted first time burglars (meaning, let us remember, "first time caught") to go to prison. He didnt believe the law-abiding British were upset by the new guidelines. Something tells me that being chauffeured around in a government provided limousine, drawing an immense salary from the taxpayer and living in luxurious and well-policed housing causes dementia praecox in the legal profession. Before the British could recover from their outrage over the latest dismantling of law and order in Britain, the head of the Metropolitan Police (Londons police force, which cant keep the law, yet is much bigger and better paid than New Yorks police force, which manages to keep its citizens safe) announced to the press that the police would no longer even investigate burglaries forget calling the police unless the perpetrator were obvious and there was plenty of evidence against him. In other words, unless he crept out of your house in a Zorro mask carrying a big sack marked Booty and happened to have jotted his name and address down on your telephone pad. It was announced that the Metropolitan police will henceforth be saving their manpower for the three most important offences in the country: Murder, rape and hate crimes. Defending property is now formally no longer on the table in London. The chief of police seems perplexed by the public outcry. "We will still," he explained patiently, "take a note of any burglaries reported for statistical purposes." They just wont investigate them. Meanwhile, Fred Barrass companion-in-crime Brendon Fearon had his three-and-a-half year sentence reduced by half and was released in August 2001. Fred Barrass father has been sent to prison for 14 years for leading a £400,000 ($600,000) armed robbery. Fred Barrass 69 year-old grandmother is facing charges of possessing an illegal firearm and assisting an offender. And Fred Barrass mother is suing Tony Martin for wrongful death.
By Val MacQueen
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 28, 2003
Not to be picky, but hate crimes is now one of the three most important crimes in Britian??
One, who defines hate crimes? The British people or the EU?
Two, What about little things like armed robbery, assault, kidnapping, bank robbery, treason and terrorist activities?
Oh, I forgot. The police are too busy sniffing the exhaust fumes of autos to see if the owners are guilty of tax evasion by using used cooking oil instead of state approved motor oils.
What a crock. Bring Tony over here, with pleasure. GB no longer deserves him, eccentric or not.
A_R
It was announced that the Metropolitan police will henceforth be saving their manpower for the three most important offences in the country: Murder, rape and hate crimes.
How long before even rape is no longer considered worth a police investigation? We are rapidly heading in the direction of South Africa.
Note the extreme importance that the above statement puts on "hate crimes": in other words, thought crimes. The police are in fact, nothing more now than political police, enforcing unpopular laws against a hostile and helpless population, at the behest of distant and unresponsive elites, who care more for illegal immigrants and criminals than they do for their law abiding (but poorer) fellow countrymen.
This "hate crime" lunacy has gotten so bad, that British police actually are now sending undercover cops into restaurants to listen for people making racial remarks and other "hate speech" - by which, of course, they mean white people. Black, asian, or muslim hate speech is just fine and dandy. But if you are white and let slip a racial remark in Britain, it's off to jail for you (or, at any rate, off to court).
People who deny that we are headed towards a police state need to read stuff like this, and wake up and smell the coffee.
Hey, burglars gotta eat too ya know!
It will not be too long now before the only "crime" which will concern the police are "hate crimes". The job of the political police is to ensure that the current ruling elites remain in power; these elites have dictated the imposition of a multiracial society against the express wishes of the native population. As things get worse, and the unworkable multiracialist society falls apart, the elites are going to take out their anger on the only people it is still safe to oppress: law abiding, ordinary white, native, tax paying peons - the new serfs of the feudal multiracialist empire.
Of, BTW, it is no accident that Tone Blare is Bush Jr.'s personal lapdog, and is all rah-rah over the impending war. Tone Blare is pushing for this war, in spite of opposition to it within his own party, because it further justifies whatever "emergency measures" he choses to take, further eliminating whatever civil rights may remain.
And since the "war on terror" will never end, because there is no way to measure victory, the elimination of constitutional and civil rights will be de facto a permanent elimination, not just a temporary one.
Natural justice was once again thwarted when Martin was found guilty of murder. He has now served two and one-half years and he came up before the Parole Board two weeks ago. But he was refused parole because he has failed to show remorse. He refuses to go along with the thought police. He still thinks he had a right to protect himself and his property.
That he has shown no remorse led the Orwellian Parole Board to refuse him freedom on the grounds that he poses a "threat to burglars." At the same hearing, authorities cited another damning cause for refusal of parole: "He tends to think things were better 50 years ago."
Note to Brits who might believe they have a right to defend themselves: After you get done shooting the animal invading your home, reload. More enemies are on their way.
This can and will happen here if we allow "sensible" "common sense" "in good faith" "modern" "gun control" to advance.
Who are these authorities? Reno and Mugabe? Progressives, ungrateful and ignorant people.
Why haven't the British run the fascists who created these laws into the ocean yet?
Why haven't we (Americans), either?
And why do conservatives mouth and parrot left-wing rhetoric by calling these people "fascists"? No fascist government ever did anything so loony as this. Fascism is at worst a negative reaction against, and partial immitation of, socialism/communism.
Call these people commies or Bolsheviks; it's what they are, in spirit; if they were really fascists, that would actually constitute a partial reformation of their otherwise unredeemably bad character.
That sure is a nice lookin' flowerbed you got there, Tony! What kinda fertilizer you use?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.