Emma West Trial Delayed for the Third Time


The trial of Emma West on racially aggravated public order offences has been delayed for the third time. No further date has been set. The trial was originally scheduled for June, then July and finally September 5th. The ostensible reason for the latest delay is the same as it was previously, further psychiatric reports are being sought by the prosecution.

It is true that cases can be delayed several times for reasons which are entirely legitimate. Further evidence directly relating to the immediate facts of the case, that is, what happened rather than why it happened, may be being sought with a reasonable chance of success. Examples would be where witnesses have not been interviewed because they are not in the country, but are believed to be returning in the foreseeable future or documents are being withheld by a body such as a bank and their release or otherwise is the subject of ongoing court action. But there is nothing like that here, for the delay is simply down to further psychiatric reports being wanted. That is something largely within the control of those commissioning them. The fact that it is the prosecution which is asking for more reports is highly significant because it suggests that the ones they have already commissioned are not to their liking, that is, they are detrimental to the prosecution.

The case is not that complex. The prosecution have the recording. They have had ample time to test it to see if it has been tampered with. As the delay in trying the case is ascribed solely to the need for psychiatric reports, presumably the prosecution either have witness statements from the person who filmed the incident and possibly others amongst the people present or have decided that their evidence is not required for a prosecution.

There is a further consideration. Because of the extensive mainstream media publicity given to the case, and the fact that it deals with the most politically toxic subject in modern Britain, namely, race, this is a high-profile prosecution. The case was given further potency in the public’s mind because Ms West was put in a high security prison “for her own safety” .

Compare the time taken in Ms West’s case compared with that of the England footballer John Terry’s case for racially abusing the black QPR player Anton Ferdinand. The two cases are similar. Terry pleaded not guilty and the evidence against him were recordings of the game in which he was alleged to have made the remarks. If Terry’s trial had gone ahead when it was first scheduled rather than being delayed by his defence asking for a delay, the case would probably have been tried in April or May (the delay of the trial was granted on 2 February). That would have been only six or seven months after the alleged offence - the alleged offence took place on 31 October 2011. (Terry was found not guilty when the case was tried).

Ms West first appeared in court was charged on 28th November 2011. Thus more than nine months have passed since charges were brought against her. Because no future trial date has been set it is probable that a year or more will have elapsed before she is brought to court, if indeed, she ever is tried.

Why is there this ever more unreasonable delay? It could be that the CPS are simply hoping that if they request enough psychiatric reports , sooner or later one will meet their purposes. But I doubt that is the reason, because psychiatric reports not favourable to the prosecution could become strong defence evidence. More probable reasons for the delay are that the CPS is hoping the stress of the delay will cause Ms West to change her plea to guilty or they are simply paralysed by her intended plea of Not Guilty and simply do not know what to do.

The CPS’ difficulties have been made more difficult with the appearance on YouTube of a black woman engaging in a violently anti-white rant. She was arrested and questioned by the police in late August. This rant is crudely abusive of white people:

I’m so glad. I’m born black and I’ll die black. I was born African and I’ll f****** die African.’

The only reason I was born in this country is because you f****** people brought my people here.’

My parents are f****** African, born in Jamaica. And I’m f****** African, born in England and I can’t stand you white people, I tell you.’

I don’t care what none of you lot got to say because at the end of the day if you lot would have had a choice you will f****** go with your people and I’ll go with mine.

Free speech. I hate white people. I can’t stand none of you.’

Unlike the Emma West case the mainstream media coverage of this anti-white racism has been minimal. I have been unable to find any details of whether the woman has been charged or who she is. If anyone has such information please let me know.

If this case is not prosecuted or if Ms West is prosecuted first and is given a prison sentence, it would be difficult for the woman in the video quoted from above not to receive similar treatment if not more severe treatment as her comments were vulgarly racist while Ms West is simply complaining about the fact that her country has been invaded through mass immigration.

The problem for the CPS (and the British elite generally) is that while it may suit their politically correct purposes to have the occasional prosecution of a native white Briton for alleged racism for the purposes of intimidation of the native British population as a whole, such prosecutions carry three great dangers for the elite. The first is that the occasional Briton who is charged will fail to play ball and plead guilty accompanied by a Maoist-style confession of abject horror at their behaviour. Even a few trials where the defendant pleads not guilty is potentially very damaging, especially if the defence is based on the grounds of free expression and the right to dissent from the liberal internationalist credo on multiculturalism, mass immigration and the joy of diversity. This could be a fear in the prosecution’s mind in Ms West’s case.

The second danger is that the British elite cannot afford to have too many prosecutions of native Britons because that just looks too much like a police state. What the elite prefer, at least for the present, are the police “investigating” alleged racist crimes with absolutely no intention of bringing charges. The idea here is that the police can rely on the media to give such cases wide publicity, which publicity serves the purposes of intimidating the native British population without the need for trials.

The third danger stems from the fact that ethnic and racial minorities in Britain are, as anyone who lives in a racially and ethnically mixed area knows (I have done so for over 40 years) , generally much more likely to engage in outright , vulgar and unambiguous racism, both directed at native Britons and by one minority against another, than native Britons. This is rarely if ever admitted or even raised as a possibility in the mainstream media , but the rise of photophones and websites such as YouTube probably means that quite a few racist rants by those ethnic and racial minorities will reach public attention. That presents the authorities with a dilemma: either they stop prosecuting native white Britons who are recorded being racist (or what passes for racist in the Brave New World of politically correct Britain) or they have to prosecute racial and ethnic minorities for the same thing. An even handed approach would probably lead to an embarrassingly large number of prosecutions of racial and ethnic minorities. This would be anathema to the politically correct British elite because their view of race is that only white people can be racist.

More pressingly for the elite, large numbers of prosecutions of ethnic and racial minorities would undermine the politically correct propaganda that racial and ethnic diversity is an unalloyed joy good for any society. This is of fundamental importance, because any elite which is in the grip of an ideology can sustain that ideology only while they control the media . Let free debate into the public fold and the ideology is done for. Milton had it correctly:

‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton - Areogapitica].

This article was originally published on the England Calling blog.