Exonerated

Thus was I described by His Honour Judge Nathan Adams, from the Bench of Durham Crown Court, on Thursday 8 May 2025. From the allegation made against me by Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Office, "You were exonerated."

I was hardly the only one. This could not have been an executive summary of this. That would have been impossible, since they bore no resemblance to each other. Come after me again, and the original would be subpoenaed, because rest assured that I would never again plead guilty to anything alleged by that coven or by any of its allies.

That would include the right-wing Labour machine in the North East. The right wings of the British Labour Party, of the American Democratic Party, and of the Australian Labor Party (no one knows; the word is spelt the British way in all other contexts in Australia), are symbiotically related to the liberal wing of the Catholic Church in the historic heartlands that She shares with those parties. That indivisible entity's power has hitherto been unaffected either by Mass attendance figures or by the results of elections.

My first trial had to be abandoned. A year later, before my second trial, the Crown Prosecution Service briefed the local media that it intended to drop the charges. But that morning was introduced "propensity" evidence based entirely on the claim that Judge Adams has now dismissed out of hand. Little else was discussed. The original allegations were barely mentioned. For example, the Crown did not "have the fingerprints". It was permitted to exhibit a purported computer reconstruction of a document that it professed to have "lost", supposedly featuring a tiny number of fingerprints that might or might not have been mine or many thousands of other people's, set among a vastly larger number that could not possibly have been mine. The Prosecution's star witness from the United States gave an account that was incompatible with the linear nature of time. And so on.

But the Crown had completely unrelated "propensity", admitted by an employee of the same State that had brought the prosecution. He went on to instruct the jury to "disregard" the concept of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Thus was I convicted, expressly not beyond reasonable doubt, and essentially of something that was not on the charge sheet; indeed, of something that was arguably not a criminal offence. And now, a different judge, no longer dealing with someone who had declared himself an enemy of the State by having pleaded not guilty, has placed on the record the fact that even that had been baseless. Yet that conviction led to my suspended sentence, and my continued defence of myself against the institutional lie led to my conviction of breach, as well as to the restraining order that Judge Adams refused to make permanent, as he refused to ban me from blogging, and as he declined to impose any separate penalty for nine further breaches that had been introduced at the last moment.

"No separate penalty", however, does not mean "no penalty at all". I have been back to prison for blog posts that did not exist and which no one had claimed to have seen apart from a policeman who had been sacked because of his conduct of my case, for stalking someone whom I had never met and for whom I had no contact details, and for nine counts of, as the judge confirmed, non-breach as breach, since not breaching the order was "circumventing" it and thus breaching it. There is no possible defence to that. The people who were liberal Catholics twice a year and right-wing Labourites the rest of the time, now have it in their power to imprison me at will, since absolutely anything could be a breach precisely by not being one.

Moreover, these liars are now openly acting in concert, both with neo-Nazis, who apparently did attend my eventual sentencing although I did not notice them, and, insofar as one can act in concert with oneself, with Satanists, who are the company that those who play the "stalking" and "safeguarding" cards very often do keep, just as it is not unusual for right-wing Labourites to co-operate with the Far Right, and just as it is not unusual for neo-Nazis and devil-worshippers to be the same people. Your humble blogger will return, not for the first time, to Fascism as the backstop of centrism, to liberal theology's ties to the cults of Saint Paul's elemental spirits which are Saint John's fallen angels, to people who actively sought employment trawling through detailed accounts of child sexual abuse, and so forth.

For now, it remains more or less the formal policy of the Safeguarding Office to cause my suicide as a form of Satanic ritual sacrifice. That is seen as unfinished business from the liberal coup against Bishop Robert Byrne CO in 2022. In furtherance of it, I was badly beaten up in prison on 23 May, an incident to which the original lie against me directly contributed; I was refused on 23 June the tag that I had twice been promised in writing, the decision of a Home Office headed by a close ally of the former Labour Leadership of and then on Durham County Council; and I was released on 7 August only because Judge Adams had specified that I must be, every effort having been made to keep me banged up at least until 7 November.

After I had been due to be tagged, this guilty-pleading convict of non-violent, non-sexual, non-domestic, non-terrorist, and non-drugs-related offences watched that close ally of the former Labour Leadership of and then on Durham County Council tag wifebeaters, drug-dealers, and ringleaders of last year's race riots. The Leadership of what little Labour Group remains on that authority has passed to the old NUM Left from the Strike; to the last of the five Councillors who were suspended from the Labour Party in 2008. But the mere electoral will of the people is irrelevant to these matters.

Only extracts from the victim impact statement had been permitted to be read into the record of the court, since the full text had impermissibly asserted that I had pleaded guilty only in order to secure a lighter sentence. But why had I, really? On 16 January, as soon as I had pleaded not guilty to the third count, then the Prosecution had admitted that it had never had any evidence of it. The same had been true of the first and second, but by then the guilty pleas were in. Bastards. Still, my physical and mental health could take no more. I shall never recover fully, nor at all for a very long time.

Thus was proven the legal advice that I had been given, namely that I was indefensible before a jury in the North East because it was bound to be full of people who would take one look at anyone as well-dressed, well-spoken and well-read as I was, hate me on the spot, and convict me out of spite, entirely regardless of any evidence or lack of it. That had happened to me the last time, and it would have happened again, so I had been advised that my only hope was to plead guilty, despite there being literally no evidence against me. Of course I had already lost quite enough elections here to have known these things for decades, but it was still quite something to be given them as counsel in that sense; to be told that bookishness and articulacy were "sinister" and "deviant" to my peers by whom I was to have been tried.

Nor had I any expectation that a judge might have intervened in the face of the total lack of evidence, since that had never happened to me yet. A judge is a salaried employee of the same State that brings the prosecution, and a judgeship in a criminal court is a salaried and pensionable reward for 30 years of success as a contracted freelance prosecutor. Anyone who has ever dealt with the Crown Court has seen how weighted towards the Crown it was. Add to that the fact that Tony Blair's infamous Criminal Justice Act 2003, which admitted hearsay evidence, removed the protection against double jeopardy, and provided for Crown Court trials by a judge without a jury (the first ever such resulted in a life sentence), also effectively made it possible to be convicted of having previously been convicted. While you cannot go wrong with Sheridan Smith as an actress, the forthcoming I Fought the Law will no doubt be shameful propaganda for double jeopardy. I, meanwhile, have gone from "propensity" to "bad character". On the basis of a malicious falsehood, declared to be so by a judge.

I was sent back to prison anyway, so I would never again bother to plead guilty. It is within the power of the forces of evil to incarcerate me at their pleasure, so I would go down with all guns blazing, in the process forcing into the public domain the original report into this Diocese. And you still would not move me to kill myself, as the pursuit of any such legal proceedings would prove beyond reasonable doubt to be your intention. Do your worst. I have been exonerated.