Here is how the government persuades social media commentors to plead guilty.
Imagine like Derek Gordon Heggie (aka Decca), your 'crime' was to say on youtube that “young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs that worship the Prophet Muhammad”.
In August 2024 he was charged under the Malicious Communications Act. He denied that charge saying that he was a journalist and that his comments were justified.
But he was persuaded to plead guilty to sending a "communication of an offensive nature", which plea he made on December2. He will be sentenced on December13 in the Carlisle Crown court.
Well Starmer the Farmer Harmer has instructed the courts to provide fastrack justice to those who plead guilty to social media speech crimes. This means that whatever your sentence is going to be, it will begin just weeks after your plea and you will be released with good behaviour before half of the sentence is served. So you are looking at perhaps 12 months inside at most if you plead guilty.
But if you plead innocent, I am afraid there is a massive court backlog from the lockdown that is yet to be cleared. So you will be on remand for perhaps 2 or even 3 years before we can get your case to trial. So even if you win your case you have effectively got a sentence of 4 or 6 years for pleading innocent (assuming you would get 50% off for good behaviour). This compares very unfavourably with a sentence of 2 years for the crime (12 months with good behaviour).
So these people are being coerced into making a guilty plea by the alacrity or tardiness of their court date and by the injustice of remanding them in physical custody until that date.
Their guilty pleas are therefore unreliable, insincere and invalid due to overbearing coercion.
If you commit a digital crime you should be remanded in digital custody, not in physical custody. Derek constituted no threat to the public physically. He was possibly a digital threat. So he should have been banned from posting on youtube or more widely on the youtube genre of social media platforms.
The government by instructing the courts to refuse physical bail for social media speech crimes, for digital crimes, is coercing people to plead guilty to a crime that they may not in their hearts believe they have committed. They plead in order to receive a shorter sentence on fastrack conviction than they will get in remand waiting for a delayed court date. The justice system is using denial of bail not to protect the public but to force a guilty plea. This is at best a total abuse of Habeus Corpus and at worst unlawful. The courts should have none of it. A digital crime should result in a digital punishment, not a physical one. A digital threat should be countered by a digital incarceration, not a physical one. People charged with a digital crime should be remanded in digital custody, not physical custody. They should be banned from making further posts until their hearing date.
Addressing Heggie's comments themselves: The first thing I note is that he referred to Muhammad as a prophet. If the police or the CPS find that comment grossly offensive they are plainly anti Islamic and Islamophobic and themselves should be charged and remanded in digital custody for finding the comments of a man who publicly confesses Muhammad to be a prophet, grossly offensive, constituting themselves anti Islamic bigots.
Secondly it is well known that young white girls are being raped by grooming gangs. Finding that part of the comment grossly offensive is blatant misogyny and puts the CPS and the police in the category not only of rape apologists but also of grooming apologists and paedophile apologists. For this they should all be sacked, everyone involved.
I, myself, and I suspect most readers and most of the general public are offended by the grooming the paedophilia and the rape itself, not by a man pointing it out.
1. You pass a law outlawing speech which somebody finds offensive.
2. You instruct the police on a daily basis what speech they are to consider offensive and what speech they are to consider inoffensive.
3. You remand people in physical custody without bail for speech considered offensive
4. You ensure that those who plead guilty are expedited and those who plead innocent are delayed for a much longer period than the sentence that a guilty plea would receive for the 'crime'.
And there it is. You can lock up all your political opponents at will and they will even plead guilty to their meaningless and fabricated non criminal crimes.
This is a blatant election interference, a blatant injustice. It is blatantly anti-democratic, and a blatant abuse of Habeus Corpus, and it is going on every day under this government.
There is President Trump trying to form an administration on the basis of merit. And his detractors are trying to destroy his choices on the basis of sex just as they did with him. So here is my proposal for all future appointments.
It is plainly the view of this generation that all qualifications for high office should be trumped by the tawdry details of the applicant's sex life. Because to all inhabitants of the greater Sodom and Gomorrah, sexual conduct is way more important than track record, capability, motivation, leadership, qualifications, honesty, integrity, dedication, focus, or experience. So let's make all honeytraps into Dames of the British empire. Because they embody all, by which I mean absolutely and exclusively everything, that is important in modern life. Indeed lets replace all our CVs with a comprehensive list of all our sexual activities and make all employment decisions solely on that basis. Then, instead of interviewing a candidate himself or herself or themselves for a job, we can interview all of their sexual partners instead. Because they are what we are really interested in. That is what modern life is really about. Because all professions have become the oldest profession. And the world is quickly becoming one giant brothel.
Seriously though, the politicisation of sex is a disaster for society. Sure it is great for MSM profitability. But it is an attack on the future of procreation, which is an attack on our future as a species. It is a part of the attack on our birth rate. I agree with Sir Paul McCartney who I am sure has a lot more experience than I in this regard: Sex should be done in private and should not be discussed or used politically in public. Neither should it be used to destroy people's careers. If they have committed a crime, then yes, that crime can destroy their career. But not tittle tattle and moral judgements made by people with rafters in their eyes, especially by those who failed to complain at the time of the alleged incident.
If you label the first move in a potential sexual relationship as 'inappropriate' or 'frightening' or 'predatory' or 'misogynistic' you can stop most sexual relationships before they even start and in that way cause loneliness and misery for all and extinction for the species. I remember the days when girls would kick you under the table when they wanted you to buck your ideas up. Today, would they be prosecuted for assault?
If you weaponise or criminalise or even stigmatise the mating dance, you kill the species attempting to perform it.