Simon Sheppard was found guilty and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.

Simon Sheppard BSc of the Heretical Press, Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, England was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment at Hull Crown Court on Wednesday 14th June 2000 for the “crime” of “Publishing or Distributing racially inflammatory material.”

Simon and another Hull Nationalist were arrested on June 8th 1999 whilst distributing leaflets in support of the British National Party’s Euro-election campaign in the Avenues area of Hull. They were reported to the CPS and the Attorney General for the offence. The would-be ultra-respectable populist BNP leadership were furious and Simon was consequently expelled from the party. The BNP leadership has since ignored Simon’s brave stand, but thankfully this cannot be said of many ordinary members of the party who have stood by him regardless of the consequences.

The other Nationalist arrrested, David Hannam of Hull, pleaded guilty to distributing the leaflet at Magistrates Court and was sentenced to 3 months in a Young Offenders’ Institution. Simon, however had no intention of pleading guilty and defended himself without legal representation when he was sent for trial at Hull Crown Court on the 12th June.

The case began with the swearing in of the jury, one of whom was Chinese, another an obvious queer and the rest disinterested-looking types who looked as though they would certainly not have the moral courage to go against the judge’s directions. Simon refused to plead and a “not guilty” plea was entered.

Simon’s defence was that, as the Jews were expelled from England by King Edward I in 1290 AD and the Edict of Expulsion had not been revoked, Jews currently living in England were illegal immigrants. The Jews brought back into England by Cromwell had not been given legal rights, but in the 1830s and 1850s the right to vote and stand in Parliament had been granted to them in contradiction of the unrevoked 1290 Edict. As Jewish lawyers and MPs were in this country illegally and had devised and initiated the various Race Relations Acts and the Public Order Act with the craven support of gentile MPs, these laws were invalid so he could not be guilty of breaking a law that should not be on the statute books. Simon was assisted by NF activist and Wakefield Organiser Eddy Morrison, who acted as a “McKenzie Friend” and although he could not address the court, could advise Simon when needed.

There were seventeen people who were allegedly offended by the content and made a statement to the police against Simon. Only two of these, both women, took the stand and swore that they had been offended by the leaflet’s contents, although they failed to mention that they were both Labour Party activists. On cross-examination by Simon they both admitted that the leaflet had not incited them to hate people of other races, so how could the leaflets have been likely to incite racial hatred Simon asked? The Judge told them they did not have to answer many of the questions Simon asked them, thus stifling his defence.

Three police witnesses were also called, including the arresting officer, who read the leaflet and had to radio for a superior to come and read the leaflet before he carried out the arrest.

On the second day of this farce of a trial, Simon called two BNP activists as defence witnesses, both of whom were excellent and informed the court of the illegality of the Jewish presence in this country. The first defence witness defence witness “X” spoke about Zionism, which is Jewish nationalism. Zionism is unique in that it condemns the very nationalism in others, i.e. gentiles, that it advocates for Jewish people – a particularly obnoxious form of hypocrisy. Both witnesses stated that they believed that the legal action against Simon was treason.

The second witness “Y” spoke on the Community Security Trust (CST), which is a Jewish paramilitary group, illegal under British law, but operating with the full approval of the British authorities. The CST has been responsible for some attacks on British nationalists. He also produced a copy of an April 1933 edition of the Daily Express which contained an article headed “Jewry declares war on Germany,” i.e. an economic boycott of Germany – but the jury were not allowed to see the article. “Y” then listed the countries and places where Jews have been expelled during the last 2,500 years – places as diverse as Carthage in North Africa and Wurms in Germany. He questioned the idea that all these peoples were just prejudiced and anti-semitic. He finished by describing the disproportionate number and power of Jews in the media.

The Judge and jury seemed surprised that these two proud British Patriots were both intelligent, well-mannered individuals, who knew what they were talking about, totally contradicting the media image of White Nationalists that they had obviously believed beforehand.

In his final address to the jury Simon stated that the Act of Settlement of 1700 invalidated any laws which were detrimental to the well-being of both the Crown and its subjects. He pointed out very forcibly and incisively that these laws in particular were extremely detrimental to the indigenous British people. In his excellent defence summing-up to the jury he pointed out that for the first time in British legal history – under the 1976 Race Relations Act, an accused person was presumed guilty until found innocent, as it was not necessary to prove intent to “stir up ” racial hatred. Lord Hailsham had described the Act as a “slippery slope.” This act was incorporated into the 1986 Public Order Act, which for the first time allowed distributors of “hate literature” to be prosecuted without the prosecution of the editor.

The day closed with the judge’s summing up – he stated that Simon had been charged under the 1986 Public Order Act, which was the law of the land, so Simon’s defence arguments had obviously been effective. However, his well-argued case that there was no justification for him being tried at all was destroyed in seconds when the judge stated to the jury: “You must disregard all the arguments for the illegality of the Race Laws/Public Order Act. I must direct you now that these laws are valid and you must only try the defendant on the contents of the leaflet.” The judge stressed that Simon had a degree and was a publisher of scientific books so he was obviously aware of what he was doing. The court then adjourned until the following day when the jury would be sent to make their verdict.

The next day, Wednesday 14th June, the jury retired at approximately 10:40 AM. They returned a mere 25 minutes later with a unanimous guilty verdict on both charges (distribution and publication). The Judge then said that because David Hannam had received 3 months for one of the charges, a custodial sentence was inevitable and sentenced Simon to 9 months imprisonment. Simon was then taken down like a common criminal to begin his sentence, but still looked proud in spite of the shock of his sentence and the great effort of defending himself.

Reports of the trial appeared in the Yorkshire Post, Hull’s Daily Mail and subsequently the Jewish Chronicle.

Nationalists have long claimed that the price of a multi-racial society is a high and rising crime rate and a loss of freedom. The various groups that comprise “Zog” are desperate to clamp down on nationalists, which they have done by criminalising their political enemies, smearing them in the media as violent, mindless thugs – giving the impression that most race attacks are carried out by whites on blacks. This tends to make juries hostile to nationalists. Yet ex-Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Condon, claimed in a speech to selected “ethnics,” that 80% of muggings are carried out by blacks.

It is clear that the creeping Stalinism being imposed in the UK is gradually coming into the open. Fortunately the public are now more in sympathy with some of the issues nationalists support, such as opposition to asylum seekers. We have to broaden their support for nationalist issues and inform them of the true nature our rulers.

Please write to Simon Sheppard to show your support. He was moved to Everthorpe Prison on the 12th July, which is a category C prison. He had encountered opposition from “ethnics” at Hull Prison, as wild rumours had been circulating about him. Things became markedly worse when he was moved from the assessment wing to the main prison (C wing), where he said things were “were getting pretty hot,” but fortunately he was moved within a few days to the new prison, which is much better and even has a nice view of grass and trees from his cell window. He has his own cell and is allowed two hours exercise per day. In Hull prison he had only been allowed out of the cell once a week!

I am here imprisoned in what is supposed to be “Her Majesty’s Prison” but which in reality is nothing of the kind. The evil law under which I was charged, which equates truth with “hatred", has been, from its inception in the early 1960’s and, in the subsequent 1965, 1968, 1976 and 1986 acts, written, devised, amended and pushed through Parliament by Jews, specifically the state within a state called the Board of Deputies of British Jews. This law is in contravention of Natural Justice, in that it is impossible to know whether one is acting illegally or not, is contrary to the laws of treason and especially the Law of Attainder, which states that anyone acting in allegiance to Queen and Country is protected from prosecution for treason or any other thing, and from loss of his goods and liberties as a subject of the Crown, and any law being passed in Parliament or anywhere else saying otherwise is void, and that many of the present Members of Parliament, who passed the law under which I was charged, have no valid claim to be there, since having not been born in the United Kingdom they are excluded from Parliament by the Act of Settlement of 1700. It follows that the law under which I was charged is unconstitutional and this makes my imprisonment here unlawful.

However, having been convicted in a court of law, albeit one which is treasonably applying foreign law and with a jury which has been subjected to years of Jewish media brainwashing, I cannot ask that you take me to the prison gates and bid me on my way. But I do ask that I be restored my rights as a British Subject to read whatever I please, the material which my supporters send me for my own information and amusement, and which is not illegal even under the terms of the Zionist Occupation Government and their evil laws which have been devised to prevent their exposure as treasonous criminals and the nature of their activities – activities which aim to destroy the British Nation and make us slaves to a Zionist World Government.

Simon Sheppard

At the end of July Simon was considered for early release using electronic tagging, and received the following notification from the prison authorities on the 19th July.

‘You have been considered for Home Detention Curfew. It has, however, been decided on the basis of the evidence available, that you should not be released on Home Detention Curfew.

‘The reasons for refusal of HDC were as follows:–

‘You have stated that you have no intention of abstaining from your offending behaviour, i.e. racist and sexist

‘If you wish to complain about the decision to refuse to grant you Home Detention Curfew, you should do so using a Request/complaint Form submitted to the Governor. On the form you should clearly state the reasons given for refusing you Home detention Curfew. You have the right to see all disclosable reports on which the refusal was based and you have the right to make written and oral representations.’

It is interesting that Simon’s “sexist” opinions have been mentioned as one of the grounds for refusal of early release, as &8220;sexism” is not covered by criminal law, except with regard to discrimination at work. However, the European Parliament are eager to unify legislation on racism, sexism and possibly homophobia under one anti-“hate” law. This is also being championed by “ethnic minority” Labour MP’s in Britain.

Following Simon’s submission of a complaint form he received the following ludicrous comments from the Deputy Governor – possibly he was thinking of the “Dangerous Dogs Act.”

‘I have received your appeal against the decision not to release you on Home Detention Curfew.

‘The reasons why you have not been allowed Home detention Curfew were give to you on the notification of Refusal of Home Detention Curfew (Form HDC(6.)) I am sorry that you disagree with the decision, but the fact is that, because of your views regarding incitement to racial and sexual hatred, you are viewed as danger to the public and to women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds in particular.

‘The rules governing release on HDC are very specific, and you are definitely not suitable under these rules.

‘I am sorry that my response cannot be more positive.’

My heartfelt thanks to all those who have written to me in prison and who have sent postal orders, which are keeping me in small luxuries like chocolate and a cigar at the end of every day to celebrate its passing. The large number of letters I have received have made a great difference to my morale during this ordeal; and I know the support I have been shown has made an impression on the prison authorities. Following assaults by other prisoners I am now segregated. I am reading prodigiously and managing to remain cheerful and optimistic for the future.

SIMON SHEPPARD