At the prison gates immediately after release

FREE AT LAST! After spending 4½ months incarcerated for distributing election leaflets critical of ZOG, I was met at the prison gates, taken for a celebratory breakfast and brought up to date with the latest gossip. I was rather nervous about the mountain of work that’s accumulated in my absence, but of course am very pleased to have my liberty restored.

What’s it like? The first thing to remember is that compared to having a leg or head blown off in an unnecessary war, doing time in a contemporary British goal is a piece of cake. The worst aspects are the dubious characters one has to mix with and the mind-numbing boredom. It is very plain that if the government were serious about removing heroin from our streets the British prison population of 68,000 would fall by 80% almost overnight. Many inmates return to prison shortly after they are released, such is the influence of the drug. There is no determined assault on the heroin problem for the simple reason that the big heroin dealers and our politicians are both in the same game – making personal fortunes out of running our country into the ground.

Prison is a microcosm of society, indeed the staff sometimes remarked that they felt imprisoned too: inadequately paid in a system they had no particular respect for and trapped in a long-term mortgage. After being spat at and assaulted by blacks in Hull prison I was moved to Everthorpe near Brough where I spent the bulk of my sentence segregated from the main wings, washing the dishes and reading a novel a day.

I learnt that many inmates had been banging away at a life of crime for years, with a sizeable nest egg saved, and then been caught out on some comparatively inconsequential matter. If a Nationalist gets a few words “wrong” on a leaflet however he is whisked to prison with barely a backward glance. The law is so worded that he is guilty until proven innocent and it seems practically impossible, unlike in a case of burglary or murder, to get an acquittal.

This could become an essay, which is not my intention, so suffice it to say that I am proud to have been a focus of unity between the NF and BNP, deeply grateful to the very many people who wrote to me in prison, not to mention the generous gifts of cash, and as determined as ever to depose the crooks who think they can trample over our ancient liberties and prevent us from peaceably expressing our views.

SIMON SHEPPARD
SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE ON 27 OCTOBER 2000

Some notes, with the benefit of hindsight

Given that I was defending myself, and inexperienced in such matters, it was inevitable that mistakes were made. The biggest was at the very end of the trial, when the prosecution barrister handed copies of the Indictment to the jury, so they could have those mealy words before them when considering their verdict. Here a future Defendant is strongly advised to have twelve copies of the excerpts from Halsbury’s Laws of England relating to the Treason Laws to hand over to the jury at this point.
I was oblivious of the rules of evidence, and for this reason several sections of my defence speech were framed in terms of questions to the defence witnesses, this being the only way I could see of delivering the point I wished to make.
Regarding the leaflet itself, my biggest regret is the mistaken first sentence of the text side in which it stated that the laws of treason had been repealed. They have not, of course. Besides that, it would have been prudent to have left the leaflet as single-sided, because I would very likely have got away with the leaflet had it only contained the satirical map. The second side, upon which the prosecution mainly dwelt, was necessitated by the “Vote BNP” message which had to be included. Also, since delivering them was a major task, it was thought that the information transmitted should be maximized, but with hindsight this might be regarded as a “false economy”! The map took up 99% of the design work so the text side was rather neglected.
As far as any guilt is concerned however, I feel not a jot. With these laws the government approaches the level of hypocrisy I found so astounding on its discovery in Holland. Despite the Race Acts being contrary to both the letter and spirit of the British Constitution, they use criminal law to prosecute people who produce harmless pieces of paper. This is comparable to being stabbed in the stomach and touching your assailant during the struggle, and then being being prosecuted for assaulting him!
Expect utter vindictiveness from the prosecution; no quarter will be given. You can guess on whose orders they are acting. All Race Act prosecutions are managed directly from London, and throughout my trial a rather obese, middle-aged woman from the “Crown” Prosecution Service sat observing.
If charged under the Race Act, there appears to be no chance of getting an acquittal, certainly in the current climate. You are truly “guilty until proven innocent.” The law is so worded that the only way to get an acquittal is to prove that you did not foresee that there was a possibility that “racial hatred” might be stirred up. So go down fighting! At the very least it will impress the court staff, who see burglars and drug-dealers walk free daily, while people are being imprisoned for exposing the criminal nature of our present government.

‘That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid no person born out of the kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be... made a denizen (except such as [are] born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the privy councill or a member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any office or place of trust either civill or military or to have any grant of lands tenements or hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in trust for him.’

Act of Settlement (1700), from Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol. 10, pp. 42-43, 1995

‘The laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof’

Act of Settlement (1700), from Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol. 10, p. 43, 1995

‘From hensfourth no [manner] of [persone] ne [persones whatsoever] he or they be, that attend upon the King and [sovereign] lord of this lande for the tyme being in his [persone] and do him true and feithfull [service] of alliegeaunce in the same, or be in other places by his comaundement, in his werres within this lande or [without], that for the same dede and true [1] or alliegeaunce he or they be in no wise convycte or atteynt of high treason ne of other offences for that cause by Acte of Parliament or otherwise by any processe of lawe, wherby he or any of theym shall [mowe][2] or forfeit life landes tenementes rentis possessions hereditamentis godes catelles or eny other thingis, but to be for that dede and service utterly discharged of any vexacion trouble or losse; and if any Acte or Actis or other [processe] of the lawe hereafter therupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this ordynaunce, that then that Acte or Actes or other processes of the lawe whatsoever they shall be, stande and be utterly voide.’

1. dutie old printed copies.

2. [or may] – Modern printed copied read lose or

Treason Act (1495), from Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol. 12, p. 37, 1997

‘By statute a person is guilty of treason who: (1) levies war against the Sovereign in Her realm, or is adherent to the Sovereign’s enemies in Her realm giving them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere’

‘The penalty for treason is death by hanging.’

‘The treason of levying war against the Sovereign in Her realm may be of two kinds: (1) express and direct, as where war is raised against the Sovereign or Her forces with a view to injure Her person or to imprison Her or to force Her to remove any of Her ministers or counsellors; or (2) constructive, as where there is a rising for some general public purpose.’

Halsbury’s Laws of England, ‘Offences against the Government and the Public,’ vol. 11(1), pp. 69-70, 1990

[ 2000 ]

British Directory

Some notes, with the benefit of hindsight

–– The Heretical Press ––