It’s no secret that I was disappointed at the outcome of yesterday’s hearing at Luton Magistrates’ Court. I had hoped that Jayda Fransen would be remanded in custody, given her previous failure to comply with bail conditions until she appeared in Crown Court. I really wanted this destructive harridan removed from the public sphere right away even if the result would be a reduction of sentence for ‘time served’ when she is finally sentenced by the Crown. Unfortunately, that was not to be. But what did actually happen?
We only have Jayda’s own account of the outcome and, as usual with Britain First’s pronouncements, the brief video statement she released from the back of a car as she left the court left more questions than answers.
What was the reason for the delay? Fransen helpfully explained that she couldn’t report from outside the courthouse because of the hordes of Muslims driving aggressively up to her in cars. This is odd for several reasons.
Firstly – our spotters on the ground report that there was no sign of any aggressive or erratic driving. In fact there was a bit of a traffic jam which would have made it quite impossible.
Secondly – Luton Magistrates Court doesn’t open out onto a main road so she could easily have given the piece to camera from the steps without any chance of motorised interference.
Thirdly – and perhaps most tellingly – there’s no Britain First video of these hordes of motorised Muslims.
Britain First videos everything they think might make useful propaganda. If Fransen really was being harassed and intimidated by hordes of Muslims Paul and his ‘security team’ who were present throughout and certainly equipped to record video would have filmed them and published the evidence within minutes. There is, as yet no such evidence online. Come on Britain First – here’s a direct challenge for you… produce the evidence. Prove our spotters wrong.
But the whereabouts of the missing evidence isn’t the only unanswered question…
In the past Britain First has published every single bail sheet pertaining to its activities in the hope of demonstrating some mythical persecution by the ‘Muslim-appeasing’ (read ‘not Islamophobic’) establishment. So where’s Jayda’s?
We know that she’s not allowed back to Luton at least until November but what else is on this elusive bail sheet?
Why the relative silence regarding this case on the Britain First website? Apart from a single brief video from Fransen herself there’s been no new publications about the case and nothing from Jayda herself at all. There was one old video posted from February 2016 featuring Paul and Jayda in their ‘makeshift command centre’ (sic) but no further mention of the current case at all. This is very unusual and leads us to speculate that there may well be a social media component to the bail conditions preventing her from doing anything more than make that single report on the outcome of yesterday’s hearing.
Of course- we really don’t know. But if Jayda’s telling the truth then there’s no reason for the Biffers to hold back, is there?
So come on, Britain First- do what you usually do and publish a jpeg of the signed bail conditions. Nobody cares if you want to block out Jayda’s address. We all know her address and postcode anyway. We knew where she lived even before she pretended to be moving out for the benefit of the BBC. We still knew where she lived when she published that same address in respect of the London Assembly elections earlier this year (by which time she should have been long gone) and we still know her address now.
So by all means, blank it out – it makes no difference to us. That’s not what matters. Instead we challenge you to demonstrate that the bail conditions really are as Fransen said they were. Until you do that we will continue to speculate about their true conditions, based upon your own real world and social media activities. It shouldn’t be too hard to work them out, more or less by watching what happens (or doesn’t happen) next.