Unanswered questions about Jayda’s bail conditions

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?

BF Jayda Fransen after luton magistrates court august 5th 2016We 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.

Advertisements

Fransen facing further (outrageous) charges

This evening Britain First published one of its most entertaining videos yet. This is the one where Jayda Fransen demonstrates her total misunderstanding of the British legal system to the point of pure farce. It’s almost as though she doesn’t actually have any legal training at all!

BF Jayda Fransen charged August 2016 video

The video is in response to Fransen’s recent communication from Luton and Bedfordshire Constabulary. The message, delivered via her solicitor is a legal bundle in which she is charged with three offences and summoned to court this Friday, August 5th 2016.

Predictably Fransen claims that the very idea of charging her with any crimes at all is outrageous evidence of a conspiracy against her. She never once acknowledges that the police might just have a point in prosecuting those who break the law. Nor does she express even the slightest relief at the fact that there are only 3 charges. We can think of an awful lot more events that both Fransen and Fuhrer Golding could legitimately be charged for. However, these are the three charges (according to Fransen’s video) …

Breaching bail conditions

The logic here is ludicrous. Using her remarkably astute knowledge of law Jayda claims that because of an error that was acknowledged in court she decided that she wasn’t due to answer bail after the end of March. She neglected to consider the simple fact that legal judgements aren’t bound by discussions in court but by the final pronouncement from the bench. The magistrates occupying that bench said that her bail conditions would continue to apply.

Fransen later stated…

“I didn’t consider myself bound by the police bail”

As if it’s up to her her to decide whether she’s on bail or not! That’s ot how criminal law works, Jayda!

She did not state that the court had released her from the bail conditions. In fact she clearly reports in the video that the court upheld the bail conditions.

“The magistrates allowed them to keep the conditions in place.”

This much was obvious. She then released a video on April 1st (that seems strangely appropriate) in which she tore up her bail conditions and announced that neither she nor Paul would be answering bail any more. Unfortunately for her, the Fuhrer did continue to answer his bail which is why Fraulein Fransen will face the beak alone on Friday. It seems the Fuhrer “played a blinder” against her this time.

Political uniform

Apart from mentioning the uniform alongside a still of some perfectly innocent, green party political activists wearing sweatshirts (minus the rank insignia and regimental or divisional demarcation that Britain First use), Jayda didn’t argue about this one. That’s because her glorious leader has already admitted in court that Britain First do, indeed wear political uniform. He pleaded guilty in court to just that offence last Friday and was duly convicted and fined as a result. That set a precedent which means that Fransen hasn’t a leg to stand on contesting this particular charge. Paulie’s ‘played another blinder’ against her. Never mind Jayda – that’s what you get for trying to usurp the Fuhrer!

Religiously motivated harassment

The heavily edited video accompanying Fransen’s mock outrage over this charge is just typical Britain First fayre. As expected the ‘case’ for her defence, played out in glorious technicolor to persuade her supporters (as though they actually get to have a say) consists of the usual montage of clips pieced together deliberately to show exactly what Britain First want us to see. Hopefully the police will have rather more complete and significantly less biased evidence with which to convict her.

Fighting fund

Best of all, as ever, she begs for money to fight her case. She mentions Paul’s recent legal fighting fund as though its presence means that her loyal sheeple should cough up a second time for her case. What she doesn’t mention is the fact that Paul pleaded guilty and so never had to use his fighting fund. So far as we can tell there has been no attempt to refund the money raised so presumably Jayda could use that. Unless of course Paul’s already spent it on accommodation in readiness for Jayda kicking him out of Beeches Close.

Let’s face it – he must be on dodgy ground now after he’s played so many ‘blinders’ against her.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F95BHKX7cOG4&h=PAQEFx0FR