There are those out there who would rather let this man rot in gaol, I, for the record am NOT one of them.
Why would it be that some would rather this happen and I NOT?
Because Norman has a 'CRIMINAL' record.
Yes, he has a criminal record. And what he did was wrong. However did he have a chance?
What about our illustrious leader Cameron 'Call me Dave'.
As a young man, he was in a gang that regularly smashed up private property. Do we see or hear about his exploits? No he is 'SQUEAKY CLEAN' or so the LACK of proceedings against him say in their absence. Just goes to show what rich parents and connections can do for an up an coming 'WANKER'.
No, Norman barricaded himself in his house, although I am not abreast of the actual details on the circumstances, only norman can say. He was under the threat of eviction and set about protecting his right to remain in a house where he was settled.
"In
1999, the executors of a 'late Mr Denis Roberts' began proceedings against Norman to recover possession of a house at Gledhow Park Grove, Leeds, where he was living.
Norman disregarded the court order to quit, and a warrant was issued for possession, and he was warned that bailiffs would be attending on June 20 last year."
What is certain is that Norman used barbed wire and all manner of things to make entry into the house very difficult. Here is a man who was adamant he was not going anywhere and the authorities did what they know to do best they 'ATTACKED' they used intimidation in the first instance and then started to use fear of court action and when that failed they used, as always, physical abuse.
Was Normans actions illegal? it is a mute point, we do not know if the court warrant to seize goods and house was legitimate and as we know from experience most of these warrants are fraudulently produced to save time and money, one has to be careful when tackling these fraudsters, they will tell you they have the right but under close scrutiny we find they have not, 95% of the time.
The authorities 'bailiffs' (certificated) n
ot the pretend contracted court appointed bailiffs have authority and powers that are regulated however this authority does not include assault, and if they themselves are under threat they are trained to either deal with it or walk away. In Normans case they gained entry but was warned if they continued they
would be harmed. Bear in mind this is in the 'OCCUPANTS' living quarters and at the time Norman was 75, there were 2 police officers and two bailiffs, now confronting an old man who was not in any way going to allow them to evict him, so he started up a chainsaw and wielded it a anyone close by as a warning and as a direct attack on those now inside the property.
Was he 'MAD' at the time? I would think he was bloody furious, he just wanted to stay where he was and have no interference - However don't forget we have a right in our constitution to have adequate housing and we the right to defend our property by whatever means necessary.
Norman may have taken his rights a little too far, but those in attendance that day could have simply backed off and come back another day or at least continued with negotiations. But they didn't they went in 'GUNG HO' and got burned in the process. Articles state that those bailiffs are unable to work since this incident. I suggest they were not fit for the job in the first place, they were under the impression they could do just as they wish with no repercussions, PLUS they accept orders that they themselves cannot verify because they are inadequately trained in what a WARRANT; a true warrant is.
Norman did time for this event he concluded his sentence after 4 years to my knowledge so in the true meaning of freedom Norman paid for his crime. Everyone in this case were scarred including Norman, NO! not poor Norman, he broke the first rule of the freeman principal, 'Do no HARM' however in this loaded financial crazed system we have it was not Norman who was the problem it was that the authorities could not get the finances that would have been generated from gaining access to a 'HOME' regardless as to who was put out in the street as a result. 'MONEY before PEOPLE', so who can really blame Norman for what he did, I cannot condone it, but I can sympathyse with his actions, he was up against a well oiled machine that he had helped pay for and the funds are perpetual.
Does his current sentence have anything to do with his past behaviour?
Apparently it does.
Judge Mawrey referred to Normans past conviction; a conviction that Norman paid for by his loss of liberty.
"Judge Mawrey described Mr Scarth as a man convinced he was the victim of a conspiracy, which was tested further upon conviction of wounding in 2001 and served four years in prison, followed by two years in a psychiatric hospital."
He said: “In Mr Scarth’s universe he is the noble fighter for justice and the rule of law who, despite appalling levels of official persecution, has refused to be silenced and continues the struggle, bloody but unbowed. In the real world, inhabited by the rest of us, Mr Scarth is a disturbed, clearly paranoid and occasionally violent old man who is a persistent minor public irritant.”
I SAY
quoting Socrates and two famous Quakers.
There is no breach of the peace if what is said is merely offensive.
Lord Justice Sedley further states: “Free speech includes not only the offensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not tend to provoke violence.”
So For whatever reason, Norman Scarth, a naval war veteran who helped defeat the forces of Fascism and Nazism, decided to make a covert audio recording of a particular hearing , so Normans recent activity in court; requires ALL his past misdemeanour's to be brought into the open and sentenced accordingly?
Norman broke the law in that, it was illegal,
NOT 'unlawful'; of this there is no doubt. But six months incarceration for an 85-year-old: it breaks the man. And when you consider that some of our former MPs who fiddled the taxpayer of tens of thousands of pounds were sentenced to less, there is slight disquiet and sense of disproportionality.
Either we push for Normans sentence to stand or have him released, I prefer the latter however I cannot hide the fact that if his sentence was to follow through to the whole of the six months a reveiw of the sentences given to the MP's should follow.
What do you say 6 MONTHS for using a mobile phone in court is equivalent to 6 YEARS for an MP fiddling his expenses.
This is very tempting.
Namaste, phil;
