Britain Gives Itself a Bloody Nose.

On June 19th 2017 (19/6/17) a van mounted the pavement and struck pedestrians close to a Mosque in the Finsbury Park area of London, UK.

This event occurred at a time when Islamist terror attacks were striking the UK on an almost monthly basis. In March 2017 there was the Westminster Bridge attack. This was followed in May 2017 by the Manchester Evening News Arena (MENA) bombing and the London Bridge attack in June 2017.

Prior to these attacks there were indications that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) had adopted tactics long used by Al Qaeda. These tactics use terror attacks to destroy the space in society in which Muslims and non-Muslims coexist - essentially as a way to recruit Muslims to the terrorists cause.

So for example a terror attack would be conducted against non-Muslims to provoke a backlash by non-Muslims against Muslims. Terrorist recruiters would then point to this backlash as evidence Muslims need to join up to protect themselves.

As such attacking a Mosque in the hope it would be blamed on non-Muslims very much fits with Islamist terrorist strategy.

There is actually a well researched 2010 British satirical movie called; "Four Lions." One of the major story elements revolves around British Al Qaeda members plotting to attack a Mosque in the hope the attack will be blamed on non-Muslims.

Just two days after the events in Finsbury Park on June 21st (21/6/17)  ISIL blew up the famous Grand Mosque of al-Nuri in the Iraqi city of Mosul. They attempted to blame it on the "Crusader" (American) airforce and called on Muslims to join them in a last gasp defence of the city.

The driver arrested in Finsbury Park was a man named Darren Osborne. Until roughly a month prior to the incident he was living Cardiff, Wales with his wife and daughters. They had befriended Muslim neighbours who worshipped at the Riverside Mosque in the city.

The Riverside Mosque has close links to ISIL having produced at least three fighters to the group. These include Reyaad Khan who was killed by a British drone strike in Syria on August 21st 2015 (21/8/15).

In fact Reyaad Khan's death only became public knowledge after the Imam at the Riverside Mosque announced it during a service and asked for prayers to be offered for the Khan family. This revelation prompted something of a political backlash within the UK.

Leader of the opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn used the Imam's announcement to declare the death of Reyaad Khan to be "legally questionable" and went on to say that then Prime Minister David Cameron had; "Very difficult questions to answer."

As the relationship between Mr Osborne's family and their Muslim neighbours became closer Mr Osborne found himself increasingly isolated from the family unit. A month prior to the incident in Finsbury Park he was forced to leave the family home entirely.

The day prior to the incident Mr Osborne was making an exhibition of himself in a pub in Cardiff. He was ranting about his fears that (his) daughters would forever be lost to Muslim and ISIL grooming gangs. He also wrote a lengthy letter to that effect.

Mr Osborne then started a bar fight. That sort of behaviour normally results in you being arrested and held in custody in a police station. Where you have no contact with the outside world. Normally until the Court's re-open on the following Monday.

It has since emerged that the 47 year old Mr Osborne had been arrested and appeared in Court on more than 30 occasions over the course of his life. Therefore was well rehearsed in police arrest and Court detention procedures.

On June 18th (18/6/17) Mr Osborne took that letter with him and drove to the al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day march in central London. However at no point did he attempt to drive his vehicle into the assembled crowd.

I don't have the exact attendance figures for the 2017 al-Quds march. However it normally attracts around 20,000 people. The majority of whom are Muslims.

Having attended previous marches I know that the sheer size of the crowd means there is a significant risk of crush injuries - even without someone driving a vehicle into it. I also know the march takes place on at least partially open roads where the only thing separating marchers from vehicles is plastic police tape.

Perhaps realising his claim he was unable to drive into the al-Quds march because of road closures would not be believed Mr Osborne proceeded to get drunk and drive erratically to several other locations within London. Again this sort of behaviour normally results in you being being arrested and held in custody at a police station.

Having not been arrested Mr Osborne's vehicle finally collided with a group of just eight people close to a Mosque in Finsbury Park in the very early hours of June 19th (19/1/17). This resulted in no serious injuries.

However the small crowd had assembled because one man - the 51-year old Makram Ali - had suffered a heart attack. They were waiting for an emergency ambulance to arrive. The collision with the crowd coincided with Mr Ali's death.

As is their job the autopsy carried out by the prosecution claimed that Mr Ali's death was the result of the collision. However given Mr Ali's long history of health problems and the fact he was in a life threatening condition at the time an independent autopsy would likely have completely discredited that claim.

It is a legal right that this second, independent autopsy is performed. However in this case no such autopsy took place.

On January 24th 2018 (24/1/18) the trial of Darren Osborne began with the prosecution alleging murder and attempted murder.

In laying out its case the prosecution entered into evidence the letter that Mr Osborne had written along with the statements he'd made in the pub along with his repeated attempts to get arrested.

The prosecution also entered into evidence that Mr Osborne had the opportunity to kill large numbers of Muslims at the al-Quds march but declined to do so. Directly contradicting their assertion that Mr Osborne wished to kill as many Muslims as possible.

The prosecution also entered into evidence computer records showing a lot of activity on far-right, anti-Muslim websites. However this activity had only occurred in the three weeks prior to the incident. Roughly a week after Mr Osborne had been excluded from the family home and lost access to the computer in question.

So far from showing Mr Osborne's motive this evidence entered by the prosecution demonstrated that a third party was attempting to make it appear as if Mr Osborne was a far-right extremist.

Finally the prosecution called as a witness Mr Osborne himself.

The UK has no written constitution. Therefore is has no written equivalent to the US'  Fifth Amendment which prevents defendants being called as prosecution witnesses against themselves in trials.

However the US Fifth Amendment is based on a longstanding British legal principle that no defendant can be called as a witness against themselves in trials.

As such I can offer no explanation as to why the prosecution felt it could call Mr Osborne as a witness nor why the Judge permitted Mr Osborne to be called as a witness for the prosecution.

The timetable of trials in British Courts has been well established over nearly a thousand years;

The prosecution lays out its case.

It is then up to the Judge to decide whether the prosecution's case is sufficent to even question the assumed innocence of the defendant. If it is not the case is dismissed there and then. The Jury is sent home and told to disregard anything it may have heard while the defendant is released.

If however the Judge decides the prosecution's case is sufficient to question the defendant's assumed innocence it is the turn of the defence to answer those questions.

It then again falls to the Judge to decide whether the defendant's assumed innocence is still in question.

This generally relates to any defence based on a point of law such as lawful excuse or duress. Lawyers are forbidden from sitting on UK juries specifically to ensure that all randomly selected juries are equally unable to rule on complex points of law.

If a clear defence based on a point of law has been demonstrated then again the case ends there and then. The Jury is sent home and told to disregard anything it may have heard while the defendant is released.

However if a question over the defendant's assumed innocence still remains then finally that question is put to the Jury and they are asked to consider and then give their verdict.

In this case the prosecution finished laying out its case late on Wednesday (31/1/18) evening. Immediately after they'd taken the highly irregular step of calling the defendant as a witness.

On Thursday (1/2/18) morning the Judge decided to dispense with all the usual trial procedure and hand the question straight to the Jury.

Funnily enough with no opportunity being granted for the defence to answer the allegation the Jury quickly convicted early that afternoon.

As to what defence Mr Osborne could have offered if granted the opportunity normally afforded to defendants he stood a reasonable chance of lawful excuse by way of defence of self/other.

Between 1997 and 2004 this particular Mosque in Finsbury Park was run by Abu Hamza al-Masri.

A founding member of Al Qaeda Abu Hamza al-Masri turned this Finsbury Park Mosque into a terrorist recruiting centre. In 2004 he was arrested in the UK under the Terrorism Act of 2000 for multiple charges of conspiracy to murder and preparing acts of terrorism.

In 2012 Abu Hamza al-Masri was finally extradited to the US. In 2015 he was convicted 11 charges relating to hostage taking, establishing terrorist training camps and waging war against the US. He is currently serving a whole life term in the ADX Florence Supermax prison in Colorado.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that eliminating members of Abu Hamza al-Masri's Mosque in Finsbury Park would reduce the terror threat thus saving lives. After all that is exactly what the British and American legal systems spent 11 years doing.

However following Abu Hamza al-Masri's arrest in 2004 this Finsbury Park Mosque was placed under new management. This new management has made it a beacon for tackling violent Islamist violence. That though has been much less well publicised.

Therefore a defence of lawful excuse would be imperfect meaning that it would not see Mr Osborne acquitted. However it would see the murder charge reduced to manslaughter and the attempted murder charges dropped entirely.

Based on time already served while awaiting trial those lesser charges could well have seen Mr Osborne walk free from Court.

The fact that this defence was not even attempted alongside the evidence entered by the prosecution should have rung alarm bells with the defence, the Judge and even the prosecution that Mr Osborne was acting under duress and was continuing to act under duress.

At around 13:35 on 2/2/18 (UK date) I'll finish this up later.

Edited at around 14:40 on 2/2/18 (UK date) to add above & below;

Today the Judge in the case has chosen to disregard ordering let alone considering the usual pre-sentencing reports in favour of immediately passing sentence.

Normally when sentence is passed sentencing guidelines along with case law precedents must be considered and followed.

In order to find a sentencing precedent in case similar to Mr Osborne's you do not have to look far;

On June 28th 2016 (28/6/16) a Muslim man named Lugman Aslam ploughed his van into a small group of non-Muslims in the British city of Leicester. He had been angered by the fact the non-Muslims had been eating in public during Ramadan when Muslims fast. Mr Aslam went on to claim this constituted racist and Islamaphobic abuse.

As with the prosecutions allegation's against Mr Osborne - conviction would require opportunity to respond - Mr Aslam's actions had intent, premeditation and were motivated by political/religious reasons.

However unlike Mr Osborne Mr Aslam was never charged with attempted murder let alone terrorism offences. Instead he was charged with the simple traffic offence of dangerous driving. Although some are considered criminal offences traffic offences are considered low crimes or misdemeanours.

Mr Aslam was sentenced to five years in prison - with a minimum term of 2.5 years and banned from driving for a further 4 years.

Mr Osborne has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 43 years.

A clear example of a non-Muslim being treated extremely more harshly by the justice system then a Muslim offender. A vicious attack on a system that is built on the principle of equality under the law.

In response to the case sections of the media who try and convince us Jeremy Corbyn is a competent leader and ISIL are our friends have been asking what the case tells us about the threat of far-right extremism in the UK.

It tells us that the threat of far-right extremism in the UK is so low it can be completely disregarded.

Through this case Britain has shown that it is prepared to utterly abandon its core values such as the rule of law in order to validate the conspiracy theories of Islamist terrorists.

In doing so it has loudly declared that it has no interest in protecting non-Muslims for Islamist terrorists. Therefore non-Muslims should immediately join far-right groups in order to protect themselves.

I very much doubt those far-right groups will take the time to discover the Judge - Justice Cheema-Grubb - is of Indian Sikh heritage rather than Pakistani Muslim.

The reason Britain has chosen to do this is because of a misguided belief that by validating the conspiracy theories espoused by the likes of Jeremy Corbyn they will stop British Muslims being recruited into terrorism.

So it is quite clear why the British Security Services consider the current terrorist threat to be severe. It has nothing to do with Tommy Robinson.

I only hope they've taken the precaution of quietly killing the attack planners.

After all as with all miscarriages of justice the main concern has to be the actual guilty party is still out there about to commit another offence.

And as we know appeasement only ever has one result.

15:25 on 2/2/18 (UK date).