Jayda Fransen: How to be in Northern Ireland without being in Northern Ireland?

Jayda Fransen: How to be in Northern Ireland without being in Northern Ireland?

The incompatibilities of two legal systems: England's legal system and Northern Ireland's legal system are being used for political harassment and anti-terror legislation is being used for purposes that have nothing to do with tackling terrorism.

Northern Ireland is de-facto a country outside the United Kingdom, no matter what British politicians want you to believe and this is all too real when dealing with legal issues.

When it comes to bail conditions in England and in Northern Ireland, the English legal system struggles to find solutions that are not part of present legislation and judges have to be "creative' (creative is one way of putting it) to fill up the gaps created by legal incompatibilities.

Jayda Fransen's real residence is a property in Northern Ireland but English authorities forced her to reside in England having to pay for accommodation in England that she could ill afford. She was given the choice to live in a hostel surrounded by real criminals including drug-addicts, rapists, paedophiles and the like. Although part of the bill for housing is paid by the state, people placed on bail and forced to live at a certain address that is not their home address are forced to pay part of the bill even when they have their own homes somewhere else in the United Kingdom.

Given the fact that the reasons to imprison her and to later impose draconian bail conditions were utterly political, she was treated like somebody involved in Islamic Terrorism. Due to her very high political profile, she asked SO15 to ensure that the places where she was going to be forced to reside in were safe but SO15 officers failed in their duty of care and told her that 'if she was attacked, she would be transferred to some location in Liverpool'. Translation: wait until somebody attacks you for us to protect you.

A female Probation Officer when asked a direct yes/no question about very serious issues could only come up with a reply saying 'I believe that...'. "I believe that'? An Officer of the Law is not supposed to believe. An Officer of the Law must be able to answer Yes or No. Either security measures were implemented or security measures were not implemented.

We can hardly blame a Probation Officer of not being able to answer a direct question after listening to Members of Parliament including Members of the British Government talking about liability and evidence. They could only produce words like perhaps, maybe, possibly, most probably when dealing with an extremely serious accusation against another country.

It should be mandatory for Members of Parliament to witness trials to see how Legislation is actually being implemented and to see what is going wrong. The judges were struggling to pass sentence but in the end it is not the judges' fault to be put in such idiotic situation because of defective legislation passed by incompetent Parliamentarians who very seldom have to face real everyday cases in the courts.

Are British Courts of Law and Police Services being used for political persecution? Yes, they are. Anti-Terror legislation is being used in cases that have nothing to do with Terrorism. Police Officers are being ordered to detain and arrest individuals using Anti-Terror legislation in cases that have nothing to do with Terrorism.

The so called Prevent initiative has done more damage than good. If anything, it has created widespread animosity because of blatant abuses. Abuses will not promote trust. Abuses will promote Extremism. We have seen Police Officers asking families to denounce their own relatives and friends and asking teachers to denounce their own pupils including those of a very young age. These are not just nonsensical attitudes. They are dangerous attitudes. What kind of society are they trying to create?