THE POLITICAL TRIAL OF ALEX BELFIELD
THE POLITICAL TRIAL OF ALEX BELFIELD
The Government and its Tool The BBC needed Alex Silenced as he had a huge following which was growing at an exponential following which was growing at an exponential rate; he was putting out over an hour a day of content which often critical to the government, the Elite, and the BBC; he was also putting on Stage Shows which sold out. He was banned from YouTube on Government orders, so he set up his own platform and attracted a large-paying following. I believe this alarmed the government, who feared his popularity and exposing the real news could spark a Political Movement; Alex Belfield had to be removed.
The problem they had is he had an independent platform and a very supportive audience which would make it difficult to close even in our sham Democracy, and this would not be acceptable; we have not yet reached the stage of making people disappear like in China, but it will no doubt come about in time. I sincerely believe that his charging and subsequent Trial were State Sponsored because, for 18 months, they had desperately attempted, for want of a better word tried, "TO FIT HIM UP". He made 13 magistrate Court appearances and, at times, was on illegal bail: no Magistrate or District Judge wanted to handle the cases. He had his home raided and all his equipment sized twice, his car dismantled, and his house searched for hours. They were trying to find drugs, taking him to Police Station for an intermit body search. A drug bust would have suited the fine, or finding illegal content on his equipment would get him convicted. The Government now had a problem; they needed Alex to be taken out of circulation for a long enough time to diminish his following. To achieve this, they fell back on old complaints.
Fortunately for them, Nottingham Crown Court is also a high court, so perfect for sending their selected High Court Judge from London. This was never going to be a balanced Trial with a Judge selected to get the desired result.
I believe the full disclosure of all the evidence against him should be disclosed well before the case management hearings, as there was much evidence, including videos. I do not know if Alex was naive, but he should have scrutinised the evidence and videos, preferably with a top lawyer; He probably did not qualify for legal Aid but could not afford to pay a Lawyer. Therefore, in a catch-22 situation and deciding to defend yourself, which is virtually impossible, you are not allowed to question witnesses yourself but only through a court-appointed advocate who will not necessarily use forceful and follow-up questions. The fact that impact statements were part of the alleged victim's main statement read out in court during the trial, and I believe this influences the jury and should only be read out if the defendant is found Guilty; it is like we have reversed the Law so that you are Guilty and must prove yourself innocent; a practice in many undemocratic countries.
The first four people (alleged victims} to give evidence were all experienced, trained broadcasters who had never been contacted directly by Alex but had been included in emails criticising the programs they were involved with; this was normal journalism by critics. Rozina Breen, Liz Green and Helen Thomas acted brilliantly, crying, saying they were frightened and needed extra security.
Stephanie Hirst seems mystified as to why she was there and did not put on an unseemly performance. The first three obviously had their statements written for them by the Police; I could have recited them. These are stock statements rolled out in many trials; I should know I have experienced it myself. These Four should never have been involved in the trial, and I believe they were used to pad out the Trial to add to the alleged seriousness of it; I believe this is an abuse of process and added about two weeks to the trial at our expense. Why did the Judge and the CPS not kick this out? oh, of course, they sent a
high judge from London for a big Show Trial. Hence, it had to be made to look big.
In my opinion, Bernard Sledding and Ben Hewis were the ones who should have been on trial. They were lying, including, at the Police's request, a video provided by them, a video which consisted of many clips from many different days without proper context and crafted to put Alex in a bad light. It was so obviously Fake that it was laughable.
I could not believe that the court-appointed Advocate asked no forceful questions and apply more pressure; I should know; I have experienced this situation. Alex would not have qualified for Legal aid; I believe the cost of a legal team would be over E300,OOO; who can afford that except the very wealthy? In this country, Justice has become a commodity; you buy it when you can afford a top KC. The prosecution used a senior KC, and the Trial was conducted as a high court trial; make no mistake, this was no ordinary trial; the Government wanted to be sure that they could put Alex out of circulation for some time. He was a treat to them as a harbourer of the truth. The conception that we are equal before the Law and Justice are balanced [scales of justice] is a complete misnomer; money and influence get you, Justice.
I think Spedding and Hewis are a disgusting pair of liars who put on Oscar-winning acts of being distressed and having mental health problems. Still, they are both prominent in the media and entertainment, 'Bear Pit.' Both, plus the BBC, refused to confirm or deny who was the author of a defamatory email that Hewis circulated widely on the internet for which he had apologised several times. Hewis complained that Alex showed his family photographs, but these were taken from Facebook, the public domain; what did he expect? I believe Spedding, Hewis, and the BBC should have been charged with Perverting the Course of Justice. I do not accept that these two were credible witnesses: they lied and put on a good act of distress.
Philip Dehany was portrayed as vulnerable; no way is this true; it was used to project him as a helpless person. He was not so helpless or vulnerable that he had been to prison for embezzling a large sum of money from his employer. Dehany was not reluctant retiring sort but able to make his living in the rough world of media and entertainment, running a blog site, uploading to YouTube, and doing theatre reviews. He was active in the theatre world, demeaning Alex and urging people to block and ban him. Alex was a successful Theatre reviewer and had interviewed many people involved in the entertainment sphere. Delany is a Nasty, Vindictive person who is jealous of Alex's success and wants to bring him down. He was certainly no victim.
Jeremy Vine must be the most disgusting creature I have ever seen whom you would doubt is human. He should have been awarded an Oscar for his performance in the witness box; he was up against stiff competition from the seven who went before him, but his facial distortions, weeping, his claim of distress and mental health made him the star of this show trial. Vine is no novice to broadcasting and public appearances and enjoys criticising others on his various media shows. He is also a proponent of cyclists being a superior type of person and relishes using a helmet camera to video other road users and then uploading them to YouTube to ridicule them; what a vile, nasty creature he is.
Judge Saini
I believe Judge Saini was selected to conduct this Trial to ensure a conviction and imprisonment for a considerable amount of time to break his influence and following, which was seen as a danger to the establishment. I can anticipate that this will finish Alex's career permanently. He will be in prison until about June 2025 and on licence for another two years and nine months. Being on a licence comes with many conditions, such as the type of work, living at a fixed address, travel restrictions, and very likely, Bespoke conditions to which the alleged victims may have an input; these inputs, I believe, will include a ban on him from social media, theatre appearances and operating the Voice of Reason.
Judge Saini certainly tilted the Scales of Justice: for a start, Alex was NOT convicted of four counts of Stalking but of two counts, and one of these was by a majority verdict; the other two were for Harassment [section 2 Protection of Harassment act] hence the maximum sentence of six months. The Judge could not use section 2A which is classed as Harassment and has a maximum sentence of
51 weeks because it did not fit the criteria. He referred to the Section
2 charge as simple Stalking when addressing the Jury and basic Stalking when making his sentencing comments; however, there is no such offence as basic Stalking or simple Stalking; Judge Saini lacks Moral Rectitude and could not be honest and stated that convictions concerning Jeremy Vine and Philip Dehaney were Harassment.
The true sentencing comments should have stated that of the eight indictments under section 4A, Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm, or distress should have been stated as four Not Guilty, two guilty, one by a majority verdict, and two on the alternative charge of Harassment. This was quite disingenuous of the Judge, but this was a Political Anti Free Speech Trial, and he had to please his political masters. He was unannoyed by the four not-guilty verdicts and only Two dubious guilty verdicts. He needed to big the result up so the lesser charges of Harassment being classed as stalking made it look like a better result for our corrupt
Establishment and media, who reported all four as Stalking led by the self-claimed Bastions of honesty and impartiality: The Guardian and BBC.
The Judge s legal directions at the trial's start were normal. Still, in my opinion, there were several emphases which were designed to push the Jury's thinking a certain way; he said that the evidence from
behind a screen was quite normal these days. He said the Jury should assess whether the witness was truthful or not, but how can the jury asses this from a small monitor screen when the defendant who is defending himself cannot see anything. What has happened to open Justice; you need to assess the witness's body language and facial expressions. This is a ploy to paint the accused as some ogre and the complainant as someone who is frightened, distressed, and even has mental health issues; this really tilts the fairness and balance of the Trial. The Police CPS and the Courts encourage this as it sets the scene in their favour, all for the belief that they are fighting the NOBLE CAUSE. Honest, open Justice has no place in our political target-driven Justice system. It is generally accepted, particularly in the USA, it is better that 10 Guilty people go free than one innocent person is imprisoned.
In his summing up, Judge Saini stated that the Jury should not condemn Alex for not taking the witness box but followed up later by saying that they could draw an inference of him not taking the stand and swearing an oath on a fairy tale book about mythical gods or making an attestation. In my opinion, Alex's lengthy written and signed statements, plus his oral statement, were more than satisfactory and his only cause of action considering his inability to pay for a top barrister.
I believe Judge Saini is highly Political and ambitious and hand-picked for this trial by the establishment of which he has been private school, and Oxbridge educated is a member. The majority of high Court Judges are from this background, as they can be relied on to protect the establishment and further their interests. It was blindly obvious that there was an important reason for Judge Saini to be sent to the provinces to hear a trial; this only normally happens for serious offences of murder or complicated fraud, but this was a serious trial as far as the establishment was concerned as he was exposing their lies and corruption and gathering a large following which they saw as a treat to them hence sending their man from London to get the required result with Alex out of circulation; they could not trust a Midland Circuit Judge to drive the jury the right way. He obviously satisfied his masters as he was promoted to presiding Judge of the Western Circuit and will no doubt eventually be appointed Supreme Court Judge, the height of political influence.
Judge Saini's sentencing comments were the most telling as they exposed his political leanings, his belief in his moral superiority, and his disdain for us lower-order, or plebians. He seemed to think Alex was a modern-day version of Wat Tyler, ready to lead a new Peasants Revolt; he referred to Alex as having over 300,000 followers whom he made prejudiced, insulting, and derogatory comments. He referred to all followers as an Army whose conduct massively expands the effect of your stalking; this is tantamount to saying all followers, including me, are conspirators in a crime. If this is so, should we all be arrested and charged with conspiring to stalk? If this is his thinking, it must apply to most people using Facebook, Twitter, Rumble, and other platforms. There are thousands of posts every day on social media, some of them quite brutal, but that is the way of the World, and if you decide to involve yourself with mainstream broadcasting and social media, there are consequences.
We are heading into becoming a "1984" Dystopian society where we are all labelled and socially rated; what happened to Alex could happen to any of us, and believe many millions of us have been tracked and categorised already and soon we all will be; this is all happening with huge assistance of Google who has now signed up to the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee as have all main TV stations and Print Media. The D.S.M.A. is supposed to be voluntary; after all, we claim to be a bastion of Democracy, but no form of media can survive in the UK without complying with it. Google is a willing member, thereby controlling YouTube content not only in the UK but Worldwide. They know more about the citizens than anyone, and the Government will no doubt contract them to help with the rollout of Digital ID and social scoring of all of us.
BIG BROTHER HAS NOW ARRIVED
Judge Saini exposed his true thoughts and mission when making his comments. on issuing Restraining orders after the trial, he was obviously annoyed at the Four Not Guilty verdicts saying they meet the civil standard of Guilt! Why does he make this comment? He and his masters had decided he was guilty of all charges well before summonses were issued, especially as it concerned mostly the BBC, which the Government needed to use as a propaganda tool. When Alex acquired his own platform and started his VOR club, the establishment became alarmed as they had no control over the content they had via YouTube and the DSMA. Alex was making too many freedoms of information requests and using them to broadcast honest news and criticise the Elite, a thing the DSMA-controlled media couldn't do. He was putting out about one hour a day of news, and a paying audience was increasing rapidly, starting to overtake mainstream media Breakfast Shows as he posted at 6 am. This, I believe, was too much for the Government, and they pushed matters hard from London, hence a show trial and Judge Saini. If a normal circuit Judge had conducted this Trial, I believe much of the evidence would have been thrown out at the case management stage and don't think he would have been convicted.
ALEX HAD TO GO. He was seen as a threat to the
Establishment and the deep state who might influence the peasants like me and upset the New World Order, where we digitised zombified Serfs obey our master's every command, own nothing, and be happy. I followed Alex's Trial because I am a supporter of his and had similar experiences but on a smaller scale, including the same court. I will follow this up with separate articles.
This trial is, in my opinion, a sign of things to come, with trials just becoming a brief formality, with most alleged offences dealt with by a single district Judge with the power to imprison people for up to five years. By this time, we will all have social scores, and our beliefs and thoughts will influence our fate. I also believe Jury trials will be abolished, even for the most serious crimes, and a single Judge will decide your fate; this idea is not new, and it is practised in parts of the World. That evil man JACK STRAW tried to abolish jury trials for offences with a maximum sentence of five years; imagine Magistrates or District Judges with that power. Jack Straw also believed that if the Police prosecuted, you were Guilty, and this thinking is common amongst magistrates, legal circles, and even the media.
The problem they had is he had an independent platform and a very supportive audience which would make it difficult to close even in our sham Democracy, and this would not be acceptable; we have not yet reached the stage of making people disappear like in China, but it will no doubt come about in time. I sincerely believe that his charging and subsequent Trial were State Sponsored because, for 18 months, they had desperately attempted, for want of a better word tried, "TO FIT HIM UP". He made 13 magistrate Court appearances and, at times, was on illegal bail: no Magistrate or District Judge wanted to handle the cases. He had his home raided and all his equipment sized twice, his car dismantled, and his house searched for hours. They were trying to find drugs, taking him to Police Station for an intermit body search. A drug bust would have suited the fine, or finding illegal content on his equipment would get him convicted. The Government now had a problem; they needed Alex to be taken out of circulation for a long enough time to diminish his following. To achieve this, they fell back on old complaints.
Fortunately for them, Nottingham Crown Court is also a high court, so perfect for sending their selected High Court Judge from London. This was never going to be a balanced Trial with a Judge selected to get the desired result.
I believe the full disclosure of all the evidence against him should be disclosed well before the case management hearings, as there was much evidence, including videos. I do not know if Alex was naive, but he should have scrutinised the evidence and videos, preferably with a top lawyer; He probably did not qualify for legal Aid but could not afford to pay a Lawyer. Therefore, in a catch-22 situation and deciding to defend yourself, which is virtually impossible, you are not allowed to question witnesses yourself but only through a court-appointed advocate who will not necessarily use forceful and follow-up questions. The fact that impact statements were part of the alleged victim's main statement read out in court during the trial, and I believe this influences the jury and should only be read out if the defendant is found Guilty; it is like we have reversed the Law so that you are Guilty and must prove yourself innocent; a practice in many undemocratic countries.
The first four people (alleged victims} to give evidence were all experienced, trained broadcasters who had never been contacted directly by Alex but had been included in emails criticising the programs they were involved with; this was normal journalism by critics. Rozina Breen, Liz Green and Helen Thomas acted brilliantly, crying, saying they were frightened and needed extra security.
Stephanie Hirst seems mystified as to why she was there and did not put on an unseemly performance. The first three obviously had their statements written for them by the Police; I could have recited them. These are stock statements rolled out in many trials; I should know I have experienced it myself. These Four should never have been involved in the trial, and I believe they were used to pad out the Trial to add to the alleged seriousness of it; I believe this is an abuse of process and added about two weeks to the trial at our expense. Why did the Judge and the CPS not kick this out? oh, of course, they sent a
high judge from London for a big Show Trial. Hence, it had to be made to look big.
In my opinion, Bernard Sledding and Ben Hewis were the ones who should have been on trial. They were lying, including, at the Police's request, a video provided by them, a video which consisted of many clips from many different days without proper context and crafted to put Alex in a bad light. It was so obviously Fake that it was laughable.
I could not believe that the court-appointed Advocate asked no forceful questions and apply more pressure; I should know; I have experienced this situation. Alex would not have qualified for Legal aid; I believe the cost of a legal team would be over E300,OOO; who can afford that except the very wealthy? In this country, Justice has become a commodity; you buy it when you can afford a top KC. The prosecution used a senior KC, and the Trial was conducted as a high court trial; make no mistake, this was no ordinary trial; the Government wanted to be sure that they could put Alex out of circulation for some time. He was a treat to them as a harbourer of the truth. The conception that we are equal before the Law and Justice are balanced [scales of justice] is a complete misnomer; money and influence get you, Justice.
I think Spedding and Hewis are a disgusting pair of liars who put on Oscar-winning acts of being distressed and having mental health problems. Still, they are both prominent in the media and entertainment, 'Bear Pit.' Both, plus the BBC, refused to confirm or deny who was the author of a defamatory email that Hewis circulated widely on the internet for which he had apologised several times. Hewis complained that Alex showed his family photographs, but these were taken from Facebook, the public domain; what did he expect? I believe Spedding, Hewis, and the BBC should have been charged with Perverting the Course of Justice. I do not accept that these two were credible witnesses: they lied and put on a good act of distress.
Philip Dehany was portrayed as vulnerable; no way is this true; it was used to project him as a helpless person. He was not so helpless or vulnerable that he had been to prison for embezzling a large sum of money from his employer. Dehany was not reluctant retiring sort but able to make his living in the rough world of media and entertainment, running a blog site, uploading to YouTube, and doing theatre reviews. He was active in the theatre world, demeaning Alex and urging people to block and ban him. Alex was a successful Theatre reviewer and had interviewed many people involved in the entertainment sphere. Delany is a Nasty, Vindictive person who is jealous of Alex's success and wants to bring him down. He was certainly no victim.
Jeremy Vine must be the most disgusting creature I have ever seen whom you would doubt is human. He should have been awarded an Oscar for his performance in the witness box; he was up against stiff competition from the seven who went before him, but his facial distortions, weeping, his claim of distress and mental health made him the star of this show trial. Vine is no novice to broadcasting and public appearances and enjoys criticising others on his various media shows. He is also a proponent of cyclists being a superior type of person and relishes using a helmet camera to video other road users and then uploading them to YouTube to ridicule them; what a vile, nasty creature he is.
Judge Saini
I believe Judge Saini was selected to conduct this Trial to ensure a conviction and imprisonment for a considerable amount of time to break his influence and following, which was seen as a danger to the establishment. I can anticipate that this will finish Alex's career permanently. He will be in prison until about June 2025 and on licence for another two years and nine months. Being on a licence comes with many conditions, such as the type of work, living at a fixed address, travel restrictions, and very likely, Bespoke conditions to which the alleged victims may have an input; these inputs, I believe, will include a ban on him from social media, theatre appearances and operating the Voice of Reason.
Judge Saini certainly tilted the Scales of Justice: for a start, Alex was NOT convicted of four counts of Stalking but of two counts, and one of these was by a majority verdict; the other two were for Harassment [section 2 Protection of Harassment act] hence the maximum sentence of six months. The Judge could not use section 2A which is classed as Harassment and has a maximum sentence of
51 weeks because it did not fit the criteria. He referred to the Section
2 charge as simple Stalking when addressing the Jury and basic Stalking when making his sentencing comments; however, there is no such offence as basic Stalking or simple Stalking; Judge Saini lacks Moral Rectitude and could not be honest and stated that convictions concerning Jeremy Vine and Philip Dehaney were Harassment.
The true sentencing comments should have stated that of the eight indictments under section 4A, Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm, or distress should have been stated as four Not Guilty, two guilty, one by a majority verdict, and two on the alternative charge of Harassment. This was quite disingenuous of the Judge, but this was a Political Anti Free Speech Trial, and he had to please his political masters. He was unannoyed by the four not-guilty verdicts and only Two dubious guilty verdicts. He needed to big the result up so the lesser charges of Harassment being classed as stalking made it look like a better result for our corrupt
Establishment and media, who reported all four as Stalking led by the self-claimed Bastions of honesty and impartiality: The Guardian and BBC.
The Judge s legal directions at the trial's start were normal. Still, in my opinion, there were several emphases which were designed to push the Jury's thinking a certain way; he said that the evidence from
behind a screen was quite normal these days. He said the Jury should assess whether the witness was truthful or not, but how can the jury asses this from a small monitor screen when the defendant who is defending himself cannot see anything. What has happened to open Justice; you need to assess the witness's body language and facial expressions. This is a ploy to paint the accused as some ogre and the complainant as someone who is frightened, distressed, and even has mental health issues; this really tilts the fairness and balance of the Trial. The Police CPS and the Courts encourage this as it sets the scene in their favour, all for the belief that they are fighting the NOBLE CAUSE. Honest, open Justice has no place in our political target-driven Justice system. It is generally accepted, particularly in the USA, it is better that 10 Guilty people go free than one innocent person is imprisoned.
In his summing up, Judge Saini stated that the Jury should not condemn Alex for not taking the witness box but followed up later by saying that they could draw an inference of him not taking the stand and swearing an oath on a fairy tale book about mythical gods or making an attestation. In my opinion, Alex's lengthy written and signed statements, plus his oral statement, were more than satisfactory and his only cause of action considering his inability to pay for a top barrister.
I believe Judge Saini is highly Political and ambitious and hand-picked for this trial by the establishment of which he has been private school, and Oxbridge educated is a member. The majority of high Court Judges are from this background, as they can be relied on to protect the establishment and further their interests. It was blindly obvious that there was an important reason for Judge Saini to be sent to the provinces to hear a trial; this only normally happens for serious offences of murder or complicated fraud, but this was a serious trial as far as the establishment was concerned as he was exposing their lies and corruption and gathering a large following which they saw as a treat to them hence sending their man from London to get the required result with Alex out of circulation; they could not trust a Midland Circuit Judge to drive the jury the right way. He obviously satisfied his masters as he was promoted to presiding Judge of the Western Circuit and will no doubt eventually be appointed Supreme Court Judge, the height of political influence.
Judge Saini's sentencing comments were the most telling as they exposed his political leanings, his belief in his moral superiority, and his disdain for us lower-order, or plebians. He seemed to think Alex was a modern-day version of Wat Tyler, ready to lead a new Peasants Revolt; he referred to Alex as having over 300,000 followers whom he made prejudiced, insulting, and derogatory comments. He referred to all followers as an Army whose conduct massively expands the effect of your stalking; this is tantamount to saying all followers, including me, are conspirators in a crime. If this is so, should we all be arrested and charged with conspiring to stalk? If this is his thinking, it must apply to most people using Facebook, Twitter, Rumble, and other platforms. There are thousands of posts every day on social media, some of them quite brutal, but that is the way of the World, and if you decide to involve yourself with mainstream broadcasting and social media, there are consequences.
We are heading into becoming a "1984" Dystopian society where we are all labelled and socially rated; what happened to Alex could happen to any of us, and believe many millions of us have been tracked and categorised already and soon we all will be; this is all happening with huge assistance of Google who has now signed up to the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee as have all main TV stations and Print Media. The D.S.M.A. is supposed to be voluntary; after all, we claim to be a bastion of Democracy, but no form of media can survive in the UK without complying with it. Google is a willing member, thereby controlling YouTube content not only in the UK but Worldwide. They know more about the citizens than anyone, and the Government will no doubt contract them to help with the rollout of Digital ID and social scoring of all of us.
BIG BROTHER HAS NOW ARRIVED
Judge Saini exposed his true thoughts and mission when making his comments. on issuing Restraining orders after the trial, he was obviously annoyed at the Four Not Guilty verdicts saying they meet the civil standard of Guilt! Why does he make this comment? He and his masters had decided he was guilty of all charges well before summonses were issued, especially as it concerned mostly the BBC, which the Government needed to use as a propaganda tool. When Alex acquired his own platform and started his VOR club, the establishment became alarmed as they had no control over the content they had via YouTube and the DSMA. Alex was making too many freedoms of information requests and using them to broadcast honest news and criticise the Elite, a thing the DSMA-controlled media couldn't do. He was putting out about one hour a day of news, and a paying audience was increasing rapidly, starting to overtake mainstream media Breakfast Shows as he posted at 6 am. This, I believe, was too much for the Government, and they pushed matters hard from London, hence a show trial and Judge Saini. If a normal circuit Judge had conducted this Trial, I believe much of the evidence would have been thrown out at the case management stage and don't think he would have been convicted.
ALEX HAD TO GO. He was seen as a threat to the
Establishment and the deep state who might influence the peasants like me and upset the New World Order, where we digitised zombified Serfs obey our master's every command, own nothing, and be happy. I followed Alex's Trial because I am a supporter of his and had similar experiences but on a smaller scale, including the same court. I will follow this up with separate articles.
This trial is, in my opinion, a sign of things to come, with trials just becoming a brief formality, with most alleged offences dealt with by a single district Judge with the power to imprison people for up to five years. By this time, we will all have social scores, and our beliefs and thoughts will influence our fate. I also believe Jury trials will be abolished, even for the most serious crimes, and a single Judge will decide your fate; this idea is not new, and it is practised in parts of the World. That evil man JACK STRAW tried to abolish jury trials for offences with a maximum sentence of five years; imagine Magistrates or District Judges with that power. Jack Straw also believed that if the Police prosecuted, you were Guilty, and this thinking is common amongst magistrates, legal circles, and even the media.
THE DYSTOPIAN 1984 WORLD HAS FINALLY ARRIVED
