The Brutal Treatment of the Southport Peaceful Protesters, By Richard Miller (London)

UK protester Jamie Michael, former British Royal Marine Commando has given an interview about how he and many other British patriots were persecuted by the dhimmi Starmer Labour government merely for posts criticising illegal immigration. Thus a former soldier, who served his country was dragged through the courts and repeatedly denied bail for a Facebook video, "Publishing threatening material" with "intent to stir up religious hatred." This is a catch-all phrase that the present-day multicultural fascist "British" state used against those exercising their fundamental right of free speech. Fortunately, not everything in the UK has become corrupt, and Michael was able to defeat the charges in court. But, how long will even this last bastion of freedom survive?

Musk would do a good deed in supporting the Reform Party to end the tyrannical Starmer regime.

https://news.starknakedbrief.co.uk/p/until-now-we-didnt-know-how-non-violent

"It was a humiliating outcome for the Crown Prosecution Service and a grim reminder of how easily the justice system can be weaponised.

Upon his acquittal, Jamie sat down with Dan Morgan (known as The Voice of Wales) and German-U.S. journalist Vicky Richter for an exclusive interview about his ordeal.

He revealed what many feared: police intimidation, apparent negligent and/or incompetent legal representation, and seeming judicial bias.

Arrest

From the moment he was arrested, the system seemed determined to punish him.

Police told Jamie his "offence" could carry a seven-year sentence, aggressively handcuffed him despite his calm disposition, and kept him on remand for three days before his initial hearing.

Meanwhile, violent suspects are often released far sooner—one occurring days ago in London with a man who slashed at another man with a knife.

He was denied his right to a phone call, warned he might face a terrorism-related charge, and even reportedly threatened with the arrest of his partner.

That would have left their young daughter without a parent to care for her, which "panicked" him, as it would any parent.

The Initial Duty Solicitor

Jamie's first duty solicitor said something very interesting. He said that if Jamie had posted the video three months earlier, police would probably have ignored it.

The laws hadn't changed. The police hadn't changed. The only difference? A new Prime Minister.

That same solicitor then suggested Jamie should plead guilty to reduce his sentence by a third.

He even implied Jamie had PTSD for commenting on a social media post of a homeless man in a camo-patterned sleeping bag.

Fortunately, Jamie promptly sacked him and sought help from The Free Speech Union.

The First Judge

During Jamie's initial hearing, the judge shut him down when he tried to correct the incorrect title of a video shown in court.

That same judge ruled he was to be held on remand for months—until his trial.

Jamie spent another three weeks in prison before his new legal team via The Free Speech Union secured bail.

(Three weeks on remand—for a non-violent crime.)

Once released, he was finally able to go home and see his little girl and partner.

But the police weren't finished with him.

Jamie was meant to be released at 10 a.m. on his girlfriend's birthday but reportedly wasn't let out until 7 p.m.

The reason? Police were debating whether he should wear a tag or be placed under curfew—for a Facebook video.

The second judge who presided over Jamie's trial, however, was what he described as "fair."

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

How the CPS justified prosecuting Jamie—when the jury took just 17 minutes to find him not guilty—remains a mystery.

Three police officers had told Jamie his video would likely lead to nothing. Usually, police struggle to convince the CPS to take on cases.

That raised speculation that his prosecution may have been driven from higher up—a politically motivated case.

After the Southport protests/riots, Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper made a point of cracking down on "hate speech" online, equating it with physical harm. Senior police chiefs echoed similar rhetoric.

Even the head of the CPS warned that his team were seeking out influencers on social media.

Impact on Jamie's Life

In many ways, the prosecution itself was the punishment.

Jamie lost 30% of his business, was slandered by the mainstream media, and stopped from driving a local school football team to matches, which he had done for three years.

His partner found their young daughter crying in her room, confused about what was happening to her dad.

One acquaintance even falsely accused him of participating in the riots—a direct result of mainstream media reporting.

Wider Implications

By August 2024, the Metro estimated that over 1,000 people had been jailed after the Southport protests/riots.

Many were involved in serious, reprehensible violence.

But many were not. Among those convicted were dozens of non-violent protestors who pleaded guilty and received reduced sentences (though still incredibly lengthy sentences).

Some of the most high-profile cases include Lucy Connolly, Tyler Kay, and Peter Lynch—whose sentencing hearings were full of biased, politically-charged, and highly assumptive remarks from the presiding judges.

If they went through what Jamie endured—reported poor legal advice, police intimidation, and seeming judicial bias—it could arguably amount to coercion.

If that indeed proves to be the case and penetrates the wider mediasphere, it could shake the British "justice system" to its core.

And if reformed properly, along with our highly subjective speech laws, it wouldn't be a bad thing…"