Review of Fascinating Inbuilt Assumptions of Simple Advocates Geoffrey Robertson QC & Andrew Nicol, QC: Media Law (4th edn; Penguin Books; 1984-2002)** Amazon removed this from their reviews after a few days ** approx. 12th April 2014
This review was banned by Amazon UK!! Read it here!
How to Get Away with Things ... BUT only if you're politically correct 5th April 2014
Read between the lines to understand the Jewish menace within a corrupt legal system.
Geoffrey Robertson appears on Youtube.
Media Law exams for journalists exist; perhaps surprisingly—one would have imagined the hacks simply get their stuff 'legalled' on a more or less ad hoc basis. Judging by Amazon reviews, some books on this ill-defined subject are legally-based, and dry; this one is slanted to how to get away with things, claims an Amazon quotation, though the writer of that phrase seems to have no idea of the conventions now in place to ensure, mostly, that the Jewish world-view is barely mentioned and never criticised. Robertson & Nichol include jokes and commentaries partly as relief, partly to insert PC comments. These remarks remind me slightly of explanatory books pointing out puzzling features of the Building Regulations.
My 2002 copy (30p from a market; the newer edition should include e.g. Leverson's 'Inquiry', and presumably the birth of Youtube and advent of RT) shows that both Robertson and Nichol are or were in Doughty Street Chambers; see my highly unimpressed review of Robertson as a joint author in the Putney Debates (above). Nicol for three years was 'chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association'. I would guess that one of Penguin's motives for publication was to continue the secret Jewish policy of (among other things) flooding Europe with immigrants; I wonder what the legal status of this book is: it's perfectly possible it's laughed at or disregarded by other lawyers, something I noticed happened to another Penguin law book. The competence of the two authors is difficult to assess.
The contents list is: 1 Freedom of Expression/ 2 The Human Rights Act/ 3 Defamation/ 4 Obscenity; Blasphemy and Race Hatred/ 5 Privacy and Confidence/ 6 Copyright/ 7 Contempt of Court/ 8 Reporting the Courts/ 9 Reporting Lesser Courts and Tribunals/ 10 Reporting Parliaments, Assemblies and Elections/ 11 Reporting Whitehall [this seems to have been updated to 'Reporting Executive Government']/ 12 Reporting Local Government/ 13 Reporting Business/ 14 Media Self-Regulation/ 15 Censorship of Films, Video [DVDs added later]/ 16 Broadcasting Law. There's an alphabetical-by-plaintiff list of cases which of course provides much of the amusing material. Also statutes, and statutory instruments (the latter are more or less made up by governments, and as far as I know are undebated in Parliament: Planning Law has bookshelves of these). And an index, collected under relevant rubrics: 'Defamation' has the longest list of index entries, I think. There's an entire page of references to the 'European Convention on Human Rights', which is regarded as a sort of keystone or central focus. The processes by which events to be judged are categorised are unclear, as I suppose must be the case in rather simple-minded law books. Experienced legal practitioners decide which law(s) to pick on, which categories to include or exclude, and where the money flows go: a murder of a white by a black (for example) at present leads to intensive secret discussion on how to exclude the race element, how to minimise publicity, how to intimidate whites, and how to maximise money for lawyers. The entire process of agitation for legislation is omitted, as in (four examples), the extension of public handouts to immigrants, the promotion of anal sex, the long-drawn out farce around Stephen Lawrence, and the censorship of statistics on race.
Media students who aren't very computer-familiar might investigate desk-top search computer programs, which are good at plucking keywords from vast amounts of legislation stored as computer files..
Examination shows (as expected) that the book accepts, or in fact assumes without any discussion, all the PC-Frankfurt school nonsense. There's the 'democracy' mythology: "The European Convention on Human Rights has now been ratified by all 41 Member States of the Council of Europe" (p 36) as though that was a democratic action. (Human Rights legislation, a notorious money-making scheme for lawyers, plays a large part in this book). Blasphemy (p 215) has 'a law that protects only Christian sensibilities..' which of course is nonsense, as laws supposedly about race are designed in practice to exclude comment on the Talmud. The authors approve entirely of NUJ censorship of e.g. race violence, and Muslim sex with underage white girls: 'race is not to be reported 'unless directly relevant' is the mantra. The authors seem to have no objection to anti-French and anti-German and anti-white headlines in for example the 'Sun'. (For US readers, this is a cheap junk publication with a Jewish policy of censoring war atrocities, war results and motives, truths about immigration, and for that matter truths about the Third World. Recently (early 2014) an ex-editor, Kelvin Mackenzie, said, with exquisite hypocrisy, that editors who suppressed such information should "hang their heads in shame"). There are statements which are simple lies: 'right to trial by jury' (in fact this did not exist in WW1 etc, 'section 18' in WW2. 'The open justice system is now firmly embedded ... [in the US and Canada]' Really? Some statements are gaspingly absurd: (p 599, on international law) 'The international Covenant for Civil and Political Rights provides that: "(1) 'Any propaganda for war should be prohibited by law' ..."
Page 605 hates MI5 for investigating 'youthful idealists' Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw, Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, all I think Jewish communists with an interest in buggering children and increasing immigration except into Israel. Idealists? Maybe. An item that interested me on p. 217 was this comment: Dowager Lady Birdwood .. 'old and rabid racist ... convicted for distributing anti-Semitic propaganda'. Her main publication Anti-Gentilism: The Longest Hatred has an account of the Bank of England as Jewish, which may or may not be true, but Robertson and Nicol aren't interested. Jewish media ownership is not mentioned or discussed anywhere in this book. Another of my interests, censorship of American atrocities during the Vietnam War, which of course were censored by all the Jewish media, gets no mention. In fact, there is no reason to believe any serious issue in this book is factually true. This is in accordance with Jewish 'ethics' of course.
Looking at this book from the viewpoint of someone with a practical decision to take, I wondered how useful this book is to a creative and inquisitive writer or video maker. Without pretending to go into immense detail I made a list of fairly serious real-world examples to see how helpful this book might be:–
• Example 1: Economics: how much does it cost to sue and be sued? At what point are people likely to take such a risk? What are the facts about damages, costs, 'disbursements', fines?
• Example 2: Charities: if a charity is obviously a fraud in any normal sense, is it legal to say so?
• Example 3: Scientific Doubt: How much can be said about such things as fluoridation, accusations about diesel exhaust and other particulates produced during combustion?
• Example 4: The BBC: if the BBC for example systematically suppressed all mention of atrocities during a war, can they be forced to remake programmes seriously?
• Example 5: Religion: Can the BBC be made to take seriously the vicious race and outgroup written comments in the Torah and Quran and other writings?
• Example 6: Pederasty: Can suspicions (where there have been cover-ups) be reported?
• Example 7: Is it legal to (for example) display images of rectal damage and disease caused by anal sex, in anti-homosexual works?
• Example 8: In BBC and other film in about 2005, a couple was shown throwing darts at a political open-air interview. Is it legal to try to identify them publically?
• Example 9: Doubts have been cast on nuclear power stations: is there any way to legally obtain measurements of actual power outputs of the supposed power stations?
• Example 10: In view of the intensive spying by Jews, can evidence be forced of commercial spying?
1 Economics: The chapter on defamation has most of the meat on costs, described as 'enormous'. The section on 'Who Can Sue?' emphasises that the important question is Who Can Sue? with comments on unions, the very rich, and large organisations. In fact, presumably, the well-known cases must be far less frequent than relatively minor cases. There's a bit on tactics ('Paying in' on page 79 can be good) but the facts about damages, costs, 'disbursements', fines and their timing are not clear. A problem here is the obvious bias of Robertson and Nicol: they see themselves as promoting Jewish causes, and refuse to take an honest view. Thus we have 'exemplary damages': Captain Broome's 'wartime convoy' against David Irving; Tolstoy's war crime accusations about Yugoslavs sent to their deaths. A 'media studies' student will find little help on these rather important issues. It's generally difficult to find out legal costs in cases from family law to awards to prisoners etc; Media Law does not help with this issue.
2 Charities: Robertson & Nicol make some good points here, but only as regards well-known information on their sheer numbers, and their tax advantages and poor regulation. (Private Hospital in Britain on this website has material on educational and hospital charities with large assets). As far as I know charities now are exempt from Freedom of Information enquiries; they can keep their secrets. They appear to be legally permitted to pay out only from interest, not from donations—unsurprisngly, this fact goes unmentioned. Many 'charities' are Jewish propaganda organisations. They say 'the entire field is a fertile one for exposure journalism' which perhaps ought to be true, but isn't; the situation has been scandalous for decades. Media Law has only three pages on the subject.
3 & 9 Scientific Doubts: How does a reporter go about reporting fluoridation, climate change, AIDS, nuclear radiation? Robertson & Nichols show an amusing absence of helpful comment here. In the same way that advertisers wrestle with such issues as nudity or swearing, but are hopelessly ignorant about factual matters, this book has vast commentaries on issues apart from scientific and factual material. The 'AIDS virus', 'nuclear weapons' and the Atomic Energy Act, in Media Law make it obvious that, as regards windfarms and pollution and climate change and space rockets, "My learned friend" and similar phrases are something of a bad joke. The appointment of judges to chair inquiries, with a range of 'expert witnesses', goes comfortably with Jewish/establishment wishes. I can see no useful material in Media Law helpful to reporters of programme-makers.
4 The BBC: My question on BBC lies as institutional memory - i.e. something that has gone on for decades - is of course part of establishment policy. However, as the Holohoax lies continue to unfold, there will be moves to reform the BBC. Media Law says nothing helpful about the present BBC hierarchy and whether its workings can be elucidated, or about the BBC's charter and the way it has been ignored. Another example: the BBC covered up Muslim 'grooming' as a deliberate policy; Ann Clwyd MP and others had been ignored for years. (In 2013, a Freedom of Information request was made to the BBC to reveal the costs of covering up Muslim 'grooming' of white girls, and of carrying out a campaign to prosecute Nick Griffin for telling the truth. There is no hint that I could find that Robertson & Nicol would be the slightest use).
5: Religion, Jews, and Muslims: The BBC has never broadcast anything serious on Jewish beliefs and practice. And ditto with Islam. Despite having a religious broadcasting section. Media Law doesn't even recognise the issue.
6 & 7: Pederasty: Can suspicions (where there have been cover-ups) be reported? Media Law of course has accounts of trials in defamation cases but fails to address the issue of institutional concealment of under-age buggery and child abuse. They are scarcely indexed. Media students might look at more recent copies of this and other books on Jimmy Savile. But it is clearly BBC policy under its Jewish head to conceal this. (It seems child sex is accepted by Jewish 'holy' books). So I would have little hope that Media Law would be anything other than evasive and polysyllabic. As to the question whether images of rectal damage and disease caused by anal sex, as maybe photographs or large paintings, would be accepted as educational. I doubt Media Law would be much of a guide through the oddities of the legal system.
8: BBC's censorship of allegedly bona-fide protestors: Certainly since the 1960s, and very probably since its foundation, the BBC has broadcast demonstrators, claqueurs, dangerous activists, Jewish liars, and audience plants, with no identification. Is it legal to try to identify such people publically? Good question, which Media Law doesn't even recognise, since the BBC's Jewish policies are implicitly approved by Robertson & Nicol. Their vocabulary 'extreme right', 'paedophile', 'homophobe', 'Macpherson Report ... Stephen Lawrence murder ... identifying ... '"institutional racism" ... rife in the Metropolitan police' invariably aligns with Jewish propaganda.
10: Jews and Spying: The whole issue of state secrecy, spies, secrecy assigned to (for example) nuclear issues is barely mentioned by Media Law, as of course is to be expected. The Spycatcher book prosecution is taken seriously despite the lack of anything substantial in that book. The issue of Jewish subversion, in wars and politics, of course is unmentioned, since it doesn't conform to their Jewish agenda: it's not clear for example what the legal status of 'D notices' is, if they have one. It's entirely possible the IRA had Jewish false flag connections; it's entirely possible Thatcher's role was to get British public assets into Jewish control; it's entirely possible the interception of messages is used for financial spying by Jews. (The word 'conspiracy' is not even indexed).
The only investigative media work in Media Law is on Frankfurt School lines—damage white society by subversion, legal lies and chaos, mass immigration, use of Jewish worthless paper money to finance harmful activities. Some of the rights in the book include the 'need to protect the privacy ... mental hospital records of criminals' and concealing the identities of murderers. The issues are undoubtedly difficult: Should prisoners be allowed to be interviewed by journalists? Should journalists' sources be kept secret? Should bodyguards, employees, servants be unable to publish? But in every case Robertson and Nicol fail to raise issues relevant to white Britons: what about school pupils who disrupt; why should other pupils be forced to suffer? Why should immigrants get priority in housing? Why should free speech about Jews and others be stopped?
I found a few interesting comments in this book: in the 'film censorship' section, I noted a 1926 public scandal over an unnamed film, showing 'white girls and men of other races', a popular theme in the Jewish racist mindset. There's a general view that the 'Frankfurt School' were cunning Jews developing master plans, but it's more likely that they simply tested public reactions and made lists based on these, now almost forgotten, events. One of the constant themes is the naivety of officialdom: Donaldson is quoted as saying 'the media are the eyes and ears of the general public', an almost comical remark. Part of that illusion is kept up by internal feedback: both the ASA ('Advertising Standards Association') and PCC ('Press Complaints Commission') are funded by the advertising and newspaper 'industries' respectively, which of course largely explains their non-effectiveness and biases. And also something people have noticed: advertisements showing miscegenation. The DTI ('Department of Trade and Industry') holds hearings in secret; it may (it's uncertain from Media Law which dates it from 1932) have been started to investigate Jewish dealings during the First World War and appears to have operated at a low level of usefulness ever since. Another interesting if not very credible statement (on p.258) is that the printer of a newspaper is 'currently liable for every libel it contains' which I would guess is used as a final sanction by Jews.
Another amusing remark was that, in relation to September 11 2001, '.. western intelligence failed to anticipate the event..' though it doesn't say whether Israel is counted as 'western'. Generally, telling lies is considered, in accordance with Jewish beliefs, as recommended where it benefits Jews. The entire text of Media Law ignores damage caused by false flags, by secretly-incited wars, by science frauds which make money, and by continued massive frauds of the holohoax type.
One fascinating takeaway impression of this book is law as a charade of actors, almost indifferent to the outcomes of their activities, like cocooned vicars or paid barkers, secure in their bailiwicks. It's unsurprising that honest-minded persons feel an aversion to the law, or that it is populated by people who are in it to direct goodies to their own groups. How much more incentive there is to do that.
As regards writers, authors, radio and video makers, this book has nothing that I could find on contracts, risky contacts, and broken contracts; name-changing, anonymity, and false names (all of interest to analysts of Jews; is name changing a deception?) or on what legal force disclaimers of the 'all characters are fictional...' type really have.
WARNING to young people thinking of media studies: propaganda and deception is an interesting and legitimate and important subject. Whether you will get any of this in media studies is, however, unlikely. Be prepared to find censorship wherever you look, your qualifications to be laughed at, and to be forced to join unions with no respect for truth. Don't imagine the official presentation of the system is genuine. Remember Charlene Downs (died 2003), Kriss Donald (died 2004), mass murders in the USSR, mass murders in Vietnam, all under permanent censorship by British media. Remember the circulations of many news sources are in steady decline. Maybe newer editions of this and other books will have material on Internet and e-book publishing, but in view of the dependence on precedent all these areas are likely to be uncertain for years.