Skip to content or view screen version

TeaMp0isoN expose the EDL leadership!

X^rated^ | 03.09.2011 17:37 | Anti-racism

TeaMp0isoN expose the EDL leadership

___ _ ____ _ _
/ _ \/ | / ___|| |_ ___ _ __ | |__ ___ _ __
| | | | | \___ \| __/ _ \ '_ \| '_ \ / _ \ '_ \
| |_| | |_ ___) | || __/ |_) | | | | __/ | | |
\___/|_(_) |____/ \__\___| .__/|_| |_|\___|_| |_|
__ __ _ _
\ \ / /_ ___ _| | ___ _ _ | | ___ _ __ _ __ ___ _ __
\ V / _` \ \/ / |/ _ \ | | |_____| | / _ \ '_ \| '_ \ / _ \| '_ \
| | (_| |> Username: we-are-the-british
==> Password: 123123123

==> Username: infidel 9755
==> Password: 230888

==> Username: rickyrock269
==> Password: Turfsoft1

==> Username: Span
==> Password: P0rkpie11//

==> Username: petewestbrom
==> Password: siobhan3162

==> Username: jayfer72
==> Password: radiorelay

==> Username: dk87
==> Password: !1dyedejq

==> Username: Halifax Edl
==> Password: spook2000

==> Username: thebigcornishman
==> Password: 69badger69

==> Username: ageofeason
==> Password: a26fh4uk

==> Username: smifff
==> Password: cbscbs

==> Username: plumber
==> Password: theNewschooL99

==> Username: squarepeg
==> Password: unsafe42

==> Username: chloexxx
==> Password: florida16

==> Username: anglosaxon
==> Password: anglosaxon1

==> Username: a fresh start
==> Password: trustno1
Location: Birmingham, Bromsgrove & Blackheath

==> Username: sam64
==> Password: passport

==> Username: fern
==> Password: !\"_*@hHf4$cvVm(reF92Bbfy376

==> Username: AbdulHamza
==> Password: allah666

==> Username: Knuckles
==> Password: shitfun

==> Username: ramblingrebel
==> Password: jdhdbd

==> Username: ClaretEDL
==> Password: burnley10

==> Username: easyt
==> Password: cameron

==> Username: Night_Crawler
==> Password: Rimmer1_

==> Username: Reynar
==> Password: 12007289

==> Username: London-Calling
==> Password: mtedlpass03

==> Username: a fresh start
==> Password: trustno1@all

==> Username: itchyuk
==> Password: 1Bh@5ll@@9olp

==> Username: ramblingrebel
==> Password: jdhdbd

==> Username: a fresh start
==> Password: fuckyou@hackers

==> Username: Misssfit
==> Password: JODIEJONES1

==> Username: Misssfit
==> Password: jodiejones

==> Username: allan
==> Password: qwerty.123

==> Username: Christine Patriot
==> Password: c1lU5Mf

==> Username: trigger
==> Password: 150473

==> Username: fern
==> Password: !\"_*@hHf4$cvVm(reF92Bbfy376

==> Username: straightliner
==> Password: J0mWvwVa

==> Username: Allah
==> Password: 52ybkCIWc3Y6IKiIrXug

==> Username: proudenglishman
==> Password: wolves66

==> Username: we-are-the-british
==> Password: 123123123

==> Username: East EndBoy
==> Password: winston1066

___ ___ _____ _ _
/ _ \ ( _ ) | ___(_)_ __ __ _| |
| | | |/ _ \ | |_ | | '_ \ / _` | |
| |_| | (_) | | _| | | | | | (_| | |
\___/ \___(_) |_| |_|_| |_|\__,_|_|

____ _
/ ___|___ _ __ ___ _ __ ___ ___ _ __ | |_ ___
| | / _ \| '_ ` _ \| '_ ` _ \ / _ \ '_ \| __/ __|
| |__| (_) | | | | | | | | | | | __/ | | | |_\__ \
\____\___/|_| |_| |_|_| |_| |_|\___|_| |_|\__|___/


i saw Rabbi Schiffren's speech at the EDL Luton demo
is this guy mad? this is what happens whe you are with the edl:
Name: Rabbia Nachum Shiffren
Phone Number: 310-401-4853
- Have fun
Lock your doors, switch of your lights, close your curtains, and protect your families, i have your
personal details, be prepared. . . . . . .

- Greetz To: Luit - Hex00010 - d0ped - Hawk - Don - XtreMiSt - Sniper - root@localhost - Zol0gY - MasterMind -
Assasin - eXpliCiT - zolo - TaZii - blackhacker - ZHC - MilanMilo - Destiny - MongoOse - TopGun - CyberMujahid -
optixx - epiCa - - Barmy Army & everyone else.

- Knowledge is Power . . . .

- TriCk aka Saywhat? - TeaMp0isoN - - - -

, the next part is an extra addition exposing Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, enjoy;
___ ___ _____ _
/ _ \ / _ \ | ____|_ _| |_ _ __ __ _ ___
| | | | (_) | | _| \ \/ / __| '__/ _` / __|
| |_| |\__, | | |___ > <| |_| | | (_| \__ \
\___/ /_(_) |_____/_/\_\\__|_| \__,_|___/
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon complains about muslim women being opressed in islam, yet he beats his own
wife in the streets of luton, the couple have also been convicted for money laundering & drug dealing
and possesion of cocain. . . . .

Enjoy the Read:

On 18th April 2005, in the Luton Crown Court, this appellant was convicted by a majority of 11.1 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Count One) and by a majority of 10-2 of assault with intent to resist arrest (Count Two). He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on Count One and 3 months imprisonment concurrent on Count Two. He appeals by way of leave of the single judge.
The prosecution case

The incident in question took place in Luton at around 3am on 4th July 2004. The victim was an off duty police officer called Dalton. He and his neighbours Mr and Mrs Bye were woken by an argument in the street between the appellant and his girlfriend Jenna Vowles. Although living in the same street, Dalton and the Byes did not know each other. Concerned by the screaming and raised voices, the three of them went into the street from their homes.
The appellant was described as being "on a short fuse" and that "something had riled him". Miss Vowles was sobbing and hysterical wanting nothing to do with him. Dalton concerned for Miss Vowles, told the appellant that he should let her go home alone. He indicated that he was a police officer and showed the appellant his warrant card. He tried to bring the appellant to the ground. Both men fell to the ground. The appellant managed to get to his feet and kicked Mr Dalton in the head. Dalton had thrown no punches. Dalton then stood up and told the appellant that he was arresting him for assaulting a police officer. It was subsequently decided that such an arrest would not be prudent and that the Byes who had witnessed the whole incident, would ascertain the appellant's address.
The defence case

In interview and in evidence, the appellant said that he had been out clubbing. He had drunk one bottle of Smirnoff Vodka. He and Jenna Vowles had an argument. She had dropped her mobile phone and was on her hands and knees trying to pick it up. The eye witnesses must have assumed that he was the aggressor. Dalton came up to him. He asked the appellant what he was doing. His breath smelled of alcohol. Jenna was not sobbing or crying. Dalton told him he was not going home and pushed him around, pushing him in the face and pulled his legs from under him. He did not produce a warrant card or say he was a police officer. The appellant did not kick him. It was only at the end when Dalton was threatening him that he indicated he was a police officer. The appellant did not believe him. He suggested that Mr Bye knew Dalton as he addressed Dalton by his Christian name, telling him to leave it and go home. The appellant and Jenna then ran home.
Jenna Vowles gave evidence along the same lines of the appellant, describing the argument as a tiff, but that they were happily going home when the incident broke out.
Background to the judges ruling.

During evidence in chief of Jenna Vowles, counsel for the appellant asked her whether she or the appellant had taken any drugs that evening. She replied "No".
In cross examination, counsel for the Crown asked her the following questions:
" Q - You were asked questions by Mr Urquhart about what you had been drinking. Yes?

A – Yeah.

Q – An you say you had had four drinks and you were a bit tipsy. Correct?

A – Yeah.

Q – And then he asked you about whether you had taken any drugs. Correct?

A – Yeah.

Q – Just tell about drugs please for a moment. What do you want to tell us about drugs?

A – I don't take drugs

Q – Never taken drugs?

A – No

Q – Never possessed drugs?

A – Yes

Q – Yes. Tell the jury about that

A – I was cautioned in November for possession of drugs

Q – Which drug?

A – It was cocaine

Q – Cocaine

A – It was in my possession. There were two empty bags which I was clearing out my house. I put them in my bag so my parents wouldn't find them"

It was at this point that the judge asked the jury to retire. There then followed discussions between counsel and court.

The Crown whilst conceding that they should have made an application to introduce the caution, said that they would not have raised the issue had the witness not been asked about drugs in evidence in chief. They submitted that the evidence was relevant to the question of credibility.
The defence having taken instructions made an application for the discharge of the jury on the basis that the wording of section 100 (1)(b) could not include issues relating to credibility and thus the evidence did not relate to a matter in issue in the proceedings. The judge said that it was premature to discharge the jury at that point without more and that he may have to re-visit the decision at a later point.
It was agreed between the parties and the court that the witness should be asked further questions about her caution. The witness was then called and questions were put to her in the absence of the jury. Following the voir dire, defence counsel submitted that the evidence could not fall under section 100 (1) (a) or (b).
The judge ruled that Jenna Vowles caution for possession of cocaine had substantial probative value to her credibility, which was an important issue in the case. It had been put that she was lying to support her boyfriend's case and there was a stark difference between the Crown and Defence accounts. He gave leave for the Crown to ask further questions to the witness in front of the jury, but indicated that he was going to direct the jury that so far as credit is concerned they should ignore the evidence completely, as it could not really help the prosecution prove that she had been lying about what happened in relation to the events of the incident, given that she did not lie in relation to the caution. In the light of the judge's comments, counsel for the crown did not cross examine further on the matter in the presence of the jury. Counsel for the appellant re-examined the witness on the background facts leading to the caution.
Direction in summing up

When summing up to the jury, the learned judge gave a strongly worded direction to the jury, as follows:
" One exchange between Mr Heimler and her (Vowles) concerned this question of cocaine. I need to deal with it. You have heard about it. Can I ask you to disregard it completely? It has got about as much to do with this case as the price of tomatoes. First of all the caution took place well after this incident itself occurred…. Secondly – and it is important – although her credibility is in issue, clearly just as much as all the witnesses credibility is in issue, the effect of drugs on that is unknown. It has got really no issue, no bearing on any issue in this case…. I am directing you to disregard her previous caution completely because it cannot help you decide what happened in the street that night…. In fairness please just disregard that completely"
Grounds of Appeal

The ground of appeal is that the judge erred in holding that the evidence of the caution was admissible and rejecting the defendant's application to discharge the jury.
The appellant's submissions are put on two bases: Firstly, that the evidence did not relate to a matter in issue in the proceedings as the section does not encompass matters of credibility. Second that even if credibility is encompassed by the section, the evidence did not pass the test of admissibility as it had no substantial probative value in relation to the question of credibility and was not of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole. It was submitted that the evidence had very little value in relation to credibility and no relevance at all to the offence in question because a) the caution did not relate to an offence of dishonesty or showing evidence of untruthfulness; b) it related to an incident after the events in issue; c) the witness by agreeing to be cautioned had accepted her guilt; d) the witness was frank about her caution in evidence; and e) there was no suggestion that she was under the influence of drugs during the incident itself.
The appellant also submits that the conviction is unsafe in the light of the majority verdicts on each count on the basis that the evidence could have adversely affected their view of the witness despite the judge's strong warning.
On behalf of the Respondent, it is submitted that Section 100 (1) must cover the issue of credibility, for were it not to do so, unfairness would ensue. It was submitted that the evidence of the caution was relevant to credibility, but it was conceded that it was difficult to suggest that the evidence had substantial probative value in relation to credibility in the light of the witnesses' answers.
Their primary submission therefore is that the conviction was safe and that the strong warning given by the judge corrected any harm done by the introduction of the evidence.

We now deal with the submissions and the questions arising therefrom.
Does section 100 (1) cover issues of credibility?

Although couched in different terms from the provisions relating to the introduction of the defendants bad character, in our view, Section 100 (1) does cover matters of credibility. To find otherwise would mean that there was a significant lacuna in the legislation with the potential for unfairness. In any event, it is clear from paragraph 362 of the explanatory notes that the issue of credibility falls within the section.
Did the judge err in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of the caution had substantial probative value in relation to the witness's credibility?

In our view he did err for a number of reasons, including those which were put forward by the judge himself when directing the jury to ignore the evidence of the caution. It follows, therefore, that we find that the evidence of the caution was inadmissible under Section 100.
Is the verdict unsafe as a result of the inadmissible evidence being in front of the jury?

Mr Urquhart conceded that had the judge found the evidence to be inadmissible but nevertheless declined to discharge the jury, he would have difficulty persuading the court that the judge had exercised his discretion wrongly. Although the exercise of discretion was not the basis upon which the judge declined to discharge the jury, the practical effect is still the same. We have to take a view therefore whether in the light of the admission of the evidence of the caution, the conviction is unsafe. We have considered the evidence as a whole and in particular the very strong warning given to the jury and come to the conclusion that the verdicts in this case, despite being majority verdicts are not unsafe. This appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.



- TriCk aka Saywhat? - TeaMp0isoN - Twitter: @TeaMp0isoN_



Display the following 5 comments

  1. Full article — C/P
  2. fake — anon
  3. Not Fake — Blu
  4. not working for me — ..
  5. fake — fake