Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old April 24th, 2009 #21
Senior Member
Kievsky's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229

Look at the ocweekly article. I just realized that newspaper writers have become merely the opening comment, and commenters get in their and rip him to shreds.

Journalists are no longer opinion monopolists thanks to comment boards. I think this is driving the social and cultural change very quickly.
Godzilla mit uns!
Old June 3rd, 2009 #22
Gibson's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,718
Default L.A. Times article,2587039.story

Stephen Whittle, left, and Simon Sheppard, convicted of disseminating hate speech in Britain, skipped bail and came to Los Angeles in July 2008, thinking they’d find asylum in the U.S., where such laws are less stringent. Instead, they have spent the last 10 months held in the Santa Ana city jail after a federal immigration judge denied them asylum and put them on a slow track back to Britain.

Convicted in England of hate-related writings, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle believed they would find a free-speech haven in the U.S. The plan backfired.

By Dana Parsons
June 3, 2009
When Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle stepped off a plane at LAX in July 2008 -- a couple of jet-lagged Brits on the lam from the United Kingdom -- they looked for the first uniformed U.S. official they could find. Unfortunately for them, they found one.

They thought they had found safe harbor from the English court that three days earlier had convicted them of hate-related writings originating on their website. Rather than wait for sentencing -- expected to range from a year or two for Whittle to perhaps five years or more for Sheppard -- the men skipped bail and hopped a plane in Dublin, believing that U.S. free-speech traditions and the visa waivers they secured at an Irish airport would shield them.

Sheppard says he approached a U.S. official in Los Angeles, showed him the visa waiver and said in effect, "I'm sorry to be a nuisance, but we want to claim political asylum in the United States."

Eleven months later, Sheppard, 52, and Whittle, 42, remain in U.S. custody, spending their days in orange jumpsuits in the Santa Ana City Jail and awaiting a return to England and likely jail sentences. Since arriving in America, they haven't spent a single day as free men.

"We thought they'd hold us for a day or so," Sheppard said through a Plexiglas window in a jail interview. "We couldn't see how they wouldn't grant us asylum. The things we supposedly had done in Britain aren't illegal in America."

As it turned out, that was beside the point.

The men, known as the "heretical two" to supporters, aren't in U.S. custody because of their world views. Nor have they committed any crime in America. Their lengthy detention is largely the product of the asylum-seeking process that Sheppard and Whittle brought on themselves when they entered the country. They and their original attorney acknowledge that motions they filed helped prolong the case.

That concession, however, is somewhat lost on the men, convinced that their ongoing incarceration has as much to do with threats to the 1st Amendment as to the laborious nature of the asylum process.

"We came to the beacon of free speech in the Western world," Sheppard said, "which turned out to be a complete fantasy."

U.S. officials won't discuss the men's case, but U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice in Orange County said their visa waivers became invalid once they indicated to officers at LAX that they intended to try to stay in the United States. She said that U.S. authorities learned early on about the men's legal situation in Britain and that it was a factor in their lengthy detention.

Brits are no strangers to irony, and Sheppard and Whittle are well aware of its presence in their situation. "All they had to do," says attorney Bruce Leichty, who represented them early in the case, "was get off the plane in LAX and walk off into the free world."

Leichty, who no longer represents the men, said that U.S. officials should have told them to find an asylum attorney and that the visa waivers granted at a U.S. Port of Entry in Dublin should have protected them from incarceration.

A federal immigration judge in Los Angeles disagreed. In October, Judge Rose Peters sided with a government attorney who argued that officials acted properly in detaining the men for further questioning after they sought asylum.

Sheppard and Whittle were convicted in England for a string of essays and other published material on Sheppard's website, which uses a server based in Torrance. Sheppard was convicted on 11 counts, Whittle on five. In January, Sheppard was retried in absentia and convicted on five more charges.

Their online entries follow the well-traveled path of other nationalist polemicists, with particular emphasis on decrying the influence and power of Jews in the world.

"People are entitled to hold racist and extreme opinions which others may find unpleasant and obnoxious," Mari Reid, a lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service's Counter Terrorism Division in England said in a prepared statement earlier this year about the case.

"What they are not allowed to do is to publish or distribute those opinions to the public in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner either intending to stir up racial hatred or in circumstances where it is likely racial hatred will be stirred up."

The vast majority of the material in this case concerned Jewish people, Reid said, "but there was also material relating to black, Asian and non-white people generally, all described in derogatory terms using offensive language."

Because of the right-wing nature of much of their material, Sheppard and Whittle believe Britain's Labor government has targeted them for prosecution. That belief formed part of the basis for their asylum request.

Sheppard, who sold computer equipment before he bolted to America, said he considers himself more of a scientist interested in human behavior. Whittle, a freelance writer, describes himself as an "anti-Marxist" satirist who doesn't subscribe to all of the traditional extreme right-wing positions, such as enmity toward gays or working women.

Sheppard said whatever anger he has is mostly directed at British authorities. His feelings about America, he says, are not so much anger "as sadness and disappointment, as we were led to believe that we would be sympathetically received here by virtue of its tradition of free speech."

That miscalculation aside, the men don't know when they will be returned to Britain, and U.S. authorities won't say.

In denying asylum, Peters ruled that the men hadn't shown they had been persecuted in the past or likely to face future persecution.

Sheppard and Whittle had hoped their story would attract media attention, but that never materialized.

"I think it has very wide ramifications," Leichty says of their convictions. "I don't share their views or the way they communicate their views, but I certainly don't think we should be incarcerating people for what they did."

Sheppard said he and Whittle are merely waiting for a middle-of-the-night wake-up and a quick trip to the airport.

"We're not cowed and we're not repentant," Sheppard says. "We have the right even to make mistakes. We could be wrong, it's not inconceivable. We have a right to be wrong. All we're doing is speaking our minds."

Whittle says he isn't keen on making a career out of being a political prisoner in England. "Simon is from Yorkshire," he says. "People from Yorkshire are strong-willed. I'm not from Yorkshire. He sticks to his guns. I don't have his willpower and tenacity."

After 11 months in custody, Whittle is not sure anymore that he and Sheppard would have remained free even if they had quietly gone through customs, left LAX and found a lawyer to handle their asylum request. "Once they became aware of who we were and that we came to the U.S. to flee," Whittle says, "we would have ended up in detention."

That is how it played out. Coming to America has been a bust.

"We've never seen California but through bars," Whittle says.
Old June 29th, 2009 #23
Harry Flash
Sexist Bastard
Harry Flash's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,123
Harry Flash

Britain's "Heretical Two" held in UK Jail after Asylum refused in USA

Two British writers Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle have been held in jail for over a year in the United States and now in the United Kingdom for items published on their US-based Internet website. There has been scant attention to this unusual case in the British and American media.

The two men were convicted at Leeds Crown Court, in England, of offences under the Public Order Act 1986 for material that appeared on a web site in Torrance, California. The case is ground-breaking because it involves the assertion by an English court of universal jurisdiction over Internet web sites wherever hosted, if they can be accessed in England. So far only Germany makes similar claims.

The US Department of Justice found that the writings of Sheppard and Whittle were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment but after they fled to the United States, an immigration judge refused them asylum. The Los Angeles Times published a very good feature article on their predicament.

The two men were deported back to England recently, and are now awaiting sentencing for writing on an American-based web site.

We invite readers to write to them at

Her Majesty's Prison Leeds, 2 Gloucester Terrace, Stanningley Road, Leeds, LS12 2TJ, England.

Simon's prison number is A8042AA and Steve's number is A8041AA. They would appreciate letters and other means of support.
Old July 10th, 2009 #24
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[Would be hard to write a more biased article, nor one that travels further to obscure the essential fact here: the two are in jail for expressing opinions. This is just how the judeo-left would like it everywhere: words equated with violent actions, and punished even more harshly since they come out of the mouths and pens of hated 'white males.']

The neo-Nazi 'asylum seekers'

By Jon Kelly
BBC News

Simon Sheppard (left) and Stephen Whittle [Pic: Humberside Police]
Sheppard and Whittle tried to claim political asylum in Los Angeles

They looked like a pair of cranks straight out of a Louis Theroux documentary.

One was an unrepentant woman hater whose racist and anti-Semitic views were too hard-line even for the British National Party.

The other, his long-haired sidekick, sought the protection of a pseudonym that he used to make extremist rants.

Their hunger to stir up controversy saw them flee from justice in the north of England and stage an unlikely claim for political asylum in Los Angeles.

But their journey has now ended with jail sentences in the UK.

Jurors at Leeds Crown Court decided neo-Nazis Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were not just harmless oddballs, but dangerous propagandists dedicated to whipping up racism.

On Friday, Sheppard was jailed for four years, 10 months and Whittle for two years, four months.

In a landmark case, they have become the first Britons to be convicted of inciting racial hatred online, having printed leaflets and controlled websites featuring racist material.

'Obnoxious and abhorrent'

The court heard the investigation into the pair began when a complaint about an anti-Semitic comic book called Tales of the Holohoax was made to the police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a synagogue in Blackpool, Lancashire.

It was traced back to a post office box in Hull registered to Sheppard, 51, a former BNP organiser kicked out of the far-right party after he was jailed in 2000 for distributing a racially inflammatory election leaflet.

The spotlight fell on the publishing activities of Sheppard, of Selby, North Yorkshire, a self-styled "scientific publisher", whose online ramblings took in a hatred of women and a morbid fixation with cannibalism.

But a police investigation discovered that his prime motivation was racism and he dedicated himself to producing what prosecutors called "obnoxious and abhorrent'' books, pamphlets and web pages.

What they are not entitled to do is to publish or distribute those opinions to the public in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner either intending to stir up racial hatred or in circumstances where it is likely racial hatred will be stirred up
Mari Reid, CPS Counter Terrorism Division

On his website, Sheppard employed Whittle, 42, of Preston, Lancashire, as a columnist under the pseudonym "Luke O'Farrell".

Although their vitriol was variously directed at black, Asian and other non-white people, most of the material shown to the jury was virulently anti-Semitic.

The language and racial slurs used by the pair cannot be repeated here, but some of the excerpts presented to the court offered a flavour of their discourse.

One leaflet claimed that Auschwitz had not really been the location of industrial mass murder but had been, instead, a holiday camp provided by a benevolent Nazi regime for Europe's Jewish population.

Jonathan Sandiford, prosecuting, told the jury that it held up survivors of the Holocaust to "ridicule and contempt", accusing them of lying about the genocide of six million Jews.

Another story was illustrated with photographs of dead Jews. Sheppard also wrote that Holocaust victim Anne Frank's diary was "evil".

Reviewing lawyer Mari Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service's counter-terrorism division, said members of the public were entitled under the law to hold racist and extreme views.

But she added: "What they are not entitled to do is to publish or distribute those opinions to the public in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner either intending to stir up racial hatred or in circumstances where it is likely racial hatred will be stirred up."

Thrown out

The defence argued that the online material did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law, because Sheppard's site was hosted on servers in California.

But in a landmark ruling, the judge dismissed this - potentially paving the way for further prosecutions against the owners of other hate sites who believe they are exploiting a legal loophole.

Jurors, too, rejected the defence's claim that the pair's writings were merely satirical.

Sheppard was found guilty of 11 offences and Whittle was found guilty of five offences in July 2008.

Sheppard was found guilty of a further five charges in January 2009.

But the pair were not in court to hear the verdicts against them.

Before the jury in the first trial could return verdicts, both men fled to Los Angeles International airport and attempted to claim political asylum.

But their bid was thrown out by an immigration judge, and they were held at Santa Ana prison in California until they were returned to the UK to serve their sentences.

The irony of two racists attempting to exploit the immigration and asylum system was lost on no-one who followed the case.
Old July 14th, 2009 #25
John Cassidy
Homeward Yankee
John Cassidy's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 279
John Cassidy
Default wow

I must be naive, but this blows my mind. Nigh five years for writing public letters? America is a massive fakery and England is downright weird.
Old July 18th, 2009 #26
"moderate" radical
8Man's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 33 Thomas St NY 10007
Posts: 3,423

Canada has Brad Love. He's been sentenced to prison for writing letters that upset some politicians.

The current prison addresses of the Heretical Two are:

Simon Sheppard #A8042AA
HMP Leeds, 2 Gloucester Terrace,
Stanningley Road, Leeds, LS12 2TJ,
United Kingdom

Steven Whittle #A8041AA
HMP Leeds, 2 Gloucester Terrace,
Stanningley Road, Leeds, LS12 2TJ,
United Kingdom

Like HAC says:
We have this horrible habit of slacking off and forgetting our men in prison. These two men are genuine martyrs to freedom and political prisoners, and we need to keep their spirits up and let them know that they're not forgotten.
FreedomSite "Israel's values are Canada's values" Canadian PM Paul Martin, Nov. 13 2005
ZundelSite "An attack on Israel is an attack on Canada" Canadian PM Stephen Harper, Feb. 16 2010

Last edited by 8Man; July 18th, 2009 at 01:40 AM.
Old July 20th, 2009 #27
Heather Blue
Senior Member
Heather Blue's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,976
Heather Blue

I received another letter from Simon Sheppard mailed from Leeds, Yorkshire, England.

Just a short note to thank you for your good wishes, cards and money orders. I'm also writing on behalf of Steve. We got your money orders shortly before being shipped out, and at first I thought they were just the job(??) as I was running low, but then came the news that we were being shipped back into the eager arms of Britzog. After waiting 2-1/2 months for it I was beginning to wonder if there might be another outcome, like being sent to Iceland or Argentina. At least with this outcome I get to emerge eventually with the ability to live here in my beloved home country, plus can expect some minimal old age pension which I could not expect in the USA.

We are up for sentencing on the 10th of July and my barrister (who is also a friend) will be heard on the 14th July. I just think of myself as being in the "hands of the gods" and one (almost) past worrying - except a ???? "pre-sentence report" which will involve steering a fine line between expressing contrition (to get a lighter sentence) and sticking to my deeply-held beliefs. Also, I do not want to let down all the fine people, such as you, who have supported us during this ordeal. TRUTH WILL PREVAIL IN THE END
Very best wishes,
Simon Sheppard

My advice to the Heretical Two would be to lie through their teeth to get as much as they can get out of this unfair situation. Anything that out-smarts the Jews in our favor is true honesty.
The birth of every white baby is the First Born of the next generation.
"Segregation did not exist to hold back other races. It existed to protect us from them." D. Roof
Old August 26th, 2009 #28
drinking tea
Bev's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247

On Tuesday, July 14 the Court of Appeal (Richards LJ, Jack J and HHJ Baker QC) gave leave to appeal against conviction on all the Internet counts, but refused leave to appeal with respect to the hard copy counts. The full appeal hearing will take place later this year, and take a day. A forfeiture hearing took place on Friday July 31st before judge Grant at Leeds. On the way to court Simon and Steve were attacked by a half caste. Simon feared that his jaw was broken, but fortunately was not the case, although he still had great difficulty eating several days later. The judge decided every contested point against Simon and contravened the letter, as well as the spirit of the law, as many items had been illegally seized by the police in the first place on their three raids. He ordered the forfeiture and destruction of large amounts of valuable office equipment - mainly comprising large printers, which Simon had serviced. An appeal was lodged against sentence, and will be held within the statutory twenty-one days against forfeiture of the printers and other office equipment. An appeal will also be made to the European Court of Human Rights over the decision by the Appeal Court not to review the notorious decision in Reg. v. Birdwood when Judge Pownall's decision that ‘the truth is no defence’ in race cases was upheld. The appeal should result in some useful publicity in a few years time. The prison is so overcrowded that they lost their original cells through their court appearance and and they are now back together pending transfer to a lower category prison. Please write to them at HMP Leeds, 2 Gloucester Terrace, Stanningley Road, Leeds, LS12 2TJ, UK (Wing D4-05) - Simon's prison number is A8042AA and Steve's number is A8041AA.

Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
Old November 27th, 2009 #29
John White2
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 91
John White2
Default Internet hate duo 'may have been wrongly convicted'

Internet hate duo 'may have been wrongly convicted'

Andrew Davies, counsel for Simon Sheppard, told three Appeal Court judges that the material for which his client and co-appellant Stephen Whittle were convicted, much of which was virulently antisemitic, might have been written here. But it was then sent electronically to a web server in Torrance, California, where such material would have been permitted under the American constitution.
Old November 28th, 2009 #30
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,956

Sheppard and Whittle are two of the most pathetic specimins ever to pose as White Nationalists or even Revisionists ever. They should have entered the US through Mexico like all the other bags of crap.

I hope they both die in jail.
Old November 28th, 2009 #31
Heather Blue
Senior Member
Heather Blue's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,976
Heather Blue

Originally Posted by SidW UK View Post
Sheppard and Whittle are two of the most pathetic specimins ever to pose as White Nationalists or even Revisionists ever. They should have entered the US through Mexico like all the other bags of crap.

I hope they both die in jail.
The best to you, too!
The birth of every white baby is the First Born of the next generation.
"Segregation did not exist to hold back other races. It existed to protect us from them." D. Roof
Old February 3rd, 2010 #32
drinking tea
Bev's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247

Full text of the appeal decision which went against Sheppard and Whittle.

Sorry it's long but you never know how long it will stay around, hence the copy/paste instead of just linking.

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Crim 65
Case No: 2008.04402 B5
2009.04021 B5
2009.04020 B5
2008.04486 B5
2009.00658 B5


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

B e f o r e :

- v -

Simon Guy SHEPPARD and Stephen WHITTLE


Mr. A. DAVIES (instructed by Williamsons, Hull) for the Appellant Sheppard
Mrs L. TURNBULL (instructed by Payne & Payne, Hull) for the Appellant Whittle
Mr J. SANIDFORD and Ms. Denise BREEN-LAWTON for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 26 and 27 November 2009


Crown Copyright ©

Lord Justice Scott Baker:
1. These two appellants appeal with the leave of the full court against their convictions for a number of offences relating to racially inflammatory material under the Public Order Act 1986 ("The 1986 Act") The Registrar referred their sentence applications to this court.

2. The history of the proceedings is, in brief, as follows. On 11 July 2008 in the Crown Court at Leeds before Judge Grant and a jury Whittle was convicted of four counts of publishing racially inflammatory material (counts 4, 5, 7 and 8). Sheppard was convicted of 9 counts of publishing racially inflammatory material (counts 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15).

3. They then left the jurisdiction and went to the United States of America where they claimed asylum. The trial continued in their absence. On 14 July 2005 Whittle was convicted by a majority of 10 to 1 of one further count of the same offence – count 6 – and Sheppard by a majority of 10 to 1 of two further counts of the same offence – counts 6 and 10.

4. There were 7 counts in relation to Sheppard on which the jury was unable to agree. These were:

Counts 1, 2, 17 and 18 – possessing racially inflammatory material.

Counts 3 and 11 – publishing racially inflammatory material.

Count 16 – distributing racially inflammatory material.
5. There was a retrial in Sheppard's absence and he was convicted of counts 1, 3, 16, 17 and 18. On 8 January 2009 he was found not guilty on the judge's direction of count 2 and the prosecution did not proceed with count 11.

6. The claim for asylum in the USA was refused and the two appellants were returned to the jurisdiction. On 10 July 2009 Sheppard was sentenced to a total of 4 years and 10 months imprisonment and Whittle to a total of 2 years and 4 months imprisonment. Included in those sentences were 4 months consecutive sentences for bail offences. The Bail Act sentences are not the subject of the present appeals. The judge also made forfeiture orders under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 in respect of which Sheppard seeks an extension of time and leave to appeal.

7. The broad nature of the prosecution case was that Whittle composed material which he submitted by e-mail to Sheppard. Sheppard edited the material on his computer and then uploaded it to a website called which was set up by him and was hosted by a remote server located in Torrance, California. When posted on the website the material was available for access via the internet by visitors to the website, including people within the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

8. Count 1 related to the possession by Sheppard on 30 May 2005 of a pamphlet called Tales of the Holohoax which was found on a search of his home in East Yorkshire. It was a publication in the form of a comic book, the central theme of which was to cast doubt on the existence of the Holocaust. The publication also suggested that the Jewish people had a history of inventing stories of the commission of atrocities against them and it portrayed the Jewish people in a way that, as was alleged, made it likely that racial hatred would be stirred up against them if the pamphlet was distributed. Count 2 contained an allegation in identical terms against Sheppard, but a year later.

9. Count 3 related to the publication by Sheppard of the Tales of the Holohoax pamphlet in full on the website. There was evidence from a police officer, DC Brown, who visited the site and downloaded the documents.

10. Counts 4 to 8 related to a number of other articles written by Whittle, edited by Sheppard and published by Sheppard on the website. All the articles were alleged to contain derogatory remarks about Jewish people and black people.

11. Counts 9 to 15 related to the publication by Sheppard on the website of a number of other documents which were likewise alleged to contain material that was threatening, abusive or insulting towards various racial groups.

12. Counts 16 related to the distribution by Sheppard of a pamphlet called "Don't be Sheeple" which was likewise alleged to be racially inflammatory, count 17 to the possession by him on 4 July 2008 of a number of copies of that pamphlet and count 18 to the possession by him on the same date of a number of copies of the Tales of the Holohoax pamphlet.

13. Matters came to light in this way. On 13 August 2004 Professor Klug, a research fellow with the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics forwarded to Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, a pamphlet entitled Tales of the Holohoax which had been sent to her personally. Four days earlier on 9 August 2004 a Mr Whine had written to the Chief Constable of Lancashire complaining that the same pamphlet had been received by the Blackpool Reform Synagogue. A similar complaint was made to the Western Division Police Headquarters. The Crown Prosecution Service was invited to consider prosecuting the publisher under Part III of the 1986 Act.

14. Sheppard was traced through the publisher's address printed on the pamphlet. The Crown Prosecution Service decided that Tales of the Holohoax contained words which were abusive, insulting and possibly threatening towards a racial group, namely Jewish people and that further investigations were required to discover the extent of the publication and distribution. In March 2005 Sheppard was arrested and interviewed. It became apparent that he operated a number of websites, and registrations for 15 websites were found in his name at his home address. The websites had names such as;;; and During a review of this material it became apparent that Whittle had been writing articles under the pseudonym of Luke O'Farrell and these were published by Sheppard on his website

15. Having edited the material, Sheppard posted it to the website in Torrance California. In order to do this he used a format known as File Transfer Protocol. Once the material reached the server, the server then converted the format of the material to HTML which made it available to be accessed on the internet by those visiting the website, including people within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Sheppard had control of the website as far as its contents were concerned. He could upload and edit material.

16. The appellants do not challenge the jury's findings that in each of the counts in respect of which they were convicted the material was racially inflammatory; nor could they. Rather, the appeal is concerned with issues of law.

17. The appeals against conviction concern only those counts relating to the internet; that is counts 3 – 15. Indeed the other counts (1, 2, 16, 17 and 18), which concerned Sheppard only, related to hard copy material. Each of the internet counts of which the appellants were convicted involved an allegation of publishing racially inflammatory material contrary to section 19 (1) of the 1986 Act.

18. Section 19 of the 1986 Act provides:

"(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if –

a) He intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

b) Having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.

(3) References in this part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or to a section of the public."

19. The appellants advance three grounds of appeal. The main one relates to jurisdiction, the argument being that a publication on the internet is only cognisable in the jurisdiction where the web server upon which it is hosted is located and since in this case the location was California the publication falls outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. We would add that it is common ground that none of the material charged by the internet counts is illegal in the United States of America. The other grounds concern the meaning of "publication" in section 19 and the application of section 19 to publication on the internet and whether the material published on the internet was "written material" within the meaning of section 29 of the 1986 Act. Section 29 provides that "written material" includes any sign or other visible representation.

20. The judge found that the test to be applied was to be found in the case of R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 2Cr App R 17, [2004] EWCA Crim 631. That is that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try the appellants for their conduct because a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime took place in England. He rejected the appellants' arguments that the determinative factors were (1) that the act of publishing took place in California when the format of the material supplied by Sheppard was converted to allow it to become accessible on the internet, and when it was accessed by other people clicking on the website; (2) that the act complained of did not constitute a criminal offence in the United States of America because it was not only not a criminal act but also specifically protected by the First Amendment to the American Constitution; and (3) that the wording of section 42 of the 1986 Act was different from the jurisdictional wording of, for example, the Theft Act 1968 and thus the Wallace Duncan Smith (No.4) line of authority was not applicable.

21. The judge said in his ruling that the test to be applied was summed up effectively in a quotation at paragraph 55 of the judgment of Lord Woolf C.J. in Wallace Duncan Smith (No.4) citing Rose L.J. in Smith (No 1):

"The passage in Treacy v DPP to which Roberts CJ refers is the celebrated discussion by Lord Diplock of the bounds of comity and the judgment of La Forest J in Libman contains a most valuable analysis of the English authorities on the justicability of crime in the English courts which ends with the following conclusions:

The English Courts have decisively begun to move away from definitional obsessions and technical formulations aimed at finding a single situs of a crime by locating where the gist of the crime occurred or where it was completed. Rather, they now appear to seek by an examination of relevant policies to apply the English criminal law where a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime take place in England, and restricts its application in such circumstances solely to cases where it can seriously be argued on a reasonable view that these activities should on the basis of international comity not be dealt with by another country."

22. The judge pointed out that the material complained of was prepared in England and Wales, was uploaded onto the website from England and Wales and that this must have been done by Sheppard in the knowledge and with the expectation and intent that the material should be available to the public or a section of it within the jurisdiction in England and Wales. He noted there were references to postage for people living in England and Wales should they wish to have the materials sent to them by post. Thus it was in the contemplation of Sheppard that people in England and Wales should have access to the material which he posted on the website. Further, the material appearing on the computer user's screen was exactly or substantially in the same form as it was when it was uploaded by Sheppard. He added that even if the defence were correct that a novus actus occurred in California at the point at which the server was utilised (which the judge said he seriously doubted was the case), use of the server was merely a stage in the transmission of the material requiring no intervention once the website was activated. Any novus actus could only be regarded as that of an agent acting on behalf of Sheppard and thus the act in English law of the principal. It could not, the judge said, be seriously argued on a reasonable view of all the evidence that the appellants' activities should, on the basis of international comity, be dealt with by another country.

23. Mr Sandiford, for the Crown, submits that the judge was correct to rule that the "substantial measure "test was satisfied for the following reasons:

* Sheppard operated and controlled the website from within the jurisdiction;

* the material was uploaded, maintained and controlled from within the jurisdiction;

* the material, the subject of counts 4 – 8, was written and edited within the jurisdiction;

* the material the subject of counts 9 – 15 was collated and selected within the jurisdiction;

* Sheppard's website included a dedicated British page (no other country had such a page) on the website and offered books for sale with prices and postage quoted in sterling;

* Sheppard's website and Whittle's column in which the material the subject to counts 4 – 9 was published were linked to websites such as that of the British People's Party;

* E-mail traffic between the appellants revealed their intention to publish the material on the website within the jurisdiction and they claimed to have done so in order to satirise political correctness and redress an unbalanced media.

24. There was in our view abundant material to satisfy the "substantial measure" test. However, Mr Adrian Davies for Sheppard in a submission supported by Mrs Linda Turnbull for Whittle submits that this is not the correct test and that Wallace Duncan Smith (No. 4) is of no assistance in determining the issue of jurisdiction in the present case. Wallace Duncan Smith was convicted of one count of fraudulent trading contrary to section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 and two counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Smith, a Canadian national, was chairman and managing director of a merchant bank which ceased trading in 1991. It was subsequently wound up owing its unsecured creditors some £92m. It also controlled other companies based in Canada, including Wallace Smith Holdings (WSH). Working from this country and using a group of companies which he controlled, Smith set up various bogus deals between the merchant bank and WSH which boosted the size of the merchant bank's profits. While the dishonest arrangements were put into operation by Smith in this country, the obtaining of the money took place outside the jurisdiction when the money was paid into a bank account in New York.

25. The problem faced by the court in Wallace Duncan Smith (No 4) was a conflict between the decisions of this court in Smith (No. 1) [1996] 2 CAR 1 and R v Manning [1999] QB 980. As the Lord Chief Justice observed at paragraph 48, the issue was an important one and involved the extent to which it was appropriate for the court to develop the common law as to jurisdiction in order to meet the changing requirements of society. In the event the court followed Smith (No. 1) and in doing so the Lord Chief Justice cited from the opinion of Lord Griffiths in Liangsiriprasert v Government of United States of America (1991) 92 Cr App R 77,90.

"Unfortunately in this Century crime has ceased to be largely local in origin and effect. Crime is now established on an international scale and the criminal law must face this new reality. Their lordships can find nothing in precedent, comity or good sense that should inhibit the common law from regarding as justiciable in England inchoate crimes committed abroad which are intended to result in the commission of criminal offences in England."

26. Lord Woolf went on to point out that Liangsiriprasert was applied in Sansom & ors (1991) 92 Cr App R 115 in a judgment delivered by Taylor LJ. Sansom was another conspiracy case and Lord Woolf could see no distinction in relation to the principles of jurisdiction between conspiracy and obtaining by deception.

27. We have to consider whether there is any basis for not applying in the present case the "substantial measure" principle for establishing jurisdiction as enunciated by the Lord Chief Justice in Wallace Duncan Smith (No.4). The starting point seems to us to be the terms of the 1986 Act. Mr Sandiford points out that sections 18, 19 and 23 contain a comprehensive scheme to restrict the public dissemination of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. Section 18 covers display of such written material, section 19 publication and distribution and section 23 possession. In the interpretation section of the Act, section 29 "written material" is described as including any sign or any visible representation. Whilst in 1986 the world-wide web was a thing of the future and computers were in their infancy it seems to us clear that "written material" is plainly wide enough to cover the material disseminated by the website in the present case. The judge took the same view. He said that what was on the computer screen was first of all in writing or written and secondly that the electronically stored data which is transmitted also comes within the definition of written material because it is written material stored in another form. He drew a comparison with opening and closing a book; when the book is open you can see the writing; when it is closed you cannot.

28. The judge was referred to Hansard. Both the appellants and the Crown sought to rely on it. The appellants argue that Hansard makes clear that no consideration was given, when the Bill was debated, to the internet. The Crown argue that the debate illustrates Parliament's intention was to ensure that "written material" in Part III of the 1986 Act was wide enough to cover new forms of communication so that racist organisations and others could not advance the type of argument being put forward in the present case.

29. For our part we think that the meaning of "written material" as interpreted by section 29 is sufficiently clear to cover the present case without recourse to Hansard. The word "includes" in section 29 is plainly intended to widen the scope of the expression. We reject Mrs Turnbull's submission that the written material has to be in visible, comprehensible form with some degree of permanence. We also reject the submission that any assistance is to be obtained from the Obscene Publications Act 1959 which, as originally drafted, was not wide enough to embrace electronic publication.

30. Mr Davies draws our attention to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where Parliament has legislated to criminalise certain categories of conduct regardless of where the offences are committed and whether or not the conduct is illegal in the country in which it is committed. He submits that the absence of any provisions similar to sections 47 – 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the 1986 Act in a clear pointer limiting its extent to England and Wales.

31. Section 42 of the 1986 Act provides that the provisions of the Act extend to England and Wales save for some limited exceptions that mainly relate to Scotland and Northern Ireland. We do not think it assists in taking the present case outside the jurisdiction principle in Wallace Duncan Smith (No 4). We agree with the judge that section 42 is not a restriction of jurisdiction to England and Wales, rather it sets out the limitations imposed by the statute as to its extent within England and Wales. It sets out the extent to which the Act applies within England and Wales. It is not determinative of the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

32. The position seems to us to be as follows. The conduct the relevant provisions of the Act seek to prevent is the dissemination of material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. In the present case under section 19 we are concerned with publication of such material, to which we shall come in a moment. The reality is that, as expressed by the judge, almost everything in this case related to this country. This is where the appellants operated one in Preston, the other in Hull; this is where the material was generated, edited, uploaded and controlled. The material was aimed primarily at the British public. The only "foreign" element was that the website was hosted by a server in Torrance California and, as the judge observed, the use of the server was merely a stage in the transmission of the material.

33. What is the test for jurisdiction if it is not as set out in Wallace Duncan Smith (No.4)? Mr Davies submitted that there were essentially 3 jurisprudential theories at to publications on the internet. The first is that a publication is only cognisable in the jurisdiction where the web server upon which it is hosted is situated - the country of origin theory. The second is that publication on the internet is cognisable in any jurisdiction in which it can be down-loaded – the country of destination theory. The third is that while a publication is always cognisable in the jurisdiction where the web server upon which it is hosted is situated, it is also cognisable in a jurisdiction at which the publication is targeted – the directing and targeting theory. Since we have come to the clear conclusion that the jurisdiction is governed by the substantial measure principle enunciated by this court in Wallace Duncan Smith (No.4) it is unnecessary for us to explore any of these three theories or the effect of applying them to the facts of this case. It seems to us that the substantial measure test not only accords with the purpose of the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act it also reflects the practicalities of the present case.

34. Before us Mr Davies put publication at the forefront of his argument submitting that if, as he contended was the case, there was no publication that was the end of the case. His argument is that one cannot have a publication without a publishee (or rather sufficient publishees) to constitute a section of the public as required by section 19 (3) of the 1986 Act. The judge noted that the only direct evidence of there being a publishee was that of the police officer, DC Brown, and that in one sense he was a self-publishee. In our view, however, the judge put it correctly when he said that what the Crown had to show was that there was publication to the public or a section of the public in that the material was generally accessible to all or available to or was placed before or offered to the public and that that could be proved by the evidence of one or more witnesses. This accords with the definition of publish and publication in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. As Kennedy L.J. put it in R v Perrin [2002] EWCA Crim 747, a case under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, at paragraph 22 "the publication relied on in this case is the making available of preview material to any viewer who may chose to access it …" The material in the present case was available to the public despite the fact that the evidence went no further than establishing that one police constable downloaded it. It is also to be noted that the natural meaning of publication, as applied by the judge gives effect to the two distinct offences under section 19 of publication and distribution of racially inflammatory material. It also fits neatly with the scheme of Part III of the 1986 Act which creates a comprehensive range of offences in respect of racially inflammatory written material namely section 18 – displaying, section 19 – publishing or distributing and section 23 – possession with a view to the material being displayed published distributed etc.

35. The point that there cannot be publication without a publishee is in our judgment fundamentally misconceived. It is based on an irrelevant comparison with the law of libel. Libel is a tort or civil wrong where it is necessary for the claimant to prove that the words complained of were published of him and were defamatory of him. Nor does criminal libel assist, for reading out socially inflammatory words will amount to an offence under section 18 (1). Further, the offences of displaying, distributing or publishing racially inflammatory written material do not require proof that anybody actually read or heard the material.

Written Material
36. The appellants' third ground of appeal contends that even if there was publication and the English court has jurisdiction, any publication was not of written material. We have covered most of the appellants' arguments on this point when dealing with the issue of jurisdiction and explained why in our view the contention is misconceived. For completeness we should say that we are not persuaded by Mr Davies' eiusdem generis argument which is that "written material" should be limited to something akin to a sign. What section 29 says is that "written material" includes any sign or other visible representation and in our view those words are sufficiently wide to include articles in electronic form.

37. In our judgment there is no merit in any of the appellants' grounds of appeal against conviction.

38. The question is whether the sentences of 4½ years for Sheppard and 2 years for Whittle were either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. There is no error in principle; what we need to look at is the totality of the criminal conduct of each appellant. There is no appeal against the consecutive sentences of 4 months in each case for the offences under the Bail Act. Sheppard had to be sentenced for a total of 16 offences, 3 of which were for possession, 1 for distributing and the remainder for publishing, racially offensive material. Whittle had to be sentenced for 5 offences, all for publishing racially offensive material. The judge structured his sentence in the case of Sheppard in this way. For counts 1 and 3 which took place between March 2005 and April 2006 12 months imprisonment concurrent; for counts 4 to 10 and 12 to 15 which all involved setting up, running and editing the website 2½ years imprisonment concurrent with each other but consecutive to the 12 months; and for counts 16 to 18, which were committed on bail in the summer of 2007, 12 months concurrent with each other but consecutive to the other groups of sentences. Whittle received concurrent sentences for each of the 5 offences involving publication on of articles of which he was the author.

39. The maximum penalty for each of these offences was 7 years imprisonment. Sheppard has a previous conviction for 2 similar offences in 2000 under sections 19 and 23 of the 1986 Act for which he received a sentence of 9 months imprisonment. The judge in passing sentence said he had rarely seen or read and had to consider material that was so abusive and insulting in its content toward racial groups within society in this country. We agree with that assessment; this was truly pernicious material. The judge rightly drew attention to its potential for social harm. He observed that by using a server in the United States the appellants thought they had found a way to circumvent English law. We regard the need to deter others as an important element of sentencing in cases of this kind.

40. Mr Davies submits that Sheppard's sentence is manifestly excessive when measured against the sentences passed on El Faisal [2004] EWCA Crim 343 (12 months ) and more particularly Abu Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918 (21 months). It is trite to say no two cases are the same.

41. The judge having presided over the two trials was well placed to assess the criminality of each appellant. That said, however, the point that has most impressed us is that there is no evidence of how many people saw the material or of the consequences of their having seen it, although we do know that there was several thousand "hits" or visits to per day. There was no evidence of any individual having been corrupted, albeit we appreciate such evidence would unlikely to be forthcoming. Clearly a substantial sentence was called for in the case of Sheppard because he was a repeat offender and the offences spanned a not inconsiderable period as well as being repeated whilst on bail. In our judgment each of the constituent elements of Sheppard's sentence was amply justified but we think 4½ years in total was too long. We think the right sentence would have been 3½ years and accordingly we grant leave to appeal against sentence and we achieve that result by reducing the sentences on counts 4 to 10 and 12 to 15 from 2½ years to 18 months. All the other sentences will remain as before. As to Whittle, his involvement was less than that of Sheppard and over a shorter period. He had no previous convictions. On the other had he was the "brains" behind the construction of the offensive material which he fed to Sheppard. We grant leave in his case too and the concurrent sentences of 2 years will be reduced to 18 months. Accordingly, after taking into account the sentences for the Bail Act offences, which are not the subject of appeal, the total sentence to be served by Sheppard is 3 years and 10 months and Whittle 1 year and 10 months. We grant leave to appeal against sentence and vary the sentences to that extent. Credit is in each case given for the 23 days spent on remand.

42. The judge made a forfeiture order against Sheppard under section 143 (1) (a) and (b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") with respect to items of office equipment and computers belonging to him. This aspect of his appeal against sentence requires an extension of time and leave to appeal. For reasons we shall explain we do not think there is any merit in the forfeiture appeal and we refuse both an extension of time and leave to appeal.

43. There was, unfortunately, no transcript of the judge's ruling on forfeiture but in the event it was possible to overcome this problem by playing us in court a tape of the judge's judgment. This was very helpfully transcribed by the shorthand writer who provided a transcript to the court shortly after the conclusion of the hearing.

44. The judge first referred to section 143 of the 2000 Act which provides:

"Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court by or before which he is convicted is satisfied that any property which has been lawfully seized from him or which was in his possession or under his control at the time when he was apprehended for the offence or when a summons in respect of it was issued –

a) has been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating commission of any offence or

b) was intended by him to be used for that purpose,

The court may (subject to sub-section (5) below) make an order under this section in respect of that property."

Subsection (5) provides:

"In considering whether to make an order under this section in respect of any property, a court shall have regard –

(a) to the value of the property; and

(b) to the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making)."

45. The court had prepared a schedule. There was agreement about the forfeiture of some items; others were in dispute. There were two categories of disputed items, office equipment and computer equipment. The main thrust of Mr Davies' argument on behalf of Sheppard before the judge was that he had a legitimate publishing business by which he earned a living and that loss of the items sought by the Crown to be forfeited would put him in a precarious financial situation.

46. The judge concluded that the computers had clearly been used for legitimate purposes but that they had also been used and were intended to be used by Sheppard for committing or facilitating the commission of offences. The judge did not consider the forfeiture of these items would constitute excessive punishment.

47. As to office equipment, the judge again said he had in mind section 143 (5). He referred to the additional argument that there was no evidence this equipment was used for the production of any of the hard copies that were distributed. The judge said he was entitled to draw the inference that the office equipment in question was, if not used for the commission or facilitating of offences, intended to be used for such purpose. He said he was entitled to draw this interference because of Sheppard's determination and persistence in publishing material of this nature. He had of course a previous conviction for similar offences and committed further offences whilst on bail. We cannot fault the judge's reasoning or his decision. The transcript identifies by number the various items to be forfeited by Sheppard and it is unnecessary for us to repeat them.

48. (1) The appeals against conviction are dismissed.

(2) Leave to appeal against sentence is granted and the appeals against sentence are allowed to the limited extent indicated.

(3) Leave to appeal against the forfeiture order imposed on Sheppard and an extension of time for doing so is refused.
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
Old February 4th, 2010 #33
Heather Blue
Senior Member
Heather Blue's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,976
Heather Blue

Bev, I received a brief note from Stephen & Simon recently, thanking me for Christmas cards I sent in December. They had received a nice number of Christmas cards and expressed warm appreciation.

At that time they had not received any information about their case. They were hopeful, but not optimistic in which case they - hopefully - avoided being as disappointed as they may have been. This whole thing is outrageous!

What on earth does any country mean passing laws based on Jewish paranoia? How can justice be served when it is burdened by paranoia laws? It can only serve unhinged imaginings, fear and hysteria. I am sorry these two highly intelligent men, whose only crime is the longing for England to be free, are subject to nothing less than judicial abuse.
The birth of every white baby is the First Born of the next generation.
"Segregation did not exist to hold back other races. It existed to protect us from them." D. Roof
Old February 5th, 2010 #34
drinking tea
Bev's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247

Originally Posted by Heather Blue View Post

What on earth does any country mean passing laws based on Jewish paranoia? How can justice be served when it is burdened by paranoia laws? It can only serve unhinged imaginings, fear and hysteria. I am sorry these two highly intelligent men, whose only crime is the longing for England to be free, are subject to nothing less than judicial abuse.
Virtually every day there is a report in one paper or another that there is a rise in anti-semitic crime. Often these crimes turn out to be nothing more than someone glared at a jew or mayber called them an anti-semitic name. I saw one report where a car had been "keyed" and this was labelled anti-semitic, despite the fact that several cars on the same street had been scratched on the same night. This was just a plain scratch; nobody had carved abuse or swastikas and there was no suggestion that the damage was anything other than the result of a random vandalism spree. Each report never fails to state that this is since the election of our two MEP's. This is usually the last sentence in the report so the reader is left with that impression. (My own personal thought is that the rise in attacks are since more and more ordinary people are turning against the war and deeming it illegal.)

Every report I have seen on Sheppard and Whittle never fails to state that Simon was once a member of the BNP. I have no doubt in my mind that their harsh sentence and in fact the whole case is connected to the rise of the BNP. There have been lots of similar cases just recently that never make the press; one British poster is currently on bail for allegedly writing on a website something that could, by a stretch of the imagination, by construed as advising others to kill jews.

You are absolutely right about the paranoia law. Good term. There was no suggestion that any jew or indeed any member of the public had been offended by Heretical. The only witness they found who had been offended was a police officer who had downloaded the site for the purpose of investigating it. Yet every day I come across muslim-run facebook and similar groups exhorting hatred and violence against the British because of the war. Some of these groups carry far more graphical detail and offensive material that Heretical does, yet they are allowed to remain and nothing is done about them.

I just wish more people could see this clear double standard. Persecuting one writer and not the other is nothing more than, as you say, judicial abuse.
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
Old June 29th, 2010 #35
drinking tea
Bev's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247

Just read the following from someone who is in a position to know:

Steve Whittle returned to jail - Heretical two

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, formerly the judicial committee of the House of Lords, has refused the H2 leave to appeal. It is the practice of this Court not to give reasons for refusing leave to appeal, whereas it would be considered an error of law for any other court not to give reasons for its decisions. The H2 are now entitled to petition the European Court of Human Rights for leave to appeal to that court, which they could not do before, as would be petitioners are obliged to exhaust all domestic recourse first. Meanwhile, Steve, who was out on bail at a bail hostel in Blackburn which he found fairly agreeable, has been caught on the internet in breach of bail conditions, and sent to Preston goal. He was found by the police using the internet in Blackburn public library [we are no different to China and Burma in treatment of dissidents!!!]. Steve would, as ever, appreciate messages of support to show that the H2 are not forgotten in gaol. His address is:

Mr S. Whittle A8041AA
H. M. P. Preston,
2 Ribbleton Lane,
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote.
Old June 13th, 2012 #36
England V ZOG
Junior Member
England V ZOG's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 240
England V ZOG

Whittle's columns are excellent, I guess there'll be no more.
GRAHAM: "The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain."
NIXON: "You believe that?"
GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it"
Old June 13th, 2012 #37
Donald E. Pauly
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Simon Sheppard Update

It was a terrible loss when this pair was locked up.


News Update from Simon Sheppard

I'm sure people will appreciate some news of what I'm up to. I'm now enjoying an extended 'holiday at home' in my new flat, which has been newly decorated and carpeted, and I've been reunited with my surviving possessions. Police took away large quantities of material during the three police raids, and when Steve and I flew to the USA a good friend and supporter, Rick Hobbs, put the remainder into storage. Sadly he died of a heart attack while we were incarcerated in California. Another friend recovered some but a great deal has been lost. Rick was a good friend, a larger-than-life character who spoke much common-sense and it's still difficult to accept that he's no longer with us. He was only 49.

I'm under many restrictions, banned from the internet except under supervision and obliged to see a probation officer regularly. That has recently been relaxed to fortnightly which gives me a bit more freedom. As with everyone released under licence, I'm not allowed to leave the country. Being an enemy of the State, rather than a mere danger to the people, I'm classed as a top security risk. The authorities seem to think that I only have to say the word and the masses will rise in revolt. If only!

Besides getting my life back together, I've been writing, which at the moment is mainly articles for Heritage and Destiny magazine. I'm presently writing about a procedure I call neurotic transfer. This can account for people acting against their own interests. For example, it can explain how someone can walk into a police station and confess to a highly-publicised crime they did not commit. I try to write something every day, no matter what else is happening. Then, no matter how hard the project is, you always get there in the end. Unfortunately, prolific I am not, although I like to think that what I do produce is high quality. I wish it were otherwise (that I was more prolific, I mean). So I hope that those supporters and well-wishers who have written recently will forgive tardy replies; I simply must get on with various writing projects and sorting out other, long-outstanding matters.

A day in the life...

Sometimes things approach comedy. One morning a few weeks ago a policeman arrived at my door, one of those plain-clothes types who want to be your friend, returning an article. Then later that day I had the expected visit from my probation officer. My latest tactic with such officials is to talk to them about 'joint enterprise.' Some may recall that Steve ('Luke O'Farrell'), until recent changes, had committed no crime at all. Writing isn't illegal and never has been, and at one point, thinking this was still the case, I told Adrian that I would do what I could to let Steve walk, because that was all he had ever done – write. It's the distribution that's illegal, according to their nefarious, lately made-up laws.

But then Blair and his cronies brought in 'joint enterprise.' I met several in prison who claimed they had been caught up as a result of sharing a phone call with someone at a particular moment, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they had been convicted under 'joint enterprise' solely for that. I suppose it's the same as American laws where (I understand) if there are five people in a car and one shoots out of the window, killing someone, all five are charged with homicide. No wonder America has two million people behind bars!

Like many things though, the new law of 'joint enterprise' cuts both ways. The British government is committing treason, which until recently was a capital offence. Applying 'joint enterprise' the police, probation officers and many other agencies can be regarded as active participants in a criminal, treasonous conspiracy. The police enforce the laws passed by crooked politicians and probation officers monitor you at the other end. Under joint enterprise, all are culpable.

Treason includes "aiding and abetting a foreign invasion." Any agency that features multiracialism in its literature, portraying this as normal, is committing a crime by this measure. So all the state's enforcers and legions of propaganda merchants presenting "multiracial Britain" as a normal situation are contributing to the criminal conspiracy, equally guilty according to 'joint enterprise.'

My jibes to policemen and probation officers about this have been refined over the weeks to culminate in the crack that "It's a good job my licence prohibitions don't include associating with criminals, otherwise I wouldn't be able to let you in the door!"

When are crimes not crimes?

If we think freely, with an awareness that not a single word the Establishment says should be taken at face value, how can we tell whether something a government has defined as criminal is truly so? That is, how can we establish whether one of the thousands of activities which have recently been made illegal is really a crime, or just the product of an arrogant political class flexing its muscles?

I can say that government polices are sick, I can say they are criminal, but that is an opinion. We need an objective measure. Furthermore, an objective test of criminality should be applicable beyond Britain, with its scattered constitution (not in a single document) to other countries. This topic was touched upon in a previous web page (Sheppard: Science of Sex –> Supplemental, posted around 2004; I fear the page is a little dated now).

An objective standard

Procedural analysis is capable of providing a logical test for such situations, some more controversial than others! It is of course a theoretical model, but it has never failed yet, not at least, in any significant way that I'm aware of. In fact I recently found a simple example of something which is a handle but not a marker, which resolved the difficulty I discussed in the web page above. Until recently practically every handle I conceived seemed also to involve a marker.
That example is the expectation (tacit request) that a couple think of each other while they are apart. It is a handle, but there is no unambiguous indication of it.

A quick recap is in order. A handle is a request that generates a fixed and predetermined response (e.g. calling someone's name; being able to touch someone without being rebuffed). A handle state is a state in which handles are issued (knowing someone's name; being married; sharing a jurisdiction). A marker is an unambiguous indication of involvement (talking to someone; leaving something at a place indicating that you will return). A handle, the strongest element, can be in the form of signals (a customary exchange of nods), a marker (touching someone) or a token (an expected gift at an anniversary). Spoiling is formally defined as removing an essential component, thereby to devalue something (or someone).

The important thing here is that most handles are implicit. We don't normally (in Britain) see signs saying "Drive on the left" or "Please don't burgle this house." People don't walk around with badges that say "Please don't stab me." The implicit handle requests are that we drive according to the established norm, respect others' property by not stealing it, and the expectation of being able to walk around and not be harmed. The normal handle response is to maintain these expectations.

A crime involves the mutation of a handle to a marker, and it is hard to imagine a real crime for which this is not true. If such a thing is shown to exist, then of course the counterexample would disprove the thesis. The buyer of an old coin expects it to be genuine (the implicit, or even explicit, handle, is that he pays his money and gets an authentic coin in return). When the victim discovers the coin is fake he will feel anger, and with just cause; the fraudster and victim are unambiguously involved with each other to a much greater extent. The criminal forces himself upon his victim in many ways.

The burglar who ransacks a house has discarded the owner's expectation of his privacy and property being respected. He has replaced it with markers, imposing himself upon the owner and his territory, and is unambiguously involved with both. Seasoned victims of crime will appreciate that offences are often not committed for gain, but more to 'get one over you.' Some criminals can drive around proudly pointing out the places they have robbed, where they have marked territory much as a painter of graffiti does.

Scat marking

Sometimes when a house is burgled gratuitous damage is done, such as shredding sheets or curtains, and the marking may even revert to the primitive, when the burglars defecate in the property. An old story in Yorkshire jails recounts how a gang of likely lads identified the house of a judge and burgled it while he was out, defecating in his bed. They were later caught, as they had been, indeed, before. This is a notable example, but the instance is not unique. It is primordial spoiling (the component being removed is cleanliness) and that it sometimes occurs supports the thesis that a necessary condition for a crime to take place is that a handle is discarded and replaced by one or more markers. Interestingly, primordial spoiling is also sometimes performed by aged people with dementure.
Discussion of the opposite case – when something should by this test be unlawful but is not – is left to another day. The salient issue is that mutating a handle to a marker is a female procedure – it derives from raising the cost of sex. In the evolutionary time-line, sex came before crime.

The basic contract between government and governed

Now the essential handle state which exists between government and nation, the source of its authority to issue handles, is that the government acts for the governed. Acting in the interest of the nation is its entire raison d'κtre, and if it has not this as its goal, that government must be regarded as renegade. Acting in the collective interest of the nation is the sole reason it was brought into being and the only justification for its existence.

Thus if the government acts for another population, the whole basis of its authority collapses. (A population is any arbitrary group, and here it is certainly fitting, as by nation I mean a people sharing a common heritage, its original definition.) Of course opinions of what is best for the nation vary, but there is little doubt that the modern regime in Britain has presided over long-term decline. The political class seems intent on dragging us into the gutter, cramming this small land-mass with millions from elsewhere. Billions are borrowed to subsidise their policies. They are spending the tax income of our grandchildren to pay for foisting their twisted political dogma upon us. Our national stature has diminished and living standards have fallen.

We neglect the illusory prosperity of cheap consumer gadgets and apply a real test, a sort of grown-up 'Big Mac Index.' In 1965 a working man could buy a family home with a mortgage lasting 10 years; now a couple must both work for 25 years to achieve the same if, that is, they can raise the deposit. We buy oil, gas, electricity and our water from foreign companies; even our football teams are owned by foreigners. Everything that turns a buck has been sold off. The government is clearly acting for the benefit of other populations, making available to them land, infrastructure and resources properly the assets of native Britons.

A yet more fundamental expectation, recalling the definitions of treason, is that the government will not give away the powers it holds in trust – upon which its entire ability to govern relies – to a foreign power.

Legislation which demands that the native population tolerate the presence of an alien one, or that they acquiesce to it, or any law that serves the interest of an alien population, is the imposition of a handle without the necessary handle state. There is simply no legitimate handle state by which a peacetime government can demand these things. Imposing a handle for which there is no handle state puts the government precisely on a par – game-wise – with a mugger.

Imagine some unfortunate individual, perhaps merry after a few beers, walking home late one night to be waylaid by some scumbag who demands, through glistening white teeth, that our befuddled reveller hand over his wallet and his watch. There is an evil-looking blade in the scumbag's hand. He is doing just the same – issuing a handle without the existence of a handle state. The mugger mutates a handle (the victim's implicit request that he not be so treated) to a marker (his involuntary engagement). The mugger's handle is 'Do what I demand or face the consequences.' The government and the mugger are equivalent – both are issuing handles without the essential prerequisite of a handle state.

A new book

Returning to more general matters, I'm trying to get my new book published. Started in prison, it steers clear of the most controversial topics and should therefore be capable of being published in the mainstream. In a sense, I'm back where I started fifteen or so years ago, knowing that I can write reasonably well and, more importantly, have something to say. I hope I'm not going to be boxed into a corner again, that is, forced to self-publish, because it's a lot of work.

I'm only just online, but I must have a snooping program on the internet machine, so I'm not sure I want to be permanently online under these circumstances. I may wait until my licence has expired, because I'm also not happy about correspondents' privacy, with the computer effectively having a direct line to a police station in Northallerton. Perhaps I will catch up then leave it until I can do so without compromising my own or others' privacy. I'm also forbidden from contacting Steve.

So I'm enjoying having my own flat again, playing with my "toys" (88-note Yamaha electric piano, computers running NT4 with Dell's USB add-ons, hi-fi for listening to classical radio, though still only in mono at the moment) and generally resuming normal life. I hope my elation lasts a little longer, because we so often take for granted things which are not appreciated until we are deprived of them.

I think that's a good thought to leave you with. Plus my best wishes to the many people who donated to our legal fund and wrote to us in jail. That support made an enormous difference.

Simon Sheppard, June 2012
Old June 13th, 2012 #38
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
James Hawthorne's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne

Good to see he remains unbowed.
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
Old January 30th, 2013 #39
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Sheppard rearrested, January 2013
Old February 14th, 2013 #40
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[Sheppard has been thrown in jail for distributing copies of this article]

Spree Killers: The Forefront of Knowledge

by Simon Sheppard

Heritage & Destiny January-February 2013

On 22 July 2011 Anders Breivik embarked on a carefully planned murderous rampage which ended the lives of 77 and injured 242 others. This much is common knowledge, but he is only a recent example of a long line of spree killers. It can confidently be predicted that there will be more.

The origins, motivations and psychology of the spree killer are little understood. Certainly this is the case in the mainstream but, not for the first time, nationalists have a huge advantage. Not only are we freed from the bounds of political correctness but we are closer to understanding the
motivations of the spree killer, even while we don't condone his action. No doubt agents of the State will be keenly watching, and scrutinising every word of this. Let them read and learn!

Of course, when someone like Breivik goes on a killing frenzy the Establishment fires up its engines of righteous indignation. And what mighty engines they are! The ground shakes, the air pulsates and the walls tremble, so powerful are they. Hour upon hour of condemnatory commentary fills the airwaves; the hand-wringing and angst of the commentators is almost palpable: Why? Why? Why? One might even suspect feigned innocence.

Eventually though we become inured to the awesome clamour of the Establishment's machines of mass influence, and we venture nearer to the source of the constant noise. Our exploration takes us closer and then beyond. Behind the great clanking monolith, located discreetly some distance away and hidden from view, we come upon the machine's exhaust. There we are almost overcome by the great noxious clouds of hypocrisy belching forth. Amid these dense clouds of cant we glimpse some of the 3.5 million German homes destroyed and over 6,000 medieval houses razed in a "terror-bombing" campaign so formidable that whole species of birds and insects were wiped out. The images shift and fade, hard to identify, because they are but ghosts of the Prussian royal palaces, Hanseatic cities, the birthplaces of Bach, Duerer and Goethe and thousands of other unique historic and cultural sites deliberately targeted with phosphorous and incendiary bombs. Most are familiar with the events at Dresden, but that city was merely the zenith of an evil campaign of civilian bombing in an unnecessary war which was certainly not started nor fought for British interests.

Yes, it is wicked to slaughter innocent people; but the present regime, and its bedfellow the media, or rather the tail which wags the dog, is in no position to lecture on this score. All the victims of spree killers added together number less than the innocents who died horrifically in a few seconds of an Allied-created firestorm. The current regime draws its line directly from that wartime one, which the recent action against Iraq confirms.

Here, in treating the subject of spree killers, we are operating at the forefront of knowledge, an environment which is natural territory for the scientist but not perhaps for readers of this magazine. But we have already been there, with the introduction of neurotic transfer (H&D issue 50), so perhaps it is not so unfamiliar. Plus the subject is of such importance, literally involving life and death, that the topic must be explored.

We start with a summary of incontrovertibles - facts which are known - not about Breivik particularly but about spree killers generally. That is, we seek to establish a stereotype. It should be noted though that the spree killer is not a uniquely Western phenomenon, although incidences in Western societies have accelerated since the earliest event I could discover, that of Howard Unruh in 1949. The word amok derives from Malaysia, where there (and reportedly several other countries) a man can suddenly flip and run wild with a machete or other weapon, killing and maiming at random. The cry of amuq is issued as a warning, allowing peole to find refuge and for the men to arm themselves and overcome him. In fact the record before Breivik was held by South Korean policeman Woo Bum-kon who, drunk after an argument with his girlfriend, killed 57 plus himself in 1982.

The facts then are as follows: the Western spree killer is usually a white or Jewish male. He seeks to inflict maximum damage by killing or maiming as many as possible, and he usually finally kills himself or arranges his own demise (e.g. 'suicide by cop'). The killer executes his scheme with a cool rationality such that he is able to kill any bystander, child and even his own family members dispassionately.

It is clear that two categories exist: those who plan their spree and those who do not. In the latter case, the spree is triggered by some event. When the action is planned in advance the impetus to spree kill is evidently nurtured, and with premeditation the attack can be executed to a more devastating effect.

Finally, it is clear that a significant proportion of spree killers possess some conscious racial awareness, as demonstrated by their known history, their comments at the time or their choice of targets. Tellingly, the victims of the few black spree killers to date have been overwhelmingly white.

Typical of this aspect was law student Benjamin Smith in 1999. He had been a member of the World Church of the Creator the year before. Probably as part of his preparation he wrote to its leader Matt Hale in an attempt to insulate that organisation from his subsequent actions, and it may have been the denial of a law license to Hale which triggered his spree. Smith wounded six Orthodox Jews, killed a black, a Korean and then himself.

Achieving greater success (if it may be called that) was Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish immigrant to Israel from Brooklyn. In 1994 Goldstein burst into a mosque in Palestine to gun down the gathered worshippers, killing twenty-nine before having a fire extinguisher smashed on his head. Goldstein is now revered and his grave is treated as a shrine by ultra-orthodox Jewish settlers. Similarly, chants in support for Breivik were made by Russian nationalists at recent 'National Unity Day' demonstrations there.

With varying racial aspects we have Michael Ryan in Hungerford, Berkshire who in 1987 initially targeted Asians at a service station, Martin Bryant in Tasmania in 1996 whose first targets were Malays and made comments about WASPs, Larry Ashbrook at Fort Worth in 1999 who had previously flirted with racialist groups, and Buford Furrow who in 1999 attacked a Jewish community centre. the latest (at the time of writing) is Wade Page, referred to as "a racist skinhead," who in August 2012 opened fire at a Sikh temple, killing six and wounding three, also killing a police officer.

Having laid down some of the basic elements we now enter into the less tangible area of psychology and motivation. During his trial Breivik was declared sane. What this means is that there was an absence of psychosis; technically, psychosis involves detachment from reality. So Breivik's actions were not just carefully and rationally planned: his scheme followed a logical, grim progression.

Britain has no equivalent of America's NRA, and what advocates of gun freedom there are consist of a few specialist sportsmen. Notwithstanding, the point has been made that in practically every case, the weapons for use by spree killers have been licensed or otherwise legally in the possession of their owners. They were not criminals; in a large number of cases they were normal law-abiding citizens, perhaps even less criminal than average. Despite this, two notable spree-killing incidents in Britain have each led to increased stringency concerning gun ownership: the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 following Hungerford in August 1987, and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 following Dunblane in March 1996.

It is well to recall the position in earlier, more masculine times. Hitler was able to stand and wave to adoring crowds as his procession passed along, this at a time when gun ownership was commonplace and limited only by the requirement that firearms be officially registered, a purely bureaucratic measure. Similarly, in Britain at this time guns were widely available. It was an era of greater social cohesion, during which spurious instincts, to the extent that they existed, were controlled. Nowadays even the Pope rides behind bullet-proof glass.

Restricting gun ownership is no solution, because a means to kill will always be found by the determined. Emphasising this, in October 2012, Matthew Tvrdon went on a hit-and-run spree in Cardiff using his vehicle and steering-wheel lock as weapons. Tvrdron deliberately aimed his van at pedestrians, sometimes even reversing back over the mostly women and children he had mown down. If we are to have any hope of preventing such killing sprees in the future, it is necessary first of all to understand the phenomenon.

The first question we need to ask is, how closely does Breivik fit the mould of the 'perfect' spree killer? The answer to this is - pretty closely. Breivik's only major deviation from the substandard pattern was to live to tell the tale, and in that at least he has done the world a service. I have no doubt that he is aware of this aspect and that it was intentional. Allowing his motivations to be examined subsequently was almost certainly his preferred outcome.

A distinguishable subset of spree killers includes psychotics and social outcasts, a group that probably contains one of the few female spree killers to date, Brenda Spencer, whose 1979 eruption using schoolchildren for target practice inspired the lyric "I don't like Mondays." (In fact the only two she killed were men.) Plus Tristan van der Vlis, who killed six and shot himself near Amsterdam in 2011. However even these cases may not be completely divorced from the general trend: psychosis is a disorder of the mind, or higher brain, while the instincts (motivations) which impel the spree killer, I would contend, derive from a lower level.

My definition of neurosis follows directly from Pavlov: neurotic stress ensues when one stimulus evokes two or more responses. (Pavlov's definition is rather more inolved, but amounts to the same thing.) The ultimate psychiatric reference, the Diagnostical Statistical Manual, states that "in neurosis, reality is grossly intact." This then is an immediate pointer to the state of mind of the spree killer, the "hyper-rationality" which enables him to murder and maim with calmness, disassociation and ruthless aplomb.

Western societies have become highly feminised, and I can quote some observations from Holland (my prototype Super Feminine State) which are pertinent. Due to female influence, all forms of violence were strongly discouraged and thus were generally inhibited by males. Sometimes however sudden eruptions of disproportionate violence would occur, triggered by some relatively trivial incident. These seemed completely unpredictable; there was no forewarning that a 'tipping point' had been reached.

In such an intensely female-friendly environment, a number of factors operate. First, males see females unreservedly following their instincts and not unnaturally want to do the same. Needless to say, he cannot. Second, expression of those female instincts was usually to males' detriment: he could be, and was, manipulated, toyed-with and teased practically without limit. Third, he could not avoid being influenced by that atmosphere of disinhibition, and the burden of restraining his own violent and other socially undesirable instincts increased.

The confused and neurotic male is easy to manipulate. In that super-feminine environment, and increasingly elsewhere, even innocuous male instincts (such as to place indiscriminate markers, just being friendly or passing the time of day) are repressed. This is because disinhibition serves to maintain males in a state of generalised neurosis and maximises female control. The whole environment becomes arduous for males.

Humans are undeniably social animals, and arguably each race has a distinct collective unconscious. Jung, who at least had the wisdom to dissociate himself from Freud, spoke of the 'race memory' - or, to quote Heisenberg, 'Every race has its soul and every soul its race.' The next question we need to pose is, what is that strikes so deeply at this collective psyche to provoke an individual in a society to such casual atrocity? Clearly something along these lines is taking place: spree killings are no longer isolated incidents but have become a social phenomenon by their repetition. At least 75 spree killings have taken place since 1949.

A nationalist perspective would be that three obvious new features of Western societies are mass immigration, the promotion of miscegenation and miscegenation itself. As always, we put our observations of behaviour in its evolutionary context. What evolutionary scenario can be envisaged in which a male could see members of other races moving freely about, promoted to positions of authority over him, and occupying other prestigious roles? Or when might he see his women parading through thoroughfares with a male of another race, transporting children sired by him, and obviously serving his domestic and personal needs, while his own remain untended?

It is that the tribe has been defeated and cast into servitude. In this case, throughout history, the indigenous males would have been rapidly dispatched (put to the sword, or machete, or whatever) or quickly transported away to be sold as slaves. In any event the vanquished males would be hastily got out of the way, for obvious reasons. Their reaction at seeing their women expropriated, their families destroyed and their settlement exploited makes them dangerous to keep around. With nothing left to lose a humiliated male would, given any opportunity at all, strike back with maximum force. This would be without regard for his own future, for the simple reason that he has none.

In leading these social changes the media are probably the main offenders, so we would be naive to expect them to point the finger at themselves. Not only do they encourage and mendaciously portray as normal the mass immigration and miscegenation which strikes deeply at the core of the male psyche, but non-whites are elevated to the positions of newsreaders and presenters. This can only be a deliberate, finely calculated insult. It is surely stretching credulity to believe otherwise - think of the millions of native British men who would eagerly take such a well-paid and prestigious job!

Digressing for a moment to the serial killer, he is better understood. A huge volume of literature exists so that at least a primitive comprehension of him exists. Putatively the defining characteristic of the serial killer is control, because ultimate control is power over the life of another person. If he leaves some form of signature, this is an expression of his ego. The male desires control; this is how his ego is expressed. If powerful he issues orders and affects destinies. A craving for control seems to be the essential characteristic of the serial killer.

In contrast, the essence of the spree killer is rebellion against his devaluation. His protest at his derogation is expressed by the number of victims; his tally is a demonstration of his worth. In most cases the spree killer has already decided to end his life, either because of events immediately beforehand or as part of a long-standing plan. Circumstances have ceased to make his life worthwhile, and he raises the cost of his demise with a final statement of his value.

We can now consider his choice of targets in light of this, particularly his emergence in modern, feminised, Western societies. In the male-female 'game of opposites' I have referred to before, males value the old while females value the young. Thus in the feminine mindset, children are valued more than men. This has become especially manifest since the State has supplanted the husband as the female's protector and ultimate provider.

Female largesse extends to the many groups with which she feels affinity or sympathy. Yet practically everything that has ever been discovered or invented has arisen from white male ingenuity. Although virtually all our modern amenities derive from the efforts of exceptional males, our society could not function without ordinary men performing mundane jobs. Nevertheless in contemporary society he is constantly devalued and insulted; his concerns routinely dismissed. What more profound insult can be delivered to a man than for a woman to advertise that she prefers a male of an alien race, even who a century or so ago was called a savage, to seed future generations of her line? These are the provocations which can transform a normal, law-abiding and otherwise unexceptional man into a kind of Vulcan murder-machine.

Thus in raising the cost of his demise, the spree killer can target the young, raising the cost according to the values of his opponent. Breivik's choice of target was coldly logical - since the State, as in this country has defined 'the invaders' as a protected group, any action against them will only increase their guardianship and exacerbate the situation he is rebelling against. Plus of course, information about where the blame really belongs is hard to come by. Pointing the finger can land you a jail sentence.

Even moderate critics of the Establishment's suicidal immigration policies are marginalised and vehemently traduced as 'racists', 'xenophobes' and the like. The fate of Matt Hale is a case in point. Nationalists' concerns are ignored, or they are the theme of phony, stage-managed debate by a closed group of 'media darlings' who only repeat their stock agenda. The spree killer arises out of repressed fury at the despoliation of everything he is, has or holds dear; indeed spree killing might be regarded as the ultimate displacement activity.

Under this analysis it becomes apparent that fathers who destroy their children and then themselves, usually after the mother has spurned the marriage, are another form of spree killing. Including these personal tragedies adds significantly to the total number of spree killings already recorded.

This is only a provisional analysis of the spree killer phenomenon -- H&D is an invaluable forum for intelligent nationalist thought but it is not an academic journal -- and there may be some loose ends. At the forefront it is easy to lose your way. However evolutionary psychology provides us with a reliable guide, and the tribal scenario above is consistent with phylogenetic (ie natural) principles and the gut instinct of many individual males. It has always been, and will ever be, the male who fights to preserve the integrity of the tribe.

The spree killer may be at the outer boundary of the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come.

Simon Sheppard, Yorkshire, England

Editor's note: Simon's website is at:


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 PM.
Page generated in 0.25643 seconds.