Bankrupt bigot baron Viscount St Davids jailed for 12 weeks and slapped with a restraining order for 5 years; it is time that the anti-social side element of social media is properly dealt with
Yesterday, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, a bigoted racist aristocrat with an obsession for being called anything but Mister was jailed for 12 weeks.
Recently declared bankrupt for a third time, Viscount St Davids – a pathetic specimen whose other titles include such bizarre monikers as Baron Strange of Knockin – was convicted Tuesday of two counts of malicious communications and issued with a restraining order for five years that informed him not to contact Gina Miller, Arnold Sube and Matthew Steeples.
Appearing in a strained tweed gilet to be sentenced, dimwit St Davids looked glum and somewhat bemused as his repeatedly herself lost for words defence counsel, Sabrina Felix, attempted to argue he was an alcoholic, needed an operation for a hernia and had suddenly found Christian thoughts. Though he claimed to have been “disgusted at how he had used the [Facebook social media] platform” and “made [comments that] were not only disgraceful but unacceptable, unkind and irresponsible,” chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot suggested: “You only apologized when you got convicted.”
In her judgment, Arbuthnot added:
“You told me proudly in evidence that your motto is Love of Country and that this your motivation but it seems to me on the evidence I have seen that you motivated by love of country but by your hatred of anybody who has different views to yours… You show this hatred by publicly directing abusive threats at others which is a criminal offence in this multi-racial society we are lucky enough to live in.”
“Now, two days after I told you you were facing a prison sentence, you tell Probation that you accept the posts were menacing and you now feel sincere remorse for your behavior. You have had an epiphany in the last two days. You now recognize how offensive your language was and recognize the racially aggravated nature of the first post. This is a sudden conversion after many months when you have expressed racist views as I can see from the bad character evidence (some of which I have excluded from the trial).”
“Since two days ago you now feel remorse… In so far as the racial abuse is concerned, it must be said I do not consider your remorse can be felt very deeply and I give you very limited credit for that. I seen racist posts uploaded by you in August 2016 as well as the September and November 2016 ones. It is clear from the evidence that your views about immigrants are very deeply held.”
“At one point in evidence to this court you justified your post by telling me that as she was a public figure, she was, in my words not yours, fair game. Why public figures deserve this warped behavior is beyond me.”
“The trouble with Facebook is it is not private. One click and the post is shared, potentially all around the world. Any Facebook user knows this.”
In response, Matthew Steeples commented:
“Most importantly, Emma Arbuthnot has clearly set out that what is posted on social media is anything but private. The law must now change and frankly, as publishers, the owners of networks such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter should be held accountable for what their users put there just as any newspaper is for their readers’ comments sections.”
“Freedom of speech is all very well, but with rights come responsibilities. It is time we all remembered such and it is time government acted to ensure that trolls are treated as the criminals that they truly are.”
Pictured above: Viscount St Davids enjoys his last moments of freedom as he arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in his stained tweed gilet; he left in a prison van.
You have been nothing but unfair to a decent man and helped create a witch hunt against him. His wife and daughter will now suffer and in prison he will struggle without alcohol and with his hernia. You are a disgrace.
So you obviously agree with his racist views Stacy, perhaps you should be in there with him. Also no alcohol for 12 weeks will do him good. Not sure how he’s got his hernia, I don’t think he’s done a days work in his life. I would have given the nasty piece of work 6 months to reflect on what he’s actually done, because I think, He just doesn’t get it, like you.
The right verdict but the wrong sentence. He should have got 6 months.
Racists! Are you thinking of defending yourselves? If so may we recommend the following checklist:
“Cottesloe Barbie’s Top Ten Reasons You are Probably Going to Get Yourself Convicted”
1. It was a private joke for friends only.
2. I have some form of tangential racial similarity to the person I was racist about hence whatever I said is permissible.
3. I have a good friend who shares racial similarities with the person I was racist about hence it is permissible.
4 a. Other people think it’s funny and humour is a funny thing so it’s funny. If a single other person laughs then it’s obviously a joke not racist.
4 b. It’s satirical – I was mocking racists.
5. It’s true (not really much of a defence but employed by the less-able racist imbued with a conviction they are somehow “right” to be racist)
6. I have friends of races other then the ones I attacked hence I myself cannot possibly be a racist (presumably because racist logic dictates all racists hate all other races uniformly….)
7 a I’m only being made an example of as a racist because I’m famous/rich/important (strike out whichever does not apply. All may apply)
7 b. The person who told on me for being racist is jealous of me for being famous/rich/important/ better than them. Also the person who told on me for being racist is not very nice themselves in a completely unrelated way and they have a personal grudge against me therefore this mitigates in my defence. (NB often accompanied with threats prior to trial)
8. What about reverse racism? I too have been attacked for being rich/white/famous/
important/male/heterosexual/too beautiful/too clever/ brilliant at what I do / some form of other privileged minority or majority (strike out whichever does not apply. All may apply)
9 my alleged racism is about a nationality of people and that nationality are of the same genetic origin (eg a different Caucasian nationality) as myself therefore it is not racist because they are the same genetic race.
10 if I wasn’t defending myself, my proposed barrister/lawyer would be of the race I allegedly attacked therefore I cannot be racist.
Google some of the things he said in court in his defence if you want to see why Viscount St David really ticks all these boxes.
Yes it’s the same as people that start a conversation, I’m not racist but…