Writing as an impartial observer, the case of the Workers’ Institute sets the alarm-bells ringing! The case of the Crown implies that a ‘lone person’ was able to dominate a diverse group of individuals (mostly women) – which included his biological daughter – over a period of nearly five decades, and although known to the British government since at least 1978, (when the British Labour Party ordered the arrest of the Communist Collective), no further action was taken. Of course, the case of the Crown spent three-years (2013-2016) making sure all the facts in their case fitted before securing a conviction of Aravindan Balakrishnan. Two disgruntled former members (with axes to grind), and a naïve ‘daughter’ were all that was needed to sway a jury. Testaments from eye-witnesses that contradicted prosecution assertions and evidence were ‘ignored’, or treated as ‘inferior’ in quality and content. This obvious preference for an ‘official’ view by the Crown is disturbing to say the least. There was no evidence of ‘kidnap’ as everyone involved was a consenting adult. This is why (the daughter) ‘Prem’ was of central importance to the Trial, as she was the only person known not to have been a consenting ‘adult’. Prem, of course, was ‘born’ within the Communist Collective and therefore was not ‘kidnapped’. As a child, the adults around her had a legal duty to keep her ‘safe’ just as any parent would be expected to responsibly act toward their children. Keeping Prem ‘safe’ could not be construed as ‘imprisonment’ between the ages of 0-18 years-old.
The Crown seemed to imply that between 18-30 years-old, Prem suddenly suffered from psychological and physical abuse despite their being no objective evidence of this. Indeed, although the Court relied heavily upon Prem’s diaries, it was established in open Court that Prem had subsequently ‘altered’ these diaries to reflect the ‘preferred’ narrative that the prosecution was pursuing. This narrative involved the fabricated ideas that Prem was a ‘prisoner’ in her own home, and that she was subjected to psychological and physical abuse. This alternative reality was spoon-fed to Prem by the various charities that the Tory government paid to intercede on their behalf (including Freedom Choice and Palm Cove Society, etc). This false narrative presented her father as a maniacal ogre who dominated women for his own gratification and satisfaction. This is a typical portrayal in the British media of anyone deemed ‘an enemy of the State’. It is a well-tried and tested path of thought-control and media manipulation. As the Tories (and LibDems) were facing numerous legal challenges to their disastrous ‘Austerity’ policies, it was imperative that this Trial succeeded at all costs irrespective of any notion of ‘justice’. Yet another Judicial failure at this juncture in the Coalition’s existence would not have boded well for its chances of re-election. My own view is that this Conviction is ‘Unsafe’, but that the British State will try everything to prevent this being proven wrong.
The three women, (two members and one daughter of the Workers’ Institute), were coached by the police and prosecution lawyers to co-ordinate their fabricated stories, and to behave on cue in certain ways during the Trial, (which including ‘crying’ at key-points when evidence giving). The defence-lawyers stressed time and again that the prosecution case would not stand-up to Court scrutiny – and yet the final analysis was that Aravindan Balakrishnan (a 75-year-old man) was imprisoned for 23 years! This must be the only case in history where an unsuccessful defence lawyer – Adam Wiseman – is immediately ‘promoted’ to silks after losing! Of course, both the defence and prosecution barristers were from the Red Lion Chambers! This type of association is not unusual in the British justice system, but the fact that the people in-charge of what might – or might – happen to a defendant’s life both know each other (and play golf together on a Sunday mornings) is often disconcerting to find out! There is also the issue of ‘freemasonry’ which has been exposed on numerous occasions for coordinating cases that otherwise had no connecting elements, or in securing convictions when prison sentences seemed unlikely. Of course, ‘freemasonry’ has also been responsible for ‘protecting’ the guilty providing they are the right class and skin-colour. Finally, ‘freemasonry’ is inherently ‘anti-Socialist’ and strives the world-over to bring-down any and all Socialist movements. Interestingly, Marx did write about this influence ‘behind the scenes’, but it appears that Trotskyite publishers in the West tend to purposely ’omit’ this association in the books that they publish.