Hoaxtead hypocrisy writ large

Yesterday we talked about Jake Clarke’s sentencing at Willesden Magistrates Court, and made passing reference to his “friends” Anthony Pike and Angela Power-Disney, who stated that they hoped he would choose prison over freedom—for the sake of propping up the Hampstead SRA hoax, don’tcha know.

Of course, it’s easy for Pike to pontificate from his cave in India, where we presume that he is beyond the long arm of the UK law; and it seems that Angela is planning to jaunt off to Lanzarote some time in the next few weeks as well: 

Easy enough for them to encourage a vulnerable individual to commit a crime, when neither of them will ever have to face the consequences.

And speaking of consequences…

We have to admit that we were just a bit amused during Angela’s interview last week (or was it the week before?) with Sean Maguire. At that time, she had this to say about Jake Clarke:

And then Jake Clarke was sectioned, he went to the doctor and said he was experiencing some depression and anxiety from the level of trolling that the Hampstead case comes with. It’s got a level of trolling that some of the hardiest internet people are shocked at. They make malicious videos and they stalk you and make threats, and it’s very intense. …

…So Jake Clarke went to the doctor…and instead of investigating these cyber-terrorists, they sectioned him. They said he was delusional. 

However, when Belinda McKenzie gave her version of Jake’s sentencing hearing, she said:

The DJ (District Judge) seemed to have been wheeled in for the purpose of laying on with a very thick trowel indeed the seriousness of Jake’s offences, and the degree of Alarm and Distress they had caused in the victimised community concerned. For the benefit of the public gallery, as he put it, he permitted the inclusion of information about the sequence of events in the underlying case, culminating in Justice Pauffley’s judgment of March 2015, as well as giving court air-time for statements produced for the occasion by the 2 highly-aggrieved plaintiffs, one absent and one present, delivered respectively by the CPS counsel, and resoundingly in person, from the front of the courtroom. 

So let’s see if we’ve got this right.

This blog’s posts about Jake, which are a matter of public record, and primarily consist of reports on his activities around posting hateful, defamatory, harassing material about people whom he has never met, have damaged him terribly and caused him so much mental anguish that they led to his involuntary hospitalisation.

Meanwhile, however, the fear and distress Jake’s posts caused the Hampstead families? Well, that was “laid on with a very thick trowel”, and Belinda implies that the “statements produced for the occasion” were somehow false or illegitimate.

How is it fine for Jake to relentlessly harass certain individuals in a community, potentially putting them and their children in danger, but a terrible thing for a blog to report on his (and his friends’) activities?

We hope that Jake will use the time gained by his legal prohibition against harassing the families of Hampstead to ponder this. Unlikely, we know, but hope springeth eternal.