Angela rewrites the law

Angela Power-Disney just cannot help digging her self in deeper with every video she makes. When the Irish Gardaí raided her home last summer and removed her tech devices for examination, she could’ve taken this as a hint. However, instead of buttoning her lip and hoping that her good behaviour might help to exonerate her, she went into full-bore über-harassment mode.

We have lost track of the number of times Angela has published the names of protected witnesses from Sabine McNeill’s trial, but hey, guess what? She’s done it again. We cannot link the video which she put out yesterday, but suffice to say the Irish courts could convict her on the strength of this latest video alone.

However, what interests us most about Angela’s latest video is not so much her continued harassment of innocent victims, but her determined delusion that she knows more about the law than any old lawyer or judge.

‘Innocent until proven guilty’? Pshaw!

For starters, remember those tired old saws about “innocent until proven guilty” and juries being neutral and untainted by prejudicial opinions about the case they’ll be considering?

According to Angie, “We need to look at those sacred cows…for the sake of the justice”.

Yes, she called “innocent until proven guilty” a “sacred cow”. Not, you know, the foundational precept of our justice system.

Here’s Angie’s take:

It sounds hugely democratic and wonderful and something we should protect. A lot of laws get introduced, and get passed, because they sound, you know democratic and wonderful. They sound righteous.

You know, like ‘rights for children’ was introduced, when in fact what was slipped in was, ‘Oh, you know, we can remove children for risk of future emotional harm’. Which is just absolutely outrageous. …

It’s word magic, to make you think something is wonderful when in fact its intent is nefarious.

We assume then, that Angela, should she be charged, would prefer that the court assume that she is guilty rather than innocent, and proceed on that assumption. Oh, and did we mention that Angela refers to Sabine and herself as “child rights activists”? You really could not make this up.

Regarding that outdated sacred-cow legislation “innocent until proven guilty”, Angela does admit, hilariously, “There has to be balance. You can’t just say ‘so-and-so is a paedo, so-and-so is a paedo’. Character assassination is unacceptable, there’s no doubt about that.”

(Hello, Earth calling Angie, Earth calling Angie….)

As for juries, in Angela’s view they must be presented with pre-trial evidence which would predispose them to acquit the defendant. (Assuming, of course, that the defendant is a children’s rights activist.) Only when they have all the evidence Angie wants them to have can they make an “educated, informed judgment”. Uh-huh.

She also complains, and loudly, that juries are not informed by the court when defendants have been convicted of previous similar offences. Clearly she has no idea that had the jury been told of Sabines previous mentions by various judges for her attempts to subvert justice, this would’ve prejudiced the trial against her friend.

However, as we know, Angela has never been one to let mere facts stand in the way of her fantasies.

She follows up with a long rant about sentences given to convicted paedophiles who she considers have got off lightly—despite the fact that she did not attend any of their trials, knows nothing of the evidence presented, nor the harm done to the victims, nor any mitigating factors which might have been considered by the judge in sentencing.

Angie is deeply unhappy about what she considers HHJ Sally Cahill’s “tyrannical” treatment of those who disrupted proceedings or committed contempt of court during Sabine’s trial.

At one point, grasping her head for emphasis, she screams, “What? What?! We don’t have a First Amendment in the UK, but surely freedom of speech is something that is honoured!” Strange to hear this coming from one who, if charged, would be facing the courts in Ireland. She does realise where she lives, right?

Jake Clarke on trial next week

In typical Angela fashion, she buries the lede in her video. Toward the end, she just happens to mention that Jake Clarke will be going back to court next week, but she somehow conflates this with his 2016 “malicious sectioning”, which she blames on this blog. No, we are sure that Angela’s grooming of Jake had nothing to do with his florid mental illness.

(Apparently our “band of brigands” are also responsible for Aaron Dover having committed suicide, not to mention the shooting of JR. Oh, and the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.)

In fact, Jake appealed the conviction and sentence he received at Willesden Magistrates court in October, and his case has been sent up to Crown Court—as is customary for a magistrates court appeal.

According to some of Jake’s friends on Facebook, his trial will start at Harrow Crown Court on Thursday, 14 February…and you know what that means. Dun-dun-dun…Valentine’s Day. (“They love their little ritual dates”, comments Angela sourly.)

As always, we will not be discussing his case until it is finished.

In closing, Angela waxes furious about Jake’s eviction from Sabine’s trial, claiming that the judge was once again being “tyrannical” and undemocratic. Angie is apparently unaware that Jake is under a criminal behaviour order which prevents him from being in proximity to certain witnesses, which he would have been violating had he remained.

As always, you can count on Angie for the facts. [Going a little heavy on the sarcasm there—Editor]