By Norman Scarth
The poisonous tongue of ‘Judge’ Jonathan Rose, the illegal trickery of the Crown Prosecution Service & the twisted minds of each – not uncommon in the profrssion.
A lie is the intention to deceive, whatever the words. A Jewish proverb says, “A half-truth is a whole lie”. William Blake said, “A truth told with false intent beats all the lies man can invent.”
The great skill of lawyers is the ability to twist the truth. It is that which causes this parasitic profession to be despised all over the world, as indeed they are! The greater that skill, the less they are troubled by conscience when using it, the wealthier they become. In Britain, the worst of them become judges.
Before going on to ‘Judge’ Jonathan Rose QC, a bit about the Crown Prosecution Service:
By the last postal delivery minutes before I fled the land of my birth(1) came an envelope from the CPS containing 3 letters from them, all dated 21st February 2012, along with various ‘Witness Statements’ etc. (My ‘trial’ was to be on the very next day!) One letter said inter alia, “The prosecutor wants to introduce this evidence in writing instead of the witness(es) giving the evidence in person”. (In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, “He would say that wouldn’t he” – being desperate to avoid his ‘witnesses’ being torn apart in the Witness Box.)
- List the witness(es) you want to give evidence in person.
- Send me the list not more than 7 days after this notice is served on you (as required by section blah, blah, blah!)
- Be prepared to explain to the court what issue(s) in the case make(s) it necessary for the witness(es) to give evidence in person (as required by Criminal Procedure Rules blah, blah, blah.)
NOTE:The CPS had COMPLETELY & CONTEMPTUOUSLY IGNORED my email to them on 6th February saying that I wanted ALL the witnesses to appear in person – for obvious reasons – PLUS the senior police officer who authorised and organised the operation, PLUS the main complainant, Jonathan Rose. They had also ignored my request that they should tell me the cost of this massive Police/CPS operation so far (for the terrible ‘crime’ of offering leaflets) & whether they had considered AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO, whether it was ‘In The Public Interest’ to prosecute.
NOW TO JONATHAN ROSE:
Another of the 3 letters (from Gerry Wareham, Deputy Chief Prosecutor, South Yorkshire & Humberside CPS) says, “Please find enclosed copy of Jonathan Rose’s Victim Personal Statement. This does not form part of our evidence but we intend to use it at court.” SO THAT HE CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ON HIS DIATRIBE OF POISON (more than 3,000 words)!!! SURELY, NOT EVEN QUISLING LAW ALLOWS THIS??
(I started to insert my comments IN CAPITALS, IN RED for easy recognition but gave up after a few, as his diatribe became more ridiculous. What a brave man he is when causing ‘alarm, distress & fear’ to the unfortunates before him (& their families). What a whining, whimpering coward he is when someone dares to tell the truth about him outside!)
The ‘VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT’ says:
“Incident Thursday 29th September 2011 (Note: The lack of a space after the paragraph numbers is from Rose, though I have used a readable size font,(rather than the barely readable size which he used).
1I have provided a statement to the police concerning the events of Thursday 29th September 2011. This statement is intended to set out the impact of those events, on myself and my family and on the congregants of the United Hebrew Congregation (UHC).
2The 29th & 30th September 2011 were the days of ‘Rosh Hashana.’ The Jewish New Year which, along with Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement, due to take place on Saturday 8th October) are the holiest days in the Jewish Calendar. Unlike the civil New Year, Rosh Hashana is a religious event which is of importance as it begins a period known as The Ten Days of Penitence which lasts until Yom Kippur Day. It is a time for prayer and repentance & is not a ‘festival’ in the sense of being a period of parties & ‘fun’. What may not be generally known to those who are not of the Jewish faith is that the ‘Jewish day’ begins at sundown the previous evening. The relevance of that to this matter is that the evening of 29th September was itself highly significant marking as it did the beginning of the second day of Rosh Hashana, so that, although prayers are recited in the synagogue on every evening, the services on this particular evening were more substantial & significant, held in in the main sanctuary of the synagogue and attended by a greater number of people than might be the case on an ‘ordinary’ evening. Moreover, on Thursday 29th September a special youth service was being held at the UHC and was attended by a great many young people between 12 and 14. (AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW ALL THIS?)
3It is very easy for any person to establish when Rosh Hashana falls: a common diary will give the date of this event. It is less easy for someone to understand that the evening service at Rosh Hashana is of any significance, or that the congregation would be larger or that a Jew who is more observant would be likely to attend, still less at what time the service would be taking place. Given that Norman Scarth travelled to UHC synagogue on Shadwell Lane, Leeds intending to be present outside the synagogue while evening prayers were being said, & given that his intended target was myself (because his shouts of ‘Jonathan Rose resign’ were obviously directed at me) it is an inevitable conclusion that this was a pre-meditated action, with careful preparation in establishing (i) that I was an orthodox & observant Jew (ii) that I was a member of the UHC (there are two other orthodox synagogues in Leeds (iii) that 29th September was a particularly significant night in the Jewish calendar (iv) the time of the service on that night (v) that I would likely be attending services on this particular night (as I would not ordinarily attend services on a Thursday evening). It is also clear from the footage posted on Youtube, which shows Mr Scarth walking towards the pedestrian gate into the synagogue grounds, that it was his intention to enter the grounds, if not the synagogue itself, not merely to remain in the street for the purpose of his ‘demonstration’. He therefore was clearly intent on a confrontation with me, possibly, probably within my place of worship. It is important to take note of this, because it is obvious that this was never intended by him to be a ‘peaceful demonstration’ but rather a confrontation which would inevitably be deeply distressing to myself and to other people present in the synagogue who would have witnessed it. The aggression and unpleasantness in what Mr Scarth went on to shout indicates that such a confrontation would have involved at least, significant and aggressive abuse, if not worse. That he was unable to enter the synagogue building or grounds was due only to the intervention of CST.
4I doubt that Mr Scarth would have known that there was to be a youth service that evening, but he would doubtless have had an expectation that the congregation would be particularly large and he would not have had any reason to believe that that congregation would not have included omen & children. It so happened that present in the synagogue that evening was a young woman who was in the later stages of pregnancy and when I left the sanctuary and entered the foyer, as Mr Scarth’s shouting continued, this woman was also in the foyer, somewhat distressed and being comforted by her husband.
5For many years synagogues have been exposed to and sometimes the victims of attacks, by a variety of people with a variety of reasons – whether anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or otherwise. The members are particularly vulnerable and this vulnerability is felt in particular at night (for obvious reasons) and on the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. It is for this reason that the organisation known as CST (Community Support Trust) and its predecessors were established. Its members, all of whom are volunteers, provide security for the community (1) by providing a visible deterrent (ii) by acting as an ‘early warning’ system and (iii) by taking action if it becomes necessary, calling the police or, in the last resort, physically intervening to protect the buildings and members of the community. Their presence brings a measure of comfort and confidence to those inside a synagogue. It should be noted that an observant Jew would not have in his possession any mobile phone on Rosh Hashana, since it is prohibited to use one. This means such a person has no means of communication or calling for assistance, but the members of CST do carry means of communication, whether by mobile phone or radio. One feature of the events of 29th September was that, when the incident took place I had no mobile phone with me and could not contact my wife to warn her of the incident and its potential consequences. Although my wife and children were not in the synagogue, at the time then incident was taking place I did not know whether Mr Scarth had been able to locate my home address (he had clearly been able to establish which synagogue I would be attending) and I was fearful that some similar event or worse might be taking place at my home, with my wife and I unable to make contact. Moreover, because observant Jews are prohibited from travelling in a car on Rosh Hashana I was unable to get home to my family quickly after the incident had ended. It was but one upsetting feature of the incident that, fearful for my family’s welfare and safety I felt obliged to borrow and use a mobile phone to make contact with my wife, in order to inform and advise her, thus breaking the religious prohibition on using a phone. The phone was borrowed from a less-observant member of the congregation.
6I first became aware of the presence of Norman Scarth, that evening, in the latter part of the service, when I was reciting the ‘Amidah’ (sometimes known as the ‘Standing Prayer’ because it is recited silently and individually whilst standing perfectly still) one of the most significant parts of the service. I heard a voice using a megaphone. It took me a moment to realise that the voice was shouting my name, “Jonathan Rose resign” and I recognised at that time the voice of Norman Scarth.
7I had been aware, at and after the time that I sentenced Scarth that he was a man with a relatively-recent conviction for serious violence, that he was an angry and aggressive person, notwithstanding his age and that a number of people who support him had great animosity towards me and that some had expressed a view that I should suffer for my actions in imprisoning Mr Scarth, albeit that I had not received any threat, direct or indirect, from any communications made to me. I was also aware that some of those who were supporters of Mr Scarth were from a range of backgrounds, including some ‘political’ (specifically right-wing) organisations, and I had in mind such organisations, some of whom are noted to have anti-Semitic tendencies, and not knowing who was with Mr Scarth on this occasion I was naturally concerned that there might be people of such persuasions and tendencies. It followed that, as soon as I became aware that Scarth was responsible for the shouting I could hear, I was immediately fearful for my own safety, for that of other people attending the synagogue services (including the children) and, in particular, for my wife and family, since I had at least the security of being inside the synagogue and with CST outside, whilst my wife was at home with my children. It was that latter fear which necessitated me breaking my religious beliefs in order that they could be protected.
8It was undoubtedly the case that some of those attending the service were very distressed by what was happening. Mr Scarth’s voice being clearly audible and the nature of what he was shouting being of a kind particularly distressing to Jews, containing as it did references to the gas chambers, Nazis, the Gestapo and suchlike. I have already mentioned the pregnant woman, and the children too – many of whom were not accompanied by their parents – were doubtless also fearful and upset. The police, quite properly and understandably required everyone to remain inside the synagogue until the disturbance had been dealt with, and this necessary but enforced detention contributed to the fear and distress caused by the actions of Mr Scarth, and those who were with him.
(ROSE SPENDS HIS WHOLE WORKING LIFE INFLICTING ‘ENFORCED DETENTION’ ON PEOPLE. PERHAPS HE WILL NOW BETTER UNDERSTAND THE ‘FEAR & DISTRESS’ FELT BY THEM – & THEIR FAMILIES!)
9The police offered me a lift home, which would have ensured my safety and brought me back to my family expeditiously. However, as I have said, as an observant Jew, I am prohibited from travelling in a car on Rosh Hashana and therefore declined the offer. I walked home, which took some time, and was throughout this journey fearful that Mr Scarth and/or his supporter might follow me to do me harm, to identify where I lived and, potentially to do harm to my family. It being dark by this time my fears were naturally heightened, I had no idea where Mr Scarth or his supporters were or what transport they might be using. It was therefore a nervous walk home with real anxiety whenever a car approached.
10On arriving home I found my wife and children also in a state of some anxiety – for me (both because of what they then knew had happened at the synagogue and because they knew I would be walking home) and for themselves. My wife had called her brother to come to the house to support them whilst waiting for my return. She was extremely distressed by what had taken place and remains so at the time of writing this statement.
11I should return to the events at the synagogue. At the time, I heard distinctly two things shouted by Mr Scarth. Firstly that I should resign. Secondly – and this is not a direct quote – I heard Mr Scarth shout words to the effect that his service in the Second World War ‘helped to save the Jews from the gas chambers’. I was later shown by the police a poster or flyer drawn up by Mr Scarth and his supporters. I understand that they had posted some of these in the vicinity of the synagogue although they were removed. The posters again called for my resignation as a judge and as President of the UHC (an office I had held for 5 years until May 2011 when my term came to an end). The link made by Mr Scarth to my presidency of the synagogue added to his comments about Jews altered, to me, the approach being taken, in that it appeared to graft onto his animosity based on my having imprisoned him an element of anti-Semitism. The posters to which I have referred included words to the effect that his war service had ‘saved (my) grandparents and parents from the gas chambers’.
12Every Jew, in every country has within him or her the most profound gratitude to those who fought the Nazis in the War, and fully appreciates the millions of lives lost in doing so. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to those men and women and, living in the United Kingdom we acknowledge how the courage and bravery of servicemen from this country kept the Germans from invading, where failure would have meant that the Jews of the United Kingdom would likely have met the same fate of the millions who perished in the Nazi concentration camps.(YET HE SHOWS HIS ‘GRATITUDE’ BY SENDING ONE OF THOSE MEN TO A HELL-HOLE PRISON!) But for Mr Scarth to use the appalling events of 1939 – 1945 – and particularly the Holocaust – in the content of his animosity towards me is hurtful and unforgiveable. A significant number of my relatives in what was then Karlsbad, Czechoslovakia were deported to and died in Auschwitz.
13It is perhaps trite to comment that the evening of 29th September had an adverse effect on the enjoyment of Rosh Hashana by me and my family, but the impact was more significant than that. When I walked to and from the synagogue on Friday 30th, particularly for the evening service and again on the Sabbath (1st October) I was anxious and concerned in case I was followed or observed or, worse, there was any confrontation with Mr Scarth, and my wife shared my concerns. Nor has the impact of Mr Scarth’s actions diminished in any way thereafter. I am concerned for the safety of myself and my family and, although the police have been extremely helpful and supportive I worry for my family when we are at home (and even more so if I am not at home and my family is alone), when we go about our daily routines and when my wife and children are out at night.
14The incident on 29th September was filmed by a person attending in support of Mr Scarth and the video was posted on Youtube. In the following days, a number of people posted anonymous comments to this video which were of themselves grossly offensive, insulting and upsetting. I accept that people may choose to criticise the sentence I imposed on Mr Scarth, but comments such as “most judges are kiddie fiddlers anyway and Judge Rose is corrupt to the core”, “the scum judge, (is) probably a paedophile anyway” and 2”JUDGE ROSE IS PROBABLY A PAEDOPHILE” are deeply and gratuitously offensive and have caused great upset to myself and my family. Whilst I do not suggest that Norman Scarth posted the video or any of the comments, they are a direct consequence of his actions and added greatly to the suffering of myself and my family.
15It should not be forgotten that Mr Scarth came to disrupt and did disrupt people who were following their faith and at prayer. He did not begin his demonstration before or after the service, but rather he shouted his offensive comments whilst I and the congregation were reciting prayers which we regard as holy, and at a most significant time in the Jewish calendar. Mr Scarth did not interfere only with my right to observe my faith, but with the rights of others attending the synagogue and with who it cannot be said he had any argument.
16My wife and I have been deeply distressed and upset that Norman Scarth should act in such an offensive way on a day we regard as holy. He must have known that the date was of the greatest significance to Jews and I feel he deliberately targeted me on that day to maximise the distress he would cause. He planned and sought out a situation in the hope it would result in a confrontation with me and, failing that, acted in a way which caused distress, anxiety and fear to many people at the synagogue and to my family and I. It is difficult to understand what he could possibly have hoped to achieve by targeting me in this way, other than to cause me and my family distress and upset.
Signed JLRose 12.1.12
ENDNOTE BY N.SCARTH: AS SAID, I COULD HAVE INSERTED MANY MORE COMMENTS, BUT I HOPE THE READER WILL SEE HOW RIDICULOUS AND POISONOUS HIS STATEMENT IS, WITHOUT FURTHER HELP FROM ME.N.Scarth 2nd March 2012 (now, hopefully, safe from the Quislings who now rule ‘Perfidious Albion’.)
PS: It was Martin Narey, one-time Director-General of the Prison Service (NO LESS) who told of ‘A litany of failure & moral neglect in Hell-Hole Prisons. It was General Sir David Ramsbotham, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (now Lord Ramsbotham) who told of ‘Barbaric Prison Guards’.