Q: Who was it that said of one of the UK’s best known and well loved areas of Asian settlement “Southall is a constant on the public purse in Ealing. It is home to the worst concentration of illegal immigrants in the UK. It has gambling, drinking, drug, prostitution and crime issues unlike many other parts of London. “ Adding “It is a largely Indian community who say they deplore this behaviour but yet it is that very same community that harbours and exploits their own people in squalid third world living conditions.”
A: Not the BNP, NF or EDL but Ealing Conservative councillor and handlebar moustache wearer Benjamin Dennehy of Hanger Hill ward. Read the Ealing Gazette story on the event here. He is being cheered by the pro-repatriation extreme right unsurprisingly. After all David Cameron’s efforts to show how inclusive the modern Tory party is with its A-list and his palliness with Obama this is what the true rank and file of the party think.
Jo Sidhu QC the runner up in the Ealing Southall Labour candidate nomination in 2007 and respected criminal barrister says:
Having read the offending and offensive blog I’ve looked to see whether it contains any words that might fall within the terms of the statutory offence of stirring up racial hatred, contrary to section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986.In short, my view is that (whilst this is not the strongest case of its type) there is prima facie evidence that Cllr Dennehy has published through his blog material which is insulting to people of (at least) Indian origin. Further, that whilst he may be able to claim that he did not intend to stir up racial hatred by posting his views, in all the circumstances racial hatred of Indians was nonetheless likely to be stirred up (section 19(1)(b) POA 1986).In other words, just because he says he did not intend to stir up racial hatred does not mean he is not guilty of the offence. If a formal complaint is lodged the police, the CPS, and ultimately a court, will be required to examine the effect of his comments regardless of his claim to free speech.Any potential prosecution would require the consent of the Attorney General. The maximum sentence if the case was committed to the Crown Court would be 7 years’ imprisonment.