UK Bag-Head Cover-Up? Tautology or Sinister Scandal?


Just the kind of intro to catch my attention!

The case of a female defendant who refused to remove her niqab vanished from headlines.

AHA – Cover-Up!


No matter it’s in the left-lib Independent, in fact all the better- I once had a moronic oik commenter who dismissed some info purely because it was published in rightwing media, which makes about as much sense as me not reading the Jakarta Post or Jakarta Globe because they constantly niggle on behalf of ‘persecuted’ Communists.

Only a fool won’t read or learn from media because they’re opposition outlets.

Mind you, that moron, later, even dismissed the UK Guardian! As left-lib as it gets, but it had the temerity to publish an account of how ‘asylumers’ were up to their necks in dishonest ID!


With cover-ups, the key question is who pulled the strings.

Media mutual back-scratching with corrupt politicians, or crooked cops, or…who?

Collusion, especially with the parasitic marxists of the ‘equality’  industry, by the people who are meant to tell us how it is, the journos, must be the worst betrayal of professional principles.


  • oooooooooooooooooooooo
  • BTW…
  • We’re talking about that bad bag-head, Rebekah Dawson, who refused to uncover her ugly mug, as everyone has to do when facing charges in a British court.
  • Just in case you weren’t sure!


This Independent writer, Mary Dejevsky, voices concern or at least curiosity over how the case soon vanished from the spotlight as did the outrage.


But first she sensibly takes us through the run-up to the cover-up, if cover-up it was.




… the case had a double sequel – first, at London’s Blackfriars Crown Court where the veiled woman was tried for intimidating a witness, and then, just a couple of weeks ago, at the Old Bailey.

The link between the two cases was not highlighted, an omission that suggests to my suspicious mind that the powers that be did not want to make a big deal of it, lest the result prompted some unwelcome joined-up thinking.

Ms D raises an interesting point.
The lack of ‘highlighting’ of the links between the two cases is surely not down to the ‘powers-that-be’ in the political sense. They may well like to keep the press in collaborationist mode, but they can’t dictate what appears.
Or can they?
We know the ‘powers-that-be’ in the British media can kill a story. It happens.
So how does Ms D explain all this?


Rebekah Dawson, Muslim woman who refused to lift veil in court admits witness intimidationDirty Dawson, unveiled


Blackfriars Crown Court, FebruaryRebekah Dawson, 22, was charged with intimidating a witness and was on trial jointly with her brother. In preliminary hearings, Judge Peter Murphy had ruled that she could keep her face covered while in the dock, but that, if she testified, the veil would have to come off.

Like many, probably most Brits, I was appalled by this dhimmi ruling. She’s in Britain and should not be excused British rules because she likes to flaunt sectarian affectations.

Muslim women are under NO obligation to be bag-heads, neither burkified nor scarfed.




Dawson’s just a fanatical bitch, out to confront civilised British standards, which, like anything civilised, are anathema to bag-headed bints and their male keepers .


Ms D refers more delicately to this aspect. …it was about the extent to which the law of the land holds sway when it crosses paths, and perhaps conflicts, with certain strands of Islam; when the worlds of English law and the mosque collide-


  • BlindJustice
  • oo
  • Clearly it must be ensured that the law of the land is not trumped by ANY sectarian codes, Muslim or otherwise.
  • 000000000000000

But read on.  or rather read that Independent link for all the details of why she was in court that day, a dispute between two factions at the Finsbury Park Mosque. One believed that it was acceptable for tourists to be shown around the mosque with their heads uncovered and in Western dress; the other did not.

The bag-head’s husband had beaten up a mosque care-taker for taking the rational side of the debate. Dawson was in court that February for allegedly trying to bully her man’s victim into not testifying.


But what is arresting, if I may use that term, is that victim’s assertion that the police showed every sign of bottling out instead of pursuing the case of assault against him! At first, they declined to institute proceedings.

It was only when he made a second complaint that he was heeded.

And it’s the Independent’s Ms D, not me, who asks the pertinent question.
Left to themselves, might the police have perhaps preferred to leave the mosque to its own devices, even if there was evidence of a crime under English law?
As she logically reasons, there would have been a chain of impunity, which accepted might as right, and left “law” enforcement in the hands of bully-boy religious enforcers.
Maybe those cops were gutless.
Or lazy.
Or incompetent.
We don’t know.
political-correctness_submission British Policing Today
We do know that the good old British bobby is long gone, mostly replaced by PC morons or gay gestapoids. 
Anyway, the bag-head got the system off the hook by refusing to testify.
But as Ms. D again rightly asserts. in a court of law – an English court of law – is it not self-evident that faces should be visible for justice to be seen to be done?


Ms D is pretty smart, but she declines to conclude, as I do, that if backward bigots can’t abide by English law, they should ship out to some swamp where they may hide their faces and the rest of their unpleasant selves.




Britain should deport such people. 


However, this was not the end of Baggie Dawson’s celebrity.

There had been hints through the Blackfriars case that something else lurked in the background, and there were details, such as Dawson’s husband’s name, that could not be reported.

Again, read our post.

‘Any kaffir soldier take ur pick!’ – C’mon, Convicts! 


He, the husband, was facing trial for terrorist offences, which turned out to be-

A inciting murder


B disseminating a terrorist publication  –  videos, posted on YouTube, that glorified the gruesome murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

The demonic duo pled guilty and got totally inadequate sentences, but what was most curious about that verdict was the way the media ignored her previous form or played it down.


Her identity, as the veiled defendant who had caused Judge Murphy such trouble at Blackfriars Crown Court only a few weeks before, went almost unremarked.


Did some hidden hand cover up her Dark Age dress sense to avoid the public finally grasping how far the cancer has spread?

Or,as Ms D diplomatically puts it, the militant wearing of a full-face veil as suggesting at very least a propensity to become involved in something much, much worse?


muslims-british-police-hell Enemies Within Burkas – Kick ‘Em OUT!


She doesn’t SAY so, but let’s reprise her opening words once more, about the notion in her suspicious mind that the powers that be did not want to make a big deal of it, lest the result prompted some unwelcome joined-up thinking.




If she’s right in her suspicions, then we not only have enemies within burkas but within the political and judicial establishment, and collusionist media that let themselves be muzzled on a highly relevant part of the terrorist story!


  • enemy-within
  • ===================================
  • On that pleasant thought, I say goodnight to Brits, and hope they’re not approaching the time when it’s goodnight to Great Britain!