Category Archives: Ian Millard

environment, ethnostate, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, prepping, safe zones, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Why Should People Relocate to the Safe Zone of the Germinal Ethnostate?

4 Comments

I have blogged previously about people of social national views relocating to “safe zones” or to a (germinal) ethnostate possibly to be centred on the South West of England (Cornwall and Devon, as well as Somerset and Dorset):

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/white-flight/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/prepping/

In various blog posts, I have covered issues of practical relevance such as how such a safe zone or germinal ethnostate might be started, how it might be maintained (even if the rest of the UK and Europe faces disaster or social collapse) and how the safe zone might have real political influence even within the present society. Now I should like to address what the advantages are for an individual, couple or family relocating in the next few years.

It can be taken as read that most people willing to relocate to a “safe zone” will be discontented in some way, or in various ways, with their existing lives, lifestyles or with at least some aspects of the existing society. It is not hard to imagine that many living in Britain’s decaying urban sprawls will find the idea of relocating to, say, Cornwall attractive. What, however, are the other benefits?

For one thing, the relocated people will be living in a milieu where many of their neighbours, employees, employers, co-workers are of similar viewpoint, at least in broad outline. Secondly, there is the fact that the South West of the UK is still an area where most of the existing inhabitants are English or British or at least European in ethnic origin and in culture. Thirdly, a social national community, even if at first loose or spread out, provides a support structure and defensive barrier for those under attack from the existing UK State or from the Zionist infestation. Fourthly, for those with children, there will be the chance to have their offspring educated in free schools etc set up by the community. This last is not a matter of “indoctrination” as such, but rather of protecting the children from the negative and decadent influences now so pervasive in the wider society.

In my view, there can be created a zone within the UK which will over time exercize a magnetic attraction.

Update, 21 July 2019

Saw this from USA. Not bad, though obviously drafted with American conditions in mind.

https://twitter.com/SoCarbonNeutral/status/1151751859125669889

Update, 29 September 2019

https://www.kn-online.de/Nachrichten/Hamburg/Voelkische-Siedler-Die-Bio-Nazis-von-nebenan

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Carl Benjamin, Colin Robertson, Count Dankula, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Meechan, Millennial Woes, Nick Griffin, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Reminiscences and Musings, Sargon of Akkad, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

The New UK Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines on “Hate Crime”: Thoughts and Suggestions

12 Comments

Background

Yesterday, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced updated and expanded “guidelines” on how the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with so-called “hate crime”. These new guidelines have been heavily criticized as, in effect, creating new and tyrannical law, despite the fact that the guidelines are neither primary nor secondary legislation.

In this blog post, I examine only those aspects of relevance to socio-political tweeting etc, meaning in practice those with a racial or religious element.

Part of the concern around the guidelines revolves around Alison Saunders herself. Many regard her as a sinister though incompetent figure, a “graduate” (member) of the pervasive and infiltrative organization (some say “cult”) called Common Purpose. In 2013, when Alison Saunders was CPS chief for the London area, a Freedom of Information request was made as to her connection with Common Purpose. At first, the reply was affirmative, but that was then altered to negative:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commohttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commo

The answer is relevant to the new CPS guidelines because the motto of Common Purpose is “Leading Beyond Authority”. In other words, the citizens of the UK cannot rely any more on law or decent public administration, because organizations such as the CPS, full of “CP” “graduates”, will, it is suspected, manipulate the regulations etc in order to achieve a desired (by them) result.

Definition of “Hate Crime”

It is vital to note that there is no statutory (or accepted Common Law) definition of “hate crime”:

“A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws.” [Wikipedia]

Wikipedia continues: “For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.”

In other words, there must first be a crime as designated by law and only then can that alleged crime (if one of those “specified”, i.e. assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) be treated by the police and CPS as a “hate crime.” The new guidelines reflect that existing position:

“The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”

It will be noted that there must first be a criminal offence. If there is not, then it matters not at all how “unfriendly”, “prejudiced” etc is the alleged perpetrator.

Further, sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether any crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is “racially or religiously aggravated.”

Incredibly, while the police and/or CPS will “flag” a case as a “hate crime”, “it is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim’s perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending.”

So a crime which is “flagged” at first as a “hate crime” but for which flagging there is eventually no evidence, will still be treated, in Court, as a “hate crime”, resulting (on conviction) in a far more severe sentence. How can this be regarded as in any way just?

The guidelines now continue:

“If the case passes the evidential stage and it is a case of racial or religious hate crime, or it is motivated by discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, or religion or belief, it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest.”

This is a hardening of the position taken in the earlier CPS guidance and may mean an increase in the number of prosecutions. However, there is still a requirement for a substantive crime to have been committed and there is still a requirement for sufficient evidence to support prosecution. New crimes have not been created, but the danger is that zealous CPS and –especially– police persons will get the bit between their teeth and start to ignore the basics in their quest to hunt the witches. Anyone who has read the outpourings of the UK police forces online recently will not be reassured as to their objectivity in this respect. There is an unthinking “me-too” political correctness abroad, one which seems impervious to logic, argument, reason or plain commonsense.

Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge

The CPS legal guidance for its staff can be found here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

The full details can be found via the above link but one key element is that there must be one or more identifiable “victims” of the “crime”. In other words, if there is no identifiable victim, then the matter falls in respect of the “hostility” required under the relevant statutes.

How the CPS regards freedom of expression

“In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.”

Other Thoughts

It is noteworthy that the body of the new guidance neither mentions nor lists the Communications Act 2003, s.127 as among the statutes utilized in the prosecution of “hate crime”. However, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.145 and 146 (see hereinabove), anyone sentenced for having posted a “grossly offensive” tweet (etc) under the 2003 Act can receive a sentence uplift if the offending tweeting (etc) had a “hate crime” element (the maximum sentence being 6 months’ imprisonment, though the usual sentence is non-custodial).

One cannot analyze these matters without noting that the Zionist special-interest lobby is likely to try to pursue its political ends by abusing the new guidelines. Readers are referred to my own experience of January 2017:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

Advice for Social Nationalists

I advise a defensive approach. Malicious persons, notably Zionists, try to make provocations by saying offensive things online, eg on Twitter, then (if the interlocutor replies in similar vein), reporting to Twitter, Facebook etc and even to the police. I have found that the easiest way to deal with such nuisances (in the short or medium term) is to block them (on Twitter), which tends to avoid conversations and disputes. It also means that it is much harder for the Zionists to report a tweeter to Twitter. I myself have seen, in the past few years, several Zionists lamenting that “he blocks us, so we cannot [make false accusations].” Yes, it means that the individual tweeter cannot answer back to the lying allegations the Zionists often make, but the solution is simple: just do not care what they may write about you! I don’t…

In other words, just try to avoid having any conversations with malicious Zionists or other nuisances online. Make it hard or impossible for them to make false or malicious reports to Twitter (etc) or the police.

In respect of tweets not specifically addressed to anyone, it is more difficult for those wishing to destroy freedom of expression to report them to Twitter or (a fortiori) to the police, so long as there is no evidence of direct incitement within the meaning of the relevant (1988) Act.

In extreme cases, just protect your tweets. You can also pre-block any obvious Zionists on Twitter (and most of them are indeed very obvious…).

The ultimate and longer-term protection for social nationalists lies in future relocation to “safe zones”, as I suggest on my website: http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities, which will then limit the powers of the wider State.

In essence, the new social media guidelines are indeed another nail in the coffin of free speech in the UK, but are unlikely to stop socio-political comment online– which is why the conspiracy –and behind Alison Saunders stand Theresa May, Amber Rudd, secret groups, the whole #NWO and #ZOG farrago– is trying to get the big online platforms signed up to repression.

In the end, the net result of this latest silliness is likely to be a tsunami of pointless and/or malicious complaints to the police.

Update, 29 April 2019

Since I wrote the above blog post, Alison Chabloz has been convicted under Communications Act 2003, s.127, and is appealing (at time of writing, to the Divisional Court). However, the “guidelines” which are the subject of the article above do not seem to have had much practical effect in terms of changing prosecution or sentencing policy.

Update, 21 November 2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/right-offended-does-not-exist-judge-says-court-hears-police/

Update, 17 January 2021

Much water under the bridge in relation to the Alison Chabloz case(s). To find out more, please use the search function on this blog.

In relation to repression of free speech generally, and as I predicted in the main article above, the ZOG strategy has been, not so much a tightening of laws criminalizing individual free speech, but a campaign of getting the major plaforms of social media to police free speech without any law having to be passed.

Thus we see that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are simply expelling socio-political dissidents, and so removing both their inherent citizen-rights to free expression and (in the case of the prominent few) their online incomes. We have seen such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, David Icke, David Duke etc removed or largely removed from online platforms, the same also happening to less prominent people.

Update, 11 January 2025

Diary Blog, 16 March 2024, including an account of my recent free speech trial and sentencing
Diary Blog, 17 March 2024, including the aftermath of my sentencing hearing

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Lewis, Nick Griffin, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

When I was a victim of a malicious Zionist complaint…

355 Comments

Six months and a day ago, I attended Grays Police Station, Essex, for an interview with the police. I trudged through the snow and slush of estuarial Essex after a long rail journey involving several changes of train. A police fortress set in a snowbound urbanized wasteland. Crossing the rail line in the snow reminded me of visits to socialist Poland in the 1980s. Not pleasant.

grayspolice

[above, Grays Police Station, Grays, Essex]

A week or so before my supposedly voluntary but in fact involuntary trip to Essex, I had been surprised to receive a telephone call from a detective-sergeant of the Essex Police, who informed me that the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [CAA] had made formal complaint against me.

Now the CAA, as some readers will know, is a small but well-funded Jewish Zionist organization, sufficiently in funds to be able to employ a number of full-time staff. It was founded around the time of Israel’s 2014 Gaza slaughter, in order to defend the interests of Israel and of Jews generally. Some of its members also belong to “UK Lawyers for Israel”, a similar group and the one which complained against me to the Bar Standards Board in 2014, as a result of which I was disbarred in late 2016 (though I had not practised for 9 years!). The signatory on that complaint had been one Jonathan Goldberg QC, a Jew who was once the preferred Counsel of the notorious Kray gangsters. Goldberg also appeared pro bono (without fee) for the CAA in its private prosecution against the satirical musician, Alison Chabloz (which prosecution was later taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and the original charges dropped, though new ones were substituted and the matter adjourned until, at the earliest, late December 2017).

The head of the CAA, one Gideon Falter, had, prior to founding the CAA, made a complaint against a Foreign Office man, Rowan Laxton, who was accused of having shouted out (while on a gym treadmill, watching a TV report of yet another Israeli atrocity), “Fucking Jews! Fucking Jews!” (yes, that is enough to get you arrested in contemporary London…). Laxton’s case ended not with his first-instance conviction before a (dozy? biased?) magistrate, but with his acquittal on an appeal by way of rehearing in the Crown Court.

The “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” (sinister title…) at the CAA is one Stephen Silverman, who lives in Essex and who was exposed in open court (possibly inadvertent admission by the CAA’s own advocate) in December 2016 as having been the Internet troll @bedlamjones on Twitter and a user (abuser?) called “Robbersdog” on another discussion site, Disqus. This person abused anyone thought to be anti-Zionist, particularly women. His posts were notorious for their gloating sadism. He particularly enjoyed looking forward to people being arrested, questioned, charged, tried, imprisoned for “anti-Semitic” comments. He was in fact part of a whole group of Jew-Zionists on Twitter and elsewhere, all following the same line of attack (Twitter has now removed several for similar abuse). Despite that, Silverman remains in post at the CAA, an organization apparently supported now by a number of politicians, all under the thumb of the Israel lobby.

Back now to my visit to the area some call “the arsehole of England” (it must be true: it is represented in Parliament by freeloading chancer and former receptionist Jackie Doyle-Price!). It had been arranged with the detective in charge that I would appear at Grays Police Station on 12 January at a specified time. I arranged to have a solicitor who, in the event, failed to turn up. Given the “choice” of returning within a few days or a week at most (and the expense and inconvenience therefore being doubled) or interviewing without legal advice (I last practised at the Bar in 2007-2008 and, apart from corporate “crime” on behalf of companies such as South West Water and Balfour Beatty, had not engaged in criminal law since about 1994), I decided that I had no choice but to continue to interview.

The several detectives who dealt with me were polite, even reasonably friendly; certainly professional in their approach. I was never arrested during the whole proceeding and was told that I could leave at any time. I was then cautioned and interviewed for three hours about some 60 pages of tweets, hundreds in all. Slowly, each tweet was put to me. Many were stories from newspapers, cartoons etc. I mostly no-commented, but did make some pertinent points and the odd joke.

What struck me first was the sheer injustice of all of this. The Jews complaining about me had done so at no cost to themselves and yet had wasted the time and money of both me and the police. The police should have told them, at the least, to go whistle, instead of taking the complaint seriously. I was in fact told by the police that they were dealing with another half-dozen CAA complaints of similar nature. So much for “the police are starved of resources”!

The next point that struck me, as we trawled through many tweets alleged (but not proven) to have been tweeted by me, was how brainwashed the police were in respect of the “holocaust” mythus. They referred to one cartoon (“Alice in Holohoax Land”) and asked how anyone could make a joke of people (Jews) made into soap and lampshades! They obviously had no idea at all that those WW2 “black propaganda” stories had not only been totally debunked but also accepted by the Zionists themselves as untrue! They also, needless to say, had no idea that those “holohoax” tales were in fact of WW1 origin, recycled (so to speak) for WW2 use. I did not bother to argue with them. Perhaps they will read this blog post.

Another funny moment was when the detective in charge objected to tweets poking fun at “Saint” Bob Geldof. It turned out that he took Geldof’s charitable image at face value. I thought that detectives were trained to recognize the dodgy. Apparently not.

I was able to read into the record of interview (taped) a letter I had sent prior to interview, detailing the abuse of the criminal justice system being engaged in by the CAA and by Silverman in particular, as exposed during the Chabloz case and otherwise. I asked that this letter be sent to the CPS, were the complaint against me to go further.

Anyway, after a dehydrating 3 hours (I was given one cup of water) in a hot little room, I was taken outside to the custody desk and booked out. I had never been under arrest and was not given police bail, but just released without anything more. The detective murmured something about “postal disposal” to the custody officer (I never was sent any letter of closure, though) and I was released back into the cold streets of Grays, now being blanketed by more snow.

I do not (much) blame the police involved. They were obviously under pressure from higher ranking police (probably either Zionists or, more likely, freemasons). Political pressure from higher-up, too, in a situation where the governing party under Theresa May and Amber Rudd is really just “ZOG” [Zionist Occupation Government].

Needless to add, I was never prosecuted.

So that is my account of an experience provided for me by the abusive CAA organization. It is time for the CPS to rein back the apparent latitude given to Jewish-Zionist organizations making malicious and politically-motivated complaints against private citizens (I do not belong to any political party or group).

As to my final word, I should say only that “what goes around comes around”…

Update, 10 February 2019

Since the above was written, the CAA has been (I think is still being) investigated by the police and the Charity Commission. It has suffered significant legal defeats, and Stephen Silverman, the sinister troll-stalker of women, is himself now under further police investigation.[see below]

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1094320750771781632

and

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1094321298115887105

Update, 25 October 2019

“They” are still mentioning me online, really getting “full value”…

https://antisemitism.uk/new-guidance-from-bar-standards-board-tells-barristers-to-avoid-heated-social-media-spats/

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

scan25

Update, 14 January 2023

The Jew in question still pursues me, at least in his tiny mind:

Diary Blog, 15 January 2022, including an outline of the failure of the latest Jew-Zionist attempt to prosecute me

Update, 31 October 2024

More recent developments: well, I was eventually put on trial after the “CAA” pressured the Crown (or Clown) Prosecution Service to cobble together a misconceived prosecution-persecution of me.

What happened then is detailed in the blog posts below:

Diary Blog, 16 March 2024, including an account of my recent free speech trial and sentencing
Diary Blog, 17 March 2024, including the aftermath of my sentencing hearing

The upshot of all that was that I was made subject to a 9-month “community order” and required to pay costs etc amounting to £734. The costs were partly (about 1/3) crowdfunded, the rest paid off in monthly instalments (all now paid).

As for the “community order”, with 15 “rehabilitation days”, the “days” turned out to be short or shortish meetings lasting between 20 minutes and a couple of hours and, after half a dozen of them (one every few weeks, I was told that, by reason of other and larger events (unrelated to my own case), the “rehabilitation days” requirement was, in my case, deemed to have been fulfilled.

All finished.

The little screeching “CAA” Jew-Zionist pack were so shocked that I was not either imprisoned or given a suspended custodial sentence (and the blog closed down) that it took them a couple of weeks (during which they were not inactive behind the scenes) to comment on my —as they wrongly termed it on their website— “absurdly lenient” sentence (which exactly followed the written recommendation of the Probation Service).

They must be fuming even more, now that the sentence turns out to have been even less harsh than when passed. They (no doubt) continue to plot and scheme.

Meanwhile, the blog continues to be published on a daily or near-daily basis.

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Stray memories of life at the English Bar, Uncategorized

The Slide of the English Bar and UK Society Continues and Accelerates

403 Comments

[Addendum and Update, 5 September 2021: since I blogged in relation to my disbarment etc, there have been developments, some of which are covered in the updates at the foot of the original blog. However, two other important changes have been that, firstly, the Bar Standards Board wrote to me a couple of years ago, explaining that I should never have been “tried” by a 5-person Tribunal (the only type that has the power to disbar), but only by a 3-person Tribunal (which can only impose lesser penalties). The BSB offered me the chance to have my case reheard. In that event, whatever happened, I should be reinstated as a barrister.

I decided at the time not to reopen the matter. My decision was partly a gesture of contempt towards the System and the Jew-Zionist lobby that procured the “prosecution”, “trial”, and eventual disbarment. Also, as someone over 60, I had no practical use for my “Barrister” status.

The second development, arising out of one of the more recent parts of the Henry Hendron case, is that, as an “unregistered” barrister (since 2008), I should never have been “prosecuted” at all, because the relevant parts of the Bar Code of Conduct would not have applied to me on the facts. I did, I believe, make that point in early correspondence with the BSB in the 2014-2016 period.

In other words, my 2016 disbarment was not only wrongful, but actually unlawful].

[Original blog article from 9 July 2017]

When I started to blog, I intended to write about things of general or objective importance. I intended to avoid the personal and subjective. Above all, I wished to avoid mixing the objective and the subjective. However, I think that some of my personal reminiscences and thoughts might be of interest to others. I also consider that objective conclusions can be drawn about UK society from some of my experiences.

Many of those who are reading this will be aware that I was disbarred in late 2016. That happened after a group of Jew-Zionists calling themselves “UK Lawyers for Israel” (some of whom, probably many, also belong to the so-called “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”) made official complaint (in 2014) about a number (at first, several dozen) of tweets which I had posted on Twitter. Eventually, the number of tweets comprising the subject-matter of the charge was reduced to seven. Seven (7) tweets (reduced to 5 at Tribunal) out of, at the time, at least 150,000.

Now, though I may blog in detail about the manifold injustices around my own case at a later date, my purpose today is to compare the overall “justice” I received with that meted out to another Bar defaulter recently, in order to illustrate wider points.

Now the bare bones of my own situation were that:

  • I ceased Bar practice in 2008 and last appeared in court in December 2007;
  • I did not hold a Practice Certificate after 2008;
  • I joined Twitter in 2010 and started to tweet in 2011 or 2012;
  • My Twitter profile and picture never made any reference to my being or having been a barrister (whether practising, non-practising or employed);
  • Only a tiny handful of the 155,000-200,000 tweets I had posted made any mention of the fact that I had, years before, been a practising barrister; none of the supposedly “offensive” tweets did so;
  • The tweets I posted (whether complained of or not) were all posted as part of my “personal or private life”, I having had no professional life after 2008 anyway.

It should be said (without getting too technical) that the Bar Code of Conduct was once a slim volume but has expanded into a fairly lengthy and complex code. Suffice to say that the now-usual “race and religion”, “diversity” etc stuff is now included (and I think that we can be sure what kind of persons drafted those clauses…).

In the past, a barrister’s private life was not justiciable under the Code except in a few carefully-drawn exceptions, the main one being where a barrister had been convicted of a (serious) criminal offence (parking, speeding etc excluded). The new Code, in force for a number of years, kept those boundaries but, crucially, made them advisory only, taking away the cast-iron defence that whatever was complained of had been done in the course of the barrister’s personal or private life.

At the same time, the old and sensible distinction between barristers who are in practice, or who are employed as barristers, as against those not practising, or not employed as barristers, was removed in relation to “Core Duty 5”, i.e. in effect “bringing the Bar into disrepute”.

In short, I was, in effect, “bringing the Bar into disrepute”, or so decided a Bar Tribunal panel of 5 chaired by a retired Circuit judge, when (6+ years AFTER having given up Bar practice) I tweeted the seven *reduced at Tribunal to five) “offensive” tweets (on my Twitter account that made no mention in its profile etc that I had ever been a barrister).

I should say that the presiding judge made the point in his summation and sentencing that I had had an unblemished record at the Bar throughout the years since I was Called in 1991.

Other barristers had and have Twitter accounts. Some post obscene comments, such as the “lady” QC whose every sentence contained a swear word. Many have pictures of themselves in wig and gown, or advertise their practices via website links etc (which is now OK but would have been a serious Bar offence only 20 years or so ago). None of those who have used obscene language etc (including telling people to “fuck off” etc) has ever been hauled before a Bar Tribunal, despite their proclaiming their professional status, despite having photos of themselves in Bar clothing in some cases, despite their being in practice at the Bar and talking about it and the law constantly. The presiding judge at my 5-person Tribunal called my case “unprecedented”.

There are so many examples today of barristers doing things which would have meant disbarment decades ago but which are now laughed at and even applauded. We see, for example, the Jewish barrister known to the public as “Judge Rinder” (not in fact any kind of judge) on TV, the show aping that of (also Jewish) “Judge Judy” in the USA. The barrister who plays the role of “Judge Rinder” is acting entirely within the ambit of what is now tolerated by the Bar regulators, but one could not imagine such a show on TV in, say, 1967 or even 1987.

That is even leaving aside the vulgar advertizing and self-promotion undertaken by members of the Bar in practice. That was not permitted until the 1990s. The following example of a Bar defaulter was also one of the most shameless self-promoters.

Now let us look at how the Bar treated so-called “celebrity barrister” Henry Hendron, who, despite being a horrible little bastard –from what I have heard on radio and read in newspapers (I have never met him, admittedly)–, was treated very leniently by the Bar Tribunal, certainly as contrasted with my case.

Hendron supplied so-called “chemsex” drugs, apparently used in gay orgies, to his 18-y-o foreign boyfriend, who died as a result.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/

Hendron was ALSO found guilty, on his own admission, of failing to administer properly his chambers (which he headed as Head of Chambers) and in respect of that was fined £2,000, a trivial sum for someone who made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year.

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/barrister-henry-hendron-suspended-for-three-years-following-criminal-convictions-for-supplying-illegal-drugs/

So the Bar Standards Board and a Bar Tribunal think that a barrister and indeed head of chambers who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of supplying illegal drugs for immoral purposes, and that supply having resulted in death (within the Temple itself at that!) AND failing to run his chambers properly should get suspended from practice for three years (in fact only two, because time was ruled to run from 2016!) and get a modest fine, whereas I, “found guilty” of having tweeted five (reduced at hearing from seven charged) supposedly “offensive” tweets about Jews, and not a practising or employed barrister at all, had to be disbarred! You really could not make it up.

This is what the Bar Standards Board official , Sara Jagger, Director of Professional Conduct, said about the Hendron case:

“A conviction for supplying illegal drugs is a serious matter. In this case, it had tragic consequences. Mr Hendron failed to meet one of the core duties of a barrister, which is to uphold public trust and confidence. The suspension imposed by the tribunal reflects this.”

This is what the same woman said about my case:

“The use of such offensive language is incompatible with the standards expected of barristers. The Tribunal rightly found that such behaviour diminishes the trust and confidence the public places in the profession and the decision to disbar Mr Millard reflects this.”

The Board’s press statement (still on its website today) also repeated the lie that my Twitter account “made it clear that” I was a barrister. An out and out lie.

Who, I wonder, would the public think less properly able to reflect the standards expected of a barrister? A snivelling, drug-taking degenerate, convicted of illegal drug supply resulting in death, and who also ran his chambers improperly, OR someone who, as part of his non-professional life and indeed post-professional life, posted seven supposedly “offensive” tweets (taking them as described by the Bar Tribunal)?

You decide.

Postscriptum: The BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme interviewed Henry Hendron in a very sympathetic way recently; the popular Press handled the story with a relatively light touch. Contrast that with the day or three of msm storm around my case last year! We can see the way society is going: downhill, fast.

Update, 26 January 2019

Now he is or has been selling “legal packages”! Perhaps he could set up a stall or barrow in one of the London street markets? Is the Bar Standards Board OK with this? Is the Bar itself OK with this?! I begin to think that the whole bloody system should be chucked into the mire…

https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/05/suspended-chemsex-barrister-sells-4000-legal-advice-for-life-on-facebook/

And what is one to make of this? He now intends to sail around the world! Hello sailor! He even has the cheek to solicit donations from the public! As for his hypocrisy, in pretending to be a “victim” of “unequal justice” when he has been treated so incredibly leniently compared to me (read the blog article, above!), words fail me…(his crowdfunding page from August 2018 raised….just £40. Seems that the public are not so stupid after all). [Update, June 2019: Hendron has now deleted all his blog posts about sailing around the world with a bumboy etc and seems to be intending to use his website to flog more “legal services”]

https://henryhendron.com/

According to the blog below, he set off in August 2018, not knowing how to sail, and had to be rescued by the Coastguard the same day…then set off again a day later…The blog writer wants him to give up his “suicidal” journey. Seems that Hendron has one friend, anyway. [see above update, however]

https://www.russelldawkinsbackontrack.co.uk/my-mates/

In fact, it seems that he survived at least until 4 September 2018 (see his blog, below). What appals me about it is the poor grammar, spelling, use of English generally. That such a person was not only treated better than me by the Bar “regulators”, but was at the Bar at all, makes me fume (almost literally). Incidentally, and as of September last year, he had managed to get as far round the globe as Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, having started off in…the Isle of Wight or the nearby Hampshire coast.

https://henryhendron.com/author/hhendron/

[see update above]

I have to wonder, looking at his obviously disordered mind and his poor use of the English language, whether there really are mugs stupid enough to want to retain him on any basis. He asks for £600 an hour. Apparently, in the past his services were utilized by Nadine Dorries MP! Comedy gold.

Ah, seems that Hendron is no longer sailing around the world, unless his navigation is up the creek (literally)…he’s in Romania! https://twitter.com/henryhendron/status/1079764170…

[again, please refer to update, above]

or was, as of New Year’s Eve. Listening to him, I have to admit that I start to feel sorry for him, so pathetic is he. Compassion is my weakness, often.

A Few Stray Bits of News

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4618544/Celebrity-barrister-fighting-sibling-court.html

a dissatisfied client of Hendron having his or her say… 

https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1007513247224877056

https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1046465514736881664

Update, 15 March 2019

Now he is on Question Time! (ironically, I agree with most of what he is saying!)

https://twitter.com/BenJolly9/status/1106535042115870726

Update, 10 May 2019

Just noticed this (see below). Made me laugh that a young (?) lady calling herself @pussycatt1984 tweeted that she wanted to have the babies of “pink jumper man”. She might be disappointed…

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/drug-suspension-barrister-goes-viral-after-pro-brexit-rant-on-bbc-question-time/

Update, 21 July 2019

The online legal news site, Legal Cheek, reports on Henry Hendron’s return to Bar practice, presumably operating from home or his boat (if he still has it):

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/06/henry-hendron-returns-to-practice-three-years-after-drug-conviction/#.XQZ78yEYw-k.twitter

Another barrister does not sound very thrilled at the news (or at Hendron being described in a “newspaper” as “QC”!)…

https://twitter.com/darrylcherrett/status/1140896761294270465

Quite. Rather a shame, though, that Cherrett apparently does not know the difference between “practise” (as in “to practise”) and “practice” (as in “his practice is criminal”). Still, I suppose that one could be broadminded or charitable and say that, in the USA, the words are reversed…I should not want to be too much of what some call “a grammar nazi”…Oh, fuck it! Why not?! I am sick and tired of semi-educated or narrowly-educated people at the Bar (especially..) and elsewhere in good positions in this sliding country! The Bar, journalism, msm generally, Westminster.

In fact, reverting to Hendron, I was just reading a few of his recent tweets. He is at least not too bad from the political point of view:

and he seems to be an animal lover, so not all bad in that respect either, having retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1108377430962696193

Update, 30 July 2019

Seems that Hendron has yet again been suspended from Bar practice, though only for 3 months:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/chemsex-barrister-suspended-again-by-tribunal/5071174.article

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/07/henry-hendron-suspended-again/

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/barrister-henry-hendron-ordered-to-be-suspended-from-practice/

So Hendron

  • supplied illegal drugs to his foreign teenage boyfriend;
  • as a result of which the boy died;
  • at a “chemsex” orgy held
  • within the precincts of the Temple in London;
  • as a result of which Hedron and others were convicted and sentenced
  • at the Old Bailey

and

  • also found guilty at Bar Disciplinary Tribunal of failing to run his Chambers (of which he was Head) properly

and now also has been found guilty by a BDT of

  • failing to pay a lay client monies
  • despite having been ordered to by the Legal Ombudsman

but instead of being disbarred, has once again been only suspended. He must really have some good contacts in the Bar establishment! Or does he “know too much”?

Still, he only did what is chronicled above (oh, and sold so-called “legal packages” to the public from a metaphorical barrow), all of which have been in the newspapers. It is not as if Hendron did something really bad, like tweeting a few critical remarks about Jews…

I was looking at a few of Hendron’s tweets from 2016 and 2017. Only semi-literate. Does he claim to have dyslexia or something? No wonder that the Bar has lost most of the prestige it had half a century ago. It is just a multikulti dustbin now.

Update, 2 September 2019

Jew-Zionist hypocrite Simon Myerson Q.C. belongs to both main organizations that have persecuted me, “UK Lawyers for Israel” and “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [“CAA”]. Now he is playing the Jewish “victim” because others are trying to get him disbarred for his tweets etc…Ha ha! What goes around comes around.

It must be yet another case of “anti-Semitism”!…Another Jew hypocrite. Myerson was one of those who conspired to have me expelled from the Bar, and he has been both snooping on me and trolling me on Twitter for a decade.

Ha ha!

Update, 25 October 2019

“They” are still mentioning me online, really getting “full value”…

https://antisemitism.uk/new-guidance-from-bar-standards-board-tells-barristers-to-avoid-heated-social-media-spats/

Update, 5 January 2021

Henry Hendron wins appeal against second suspension

“Mr Justice Fordham wrote: “[T]he BSB’s position is that a barrister whose practising certificate has been suspended is not a ‘BSB regulated person’”, adding that “I have heard no argument and seen no analysis to the contrary.”

The judge praised the BSB and its barrister, Zoe Gannon, for telling him about the “suspended-barrister problem” even though it cost them the case. Hendron himself “had not identified it or relied on it in his grounds of appeal”.“

“Hendron himself had not identified it…“, Well, it is well known that “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client“. I would not want his barrister to represent me, though! Semi-literate, and unable to identify legal issues, as well as morally suspect in various ways.

I should remind myself and my blog readers that the purpose here is not to attack Hendron but to show up the Bar itself, and to highlight the injustice to which I was subject.

I saw a few tweets from Hendron:

The “Crime Bar“?! As I said, semi-literate…

More?

I don’t care if he does claim “dyslexia”; if so, he should never have become a barrister.

As for this, what is one to make of it?

“Your“? (Should be “you’re” or “you are“, of course). Calls his chambers his “office”, and seems to be in a position to pay someone up to £60,000 p.a.! Not sure that I believe a word that he says, though.

An older tweet, from 2011:

The Petersham Hotel? All human life must have been there! I certainly have been, though in the 1980s. “SS Headquarters Normandie”, as my friends and I used to call it! https://www.petershamhotel.co.uk/. Used to be a good place for a quiet drink.

Update, 3 February 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9220171/Barrister-40-tells-misconduct-hearing-charges-against-rubbish.html

Looks like Hendron has finally run out of road. Not that I was ever personally hostile to him; I have never met him, and indeed only heard of him after the scandal involving his “drugs and sex” activities came to light in the Press a few years ago. My aim in the blog was to compare his very lenient treatment by the Bar with the totalitarian repression that bore down on me because I said (on Twitter) a few supposedly “offensive” things about Jews.

Update, 20 March 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9376997/Barrister-40-dealt-chemsex-pills-represented-client-banned.html

Update, 16 May 2021

Lest anyone think that the Hendron matters have been the only ones where leniency has been egregrious as compared to my own case, take a look at this report from 2019: https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/12/controversial-barrister-suspended-for-two-years-over-obscene-tweets/.

“Controversial barrister” merely “suspended” for 2 years. In my case, I tweeted general socio-political comments in 5 specified tweets. Contrary to the lying statement put out by the BSB, I did not “identify” myself in any of them, nor on my Twitter profile, as a barrister. My tweets were not “addressed” to any particular person, either. Sentence? Disbarment.

“Controversial barrister” Barbara Hewson? Merely suspended for 2 years:

“A controversial barrister has been suspended for two years for “obscene” and “abusive” language on social media” [Legal Cheek magazine]

“Her social media activity has drawn attention for many years. In 2015, Legal Cheek reported several examples of tweets sent from Hewson’s Twitter account telling people to “grow up you cunt” and “get off my tits, you cunts”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]

“[Sarah] Phillimore has said that Hewson’s past behaviour included telling her “fuck off” and calling her a “nasty C**t” and “continually making references to my daughter when she knows full well that her tweets are ‘liked’ and ‘retweeted’ by at least one convicted and unrepentant paedophile”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]

In fact, the sentence was reduced later to suspension for 1 year, because Ms. Hewson was suffering from terminal cancer, and died of it in 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Hewson]. That does not vitiate my point about the earlier leniency.

The difference between my case and hers (apart from the fact that I did not address comments to any named individual, posted only 5 tweets complained of at Tribunal, did not post anything obscene or threatening, and did not identify myself in those tweets or on my Twitter profile as a barrister)? Jews. I mentioned Jews and their behaviour etc; Ms. Hewson did not.

Any fair-minded observer would surely conclude that Ms. Hewson’s defaults (like those of Henry Hendron) were far worse than mine; indeed, I committed no default anyway, as far as I am concerned.

Pro-Jewish bias meant bias against me.

Also:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625043/Barrister-dealt-chemsex-pills-killed-boyfriend-avoids-struck-off.html

Update, 28 August 2022

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/barrister-dealing-drugs-henry-hendron-court-nadine-dorries-b1021206.html

“A barrister who has represented Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and Apprentice winner Stella English has been charged with encouraging a client to supply drugs.

Henry Hendron, 41, whose rostrum of well-known past clients also includes the Earl of Cardigan, is facing allegations he bought crystal meth and party drug GBL.”

Please continue to monitor this blog post for further updates…

Update, 8 October 2022

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/barrister-nadine-dorries-woolwich-crown-court-london-dagenham-b1030813.html

“A barrister accused of encouraging his client to supply drugs has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Henry Hendron, who previously represented high-profile figures including the Earl of Cardigan and Nadine Dorries, is alleged to have bought crystal meth and GBL.

The 41-year-old represented himself, and barrister Kerry Broome was prosecuting, as he appeared at Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London on Thursday.

Wearing a grey suit and striped shirt, he pleaded not guilty to all counts.“

[Evening Standard].

Update, 14 March 2023

I have no idea what was the result of Hendron’s latest trial; it may have been deferred, as many have been in the past few years.

Whatever the fact of that, I notice that Hendron still has a Bar Practice Certificate, valid until April 2023! See https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/28719507B95237D35C7E529721FB5145.html.

Update, 19 March 2023

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-barrister-chemsex-death-case-29495008.

As previously noted, Hendron is still being described, risibly, as a “top barrister“! I have blogged more than once about how, for tabloid scribblers, there are only two types of barrister, “top” and “disgraced” (or both?).

Update, 17 June 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/13/judge-jails-barrister-who-tried-to-buy-drugs-from-two-men-he-represented

Well, there we are…

As said previously, I have no personal animus against Hendron (whom I never encountered). I just think that he has no reasonably-good ability, in that he is unable to reason clearly, cannot spell or use the English language properly, and overall should never have been at the Bar. Also, I still think that, until this week, he was treated very leniently by the Bar establishment, whereas I was treated very badly (and contrary to law), and that because the Bar and Bench always seem to run scared of the Jewish lobby these days.

Update, 1 September 2023

Note: https://news.sky.com/story/barrister-ian-millard-disbarred-for-offensive-anti-jewish-tweets-10635920

Addendum: In respect of the above:

“He was jailed for 14 months by Judge Mann after previously admitting two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs, one similar charge involving class C drugs, and possession of a class A drug.

Mann described Hendron as “clearly bright and capable”, adding: “It is clear you are a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”

“I want to make it clear that it is not the fact that you are a barrister that is so serious.

“What is so serious is these offences have been committed by you in the context of you asking those you represent, or represented, to supply you with drugs.”

The said Judge Mann called Hendron “clearly bright and capable” and that he is or was “a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”

Read my above blog. Would the assessment of Hendron by Judge Mann be yours? It is not mine.

Hendron was sentenced to 14 months, so will be released, at latest, after 7 months, i.e. on or before 1 April 2024; April Fools’ Day.

Update, 17 April 2024

I happened to see the Evening Standard report below, which tells the story of how Hendron’s appeal has just now been dismissed:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/disgraced-barrister-henry-hendron-bought-drugs-from-clients-loses-appeal-bid-b1151568.html

Apparently, “The Court of Appeal noted that Hendron had not been disbarred after that conviction, noting “unusual and very serious” feature of his case.“

Ambiguous. Does that mean that Hendron’s not having been disbarred was an “unusual and very serious feature” of the case, or was he not disbarred because there was some (unspecified) “unusual and very serious feature” in the matter? The way I read the (nowadays, typically) semi-literate newspaper report, the former seems to be the case.

Anyway, there it is. On the face of it, Hendron, when released (he may already have been released) can resume, it seems, his Bar career, if he can find any clients.

Update, 20 May 2025

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/resources/press-releases/barrister-henry-hendron-ordered-to-be-disbarred.html

Well, that’s that, then (finally). I only today noticed that Hendron was disbarred last year, only months after the last update to this blog post.

Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Irving, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

My Visit to the London Forum

6 Comments

Background

Some time ago, in late 2016, I was invited to address the London Forum. At that time I had only very peripherally heard of it. This is how it describes itself:

“The London Forum is a non-party aligned conference group for nationalists, identitarians, thinkers and commentators from across the Right.”

https://identityforum.org.uk/the-london-forum/

and it is connected with the online publisher, The Identity Forum, https://identityforum.org.uk/, which says of itself:

“By publishing original work on identity, culture, race, tradition, metapolitics and other topics of interest, our goal is to provide a forum which produces engaging, insightful, high-quality content.”

At the time of my invitation, I had just been disbarred, despite having not actually practised at the Bar for over 8 years, despite having what the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal described as an unblemished record as a barrister (including commendations from the Bench and favourable mention in the main legal directories), despite many other factors in my favour. The complaint against me had been made by a Jewish-Zionist organization, “UK Lawyers for Israel” and related to (in the end) 7 tweets posted (out of some 150,000 at the time). I intend to blog about my case in detail another time. Suffice to say that I accepted the invitation to speak to the London Forum, despite convenience and ease suggesting that I decline.

I had endured “15 minutes of fame” (two days or so, in reality) in late October 2016, as parts of the Press went mad about the (supposedly) “neo-Nazi” barrister and his punishment (presented to an unwitting newspaper readership as getting my “just deserts”, of course). Did I really want more mainstream media attention stoked by Zionist extremists and their hysteria? Not really. Exhibitionism is not a large part of my personality. However, I conceived it to be my duty to speak up, not for myself but for freedom of expression in the UK, under attack from various quarters but especially from the Zionist element.

On the Day

So it was that I went to the London Forum on Saturday 4 February 2017, as one of half a dozen speakers addressing an audience of perhaps 100 people in a large tourist hotel in Kensington. Most of those who spoke can be seen and heard on the London Forum youtube channel, along with speakers from earlier events:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEwrMR1v4vK-LAp4805x6Bg

The reception was warm and the meeting, which started at 1200, proceeded peacefully, though occasionally a very faint chanting could, just about, be heard. It transpired that that scarcely audible chanting was from about 30 masked “antifa” idiots who had congregated outside the main entrance of the hotel. The London Forum was happening one floor up and on the other side of the building. I later discovered that, at first, there were only a few police personnel sent to deal with the rentamob, which had been summoned, no doubt by a Zionist, via tweets; the “activists” were probably overflow from the much larger (40,000-strong) anti-Trump march which happened slightly earlier. It seems that the fools were under the impression that the London Forum was “a secret neo-Nazi gathering”, a description which found its way into the bad-joke online rump “newspaper”, The Independent, a day or so later.

The meeting carried on, most of the audience being entirely unaware of the small protest happening one (atrium) floor down and on the other side of the hotel. The meeting ended at its scheduled time of 1700 hrs. By that time, the main public areas of the hotel had been flooded with what seemed to be about 60 police, including a police medic (I saw the back of his jacket), vans outside and a helicopter whirling overhead. A senior-looking officer (no high-vis jacket, a cap) seemed to have taken charge. He (I was told) gave the order to clear away the would-be “revolutionary” snowflakes from the hotel by issuing a “Dispersal Order” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_Behaviour_Act_2003#Dispersal_zones], after which the snowflakes presumably went home to mama or to wherever they lodge (several that I saw on the Internet, days later, seemed to be foreign). Certainly, by the time the meeting participants left the hotel, the “antifa” idiots had all (all 30!) melted away like real snowflakes.

Aftermath and thoughts

The Press, TV, radio largely ignored both the meeting and the pathetic though noisy protest. The Independent “newspaper” (now online only after its circulation dropped in early 2016 to about 20,000) carried a piece by one Niamh Mcintyre, a student-journalist. Her piece got almost everything wrong: the maybe 30 “antifa” idiots were “80” in the Independent’s “report” and the (open to all bona fide people) London Forum was “a secret neo-Nazi gathering”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/neo-nazi-meeting-london-richard-spencer-alt-right-fascist-activists-white-supremacists-a7563021.html

Niamh Mcintyre’s “report” also said that previous London Forum speakers had included Max Weber. This was remarkable, in view of the fact that Max Weber died in 1920!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber

I think that the poor snowflake meant Mark Weber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weber

I saw tweets from Niamh Mcintyre, Independent “newspaper” “journalist” (student) to “London Antifascists” and similar “antifa” idiots, asking “what is happening?” [at the hotel] and requesting comment. At no time (right up to now) were any participants or London Forum officials asked for comment or information, it seems. However, the “antifa” idiots’ comments were printed uncritically by the Independent, even one calling for “direct action” (terrorism and intimidation) to “close down” free speech even in a private forum.

After I tweeted (Wednesday 8 February 2017) about the Independent’s ignorance and lack of journalistic ethics (not checking basic facts, not getting both sides or several sides of a story, bias etc), the egregious error of “Max Weber/Mark Weber” was removed from the Independent online report, but the rest of the nonsense is still up, including a claim that the idiots caused the meeting to close early. Untrue. It carried on to the scheduled end .

The Metro free newspaper carried a slightly more, though not very, accurate report:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/07/neo-nazis-allowed-to-hold-secret-meeting-at-central-london-hotel-6432405/

though it saw fit to add a laughable extra line about how it had warned the hotel that “ethnic minorities” and staff might be in danger! Journalism died one day and was replaced by something else…The Metro “newspaper” also described how the London Forum had previously “hosted” “infamous holocaust denier..Max Weber” (who died in 1920!). Not very surprising that newspapers are dying, when they employ the ignorant to make up “fake news”…

Did “antifa” achieve anything? No. The London Forum took place, the videos of speeches are online and (equally importantly) free speech was upheld.

What if the police had not been there? Well, the “antifa” idiots were few (possibly, at peak, 35) in number whereas the audience, speakers and LF security (pretty fit and skilled) numbered well over a hundred. The “antifa” may have got off lightly. They are just the “useful idiots” for others (Zionists) and of no importance.

Freedom of expression on social, political and historical topics must be protected,

c4jxgm2ukae7tt_Update, 9 September 2018

Readers of the above blog post may have noticed that the links for London Forum and Identity Forum are not working. This is because YouTube decided, having been pressured by the Jew-Zionist lobby, to remove those channels in their entirety. The leading light of the London Forum, Jez Turner [Jeremy Bedford-Turner] was prosecuted after the CPS was taken to court on a judicial review application by the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism”, yet another pack of Jewish Zionists in the UK. This is what we are up against: a stealth police state and its private equivalent, which have little or no legitimacy and which must be overthrown.

Update, 6 January 2018

I have seen my own speech to the London Forum posted online recently, so it may be that patriots have posted all the London Forum speeches or talks somewhere or other.

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Irving, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

Free Speech: Individuality and Collectivity

4 Comments

Rudolf Steiner often spoke of the ever-increasing individualism in our age (that period which he named the “Fifth Post-Atlantean Age”, which started around 1400 AD and is due to run until about 3500 AD). This is an inevitable continuing process and will bring many benefits if people are guided by conscience. However, if people are not guided by individual conscience, the forces of the individual will tear apart society.

Against the forces of individualism stands “society”, which encompasses law, unwritten “laws” of convention and expectation and also the powers of the State (which holds itself out as the concrete expression of the people as a whole).

Society is, of course, a good thing. In proper measure, it makes possible and supports such aspects of life as law, public order, organized help for the sick, disabled, elderly, poor etc. It is a structure which supports the family, too. It also provides, via the State,  the structure for defence against outside forces (hostile states, natural calamities etc). However, if taken too far, society and/or the State becomes oppression, involving the repression of individual liberty in various ways (most obviously, perhaps, suppression of free speech or other freedom of expression).

Society restricts freedom of speech. It is hard to imagine a society beyond the most primitive or germinal in which complete freedom of speech exists (eg spoken or written threats against the person). On the other hand, when society (the State, or perhaps a religious or political cult) prevents individual expression, reasonable restriction becomes unreasonable repression. One thinks, perhaps, of the more extreme socialist states of the 20th Century, such as the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao Tse-Tung, Albania under Enver Hoxha, Cuba under Fidel Castro. The same was true of anti-socialist tyrannies such as Nicaragua under Somoza.

Particular emergency conditions may lead to a temporary tightening of what is regarded as acceptable free speech. In the Second World War, the various combatants restricted free speech considerably. In the UK, those who spoke out against the war or government policy faced both prosecution (State) and persecution (society generally). Even the USA, with its famous Constitutional safeguards, clamped down on freedom of expression.

As in other fields of life, we can see that the tension between the demands of the individual qua individual and those of the collective results in what amounts to a compromise. It is a question of either where society (in practice, usually the State, but possibly a smaller community such as a town or even a family) decides where the line is drawn, or where the individual draws the line, based on conscience or preference and regardless of where the State and/or society has drawn it.

Most people, most of the time, obey the dictates of the collective. Were that not so, law could not exist except as a facade with nothing behind it (cf. Stalin’s Russia etc); neither could the State or its power, in the end. On the other hand, the individual must always obey conscience and it therefore becomes vital to distinguish between individual conscience and individual wilfulness or egoism. No outside force can decide what is conscience and what is wilfulness or egoism. The individual, the individual human soul, is the only judge or arbiter here. Where the individual and the collective collide, the results can range from martyrdom of the individual to reform or even revolution affecting the collective.

Where do I myself, as both individual and citizen (i.e. part of the collective) draw the line? For me, freedom of expression about social, political and historical matters should be absolute. Other forms of expression (eg threats, libels, fraudulent misrepresentations) can be (and commonly are) restricted to a greater or lesser extent.

It follows from the above that I prefer the approach taken in the United States to that of most EU states (including the UK). Restrictions on freedom of expression are often imposed for or from outwardly “good” motives, but rapidly become a slippery slope with evil results. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Notes

  1.  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Alt-Right, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

Reports and Lies

1 Comment

We are accustomed to reading the most arrant nonsense about Adolf Hitler. According to this stream of black propaganda (which started as long ago as the 1920s), Hitler was savage, unforgiving, tyrannical, vituperative, uneducated, a down-and-out from the gutter, a house-painter, sexually perverse, an erotomaniac, impotent, excessively interested in women, a gay, mad, sometimes mad, occasionally mad, only interested in his own material benefit, a tax dodger, even harsh toward his beloved dog, Blondie!

In Hitler’s own lifetime, a pack of lies was spewed out by his enemies: Jewish elements and interests; the Communists and Socialists who, many of them, supported or condoned Stalinism; also journalists working, in effect, for those same groups. During the Second World War, both the Soviet Union and the Western Allies maintained huge ministries and agencies dedicated to “black propaganda”. After 1945 the baton was passed to the increasingly prevalent Jewish or Zionist lobby and its major offshoot, the “holocaust” industry, aided by historians who knew that their careers depended on not challenging the approved narrative.

The “Hitler was a house-painter” story seems to have come from a Jesuit priest who was taken to hear Hitler in Munich in or about 1920. He asked what Hitler was (at that time Hitler had few followers and was unknown outside the city); the answer came, “I think that he is a painter of houses” (no doubt a garbled version, heard somewhere, of Hitler’s pre-WW1 life as a struggling art student and painter). In the 1930s, Churchill took up that false version of Hitler’s life as a young man, no doubt calculating that English snobbery would be inherently biased against a political leader with a past involving painting houses or the like. Even today, one occasionally sees reference to Hitler “painting houses”.

The idea that Hitler was “mad” came from an anti-Hitler newspaper editor (probably the half-Jewish scribbler Konrad Heiden), who, in the 1930s, told the American correspondent and anti-Hitler propagandist William Shirer (who posed as an historian after 1945) that Hitler was a “Teppichfresser” (“carpet-chewer”), meaning prone to bouts of insanity when he would supposedly curl up in rage on the carpet and chew the edge of the same. A complete invention, which has coloured the popular view of Hitler ever since, though even the Jewish historians no longer make the exact allegation.

As to the stories and speculations about Hitler’s  sex life, I should imagine that every possibility has now been explored by journalists and historians eager to reduce Adolf Hitler to a sort of freak show. Needless to say, the most likely possibility (that Hitler was “normal” but unenthusiastic) is of little interest, being unlikely to sell books or newspapers.

A more recent allegation has been that Hitler was a drug addict. Again untrue, though there is at least a kernel of fact underpinning this one, in that Hitler’s doctor, Morell, was a medical innovator who did tend to experiment on his patients. Hitler demanded results; Morell tried to provide them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell#Substances_administered_to_Hitler

(actually, though many have quailed at Morell’s preparations, such as the ones that included “intestinal bacteria”, these were the basis for the now-popular “active” yoghurt health drinks for the stomach now found next to the milkshakes in every UK supermarket).

What about Hitler as a vengeful tyrant? This seems to rest mainly on his reaction to the 1944 plotters, who, in the midst of Germany’s fight for survival, saw fit to blow up Hitler and the German High Command at Rastenburg in East Prussia (now in Poland). Yes, they were executed, some cruelly, it seems, but would it have been much different in, say, England, had Churchill been blown up by “traitors” at Ditchley Park (in, perhaps, 1940), alongside his military and naval chiefs?

In reality, Hitler was not a vengeful type. Anton Drexler, the locksmith who founded the then DAP which Hitler joined in 1919, had a serious quarrel with Hitler in 1921. He wrote a letter accusing Hitler of “acting like a Jew, twisting every fact” (!), was removed as head of the party (replaced by Hitler) and was given a purely figurehead position until he resigned in 1924, after which he was elected to the Bavarian Parliament for another party, serving as elected member until 1928. Despite that, Drexler was readmitted to the NSDAP in 1933, honoured (though not given any political position) and died peacefully in 1942. One cannot imagine Stalin treating a similar case the same way!

Another example. The first reports about an attempted putsch in Munich in 1923 (the Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch), reached the ears of a police commander called Sigmund von Imhoff, who contacted the Reichswehr commander of the city and seized the telephone and telegraph exchange. He was probably the most important reason that the putsch failed (amid bloodshed, Hitler himself being injured as the main march was brought to a halt).

One can well imagine what Stalin, on attaining power, would have done with an officer such as von Imhoff, but under Hitler he was not punished. On the contrary, he was promoted to Police General in 1933 and, in WW2, seconded to the Luftwaffe with the rank of Major General (he died in Bavaria in 1967).

This article could be ten times or a hundred longer, so many lies about Hitler and the Reich have been told and continue to be told. However, the few examples above perhaps will give pause to those who imagine that they have been told the truth about those world-historic events of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.