Category Archives: Ian Millard

Alt-Right, Brexit, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Peter Hitchens and His Views

May 19, 2019 Ian Millard 31 Comments

I am impelled to write a few words about Peter Hitchens after having just seen an interview with Owen Jones [see below], which interview dates from 2017.

I have already written a blog post about Owen Jones:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/a-brief-word-about-owen-jones/

To examine the views and influence of Hitchens in detail would necessitate a blog article of inordinate length, but Wikipedia has a considerable amount of information about him:

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

I should like to focus mainly on a few matters raised in that interview.

As to Hitchens himself, he is an odd fellow, apparently fairly well-educated. His family background had elements of tragedy (his mother bolted with an unfrocked priest, and the couple later died via a suicide pact in an Athens hotel). Not mentioned in the interview is that Hitchens (like Owen Jones) has part-Jewish roots, his maternal grandmother having been half-Jewish, in that her mother was Jewish. It was on that basis that Hitchens’ even more eccentric brother, Christopher, declared himself in latter years to be “Jewish” (taking the traditional Jewish course of deciding via the matrilineal side alone).

The interview mentions his having attended a naval school, but that must have been in early years, he then having attended The Leys School, Cambridge, an institution which has schooled a number of well-known people: at least one Rothschild, a few kings (albeit from Bahrain and Tonga), a number of MPs and journalists (in some cases both, as with Martin Bell).

Hitchens then went on to the City of Oxford College (a college of further education) and finally to Alcuin College, part of the University of York.

It may be that the university education and milieu that Hitchens found in Alcuin College permanently influenced his attitude. Wikipedia says of Alcuin College that,

“From early days of the college an uproar for secession of the college from the remainder of the university has been present.^[3] It is a self-styled Separatist Movement and at times presented as a running gag at the University of York about Alcuinites….For many years Alcuin College was very much the outcast on the university campus, the only college physically separate from the others except for a bridge from the library…“

The photograph of Alcuin College in winter shows an almost Soviet bleakness and isolation.

Alcuin_College_in_Snow_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1691889

Hitchens, though characterizing himself in the Owen Jones interview as having been a “joiner” in his youth, has also been an outsider, defector and maverick. I wonder whether he applied to the University of York because Oxford and/or Cambridge (in both of which cities he had attended school) refused his application, or perhaps he made no application to Oxbridge because (I speculate) his developing extreme socialist views made him reject such “bourgeois” places of learning. A better interviewer than Owen Jones, such as the late and great Brian Walden, might have explored all that.

Hitchens was from 1968 (aged 17) to 1975, a member of the Trotskyist “tendency” called the International Socialists [IS], the forerunner of the Socialist Workers’ Party [SWP]. He joined two years before he went to York. Later, in his forties, he became a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party, but only for the six years 1997-2003, and —typically— at the very nadir of Conservative fortunes, which is interesting, psychologically. Does he court unpopularity? Does he deliberately express unpopular or contrary views?

Hitchens is known as what might fairly be called a “reactionary”, someone who thinks that Britain was a better place in the 1950s, no ifs no buts. In fact, I believe that I watched him say that or something like that on TV once. My own view is different, that some aspects of life in the UK are better now, though many are certainly worse. This blog post is about Peter Hitchens, not Ian Millard, but in my view, things that are better now than in the 1950s (which I scarcely remember, having been born in 1956) or the early 1960s (which I certainly do remember) would include

central heating as the norm;
wider selection of fruits and vegetables (and in general a healthier or at least more varied diet);
less antiquated snobbism;
more understanding of animal welfare;
far easier access to information (via Internet);

Whereas, on the other side, the aspects of British life now that mean that UK life is worse (than in the early 1960s, anyway) are (and Hitchens has a point, because it is a longer list by far)

the general pressure of life now (of course, I was a child in, say, 1963, so my perception is affected to that extent but I think the judgment is still valid);
pervasive lack of freedom of expression;
pervasive “political correctness” etc;
the cost of living, though that is a complex question; it includes
the cost of real property both for sale and rent, and the impossibility for most people to buy a property without family money;
British people swamped by mass immigration;
real pay and social benefits etc generally reducing;
hugely less choice of employment for most people;
many people in full-time work unable to live on the poor pay offered;
unwanted millions of immigrants and their offspring;
congested roads and railways (and refer to the above line);
a huge new mixed-race population;
a huge amount of crime;
public and private housing shortages (refer to immigration, above);
huge numbers of drug-contaminated persons;
workers exploited in terms of having ever-shorter lunch breaks etc, “on call” after hours etc;
public services near to collapse in some respects;
intensive farming, with consequent harm to wildlife;
standards in all areas (NHS, schools, social security, Westminster MPs, police etc) falling like a stone

We often hear (eg from very young Remain whiners) that, eg, “foreign travel is easier now”, whereas that is mostly illusion. True, there were some silly aspects “back then”, such as being restricted as to foreign currency taken on holiday (you even had to have the amount, bought from somewhere like Thomas Cook, written in your passport!), and that silliness (a kind of postwar sacred cow) lasted until Mrs Thatcher stopped it in 1979 or 1980! Yes, true, but that was about it.

If you listen to Remain whiners (esp. the under-30s), you read or hear that Brexit will mean either no visa-free travel to the EU states, or no travel allowed at all! They really believe that, pre-1972, British people were almost imprisoned, as if Cuban, Chinese or Soviet citizens!

Until blacks and browns abused it in the 1980s to import relatives illegally, you used to be able to get a “British Visitor’s Passport” from post offices for a small amount; the passport was valid for short visits to almost all Western European states (not many people went to Eastern Europe as tourists until the 1990s). I had one in 1978 or 1979, in between possession of two ordinary passports, when I wanted to travel to France at short notice. I think that it cost about £5 and took about 5 minutes to be issued at Lanark Road Post Office, Little Venice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#The_British_visitor’s_passport

Transport to the European mainland: true, there were no budget airlines as such in the 1950s, 1960s, but there were routes and ways not now in existence: in the 1950s and 1960s, people could take their cars by air to France! The main route was Lydd (Kent) to Amiens. This was not only for the rich: 5,000 cars (20,000 passengers) as early as 1950, and over 50,000 cars (250,000 passengers) by 1955 (incredible when you recall that rationing lasted until 1955!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_City_Airways#The_1950s

Yes, you might have to show your passport or wave it (you still do…)

There were excellent hovercraft services (though only from 1970-2000) across the Channel.

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

The idea that some Remain whiners have that young people will be unable to travel if the UK leaves “Europe” (meaning the EU) is laughable to those who know. As a child I travelled with parents; and then (from 1971) as a teenager, I travelled alone to Paris, Amsterdam etc. No visa required, UK not in EEC (the then EU).

I might add that it actually takes longer to fly to Paris in 2019 than it did in 1970 or even 1960!

Anyway, back to Hitchens and his views.

True, the early 1950s did still have rationing (until 1954), the result of the stupid and terrible war against the German Reich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Timeline

One cannot say that Hitchens approves of that aspect of 1950s lifestyle, though, and (if I understand him aright), he thinks that the British war against Germany could have been avoided, but I may be mistaken here. He certainly thinks that of the First World War, which he says, surely rightly, destroyed British naval supremacy and economy.

Where Hitchens is certainly mistaken is in saying (in the interview) that Churchill’s refusal to countenance the German peace proposals of 1940 was “unquestionably the right and moral thing to do”. Oh really? Right and moral, to continue a war only started because triggered by a treaty obligation that could never have been fulfilled (the Anglo-French worthless “guarantee” to Poland) and when an honourable peace via armistice was on the table?

Such a peace might have been bought at the price of German victory in the East, but would that have been so bad? The destruction of the Stalin/Bolshevik regime? The saving of most of Eastern Europe from both wartime destruction and post-1945 Stalinism? The prevention of the enormous damage, loss of life and hurt across Western and Southern Europe and North Africa? Hitchens says, however, that he is “sceptical” about Churchill overall.

Hitchens is on surer ground when he says that British history has gone, in that no-one knows British history. He cites David Cameron-Levita being unable to translate the two words “Magna Carta” from Latin! After 6 years at Eton! That was when “Scameron” was a guest on the Letterman Show. Shaming for the whole country. Not just the Magna Carta bit. Cameron came over more like a part-Jew public entertainer (and not a good one) than a British statesman. Oh…wait…

[the bit about Magna Carta starts around 8 minutes in]

Scameron was also proven, though I think on another occasion, not to have heard of the Bill of Rights! Hitchens cites an apparently intelligent 6th-former whom he met, and who had passed exams in English History, and yet who did not know which side Oliver Cromwell was on during the English Civil War!

I have had similar encounters. Few people under 40 now know even the most basic facts about British history, and less about European history generally. An indictment of the British educational system. One should, though, be wary of thinking that this kind of ignorance developed overnight. I recall having a brief conversation with a South London couple I met by a swimming pool in Sousse, Tunisia, in 1986, and who, it transpired, had no idea at all that what is now Tunisia had been (part of) a Roman imperial province. Not knowing who was Nelson or Drake, though, is arguably of a different order.

Hitchens says, again correctly, that “we” “have no idea now what it means to be English or British”, but does not go on to examine the racial implications. Come to think of it, that may be one reason why so many people in the UK want to denounce others to Twitter, Facebook, the police, employers etc for holding the “wrong” views, i.e. because the denouncers have no idea of the English historical struggle for free speech (John Hampden etc…) and no respect for it.

CxDUqlFWgAAY3LX

D635NrZW0AAGWQo

scan25

Owen Jones talks about how open-minded (he says…) Corbyn is, and implies that he, Jones, is the same. Oh yes? Take a look at my blog post about him…

Hitchens himself is really little different. He once had a short and at first reasonable discussion with me on Twitter about the early Zionists, in 2017 or 2016, but then a Jew tweeted to him about how I was apparently an evil “neo-Nazi”, after which, just like Owen Jones, inter alia, Hitchens blocked me. I was unaware then that Hitchens is part-Jew, though not to the extent that would have rendered him liable to sanctions under the 1936 Nuremberg law(s), his maternal grandmother having been only part-Jew (Mischling) and his maternal grandfather not a Jew. In fact, under those laws he would even have been able to work as a journalist.

Hitchens says that Enoch Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech “was a disgrace”. Why? He dislikes its tone, it seems. What about its truth, though? He also says that “the intermarriage [resulting from immigration] is great”. I begin to wonder what major part of modern British society he does dislike, when push comes to shove! To be fair to Hitchens, he does disapprove of the ghetto communities established by Pakistanis and others in, mainly, the Midlands and North of England. He is certainly not “white nationalist”, let alone social-national. If he were, he would be sacked at once. Long live freedom!…

An area in which I do find myself largely in agreement with Hitchens is in intervention by the “West” (in my terms, “NWO/ZOG”) in the affairs of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya. He opposes it. That’s something.

As to Russia, Hitchens seems to take an objective view (informed by better historical knowledge than most msm scribblers), eg:

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/russia/

I apprehend that Hitchens likes the social conservatism of most Russians.

So what is my overall view of Peter Hitchens? I should say that he is someone of considerable intellect, though nowhere near as intelligent as he himself imagines. Someone of considerable education, but who imagines that he knows more and better than almost anyone else, and believes that it is his role in life to pronounce on the truth of any given social, political, historical or ethical topic. Someone who harks back to a supposed golden age prior to, perhaps, 1959, or 1989 (at very latest). Someone who sees what is wrong in the present society but appears to have no programme or (Heaven forbid!) ideology to move from here to there (to a better society).

Hitchens takes a reasonable view such as “the family is a good thing” and tests it to destruction. Likewise, in his critique of both socialism and the contemporary Conservative Party, he goes to an extreme, saying that the Conservative Party is “extreme Left-wing”, by which he means “socially liberal”. He defends traditional marriage and his arguments here have force.

Hitchens thinks that the Conservative Party is dying (understandable, looking at its MPs and ministers) but, yet again, goes to an extreme, wishing that it could have lost the 2010 General Election so that it might have died, and so made room for a new and socially-conservative party. I wish that it had lost too, but for other reasons!

Hitchens reminds me of two other scribblers of note, Peter Oborne and (now rather forgotten) Paul Johnson.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

All three are often intuitively correct on some issues, risibly mistaken on others. They are alike in other ways, too. As the Russians say, they are all “Maximalisti”.

Hitchens (like Owen Jones) blocked me on Twitter for ideological reasons. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) makes a very comfortable living from the System msm. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) poses no danger to the existing state of affairs, despite making much noise. Hitchens (like Owen Jones) is a mass media pussycat pretending to be a tiger.

I like to read Hitchens’ words occasionally. He is often right, not always. However, his words are commentary, not inspiration. He says in the interview that Britain is finished and that the only serious history of contemporary Britain will one day be written in Chinese! Maybe, but God moves in mysterious though sometimes sanguinary ways. As a Christian and a student of history, Hitchens should know that.

Notes

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin_College,_York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(UK)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Early_life_and_education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Jewish_identity

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/mass-hysteria/

Hitchens’ most recent Mail on Sunday article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7045469/PETER-HITCHENS-green-seats-prove-careering-catastrophe.html

The Knives Are Out for Freedom of Expression (and more)

May 3, 2019 Ian Millard 11 Comments

Introduction

I tweeted (before Twitter expelled me) in the past about freedom of expression and how it is now under attack across the “West”; I have also blogged about it. It is not a straightforward issue but clarity is possible. The same is true when talking about the enemies of freedom.

Below, I link to a BuzzFeed “report” (propaganda piece) promoting the views of Jess Phillips MP, one of the worst MPs in the present House of Commons, who has now said (of a UKIP candidate, Carl Benjamin):

“The Electoral Commission should surely have standards about who can and can’t stand for election. If Facebook and Twitter can ban these people for hate speech how is it they are allowed to stand for election?”

It is hard to imagine being back in 1999, let alone 1989, 1979, 1969 (or any time before that right back to the 18th Century), when a Member of Parliament, even one as profoundly ignorant, uneducated and uncultured as Jess Phillips, would say that a civil service body should decide who should be allowed to stand for election!

Now there are certain kinds of people who cannot stand for election in the UK, and there is a debate to be had about whether those rules are too restrictive, but it has never been seriously suggested before that a candidate should be barred from standing simply because of whatever he or she has said!

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/jess-phillips-carl-benjamin-new-rape-comments?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bfsharetwitter

Now, those who read my blog etc know that I have rather little time for “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin) or his fellow “alt-Right” vloggers (“Prison Planet” Watson etc) but I think that they have the right to speak, to speak online, and to stand for elections. As to Benjamin’s “rape” comments about Jess Phillips, well they were in very poor taste and certainly not chivalrous (though Jess Phillips has no time for courtesy and, still less, for chivalry, in any case), but I do not think that he should be arrested, questioned by police etc about them, nor prevented from carrying on his doomed attempt to become an MEP.

The general assault on freedom of expression in the UK and across the “West”

The attack on what might loosely be called “free speech” is being led and largely carried out by the Jewish or Jewish-Zionist lobby, monitored and supported by the Israeli state. This can be illustrated by a few examples from the UK, starting with my own experiences:

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

Alison Chabloz sang satirical songs which were posted online; she placed a link on her blog. She was persecuted, lost her job as a result, further persecuted, then privately prosecuted by the fake “charity” called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism”, which then led to prosecution by the CPS and conviction under the bad law of the Communications Act 2003, s.127. At present she is still appealing:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/alison-chabloz-the-show-goes-on/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/alison-chabloz-the-fight-for-freedom-of-expression-goes-on/

Jez Turner made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, in which speech he suggested that Jews should be cast out from England as they had been on several occasions in the past (eg under Edward I). After a long legal struggle with the Jewish lobby, more particularly the “CAA”, the CPS caved in and prosecuted Jez Turner. He received a 1 year prison sentence in 2018 (he was released on strict conditions after 6 months).

Tommy Robinson

The activist known as Tommy Robinson has been banned from both Facebook and Twitter.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/tommy-robinson-banned-on-facebook-the-repression-of-free-speech-online/

The Privatization of Public Space

I have written and spoken many times about the “privatization of public space”. In my case, I have been disbarred because Jews wanted to stop me tweeting and/or punish me for exposing them. I have been interrogated by the police at Jewish instigation. I have had other problems with the authorities in recent years. All the doing of Jew conspirators.

In the past, printed matter was the medium of political propaganda. Today, it is online matter that counts, but the online platforms and internet services are in few hands, and most of the hands that matter are Jewish.

An individual can now be effectively silenced by being banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, which can be the decision of a single capitalist “owner”, a manager or executive, or even some deskbound dogsbody.

In addition, that decision-maker, or a couple of such, can deprive the individual of money donations via removal of his or her Paypal, Patreon or other money-donation service.

Likewise, an organization can now be all but wiped out simply by the same methods. Just as I was expelled from Twitter (albeit that Twitter is just a waste of time and effort, really), so have been expelled (“suspended”, in Twitter’s weasel word) Alison Chabloz, Tommy Robinson and innumerable others. They have also been removed from Facebook, YouTube etc (I have no accounts on those platforms) and from donation sites, Paypal etc.

I see that Facebook has now removed Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam organization too (for “anti-Semitism”). The Jews are crowing. Maybe prematurely.

It is clear that power online is in very few hands. One decision by some Jew like Zuckerberg and an organization with literally millions of followers, such as InfoWars, can be sent spinning into outer darkness, with no right of appeal or legal redress qua citizen.

In the USA, these facts also mean that the Constitutional right to free speech is scarcely worth the paper it is printed on. I was always sceptical about it, on the basis that, yes, you can speak freely in the USA, so long as you do not mind losing your job, profession, business, home etc…Now the near-uselessness of the Constitutional freedom of speech is even more stark: by all means speak freely, but you are restricted to howling in the dark, or at least in the street. Your online “free speech”, meaning your communication with anyone not your immediate neighbour or family, is monitored, censored and can be completely taken away from you, not by the State, even, but by online platforms pressured by or owned by the Jewish Zionist lobby. We see that there are moves afoot in the UK even to prevent our taking part in already-stacked elections!

Conclusion

As European people and social nationalists, we can no more rely on online platforms than we can rely on getting elected in a rigged system, on fair reportage from the msm, or on getting justice under rigged legal systems.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/facebook-ban-infowars-alex-jones-milo-yiannopoulos-louis-farrakhan-islam-a8897221.html

Notes

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/08/16/twittering-to-the-birds/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/free-speech/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/tommy-robinson-banned-on-facebook-the-repression-of-free-speech-online/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/my-visit-to-the-london-forum/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/the-campaign-against-antisemitism-caa-takes-a-serious-hit/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/03/18/when-britain-becomes-a-police-state/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/the-war-on-freedom-of-expression-in-the-uk-usa-and-eu-states/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/06/a-country-gone-mad/

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

https://alisonchabloz.com/

Special Note:

Believe it or not, this idiot, Paul Bernal (see below), is a law lecturer! I feel sorry for his students at the University of East Anglia! According to his definition, even Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China had “free speech” (because you could *say* whatever you liked, but as a consequence might get shot…)

What an idiot! Absolutely prize…!

Time for the regular reminder that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

— Prof Paul Bernal (@PaulbernalUK) May 9, 2019

Stray tweets etc

This blog post is not primarily about the Jess Phillips idiot-woman, but it is frightening to see the tweets of her supporters, showing the intellectual dullness even of the supposedly educated these days: see the tweet by one @docsimsim of Richmond, below

Jess Phillips my shero. She should be in the shadow cabinet atleast and possibly the next labour leader should she want the job. #StopBrexit https://t.co/v0goH4HsOw

— Sim (@docsimsim) May 3, 2019

Others, however, have seen through the Jess Phillips Empty Vessel performance

Ignorance. Just ignorance. Sad indictment of how poorly ideas/policies are communicated. The MSM only interested in sound bites & those who produce them. The mouthpieces, eg Jess Phillips, always available for comment & contribute nothing. #BBCQT adds nothing to the discussion.

— Alison Denham (@paddymaid) May 3, 2019

https://twitter.com/MTellum/status/1124332812818165761

https://twitter.com/NiallPFleming/status/1124346821025980416

https://twitter.com/BigAlsWisdom/status/1124353519803338762

Here’s an American, one “Chris”, who seems to find it unobjectionable that some “authority” persons should “decide” on whether a candidate can be “allowed” to stand:

https://twitter.com/great_jantzitsu/status/1124378800308015108

and here is Jess Phillips trying to make more publicity for herself while trying to squash down what little freedom of expression still exists in the UK:

Happy to discuss indeed. Personally I think we need a code of conduct that cannot be breached by those who stand as public representatives. I'd say saying you would rape someone if forced I'd say was a clear breach. I'll contact you for a meeting. Thanks https://t.co/iMlQvYIOBn

— Jess Phillips MP (@jessphillips) May 4, 2019

For those who are unaware, since being elected in 2015, Jess Phillips has squeezed every penny she can out of the taxpayers: not satisfied with a salary of nearly £80,000 and very generous “expenses”, she even “employs” her husband on £50,000 a year as “Constituency Support Manager” (he stays at home and is, presumably, a “house husband”). Yet she, this ignorant, rude, uneducated, uncultured creature, has the cheek to talk about “people with literally no discernible skills” getting high pay! That may be so, but she should look in the mirror, if she can bear it!

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2019/jan/31/jess-phillips-on-skilled-workers-ive-met-high-earners-with-literally-no-discernible-skills

Update, 5 June 2019

Another example of arbitrary censorship online:

YouTube have banned me for 'hate speech', I think due to clips on Nazi policy featuring propaganda speeches by Nazi leaders. I'm devastated to have this claim levelled against me, and frustrated 15yrs of materials for #HistoryTeacher community have ended so abruptly.@TeamYouTube

— Mr Allsop History (@MrAllsopHistory) June 5, 2019

Update, 18 June 2019

Just one more random example of the slide into censorship and quasi-official lies or falsity:

A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4

— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) June 4, 2019

My Book Defending Free Speech Has Been Banned | James Flynnhttps://t.co/tKm48DmzxF

— Quillette (@Quillette) September 24, 2019

I wrote a piece for the Mail on Sunday about academic freedom and 'cancel culture' pic.twitter.com/lCI3K3msTE

— Noah Carl (@NoahCarl90) September 29, 2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/meet-academics-hunted-hounded-jobs-having-wrong-thoughts/

Update, 15 October 2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/14/police-response-transphobic-stickers-branded-extraordinary/

Update, 19 November 2019

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/18/transgender-people-agree-using-terms-men-women-afraid-speak/

Update, 21 November 2019

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

Update, 23 November 2019

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/police-offensive-useless-acaster-beswick-3482095

The police, CPS etc, but especially police, seem incapable of distinguishing, or unwilling to distinguish, between “grossly offensive” (unlawful) and merely “offensive” (lawful) and tend to treat all “offensive” communications as “grossly offensive”, which runs counter to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court case authority.

This is what happens when plainly bad law, such as Communications Act 2003, s.127, is drafted and passed into statute.

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Uncategorized

Alison Chabloz: The Show Goes On!

April 18, 2019 Ian Millard 29 Comments

alison

Alison Chabloz at the piano

The background

Many readers will already know the outline of the Alison Chabloz story, of how the singer-songwriter lost her job on a cruise ship after having been stalked, harassed and persecuted by Jew-Zionists who objected to her having woken up to the “holocaust” fakery.

Later, Alison Chabloz was privately prosecuted by the malicious Jew-Zionist lobby group, the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or CAA. During the course of that private prosecution, the CAA’s lawyer inadvertently let slip that (as Alison Chabloz and others had already discovered), several leading CAA members had been using false names to stalk, harass and troll non-Jews (mainly women) online. Named in open court were Stephen Silverman of Grays, Essex and one-time “film critic” and house-husband Stephen Applebaum, of Edgware, North London.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) took over the private prosecution and, though expected to drop all charges, continued the prosecution though changing the exact charges (one charge was in fact just dropped).

A Kafka-esque series of events ensued, including a malicious complaint made by Stephen Silverman (who carries the sinister title of “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” at the CAA “charity”) and his fellow Jew-Zionist Jonathan Hoffman of Sussex Friends of Israel (Hoffman has since been charged with assault unrelated to the Chabloz case: see Notes, below). An unpleasant old Jewish woman from North London was also involved. Their complaint about Alison Chabloz led to Alison being all but abducted by police in London, transported on the floor of a police van hundreds of miles North, then spending 2 days in police custody before the case was rejected by Derbyshire magistrates. The tactics of a police state, and an incompetent one at that.

The first “judge”, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, was forced to recuse herself (i.e. stand down from the Chabloz case) after it emerged that her husband, James Arbuthnot, a real stuffed shirt who was an MP before being elevated to the Lords, had been not only a member (as 80% of Conservative MPs are) but Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel. Also, it transpired that the Arbuthnots had been on expenses-paid visits to Israel.

Jonathan Hoffman (see Notes, below), also wrote to the District Judge in the Chabloz case about that case, reminding him that they had been at school together! Perhaps surprisingly, this was not treated as a serious contempt of court.

The CPS prosecution ended with Alison’s conviction, on 14 June 2018, on two counts, under the notorious Communications Act 2003, s.127, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court by District Judge (Criminal) Zani, as well as one count on another charge. He imposed the following penalties:

20 weeks’ imprisonment (on one reading, 12 weeks), suspended for 2 years;
a year-long ban on the use of “social media”;
financial penalties and imposts (not, technically, a fine) amounting to some £750;
180 hours of “community service” (unpaid slave or serf labour);
days of “rehabilitation” (discussion and low-intensity brainwashing)

Since conviction

Alison Chabloz appealed her conviction and sentence to the Crown Court at Southwark. The result was that her appeal was dismissed. At time of writing, she is appealing on point of law to the Divisional Court (an offshoot of the High Court, in effect).

Prior to the hearing of the appeal, Alison Chabloz was unwilling to do the unpaid work part of her sentence at a time when appeal was outstanding. In relation to this,she was taken back to court (in Derbyshire) and was given more hours of unpaid work. She did in fact do a few days of picking up litter in Derbyshire churchyards.

Latest

The latest news is that Alison Chabloz will now not have to do any (more) hours of community service serf-labour!

I imagine that (((the usual suspects))) will be wailing and gnashing their teeth about this latest news! It means that Alison Chabloz is almost home free. True, there is still the conviction itself, but that is being appealed and may even end up in the highest forum of law in England. Likewise, there is still the social media ban, but that ends on 13 June 2019. In fact, the vaguely-worded social media ban has had little effect on Alison, who has been able to sidestep it by blogging on her WordPress blog (see Notes, below).

Overall, the whole process has been a victory for Alison Chabloz, for freedom of expression and for the anti-Zionist cause, and yet another slow, grinding defeat for the malicious snoops and trolls of the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism”.

Aftermath

Active Jew-Zionists, almost all of whom previously crowed about Alison Chabloz having been persecuted, prosecuted and convicted, have been having second thoughts. A few tweets (I have seen others):

After the prosecution of Alison Chabloz on criminalising forms of "hate speech" including Holocaust denial. Watching her audience share increase because of the prosecution changed my thinking.

— Marlon Solomon (@supergutman) March 26, 2019

Holocaust denier Alison Chabloz should not have been prosecuted | Oliver Kamm#AntiSemitism https://t.co/UT7HW8Re1o via @jewishchron

— /dev/null (@smbthomas) February 14, 2019

This is similar to the Chabloz prosecution. A more foul woman does not exist. But that is no good reason to prosecute someone https://t.co/HRcEBoBZ2G

— Stephen Pollard (@stephenpollard) April 15, 2019

Kamm, a lying hypocrite, who lied about me after my 2016 disbarment (procured by Jews), is once again a hypocrite here. True, he has written against the prosecution of Alison Chabloz, but at the same time has said that she should not be permitted to post material on online platforms or in the Press! Wonderful. “Free speech” in principle, but in practice closed off quietly and completely, by the decisions of online and offline platforms. Zionist hypocrisy par excellence.

More from Jews on Twitter

It’s also concerning how subjective judicial application of the ‘grossly offensive’ test appears to be from this judgment. Like you, I shed no tear for Chabloz but find concerning the possible applications of s.127

— Jason Braier (@JasonBraier) May 29, 2018

@AdamWagner1 on why the conviction of Alison Chabloz is a bad thing: https://t.co/aRN7HYJZzJ

— James Mendelsohn 🇺🇦 (@jmendelsohn77) May 25, 2018

This by @Dannythefink sums up my view of the Alison Chabloz conviction for a ‘grossly offensive’ Holocaust denial song. Excellent piece and sensitive to the difficult issues which it brings up https://t.co/7MFnJq383H

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) May 30, 2018

Obviously it's incredibly hard to make a free speech argument about Chabloz (or other hateful idiots like Dankula) without it appearing that you are supporting their views. But It has ever been so with the right to free speech, people need to try and think about the wider picture

— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) February 14, 2019

Adam Wagner (despite the surname, a Jew), attacked me when I had a Twitter account, and is a barrister specializing in “human rights” and similar areas. Here (see below), he is being taken to task by Twitter nuisance and bore “@frankiescar”, a Jew Zionist connected with the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA). “Frankiescar”, real name Andrew Roberjot, is a kind of legal groupie (though not legally qualified). He turned up in person to gloat when I was before the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal in 2016. He frequently posts (often inaccurate) legal and political points on Twitter, including some silly lies about me, e.g. that “in the early 1980s”, I was considered to be “an eccentric but not particularly able barrister”: in fact, leaving aside what he tweeted about my abilities (though my IQ was once tested at 156 –like Trump! Oh dear!—…) I was in fact only Called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1991.

However to answer your main point regarding Chabloz, she was one of a number of people who disseminated jew hate, lies, anti semitism and white supremacist crap through her social media accounts amd blog for years, it was important that the flow of it was disrupted and stopped…

— flying (@frankiescar) August 30, 2018

As a matter of fact, Frankiescar/Roberjot’s tweet does make one important point: that the prosecution of Alison Chabloz and others, and the attempted though failed attempts to prosecute yet others (including me) constitute nothing more or less than a political campaign by the “CAA” Zionists that has nothing much to do with anyone being subjected to “grossly offensive” matter, and everything to do with political repression and the suppression of political, social and historical views and opinions.

scan25

Conclusion

As noted above, the “CAA” may have won the initial battle, but Alison Chabloz has won the war. Effectively no community service, the financial penalty and suspended sentence being appealed, and the social media ban a dead letter. In addition, Alison Chabloz has now become an international figure and figurehead. The Zionists have procured for Alison Chabloz a worldwide audience for her views as well as her songs.

Hail victory!

Notes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-47230443

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/holocaust-denial-antisemitic-song-auschwitz-alison-chabloz-conviction-upheld-a8777991.html

https://alisonchabloz.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arbuthnot#Personal_life

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/holocaust-denier-alison-chabloz-loses-appeal-as-court-upholds-conviction/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6700737/Anti-Semitic-blogger-55-LOSES-bid-overturn-conviction-Holocaust-denial-social-media.html

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/12/the-campaign-against-antisemitism-caa-takes-a-serious-hit/

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jonathan-hoffman-ex-zionist-federation-vice-chair-faces-arrest-warrant-after-failing-to-appear-in-1.482146

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/trial-date-set-for-pro-israel-campaigners-accused-of-assault-1.482192

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/antisemitic-post-by-former-national-theatre-chief-probed-by-police/

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=andrew%20roberjot&src=typd

Update, 21 June 2019

Infamous anti-Palestinian thugs Jonathan Hoffman and Damon Lenszner guilty of harassing of protestors https://t.co/gOfNgGotj5

— Asa Winstanley (@AsaWinstanley) June 20, 2019

Update, 11 July 2019

Latest:

Alison Chabloz talks from her piano…

https://alisonchabloz.com/2019/07/11/fighting-back-and-winning/

Update, 18 July 2019

Alison Chabloz was recently before Chesterfield Mags’ Court in relation to non-performance of the “community service”, which the magistrate rightly called “the most punitive part of your sentence”. After she refused the suggestion that she be put on curfew and a tag (what nonsense the court system now is!), the magistrate mooted either imprisonment or a fine, but in the end just “suspended” the original sentence in respect of the unpaid work requirement, i.e. chucked it in the bin (where it belongs, along with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” “Zionists”). Ha ha!

Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, David Irving, free speech, historical, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Mark Lewis, Reminiscences and Musings, Stray memories of life at the English Bar, Uncategorized

Letting Off Steam About Libel

April 17, 2019 Ian Millard 1 Comment

My attention was caught by this news report:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1118518659830505472

Now many who read my blog will know that I was, in the 1991-2008 period, at various times a practising barrister (in England) and an employed barrister (mostly overseas). Defamation was not one of my specialisms. I would have liked it to have been. It is an interesting and lucrative field, often involving interesting and/or famous people, though certainly not demanding the highest legal skills or intellectual gifts (contrary to the general public belief).

I did a few cases of libel while at the Bar, though all were advisory; none reached a substantive court hearing. I did advise, pro bono (unpaid), and when only a student, on a libel matter the result of which made the front pages of the more serious newspapers: Flegon v. Solzhenitsyn [1987].

Unable (as a mere student) to appear before the judge and civil jury (all defamation cases then had a jury), I nonetheless attended court most days, sometimes all day, wrote (mostly ignored) instructions and good advice for the plaintiff (now dumbed-down to “claimant”), and advised generally on tactics etc (also mostly ignored). I was told by another attendee that once, I having told Flegon’s assistant to give Flegon a note while he, Flegon, was (speaking very loosely) “cross-examining” a witness, I bowed myself out of [High] Court, only for the judge to demand of Flegon, as soon as I had gone, “to see that note that you have just been given”. Apparently, the judge read the note and told Flegon (who was proving a massive pain to the judge in various ways) to “listen to the good advice that you have been given, Mr. Flegon”! My first commendation by the Bench!

The Daily Telegraph said, when Flegon died (16 years later, in 2003):

“His remarkable success at repeatedly getting manuscripts out of the Soviet Union led to the widespread view that he must have had contacts in the KGB; but in 1987 he won £10,000 libel damages in the High Court from Solzhenitsyn over an allegation to that effect in the Russian version of The Oak and Calf. Unable to afford a barrister’s fees, Flegon conducted his case himself, in faltering English.”

Well, returning from the past to the present, we often see people, usually on Twitter, either talking about suing this or that person (often another “tweeter”) or expressing an opinion on defamation cases before the courts.

The average Joe has no idea about legal matters, and yet many opine about the law and practice of defamation, perhaps because it tends to attract msm publicity. For example, the tweet below betrays no hint that the tweeter knows that people have never been allowed to get legal aid for matters of defamation.

"Kezia Dugdale wins £25k defamation case brought by Wings Over Scotland"

This seems to me a balanced and reasonable judgement. A Win-Win.
But who will pay the costs of the action? Shared costs between plaintiff and defendant?
The taxpayer? I hope not …https://t.co/ix1WbN1CBQ

— Peter Curran (@moridura) April 17, 2019

Despite having been expelled from Twitter, I read the tweets of others, particularly those whom I consider “persons of interest”. Often, en passant, I see tweets by various idiots either threatening others with legal action or recommending that others sue —often named— other parties in defamation. Few seem to understand either the relevant law (which has changed somewhat in recent years) or the practical aspects.

In the Kezia Dugdale case reported today, the Scottish judge decided that the words written were defamatory, but that the defendant, Ms. Dugdale, had a defence (that of fair comment). By the way, note that that defence has now been replaced, in England and Wales, by a defence of “honest opinion”, but this case was heard in Scotland under Scottish law.

Now the claimant in that Kezia Dugdale case, a Mr. Campbell, obviously does not understand the law, having tweeted only today that the law or legal system is, in effect, asinine because the judge decided that the words were defamatory and yet had decided against him! Like many many others on Twitter etc, the said Mr. Campbell does not seem to understand that even if words are defamatory on their face or by implication, the defendant might yet have one or more of the available defences.

Time and again on Twitter (I am not on Facebook) I see people, innocent of any useful legal knowledge, claiming that words which are not defamatory anyway are defamatory, or (where the words might be defamatory) ignoring the available defences.

Prominent among the above are Jews on Twitter, who often invoke the name of “Mark Lewis Lawyer” (the Jew-Zionist lawyer who recently fled to Israel after being found guilty of professional misconduct: see Notes, below). In fact, his publicized defamation cases were all (the ones I saw anyway) very simple and straightforward, requiring little real legal expertise. My honest opinion is that he is a copper-bottomed self-publicizing poseur.

Take a look at the above paragraph. It might or might not be considered in part “defamatory” (or it might be considered as a whole or in part a “mere vulgar insult”, which would not be actionable in any event). Also, even if the statements above, or some or one, were to be considered defamatory, I have defences open to me should the supposed “top defamation specialist” reach out from his mobility scooter or wheelchair in Israel to sue me (he has so far not done so in respect of any of the rather many blog posts which I have written about him in the past months). I have the defences of, inter alia, “Truth”, “Honest Opinion”, and “Publication on a matter of public interest” available to me.

There again, the armchair lawyers of Twitter rarely consider other factors, chief amongst which is whether the defendant has any funds. If not, large sums (in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds) might be expended in pursuit of a defendant who (like me) would simply declare bankruptcy if faced with a money judgment. Bankruptcy in England is now little more than an inconvenience lasting for a year (in most cases) for someone without capital (whether in cash or real or other property) or income. There are few advantages to being broke (as I now am and, incidentally, as “Mark Lewis Lawyer” now is); one of them, though, is the useful one of being effectively “unsueable”.

There are other factors, but this is a blog post, not a legal treatise.

It is usually the case that the best advice that can be given to a potential litigant in defamation is “don’t”! Three examples:

Oscar Wilde. Wilde need not have brought the libel action which eventually led to his disgrace, imprisonment, exile and early death;
David Irving. A fine and persecuted (by the Jew lobby) historian, but not a lawyer. Need not have brought the case against Deborah Lipstadt, an American Jew-Zionist academic supported and funded by the worldwide Jewish/Zionist lobby. Insisted on appearing for himself. Said to have lost £2M in costs to the other side, at least on paper. He also, more importantly, had his books removed from large bookshop chains; some were even pulped. Large publishers dropped him;
Count Nikolai Tolstoy. The only one of the three whom I have ever met (once). The only one of these three who was the defendant (there was also a co-defendant in his case). He lost, but eventually paid only £57,000 of the £1.5M awarded against him initially; he paid the £57,000 years later and only after the death of the plaintiff, Lord Aldington.

So, Twitter armchair lawyers and the perpetually outraged: don’t put your daughter on the stage, never wear brown in town and stop threatening libel suits against people, even if you can get lawyers you can rely upon…

Notes

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA

https://www.dworskibooks.com/index.php?route=information/news&news_id=3

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1430648/Alec-Flegon.html

https://www.scotsman.com/news/kezia-dugdale-this-case-was-never-about-the-definition-of-homophobia-1-4909617

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17580304.kezia-dugdale-releases-statement-after-winning-defamation-case/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde#Wilde_v._Queensberry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Libel_suit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Tolstoy#Controversy

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-David-Irving/s?rh=n%3A266239%2Cp_27%3ADavid+Irving

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/3/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/crossheading/defences/enacted

Blog Posts About “Mark Lewis Lawyer”

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/11/update-re-mark-lewis-lawyer-questions-are-raised/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/mark-lewis-lawyer-latest-update/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/20/self-publicizing-supposed-top-lawyer-mark-lewis-full-transcript-of-disciplinary-hearing-judgment-now-released-by-tribunal/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/the-latest-revelations-about-zionist-supposed-top-lawyer-mark-lewis/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/more-details-about-mark-lewis-lawyer-and-his-abusive-social-media-presence/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/mark-lewis-lawyer-disciplinary-case-now-updated-to-11-december-2018/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/mark-lewis-lawyer-tries-to-have-part-of-the-case-against-him-thrown-out/

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Boris Johnson, Brexit, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Carl Benjamin, Colin Robertson, Conservative Friends of Israel, Count Dankula, ethnostate, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, London Forum, Mark Meechan, Millennial Woes, MPs, Party Politics, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Reminiscences and Musings, Sargon of Akkad, society, The Great Replacement, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized, white flight

Tommy Robinson Banned on Facebook: the repression of free speech online

February 26, 2019 Ian Millard 17 Comments

I interrupt other blog writing to address an immediate issue. The activist known as Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Facebook, he having already been barred from Twitter. That news highlights again something that I have been writing about, blogging about, speaking about (at the London Forum in 2017) and tweeting about —before I myself was banned or rather expelled from Twitter in 2018— for years, the privatization of public space.

In past ages and, indeed, until about 20 years ago, public space was literally that: the agora of ancient Athens, the forum of ancient Rome, the barricades of revolutionary France, the brief outbursts of free speech in the Russia of 1917 or the early 1990s, and Speakers’ Corner by Hyde Park in London, where a youthful Millard (aged about 21) spoke to fickle crowds a few times in the late 1970s.

Today, the traditional fora of free speech, eg in the UK, are very restricted. Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) made a speech in Whitehall in 2015. He mentioned Jews a few times. That alone was enough (triggered by the malicious Jewish Zionists who denounced him, the supine police who are now so often in the Zionist pocket, the wet CPS who are not sufficiently resistant to the Zionists’ endless whining demands, a Zionist-controlled System-political milieu, and a Bar and judiciary which are frightened of their own shadows and even more of those of the Zionists) to have Jez Turner imprisoned for a year. He served 6 months and was only recently released to live for months more under considerable restriction.

The “public space” which is now most significant is online space. Twitter, Facebook, blogging platforms etc.

I myself was expelled from Twitter last year. I had been the target of both the Jew-Zionists and mindless “antifa” (aka “useful idiots” for Zionism) for about 8 years. I have also had my freedom of expression taken away in other ways, as well as having been interrogated by the police (again at the instigation of malicious Jew-Zionists) for having posted entirely lawful comments on Twitter. I was also disbarred, quite wrongly, for similar reasons.

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

Alison Chabloz was persecuted, prosecuted and convicted for singing satirical songs in the manner of 1920s Berlin. She is appealing her conviction and the result of her first-stage appeal. She has also been expelled from Twitter (as well as being made subject to a court ban from social media, which bars her from posting until mid-2019).

If Twitter or Facebook ban you, you may have some limited right of appeal, if they so choose to extend it to you. You have no legal right to stay on Twitter or Facebook despite the fact that, in real terms, they are near-monopolies. Yes, I am now on GAB, but GAB has only 500,000 users, if that, whereas Twitter has perhaps 500 million! The fact that, as I believe, Twitter is largely a waste of time, is beside the point.

The point is that, beyond your very limited contractual or other rights qua customer, you have no rights in respect of Twitter or Facebook (etc). Qua citizen, you have no rights at all. You have no right to post, and if the owners or executives of those companies decide to bump you off, off you go, whether you have 50 followers, 3,000 (as I did) or a million.

The Blair law of 1998 [nb: 1998 = 666 x 3…], requiring political parties in the UK to be registered, all but killed any semblance of real political-party democracy in the UK. Now, free speech both online and offline is being, on the one hand, criminalized or subjected to other State repression (at the instigation of the Jewish-Zionist lobby), and on the other hand choked off at source, by companies (under Zionist control or influence) barring dissidents or known activists from even posting dissenting or radical views online.

As to Tommy Robinson, I am not personally one of his supporters, and I deplore his attempt to play the sycophant for Israel and Zionism, but he has some views which are valid, in my opinion.

In any case, freedom of expression is indivisible. It is facile to make arbitrary distinction between some free speech, calling it “hate speech” and so unacceptable, and other speech which is labelled “acceptable” (politically approved) speech. That is mainly hypocrisy. Even my own relatively mild postings are and always have been targeted by the enemies of freedom, of which the Zionists are the worst.

So we have, not only in England but elsewhere (eg in France, under Rothschilds cipher Macron) the same repressive tendency. Sajid Javid, Amber Rudd, Theresa May, others, are enemies of the British people and enemies of freedom of expression. They seem to want to ban all political activity and all political or socio-political expression which does not support the existing System. It is immaterial whether you call it that or “ZOG”.

The System in the UK, in France seems to think that it can slowly turn the screw on repression, controlling the political parties (or setting up “controlled” new ones, as with Macron in France and, perhaps, the “Independent Group” in the UK), preventing free speech by putting the fix into Twitter, Facebook etc, only having controlled news on or in the msm (controlled mass media outlets).

The Soviet Union tried a less subtle form of all that, and it still collapsed in the end. What the System politicians, msm faces and voices etc, fail to see is that a head of steam is building up in the UK (and France) and, if bottled up by the State and those behind the curtain, will eventually explode.

Notes

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

Another example, taken almost at random from Twitter:

As well as censoring our content over the past few weeks, Twitter have now deleted all the people we were following, which in turn means we have lost a ton of followers

Please RT and follow if you’re still right behind us – we have no idea why Twitter is doing this pic.twitter.com/opwxMMr6fX
— NHS Million (@NHSMillion) March 2, 2019

Update, 4 March 2019

Another example. A typical pseudonymous Jew-Zionist tweeter (troll), below, exults that a very prominent pro-Corbyn Twitter account, “Rachael Swindon”, has been “suspended” (probably, like me, expelled):

https://twitter.com/omgstater/status/1102545120044437504

and here is another Jew:

First they came for Rachael Swindon,
and I did not speak out,
because I don't defend antisemites.
— Oz Katerji (@OzKaterji) March 4, 2019

Update, 6 March 2019

In fact, Rachael Swindon has been reinstated, though only after Twitter’s vice-President for Europe intervened. Why should such people control the online public space? Again, why should the police barge in with large boots and interfere with free speech when no threats are involved? It’s all wrong.

Below, one tweeter tells her story…

https://twitter.com/shazzydee_123/status/1103078356550078467

Update, 8 March 2019

The pro-Jewish lobby freeloader and careerist Tom Watson MP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_(Labour_politician) who has wormed his way to becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (with his eyes on Corbyn’s purple day and night), has attacked Tommy Robinson in the House of Commons and asked YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s YouTube channel, which is his last online platform of any importance.

The excuse for Watson’s actions and statement has been the apparent fact that Robinson came to the house of one Mike Stuchbery, a failed (and sacked) supply teacher who poses as both “historian” and “journalist” online, and whose main activity seems to be online advocacy of opposition (including violence, though he usually uses weasel words) to any form of British or other European nationalism. Tommy Robinson has exposed the apparent fact that Stuchbery colluded with others to visit Robinson’s wife or ex-wife at her home. Robinson’s response seems to have been to do something similar to Stuchbery. Tom Watson, in his Commons statement, referred to Stuchbery as “journalist”, based presumably on Stuchbery’s politically-tendentious scribbles for HuffPost and other, smaller, online outlets.

In supposedly unconnected news, the Attorney-General, Geoffrey Cox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Cox_(British_politician) , has decided to bring fresh charges of contempt of court against Robinson:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-hearing-appeal-geoffrey-cox-a8812361.html

Thoughts

In the end, if someone is prevented from making socio-political expression, that person can either subside into silence, or take other action. That other action might be peaceful, it might not be. When the repressed individual is a public figure with many thousands of supporters, those supporters may also take other action. That might include, potentially, and in the French term, “action directe” somewhere down the line.

Those (of various types: Jew Zionists, the politically correct, “antifa idiots etc) in our society, who crow at shutting down the freedom of others to make socio-political expression should, in the well-worn (Chinese?) phrase “be careful what they wish for”. The Spanish also have a phrase, a proverb in fact: “Do what you will, and pay for it.” Repression of views, not “allowing” people a public platform (and anyway, who is, for example, a blot like Tom Watson to decide who should or should not be allowed to speak?) can only lead to upheaval in the end.

It will be interesting to observe the UK political scene in the coming months and years.

A few tweets seen

A tweet with a few examples of the frequent passive but malicious incitement of violence against white people by “antifa” bastard Mike Stuchbery of Luton:

https://twitter.com/leopold_strauss/status/1103634665871687682

@MikeStuchbery_ is the coward who Doxxed #TommyRobinson's wife and children accompanied by the Media and a Crackhead.
He is a Far Left Antifa Thug who needs exposing to the Whole country.
— KæKæ®🐸 (@kekerso) March 9, 2019

Below: Mike Stuchbery of Luton exposed yet again as a fake…

https://twitter.com/festung18802/status/1104349104228970497

https://twitter.com/CrisPazurati/status/1104349068506120192

Below: self-described (fake) “journalist” and “historian” (failed supply teacher and house-husband) Mike Stuchbery inciting serious political violence but trying to deny it…

https://twitter.com/klowt1/status/1104337021785567238

Labour are finished. When they start protecting extreme left hate groups and sanction Stuchberry's tactics, you know there's a rabbit off.
— Consumer Bill (@bill_consumer) March 9, 2019

https://twitter.com/riki_rikidance/status/1104352492412956672

https://twitter.com/BanTheBBC/status/1104351569372430336

Particularly since @MikeStuchbery_ means other people punch them because the fat bastard couldn’t punch his way out of a paper bag.
— Mr B.C (@Breteyne) March 9, 2019

https://twitter.com/VladTep92663931/status/1104353020203200512

Below: fake “historian” and “journalist” Mike Stuchbery threatens minor Northern Ireland politico David Vance with a lawsuit. Does he have any idea how much a defamation action (for example) costs? He must have got the idea of constantly threatening to “sue” from the Jewish Zionists and their useful idiots on Twitter, who are always threatening legal action, and who often invoke the “sainted” name of Israel-based “Mark Lewis Lawyer” in this regard. In reality, Lewis is a wheelchair-bound blowhard fake, recently fined by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for his behaviour. At the Tribunal, he admitted that he often had no idea what he was doing because of his intake of prescription drugs. Oh…and Lewis’s own Counsel said that “he has no assets” and that “his sole possessions are his clothes and a mobility scooter”! See: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/?s=mark+lewis

Back to that other fake, though…

Jeeze, does Vance want a lawsuit?
— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) March 8, 2019

Why don't you unblock me and ask me about it yourself, Vance? Christ, you're a precious little flower! https://t.co/3HPygST8ol
— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) March 8, 2019

above, Stuchbery, who accuses others of being “precious little flowers”… (“ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”…)

https://twitter.com/KevinHogan99/status/1104140811044827144

This individual has been proven to be an unhinged, hate-filled extremist, who has whipped-up his followers to engage in violent acts.
this pathetic weasel should be charged with incitement to commit a hate crime on this evidence – pic.twitter.com/Ec2Yr9AAMM
— Steve Ross ℹ (@lancashirelad33) March 9, 2019

Update, 10 March 2019

Something called “Press Gazette” also refers to grifter Stuchbery as a “journalist” (does he have an NUJ card? I suppose that, these days, any wannabee can scribble for peanuts or for free in the HuffPost, silly little online “news” agencies, or for the (now often semi-literate) online msm “newspapers”, and then to call himself “journalist”…and in Stuchbery’s case, “historian”, too!…)

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/youtube-must-reconsider-judgment-on-tommy-robinson-videos-says-culture-secretary/

The more serious point here is that “Culture Secretary” Jeremy Wright MP thinks that he is entitled to ask YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s videos, Tom Watson MP having already demanded the same. Freedom? Free speech? Free country? Hardy ha ha…

Update, 11 March 2019

and still the tweets keep coming…

You are my favourite tweet thus far. Mike is just an observer? Excuse me for hooting with laughter. Mike is an extremist. It’s documented all over Twitter. He earns a living from incitement not observation. Yet he refuses to take ownership of the effect he has on others.
— Helene Knight (@HKnight2002) March 11, 2019

and Breitbart has now published a little report on this unpleasant grifter, Stuchbery…

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/01/27/lol-armchair-activist-failed-supply-teacher-mike-stuchbery-celebrates-kassam-twitter-suspension/

and Stuchbery has hit back with the piece below, posted on yet another of the plethora of new “news and comment” websites that pose as quasi-newspapers, in this case calling itself the Byline Times

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/03/11/a-quiet-kind-of-terror-what-its-like-to-be-the-target-of-a-far-right-witch-hunt/

Stuchbery (and many others on Twitter etc) really should refrain from using legal terms wrongly or pointlessly, eg, in that piece averring that Tommy Robinson defamed him. Well, that may or may not be the case, in the lay sense, but any actionable defamation requires publication. I have no idea whether in this case, Robinson published (meaning said or wrote to third parties) any of the allegedly defamatory material via video streaming etc. It seems not. Then there are all the other factors, such as the defences, one of which is that the statements, even if defamatory on their face, are true…

In any case, it costs vast amounts to sue for defamation, though in some open and shut cases it may be possible to find “no win, no fee” lawyers (in the old American parlance, “ambulance-chasers”) willing to take it on, with the help of specialized legal “insurance” (which in my view comes close to champerty, in the old Common Law sense)

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

…and here we see some supposed “comedian” (comedienne? Never heard of her), by name Janey Godley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janey_Godley , saying that those exposing Stuchbery are “a danger to free speech”:

https://twitter.com/JaneyGodley/status/1105138213847556096

Strange, I never saw anything from this Janey Godley individual supporting me when I was the victim of a malicious complaint by Jew-Zionists to Essex Police in 2017 https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/ or when —-effectively the same pack of—- Jews put out a great effort to have me disbarred in 2016 https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

In fact, I also must have missed seeing any support from Janey Godley for Jez Turner, imprisoned for making, in Whitehall, a humorous speech mentioning Jews and their history in England; neither did I notice the aforesaid Janey Godley (I had never heard of her in any regard until today) tweet anything in support of satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, persecuted by Jewish Zionists, then privately prosecuted by them before being prosecuted by the CPS (under pressure to take over the matter…) and then convicted, in effect, of singing songs.

An example, below, of the muddled thinking of many on Twitter and elsewhere: this idiot, calling himself/herself “66ALW88” (what?) thinks that the way to preserve free speech online is for the online platform companies to “crack down” on, er, free speech online…

https://twitter.com/66ALW99/status/1105147790563381248

…and meanwhile [see below], the grifter still has his hand held out for donations!

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1105167999269507072

(and see below what nonsense this endless online censorship, denouncing, “reporting” of “hate speech” etc leads to!)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6803849/Edinburgh-University-lecturer-cleared-anti-English-hate-crime.html

16 March 2019

One of thousands of tweets putting the grifter (Stuchbery) right…

https://twitter.com/heretic027/status/1106775788685271040

Update, Sunday March 17 2019

Below, a tweet not at all significant in itself (there are literally thousands of unthinking, purselipped nobodies like this Irish “academic”, one Fergal Lenehan, around, all waiting for the chance to denounce people, to “report” to Twitter, Facebook or police, or wanting to ban the free speech of others not signed-up to the System/ZOG mental straitjacket). It is the trend, the existence of a large bloc of such nasty idiots that is of importance.

Holocaust denial should be a crime EU-wide.
— Fergal Lenehan (@FergalLenehan) March 17, 2019

and here (below) is a well-funded basically Jew-Zionist organization which admits that it wants, inter alia, to stop the historian David Irving from conducting lecture tours. I think the reverse: that those who oppose freedom of speech on political, social and historical topics should themselves be stopped…

The fact that Irving has done this before does not mean that we should allow him to do it again. We have plenty of advance notice to prevent it this time.

Let’s try & stop this grotesque event from happening ever again.

I would have thought the ADL would agree with that… https://t.co/KhlEqegZC0
— Anti-Fascism & Far Right 🥤 (@FFRAFAction) March 17, 2019

Update, 18 March 2019

Now the cowardly and mentally-disturbed grifter, Stuchbery, continues to try to claim the moral high ground, which is laughable (and note the support from a political cretin, “Leftwing Revolt”, in the thread below, who is a member or supporter of “Resisting Hate” and sees nothing wrong with someone he might disagree with being attacked with an axe! Resisting hate? You could not make it up…). I might not “support” Tommy Robinson, but I prefer him a hundred times over to Stuchbery and the “useful idiots” of “antifa”!

https://twitter.com/KevinHogan99/status/1107642656182685697

https://twitter.com/KevinHogan99/status/1107644831759773696

and (below), another little shit like Stuchbery, this time a New Zealander, who positively welcomes censorship and repression (and he is, wait for it…a “writer/director” of film and theater”!). One of the weird aspects of the present time is that those most eager to see censorship and ideological repression are “creative industries” drones, writers, film and TV people etc, and journalists.

https://twitter.com/mistertodd/status/1107208712916267010

and he retweets, approvingly, this (below) announcement of New Zealand governmental censorship. I personally have no wish to see footage of the recent New Zealand massacre, but that should be my choice, not the New Zealand (ZOG) government’s.

Chief Censor David Shanks has officially classified the full 17 minute video of the fatal Christchurch shootings as objectionable.

It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute this material in any form, including via social media platforms.
— RNZ (@radionz) March 19, 2019

and…again: the same little shit, one Andrew Todd, does not want the accused to be allowed to defend himself in case he says something the New Zealand government (ZOG) does not want people to hear…

https://twitter.com/mistertodd/status/1107417770558480386

Even the brutal dictator Batista allowed Fidel Castro to defend himself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#The_Movement_and_the_Moncada_Barracks_attack:_1952%E2%80%931953 ; Lenin defended himself at his trial in Tsarist Russia; and the now-conventionally-reviled National Socialist Germany allowed the Bulgarian Communist, Dmitrov (accused in connection with the Reichstag Fire of 1933), to defend himself and make speeches in court!…Dmitrov was even acquitted! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Reichstag_fire_trial

Not everyone on Twitter agrees with the idea of censoring views and people being found guilty as soon as they are accused, however:

So you believe in a system where your proven guilty before your convicted by a judge and group of your piers. Let me give examples of places this has happened: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and Uganda during the rule Idi Amin.
— DarkTankerXE 🇸🇪🇺🇸 (@TankerXE) March 19, 2019

Here’s another one, below, a New Zealand journalist positively gagging for censorship (I had no idea that NZ was so ZOG-occupied):

FYI, more useful detail on how the big tech companies are failing to weed out hate speech videos and how they missed out on white supremacist videos https://t.co/lYdO10D2Nr
— Bernard Hickey (@bernardchickey) March 18, 2019

and yet another virtue-signalling “journalist” who is, it seems, an enemy of both freedom of expression and of the future of the European peoples…

I spent a good part of 2 years reporting on ISIS internet and how the group uses social media — in 2019 it's mind-boggling to me how well the coordinated cross-platform effort to remove them from the internet worked and how there hasn't been a similar one for white supremacists.
— Ellie Hall (@ellievhall) March 16, 2019

20 March 2019

The grifter actually makes a joke out of his begging and scavenging!

It's been a challenging – and expensive(!) – couple of weeks, so if you enjoy the written pieces, the history threads, or whatever, you can always make a small tip through my Ko-Fi… https://t.co/Xd2iEmxucQ pic.twitter.com/OJ7UGuAzPr
— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) March 19, 2019

Update, 23 March 2019

Another sign of the times…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/22/seven-police-officers-sent-remove-four-women-inclusive-talk/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

Update, 28 April 2019

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6966841/Twitter-SUSPENDS-Tommy-Robinsons-campaign-account-days-announcing-plan-MEP.html

Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Twitter (welcome to the club…) despite (because of?) his being a candidate in the European elections (North West England).

Twitter SUSPENDS Tommy Robinson's MEP campaign account https://t.co/T19Tr7T3xm via @MailOnline
— Mr. Miller (@433millerz) April 28, 2019

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [John F. Kennedy]

Update, 5 June 20199

Another random example of how the quasi-monopolies of youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc have arrogated to themselves the right to censor and banish: [Update, 22 July 2022: the tweets etc noted have now been completely deleted]

Update, 18 June 2019

More…

A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4
— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) June 4, 2019

Update, 17 July 2019

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/07/12/__trashed-4/

Update, 27 August 2019

Grifter, “antifa” supporter, fake “journalist” and “historian” Mike Stuchbery is desperate to close down free speech for those with whom he disagrees politically. See his recent tweets, below. This is one of the worst enemies of freedom of expression in the UK.

YouTube shut down four major US white supremacist channels in the last 24 hours.

If they're serious about reversing the spread of radicalisation, here's four accounts in the UK they could shutter today… https://t.co/nNG4sk938a
— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) August 27, 2019

Update, 23 November 2019

The latest news is that some odd woman tied up with both “antifa” nonsense and Jew-Zionists has created a GoFundMe appeal on behalf of Stuchbery, supposedly so that he can sue the political activist known as Tommy Robinson.

I have not seen the exact legal basis or bases of the claim proposed, and anyway it has been many years since I was in actual practice at the Bar (though only three years since Jew Zionists procured my disbarment via a malicious complaint: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

I prefer not to comment on the proposed legal claim until I read more about the foundations for such claim. I presume that Stuchbery is doing this (the woman mentioned above may be raising funds for him but only Stuchbery himself can actually sue) because:

he knows or believes that Tommy Robinson has assets sufficient to satisfy any successful claim;
he has seen that others are already suing Tommy Robinson;
he thinks, perhaps, that a civil legal action will damage Tommy Robinson by starving him of funds;
if successful, Stuchbery will make a great deal more money than he gets at present via online begging or his part-time work in Stuttgart, where he now resides.

Were I the defendant, and leaving aside the potential substantive issues that might be in issue in the proposed case, I suppose that I should focus firstly on the fact that Stuchbery is

resident outside the strict jurisdiction (albeit still in the EU);
is a foreign national (as I understand, an Australian citizen);
has no real or other property in England and Wales;
has no means with which to satisfy any judgment on costs or in respect of any counterclaim or setoff that might be claimed by Tommy Robinson, should the Court decide against Stuchbery on one or more issues or otherwise.

In other words, were I myself the defendant in such a case, my first port of call would be what lawyers call “security for costs”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_for_costs

I doubt that this claim will get off the ground. I certainly doubt that it will clear the probable first hurdle, as explained above, but we shall see. It appears, however, that plenty of mugs are donating to the said GoFundMe appeal at present.

Update, 25 November 2019

Stuchbery’s solicitors, Eve Solicitors (the firm is a limited company in fact, possibly in effect a one-man operation), are operating out of a rundown Victorian terrace in Bradford; several other small legal and other firms are operating nearby. The operation has only been in operation since 20 May 2019, at earliest:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12003634

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12003634/filing-history

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12003634/officers

The “firm” has only been at its present address since 28 September 2019, before which, i.e. from its incorporation in May until September 2019, it operated out of a tiny Victorian terraced house in a “Coronation Street” lookalike, Hudswell Street, Wakefield (Yorkshire).

The principal (and only named) solicitor is one Waseem Ahmed.

https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/office/624285/eve-solicitors-ltd

Where the name “Eve” came from, God knows. My only guess is “Adam and Eve”, as in the Cockney rhyming slang, “you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it!”

Only joking.

Having said that, when I was a practising barrister in London in the early-mid 1990s, I knew of Pakistani and other ethnic-minority solicitors (in London, in Luton and elsewhere) who used “English”-sounding names for their small firms. Some of them still owe me money! (Unpaid fees). I am sure that Stuchbery’s solicitor is not like that.

I looked earlier at the GoFundMe appeal set up to collect money for Stuchbery’s proposed legal claim against Tommy Robinson. So far, 262 mugs have donated a total (as of time and date of writing) of £5,209 to start the claim. I wonder whether they or others will donate the rest of the £15,000 asked for? Frankly, I doubt it, though the amount so far raised has been raised in only three days.

I doubt that the proposed lawsuit will either launch or get anywhere.

Further thoughts

The woman who is fundraising for Stuchbery, and who seems to have all day to tweet etc, has tweeted that “As many of you know, Mike Stuchbery is about to sue #TommyRobinson for harassment. He is backed by #ResistingHate and a full legal team.“

A “full legal team”? So that would be someone called Waseem Ahmed and…?

I do not say that “Eve Solicitors” (i.e. Mr. Ahmed) is a one-man-band (though it certainly seems to be), and I cannot say that there are no legal people offering advice etc from the sidelines (what used to be known at the Bar as “cocktail party advice”), but I do know, having been at one time a practising barrister who (in the 1990s) regularly appeared (weekly, at least) in the High Court, as well as in County Courts, and more occasionally other types of court and tribunal (both then and in the 2002-2008 period), that GoFundMe £20,000 will only serve to kick off such a case and claim, if I have understood its likely nature properly. Costs rapidly escalate.

Solicitors vary in their fees, barristers likewise. Simply to issue proceedings in a High Court action (which I suppose the proposed case would probably be) would be several hundred pounds as a minimum, and many thousands of pounds in some cases:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/789201/ex50-eng.pdf

As a rule of thumb, a barrister will get anywhere from (as minimum) £500 a day on a small civil matter in the County Court, up to many thousands of pounds per day for almost any High Court matter, though there is no “limit” as such, and some barristers, eg the top commercial silks (QCs) will be on £10,000 a day or more. The spectrum is very wide.

As those who enjoyed Rumpole of the Bailey will know, a barrister usually gets a “brief fee” (to cover all preparation and the first day, if any, in court), then daily “refreshers”. How much are they? How long is a piece of string?

One of my own last few cases was a County Court commercial matter involving a large amount of cattle feed. Now that it is long ago since I last appeared in court (December 2007; this case was not long before that), I think that I can reveal, by way of illustration, that I was paid, that time, £5,000 as a brief fee and £1,000 a day for refreshers (in fact there were no refreshers, because the matter settled on the first day in court).

I have no real idea how much the case of Stuchbery v. Robinson might cost Stuchbery in legal fees if it is ever pursued to court, but my semi-educated guess (“semi” because I have not been involved with the Bar for over a decade) is that whoever presents it in court (unless doing it for free or on the cheap) will probably want a brief fee of perhaps £5,000 (at least) and (at minimum) £500 per day refreshers. Maybe £10,000 and £1,000 per day. It can be seen that, even at the lower estimate, a 2-week hearing (10 days in court, which this well might be) is going to cost £9,500 for Counsel’s fees alone.

Solicitors’ fees also vary widely. When I myself worked (overseas) for law firms (as an employed lawyer), the firms charged for my work at anything up to USD $500 (or about £400) an hour (I myself didn’t get that, sadly, the firms did); and that was over 20 years ago. I suppose that Stuchbery’s solicitors will not be very expensive, but will probably still charge maybe £50 an hour at absolute minimum. Solicitor case preparation might take hundreds of hours. 100 hours @ £50 p.h. = £5,000.

Then there are what solicitors term “disbursements”, i.e. the expenses of the case such as issue fees, witness expenses, whatever.

You can see how £20,000 can be quickly exhausted…

However, even if Stuchbery’s solicitors (solicitor?) can launch the proposed matter and fund a couple of weeks in court (and don’t forget that the solicitor, if in attendance, will also be charging for his time there), there is the matter of what happens if Stuchbery loses. No, that is not left to chance. The lawyers for the proposed defendant, Robinson, will in that event have to have their costs covered too. Even if they only come to the same level as Stuchbery’s (which I doubt), that puts Stuchbery (and possibly others who have funded the claim) £20,000+ in the hole. It could be a great deal more. Maybe even hundreds of thousands.

Stuchbery is an Australian citizen, maybe also a German one now (I do not know). He has no real property in the UK or, as far as I know, even in Germany, where he now lives. He has no, or no substantial, monies in the UK (or anywhere?). He does not have a substantial income or a full-time job.

On the above facts, and if Robinson applies in court for that, Stuchbery is almost certain to have to provide “security for costs”, i.e. [see above] monies “paid into court” (into a court-controlled account) to cover Robinson’s costs should Stuchbery lose his case. Likewise, on the above facts, that would almost certainly have to be the whole of Robinson’s likely outlay in defending the case. Certainly tens of thousands of pounds. Possibly over £100,000.

If Robinson applies for security for costs, if the court agrees with the application, but then Stuchbery cannot come up with whatever sum is demanded (I cannot think that it would be lower than £20,000; probably far far more), then the claim (the case) will be struck out, possibly with costs awarded to Robinson.

Stuchbery will probably have to raise £40,000+ even to start his case.

I think that my readers will understand better now why I think that Stuchbery has no chance of success regardless of the merits of his case (if any).

Presumably, Stuchbery does understand that, in a case like this, witnesses (he himself, Robinson, others) will have to give evidence, be cross-examined on that, all the while with Stuchbery staying in the UK, perhaps for weeks or even a month or more.

Update, 3 July 2022

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

Update, 9 August 2024

A few useful links:

A Few Words About Mike Stuchbery

Mike Stuchbery and Tommy Robinson: Legal Dispute

Has Parliamentary “Democracy” (as we have known it until now) Had Its Day in the UK?

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, Count Dankula, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jez Turner, society, Uncategorized

Alison Chabloz— The Fight for Freedom of Expression Goes On!

February 13, 2019 Ian Millard 39 Comments

alison

Many will have seen the newspaper reports, not all accurate, about the result of the Crown Court appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which ended today. Already the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” supposed “charity” (Zionist propaganda, snooping and repression organization) has been spinning fake news. Gideon Falter, its Chairperson, has been quoted as saying that the verdict by a Crown Court judge in the appeal “sets a precedent” and means that “holocaust” “denial” (i.e. critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative) is now effectively illegal in the UK. That is of course nonsense.

Firstly, this was a decision by a Crown Court judge and so sets a precedent only in the most marginal sense.

Secondly, there will now almost certainly be a further appeal, on point of law, to the Divisional Court and, perhaps, yet higher. There are points of law in the Alison Chabloz case which are of general public importance and might even have to be considered by the Supreme Court in due course.

Thirdly, the learned judge [H.H. Judge Hehir] emphasized in his judgment that “anti-Semitism” is not a crime in the UK, and that “holocaust” “denial” is also not a crime:

“We emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive”

Alison Chabloz is expected to appeal her conviction and sentence further, initially to the Divisional Court. The fight for freedom of expression goes on!

Updates

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/04/18/alison-chabloz-the-show-goes-on/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/alison-chabloz-lost-a-battle-but-the-war-goes-on-and-she-is-winning-it/

11 July 2019

Alison Chabloz talks from her piano

https://alisonchabloz.com/2019/07/11/fighting-back-and-winning/

Alison Chabloz, Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Uncategorized

Jew-Zionists Attack My Blog

January 16, 2019 Ian Millard 25 Comments

Today, I found, on my WordPress blog Comments page, a comment which actually purported to come from me! It was sent from an email address named “ian.millard@yahoo.com” (which I have never had).

The comment was abusive and, more interestingly, purported to be from a Jew (anonymous/pseudonymous of course) who (he/it wrote) was “instrumental” in getting many of my reviews on Amazon UK (Amazon.co.uk) removed (and me barred from posting further reviews) “nearly ten years ago”. He/it claimed also to have had my Amazon USA (Amazon.com) reviews removed and my American Amazon account closed. Those events did occur, about 8 years ago. The London-based Jewish Chronicle contacted Amazon in the UK and had me barred from reviewing or commenting. As to what happened in the USA to get me barred on Amazon there, I have no idea. So much for “free speech” and expression in the USA, though! Where there are Jew Zionists in any number, there can be no freedom for non-Jews.

The comments section of my blog is monitored; only comments which are approved (in the sense of allowed to proceed) are posted publicly. Naturally, I am not going to approve the abusive comment of the Jew in question.

The Comments section captures all ISP user numbers from those posting comments. The comment in question was shown as 31.168.232.150. It was a simple matter to track down the origin of the abuse: Tel Aviv, Israel! Quelle surprise…

Turns out that the abuse seems to have come from a company called Bezeq International, also known as Bezeq Israeli Telecommunications Corporation Ltd. I had never heard of it, but soon found it via Google. That enterprise is, apparently, the Israeli equivalent of BT. It is a very large enterprise, which employs over 15,000 employees.

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

The unsophisticated nature of the abuse etc leads me to the provisional view that the abuser is a lone rat, rather than connected with the notorious Israeli “hasbara” propaganda effort, or (far less likely even than that) MOSSAD.

The Zionist free-speech destroyers have become very active in the UK and elsewhere over the past 20-30 years. Time for pushback.

Notes

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/amazon-user-claims-jewish-lobby-1.18697

Update, 10 January 2020

Today I received another abusive message from (pretty obviously, though I cannot as yet prove it beyond a reasonable doubt) another Jew, this time one who, looking at its message, hates my support for persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. Another one who used my name on a one-time-use email account, this time Hotmail. Blocked now, obviously.

The WordPress system took its ISP number: 82.132.222.121. Useful for later reference.

When I started my blog, I was braced for a daily dose of insolent and/or abusive messages. In fact, I think that I have only had about three or four such messages in three years. Worse things happen at sea.

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

ds3

Update, 1 February 2026

The Jew who was the main perpetrator mentioned in the original blog post about 9 years ago is one Daniel Sevitt, believed to have originated in London, but now apparently resident in the town/suburb of Ra’anana by Tel Aviv.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27anana

At one point, he admitted his guilt online.

The evildoer is or was an IT specialist, it seems, and his overt online activity now seems to consist of replying (uninvited, and in an insulting fashion), to anyone tweeting critically of Israel and/or Jews: see https://x.com/danielsevitt/with_replies.

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Lewis, society, Uncategorized

The “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA) Takes A Serious Hit

January 12, 2019 Ian Millard 14 Comments

The “Claque”

Many readers of this blog will have read of my experiences with the malicious and extreme Jew-Zionist organizations, “UK Lawyers for Israel” (UKLFI) and “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), the memberships of which overlap in part. For example, the abusive Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, who has now fled to Israel, is a leading member of both.

I dare say that many ordinary people on, for example, Twitter, have no idea that sometimes, when they see a veritable tweetstorm or at least tweetsquall —such as that backing Lewis during his recent Disciplinary Tribunal hearing (he was found guilty anyway)—, they are actually reading tweets which are part of a barrage put out and/or at least loosely coordinated by those two groupings. Below, two blog articles which reported on my experience of these organizations:

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

The CAA Pressured the DPP/CPS to Prosecute Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz

1. Jez Turner

In 2015, Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) of the London Forum made a speech in the street, in Whitehall, London. One sentence mentioned the Jews, in such manner as that they should be removed from the UK. The CAA, which had agents at the scene, reported Jez Turner to the police there and thereafter. Eventually, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] considered whether any offence of incitement might have been both committed and as to whether any prosecution was a. likely to result in conviction, and b. in the public interest. The CPS decided not to prosecute. Note that a prosecution under [the relevant part of the] Public Order Act 1986 requires the assent of the Attorney-General. In other words, Jez Turner could not have been prosecuted privately by the CAA for the alleged offence.

The CAA made application to the High Court for a judicial review of the no-prosecution decision made by the CPS. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), as head of the CPS, was the Respondent. On the eve of the relevant hearing in 2017, the DPP/CPS agreed to look again at their decision, thus avoiding a defeat but at the same time giving in to the demand of the CAA. After some time, the CPS announced that Jez Turner would now be prosecuted. He was, in 2018, in the Crown Court, no less than three years after he made his speech. He was, arguably, unlucky in his jury and possibly (I was not personally present) in his judge. He was given a full year in prison, of which half would actually be spent incarcerated (he was recently released). All for making a humorous speech in which one sentence said that the Jews should be (again) expelled from England.

2. Alison Chabloz

In the case of Alison Chabloz, who sang satirical songs, some of which mocked the Jew-Zionists, she was accused of having breached the (“bad law”) Communications Act 2003, s.127, in having, allegedly, posted online the said songs. The CPS refused to prosecute her or, rather, did not; with the time-limit of 6 months looming, the CAA took a private prosecution. Leaving aside the legal and technical argument on the merits, the CPS had the right to take over the case and, if it did, to drop it or to continue it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution and continue with it (though it in fact substituted other charges for the original ones…). The offence is summary only. Alison Chabloz was convicted at trial in 2018 and given a sentence of (depending on how it is read) a total of 12-20 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, plus community service “serf labour”, a financial penalty of £700, and a 1 year ban on use of “social media”. Note, however, that Alison Chabloz is appealing both conviction and sentence.

3. Nazim Hussain Ali

Mr. Ali led and spoke at an anti-Israel rally in London. The CAA individuals hung around, in their usual fashion, tried to catch Mr. Ali saying something or other, then (as in the other cases mentioned here) reported him to the police. The CPS refused to prosecute and so the CAA took a private prosecution. The CPS took over that prosecution and discontinued it. The CAA then wanted to have that decision judicially reviewed. It was. They lost.

The Judgment in the Nazim Hussain Ali Case

The judgment in full can be found here:

https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/9.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2VPMgizmz8nNJ5P3vAYie7zW-9vO52-yM5q8ht9ZIsjqqWnB4l6WrfWVY

The judgment is worth reading in full, but the most relevant parts are:

“The DPP took the view that, in all the circumstances, the words used were not “abusive” within the meaning of that provision, so that a prosecution was more likely than not to fail.”

and

“As the [legal precedent] authorities stress, article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] does not permit the proscription or other restriction of words and behaviour simply because they distress some people, or because they are
provocative, distasteful, insulting or offensive.”

and

“this is a public law challenge, and this court can only intervene if the decision to take over the CAA’s private prosecution and discontinue it made by the Decision-Maker was irrational, i.e. a decision to which no properly directed and informed CPS decision-maker could have come. In my judgment, it cannot be said that it was irrational.”

My Thoughts

This was a big hit against the CAA. The CAA is an organization which for years has been making inflated claims, both in its own name and via sometimes pseudonymous and abusive Twitter (and other) accounts run by its leading members, notably Stephen Silverman (who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement”!).

Under its own name and under the real names of its leading members, but also under other account names, the CAA has for 4-5 years been threatening not only “anti-Semites” and “holocaust” “deniers” (historical revisionists), but anti-Zionist dissidents in general with unspecified police and other action, also sending, from pseudonymous Twitter accounts (etc) threatening and harassing tweets (etc) to and/or about individuals. Some people were constantly taunted online and even offline with threats about knocks on the doors of houses, arrests, prosecutions, trials, terms of imprisonment. Almost all figments of the sick imaginations of the CAA members in question.

Women in particular were targeted by a number of online social media accounts controlled by various CAA persons, and in particular by Stephen Silverman of Essex and his associate, one-time/sometime “film critic” Stephen Applebaum, of North London. The pair have been somewhat muzzled of late —having been exposed and had their real names etc exposed— and now mainly tweet (slightly less overtly venomously) as @ssilvuk and @rattus2384).

Another leading Jew-Zionist (at least in his own estimation) is one Gideon Falter, who apparently graduated from Warwick University in law, though if so did not carry through to becoming a solicitor or barrister. Falter, Chairman of the CAA, seems to have family money (his parents are said to own a house in a well-known street in St. John’s Wood, London where houses sell for anything up to £40 Million). He seems to spend most of his time on CAA or other Zionist activities. I suppose that that is one way in which, he may imagine, he validates his existence.

Falter has given evidence in several cases, but his evidence has not always been accepted as veracious. In the case of Rowan Laxton, in 2009, which therefore preceded the establishment of the CAA by 5 years, Falter gave evidence which, while accepted by the magistrates, was (at least impliedly) not accepted by the Crown Court judge at the appeal (rehearing), at which hearing Laxton was successful. He was fully reinstated at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is now H.M. High Commissioner in Cameroon: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2

Laxton’s career success must be bitter for Falter, who has also had his testimony in other “anti-Semitism” cases strongly challenged…

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/foreign-office-man-wins-appeal-against-race-abuse-claim-1.14675

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2803

Over the 4+ years since its foundation, the CAA has not been very successful. It has attempted to bring to trial (either by privately prosecuting people, or by making malicious allegations about them to the police and/or professional bodies) quite a large number of potential defendants. Most have either not been prosecuted or have been acquitted, or have been successful on appeal. A few people have been prosecuted for saying or writing rude things (quite likely justified anyway) about individual Jews (I noticed a few cases about landlords and property developers etc…). Most of those cases resulted in fines being handed down, by local magistrates, in the order of £50 or £100. Rather petty.

The larger scalps taken by the CAA are few, even if one includes the handful of successes by the UKLFI group: Jez Turner (now released after having spent 6 months in prison), Alison Chabloz (who is appealing now), a few minor harassment cases. The CAA failed to get the CPS to prosecute me for tweeting truth, and was too frightened to try to prosecute me privately, though UKLFI did get me disbarred in 2016 (8-9 years after I had anyway ceased Bar practice!).

The CAA has been —and I believe still is— under investigation both by the police and by the responsible officers of the Charity Commission. It has been criticized extensively by the more “Establishment” part of the Jewish power structure in England, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Chronicle. It recently suffered a considerable blow when one of its most active members, Mark Lewis, the venomous Jew-Zionist solicitor, fled to Israel after the conclusion of the Disciplinary Tribunal case brought against him by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

The finances of the CAA “charity” are opaque. I suspect (educated guess) that two particular Jew millionaires, indeed billionaires, have contributed to the CAA, and for them a few tens of thousands of pounds a year is a bagatelle. However, even the ultra-wealthy are probably unwilling to give much to an organization which consistently manifests failure.

I should love to know how many Jews are members of the CAA (are any of its members non-Jews? Maybe there are a few doormats here or there). My guess would be hundreds rather than thousands. It has appealed for donations, run pledge drives etc, and recently tweeted to recruit a half-time-working “communications” person at a salary of £12,500-£15,000 a year. Hardly sumptuous. The CAA Twitter account was inactive from 20 December 2018 until 11 January 2019.

I have no idea what, if any, costs will be payable by the CAA in relation to the latest defeat in court, but I hope that they will be substantial.

The latest defeat by the CAA, and Mark Lewis’s flight to Israel (where he has said, repeatedly, on radio and TV, that Jews should all leave Europe), must mark the beginning of the end for the abusive and fake CAA “charity”.

Objectively speaking, it may be that the CAA has done much to stimulate “anti-Semitism” in the UK…

Good luck to Alison Chabloz in her upcoming appeal!

Notes

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

https://gab.com/mossurmoshiach/posts/45770311

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49824.htm

https://ianrobertmillard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/13605-DraftFullResponse.pdf

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/foreign-office-man-guilty-of-racist-rant-1.11495

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2803

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/foreign-office-man-wins-appeal-against-race-abuse-claim-1.14675

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213986/Foreign-Office-official-accused-anti-Semitic-rant-gym.html

https://ahtribune.com/world/europe/uk/2359-holocaust-industry.html

Update, 13 January 2019

Below, a very recent tweet thread in which Stephen Applebaum of the CAA, under his most recent pseudonym, @rattus2384, and with other Jews, attacks the father of a 16 year old girl allegedly targeted by yet another Zionist. [click for full thread]

https://twitter.com/TonyLelliott1/status/1083832118835404802

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1084177212226629634

Update, 21 January 2019

The CAA’s sting seems to have been largely drawn. The CAA Twitter account has tweeted only once (on 11 January 2019) since 20 December 2018. Gideon Falter has not tweeted since 5 September 2018 (except for two retweets, on 6 November 2018 and 7 December 2018). Both Silverman and Applebaum/Rattus have been somewhat muzzled of late. Now that they have been fully unmasked and exposed, they have evidently decided that they have to be more circumspect online. The CAA star is fast-waning.

Update, 18 July 2019

Well, like the cockroach, the CAA is still embedded…Having failed to have a Palestinian activist resident in the UK prosecuted [see above], the CAA Jew-Zionists try to get him another way, by having his professional regulator (he is a pharmacist) “investigate” his political life and then perhaps haul him before a disciplinary tribunal. This is what “they”, meaning (((they))) do…(for my own experiences, see below the CAA tweet…)

“Al Quds Day” leader Nazim Ali, who blamed “Zionists” for Grenfell Tower tragedy to face regulatory investigation following complaint by CAAhttps://t.co/vJRAm5s8xz
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) July 18, 2019

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/

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

The UK professions now all have new, or fairly new, “Codes of Conduct” for the members of whatever profession is being “regulated”. These have been drafted by “Zionist” lawyers in almost all cases. Should the individual member of a profession be anti-Zionist, lo and behold, (((they))) make “complaint” about the “hate speech” or whatever that the individual is said to have uttered. A covert Zionist takeover, and an attempt to control the private and political life of the people affected.

Where “they” are, there can be no real freedom.

Update, 5 November 2020

The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” prevailed on the General Pharmaceutical Council to “prosecute” Nazim Ali. “Lawfare” misusing the professional regulations. Nazim Ali might have lost his shop, business, profession, decades of work, all because a pack of Jew extremists pretended to be “offended”.

As it was, the disciplinary case against Nazim Ali was heard mostly in the first week of November 2020. The result, given on 5 November 2020, was that the tribunal held that what Nazim Ali said in 2017 was not “antisemitic” but that it had been “offensive”. He was given an official (quasi-judicial) warning.

Ha ha! The CAA Jews thought that they were going to at least ruin and bankrupt Nazim Ali now that the police and CPS were not going to charge him with anything criminal. Instead, he was just given a warning.

Humanity 1— CAA zero…”Nul points”.

Update, 11 March 2022

The pathetic pack failed once again recently: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2022/01/15/diary-blog-15-january-2022-including-an-outline-of-the-failure-of-the-latest-jew-zionist-attempt-to-prosecute-me/

Update, 30 September 2023

The CAA cabal took Nazim Ali’s matter to judicial review, and the High Court decided to remit it back to the Tribunal, which found the case proved against him on two charges, but simply repeated the warning to Ali.

In other words, the CAA put out huge effort for effectively nothing. They are, however, claiming it as some kind of major Jewish victory…

Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Mark Lewis, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

Update re. “Mark Lewis Lawyer”— Questions Are Raised…

January 11, 2019 Ian Millard 96 Comments

Preamble

The Jew-Zionist solicitor, Mark Lewis, was recently found guilty at a Disciplinary Tribunal on several charges brought by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority. My blog has carried the following articles about him and about some of his egregious behaviour, which behaviour has been manifested for a number of years, certainly since 2013:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/mark-lewis-lawyer-tries-to-have-part-of-the-case-against-him-thrown-out/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/mark-lewis-lawyer-disciplinary-case-now-updated-to-11-december-2018/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/more-details-about-mark-lewis-lawyer-and-his-abusive-social-media-presence/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/the-latest-revelations-about-zionist-supposed-top-lawyer-mark-lewis/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/20/self-publicizing-supposed-top-lawyer-mark-lewis-full-transcript-of-disciplinary-hearing-judgment-now-released-by-tribunal/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/mark-lewis-lawyer-latest-update/

The Tribunal Judgment

Lewis and his partner/carer Mandy Blumenthal (Lewis has also referred to her, in a British TV interview, as his “wife”), “made aliyah”, i.e. emigrated from the UK to Israel, in late 2018, after he had been found guilty by the Disciplinary Tribunal. At that hearing, Lewis’s Counsel told the Tribunal that Lewis “had no assets” except for his clothes, a mobility scooter and a private pension [said to be worth £70 a week]. Lewis had an income (salary, payable only until March 2019 when his notice period expires) of £10,000 (pre-tax, per month), and was also in receipt of Disability Living Allowance benefit, which he was exchanging (with Motability) for a car.

According to the published judgment of the Tribunal, the financial penalty imposed upon Lewis, the relevant part of which was a fine of only £2,500, was reduced from £7,500 precisely because of his impecuniosity. He was said to have no real property and to be living in rented property in London.

The published judgment of the Tribunal:

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files-sdt/11856.2018.Lewis_.pdf

Lewis’s Podcast Interview from Israel

https://www.patreon.com/posts/23894755

In this very recent podcast, Lewis was interviewed from his location in Eilat, the Israeli resort on the Gulf of Aqaba. Why is this relevant? Well, in an interview of 2011 with the London Evening Standard, Lewis said this:

“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”

In the recent podcast, Lewis goes on to say that, while he has no intention of applying for the Bar of Israel (because of his poor Hebrew), he may be servicing “clients” which he claims he still has in the UK; he even implies that he may be making (as solicitor-advocate, presumably) court appearances in English courts! Well, that would not at present be possible, unless he has been approved by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority as a sole practitioner (which he did not say he has been), or unless Lewis acts as a member of a law firm in England (which I doubt that he is or will be). Otherwise, Lewis would only be able to deal with legal matters the substance of which is outside the UK. He certainly could not appear in English courts.

In the podcast, Lewis talks about how he can work from Israel on UK work, using computers etc, and about how “there are planes to get you to court appearances”! Once again playing the “big shot”, this time once more the “top lawyer” who flies in to London or wherever else in order to appear in court on some important case. Hardy ha ha…big talk from someone whose own Counsel said at the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing that Lewis should not be fined much because “he has no assets” (except for his clothes and a mobility scooter!)…and whose recent flight to Israel was gratis, courtesy of the Israeli emigration authorities.

Incidentally, the podcast interviewer introduced Lewis as “one of England’s most distinguished lawyers”! Is there any limit to “their” lies and gall?!

Implications

So in 2011, Lewis owned a flat in Eilat, Israel…Does he still own one there? If so, he may have deliberately misled the Disciplinary Tribunal. Of course, it may be that he does not now own property in Israel and therefore did not mislead the Tribunal. He may simply have been in Eilat on holiday, staying in rented property or in hotel accommodation. It does raise questions, though…

Notes

The Evening Standard interview:

https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/mark-lewis-my-ms-consultant-told-me-not-to-do-anything-stressful-so-i-went-after-murdochs-phone-6370688.html

Update, 13 January 2019

See tweet below: are Lewis and Mandy Blumenthal already on the way back??

So basically you are saying that you feel disabled passengers that need an ambilift are only suitable for the back row seats even when paying for the most expensive fare bracket? Funny how no other airline does that.
— Mandy Blumenthal (@Mandyblumenthal) January 12, 2019

Update, 29 January 2019

Well, it appears that the egregious Lewis has now joined what appears to be a firm of Jewish or mostly Jewish lawyers based in London. I thought that he and his “partner”/”carer”, Mandy Blumenthal, were fleeing British “antisemitism”? Lewis made a big fuss about going to live in Israel, only a month or so ago!

So…the UK is OK as a place to make money for him while he lives in Israel? Or is he actually back in UK? If so, full-time or part-time (or, er, not at all…)?

https://www.patronlaw.co.uk/insights/news/

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/writers/patron-law/

The firm in question seems to operate from 2A, Norland Place, London W.11. Norland Place is a small cobbled mews side-street in Notting Hill, as seen in the estate agency photos below (and on Google Earth).

http://frostmeadowcroft.com/admin/property/373_Norland_Place_W11,_1,2,3_-_SALES_Individuals.pdf?iframe=true&width=70%&height=100%

Other companies and/or firms appear to have been registered at 2A Norland Place in the past few years:

https://suite.endole.co.uk/explorer/postcode/w11-4qg

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09698940/filing-history

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/details.aspx?adv=1&caseyear=13&decisionyear=2013&decisionmonth=12&batch=100&sapp=date%7Cdesc&pgdec=3&sapl=date%7Casc&pgplimg=3&sdec=ward%7Casc&pgapl=5&id=PP/17/03419&cn=210678+Dry+Architects+2a+Norland+Place+London+&type=application&tab=tabs-planning-1

http://www.brynlucas.com/contact/4592686120

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2649116

Where is Lewis resident?

According to Companies House, Mark Lewis was appointed a director of Patron Law Ltd on 23 January 2019. According to the 2-page pdf document attached to the filing document, Lewis gave his “Country/State where usually resident” as “United Kingdom”.

So did Lewis lie to the public and Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal in giving his (then upcoming) residence and/or domicile as “Israel”? Or has he made a false declaration to Companies House in stating that his “Country/State where usually resident” is the UK? Surely they cannot both be true?

Update, 30 January 2019

I will be based in Israel. Technology and flights mean I can live here and work there.
— Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) January 30, 2019

Update, 21 February 2019

Lewis has apparently been retained by two minor UK Jewish “celebrities” and is threatening to sue on their behalf somewhere around 70 people, all or almost all Corbyn-Labour supporters on Twitter. As in the notorious McAlpine case (with which Lewis was not involved), Lewis is demanding that those tweeted by him supply their real names and contact details as a preliminary to “settlement” (surrender) or legal action.

https://twitter.com/Rattus2384/status/1098394812754087937

“@Rattus2384” (aka @grubstreetsteve) is in fact Stephen Applebaum, a prolific Twitter user (troll) from North London, who is a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), as is Lewis. Applebaum’s tweet puffs Lewis to absurdity. He fails to mention that Lewis’s own Counsel at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal a few months ago asked for Lewis to be let off lightly because Lewis “has no assets except for his clothes and a mobility scooter”!

“The UK’s most successful defamation lawyer”? Ha ha!

Update, 3 March 2019

Lewis pretending that his (honorary) “Doctorate in Law” was not given to him by his old poly just for being briefly sort-of “famous”…

You aren’t familiar with the Data Protection Act and GDPR are you. So simply revert to ad hominem attacks. I guess my doctorate in law was an award for stupidity.
— Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) March 3, 2019

Some of Lewis’s Tweets, Part of the Recent Case Against Him

170217-lewis-die-e1533384703639

Update, 4 March 2019

Meanwhile, some people [see the Jewish Chronicle link, below] find it hard to let go of the laughable illusion that Lewis is a “top lawyer” (in this case, “high profile lawyer”), despite the fact that “his employment was terminated” by his last three (if not four) employers (in acrimonious circumstances in at least two of the cases), despite the fact that Lewis was described by his own Counsel at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (which found him guilty of professional misconduct) as someone who “has no assets” except “his clothes and a mobility scooter“! Lewis also has effectively no income now, since his £7,000 net monthly salary from his last employers, Seddon’s, is cut off this month (the last month of his notice period).

Lewis, now resident in Israel but connected with a small law firm in London, has however been instructed to pursue tweeters on behalf of two unpleasant Jewesses also prominent on Twitter. I shall watch the progress of the actions (if proceedings are ever actually issued) with interest.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/rachel-riley-instructs-mark-lewis-to-pursue-libel-claim-against-corbyn-staffer-laura-murray-1.480971

Update, 7 March 2019

Below, another testimonial for the “top defamation lawyer”, Mark Lewis! Oh, no, wait…

PLUS @MLewisLawyer don’t forget that I have a LONG memory… I no longer recognise the Mark that acted for me anymore, what happened to your integrity? ???
— Natalie Rowe (@RealNatalieRowe) March 6, 2019

Seems that some Twitter Zionists and others have not quite got the news, and think that “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is something more than a poisonous and near-insolvent bully impotently tweeting and threatening from his wheelchair or mobility scooter in Israel! Others, however, seem to be better informed…

But you're always one step ahead. Karma will get@MLewisLawyer.
— Debbie Welsh (@debbie_welsh) March 7, 2019

I think that Karma is already having its effects on Lewis…

Update, 12 March 2019

The Jewish Chronicle hedges its bets now, referring to Lewis merely as “high profile lawyer”, no longer “top defamation lawyer” etc. The bastard’s £7,000 (net) a month from his former employer, Seddons, expires this month, so he may soon be feeling the pinch.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/rachel-riley-and-tracey-ann-oberman-reverend-and-the-makers-1.481351

Update, 26 March 2019

As I have said in the past, “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is a fraud, not worth his salt as a lawyer, but just someone who (and it is typical of “them”…) publicizes himself, talks a good game, but then only performs in simple open-and-shut cases (such as the Katie Hopkins/Jack Monroe case), which a child could litigate.

Ooooops I mustn’t forget to mention that my Phone Hacking litigation Case, is in full Swing …NO THANKS TO YOU YOU @MLewisLawyer. Just Saying ☺️ Looking so Forward #RupertMurdoch #NewsOfTheWorld #TheSun and OTHERS 😁💪🏿
— Natalie Rowe (@RealNatalieRowe) March 26, 2019

Update, 29 March 2019

Further comment on Twitter

The best libel lawyer? Are you high?
— Shane McElligott (@shanemcelligott) March 29, 2019

Update, 30 March 2019

Lewis is (quelle surprise) well-known to horrible “Blairite” MP (Common Purpose drone, expenses cheat, gay online dating site user, Labour Friends of Israel member, Remain and anti-Corbyn conspirator etc) Chris Bryant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant

who won £30,000 from the News of the World in 2012. You cannot say that Bryant does not maximize his opportunities as an MP…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant#Expenses_claims_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant#Media

Btw have you changed ypur mobile?
— Chris Bryant (@RhonddaBryant) March 29, 2019

Update, 15 May 2019

The “top lawyer” once again getting muddled and giving flawed advice…

OFCOM will not consider complaints which have not first been submitted to the BBC.
— Sharkiya East (@Sharkiya) May 15, 2019

Update, 23 June 2019

One of the amusing and ongoing aspects to the “Mark Lewis Lawyer” situation is the number of those on Twitter (mainly Jews, but not solely) who still seem to think that Lewis is “top lawyer”, “top defamation specialist” etc. They also tend to be those who imagine that libel actions can be brought at the drop of a hat, and without consequences if lost. They rarely know the law at all. Here’s one, inciting Lewis to sue an unnamed person (who seems to be in South Africa, at that!)

Sue him for libel Mark!
— (((LucilleGrantWriter)))🇮🇱 🇺🇦🔯 🟢⚪🟣 ♀️ (@L_D_Grant) June 23, 2019

People like tweeter (((LucilleGrantWriter))), obviously Jewish (again…), never seem to think how Lewis (whose Counsel told his Disciplinary Tribunal that “he essentially has no means“, and that “his only assets are his clothes and a mobility scooter“) might sue anyone in England or elsewhere on his own account!

Come to think of it, I have heard nothing, and seen nothing in the msm or legal websites about the proposed defamation actions being threatened by Lewis of behalf of UK-based Jew-Zionist “celebrities” Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley (“Riley”? The only Jew I ever heard of with such a name was Sidney Reilly! In his case, he just invented his nom de guerre. Still, there it is.).

Under the law as it now is, libel actions in England have to be brought within a year of the date of publication. I seem to recall that the alleged libels (by Labour Party members and supporters, nothing to do with me, in case the reader is unaware!) were tweeted around November or even October of 2018, so time will run out within a few months. My guess? More Jewish Zionist bullying tactics, and there never will be any such libel action by those Jewish women.

Update, 10 July 2019

I never miss being in the UK, but I wish I was there tonight to watch #Panorama “is Labour Antisemitic?” and the rest of the series “Is the Pope Catholic?” and “Do bears defacate in the woods?” BBC 9pm @BBCPanorama @UKLabour
— Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) July 10, 2019

Lewis was born and brought up in the UK, educated here, lived and worked here, scarcely been anywhere else for most of his life, yet has no more real connection with this country than if he had just got off the boat from wherever his clan originated. There we have it. In a nutshell.

Meanwhile…

https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe/status/1149103800071938049

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/living-with-ms/mental-health/?utm_campaign=tmgspk_plrbrain2_2722_AtKmsQ94VTT3&plr=1&utm_content=2722&utm_source=tmgspk&WT.mc_id=tmgspk_plrbrain2_2722_AtKmsQ94VTT3&utm_medium=plrbrain2&mvt=i&mvn=f5e75f4dc54f4f24bec75288e3ae343f&mvp=NA-TELEDESK-11238861&mvl=Key-nat_story_sparkbrain_2+%5BWeb+-+Article+-+Sparkbrain2%5D

Update, 23 October 2019

Seems that Lewis’s ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, has also fallen on hard times, living in a “Nowheresville” in California with her young daughter (Caroline Feraday is now a single mother). She says that she is unable to raise a mere $10,000 [£7,700], despite having some kind of (“office bod”?) job, and so has turned to GoFundMe. Strange. She was featured, in the past (in newspapers), a decade ago though, as having property of considerable value both in the UK and Brazil (in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) as well as (since 2013) in California.

Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoura_Hills,_California

Update, 19 February 2020

marklewislawyer

[above: the latest picture of Lewis, looking a little peaky; taken in London, February 2020]

ds5

Update, 10 July 2020

The reader will have noted that one-time wannabee “celebrity”, Caroline Feraday, who now lives in a obscure tract development in California, was, not so long ago, begging for money via GoFundMe, because her neighbour was, allegedly, harassing her [see above].

In fact, some mugs were still donating money to Caroline Feraday, via GoFundMe, only a month ago: https://uk.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment, yet the tweets below show clearly that she has recently spent out USD $10,000 on a sunroom or windows for her house (the sunroom or windows apparently not delivered or constructed):

Before lockdown I paid @SunroomsWindows for a job which should have been done in March. They’ve repeatedly lied and clearly don’t intend to fulfil, yet have taken 10k of my money, they’re are out of contract, told me they’d start today and just didn’t show. I’ve been too patient
— Caroline Feraday (@CarolineFeraday) June 30, 2020

and

.@SunroomsWindows are literally the MOST dishonest company I’ve ever dealt with. I don’t cry about much, but to have given them so much trust over and again and then no show broke me today. The world just seems too full of liars and tw*ts right now.
— Caroline Feraday (@CarolineFeraday) June 30, 2020

“Dishonest“? “Liars“? “Tw*ts“? Look in the mirror, if you can bear it! Ha ha! To my mind, this comes close to fraud: taking money from kindhearted mugs because she claims to be in desperate need, yet paying out the very sum she originally sought ($10,000) for her legal fees in order to buy special windows!

Update, 24 July 2020

Now Lewis is again retained by other Jews and/or Labour Party or ex-Labour Party members and/or employees to sue the Labour Party (which —under doormat for the Jewish lobby, Starmer— has rolled over) and, I believe that I read, Jeremy Corbyn personally.

We are back in “pound of flesh” territory…

Meanwhile, there has been a backlash, not only from Corbyn supporters, but from those who do not like or trust Lewis:

Donations to 'Jeremy's Legal Fund', to support his possible libel battle against John Ware, continue to surge.https://t.co/hLFOnoZcg5
— The London Economic (@LondonEconomic) July 24, 2020

Legal fighting fund started for Corbyn reaches £120,000 in first 24 hours https://t.co/j3jp28TM6I
— The SKWAWKBOX (@skwawkbox) July 24, 2020

I just checked: as of date and time of writing, that legal fund, which at first was aiming at a target of £20,000, has reached over £163,000, with about £30 coming in every minute! https://uk.gofundme.com/f/47gyy-jeremy039s-legal-fund

What about Lewis?

The same maniac #MarkLewis who represented me back in the day re my phone hacking claim and litterally did fuck all but court the media, and YET my NEW Lawyers took under 3 Months to settle the same claim this Year. Lewis needs to be disbarred, he’s no Lawyer he’s a warmonger
— Natalie Rowe (@RealNatalieRowe) July 23, 2020

Well, of course Lewis cannot be “disbarred”, because he is not and never has been a barrister! He is a solicitor, though one whose behaviour has been more than merely questionable over the years.

Update, 28 July 2020

People continue to tweet about Lewis and his behaviour. Jews tend, generally, to corrupt the legal system of any country that “hosts” them. Lewis is a prime example. An abuser…

Other Zionist Jews have always supported Lewis on Twitter. There’s a whole cabal of them.

Mark Lewis told a court he was living on £75 a week – he doesn’t sound very successful to me. pic.twitter.com/VxL4dTjwmO
— Kevin Vaughan (@kv654321) July 26, 2020

What sort of person gets disciplined and fined by their own Professional body the SRA for 'truly awful, nasty and dreadful' messages sent to Jewish people ?

Lawyer Mark Lewis

What sort of person hires such a lawyer to take action against 'antisemitism' ?

Rachel Riley pic.twitter.com/RVIPklYr3x
— ICJ says Israel is guilty of Genocide (@TheBirmingham6) July 25, 2020

https://twitter.com/Staircase2/status/1287020796523814912?s=20

https://twitter.com/lauriejahray/status/1286698848354742274?s=20

So Mark Lewis says , he rarely follows through
— Lady K💙💙💙💚💚💚💚💚 (@k1482) July 24, 2020

I still remember a few years back when #MarkLewis was caught out on Twitter for buying up 1,000’s of Twitter accounts to give the impression he had a larger following. Pathetic Man
— Natalie Rowe (@RealNatalieRowe) July 24, 2020

UK people are very naive about Jews. They often fail to see how Jews are totally different from English people. A Jew will put up a “big” front, no matter what, at all costs; they regard it as a speculative investment. The more honest ones admit it. Look at the book about the Korda brothers, Charmed Lives, by Michael Korda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Korda

This is what Lewis has always done, “created a legend” (in the old KGB sense); meaning a not entirely true and/or inflated CV.

Lewis of course is a small operator in that respect. Certainly compared to major Jew frauds such as the late and unlamented “Robert Maxwell”. The very verb “to big up” is of Jew origin.

So we have Jew solicitor Lewis, whose own Counsel at his 2018 “trial” asked for mercy on the basis that he owned only a mobility scooter, his own clothes, and £70 a week from a private pension, yet Lewis is now again posing as the big international lawyer!

When Lewis sued a former firm (where he was a “consultant”, doing “phonehacking” cases) he claimed to the tame (Jew-infested) UK Press that he was expecting to receive a “six figure sum”. Result? The case failed, in effect. Settled without Lewis receiving anything. Typical of him.

Lewis did have a good position for a couple of years at Seddons, a well-known firm of London solicitors. That ended in late 2018, the year when Lewis was found guilty at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal.

Much of the circa £10,000 a month (c.£7,000 net) which Lewis was paid (Seddons continued to pay him to the end of his notice period in March 2019) seems to have gone on presenting a wealthy front to the world and especially the Press. Renting an expensive apartment etc. He also had expensive cars at one point years ago (though later blagging a free car via Motability, once he realized that he could get Disability Living Allowance). Yet poor people, without much income, have had Motability cars taken away, in many cases…

Lewis is very (((typical))), let’s leave it there…

Update, 29 July 2020

TV stars Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley drop libel claim over Twitter post https://t.co/pDEjIFdj4c
— Standard News (@standardnews) July 30, 2020

Once again, Mark Lewis fails to walk his big talk; quelle surprise…

https://twitter.com/SmedleyMajor/status/1288462513999314945?s=20

https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe/status/1288517017453174785?s=20

People may not be aware that Mark Lewis has settled an anti-Semitism case before this, without it reaching court. I am sure @CraigMurrayOrg will be delighted for Jane Heybroek. Jake Wallis Simons accepted that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite, on the steps of the court 1/2
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn (@leftworks1) July 29, 2020

Rachael Riley and Tracey-ann Oberman's legal team forced to settle with Jane Heybroek in embarrassing libel defeat. Legal TEAM? You mean the 1 Lawyer #MarkLewis a WarMonger. They were NEVER going to win. I Hope that Lewis. #Riley and #Oberman get Bankrupt https://t.co/NWtN5V05hv
— Natalie Rowe (@RealNatalieRowe) July 29, 2020

Thanks to the unethical “lawfare” Lewis wages, using “litigation insurance”, a form of legalized extortion, that last hope is unlikely, for now.

It's not just gratifying, it's politically *important* to see the wheels come off the Mark Lewis libel-writ bullying juggernaut this week.
— Ally Fogg (@AllyFogg) July 29, 2020

And the Guardian of course manages to leave out the interesting information that Jane Heybroek, who had promptly deleted her retweet, was the only one targeted for a libel case, despite previous hints from the two celebrities that legal action could be taken against 70 people.
— Frank (@AhoFrank) July 29, 2020

Ah, that was what I wondered about previously: out of the “70 potential defendants” targeted by the Jewish women Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, it seems that only one claim got to court— and that that one has now failed.

I do not know whether the two unpleasant Jewish women are planning to sue others. I doubt it.

Lewis even now tries to talk a big game to the newspapers, as always, but where are the “bigger fish to fry” of which he spoke today? Is he back on those drugs that he testified (at his 2018 Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal —which he lost) caused him not to know what he was doing or writing? That is what he himself testified, i.e. that he was incapable and incoherent.

Why on Earth would anyone retain Lewis? On the other hand, he is cheap, in the sense that he operates on the no-win, no-fee basis, backed by speculative finance (litigation insurance). They hope to take assets from defendants who lose at trial, or monies from intimidated defendants who might decide to settle at an earlier stage.

People are so easily conned, nicht wahr? I still see tweets from people who imagine that Lewis is some kind of defamation superstar. His successes have been in simple cases where the defendant was unwise and self-willed, like the “Jack Monroe” (“Bootstrap Cook”) action against columnist, now ex-columnist, Katie Hopkins. Well, now we see what happens when Lewis is up against real libel specialists…

Update, 20 March 2023

Yes very much an ex-husband, this wasn't even the worst thing he did. Twice he was spotted very much with other women, once coming out of a hotel in the morning with one, and another at an airport going away for the weekend together when he very much told me he was home.
— Caroline Feraday (@CarolineFeraday) March 19, 2023

If that was Lewis (and I think that Caroline Feraday has only been married once), then of course he would not be able to “storm off” now, unless he put his wheelchair into overdrive.

Time heals all wounds, one way or another…

Update, 16 September 2023

Here's Mark Lewis formerly of UK Lawyers for Israel, attendee at launch of extremist Herut UK, getting into bother for retailing untrue evidence.

Lewis is said to have "a very handy approach to bankrupting organisations" he opposes.#DismantleZionism https://t.co/9TuQ2pJkBj
— David Miller (@Tracking_Power) August 2, 2023

Update, 13 May 2024

Well worth reading, the following tweets describe part of a recent case catastrophically badly-handled by “Mark Lewis Lawyer”. Quite apart from his evident professional negligence, it is clear to me, reading it all, that Lewis was also flagrantly dishonest. He really should be struck off the solicitors’ roll.

I might add that the heroic and ultimately victorious Claimant, James Wilson, is in my opinion far too kind to the Jews and/or part-Jews who defamed and hounded him, but that is another question.

Judgment: https://t.co/LwJ0xYMic5

I remind you that one party tragically committed suicide during the proceedings.

Please respect Mr Mendelsohn, Mr Cantor and Dr Newbon’s memory. They do not deserve attacks or abuse.

I hope to explain soon what went catastrophically wrong.
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 18, 2024

Since one of the Defendants’ solicitors, Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) of Patron Law (@LawPatron), is mentioned in the statement, I am tagging him here. If he wishes to reply, I’ll post his reply below my statement.
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 13, 2024

This is the email where Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) of Patron Law (@LawPatron) refuses in principle my offer to settle for nominal damages and zero costs with Mr Cantor

And Mr Lewis insists I have to pay him £5,400 to settle the claim. pic.twitter.com/mSXQmfdEX9
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 18, 2024

It seems Mr Lewis thought Mr Cantor had no assets and had financial immunity for my costs even if he lost.

The “misunderstanding” is catastrophic for Mr Cantor and his family because he must sell his house to pay my costs.

My opinion is that Mr Lewis should pay the costs! 2/2.
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 20, 2024

Wow! Mark Lewis acted for Daniel Miller and Nina Power against Luke Turner. Lewis’ clients lost in spectacular fashion. Mr Miller is now bankrupt. I am not sure about Ms Power.

It is awful the same will happen to Mr Mendelsohn and Mr Cantor!

Mr Lewis should pay my costs! https://t.co/3tTb99qx2c
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 20, 2024

Mr Justice Nicklin said this about Mark Lewis (@mlewislawyer) misleading the court: “It is likely that this error occurred because he [Mr Lewis] had simply failed to carry out sufficient (or any) research or to take adequate instructions from his clients.”https://t.co/ECvQB8yqpn https://t.co/T7SlclxAjl
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 20, 2024

1000s of people supported the Defendants in my case inc. journos (eg Nicole Lampert @NicoleLampert) and ‘celebs’ (eg Rachel Riley @RachelRileyRR).

Now I’ve won, they are totally silent. Why?

Silence means people won’t get a chance to think about or understand what went wrong. https://t.co/zRP0eoQPYU
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) April 22, 2024

Every single one supporting the Defendants Jewish, of course…

Also: all the stuff in the letter about my outrageous behaviour, my rejecting of offers, my being abusive is just total nonsense.

Every accusation is a confession!
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 1, 2024

It’s like Lewis has failed to understand Dr Newbon’s liability for further publication by Mr Cantor.

As the judge found, when the defamatory statement was published by Dr Newbon on Twitter it was inevitable it would be further published.

Why did Lewis not understand this? pic.twitter.com/vecZY4XLCo
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 1, 2024

Here’s another example of an unhinged letter from Mark Lewis (@mlewislawyer).

Big question: did Mr Cantor insist I had to give Lewis a pile of cash before Mr Cantor would settle? Or was it Lewis himself insisting on that? What do you think? Cui bono? pic.twitter.com/vOeBqyznpD
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 1, 2024

I was on the ‘Not the Andrew Marr Show’ this morning. Crispin Flintoff interviewed me about the litigation. He’s a pro!

I also deliver a slightly laboured joke about everyone’s favourite media lawyer Mark Lewis of Patron Law.

Watch the interview here: https://t.co/F2jy2wWbmm
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 5, 2024

If you want a 20 minute summary of what happened in the extraordinary case of Wilson v Mendelsohn, Newbon and Cantor, here’s me being interviewed by Crispin Flintoff:https://t.co/DsmQGsC10E @guardiannews @Independent @novaramedia
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 7, 2024

When Mr Mendelsohn gave evidence at trial, it became clear he was unaware of some of the conduct of, or positions adopted by, his solicitor Daniel Berke.

He honestly thought Berke had complied with the pre-action protocol. In reality, there was almost no compliance!…
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 11, 2024

In my case, Mark Lewis’ completely bananas position was that mediation had to follow meaning and strike out hearings. I assume he’s never bothered to read the pre-action protocol! @MLewisLawyer

By the time mediation could have happened, costs were huge, positions entrenched and… https://t.co/x0cAuVocK2 pic.twitter.com/qRt4ByKBnq
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 11, 2024

I have always wondered why Mark Lewis did not understand Pete Newbon’s liability for re-publication by Eddy Cantor.

Here’s my letter before action which sets it all out clearly. And then Lewis’ response is mostly just random noise.

I’ve always assumed Lewis did not read my… https://t.co/kJ2CDBBXcY pic.twitter.com/hx6xUuOrsh
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 11, 2024

Because Mark Lewis is a self-publicizing Jewish/Zionist bully who is also not a very good lawyer, as many of his clients over the years have discovered; neither is he an honest one.

Also @supergutman, I am doing my absolute level best to avoid forcing the sale of Mr Cantor’s house to pay my costs.

Mark Lewis seems to have washed his hands of Mr Cantor in terms of helping him meet my costs.

I have not. I am trying to protect Mr Cantor.

I’m not sure you…
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 11, 2024

What’s desperately sad about the position is that Lewis has talked openly about being belligerent, ruthless, hitting people, and taking homes off people.

Something has gone terribly wrong here in that it is Lewis’ own client who is set to lose his home. pic.twitter.com/DrsPF1FV2P
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 12, 2024

It is weird that the anonymous pro-Israel trolls have started having a go at me again after judgment in my case.

If the trolls actually cared about defending Jewish people, there is a vulnerable man called Eddy Cantor who is set to lose the home he and his family live in. I need… pic.twitter.com/Iaxc3zmeAg
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 12, 2024

“It is weird that the anonymous pro-Israel trolls have started having a go at me again after judgment in my case. If the trolls actually cared about defending Jewish people, there is a vulnerable man called Eddy Cantor who is set to lose the home he and his family live in.

I need help to stop that happening. He is set to lose it because Mark Lewis did not work out that Mr Cantor had equity in his home. Mr Lewis therefore thought Mr Cantor had financial immunity in the litigation.

I worked out Mr Cantor had equity in his home by looking it up on the Land Registry and asking him. Rather than having a go at me, the trolls could have go at Mr Lewis to encourage him to step in to stop Mr Cantor losing his home.“

“Famous” (self-publicizing) “libel specialist” Mark Lewis Lawyer: both dishonest and incompetent, as I have blogged for several years. He has never sued. Admittedly, partly because my present —and for several years past— impecuniosity makes me effectively “unsueable”, but he has never even tried to apply for an injunction/restraining order against me. He knew that he would lose. He prefers to sneak around helping the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (he was a founder member) to make malicious lying complaints to police (etc) about me.

Mark Lewis and his partners at Patron Law are refusing to say whether they will pay my costs.

It is causing terrible stress to their former client Eddy Cantor who is set to lose his home.

I’m going to give some information about Patron’s partners.

👇 This is Patron’s partner… pic.twitter.com/K4DjyOxU7A
— James Wilson (@per_incuriam2) May 13, 2024

“This is Patron’s partner Alexander Zivancevic. He was fined £15k by a Tribunal because he lacked integrity. He paid money from a client into his own personal bank account.“

Another one of them, of course…

Mr. Wilson has discovered that, when the usual Jew-Zionist pack scores a hit against a non-Jew, the (((usual))) Press pack (inc. LBC radio and Talk TV etc) go overboard on it, but when the Zionists (eg “Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fall down, the mass media is silent. I have seen it time abd again.

Of course, one must not say that the Jewish influence over the mass media is stifling truth in the UK; that would be, apparently, not only “antisemitic” but “grossly offensive”…

(even though true).

Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Mark Lewis, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

“Mark Lewis Lawyer”: Latest Update

December 22, 2018 Ian Millard 10 Comments

Update, 22 December 2018

Jewish Zionist extremist Jonathan Hoffman (of “Sussex Friends of Israel”) has now set up a petition to the effect that the verdict and sentence in the Mark Lewis case should be declared “null and void”.

https://www.change.org/p/edward-nally-justice-for-mark

So far (at time of writing), only 224 persons have signed the petition supporting Lewis. That’s about 1 out of every 300,000 people in the UK, or to put it another way, 1 out of about every 1,200 Jews in the UK.

Hoffman seems to imagine that all that is required to void the proceedings and result of them is for the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal to make a declaration! The couple of dozen other Jew-Zionists (several of them lawyers!) who have tweeted similarly appear to be under the same delusion.

In reality, the Tribunal panel member objected to was only one of three, and was not even the Chairman of the panel. If Lewis thinks that the verdict or sentence should be set aside, he need only lodge notice of appeal by 3 January 2019. No doubt the Administrative Court will do exactly as he and/or his extremist “claque” and clique of supporters would wish (ha ha!— I am of course being heavily ironic or satirical, and quite possibly sarcastic…).

Again, I fail to see what even Lewis himself would gain from either any successful appeal (highly unlikely though such success would be) or from some unilateral act of hara-kiri by the Tribunal.

Lewis was not struck off the solicitors’ roll by the SDT; he was not even suspended. His £10,000 costs penalty (which the Tribunal implied would almost certainly not even be collected by the SRA by reason of his impecuniosity) has been crowdfunded, as has his fine of £2,500. The SDT finding and sentence does not stop Lewis from working as a solicitor, if (a big if!) he can get any law firm to employ him, or alternatively if he complies with the necessary regulations to practise as a sole practitioner.

In reality, Lewis was leaving the UK for Israel anyway. One can see why (and it is not because he and his ghastly partner/carer are in the slightest afraid of British “anti-Semitism”): Lewis has a progressive/degenerative medical condition, MS, which has worsened in the past few years. He is unable to walk properly and has either to use a mobility scooter, or to be pushed in a wheelchair, or (until he left for Israel) to drive himself in the car supplied to him (thanks to the “antisemitic” British taxpayer…) by Motability in lieu of Disability Living Allowance.

Lewis had not attended his place of work (at Seddons, the London law firm) since March 2018, by reason of his medical condition, which was made worse by some kind of traffic accident. He became unable to write. When Seddons heard of the complaints against Lewis to the SRA (or when the upcoming Tribunal hearing was publicized), Seddons terminated Lewis’s employment, in September 2018, on 6 months’ notice, though presenting it at the time as if the reason, or sole reason, for the termination was that Lewis was emigrating permanently to Israel.

While of course I do not know the details of Lewis’s billing performance etc at Seddons, he was on a pay package of £10,000 a month (gross), presumably (educated guess) with the possibility of a bonus or percentage if he exceeded that amount of billed work over a period. In Tribunal, it was said by Lewis’s Counsel that his assets as of November 2018 were just his clothes, his mobility scooter and a pension which was worth £70 a week or less. That, and his £10,000 a month pay, payable only until March 2019.

Reading between the lines, one can see that, while Lewis’s assiduous courting of the “occupied” UK mass media brought Seddons publicity (a mixed blessing, I should have thought!), Lewis obviously was not bringing in or doing much billed work. In short, he was not worth his salt even before he stopped actual work (or even attending his office) in March 2018. Seddons seem to have treated Lewis rather well, inasmuch as they carried him totally for six months before terminating his contract, and then carried him for another 6 months (until March 2019), despite his being just a dead weight to Seddons, a useless person and in fact a liability to his employers. To be frank, I was astonished to read, in 2015, that a well-known firm such as Seddons had taken Lewis on. I expect that they lived to regret it.

To return to the main point, Lewis had already decided to leave the UK for Israel. He knew (probably years in advance, as I did when Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to the Bar Standards Board, an analogous situation) that he was going to be “put on trial” at Tribunal and that Seddons would probably not keep him on, so he (again, educated guess and I may be mistaken) kept it quiet from Seddons as long as he could, to keep getting the £10,000 a month (before tax, assuming that he paid it, so about £7,000 a month net).

Lewis now has little future as a lawyer, but that has really nothing to do with the verdict of the Tribunal. Lewis never denied posting the violent and crazed messages wherewith he was charged. Indeed, he justified himself in respect of the non-Jew victims, though he was willing to crawl a bit to the father of the 18-y-o Jew victim.

In other words, Lewis’s behaviour was exposed at Tribunal, and even were he to appeal and to win any appeal (unlikely anyway), any potential employers or clients will be aware of what he wrote; also aware that Lewis has been and presumably still is sometimes non compos mentis by reason of either his medical condition, or its effects on the brain, or the medication used in respect of that. I would not want a lawyer like that; few would.

Lewis has also stated that he will not be making application to join the Bar of Israel.

I can only assume that Lewis will be living off a number of income sources while living in Israel:

his partner/carer is apparently a buy-to-let parasite in the UK and/or has other business interests; she has stated that she will be buying property in Israel;
Lewis will still be able to get some UK Disability Living Allowance (paid for by all those “antisemitic” British taxpayers…) in Israel, indefinitely. Yes, only up to maybe £100 a week or so, but hey!…;
I have no idea what disability benefits Israel offers, but I suppose that there are some;
Lewis has a £70 a week private pension, apparently;
Israel offers considerable “Aliyah” (emigration/immigration) benefits (see Notes, below), which, by the way, include a one-way free flight to Israel, financial help, housing benefit etc;
I would not be surprised to discover that his Jewish Zionist supporters in the UK will be covertly remitting him some charity monies informally; indeed, it is not beyond the possible that some wealthy Jews will remit him larger sums, who knows?

This individual, Lewis, is the Jew Zionist who, having conspired behind the scenes against me for years (certainly since 2013, possibly since 2011),

was one of the Jews covertly behind the malicious complaint about me to the Bar Standards Board by “UK Lawyers for Israel” (where he is or was a leading member);
was involved in the malicious complaint against me to Essex Police by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (where he is still an “Honorary Patron”, oddly described as Dr. Mark Lewis, maybe because he was given an honorary degree by his alma mater, Middlesex Poly/Uni, a few years ago); and
repeatedly tweeted about me that I was or am “a sad unemployable git” and “failure as barrister, failure as human being”!

Now look who’s talking! An incoherent, medicated, washed-up, foul-mouthed, disgraced and twice-divorced Jew Zionist, living in Israel on benefits, on charity and off his “partner/carer”, and incapable of doing anything except tweeting and being pushed around in a wheelchair.

http://www.jewishagency.org/aliyah-benefits/program/8231

https://www.nbn.org.il/

https://www.gov.uk/claim-benefits-abroad/where-you-can-claim-benefits

https://antisemitism.uk/about/patrons/

https://www.motability.co.uk/

Further thoughts

When the cabal called “UK Lawyers for Israel” made their malicious complaint against me (in 2014) to the Bar Standards Board, one of their leading lights was Mark Lewis. One of the “Patrons” of UKLFI was one Baroness Deech, a Jewish Zionist and life peer, whose parents were from Poland, though she was born in the UK. The “baroness” was also, at the time of complaint against me in 2014, the head of… the Bar Standards Board!

When the BSB decided to “prosecute” me at a Bar Disciplinary Tribunal (for a small number of tweets about society), the “baroness” was still in post.

When the Deech person ceased to be head of the BSB, and before my Tribunal hearing was held in late 2016, another person took over as Chairman of the BSB, but he was a former British diplomat who just happened to be a former ambassador to Israel, and whose interests and other work included “restitution” of property seized in the 1930s and 1940s (and now claimed by Jews wanting “restitution” —or huge compensation— from European states and companies)!

When I made the point, both before my Tribunal hearing and at the hearing itself, that “justice must not only be done but be seen to be done” and that the whole decision-making process in my case was fatally-flawed, both a High Court judge (on preliminary application) and the Tribunal chairman (a retired Circuit Judge) turned me down, on the basis that the fact that “baroness” Deech was both a Patron of the organization which complained against me and the most important official of the organization deciding on whether I should be “put on trial” or not, was not relevant!

Needless to say, no Jews ever tweeted to say how unjust this all was. Typical…

In other words, my Bar Disciplinary Tribunal case and hearing (though conducted relatively fairly on the day by the retired judge chairing it) was a “stitch-up” from the very start. The result was, in reality, never in doubt because of the Jewish Zionist influence and the perceived “need” to kow-tow to “them”. Yet the Zionists on Twitter etc now say that Mark Lewis was judged unfairly at his similar Tribunal because one of three SDT panel members once made a few anti-Israel remarks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Deech,_Baroness_Deech

Update, 2 January 2019

Lewis shown on Israeli TV, saying that “they [British people] wanted us out of England, and we are glad to be out of England.”

Hopefully he will not come back, but I bet that he is still getting part of the Disability Living Allowance that he was being paid in the UK, though he has had to give up the free Motobility car that the “antisemitic” British taxpayers provided for him even when he was dragging down £10,000 a month as a partner in Seddons, the London law firm!

https://twitter.com/Sofer8Sofer/status/1071641689356296192

3 January 2019

Allegations that Mandy Gargoyle made implied threats to people and even tweeted photos of their houses…

You are completely lying.. Her account was suspended after she reacted to an ex member of the BNP and Mandy Blumenthal (convenor of the CAA) posting her old home online and threatening to pay a visit.. WHO is telling you this?? pic.twitter.com/sKoYalr1Ve

— Team Phoenix 🔥 #followthephoenix (@LeftPhoenix) January 2, 2019

4 January 2019

Seems that Mandy Gargoyle should have been investigated by the UK police…

Dear Mark Hopkins/Mandy Blumenthal. Sally has never sent his mooring address to anyone because she doesn't know where it is you silly twits. Whereas it was in fact YOU who doxxed Sally's old home in broad daylight and threatened violence. You are truly a bunch of loons. pic.twitter.com/d9H5eMZz4B

— Team Phoenix 🔥 #followthephoenix (@LeftPhoenix) January 4, 2019

Update, 13 January 2019

Hoffman’s absurd online petition to the SRA demanding (ignorantly) that the SDT or SRA “overturn” the verdict in the Lewis case has now effectively come to its end, with 411 signatories. 411 out of about 250,000+ Jews in the UK (and about 65,000,000 non-Jews).

Some of the tweets Lewis sent to Alison Chabloz. He must be psychotic, or maybe the MS not only afflicts his body but affects his mind…or was it the drugs?

Update, 23 October 2019

Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoura_Hills,_California

Update, 19 February 2020

[above: the latest picture of Lewis]

ds5

	claudius1889 on Diary Blog, 1 March 2026, with…
	claudius1889 on Diary Blog, 1 March 2026, with…
	claudius1889 on Diary Blog, 28 February 2026
	Igor on Diary Blog, 28 February 2026
	claudius1889 on Diary Blog, 28 February 2026

Ian Robert Millard

Category Archives: Ian Millard

Peter Hitchens and His Views

The Knives Are Out for Freedom of Expression (and more)

Alison Chabloz: The Show Goes On!

Letting Off Steam About Libel

Tommy Robinson Banned on Facebook: the repression of free speech online

Alison Chabloz— The Fight for Freedom of Expression Goes On!

Jew-Zionists Attack My Blog

The “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA) Takes A Serious Hit

Update re. “Mark Lewis Lawyer”— Questions Are Raised…

“Mark Lewis Lawyer”: Latest Update

Proposals for a new society…

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Proposals for a new society…