For those who have never heard of her, Jo Brand is a terminally unfunny comedienne, the sort of artiste the BBC have specialized in for the past 20-30 years.
Jo Brand is highly political and supports the Labour Party.
Recently, Jo Brand made comments that she excused later as “a joke”, to the effect that Nigel Farage and other basically (even mildly) nationalist political candidates should have acid thrown over them. Wikipedia has the following description of the matter:
“In June 2019, Brand was featured in the BBC Radio 4 comedy show Heresy, after a number of European election candidates had been doused with milkshakes during campaign walkabouts the previous month. Brand said “Why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?” She later added: “That’s just me, sorry, I’m not gonna do it, it’s purely a fantasy, but I think milk shakes are pathetic, I honestly do. Sorry.”[32] The BBC later defended Brand, explaining “the jokes made on Heresy are deliberately provocative as the title implies” and that they were “not intended to be taken seriously.”[33] Acting Prime Minister Theresa May said the BBC should explain why a Jo Brand joke about throwing battery acid was “appropriate content” for broadcast[34] and the BBC later announced that the remark would be edited out of any future broadcasts. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that it had “received an allegation of incitement to violence that was reported to the MPS on 13 June”.[35] and that they were investigating the matter.[36][37] Appearing at an event in Henley, Oxfordshire, on the same day, the comedian was said to have apologised for making the joke, saying “Looking back it probably was somewhat a crass and ill-judged joke that might upset people.” It was understood that the allegation reported to the police was not made by Nigel Farage or the Brexit Party. Ofcom said it has received 65 complaints about the episode of Heresy.[38] The police dropped the investigation two days later.” [Wikipedia]
Jo Brand was talking (no doubt well-paid for it too) on a BBC radio show hosted by the Jewess Victoria Coren.
Afterwards, the BBC removed the clip from public access. The Jew comic David Baddiel (the show’s “creator”, again no doubt very well paid for all of this degenerate nonsense) said that the BBC was “cowardly” in removing the comments.
Strangely enough, Baddiel is often heard complaining about jokes….about Jews.
Jo Brand is obviously a disgusting woman (I thought that a long time prior to the recent “joke” and still think it). Britain is in the midst of a spate of horrible acid (and strong alkali) attacks, in which victims have been killed or seriously injured and/or disfigured for life by criminal attackers.
These types of attack were unknown until mass immigration destroyed Britain. Even the massaged statistics of the System say that white people (still the large majority of the population) only perpetrated about 30% of the attacks; non-whites, despite being only a minority of the population, perpetrated 70% of such attacks. White people (i.e. real British people) were the victims in about 50% of cases. This type of crime has been imported from other parts of the world, and the UK courts are only now, belatedly, starting to hand down suitably condign sentences.
Coming back to the repulsive Jo Brand, she thinks that throwing milkshakes over political opponents is “just pathetic”, by which she plainly means that the attacks do not hurt or damage enough. How could someone with her attitudes ever have been a psychiatric nurse, as she is said to have been for a decade?
In fact, the “milkshakes” (which are mostly not even milk-based but are a glutinous mixture sold to the masses by McDonalds and the like), do considerable damage to clothing, and more importantly are an affront to the victim’s dignity and rights as human being and as citizen. Which, of course, is why the perpetrators do it. The attackers are always smug, narcissistic “me too” types like Jo Brand. They are always Remain whiners, always pro-mass immigration, and usually have jobs in the mass media or public services (when not students).
To imply, as Jo Brand does, that to throw a fast-food “milk”-shake over someone is nothing, and by no means painful enough, is to incite violence for political motives. There is no other explanation for it.
As to Brand’s “apology”, designed as a fig leaf so that BBC etc can carry on giving her (via her tax-dodging private company) licence-payers’ money so that she can carry on boring and repelling the public, it carries no weight whatever. Would any “ordinary” (in fact, far more valuable) citizen be let off so easily by the police on the plea that “I only said that acid should be thrown because I was joking”? I think not.
Let us look at a few people whom the police or professional bodies have not let off for making remarks, or for singing amusing songs etc:
Alison Chabloz sang amusing satirical songs about, inter alia, the many proven “holocaust” fakes.
She was prosecuted and eventually convicted, though is appealing her conviction and sentence; see
Jez Turner made a humorous speech in Whitehall in 2015, during which he suggested that Jews should be (again) ejected from the UK. Prosecuted in 2018 and actually imprisoned (!) for a year (released on licence after 6 months);
Vlogger Mark Meechan, aka “Count Dankula”, was convicted in Scotland of having taught his pug dog to give the “Hitler” salute, then posting the film online. Fined £800 and refused permission (needed in Scotland) to appeal; the fact that I regard him (and other “alt-right” vloggers) as complete wastes of space does not change the fact that he should never have been prosecuted;
I myself was questioned by the police after politically-motivated Jews complained that tweets I was said to have posted were “grossly offensive” (they could not bag me, though, and I continue to post as I see fit, though not on Twitter: the Jews managed to procure my expulsion from that platform); in a related case, effectively the same pack of Jews (though notionally different because using a different organizational name), had me disbarred
The Jo Brand case is another item in the indictment against the BBC, the degenerate msm milieu in general (cf. the Gove confession) and UK society today. There must be, some day soon, a chistka or purge (a “cultural revolution”, if you like) to destroy msm degeneracy and its practitioners and profiteers, to wipe out evil of this kind and restore European culture to TV, radio, Press and book publishing. Online too.
In the meantime, I wait to see whether Jo Brand herself will be confronted by a milkshake. I wonder whether, in that event, she will see the “joke”?
News reports and what people have been saying
First, a half-hearted defence of Jo Brand from (yet another) Jewess, this time in The Guardian:
and here [below] is the Jew Baddiel defending Jo Brand (and of course his show, from which he makes yet more money from the BBC…and as he will, no doubt, in future); but where was he when my free speech was trashed? Where was he when Alison Chabloz was persecuted and prosecuted for singing songs?
“I am suspicious of outrage, because I think, ‘are you really outraged? Are you really stomping about in your house furious, or are you just wanting to be heard on social media?’” – Comedian David @Baddiel on the reaction to Jo Brand's battery acid joke.#newsnightpic.twitter.com/SpT7IGJsAw
…and (what a shock) here is Ricky Gervais, another one who has never stood up for Alison Chabloz etc (though admittedly he did so for the waste of space “Count Dankula”, and his silly saluting dog film….); and, on another but not directly relevant point, I do like his support for animal welfare etc.
It's obvious to me that Jo Brand would never actually throw battery acid on anyone. It's even more obvious that she would never waste any of her fucking milkshake.
Yet another System-subsidized “humorist” (apparently— I’ve never heard of the idiot) below:
"Can you imagine the reaction if I had said the same thing as Jo Brand?" says Nigel Farage, a non-comedian who has non-jokingly endorsed the use of rifles in front of non-joking crowds in non-joking rooms full of non-joking people who non-jokingly defend rape jokes.
That one [above] seems to ignore the fact that both milkshake and acid attacks occur all too often; semi-conservative politicians like Nigel Farage are in fact not “picking up rifles”.
Here’s another one, Gyles Brandreth , defending Jo Brand. Funny how these bastards all make large amounts of money from the BBC…
Talk about over-reaction! Jo Brand is a big-hearted & brilliant person – and her joke was OBVIOUSLY a joke. (I heard it at the time.) https://t.co/DdmsSTr1k0
…and [below] yet another defender of Jo Brand: Jew, atheist, gay, and…yes, as expected (I had to look up the bastard on Wikipedia) another who makes his income from BBC work. The BBC is now a corrupt mess and should be dropped down a black hole.
And here is another member of the London msm club, Adam Boulton, of Sky News. Strange, I must have missed his defence of, say, Alison Chabloz and her songs (or, for that matter, his defence of my tweets of years ago). That’s right, Adam Boulton did not defend freedom of expression. “They” would not have approved…
No. Jo Brand is a decent and funny woman. She miscued with the way she expressed herself and has apologised. She was not trying to advocate violence just as Danny Baker had no racist intention. Try not being so priggish. We all make mistakes and pay the price. https://t.co/vDl1XPA0NF
[Update, 4 September 2020. Seems that I was wrong; the BBC has now thrown a few crumbs her way: “In 2020, she and fellow comedian Fern Brady started a podcast for the BBC called Wheel of Misfortune, which is obviously based in [sic] the Wheel of Fortune.” [Wikipedia]]
“Count Dankula”/Mark Meechan [below] exposes the hypocrisy of those who defend Jo Brand but not, er, him! Fair enough, but where were you, Mr. Meechan, when Alison Chabloz was facing persecution and prosecution? Where were you, on your precious “social media”, when I myself was traduced in the msm? Nowhere. So that’s where you are and will stay: nowhere!
I'm honestly really enjoying all the hypocrisy coming from people who came after me but are defending Jo Brand.
"Jo is a comedian and free speech in comedy is important"
"What about Dankula?"
"Well you see that's different because *verbal diarrhea*"
This one (below) apparently reviews newspapers on Sky News sometimes. Seems that she cannot reach even their usual low standards, never having heard (it seems) of Alison Chabloz, Mark Meechan, or the fellow whose family was subjected to a police raid because they made a joking remark about a Guy Fawkes bonfire in their own garden. Or are edgy “jokes” OK unless they mention Jews and Gypsies?
Here, below, the columnist Allison Pearson answers the tweet of Jew Zionist scribbler Hugo Rifkind:
I don’t mind what Jo Brand said. I do mind that the double standard is: Leftwing makes nasty remark: oh, free speech, no one cares Rightwing does same: Hate speech! Sinister! Fascist! Get them sacked. https://t.co/aoPK8m278p
In fact, it seems that a great number of people do not approve of the so-called “joke” by Jo Brand (the bitch wouldn’t know a joke if it splattered all over her…). Strangely enough, few if any of her critics make money out of the BBC…
Here is the moment Jo Brand mocked Carl Benjamin for making an offensive joke promoting a police investigation. "I think it shocking that politics has been reduced to vile personal attacks" she added. pic.twitter.com/0E9xthuvjc
I just think #jobrand and others who inhabit these right-on patronising middle class circles and say things just to get cheap laughs from their metropolitan elite pals, should think about what they are saying and maybe realise ‘it’s not all about them’https://t.co/mYQgwePD0h
and here’s another BBC hypocrite: Jimmy Carr. Makes millions (literally) from the BBC and other msm, was exposed as a tax-dodger in 2012, but tries to pose as both somehow “radical” and as terribly “edgy”.
Here’s another example of Jimmy Carr humour, laughing at British service personnel who have been badly-injured:
“In October 2009, Carr received criticism from several Sunday tabloid newspapers for a joke he made about British soldiers who had lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that the UK would have a strong team in the London 2012 Paralympic Games.[34] Carr defended his own joke as “totally acceptable” in an interview with The Guardian.”
[Wikipedia]
Why is he still around? The little bastard only jokes at the expense of those who cannot fight back. Why has no serving soldier or ex-military person *explained* the matter to Jimmy Carr?
Alexander Nekrassov not mincing his words! Go, Sasha!
Jokes aside that ugly leftist cunt #JoBrand did incite hatred against Farage and his party. Mind you, the whole #BBC network incites hatred daily against whites, conservatives, followers of 3 major faiths, normality, sanity and common sense. Disgusting cesspit of far-left filth.
— Alexander Nekrassov (@StirringTrouble) June 13, 2019
Nekrassov with another point which applies not only to Jo Brand but a hundred or more others:
A stray thought: does Jo Brand fantasize about acid being thrown on people she dislikes, or with whom she disagrees, because her own face already looks as though acid has been thrown on it?
Below, rent-a-mouth BBC ignoramus James O’Brien defends disgusting Jo Brand. Apparently, it’s OK to “joke” about Nigel Farage having battery acid thrown at him, because “it was on a comedy show”. Funny, I never saw O’Brien and his type stand up for Alison Chabloz and her comedic songs…Must be that it’s OK to joke about acid being thrown —on a named person who has already had other stuff thrown on him recently— but not OK to lampoon the proven Jewish frauds and fakes of the “holocaust” mythus…(we really are just “occupied” in this poor country…)
[Update, 4 November 2021: Looks as though the BBC had O’Brien delete his tweet. No surprise there; I would only be surprised had O’Brien the courage of his convictions].
…and now look at who’s looking for trouble!
Tim so you are clear. I would pour whatever I can get my hands on, on an avowed White Supremacist. My ancestors died fighting this shit. I don’t give two bloody hoots what your apologist arse thinks about it. (that’s me being polite) You lay down with dogs you get fleas. https://t.co/njmNNmzq8p
His ancestors “died fighting” what he is pleased to call “this shit” (meaning white civilization), he says. Thus speaks David Lammy MP, barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, to which I myself belonged before the Jew Zionist cabals procured my disbarment in 2016, an injustice no doubt applauded by barrister Lammy (he only practised actively at the Bar for a few years, and at a very low level, doing the simplest criminal cases).
When did his “ancestors” “die fighting”? In African tribal wars, or attacking the police at the 1980s Broadwater Farm riots; or in more recent gang activity? I do not know the bastard’s background in detail, so cannot guess. Lammy seems to want a fight himself, judging by the inflammatory nature of his tweets. He obviously has a violent nature. In fact he supports corporal punishment too. He is out of place in the UK, in Europe.
I think that at one time Lammy hoped to become the first black Attorney-General, but was beaten to it by Patricia Scotland (who was rubbish, and went on on to be rubbish at the Commonwealth Secretariat as well, but that is another issue). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Scotland#Expenses_controversy . The price of so-called “diversity”? Labour’s travails since 2009 and his own odd behaviour seem to have put paid to Lammy’s ministerial ambitions. He was (briefly) a Minister of State (non-Cabinet) under crazed bully and psycho case Gordon Brown, but now is just a backbencher and will stay one. Still, not a bad little earner for someone whose huge ignorance is regularly highlighted.
One has to question whether a society like that of the UK can survive, when its key and/or prestige institutions prefer such as David Lammy to someone like me, when the BBC and its highly-paid drones pay lip-service to incitement to horrific violence, and when those guilty have mostly so far got away without having been taken down.
Cowardly #JoBrand moves from encouraging people to post shit through letterboxes to #acidattacks – literally & legally terrorism, but don't expect PC Plod to lift a finger. If it makes you angry, stop paying the #BBC licence fee!https://t.co/7ANhESvxee
Never say never: cretinous “diversity hire” David Lammy is now Foreign Secretary! What an insult to the white people who built this country! He is a total idiot, and totally ignorant. Just a puppet on a stick, marked “diversity”.
The time has come for me to write about the most incredible charlatan and mountebank the UK has seen since the days of Horatio Bottomley.
The background we all know (though when I say “we”, of course I diplomatically pretend to mean “all British people” but in fact mean “the tiny minority who take a serious interest in how the country and society they themselves live in is run”).
In outline, therefore: the UK has a combined political and electoral system that no longer really works. Part of that is the sclerosis of the major political parties of the System.
The LibDems, heirs to the great late 19th and early 20th Century Liberal Party, failed in 2010 to demand (as they had the power to do) some form of proportional electoral system. They are flagging, though may benefit from not being Conservative or Labour, if Brexit Party grows stronger.
Labour is doing well within its boundaries, as the party of the public services and of the “blacks and browns”. In terms of MP numbers, Labour under Corbyn is doing about as well as it has generally done in the past, if one excludes the Tony Blair years:
though it may struggle to get a popular vote much above 30% in future.
Then we have the Conservatives, for long considered “the natural party of government”, but which now struggles to attract votes from anyone much under pensionable age, or from those not in the most affluent 10%-20% strata of the population. Its MPs are mediocre or worse, and its ministers no better. The leading contender to take Theresa May’s purple is now Boris Johnson. He is the leading contender because the Conservative Party is terminally sick. In its healthier days, someone like Boris Johnson would not even be an MP, let alone promoted (briefly, disastrously) to Foreign Secretary; the idea of someone like him becoming Prime Minister would be a joke, rather like that of The Simpsons, c. 1993, casting Donald Trump as a future President of the USA. Jokes are dangerous!
And the parliament elected (49th) was the last where:
-the Tories won the popular vote by more than 10 points. -the last where they had more than 336 seats. -the last where a Conservative govt lasted a full term with a majority of seats intact.
A serious point from Lewis Goodall. It has been a long time since the Conservative Party had anything like a solid majority in the House of Commons (1992; arguably, 1987). 27 or even 32 years:
Serial liar, adulterer & charlatan #borisjohnson says "of course he'll run for the Tory leadership"; how could anyone think otherwise? The sense of entitlement of that useless turd, who squandered millions as London mayor & who was an appalling foreign secretary, is breathtaking.
#borisjohnson If Darren from a council estate had committed arson in Oxford, looting in Iraq, conspiracy to assault, been sacked from 3 jobs for lying, fathered a child with one mistress and caused another to abort, would a third of Tory Party members want him to be the next PM?
“After the briefest of honeymoons,” he wrote, “the voters would quickly start to wonder how this spectacularly incompetent braggart, with a Churchill complex but no Commons majority, had ended up in Downing Street in the first place.”
My enduring image of Boris Johnson is when, for a photo opportunity while campaigning to be London mayor, he held out a £20 note to give to a female busker. Once the photo had been taken, he put the note back in his wallet. That's him in a nutshell – promise anything then renege.
There was a Mafia leader in New York once, John Gotti, who at one time enjoyed the newspaper-invented title “The Teflon Don”, because he was always being arrested and even charged with serious crimes, but who always seemed to get away with whatever. No charges stuck. There is something of that in Boris Johnson.
“Matthew Engel in The Guardian notes [Bottomley’s] ability to charm the public even while swindling them; one victim, cheated of £40,000, apparently insisted: “I am not sorry I lent him the money, and I would do it again”. If London had had a mayor in those days, says Engel, Bottomley would have won in a landslide.”
A transparent reference to the (one-time) Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Johnson seems able to shrug off, not so much allegations against him, but allegations proven beyond all doubt and repeatedly, against him.
Boris Johnson, journalist trainee (sacked), journalist (sacked), Spectator editor (hopeless, largely absent), MP twice, Shadow minister (sacked), Foreign Secretary (“resigned”), Mayor of London (useless). That’s before we even look at detail, or about his personal failings (easily available elsewhere, so no need to again detail them here).
— Julie Owen Moylan (@JulieOwenMoylan) June 12, 2019
One of the most risible aspects of Boris Johnson is his am-dram reprise of Churchill. Johnson affects not only the voice (slightly) at times, but (also occasionally) the solid buffalo-like massed body posture, hunched, looking down etc. I may have my trenchant criticisms of Churchill’s historical role, but the man was a titan compared to Boris Johnson!
There is something sick here about the Conservative Party, the UK, and the UK’s political system. The Conservative Party consists now of between 50,000 and 120,000 mostly elderly, mostly affluent persons, who are going to vote on a leader. The majority will vote and a majority of those will elect the leader. In other words, about 40,000 or so of those elderly people will, in effect, elect the next Prime Minister of the UK, a position which the “elected” candidate may hold for nearly three years, until 2022!
What kind of fake “democracy” is that?!
What will happen if Boris Johnson wins this contest?
Either Boris Johnson will take the UK out of the EU without a trade “deal” with the EU in place (I am sanguine on that score), in which case there is every chance of his losing a House of Commons confidence vote either immediately or not very long afterward, or Johnson will renege on his meaningless “pledge”, in which case he will be giving Brexit Party a gift worth rubies. Either way, the Conservative Party will be toast. Any loss of a confidence vote will result in a general election in which the Conservative Party might well be wiped out.
The Daily Express (meaning the Jew who owns the Daily Express) has been pushing an opinion poll which says that a Boris Johnson Conservative Party might win a landslide 140-seat House of Commons majority. That is very unlikely, for several reasons.
What Britain needs is a powerful social-national movement. So far, there have been mere straws in the wind only. No movement, no party exists, as yet. An inevitably-disastrous Boris Johnson government might create the socio-political conditions for one to emerge.
(“It’s quite something when Liz Truss, Gavin Williamson and Chris Grayling are three of the brightest people in the room.“)
(“No, he didn’t want to talk about his record at the Foreign Office. Probably because his tenure had been an unmitigated disaster. Rather, he wanted to claim other people’s achievements during his time as London mayor as his own.”)
(“Just as the event threatened to unravel, Johnson remembered his instructions and dashed for the exit. Some journalists shouted that the whole event had been a total disgrace, but for Boris it had done the business. He had got through the day more or less unexamined. Onwards and downwards, further into the cesspit of Tory party politics.”)
(“This was the Tory party in survival mode, reduced to its basest instinct. Things were serious now. The Tory party had decided it must live, and so everything else must die.”)
(“All dignity dispensed with. All integrity gone. Survival is everything.”)
(“The most telling fact of the speech was how bad it was. Boris Johnson is on his best behaviour, but bad behaviour is all he is.“)
(“What was he offering exactly? There was something or other on “investing in the infrastructure this country so badly needs”. His current record on infrastructure is an utterly pointless cable car in east London that recent TfL research showed is used by precisely six actual commuters. It now serves alcohol in the evenings to try and stay afloat.
Then there are the rolling windowless sauna buses, and his decision to make himself chief executive of the London Legacy Development Corporation, and personally see through the execrable Olympic Stadium deal with West Ham United – the only aspect of London 2012 over which he had any executive control, and the only aspect considered to be an utter failure.”)
We keep hearing that “Boris Johnson has the ability to be Prime Minister, but does he have the necessary character?”
My response is “where has Boris Johnson proven that he has the ability?”; on the contrary, he has, if anything, proven that he has not the ability.
Afterthought, 20 June 2019
It occurs to me that some readers, on reading my assertion that Boris Johnson is the most egregious charlatan and mountebank since Horatio Bottomley, may object “what about Robert Maxwell?”, and it is true that Johnson does invite comparison with “Maxwell”.
However, Maxwell was a far more organized and intelligent figure, and in some respects far more sinister (he is supposed to have been Israel’s chief secret operative in Europe). Also, though “Maxwell” was indeed an MP (in the UK) for 6 years (1964-1970), Britain in those days was still decently “anti-Semitic” and (rightly) somewhat “prejudiced” against “Maxwell” (though Britain still allowed him to become an MP, defraud pensioners etc). No-one would ever have even thought of “Maxwell” as a potential Prime Minister.
It is true that Maxwell was every bit as much of a charlatan as Boris Johnson is, but there was an element of seriousness or even tragedy in Maxwell that does not exist in Boris-Idiot. I don’t suppose that anyone would entrust Boris with millions to invest, neither would he know what to do with it, though his incompetence in every sphere would still ensure that every penny was lost! One could ask, “then why is Boris being entrusted with the fate of the whole country?” God knows. I don’t.
Seems that Boris-Idiot and his girlfriend/fiancee (?) had what the police used to call “a domestic”, the neighbours then calling the police emergency line 999. “Our” next Prime Minister”… He is as fit for that position as I might be to take Olympic gold (in any sport).
Well, the idiot has been appointed Prime Minister, most of the Cabinet of Theresa May has resigned, others have been sacked. I shall blog separately about this disastrous new Cabinet of “kings and queens for a day” when it is complete. I just note now that Boris-Idiot has appointed, as Home Secretary, one of the traditional “Great Offices of State”, Priti Patel, who is non-European, thick as two short planks, and a proven Israeli agent. We no longer have freedom of speech in the UK; otherwise I would express what I think should happen to her. I therefore content myself with observing that, had it not been for Idi Amin, she would now be serving customers from behind the counter of a Kampala grocery shop.
One of the 5 tweets that got me disbarred at the instigation of a pack of Jews was that describing Michael Gove MP as “a pro-Jew, pro-Israel expenses cheat”. I am very glad to be able to post the key words yet again (as I do from time to time), now with the addition “who is also a dishonest, cocaine-snorting little degenerate with a Jewish wife.”
Major Candidates
I have decided now to blog about the main rivals for Theresa May’s threadbare purple as leader of the Conservative Party. I start with Gove.
Michael Gove
[above, Gove enjoys the company of Jew paedophile and rapist, the now-deceased one-time Labour MP and (later) “lord”, Greville Janner, at a Zionist social gathering]
Gove was adopted, his origins not publicly known. He was a journalist before becoming an MP. At that time, he showed his adherence to the Israeli cause by participating in a pro-Israel demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
It seems that, like —sadly— too many of “our” mainstream media scribblers, Michael Gove was a fairly frequent abuser of cocaine before (only before?) his Jewish Zionist backers got him onto the System political racket as an MP.
Michael Gove's admitting to have used drugs as a young journalist came ahead of the publication of a biography in July, which reportedly contains the allegation https://t.co/jiUcqhrI07
— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) June 8, 2019
For several years, Gove had a relatively low public profile as MP, despite his promotion to Shadow Cabinet in 2007, after only 2 years as a backbench MP. He was one of the most blatant (though far from the worst) expenses cheats and blodgers exposed in 2009: he and his Jewish or part-Jewish wife, Sarah Vine (a Daily Mail columnist), claimed as detailed here:
Gove is an active member of Conservative Friends of Israel. He is a non-Jewish Zionist, completely in the pocket of the Jewish Zionist lobby. He has always supported UK “intervention” in the Middle East and elsewhere (eg Libya).
Gove was Boris Johnson’s campaign manager (in effect, Johnson’s deputy) in the Conservative leadership contest of 2016, but stabbed Johnson in the back at the crucial moment, causing maximum damage to the leadership bid that he, Gove, had been supporting until that moment.
Gove’s wife has said that he cannot do as much as boil a kettle. Well, Einstein was like that and look how he benefited humanity. Oh, no, wait…
Conclusion: A doormat for Zionism and the Jewish lobby; intelligent, but not as intelligent or cultured as he and his backers believe him to be. A driven careerist. Completely untrustworthy. Not reliable in any way (except in his support for Israel, which for me is a negative). Administratively, probably competent. Otherwise unfit for the office of Prime Minister.
[above, Boris Johnson “praying” at the “Wailing Wall” in Jerusalem]
Boris Johnson, aka Boris-Idiot, has wanted to be Prime Minister for a long time. A melange of different ethnicities, he is partly-European, partly-Turkic, partly-Jew: his maternal great-grandfather was an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Lithuania! Three generations on, the Eton and Oxford “fiddler on the roof” was born in New York City to a father who worked for the World Bank and was later a Conservative MP.
Boris Johnson has been a backbench MP twice, without having distinguished himself. He has been Foreign Secretary and was terrible at it, incapable of doing the job properly. He has been a journalist-trainee (at the Times— sacked for making up a quotation), a journalist (at the Telegraph— where he was known for making up news) and an editor (The Spectator-— where he was notorious for absenteeism, lateness, making the staff make up for his defaults, also rude and unpleasant to the staff, and spent much of his time, in office hours, out of the office screwing lightweight airhead Spectator scribbler Petronella Wyatt).
Johnson has always had to face accusations of incompetence, complacency, laziness, lack of serious thought and application, as well as charges of dishonesty. These traits have characterized Johnson from his days at Eton right up to his shambolic and quite brief time as Foreign Secretary. A further trait has been appointment by reason of connections, rather than merit.
Johnson, who spent his childhood and youth amid the wealthy without himself really being of (very/extremely) wealthy background, is obsessed with scrabbling for as much money as he can get, and apparently gets (on top of MP salary and expenses) £250,000 per year for writing garbage in the Telegraph, which garbage he cobbles together once a week in about one and a half hours. One has to wonder at the motivations of the Telegraph’s editor or, perhaps being more significant, owners. The Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay] who both favour Brexit and would no doubt find it very useful to have a UK Prime Minister obligated to them. Johnson tried to be Mayor of London and MP at the same time, in order to double his salary.
Boris Johnson is not prepared to do the preparation necessary to avoid egregious and avoidable mistakes. Two that come to mind are the water-cannon he bought as Mayor of London (unusable because not approved by the Home Office, a fact that Johnson did not bother to find out in advance) and Johnson’s painful mishandling of the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case:
Johnson will do almost anything to become Prime Minister. Though probably genuinely at least cynical or sceptical about the EU, he has fluctuated between Leave and Remain for most of the past two decades, and only committed himself to Leave when it became politic so to do.
“He’s lied his way through life, he’s lied his way through politics, he’s a huckster with a degree of charm to which I am immune”
[Anon., said to be a Cabinet minister, quoted in The Times of Israel]
Johnson, like 80% of Conservative MPs, is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. In 2017, an Israeli employed by the Israeli Embassy in London, Shai Masot, was covertly filmed talking about how he had a million pound slush fund for “friendly” Westminster MPs, and how he wanted to have others “taken down”.
The Jew Masot talked to a “British” traitress and/or agent, one Maria Strizzolo (an aide to Jew Zionist “Conservative” MP Robert Halfon), about Boris Johnson, who, said Masot, was OK. “Ah, Boris…Boris…is good; he is solid on Israel. Of course, Boris is an idiot…” (and smirks…).
After being openly talked about like that, Boris Johnson just laughed it off in the Commons. He knows that he needs the Jew-influenced “British” msm to publicize him and support him. What’s a few insults from his Jewish “friends” anyway?
As MP and as Mayor of London, Boris was rumoured to have been an occasional drug abuser and, more often, a stalker of women in supermarkets etc. After having been (in the Minder appellation) “‘Er indoors” for many years, his (second) wife, a half-Indian woman, finally chucked him out in 2018.
Apparently, Johnson rarely if ever reads a book or anything beyond newspaper opinion columns. His pathetic attempts to pull rank on the plebs and make himself seem cultured by using Latin or classical Greek words fell flat after a few years. People saw through it.
Johnson’s latest girlfriend, whom he will probably marry, is a Conservative backroom PR woman who has smartened him up, cut his hair, put him on a diet and generally made him look less like a clown. She cannot do much about what is in his head, though.
Johnson has something in common with Donald Trump. Nothing that he says can be taken at face value. In fact, the sharp-eyed Jews have not had difficulty noticing that:
“Johnson’s…actions have done little to assuage liberal Britons. Last year, he came under heavy attack from Jewish community leaders after he described Muslim women wearing burkas as looking “absolutely ridiculous” and like “letter boxes” and “bank robbers.” The Jewish Leadership Council said Johnson’s words were “utterly disgraceful,” while a leading rabbi accused him of “racism with a smile.” The Jewish Chronicle compared the former foreign secretary to a “bar-room bigot”.” [The Times of Israel]
Now we see that Johnson is again trying to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.
Excl: Remainer Tory MPs beginning to back “malleable” Boris for leader as their best hope of softening or reversing Brexit altogetherhttps://t.co/SFUY5sN0s7
Conclusion: Boris Johnson is a basically rootless character. Ethnically somewhat “diverse”, born in New York City, brought up in Belgium and England, educated with the (very) wealthy while not being quite one of them [cf. David Cameron-Levita, who was heir to a fortune in the tens of millions of pounds], Boris is always the slight outsider. He is pro-Israel mainly because it is convenient to be so (though he is part-Jew). His am-dram Bertie Wooster impression is no doubt an attempt to fit in with an England where he still does not wholly belong. The same is true of his equally am-dram but totally empty Winston Churchill impression and mimicry (he even affects a slightly-hunched posture at times). As a politician, he makes a good public entertainer. Driven. Unreliable. Incompetent. His Uxbridge seat may not be safe. Unfit to be Prime Minister, however looked at.
Jeremy Hunt
The most serious main contender for Conservative Party leader, as I identified some time ago.
From an English background, Hunt is distantly related both to the Queen and to one-time Labour government minister and founder-leader (1930s) of the British Union of Fascists and (1950s) Union Movement, Sir Oswald Mosley. Born into an old Establishment family (his father was an admiral).
Politically, Hunt has had a fairly meteoric career. Elected as MP in 2005 (at age 39), he was made a Shadow minister almost immediately, promoted to Shadow Cabinet minister in 2007 and, as soon as the Conservatives formed the Con Coalition in 2010, appointed Cabinet minister (Culture Secretary 2010-2012, Health Secretary 2012-2018, Foreign Secretary 2018-present).
Hunt has by far the widest experience of government of the present contenders.
Hunt’s wife is Chinese, yet he has on occasion criticized the Chinese government.
Conclusion: Probably the most serious contender for Conservative leader if one forgets about level of public profile (Boris Johnson’s trump card). A smarmy snake type, but (despite gaffes here and there) reasonably competent (when compared to Johnson, especially). It would be surprising were he not one of the final two candidates.
Sajid Javid
By origin Pakistani Muslim, Javid could be described as an apostate, having said that:
“My own family’s heritage is Muslim. Myself and my four brothers were brought up to believe in God, but I do not practise any religion. My wife is a practising Christian and the only religion practised in my house is Christianity.” [Wikipedia]
Javid is not a practising Muslim and he drinks alcohol. One of his brothers died from ingestion of alcohol and codeine.
Javid has been a devotee of the “philosophical selfishness” of so-called “Objectivism”, the “philosophy” invented by Jewess Ayn Rand.
“Philosopher and theologian John Milbank commented [about Javid]: “It is extraordinarily disturbing that any mainstream politician should express any admiration for Ayn Rand. We should be concerned that someone like Sajid Javid can now hold high office within the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]
Javid was an international banker for about 18 years, rising by 2009 (when he quit to pursue his political ambitions) to an income of some £3 million a year. At least it can be said for Javid that his political career is not motivated by money-grubbing (cf. Johnson and, to some extent, Gove). Whether being an international banker is quite as impressive as it sounds, after the debacle of 2007-2008, is a matter for debate.
It was a shock to many that Sajid Javid, as Home Secretary no less, expressed support for the “antifa” thugs and snoopers. It shows either malice or, more likely (?) ignorance. I saw a Twitter photo of Javid at a Metropolitan Police event at which some of the most notorious Jew-Zionist trolls and troublemakers were in attendance.
Javid is yet another Conservative MP who belongs to Conservative Friends of Israel.
“Javid is regarded as one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in the Cabinet and is a long-time supporter of Conservative Friends of Israel.” [Wikipedia]. He even went there on his honeymoon!
“Javid’s strong record of speaking out against anti-Semitism has earned him plaudits from leading Jewish communal figures” [Wikipedia]
“In 2015, at a Board of Deputies of British Jews hustings event, Javid stated that publicly funded cultural institutions that boycott Israel risk having their government grants cut.[81] Citing a boycott of the UK Jewish Film Festival[82] by the Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, Javid said: “I have made it absolutely clear what might happen to their [the theatre’s] funding if they try, or if anyone tries, that kind of thing again.” [81] British playwright Caryl Churchill raised concerns about political interference in the arts and questioned: “All Charlie Hebdo? Except when freedom of expression means freedom to criticise Israel.”
[Wikipedia]
Conclusion:
Sajid Javid seems to be a genuine Leaver/Brexiteer. Put another way, a convinced globalist…in favour (unsurprisingly) of immigration into the UK. A complete doormat for the Jews and Israel, too. Intelligent…up to a point. Seems to be another one who is either narrow or has idees-fixes: Israel, Ayn Rand etc. May be administratively competent. As potential Prime Minister, a Pakistani-origined capitalist-globalist who supports Israel, the Jewish lobby, the mindless “antifa” idiots and the outlook of Ayn Rand, is not my idea of the right selection.
Dominic Raab
Raab is half-Jewish (and half-English) but was brought up culturally mainly English, including Church of England, and in –perhaps appropriately– Gerrard’s Cross, Buckinghamshire, the next rail stop from Beaconsfield, one-time seat of deracinated Jew Benjamin Disraeli, later Lord Beaconsfield, who became both Conservative leader and then, in 1868, Prime Minister.
Raab has a background in law (a degree and solicitor’s qualification, as well as a 2-year training term with Linklaters, a leading City of London firm), the Foreign Office (5-6 years) and as adviser for 3-4 years to Conservative Shadow Cabinet ministers. He was elected MP in 2010.
Raab has had a turbocharged career in Parliament, being involved with numerous serious policies and initiatives, including cross-party ones. Evenhanded (on the surface) re. Israel, he has criticized the most egregious excesses of the Zionists, in particular the settlement movement. He reached the Cabinet in 8 years.
Raab was involved with the Britannia Unchained booklet, which might be said to endorse what some have termed a “Zionist slavemaster agenda” for the British people.
Raab is a sincere Leaver/Brexiteer.
I assess Raab as hard and indeed ruthless.
Conclusion: Another rather rootless person. Not quite Jew, not quite full English. Probably competent in terms of administrative and executive ability, but there have been allegations that he bullies his staff. Seems doubtful whether he can much impress the British voters, and his suggestion of forcing a WTO Brexit through via the prorogation of Parliament (something not done, for purely tactical political reasons, and as far as I know, since Cromwellian times), must give pause to those who would support him as potential Prime Minister.
Other candidates
There are a number of other candidates, though it may be that few if any can get 8 MPs (increased from 2 to cull the numbers) to support their candidatures. I have already blogged, a while ago, about Rory Stewart, arguably the most interesting candidate individually:
though I note that some msm commentators have now expressed some of the same doubts as I did some time ago, and wondering whether his whole adds up to the sum of his parts, basically.
Should other candidates get through the initial process, I shall also examine them (or should that be “turn on them”?).
Overview
The Conservative leadership contest is yet another “shitshow” (in the elegant word of Johnny Mercer MP). The Conservatives cannot organize Brexit, cannot even organize their own leadership election effectively! They certainly cannot run the country properly. I wonder how long they can cling to government.
Another point comes to mind, in relation to various issues but, for example, Gove’s cocaine abuse. MSM commentators and talking heads all saying that the public don’t really mind if journalists, MPs, Prime Ministers, snort drugs. I wonder. There may be plenty of people who think that frequent abusers or users should be machinegunned , if only as a public health measure. I merely pose the question…
There is a real and growing rift between the “socially liberal” metro-people and the other “tribes” in the UK.
[example: the Political Correspondent of Sky News does not regard it as significant that at least two of the main contenders for the Conservative Party leadership were habitual cocaine abusers!
As for the Conservative Party, it seems bizarre that a few hundred MPs, and then what amounts to about 40,000 70 and 80 year olds, can elect a party leader who will then automatically become Prime Minister and may serve until 2022 without any need to be endorsed by the whole people.
👇Iain is spot on. Look at the powerful movements the Republicans/Labour allowed Trump/Corbyn to create in the open. The Tories are tying their own noose by locking the nation out of their coronation. https://t.co/X4D1CsfCtN
Boris Johnson has just “pledged” (whatever little weight that carries in the mouth of a congenital liar like him) to cut taxes for the 5%-10% of the adult population with gross incomes above £50,000 a year. He thus addresses directly the affluent and wealthy people who, as members of the Conservative Party, are about to elect the leader of that party. People who would benefit from any such policy.
To put it another way, Boris Johnson has just made it more likely that he will be elected Conservative Party leader, but at the same time has made it even less likely than it already is that the Conservatives will win the next general election. In fact, they will probably not even be the largest party in the Commons after a general election. They might not even be the second-largest party.
I wonder what the mass of voters (90%+) who earn less than £50K a year gross will think about a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson that prioritizes tax cuts for the affluent and wealthy 10% at the expense of the other 90%? If only 10% of voters vote Conservative next time, it is “Goodnight Vienna” for the Conservative Party; and Boris Johnson, in his modest-majority Uxbridge seat, will be one of the first to fall.
Tweets and updates
So it was Dominic Raab's campaign team who pushed the Gove cocaine story to the media. Incredible that this process is choosing the UK's next Prime Minister. It's like watching rats fighting in a sewer – only the Tory battle stinks much worse.
Cabinet – Theresa May warns her successors there are more opponents of a "no deal" than there are hard brexiteers who will vote it through. – Julian Smith warned Parliament will use "all endeavours" to stop no deal – Sajid Javid demands no deal cash from HMT More 1pm on Sky
The last 30 years has been a story of Conservative parliamentary decline and stasis. The question of how to right it should be at the heart of this leadership campaign. Not much evidence anyone is thinking about it so far.
After the first ballot, the three least-supported candidates have been eliminated: nonentity Andrea Leadsom, ex-accountant Mark Harper, and dishonest (and thick-as-two-short-planks) Esther McVey.
As previously said, you can have any Model T Ford car as long as it is black, and you can have any Conservative MP as leader so long as he or she is pro-Jew and pro-Israel. In fact, the voting record of the candidates shows identical voting on a number of important issues; for example [see tweet below]
Rory Stewart MP on Marr. It seems that, in polling of Conservative Party members, he is now second-placed (after Boris-Idiot). That would seem to prove what I have previously written, that Boris Johnson’s “popularity” is no more than the outcome of his 20 years of publicity largely generated by himself. Stewart has matched that, or tried to match that, via a social media blitz.
I have written about Stewart individually and I see no reason to alter anything I wrote then (except that I thought then that Stewart would have more MPs behind him), at the beginning of May of this year:
Stewart has more self-belief than Hancock (and more intelligence). He is still standing and may be gaining ground. For him it is all or nothing. He has ruled out serving in a Boris Johnson Cabinet, and it is hard to see Boris appointing him anyway. Boris does not like to see his idiocies floodlit.
To me as an observer, it seems that Gove is probably out of the running now, as is Sajid Javid. Be grateful for small mercies. That leaves, realistically, Johnson, Hunt, Raab and Stewart.
I had thought that Stewart would find more support among MPs than he has done so far. However, assuming that Johnson will be in the top two, Stewart now has a 3/1 chance of being there too. I had thought Hunt the obvious second-place candidate at the end. Now, well, we shall see.
Stewart is basically pro-EU, so it is hard to see Conservative Party rank and file members voting for him on that basis, but on most other bases he scores over Johnson.
Whoever becomes Conservative Party leader, this is a party going nowhere but down.
Update, 17 June 2019
Well, as I guessed a couple of days ago, Rory Stewart has gained ground, at least in the betting, though the betting exchanges’ and bookmakers’ odds are often not a reliable guide to political results (see the EU Referendum, the Trump election, the recent Peterborough by-election etc).
Stewart is now at 2nd place in the betting to be next Conservative leader, though only at 16/1. Boris Johnson is favourite at around 1/5 odds-on (Hunt 20/1, Gove 46/1, Raab 85/1, Javid 120/1).
By all accounts, Stewart did well in the TV debate (Johnson the sole absentee, obviously afraid of being exposed as an idiot and incompetent, as well as wanting to seem to be the “presidential” figure above the fray).
Update, 19 June 2019
The latest “debate” on TV was held. I heard a few minutes. Boris Johnson…what a complete idiot. Is that really the best that can be offered for potential Prime Minister? God help the UK…
The tax plans of both Johnson and Hunt are mad. Anyway, there it is…
A piece in The Guardian (see below), by Jessica Elgot, a Jewish Zionist journalist (who used to block me when I had a Twitter account). She refers to Rory Stewart as a “Black Watch veteran”. Not sure what the hard core of that very tough regiment would say to that; after all, Stewart only spent 5 months, if that, in that regiment (as a probationary short service 2nd lieutenant). Still, the inside track on the Con leadership campaign is interesting. Seems that my 3 May blog about Stewart hit the spot, pretty much.
Well, Rory Stewart is out of the race, which means that, until or unless Boris Johnson leaves frontline politics, his career is stalled again. He pledged not to serve in a Johnson Cabinet, and, as I blogged previously, it is doubtful that Johnson will appoint him to anything significant.
That leaves Johnson, Hunt, Gove, Javid.
Gove has said that he would serve under Johnson. As usual, willing to do whatever it takes to keep the career going and the salaries rolling in (a Cabinet minister gets about £75,000 a year on top of the MP salary of about £80,000; also, a ministerial car, a large and staffed country house in several cases).
I doubt whether Gove will be one of the final two; neither can I see Sajid Javid making the cut. That would leave Johnson and Hunt. The assumption is that Boris-Idiot would be be given a triumph by all those retired affluent Conservative Party members across the UK, all 100,000 or so of them (about 1 in maybe every 500 UK people belong to the Con Party). The assumption may or may not be right. If Hunt is the alternative, he may yet be in with a chance.
As to Boris-Idiot, this completely incompetent and clueless fool may well be posing as Prime Minister soon. Good grief…
Talked to a Tory MP last night who was backing Johnson "Do you think he'd be any good as PM" "No" "What on earth will he do about Brexit"? "No one knows" "Why do you want him, then?" "He's the best hope we've got" "By 'we" you don't mean Britain do you?" "No the party, of course"
The final ballot having been held, the two candidates still standing are Boris-Idiot and Jeremy Hunt. Exactly what I predicted at the start (see above), though I was beginning to wonder whether Rory Stewart might make it into the final showdown.
Everyone is now assuming that the conclusion is already cut-and-dried. Probably, though Hunt may do better than expected as runner-up.
I find myself wondering about why it is that Boris Johnson has managed to shrug off all the (entirely justified and proven) allegations about his drug abuse, sex life, incompetence, lies etc. I think that the answer(s) are as follows:
Boris took drugs. Gove took drugs. Boris has been unaffected, while Gove has been diminished, ending up looking like a squalid and rather silly little figure. Why? I think because people are not comparing like with like. If Mick Jagger, at age 65 or for that matter (and as now) 75, plays around with some young girl, well, people just shrug and say “that’s what he’s like, he’s always been so”, or “that’s rock music for you”. Now, if some, say, respectable vicar, bank manager or headmaster does the same or even somewhat less, he will be pilloried, because people do not expect such behaviour from their local vicar or whatever. I think that that is part of the answer. People assume that louche Johnson might have snorted cocaine, but few not in the know thought it of apparently straitlaced Gove;
Gove has policy in mind. He is at home in the world of policy. Johnson has no real policy (or indeed ideology, or indeed belief in anything). So why do most people prefer Boris-Idiot? Because emotion is stronger than intellect, and will is stronger than emotion. Boris does not appeal on the intellectual level (how could he?!) which is Gove’s stronghold; he, Boris, appeals to emotion, whether to people liking his public persona, or his “dogwhistling” re Muslims, those two combined neatly and amusingly in his “Muslim women looking like” pillar-boxes or letter-boxes. It could even be said that Boris is appealing to the Will, to an inchoate Englishness (even though Boris himself is, at highest, only part-English);
Of course, the political fusion of all three parts of human mentality and being, meaning Will, emotion and intellect, was personified by Adolf Hitler. Obviously Hitler “bestrides the narrow world like a colossus”, even today, and was a titan compared to a silly creepy grubber like Boris Johnson, but there we are: “history repeats itself, first tragedy, second time farce.”
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:
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:
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.
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.
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!):
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!
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.
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:
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.
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.
Hitchens’ recent book (which I have not yet read, but which promises to be at least as myth-shattering as those of the unjustly neglected historian Correlli Barnett)
Update, 18 September 2020
Since the above was written, Peter Hitchens has been almost a lone voice struggling against the “Coronavirus” panic and the allied government-proclaimed fear propaganda.
Update, 24 April 2022
Hitchens is now in the small minority of public figures unwilling to go along with the msm noise against Russia, and for Ukraine (meaning the Kiev regime of the Jew-Zionist Zelensky).
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!
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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. #StopBrexithttps://t.co/v0goH4HsOw
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.
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:
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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
— 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
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 (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…
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.
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.
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!
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
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…
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.
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.
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
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):
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.
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 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:
@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.
Below: self-described (fake) “journalist” and “historian” (failed supply teacher and house-husband) Mike Stuchbery inciting serious political violence but trying to deny it…
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
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
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!…)
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.
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
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)
…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”:
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…
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.
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.
— 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”!
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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.
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/Xd2iEmxucQpic.twitter.com/OJ7UGuAzPr
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).
“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
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
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 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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ian Robert Millard 