In Fawlty Towers, Basil Fawlty has to keep reminding his wife and staff, “whatever you do, don’t mention the War” (because German guests might be offended). In contemporary Britain, that injunction has become “don’t mention the Jews!” unless, of course, in terms that stress the huge benefits which they (according to they themselves) confer upon any nation hosting them.
The latest famous figure to fall foul of the “rule” has been Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader. In fact, what he said was hardly even controversial, surely: that the well-funded Jewish lobby has a hugely disproportionate influence over US politics. As far as I know, he did not have the courage to mention that the same is true in the UK.
Farage has been the subject of the usual Jewish-Zionist storm that breaks if anyone “mentions the Jews”. They want the money, the influence, the power, but not the “recognition ” of it by non-Jews.
In the UK at present, there are several people who face trial, possibly even imprisonment, for “mentioning the Jews”.
Naturally, one has to tread carefully for fear of being in contempt of court in circumstances where trials are upcoming.
Alison Chabloz, satirical singer, after having been attacked and trolled mercilessly for 3-4 years by Jewish Zionists, was eventually prosecuted privately by the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” for alleged offences under the much-criticized “bad law” of the Communications Act 2003, s.127. Faced with that coup de main, the Crown Prosecution Service, which had not prosecuted her for her songs (without getting into the legal niceties of the charge), had the choice of allowing the private prosecution to run, taking over the prosecution and dropping it, or taking it over and continuing it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution, drop the then-existing charges (drafted by Zionist lawyers) and substitute new charges. So far the case, which started in late 2016, has not run its course. One notorious Jew-Zionist pest, who was a prosecution “witness”, has now been dropped by the CPS for being in fact “an unreliable witness” and there will now be a further court hearing on several points of law before the matter (possibly) goes to trial in January 2018 or thereafter. All because a lady sang some songs…
British nationalist Jeremy Bedford-Turner [Jez Turner] has now been committed for trial on the more serious charge of “incitement to racial hatred”, having made a brief speech in 2015 (2015!) in Whitehall, in which speech he is alleged to have mentioned the Jews…
The Crown Prosecution Service, having had the matter referred to them by the police on a complaint by the same “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”, initially refused to prosecute Jez Turner, so the “CAA” took the CPS to the High Court on a judicial review application. In the event, the CPS caved in, presumably so as not to set a precedent. The matter was “re-examined” and prosecution initiated.
Jez Turner appeared this week in the magistrates’ court and was committed for trial in the Crown Court at Southwark.
It is not without note that we in the UK live under a government which is very much tied in with the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby. Theresa May and Amber Rudd are strongly pro-Israel and do not deny that fact. It seems that Theresa May is in fact half or quarter Jewish herself (on the maternal side). At least, that has been credibly suggested. She and Amber Rudd have stated that they intend to criminalize even people merely reading “far right” (social nationalist) “propaganda” (views, analysis) online! Police state dystopia…
Talking of police states and repressions instigated by Zionists, many may have read previously my own experience of early 2017:
and many other people have been subjected to similar experiences in the past few years. I was disbarred after a malicious and politically-motivated complaint from, essentially, the same type of “person”, masquerading as “UK Lawyers for Israel”. See:
Yesterday, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced updated and expanded “guidelines” on how the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with so-called “hate crime”. These new guidelines have been heavily criticized as, in effect, creating new and tyrannical law, despite the fact that the guidelines are neither primary nor secondary legislation.
In this blog post, I examine only those aspects of relevance to socio-political tweeting etc, meaning in practice those with a racial or religious element.
Part of the concern around the guidelines revolves around Alison Saunders herself. Many regard her as a sinister though incompetent figure, a “graduate” (member) of the pervasive and infiltrative organization (some say “cult”) called Common Purpose. In 2013, when Alison Saunders was CPS chief for the London area, a Freedom of Information request was made as to her connection with Common Purpose. At first, the reply was affirmative, but that was then alteredto negative:
The answer is relevant to the new CPS guidelines because the motto of Common Purpose is “Leading Beyond Authority”. In other words, the citizens of the UK cannot rely any more on law or decent public administration, because organizations such as the CPS, full of “CP” “graduates”, will, it is suspected, manipulate the regulations etc in order to achieve a desired (by them) result.
Definition of “Hate Crime”
It is vital to note that there is no statutory (or accepted Common Law) definition of “hate crime”:
“A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws.” [Wikipedia]
Wikipedia continues: “For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.”
In other words, there must first be a crime as designated by law and only then can that alleged crime (if one of those “specified”, i.e. assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) be treated by the police and CPS as a “hate crime.” The new guidelines reflect that existing position:
“The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”
“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”
It will be noted that there must first be a criminal offence. If there is not, then it matters not at all how “unfriendly”, “prejudiced” etc is the alleged perpetrator.
Further, sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether any crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is “racially or religiously aggravated.”
Incredibly, while the police and/or CPS will “flag” a case as a “hate crime”, “it is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim’s perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending.”
So a crime which is “flagged” at first as a “hate crime” but for which flagging there is eventually no evidence, will still be treated, in Court, as a “hate crime”, resulting (on conviction) in a far more severe sentence. How can this be regarded as in any way just?
The guidelines now continue:
“If the case passes the evidential stage and it is a case of racial or religious hate crime, or it is motivated by discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, or religion or belief, it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest.”
This is a hardening of the position taken in the earlier CPS guidance and may mean an increase in the number of prosecutions. However, there is still a requirement for a substantive crime to have been committed and there is still a requirement for sufficient evidence to support prosecution. New crimes have not been created, but the danger is that zealous CPS and –especially– police persons will get the bit between their teeth and start to ignore the basics in their quest to hunt the witches. Anyone who has read the outpourings of the UK police forces online recently will not be reassured as to their objectivity in this respect. There is an unthinking “me-too” political correctness abroad, one which seems impervious to logic, argument, reason or plain commonsense.
Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge
The CPS legal guidance for its staff can be found here:
The full details can be found via the above link but one key element is that there must be one or more identifiable “victims” of the “crime”. In other words, if there is no identifiable victim, then the matter falls in respect of the “hostility” required under the relevant statutes.
How the CPS regards freedom of expression
“In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.”
Other Thoughts
It is noteworthy that the body of the new guidance neither mentions nor lists the Communications Act 2003, s.127 as among the statutes utilized in the prosecution of “hate crime”. However, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.145 and 146 (see hereinabove), anyone sentenced for having posted a “grossly offensive” tweet (etc) under the 2003 Act can receive a sentence uplift if the offending tweeting (etc) had a “hate crime” element (the maximum sentence being 6 months’ imprisonment, though the usual sentence is non-custodial).
One cannot analyze these matters without noting that the Zionist special-interest lobby is likely to try to pursue its political ends by abusing the new guidelines. Readers are referred to my own experience of January 2017:
I advise a defensive approach. Malicious persons, notably Zionists, try to make provocations by saying offensive things online, eg on Twitter, then (if the interlocutor replies in similar vein), reporting to Twitter, Facebook etc and even to the police. I have found that the easiest way to deal with such nuisances (in the short or medium term) is to block them (on Twitter), which tends to avoid conversations and disputes. It also means that it is much harder for the Zionists to report a tweeter to Twitter. I myself have seen, in the past few years, several Zionists lamenting that “he blocks us, so we cannot [make false accusations].” Yes, it means that the individual tweeter cannot answer back to the lying allegations the Zionists often make, but the solution is simple: just do not care what they may write about you! I don’t…
In other words, just try to avoid having any conversations with malicious Zionists or other nuisances online. Make it hard or impossible for them to make false or malicious reports to Twitter (etc) or the police.
In respect of tweets not specifically addressed to anyone, it is more difficult for those wishing to destroy freedom of expression to report them to Twitter or (a fortiori) to the police, so long as there is no evidence of direct incitement within the meaning of the relevant (1988) Act.
In extreme cases, just protect your tweets. You can also pre-block any obvious Zionists on Twitter (and most of them are indeed very obvious…).
The ultimate and longer-term protection for social nationalists lies in future relocation to “safe zones”, as I suggest on my website: http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities, which will then limit the powers of the wider State.
In essence, the new social media guidelines are indeed another nail in the coffin of free speech in the UK, but are unlikely to stop socio-political comment online– which is why the conspiracy –and behind Alison Saunders stand Theresa May, Amber Rudd, secret groups, the whole #NWO and #ZOG farrago– is trying to get the big online platforms signed up to repression.
In the end, the net result of this latest silliness is likely to be a tsunami of pointless and/or malicious complaints to the police.
Update, 29 April 2019
Since I wrote the above blog post, Alison Chabloz has been convicted under Communications Act 2003, s.127, and is appealing (at time of writing, to the Divisional Court). However, the “guidelines” which are the subject of the article above do not seem to have had much practical effect in terms of changing prosecution or sentencing policy.
Much water under the bridge in relation to the Alison Chabloz case(s). To find out more, please use the search function on this blog.
In relation to repression of free speech generally, and as I predicted in the main article above, the ZOG strategy has been, not so much a tightening of laws criminalizing individual free speech, but a campaign of getting the major plaforms of social media to police free speech without any law having to be passed.
Thus we see that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are simply expelling socio-political dissidents, and so removing both their inherent citizen-rights to free expression and (in the case of the prominent few) their online incomes. We have seen such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, David Icke, David Duke etc removed or largely removed from online platforms, the same also happening to less prominent people.
Six months and a day ago, I attended Grays Police Station, Essex, for an interview with the police. I trudged through the snow and slush of estuarial Essex after a long rail journey involving several changes of train. A police fortress set in a snowbound urbanized wasteland. Crossing the rail line in the snow reminded me of visits to socialist Poland in the 1980s. Not pleasant.
[above, Grays Police Station, Grays, Essex]
A week or so before my supposedly voluntary but in fact involuntary trip to Essex, I had been surprised to receive a telephone call from a detective-sergeant of the Essex Police, who informed me that the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [CAA] had made formal complaint against me.
Now the CAA, as some readers will know, is a small but well-funded Jewish Zionist organization, sufficiently in funds to be able to employ a number of full-time staff. It was founded around the time of Israel’s 2014 Gaza slaughter, in order to defend the interests of Israel and of Jews generally. Some of its members also belong to “UK Lawyers for Israel”, a similar group and the one which complained against me to the Bar Standards Board in 2014, as a result of which I was disbarred in late 2016 (though I had not practised for 9 years!). The signatory on that complaint had been one Jonathan Goldberg QC, a Jew who was once the preferred Counsel of the notorious Kray gangsters. Goldberg also appeared pro bono (without fee) for the CAA in its private prosecution against the satirical musician, Alison Chabloz (which prosecution was later taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and the original charges dropped, though new ones were substituted and the matter adjourned until, at the earliest, late December 2017).
The head of the CAA, one Gideon Falter, had, prior to founding the CAA, made a complaint against a Foreign Office man, Rowan Laxton, who was accused of having shouted out (while on a gym treadmill, watching a TV report of yet another Israeli atrocity), “Fucking Jews! Fucking Jews!” (yes, that is enough to get you arrested in contemporary London…). Laxton’s case ended not with his first-instance conviction before a (dozy? biased?) magistrate, but with his acquittal on an appeal by way of rehearing in the Crown Court.
The “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” (sinister title…) at the CAA is one Stephen Silverman, who lives in Essex and who was exposed in open court (possibly inadvertent admission by the CAA’s own advocate) in December 2016 as having been the Internet troll @bedlamjones on Twitter and a user (abuser?) called “Robbersdog” on another discussion site, Disqus. This person abused anyone thought to be anti-Zionist, particularly women. His posts were notorious for their gloating sadism. He particularly enjoyed looking forward to people being arrested, questioned, charged, tried, imprisoned for “anti-Semitic” comments. He was in fact part of a whole group of Jew-Zionists on Twitter and elsewhere, all following the same line of attack (Twitter has now removed several for similar abuse). Despite that, Silverman remains in post at the CAA, an organization apparently supported now by a number of politicians, all under the thumb of the Israel lobby.
Back now to my visit to the area some call “the arsehole of England” (it must be true: it is represented in Parliament by freeloading chancer and former receptionist Jackie Doyle-Price!). It had been arranged with the detective in charge that I would appear at Grays Police Station on 12 January at a specified time. I arranged to have a solicitor who, in the event, failed to turn up. Given the “choice” of returning within a few days or a week at most (and the expense and inconvenience therefore being doubled) or interviewing without legal advice (I last practised at the Bar in 2007-2008 and, apart from corporate “crime” on behalf of companies such as South West Water and Balfour Beatty, had not engaged in criminal law since about 1994), I decided that I had no choice but to continue to interview.
The several detectives who dealt with me were polite, even reasonably friendly; certainly professional in their approach. I was never arrested during the whole proceeding and was told that I could leave at any time. I was then cautioned and interviewed for three hours about some 60 pages of tweets, hundreds in all. Slowly, each tweet was put to me. Many were stories from newspapers, cartoons etc. I mostly no-commented, but did make some pertinent points and the odd joke.
What struck me first was the sheer injustice of all of this. The Jews complaining about me had done so at no cost to themselves and yet had wasted the time and money of both me and the police. The police should have told them, at the least, to go whistle, instead of taking the complaint seriously. I was in fact told by the police that they were dealing with another half-dozen CAA complaints of similar nature. So much for “the police are starved of resources”!
The next point that struck me, as we trawled through many tweets alleged (but not proven) to have been tweeted by me, was how brainwashed the police were in respect of the “holocaust” mythus. They referred to one cartoon (“Alice in Holohoax Land”) and asked how anyone could make a joke of people (Jews) made into soap and lampshades! They obviously had no idea at all that those WW2 “black propaganda” stories had not only been totally debunked but also accepted by the Zionists themselves as untrue! They also, needless to say, had no idea that those “holohoax” tales were in fact of WW1 origin, recycled (so to speak) for WW2 use. I did not bother to argue with them. Perhaps they will read this blog post.
Another funny moment was when the detective in charge objected to tweets poking fun at “Saint” Bob Geldof. It turned out that he took Geldof’s charitable image at face value. I thought that detectives were trained to recognize the dodgy. Apparently not.
I was able to read into the record of interview (taped) a letter I had sent prior to interview, detailing the abuse of the criminal justice system being engaged in by the CAA and by Silverman in particular, as exposed during the Chabloz case and otherwise. I asked that this letter be sent to the CPS, were the complaint against me to go further.
Anyway, after a dehydrating 3 hours (I was given one cup of water) in a hot little room, I was taken outside to the custody desk and booked out. I had never been under arrest and was not given police bail, but just released without anything more. The detective murmured something about “postal disposal” to the custody officer (I never was sent any letter of closure, though) and I was released back into the cold streets of Grays, now being blanketed by more snow.
I do not (much) blame the police involved. They were obviously under pressure from higher ranking police (probably either Zionists or, more likely, freemasons). Political pressure from higher-up, too, in a situation where the governing party under Theresa May and Amber Rudd is really just “ZOG” [Zionist Occupation Government].
Needless to add, I was never prosecuted.
So that is my account of an experience provided for me by the abusive CAA organization. It is time for the CPS to rein back the apparent latitude given to Jewish-Zionist organizations making malicious and politically-motivated complaints against private citizens (I do not belong to any political party or group).
As to my final word, I should say only that “what goes around comes around”…
Update, 10 February 2019
Since the above was written, the CAA has been (I think is still being) investigated by the police and the Charity Commission. It has suffered significant legal defeats, and Stephen Silverman, the sinister troll-stalker of women, is himself now under further police investigation.[see below]
More recent developments: well, I was eventually put on trial after the “CAA” pressured the Crown (or Clown) Prosecution Service to cobble together a misconceived prosecution-persecution of me.
What happened then is detailed in the blog posts below:
The upshot of all that was that I was made subject to a 9-month “community order” and required to pay costs etc amounting to £734. The costs were partly (about 1/3) crowdfunded, the rest paid off in monthly instalments (all now paid).
As for the “community order”, with 15 “rehabilitation days”, the “days” turned out to be short or shortish meetings lasting between 20 minutes and a couple of hours and, after half a dozen of them (one every few weeks, I was told that, by reason of other and larger events (unrelated to my own case), the “rehabilitation days” requirement was, in my case, deemed to have been fulfilled.
All finished.
The little screeching “CAA” Jew-Zionist pack were so shocked that I was not either imprisoned or given a suspended custodial sentence (and the blog closed down) that it took them a couple of weeks (during which they were not inactive behind the scenes) to comment on my —as they wrongly termed it on their website— “absurdly lenient” sentence (which exactly followed the written recommendation of the Probation Service).
They must be fuming even more, now that the sentence turns out to have been even less harsh than when passed. They (no doubt) continue to plot and scheme.
Meanwhile, the blog continues to be published on a daily or near-daily basis.
Ian Robert Millard 