I have not seen the Panorama programme which the msm is going mad about today (Thursday 11 July 2019). I see that the same old crowd of “usual suspects” is on Twitter banging on about about how “anti-Semitic” Labour or the Labour leadership is (my response? “If only!”). Those tweeting are 90% Jews, 10% non-Jew doormat types.
The “claque” is doing what it does best, which is to create a storm in the msm and on Twitter, all either co-ordinated or effectively co-ordinated. The aim? Ultimately, to wrest back control of Labour.
The “Zionist” element has for a long time now strongly influenced Britain’s main System parties, meaning the Conservatives, Labour and (to a lesser extent) the LibDems and, formerly, Liberal Party. That influence, seen since the 19th Century, manifest in the 1917 Balfour Declaration etc and in the covert support for Churchill and his war-with-Germany policy of the 1930s and early 1940s, became even more open when the UK and France conspired with Israel to invade and occupy the Suez Canal area in 1956. It moved from influence to control after 1989-90, when Bush snr. proclaimed the New World Order and the major Western governments became openly “ZOG” (Zionist Occupation Government).
John Major (Conservative Friends of Israel member and with a secret mistress, Edwina Currie, a Jewess) took over the Conservative Party as leader and the government as Prime Minister; Tony Blair (possibly part-Jew; very fervent Labour Friends of Israel member) replaced Major in 1997. He was surrounded by Jews both as Labour Party leader and as Prime Minister.
When, against all the odds, Labour’s leadership fell to Jeremy Corbyn, immediately a huge Jewish (Zionist) and/or Zionist-led “claque” protest erupted. Most Labour MPs were and are still “under control” to a greater or lesser extent. A few had even been been (or were later) exposed as actual agents of Israel.
Ruth Smeeth MP, a Jewess from a Jewish part-gangster family background, and formerly head of public affairs for the UK end of the Israel public relations effort called BICOM, was exposed by Wikileaks as a “confidential contact” of the U.S. Embassy in London.
Joan Ryan, not Jewish (though I have not discovered whether or not she has a part-Jewish background) was another one exposed. She was ordered, or agreed, to channel a million pounds from Israeli Government funds in order to buy or “take down” selected MPs:
Wait wait wait. Hold on. How is an Israeli official (presumably embassy worker) allowed to walk in to Labour national conference and offer £1,000,000 to topple some MP’s?
[above, Joan Ryan MP treacherously plots with Israeli intelligence and political officer Shai Masot, who is also a reserve officer in the Israeli Navy, to receive a one million pound pro-Israel, pro-Jew slush fund to corrupt Westminster politics]
Joan Ryan, facing deselection as Labour candidate after having been found out, joined the doomed pro-Israel “centrist”-label party, “Change UK” or “CHUKUP”. Ruth Smeeth stayed in the Labour Party (either because ordered to or for reasons of personal careerism and money); and both are still MPs.
* Alex Richardson, employee of Labour Friends of Israel's Joan Ryan. He and his boss fabricated antisemitism at Labour conference, privately admitting "nothing antisemitic was said": https://t.co/gmsoorfHpspic.twitter.com/re9JwoggM2
Corbyn has faced a wall of basically Jewish hatred and opposition since he became leader. Attempts to unseat him, vilify him and his family etc. At the higher levels, this is not about Corbyn’s support for Palestine, and not about “anti-Semitism”, but about the wish of highly-placed Jewish persons and organizations to control both main UK System parties, having lost control of one.
Not that the Jewish-Zionist control and/or influence over Labour has gone. Many pro-Israel and pro-Jew Labour MPs or ex-Labour MPs are still in Parliament: mentally-unstable John Woodcock, not only pro-Israel and pro-China (both “donated” to him, by the way) was one of the worst, but he is now deselected and out of Labour, having been caught out as a sex pest and nuisance, and has no chance of staying in Parliament once there is a general election. Others remain and have been, like the rest of the “claque”, active on Twitter today and yesterday:
To every jewish member brave enough to tell their story. To every staff member brave enough to tell their story. We hear you. We believe you. We stand with you in refusing to accept antisemitism. Please join @JewishLabour to show you are too.
I know some of the staffers on tonight’s Panorama. They joined the Labour Party, like me and most party members, because they hate racism as much as they hate poverty. A statement accusing them of having “political axes to grind” is deeply wrong and indefensible
Terrible to see vile abuse suffered by our Jewish comrades & the agonies of staff trying to kick racists out of our party, undermined at every turn by Leader’s office. #BBCPanorama
— Mary Creagh for Coventry East (@MaryCreagh_) July 10, 2019
Labour MP Wes Streeting says party leadership has a “full spin operation” against #bbcpanorama programme airing Wed 9pm
"This is a crisis of leadership, we're asking Jeremy Corbyn to show leadership" says MP Louise Ellman, who was featured on the #BBCPanorama documentary last night on accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour partyhttps://t.co/bXdydZE8Wspic.twitter.com/c6ga3RAFZb
I am not going to turn a blind eye to anti-Jewish racism. We can sort this mess. But we need a full, independent disciplinary system, and powers to auto-exclude prima facie cases of anti-semitism. Only then can Labour start to rebuild trust with the Jewish community. @BBCr4todaypic.twitter.com/9KWftPcIr9
All, as far as I know, members of Labour Friends of Israel…
Why are they still Labour MPs?
I should make my own position clear. I could probably best be labelled “social national”. I have never been a Labour Party member, supporter or even voter. To that extent I might be termed objective. I oppose Zionism (as well as Islamism). I look to the emergence of a real social national party and movement, to “safe zones” within the UK, and to the eventual triumph of social nationalism in the UK.
My attitude to Corbyn (blogged about several times previously) is that it was fated that he become Labour leader (e.g. nominated by exactly the minimum number of MPs required, many of whom actually opposed him and later voted against him!). I do not believe that he is a particularly good Labour leader, as such; in fact he is really not a leader at all. He is poorly-educated and has little knowledge of the world, of history (even modern history and the politics of the 20th Century, supposedly his special interest). His ex-wives say that he scarcely if ever reads a book (something that he has in common with Boris-Idiot, “our” new or soon-to-be Prime Minister), and is certainly no intellectual.
I like the fact that Labour is now less under the Jewish-Zionist heel than it was, though I note that Corbyn and (worse) McDonnell feel the need to pay occasional lip-service to the “holocaust” mythus and fakery. Strange pathology: the Zionists are trying to kill them, yet they go along with such nonsense, which is the biggest weapon the Zionists have, bigger even than their nuclear arsenal! Pretty stupid.
Likewise, Corbyn and much of Corbyn-Labour will talk endlessly about economic exploitation by Jews in Israel-Palestine, but say that to mention the similar exploitation by Jews in the UK, France or elsewhere is “anti-Semitic”. How inconsistent. How silly.
This latest “anti-Semitism” noise (for that is all it is) in the msm and in social media will only destroy Corbyn and his advisers if he and they allow that to happen. I blogged before about this: if you give “them” an inch, they take a mile (or should that be “pound”?…).
Labour’s biggest problem is not “anti-Semitism” (in fact, doubling down on what little there is might get the Labour Party more votes), and is not even the plain treachery of many of its own MPs (starting near the top with Tom Watson, a complete doormat for the Jewish-Zionist element), but is structural in terms of constituencies and demographics: the fact that Labour votes are increasingly concentrated in relatively few constituencies; the fact that Labour’s core vote is now not the (vanishing) English “working classes”, which are not now voting Labour very much (the Scottish equivalent having already decamped), but the “blacks and browns” etc, along with, speaking generally, those who live one way or another off State funds (public service workers, the unemployed, the disabled): see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/the-day-that-the-labour-party-committed-suicide/
It may be that, when a real social national party emerges, a good part of the present rank and file Labour Party will be ready to support it, if not brainwashed by the whole “holocaust” mythus propaganda. To that extent, these contrived storms in a Westminster teacup could be useful in awakening people to the menace of alien control and the need for true social nationalism.
Notes
LFI parliamentary officer Michael Rubin, admitted LFI receives funds from Israeli Embassy: “We do work really, really closely together". He said, a lot of work is “behind the scenes" & “publicly we try to keep the LFI as a separate identity to the Embassy"https://t.co/XSU0WFyXLGpic.twitter.com/1XxziYhcQ7
— Fanxxxxtastic-Trada (@Fanxxxxtastic) July 16, 2019
Update, 15 October 2019
Below, “@Rattus2384”, a long-term Jew Zionist online stalker and troll, does what he does best: sadistically smirking over the difficulties caused by Jews to those who are not (((their))) doormats. “Rattus” is Stephen Applebaum (presumably the name started off as “Apfelbaum” —apple tree— a century or so ago). Applebaum (who also tweets as “@grubstreetsteve”), is a one-time scribbler and soi-disant film critic who has more recently been described as a “house husband”. He is an active member of Zionist groups such as the malicious fake “charity” called the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”.
Well, here we are, a year on. The Jews did manage to retake control of what is left of the Labour Party. Corbyn stepped down after the 2019 General Election debacle, which saw the Conservative Party achieve a Commons majority of 80.
That Commons majority was achieved by default. The Conservative Party share of the vote scarcely increased vis a vis 2017 (an increase of one point), and relatively few 2017 Labour voters switched to the Conservative Party (though some did, in formerly solid Labour constituencies) but far more simply walked, i.e. abstained. The graphic below explains where the voters went in 2019:
In short, the Conservatives did not win, not on their own merits, but Labour did lose. The result speaks for itself: a Conservative majority of 80 in the Commons.
The Labour Party is now led by Keir Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions, probably a freemason, certainly a member of Labour Friends of Israel. His wife is a Jewish lawyer, his children are being brought up as Jewish.
Starmer has appointed other Labour Friends of Israel members as members of the Shadow Cabinet. Rachel Reeves and others.
As for the Jewish lobby MPs mentioned in my original blog post, many are now no longer MPs: Tom Watson, Ruth Smeeth, Anna Turley, Joan Ryan (now 65-y-o), Mary Creagh, John Woodcock— all gone.
Sadly, almost all, as far as I can discover, have been (((found))) new and lucrative positions:
Tom Watson is now head of “UK Music“, a trade body formerly headed by Michael Dugher, another Zionist-lobby pro-Israel doormat ex-MP.
Anna Turley became head of the Co-operative Party (in effect, a Labour offshoot) in 2019. A sinecure. She also “won” £75,000 libel damages from the trade union, Unite, in December 2019.
Mary Creagh likewise has found a well-paid niche as head of “Living Streets“, a charity funded largely by government monies (her salary is £100,000+).
John Woodcock, exposed as a pathetic sex pest and nut, has become a government-paid snoop, focussing on the so-called “far-Right”.
Update, 13 January 2025
Well, the world has turned a few times. Of those mentioned above, John Woodcock was made “Lord Walney” by “Conservative” PM “Boris” Johnson and, until recently, was making money snooping on “the far right”; now dismissed.
Ruth Smeeth, the part-Jew Israeli and US paid agent exposed by Wikileaks, has also now been “elevated” and, ludicrously, sits in the Lords as “Baroness” Anderson. She is now married to a very unpleasant Labour MP called Gareth Snell.
Anna Turley lost her seat, but managed to blag a few lucrative posts until she got back into the old MP racket in 2024, and is now Minister without Portfolio in the doomed Starmer-stein Labour Friends of Israel (mis-) government.
Stella Creasy remained an MP.
Mary Creagh lost her seat in 2019, but got back into Parliament in 2024, and is now a Starmer-stein minister.
As for “Rattus”/”@grubstreetsteve”, aka Stephen Applebaum or Apfelbaum, his relentless sadistic and malicious Twitter trolling came to an end in early 2023, when he “went up the chimney”. Some of his last few tweets attacked me and this blog. Bye-bye blackbird…
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.
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.
In fact, the practice of not arresting or charging those caught with various “illegal” drugs has been going on for years in the UK. The Thames Valley force may have extended it to a previously unheard-of extent but the rot (if that is what it is) set in decades ago, when some police chiefs decided that the terribly-valuable time of their officers was wasted in arresting persons found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Subject to correction, I believe that it was London Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick [see Notes, below] who, as Borough Commander of the bandit country which included Brixton, first introduced the policy.
Let’s pause right there. A police officer —fairly senior, so be it— decides, arbitrarily, that he is not going to enforce a law, or not always going to do so. There are arguments to be made in favour of decriminalizing some (or all) now-generally-illegal drugs, but that is a decision for the legislature, Parliament, to make, not a police officer.
Now there has always been a measure of “police discretion”, as when (forgive any possible anachronism around a policeman actually patrolling an area and so actually being in a position to catch someone doing something forbidden) a policeman finds a child “scrumping” (technically, stealing) apples or pears from an orchard or garden, that policeman then deciding to deliver a stern on-the-spot warning rather than arresting the child. Likewise, the motorist getting a ticking-off from a traffic cop rather than a speeding ticket for travelling a few miles per hour over the set limit. However, the examples given are minor crimes by any estimation. Possessing forbidden drugs may be considered minor by some, but not by most, even today. That becomes even more so when the drugs are “harder” than marijuana.
There is the other point that a distinction can be made between a policeman deciding to exercize discretion in a particular case, and a policeman (at higher level) deciding not to enforce certain laws as a matter of his own decision and in the geographic area under his command.
This is of course a grey area, but it is troubling when a police force decides, on its own initiative, to abrogate the plain words of valid legislation. True, there are many laws still on the statute books which are no longer applied, crimes which are no longer prosecuted, but they are mostly those which have fallen into desuetude by reason of effluxion of time: one good example of a crime which has not been prosecuted for several hundred years (if ever) is that of “entering the precincts of Parliament while dressed in a suit of armour”. For other bizarre examples, see the links in the Notes, below.
Those old crimes, still technically criminal but never prosecuted, are an amusement. What, however, about things which are not crimes at all, but which the police, under the influence of political correctness or pressure (usually from the Jewish lobby) have decided to treat as crimes or quasi-crimes? Another grey area? I have blogged previously about how Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to Essex Police (about 2 years ago, in late 2016/early 2017):
In that case, the police were notionally acting in pursuance of a wrongheaded, badly-drafted but technically valid and quite recent law: Communications Act 2003, s.127, but were trying to stretch its ambit so that views expressed which were dissenting, dissident, controversial and (according to some Jews, at least) “offensive”, became “grossly offensive” and so could in principle be caught by the Act.
In “my case”, the prosecution never happened because (it now appears) the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] (and at a high level, in Whitehall…) took the commonsense view that a successful prosecution was both unlikely to succeed and not in the public interest. Leaks from the police, however, now make plain that some of their officers were completely in the pocket of an aggressive Jewish-Zionist cabal (the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”); one police officer in particular seems to have acted effectively as an advocate on behalf of the CAA to the CPS, advocating for me and others (persons unknown to me) to be prosecuted. He lost his professional objectivity completely, it seems; thankfully (for me and for the rule of law) he was over-ruled. Bitter herbs for him, perhaps.
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” is now itself the subject of various police investigations around misuse of its charitable status; also, as some readers will be aware, one of its leading members, Stephen Silverman, was said (it was admitted) in open court (and by the CAA’s own lawyer) to have been an anonymous (pseudonymous) and sadistic Internet troll who stalked various women online.
More recently, in Summer 2018, I was harassed by a police constable based at Barnet, North London (which is effectively occupied territory), at the behest of a Jewish woman who had been firmly put in her place by Andrew Torba, CEO of the online GAB platform. That Jewish individual had demanded that Torba remove various accounts from his GAB platform (which is based in USA and Caribbean) and she had had the gall to threaten Torba online and publicly with “Scotland Yard”! Torba posted all the conversation on GAB and told her in very blunt terms to, er, “get lost”! Many GAB and Twitter account-holders also told her to “get lost”!
I was accused of having reposted one reply to that woman from Torba (which repost would in fact not be a crime in the UK anyway), but that did not stop PC…well, let’s just call him Plod…from sending me an (undated!) “Warning Notice” re. “harassment”, which under English law has to consist of at least two incidents, both of which have to be unlawful, whereas here was one (alleged) incident and that entirely lawful even on its face!
It was clear to me that the Jewish Zionist woman complainant, smarting from the whipping given to her online by Andrew Torba, had decided to make an entirely malicious complaint against me. I should add that she is or was a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and at one time used to tweet prolifically and negatively about me. The point is that the police should have realized that her complaint was both malicious and had no basis at all in law. They did not. They chose not to. Very alarming…
It is worrying when the police not only do not know the law they purport to be applying, but actually try to continue to insist that what is not the law actually is! Plod not only telephoned me at least once, but emailed me intimidatingly (as he thought) and, as said, sent a semi-literate, undated and completely ineffective (legally ineffective) “Warning Notice” to me.
What made that incident worse was the feeling that the police in Barnet were running wild and were not acting properly under law. I heard (though this was never confirmed) that “the said Jewish woman” is the ex-wife of one of the “Shomrim” faux-police or private Jewish police, who are based, it has been said online (correctly or not), at the building(s) of the Barnet Police! A private tribal militia operating out of London police stations? It would have been thought incredible only a few years ago.
I could have taken the above-mentioned matter further via official complaint against PC Plod, who, in my view, came close to committing “misconduct in a public office”, but contented myself with writing a detailed letter both to the Borough Commander in Barnet and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Even then, after some time, Plod harassed me via email once more! Only when I provided a face-saving way for him to get lost, did he.
I perceive a degree of drift here: the police deciding not to apply some laws on a blanket basis, in other cases as good as making up the law as they go along. Taken further, those tendencies could together collapse the rule of law in the UK entirely.
I suppose that most people reading this will have heard of Nick Griffin, formerly of the British National Party. For the benefit of those who have not, this is what Wikipedia says about him:
I have never met Nick Griffin, I have never spoken with him. My view of him is, in a nutshell, that he did very well with the BNP to make a large part of a silk purse out of what was mostly a sow’s ear. He made the BNP at least half-credible (up to 2009). He and Andrew Brons got elected as BNP MEPs. He has courage. He has intelligence, too.
On the more doubtful side, Griffin was naive enough to think that he had been invited onto BBC Question Time because the BNP had all but broken through into the magic circle of “major parties” and was being treated as such; instead, he was ambushed and trashed in a totally planned way. All those who took part in that ambush are enemies of the people. That finished the BNP.
As to what Griffin writes, I agree with much of it and in particular with much of his recent attack on the corrupted “Alt-Right” and other [what some call] “kosher nationalists”.
Griffin has reposted one or two of my tweets (though I am now expelled from Twitter) and GAB posts. I must have retweeted or reposted a couple of dozen of his.
I think that Griffin is basically right to say that the purely political fight, in the manner of the BNP, UKIP etc in the UK (he says throughout Western Europe) is now not possible. He has a point. Encroaching State/ZOG repression, Jewish Zionist influence and control, the ever-increasing hordes (armies?) of blacks and browns in the urban areas. Still, God works in mysterious ways…
Mark Collett
I had not heard of Mark Collett until this year, or possibly, peripherally, 2017. He once worked with Nick Griffin and was tried –and re-tried– (and acquitted) with him:
I have read The Fall of Western Man, Collett’s book. I agreed with almost all of it, though I was slightly underwhelmed. I do not think that Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg or Oswald Spengler have much to worry about.
I have from time to time reposted and (prior to my expulsion) retweeted Collett’s comments online. He, however, has (as far as I know) never reposted any of mine.
Leadership
Nick Griffin led the BNP; Collett led part of the BNP (the “youth wing”) and, obviously, wants to be seen as a nationalist leadership figure generally. Both men do seem to take the view that they must cultivate a slightly aloof persona in order to achieve their purposes. I have no quarrel with that, so long as the attempt does not look silly. At present (again, as far as I know) they are both generals without troops, and the fact that they both have about 35,000 Twitter followers means almost nothing. I myself, not a leader of or even a member of any party or group, had 3,000. I wonder how many of my 3,000 Twitter followers would follow me into battle– or even to a meeting in a pub? Not too many, anyway.
My point is that a political leader must of course have the aura of leadership, of slight mystery, of slight aloofness (as ever, we look to Hitler), but that must be based on the real, not merely or only that which is the result of cultivation.
Kameradschaft
In the past year or two we have seen numerous social nationalists persecuted by Zionist Jewry. I myself was disbarred in 2016, then questioned by the police in 2017, at the instigation of connected packs of Zionist Jews. Others have to date suffered more: satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz; Jez Turner of the London Forum. Turner is right now sitting in Wandsworth Prison and will not be released until Autumn.
I have seen no word of support from either Nick Griffin or Mark Collett for any one of the above-named people.
Leadership demands fealty and loyalty: the leader demands both fealty and loyalty from his troops. However, loyalty works both ways. The leader must give more than he receives. Those who would be first must be the servant of all. The duty of those who would lead social nationalism is to support all social nationalists who remain true.
Afterword
In the short time (about 5 hours) since the above was published, I have been made aware that in fact both Mark Collett and Nick Griffin have expressed support (on Twitter and GAB) on at least two occasions for Alison Chabloz, though not (as far as I know, to date) for Jez Turner. Anyone knowing differently is welcome to comment in the Comments section below.
I had occasion to visit a small NHS facility recently. It was a lovely, quiet unit, with only about a dozen or so patients, those patients living, prior to discharge, in several large “bays” and a few individual rooms. The unit was surrounded by flower gardens with small flowering trees and a few classical statues. Beyond that (out of sight) was a very small town (little more than a village) and the countryside of Southern England. If you have to go to a hospital, you could do worse. So why am I blogging about this?
While waiting to go in to see the patient in question, I perused the literature rack by the nursing station. One leaflet caught my eye. I have it before me as I write. Under the NHS logo and the name of the NHS foundation trust running the unit at the strategic level, the title:
PREVENT
[the words contained within a shield device; with two hands –dark blue and light blue (the old KGB colour..ironic) and perhaps (?) representing white and non-white– clasped]. The leaflet was then sub-headed:
Preventing vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism
Inside the leaflet:
What is Prevent? Prevent is part of the government’s counter terrorism strategy; aiming to prevent people of all ages from being radicalised and drawn into terrorism.
The leaflet continues:
What kind of extremism does Prevent aim to deal with? It aims to deal with all forms of extremism; for example far right extremism, animal rights extremism and religious extremism.
So we see that “terrorism” has already been conflated with or replaced by “extremism”, an even less easily-defined idea. Moreover, we see that Islamist terrorism, the only kind actually posing even a slight threat to public order in the UK, is not mentioned by name (no doubt that would be called “Islamophobic”…) and only coyly implied, sub nom “religious extremism”. No doubt the Jewish Zionist fanatics, who go in their hundreds to be trained by the Israelis in Israel, are not considered “extremists”, “terrorists” etc. No, they just go to an alien society to be trained in the use of weapons and in the techniques of killing with bare hands (oh, and of course, how to “bring down” British MPs thought not to be pro-Israel or pro-Jew…).
Who are these “extremists” in pole position in the Prevent leaflet? Ah, yes, the “far right” (also left undefined, presumably social nationalists, those who hate mass immigration and the trashing of the UK by certain groups and types) as well as those who hate the cruelties inflicted on the animal kingdom by some humans and by human society; but let us now return to the leaflet:
What are some of the possible signs of radicalisation?
you may notice changes in the person’s behaviour or mood;
the person’s appearance may change and they may spend excess [sic] time on the internet;
the person may start to express extreme political or radical views;
the person may become withdrawn or have a change in their circle of friends.
So now we have travelled from “terrorism” and even “extremism” to people who have or may have merely “radical” points of view about, say, the disastrous effect that mass immigration has had on the UK, or about the exploitation and cultural contamination carried out by Jew-Zionists, or even about animal welfare.
The leaflet then asks what the reader might do should he or she actually suspect that another person has changed lifestyle or perhaps have acquired “radical” views:
NOTICE: Be aware of an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation, any change in behaviour or ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs an individual may have. [this section of the leaflet also contains the iconic alien-looking “all-seeing eye” motif…]
CHECK: If possible and appropriate check out any concerns with the individual…your line manager and the [NHS] safeguarding team. [this section of the leaflet contains a motif of a magnifying glass with a little humanoid figure inside the lens…]
SHARE: You need to share your concerns with the [NHS] safeguarding team. They can advise you on any relevant partner agencies who will need to be contacted. [note “will need to be contacted” not “may need”…presumably police, MI5 etc].
The leaflet then goes on to list telephone numbers and internet contact details, before ending with these dystopian remarks, which would not have been out of place in an early 1970s BBC Play For Today, or perhaps George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:
What happens to my referral? [“my referral”, note, not “my denunciation”, “my informing”, my accusation” etc…]. Prevent referrals are shared with the MASH (multi-agency safeguarding hub) or [name of city] SPA (single point of access) depending on where the individual lives. Referrals are then screened for acceptance in to the channel process.
What is channel?
Channel is a multi-agency process whereby professionals and partner agencies can share resources and expertise. The aim of channel is to work with the individual to reduce risk. If your referral is accepted into the channel process you may also be asked to attend the channel meetings to share relevant information as part of effective multi-agency working.
I have sometimes been accused of being, inter alia, a “grammar Nazi”, and am, of course, (also) appalled by the poor English displayed in the leaflet. I have no idea by whom the leaflet was written. Perhaps the Home Office and MI5 are now less likely to recruit graduates from Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps the near-illiteracy shown is just a function of the UK’s sliding educational standards. The main impression given, though, is that of a police state operation which would be recognizable to an official of Stalin’s Russia or any similar society. The saving grace is probably that it is not (though I am guessing) very efficient.
Indeed, shorn of the millennial “nudge”-government, fake “sharing caring” and armchair psychology nonsense, the leaflet could be seen simply as a method of recruiting agents…
Finally, think about where this leaflet was found– not in a prison, a government office, nor even in a university library, but in a normal NHS clinical environment in the heart of the South of England…
Had I written an article with such a title in 1978 or 1988, or even 1998, the reader might have been justified in laughing. However, since (to specify a year) 1989, when –or soon after which– President Bush snr proclaimed openly the American/ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) New World Order, and especially since Tony Blair’s ascendancy in 1997, the British state and society has slid ever faster down the slope towards what amounts to a muffled totalitarianism.
The Blair government introduced a number of repressive statutes, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (extending snooping powers)
and the Communications Act 2003, which has provisions (s.127 etc) under which tweets, emails, Facebook posts etc can be criminalized as, inter alia, “grossly offensive”. It is this Act which is currently being used against the satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz.
The Blair government was not persuaded that it should introduce a “holocaust” “denial” law in the UK (or could easily pass one through Commons and Lords), but the Jewish Zionist organizations and lobbyists are currently using existing laws such as s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 to introduce one by the back door, in co-ordination with the misnamed “international definition” of “anti-Semitism”.
I have previously written about my experience of being interviewed by the police for tweeting socio-political tweets
and have also written about how the Jewish Zionist lobby (and the Theresa May/Amber Rudd government of clowns in the pocket of that lobby) is abusing the ever-tighter “regulation” of professions (another Blair/Brown era feature) to suppress freedom of expression, as when I was disbarred in 2016:
Now the suppression or repression of opinion becomes both harsher and stealthier. The large platforms for opinion have been persuaded to remove dissenting voices. Youtube, in the past week, has removed numerous popular and broadly “nationalist” channels, including that of the London Forum, which had 7,000 subscribers and had had 500,000+ views. Singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has had her youtube channel removed from many countries, including the UK. Others have suffered similarly. Facebook and even Twitter are also caving in.
What to Do
There are no “digital rights” to speak of that go beyond simple contract law. If a quasi-monopoly such as ebay, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon wants to expel a user or prevent his opinions being seen, that can be done at will (and is being done, now). Several years ago, at the behest of the Jewish lobby, I was prevented from posting further book reviews on Amazon (UK and US sites, by the way…so much for American “freedom”!): on the UK site, a third of my reviews were removed, quite arbitrarily (many were non-political) and I was barred from posting, despite having been a “top 50” reviewer. I have one Jew (it was only one, at first) to thank for that, he having involved the Jewish Chronicle, which then wrote against me, nagging at Amazon UK; on the Amazon USA site, all my reviews were removed without warning (one can guess why: a Jew-Zionist working for Amazon USA…).
The same is true of Facebook and Twitter: if they decide to remove someone, however popular, that person has no right of appeal (certainly no legal right, in any court).
So what to do as this ZOG repression intensifies… I have written previously on this blog about how I believe that the main chance for social nationalism is to concentrate its people and forces in one area of the UK (I have suggested the South West of England). I firmly believe that. It is a way to cluster, to defend and to infiltrate the social and political key points. To some extent, it removes the need for social media. In any case, social media can only assist a political movement, not create one, nor sustain it to victory. We need boots on the ground.
A couple of days ago, a huge march took place through Central London. It was organized by an entity called the Football Lads’ Alliance [FLA], of which I had not previously heard. The march was supposedly “against extremism”. One presumes that, by “extremism” was meant “Islamist extremism” and I have no quarrel with a march against that (though the march will achieve nothing), but I wonder how many of those marching will understand that, for Israel doormats such as Amber Rudd, measures against Islamist terrorism are actually designed to catch (also) those who oppose Jewish-Zionist supremacism in the UK and elsewhere and who are fighting for Britain, for real Europe and for the survival and future of Western civilization?
We have been here before, with the English Defence League [EDL], another fake “patriotic” body which, strangely or perhaps not so strangely, saw no need to oppose Israel and Zionism, and in fact expressed support for both.
It will be recalled that, in 1905, the proletarian protesters of St. Petersburg were led by Father Gapon, who was also an agent of the Okhrana (Russian secret police).
So there it was, this 40,000-strong (some reports said 75,000) march, expressing opposition to ill-defined “extremism” and professing support for the System, indeed demanding stronger measures against “extremism”. What is really behind such a manifestation? Was the march (and the pop-up “FLA” itself) something which was set up by “the authorities” as a safety-valve to allow some discontented English people (and almost all seem to have been white men, not all young) a way of “protesting” without actually changing anything? Perhaps it started as something real and is just being controlled.
The Press reported that some FLA marchers were saying things such as “Muslims, gays, we don’t care– if they are with us. It’s all based around football.” When the level of political awareness is on such a primitive level of utter meaninglessness, it is unsurprising that these people are easily led. It was no surprise to see that Tommy Robinson, late of the EDL, was there and at times “mobbed” by fans.
The marchers may have been unhappy at the state of Britain, but were unwilling to do anything much active, still less violent, on the march, not even to the EDL-extent of throwing a few bottles. The police reported no arrests.
The chances are that the majority of the marchers would be, if under proper discipline and if led by those with an ideology –of any sort, almost, though social-nationalist would be best– an effective street army. As it is, all that the FLA seems to be is a loud claque, the object of which is to support the increasing repression of the existing order, the System, rather than to topple it.
The newspapers did not pay much attention to the FLA march and, as far as I know, it went unreported on television. There may be several reasons for that. It was peaceful, so there was no “if it bleeds, it leads” imperative. There again, with such an ill-defined purpose as “opposing extremism”, there is nothing ideological to invite analysis.
So there it is: no ideology, no real purpose, no political aim as an organization. This is a waste of time, but, more importantly, a wasted opportunity.
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 