Many readers will already know the outline of the Alison Chabloz story, of how the singer-songwriter lost her job on a cruise ship after having been stalked, harassed and persecuted by Jew-Zionists who objected to her having woken up to the “holocaust” fakery.
Later, Alison Chabloz was privately prosecuted by the malicious Jew-Zionist lobby group, the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or CAA. During the course of that private prosecution, the CAA’s lawyer inadvertently let slip that (as Alison Chabloz and others had already discovered), several leading CAA members had been using false names to stalk, harass and troll non-Jews (mainly women) online. Named in open court were Stephen Silverman of Grays, Essex and one-time “film critic” and house-husband Stephen Applebaum, of Edgware, North London.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) took over the private prosecution and, though expected to drop all charges, continued the prosecution though changing the exact charges (one charge was in fact just dropped).
A Kafka-esque series of events ensued, including a malicious complaint made by Stephen Silverman (who carries the sinister title of “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” at the CAA “charity”) and his fellow Jew-Zionist Jonathan Hoffman of Sussex Friends of Israel (Hoffman has since been charged with assault unrelated to the Chabloz case: see Notes, below). An unpleasant old Jewish woman from North London was also involved. Their complaint about Alison Chabloz led to Alison being all but abducted by police in London, transported on the floor of a police van hundreds of miles North, then spending 2 days in police custody before the case was rejected by Derbyshire magistrates. The tactics of a police state, and an incompetent one at that.
The first “judge”, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, was forced to recuse herself (i.e. stand down from the Chabloz case) after it emerged that her husband, James Arbuthnot, a real stuffed shirt who was an MP before being elevated to the Lords, had been not only a member (as 80% of Conservative MPs are) but Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel. Also, it transpired that the Arbuthnots had been on expenses-paid visits to Israel.
Jonathan Hoffman (see Notes, below), also wrote to the District Judge in the Chabloz case about that case, reminding him that they had been at school together! Perhaps surprisingly, this was not treated as a serious contempt of court.
The CPS prosecution ended with Alison’s conviction, on 14 June 2018, on two counts, under the notorious Communications Act 2003, s.127, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court by District Judge (Criminal) Zani, as well as one count on another charge. He imposed the following penalties:
20 weeks’ imprisonment (on one reading, 12 weeks), suspended for 2 years;
a year-long ban on the use of “social media”;
financial penalties and imposts (not, technically, a fine) amounting to some £750;
180 hours of “community service” (unpaid slave or serf labour);
days of “rehabilitation” (discussion and low-intensity brainwashing)
Since conviction
Alison Chabloz appealed her conviction and sentence to the Crown Court at Southwark. The result was that her appeal was dismissed. At time of writing, she is appealing on point of law to the Divisional Court (an offshoot of the High Court, in effect).
Prior to the hearing of the appeal, Alison Chabloz was unwilling to do the unpaid work part of her sentence at a time when appeal was outstanding. In relation to this,she was taken back to court (in Derbyshire) and was given more hours of unpaid work. She did in fact do a few days of picking up litter in Derbyshire churchyards.
Latest
The latest news is that Alison Chabloz will now not have to do any (more) hours of community service serf-labour!
I imagine that (((the usual suspects))) will be wailing and gnashing their teeth about this latest news! It means that Alison Chabloz is almost home free. True, there is still the conviction itself, but that is being appealed and may even end up in the highest forum of law in England. Likewise, there is still the social media ban, but that ends on 13 June 2019. In fact, the vaguely-worded social media ban has had little effect on Alison, who has been able to sidestep it by blogging on her WordPress blog (see Notes, below).
Overall, the whole process has been a victory for Alison Chabloz, for freedom of expression and for the anti-Zionist cause, and yet another slow, grinding defeat for the malicious snoops and trolls of the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism”.
Aftermath
Active Jew-Zionists, almost all of whom previously crowed about Alison Chabloz having been persecuted, prosecuted and convicted, have been having second thoughts. A few tweets (I have seen others):
After the prosecution of Alison Chabloz on criminalising forms of "hate speech" including Holocaust denial. Watching her audience share increase because of the prosecution changed my thinking.
Kamm, a lying hypocrite, who lied about me after my 2016 disbarment (procured by Jews), is once again a hypocrite here. True, he has written against the prosecution of Alison Chabloz, but at the same time has said that she should not be permitted to post material on online platforms or in the Press! Wonderful. “Free speech” in principle, but in practice closed off quietly and completely, by the decisions of online and offline platforms. Zionist hypocrisy par excellence.
More from Jews on Twitter
It’s also concerning how subjective judicial application of the ‘grossly offensive’ test appears to be from this judgment. Like you, I shed no tear for Chabloz but find concerning the possible applications of s.127
— James Mendelsohn 🇺🇦 (@jmendelsohn77) May 25, 2018
This by @Dannythefink sums up my view of the Alison Chabloz conviction for a ‘grossly offensive’ Holocaust denial song. Excellent piece and sensitive to the difficult issues which it brings up https://t.co/7MFnJq383H
Obviously it's incredibly hard to make a free speech argument about Chabloz (or other hateful idiots like Dankula) without it appearing that you are supporting their views. But It has ever been so with the right to free speech, people need to try and think about the wider picture
Adam Wagner (despite the surname, a Jew), attacked me when I had a Twitter account, and is a barrister specializing in “human rights” and similar areas. Here (see below), he is being taken to task by Twitter nuisance and bore “@frankiescar”, a Jew Zionist connected with the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA). “Frankiescar”, real name Andrew Roberjot, is a kind of legal groupie (though not legally qualified). He turned up in person to gloat when I was before the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal in 2016. He frequently posts (often inaccurate) legal and political points on Twitter, including some silly lies about me, e.g. that “in the early 1980s”, I was considered to be “an eccentric but not particularly able barrister”: in fact, leaving aside what he tweeted about my abilities (though my IQ was once tested at 156 –like Trump! Oh dear!—…) I was in fact only Called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1991.
However to answer your main point regarding Chabloz, she was one of a number of people who disseminated jew hate, lies, anti semitism and white supremacist crap through her social media accounts amd blog for years, it was important that the flow of it was disrupted and stopped…
As a matter of fact, Frankiescar/Roberjot’s tweet does make one important point: that the prosecution of Alison Chabloz and others, and the attempted though failed attempts to prosecute yet others (including me) constitute nothing more or less than a political campaign by the “CAA” Zionists that has nothing much to do with anyone being subjected to “grossly offensive” matter, and everything to do with political repression and the suppression of political, social and historical views and opinions.
Conclusion
As noted above, the “CAA” may have won the initial battle, but Alison Chabloz has won the war. Effectively no community service, the financial penalty and suspended sentence being appealed, and the social media ban a dead letter. In addition, Alison Chabloz has now become an international figure and figurehead. The Zionists have procured for Alison Chabloz a worldwide audience for her views as well as her songs.
Alison Chabloz was recently before Chesterfield Mags’ Court in relation to non-performance of the “community service”, which the magistrate rightly called “the most punitive part of your sentence”. After she refused the suggestion that she be put on curfew and a tag (what nonsense the court system now is!), the magistrate mooted either imprisonment or a fine, but in the end just “suspended” the original sentence in respect of the unpaid work requirement, i.e. chucked it in the bin (where it belongs, along with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” “Zionists”). Ha ha!
Now many who read my blog will know that I was, in the 1991-2008 period, at various times a practising barrister (in England) and an employed barrister (mostly overseas). Defamation was not one of my specialisms. I would have liked it to have been. It is an interesting and lucrative field, often involving interesting and/or famous people, though certainly not demanding the highest legal skills or intellectual gifts (contrary to the general public belief).
I did a few cases of libel while at the Bar, though all were advisory; none reached a substantive court hearing. I did advise, pro bono (unpaid), and when only a student, on a libel matter the result of which made the front pages of the more serious newspapers: Flegon v. Solzhenitsyn [1987].
Unable (as a mere student) to appear before the judge and civil jury (all defamation cases then had a jury), I nonetheless attended court most days, sometimes all day, wrote (mostly ignored) instructions and good advice for the plaintiff (now dumbed-down to “claimant”), and advised generally on tactics etc (also mostly ignored). I was told by another attendee that once, I having told Flegon’s assistant to give Flegon a note while he, Flegon, was (speaking very loosely) “cross-examining” a witness, I bowed myself out of [High] Court, only for the judge to demand of Flegon, as soon as I had gone, “to see that note that you have just been given”. Apparently, the judge read the note and told Flegon (who was proving a massive pain to the judge in various ways) to “listen to the good advice that you have been given, Mr. Flegon”! My first commendation by the Bench!
The Daily Telegraph said, when Flegon died (16 years later, in 2003):
“His remarkable success at repeatedly getting manuscripts out of the Soviet Union led to the widespread view that he must have had contacts in the KGB; but in 1987 he won £10,000 libel damages in the High Court from Solzhenitsyn over an allegation to that effect in the Russian version of The Oak and Calf. Unable to afford a barrister’s fees, Flegon conducted his case himself, in faltering English.”
Well, returning from the past to the present, we often see people, usually on Twitter, either talking about suing this or that person (often another “tweeter”) or expressing an opinion on defamation cases before the courts.
The average Joe has no idea about legal matters, and yet many opine about the law and practice of defamation, perhaps because it tends to attract msm publicity. For example, the tweet below betrays no hint that the tweeter knows that people have never been allowed to get legal aid for matters of defamation.
"Kezia Dugdale wins £25k defamation case brought by Wings Over Scotland"
This seems to me a balanced and reasonable judgement. A Win-Win. But who will pay the costs of the action? Shared costs between plaintiff and defendant? The taxpayer? I hope not …https://t.co/ix1WbN1CBQ
Despite having been expelled from Twitter, I read the tweets of others, particularly those whom I consider “persons of interest”. Often, en passant, I see tweets by various idiots either threatening others with legal action or recommending that others sue —often named— other parties in defamation. Few seem to understand either the relevant law (which has changed somewhat in recent years) or the practical aspects.
In the Kezia Dugdale case reported today, the Scottish judge decided that the words written were defamatory, but that the defendant, Ms. Dugdale, had a defence (that of fair comment). By the way, note that that defence has now been replaced, in England and Wales, by a defence of “honest opinion”, but this case was heard in Scotland under Scottish law.
Now the claimant in that Kezia Dugdale case, a Mr. Campbell, obviously does not understand the law, having tweeted only today that the law or legal system is, in effect, asinine because the judge decided that the words were defamatory and yet had decided against him! Like many many others on Twitter etc, the said Mr. Campbell does not seem to understand that even if words are defamatory on their face or by implication, the defendant might yet have one or more of the available defences.
Time and again on Twitter (I am not on Facebook) I see people, innocent of any useful legal knowledge, claiming that words which are not defamatory anyway are defamatory, or (where the words might be defamatory) ignoring the available defences.
Prominent among the above are Jews on Twitter, who often invoke the name of “Mark Lewis Lawyer” (the Jew-Zionist lawyer who recently fled to Israel after being found guilty of professional misconduct: see Notes, below). In fact, his publicized defamation cases were all (the ones I saw anyway) very simple and straightforward, requiring little real legal expertise. My honest opinion is that he is a copper-bottomed self-publicizing poseur.
Take a look at the above paragraph. It might or might not be considered in part “defamatory” (or it might be considered as a whole or in part a “mere vulgar insult”, which would not be actionable in any event). Also, even if the statements above, or some or one, were to be considered defamatory, I have defences open to me should the supposed “top defamation specialist” reach out from his mobility scooter or wheelchair in Israel to sue me (he has so far not done so in respect of any of the rather many blog posts which I have written about him in the past months). I have the defences of, inter alia, “Truth”, “Honest Opinion”, and “Publication on a matter of public interest” available to me.
There again, the armchair lawyers of Twitter rarely consider other factors, chief amongst which is whether the defendant has any funds. If not, large sums (in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds) might be expended in pursuit of a defendant who (like me) would simply declare bankruptcy if faced with a money judgment. Bankruptcy in England is now little more than an inconvenience lasting for a year (in most cases) for someone without capital (whether in cash or real or other property) or income. There are few advantages to being broke (as I now am and, incidentally, as “Mark Lewis Lawyer” now is); one of them, though, is the useful one of being effectively “unsueable”.
There are other factors, but this is a blog post, not a legal treatise.
It is usually the case that the best advice that can be given to a potential litigant in defamation is “don’t”! Three examples:
Oscar Wilde. Wilde need not have brought the libel action which eventually led to his disgrace, imprisonment, exile and early death;
David Irving. A fine and persecuted (by the Jew lobby) historian, but not a lawyer. Need not have brought the case against Deborah Lipstadt, an American Jew-Zionist academic supported and funded by the worldwide Jewish/Zionist lobby. Insisted on appearing for himself. Said to have lost £2M in costs to the other side, at least on paper. He also, more importantly, had his books removed from large bookshop chains; some were even pulped. Large publishers dropped him;
Count Nikolai Tolstoy. The only one of the three whom I have ever met (once). The only one of these three who was the defendant (there was also a co-defendant in his case). He lost, but eventually paid only £57,000 of the £1.5M awarded against him initially; he paid the £57,000 years later and only after the death of the plaintiff, Lord Aldington.
So, Twitter armchair lawyers and the perpetually outraged: don’t put your daughter on the stage, never wear brown in town and stop threatening libel suits against people, even if you can get lawyers you can rely upon…
Those who read my blog regularly will know that I am far from being an unalloyed fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think him wooden and not a genuine political thinker, someone who is stuck somewhere between the crypto-Communism of the Michael Foot era and the ideological madness of the contemporary self-described “Left” (I myself never use terms such as “Right”, “Left” as useful descriptors), the crazies who have rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of old-style socialism in and after 1989.
You get the idea.
Corbyn is, in short, a bit of a joke. I have blogged about him, and what I call Corbyn-Labour, in the recent past. He and his party are also in favour of, or not opposed to, mass immigration and the “multikulti” society.
I have little time for Corbyn as a political leader, as such. His poor intellectual level and Lego-brick level of understanding of society and international politics and geopolitics give little confidence.
On the other hand, there is or was something not entirely unpleasantly familiar about Corbyn. As I have blogged and (before I was expelled from Twitter) tweeted about him, he is a recognizable 20th century English type: the bearded “socialist” from the provinces (in Corbyn’s case, transplanted aged about 22 to London), wearing his Lenin cap, reading the Morning Star, Tribune and the Guardian, protesting against 1980s South African apartheid or Israeli West Bank settlements etc, supporting Castro-Cuba, “revolutionary” 1980s Nicaragua, “socialist” Venezuela etc.
Corbyn’s type, with variations, could be observed from around the time of the First World War, and up to the present day, in its “natural surroundings”: the Durham Miners’ Gala, the Tolpuddle Martyrs annual event, the conferences of the Labour Party and TUC, local constituency Labour parties, CND marches, steam rallies, heritage railways, allotments. So much of a “type” is Corbyn that he could easily be imagined included in a series of “English types” in the Edwardian cartoon tradition, complete with outsize head and a little descriptive caption.
Corbyn’s elevation to the Labour leadership was, as I have also blogged, little short of miraculous. Since 2015, Corbyn has also managed to fight off repeated Jew-Zionist attempts to unseat him. What do “they” want? They want Corbyn gone so that Jew-Zionists, lobbyists and placemen can once again control Labour. “They” already control the misnamed “Conservative” Party and have done since at least the end of the Thatcher era; until Corbyn’s accession, “they” controlled Labour too. They want that control back.
We have seen recently how some of Corbyn’s enemies in the Commons started to capitulate and leave the Parliamentary Labour Party, committing political hara-kiri
At the same time, however, Corbyn-Labour has made the mistake of trying to conciliate, making concessions to the Jew-Zionist element. It did that before, when it surrendered to “them” over the so-called “international” “definition” of “antisemitism” (in fact, adopted by fewer than 40 states out of about 200). Now Corbyn-Labour has given in on Chris Williamson MP and has suspended him.
Chris Williamson MP occasionally (maybe two or three times only) retweeted my tweets when I still had a Twitter account. However, when the Jew-Zionists noticed that fact, they criticized him for it, after which he stopped retweeting me and may have (I forget) blocked my account. Weak. It showed weakness in relation to the Jews. I have not forgotten that.
Now Corbyn, John McDonnell and some of their closest allies (as well as swathes of “useful idiots”) in Labour labour under the same cognitive dissonance problem: Corbyn and many of his supporters see what the Jewish-Zionist lobby is trying to do, want to fight against it, but at the same time tie their own hands behind their collective back by saying that they oppose “antisemitism” and are only against Israeli depredations and behaviour rather than being in any way hostile to Jew-Zionist lobby activity in the UK (or France etc).
Corbyn and most of Labour also go along with the largely-debunked “holocaust” narrative as well. It all just plays into the hands of the Zionist lobby, which controls or near-controls many Labour MPs. Yes, some have left (Luciana Berger, Joan Ryan, Angela Smith, Ian Austin, Chuka Fathead) and their political careers are finished. However, there are many like them still in place and reporting back: Stella Creasy is just one example. Mary Creagh, Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall also come to mind, inter alia, as do the outright Jewish Zionists such as Margaret Hodge.
Since Chris Williamson was suspended, the whole Jewish “claque” on Twitter and in the Press (in fact, in the msm generally) has gone mad again about Corbyn, “anti-Semitism” in Labour etc. It’s odd: we are told constantly that there is no “Jewish lobby”, and that individual Jews tweet or scribble purely as individuals, yet when something like this crops up, they all go the same way instantly, like a shoal of fish.
Corbyn-Labour, for all its flaws, is the only game in town right now for striking against the enemies of our British and European future. It can pave the way for social-nationalism down the road.
This is a crisis for Corbyn and his allies. They must either fight back against the encroaching, whining, pleading, manipulating and angrily-demanding Zionist lobby, or be “cribbed, cabined and confined”, imprisoned in a Zionist-constructed box made out of “antisemitism” allegations, “holocaust” fakery and a raft of trickster-drafted “definitions”, “regulations” and inhibition of free speech. Just say no!
Here we see the Jewish anti-Corbyn “claque-storm” in its “tweetstorm” mode, exemplified by this tweet, in which a Jewish woman wants the Labour Party to either disenfranchise its Sheffield Hallam branch (by putting it into “special measures”, i.e. ruling it from London), or to remove (or remove the rights of) the 40 members who voted for a statement (only 1 person voted against). You see the problem: the 40 English people count for less than the one Jewish or pro-Jewish one…If Labour did that across the country, it would be left without active members, the footsoldiers that win elections.
A good typical example of how, if you give “them” an inch, (((they))) take a mile: the Jew-Zionist lobby gets what it wants re. Chris Williamson, but then whines or blusters about how it is too little too late. Their next demand will soon be uttered…
Fiona Sharpe, spokesman for @LabourAgainstAS, said: ‘The decision of Labour's NEC ruling body not to allow Chris Williamson to stand as the Labour candidate for Derby North is too late in coming and totally inadequate. 3/6
When I wrote the above article, I thought that 30 or 35 states had “adopted” the “IHRA” definition of “antisemitism”. In fact, and as I now know, the true figure is only about 15, out of 200 states.
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.
I interrupted writing a longer article to write this brief piece. I am in fact unsure whether it is worth the effort, but I should regret not saying something about this typical piece of propaganda presented as documentary film.
I made the mistake of watching what passed for a documentary, presented by Alice Levine, a Jewish woman who has apparently (I had not previously heard of her) presented a number of TV and radio shows. Wikipedia says this about her:
I wasted an hour watching this. In the film, London-based Jewish media person Alice Levine spent a week, or at least a few days, living at the house of Jack Sen, a British nationalist activist. The house is in Southport, Lancashire.
I do not know Jack Sen, though I have heard of him. I believe that we exchanged a couple of tweets several years ago, when I still had a Twitter account. He stood as UKIP candidate in West Lancashire in 2015 and, despite being disowned by UKIP after he tweeted something of a critical nature to then Labour Party MP for Liverpool Wavertree, the Zionist Jewess Luciana Berger, achieved an honourable 6,058 votes (12.2%), and thus retained his deposit.
I have to say that I myself would never invite a Jewish (or even non-Jewish) media person into my home, let alone agree to that person staying for days. I can only assume that either Jack Sen is one of those who thinks that “no publicity is bad publicity”, or he received a fee for his participation. I cannot imagine any other motivation.
The film introduced Jack Sen’s mother (also resident there) and his charming Ukrainian wife and little daughter.
The Alice Levine person, when in bed in the room she was allocated, seemed to wear several layers of clothing. Whether that was because the house was cold, or because she did not want Sen to take “sleeping with the far right” too literally, must remain a puzzle!
There was, of course, no attempt to let Jack Sen properly explain his socio-political outlook. One of the problems with this kind of show, for the subject (“victim”), is that not only does the interviewee not know what will be raised by the interviewer, but also what will be left out of the finished product.
I found Jack Sen to be somewhat eccentric, though that was obviously deliberately amplified by the programme-makers. This was, after all, a week compressed into an hour. He seems to be a basically decent person, to my mind, at least on the personal level. I am unwilling to speculate that he is not. “The soul of another is a dark wood” (Russian proverb), in the end. I am aware that many distrust him and his motives, but I cannot comment either way.
At one point, Alice Levine “discovers” from Sen’s mother (I would bet that her researchers discovered the fact well before she ever arrived at Sen’s house) that his original name was Dilip Sengupta, Sen’s father having been either Indian or half-Indian, a fact mentioned by Sen himself to Ms. Levine. The mention of the name(s) to Sen made him angry. He did not present himself well at that point. He allowed the Jewess to provoke him. Later, she tried to give the impression that she was afraid of Sen, which I very much doubt was the case.
It was obvious that Alice Levine had no idea of life outside her comfortable careerist bubble. She went from a comfortable childhood in Nottinghamshire to the University of Leeds and straight into TV and radio. Jack Sen’s background (not much explored in the film) has obviously been more difficult.
Sen did not (out of politeness, or hospitality?) put Alice Levine on the spot about her Jewish origins, beliefs, attitudes etc. Having said that, I was surprised that she was offered pork by Jack Sen (even I found that rather insensitive!) and even more surprised that she apparently ate it.
At any rate, Alice Levine obviously lives in a bubble where everyone thinks and feels much as she does. In a word, biased. She evidently found it challenging even to think that many do not share her multikulti views. She was unwilling to be challenged on Skype or similar by Nick Griffin.
I had to laugh at it all. If Alice Levine thinks Jack Sen “extreme”, what would she make of me, I wonder?
This attempt to copy Louis Theroux was a waste of time, unenlightening. It is the sort of “documentary” that taxpayer-subsidized Channel 4 does. Dull, really.
Their chosen identity is the bland “The Independent Group”. Note, “group”, not party. When the SDP was formed in 1981, it quickly adopted a firm identity which everyone in the UK understood. It was a political party, with a firm policy position.
These Jewish and pro-Jewish-Zionist whiners are not a party, even on the face of their own now-public identity. They are just a group of Jewish and/or pro-Zionist MPs, all facing retirement or deselection, and whose main gripe is “anti-Semitism” in the Corbyn-led Labour Party. None of them, at their launch yesterday, actually tried to put forward any thoughts about what is wrong in Britain, let alone what might improve the country. The Jew Zionist Mike Gapes MP was the most honest, talking purely about his hatred for so-called “Anti-Semitism”. As noted, his tribal interest was at least not concealed by some faked concern about the British people.
The mass media are agog at the thought of what might happen in some game of fantasy politics where numbers of disaffected MPs from the traditional “three main parties” all coalesce in a House of Commons bloc to thwart the plans of Corbyn and (if she has any plans) Theresa May. For example, see here below (the tweeter is that little Indian who sometimes presents Channel 4 News):
The Independent Group of seven former Labour MPs could grow – with more Labour, even a couple of Tory and potentially all the Lib Dems – and then become a new party. It would then have to decide who it would and wouldn't go into coalition with.
Corbyn Labour supporters, however, were swift to seize on the group’s weak points:
So 3 hours after Independent Group launch:
No policies. Website crashed. Exposed their registered as a Ltd Co to avoid donor scrutiny. Website registered in Panama tax haven. Received backing from the Far-Right.#ChangePolitics bantz
Just realised Angela Smith is the MP who wrote an article in the Guardian about why water companies shouldn't be nationalised, without disclosing her husband's interests in private water companies! 🤔#LabourSplit#FunnyTinge#independentgroup
Luciana Berger. Rented a flat in London which is owned by a company based in the British Virgin Islands, but didn’t want anyone to know. That’s not Labour. #BlairRichProject
Yesterday's #independentgroup Ltd. launch has changed nothing in the lives of those suffering from the Tories universal credit, austerity, rigged system, or hostile environment.
TIG Ltd are nothing but wreckers. Lets hope they prove to be as incompetent as their record so far.
The above tweets are a selection of the more polite ones criticizing the new not-a-party.
Meanwhile, Chuka Umunna has now broached the “elephant in the room” question, saying that he “hopes” that a new party could be formed “by the end of the year”. Hopes? Could? Imagine Adolf, back in 1919, “hoping” that a new party “could” or might be formed “by the end of the year”! That’s Chuka for you, as seen in the Labour leadership contest: a half-Nigerian fathead, irresolute, shallow, lacking will and force.
Questions about the initial funding of the “Independent Group” of 7 Jewish and/or Zionist MPs are building now. A Labour MP has suggested that the funding may have come (directly or indirectly) from Israel:
It is interesting that the company which owns this “Independent Group” is based in the secretive offshore jurisdiction of Panama, long a favourite of rich Jews connected with Israel and/or MOSSAD. “Robert Maxwell” for one.
My thoughts so far
As ever, the msm Westminster Bubblers are getting it wrong. Polls have been produced to show that the public would be “more likely to vote for” the Independent Group MPs than Labour. Really? What would those poor sheep be voting for? There is no point in asking the “Independent Group”, for their own website is as innocent of policy (even in the broadest of broad brush terms) as were the brief statements made by the seven defectors at yesterday’s launch (media event). Their published statement of intent could have been produced by almost any political party, tendency, or even religion.
My own view is that, yes, most UK voters, certainly most English and Welsh voters are thoroughly sick of pseudo-democratic politics in the UK, they do want a new direction and would be willing to embrace a new party, but that party is not this party.
In fact, of course, the Independent Group is not (yet) a party anyway. It is not (yet) registered as such with the Electoral Commission, does not say that it is going to become a political party, and, as noted already, not only has no policy, but has not even any locus standi in the sense of where it stands, beyond a vague and implied “Centrism”.
If further Labour defections happen (rumours abound about 20-30 MPs, with a few wild msm assertions that 100 might go) then the new party (if it becomes a party) might have traction in the short term. I still doubt that any “centrist” party could get anywhere in the medium term (i.e. beyond 2022), let alone have any greater durability.
What strikes me but does not shock me is the sheer ineptitude of the defectors: they had three years in which to get this together, to recruit more cohorts, to organize things. Needless to say, I am not surprised to see that fathead Chuka was unable to organize anything more than an evening in one of the expensive and decadent nightclubs which he is said to patronize.
What a difference it would have made, had yesterday’s launch announced that a new party had been founded or was about to be registered, and if the Independent Group had actually managed to organize a decent website (to digress: my own website, http://ianrmillard.com/, is amateur, yes, because I did it myself as best I could, and spent almost nothing on it; one expects something more professional from a group of individuals with plenty of money, wealthy Jewish backers, and who are hoping to soon form a major party). Above all, it would have made a huge difference had the defectors been able to say yesterday: “We are 100 [or even 30] Labour MPs who have now left Labour, are forming a new party, and invite applications for membership and candidature.” The new party would then have been in a position to recruit members and candidates for office.
Any new party [even if] based on the “7 defectors”, and which fields hundreds of candidates in a general election, would have to be taken seriously, though the experience of both the 1980s SDP and, more recently, UKIP shows that even a party capable of fielding hundreds of candidates might well end up with no MPs under the FPTP system.
As it is, we have 7 MPs who seem to be wanting mainly to make Jewish-Zionist propaganda against Corbyn-Labour, and who now have no party, no obvious policy, and no way yet of building a party organization in a situation where there might be a general election this year. Such an election would wipe out the defector cabal at once. No question.
It is interesting to note that even long-time anti-Corbyn plotters such as pro-Zionists Liz Kendall MP and John Woodcock MP, the sex-pest depressive, have not pledged allegiance so far. In Woodcock’s case, he might have been warned off as just too toxic, but Liz Kendall must have other reasons, maybe the wish not to risk that easy lucrative job as MP, with the £75,000 salary, the huge expenses, the opportunities for “nice little earners” on the side etc. Not to mention, down the line, the possibility of getting a nice little fake “peerage”, and so £300+ per day taxfree for merely turning up and signing a register!
I should imagine that there was jubilation at Corbyn HQ yesterday. They may even have popped open a few bottles of vintage Soviet “champagne”. The hard core of opposition to Corbyn has just committed hara-kiri.
Interesting: the “Independent Group” launched yesterday, 18 February 2019. Today, as I have been writing and looking at Twitter, I noticed that, as I thought and wrote, there were 38 tweets under hashtag #IndependentGroup in a period of one hour. Over an hour later, another 35. Twitter is not the world, or even the UK, but the low interest shown tells me much. The “Independent Group” now has over 80,000 followers on Twitter, but Twitter followers are not members, donors or even necessarily going to vote for the new party (if it ever emerges).
My guess is that this new non-party is going to fail. If there is no general election this year and if the Independent Group can recruit at least another couple of dozen MPs and a small army of candidates and foot-soldiers, then it might just about have a run in it. I doubt even that, though.
An earlier Survation poll seemed to indicate that people would prefer to vote for the “Independent Group” as compared to Labour, but a Sky poll now puts “support” for the IG at only 10%. Admittedly, not bad for a party which is not yet a party and which has no policies! All the same, in itself, that only puts IG firmly in “UKIP” territory, i.e. “good also-ran”…UKIP still had no MPs after its 2015 General Election peak of about 12%.
It will be noted that the percentages add up to 87%, meaning, I suppose that 13% are “Don’t Know”. It seems, and assuming (I am skeptical) that IG can organize itself as a party before the next general election, that there will be a crowded field: Con and Lab jostling for position with IG, LibDems, UKIP and Greens, as well as smaller parties and the usual independents. IG will have to have at least some broad policies before it tries to contest elections, though. Oh…and a leader…
Update, 19 February 2019
Joan Ryan MP has now also joined the “Independent Group”. Though not Jewish (nor even part- or crypto-), she is or until today was a member, like the other members of IG, of Labour Friends of Israel, chairing the Zionist organization in 2015.
Thousands of tweets attacking Joan Ryan this evening. One that caught my eye:
Good job, will you be claiming any more expenses, or paying back those you claimed incorrectly? You are great, I have to take my own rubbish out, but luckily for @UKLabour the rubbish is taking itself out! Marvellous. #JC4PM@ToryFibs
That one really made me “laugh out loud” in the now-superseded Twitter/text phrase!
In fact, Enfield North is a Lab-Con marginal seat, so if Joan Ryan contests it (as an IG candidate rather than as simply “Independent”) at a general election, there is every chance that a Conservative will win the seat. In the recent past, Nick de Bois, who was one of the better MPs on the Conservative side, held the seat (2010-2015)
And why would you believe one word that Joan Ryan says? Given she’s a proven expenses fraud, voted to keep MPs expenses secret, and was filmed being offered £1 million by Shia Masot, the same Israeli official who conspired to ‘take down’ Sir Alan Duncan!
The fact that the absurd, leaderless, policy-free “Independent Group” is now already running at 14% in the opinion polls tells me that the British people are getting desperate for change, perhaps any change. Social nationalism is now in with a real chance.
🧨 BREAKING: Times/YouGov voter intention poll
Con 38 Lab 26 *TIG 14* LD 7 SNP/Plaid 5 Other 11
(Weighted by likelihood to vote, excluding would not vote and don’t knows) https://t.co/3TfImvFDv4
Another tweet from today, attacking fathead Chuka and his combination of hypocrisy and stupidity (Chuka’s tweet is from two and a half years ago, when he was still being puffed by the msm as a “senior” Labour MP…):
It is absolutely infuriating the MSM fails to mention the vital fact that Ian Austin is a serial fraudster. Should have been forced out of the Party long ago. https://t.co/A6dtrPZghH
Seems now that Ian Austin MP is in fact not joining the “Independent Group”, though he is leaving Labour with immediate effect. He is not stepping down as MP for Dudley North and is not expected to repay any of his inflated expenses.
As to Austin leaving Labour, it means that he has probably committed political suicide, like most of the defectors from Con and Lab in the past week.
More Twitter comment…
Would anyone care to guess how long my BTL comment on the Guardian website Politics Live stream will last? pic.twitter.com/uzqx88QJoJ
In other blog posts, I have criticized Aaron Bastani, Ash Sarkar etc, but Bastani is surely right in tweeting that “The space for a successful far-right party in the UK is massive.” The label “far-right” I disparage, of course, but in essence I agree with him. The difference is that he opposes it, I support it!
The space for a successful far-right party in the UK is massive. We are fortunate that both the BNP & UKIP failed to fill it.
The fact that much of the establishment still thinks a 'centrist' politics is even remotely possible shows they either don't know this or don't care >
Here is a good example of a Westminster bubbler unable (perhaps) to distinguish between people noticing a news item and the same people supporting a political group, or the same people actually voting for a new political party a year or three in the future…Those in and around the Westminster bubble are probably often rather well-paid, but are they worth their salt?
How much cut-through has the @TheIndGroup had beyond the bubble? 19% spontaneously mentioned it to Populus as their number one most noticed news story. For those of you not familiar with this series, that's A LOT. https://t.co/lU4mipHapp
Fathead Chuka announces that the Independent Group is now a registered party: “Change UK”. Not “The Independent Party”? That would have sounded odd, but then the USA had the “Tea Party”. Anyway, “Change” it is. Loose change? Small change? Am I being unkind?
BREAKING: We have been overwhelmed by the public support for @TheIndGroup since we were established last month, with tens of thousands or people all over the country signing up as supporters. Today we've announced we have applied to become a political party – Change UK. (1)
“The Independent Group for Change, also known as Change UK, was a British centrist, pro-European Union political party, founded in February 2019 and dissolved ten months later, shortly after all its MPs lost their seats in the 2019 general election.”
Today, I found, on my WordPress blog Comments page, a comment which actually purported to come from me! It was sent from an email address named “ian.millard@yahoo.com” (which I have never had).
The comment was abusive and, more interestingly, purported to be from a Jew (anonymous/pseudonymous of course) who (he/it wrote) was “instrumental” in getting many of my reviews on Amazon UK (Amazon.co.uk) removed (and me barred from posting further reviews) “nearly ten years ago”. He/it claimed also to have had my Amazon USA (Amazon.com) reviews removed and my American Amazon account closed. Those events did occur, about 8 years ago. The London-based Jewish Chronicle contacted Amazon in the UK and had me barred from reviewing or commenting. As to what happened in the USA to get me barred on Amazon there, I have no idea. So much for “free speech” and expression in the USA, though! Where there are Jew Zionists in any number, there can be no freedom for non-Jews.
The comments section of my blog is monitored; only comments which are approved (in the sense of allowed to proceed) are posted publicly. Naturally, I am not going to approve the abusive comment of the Jew in question.
The Comments section captures all ISP user numbers from those posting comments. The comment in question was shown as 31.168.232.150. It was a simple matter to track down the origin of the abuse: Tel Aviv, Israel! Quelle surprise…
Turns out that the abuse seems to have come from a company called Bezeq International, also known as Bezeq Israeli Telecommunications Corporation Ltd. I had never heard of it, but soon found it via Google. That enterprise is, apparently, the Israeli equivalent of BT. It is a very large enterprise, which employs over 15,000 employees.
The unsophisticated nature of the abuse etc leads me to the provisional view that the abuser is a lone rat, rather than connected with the notorious Israeli “hasbara” propaganda effort, or (far less likely even than that) MOSSAD.
The Zionist free-speech destroyers have become very active in the UK and elsewhere over the past 20-30 years. Time for pushback.
Today I received another abusive message from (pretty obviously, though I cannot as yet prove it beyond a reasonable doubt) another Jew, this time one who, looking at its message, hates my support for persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. Another one who used my name on a one-time-use email account, this time Hotmail. Blocked now, obviously.
The WordPress system took its ISP number: 82.132.222.121. Useful for later reference.
When I started my blog, I was braced for a daily dose of insolent and/or abusive messages. In fact, I think that I have only had about three or four such messages in three years. Worse things happen at sea.
The Brexit argument in the UK has brought to the fore divisions and truths which, until recently, had been covered up by a “politically correct” or bien-pensant “consensus” in the (largely Jew-Zionist-controlled or strongly influenced) mass media and political milieux.
Anyone who imagines that “Brexit” is just about the UK’s membership of the EU is indulging in hobby-politics and joke-politics and/or exhibiting very poor political judgment. I have blogged about this on previous occasions, eg:
UKIP is the joke party and hobby-politics party of the UK, effectively a one-trick-pony, obsessed with the EU and EU immigration but not hitting hard on non-EU immigration and only peripherally touching on other issues. However, those voters who grasped at the UKIP straw up to 2015 were voting to a large extent not for Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, not for UKIP’s clown MEPs as UK ministers, not even simply to get Britain out of the increasingly sinister EU matrix, but as a protest and shout of anger against a whole host of issues, not all of which are connected directly to the UK membership of the EU.
What Is Democracy Anyway?
“Democracy” is one of those terms which is rather imprecise and commonly misused (another is “holocaust”, usually and deliberately misused and distorted by Jew-Zionists and others as “the Holocaust”, the definite article and the capital letter supposedly differentiating any misfortunes visited on Jews in the Second World War from similar misfortunes visited on non-Jews throughout history).
In ancient Greece (for example Athens, the home of the idea of “democracy”), we see that only the relative few had full political rights. In the 4thC BC, Attica had about 300,000 inhabitants (in the state as a whole, not just the “urbanized” polis of Athens itself). Out of that population, only about 100,000 were citizens. Out of that 100,000, only 30,000, being adult male citizens who had completed military service or similarly accepted service, were allowed to vote or to participate in political life. Women, slaves, freed slaves, children and metics (foreigners resident in Attica) were not allowed to vote etc. In other words, out of 300,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000, 10% of the whole, played a significant political role.
UK Democracy: the expansion of the electorate
In more modern times and in England/UK, we see that, though a kind of representative Parliament existed from the 13thC AD, the electorate (using the term broadly) widened over the centuries. At the time of the first great Reform Act (1832), the population of England and Wales (excluding Scotland) was about 12 million, out of which only 200,000 in counties and perhaps 20,000 more in boroughs had voting rights (see Notes, below), about 2% of the whole population (nb. population estimates of that era are not very accurate: some estimates say 400,000 in toto, so perhaps 4% of all inhabitants could vote), a far smaller percentage than in Periclean Athens! In France, the percentage with voting rights was even smaller, but was expanded hugely when universal suffrage was introduced in 1848.
The percentage expansion of the electorate in Scotland in the 1830s was far greater than applied in England and Wales. Some historians use the term “revolutionary”. I wonder whether that has perhaps had a lasting effect on Scottish socio-political attitudes down the line, even to the present day. Just a stray thought…
Further expansion of the electorate in the UK (as a whole, not just England and Wales) in the 19thC meant that, by 1912, there were 7.7 million voters, a figure that increased to 21.4 million following the Representation of the People Act 1918, which extended the franchise to most women of 30+ years, as well as to almost all men of 21+. Of course, the actual population had also increased very greatly, from 27 million in 1850 to 42 million in 1918.
In 1928, women 21-29 also gained the vote, increasing the number eligible to vote to about 27 million.
Changes in the Post-1945 era: where are we now?
UK voting qualifications have not changed substantially since 1928, except that, since 1948, university graduates have no longer had two potential votes, and the minimum voting age is now (and since 1970) 18.
There are now about 65 million inhabitants in the UK (some put the figure higher, by reason of undocumented, unregistered “illegals” etc).
Does “democracy” mean that all inhabitants of the state must be enfranchised?
The South African Example
We have seen that, in ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed military service could vote. In “apartheid” South Africa, there was a fully-functioning democracy limited however to those of European (white) origin.
There had, prior to 1910, been non-racial forms of limited democracy in Cape Province, limited by reference to property etc. From 1910-1961, the vote was granted to all white men in South Africa, to mixed-race men in Cape Province, and to black men in Cape Province and Natal. Only white men could become Senators or MPs. White women were allowed the vote in 1930 and could serve as MPs or Senators. Blacks and “coloureds” (mixed-race) were barred from holding those offices. In 1960, the black franchise was terminated; the mixed-race franchise followed in 1968. Later, in 1984, an attempt was made to re-enfranchise the mixed-race population and to enfranchise, on a limited basis, the Indian population.
In 1992, a small majority of (white-only) voters endorsed, by referendum, the end of the apartheid system, after which South Africa adopted a different system, under which all person of 18+ years can vote or be elected. In practice, however, this led to what is effectively a one-party, typically-African state, shambolic and corrupt. The African National Congress (ANC) operates what is effectively an elected dictatorship. In the most recent election (2014), its vote declined, but it still holds 249 out of 400 seats (on 62% of the popular vote).
Under this “new” (post-1994) “democracy”, the white population of the country is under siege from both crime (racially-based) and/or (connected) “political” attack, such as the robbery, rape and murder of whites, particularly in the rural areas. Neither are the (mainly black) poor of South Africa helped by the “elected dictatorship”. Indeed, in some respects they are worse off than they were under apartheid. The “infamous” pass laws may have restricted the blacks, but also restricted crime, which has become epidemic.
The USA
The USA is supposedly a “democracy”, but in practice any Presidential candidate has to be a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or have the support of such, simply to be seen as a credible candidate, or to be able to buy TV ads (this is about the same thing, in practice). If elected, he will find that to do anything effective requires that he be not opposed by either the Congress or the Supreme Court. This rarely happens. In most cases, the separation of powers prevents anything effective, let alone radical, being implemented.
The UK
In the UK, there is “democracy” (we think). Almost everyone can vote, almost everyone can be a candidate. Yet there are impediments: the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby (special-interest group), the entrenched First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the need for finance, and the way in which boundaries are deliberately sliced up to provide a semblance of “fairness”, but in fact to favour 2-party or sometimes 3-party “stability” over real reflection of popular opinion. There is also the fact that “main party” (System) candidates are usually carefully selected to exclude anyone with even mild social-national views. The “choice” is then put before the electorate (together with the minor candidates who almost invariably have no chance at all).
Another important aspect is that, since the Tony Blair government passed its restrictive laws, political parties have to be registered, can be fined (eg for refusing membership to certain types of person, or certain racial or national groups), and can even be “de-registered”, thus barring them from standing candidates in elections. Democracy?
Here is an example from the General Election of 2015.
Brexit
The Brexit vote has exposed the sham or part-sham of British democracy. David Cameron-Levita thought that the 2016 Referendum would be easy to “manage”. He had, after all, “managed” two previous referenda: the Scottish Independence referendum and the AV-voting referendum. Third time, he miscalculated. The people, on the FPTP basis, voted about 52% to 48% for Leave. This was a shock to the System. Immediately, the Remain leaders started to demand “No Brexit”, and for a second Referendum, which would (once the voters had been exposed to enough fear propaganda) come to a different result, and/or for Parliament (most MPs being “Remain”) to just ignore the 2016 Referendum result which (they said) had been procured by fraud, lies, or post-KGB Russian trickery…
The fact is that, leaving aside the “sheeple”, the hard core of anti-Brexit Remain consists of
the affluent/wealthy metropolitan self-styled “elite”;
the big business people;
the Jews (most of them);
those who have done well financially in the 2010-2019 period;
the brainwashed under-30s, mostly from not-poor backgrounds, who imagine that not being in the EU somehow prevents them from getting (for most of them, non-existent) jobs in the EU, or that they will even not be allowed to travel after Brexit!
Those shallow little nobodies (again, mostly young or would-be young urban-dwellers) who think that it is old, unfashionable and “gammon” (white Northern European British) to support Leave or indeed to have any pride in England’s history, race and culture;
Almost all of those working in the msm.
These groups have become ever more severe and open in their hatred of Leave supporters. There are now open calls for the rights of, in particular, voters over the age of, perhaps, 60, to be restricted, for older people to be disenfranchised, especially if white, (real) British, or “racist” (i.e. people who see their land and culture being swamped and destroyed).
Here, for example, we see an almost archetypal Remain whiner, the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, 53, who is paid over £700,000 a year by the BBC and maybe as much as £100,000 p.a. from elsewhere (despite having been awarded only a mediocre 2:2 in English at university and then been –in my opinion– a markedly mediocre Press/radio/TV journalist).
Do we need a maximum age for voters? We have an aging population and as a result so-called "grey voters" have a huge influence over the outcome of elections and referendums.
We see from examples around the world, eg South Africa, or Zimbabwe (etc) that one-man one-vote “democracy” can lead to elected dictatorship. In the UK, it has become increasingly clear that the Parliamentary democracy in place does not reflect the views of the bulk of the population, and certainly not the bulk of the white real British population, those with whose future I concern myself.
Leave may “only” have won the EU Referendum by 52%-48%, but there are nuances here: the assassination of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox, only a week before the referendum certainly had an effect, and is thought to have changed the outcome by as much as 10 points (at the time of her death, Leave was 10 points ahead of Remain in some polls); particularly as much was made of supposed secondary culpability of Leave propaganda for the attack. The referendum outcome might easily have been 60% or even 65% for Leave.
There is also the point that most “blacks and browns” and other ethnic minority voters (eg Jews) voted Remain if they voted at all. Most Scots voted Remain too (no doubt because they have a faux-nationalist SNP as a comfort blanket). Take away those Remain blocs and it might be that about 60% of white English and Welsh voters voted Leave, which might have been 70% without the Jo Cox matter.
Alternatives to Parliament Deciding Everything
I favour the Rudolf Steiner concept of the “Threefold Social Order”. As I paraphrase it, and in the contemporary UK context,
it means that an elected Parliament decides matters properly within the political sphere or “sphere of rights”;
it means that Parliament (and government) does not run the economy or economic enterprises (though it can regulate it and them); likewise, economic forces and personalities cannot rule the political sphere and/or “sphere of rights”;
it means that the State (or economic forces) cannot rule over the proper ambit of the sphere of spirit, culture, religion, medicine, education.
This obviously moves on from the conventional “Parliament rules supreme” idea, developed in the UK since the time of Cromwell.
We can see that Parliament in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. Those currently elected have only a limited mandate. Greater freedom and a more efficient as well as a more just society depend on proper integration of the three basic spheres: political, economic, spiritual/cultural.
There is no necessity for everyone to vote. Voting should be for citizens who are resident and who are of suitable age (I favour 21 years, at minimum). Foreigners, offspring of foreigners, persons who are mainly of non-European origin etc should not be allowed a vote.
Brexit and the future
People voted for Brexit for many reasons and fundamentally out of a lack of satisfaction with the existing way of life in the UK. That urge for something better may be the basis for social-national reform or even revolution. The British people will no more allow themselves to be treated as helots.
Well, it seems that I spoke too soon in saying that the British people will no longer allow themselves to be treated like helots! The “panicdemic”, weaponized for the purpose, has (or the moment at least) put both the British people and “democracy” back in the box. Still, “the night is young”, I suppose. “Tomorrow is another day”…
Many readers of this blog will have read of my experiences with the malicious and extreme Jew-Zionist organizations, “UK Lawyers for Israel” (UKLFI) and “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), the memberships of which overlap in part. For example, the abusive Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, who has now fled to Israel, is a leading member of both.
I dare say that many ordinary people on, for example, Twitter, have no idea that sometimes, when they see a veritable tweetstorm or at least tweetsquall —such as that backing Lewis during his recent Disciplinary Tribunal hearing (he was found guilty anyway)—, they are actually reading tweets which are part of a barrage put out and/or at least loosely coordinated by those two groupings. Below, two blog articles which reported on my experience of these organizations:
The CAA Pressured the DPP/CPS to Prosecute Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz
1. Jez Turner
In 2015, Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) of the London Forum made a speech in the street, in Whitehall, London. One sentence mentioned the Jews, in such manner as that they should be removed from the UK. The CAA, which had agents at the scene, reported Jez Turner to the police there and thereafter. Eventually, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] considered whether any offence of incitement might have been both committed and as to whether any prosecution was a. likely to result in conviction, and b. in the public interest. The CPS decided not to prosecute. Note that a prosecution under [the relevant part of the] Public Order Act 1986 requires the assent of the Attorney-General. In other words, Jez Turner could not have been prosecuted privately by the CAA for the alleged offence.
The CAA made application to the High Court for a judicial review of the no-prosecution decision made by the CPS. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), as head of the CPS, was the Respondent. On the eve of the relevant hearing in 2017, the DPP/CPS agreed to look again at their decision, thus avoiding a defeat but at the same time giving in to the demand of the CAA. After some time, the CPS announced that Jez Turner would now be prosecuted. He was, in 2018, in the Crown Court, no less than three years after he made his speech. He was, arguably, unlucky in his jury and possibly (I was not personally present) in his judge. He was given a full year in prison, of which half would actually be spent incarcerated (he was recently released). All for making a humorous speech in which one sentence said that the Jews should be (again) expelled from England.
2. Alison Chabloz
In the case of Alison Chabloz, who sang satirical songs, some of which mocked the Jew-Zionists, she was accused of having breached the (“bad law”) Communications Act 2003, s.127, in having, allegedly, posted online the said songs. The CPS refused to prosecute her or, rather, did not; with the time-limit of 6 months looming, the CAA took a private prosecution. Leaving aside the legal and technical argument on the merits, the CPS had the right to take over the case and, if it did, to drop it or to continue it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution and continue with it (though it in fact substituted other charges for the original ones…). The offence is summary only. Alison Chabloz was convicted at trial in 2018 and given a sentence of (depending on how it is read) a total of 12-20 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, plus community service “serf labour”, a financial penalty of £700, and a 1 year ban on use of “social media”. Note, however, that Alison Chabloz is appealing both conviction and sentence.
3. Nazim Hussain Ali
Mr. Ali led and spoke at an anti-Israel rally in London. The CAA individuals hung around, in their usual fashion, tried to catch Mr. Ali saying something or other, then (as in the other cases mentioned here) reported him to the police. The CPS refused to prosecute and so the CAA took a private prosecution. The CPS took over that prosecution and discontinued it. The CAA then wanted to have that decision judicially reviewed. It was. They lost.
The judgment is worth reading in full, but the most relevant parts are:
“The DPP took the view that, in all the circumstances, the words used were not “abusive” within the meaning of that provision, so that a prosecution was more likely than not to fail.”
and
“As the [legal precedent] authorities stress, article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] does not permit the proscription or other restriction of words and behaviour simply because they distress some people, or because they are provocative, distasteful, insulting or offensive.”
and
“this is a public law challenge, and this court can only intervene if the decision to take over the CAA’s private prosecution and discontinue it made by the Decision-Maker was irrational, i.e. a decision to which no properly directed and informed CPS decision-maker could have come. In my judgment, it cannot be said that it was irrational.”
My Thoughts
This was a big hit against the CAA. The CAA is an organization which for years has been making inflated claims, both in its own name and via sometimes pseudonymous and abusive Twitter (and other) accounts run by its leading members, notably Stephen Silverman (who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement”!).
Under its own name and under the real names of its leading members, but also under other account names, the CAA has for 4-5 years been threatening not only “anti-Semites” and “holocaust” “deniers” (historical revisionists), but anti-Zionist dissidents in general with unspecified police and other action, also sending, from pseudonymous Twitter accounts (etc) threatening and harassing tweets (etc) to and/or about individuals. Some people were constantly taunted online and even offline with threats about knocks on the doors of houses, arrests, prosecutions, trials, terms of imprisonment. Almost all figments of the sick imaginations of the CAA members in question.
Women in particular were targeted by a number of online social media accounts controlled by various CAA persons, and in particular by Stephen Silverman of Essex and his associate, one-time/sometime “film critic” Stephen Applebaum, of North London. The pair have been somewhat muzzled of late —having been exposed and had their real names etc exposed— and now mainly tweet (slightly less overtly venomously) as @ssilvuk and @rattus2384).
Another leading Jew-Zionist (at least in his own estimation) is one Gideon Falter, who apparently graduated from Warwick University in law, though if so did not carry through to becoming a solicitor or barrister. Falter, Chairman of the CAA, seems to have family money (his parents are said to own a house in a well-known street in St. John’s Wood, London where houses sell for anything up to £40 Million). He seems to spend most of his time on CAA or other Zionist activities. I suppose that that is one way in which, he may imagine, he validates his existence.
Falter has given evidence in several cases, but his evidence has not always been accepted as veracious. In the case of Rowan Laxton, in 2009, which therefore preceded the establishment of the CAA by 5 years, Falter gave evidence which, while accepted by the magistrates, was (at least impliedly) not accepted by the Crown Court judge at the appeal (rehearing), at which hearing Laxton was successful. He was fully reinstated at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is now H.M. High Commissioner in Cameroon: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2
Laxton’s career success must be bitter for Falter, who has also had his testimony in other “anti-Semitism” cases strongly challenged…
Over the 4+ years since its foundation, the CAA has not been very successful. It has attempted to bring to trial (either by privately prosecuting people, or by making malicious allegations about them to the police and/or professional bodies) quite a large number of potential defendants. Most have either not been prosecuted or have been acquitted, or have been successful on appeal. A few people have been prosecuted for saying or writing rude things (quite likely justified anyway) about individual Jews (I noticed a few cases about landlords and property developers etc…). Most of those cases resulted in fines being handed down, by local magistrates, in the order of £50 or £100. Rather petty.
The larger scalps taken by the CAA are few, even if one includes the handful of successes by the UKLFI group: Jez Turner (now released after having spent 6 months in prison), Alison Chabloz (who is appealing now), a few minor harassment cases. The CAA failed to get the CPS to prosecute me for tweeting truth, and was too frightened to try to prosecute me privately, though UKLFI did get me disbarred in 2016 (8-9 years after I had anyway ceased Bar practice!).
The CAA has been —and I believe still is— under investigation both by the police and by the responsible officers of the Charity Commission. It has been criticized extensively by the more “Establishment” part of the Jewish power structure in England, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Chronicle. It recently suffered a considerable blow when one of its most active members, Mark Lewis, the venomous Jew-Zionist solicitor, fled to Israel after the conclusion of the Disciplinary Tribunal case brought against him by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.
The finances of the CAA “charity” are opaque. I suspect (educated guess) that two particular Jew millionaires, indeed billionaires, have contributed to the CAA, and for them a few tens of thousands of pounds a year is a bagatelle. However, even the ultra-wealthy are probably unwilling to give much to an organization which consistently manifests failure.
I should love to know how many Jews are members of the CAA (are any of its members non-Jews? Maybe there are a few doormats here or there). My guess would be hundreds rather than thousands. It has appealed for donations, run pledge drives etc, and recently tweeted to recruit a half-time-working “communications” person at a salary of £12,500-£15,000 a year. Hardly sumptuous. The CAA Twitter account was inactive from 20 December 2018 until 11 January 2019.
I have no idea what, if any, costs will be payable by the CAA in relation to the latest defeat in court, but I hope that they will be substantial.
The latest defeat by the CAA, and Mark Lewis’s flight to Israel (where he has said, repeatedly, on radio and TV, that Jews should all leave Europe), must mark the beginning of the end for the abusive and fake CAA “charity”.
Objectively speaking, it may be that the CAA has done much to stimulate “anti-Semitism” in the UK…
Good luck to Alison Chabloz in her upcoming appeal!
Below, a very recent tweet thread in which Stephen Applebaum of the CAA, under his most recent pseudonym, @rattus2384, and with other Jews, attacks the father of a 16 year old girl allegedly targeted by yet another Zionist. [click for full thread]
The CAA’s sting seems to have been largely drawn. The CAA Twitter account has tweeted only once (on 11 January 2019) since 20 December 2018. Gideon Falter has not tweeted since 5 September 2018 (except for two retweets, on 6 November 2018 and 7 December 2018). Both Silverman and Applebaum/Rattus have been somewhat muzzled of late. Now that they have been fully unmasked and exposed, they have evidently decided that they have to be more circumspect online. The CAA star is fast-waning.
Update, 18 July 2019
Well, like the cockroach, the CAA is still embedded…Having failed to have a Palestinian activist resident in the UK prosecuted [see above], the CAA Jew-Zionists try to get him another way, by having his professional regulator (he is a pharmacist) “investigate” his political life and then perhaps haul him before a disciplinary tribunal. This is what “they”, meaning (((they))) do…(for my own experiences, see below the CAA tweet…)
“Al Quds Day” leader Nazim Ali, who blamed “Zionists” for Grenfell Tower tragedy to face regulatory investigation following complaint by CAAhttps://t.co/vJRAm5s8xz
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) July 18, 2019
The UK professions now all have new, or fairly new, “Codes of Conduct” for the members of whatever profession is being “regulated”. These have been drafted by “Zionist” lawyers in almost all cases. Should the individual member of a profession be anti-Zionist, lo and behold, (((they))) make “complaint” about the “hate speech” or whatever that the individual is said to have uttered. A covert Zionist takeover, and an attempt to control the private and political life of the people affected.
Where “they” are, there can be no real freedom.
Update, 5 November 2020
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” prevailed on the General Pharmaceutical Council to “prosecute” Nazim Ali. “Lawfare” misusing the professional regulations. Nazim Ali might have lost his shop, business, profession, decades of work, all because a pack of Jew extremists pretended to be “offended”.
As it was, the disciplinary case against Nazim Ali was heard mostly in the first week of November 2020. The result, given on 5 November 2020, was that the tribunal held that what Nazim Ali said in 2017 was not “antisemitic” but that it had been “offensive”. He was given an official (quasi-judicial) warning.
Ha ha! The CAA Jews thought that they were going to at least ruin and bankrupt Nazim Ali now that the police and CPS were not going to charge him with anything criminal. Instead, he was just given a warning.
The CAA cabal took Nazim Ali’s matter to judicial review, and the High Court decided to remit it back to the Tribunal, which found the case proved against him on two charges, but simply repeated the warning to Ali.
In other words, the CAA put out huge effort for effectively nothing. They are, however, claiming it as some kind of major Jewish victory…
The Jew-Zionist solicitor, Mark Lewis, was recently found guilty at a Disciplinary Tribunal on several charges brought by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority. My blog has carried the following articles about him and about some of his egregious behaviour, which behaviour has been manifested for a number of years, certainly since 2013:
Lewis and his partner/carer Mandy Blumenthal (Lewis has also referred to her, in a British TV interview, as his “wife”), “made aliyah”, i.e. emigrated from the UK to Israel, in late 2018, after he had been found guilty by the Disciplinary Tribunal. At that hearing, Lewis’s Counsel told the Tribunal that Lewis “had no assets” except for his clothes, a mobility scooter and a private pension [said to be worth £70 a week]. Lewis had an income (salary, payable only until March 2019 when his notice period expires) of £10,000 (pre-tax, per month), and was also in receipt of Disability Living Allowance benefit, which he was exchanging (with Motability) for a car.
According to the published judgment of the Tribunal, the financial penalty imposed upon Lewis, the relevant part of which was a fine of only £2,500, was reduced from £7,500 precisely because of his impecuniosity. He was said to have no real property and to be living in rented property in London.
In this very recent podcast, Lewis was interviewed from his location in Eilat, the Israeli resort on the Gulf of Aqaba. Why is this relevant? Well, in an interview of 2011 with the London Evening Standard, Lewis said this:
“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”
In the recent podcast, Lewis goes on to say that, while he has no intention of applying for the Bar of Israel (because of his poor Hebrew), he may be servicing “clients” which he claims he still has in the UK; he even implies that he may be making (as solicitor-advocate, presumably) court appearances in English courts! Well, that would not at present be possible, unless he has been approved by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority as a sole practitioner (which he did not say he has been), or unless Lewis acts as a member of a law firm in England (which I doubt that he is or will be). Otherwise, Lewis would only be able to deal with legal matters the substance of which is outside the UK. He certainly could not appear in English courts.
In the podcast, Lewis talks about how he can work from Israel on UK work, using computers etc, and about how “there are planes to get you to court appearances”! Once again playing the “big shot”, this time once more the “top lawyer” who flies in to London or wherever else in order to appear in court on some important case. Hardy ha ha…big talk from someone whose own Counsel said at the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing that Lewis should not be fined much because “he has no assets” (except for his clothes and a mobility scooter!)…and whose recent flight to Israel was gratis, courtesy of the Israeli emigration authorities.
Incidentally, the podcast interviewer introduced Lewis as “one of England’s most distinguished lawyers”! Is there any limit to “their” lies and gall?!
Implications
So in 2011, Lewis owned a flat in Eilat, Israel…Does he still own one there? If so, he may have deliberately misled the Disciplinary Tribunal. Of course, it may be that he does not now own property in Israel and therefore did not mislead the Tribunal. He may simply have been in Eilat on holiday, staying in rented property or in hotel accommodation. It does raise questions, though…
See tweet below: are Lewis and Mandy Blumenthal already on the way back??
So basically you are saying that you feel disabled passengers that need an ambilift are only suitable for the back row seats even when paying for the most expensive fare bracket? Funny how no other airline does that.
Well, it appears that the egregious Lewis has now joined what appears to be a firm of Jewish or mostly Jewish lawyers based in London. I thought that he and his “partner”/”carer”, Mandy Blumenthal, were fleeing British “antisemitism”? Lewis made a big fuss about going to live in Israel, only a month or so ago!
So…the UK is OK as a place to make money for him while he lives in Israel? Or is he actually back in UK? If so, full-time or part-time (or, er, not at all…)?
The firm in question seems to operate from 2A, Norland Place, London W.11. Norland Place is a small cobbled mews side-street in Notting Hill, as seen in the estate agency photos below (and on Google Earth).
According to Companies House, Mark Lewis was appointed a director of Patron Law Ltd on 23 January 2019. According to the 2-page pdf document attached to the filing document, Lewis gave his “Country/State where usually resident” as “United Kingdom”.
So did Lewis lie to the public and Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal in giving his (then upcoming) residence and/or domicile as “Israel”? Or has he made a false declaration to Companies House in stating that his “Country/State where usually resident” is the UK? Surely they cannot both be true?
Update, 30 January 2019
I will be based in Israel. Technology and flights mean I can live here and work there.
Lewis has apparently been retained by two minor UK Jewish “celebrities” and is threatening to sue on their behalf somewhere around 70 people, all or almost all Corbyn-Labour supporters on Twitter. As in the notorious McAlpine case (with which Lewis was not involved), Lewis is demanding that those tweeted by him supply their real names and contact details as a preliminary to “settlement” (surrender) or legal action.
“@Rattus2384” (aka @grubstreetsteve) is in fact Stephen Applebaum, a prolific Twitter user (troll) from North London, who is a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), as is Lewis. Applebaum’s tweet puffs Lewis to absurdity. He fails to mention that Lewis’s own Counsel at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal a few months ago asked for Lewis to be let off lightly because Lewis “has no assets except for his clothes and a mobility scooter”!
“The UK’s most successful defamation lawyer”? Ha ha!
Update, 3 March 2019
Lewis pretending that his (honorary) “Doctorate in Law” was not given to him by his old poly just for being briefly sort-of “famous”…
You aren’t familiar with the Data Protection Act and GDPR are you. So simply revert to ad hominem attacks. I guess my doctorate in law was an award for stupidity.
Some of Lewis’s Tweets, Part of the Recent Case Against Him
Update, 4 March 2019
Meanwhile, some people [see the Jewish Chronicle link, below] find it hard to let go of the laughable illusion that Lewis is a “top lawyer” (in this case, “high profile lawyer”), despite the fact that “his employment was terminated” by his last three (if not four) employers (in acrimonious circumstances in at least two of the cases), despite the fact that Lewis was described by his own Counsel at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (which found him guilty of professional misconduct) as someone who “has no assets” except “his clothes and a mobility scooter“! Lewis also has effectively no income now, since his £7,000 net monthly salary from his last employers, Seddon’s, is cut off this month (the last month of his notice period).
Lewis, now resident in Israel but connected with a small law firm in London, has however been instructed to pursue tweeters on behalf of two unpleasant Jewesses also prominent on Twitter. I shall watch the progress of the actions (if proceedings are ever actually issued) with interest.
Below, another testimonial for the “top defamation lawyer”, Mark Lewis! Oh, no, wait…
PLUS @MLewisLawyer don’t forget that I have a LONG memory… I no longer recognise the Mark that acted for me anymore, what happened to your integrity? ???
Seems that some Twitter Zionists and others have not quite got the news, and think that “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is something more than a poisonous and near-insolvent bully impotently tweeting and threatening from his wheelchair or mobility scooter in Israel! Others, however, seem to be better informed…
But you're always one step ahead. Karma will get@MLewisLawyer.
I think that Karma is already having its effects on Lewis…
Update, 12 March 2019
The Jewish Chronicle hedges its bets now, referring to Lewis merely as “high profile lawyer”, no longer “top defamation lawyer” etc. The bastard’s £7,000 (net) a month from his former employer, Seddons, expires this month, so he may soon be feeling the pinch.
As I have said in the past, “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is a fraud, not worth his salt as a lawyer, but just someone who (and it is typical of “them”…) publicizes himself, talks a good game, but then only performs in simple open-and-shut cases (such as the Katie Hopkins/Jack Monroe case), which a child could litigate.
Ooooops I mustn’t forget to mention that my Phone Hacking litigation Case, is in full Swing …NO THANKS TO YOU YOU @MLewisLawyer. Just Saying ☺️ Looking so Forward #RupertMurdoch#NewsOfTheWorld#TheSun and OTHERS 😁💪🏿
Lewis is (quelle surprise) well-known to horrible “Blairite” MP (Common Purpose drone, expenses cheat, gay online dating site user, Labour Friends of Israel member, Remain and anti-Corbyn conspirator etc) Chris Bryant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant
who won £30,000 from the News of the World in 2012. You cannot say that Bryant does not maximize his opportunities as an MP…
One of the amusing and ongoing aspects to the “Mark Lewis Lawyer” situation is the number of those on Twitter (mainly Jews, but not solely) who still seem to think that Lewis is “top lawyer”, “top defamation specialist” etc. They also tend to be those who imagine that libel actions can be brought at the drop of a hat, and without consequences if lost. They rarely know the law at all. Here’s one, inciting Lewis to sue an unnamed person (who seems to be in South Africa, at that!)
Sue him for libel Mark!
— (((LucilleGrantWriter)))🇮🇱 🇺🇦🔯 🟢⚪🟣 ♀️ (@L_D_Grant) June 23, 2019
People like tweeter (((LucilleGrantWriter))), obviously Jewish (again…), never seem to think how Lewis (whose Counsel told his Disciplinary Tribunal that “he essentially has no means“, and that “his only assets are his clothes and a mobility scooter“) might sue anyone in England or elsewhere on his own account!
Come to think of it, I have heard nothing, and seen nothing in the msm or legal websites about the proposed defamation actions being threatened by Lewis of behalf of UK-based Jew-Zionist “celebrities” Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley (“Riley”? The only Jew I ever heard of with such a name was Sidney Reilly! In his case, he just invented his nom de guerre. Still, there it is.).
Under the law as it now is, libel actions in England have to be brought within a year of the date of publication. I seem to recall that the alleged libels (by Labour Party members and supporters, nothing to do with me, in case the reader is unaware!) were tweeted around November or even October of 2018, so time will run out within a few months. My guess? More Jewish Zionist bullying tactics, and there never will be any such libel action by those Jewish women.
Update, 10 July 2019
I never miss being in the UK, but I wish I was there tonight to watch #Panorama “is Labour Antisemitic?” and the rest of the series “Is the Pope Catholic?” and “Do bears defacate in the woods?” BBC 9pm @BBCPanorama@UKLabour
Lewis was born and brought up in the UK, educated here, lived and worked here, scarcely been anywhere else for most of his life, yet has no more real connection with this country than if he had just got off the boat from wherever his clan originated. There we have it. In a nutshell.
Seems that Lewis’s ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, has also fallen on hard times, living in a “Nowheresville” in California with her young daughter (Caroline Feraday is now a single mother). She says that she is unable to raise a mere $10,000 [£7,700], despite having some kind of (“office bod”?) job, and so has turned to GoFundMe. Strange. She was featured, in the past (in newspapers), a decade ago though, as having property of considerable value both in the UK and Brazil (in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) as well as (since 2013) in California.
Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.
[above: the latest picture of Lewis, looking a little peaky; taken in London, February 2020]
Update, 10 July 2020
The reader will have noted that one-time wannabee “celebrity”, Caroline Feraday, who now lives in a obscure tract development in California, was, not so long ago, begging for money via GoFundMe, because her neighbour was, allegedly, harassing her [see above].
In fact, some mugs were still donating money to Caroline Feraday, via GoFundMe, only a month ago: https://uk.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment, yet the tweets below show clearly that she has recently spent out USD $10,000 on a sunroom or windows for her house (the sunroom or windows apparently not delivered or constructed):
Before lockdown I paid @SunroomsWindows for a job which should have been done in March. They’ve repeatedly lied and clearly don’t intend to fulfil, yet have taken 10k of my money, they’re are out of contract, told me they’d start today and just didn’t show. I’ve been too patient
.@SunroomsWindows are literally the MOST dishonest company I’ve ever dealt with. I don’t cry about much, but to have given them so much trust over and again and then no show broke me today. The world just seems too full of liars and tw*ts right now.
“Dishonest“? “Liars“? “Tw*ts“? Look in the mirror, if you can bear it! Ha ha! To my mind, this comes close to fraud: taking money from kindhearted mugs because she claims to be in desperate need, yet paying out the very sum she originally sought ($10,000) for her legal fees in order to buy special windows!
Update, 24 July 2020
Now Lewis is again retained by other Jews and/or Labour Party or ex-Labour Party members and/or employees to sue the Labour Party (which —under doormat for the Jewish lobby, Starmer— has rolled over) and, I believe that I read, Jeremy Corbyn personally.
We are back in “pound of flesh” territory…
Meanwhile, there has been a backlash, not only from Corbyn supporters, but from those who do not like or trust Lewis:
Donations to 'Jeremy's Legal Fund', to support his possible libel battle against John Ware, continue to surge.https://t.co/hLFOnoZcg5
— The London Economic (@LondonEconomic) July 24, 2020
Legal fighting fund started for Corbyn reaches £120,000 in first 24 hours https://t.co/j3jp28TM6I
I just checked: as of date and time of writing, that legal fund, which at first was aiming at a target of £20,000, has reached over £163,000, with about £30 coming in every minute! https://uk.gofundme.com/f/47gyy-jeremy039s-legal-fund
What about Lewis?
The same maniac #MarkLewis who represented me back in the day re my phone hacking claim and litterally did fuck all but court the media, and YET my NEW Lawyers took under 3 Months to settle the same claim this Year. Lewis needs to be disbarred, he’s no Lawyer he’s a warmonger
Well, of course Lewis cannot be “disbarred”, because he is not and never has been a barrister! He is a solicitor, though one whose behaviour has been more than merely questionable over the years.
Update, 28 July 2020
People continue to tweet about Lewis and his behaviour. Jews tend, generally, to corrupt the legal system of any country that “hosts” them. Lewis is a prime example. An abuser…
Other Zionist Jews have always supported Lewis on Twitter. There’s a whole cabal of them.
Mark Lewis told a court he was living on £75 a week – he doesn’t sound very successful to me. pic.twitter.com/VxL4dTjwmO
What sort of person gets disciplined and fined by their own Professional body the SRA for 'truly awful, nasty and dreadful' messages sent to Jewish people ?
Lawyer Mark Lewis
What sort of person hires such a lawyer to take action against 'antisemitism' ?
I still remember a few years back when #MarkLewis was caught out on Twitter for buying up 1,000’s of Twitter accounts to give the impression he had a larger following. Pathetic Man
UK people are very naive about Jews. They often fail to see how Jews are totally different from English people. A Jew will put up a “big” front, no matter what, at all costs; they regard it as a speculative investment. The more honest ones admit it. Look at the book about the Korda brothers, Charmed Lives, by Michael Korda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Korda
This is what Lewis has always done, “created a legend” (in the old KGB sense); meaning a not entirely true and/or inflated CV.
Lewis of course is a small operator in that respect. Certainly compared to major Jew frauds such as the late and unlamented “Robert Maxwell”. The very verb “to big up” is of Jew origin.
So we have Jew solicitor Lewis, whose own Counsel at his 2018 “trial” asked for mercy on the basis that he owned only a mobility scooter, his own clothes, and £70 a week from a private pension, yet Lewis is now again posing as the big international lawyer!
When Lewis sued a former firm (where he was a “consultant”, doing “phonehacking” cases) he claimed to the tame (Jew-infested) UK Press that he was expecting to receive a “six figure sum”. Result? The case failed, in effect. Settled without Lewis receiving anything. Typical of him.
Lewis did have a good position for a couple of years at Seddons, a well-known firm of London solicitors. That ended in late 2018, the year when Lewis was found guilty at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal.
Much of the circa £10,000 a month (c.£7,000 net) which Lewis was paid (Seddons continued to pay him to the end of his notice period in March 2019) seems to have gone on presenting a wealthy front to the world and especially the Press. Renting an expensive apartment etc. He also had expensive cars at one point years ago (though later blagging a free car via Motability, once he realized that he could get Disability Living Allowance). Yet poor people, without much income, have had Motability cars taken away, in many cases…
Lewis is very (((typical))), let’s leave it there…
Update, 29 July 2020
TV stars Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley drop libel claim over Twitter post https://t.co/pDEjIFdj4c
People may not be aware that Mark Lewis has settled an anti-Semitism case before this, without it reaching court. I am sure @CraigMurrayOrg will be delighted for Jane Heybroek. Jake Wallis Simons accepted that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite, on the steps of the court 1/2
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn (@leftworks1) July 29, 2020
Rachael Riley and Tracey-ann Oberman's legal team forced to settle with Jane Heybroek in embarrassing libel defeat. Legal TEAM? You mean the 1 Lawyer #MarkLewis a WarMonger. They were NEVER going to win. I Hope that Lewis. #Riley and #Oberman get Bankrupt https://t.co/NWtN5V05hv
And the Guardian of course manages to leave out the interesting information that Jane Heybroek, who had promptly deleted her retweet, was the only one targeted for a libel case, despite previous hints from the two celebrities that legal action could be taken against 70 people.
Ah, that was what I wondered about previously: out of the “70 potential defendants” targeted by the Jewish women Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, it seems that only one claim got to court— and that that one has now failed.
I do not know whether the two unpleasant Jewish women are planning to sue others. I doubt it.
Lewis even now tries to talk a big game to the newspapers, as always, but where are the “bigger fish to fry” of which he spoke today? Is he back on those drugs that he testified (at his 2018 Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal —which he lost) caused him not to know what he was doing or writing? That is what he himself testified, i.e. that he was incapable and incoherent.
Why on Earth would anyone retain Lewis? On the other hand, he is cheap, in the sense that he operates on the no-win, no-fee basis, backed by speculative finance (litigation insurance). They hope to take assets from defendants who lose at trial, or monies from intimidated defendants who might decide to settle at an earlier stage.
People are so easily conned, nicht wahr? I still see tweets from people who imagine that Lewis is some kind of defamation superstar. His successes have been in simple cases where the defendant was unwise and self-willed, like the “Jack Monroe” (“Bootstrap Cook”) action against columnist, now ex-columnist, Katie Hopkins. Well, now we see what happens when Lewis is up against real libel specialists…
Update, 20 March 2023
Yes very much an ex-husband, this wasn't even the worst thing he did. Twice he was spotted very much with other women, once coming out of a hotel in the morning with one, and another at an airport going away for the weekend together when he very much told me he was home.
If that was Lewis (and I think that Caroline Feraday has only been married once), then of course he would not be able to “storm off” now, unless he put his wheelchair into overdrive.
Time heals all wounds, one way or another…
Update, 16 September 2023
Here's Mark Lewis formerly of UK Lawyers for Israel, attendee at launch of extremist Herut UK, getting into bother for retailing untrue evidence.
Well worth reading, the following tweets describe part of a recent case catastrophically badly-handled by “Mark Lewis Lawyer”. Quite apart from his evident professional negligence, it is clear to me, reading it all, that Lewis was also flagrantly dishonest. He really should be struck off the solicitors’ roll.
I might add that the heroic and ultimately victorious Claimant, James Wilson, is in my opinion far too kind to the Jews and/or part-Jews who defamed and hounded him, but that is another question.
Since one of the Defendants’ solicitors, Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) of Patron Law (@LawPatron), is mentioned in the statement, I am tagging him here. If he wishes to reply, I’ll post his reply below my statement.
This is the email where Mark Lewis (@MLewisLawyer) of Patron Law (@LawPatron) refuses in principle my offer to settle for nominal damages and zero costs with Mr Cantor
Wow! Mark Lewis acted for Daniel Miller and Nina Power against Luke Turner. Lewis’ clients lost in spectacular fashion. Mr Miller is now bankrupt. I am not sure about Ms Power.
It is awful the same will happen to Mr Mendelsohn and Mr Cantor!
Mr Justice Nicklin said this about Mark Lewis (@mlewislawyer) misleading the court: “It is likely that this error occurred because he [Mr Lewis] had simply failed to carry out sufficient (or any) research or to take adequate instructions from his clients.”https://t.co/ECvQB8yqpnhttps://t.co/T7SlclxAjl
Here’s another example of an unhinged letter from Mark Lewis (@mlewislawyer).
Big question: did Mr Cantor insist I had to give Lewis a pile of cash before Mr Cantor would settle? Or was it Lewis himself insisting on that? What do you think? Cui bono? pic.twitter.com/vOeBqyznpD
When Mr Mendelsohn gave evidence at trial, it became clear he was unaware of some of the conduct of, or positions adopted by, his solicitor Daniel Berke.
He honestly thought Berke had complied with the pre-action protocol. In reality, there was almost no compliance!…
In my case, Mark Lewis’ completely bananas position was that mediation had to follow meaning and strike out hearings. I assume he’s never bothered to read the pre-action protocol! @MLewisLawyer
Because Mark Lewis is a self-publicizing Jewish/Zionist bully who is also not a very good lawyer, as many of his clients over the years have discovered; neither is he an honest one.
Also @supergutman, I am doing my absolute level best to avoid forcing the sale of Mr Cantor’s house to pay my costs.
Mark Lewis seems to have washed his hands of Mr Cantor in terms of helping him meet my costs.
What’s desperately sad about the position is that Lewis has talked openly about being belligerent, ruthless, hitting people, and taking homes off people.
Something has gone terribly wrong here in that it is Lewis’ own client who is set to lose his home. pic.twitter.com/DrsPF1FV2P
It is weird that the anonymous pro-Israel trolls have started having a go at me again after judgment in my case.
If the trolls actually cared about defending Jewish people, there is a vulnerable man called Eddy Cantor who is set to lose the home he and his family live in. I need… pic.twitter.com/Iaxc3zmeAg
“It is weird that the anonymous pro-Israel trolls have started having a go at me again after judgment in my case. If the trolls actually cared about defending Jewish people, there is a vulnerable man called Eddy Cantor who is set to lose the home he and his family live in.
I need help to stop that happening. He is set to lose it because Mark Lewis did not work out that Mr Cantor had equity in his home. Mr Lewis therefore thought Mr Cantor had financial immunity in the litigation.
I worked out Mr Cantor had equity in his home by looking it up on the Land Registry and asking him. Rather than having a go at me, the trolls could have go at Mr Lewis to encourage him to step in to stop Mr Cantor losing his home.“
“Famous” (self-publicizing) “libel specialist” Mark Lewis Lawyer: both dishonest and incompetent, as I have blogged for several years. He has never sued. Admittedly, partly because my present —and for several years past— impecuniosity makes me effectively “unsueable”, but he has never even tried to apply for an injunction/restraining order against me. He knew that he would lose. He prefers to sneak around helping the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (he was a founder member) to make malicious lying complaints to police (etc) about me.
Mark Lewis and his partners at Patron Law are refusing to say whether they will pay my costs.
It is causing terrible stress to their former client Eddy Cantor who is set to lose his home.
I’m going to give some information about Patron’s partners.
“This is Patron’s partner Alexander Zivancevic. He was fined £15k by a Tribunal because he lacked integrity. He paid money from a client into his own personal bank account.“
Another one of them, of course…
Mr. Wilson has discovered that, when the usual Jew-Zionist pack scores a hit against a non-Jew, the (((usual))) Press pack (inc. LBC radio and Talk TV etc) go overboard on it, but when the Zionists (eg “Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fall down, the mass media is silent. I have seen it time abd again.
Of course, one must not say that the Jewish influence over the mass media is stifling truth in the UK; that would be, apparently, not only “antisemitic” but “grossly offensive”…
Ian Robert Millard 