Category Archives: Reminiscences and Musings

Alt-Right, ethnostate, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, Russia and Russian relations, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

The Right Attitude to Race and Culture

1 Comment

Race and culture are among the hottest topics of the moment. From the migration-invasion of Europe to the American wave of the alt-right, to the elections in European states, there is a ferment which will not calm. As social-nationalists, standing first and foremost on the racial-cultural front line, we must be clear where we stand in terms of attitude.

It disturbs me when I see unpleasant and too-general remarks made even about the basest of race-types. We must never forget that, as Adolf Hitler himself said in another context, “there is the individual, but beyond the individual is the race.” The individual comes out of a race; he is made by it, formed by it, is in most cases brought up and educated by it and by the nation which is part of the race. However, the individual can transcend the race-group (equally, can descend from it). German National Socialism itself recognized this reality when it granted a relatively small number of persons, who were not Aryan, the status of “honorary Aryan” or Ehrenarier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan

We today, even those of us who are social-national in political orientation, are yet not  National Socialists in the same sense as those who fought for European humanity in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. We today have our own path forward. At the same time, to put it in Biblical language, we “honour our father and our mother” and that means that we honour National Socialism as the ground from which we sprang.

Leon Degrelle, the political leader, front-line fighter and thinker, had this to say on the subject after National Socialism in its original phase had passed into history:

becwoaeccaazenq

There is no need for social nationalists to utter insults at blacks, Jews or members of other groups, except where that is justified and/or where it makes a political or social point. I do not want to concentrate on the American socio-political situation. I am not American, have not lived or worked there for many years and am focussed on Europe and Russia. However, we have to recognize that American society is very different from our European society. American society has had a relatively recent history of slavery, of genocide (the American Indians, aka Native Americans), of a civil war in which 3% of the population died, of the resistance to the social consequences of that war in the South, that resistance being, in part, the Ku Klux Klan, and so on.

American politics has become far more bitter, far more polarized, particularly in language, than is generally the case in Europe. There is also the point that there is a far wider spectrum of education and culture in the USA than pertains in most parts of Europe, or even Russia.

For me, it is natural to regard the non-European races as distinct and as having their own paths to the future, while equally recognizing the necessity (for all races) for the leading role of European humanity. For some Americans, this is perhaps less obvious and those other races seen as purely enemy contingents.

Social nationalists must take every opportunity to refute the lie (often though not always made by Jewish Zionists) that we base our political philosophy on “hate”. We ourselves know that that is not so, but often the public is bamboozled by the Jewish Zionists into believing the lie. For example, we wish not to be ruled or owned or influenced by the Jewish Zionist element, but that is, if you like, “defensive” in nature.

Our attitude to race and culture is one of recognition of evolution and involution. Our European race is generally still evolving, as is the “Russian”, “Slavonic” or “Slavic” race which (important point) will not come into its plenitude for another 1,500 years. Other races in this world are stagnant or are degenerating. The prime motive force behind social nationalism is to evolve the race and nation to higher levels and to destroy any threats to that evolution. This is a positive, not a negative, political world-view.

In the future, European and Euro-Slavic humanity will have powers of soul, of mind, which today would be regarded as magical. This is the point to which we as a people have been striving.

When we see the sacred Swastika, we must understand it to be a symbol of evolution, of our evolution.

TorchSwastika

environment, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

Stray Thoughts about Transport in the UK

3 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a country house in a heavily wooded part of Southern England. Even using a map, I nearly failed to find the way. A modern version of Parzival –in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s great work–, who gets lost in the trackless forests around the Castle of the Grail. The “B”-road was left behind as I took a quite narrow lane at an acute angle. A few miles further on and an easily-missed small sign almost at ground-level told me to turn off onto a lane so narrow that it was more like a track, tarmacked long ago (probably in the 1960s) and never repaired. Uneven, with large potholes. The forest pressed in on all sides. A stag with magnificent antlers ran across  and into the dense wood as the car approached at a slow 5-10 mph. Squirrels were there aplenty, as were many birds. After what seemed miles, the destination was suddenly in front of me.

That experience made me wonder what roads would be like in a future of automated cars, buses, passenger drones controlled by computers, lighter than air craft akin to Zeppelins, automated trains etc.

One could imagine a future where the roads are scarcely used and so not funded, or perhaps only the motorways or major highways funded. A network of automated rail, light rail, branch lines, narrow gauge, ultralight trains, Thames river services etc. Commuters (if they still exist) travelling easily by those means, such as airships docking on top of high towers or buildings, ultralight trains going to almost every street or road. Conventional roads might become a thing of the past, especially if commuting and travelling regularly by car become uncommon.

It is not necessary to travel far back in time (say, 1800) to find a Britain in which roads were in most cases almost unusable most of the time. It may happen again. Society moves on. Until the Beeching cuts of the 1960s (and the others in the 1950s and even prior to that), there were many railway lines in existence which, today, are all but forgotten.

The alternative vision is that roads will still be necessary even if vehicles become computer-controlled. We wait to see. In the meantime, we speculate.

Update, 31 July 2019

Elegiac song about the Beeching cuts of the 1960s…

Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

“Thank You For Your Service!…Have A Nice Day!”

5 Comments

One of the many minor but telling irritations of the present day is the extent to which American phrases and linguistic usage has infiltrated everyday English English. I say that despite having lived and worked in the United States (work sourced both in the USA and elsewhere) alongside American people. In fact, I am (despite the best efforts of parts of the Jewish Zionist lobby, including the crazed scribbler Louise Mensch) still a member of the New York Bar, at least on paper (I never practised there).

It was back in the early 1990s when I first heard someone (a West Indian woman) use the term “train station” to designate what everyone I knew until then had called a “railway station” or sometimes “rail station”. When I questioned the term, she replied that she had never heard such places called anything but “train stations”. My theory was that that was the influence of latter-day American films, particularly those shown on Sky. Maybe. Since then, “train station” has become ubiquitous, even on the BBC.

One might say, “what does it matter?” whether railway stations are called “railway stations” or “train stations”. However, language does matter. Whole treatises have been written on the power of transformative vocabulary. The American military machine and its political masters used to be expert at that (far more so than the British). “Operation Desert Shield” conveyed a message; “Operation Desert Storm” a different one, a changed one. Sometimes it became awkward if pushed too far, as in the phrases used in the Vietnam War: “bodycount”, “free fire zone”, “friendly fire” and many others became notorious; some are still in use today.

Such manipulative use of language is common elsewhere. The linked worlds of special operations and espionage have given us “plausible deniability” etc, and that is before we even look at the sleazy swamp of the political milieu. I do not want to go off-track too far and lose my point in the morass of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “helping people back to work” (indeed the ghastly “world of work” itself) etc.

Words create a mental landscape, they shape a society as surely as the architecture of our cities and, to be rather topical, public statuary.

It matters whether the influx of millions of non-Europeans into Europe and other European-inhabited lands is described as a “desperate” “movement” of “refugees” or as a “flood” of “migrant-invaders”, indeed as a “migration-invasion” (my favourite) or simply as an “invasion”.

It matters if “social security” (in the British use of the term), meaning a “safety net” or system available to those who need it (and, importantly, into which most if not all of those using it have paid, one way or another) is then changed to “welfare”, a term which gives the impression of money or food thrown at (probably undeserving and probably useless) eaters, who are, again, “probably” taking money from “the taxpayer” (not even “the State”).

It matters if “free speech” is in many cases re-designated as “hate speech” and/or “hate crime”.

So we return to “thank you for your service”…one of the least meaningful phrases around. An American affectation, which seems to say, “this person served in ‘the military’ in some capacity and so we regard him –or her– as heroic.” It of course bears little relationship to reality. Most service personnel, even in a war, are not anywhere near the “front-line” or active fighting areas. Indeed, many American service personnel never even leave the shores of the USA. In Britain, that idea crept in during the Falklands campaign, when anyone who had been to the Falklands in uniform became, ipso facto, a “Falklands hero”, courtesy of the Sun “newspaper”.

No-one disputes that a modern military system requires large numbers of accountants, lawyers, dentists, administrative people, pension experts etc, as well as cooks, drivers and the more obviously martial occupations of fighter pilot, tank commander, infantry soldier and commando. They all “do their bit”, in the English phrase of yesteryear. However, it seems strained to say “thank you for your service” to people who spent their entire service researching legal cases in Washington D.C., or fixing the plumbing on an Air Force base in Texas.

One notices that some scribblers who are very adherent to the Atlanticist or “New World Order” viewpoint are among the worst offenders (people such as Louise Mensch). In fact, it could be said that “thank you for your service” goes beyond affectation and constitutes an attempt to further Americanize the mentality of the British.

So it is that I plead for people to avoid the use of “thank you for your service”, even when addressing those who should be in that sense respected.

Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

How the Bar of England and Wales Became a Dustbin

5 Comments

I recognize, in writing about the Bar and having been myself disbarred for political reasons last year, that I shall probably be accused of some species of sour grapes. Not so. My disbarment in late 2016 at the instigation of a pack of Jewish Zionists had no practical effect on me beyond a couple of days of newspaper and Twitter nonsense. I ceased practice at the English Bar in 2008 and last appeared in court (Central London County Court, a three-day construction case) in December 2007. The views I am about to express were mine, in essence, then too.

What is “the Bar”, what is its purpose or role and what prompts me to call it “a dustbin”?

There is no point in going into long history or explanation. It is enough to say that the English Bar grew organically out of British history and society intimately connected with the struggle for free speech against the tyrannical tendency inherent in monarchical rule. I suppose that, today, a figure such as John Hampden is less well known by, e.g. schoolchildren than, say, Nelson Mandela, just as the founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale, has been eclipsed by the minor figure of Mary Seacole (who set up a tea-room in the Crimean War). “They established brainwashing and called it education.”

At any rate, it can be said that the institution of the Bar, meaning the independent Bar, the Bar independent of the State, grew at least partly out of that struggle for the rights of the individual as against the power of the State. Free speech was part of it, as were the rights of property (set against the mediaeval feudal system of royal and baronial –etc– patronage).

It is this very independence of the Bar which has now largely been destroyed, though remnants remain. The Bar has become entangled with the State. Civil and criminal legal aid, in many ways very useful for society and individual persons (criminal defendants, and those making or defending a civil claim), yet has had the effect of making the Bar dependent on State patronage. The proliferation of quangos requiring chairpersons and/or legal advisers has made many barristers further dependent, financially, on the State, in effect at least. Finally, the adoption of a Zionist-drafted and/or influenced “Code of Conduct”, increasingly draconian in its enforcement and enforced by an increasingly-active regulatory body (the Bar Standards Board) has made many at the Bar afraid of their own shadows.

When I was a student of law, I graduated (aged 30) in 1987. At that time, there was only one place to take the then “Bar Finals course” (a one-year course for most students)– the Inns of Court School of Law, located in Gray’s Inn. That was inconvenient for those whose usual residence was far from London, but it had the merit that barristers emerged from the same institution and often acquainted to some extent with each other. Though there were over a thousand students, many were foreign citizens almost all of whom would return to practise law in their home countries (many eventually to lead those countries politically, or even to found states, as did Gandhi and Jinnah).

During the 1990s, the Bar Finals course, sub nom Bar Vocational Course, was changed to be less academic, more practical. There were benefits to that in terms of the confidence of young barristers, but the drawback was that, bluntly, it became easier to become a barrister.

The Inns of Court School lost its monopoly under the influence of globalism and ensuing legislation, the Bar being regarded as just another “business” offering “legal services” to “consumers”. Soon a multitude of “service providers” (universities, former polytechnics etc) offered “Bar” courses. That remains the case today. A barrister now is simply someone who has acquired two pieces of paper: a “degree” of some sort and a certificate that the requisite Bar course has been completed (and few fail these days…).

The only thing preventing untold thousands more practising at the Bar is the pupillage bottleneck, but many are now allowed to “complete pupillage” in places like government departments, so it is perfectly possible to have substandard barristers (practising in court and advising people) who have a degree from a place which is little more than a degree mill, a Bar qualification which is given to almost all who take the course and a pupillage as an office bod in, say, a provincial government department building.

There has always been a space and vacancy problem at the Bar, both for practising barristers and pupil-barristers: until recent years, barristers were often squashed into inadequate rooms in the Inns, four or more to a room in some chambers. That is less acute now because chambers are able to exist, even in London, outside the Inns. However, that too has led to problems. Sets of barristers were established outside the Inns of Court. Some were good, others less good. One example in the 1990s called itself “Brick Lane Chambers” and was composed largely of Bangladeshis and others unable to work elsewhere. It was given a subsidy by the notorious  Tower Hamlets Council, based on numbers of “legal service providers” available, the idea being to increase “legal service provision” in an area supposedly without much.

I knew a barrister (still in practice today) whose name was fraudulently added to the “Brick Lane Chambers” list in order for those chambers to get extra money from the local council. She was not alone. She complained and her name was taken off the list, but no action was taken by the local council or the Bar itself in respect of a deliberate and egregious fraud. At that time, the Bar had already embarked on its “let’s not annoy the ethnic minorities” journey.

As a Bar student, I proposed (but not officially) a different idea, which would have safeguarded the Bar’s integrity: to found a fifth Inn of Court. That, however, would have involved huge cost, for one thing. It also would have required the clearance of a large site in Central London. Instead, sets of poor barristers started above laundromats and in shopfront premises (others moved from the Inns into far better circumstances).

Now we come to the regulation of the Bar. The Code of Conduct, once a slim volume, perfectly workable and focussed on trust and integrity, became a thick sheaf of papers packed with the politically-correct shibboleths of the day. It has, in its application, destroyed the independence of mind of the Bar. I refer the reader to my own experience:

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

As to recruits to the Bar, many now are brainwashed into a politically-correct mindset and (bearing in mind the pressure on pupillages and tenancies) few are willing to do anything but condemn those who (like me) are thought to have controversial views. They fail to see that their doormatting to the Jewish-Zionist element will not help most of them much. When I was at school in the 1970s, there were about 5,000 practising barristers; when I was Called to the Bar (1991) there were about 10,000 or so, I believe. Now that figure is something like 18,000! Meanwhile, criminal and other legal aid has been slashed and “solicitor-advocates” appear in court too. The result has been that the prestige of the Bar has plummeted. I do not regret that I no longer practise.

For the public, for society, the result of the Bar’s fall has been that the service available is more limited, poorer and that the independent voice of an independent barrister is muted. Just as, in the journalistic milieu, “journalists” of today (particularly online) are often twenty-somethings with no real training or education, their heads full of politically-correct nonsense, the Bar is now full of “barristers” who are really just barristers on paper, men of straw (women too), without real substance. The “journalists” thus cravenly welcome censorship and the “barristers” are unwilling to be seen as even listening to contrary views, let alone standing up for freedom of expression.

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Carl Benjamin, Colin Robertson, Count Dankula, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Meechan, Millennial Woes, Nick Griffin, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Reminiscences and Musings, Sargon of Akkad, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

The New UK Crown Prosecution Service Guidelines on “Hate Crime”: Thoughts and Suggestions

12 Comments

Background

Yesterday, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced updated and expanded “guidelines” on how the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with so-called “hate crime”. These new guidelines have been heavily criticized as, in effect, creating new and tyrannical law, despite the fact that the guidelines are neither primary nor secondary legislation.

In this blog post, I examine only those aspects of relevance to socio-political tweeting etc, meaning in practice those with a racial or religious element.

Part of the concern around the guidelines revolves around Alison Saunders herself. Many regard her as a sinister though incompetent figure, a “graduate” (member) of the pervasive and infiltrative organization (some say “cult”) called Common Purpose. In 2013, when Alison Saunders was CPS chief for the London area, a Freedom of Information request was made as to her connection with Common Purpose. At first, the reply was affirmative, but that was then altered to negative:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commohttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alison_saundersgraduate_of_commo

The answer is relevant to the new CPS guidelines because the motto of Common Purpose is “Leading Beyond Authority”. In other words, the citizens of the UK cannot rely any more on law or decent public administration, because organizations such as the CPS, full of “CP” “graduates”, will, it is suspected, manipulate the regulations etc in order to achieve a desired (by them) result.

Definition of “Hate Crime”

It is vital to note that there is no statutory (or accepted Common Law) definition of “hate crime”:

“A hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws.” [Wikipedia]

Wikipedia continues: “For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.”

In other words, there must first be a crime as designated by law and only then can that alleged crime (if one of those “specified”, i.e. assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) be treated by the police and CPS as a “hate crime.” The new guidelines reflect that existing position:

“The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”

It will be noted that there must first be a criminal offence. If there is not, then it matters not at all how “unfriendly”, “prejudiced” etc is the alleged perpetrator.

Further, sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether any crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is “racially or religiously aggravated.”

Incredibly, while the police and/or CPS will “flag” a case as a “hate crime”, “it is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim’s perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending.”

So a crime which is “flagged” at first as a “hate crime” but for which flagging there is eventually no evidence, will still be treated, in Court, as a “hate crime”, resulting (on conviction) in a far more severe sentence. How can this be regarded as in any way just?

The guidelines now continue:

“If the case passes the evidential stage and it is a case of racial or religious hate crime, or it is motivated by discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, or religion or belief, it is more likely that a prosecution is required in the public interest.”

This is a hardening of the position taken in the earlier CPS guidance and may mean an increase in the number of prosecutions. However, there is still a requirement for a substantive crime to have been committed and there is still a requirement for sufficient evidence to support prosecution. New crimes have not been created, but the danger is that zealous CPS and –especially– police persons will get the bit between their teeth and start to ignore the basics in their quest to hunt the witches. Anyone who has read the outpourings of the UK police forces online recently will not be reassured as to their objectivity in this respect. There is an unthinking “me-too” political correctness abroad, one which seems impervious to logic, argument, reason or plain commonsense.

Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge

The CPS legal guidance for its staff can be found here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

The full details can be found via the above link but one key element is that there must be one or more identifiable “victims” of the “crime”. In other words, if there is no identifiable victim, then the matter falls in respect of the “hostility” required under the relevant statutes.

How the CPS regards freedom of expression

“In deciding upon the public interest of charging these offences it is essential that prosecutors keep in mind that in a free, democratic and tolerant society people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, the rights of the individual to freedom of expression must be balanced against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.”

Other Thoughts

It is noteworthy that the body of the new guidance neither mentions nor lists the Communications Act 2003, s.127 as among the statutes utilized in the prosecution of “hate crime”. However, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.145 and 146 (see hereinabove), anyone sentenced for having posted a “grossly offensive” tweet (etc) under the 2003 Act can receive a sentence uplift if the offending tweeting (etc) had a “hate crime” element (the maximum sentence being 6 months’ imprisonment, though the usual sentence is non-custodial).

One cannot analyze these matters without noting that the Zionist special-interest lobby is likely to try to pursue its political ends by abusing the new guidelines. Readers are referred to my own experience of January 2017:

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

Advice for Social Nationalists

I advise a defensive approach. Malicious persons, notably Zionists, try to make provocations by saying offensive things online, eg on Twitter, then (if the interlocutor replies in similar vein), reporting to Twitter, Facebook etc and even to the police. I have found that the easiest way to deal with such nuisances (in the short or medium term) is to block them (on Twitter), which tends to avoid conversations and disputes. It also means that it is much harder for the Zionists to report a tweeter to Twitter. I myself have seen, in the past few years, several Zionists lamenting that “he blocks us, so we cannot [make false accusations].” Yes, it means that the individual tweeter cannot answer back to the lying allegations the Zionists often make, but the solution is simple: just do not care what they may write about you! I don’t…

In other words, just try to avoid having any conversations with malicious Zionists or other nuisances online. Make it hard or impossible for them to make false or malicious reports to Twitter (etc) or the police.

In respect of tweets not specifically addressed to anyone, it is more difficult for those wishing to destroy freedom of expression to report them to Twitter or (a fortiori) to the police, so long as there is no evidence of direct incitement within the meaning of the relevant (1988) Act.

In extreme cases, just protect your tweets. You can also pre-block any obvious Zionists on Twitter (and most of them are indeed very obvious…).

The ultimate and longer-term protection for social nationalists lies in future relocation to “safe zones”, as I suggest on my website: http://ianrmillard.com/social-national-communities, which will then limit the powers of the wider State.

In essence, the new social media guidelines are indeed another nail in the coffin of free speech in the UK, but are unlikely to stop socio-political comment online– which is why the conspiracy –and behind Alison Saunders stand Theresa May, Amber Rudd, secret groups, the whole #NWO and #ZOG farrago– is trying to get the big online platforms signed up to repression.

In the end, the net result of this latest silliness is likely to be a tsunami of pointless and/or malicious complaints to the police.

Update, 29 April 2019

Since I wrote the above blog post, Alison Chabloz has been convicted under Communications Act 2003, s.127, and is appealing (at time of writing, to the Divisional Court). However, the “guidelines” which are the subject of the article above do not seem to have had much practical effect in terms of changing prosecution or sentencing policy.

Update, 21 November 2019

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

Update, 17 January 2021

Much water under the bridge in relation to the Alison Chabloz case(s). To find out more, please use the search function on this blog.

In relation to repression of free speech generally, and as I predicted in the main article above, the ZOG strategy has been, not so much a tightening of laws criminalizing individual free speech, but a campaign of getting the major plaforms of social media to police free speech without any law having to be passed.

Thus we see that Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are simply expelling socio-political dissidents, and so removing both their inherent citizen-rights to free expression and (in the case of the prominent few) their online incomes. We have seen such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, David Icke, David Duke etc removed or largely removed from online platforms, the same also happening to less prominent people.

Update, 11 January 2025

Diary Blog, 16 March 2024, including an account of my recent free speech trial and sentencing
Diary Blog, 17 March 2024, including the aftermath of my sentencing hearing

MPs, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Stray memories of life at the English Bar, Uncategorized

Fame is Often Fleeting

3 Comments

[preliminary note: this is a personal rather than a political or social blog post, though it does touch on both of those aspects of life]

It is hardly original to say that fame often tends to be fleeting, but indulge me. I was thinking about this matter recently in the context of hearing about a number of persons and their life-trajectories. In particular, in the past 6-7 years I have observed the meteoric rise of a Jewish Zionist lawyer (solicitor) to fame; he rose to public prominence (after years of provincial obscurity and a slide into near-madness) on the basis of one type of notorious case, only to slowly deflate ever since. That person’s fate, still unfolding (or should that be “unravelling”?) gave rise to other, connected, thoughts.

I was on holiday in Hammamet, Tunisia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammamet] in 1994 when my then girlfriend and I met with a young Englishman and his girlfriend. They were both struggling or at least very junior young journalists, twenty-somethings. The young man explained that they had been in a not very pleasant hotel and so had upgraded to the one in which I was staying, the Phoenicia, one of the best in the resort, all marble and staff wearing white uniforms topped by a fez.

The young journalist said that his name was Jasper Gerard (the girlfriend’s name I forget). We had lunch and the odd drink in the succeeding days and they were in the grounds of the hotel when they noticed someone nearly get killed when his parascending canopy collapsed at altitude. Yes, that was me (I pulled too hard on one side to descend) and apparently Gerard cried out “isn’t that Ian?!” as I appeared to be about to fall, mortally wounded, to the beach. However, I survived with nothing worse than a minor story to tell.

I kept in touch with Jasper. I invited him, not long after, to dinner at Lincoln’s Inn (of which I was then a member). He attended not with the Tunisia holiday girlfriend but with a pleasant, very quiet young lady who (judging by more recent Press photos) was probably his later wife. A week or two later, in the English way, he invited me to dinner at his club, a members-only but non-traditional place in Mayfair called Green Street. The sort of place full of young or youngish people who were probably pop stars whom I would probably not have recognized even by name. At dinner, the next table was occupied by a lady and her two guests. She was, Gerard whispered, the journalist Marie Colvin, already noted but who became rather famous later on, after she lost an eye and took to wearing a dashing eye-patch. She was killed in Homs, Syria, in 2012, making Gerard’s dinner comment to the effect that connections had helped her into her job seem in retrospect even more envious than it did at the time.

After that, I did not see Jasper Gerard for nearly three years, during which time he had become the head of the Diary column in The Times. After I finished a year working in Kazakhstan, I called him and suggested a drink. He suggested lunch at El Vino, not the original wine bar but the branch at the foot of Ludgate Hill. He failed to turn up and when I called to ask whether a problem had arisen, did not even apologize but got some underling to say that “something had come up”. That was discourteous, but personal loyalty is important to me, so I agreed to a second lunch date. This time, Gerard did turn up, but the pleasant, rather hesitant young man had become a blase, vain fellow obviously very much spoiled by his career uplift and hugely full of himself. He scarcely bothered to talk, obviously found me not famous enough to waste even the lunch break on, then did not offer to pay, or even to pay half the bill, but waited until I did before saying “do you mind if I take the cash and pay, so that I can claim it back”! With such a brazen attitude, it is not surprising that the bastard later tried to be elected as an MP!

I did not meet with Jasper Gerard after that, though I noticed that he was later to be found in the Sunday Times as chief interviewer. He lasted for some years before being removed. He then became restaurant critic in The Observer for a year or two, until 2008. He was even mentioned (once) in celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay’s memoirs.

Gerard fell into obscurity after that, though he came second in the Maidstone and The Weald constituency in the 2015 General Election, standing as a LibDem (well, after all, the LibDems are now the last resort of the scoundrel!).

The last I heard of Jasper Gerard, in 2016, he had become the Head of Press for the LibDems. Whether he still is, I have no idea.; and his last tweet to the public was in 2015…

The above is just one reminiscence about, mainly, one person. I suppose that the moral of my brief story is that some people really cannot handle fame or even minor celebrity, and that obscurity often beckons.

 

Update, 29 December 2020

I saw that there were recently a few hits on this rather obscure blog post, so am updating it.

The Maidstone and the Weald election results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidstone_and_The_Weald_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s.

Jasper Gerard’s 2015 vote share of 24.1%, though far below that of the 36% attained by the LibDem in 2010, was still better than that garnered by the LibDems of 2017 and 2019 (16.4% in both cases). Gerard was the last LibDem to get a second place at Maidstone and the Weald; Labour has come second since 2015: 22.1% in 2017, 18.3% in 2019.

As for Gerard himself, it turns out that his full surname is Gerard-Sharp, and that his sister is also a journalist, with a Twitter account: [https://twitter.com/LisaGerardSharp] and a personal website [https://www.lisagerardsharp.com/].

“In the soup for playing down the Lord Rennard scandal (‘It’s hardly Jimmy Savile’) Liberal Democrat candidate Jasper Gerard stands accused of playing down his poshness. Colleagues at Durham University remember him as Jasper Gerard-Sharp. Once he secured the post of head of the university’s Lib Dem society he morphed into plain Jasper Sharp. But by the time he arrived at The Times as a trainee journalist, he reverted to Jasper Gerard. Keep up at the back!” [Daily Mail, in 2013] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2285672/Is-boastful-Vince-Cable-ready-new-challenge.html

Professionally, and politically, Jasper Gerard —or Gerard-Sharp— now seems to have vanished without trace. He may have retired early; he would now be 53, must have been extremely well-paid when he was Chief Interviewer for the Sunday Times, and there may well be some family money, despite his grammar school secondary education.

Update, 18 March 2021

I noticed that there were several hits on this old article today.

I recall seeing an interview in the Sunday Times, in 2003, written by then-Chief Interviewer Jasper Gerard. It was with, and the article about, the wife of Kevin Maxwell, the part-Jew son of MOSSAD chief European agent, millionaire Jew fraudster and later food-for-fish, “Robert Maxwell”. At the time, the Maxwells were trying to sell their expansive country house on the Thames, somewhere near Wallingford.

That is a nice part of the world, one I knew well as a child and teenager in the early/mid 1960s and in the 1970s. I remember, reading the interview, thinking “there is a horrible brash Jewish or part-Jew family living in luxury on the banks of the Thames near Wallingford, and I am scraping a modest living from the law…“. The fact that Kevin Maxwell was living off the proceeds of crime, such as the frauds perpetrated by his despicable father, made the feeling all the stronger.

Well, the wheel of life has certainly turned for Ghislaine Maxwell, “Captain Bob’s” daughter, currently resident in a 9 foot by six foot cell in a US Federal prison.

Hey! I have an idea! Jasper Gerard should go interview the declining Ghislaine before she gets bumped like Epstein, or does herself in. He could write a good (well, adequate…) article about the contrast between her present circumstances and those days long ago with her brother and family by the sweet Thames…If, that is, anyone would now publish him.

Notes

https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/08/11/the-jew-epstein-and-prince-andrew-the-british-royal-family-has-another-scandal-maybe-its-time-to-just-get-rid-of-them/

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/grey-cardigan-so-where-has-jasper-gerard-gone/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/living-maxwell-house-mtz0crcfv7q

Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

Encounter with Two Labour Ladies

9 Comments

I thought to blog about an encounter, on Twitter, with two ladies of seemingly similar views, both basically pro-Corbyn Labour Party supporters.

I happened to see that a Jew-Zionist lawyer and prolific tweeter was arguing with and, as the ladies tweeted (not inaccurately), “bullying” them because they opposed Israel. I myself block the Jew in question but started to talk to both ladies.

I could see that they had become aware of abusive tweets by one or two Jewish Zionist persons, notably minor academic Ben Gidley, who works at Birkbeck and Goldsmiths colleges of London University when not tweeting malicious pro-Zionism and supposed “antifascism” and who, while having his more “respectable” academic-oriented account, @bengidley, also runs @bobfrombrockley and did run the Zionist troll account @inthesoupagain (which was permanently suspended by Twitter for its abusive character). @inthesoupagain has in fact been resurrected as @antinazisunited, in which the same garbage pumped out by “Soup” is poorly-camouflaged behind tweets about US politics and other subjects. Other Zionist accounts are now connected with these, among them @gnasherjew (which “monitors” and denounces anti-Zionist Labour members).

At that stage, it seemed clear that both ladies were unaware of my own socio-political views (even in the cartoon form in which they are usually characterized by the Zionist element).

So it was that our Twitter conversation developed. Both ladies seemed well-meaning, wanting a better Britain in a better world etc. Not unlike some of my own views in many ways. They were becoming aware of the Zionist cabal on Twitter and of its methods (trolling those opposed to Zionist control).  They opposed Israel, possibly as much or more than I do myself. However, the amiable atmosphere was clouded when the discussion turned to Jews as distinct from Zionists.

Now the Zionists usually claim that up to 97% of Jews in the UK support Israel. The devil here is in the detail. What does “support” mean in this context? General sympathy? Allegiance right or wrong? Donating money? Serving in the Israeli army? More?

In the instant case, the Jew (and Zionist) lawyer wanted effectively all Jews to be regarded as Zionists. An attack on Zionists and their behaviour was therefore “anti-Semitic”. The two Labour ladies demurred.

As for myself, though I accept that there are some Jews who are ambivalent toward or even hostile toward Israel and/or Zionist activity in the UK or elsewhere, for me this is a sterile argument. I oppose Israel while recognizing that it is no worse as a society than most if not all of the states and peoples around it. I oppose Israel because it is the centre, or a major hub at least, of a world-wide web or network. My interests lie mainly in the UK, Europe generally and in the Russophone world.

My conversation with these two ladies started to take on the character of a debate akin to the debate which once existed between the mediaeval Scholastic school of philosophers (mostly priests and monks of the Roman Catholic Church and whose views devolved largely from Aristotle) and their Platonic-oriented peers. In other words, the Group as against the Individual. Which is the more important or determinative? The two ladies would only recognize individuals, individuals who may, for instance, be Jews, but who were not to be in any way labelled or analyzed by reference to their membership of the (race, culture, religion) group of Jews generally.

My own view is that I recognize the group first, but accept that an individual may not be a typical member of that group. So a Jew can have views and behaviours which deviate from the group of Jews (or Zionist Jews) generally. In other words, I think that I give weight to both the group identity and the individual identity.

While the two Labour ladies could not agree with me completely on the above points (and, while not wishing to characterize either of them as “thick”, they did seem to struggle with the discussion and indeed with logic at times), the conversation was still on a calm level until they realized (from reading about my politically-motivated disbarment, to which I myself had directed them) that my political views are social-national, not System or near-System “Labourist”.

In other words, the two ladies’ early and continuing brainwashing (by “holocaust” propaganda, other System programming at school, on TV, in the msm generally) kicked in. They became outraged (or, more accurately, were becoming or about to become outraged) that my views were slightly or rather out of their normal ballpark.

At that point, not wishing to engage in a fruitless discussion of the Third Reich or National Socialism with people whose views on the subject(s) came from The World At War (at best) or other (even more biased) Jewish/Zionist outpourings, I decided to politely mute these ladies before they became angry or hysterical.

All the same, I found the experience interesting. Their brainwashing or indoctrination may have prevented them from straying too far from what had been pumped into them at an early age (and I doubt that a latter-day “supporter” of Stalin would have outraged them…), but they at least were able to see that there is, on Twitter and elsewhere, a Jewish-Zionist cabal which is, inter alia, determined to trash anti-Zionist Corbyn. They and a million like them are not really ideologically awake, but it’s a start.

[the graphic is rather American, but still pretty good]

CponI2UUEAArtdyUpdate or Postscriptum

One of the “Labour Ladies” blocked me as soon as she understood (or, more accurately, misunderstood) my socio-political views. The other did not but left it for a day or so before tweeting the usual uneducated nonsense about how “Nazis” were (she apparently believes) “dying out”, that I should “rethink” my views and “love everybody”. I do not think that I need do more now than to close her curtains and tiptoe away…(actually, I politely replied and included a few suitable photographs with quotations to make my point; I was then blocked). Both ladies remain merely muted by me.

As for the dispute between the ladies and the Zionist, it seems that that rumbles on and may continue so to do.

Update, 11 April 2019

 

Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

The Academic Dead-End

12 Comments

No doubt there will be many who might say that I am unqualified to write about academia. My post-graduate qualifications, after all, are or were of a basically vocational nature (the Bar of England and Wales; the Bar of the State of New York). Further, I have never taught any subject at any level. However, it really is time that “time is called” on the dummy intellectuality being passed off as scholarship in the tertiary educational sector.

I do not intend to give specific examples, glaring though many are, of what I have called “dummy intellectuality” in academia. Anyone interested can find it easily for himself, by looking at the list of publications by university faculty members, or at their social media outpourings. I am of course confining my comment mainly to what are often termed the softer areas of study, such as sociology, literature and linguistics, “migration” (yes, this too is now an academic “discipline”!) and the like.

In the past, in the 19th century and most of the 20th, non-scientific academic works could usually be understood perfectly well by the ordinary educated person. That is no longer the case. A whole farrago of nonsense has been imported into academic life, involving narrow jargon, ever-narrower fields of study, cliques of “experts” in the foregoing and careers built on these insubstantial foundations.

I suppose that the pseudo-intellectual egg from which the above-noted chick was hatched was probably the area of the study of Marx, Lenin and Engels, firstly in the Soviet Union, then in the socialist world more generally, which then seeped out into the universities and other tertiary institutions of the Western world. Marxism was itself once called a result of “Jewish Talmudic theorizing and argument” and in the dummy intellectuality now rife in the universities of the UK and elsewhere, there is certainly a powerful Jewish element.

Read any papers by academics in fields such as sociology, “gender studies”, “migration studies” etc and you will see that the language employed is so specialized that it amounts to an exclusionary jargon.

One of the effects of the narrowing of language into jargon is that only those indoctrinated into the jargon can discuss the subjects concerned; others are not to be included in the discussion because they are not “educated” (in the narrow sense) enough to do so. Only the “specialists” (the Jewish or sometimes non-Jewish “experts”) can say anything, it is thought. This way of thinking has also contaminated areas such as economics, which are thought of as “harder” or more scientific than, say, sociology.

Thus it is that, before the financial crash usually dated as 2007-2008, the “experts” were mostly sure that such a crash would not happen. Afterwards, the “experts” split into at least two camps (pro”austerity” being the main one in the UK). These “experts” made predictions, got jobs paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in the Bank of England, the City of London financial district, in the BBC and elsewhere. The fact that most of them got their predictions wrong most of the time  (and still do) means little, because they cannot be challenged by non-experts on their own terms. The average critic does not even have a common language with the average “expert”. The fact that some kind of Mystic Meg or the spin of a coin is as accurate as the “experts” is thought irrelevant.

Likewise, it is hard to challenge the idea, put forward (in nuanced form, so be it) by a few well-known academics and then trumpeted (in simplistic forms) by a horde of “me-too” politically-correct imbeciles and one-world plotters, that the Romans were non-European or even sometimes “blacks”. Who are you, ordinary educated citizen, to challenge “the experts”? Yes, all Roman art, currency, literature, shows a European (Aryan) heritage, but what of that? That has no weight, because Professor Somebody of SuchAndSuch University has suggested that a few non-Europeans served (perhaps) as legionaries for short periods in Britain. From that tentative suggestion by an academic, not only do the “me-too” politically-correct hordes draw sweeping and wrong conclusions as to Roman Britain, but (even more wrongly) go further, to say that modern British people have African or other non-European ancestry. This despite the scientific evidence that does exist:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Returning to our main theme, it is clear that academia must be reclaimed from the “experts” in that narrow sense, from those who are only talking to each other and (((of course))) making a good living doing so.

Whole subjects may have to be either done away with or subjected to a purge. True academics must be able to exist again (they still do, in fact, alongside the jargonists) and thus be able to inform the non-academic population properly as to both their own subjects and public policy. Clarity is king.

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Lewis, Nick Griffin, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

When I was a victim of a malicious Zionist complaint…

356 Comments

Six months and a day ago, I attended Grays Police Station, Essex, for an interview with the police. I trudged through the snow and slush of estuarial Essex after a long rail journey involving several changes of train. A police fortress set in a snowbound urbanized wasteland. Crossing the rail line in the snow reminded me of visits to socialist Poland in the 1980s. Not pleasant.

grayspolice

[above, Grays Police Station, Grays, Essex]

A week or so before my supposedly voluntary but in fact involuntary trip to Essex, I had been surprised to receive a telephone call from a detective-sergeant of the Essex Police, who informed me that the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [CAA] had made formal complaint against me.

Now the CAA, as some readers will know, is a small but well-funded Jewish Zionist organization, sufficiently in funds to be able to employ a number of full-time staff. It was founded around the time of Israel’s 2014 Gaza slaughter, in order to defend the interests of Israel and of Jews generally. Some of its members also belong to “UK Lawyers for Israel”, a similar group and the one which complained against me to the Bar Standards Board in 2014, as a result of which I was disbarred in late 2016 (though I had not practised for 9 years!). The signatory on that complaint had been one Jonathan Goldberg QC, a Jew who was once the preferred Counsel of the notorious Kray gangsters. Goldberg also appeared pro bono (without fee) for the CAA in its private prosecution against the satirical musician, Alison Chabloz (which prosecution was later taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and the original charges dropped, though new ones were substituted and the matter adjourned until, at the earliest, late December 2017).

The head of the CAA, one Gideon Falter, had, prior to founding the CAA, made a complaint against a Foreign Office man, Rowan Laxton, who was accused of having shouted out (while on a gym treadmill, watching a TV report of yet another Israeli atrocity), “Fucking Jews! Fucking Jews!” (yes, that is enough to get you arrested in contemporary London…). Laxton’s case ended not with his first-instance conviction before a (dozy? biased?) magistrate, but with his acquittal on an appeal by way of rehearing in the Crown Court.

The “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” (sinister title…) at the CAA is one Stephen Silverman, who lives in Essex and who was exposed in open court (possibly inadvertent admission by the CAA’s own advocate) in December 2016 as having been the Internet troll @bedlamjones on Twitter and a user (abuser?) called “Robbersdog” on another discussion site, Disqus. This person abused anyone thought to be anti-Zionist, particularly women. His posts were notorious for their gloating sadism. He particularly enjoyed looking forward to people being arrested, questioned, charged, tried, imprisoned for “anti-Semitic” comments. He was in fact part of a whole group of Jew-Zionists on Twitter and elsewhere, all following the same line of attack (Twitter has now removed several for similar abuse). Despite that, Silverman remains in post at the CAA, an organization apparently supported now by a number of politicians, all under the thumb of the Israel lobby.

Back now to my visit to the area some call “the arsehole of England” (it must be true: it is represented in Parliament by freeloading chancer and former receptionist Jackie Doyle-Price!). It had been arranged with the detective in charge that I would appear at Grays Police Station on 12 January at a specified time. I arranged to have a solicitor who, in the event, failed to turn up. Given the “choice” of returning within a few days or a week at most (and the expense and inconvenience therefore being doubled) or interviewing without legal advice (I last practised at the Bar in 2007-2008 and, apart from corporate “crime” on behalf of companies such as South West Water and Balfour Beatty, had not engaged in criminal law since about 1994), I decided that I had no choice but to continue to interview.

The several detectives who dealt with me were polite, even reasonably friendly; certainly professional in their approach. I was never arrested during the whole proceeding and was told that I could leave at any time. I was then cautioned and interviewed for three hours about some 60 pages of tweets, hundreds in all. Slowly, each tweet was put to me. Many were stories from newspapers, cartoons etc. I mostly no-commented, but did make some pertinent points and the odd joke.

What struck me first was the sheer injustice of all of this. The Jews complaining about me had done so at no cost to themselves and yet had wasted the time and money of both me and the police. The police should have told them, at the least, to go whistle, instead of taking the complaint seriously. I was in fact told by the police that they were dealing with another half-dozen CAA complaints of similar nature. So much for “the police are starved of resources”!

The next point that struck me, as we trawled through many tweets alleged (but not proven) to have been tweeted by me, was how brainwashed the police were in respect of the “holocaust” mythus. They referred to one cartoon (“Alice in Holohoax Land”) and asked how anyone could make a joke of people (Jews) made into soap and lampshades! They obviously had no idea at all that those WW2 “black propaganda” stories had not only been totally debunked but also accepted by the Zionists themselves as untrue! They also, needless to say, had no idea that those “holohoax” tales were in fact of WW1 origin, recycled (so to speak) for WW2 use. I did not bother to argue with them. Perhaps they will read this blog post.

Another funny moment was when the detective in charge objected to tweets poking fun at “Saint” Bob Geldof. It turned out that he took Geldof’s charitable image at face value. I thought that detectives were trained to recognize the dodgy. Apparently not.

I was able to read into the record of interview (taped) a letter I had sent prior to interview, detailing the abuse of the criminal justice system being engaged in by the CAA and by Silverman in particular, as exposed during the Chabloz case and otherwise. I asked that this letter be sent to the CPS, were the complaint against me to go further.

Anyway, after a dehydrating 3 hours (I was given one cup of water) in a hot little room, I was taken outside to the custody desk and booked out. I had never been under arrest and was not given police bail, but just released without anything more. The detective murmured something about “postal disposal” to the custody officer (I never was sent any letter of closure, though) and I was released back into the cold streets of Grays, now being blanketed by more snow.

I do not (much) blame the police involved. They were obviously under pressure from higher ranking police (probably either Zionists or, more likely, freemasons). Political pressure from higher-up, too, in a situation where the governing party under Theresa May and Amber Rudd is really just “ZOG” [Zionist Occupation Government].

Needless to add, I was never prosecuted.

So that is my account of an experience provided for me by the abusive CAA organization. It is time for the CPS to rein back the apparent latitude given to Jewish-Zionist organizations making malicious and politically-motivated complaints against private citizens (I do not belong to any political party or group).

As to my final word, I should say only that “what goes around comes around”…

Update, 10 February 2019

Since the above was written, the CAA has been (I think is still being) investigated by the police and the Charity Commission. It has suffered significant legal defeats, and Stephen Silverman, the sinister troll-stalker of women, is himself now under further police investigation.[see below]

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1094320750771781632

and

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1094321298115887105

Update, 25 October 2019

“They” are still mentioning me online, really getting “full value”…

https://antisemitism.uk/new-guidance-from-bar-standards-board-tells-barristers-to-avoid-heated-social-media-spats/

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

scan25

Update, 14 January 2023

The Jew in question still pursues me, at least in his tiny mind:

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

Update, 31 October 2024

More recent developments: well, I was eventually put on trial after the “CAA” pressured the Crown (or Clown) Prosecution Service to cobble together a misconceived prosecution-persecution of me.

What happened then is detailed in the blog posts below:

Diary Blog, 16 March 2024, including an account of my recent free speech trial and sentencing
Diary Blog, 17 March 2024, including the aftermath of my sentencing hearing

The upshot of all that was that I was made subject to a 9-month “community order” and required to pay costs etc amounting to £734. The costs were partly (about 1/3) crowdfunded, the rest paid off in monthly instalments (all now paid).

As for the “community order”, with 15 “rehabilitation days”, the “days” turned out to be short or shortish meetings lasting between 20 minutes and a couple of hours and, after half a dozen of them (one every few weeks, I was told that, by reason of other and larger events (unrelated to my own case), the “rehabilitation days” requirement was, in my case, deemed to have been fulfilled.

All finished.

The little screeching “CAA” Jew-Zionist pack were so shocked that I was not either imprisoned or given a suspended custodial sentence (and the blog closed down) that it took them a couple of weeks (during which they were not inactive behind the scenes) to comment on my —as they wrongly termed it on their website— “absurdly lenient” sentence (which exactly followed the written recommendation of the Probation Service).

They must be fuming even more, now that the sentence turns out to have been even less harsh than when passed. They (no doubt) continue to plot and scheme.

Meanwhile, the blog continues to be published on a daily or near-daily basis.

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Stray memories of life at the English Bar, Uncategorized

The Slide of the English Bar and UK Society Continues and Accelerates

406 Comments

[Addendum and Update, 5 September 2021: since I blogged in relation to my disbarment etc, there have been developments, some of which are covered in the updates at the foot of the original blog. However, two other important changes have been that, firstly, the Bar Standards Board wrote to me a couple of years ago, explaining that I should never have been “tried” by a 5-person Tribunal (the only type that has the power to disbar), but only by a 3-person Tribunal (which can only impose lesser penalties). The BSB offered me the chance to have my case reheard. In that event, whatever happened, I should be reinstated as a barrister.

I decided at the time not to reopen the matter. My decision was partly a gesture of contempt towards the System and the Jew-Zionist lobby that procured the “prosecution”, “trial”, and eventual disbarment. Also, as someone over 60, I had no practical use for my “Barrister” status.

The second development, arising out of one of the more recent parts of the Henry Hendron case, is that, as an “unregistered” barrister (since 2008), I should never have been “prosecuted” at all, because the relevant parts of the Bar Code of Conduct would not have applied to me on the facts. I did, I believe, make that point in early correspondence with the BSB in the 2014-2016 period.

In other words, my 2016 disbarment was not only wrongful, but actually unlawful].

[Original blog article from 9 July 2017]

When I started to blog, I intended to write about things of general or objective importance. I intended to avoid the personal and subjective. Above all, I wished to avoid mixing the objective and the subjective. However, I think that some of my personal reminiscences and thoughts might be of interest to others. I also consider that objective conclusions can be drawn about UK society from some of my experiences.

Many of those who are reading this will be aware that I was disbarred in late 2016. That happened after a group of Jew-Zionists calling themselves “UK Lawyers for Israel” (some of whom, probably many, also belong to the so-called “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”) made official complaint (in 2014) about a number (at first, several dozen) of tweets which I had posted on Twitter. Eventually, the number of tweets comprising the subject-matter of the charge was reduced to seven. Seven (7) tweets (reduced to 5 at Tribunal) out of, at the time, at least 150,000.

Now, though I may blog in detail about the manifold injustices around my own case at a later date, my purpose today is to compare the overall “justice” I received with that meted out to another Bar defaulter recently, in order to illustrate wider points.

Now the bare bones of my own situation were that:

  • I ceased Bar practice in 2008 and last appeared in court in December 2007;
  • I did not hold a Practice Certificate after 2008;
  • I joined Twitter in 2010 and started to tweet in 2011 or 2012;
  • My Twitter profile and picture never made any reference to my being or having been a barrister (whether practising, non-practising or employed);
  • Only a tiny handful of the 155,000-200,000 tweets I had posted made any mention of the fact that I had, years before, been a practising barrister; none of the supposedly “offensive” tweets did so;
  • The tweets I posted (whether complained of or not) were all posted as part of my “personal or private life”, I having had no professional life after 2008 anyway.

It should be said (without getting too technical) that the Bar Code of Conduct was once a slim volume but has expanded into a fairly lengthy and complex code. Suffice to say that the now-usual “race and religion”, “diversity” etc stuff is now included (and I think that we can be sure what kind of persons drafted those clauses…).

In the past, a barrister’s private life was not justiciable under the Code except in a few carefully-drawn exceptions, the main one being where a barrister had been convicted of a (serious) criminal offence (parking, speeding etc excluded). The new Code, in force for a number of years, kept those boundaries but, crucially, made them advisory only, taking away the cast-iron defence that whatever was complained of had been done in the course of the barrister’s personal or private life.

At the same time, the old and sensible distinction between barristers who are in practice, or who are employed as barristers, as against those not practising, or not employed as barristers, was removed in relation to “Core Duty 5”, i.e. in effect “bringing the Bar into disrepute”.

In short, I was, in effect, “bringing the Bar into disrepute”, or so decided a Bar Tribunal panel of 5 chaired by a retired Circuit judge, when (6+ years AFTER having given up Bar practice) I tweeted the seven *reduced at Tribunal to five) “offensive” tweets (on my Twitter account that made no mention in its profile etc that I had ever been a barrister).

I should say that the presiding judge made the point in his summation and sentencing that I had had an unblemished record at the Bar throughout the years since I was Called in 1991.

Other barristers had and have Twitter accounts. Some post obscene comments, such as the “lady” QC whose every sentence contained a swear word. Many have pictures of themselves in wig and gown, or advertise their practices via website links etc (which is now OK but would have been a serious Bar offence only 20 years or so ago). None of those who have used obscene language etc (including telling people to “fuck off” etc) has ever been hauled before a Bar Tribunal, despite their proclaiming their professional status, despite having photos of themselves in Bar clothing in some cases, despite their being in practice at the Bar and talking about it and the law constantly. The presiding judge at my 5-person Tribunal called my case “unprecedented”.

There are so many examples today of barristers doing things which would have meant disbarment decades ago but which are now laughed at and even applauded. We see, for example, the Jewish barrister known to the public as “Judge Rinder” (not in fact any kind of judge) on TV, the show aping that of (also Jewish) “Judge Judy” in the USA. The barrister who plays the role of “Judge Rinder” is acting entirely within the ambit of what is now tolerated by the Bar regulators, but one could not imagine such a show on TV in, say, 1967 or even 1987.

That is even leaving aside the vulgar advertizing and self-promotion undertaken by members of the Bar in practice. That was not permitted until the 1990s. The following example of a Bar defaulter was also one of the most shameless self-promoters.

Now let us look at how the Bar treated so-called “celebrity barrister” Henry Hendron, who, despite being a horrible little bastard –from what I have heard on radio and read in newspapers (I have never met him, admittedly)–, was treated very leniently by the Bar Tribunal, certainly as contrasted with my case.

Hendron supplied so-called “chemsex” drugs, apparently used in gay orgies, to his 18-y-o foreign boyfriend, who died as a result.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/

Hendron was ALSO found guilty, on his own admission, of failing to administer properly his chambers (which he headed as Head of Chambers) and in respect of that was fined £2,000, a trivial sum for someone who made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year.

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/barrister-henry-hendron-suspended-for-three-years-following-criminal-convictions-for-supplying-illegal-drugs/

So the Bar Standards Board and a Bar Tribunal think that a barrister and indeed head of chambers who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of supplying illegal drugs for immoral purposes, and that supply having resulted in death (within the Temple itself at that!) AND failing to run his chambers properly should get suspended from practice for three years (in fact only two, because time was ruled to run from 2016!) and get a modest fine, whereas I, “found guilty” of having tweeted five (reduced at hearing from seven charged) supposedly “offensive” tweets about Jews, and not a practising or employed barrister at all, had to be disbarred! You really could not make it up.

This is what the Bar Standards Board official , Sara Jagger, Director of Professional Conduct, said about the Hendron case:

“A conviction for supplying illegal drugs is a serious matter. In this case, it had tragic consequences. Mr Hendron failed to meet one of the core duties of a barrister, which is to uphold public trust and confidence. The suspension imposed by the tribunal reflects this.”

This is what the same woman said about my case:

“The use of such offensive language is incompatible with the standards expected of barristers. The Tribunal rightly found that such behaviour diminishes the trust and confidence the public places in the profession and the decision to disbar Mr Millard reflects this.”

The Board’s press statement (still on its website today) also repeated the lie that my Twitter account “made it clear that” I was a barrister. An out and out lie.

Who, I wonder, would the public think less properly able to reflect the standards expected of a barrister? A snivelling, drug-taking degenerate, convicted of illegal drug supply resulting in death, and who also ran his chambers improperly, OR someone who, as part of his non-professional life and indeed post-professional life, posted seven supposedly “offensive” tweets (taking them as described by the Bar Tribunal)?

You decide.

Postscriptum: The BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme interviewed Henry Hendron in a very sympathetic way recently; the popular Press handled the story with a relatively light touch. Contrast that with the day or three of msm storm around my case last year! We can see the way society is going: downhill, fast.

Update, 26 January 2019

Now he is or has been selling “legal packages”! Perhaps he could set up a stall or barrow in one of the London street markets? Is the Bar Standards Board OK with this? Is the Bar itself OK with this?! I begin to think that the whole bloody system should be chucked into the mire…

https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/05/suspended-chemsex-barrister-sells-4000-legal-advice-for-life-on-facebook/

And what is one to make of this? He now intends to sail around the world! Hello sailor! He even has the cheek to solicit donations from the public! As for his hypocrisy, in pretending to be a “victim” of “unequal justice” when he has been treated so incredibly leniently compared to me (read the blog article, above!), words fail me…(his crowdfunding page from August 2018 raised….just £40. Seems that the public are not so stupid after all). [Update, June 2019: Hendron has now deleted all his blog posts about sailing around the world with a bumboy etc and seems to be intending to use his website to flog more “legal services”]

https://henryhendron.com/

According to the blog below, he set off in August 2018, not knowing how to sail, and had to be rescued by the Coastguard the same day…then set off again a day later…The blog writer wants him to give up his “suicidal” journey. Seems that Hendron has one friend, anyway. [see above update, however]

https://www.russelldawkinsbackontrack.co.uk/my-mates/

In fact, it seems that he survived at least until 4 September 2018 (see his blog, below). What appals me about it is the poor grammar, spelling, use of English generally. That such a person was not only treated better than me by the Bar “regulators”, but was at the Bar at all, makes me fume (almost literally). Incidentally, and as of September last year, he had managed to get as far round the globe as Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, having started off in…the Isle of Wight or the nearby Hampshire coast.

https://henryhendron.com/author/hhendron/

[see update above]

I have to wonder, looking at his obviously disordered mind and his poor use of the English language, whether there really are mugs stupid enough to want to retain him on any basis. He asks for £600 an hour. Apparently, in the past his services were utilized by Nadine Dorries MP! Comedy gold.

Ah, seems that Hendron is no longer sailing around the world, unless his navigation is up the creek (literally)…he’s in Romania! https://twitter.com/henryhendron/status/1079764170…

[again, please refer to update, above]

or was, as of New Year’s Eve. Listening to him, I have to admit that I start to feel sorry for him, so pathetic is he. Compassion is my weakness, often.

A Few Stray Bits of News

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4618544/Celebrity-barrister-fighting-sibling-court.html

a dissatisfied client of Hendron having his or her say… 

https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1007513247224877056

https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1046465514736881664

Update, 15 March 2019

Now he is on Question Time! (ironically, I agree with most of what he is saying!)

https://twitter.com/BenJolly9/status/1106535042115870726

Update, 10 May 2019

Just noticed this (see below). Made me laugh that a young (?) lady calling herself @pussycatt1984 tweeted that she wanted to have the babies of “pink jumper man”. She might be disappointed…

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/drug-suspension-barrister-goes-viral-after-pro-brexit-rant-on-bbc-question-time/

Update, 21 July 2019

The online legal news site, Legal Cheek, reports on Henry Hendron’s return to Bar practice, presumably operating from home or his boat (if he still has it):

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/06/henry-hendron-returns-to-practice-three-years-after-drug-conviction/#.XQZ78yEYw-k.twitter

Another barrister does not sound very thrilled at the news (or at Hendron being described in a “newspaper” as “QC”!)…

https://twitter.com/darrylcherrett/status/1140896761294270465

Quite. Rather a shame, though, that Cherrett apparently does not know the difference between “practise” (as in “to practise”) and “practice” (as in “his practice is criminal”). Still, I suppose that one could be broadminded or charitable and say that, in the USA, the words are reversed…I should not want to be too much of what some call “a grammar nazi”…Oh, fuck it! Why not?! I am sick and tired of semi-educated or narrowly-educated people at the Bar (especially..) and elsewhere in good positions in this sliding country! The Bar, journalism, msm generally, Westminster.

In fact, reverting to Hendron, I was just reading a few of his recent tweets. He is at least not too bad from the political point of view:

and he seems to be an animal lover, so not all bad in that respect either, having retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1108377430962696193

Update, 30 July 2019

Seems that Hendron has yet again been suspended from Bar practice, though only for 3 months:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/chemsex-barrister-suspended-again-by-tribunal/5071174.article

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/07/henry-hendron-suspended-again/

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/barrister-henry-hendron-ordered-to-be-suspended-from-practice/

So Hendron

  • supplied illegal drugs to his foreign teenage boyfriend;
  • as a result of which the boy died;
  • at a “chemsex” orgy held
  • within the precincts of the Temple in London;
  • as a result of which Hedron and others were convicted and sentenced
  • at the Old Bailey

and

  • also found guilty at Bar Disciplinary Tribunal of failing to run his Chambers (of which he was Head) properly

and now also has been found guilty by a BDT of

  • failing to pay a lay client monies
  • despite having been ordered to by the Legal Ombudsman

but instead of being disbarred, has once again been only suspended. He must really have some good contacts in the Bar establishment! Or does he “know too much”?

Still, he only did what is chronicled above (oh, and sold so-called “legal packages” to the public from a metaphorical barrow), all of which have been in the newspapers. It is not as if Hendron did something really bad, like tweeting a few critical remarks about Jews…

I was looking at a few of Hendron’s tweets from 2016 and 2017. Only semi-literate. Does he claim to have dyslexia or something? No wonder that the Bar has lost most of the prestige it had half a century ago. It is just a multikulti dustbin now.

Update, 2 September 2019

Jew-Zionist hypocrite Simon Myerson Q.C. belongs to both main organizations that have persecuted me, “UK Lawyers for Israel” and “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [“CAA”]. Now he is playing the Jewish “victim” because others are trying to get him disbarred for his tweets etc…Ha ha! What goes around comes around.

It must be yet another case of “anti-Semitism”!…Another Jew hypocrite. Myerson was one of those who conspired to have me expelled from the Bar, and he has been both snooping on me and trolling me on Twitter for a decade.

Ha ha!

Update, 25 October 2019

“They” are still mentioning me online, really getting “full value”…

https://antisemitism.uk/new-guidance-from-bar-standards-board-tells-barristers-to-avoid-heated-social-media-spats/

Update, 5 January 2021

Henry Hendron wins appeal against second suspension

“Mr Justice Fordham wrote: “[T]he BSB’s position is that a barrister whose practising certificate has been suspended is not a ‘BSB regulated person’”, adding that “I have heard no argument and seen no analysis to the contrary.”

The judge praised the BSB and its barrister, Zoe Gannon, for telling him about the “suspended-barrister problem” even though it cost them the case. Hendron himself “had not identified it or relied on it in his grounds of appeal”.“

“Hendron himself had not identified it…“, Well, it is well known that “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client“. I would not want his barrister to represent me, though! Semi-literate, and unable to identify legal issues, as well as morally suspect in various ways.

I should remind myself and my blog readers that the purpose here is not to attack Hendron but to show up the Bar itself, and to highlight the injustice to which I was subject.

I saw a few tweets from Hendron:

The “Crime Bar“?! As I said, semi-literate…

More?

I don’t care if he does claim “dyslexia”; if so, he should never have become a barrister.

As for this, what is one to make of it?

“Your“? (Should be “you’re” or “you are“, of course). Calls his chambers his “office”, and seems to be in a position to pay someone up to £60,000 p.a.! Not sure that I believe a word that he says, though.

An older tweet, from 2011:

The Petersham Hotel? All human life must have been there! I certainly have been, though in the 1980s. “SS Headquarters Normandie”, as my friends and I used to call it! https://www.petershamhotel.co.uk/. Used to be a good place for a quiet drink.

Update, 3 February 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9220171/Barrister-40-tells-misconduct-hearing-charges-against-rubbish.html

Looks like Hendron has finally run out of road. Not that I was ever personally hostile to him; I have never met him, and indeed only heard of him after the scandal involving his “drugs and sex” activities came to light in the Press a few years ago. My aim in the blog was to compare his very lenient treatment by the Bar with the totalitarian repression that bore down on me because I said (on Twitter) a few supposedly “offensive” things about Jews.

Update, 20 March 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9376997/Barrister-40-dealt-chemsex-pills-represented-client-banned.html

Update, 16 May 2021

Lest anyone think that the Hendron matters have been the only ones where leniency has been egregrious as compared to my own case, take a look at this report from 2019: https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/12/controversial-barrister-suspended-for-two-years-over-obscene-tweets/.

“Controversial barrister” merely “suspended” for 2 years. In my case, I tweeted general socio-political comments in 5 specified tweets. Contrary to the lying statement put out by the BSB, I did not “identify” myself in any of them, nor on my Twitter profile, as a barrister. My tweets were not “addressed” to any particular person, either. Sentence? Disbarment.

“Controversial barrister” Barbara Hewson? Merely suspended for 2 years:

“A controversial barrister has been suspended for two years for “obscene” and “abusive” language on social media” [Legal Cheek magazine]

“Her social media activity has drawn attention for many years. In 2015, Legal Cheek reported several examples of tweets sent from Hewson’s Twitter account telling people to “grow up you cunt” and “get off my tits, you cunts”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]

“[Sarah] Phillimore has said that Hewson’s past behaviour included telling her “fuck off” and calling her a “nasty C**t” and “continually making references to my daughter when she knows full well that her tweets are ‘liked’ and ‘retweeted’ by at least one convicted and unrepentant paedophile”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]

In fact, the sentence was reduced later to suspension for 1 year, because Ms. Hewson was suffering from terminal cancer, and died of it in 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Hewson]. That does not vitiate my point about the earlier leniency.

The difference between my case and hers (apart from the fact that I did not address comments to any named individual, posted only 5 tweets complained of at Tribunal, did not post anything obscene or threatening, and did not identify myself in those tweets or on my Twitter profile as a barrister)? Jews. I mentioned Jews and their behaviour etc; Ms. Hewson did not.

Any fair-minded observer would surely conclude that Ms. Hewson’s defaults (like those of Henry Hendron) were far worse than mine; indeed, I committed no default anyway, as far as I am concerned.

Pro-Jewish bias meant bias against me.

Also:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625043/Barrister-dealt-chemsex-pills-killed-boyfriend-avoids-struck-off.html

Update, 28 August 2022

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/barrister-dealing-drugs-henry-hendron-court-nadine-dorries-b1021206.html

“A barrister who has represented Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and Apprentice winner Stella English has been charged with encouraging a client to supply drugs.

Henry Hendron, 41, whose rostrum of well-known past clients also includes the Earl of Cardigan, is facing allegations he bought crystal meth and party drug GBL.”

Please continue to monitor this blog post for further updates…

Update, 8 October 2022

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/barrister-nadine-dorries-woolwich-crown-court-london-dagenham-b1030813.html

“A barrister accused of encouraging his client to supply drugs has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Henry Hendron, who previously represented high-profile figures including the Earl of Cardigan and Nadine Dorries, is alleged to have bought crystal meth and GBL.

The 41-year-old represented himself, and barrister Kerry Broome was prosecuting, as he appeared at Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London on Thursday.

Wearing a grey suit and striped shirt, he pleaded not guilty to all counts.“

[Evening Standard].

Update, 14 March 2023

I have no idea what was the result of Hendron’s latest trial; it may have been deferred, as many have been in the past few years.

Whatever the fact of that, I notice that Hendron still has a Bar Practice Certificate, valid until April 2023! See https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/28719507B95237D35C7E529721FB5145.html.

Update, 19 March 2023

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-barrister-chemsex-death-case-29495008.

As previously noted, Hendron is still being described, risibly, as a “top barrister“! I have blogged more than once about how, for tabloid scribblers, there are only two types of barrister, “top” and “disgraced” (or both?).

Update, 17 June 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/13/judge-jails-barrister-who-tried-to-buy-drugs-from-two-men-he-represented

Well, there we are…

As said previously, I have no personal animus against Hendron (whom I never encountered). I just think that he has no reasonably-good ability, in that he is unable to reason clearly, cannot spell or use the English language properly, and overall should never have been at the Bar. Also, I still think that, until this week, he was treated very leniently by the Bar establishment, whereas I was treated very badly (and contrary to law), and that because the Bar and Bench always seem to run scared of the Jewish lobby these days.

Update, 1 September 2023

Note: https://news.sky.com/story/barrister-ian-millard-disbarred-for-offensive-anti-jewish-tweets-10635920

Addendum: In respect of the above:

“He was jailed for 14 months by Judge Mann after previously admitting two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs, one similar charge involving class C drugs, and possession of a class A drug.

Mann described Hendron as “clearly bright and capable”, adding: “It is clear you are a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”

“I want to make it clear that it is not the fact that you are a barrister that is so serious.

“What is so serious is these offences have been committed by you in the context of you asking those you represent, or represented, to supply you with drugs.”

The said Judge Mann called Hendron “clearly bright and capable” and that he is or was “a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”

Read my above blog. Would the assessment of Hendron by Judge Mann be yours? It is not mine.

Hendron was sentenced to 14 months, so will be released, at latest, after 7 months, i.e. on or before 1 April 2024; April Fools’ Day.

Update, 17 April 2024

I happened to see the Evening Standard report below, which tells the story of how Hendron’s appeal has just now been dismissed:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/disgraced-barrister-henry-hendron-bought-drugs-from-clients-loses-appeal-bid-b1151568.html

Apparently, “The Court of Appeal noted that Hendron had not been disbarred after that conviction, noting “unusual and very serious” feature of his case.“

Ambiguous. Does that mean that Hendron’s not having been disbarred was an “unusual and very serious feature” of the case, or was he not disbarred because there was some (unspecified) “unusual and very serious feature” in the matter? The way I read the (nowadays, typically) semi-literate newspaper report, the former seems to be the case.

Anyway, there it is. On the face of it, Hendron, when released (he may already have been released) can resume, it seems, his Bar career, if he can find any clients.

Update, 20 May 2025

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/resources/press-releases/barrister-henry-hendron-ordered-to-be-disbarred.html

Well, that’s that, then (finally). I only today noticed that Hendron was disbarred last year, only months after the last update to this blog post.