Category Archives: Uncategorized

Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, Ian Millard, Jez Turner, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

Are the UK Police the New Lawmakers? Where Are the Limits of the Law?

9 Comments

My attention was caught by the Daily Mail report below.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6500245/Thames-Valley-Police-not-punish-caught-heroin-cocaine-controversial-scheme.html

In fact, the practice of not arresting or charging those caught with various “illegal” drugs has been going on for years in the UK. The Thames Valley force may have extended it to a previously unheard-of extent but the rot (if that is what it is) set in decades ago, when some police chiefs decided that the terribly-valuable time of their officers was wasted in arresting persons found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Subject to correction, I believe that it was London Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick [see Notes, below] who, as Borough Commander of the bandit country which included Brixton, first introduced the policy.

Let’s pause right there. A police officer —fairly senior, so be it— decides, arbitrarily, that he is not going to enforce a law, or not always going to do so. There are arguments to be made in favour of decriminalizing some (or all) now-generally-illegal drugs, but that is a decision for the legislature, Parliament, to make, not a police officer.

Now there has always been a measure of “police discretion”, as when (forgive any possible anachronism around a policeman actually patrolling an area and so actually being in a position to catch someone doing something forbidden) a policeman finds a child “scrumping” (technically, stealing) apples or pears from an orchard or garden, that policeman then deciding to deliver a stern on-the-spot warning rather than arresting the child. Likewise, the motorist getting a ticking-off from a traffic cop rather than a speeding ticket for travelling a few miles per hour over the set limit. However, the examples given are minor crimes by any estimation. Possessing forbidden drugs may be considered minor by some, but not by most, even today. That becomes even more so when the drugs are “harder” than marijuana.

There is the other point that a distinction can be made between a policeman deciding to exercize discretion in a particular case, and a policeman (at higher level) deciding not to enforce certain laws as a matter of his own decision and in the geographic area under his command.

This is of course a grey area, but it is troubling when a police force decides, on its own initiative, to abrogate the plain words of valid legislation. True, there are many laws still on the statute books which are no longer applied, crimes which are no longer prosecuted, but they are mostly those which have fallen into desuetude by reason of effluxion of time: one good example of a crime which has not been prosecuted for several hundred years (if ever) is that of “entering the precincts of Parliament while dressed in a suit of armour”. For other bizarre examples, see the links in the Notes, below.

Those old crimes, still technically criminal but never prosecuted, are an amusement. What, however, about things which are not crimes at all, but which the police, under the influence of political correctness or pressure (usually from the Jewish lobby) have decided to treat as crimes or quasi-crimes? Another grey area? I have blogged previously about how Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to Essex Police (about 2 years ago, in late 2016/early 2017):

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

In that case, the police were notionally acting in pursuance of a wrongheaded, badly-drafted but technically valid and quite recent law: Communications Act 2003, s.127, but were trying to stretch its ambit so that views expressed which were dissenting, dissident, controversial and (according to some Jews, at least) “offensive”, became “grossly offensive” and so could in principle be caught by the Act.

In “my case”, the prosecution never happened because (it now appears) the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] (and at a high level, in Whitehall…) took the commonsense view that a successful prosecution was both unlikely to succeed and not in the public interest. Leaks from the police, however, now make plain that some of their officers were completely in the pocket of an aggressive Jewish-Zionist cabal (the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”); one police officer in particular seems to have acted effectively as an advocate on behalf of the CAA to the CPS, advocating for me and others (persons unknown to me) to be prosecuted. He lost his professional objectivity completely, it seems; thankfully (for me and for the rule of law) he was over-ruled. Bitter herbs for him, perhaps.

The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” is now itself the subject of various police investigations around misuse of its charitable status; also, as some readers will be aware, one of its leading members, Stephen Silverman, was said (it was admitted) in open court (and by the CAA’s own lawyer) to have been an anonymous (pseudonymous) and sadistic Internet troll who stalked various women online.

More recently, in Summer 2018, I was harassed by a police constable based at Barnet, North London (which is effectively occupied territory), at the behest of a Jewish woman who had been firmly put in her place by Andrew Torba, CEO of the online GAB platform. That Jewish individual had demanded that Torba remove various accounts from his GAB platform (which is based in USA and Caribbean) and she had had the gall to threaten Torba online and publicly with “Scotland Yard”! Torba posted all the conversation on GAB and told her in very blunt terms to, er, “get lost”! Many GAB and Twitter account-holders also told her to “get lost”!

I was accused of having reposted one reply to that woman from Torba (which repost would in fact not be a crime in the UK anyway), but that did not stop PC…well, let’s just call him Plod…from sending me an (undated!) “Warning Notice” re. “harassment”, which under English law has to consist of at least two incidents, both of which have to be unlawful, whereas here was one (alleged) incident and that entirely lawful even on its face!

It was clear to me that the Jewish Zionist woman complainant, smarting from the whipping given to her online by Andrew Torba, had decided to make an entirely malicious complaint against me. I should add that she is or was a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and at one time used to tweet prolifically and negatively about me. The point is that the police should have realized that her complaint was both malicious and had no basis at all in law. They did not. They chose not to. Very alarming…

It is worrying when the police not only do not know the law they purport to be applying, but actually try to continue to insist that what is not the law actually is! Plod not only telephoned me at least once, but emailed me intimidatingly (as he thought) and, as said, sent a semi-literate, undated and completely ineffective (legally ineffective) “Warning Notice” to me.

What made that incident worse was the feeling that the police in Barnet were running wild and were not acting properly under law. I heard (though this was never confirmed) that “the said Jewish woman” is the ex-wife of one of the “Shomrim” faux-police or private Jewish police, who are based, it has been said online (correctly or not), at the building(s) of the Barnet Police! A private tribal militia operating out of London police stations? It would have been thought incredible only a few years ago.

I could have taken the above-mentioned matter further via official complaint against PC Plod, who, in my view, came close to committing “misconduct in a public office”, but contented myself with writing a detailed letter both to the Borough Commander in Barnet and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Even then, after some time, Plod harassed me via email once more! Only when I provided a face-saving way for him to get lost, did he.

I perceive a degree of drift here: the police deciding not to apply some laws on a blanket basis, in other cases as good as making up the law as they go along. Taken further, those tendencies could together collapse the rule of law in the UK entirely.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Paddick,_Baron_Paddick

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3107160/No-armour-Parliament-never-handle-salmon-suspiciously-drunk-pub-ILLEGAL-Bizarre-Medieval-laws-stand-Britain-today.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-strangest-weird-laws-enforced-christopher-sargeant-sturgeon-armour-a7232586.html

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/overview/witchcraft/

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06411

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/03/police-harassment-warning-notices-diane-louise-jordan

http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/revealed-how-britains-leading-jews-lobbied-prime-minister-to-block-faurisson-and-leuchter/

Update, 24 January 2019

https://www.infowars.com/uk-hate-crime-police-investigate-mans-thinking-after-he-criticized-transgenderism/

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/humberside-police-transgender-twitter-thinking-2466084

Update, 20 May 2019

I saw a couple of Peter Hitchens articles…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7019091/PETER-HITCHENS-country-slowly-choked-death-rights-wrongdoers.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6993553/PETER-HITCHENS-time-view-police-just-like-failed-industries.html

and this: it seems that the police now see fit to interfere in actual elections!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7046749/Politicians-tone-Euro-vote-speeches-avoid-stoking-hate-crime-says-police-chief.html

Alt-Right, basic income, Brexit, environment, ethnostate, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

The Exploding UK

4 Comments

“The population of the United Kingdom is considered an example of a population that has undergone demographic transition – that is, the transition from a (typically) pre-industrial population with high birth and mortality rates and slow population growth, through a stage of falling mortality and faster rates of population growth, to a stage of low birth and mortality rates with, again, lower rates of population growth. This population growth through ‘natural change’ has been accompanied in the past two decades by growth through net international migration into the United Kingdom.” [Wikipedia]

I recently saw a pro-immigration poster put out, I think, by some trade union in the NHS. It said that the group of people shown on the poster (mostly but not all black/brown) were all NHS personnel who had come to the UK from other countries. The poster also said that, in the London Borough of Haringey, where the group had been photographed, there were (in round figures) some 82,000 persons who had come from other countries to the UK. The implication was that only thus is the (in Britain, near-sacred) NHS able to function.

Well, I am, in principle, pro-NHS (though I think, with reason, that quite a lot of the NHS system is barely functioning). I have no problem conceding that some of the foreign personnel in the NHS are excellent (though some others are hopeless). I am aware that the NHS has always been a major recruiter of immigrant labour. However, is that the whole story (as pro-Remain, pro-immigration people always pretend)? I say not.

The London Borough of Haringey has about 282,000 inhabitants, only 60% of whom are “white British” or Irish. If you were to take away the 82,000 immigrants already mentioned (even disregarding their offspring, and those non-English/Irish etc who are also resident in that borough), you would automatically have something like —and at the very least— something like 20,000 dwelling units available! Now multiply that appropriately across the whole of London, the whole of the UK…An end to the absurd property price valuations, an end to overcrowded hospitals, schools, transport —including roads—, an increase in pay across the board.

There is no doubt that the UK would be better off, the people of the UK would be better off, without the immigrant hordes and their offspring. Yes, on paper, the economy would perhaps be less vibrant, but most of the benefit of that at present goes to a tiny percentage of the population, just as a relatively small number of buy-to-let parasites and speculators profit from the overheated UK property market.

As for foreign NHS personnel, one has to bear in mind that the migration-invasion has placed enormous burdens on the NHS. The balance of convenience is by no means in favour of immigration. Without mass immigration, the UK NHS could easily handle the demand, particularly by training British people as doctors, nurses and ancillary personnel. Fewer British medical staff would leave (to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand etc), thus saving the State the cost of their education and training.

The same is true of all areas of society. Mass immigration penalizes the vast bulk of the British people. Big business loves mass immigration because it increases the number of consumers, results in higher prices for goods and real property, and reduces pay per labour unit.

When I was born in 1956, the UK population was estimated to be around (possibly below) 50 million. In 1990, 34 years later, the estimate was 57 million, a still very considerable increase. In 2018, the estimates have become less accurate because of the huge influxes of “migrants” (migrant-invaders) and their birth-rate, but anywhere from 66 million to 70 million. By, say, 2022? No-one knows. 75 million? This is totally unsustainable. Only those who knew England (especially) in the 1960s can appreciate what a difference and (mostly) a negative difference those extra 20 millions have made to the quality of life, environment etc in the UK and, again, particularly in England.

It is all very well saying that, because of Brexit and the stalling economy, ever-lower pay and State benefits, that the net immigration figure now is “only” about 400,000 a year instead of the half million or more per year in the past 15-20 years, but 400,000 is still the size of a very large town. Also, “net” means not 400,000 in but maybe 800,000 non-Brits in, and 400,000 desperate Brits out, fleeing the multiracial/multicultural society, desperately trying to find a basically white “Aryan” society in which to live (though most scarcely admit that even to themselves).

The UK is exploding and something has to be done.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Haringey#Demographics

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2017

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Mark Lewis, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

More Details About “Mark Lewis Lawyer” and His Abusive Social Media Presence

17 Comments

download

[photo: Mark Lewis, a Jewish Zionist solicitor who has emigrated permanently to Israel. He testified at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal in London —where he was a defendant found guilty on several charges—that at times he did not know what he was doing because of medications prescribed for him]

Some reading this may have already read my blog post about the “trial” of self-publicizing Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, whose Twitter account @mlewislawyer was once @MarkLewisLawyer:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/mark-lewis-lawyer-tries-to-have-part-of-the-case-against-him-thrown-out/

That blog post dates from the first day of the hearing in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal and has been updated to (so far) 12 December 2018.

Now more information has become available about the abuse that [prescription] drug-sozzled Lewis handed out, not only to social-nationalists (like me, who had to block the bastard on Twitter a number of years ago!), not only to supposed “neo-Nazis” (as if their political orientation made death threats acceptable!), but also to a Jewish boy aged only 18! The father of that victim has now revealed some of those details to the Jewish Chronicle:

“Mark Lewis, the solicitor who was ordered to pay £12,500 for sending abusive social media messages to online trolls, also told a young Jewish man he hoped his father “would sit shiva for you soon”, the JC can reveal.”

Note: To “sit Shiva” is a ritual that Jews perform after a death:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_(Judaism)

The Jewish Chronicle report continues:

“Mr Lewis was fined and ordered him to pay thousands in legal costs for “wishing death” on people on social media, many of whom had sent him antisemitic abuse or wished similar on him.” (so he said…)

“The decision prompted outrage in the Jewish community and several crowdfunders quickly raised the money for him.”

“But the JC has seen Facebook posts Mr Lewis wrote to an 18-year-old who was supporting the Labour Party during the 2017 general election campaign, telling him to “f**k off you stupid c**t”, adding that his father “should have worn a condom”.”

“Lawyer sent abuse to [a Jewish] 18-year-old, telling him to ‘f**k off you stupid c**t’. The exchange was one of the allegations that was the subject of a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which has still not published its full judgment. Offensive messages Mr Lewis sent to people who had sent him antisemitic [messages] were reported separately.”

“Mr Lewis responded by saying the SRA was “faced with a choice between Holocaust denying neo-Nazis and a Jewish lawyer… It chose to side with the neo-Nazis”.”

“The father of Mr Lewis’s 18-year-old victim told the JC he came forward with the details because the “record needs to be set straight”.”

“He said he was frustrated Mr Lewis, who made Aliyah last week, was “being treated like a hero” in the wake of the judgment because people believed he had only been abusive to neo-Nazis.”

“The father added: “It was inappropriate behaviour from a solicitor. It was inappropriate for an adult, especially because it was directed towards someone who was only a few days away from legally being a child.”

“And also for someone who is allegedly a voice for the community – you don’t use that sort of language. It was my son, and it was abusive.”

“What frustrated me is that he was being treated like a hero. I want the story to be known that he’s not a good guy and that people shouldn’t give him any money. The record needs to be set straight.”

“[Lewis] blamed his outburst on Clonazepam, a sedative…side effects of which include aggression and hallucinations.”

“Following the ruling, two separate crowdfunding pages were established to support Mr Lewis raising more than £13,000 in total – in excess of his £12,500 costs.”

Notes

Lewis has now emigrated to Israel and is an Israeli citizen.

I intend to blog more fully about this Lewis character in due course.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/revealed-mark-lewis-told-young-jewish-man-he-hoped-his-father-would-sit-shiva-for-you-soon-1.473886

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/mark-lewis-lawyer-tries-to-have-part-of-the-case-against-him-thrown-out/

Some Twitter Reaction:

and here is more: by the way, the “Ian” mentioned in Lewis’s threatening tweet of 4 November 2018 is not me but another Ian. We are legion…

Here we see “Labour Left Voice” noting, satirically and rhetorically, equally abusive and threatening tweets sent by Mandy Gargoyle:

Even some of the actively Zionist Jews in the UK are shaking their heads at Lewis’s behaviour:

In fact, people were talking about Lewis’s abusive tweets etc years ago:

The blog below purports to detail some of Lewis’s lesser known tweets, threats etc: 

https://debatingculture.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/unhinged-mlewislawyer-bile-bullying-slander-threats/

Does Lewis claim to have been in a state of prescription-drug intoxication when tweeting the horrific stuff detailed in that Debating Culture blog above? Was his mind not quite…normal…for some other reason? We do not know.

Update, 16 December 2018

Here below, at the foot of this section, is one of Lewis’s tweets about me, from over 2 years ago. As you, the reader, will see, he refers to me as “failure as a barrister and as a human being”, among other things.

I suppose that most people who read that tweet were unaware of the irony: until Lewis got onto the “phonehacking” wagon, he himself was at rock-bottom. He had parted company with a firm of solicitors in Manchester under unclear circumstances (rather a theme…see below), had been divorced (ditto), and in or about 2009 was only making about £9,000 a year (as he admitted to a newspaper interviewer a few years later). Lewis was not exactly a hot property, as he admitted in a newspaper interview at the time of the “phonehacking” stories:

“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.”

 The phonehacking stuff paid off, and soon Lewis was busily creating a legend as “top lawyer”. Phonehacking work did not last long, of course. Technology moved on and phonehacking is now just a footnote in legal history (it’s a purely UK story anyway: hardly anyone in the USA has heard of it). Lewis left his next firm, in London (where he was a “consultant”), under acrimonious circumstances (he much later sued that firm and they countersued, but it is not publicly known how that ended, the matter presumably having been settled and sealed).

In 2013, Lewis married for the second time, his new wife being one-time local radio presenter Caroline Feraday. “Top lawyer” marries “celebrity” was how Lewis and Feraday presented the event. Stories were seen in the Press about how Lewis “had clients in the USA” to where he and la Feraday would be relocating (to her new apartment in West Hollywood, no less). She, in her turn, seemingly had various Hollywood opportunities lined up, the newsreading public was told.  She already had a part in a TV sitcom arranged —had “been cast” in it—, the gullible (?) readers were told. More than that! She was busy “writing a book”, which was to be turned into a film and “several studios are interested…”* 

Lewis, the Daily Mail’s tame showbiz reporter was told by Feraday, had clients in the U.S. and would “commute” between LA and London. As 1950s people were wont to say, “get you!”…

Lewis and Feraday moved to West Hollywood, flying Virgin Upper Class (well, after all, they were, er, “celebrities”, weren’t they?) to LA. They joined the West Hollywood branch of the Soho House club, on Sunset Boulevard.

https://www.sohohousewh.com/

“Celebrities” have more than a few thousand Twitter followers, of course, so they both “acquired” tens of thousands of new “followers”, Lewis ending up after a week or so with about 80,000! When caught out, Lewis claimed, ludicrously, that he had been “hacked” (yes, that makes sense! Naturally, his enemies would want him to seem more important and influential…oh, no, wait…). The Legal Cheek online news service reported it brilliantly deadpan. Very clever…

https://www.legalcheek.com/2014/06/phone-hacking-lawyers-twitter-gets-hacked-and-he-becomes-most-followed-member-of-uk-legal-profession/

Of course, that would (pretty much) have to mean that someone, for no immediately-obvious reason, also bought tens of thousands of fake Twitter followers in the same week for Lewis’s then wife, Caroline Feraday…[Update, 18 May 2019: Caroline Feraday’s tens of thousands of fake —bought— Twitter “followers” have now dwindled to “13,000” but the real number must be a few thousand at most; a brief look at her tweets https://twitter.com/CarolineFeraday shows that hardly any Twitter users bother to “like” them, let alone retweet or reply. Many have no interaction at all, a few have 1 or 2 “likes”… When I was on Twitter, I had about 3,000 followers (all real) and had many many retweets, likes and replies]. 

Sadly, all that hype seemed to disappear like a mirage in Death Valley. La Feraday never did get into an American sitcom (or if she did,it must have bombed or been pulled immediately…there never was one, I am guessing). I have no idea whether she ever got any part in American film or TV. Her breathless “look at me, people—a celebrity in sunny Hollywood!” Twitter account said nothing (that I saw, anyway) about her getting a acting part, but that is unsurprising. After all, why should an acting part on American TV, or in a film, go to someone without any acting experience and who was nearly 40? The supposed book deals and film options also vanished without trace.

OK Magazine had already described Caroline Feraday as looking “a bit past it” even in 2010! https://www.ok.co.uk/lifestyle/356263/samsung-pink-ribbon-celebration-best-and-worst-on-the-pink-carpet

As for Lewis, his brave new Californian world crumbled into ashes. American lawyers soon realized that Lewis (unlike, er, me) had never qualified at the Bar of any American state and so was not qualified to practise in California (or any other state). Those lawyers made sure that the California Bar was aware of the foregoing. The upshot (whatever the causes…and I have heard a few stories) was that the marriage foundered after only a year (including a few months in LA) and Lewis returned to the UK in 2014 with his tail between his legs.

By the following year, Lewis had joined the well-known London law firm, Seddons, as a partner. At the time, I was surprised that Seddons had taken him on, but there it is. He left in 2018, just as it became known that he was coming up for “trial” in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (where he was found guilty on all charges). Seddons’ statement was that Lewis had resigned as a partner because of his upcoming “aliyah” (emigration) to Israel (he is now an Israeli citizen).

Lewis’s second ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, stayed on in LA, did some amateur comedy appearances there and a few 2-minute reports about the Oscars etc for the UK local TV news show, BBC South-East Today (cheaper than actually sending someone, I suppose), and eventually had a child in 2017 by another man.

Lewis is now an Israeli citizen and resident (he has or had a flat there). He is not now a partner or employee of any law firm in the UK and has stated that he will not seek admission to whatever Bar may exist in Israel. He has a degenerative progressive medical condition and is, apparently, on medication.

[note: much material about Lewis, including some newspaper coverage, particularly about his marriage to and divorce from Feraday, has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet, or at least from Google searches].

I wonder about whom this recent tweet by Caroline Feraday was…

It should be added that, for someone with (supposedly) 13,000 Twitter followers, Caroline Feraday very rarely seems to get retweeted or even “liked”. I have never quite understood why people buy Twitter followers. She had about 5,000 one week, in about 2011 or 2012, then, in the course of a week or so, suddenly jumped to about 55,000! Lewis’s Twitter follower-count jumped from about 7,000 or 8,000 to nearly 80,000 (in the same couple of weeks). Still, Caroline Feraday is at least an animal lover, which counts for something (with me, anyway).

* Irony klaxon (re. tweet below)…

Further thoughts, 17 December 2018

In another tweet from a year or two ago, Lewis referred to me as, inter alia, “a sad unemployable git”. Well, we have seen that until he tapped into the “phonehacking” racket, he himself was virtually unemployable at the age of 40-something (and even Taylor Hampton, the law firm which brought the phonehacking claims, would not make him a partner but only retained him as “consultant”).

[above, Lewis’s tweet, not the first either, about me having been disbarred at the instigation of the UK Jew-Zionist lobby. His tweet was posted six months after the disbarment and is purely abusive. “Dave”, aka “Slatfascists”, is a Twitter troll with mental health problems (and on medication, just like, er, someone else…)].

I might add that my tweets from early 2017 about UKIP are now even more obviously true!

Now look…

Mark Lewis

  • has now been found guilty of serious breaches of the Code of Conduct for solicitors in England;
  • has admitted in his testimony in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal that he at times was unaware of what he said, did or wrote, by reason of ingestion of prescription drugs;
  • has “left” the law firm, Seddons, where he had been a partner for the past 2-3 years, and so is, er…in a word…unemployed;
  • has emigrated permanently to Israel but has stated that he will not be seeking admittance to the Bar of Israel [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Bar_Association];
  • cannot work in any case as a solicitor in England unless approved as such by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority as a sole practitioner or until such time as he is again employed by a law firm (neither seems to be the case at present anyway);
  • presents (eg at Tel Aviv Airport recently, filmed by RT News) a shambling, limping figure, able to walk for short periods using a stick, otherwise having to be pushed around in a wheelchair, his eyes bloodshot, his short statement (at Tel Aviv Airport) almost incoherent.

One has to ask the simple question, “so just who is the sad unemployable git?”...

“What goes around comes around”…

After Lewis’s admissions at his recent Disciplinary Tribunal, I commented, in a previous blog post, that “he is on the way out”. I was too kind. He’s finished.

(I shall probably blog at a later date about some of Lewis’s “forensic triumphs”, such as the Katie Hopkins/Jack Monroe case, but suffice to say right now that a lobotomized student would have been incapable of losing that one…) 

Further Update, 19 December 2018

The Law Society Gazette has now published more news about Lewis and his “trial” in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal etc.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/mark-lewis-judgment-reveals-sdt-considered-reprimand/5068711.article

So much for the “top lawyer” who now seems to be (to use one of Lewis’s insults to me) “an unemployable git”!

Lewis only had to pay a third of the fine considered by the SDT panel because:

“In its full decision published this week the SDT said it eventually came to the conclusion that a reprimand would not be a strong enough punishment and that a fine would be the most appropriate outcome. However, it reduced the fine from an initial estimate of £7,500 to £2,500 on account of Lewis’s financial struggles.”

The disciplinary panel judging and sentencing Lewis considered that:

“In mitigation, the tribunal accepted Lewis’ submission that he had limited means. He did not own his own house and [his] monthly expenses exceeded his liabilities.”

The Law Society Gazette says that the SDT panel added that:

 “Although his former firm Seddons is paying him £10,000 per month before tax this was due to end in March [2019].”

What’s this? The “top lawyer”, “top libel and reputation specialist” etc has “financial struggles”? When for most of the past decade he has been tweeting and telling newspapers all about what a big success he is, with his classic cars and international client-base?

Either Lewis is not quite the “top lawyer” and huge success he has been claiming to be for the past 7+ years, or he was “economical with the truth” at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. One way or another he has been telling what the Cockneys call “porkies”! That’s not very kosher!

So the “top lawyer”, with his supposed millions from the “phonehacking” racket and well-publicized libel cases etc, does not own his own house? (in London— he does have or had an apartment in Israel, according to a newspaper article several years ago).

Still, the fact that the SDT thinks that someone getting (after tax) pay of about £7,000 a month is “financially struggling” says more about London law firms than about Lewis, arguende! (that pay is in fact about the same, in real terms, as I was once paid, when an offshore lawyer many years ago).

The way Lewis managed to bamboozle the UK msm and so the poor duped UK public into believing that he was —or even still is— a “top lawyer” etc reminds me rather of the front once put up by another Jewish Zionist, the not so late and certainly unlamented “Robert Maxwell”, who has now also “relocated” to Israel, though he is not quite in a position to enjoy it. Maxwell never fooled me (even when I was in my late teens, in the mid-1970s); neither has Lewis.

Update, 23 October 2019

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. I thought that (she said) she was a “celebrity”? 15 minutes of fame? She was featured, in the past (in a few London 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. What happened to those properties?

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.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoura_Hills,_California

A reminder of the sort of deranged messages that sick Lewis has sent to people

170217-lewis-die-e1533384703639

marklewislawyer

[above: the most recent photograph of Lewis, taken in London in February 2020]

ds5

Boris Johnson, Conservative Friends of Israel, Deadhead MPs, elections, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

The Race Is On To Replace Theresa May— What Else May Now Happen?

8 Comments

Those who have read my recent blogs on Brexit and Theresa May will have noted that I predicted (in the posts and/or in the Comments sections to the posts) that, if the Commons vote on the Theresa May Brexit “deal” were to go against the Government, as always seemed probable, one likely consequence would be that there would be a revolt among Conservative Party MPs, with the aim of ejecting her from her leadership position. That has now happened, though the Commons vote on the Brexit “deal” has not been taken, and may never be.

Theresa May as Prime Minister

I do not conceal that I am very opposed to Theresa May.

  • She has had passed repressive legislation, both as Prime Minister and in her former office as Home Secretary;
  • She is very pro-Jewish, very pro-Zionist, very pro-Israel and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel;
  • There are indications that she herself may be of partly-Jewish origin;
  • She has continued the Con Coalition (and, even before that, Gordon Brown Labour) demonization of the poor, unemployed and disabled, even to the extent of promoting dishonest and thick-as-two-short-planks Esther McVey to Cabinet as Work and Pensions Secretary;
  • She failed, both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister, to stop or even slow mass immigration;
  • She has shown no strategic grasp.

CnLGOc5XYAALLJd

[Theresa May became Prime Minister after all other candidates “killed” each other]

I will say that, for a few days after having become Prime Minister, Theresa May looked like a slightly better choice than David Cameron-Levita had proven to be. She made statements in the “One Nation Conservative” vein and seemed to be willing to revisit the obviously not-working bits of Con Coalition policy, such as Dunce Duncan Smith’s pathetic and misconceived Universal Credit fiasco. However, it soon turned out that Theresa May had few ideas of her own and yet was completely inflexible.

Theresa May worked for 20 years, before entering Parliament, as a back-room bureaucrat at the BACS cheque-clearing organization. She is out of her depth as Prime Minister (in fact she was no good as Home Secretary either).

Theresa May’s brittle persona, which might be described as “barely-concealed hysterical panic”, disguised under a “Wicked Witch” outer layer, became very apparent during the General Election campaign of 2017. Afraid to show herself in public, even to the limited extent of her predecessors, her “campaign speeches” to carefully-vetted tiny groups in aircraft hangars etc were every bit as fake as those of US Presidents, and were seen as such. Her hysterical “Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!” screech turned her from a perceivedly “solid” Prime Minister to an embattled and weak one. Immediately. The 2017 election was probably lost right there.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/video/2017/may/22/nothings-changed-may-claims-as-she-announces-social-care-u-turn-video

After the 2017 election, Theresa May was a lame duck PM, dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party votes, which were bought at great expense. Without those DUP votes, Theresa May is totally powerless. The EU establishment saw that and has taken full advantage of Theresa May’s political weakness.

How Has Theresa May Survived This Long?

The answer, in my view, is that there has not been seen to be an obvious challenger for her position. She is second-rate. All right, but most of the would-be leaders and prime ministers are third-rate:

  • Clown Prince Boris Johnson: completely unfit for any public office, being acquisitive, greedy, lazy, incompetent, often rather stupid, narrowly-educated, unethical, untrustworthy, callous, as well as cosmopolitan in his origins (part-Jew, part-Turk, a bit of this and a bit of that, born in New York City); Conservative Friends of Israel; a poseur and overall a fake, a £3 note who attempts to present himself as “Prime Minister in Waiting” via an am-dram reprise of Winston Churchill, but with none of the intellectual depth or personal steel; supported Remain but turned coat;
  • Sajid Javid: A Pakistani by origin, cosmopolitan business type by pre-political career; his earnings at time of departure from Deutsche Bank in 2009 are said to have been £3M a year; he owns 4 homes in the UK; someone whose judgment is very questionable, as witness his support for the masked “antifa” thugs (a remarkable stance for someone now posing as Home Secretary!); connected with that is Javid’s doormat-level support for Jews and indeed Zionists —and Israel—; Javid and his English wife took their honeymoon in Israel; member of Conservative Friends of Israel; supporter of American neo-con adventurism and “intervention”; an Ayn Rand devotee…it just gets worse; incompetent in office; supported Remain;
  • Jeremy Hunt: dark horse; smarmy snake type; possible front-runner; multi-millionaire (tens of millions); property speculator; supported Remain, but has turned coat;
  • Michael Gove: has a Jewish or part-Jewish wife, and is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel; one of the most egregious expenses cheats of the pre-2010 Parliament; arguably more intelligent than most of the other likely successors to Mrs May, but often wrongheaded; dishonest; supported Leave;
  • Amber Rudd: member of Conservative Friends of Israel; complete doormat for the Israel/Jewish/Zionist lobby; wants to pass even more repressive laws targeting British patriots etc, making even reading dissident literature online a criminal offence (!); despite her financial services background, pretty thick; incompetent and dishonest in office; personally involved with African and Old Etonian MP, Kwasi Kwarteng; Remain Queen Bee;
  • Philip Hammond: dull but predictable and therefore perceived as “safe”; supported Remain;
  • Dominic Raab: a half-Jew, Raab has worked in diplomatic activity; there have been some controversial news reports about his personal behaviour; supported Leave;
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg: may or may not be a candidate; multi-millionaire and Leave luminary; may not want to give up his big City of London wealth fund operation to become PM, but the lure of the highest office is powerfully magnetic.

The above seem to be the most likely candidates to vie for the succession to Theresa May, if she cannot get 158 MPs to vote for her this evening (50% of the total).

Incredibly, some even less suitable names may want to be on the ballot paper, including

  • sex pest and doormat-for-Israel Stephen Crabb;
  • Esther Mcvey (another, yawn, Conservative Friends of Israel member); an evil associate of Dunce Duncan Smith;
  • dull nobody Andrea Leadsom;
  • even Penny Mordaunt! (but this is a contest for leadership of the Conservative Party, it is not a swimsuit competition…).

It has been the lack of alternative and credible leadership candidates that has kept Theresa May from having to face a leadership challenge; that and the fact that, should she get 158+ MPs to support her, she will be safe from challenge for a year.

At present it seems that about 110 MPs have pledged to support Theresa May, but the ballot is secret, so their support cannot be confirmed or checked. The vote is a Yes/No one.

A month ago, I should have thought (and did think) that Theresa May would win any confidence vote fairly easily, though perhaps not convincingly. Now, I doubt it, though the outcome must still be seen as uncertain. Her authority as PM, let alone as Conservative Party leader, is in shreds. Her power is non-existent, now that the DUP have as good as pulled the rug from under her government. She is disrespected by the EU, the public, her own party. She must surely go. If she does not, the Conservative Party will ebb away to nothing with her.

Life After Theresa May

Life for the UK has become very uncertain. It might even be said that the British are starting to follow Nietzsche’s dictum, and are living dangerously. It seems to be not unlikely that any successor to Theresa May might want to revoke the invocation of Article 50, thereby stopping Brexit in its tracks. After that, a new Referendum could be held. Not that I favour that course of action. I myself should prefer Britain to wake up, kick out the traitors and unwanted cuckoos in our nest, and leave the EU completely, finally. However, I am not Prime Minister.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajid_Javid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hunt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Vine#Expenses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove#Expenses_claims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Rudd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hammond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab

 

 

 

 

 

Update, 12 December 2018

Well, as I have repeatedly written over months and years in this blog, the “glorious uncertainty” of the racecourse is replicated in British politics. I thought, only this afternoon, that the outcome of the no-confidence vote would be close, somewhere around 50-50. In the event, Theresa May won by 200-117, so 63% of Conservative Party MPs backed her or at least were unwilling to get rid of her (at present), as against 37% who voted to dump her.

I see the vote not as MPs having confidence in Theresa May, but in having no confidence in any of the likely candidates vying to replace her.

What Now?

Theresa May now cannot be challenged in any no-confidence vote of her party for a year, i.e. until December 2019.

Theresa May still has no credibility, politically. She still has no chance of any substantial revision of her EU exit “deal”; the DUP are distancing themselves from her, which may completely paralyze her legislative programme (such as it is); she now knows for sure that 117 of her MPs have no confidence in her. In reality, few have confidence in her but are not willing to eject her right now.

Theresa May should realize that, just as she became Conservative Party leader and so Prime Minister by default and not by reason of her own merit, so she has now survived the no-confidence vote for the same reason.

There is uncertainty now as to whether the Brexit “deal”, with minor EU concessions as a figleaf, will be put to the House of Commons soon (or at all). As for revoking Article 50, that seems to be not unlikely, perhaps if any revised Brexit “deal” is voted down by the Commons, whatever Theresa May now says.

We must never forget that ZOG/NWO wants the UK to either stay in the EU or to leave the EU but on a basis of effectively still being tied to it.

Afterthought, 14 December 2018

It may be thought surprising that I left out the name of David Davis from the list of possible leaders. Back in 2008, I predicted that he might return to government as Cabinet minister and even Prime Minister. I have subsequently been proven correct in the first part; as to the second, that is now unlikely though (things being what they are…) not impossible. Davis is now 69, but the main obstacle to his being elected as Conservative Party leader and notionally then Prime Minister is that he is for Leave, most MPs are for Remain. That, and his more traditional type of Conservatism.

Update, 15 December 2018

“It’s over. If Brexit happens at all – and for the first time I’m beginning to think it won’t – it will be on terms that keep the worst aspects of EU membership. Britain will be humbled in the eyes of the world, having tried to recover its independence and been faced down. The largest popular vote in our history will be disregarded, and the nation that exported representative government exposed as an oligarchy. Plus – and I know this sounds almost trivial next to those calamities, but it matters to me – the Conservative Party might never recover.” [Daniel Hannan MEP, in the Daily Telegraph]

Update, 1 April 2019

Incredibly, Liz Truss, who only became an MP on her back, is now spoken of as a potential Conservative prime minister! This is madness!

Note

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Truss

Update, 3 February 2023

Well, now we know that, in between 2019 and now, Britain had to endure 3 years of shambolic “Boris” Johnson, followed by 6 weeks of Liz Truss, “ably” supported by Woollyhead Trussbanger (Kwasi Kwarteng), who together managed to tip the UK into a downward economic spiral in only a few weeks.

Now we have diminutive Indian former money-juggler, Rishi Sunak, as “Prime Minister”. This is not looking good.

Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Mark Lewis, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

“Mark Lewis Lawyer” Disciplinary Case— now updated

10 Comments

Readers of this blog may have seen my quite recent post about Jew and Zionist “Mark Lewis Lawyer”.

Lewis was found guilty by a Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal and is now an Israeli citizen living in Israel!

Please find below that post of 23 November 2018, now updated to 11 December 2018. Some of the considerable backlash against Lewis’s behaviour has been both amusing and interesting.

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/mark-lewis-lawyer-tries-to-have-part-of-the-case-against-him-thrown-out/

download

[Lewis]

Update, 16 December 2018

Here below, at the foot of this section, is one of Lewis’s tweets about me, from over 2 years ago. As you, the reader, will see, he refers to me as “failure as a barrister and as a human being”, among other things.

I suppose that most people who read that tweet were unaware of the irony: until Lewis got onto the “phonehacking” wagon, he himself was at rock-bottom. He had parted company with a firm of solicitors in Manchester under unclear circumstances (rather a theme…see below), had been divorced (ditto), and in or about 2009 was only making about £9,000 a year (as he admitted to a newspaper interviewer a few years later). Lewis was not exactly a hot property, as he admitted in a newspaper interview at the time of the “phonehacking” stories:

“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.”

The phonehacking stuff paid off, and soon Lewis was busily “creating a legend” as “top lawyer”. The phonehacking stuff did not last long of course. Technology moved on and phonehacking is now just a footnote in legal history (it’s a purely UK story anyway: hardly anyone in the USA has heard of it). Lewis left his next firm, in London (where he was a “consultant”), under acrimonious circumstances (he much later sued that firm and they countersued, but it is not publicly known how that ended, the matter presumably having been settled and sealed).

Lewis married, in 2013, one-time local radio presenter Caroline Feraday. “Top lawyer marries celebrity”, or at least that is how the narrative went. Stories were seen in the Press about how Lewis “had clients in the USA” to where he and la Feraday would be relocating (to her new apartment in West Hollywood, no less). She, in her turn, seemingly had various Hollywood opportunities lined up, the newsreading public was told.  She already had a part in a TV sitcom arranged —had “been cast” in it—, the gullible (?) readers were told. More than that! She was busy “writing a book”, which was to be turned into a film and “several studios are interested…”

Lewis, the Daily Mail’s tame showbiz reporter was told by Feraday, had clients in the U.S. and would “commute” between LA and London. As 1950s people were wont to say, “get you!”…

Lewis and Feraday moved to West Hollywood, flying Virgin Upper Class (well, after all, they were, er, “celebrities”, weren’t they?) to LA. They joined the West Hollywood branch of the Soho House club, on Sunset Boulevard.

https://www.sohohousewh.com/

“Celebrities” have more than a few thousand Twitter followers, of course, so they both “acquired” tens of thousands of new “followers”, Lewis ending up after a week or so with about 80,000!

When caught out, Lewis claimed, ludicrously, that he had been “hacked” (yes, that makes sense! Naturally, his enemies would want him to seem more important and influential…oh, no, wait…). The Legal Cheek online news service reported it brilliantly deadpan. Very clever…

Phone hacking lawyer’s Twitter gets hacked — and he becomes most followed member of UK legal profession

Of course, that would (pretty much) have to mean that someone, for no immediately-obvious reason, also bought tens of thousands of fake Twitter followers in the same week for Lewis’s then wife, Caroline Feraday…

Sadly, all that hype seemed to disappear like a mirage in Death Valley. La Feraday never did get into an American sitcom (or if she did,it must have bombed or been pulled immediately…there never was one, I am guessing). I have no idea whether she ever got any part in American film or TV. Her breathless “look at me, people—a celebrity in sunny Hollywood!” Twitter account said nothing (that I saw, anyway) about her getting an acting part, but that is unsurprising. After all, why should an acting part on American TV, or in a film, go to someone without any acting experience, and who was nearly 40? The supposed book deals and film options also vanished without trace.

OK Magazine had already described Caroline Feraday as looking “a bit past it” even in 2010! https://www.ok.co.uk/lifestyle/356263/samsung-pink-ribbon-celebration-best-and-worst-on-the-pink-carpet

As for Lewis, his brave new Californian world crumbled into ashes. American lawyers soon realized that Lewis (unlike, er, me) had never qualified at the Bar of any American state and so was not qualified to practise in California (or any other state). Those lawyers made sure that the California Bar was aware of the foregoing. The upshot (whatever the causes…and I have heard a few stories) was that the marriage foundered after only a year (including a few months in LA) and Lewis returned to the UK in 2014 with his tail between his legs.

By the following year, Lewis had joined the well-known London law firm, Seddons, as a partner. At the time, I was surprised that Seddons had taken him on, but there it is. He left in 2018, just as it became known that he was coming up for “trial” in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (where he was found guilty on all charges). Seddons’ statement was that Lewis had resigned as a partner because of his upcoming “aliyah” (emigration) to Israel (he is now an Israeli citizen).

Lewis’s second ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, stayed on in LA, did some amateur comedy appearances there and a few 2-minute reports about the Oscars etc for the UK local TV news show, BBC South-East Today (cheaper than actually sending someone, I suppose), and eventually had a child in 2017 by another man.

Lewis is now an Israeli citizen and resident (he has or had a flat there). He is not now a partner or employee of any law firm in the UK and has stated that he will not seek admission to whatever Bar may exist in Israel. He has a degenerative progressive medical condition and is, apparently, on medication.

[note: much material about Lewis, including some newspaper coverage, has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet, or at least from Google searches]

What goes around comes around! Lewis is now totally washed up: at his Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal hearing, his Counsel said that his sole assets were “his clothes, a mobility scooter (used by invalids) and a private pension worth £70 a week“! His (as far as I can see, unmerited) £10,000 a month salary (£7,000 net) from Seddons law firm will be cut off in March 2019. His progressive/degenerative medical condition can only deteriorate: in 2013 he looked relatively normal, could walk normally etc, but at present cannot walk without a stick and is usually pushed in a wheelchair; he cannot write; he often seems to think and speak (and write!) incoherently.

Moreover, while Lewis was not removed from the solicitors’ roll (as many thought should have happened), he is not now employed by any UK firm and is not entitled (at least at present) to operate as a sole practitioner in the UK. He has stated that he will not be seeking admission to the Bar of Israel. As a lawyer, he is as good as finished.

Update, 22 February 2019

Incredibly, Lewis quite recently became a “partner” at a small law firm in Notting Hill, London, though he himself is now based in Israel. He appears to be retained by two Jewish mass media women in the UK and is acting on their behalf, threatening legal action against about 70 people in relation to one or two related matters.

Since the above blog post was published in December 2018, much has happened in relation to Lewis. See links below:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/11/update-re-mark-lewis-lawyer-questions-are-raised/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/mark-lewis-lawyer-latest-update/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/20/self-publicizing-supposed-top-lawyer-mark-lewis-full-transcript-of-disciplinary-hearing-judgment-now-released-by-tribunal/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/the-latest-revelations-about-zionist-supposed-top-lawyer-mark-lewis/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/more-details-about-mark-lewis-lawyer-and-his-abusive-social-media-presence/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/mark-lewis-lawyer-tries-to-have-part-of-the-case-against-him-thrown-out/

170217-lewis-die-e1533384703639

Update, 8 March 2019

I shall be interested to see whether the case (is it his only case now?) on which “Mark Lewis Lawyer” is instructed by two msm Jewesses, goes anywhere. It would be wonderful if the two in question were to lose out hugely (financially) from it all, and even better were they to then turn on Israel-based Lewis. Perhaps they should listen to some of Lewis’s former clients, who are less than content with the service he delivered…

https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe/status/1103432273272160256

Click to access lob63-mark-lewis.pdf

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leveson-inquiry-lawyer-mark-lewis-2014441

Update, 23 October 2019

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.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-fees-dealing-with-stalkerharassment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoura_Hills,_California

Update, 15 November 2019

Well, here we are in mid-November 2019. The Guardian report below outlines the case(s) Lewis was suppose to have been preparing against (reportedly) about 70 persons, all (as far as I know) Labour Party supporters.

“One pseudonymous Twitter account responded to Lewis’ request for his contact information: “Your attempts to silence me with threats and intimidation will not work. I will never stop speaking out against the barbaric treatment of the Palestinians by the viciously racist apartheid state of Israel. You, Oberman and Rachel Riley are pathetic. Now fuck off.”“

Subject to further information, it seems to me that they did…

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/21/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-to-take-legal-action-after-twitter-abuse-antisemitism

As can be seen, the Guardian report is dated in late February 2019, but appears to relate to Twitter activity in, as far as I can recall, not myself being involved in the matter(s), November or December of 2018; I think November 2018. Legal action in defamation now has to be taken within a year (it used to be 6 years), so the year in which that action could have been taken has either expired or at least is about to expire).

As usual with Jewish activities, there was a flurry of newspaper noise around these threatened legal cases, more newspaper stuff about how Lewis is or was a “high profile lawyer” (one never sees the less correct “top lawyer” now applied to Lewis), but no suit issued, at least as far as I have seen. In fact, of the “70” “cases” reported on, I have only seen one result in the newspapers, in which the manager of an obscure rock band caved in and apologized to the two Jewish women who are or were Lewis’s clients:

Reverend and the Makers’ Jon McClure apologises for retweeting “defamatory” tweets about Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman

An apology, but no mention of money, though I presume that “legal costs” (i.e. for what letters etc Lewis may have written) were paid.

My guess is that Lewis and his Jew-Zionist clients got nowhere with their “lawfare”. I may be wrong and will keep a weather eye open, but I am pretty sure that this matter has run into the sand one way or another. I would love to know how much Lewis charged the “Showbiz Two” for his services, but that will probably never be revealed. At any rate, Lewis seems to have nothing much else going on (he would have tweeted about anything that made him seem still a functioning “high profile lawyer”, I think). He seems to have done what he thought of doing in 2009, i.e. retired to his flat in Eilat, Israel. No doubt he will tweet about any cases entrusted to him, if any.

Update, 19 February 2020

marklewislawyer

[above: the latest picture of Lewis]

ds5

Update, 14 April 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):

“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, 29 July 2020

Mark Lewis once again fails to walk the talk; quelle surprise…

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, 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…

https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe/status/1288517017453174785?s=20
Alt-Right, ethnostate, free speech, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

TV Ads and Soaps Are the Propaganda Preferred by the System in the UK

88 Comments

One sometimes hears contestants on quiz shows asked “which BBC radio drama series was started in order to inform farmers about what they should be doing?” Answer: The Archers. What is less well-known is that the same method is now used across the mass media and especially on TV to push the “multiracial society”.

I am not an avid or regular watcher of TV soaps such as Emmerdale. However, I have noticed on odd occasions over the years that such serial dramas or melodramas are being used to push the multiracial/multicultural society which has been a major part of the System gameplan for many decades.

Gradually, black and brown characters are introduced, to the extent that these rural communities (such as that portrayed in Emmerdale) have to have blacks, Asians (as well as gays, lesbians, drug-abusers, mixed-race relationships etc) to a far greater extent than exist in any real country village. A few years ago, “activists” complained that there were no blacks and browns in Midsomer Murders. Guess what? There now are…

The above nonsense is not confined to TV soaps, either…

The wish to virtue-signal the usual rubbish about “inclusivity” etc reaches a high level (I hesitate to say “apotheosis”) in the period dramas such as Inspector George Gently, Grantchester, Endeavour etc. I was born in 1956 (in Reading, Berkshire), was living in those years right on the Berkshire/Oxfordshire border and the only black person I can remember even seeing in the early 1960s was the NHS ear, nose and throat consultant whom I attended a few times aged about 7, at the Royal Berkshire Hospital (he was from the Caribbean). Yet if you were to watch, say, Grantchester, there are blacks and South Asians etc (not to mention gays) aplenty in that little Cambridgeshire village c.1950! The same is true of, say, Endeavour, the prequel to Inspector Morse.

Why is all this important? Because people who were not around in this or that year of the past get at least some of their ideas of that past time from such dramas shown on TV, or in the cinema. Why else would Hollywood Jews such as Spielberg continually make films showing a basically untrue picture of the Second World War? They want to imbue the public with certain (fake) “facts” and so affect and influence socio-political thoughts, words and actions today. Those who live in the British countryside today know that the real percentage of black and brown residents there is small; the number of inter-racial relationships or marriages even smaller, perhaps vanishingly so. Yet day after day, the British TV audience is washed over with waves of falsity in this regard. Brainwashing in slow time.

Then there are the TV ads. The brainwashing here has become so blatant that quite a number of people on social media, and who are the opposite of social-national in political attitude, have protested; even a couple of (Labour) MPs have said that it is absurd that pretty much every ad now seems to show a mixed-race family or an inter-racial one (usually with a black man as “father figure” or “husband”, and an English —i.e. white— woman, often blonde, as “mother”/”wife”). Sainsbury’s, Halifax, you name it. There are dozens of examples, so many that it cannot be mere co-incidence…

Why? Well, we have to start with the fact that media studies courses at universities and colleges, particularly in the large cities, attract rather many Jewish students, who are usually actively “anti-racist” (except in terms of their own arrogant Jewish-Zionist “racism”, which is often ingrained). Those students go on to join TV companies, ad agencies etc. Also, less obviously, there are secret or occult forces working behind the scenes to push what is sometimes termed the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan or agenda [see Notes, below]. When the whole advertising industry comes up with almost identical ads, something is going on.

Take a look at the Halifax ad at the foot of this blog post: black “father”/”husband”, white “wife”, in an advanced state of pregnancy.

It must be emphasized that these ads (and soaps etc) do not just reflect UK society but are designed to create a new —multiracial, “multicultural”— society. Multiracial families of the sort shown in countless ads do exist but are relatively rare. The aim of the ads and the soaps and other presentations is to normalize inter-racial relations, mixed-race offspring and, ultimately, to destroy the white Northern European race or ethnicity; in the UK, in mainland Europe, throughout the world.

The infected areas of our society have to be purged or cleansed; this type of evil propaganda must be rooted out wherever found.

The evil must be stopped in its tracks.

Finally, it probably has to be pointed out that the aim of social-nationalism is not to promote “hate” (as the Zionists and their mindless “antifa” dupes tend to aver) but to create the conditions necessary for a quantum leap of the advanced part of the human species. This could never be accomplished out of a mixed-race or non-European population. There has to be the right ethnic foundation. That is why the forces of Evil oppose us.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archers

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

A protesting polemic:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/boycott-the-halifax/

Another example:

A Nigerian working in advertising in the UK actually admits that I am right, in effect:

“Greater diversity

This year, amidst the discussion in the industry about whether “Buster the boxer” orWes Anderson won Christmas, one important aspect of the seasonal campaigns has been largely overlooked – their diversity.

There wasn’t much variation to the themes, which typically revolved around traditional subjects such as family gatherings, celebrations, and (surprise, surprise) the joy of giving. However the diversity of people featured in the ads themselves stood out. For example, this year’s John Lewis campaign wasn’t just a departure for the brand because it was funnier than usual; it featured a black family for the first time. Currys PC World also cast a black family for its ad. Sainsbury’s animated tale featured a family of mixed ethnicities. Boots showcased a diverse array of women who work on Christmas day. Not to be outdone, Amazon portrayed the charming friendship of a Christian priest and a Muslim imam.

The John Lewis Christmas ad featured a black family for the first time

That wasn’t all. This year’s House of Fraser’s Christmas ad looked more like a Beyoncé video and M&S made Mrs Claus the star of its campaign. Meanwhile Pret A Manger produced a no-frills spot to highlight their apprenticeship scheme for the homeless, featuring a woman from an ethnic minority background who was forced out onto the streets by her own community because of her sexuality.

Step in the right direction

While it is easy to get cynical about these things, I see it as welcome progress. Diversity has been one of the hottest topics in advertising over the last year, with increasing calls for a more representative industry. Initiatives such as the Great British Diversity Experiment sought to prove that greater diversity leads to better creativity. If these Christmas campaigns are anything to go by, it seems that the message is getting through…

In post-Brexit Britain these ads also send out a covertly political message. Much of the marketing communications industry was in shock after the vote to leave the EU, with many wondering if more could have been done to counteract the negative sentiment that emerged during the referendum campaign.”

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/diversity-years-christmas-ads-done-us-proud/1417722

In other words, the people behind these ads promoting “diversity” (black-brown monoculture and the trashing of our European society, in reality) have a distinct socio-political agenda and their output is only incidentally selling this or that bank, supermarket etc; the ads are poisonous socio-political propaganda using “commercial cover”. More than that, these traitors to Europe’s peoples and future are acting in concert. Consensus. Conspiracy.

One “Matthew Chapman” on the same subject:

“The festive ad offerings from John Lewis, M&S and Morrisons all feature multi-ethnic families, while Sainsbury’s and Tesco show a wide range of people from different races and religions. Debenhams, meanwhile, created a film that reimagines the Cinderella love story and stars a black man and white woman.“

(He seems to like the fact that a traditional European tale has been trashed).

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/why-brands-john-lewis-m-s-debenhams-embracing-not-so-white-christmas/1450705

Here’s another dissident, blogging on the decadence of it all…

http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.com/2016/11/britains-top-stores-are-dreaming-of.html

And it’s not confined to the UK, by the way…

and

A reader of this blog wrote in to suggest this:

https://twitter.com/TermAntite/status/1120458027721789440

https://twitter.com/MarkACollett/status/958692048772747264

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-wanted-mummy-daddy-back-19170404

Update, 13 January 2020

Looks like someone should be reading my blog!

Update, 20 June 2020

A reader of my blog who lives in Argentina writes recently by way of comment:

“Yes, Ian, I remember reading it [the article above]. Very good, as usual.

Strangely enough, Mark Collett made a video showing that some of the biggest retailers in the UK modified their diversity-driven Christmas’ ads last December as a consequence of negative comments they got from customers over the 2018 Christmas campaign that was full of blacks and browns.

Having said that, the majority of whites in the UK, like those in Australia or the US, are brainwashed idiots unwilling to react. I think it is a sign of the times.

Regarding that English Civil War memorial [in Worcester] vandalized by the BLM crowd, I agree with you. The brainless morons must have believed that it was about the US Civil War, showing their colossal ignorance, but what can you expect from riff-raff like that? That is “progressive” (Marxist) education for you.“

Update, 14 January 2026

Update, 17 February 2026

Party Politics, Uncategorized

UKIP, Farage, Brexit and British Politics

11 Comments

Foreword

I have interrupted the drafting of a far more significant blog post to comment on matters arising from and matters around the resignation of Nigel Farage from UKIP, announced today.

Nigel Farage and UKIP

It is perhaps the conventional wisdom to regard Nigel Farage as a hugely–skilled politician who made UKIP into a major force in British politics. My own view is rather different.

I see Farage as an articulate, fairly intelligent fellow, not very ideological beyond an ingrained free-marketism. Certainly not a great or even wide-ranging thinker. Farage was leader of UKIP (founded 1993) from 1997 to 2016. On the one hand, Farage mobilized and organized UKIP sufficiently to gain, at peak, 24 MEPs and 2 Conservative MP defectors. On the other hand, in 25 years of operation and 19 years under Farage, UKIP never came close to having a new UKIP MP elected anywhere (mainly the fault of the British FPTP electoral system, so be it).

UKIP (as I tweeted and blogged for years) peaked in 2014. Since then it has been on the downward slope. Farage saw that and jumped ship, first giving up the leadership, then getting new and presumably lucrative work as radio talk host on LBC and as a general talking head.

Now Farage has resigned from UKIP because he says that it is becoming a single-issue party obsessed by Islam or Islamism. He also thinks that the new UKIP leader is obsessed with the idea of linking up with “Tommy Robinson” and his large band of followers. Farage’s view is mired in irony though: if there has ever been a one-issue party (or maybe two connected issues) it is UKIP, with its emphases on exit from the EU and mass immigration.

Farage’s own view seems to be that he prefers immigration (so long as notionally “high-skilled”) from India than from EU states. Despite the influx to the UK of low-wage Lithuanians and others, and also Roma Gypsy thieves and freeloaders, that is just mad, or at best very wrongheaded. After all, “race is the root, culture is the flower”.

UKIP’s Electoral Chances

As I have blogged several times, I assess UKIP’s electoral chances as close to zero. At electoral peak in 2014, UKIP might have had several MPs elected, had there been a General Election that year. As it was, the 2015 General Election saw UKIP miss the bus. Its (in round figures) nearly 4M votes (12.6% of the overall vote) were insufficient to win any individual seat, because spread evenly among English and Welsh constituencies.

Any linkage with Tommy Robinson might revivify UKIP to some extent, but in my view not enough to do well electorally. Most of Robinson’s supporters vote UKIP anyway, in all likelihood.

Down The Line

It is possible that, if Brexit either does not happen or happens in a patently false way, then UKIP might do better, but it is not the party for any radical or revolutionary new start for the UK. “Robinson’s” noisy beerswillers will contribute little to UKIP, which I think will still pretty much disappear by 2022 at latest.

Further thoughts, 8 December 2018

UKIP was a major reason why the BNP (which until 2010 often did better than UKIP in elections) failed to take off in the 2005-2010 period. The BNP, though somewhat crude, was a genuine social-national party, not (as was or is UKIP) a partly-fake conservative-nationalist party. The attitude of, eg, the BBC, made that clear. UKIP members were and still are welcome on the Daily Politics show (or whatever it is now called), Question Time etc. The BNP was only allowed on to be trashed or when law and regulation prescribed, mainly during election run-up times.

There were positive aspects to UKIP when it was a live party:

  • UKIP raised the profile of nationalism in the UK;
  • UKIP raised the subject of mass immigration into the UK and the EU, and because UKIP had a platform on msm TV, radio and Press, was able to awake some slumbering people to it and the consequential dangers of it;
  • UKIP may have been the catalyst for the EU Referendum. Even if Brexit is defeated or denied (overtly or not) the national debate has once more awakened many not only to the EU’s faults, but to migration-invasion etc.

Notes

  1. UKIP membership, at one time around 40,000, now stands officially at 23,000 and is believed to be in very steep decline.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage
Deadhead MPs, elections, free speech, immigration, MPs, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Troop, Cartload, Barrel or Family? The Kate Osamor Story

18 Comments

I came late to the Kate Osamor party. I had vaguely heard the name. One of the blacks that Jeremy Corbyn considers are worthy of ministerial office (though until Corbyn-Labour’s electoral success, only shadow-ministerial). The newspaper stories about “MP’s son charged with drug dealing” etc caught my eye only peripherally. In the past week, however, the trickles and leaks increased to a flood, as the dam burst.

The facts:

  • Kate Osamor was elected for the very safe Labour seat of Edmonton in 2015;
  • Kate Osamor MP employed her son, one Ish [Ishmael] Osamor, now 29, in her Parliamentary office, on a salary believed to be between £40,000 and £50,000;
  •  “Ish” Osamor’s job is as Senior Communications Officer (get that— “Senior“…);
  • Kate Osamor’s total staffing costs for her office were over £145,000 in 2017-2018 (for? Unspecified. Another family member? Uncle Remus? We do not know);
  • Ishmael Osamor was, before sentence, a councillor in the Borough of Haringey (which is not a completely unpaid post: many councillors get generous expenses as well as an “allowance” which in some cases can be tens of thousands of pounds per year); in fact, “Ish” Osamor was a “Cabinet member” of the council, which means that he got extra money, probably a fairly generous “allowance” amounting to a salary;
  • Ishmael Osamor was arrested and charged with the drug supply offences in September 2017, before he was elected as a councillor! Banana republic UK! Words fail…;
  • Ishmael Osamor was convicted in September 2018 of possession of drugs with intent to supply and received the (to many, ludicrously lenient) sentence of 200 hours of “community service” (picking up litter etc), and £400 costs; even the sentencing judge said that 3-4 years imprisonment “would be the usual sentence”…;
  • Kate Osamor wrote to the trial judge in September 2018 requesting leniency for her convicted son; she claimed more recently that she had no idea until a week ago that her son was even on trial! In other words, she lied straight out;
  • Kate Osamor was doorstepped by a reporter from The Times; she responded by telling him that she “should have come down here with a bat and smashed your face in”, followed by “fuck off”. She then threw a bucket of water over him and made a malicious complaint of stalking against him to the local police;
  • Kate Osamor finally resigned as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development;
  • Latest news is that she intends to stay on as MP, and that her son is still en poste as “Senior Communications Officer”;
  • Kate Osamor repeatedly tried to edit and censor her Wikipedia page, as a result of which Wikipedia barred her from editing;
  • In other Osamor family news, Kate Osamor’s mother has just been elevated to the joke “peerage” as a “baroness” in the House of Lords! She was nominated by Jeremy Corbyn on behalf of the Labour Party.

The Kate Osamor Scandal: Wider Issues Arising

I have often tweeted (before Twitter expelled me at the behest of the Zionist cabal) and blogged about the poor quality of MPs (and “peers” for that matter) now. I often wonder just how low the quality-level can fall. Parliament always had on its benches (especially the green-leather ones) a few frauds, mountebanks and charlatans, from Horatio Bottomley on (before him, too). However, the bulk of MPs used to be at least decently mediocre, with a few genuine stars here and there. The Commons is now full of people who not only would find it hard to have a decent career or job outside, but in many cases have proven that!

Let us look at this case (to examine all the deadheads in the Commons —and now the Lords— would take far too long). There are also numerous MPs who have abused the expenses system, in effect defrauded the people: Nadine Dorries and Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, to name just two. Smith claimed for his wife’s “salary” for years even though she never turned up to do a day’s work! Nadine Dorries claimed for the maximum she could at all times and even made faked claims for a generous “salary” for her effectively unqualified two daughters, one of whom also lived in a rented luxury apartment paid for out of Nadine Dorries’ expenses and supposedly for the MP’s use! This blog post is, however, not the place for all that.

It appears from Wikipedia etc that Kate Osamor was born in 1968 and, after having read “Third World Studies” at West Ham Technical Institute (renamed Polytechnic of East London in 1989 and, since 1992, the University of East London), “worked for The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people.[9] She then worked for 15 years in the NHS; she was a GP practice manager before becoming an MP.” [Wikipedia].

If that is true, she worked in the NHS from 2000-2015. [edited October 2019:Wikipedia now says that Kate Osamor was studying from 2003, graduating in 2006]. So she spent 11 years at the Big Issue? Or was she breeding in those years? We do not know.

[Update, 12 December 2018: a more recent edit of Kate Osamor’s Wikipedia entry says that in fact she was a practice manager for only 2 years, and some kind of “executive assistant” or clerk for 9 years, making 11, rather than 15, years in toto in the NHS. So that leaves 15 years unaccounted for…].

[The chronology of Kate Osamor’s life, and especially her work background, seems very unclear, on the face of it. Suspicious?]

Now, what about Kate Osamor’s mother, the recently-elevated “baroness”? She seems to have spent her time in the UK (having arrived, age unspecified, from her native Nigeria) agitating for what amounts to black power (eg defending those charged with the savage Broadwater Farm riots) and based in a law centre in the Haringey area. Well, not all her time: she also produced several children. Now she styles herself “Martha, Baroness Osamor, of Tottenham in the London Borough of Haringey, and of Asaba in the Republic of Nigeria.” Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, it is said. That is what UK society now is— mad.

Let’s not forget “Ish” Osamor. I have no idea what kind of academic or work background he may have, but I doubt that it all amounts to very much, and he has been “working” for his mother in Westminster, we are told, since 2015, when he would have been 25 or 26. £40,000 or even £50,000 p.a.: not bad for a twenty-something with, as it seems, little or no experience of any work.

We are talking about the legislature of what is still one of the most important countries of the world. It is now packed with completely unqualified, uncultured, unsuitable rubbish.

The Effect on Labour Party Electoral Chances

“Corbyn is always surrounded by a pack of black or brown women.” So I have heard here and there. That does mirror what is or has been my impression. The Jews, at least most of them, hate Corbyn because he is anti-Zionist (“they” say he is “anti-Semitic”), whereas I favour his anti-Zionism, though it is weakened by his lip-service re. the “holocaust” fable and his unwillingess to come right out against the Jewish Zionist lobby in the UK.

On the other hand, it is clear that Corbyn’s core support comes from the “blacks and browns” and also from those who could be described as “politically-correct” and/or those whose ideology could be described by the title of the 1920s pamphlet “Left-wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder” [which can also be translated as the slightly different-meaning “…a Disease of Childhood”, but no matter].

On Twitter, there have been thousands of tweets supporting Kate Osamor and many urging her return to the Shadow Cabinet! All the idiots such as faux-revolutionary Owen Jones are supporting her, because they say that a drugs offence is a minor matter, that her lies etc (not to mention nepotism) are not worthy of criticism and that she had every right to tell a reporter to “fuck off”, or to say that she should be bashing in his head with a bat, and to throw water on him. Well, I myself dislike today’s so-called “journalists”, after having been doorstepped by the Daily Mail in 2016 the day after the Jew-Zionists procured my disbarment, but I just told the little round-skulled creature to get lost. He did.

The point is that the Owen Jones’s of this world will accept almost everything that a pseudo-socialist black woman MP does, because her identity makes her immune.

I expect that the bulk of the Corbyn-Labour ranks will support Kate Osamor and the others like her around Corbyn. One thinks of Dawn Butler and, a fortiori, Diane Abbott. However, beyond right-on Twitter, beyond the Westminster bubble, beyond London, there are millions and millions of people, especially white English and Welsh and Irish people (some Scots too; as to the rest, is it something in the water? The Scots have their faux-nationalist SNP as a security blanket, I suppose) who look at these deadheads around Corbyn and think “wait a moment…I want rid of the Conservative Party, but Labour is as alien in its own way, maybe more alien…”.

The ethnic minority women (mainly women, but not entirely: Clive Lewis MP –etc– too, and he supports Kate Osamor…of course…) around Corbyn must be worth a million votes —maybe each!— to the Conservatives. They are a major millstone round the neck of Labour, electorally. True, there are others, not black or brown, who are also completely unsuitable, such as Angela Rayner. I am talking about the overall impression given to the voters. It is not good.

I still think that Labour has a good chance of becoming the major party in the Commons after a general election in 2019, though without a majority. Labour has little chance of a majority however unpopular the Conservatives are, because of the way the 650 constituencies are composed. After 2022, the cut-down Commons of 600 constituencies will make a Labour majority even less likely. Hung Parliaments may well be the norm now. That makes social nationalist growth a good possibility.

I think that, especially as white English/British people, we have to look seriously now at Parliament as it is, and those in it, and consider whether it can be reformed, or whether it needs to be removed in its present form and content.

Twitter Reaction

https://twitter.com/search?q=kate%20osamor&src=tyah

Notes

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-frontbencher-kate-osamor-resigns-amid-storm-over-sons-drug-conviction-a4005716.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-osamor-top-labour-mp-misled-public-over-son-s-drugs-arrest-k5jk0wm8p

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40709220

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Osamor

http://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-costs/interactive-map/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6377017/Labour-MP-son-living-social-housing-home-earning-130-000-year.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ishmael-osamor-class-a-drugs-bestival-kate-osamore-haringey-mp-a8613326.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7880164/kate-osamor-banned-wikipedia/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Osamor,_Baroness_Osamor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwater_Farm_riot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Bottomley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_London

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46037833

Update, 2 December 2018, Evening

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6452675/GUY-ADAMS-scandal-Kate-Osamors-son-living-public-purse.html

Update, 8 January 2019

I happened to see this tweet by Kate Osamor, which shows quite clearly that she is no more than semi-literate:

https://twitter.com/KateOsamor/status/1082069808173277184

“It can not of been easy“? I hope that no reader of this blog is so ill-educated as to require the correction (“it cannot have been easy”). What is genuinely frightening is that nonsense people such as Kate Osamor (with or without drugdealing, freeloading sons or uncles Remus) might be ruling us within a few years, or even a few months. I suppose that it is unlikely that Kate Osamor will very soon now resume her position as a member of the Shadow Cabinet, but just consider how far into the pit Labour (and we, as a nation) have fallen, that this ignorant, semi-literate, foul-mouthed, violent and drug-connected (not to mention non-European) woman was ever considered to be suitable to occupy a place in the Shadow Cabinet! Such individuals should not even be MPs!

The “useful idiots” in academia etc are still supporting Kate Osamor! Look at this one, a white woman (or “he/she”?) , a “Research Support Officer” at a UK university, but who seems not only to be obsessed by blacks and their supposed merits, but who, in her Twitter profile, describes herself as a “Black Atlanticist”!

https://kent.academia.edu/NicoleWillson

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/nicwillson

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41068892?seq=1/subjects

She says:

Leave aside the social housing point, but “a hero of the greatest proportions”? I say that “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”…the UK?

“Idle Thoughts of An Idle Fellow”… 

Is Kate Osamor on good terms with fellow black Labour MP Fiona Onasanya? Did Fiona ever buy her stuff from “Ish”?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6558757/Shamed-ex-Labour-MP-pretends-snort-cocaine-bizarre-video.html

Update, 22 January 2019

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/17375697.kate-osamor-wrote-to-a-bournemouth-crown-court-judge/

“Ish” Osamor has now vowed to become an “anti-drugs” campaigner! Hey, clever move! That could be a “nice little earner”! It might even develop into a quango/taxpayer-funded career…What clever little [n******] “Ish” and his freeloading mama, Kate, are!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mp-kate-osamor-told-judge-jailing-son-would-be-like-a-bereavement-a4045056.html

Update, 2 June 2019

https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/1135262617482780673

Update, 20 March 2020

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/19/labour-mp-threatened-hit-journalist-face-bat-order-apologise/

Update, 15 July 2023

Well, we now know that the House of Commons is not going to be cut down to 600 MPs, not in time for the expected 2024 General Election anyway.

At date of writing, Kate Osamor is still a Labour Party MP, though her chances of higher office are now minimal. Corbyn is gone, and has even been deselected as Labour candidate for Islington, and Keir Starmer will not appoint Kate Osamor to anything even if Labour does triumph in 2024.

Update, 20 September 2025

Well, she is still there, still pulling it in via pay, expenses, freebies etc:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Osamor#3rd_term_(2019%E2%80%932024)

Alt-Right, Brexit, ethnostate, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Brexit is To Some Extent Only a Metaphor: What Could It Mean?

11 Comments

Foreword

At time of writing, we cannot escape talk of “Brexit”: the May “plan” or “deal” (i.e. Brexit In Name Only), “No Deal Brexit” (real Brexit), “Citizens’ Vote” aka “Second Referendum” (no Brexit, and rubberstamped via a plebiscite of stampeded and fearful voters) etc.

We have seen a plethora of statistical analyses, forecasts, assertions, particularly from the better-funded “Remain” side, as to the economic effect of various types of Brexit. There has been less attention paid to the socio-political effects. In addition, it may be that the wood is becoming obscure, obscured by the trees.

My View

Perhaps I should proclaim my own viewpoint first of all: the UK joined the EEC (supposedly) as a way of trading freely within the bloc. EEC became EC, various add-ons came into effect, then there was Maastricht, after which the EC became the EU, all without the peoples of the various “EU” states ever having had a say, except in Ireland, Denmark and France (which held referenda). In Denmark, two referenda had to be held before the “right” result was obtained; in France, there was a 50.8% vote in favour, rather lower than the UK’s Leave majority vote (52%, or for pedants, 51.89%) in the UK’s 2016 Referendum.

The EU has become a dictatorial, oppressive and repressive bloc, largely under the control or very strong influence of the Jew-Zionist element. Its “holocaust” “denial” laws echo the laws against heresy or blasphemy in the Europe of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. From being a bloc of European race and culture, it has gradually been subverted by transnational finance-capitalism, Zionism etc, and has attempted to continue with the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, in other words the destruction of European race and culture and the “Great Replacement” of Europeans (i.e. of…us) by those of backward race and culture. Thus we saw Angela Merkel inviting migration-invasion by “blacks and browns” under the cloak of being “refugees” (which few actually were or are). This was deliberate, not the “mistake” many imagined. Merkel is a Charlemagne (Coudenhove-Kalergi) Prize-winner!

In the words of Coudenhove-Kalergi himself:

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian–Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

The above would in fact spell the end of Europe as a positive evolutionary force. Europe would go the way, indeed, of the ancient Egyptians and others— become decadent, mixed-race; finally, both race and culture disappearing, leaving behind only half-understood monuments, relics and ruined buildings, and a degenerate race crawling over the ruins.

As for those who have influence and control in and over the EU, we see a bunch of freeloading hypocrites, Jew-Zionists and doormats for Zionism, including the now-dead paedophile Leon Brittan, Nick Clegg, “lord” Neil Kinnock (and let’s not forget his grasping wife “lady” Glenys…) etc etc.

The EU is not “Europe”, but a caricature of it.

For several reasons and including all of the above, I came down on the Leave side in the 2016 Referendum.

The 2016 Referendum

Whatever may be said about “lies” and “fake news” (and there was at least as much on the Remain side as on that of Leave), the vote was honestly counted and the result was, in round figures, 52% Leave, 48% Remain. Britain voted to leave the EU, and it matters not at all that a certain proportion failed to vote at all, or that 48% is “nearly” half, or that it was “so close” as to be a draw (a particularly pathetic argument in a country with Britain’s First Past The Post traditions and voting system).

The Years Since the 2016 Referendum

David Cameron-Levita had complacently assumed that Remain would win the Referendum easily. He was as out of touch on that as he was generally. Clueless. Once the Referendum produced the “wrong” result, I assumed (it turns out correctly) that the ZOG/NWO conspiracy would do what it has done in previous cases (in other countries), which is to hold another vote or to make sure that Brexit became meaningless.

The British public has now been subjected to 2-3 years of fear-propaganda to soften it up for either “Brexit In Name Only” or a so-called “final vote” (aka “people’s vote”), i.e. a Second Referendum which will, they hope, produce the right result, i.e. Remain.

Part of all that is the notion that Leave voters were idiots or at least not as educated as Remain voters (a doubtful proposition) and that they did not really understand why they were voting Leave.

My Views About That

Most people who voted Leave in 2016 did so partly because the EU has become a tyrannical octopus and/or because the UK has been flooded by low-wage labour and also riff-raff thieves and parasites such as Roma Gypsy clans from countries now in the EU such as Bulgaria, Romania etc.

Many also voted Leave as a proxy for voting against the System political parties, and in particular the Conservative Party with its evil attacks on the disabled etc and its general faux-“austerity” (for the poor only), trashing of public services etc; the LibDems too, with their craven and self-seeking support for the Conservative government 2010-2015, and their support for mass immigration. Not that the Labour Party was not a target too. Many Labour seats were heavily Leave, especially in the North of England, where the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs were humoured by Labour for so long. That may have nothing to do logically or officially with the issues in the Referendum, but in the real world, there were many reasons, valid in their own way, for voting Leave. People “wanted their country back”. The Referendum was a way to make the System listen for once.

What Might Happen if the 2016 Referendum is not Honoured…

Those voting Leave and who still want out now may number 55% of the electorate, 50% or 45%. Estimates vary and opinion polls are unreliable, though it seems unlikely that Leavers are fewer than 45% of the electorate, at lowest. Leavers were always more committed, more angry than Remainers. A vocal but small minority of Remainers have pushed the agenda for nearly 3 years now. You see them on Twitter, mostly the same sorts of people (several but not many types). Pseudo-liberalistic lawyers, “media folk” etc. As for the Jews, while some individual Jews favour Leave, most support Remain. As a group, Jews are for Remain, for the EU and its repressions, against UK national sovereignty, against the real British people.

It should be added that, while most non-UK EU citizens were barred from voting in the 2016 Referendum, Irish (and some other EU) citizens resident in the UK could vote, as could all the ethnic minorities in the UK so long as the voters concerned were resident in the UK and either UK or Commonwealth state citizens.

I leave aside consideration of why Scotland voted Remain: if Scotland thinks that “independence” means leaving the UK but becoming a province of the increasingly-repressive EU (and allowing non-European migration-invasion too) then one can only shake one/s head despairingly. However, if only votes in England in 2016 are taken into account, Leave won by about 55% to 45%. If the votes of ethnic minorities are then taken out, the figure can be estimated to be something like 60% to 40%. In short, Leave was a valid result.

If the Leave vote is dishonoured, however and whyever that happens, there will be a backlash. That backlash may not be only about leaving the EU or remaining in it, but will import other issues: mass migration-invasion, “austerity”, the trashing of public services, pay, the now-punitive “welfare”/DWP system, the crimewave by non-whites (some English too). The 2016 Referendum was about more than the EU simpliciter; the backlash will be the same.

As to what form any backlash will take, “those who live will see”…

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/however-brexit-ends-mays-stitch-up-will-corrode-trust-democracy/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/5533081/Kinnocks-have-six-state-pensions-worth-185000-per-year-says-think-tank.html

 

 

Tweets on the subject:

https://twitter.com/huntedfellow/status/1068080143304929280

https://twitter.com/Sage_Opinion/status/1068665698598207488

https://twitter.com/RichardAENorth/status/1068690456798728192

https://twitter.com/ShipBrief/status/1068581885595582465

https://twitter.com/LBSProtect/status/1068640396203499521

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

Barristers, Solicitors and Fees (and a few other things that irritate me)

5 Comments

Background

As some of my readers will know, I was from 1991 to 2008 a working barrister (sometimes in practice in England, sometimes employed by international law firms); I was also nominally a barrister, but neither practising nor employed, from 2008-2016. In 2016, I was disbarred by reason of a malicious Jew-Zionist complaint against me by a pro-Israel lobby group known as “UK Lawyers for Israel” (see the Notes at the foot of this blog post).

232323232fp93232)uqcshlukaxroqdfv975(=ot)3;8 =73(=33(=XROQDF)26 (8;953824;ot1lsi

[photo: me as newly-minted pupil-barrister in or about 1992, aged however about 35]

As matters now stand, I have no personal interest in the Bar or the legal professions (the Bar, the solicitors’ profession etc); I do have a general socio-political interest, however, as well as a liking –perhaps excessive– for walking down Memory Lane (my natal chart has Saturn in Scorpio, for those with interest in such things).

I was impelled to write today having seen the Twitter output of someone calling himself “Abused Lawyer”:

https://twitter.com/AbusedLawyer

Thoughts

I start from the premise that a society of any complexity requires law, a legal system, legal rights and duties etc. By way of example, as long ago as the Babylonian Empire (c.600 BC), there existed laws dealing with the ongoing liability of builders to purchasers of houses (English law only caught up with this in, I think, the 1970s). At any rate, any complex society requires correspondingly-detailed laws.

Legal complexity is a sign of a complex society, just as the existence of “celebrity chefs” and “celebrity” sportsmen (etc) is a sign of a decadent society (as in the latter days of the Roman Empire: discuss).

Laws alone, however, are only the start. In order to have effect, laws need pillars of support: (equitable) enforcement, at the very least. Stalin’s Russia had laws on paper, but was very arbitrary and unjust in enforcement. English law has always said that “where there is a right, there is a remedy” and that that remedy will consist in, at root, enforcement of criminal law by a criminal penalty, or in civil law a civil ruling providing for compensation or a mandatory compulsion or prohibition.

There is a further point. In order to get from right to remedy, you need a mechanism with which to do that. In an ideal society, every citizen would be educated enough, have sufficient will or resolve (and the means necessary) to be his/her own lawyer. In reality, there is a need, in every society beyond the smallest and most primitive, for a group of lawyers, so that citizens can be advised, protected, fought for, defended, and also so that society functions with relative smoothness.

As societies progress, they go from having no lawyers, to having a few who are supposedly unpaid amateurs or monied gentlemen who receive only gifts (honorarii) from the grateful, then on to having lawyers who are paid freelancers (or, in some countries, salaried employees of the State).

The question arises as to how to remunerate lawyers. In England, there were at one time several kinds of lawyer: barristers, “attorneys”, “sergeants”, “notaries” etc. These categories were whittled down (for most purposes) to only two by the late 19th Century: barristers (in four “Inns of Court” in London) and solicitors. The barristers, when paid, were paid by the solicitors, who in turn were paid by their lay clients (the term “lay” coming, like much else, from the ecclesiastical vocabulary of the late Middle Ages).

The first State-paid legal aid scheme (criminal) in England dated from the 1890s and covered only the most serious offences (particularly murder, then a capital offence). After WW2, it became gradually clear that both justice and convenience required State funding for at least the more serious criminal offences dealt with at the Assizes and Quarter Sessions (from 1971, the Crown Courts). Civil legal aid dates from 1949 and expanded greatly until 2010, when it started to be drastically cut back, along with criminal legal aid.

When I started at the Bar in 1993 as a real working barrister and not a mere “first six” pupil (spectator and dogsbody), I did quite a lot of publicly-funded work: criminal “rubbish” (in the charming Bar term) in the magistrates’ courts and (far less commonly) the Crown Courts; Legal Aid-funded and also privately-funded civil work in the County Courts (housing, landlord and tenant, contract, various tortious disputes) and in the High Court: judicial reviews (mostly housing or immigration-related), which were via Legal Aid; also contractual problems, libels etc, which were privately-paid.

Even in 1993, criminal legal aid was not too generous (I was in the wrong sort of chambers to get lucrative frauds or other really serious criminal cases), though I still recall the unexpected pleasure at getting a £5,000 fee for 5 days at City of London Magistrates’ Court, an “old-style” committal in a cheque fraud case which later went to the Old Bailey for trial. A Nigerian solicitor and another Nigerian, a recently-Called barrister, cheated me out of that trial, but that’s another story….

I do recall that I did go to court from time to time for “Mentions”, a nuisance involving going somewhere, dressing up, then appearing for (usually) 5 minutes before a judge, all for £45, if memory serves (I was told about 10 years ago that the fee for that was still below £50, 15+ years later!).

On the other hand, I knew several people who, having gone to the Bar in 1988 or 1989 with relatively modest academic qualifications, had started to get lucrative and legally-aided criminal work by 1993. One was making around £100,000 p.a. by being led (i.e. by a Q.C.) in large-scale frauds. The average salary in the UK at the time would have been around £15,000 to £20,000, I suppose.

It is a question of where the line is drawn. The general public read of the few barristers making millions (some from legal aid) and are unaware of the fact that many barristers (solicitors too) make almost joke money, such as (in 2018) £20,000 a year, £30,000 a year etc. That applies especially to criminal barristers (and solicitors). The barrister has many expenses to pay, too, from Chambers fees and rent (which work out at as much as 20% of gross fees received) to parking, fuel etc (in the 2002-2008 period I myself travelled all over the UK, and also to mainland Europe and beyond by car, ferry and plane).

Lawyers must be paid, but how well? Unfortunately, this cannot be left to public sentiment. Just as, per Bill Clinton, “you can’t go too far on welfare” (because the public love to see the non-working poor screwed down on), it seems that the public have, understandably but ignorantly, no sympathy for lawyers! The newspapers make sure of it. On the other hand, read what “Abused Lawyer” has to say…

Further Thoughts

My first thoughts are that the governments since 2010 and perhaps before have had no real interest in the law as a major pillar of society. The court buildings themselves are often not much to look at. Many of the newer (post 1945) Crown Courts are in the “monstrous carbuncle” region, though there are a few modern courts that are better, such as Truro and Exeter, both of which I visited often when practising at the Bar out of Exeter in the years 2002-2007.

Some County Courts are appalling to look at: I once had to appear at Brighton County Court, which is or was like a public loo in almost every respect. Again, I was once only at Walsall County Court: I saw a magnificent 18thC building in the neoclassic style (pillared frontage etc) with the legend “Walsall County Court” on it. However, it turned out that that building had been sold and that the real County Court was now situated nearby in what had obviously been a shop, possibly a furniture emporium. Now, about 14 years later, I have just read that the original building is a Wetherspoon’s pub! Britain 2018…

If you visit courts in the United States, you often find that they embody “the majesty of the law”: pillars, atria, broad stone steps etc. Not all, but most. Even the modern courts make an effort to seem imposing. Not so in the UK! You might ask “so what?”, but image and impression are important. The same is true of the Bar. It is infuriating to see some barristers hugely overpaid, particularly at public expense, but at the same time law and society are diminished if the Bar is reduced to penury.

The question is not simple: the Bar has become overcrowded. Even now, we see that every other (or so it sometimes seems) black or brown young person wants to become a barrister (quite a few English people –so-called “whites”– too).

When I was at school and vaguely thinking about the idea (in 1973, the year in which I in fact dropped out of school!), the Bar had about 4,000-5,000 members (in practice in chambers), whereas now, in 2018, there are 16,000 (but the official definition now includes some —perhaps 3,000— employed barristers). In very broad terms, you could say that the number of practising barristers has tripled in 40 years. However, it seems that in 2017 and 2016, the number exceeded 30,000! Has there been a cull in the past year or so? I do not have the information with which I might answer my own question.

Looking at the situation from my present eyrie of objectivity, it seems to me clear that the Bar (and also the solicitor profession) as a career for many is going to disappear. Britain is getting poorer and the plan of the international conspiracy is to manage that. How? By importing millions of unwanted immigrants (who breed); by getting the masses used to the idea that Britain is getting poorer and/or “cannot afford” [fill in whatever: the Bar, the law, the police, the Welfare State, defence, decency…]. Also, by labelling the few non-sheep standing up against it all as “extremists”, “neo-Nazis”, “racists” etc.

The fees for the criminal Bar and the lower end of the civil Bar will only become more modest. Large numbers of often rubbish barristers will compete for the badly-paid cases going (and some more affluent young barristers, with family money supporting them, will willingly work for peanuts anyway). There is also the point that, when I was at the Inns of Court School of Law in 1987-88, you had to go there for a year in order to take, eventually, the (then) three days of the Bar Examination. Now, all sorts of poor places offer a “Bar Finals course” (now, I believe, called the Bar Vocational Course or BVC, or some even newer name). Thus the supply of (often poor) barristers has increased.

A final word on fees. Traditionally, barristers were not supposed to care about fees. They could not sue for their fees. These attitudes still exist, though in very modified form, today. At the same time, some solicitors take advantage. I suppose that my critics will call me biased etc, but I found that the non-paying solicitors were mostly the smaller, often Jewish or other “ethnic”, firms who, almost invariably, were also very lax on ethics (i.e. were crooks, in blunt language). I suppose that some will ask why I accepted instructions from such firms. Well, there are ways to get out of things, but the “cab rank” rule limits what you can say and do, and the joke “Code of Conduct” would make it impossible to say “no Jews, no blacks, no browns” (etc)…

Looking further ahead, the legal profession is likely to be hard-hit by AI (artificial intelligence).

Notes

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

Update, 1 December 2018

A tweet about a Crown Court trial by the author of a recent high-selling book on the broken justice system of the UK continues the theme:

As to why (criminal) barristers are now working for peanuts in many cases, see above blog post, and also:

  • most criminal barristers cannot do anything else and are by no means always of much interest to those who might pay more, i.e. employers of whatever type;
  •  most criminal barristers are “me too” pseudo-liberals with the backbone of a jellyfish, as witness their lack of (public) support for me when a Jew-Zionist cabal (“UK Lawyers for Israel”) made malicious and politically-motivated complaint against me to the Bar Standards Board in 2014 (hearing 2016);
  • following above theme, most barristers (not only criminal ones) are scared of the (absurd) BSB, the Bar Council, their instructing solicitors, their own shadows (etc);
  • some have family money and/or are trustafarians.

Update, 13 December 2018

Another relevant contribution, from a barrister calling himself Cayman Taff…

Update, 16 December 2018

Solicitors: civil legal aid firm numbers reduced by well over 1,000 (from about 3,600 to 2,500), so a reduction of over a quarter. The BBC says “decimated”, but I have ceased to expect much literacy from BBC (or other msm journalistic) staff…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46357169

and I just noticed this tweet (see my mention of “Mentions” in the body of my blog post, above)…