I distinguish between party and movement. Movement is wider. Any party can only be part of that wider movement.
As to party, narrowly, I think that a party is possible, though it would have to be understood from the beginning that it would never be able to “take power” in the usual way, by “getting elected”, simply because the whole system of elections and parties is now rigged.
Parties now have to be registered with the Electoral Commission in order to stand candidates under the party name at elections. Any party unable or unwilling to fit into the criteria of the Electoral Commission will either not be registered or may find itself deregistered, possibly just before an election. You can imagine what kind of (((objector))) might object to such a party, if the latter is social-nationalist.
Then there is the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which in the past has interfered with the democratic process by fining or otherwise sanctioning parties as different as the Labour Party and the BNP. Guess what (((element))) was behind those interferences too. Yes, “them”…
G.K. Chesterton had a character in one of his Father Brown stories refer to a particular small seaside resort out of season as being as depressing “as a lost railway carriage“. That is exactly the feeling I get when I contemplate the small “nationalist” parties around in the past several years: Britain First, For Britain, the English Democrats etc.
The new organization, Patriotic Alternative [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Alternative…note that (((certain enemies))) are trying to have even the Wikipedia entry deleted] is not as yet a political party officially, because its officials await “approval”. Can you imagine Hitler or Lenin applying for “approval”? I think not!
Patriotic Alternative is trying to form a wider social and political movement, and I generally like what little I see of them (online), though naturally the picture is mixed at this stage.
For me, a political party is essential but has to exist on the basis that its aim is not, certainly not primarily, “getting elected”.
How can such a party be formed and funded?
Formation: under one leader, not because I necessarily demand Fuhrerprinzip [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip] but because the Jew-Zionist enemy and the “antifascist” offshoots of the same will otherwise infiltrate any such national party and destroy it from the inside. I myself saw that happen to the National Front [NF] in 1975-1976, and from what I read, and am told, it happened later also to the British National Party [BNP]. Any “democratic” intra-party processes will be subverted by (((the usual suspects))).
Funding: the only way is to do as American churches and others do: “tithing”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe. Via tithing, even a movement or party with 100 people might command funding of around £200,000 a year; one of 1,000 people might have an income of £2 million a year. That is not far short of the major System parties.
The above requires that the members have full confidence in the leaders. As Hamlet says, “aye, there’s the rub“…
Still, as we approach the very significant year 2022, we all must think on the dilemma:
“Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing end them.” [Shakespeare, Hamlet].
Tweets seen today
The tweeter “@gemmacdoyle” is right, insofar as “Labour” (-lite) under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown certainly did “change people’s lives“! Imported untold millions more black and brown immigrants; introduced the shambolic and dishonest ATOS organization to harass the disabled, unemployed and poor; made the UK into the 51st state of the USA in foreign policy terms; got the UK involved in disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; devalued exam results and university degrees; pretty much destroyed Parliamentary democracy in the UK; gave in to Sinn Fein/IRA in Northern Ireland; increased the influence of the Jew lobby in the UK; loaded the British population with personal debt. Etc.
Both of those tweeters are of course effectively enemies of the British people, though in slightly different ways, just as Corbyn-Labour and Blair/Brown-Labour are or were.
“The atmosphere has become so febrile that some Haredim, as the ultra-Orthodox are collectively known, have pinned yellow Star of David badges on their jackets and labeled recent police crackdowns in Bnei Brak as “Kristallnacht.” [CNN]
It may be that a number of readers of this blog have already heard of someone called Mike Stuchbery, 40, who describes himself on Twitter as “journalist, historian and teacher” (also, now that he has relocated to Germany, “tour guide”).
Stuchbery is of Australian origin, whatever that now means. He was apparently a blogger on educational matters for the Australian broadcaster ABC (akin to the BBC) for a while. He was a teacher in Germany and Australia, then in the UK, but was sacked after a month or so from his last school (even though his contract was only for 3 months anyway) for reasons that are “a little vague”, at least to me. He then moved to Luton, where he rebranded himself as “historian” and “journalist”, despite (as far as I know) having never having had any training, education or work experience in those fields (I am very fair: if anyone has verifiable information to the contrary, let me know and I shall amend this article or add a note).
Stuchbery as “historian”
Now, we are, especially perhaps in the UK, in a society where all sorts of people do a degree in, say, History, maybe even get a “doctorate” (no-one actually ever fails…they just do a year and write a thesis, no matter how narrowly-based, then call themselves “historian” and/or “Doctor”).
Traditionally, in the UK (though not in, say, Germany), “Dr.” was reserved for academics, people in holy orders, scientists doing research etc, or medical doctors (though many medical men and women in fact do not have doctorates— it’s a conventional courtesy title). It was always thought infra dig for anyone else with a doctorate to actually call themselves “doctor” as a title, even though people with a Ph.D. do actually have a doctorate on paper.
Likewise, the term “historian” has been reserved for those either engaged in teaching History, as an academic subject at university level, or writing about it.
Leaving that aside, as far as I know Stuchbery has no formal qualifications in History anyway. I suppose that I could be mistaken, but in any event he is neither teaching at a university (for what that may now be worth) nor writing books. He simply tweets bits and pieces (though I’m not knocking his tweets about German —or other— Dark Ages, mediaeval, or Renaissance history; in fact I enjoy reading them, as I do some of his other non-political tweets).
As far as I am aware, Stuchbery has written no book about historical events.
I myself am very interested in some aspects of history and some periods of history, but I would not call myself “historian”, even though, in one or two areas, my knowledge-level would be equivalent to that of a “professional” historian.
Look at this:
“Other opponents of the regime were simply held temporarily at Hotel Silber. Rudolf Schlichter, the influential 1920s artist, painted ‘The Prisoner’ after his time there. Rudolf Steiner, the educational theorist & mystic, was also temporarily detained for Gestapo questioning. /7“
Ah. So according to “historian” Stuchbery, Rudolf Steiner was “temporarily detained for Gestapo questioning”? Stuchbery thus manages to display ignorance of both Rudolf Steiner and the Gestapo. For those unaware of why that is:
Rudolf Steiner was born in 1861 in a Germanophone region of what today is Croatia and died in Switzerland of natural causes in 1925;
The Gestapo was established by Goering in 1933 (initially in Prussia, only being extended to other parts of Germany in and after 1936).
In other words, Rudolf Steiner died eight years before the Gestapo even existed. Rudolf Steiner was in fact not even in Germany after 1923, so the idea that he could be “detained for Gestapo questioning” is made even more absurd.
You begin to see why people question Stuchbery’s qualifications (in any sense— he has no formal qualification or training in history, as far as I know). The above example is not in any way obscure or trivial. These are basic facts for any educated person who purports to know about the period in question.
Readers might note that the other person Stuchbery mentions in those tweets was released by the Gestapo (assuming that he, unlike Steiner, was ever there). One could not imagine that happening under Stalin’s rule which the KPD (German communists) supported. Stuchbery thinks that the KPD were just poor victims of National Socialism. That’s not just politically and historically biased and/or naive; it’s simply inaccurate.
Stuchbery as “journalist”
The Guardian was ready to refer to Stuchbery as “journalist”! Well, I suppose that if idiots like Zoe Williams and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown can pose as journalists, why not!
In fact, while the Huffington Post and a couple of (real) UK national newspapers have apparently printed stuff once or twice by Stuchbery (though not for some years, as far as I know), his “journalistic” scribbling seems confined now to a couple of online outlets such as one called Byline Times.
Stuchbery’s states of mind
Stuchbery has mental problems and is on some kind of medication, like so many “antifa” and also many Jew-Zionist types. I have even blogged, previously, about the connection between contemporary “anti-fascism” and mental illness. Perhaps I should add Stuchbery to that article.
Stuchbery’s methods as “antifa” nuisance and “activist”
Stuchbery tends to threaten people obliquely, though he never puts his own head on the block. His modus operandi is threefold:
to incite violence by “antifa” idiots;
to try to get the police or other security agencies involved so that social nationalists and others get harassed and snooped upon;
to denounce those of a broadly nationalist viewpoint to online platforms and fora, with the aim of killing off free speech and also preventing such people from receiving donations online (see below)
Here is Stuchbery threatening a tweeter in Germany (he posted that reply only today). What a horrible bastard he is. He missed his vocation, which should have been some devious, servile, secret co-worker of the Stasi. He would have loved that.
The tweet below is fairly typical: that of the malicious person who skulks at the back while inciting others onward…
Talking of people “peeing themselves”, here’s a photo of Stuchbery when his attempt to incite some kind of home invasion at the home of the wife of the political activist known as “Tommy Robinson” went wrong. It went wrong for Stuchbery because Robinson later turned up at Stuchbery’s own home (both houses were in Luton, UK), at which point Stuchbery had a total meltdown. I do not know whether he actually “peed himself”, but I should not be surprised. Remember, this is the Stuchbery who tweeted about how others should “punch Nazis, keep on punching, never stop…”, and said that German “antifa” thugs should travel overseas to attack social nationalists, because “German antifa really know how to crack skulls” (though he himself could not punch his way out of a wet paper bag).
[Brave antifa inciter Stuchbery, crying his eyes out when one of his chickens came home to roost]
So Stuchbery is on GoFundMe, Patreon, Crowdfunder, Ko-fi etc?
I do not object to that, as such.
If people want to support Stuchbery while he works (if at all) part-time, while he travels around Germany enjoying himself (he relocated to Stuttgart a month or two ago), then more fool them! What I object to is the hypocrisy and malice of Stuchbery and his crowd of fake “journalists”, “historians”, people who use the title “Dr.” when they are just one-trick-ponies with a Ph.D. from some degree mill. They sneak around the Internet, trying to close down freedom of expression.
Hypocrite Stuchbery tweets about “freedom of belief” while supporting the “German” laws criminalizing, inter alia, “holocaust” “denial” ( historical revision) etc. He believes in “freedom of belief” so much that, if he sees anyone with whom he disagrees, he tries to get that person bumped off Twitter, Facebook etc, tries to get the person arrested, tries to attack his or her donation pages online, or worse…
Here [see below] is the Germany that Stuchbery and his equally extremist “German” wife love (to see trashed): invaded by millions of non-Europeans and ruled by an authoritarian Zionist Occupation Government [ZOG]!
Stuchbery and others want to run those with whom they disagree off Twitter (which they laughably over-value), other online fora too, and also prevent them from getting funding via donations. Stuchbery wants to prevent the freedom of expression of others.
In other words, Stuchbery is a kind of para-terrorist, one who would not say boo to a goose in real life, but wallows in the violence committed by others of a so-called “anti-fascist”, meaning anti-European race and culture, disposition. Moreover, he has a record of incitement. He talks at times as if he is on good terms with security services in Germany. Maybe those departments should take a good look at him (and his German wife).
Incredibly, even the Daily Telegraph called Stuchbery an “historian” when alt-Right “Prison Planet” Watson (quite rightly) exploded re. yet another attempt to brainwash young people into believing that Britain has always been “diverse” (full of blacks)…and yes, the Romans may have imported a few Arabs or Nubians as slaves or whatever. That means nothing.
In fact, the same (((propaganda))) and (((brainwashing))), calling Stuchbery “historian”, found its way right across the media (msm), even into such unlikely publications as Teen Vogue! Written by one Robert Newhouse…(((……?……..)))
Perhaps I should add, for those unaware of my views, that I am not a follower or supporter of “Tommy Robinson”, though I agree with a few of his views, notably the invasion of Europe by Muslims and others. For me, Robinson is just an unwitting (perhaps witting) catspaw for the System: pro-Jew, pro-Israel etc, just like Katie Hopkins, “Prison Planet” Watson, Breitbart, UKIP, Brexit Party etc. However, unlike Stuchbery, I do not want to deny Robinson or the others their free speech rights.
Update, 28 October 2019
He’s still trying to destroy freedom of expression online…
The latest news is that some odd woman tied up with both “antifa” nonsense and Jew-Zionists has created a GoFundMe appeal on behalf of Stuchbery, supposedly so that he can sue the political activist known as Tommy Robinson.
I prefer not to comment on the proposed legal claim until I read more about the foundations for such claim. I presume that Stuchbery is doing this (the woman mentioned above may be raising funds for him but only Stuchbery himself can actually sue) because:
he knows or believes that Tommy Robinson has assets sufficient to satisfy any successful claim;
he has seen that others are already suing Tommy Robinson;
he thinks, perhaps, that a civil legal action will damage Tommy Robinson by starving him of funds;
if successful, Stuchbery will make a great deal more money than he gets at present via online begging or his part-time work in Stuttgart, where he now resides.
Were I the defendant, and leaving aside the potential substantive issues that might be in issue in the proposed case, I suppose that I should focus firstly on the fact that Stuchbery is
resident outside the strict jurisdiction (albeit still in the EU);
is a foreign national (as I understand, an Australian citizen);
has no real or other property in England and Wales;
has no means with which to satisfy any judgment on costs or in respect of any counterclaim or setoff that might be claimed by Tommy Robinson, should the Court decide against Stuchbery on one or more issues or otherwise.
I doubt that this claim will get off the ground. I certainly doubt that it will clear the probable first hurdle, as explained above, but we shall see. It appears, however, that plenty of mugs are donating to the said GoFundMe appeal at present.
Update, 25 November 2019
Stuchbery’s solicitors, Eve Solicitors (the firm is a limited company in fact, possibly in effect a one-man operation), are operating out of a rundown Victorian terrace in Bradford; several other small legal and other firms are operating nearby. The operation has only been in operation since 20 May 2019, at earliest:
The “firm” has only been at its present address since 28 September 2019, before which, i.e. from its incorporation in May until September 2019, it operated out of a tiny Victorian terraced house in a “Coronation Street” lookalike, Hudswell Street, Wakefield (Yorkshire).
The principal (and only named) solicitor is one Waseem Ahmed.
Where the name “Eve” came from, God knows. My only guess is “Adam and Eve”, as in the Cockney rhyming slang, “you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it!”
Having said that, when I was a practising barrister in London in the early-mid 1990s, I knew of Pakistani and other ethnic-minority solicitors (in London, in Luton and elsewhere) who used “English”-sounding names for their small firms. Some of them still owe me money! (Unpaid fees). I am sure that Stuchbery’s solicitor is not like that.
I looked earlier at the GoFundMe appeal set up to collect money for Stuchbery’s proposed legal claim against Tommy Robinson. So far, 262 mugs have donated a total (as of time and date of writing) of £5,209 to start the claim. I wonder whether they or others will donate the rest of the £15,000 asked for? Frankly, I doubt it, though the amount so far raised has been raised in only three days.
I doubt that the proposed lawsuit will either launch or get anywhere.
The woman who is fundraising for Stuchbery, and who seems to have all day to tweet etc, has tweeted that “As many of you know, Mike Stuchbery is about to sue #TommyRobinson for harassment. He is backed by #ResistingHate and a full legal team.“
A “full legal team”? So that would be someone called Waseem Ahmed and…?
I do not say that “Eve Solicitors” (i.e. Mr. Ahmed) is a one-man-band (though it certainly seems to be), and I cannot say that there are no legal people offering advice etc from the sidelines (what used to be known at the Bar as “cocktail party advice”), but I do know, having been at one time a practising barrister who (in the 1990s) regularly appeared (weekly, at least) in the High Court, as well as in County Courts, and more occasionally other types of court and tribunal (both then and in the 2002-2008 period), that GoFundMe £20,000 will only serve to kick off such a case and claim, if I have understood its likely nature properly. Costs rapidly escalate.
Solicitors vary in their fees, barristers likewise. Simply to issue proceedings in a High Court action (which I suppose the proposed case would probably be) would be several hundred pounds as a minimum, and many thousands of pounds in some cases.
As a rule of thumb, a barrister will get anywhere from (as minimum) £500 a day on a small civil matter in the County Court, up to many thousands of pounds per day for almost any High Court matter, though there is no “limit” as such, and some barristers, eg the top commercial silks (QCs) will be on £10,000 a day or more. The spectrum is very wide.
As those who enjoyed Rumpole of the Bailey will know, a barrister usually gets a “brief fee” (to cover all preparation and the first day, if any, in court), then daily “refreshers”. How much are they? How long is a piece of string?
One of my own last few cases was a County Court commercial matter involving a large amount of cattle feed. Now that it is long ago since I last appeared in court (December 2007; this case was not long before that), I think that I can reveal, by way of illustration, that I was paid, that time, £5,000 as a brief fee and £1,000 a day for refreshers (in fact there were no refreshers, because the matter settled on the first day in court).
I have no real idea how much the case of Stuchbery v. Robinson might cost Stuchbery in legal fees if it is ever pursued to court, but my semi-educated guess (“semi” because I have not been involved with the Bar for over a decade) is that whoever presents it in court (unless doing it for free or on the cheap) will probably want a brief fee of perhaps £5,000 (at least) and (at minimum) £500 per day refreshers. Maybe £10,000 and £1,000 per day. It can be seen that, even at the lower estimate, a 2-week hearing (10 days in court, which this well might be) is going to cost £9,500 for Counsel’s fees alone.
Solicitors’ fees also vary widely. When I myself worked (overseas) for law firms (as an employed lawyer), the firms charged for my work at anything up to USD $500 (or about £400) an hour (I myself didn’t get that, sadly, the firms did); and that was over 20 years ago. I suppose that Stuchbery’s solicitors will not be very expensive, but will probably still charge maybe £50 an hour at absolute minimum. Solicitor case preparation might take hundreds of hours. 100 hours @ £50 p.h. = £5,000.
Then there are what solicitors term “disbursements”, i.e. the expenses of the case such as issue fees, witness expenses, whatever.
You can see how £20,000 can be quickly exhausted…
However, even if Stuchbery’s solicitors (solicitor?) can launch the proposed matter and fund a couple of weeks in court (and don’t forget that the solicitor, if in attendance, will also be charging for his time there), there is the matter of what happens if Stuchbery loses. No, that is not left to chance. The lawyers for the proposed defendant, Robinson, will in that event have to have their costs covered too. Even if they only come to the same level as Stuchbery’s (which I doubt), that puts Stuchbery (and possibly others who have funded the claim) £20,000+ in the hole. It could be a great deal more. Maybe even hundreds of thousands.
Stuchbery is an Australian citizen, maybe also a German one now (I do not know). He has no real property in the UK or, as far as I know, even in Germany, where he now lives. He has no, or no substantial, monies in the UK (or anywhere?). He does not have a substantial income or a full-time job.
On the above facts, and if Robinson applies in court for that, Stuchbery is almost certain to have to provide “security for costs”, i.e. [see above] monies “paid into court” (into a court-controlled account) to cover Robinson’s costs should Stuchbery lose his case. Likewise, on the above facts, that would almost certainly have to be the whole of Robinson’s likely outlay in defending the case. Certainly tens of thousands of pounds. Possibly over £100,000.
If Robinson applies for security for costs, if the court agrees with the application, but then Stuchbery cannot come up with whatever sum is demanded (I cannot think that it would be lower than £20,000; probably far far more), then the claim (the case) will be struck out, possibly with costs awarded to Robinson.
Stuchbery will probably have to raise £40,000+ even to start his case.
I think that my readers will understand better now why I think that Stuchbery has no chance of success regardless of the merits of his case (if any).
Presumably, Stuchbery does understand that, in a case like this, witnesses (he himself, Robinson, others) will have to give evidence, be cross-examined on that, all the while with Stuchbery staying in the UK, perhaps for weeks or even a month or more. Expensive.
Update, 26 November 2019
Stuchbery again applauding censorship, and elimination of free speech and accurate reporting (but then, Stuchbery not being a real journalist but a tendentious pro-“antifa” fanatic, what else would one expect of him?):
Meanwhile, the “Sue Tommy Robinson” GoFundMe set up by Stuchbery’s supporter(s) is running into the sand. The fund is still attracting donations at a daytime rate of about £100 an hour (almost nothing overnight); about £1,000 a day. The rate is slowing and I myself doubt that it will reach its £20,000 target (as I write, the total stands at over £6,600), let alone the £40,000+ really required to seriously launch proceedings in a matter of this sort. Still, time will tell.
I have to concede that it is impressive to see so many donations flood in, mostly at £5 or £10 a time. One every 5-10 minutes as I look this evening. A lot of people don’t like Tommy Robinson. I’m not very favourable to him myself! (I oppose Stuchbery and his type more, though).
I doubt that Stuchbery’s mental health will stand up to what could be an extended civil trial, if it ever gets going. I have blogged previously about the odd fact that so many “antifa” types are on medication for mental problems.
Anyway, looks like he’s gone, at least for now.
Update, 27 November 2019
The plot thickens!
I notice that Stuchbery has already deleted his “everybody hates me; I’m going into the garden to eat worms” tweet of last night. He must have forgotten to take his medication. Lucky that I copied the tweet to this blog…
As to the “Letter before Action”, such letters were at one time often the only correspondence inter partes before proceedings were issued. Since the advent of the new Civil Procedure Rules [“CPR”] about 20 years ago, there is laid down a whole pre-action protocols for various types of case: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules
I notice that the letter refers only to “harassment” as a head of action (at this stage at least). I notice also that the letter is signed by a solicitor called Mohammed Akhtar. So Eve Solicitors would seem to have at least two lawyers on board.
Speaking personally, this is not an area of law I myself ever dealt with, even after I returned to the practising Bar in 2002 (after 6 years spent away, mostly overseas). It will be noted that the Act itself dates from 1997. The Act covers both criminal and civil proceedings.
However, as a purely civil matter, which this proposed legal action is, it will be heard in the County Court, in all probability, rather than the High Court. The judge can grant an injunction (e.g. restraining the defendant from approaching the claimant or his home, or from doing various acts). The judge is also empowered to award damages.
In this proposed case, the court will not (IMO) order any injunction because the proposed claimant, Stuchbery, lives overseas (and in fact it may be that the proposed defendant, Robinson, has no idea where exactly Stuchbery lives in Germany, meaning his actual address). The Court will not in any event purport to grant an injunction in another jurisdiction. An injunction only affecting England and Wales is possible, but might be considered otiose in a circumstance where Stuchbery is overseas and may never be again in the English jurisdiction.
That leaves damages.
In this case, it may be that Robinson would be able to lay a counterclaim. That will depend on the facts (which I know only in outline, from what I have read).
This case may well require a “window” of several weeks and may be set down for more than 1 week. Perhaps 2 weeks. Perhaps longer (e.g. if there is to be a counterclaim). There may be and probably will be a need to call numerous witnesses.
Despite the Letter before Action, and despite the likelihood that this will be County Court and not High Court, my feeling is that this action will either not proceed, or perhaps may be launched only to founder on the jagged reef of “Security for Costs”. I cannot see that any judge would deny Robinson security for his likely costs, on these facts.
I still think that Stuchbery and his backers are going to have to come up with something nearer to £40,000 to get this matter launched and over the Security for Costs hurdle.
I have decided to publish a separate blog post about Stuchbery’s legal action, to include anything else about his activities that might be of interest. That means that this blog post ends here.
Here we are almost at mid-January 2020, yet so far no sign of either the harassment action threatened against Tommy Robinson by Stuchbery and his cohorts, or even the second fundraising drive for that (disguised as a drive for funds so that Frau Stuchbery can also sue). It will be interesting to see whether either will happen. If not, what happens to the nearly £10,000 already donated to Roanna, “witch of peace”, for Stuchbery’s legal action?
I begin to wonder whether the police and/or Solicitors’ Regulation Authority may not eventually be taking an interest in this crowdfunding activity.
I see on Twitter that “Dr.” Louise Raw, another prolific “antifa” tweeter, seems to think that there will be a defamation action against Tommy Robinson. Not by Stuchbery, I hazard (I suppose that she may be referring to a different potential claimant).
In the meantime, despite claiming on Twitter to have no less than three jobs, Stuchbery, on this Friday morning, seems (what a surprise) not to be working but strolling into town (I presume Stuttgart) to have a leisurely coffee:
“Despite the stiff breeze“? Ha ha! Hardly Front Line Stalingrad…
In the meantime, Stuchbery, while drinking his —as it may be— melange or mocha, is still inciting violence online against those who question the “holocaust” farrago:
Update, 25 May 2020
Update, 19 July 2020
Stuchbery again threatening to bring defamation actions across the world, actions that he would be unable to sustain substantively or financially. He’s not exactly a loony, not totally, but not far off. Mentally and politically “disturbed”.
That must be about the 10th time at least that I have seen Stuchbery threaten to bring legal suit in defamation etc against all sorts of people (a while ago, he was claiming that I myself “defame” him; I never received his summons to a defamation action, and never will…).
Oh, and his “planned action” (planned by him and the “antifa” troll Roanna Carleton-Taylor of Derbyshire) has raised £11,644 via GoFundMe, but the last donation (£5) was nearly 3 months ago, and it is clear that I was right: Stuchbery never will sue Tommy Robinson. I have no idea whether Stuchbery, “Roanna” and the Paki-stani one-man solicitor firm will simply divide up the money that mugs donated. Perhaps we shall find out, one day.
Update, 21 July 2020
Stuchbery again threatening people with libel action, this time over their retweeting of this blog!
and the retweeter has dug deeper with his “me too”-ism, now calling me “vile” and “a fucking awful person” (because I am against the Jew-Zionists and for a real future for Europe and the world).
How quick these supposed “liberal”/”Left” types are to judge the character of someone (me) that they have not met and about whom they know nothing, really…Still, at least this one still likes my article!
Now the retweeter talks about me having “mental issues”! No, never did have, either. Stuchbery, on the other hand…(read my article). Just as well that I do not launch fantasy libel actions at the drop of a hat…
Their argument rumbles on, with both sides playing defamation lawyer. Typical Twitter. Comedy gold; and all about whether someone with no public profile outside Twitter (Stuchbery) was libelled by various people unknown or those (speaking of myself) with no public profile at all, except that I have been attacked by Jew-Zionist fanatics in the past years:
As a matter of fact, Stuchbery (or anyone else) ought to have a look at my several articles about the Jew solicitor, Mark Lewis, whom many (mugs) think a great libel lawyer, before threatening me with a defamation action! I have said far far “worse” (though true) things about Lewis than I ever have about Stuchbery, yet (despite the fact that Lewis and/or his friends are well aware of my address etc) he has never attempted to sue me…
I might add that, though I was not (mainly) a defamation barrister when I was a barrister, I did advise on a few cases, though my main defamation “case” was advised on and brought to court when I was still a belated student, and before I ever was a barrister: Flegon v. Solzhenitsyn. We won.
To his credit, Hayden Hewitt, whoever he is, does stick to his guns in saying that my article about Stuchbery is interesting (look at some of my others…feel free), but sadly feels the need to judge me again (I am, apparently, in his wisdom, to be considered “a shit human being“, presumably for not being “woke”…)
Playing Devil’s Advocate, though, Monsieur Hewitt is not correct in saying that any libel in my article would, in fantasy libel land, devolve only upon me. If someone republishes (eg retweets) a libel, the retweeter is jointly and severally liable for the libel with the original publisher of the alleged libel and any other republishers. Hey, I might get to know Monsieur Hewitt after all, when Stuchbery sues us both! We can listen to Stuchbery outline his case, as squadrons of flying pigs pass by…
The one thing extra that is interesting me about this typically unimportant Twitter squall in a teacup is that Mike Stuchbery seems to have a number of people supporting him; the sad thing, for him, is that they all seem to be mentally-deficient, marginalized, and both ignorant and fanatical (often with under a hundred Twitter followers; is that even possible these days?!).
Update, 22 July 2020
Now if only Stuchbery would stick to tweeting about this sort of thing, and drop the “antifa” nonsense…The tweet above is genuinely interesting.
Update, 2 August 2020
I saw this:
Interesting. Incidentally, the “hit piece” is not something of mine, or in any way connected with me. I may link to it though, if and when it is published (and if it is of interest).
Note that Stuchbery again threatens a defamation action. How many would that be? To be fair, he has not actually or directly threatened me with one, though he has tweeted (incorrectly) that I have “defamed” him (I demur, and/or say that he would have no actionable claim against me, quite apart from any ability to collect money from me in the event —which would never happen— that he were successful in any claim against me).
Stuchbery has certainly threatened defamation actions or other legal action against “Tommy Robinson”, unnamed Danish bloggers or tweeters, various others. Nothing has happened in any country so far. It never will. Stuchbery is an online “blowhard”, a man of straw.
Update, 4 August 2020
Saw this tweet, in which Stuchbery commends the mini-police state being imposed on the unfortunate people of his native Melbourne.
Stuchbery again manifesting his inner “Stalinist”. He just loves the idea of inflicting violence on others, or even seeing it happen, or reading about it. I think that his mental problems are far more severe than he admits, and may go back to childhood.
Update, 18 August 2020
Stuchbery is now threatening to sue yet another group of people!
So how many does that make? “Unchained Media” (whoever they are), Tommy Robinson, various Danes, me, various others. In reality, none will be sued.
By the way, what did happen to the money raised by no less than 692 mugs on the basis that Tommy Robinson was going to be sued? It stuck at £11, 644, and no-one has donated for months: https://www.gofundme.com/f/sue-tommy-robinson
Is it just sitting there? Did Stuchbery get any? Did Roanna aka “@antifashwitch/@witchofpeace” get any of it, or does their Paki-stani solicitor have it in some account or other? We do not know…
At least Stuchbery & Co have a good excuse now as to why they cannot sue Tommy Robinson: he has apparently recently relocated to Spain.
Meanwhile, Stuchbery (now resident in Stuttgart) is still loving the idea of people having violence inflicted on them, whether by out of control Australian police, “antifa” idiots in London, or whoever…
Update, 23 August 2020
Even fictional violence is enough to get Stuchbery excited!
Keep taking the pills…
Update, 31 August 2020
Below, Stuchbery defending cold-blooded murder. Stuchbery’s idea of “self-defence” ignores any notion of proportionality: someone who arrives somewhere with a paintball gun and a pepper spray is fair game to be sought out and just gunned down!
Still, I suppose that one should not expect rationality from the irrational…
Keep taking the pills…
Update, 2 September 2020
Below, cowardly sadist Stuchbery enjoys the fact that in Australia’s pathetic (and economically-collapsing) new “woke” and multikulti police state, a young pregnant mother is handcuffed and arrested in front of her young children for the “crime” of calling for a demonstration against the “virus” hysteria:
A reminder below of one time when Stuchbery himself “learned the hard way“, crying his eyes out and quite likely becoming incontinent!
Illusion is something that many prefer to reality, as this cartoon indicates:
“They want not only their daily bread but also their daily illusion.” [Adolf Hitler, talking about many Germans during the decadent Weimar Republic of 1918-1933]
The Green Party
This blog article was prompted by a tweet that I happened to see, tweeted by one Jonathan Bartley, the “co-leader” of the Green Party.
David Davis is wrong on @BBCr4today that all parties are in a worse state than they have been for years. @TheGreenParty membership is growing, we are polling higher than our best ever general election result and have a record number of councillors on a record number of councils.
The Green Party is so large and important now that it has to have not one but two “co-leaders”. Well, jesting aside, there must be some other reason (almost certainly something very very silly) that necessitates two leaders, the other “co-leader” being one Sian Berry.
Bartley seems to have come from an affluent background. He graduated from the LSE aged 23, thereafter floating around Westminster as researcher etc until he founded the think-tank, Ekklesia. He does not seem to have done (or have needed to do) any other work of much substance between the founding of Ekklesia in 2002 and being elected as Green Party co-leader in 2016.
Deputy Leader is 34-year-old Amelia Womack, who was elected to her party position aged 29, having never been elected to any public position (not even as local councillor); neither has she ever had a paid job of any kind, it seems. She is a candidate in the upcoming Newport West by-election:
Now the facts are (i.e. the reality is) that the Green Party of England and Wales, founded 1990, has 1 MP (out of 650), 1 member of the House of Lords (out of 781), 3 MEPs (out of 64 English/Welsh seats), 2 London Assembly members (out of 25), and 178 local councillors (out of 19,023).
The Green Party is polling at somewhere around 5% nationally (it has been as low as 2% in recent years), and only has its one MP by reason of the unusual demographics and the (in 2010, when Caroline Lucas was first elected) 4-way voting split in the constituency of Brighton Pavilion:
In other words, the Green Party is like a tame rat on a wheel. Lots of activity and noise, but nothing really achieved. It’s not that I am opposed to all Green Party policies. I like some of its environmental policies, its support for Basic Income, its concern for animal welfare etc. There has, after all, always been connection between what are now called “green” ideals and social-nationalism. I have even blogged about it:
Where I cannot accompany the Green Party is in its apparent belief that open borders are good, mass immigration of inferior peoples into Europe is good, or that the EU is mostly very good for the UK.
I agree with the Greens when they say that FPTP voting is unfair on them (as on, in the past, UKIP, the BNP and the National Front, among others). Even 5% of votes should give the Greens around 30 MPs, whereas they may soon struggle to retain their one (though Caroline Lucas is a known TV face and probably will stay for a while). However, to say that UK political life is unfair is really just a pathetic bleat even if true (which it is).
At some point, reality will have to dawn on the Green Party members (surprisingly, nearly 40,000 of them). Or maybe not. I think that many Green Party members probably like their nursery politics game, which they must know in their hearts can never lead to serious results; but it makes them feel good and virtuous.
The Green Party is not about to get MPs elected or sweep the country in any way. The Green Party will simply continue as it is, a virtue-signalling pressure group pretending to be a political party. However, relatively few British people will vote for a party that supports both mass immigration and UK membership of the EU; neither will voters give credence to a party which has no one clear leader and which seems to be a refuge (even in its top-most ranks) for perpetual students and/or virtue-signalling and hugely self-deluded persons.
The Nationalist Milieu
It is often said that the plethora of food programmes on TV are a kind of “food porn” for people who rarely if ever cook. Well, the so-called “far right” (I myself never use terms such as “Left”, “Right” etc) or nationalist political tendency is rather like that: the Zionists, their “useful idiot” “antifa” offshoots, the msm too, and of course the System apparatchiki such as police, all like to say that there is a huge “danger” from “far right extremism” etc. If only! In reality, what exists at present is a mixture of hobby politics, “I’m the leader!” (of 2.5 people) parties, and politically-tinged 1970s football hooligan groups, together with System politics under nationalist camouflage (as with UKIP).
People of my vintage (b.1956), will recall (the now notorious) Gary Glitter singing “I’m the leader!” in 1973, a psychology characteristic of both “I’m the Leader!” parties and, usually, “hobby parties” (though every successful political party has to have a credible leader).
The English Democrats
I am starting with the English Democrats because they seem to me to epitomize the “hobby politics” sort of party. They claim(ed) to have over 2,000 members (2015), though I daresay that even that was a gross overestimation. I personally only ever heard of one member by name (my mother-in-law’s former neighbour), and he was a very strange man, a retired pilot aged about 70 (c.80, now). I would not be surprised if that man were fairly typical of the English Democrats’ members.
The English Democrats were founded in 2002. Their best electoral result was in the Mayoral race at Doncaster in 2009, which they won. They would also have won in 2013, had the Mayor not resigned from the English Democrats not long before the election. He still stood but as Independent and lost to Labour by only 590 votes, the EDs having put up their own candidate, who received 4,615 votes.
Police and Crime Commissioner elections have been their second best (highest vote-share just over 15%). In local elections, they have reached over 10% here and there, with their leader, Robin Tilbrook, receiving 18.2% of the vote in an election for the Epping Forest District Council. In Westminster elections, all results have been below —far below— 1% (in 2017, about a tenth of 1% in each of the seven seats contested).
The English Democrats have few policies, and those so bland that they could be espoused by several other parties, including System ones. Even the “English Parliament” idea has been mooted by System MPs occasionally.
“[Robin Tilbrook’s] party agitates for anyone living in England. His notion of Englishness is akin to American notions of “Americanness” – that you can be from any ethnic background and still wrap yourself in the flag.” [from an American newspaper interview]. So someone straight off the boat from God knows where is “English”, so long as living in England, according to that idiot! Even his professed “Euroscepticism” is very muted (and is based on the disproportionate amount of EU funding going to non-English parts of the UK).
The English Democrats are the “hobby politics” party par excellence. Mr. Tilbrook will never be blacklisted by the msm, nor targeted seriously by “antifa” or the Jewish lobby. He will never be interrogated by the police. He has in fact been invited onto TV occasionally and given a polite hearing, e.g. on BBC Daily Politics. He is even a Freeman of the City of London (awarded 2011)! Members of the EDs can write letters to the Daily Telegraph and talk at the bar of their golf clubs without let or hindrance. A waste of time worthy of P.G. Wodehouse.
For Britain Movement
I have blogged about “For Britain” previously. This party, though partly on the right track in terms of policy, is basically a one-trick pony. “You can have any colour so long as it is black!” [Henry Ford, re. the Model T car]; with “For Britain”, you can have any policy so long as it is anti-Islamism. Not that I oppose that view, but it is not enough.
For Britain is not exactly a “hobby politics” party, but it is really just a one-man or one-woman band, closely aligned with the policy-free beer-bottle throwers of the English Defence League and their one-time leader, the person usually known as Tommy Robinson.
The leader of For Britain, Irish lesbian former secretary Anne-Marie Waters (“Maria” originally), certainly has some followers, and For Britain has some members, as witness the local election campaign poster linked below, but how many is unclear. Probably fewer than 100. Quite possibly only about 50.
“The party fielded fifteen candidates in the 2018 local elections, none being elected. The party came last in almost all the seats it contested. In June 2018, the party expelled one of its local election candidates after Hope Not Hate linked him to the proscribed neo-Nazi group National Action and the white nationalist group Generation Identity“
So “For Britain” (which says, pathetically, to the Jew-Zionist lobby, “look, we’re pro-Israel!” in the forlorn hope that the Jews will not hate it), sacked someone at least active enough to get up from his chair and stand as a candidate, simply because the unpleasant “Hope Not Hate” crowd fingered him!
As for Anne-Marie Waters, she herself stood in the Lewisham East by-election of 2018, receiving 266 votes (1.2% of votes cast; 7th place, behind Labour, LibDem, Con, Green, Women’s Equality and UKIP, but just ahead of Christian People, Monster Raving Loony, and 5 other minor candidates). “For Britain” is no good even as a protest vote in a by-election!
Sometimes, I wonder whether this or that group, party or movement or “leader” is not a put-up-job by the enemy, but in reality the likelihood is that these people are just deluded, indulging in near-pointless political activity. Having said that, it suits “Hope Not Hate” and the other manipulators of “antifa” idiots to have something to point at and say, “Look! Nazis/neo-Nazis/Fascists!” (etc).
Who, who would join something as one-dimensional, as limited, as “For Britain”? God knows. Not many have joined, anyway.
Well, here we are at last out of the “hobby politics” and “I’m the Leader” areas, though plenty of UKIP members are hobby politicos. UKIP, though, is the real thing: a functioning political party, conservative-nationalist, and which at one time had two or three MPs (albeit temporary cast-offs), still has 7 MEPs (out of a possible 73), as well as 1 member of the House of Lords, 3 Welsh Assembly members (out of a possible 60) and 101 local councillors (out of a possible 20,712).
UKIP might have broken through to a measure of power in 2015 but did not, and now never will. It peaked in 2014. A succession of poor leaders (the present one is slightly better than those that followed Farage) crippled already-failing UKIP, whose membership, at one time reaching 50,000, is now somewhere below 23,000. UKIP has always been semi-tolerated by the System (inc. the Jew-Zionist lobby) and has now gone over to a basically one-trick-pony policy position which is not far from the offerings of Tommy Robinson, Anne-Marie Waters and the whole effectively pro-Jew and pro-Israel “alt-Right”/”alt-Lite” crowd (the British ones of prominence have in fact recently joined UKIP: “Prison Planet” Watson, “Count Dankula” Meechan, “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin. All wastes of space).
To join or support UKIP now, except perhaps as a way of protesting pointlessly in an election, is just silly. It could not get one MP in 27 years (leaving aside the Conservative few who defected briefly), not even in 2015 when it was voted for by 1 out of every 8 voters! The voting system is rigged and flawed, and that suits the System parties very well.
UKIP’s vote in 2015 (nearly 4 million votes) fell to less than a seventh of that in 2017.
UKIP too is in the realm of political unreality, at least as far as elections are concerned.
How to go toward a realistic political viewpoint
The short to medium term future is uncertain and likely to bring revolutionary change to the world. I recently blogged about this:
As far as UK politics is concerned, it is clear that the major urban areas are no-go zones for nationalist parties, at least in respect of getting MPs elected. They can only be viewed as recruitment pools at present.
To pretend that a movement or party can be founded, then play the game of System politics, is otiose. UKIP tried that —and was semi-System anyway— yet failed utterly in any attempt to gain power (though I concede that UKIP did obliquely achieve the holding of and result of the 2016 EU Referendum, which result however is now being cynically betrayed by cosmopolitan conspirators such as the Jew Letwin and the virtue-signalling hypocrite Yvette Cooper… even as I write).
The fast-breeding ethnic minorities, including mixed-race elements, are collectively only a few decades away from becoming the majority in the UK. In some cities and towns, they are already the majority. That fact alone makes ordinary democratic politics a no-win situation for social-nationalism.
A social-national movement must be built from the ground up, and on a basis of reality, even if that reality looks, at present, like the sheerest fantasy.
This was just a by-election protest vote and a pretty muted one.
The Greens came 6th, with 924 votes (3.9%).
As for “For Britain Movement”, its candidate came last out of the 11 candidates, getting 159 votes (0.7%). This party is wasting the time of its few members.
Update, 9 April 2019
Judicial Review cases are never dealt with in days. We will hear next week what the government has to say in Reply but only then will the High Court list the first hearing. We are applying for the hearing to be "Expedited". We have a strong case that the UK is Out of the EU!
Update, 12 April 2019; a few thoughts about the near-future EU and local elections
The Brexit mess, so spectacularly mishandled by Theresa May and the idiotic careerists around her, may save UKIP from immediate collapse as a party, inasmuch as many British voters will want to punish the Conservative Party one way or the other. There may be a “perfect storm” for the Conservative Party, pressured on two fronts by both the Leave and Remain sides.
There will soon be elections for the European Parliament, on 23 May 2019. Recent opinion polling seems to be saying that Labour will have a landslide: initial voting intentions show Labour on 37.8% (up from 24.4% in 2016); Conservatives at 23.1% (unchanged), Brexit Party (Nigel Farage’s new party) 10%, LibDem 8%, UKIP 7.5%, Change UK (the recent Lab/Con defector MPs’ vehicle) around 4%, among others.
One has to be cautious in assuming that the above opinion poll reflects the likely outcome. The same poll seems to indicate that, after discussion, many pro-EU voters prefer Change UK (which would hit Labour and LibDem levels), while anti-EU voters may prefer either UKIP or Brexit Party.
Before the EU elections (in which the UK may not participate at all if the UK leaves the UK before 23 May), there will be local elections, on 2 May 2019. The indications are that, in those elections, Labour may also sweep the poll, with Labour benefiting not only from the “pendulum” or “see-saw” effect of elections in a system using FPTP voting, but also from abstentions by usual Con voters (or by their voting for Brexit Party or UKIP).
As far as the local elections are concerned, Labour starts the campaign with several advantages. The decade of spending cuts has finally impacted even the most true-blue Conservative areas. Labour has a army of local activists, thanks to its membership surge under Corbyn. It also has funds from the same source.
The Conservatives have few local activists now and most are beyond retirement age. The party looks tired. The Brexit mess can only be laid at the door of Theresa May and her Cabinet. The Cons will be lucky to avoid a wipeout in the areas voting on 2 May.
There are also strategic factors. The Conservative Party claims 124,000 members, which seems high (average 200 members per constituency). Most are elderly. Few are active. The median age for Conservative voters has also risen, to 52. Recent polling has shown that only 16% of voters under 35 support the Cons, and only 4% of those under 25 do so.
Returning to UKIP etc, the Brexit Party will obviously have the effect of splitting the Leave/Brexit hard core.
Update, 17 April 2019
The “For Britain” “Movement” (can 50 people be a “movement”?) has posted on GAB that they are not “far right” (whatever that means) and in some ways are no more “extreme” than Margaret Thatcher and not even really “socially conservative”. Oh dear…pretty pathetic.
I don’t know why I am even wasting 10 minutes of my ever-shorter lifespan examining this fake “movement” with its 50 members, especially after its recent (latest) electoral debacle at the Newport West by-election (last-placed out of 11 candidates; 159 votes, which represented 0.7% of votes cast).