Tag Archives: free speech

Count Dankula, free speech, Jewish lobby in UK, Mark Meechan, society, Uncategorized

A Country Gone Mad

16 Comments

It is reported in the System “newspapers” that some people made an “effigy” of Grenfell Tower and then burned it as a Guy Fawkes Night stunt. In fact, this first of all shows how standards in journalism have fallen through the floor, because “effigy” means a model of a person, strictly speaking. Leaving that aside, this is another example of how the UK continues to sink into madness.

The alleged act may have been in poor taste, but only in a country gone mad could it be called crime! The UK police waste their resources on this? While serious real crime skyrockets! The UK is becoming like Stalin’s Russia, complete with me-too idiots.

In fact, if you read the reports, you see that neighbours and even family members of those arrested (and, yes –incredibly–, five people have actually been arrested over this nonsense) all feel obliged to distance themselves from the terrible crime (thought-crime?) committed; they all virtue-signal like mad. “Oh, no, guv’nor, I’m not like that!” or “I never had any idea that enemies of the people were living next door to me!” or “I’m afraid now that I know that bad people live near me” (etc…).

The msm reports show detectives at the house of these ordinary folk (who have now been exposed as “enemies of the people”), the detectives solemnly bagging-up evidence as if at the scene of murder or terrorism!

Meanwhile, in the real world outside the “fake news” newspaper offices, outside the Twittersphere and the milieu of the virtue-signallers, London has an epidemic of murder and knife crime, with hundreds stabbed or shot each year. In fact, the real situation is worse, because many killings which are really murder are reclassified as “manslaughter”. Large areas of the UK are becoming lawless zones, the police are not responding to emergency calls and many crimes not only go unpunished but uninvestigated and indeed all but unreported. Pakistani “grooming” and rape gangs are found everywhere in the UK, preying on white British children, Islamist terrorism is likewise widespread now.

The UK police nonetheless have the resources, it seems (and despite their constant whine about lacking such resources), to investigate comments made on Twitter (especially about Jews), to track down those posting cartoons mocking Jews, Muslims and others, and now to arrest persons who make the wrong sort of “effigy” on Guy Fawkes Night. Mad or what?

The ancients said that “those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” Be afraid, be very afraid, Britain…

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-grenfell-tower-effigy-suspects-13542146

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grenfell-tower-bonfire-effigy-video-fire-burning-guy-fawkes-november-5-a8619491.html

Postscript

The Daily Telegraph report, in which it is revealed that this petty incident of “offence” is being investigated “fully” by “a team” of detectives headed by a Chief Superintendent, no less! If only Lewis Carroll were still alive!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/05/home-secretary-condemns-sick-video-people-burning-effigy-grenfell/

Addendum, 25 January 2019

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

(“Free speech” in the Britain of 2019! Note the robotic refusal of Humberside Police to apologize or even engage with the free speech argument, even now. Sinister is the right word for this.)

Addendum, 4 February 2019

http://www.salisburyreview.com/articles/going-to-prison-for-having-the-wrong-thoughts/

scan25

Update, 15 April 2019

and the madness continues…

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-man-charged-over-video-14316795

Update, 24 June 2019

The trial of Paul Busetti in relation to the events described above has been set down for 29 July 2019 (estimated duration unknown, possibly longer than 1 day, at an educated guess).

Another aspect of the galloping madness around

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/10/christian-doctor-lost-job-government-department-refusing-identify/

Update, 22 August 2019

Well, the farcical process of investigation, arrest, charge, prosecution and trial is over. I was right about the duration of trial: 2 days. The result? Acquittal before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/22/paul-bussetti-court-effigy-grenfell-tower-bonfire-joke-about-own-friend-group-video

The prosecution was a politically-motivated farce, but the laugh is at least partly on the taxpayers, because tens of thousands of pounds have been laid out by police, CPS and the MoJ in taking to trial someone who just made a joke (tasteless, yes, so be it).

Meanwhile, in similar news, the South Wales Police have reinforced their longstanding and well-deserved reputation for thick-as-two-short-planks woodentop-ery by actually arresting and locking up a man who simply flew a flag from his own house!

“A spokesperson for South Wales police stated, “we are aware of images circulating on social media of a flag with a swastika on it being displayed in Neath.”

“We would like to reassure you this flag has been removed and a 55-year-old local man has been arrested on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence.”

Well, “long live freedom”…(but not in South Wales, it seems…)

I hope that the accused fights this latest attempt to repress civil rights, an attempt made on behalf of the Jew-Zionist lobby. The police are now becoming actively hostile to the British people.

Update, 5 February 2020

“A man who displayed a large red flag with a swastika on the side of a house in Wales will not face charges, it has emerged. People living in Neath were said to be ‘absolutely disgusted’ by the flag on a property near the A474 flyover. One shocked passer-by had taken a picture of the flag and posted it on social media. A 55-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence. South Wales Police said a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided no further action should be taken against the man.” [Metro newspaper]

So the (London) Metro newspaper sees fit to insert nonsense about how locals were “absolutely disgusted” by the flying of the Swastika banner. I doubt that that is true. However, the nub of the report is at the end: no further action. So just more police time and money (and that of the innocent man arrested) wasted because the Jewish lobby will not shut up…

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, Conservative Friends of Israel, David Icke, David Irving, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Labour Friends of Israel, Mark Lewis, Nick Griffin, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

A New Director of Public Prosecutions Takes Up His Role as Head of the Crown Prosecution Service

2 Comments

scan25

Max Hill Q.C. is on the brink of taking up his role as D.P.P., in succession to Alison Saunders. It is too early to say what his official attitude will be in relation to political “crime”, “thought crime” and freedom of expression. While he has made some quite liberal remarks in the past in connection with Muslims, Islamists etc, he has also referred to “far right fanatics”, a meaningless phrase which is often used by Zionists and their msm doormats to label social nationalists and others.

Already, the unpleasant Zionist fanatics of the so-called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or “CAA” (themselves under police investigation for stalking, harassment and abuse of charitable status) have taken to Twitter etc in an attempt to put pressure on the new DPP. They want him to prosecute anyone criticizing Zionist individuals and groups under the UK’s draconian laws against so-called “hate speech” etc. Indeed, one of their doormats in the msm (himself apparently a Jew) has already publicized on Twitter and on the LBC (radio station) website a file relating to various “cases” where the police and/or CPS have not prosecuted mostly rather innocuous tweets and other online postings.

The Zionists of the CAA are using the entirely unrelated shooting event in Pittsburgh, USA to try to shut down legitimate freedom of expression in the UK…and are being aided and abetted by other Zionists in the decadent UK mass media milieu.

The new DPP, before he listens to any of the CAA’s nonsense, should bear in mind that, quite apart from the various alleged illegalities perpetrated by CAA persons (and which are currently under police investigation), the CAA has made a number of frivolous and indeed malicious complaints (to the police, to the CPS, to Twitter etc) against quite a large number of people, including David Icke, Al Jazeera TV, the Jewish anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon, and even against me. In fact, in its 4+ years of operation, the CAA has only scored two “victories” of any significance, to wit against Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) and against the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz (who is in any case presently appealing both conviction and sentence).

The CAA’s membership numbers are secret, but thought by many to number only a few hundred, certainly not many more if its Parliament Square and other demonstrations are anything to go by. Crowds numbering between 50 and 200 individuals.

In order to assist Max Hill Q.C. and his staff in any deliberations, I commend my own experience of victimization by these Jewish-Zionist and pro-Israel fanatics. The events described took place in January 2017, so nearly two years ago now, and the blog post dates from about 18 months ago.

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

Notes

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/anti-corbyn-charity-and-petition-under-investigation

Update, 19 February 2020

The Jew Stephen Silverman of South Essex, the so-called “Head of Enforcement” at the “CAA” (“Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fake charity,  and who was exposed in open court (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) as a pseudonymous troll and stalker of women, has recently been complaining that the DPP will not meet with Silverman or his colleagues (who include Joe Glasman, an evil snooper, and Stephen Applebaum of Edgware, North London, soi-disant “film critic” and house husband; Applebaum was also a very malicious and pseudonymous troller and stalker of women before he was exposed).

If it is true that the DPP will not agree to have his ear bent by the CAA trolls, it must be because, at long last, the CPS (and police?) are waking up to the maliciousness of these Jews, and to their politically-motivated “lawfare” against those with whom they disagree (“those whom they hate” would be more accurate).

Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

The Gathering Cloak of Censorship

2 Comments

In Pittsburgh, someone has apparently shot some Jews in a synagogue. His motives need not concern us. What does concern me is how the System has seized upon the event as an excuse to censor social media comment. In particular, the enemies of freedom have taken the opportunity to attack and try to shut down GAB [https://gab.com/home], at which the alleged shooter is said to have maintained an account.

Within hours of the shooting, both GAB’s hosting service, Joyent [https://www.joyent.com/] as well as Paypal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal] withdrew services from GAB in a blatant attempt to destroy GAB, which is a small (and freer) version of Twitter.

The rationale for this censorship conspiracy (and of course it is obvious which tribe is behind it) is that GAB is somehow (unspecified) responsible for the Pittsburgh shooting event because the alleged shooter had a GAB account!

Now these days almost everyone has a social media account. The mass killer, Anders Breivik, had a Facebook account. There was no conspiracy or clamour to shut down Facebook after he shot about 80 people a few years ago.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8661139/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-had-extensive-links-to-English-Defence-League.html

In fact, it turns out that the alleged perpetrator of the Pittsburgh event also had accounts on both Facebook and Twitter! However, neither Facebook nor Twitter are facing any threat of close-down, unlike Gab; neither are the hardcore Jewish Zionists on those platforms calling for any such shut-down. Only Gab is facing destruction…Surely even the “antifa” idiots can see that there is something fishy here?

In other words, the attack on GAB is purely political and is being led, basically, by the Zionist element, which is trying to remove any space wherein social-national or “white nationalist” views can be expressed. Twitter has already purged thousands of its most interesting accounts (including my own) after Jews complained. Now GAB is under threat for not purging the same sort of views. It has nothing to do with violence or supposed incitement to violence. Most GAB posters do not incite violence (far less than do the more extreme Jewish Zionists and their “antifa” “useful idiots”). It is a purely political attempt to prevent any social-national or even traditional-type nationalist views from being expressed anywhere.

It is sobering to look at Twitter and see how the mob is baying for the blood of GAB. Many of the most fervent supporters of censorship are those whose predecessors would have gone to the barricades in defence of freedom: journalists, TV presenters, academics, writers, film directors etc. Many are not Jews but “useful idiot” types, completely bamboozled (but withal aware that to stand against Zionism is often not a good career move in a milieu where “they” have a stranglehold…).

What happens when people are denied a voice, even where that voice is small? Let history judge.

Addendum

When I spoke at the London Forum in February 2017, I used the last part of my talk to raise the point, only since then raised by others (both in UK and especially USA), about what I called “the privatization of public space” online. As I explained in that talk, what I meant was that a very few huge online enterprises now act as near or quasi-monopolies: Facebook, Twitter, Amazon (in respect of book reviews etc), ebay. If the citizen is thrown off those sites and/or barred from expressing opinion, his right to self-expression has been denied him, and that remains true even if there are small websites where he can still comment. The citizen has no right of redress qua citizen, only as a “customer” of those sites. That amounts to no right at all when it comes to freedom of expression.

There should be a right of appeal to an independent agency or tribunal, or to the courts. At present, the large online companies can arbitrarily remove a person from posting, without appeal even in-house in most cases. Those who say that these are private enterprises and have the right to remove whomsoever they wish are missing the point. Risibly, such unthinking and/or malicious people often think of themselves as the “tolerant” and “freedom”-loving ones…their glee at GAB being shut down tells the true story, though. They simply wish to repress freedom of expression for those with whom they (in, often, their smug ignorance) disagree on political, social or historical matters.

DqpRGHkU8AEg7MO

DqpFeZBU0AAASAy

 

Below: Gab comments via its Twitter account (and retweets supporters)

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056763491711733760

https://twitter.com/KAGtime/status/1056763552126717953

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056758615002963968

 

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056767928677281792

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1056766589519843328

https://twitter.com/Nyrvachan/status/1056977992881266690

Meanwhile, the Jewish-Zionist element is holding conferences about how to “manage” the news and how to present those whom they hate…it seems that the spirit of Pravda and Komsomolskaya Pravda is not dead…

Interview with Gab founder Andrew Torba

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1057402904183590913

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1057392137333964800

Further Developments

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2018/10/31/the-alt-rights-favorite-social-network-gabs-plan-to-use-blockchain-to-make-itself-indestructible/#4c9662f231be

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

“Free speech” in the Britain of 2019! Note (in the above newspaper report) the robotic refusal of Humberside Police to apologize or engage with the free speech argument, even now. Sinister is the right word for this.

http://www.salisburyreview.com/articles/going-to-prison-for-having-the-wrong-thoughts/

Update, 9 May 2019

Believe it or not, this idiot (Paul Bernal, see tweet below) is a law lecturer! I feel sorry for his students at the University of East Anglia! According to his definition, even Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China had “free speech” (you could *say* whatever you liked, but as a consequence might get shot..). What an idiot!

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Irving, ethnostate, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

My Talk To The London Forum In 2017

1 Comment

The video of my talk to the London Forum on 4 February 2017.

The Zionist evil had the whole London Forum youtube channel closed down, but brave patriots have now reposted this video. Please spread this video as widely as possible to kick the Zionists in the snout, as they deserve!

Update, 19 July 2019

I just noticed that that YouTube channel has now also been closed. The basically Jewish Zionist censorship continues and intensifies. I think that we all know that there is only one way to restore freedom of socio-political expression to the Western world…

Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, free speech, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Paul Watson, Prison Planet, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

Twittering To The Birds

5 Comments

It has now been about three months since I was expelled from Twitter. Am I chafing under the restriction? No.

Most Twitter users regard removal from Twitter as akin to being cast into outer darkness, a phenomenon to be feared (if it happens to them), to be protested against (if it happens to those whom they regard as ideological friends), to be laughed at and celebrated (if it happens to those they dislike, hate, or oppose ideologically).

Twitter is in fact a habit akin to having a piece of chocolate with your morning coffee. I used to love posting my views and comments on the affairs of the day, as well as posting favoured music and art. Self-expression. I used to think also that I was, at least in a small way, influencing the national and even international debate. That might have been so, but only to a very limited degree.

My Twitter account had just under 3,000 followers when it was eliminated by the Twitter organization. The absurdity of imagining that you are much influencing society is shown when it is considered that –to take just one example and one which comes into my mind— a mentally-disturbed Jewess whose Twitter account is replete with long complaints about her illnesses, alcohol consumption, problems with the DWP, and those she dislikes politically (including me!), as well as pictures of her dogs and photographs of owls, actually has 500 more Twitter followers than had my account, with its –as I would like to believe, anyway!– intelligent, pithy views and comment on politics, strategy and society. She does follow thousands, though, whereas I followed only a few dozen accounts. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, has 598,000 Twitter followers, while Jeremy Corbyn has no less than 1.84 million.  To extend the idea to absurdity, take the One Direction pop group: they have 31 million Twitter followers.

A superficial view might be to imagine that someone with many thousands (or, a fortiori, millions) of Twitter followers has huge influence or impact upon society, upon political views etc. A moment’s thought shows that even if that be true, the influence and impact comes out of what the tweeter does offline, certainly off Twitter, not what he or she posts on Twitter. Theresa May’s Twitter influence is a mere adjunct to her position as Prime Minister. As to such as “One Direction”, were they not well known as entertainers, their influence (whatever it may be) would be close to a zero point.

I keep in touch with comment on Twitter, read about this and that, largely out of habit, but am no longer fooled by the idea that those tweeting are influencing many outside their own existing circle (or “echo chamber”). I sometimes look at the tweets of the Jew-Zionist cabal on UK Twitter. The same few dozen idiots, mostly concentrated in parts of North London, still tweeting pretty much what they were tweeting five years ago— to as little effect.

Another example, that of the “Alt-Right”: “Prison Planet” Watson, meaning Paul Joseph Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson, a young-ish (about 38-y-o) blogger and vlogger (and who does not accept the “alt-Right” label now), tweets to his 904,000 Twitter followers from (as I read somewhere) a basement flat in the Battersea area. Consider that: 904,000 followers, when the Prime Minister of the country only has 598,000… On the other hand, who of the two has more real influence, let alone real political power? That is not even a question.

Another point is that many “celebrity” or would-be celebrity tweeters buy huge numbers of followers, in an attempt to “big up” (in the inelegant phrase of the day) their Twitter profile and so (they hope) their real-world profile. To take one example, not entirely at random: a certain well-known Jew-Zionist solicitor, very vocal about “anti-Semitism” etc, (and who is or was wont to scream imprecations to me and others about how we should die and how he looks forward to our deaths) had about 5,000 Twitter followers when I became aware of the bastard’s existence (around 2012). That follower count increased to about 80,000 within one week! I wonder how much those “followers” cost him and whether the fake total helped him to pose as a hot-shot lawyer and almost a “public figure”? At any rate, he now has about 20,000 “followers”. His fakery does not stand alone, there are many whose “follower count” is hugely inflated, but I seriously doubt the utility of doing things like that.

There is another point. Many Twitter users follow literally thousands of accounts, so the influence of any one account on the follower is likely to be very small.

It might be asked why I am now on GAB if I think that being on Twitter is a waste of time. GAB has only 500,000 users, against Twitter’s 400 million. I am on GAB mainly because it is possible to communicate with others of similar views easily, either publicly or privately (as on Twitter). In addition, I want to support a genuine free-speech platform.

Mao opined (later printed in the “Little Red Books”) that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”:

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

That may not be the whole truth, but political power certainly does not grow out of tweets on Twitter.

Further thoughts [22 August 2018]

I just saw that privileged, superannuated schoolgirl-type and politico-social one-trick-pony Caroline Criado-Perez has no less than 46,200 Twitter followers! There are innumerable similar examples on Twitter.

See also: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-pseuds/

 

 

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, animal welfare, David Icke, Defence, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Nick Griffin, Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Replacement, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

One Man’s “Extremism” is Another Man’s Struggle for Liberty and Justice

75 Comments

I had occasion to visit a small NHS facility recently. It was a lovely, quiet unit, with only about a dozen or so patients, those patients living, prior to discharge, in several large “bays” and a few individual rooms. The unit was surrounded by flower gardens with small flowering trees and a few classical statues. Beyond that (out of sight) was a very small town (little more than a village) and the countryside of Southern England. If you have to go to a hospital, you could do worse. So why am I blogging about this?

While waiting to go in to see the patient in question, I perused the literature rack by the nursing station. One leaflet caught my eye. I have it before me as I write. Under the NHS logo and the name of the NHS foundation trust running the unit at the strategic level, the title:

PREVENT

[the words contained within a shield device; with two hands –dark blue and light blue (the old KGB colour..ironic) and perhaps (?) representing white and non-white– clasped]. The leaflet was then sub-headed:

Preventing vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism

Inside the leaflet:

What is Prevent? Prevent is part of the government’s counter terrorism strategy; aiming to prevent people of all ages from being radicalised and drawn into terrorism.

The leaflet continues:

What kind of extremism does Prevent aim to deal with? It aims to deal with all forms of extremism; for example far right extremism, animal rights extremism and religious extremism.

So we see that “terrorism” has already been conflated with or replaced by “extremism”, an even less easily-defined idea. Moreover, we see that Islamist terrorism, the only kind actually posing even a slight threat to public order in the UK, is not mentioned by name (no doubt that would be called “Islamophobic”…) and only coyly implied, sub nom “religious extremism”. No doubt the Jewish Zionist fanatics, who go in their hundreds to be trained by the Israelis in Israel, are not considered “extremists”, “terrorists” etc. No, they just go to an alien society to be trained in the use of weapons and in the techniques of killing with bare hands (oh, and of course, how to “bring down” British MPs thought not to be pro-Israel or pro-Jew…).

Who are these “extremists” in pole position in the Prevent leaflet? Ah, yes, the “far right” (also left undefined, presumably social nationalists, those who hate mass immigration and the trashing of the UK by certain groups and types) as well as those who hate the cruelties inflicted on the animal kingdom by some humans and by human society; but let us now return to the leaflet:

What are some of the possible signs of radicalisation?

  • you may notice changes in the person’s behaviour or mood;
  • the person’s appearance may change and they may spend excess [sic] time on the internet;
  • the person may start to express extreme political or radical views;
  • the person may become withdrawn or have a change in their circle of friends.

So now we have travelled from “terrorism” and even “extremism” to people who have or may have merely “radical” points of view about, say, the disastrous effect that mass immigration has had on the UK, or about the exploitation and cultural contamination carried out by Jew-Zionists, or even about animal welfare.

The leaflet then asks what the reader might do should he or she actually suspect that another person has changed lifestyle or perhaps have acquired “radical” views:

  • NOTICE: Be aware of an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation, any change in behaviour or ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs an individual may have. [this section of the leaflet also contains the iconic alien-looking “all-seeing eye” motif…]
  • CHECK: If possible and appropriate check out any concerns with the individual…your line manager and the [NHS] safeguarding team. [this section of the leaflet contains a motif of a magnifying glass with a little humanoid figure inside the lens…]
  • SHARE: You need to share your concerns with the [NHS] safeguarding team. They can advise you on any relevant partner agencies who will need to be contacted. [note “will need to be contacted” not “may need”…presumably police, MI5 etc].

The leaflet then goes on to list telephone numbers and internet contact details, before ending with these dystopian remarks, which would not have been out of place in an early 1970s BBC Play For Today, or perhaps George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:

What happens to my referral? [“my referral”, note, not “my denunciation”, “my informing”, my accusation” etc…]. Prevent referrals are shared with the MASH (multi-agency safeguarding hub) or [name of city] SPA (single point of access) depending on where the individual lives. Referrals are then screened for acceptance in to the channel process.

What is channel?

Channel is a multi-agency process whereby professionals and partner agencies can share resources and expertise. The aim of channel is to work with the individual to reduce risk. If your referral is accepted into the channel process you may also be asked to attend the channel meetings to share relevant information as part of effective multi-agency working.

I have sometimes been accused of being, inter alia, a “grammar Nazi”, and am, of course, (also) appalled by the poor English displayed in the leaflet. I have no idea by whom the leaflet was written. Perhaps the Home Office and MI5 are now less likely to recruit graduates from Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps the near-illiteracy shown is just a function of the UK’s sliding educational standards. The main impression given, though, is that of a police state operation which would be recognizable to an official of Stalin’s Russia or any similar society. The saving grace is probably that it is not (though I am guessing) very efficient.

Indeed, shorn of the millennial “nudge”-government, fake “sharing caring” and armchair psychology nonsense, the leaflet could be seen simply as a method of recruiting agents…

Finally, think about where this leaflet was found– not in a prison, a government office, nor even in a university library, but in a normal NHS clinical environment in the heart of the South of England…

Notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Addendum, 25 January 2019

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

Addendum, 4 February 2019

http://www.salisburyreview.com/articles/going-to-prison-for-having-the-wrong-thoughts/

scan25

Update, 2 September 2019

So there we are: once the chistka starts, it takes on a life of its own…

Alt-Right, free speech, Jewish lobby in UK, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, The Great Reset, the Great Reset, Uncategorized

The War on Freedom of Expression in the UK, USA and EU States

3 Comments

Introduction

Recent events have sharpened my already-keen interest in freedom of expression. On Twitter, the premier socio-political short-comment website, those regarded in the USA as “alt-right” have had their “blue ticks” removed, signalling that they are not very approved of by whomever decides policy at Twitter. In the UK, several people are currently about to be put on trial for saying or singing things of which the Jewish Zionists disapprove. Also in the UK, David Icke has just (17 November 2017) had his event at the Old Trafford facility owned by Manchester United (itself owned by a clan of American Jew-Zionists) cancelled. In the EU, the already considerable online censorship in Germany, France, Scandinavia has been intensified and new EU rules control online platforms as never before (and behind such restrictions, once again, “them”…).

Many reading this will be aware that, by reason of the activities of a pack of Jew-Zionists, I was disbarred in 2016. I have blogged about that and may do so again. Even before those events, I was prevented, I think in 2011 or 2012, from posting book reviews on Amazon (UK and US) because one (at first only one) obsessed Jew complained to the Jewish Chronicle about me. Other Jews joined in, the original one trolling anyone who liked my reviews (enough liked them to propel me to the top 40 reviewers), leaving stupid and unpleasant comments, many both defamatory and untrue). Once the Jewish Chronicle and other Jew-Zionist organizations piled in, Amazon caved in…

In fact, this censorship, largely exercized by the Jewish-Zionist element, predates the Internet era. I recall trying to advertize a small organization in The Spectator, around 1978. I was advised that I had to supply a precis of its political view. I did that, only to be told that my advertisement would not be printed. Same at that bastion of well-heeled and hypocritical Home Counties free-speech-ism, Private Eye. This at a time when these publications carried both “Conservative” and “socialist”, even Communist adverts!

The Internet opened up a window of freedom of expression, but “they” are rapidly moving to close it. Free speech is being shut down.

USA

The free speech provisions of the US Constitution are as outdated and superseded as those governing arms in private hands and other matters. At present, with certain exceptions, the State (meaning government) will not (there are exceptions) criminalize something said by an individual in the street, on a placard, in print, but that does not prevent that individual losing his job (if an employer dislikes what he has said or written, or where the employer has been pressured by external forces, such as the Jewish Lobby, with its campaigns of boycott etc).  The US Constitution, in other words, cannot save the individual from losing his job, home, family, if his employer decides to penalize him because of his “free expression”.

Likewise, the writer who writes that which is disliked by the Jewish lobby will not be arrested in the USA, but may find that he cannot get books published by mainstream publishing houses. The academic who tries to expand the boundaries may find that tenure is denied, or employment terminated.

Now, in the Internet age of social media, we find that the major platforms for freedom of expression are not properly public, but private organizations, private enterprises, which can decide on almost any basis to prohibit any named individual from posting. Amazon, ebay (which e.g. allows Soviet but not German Third Reich memorabilia), Facebook, Twitter. These organizations are either owned or largely owned or strongly influenced (and staffed) by Jewish Zionists.

I spoke in February 2017 at the London Forum about, inter alia, the “privatization of public space” in this regard. Now, the “alt-right” personality Richard Spencer has echoed me from the United States, talking about how the fora of the past were public, but the (online) “fora” of the present age private, thus able to exclude those whose views are not approved by the owners of the websites (or the commercial advertizers thereon).

UK and EU

The above “privatization of the forum” (or fora) applies not only in the USA, but in the UK and other EU states. The EU has already (in most states) criminalized “holocaust” “denial” (examination and/or revision of that historical narrative). It has also forged ahead (under Jewish-Zionist control or influence) with plans to penalize Twitter, Facebook etc if the “wrong” symbols, cartoons, views are hosted.

In the UK, several people are now facing trial at the instigation of Jewish-Zionists: Alison Chabloz, Jez Turner, others. Whatever happens to them will be of significance for freedom of expression.

We now hear that Twitter is planning further purges, this month (November 2017), and on or about 22 December. Those changes may well mean the end of Twitter as a useful place online on which to exchange ideas. We shall see. I myself am half-expecting to be removed.

In the end, the consolation must be to remember that no revolution or takeover of any state has ever happened via social media, though online propaganda has helped one or two offline campaigns to achieve success. Boots on the ground are what count.

Update, 23 December 2018

I was expelled from Twitter in mid-2018. No reason given (beyond weasel words), no appeal, no clarification. Many others have gone the same way. The only consolation has been the realization of how totally pointless and self-defeating tweeting is!

Update, 13 January 2021

Since my last update, over 2 years ago, the war on freedom of expresson has intensified. See my later blog posts.

Alison Chabloz, Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, David Irving, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Nick Griffin, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

Don’t Mention the Jews!

5 Comments

In Fawlty Towers, Basil Fawlty has to keep reminding his wife and staff, “whatever you do, don’t mention the War” (because German guests might be offended). In contemporary Britain, that injunction has become “don’t mention the Jews!” unless, of course, in terms that stress the huge benefits which they (according to they themselves) confer upon any nation hosting them.

The latest famous figure to fall foul of the “rule” has been Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader. In fact, what he said was hardly even controversial, surely: that the well-funded Jewish lobby has a hugely disproportionate influence over US politics. As far as I know, he did not have the courage to mention that the same is true in the UK.

Farage has been the subject of the usual Jewish-Zionist storm that breaks if anyone “mentions the Jews”. They want the money, the influence, the power, but not the “recognition ” of it by non-Jews.

In the UK at present, there are several people who face trial, possibly even imprisonment, for “mentioning the Jews”.

Naturally, one has to tread carefully for fear of being in contempt of court in circumstances where trials are upcoming.

Alison Chabloz, satirical singer, after having been attacked and trolled mercilessly for 3-4 years by Jewish Zionists, was eventually prosecuted privately by the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” for alleged offences under the much-criticized “bad law” of the Communications Act 2003, s.127. Faced with that coup de main, the Crown Prosecution Service, which had not prosecuted her for her songs (without getting into the legal niceties of the charge), had the choice of allowing the private prosecution to run, taking over the prosecution and dropping it, or taking it over and continuing it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution, drop the then-existing charges (drafted by Zionist lawyers) and substitute new charges. So far the case, which started in late 2016, has not run its course. One notorious Jew-Zionist pest, who was a prosecution “witness”, has now been dropped by the CPS for being in fact “an unreliable witness” and there will now be a further court hearing on several points of law before the matter (possibly) goes to trial in January 2018 or thereafter. All because a lady sang some songs…

British nationalist Jeremy Bedford-Turner [Jez Turner] has now been committed for trial on the more serious charge of “incitement to racial hatred”, having made a brief speech in 2015 (2015!) in Whitehall, in which speech he is alleged to have mentioned the Jews…

The Crown Prosecution Service, having had the matter referred to them by the police on a complaint by the same “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”, initially refused to prosecute Jez Turner, so the “CAA” took the CPS to the High Court on a judicial review application. In the event, the CPS caved in, presumably so as not to set a precedent. The matter was “re-examined” and prosecution initiated.

Jez Turner appeared this week in the magistrates’ court and was committed for trial in the Crown Court at Southwark.

It is not without note that we in the UK live under a government which is very much tied in with the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby. Theresa May and Amber Rudd are strongly pro-Israel and do not deny that fact. It seems that Theresa May is in fact half or quarter Jewish herself (on the maternal side). At least, that has been credibly suggested. She and Amber Rudd have stated that they intend to criminalize even people merely reading “far right” (social nationalist) “propaganda” (views, analysis) online! Police state dystopia…

Talking of police states and repressions instigated by Zionists, many may have read previously my own experience of early 2017:

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

and many other people have been subjected to similar experiences in the past few years. I was disbarred after a malicious and politically-motivated complaint from, essentially, the same type of “person”, masquerading as “UK Lawyers for Israel”. See:

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

So we see that we are being told “don’t mention the Jews!” (or else…).

Forget that! I vote for freedom– for myself, for my people, for the peoples of Europe.

Brexit, free speech, historical, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, MPs, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

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

6 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 Comments

Background

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of “Hate Crime”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The guidelines now continue:

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

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

Other Aspects Relevant to a Charge

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

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

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

How the CPS regards freedom of expression

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

Other Thoughts

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

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

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

Advice for Social Nationalists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update, 29 April 2019

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

Update, 21 November 2019

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

Update, 17 January 2021

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

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

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

Update, 11 January 2025

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

Update, 4 April 2026

Like so many before and after her, Alison Saunders has been rewarded for failure, and is apparently now a partner at a top City of London firm of solicitors, Linklaters, so probably on £500,000+ p.a.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Saunders#Controversy; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Saunders#Later_career.

At least she never got the peerage which a better performance in office would probably have guaranteed.