Tag Archives: Israel lobby

environment, ethnostate, free speech, Ian Millard, immigration, prepping, safe zones, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized, white flight

Why Should People Relocate to the Safe Zone of the Germinal Ethnostate?

4 Comments

I have blogged previously about people of social national views relocating to “safe zones” or to a (germinal) ethnostate possibly to be centred on the South West of England (Cornwall and Devon, as well as Somerset and Dorset):

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/white-flight/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/prepping/

In various blog posts, I have covered issues of practical relevance such as how such a safe zone or germinal ethnostate might be started, how it might be maintained (even if the rest of the UK and Europe faces disaster or social collapse) and how the safe zone might have real political influence even within the present society. Now I should like to address what the advantages are for an individual, couple or family relocating in the next few years.

It can be taken as read that most people willing to relocate to a “safe zone” will be discontented in some way, or in various ways, with their existing lives, lifestyles or with at least some aspects of the existing society. It is not hard to imagine that many living in Britain’s decaying urban sprawls will find the idea of relocating to, say, Cornwall attractive. What, however, are the other benefits?

For one thing, the relocated people will be living in a milieu where many of their neighbours, employees, employers, co-workers are of similar viewpoint, at least in broad outline. Secondly, there is the fact that the South West of the UK is still an area where most of the existing inhabitants are English or British or at least European in ethnic origin and in culture. Thirdly, a social national community, even if at first loose or spread out, provides a support structure and defensive barrier for those under attack from the existing UK State or from the Zionist infestation. Fourthly, for those with children, there will be the chance to have their offspring educated in free schools etc set up by the community. This last is not a matter of “indoctrination” as such, but rather of protecting the children from the negative and decadent influences now so pervasive in the wider society.

In my view, there can be created a zone within the UK which will over time exercize a magnetic attraction.

Update, 21 July 2019

Saw this from USA. Not bad, though obviously drafted with American conditions in mind.

https://twitter.com/SoCarbonNeutral/status/1151751859125669889

Update, 29 September 2019

https://www.kn-online.de/Nachrichten/Hamburg/Voelkische-Siedler-Die-Bio-Nazis-von-nebenan

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

Brexit, Deadhead MPs, elections, free speech, historical revisionism, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Party Politics, Uncategorized

John Woodcock, Barrow and Furness and the General Election 2017

17 Comments

It has been announced that John Woodcock will be allowed to stand for the seat of Barrow and Furness. He has therefore survived a serious threat of deselection, having said publicly that no-one should vote Labour in the General Election (presumably excluding from his exhortation those voting for him).

John Woodcock

Woodcock, now 38, is one of those MPs who has never had a non-political job, unless is counted a brief spell as a trainee journalist on The Scotsman. Personal details are “a little vague”, but he was born in Sheffield and attended the University of Edinburgh. After his time at The Scotsman, Woodcock was an aide to John Hutton, the MP for Barrow and Furness from 1992-2010 and now in the House of Lords. He was also (2009-2010) a Special Adviser (SpAd) for the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He was elected as Labour (strictly speaking, Labour and Co-operative) MP for Barrow and Furness in 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodcock_(politician)

As MP, Woodcock has been associated mostly with the Israel lobby and was even Chair of (Parliamentary) Labour Friends of Israel from 2011-2013. He prefers to talk more about his self-serving support for Trident (the submarines for which are built in Barrow-in-Furness, the main population centre in the constituency).

Woodcock’s entries in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Interests show donations from the governments or agencies of Israel, China and Kurdistan:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=24837

Woodcock is one of the most anti-Corbyn Labour MPs and was until 2015 the Chair of Progress, the Blairite group. He has repeatedly called for the removal (as Labour leader) of Jeremy Corbyn and has been associated with the most anti-Corbyn of the Labour plotters, including Liz Kendall (who stood against Corbyn in the second Labour leadership election, receiving 4.5% of the vote and coming last out of the four contenders). Woodcock has denied that he had some kind of affair with Liz Kendall, though rumours persist. At present he is involved with fellow-depressive Isabel Hardman of the ultra-Conservative Spectator magazine.

Woodcock’s depressive illness is said to have been triggered by what his own political website describes as “a nasty fall from his attic ladder”, a Fawlty-esque vision, arguably: falling off an attic ladder hardly compares with, say, the WW2 Arctic Convoys, the Normandy Landings, the Siege of Leningrad or the Battle for Berlin. He is, it seems, separated from his wife, mother of his children.

Woodcock is intolerant not only of dissent generally but of views in conflict with his own, especially where Jews and Israeli interests are concerned. I declare an interest here: the fake “revolutionary” scribbler Owen Jones tweeted to Woodcock in 2015 that he should block me. Woodcock complied immediately!

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/633675878342492160

[Update, 13 June 2024: looks as though Owen Jones has belatedly expunged the said tweet].

So there we have Labour’s 2017 General Election candidate for Barrow and Furness: a not very popular, pro-Israel, pro-China Blairite, whose marriage collapsed because of his behaviour and who is currently involved with another depressive case, which lady is an ultra-Conservative scribbler. Not very appealing.

Barrow and Furness: political analysis

It is possible to think of Barrow and Furness as being now a marginal Lab-Con constituency despite the fact that, since Labour’s win in 1945, the Conservatives have only won twice (1983, 1987). The Labour majority that Woodcock inherited was 5,208. Woodcock’s tenure as MP reduced that in 2015 to 795 on a similar turnout. The 2010 Labour vote share was 48.1% (Con 36.3%); the 2015 Labour vote share was 42.3% (Con 40.5%).

The Liberal Democrat vote share of 10% in 2010 was slashed to 2.7% in 2015. It is hard to see that increasing much, bearing in mind that the Barrow and Furness area voted Leave in the EU Referendum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36598819

Woodcock is strongly Remain and that again pits him against most Barrow voters.

The UKIP vote in 2010 was a fairly miserable 1.9%, but was elevated in 2015 to 11.7%, enough to achieve a third place. However, it is unlikely that that relative success can be repeated. The majority of 2015 UKIP voters will probably defect to the Conservatives, especially now that they scent blood vis a vis removing Woodcock.

Other parties are not very significant. The BNP and Greens both stood in 2010, both losing their deposits. The Greens also stood in 2015, more than doubling their vote (but only to 2.5%).

Conclusion and Prediction

Labour will struggle to hold the seat. Woodcock is not considered to be a very good constituency MP and will be, so to speak, handicapped by his mental issues and by the fact that many Labour voters may prefer to stay at home rather than vote for him.

Woodcock (and so, Labour) has the advantage of being pro-Trident in a pro-Trident constituency, but (barring the Greens) that is a given for candidates in Barrow and Furness.

The 2015 Conservative vote increased by about 4 points over that of 2010. Earlier votes were far below this level: 1997 27%, 2001 30%, 2005 31%. The direction of travel has been upward for 20 years. If the Conservatives can add the votes of UKIP defectors to those of their own loyalists, they can win if enough formerly Labour voters either vote Conservative or stay at home. The Conservative candidate is the same as in 2015, which may help their cause.

Overall, the Conservatives have a good chance of scoring their first win at Barrow and Furness since 1987.

Update (15 July 2018)

I am updating the above for two or three reasons, not least because, of all my blog posts, this one has –to my surprise– been the most read (by nearly 1,000 people, to date).

In the 14 months since I wrote the original post above, Woodcock retained his seat at Barrow and Furness at the 2017 General Election, though only scraping home by 209 votes. John Hutton, Woodcock’s predecessor (and one-time employer) had enjoyed majorities of as high as 14,497 (in 1997) and had left Woodcock a majority of 6,037 (in 2005). Woodcock’s first (2010) majority was 5,208, which reduced to 795 in 2015 and to 209 in 2017.

In 2017, the Labour vote was 22,592 and the Conservative vote was 22,383. I think that I can claim that my original analysis was accurate despite Labour having pipped Conservative to the post. The Labour vote increased from 42.3% in 2015 to 47.5% in 2017 (but the Conservative vote also increased, from 40.5% to 47%). UKIP’s vote decreased from 5,070 votes (11.7%) to a mere 962 votes (2%) in 2017. The LibDem vote stayed exactly the same in percentage terms (2.7%). The only minor candidate in 2017 was a Green (whose vote share fell from 2.5% in 2015 to 0.8% in 2017).

Meanwhile, Woodcock has been investigated by Labour and the police over multiple claims of sexual harassment. It was reported in April 2018 that he was “planning to resign the Labour whip”, not (of course…) because of the sex allegations, but because of continuing concerns about Jeremy Corbyn! However, he obviously calculated that that would be the end of his already-stalled “high-flying” and “high profile” System political career. Were Woodcock to stand at Barrow as Independent or Independent Labour or Pro-Israel Labour, I imagine that he would be lucky to get 100 votes. He needs Labour hugely more than Labour needs him. In fact, Woodcock is a millstone round Labour’s neck. The voting figures make that clear. After the latest scandal, Woodcock is surely unelectable.

On 30 April 2018, Woodcock was suspended from the Labour Party pending conclusion of the inquiry into his behaviour. In late June 2018, Woodcock refused to appear before a Labour Party tribunal to explain or defend himself. His political future now appears to be non-existent. He will probably face deselection (at last); if not, it is unlikely that the voters of Barrow and Furness will elect him again. No doubt some Jewish and/or Zionist organization will arrange a well-paid sinecure for him whatever happens. The same has been done for other (and at least equally useless) disgraced MPs. Woodcock has done work for Israeli organizations previously.

Woodcock continues to tweet prolifically, as if he were still looking forward to a big political future, but tweets from Labour supporters and members are mostly very critical.

Notes:

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

https://order-order.com/people/john-woodcock/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5675423/Arch-Corbyn-critic-John-Woodcock-suspended-Labour-party.html

Further Update (18 July 2018):

John Woodcock has resigned from the Labour Party as of today’s date (18 July 2018), though he makes no mention of resigning the seat which the Labour label alone gave to him. Typical…As an Independent, his vote at Barrow would be a couple of hundred at best and he would have no chance, yet this useless pro-Israel parasite and freeloader is going to hang on until the next general election in order to maximize his pay, expenses and pension benefits. Labour and Barrow are well rid of him.

ds3 

Further update (25 January 2019)

Parasitic freeloader Woodcock is still tweeting, trying to present himself as the sort-of “Labour” MP for Barrow and Furness, despite having left Labour. I had assumed that he would be given a well-paid sinecure by the Zionists, as has happened to others (eg Michael Dugher), but it may be that he intends to try to fight the seat as a wild card Independent, on the basis that the vote is split between Labour and Conservative and that he might just squeeze in through the middle. Doomed, in my view, though…

In the meantime, he is getting pay, “expenses” and, no doubt, more money from elsewhere (he’s had quite a bit from Israel in the past). Also, the longer he spends as MP, the more money he will get when finally removed (gratuity, pension etc).

Note:

https://www.ft.com/content/1082473a-3979-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec

Update, 1 May 2019

Woodcock continues to tweet, nominally, as MP, though he must know that his time is very nearly up (this year, if there is a general election, which seems more likely than not). In the meantime, he tweets against Labour (which he joined —or should that be “infiltrated”?…Let’s say “joined”, a more pleasant and less loaded word…— as a student twenty-odd years ago; he tweets for Israel and the Jewish Zionist interest etc. After all, he might find that useful when he needs a job…which might be rather soon.

Update, 8 May 2019

I missed this, Woodcock’s latest misadventure…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-47775073

Update, 8 October 2019

Woodcock continues to attack Corbyn and the Labour Party, despite (or because of) the likely proximity of a general election in which Woodcock himself, if he stands, will be bumped out of Parliament. I wonder whether he was in Tel Aviv recently…My only question is what sort of lucrative sinecure the Jews will find for Woodcock after the electors of Barrow and Furness kick him out. Public relations/”comms”, as in the case of other ex-Labourites such as John McTernan? Head of some commercial or trade org, as with Michael Dugher? “They” sometimes pay their servants well. Personally, I should be unable to endure the dishonour, but that’s me…

Update, 28 October 2019

Woodcock is still going through the motions of being an MP, even questioning party leaders on their intentions. I wonder why he bothers. Do the Israelis tell him what to ask? Whatever the truth, his time is nearly up…

ds5

Update, 5 November 2019

Well, there it is. As I have blogged, “they” have arranged a suitable position for the sex-pest depressive, a position in which he will be able to doormat for Israel and the Jew-Zionist lobby— and be well-paid for it…

Update, 27 April 2020

Woodcock did not stand as Independent or whatever (Supporter of Israel?) in 2019, having been appointed by Boris Johnson as (presumably well-paid) “Special Envoy” on “Far Right” “Extremism” only a week before the 2019 General Election. The Jew/Israel lobby in action once again.

At that election, the Conservative Party candidate, one Simon Fell, won with a vote-share of 51.9%.

https://www.simonfell.org/about-simon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fell_(politician)

There seems to be relatively little hard information about Fell, who also contested Barrow and Furness in 2015 and in 2017. Provisional assessment: a dogged stayer.

The Labour Party vote dropped sharply, whether poisoned by Woodcock or by the Jewish lobby msm campaign against Corbyn. Both, I suppose; connected. The Labour vote-share was 39.3%. That gave Fell and the Conservative Party a majority of 5,789.

The Greens, LibDems and Brexit Party also stood candidates in 2019, all of whom lost their deposits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow_and_Furness_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

As for Woodcock himself, he has not been in the news recently. Presumably, he is snooping away in his new position. He does tweet, though, still plugging away for the Jewish lobby…

 

Update, 6 August 2020

It was announced recently that Woodcock would join 37 others (most equally unmeritorious) as a fake “lord” in the House of Lords, elevated by Boris-idiot. “For services to the Jewish lobby”? Peculiar expenses fraudster and doormat for Israel, Ian Austin, is another one of the 38. So Woodcock now has not only his paid sinecure, snooping on British nationalists, but also over £300 a day taxfree any time that the House is sitting and he manages to crawl through the door. Woodcock has reached peak parasite.

Update, 20 June 2023

Woodcock is now “Lord Walney”, and his tweets (including all the tweets above-exhibited from years ago) are now tweeted not by “John Woodcock” but by “Lord Walney”.