Tag Archives: The Bar

Diary Blog, 2 September 2025

Afternoon music

[me in London in 1992, in the wig and gown (robes) of a junior barrister]

Tweets seen

Another Israeli war crime.

Well, I have to say that Putin certainly does not look as if he is about to “snuff it”, as the UK msm has been saying for years…

https://twitter.com/SprinterExpres0/status/1962823915136323808

[“I am reading that Graham Linehan has been arrested by armed police at Heathrow because of 3 Twitter/X posts regarding trans and has been banned from posting. If true, this is OUTRAGEOUS and makes a total mockery of Keir Starmer’s claim to @JDVance there is “no problem with free speech” in the UK.”]

Britain in 2025.

As a matter of fact, years ago I supported (on the blog) that Linehan person, after he was chucked off Twitter (he was later reinstated), despite the fact that he had crowed mightily when I was expelled from Twitter at the instigation of a pack of Jews in 2018.

Still, I have never had a problem with seizing and retaining the “moral high ground”…

#MoralHighGround

See also:

Similar to many other recent polls. Reform more than simply “well ahead”; really the only contender at present. Labour abandoned by senior citizens/pensioners, and most white English/British voters generally, and even by “the young” (16-24 age group), who are switching to Green or the LibDems.

Labour is now really just the party of a small tranche of virtue-signalling English/British idiots, some of the better-paid public service workers, and some of the ethnic minorities, mainly the blacks and Pakistanis etc, though Starmer-stein’s Israel puppetry or serfdom has turned off even many of those.

As for the Conservative Party, its voter base is now almost exclusively those better-off pensioners who do not really keep up with events, and have voted Conservative all their lives. Habit voters.

It is not impossible to imagine a Con Party national vote of around 15% at the next general election, which would leave the Cons with as few as a couple of dozen MPs.

Well, the French Army (l’armee de terre) has, including all reserves, a strength of 150,000, so if casualties evacuated are to be 50,000, the dead and wounded together might be around (?) 75,000, i.e. half the strength of the entire land army.

Is Macron really intending to get involved in a war with Russia? Does he really think that he can re-introduce conscription in France? If so, how long does he think that he has to get untrained youths battle-ready from scratch?

Actually, if France gets involved in a war with Russia, 50,000 hospital beds will be far from enough— Paris has over 2M people, and might be subjected to attack by nuclear missiles, as might the major strategic military and naval facilities, such as the submarine base at Crozon in Brittany.

A second French Revolution might happen if Macron is doing more than rattling his sabre.

Surreal. Waving to non-existent crowds.

Late tweets seen

[“Egyptian general stated the high accuracy of Iranian missiles.

According to him, Iran has developed a model that ensures extremely precise missile strikes on targets.

What is officially announced is much less than what actually happened.

He noted that the level of concealment by Israel of the damage from Iranian strikes far exceeds our expectations.

The scale of this defeat is enormous: the failure of air defense systems such as THAAD, Arrow, “David’s Sling”, Patriot, “Hetz” and “Iron Dome”.]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Atterberg]

Diary Blog, 23 April 2025, St. George’s Day

Morning music

Tweets seen

Puppet and mouthpiece of the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby, Iain Dale, does not think that the public should be allowed to see or hear the truth on this issue.

The fact is that, proportionate to the population(s), non-whites commit far more crimes than white English/British people.

In fact, even publishing the formal national origins of persons convicted does not and will not tell the whole story, because many of the non-whites committing crimes hold “British” nationality; indeed, many were born here. In quite many cases, those non-whites committing crimes have parents and indeed even grandparents born here, by reason of the mass immigration that has hit Britain in the past 80 years (mostly the past 60 years, indeed the past 30).

I recall how amazed I was, as a belated Bar pupil (trainee barrister) and then junior barrister (early 1990s) to see how high was the proportion of non-whites on trial in the criminal courts of London. That was 33-34 years ago. Imagine now!

If you were to take out the figures relating to “travellers” (Irish tinkers) etc, the proportion of actual English/British defendants would be even smaller, very considerably so,

Of course, as blogged previously, quite a long time ago, LBC is owned by a company itself owned by Jews. Use the searchbox on the blog to discover more.

Security guarantees of the type demanded by Zelensky are practically equivalent to NATO membership anyway, and would be also of the type given by Britain and France to Poland in March 1939. That one made the Second World War almost inevitable. Don’t make the same mistake twice.

Owen Matthews. He wrote an interesting memoir about his mother, Ludmilla, or Lyudmilla, called Stalin’s Children, mainly about his mother’s life in the Soviet Union before she settled in London: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/aug/28/guardianfirstbookaward.awardsandprizes2.

Time flies to such an extent that, when I read that book, 14-15 years ago, around 2010 or 2011, I got halfway through before I realized that I had known the author’s mother (though only slightly) in the early 1980s, when I was taking a part-time Russian language course at a language institute near Euston Square in Central London. The language school was part of what is now the University of Westminster. Ludmilla Matthews was one of about 5 teachers I had. I think that her subject was Russian Conversation.

Ludmilla Matthews had something not quite right with one of her feet. She was kind enough to say once that my (in fact quite rudimentary) Russian at the time was “stylish“. I remember her mainly for having talked to me about her reluctant acquaintanceship with a (literally) mad Russian or Russian/Polish girl. That was after said girl had almost kidnapped me by guile, having said that I looked like St. Herman of Alaska (I had a beard at the time), and that she had an icon of St. Herman above her bed at her home in Kensington, and would I like to see it? You get the picture.

Anyway, Owen Matthews, now 53 and a well-known international journalist and writer, must have been about 12 when his mother was my once-a-week teacher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Matthews.

I have written once before on the blog about these matters, I think.

Using Electoral Calculus [https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html], that works out at Reform 254 MPs, Labour 183, Conservatives 75, LibDems 71 (Green 4, SNP 35 etc).

Once again, therefore, a minority Reform government, 72 short of an absolute Commons majority, and about 62 short of a working majority.

On those figures, the Cons are perilously close to becoming the 4th-largest party in the Commons, and utterly irrelevant.

There may be some truth in that, but it is the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby which has spearheaded the attack on free speech in the UK:

Tellingly, Matt Goodwin has never, not once, put the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby, particularly the malicious, small —but well-funded— “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [or “CAA”], in the dock…

Matt Goodwin? Controlled opposition, but useful all the same (moving the Overton Window etc, and maybe unwittingly paving the way for a later social-national movement).

Incidentally, even Jews, those who express criticism of Israel, or Jewish behaviour generally, are targeted: see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/23/dozens-of-members-of-uk-jewish-body-facing-disciplinary-action-over-criticism-of-israel.

Well-known Jews who have been mercilessly targeted by other Jews include the jazz musician Gilad Atzmon (I think that he is a half-Jew), author Michael Rosen, and the actress Miriam Margolyes. Another anti-Israel Jewess, the journalist Mira Bar-Hillel, too:

“Ms Bar-Hillel, who was born in Jerusalem and served as a folk singer in the IDF, claimed she was the victim of a trolling campaign. “You cannot criticise anything to do with Israel or Jews. You start by criticising Israeli government policy and then you get attacked by Jews,” she said…“I’m prejudiced against Jews who criticise me. Their religion has everything to do with it. I’m reporting something that’s horribly wrong with the policies of Israel and they attack me. In my long career no other group has acted in this way.

“When I’m being attacked I feel I’m being attacked by communal action. That community view is very dangerous. It is intimidation. The best way to respond to these things is to simply ignore them. It starts to be like a gang-bang.”

[Jewish Chronicle: https://www.thejc.com/news/mira-bar-hillel-agents-of-israel-attacked-me-for-criticisms-of-the-government-w16c8rnl]

Or so say two of the most misguided or wrongheaded (at best) “interventionists”, cheerleaders for the military destabilization of the Middle East, North Africa, and former Soviet Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamish_de_Bretton-Gordon

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

The latter is particularly untrustworthy.

Where there is a will, there is a way…

Ocean County. 32-36 years ago, I lived in Middlesex County, very near Monmouth County, near to the Jersey Shore but to the north of where those fires are raging.

“Them”, again…

Late thoughts

This blog punches above its weight. It may only have a relatively small number of regular readers (and far fewer commentators), but it has influenced many many people. It has reached directly about 150 states and territories in the world, and quite possibly all 200 or so indirectly.

I have always taken the view that “one human soul is a big audience“, and that if I can influence one young Alexander, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi or, indeed, Moses, then the fact that I do not have a huge audience or a readership of millions becomes irrelevant. As Dietrich Eckart said when nearing the end of his life, “do not mourn me…I shall have influenced history more than any other German“.

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

I often see used distinctive phrases I myself have used (first) in the past, whether on the blog or from tweets when I still had a Twitter account (a pack of Jews had me expelled from Twitter in 2018, following a concerted campaign or conspiracy which lasted several years, and which continues).

For example, I think I was the first to use the terms “migration invasion” and “migrant invaders”, since echoed by many politicians and others, including even some Prominente from System parties.

If you put a drop of intense ultramarine dye into a pool, pond or lake, after a while, the water goes blue; all the water. My blog has that kind of influence, despite the fact that most of my blog posts have been read by, at most, only a few thousand people (each), even after several years.

It is because my blog has influence far beyond its actual numbers of readers that the Jew-Zionist lobby has made extensive efforts to shut it down over the past 8-9 years since first publication in late 2016.

Well, so far I am still here, and the blog is still being published near-daily, despite malicious complaints by Jews, despite backstairs attempts to procure prosecutions (by Israel puppets such as ex-MP —now “lord”— Ian Austin), despite repeated police interference, despite my having been put on trial in 2023, despite my having been sentenced in 2024, despite everything.

On the macro level, I see things beginning to move my way.

[“At the end stands Victory!“]

Late music

Diary Blog, 11 March 2025, with thoughts about Reform UK possibly stalling in the opinion polls

[note: once again, whether by technical inadvertence or sabotage, tweets are not embedding properly; click on links to read tweets reposted]

Morning music

[painting by Volegov]

Tweets seen

[“A civilian that suffered injuries in a drone attack has died in the hospital in Vidnoye outside Moscow, regional Governor Andrey Vorobyov said: https://vk.cc/cJBdl9“— TASS]

[“Более 90 украинских беспилотников сбили над Москвой и Подмосковьем за эту ночь, сообщили в Минобороны. В результате атаки погиб один человек, ранены трое“— Zona Media]

[“More than 90 Ukrainian pilotless drones shot down over Moscow and the Moscow region in the night, announced the Ministry of Defence. As a result of the attack, one person died.“]

Pure terrorism from the Zelensky cabal. Deliberate targeting of residential buildings.

[“Man shoots down Ukrainian drone in Moscow region with a hunting rifle“]

[NEW POST. Bombshell stats the state doesn’t want you to see. They accuse you of “misinformation” while hiding the awkward reality. Mass immigration is driving crime“— Matt Goodwin]

Crimes in the UK by nationality of perpetrator:

Everyone at the Bar of England and Wales knows this, at least in outline, but the Bar is now so packed with craven “me-too” careerists and/or scaredycats that none will say a word. If any do, they get disbarred (as I was), especially if a pack of malicious Jews make complaint (as they did about me).

https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/bombshell-stats-the-state-doesnt

Well worth reading.

My reading of that opinion poll is that the voters are unimpressed by all existing political parties. There is a vacuum at present. Reform UK was leaping ahead; it has now stalled. It too much tries to be “reasonable” and “moderate”.

If voters want “centrist” bs and lies, they can vote LibLabCon. Why would they vote Reform? Reform’s leaders are too much focussed on “small boats” etc. Not that that is not a major issue, but “legal” immigration is 20x “illegal”. Yes, 1,000 or even 2,000 migrant-invaders hit the beaches daily now but, on the same day(s), 20,000 or even 40,000 arrive superficially “legally”.

Also, some of the main figures in and around Reform UK are non-whites. That’s no good, and sends a mixed message.

Either Reform UK goes social-national or it will go the same way as both UKIP and Brexit Party. “Conservatism-plus” is not a vote-winner.

Incidentally, that latest opinion poll translates, via Electoral Calculus, into a Commons with 188 Lab seats, 174 Con, 155 Reform, 68 LibDem (Greens 4, SNP 35 etc). Hopelessly hung Parliament, so maybe a Reform/Con coalition.

From the newspapers

https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/politician-who-questioned-how-many-jews-were-killed-in-holocaust-gets-seat-on-isle-of-man-parliament-g1dbwbim

A businessman who dismissed antisemitism as “meaningless”, questioned the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust and cast doubt on Hamas atrocities has been handed a seat in the Legislative Council of the Parliament – or Tynwald – on the Isle of Man.

Gary Clueit’s appointment to the island’s upper chamber on March 4 has sparked outrage, with Manx Jewish community member Michael Josem condemning the Member of the House of Keys (MHKs) who nominated Clueit as “incapable of the judgement required for Tynwald.”

[Jewish Chronicle]

“They” hate even one person dissenting from the narrative they want to broadcast and perpetuate.

More tweets seen

[Pretty clear that Twitter/X has been sabotaged, probably by (?) those Kiev-regime bastards, and that the tweet-embed problem is part of all that. Musk and Trump should cut off all military and intelligence aid to the Zelensky cabal; let Russia take all of Eastern Ukraine, including Kiev]

(((Mark Lewis))) and (((Daniel Berke))) are both fanatical Jew-Zionists. As far as Lewis is concerned, he is both professionally negligent and dishonest. It has been obvious for years. He should be struck off the solicitors’ roll.

I have no idea whether Lewis is in the UK or hiding out in his beloved Israel (he pretended to emigrate there 7 years ago because, said he, there was so much “antisemitism” in England; yet he seems to spend more time here than in Occupied Palestine Israel).

I cannot imagine who would be silly enough to retain Lewis. He himself admitted in his 2018 Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings that, at times, he had had no idea what he was writing or doing (by reason, it was claimed, of prescription drug use)! He was actually or effectively sacked by, I believe, all the firms for which he worked, and at the said Tribunal, in 2018, his own Counsel told the disciplinary panel that Lewis should not be fined too heavily (for making many crazed attacks on social media) because his sole assets were his (cheapish, showy) clothes, a mobility scooter, and a private pension worth £70 a week!

See also:

For once, I agree with her. Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall (all Labour Friends of Israel members) are evil, and should be punished for what they are intending to do.

How can people vote for these fakes?

[“Not only is this Cameron Osbourne style austerity shit appalling but Labour has spent weeks drip feeding this to the media, scaring some of the most vulnerable people in the process. I am absolutely disgusted with them. It is absolutely indefensible. #DisabilityBenefits.“— Supertanskiii]

[“Yes, I’m going to voice this in my content. It’s not what we voted for. Those with life changing disabilities were brutalised and demeaned under 14 years of shocking Tory misrule. They’re not the people with the “broadest shoulders”. They’re the reason we have a welfare system.”— Supertanskiii]

[“I’m furious that of all the places they could raise money (yes, there’s obv other ways) that they’d target the severely disabled who, funnily enough, won’t be magically be cured by a call with a work coach. PIP was bad enough before I shudder to think what will happen now.“— Supertanskiii]

Well, I doubt that I have ever reposted anything from that tweeter unless to criticize it, but truth is truth.

As I myself have recently blogged, there really is no clear blue water between this “Labour” (Friends of Israel) government and that of the Conservative Friends of Israel ones 2010-2024, and particularly that of David Cameron-Levita and George Gideon Osborne, 2010-2015.

[“It feels like a rerun of austerity and I’m worried about that.” Neil Duncan-Jordan, Labour MP for Poole, says cuts to benefits will create more poverty and says there will be Labour MPs who will vote against welfare benefits cuts. #Newsnight“]

Looks like there are at least a few genuine Labour-style MPs around (but, I am guessing, not many).

Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves are the main criminals in all this, and then, of course, Starmer-stein.

Talking point

Late tweets

[“Labour Welfare Reforms latest: Keir Starmer says he’s had enough of people expecting free handouts, so presumably he’ll be sending back all those suits and football tickets.”]

[“Oil supplies to Hungary from Russia have been resumed, while the damage to the Druzhba oil pipeline attacked by the Ukrainian armed forces has been repaired, Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Szijjarto said: https://vk.cc/cJCvQU“— TASS]

[“Ukraine’s massive drone attack on Russian regions has exposed Zelensky’s agonizing attempts to pander to his Western patrons by killing civilians, the Russian foreign ministry said: https://vk.cc/cJCwCX“— TASS]

Late music

[Shishkin, On the Shores of the Gulf of Finland]

Diary Blog, 14 January 2025

Morning music

[какая красавица…]

Reform UK

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14280613/Reform-UK-Nigel-Farage-Labour-government-new-poll.html

Reform UK is now only a single percentage point behind Labour – putting their leader Nigel Farage within touching distance of Number 10 at the next election.  

New polling data from YouGov, commissioned by Sky News, puts Reform on 24 per cent and Labour on 25 per cent – down a whopping 9 percentage points from their winning vote share at the 2024 UK election.  

With the Conservatives on 22 per cent, the UK electorate may be about to usher in a new epoch of three-way party politics.

The new research puts Labour on 26 per cent, Reform UK on 25 per cent, the Tories on 22 per cent, the Lib Dems on 14 per cent and the Greens on 8 per cent.

In general the assessment of Sir Keir’s first six months in office is damning, with only 10 per cent of voters judging that he has been successful and an overwhelming majortity (60 per cent) saying he has been unsuccessful.

Labour insiders are also worried at how the party is hemorrhaging voters to other parties across the political spectrum.  

The new data found that they have retained only 54 per cent of supporters from the general election – while 7 percent have defected to the Lib Dems, 6 per cent to the Green Party, 5 per cent to Reform UK and 4 per cent to the Tories.

Meanwhile almost a quarter of those who voted Labour in the polls (23 per cent) either did not say, weren’t sure or had decided not to vote at all. 

Labour also faces a problem with elderly voters in light of policies like the removal of the winter fuel allowance, with only 14 per cent of OAPs now saying they would cast their vote for Labour – down eight percentage points from the election.

[Daily Mail]

Naturally, Reform UK is not very close to me, ideologically. Pro Israel, pro-Jewish lobby, and (relatively) anti-welfare state; pro-finance capitalism.

Still, Reform UK has its uses. To move the “Overton Window”, particularly on issues of immigration, migration-invasion, free speech etc. Above all, to break up the LibLabCon “three main parties” scam which has been in place during my lifetime.

It may well be that all party politics will crumble to dust by reason of some existential catastrophe in the world, such as nuclear war, but that is another matter, arguably.

According to Electoral Calculus [https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html], the figures given, if replicated at a general election, might result in a House of Commons with Labour holding 287 seats, Conservative Party 128, Reform UK 107, LibDems 77, Green Party 4. That would indicate a Lab-LibDem coalition, or some lesser concordat, Labour being about 37 short of an overall majority on those figures.

Tweets seen

The (continuing) “reduction of the Gaza ghetto”…

Either ship him back or just get rid of him (and the rest).

When I was about 21-y-o, I wanted to get rid of hundreds of unwanted books, mostly paperback novels (spy stories and crime thrillers etc). I gave them to the Royal Marsden because I was then living at Reigate Hill in Surrey, only about 8 or 9 miles away from the hospital’s site at Sutton (though the distance seems more because the two areas are so different). I dropped them off at the hospital reception. I hope they at least passed the time for some of the in-patients. I suppose that must have been 1977 or 1978.

It looks, though, as if the lady tweeter noted attends not the Sutton site of the hospital but rather its other and older location, in Kensington (which would make more sense, because she lives not far from my old shooting club, the Kensington Rifle and Pistol Club, now all but defunct and no longer —since the 1990s, if not earlier—in West Kensington). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marsden_Hospital.

My annual mammo is the best focus group of one you’ll get. Delightful radiographer tells me she’s never voted, they’re all as bad as each other and don’t listen to the NHS.

Furious about the social care plan delay not just as a healthcare worker but as the mother of a special needs adult who needs it. Her daughter volunteers in a food bank when she can, bless her.

3 disgraces in this story alone – underpaid NHS worker (my words not hers), crap & ludicrously expensive social care, food banks. I say I might have an offer you like and care passionately about fixing social care. And the rest. I also think doctors would run the NHS better, pen-pushers and deadbeat hospital CEOs, often from industry or politics, should be blocked off.

All right. Some good points, but was she saying all that when she was married to a Conservative MP and Whip (until a decade ago)? I do not know, but I doubt it. She was (and still is? I wonder…) a passionate supporter of the part-Jews David Cameron-Levita and George (Gideon) Osborne, whose government of nasty nonsense, 2010-2015, imposed so-called “austerity” (for the poor) and spending cuts which permanently crippled this country in every way.

As for “food banks”, they scarcely existed until 2010. Only on a tiny scale, anyway. Another result of “Conservative” Party policies 2010-2015.

The Fiona Syms tweeter should think about why the Conservative Party presently stands at 22% in the opinion polls, 2 points lower than at GE 2024, despite the evident hopeless incompetence and unpleasantness of the “Labour” government of “Tel Aviv Keith” Starmer and his little Labour Friends of Israel cabal.

People have not forgotten the 14 years of truly bad “Conservative” government 2010-2024, finishing off with the government of the little Indian money-juggler, Sunak; and now the “Conservatives” are “led” by a political joke (again), a Nigerian woman who only came to the UK at age 16, albeit that she spent a day or two here after her birth (in London).

Having said that, it is clear that Labour (too) is finished. After a week or two of Starmer-Labour misgovernment, I blogged as much, at which time the msm were sycophantically applauding Starmer (some stupid woman scribbler in, I think, the Guardian, even said that she found herself attracted to Starmer sexually!— Well, Henry Kissinger did say that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac“…).

More tweets seen

What stands out there for me is how only among those 65+ years of age is voting Conservative anywhere near the level required to ground a Conservative Party government. 35%. Not very impressive anyway, but dropping to only 25% among those 50-64 y o, and to only 16% among those aged 25-49 before almost disappearing among those aged 18-24.

It might be argued that those aged below 65 y o might well change their views when they age further (just as it was said by Soviet anti-Christian propagandists in the pre-1989 period that “only old women now attend Russian Orthodox churches“, but that was countered by those who noted that there seemed always to be another generation of old women at church…).

Yes, those now aged below 65 may well be more inclined to vote Conservative when they reach 65+, but in my opinion the numbers will never be higher, or even as high, as they now are.

If the percentage of those 65+ voting Conservative is now 35% or so, by 2029 that might easily decline to 30%, and lower thereafter. The same slide might also be seen, and probably will be seen, lower down the age scale. If the present 18-24 y o generation only vote Conservative Party at around 5%, that will almost certainly increase, but maybe only slightly, over the years to come. To what extent is hard to pinpoint, but maybe by only about 5 points in each coming generation, so at age 65+ maybe to about 20%.

Admittedly speculative.

That is assuming that the present voting and political system will still be here in 2060, 2040, or even 2030. Or the present world as we know it…

More music

[painting by Levitan]

[Ermine Street (Roman road); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermine_Street]

More tweets seen

Until 6 months ago, though I already predicted on the blog that Starmer-Labour would be useless, I did not think that this government would or even could equal in infamy the totally s**t governments of 2010-2024. Well, I was wrong in that last. Starmer and his crew are as bad as, or worse than, any of the “Conservative” governments of 2010-2024.

Talking point

Talking point

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/saba-poursaeedi-lost-my-job/

I think that this comes within the category “shocking but not surprising”…

Yes. All true. However…where was Toby Young, and where was the “Free Speech Union”, when I was wrongfully (and, as it later turned out, unlawfully) disbarred in 2016, as a result of a concerted campaign by the Jew-Zionist lobby, specifically the overlapping “UK Lawyers for Israel” [“UKLFI”] and “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”]?

Likewise, where were the “Free Speech Union” and Toby Young when I was subjected to a “criminal” trial over my free speech rights, and this blog?

An example of 2025 craziness

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14282311/Cambridge-law-student-sues-university-failed-PhD.html

A law student is suing Cambridge University for discrimination after he failed his PhD and delayed his career working as a barrister.

Jacob Meagher is seeking ‘substantial damages’ from the world famous institution, alleging he was the subject of disability discrimination and victimisation following the failure of his law PhD.

Mr Meagher also claimed that his oral ‘viva voce’ interview, where he was questioned about his thesis by two examiners, caused ‘significant damage’ to his health. 

He ended up failing the examination, meaning he missed out on a opportunity to take up a tenancy at a ‘particular set of chambers’ and therefore ‘suffered a substantial loss of anticipated earnings’.

Outlining the claim, the judge said: ‘Mr Meagher…is a student at the University of Cambridge…undertaking a PhD in law. 

‘[He] did not successfully pass his final viva voce examination of his doctoral thesis.

Court documents also stated that the University’s Disability Resource Centre had recommended that at the viva, examiners follow a set of guidelines, produced as part of a Student Support Document (SSD), to help him.

These included asking specific rather than general questions, using the active, rather than the passive, voice and allowing him pauses and breaks after questions…to allow him to ‘mentally retrieve the words or information that he needed in order to answer’.

[Daily Mail]

How on Earth does that litigant think he is going to survive at the Bar (unless he does no court work at all) if he cannot endure being verbally challenged, and needs time “to mentally retrieve the words or information that he [needs] in order to answer“?

You need a thick skin at the Bar. I should know. I was a practising barrister, in court almost daily, from 1993-1996 in London (often at the High Court, as well as in County Courts and both “the mags” and, less often, Crown Courts), and during 2002-2008 based in Exeter (though travelling widely across the UK and beyond).

Being put on the spot by a judge, especially a High Court judge (I was never at the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court), can be a chastening experience even if the judge is (as most High Court judges are) reasonably courteous.

Woe betide the barrister who is unprepared, or whose instructing solicitors have fallen down on their job. I usually managed to put up a good show, or at least a good front, but I have seen other barristers fall silent, unable to say a word, or flounder helplessly; even, in one case (in Camberwell Magistrates’ Court, before a particularly severe Stipendiary Magistrate —the people called District Judges now—) actually whimper and almost burst into tears (it was a man, too…).

At one time, a barrister who was disabled, even physically, was at a huge disadvantage in trying to get into any chambers. Now, it is arguable that things have gone to the other extreme.

When I was in provincial chambers in Exeter, from 2002-2008 , there was a girl Bar pupil from Northern Ireland. She seemed pleasant and was afterwards offered a tenancy (after which she became markedly less pleasant). The point, though, was that she had a bad speech impediment. In my opinion, the Northern Irish accent is hard enough to understand, let alone when the speaker has a speech impediment. She did get some criminal and family work, though; low-level stuff.

In the end, that Northern Irish person gave up the Bar entirely (I was told) and returned to her native Ulster. At least there they were, presumably, able to understand what she said.

[my old chambers in Colleton Crescent, Exeter, from where I practised law at the Bar during the years 2002-2008]

Worth watching.

What a ridiculous monkeyhouse Westminster is! Look at thick-as-two-short-planks Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves (“Rachel from Accounts”) etc, all making noise, exchanging remarks, and laughing like badly-behaved schoolchildren. Then there is stupid Liz Kendall, sitting there like a nodding dog, and about as credible.

The mainstream media milieu is a cesspit. I was just reading about some person whose name, though I had seen it somewhere, in the back of my mind, conveyed little to me. A few years younger than me (I am now 68), he has died, and even years ago was looking at least a decade or more older than me, looking at photos in the newspapers. In fact, make that 20+ years older.

Apparently, that person had, at one time, in the 1990s, been spending £4,000 a week on cocaine, and drinking 4-5 bottles of vodka every day!

You could double or treble that sum to get the same value in the money of 2025.

That tells me that such System-approved msm types are both hugely over-remunerated and totally decadent. Britain needs a thoroughgoing cultural purge even more than it needs a political purge. Hitler-level. Stalin-level. Biblical-level.

Well, there it is. Switzerland has officially lost its senses.

Didn’t Rudolf Steiner say something about how the Goetheanum (near Basel) would be devastated by war? Cannot quite remember. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goetheanum.

[The Second Goetheanum]

Late music

[painting by Volegov]

Diary Blog, 7 September 2024

Morning music

Saturday quiz

This week, the questions seemed harder than usual. Political journalist John Rentoul only scored 2/10, and I did little better— 3/10. I knew the answers to questions 2, 5, and 6.

Tweets seen

https://twitter.com/ColinBrazierTV/status/1831725255846486114

Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan…

https://twitter.com/ThairShaikh/status/1832150352868864046

More music

More tweets

The Bar Standards Board is infected and (((infested))): see what happened to me from 2014 onwards:

…and the Bar itself is now a bad joke, filled with semi-literate idiots who know nothing, and are terribly afraid of standing up to the “woke” police state. They put their financial interests first.

(((The usual suspects))) have been behind most of the Bar’s slide into irrelevance and falling prestige.

Covid was without doubt a risk to some, but it’s danger was blown out of proportion, and in many cases, figures were inflated. it had a detrimental effect on the economy and the mental health of many, probably far surpassing the true dangers of the virus itself. governments were just winging it with many poorly thought out and unneeded decisions, and with heavy implementation of censorship taken up to silence those that opposed it, even though our own governments didn’t follow their own rules, of which they were forcing the entire country to follow. I can only hope I never see someone being paid to drive around blaring a “please stay inside” pre-recorded message out of a megaphone. This was however short term bullshit that we got out of. As for the metaphorical virus that we speak of; it will be far more pervasive, detrimental and long lasting to our country and the things that keep it ticking along. People are making decisions for our country based on a buzzword pissing match, and those that oppose it are being ever more censored, sacked, arrested or whatever else.

For “regulators“, read “censors“, “snoopers“, “Stasi” etc.

Typical. Still, “always look on the bright side of life“— at least the Untermensch now has to pick up litter in Bristol for 150 hours, probably the only good he has ever done for the British people since he has been here (whether born here or not).

1.BREAKING!!!! 19 year old woman visited by anti terrorist unit and @MerseyPolice yesterday. They asked her about her politics, if she is right wing, and why she had an ‘Anglo Saxon’ replica helmet in the house. They refused to say what she was accused of… They confiscated property… (a replica decorative sword hanging on her parents wall) and advised her: “Bite your tongue before talking on line.” @SpeechUnion @CollegeofPolice.”

The sheer cheek of the plods in question! Playing their “counter-terrorism” games. Put them back into uniform and get them patrolling “Murkyside’s” increasingly-dangerous streets.

Anyone who thinks that the above are not the tactics of a police state, even if —so far— a “poundshop” one, has not been paying attention.

The police (especially those ignorant of most relevant political and historical matters, and even relevant law, which means the vast majority) have no right and no business threatening the free speech of the people.

Incidentally, that Twitter/X account is here: https://x.com/WeAreFairCop.

My own experiences are, in part, recounted here below:

Starmer, Yvette Cooper etc have to go.

Never forget that, out of every 20 eligible voters, and out of every 12 voters who voted, only 4 voted Labour at GE 2024 (and many of those “Labour” voters only did so in order to bin the “Conservative” misgovernment of the little Indian money-juggler, Sunak).

That is the slippery slope down which a society slides when it says “you can have free speech but not hate speech“— and guess (((which))) element is at the forefront of shutting down freedom of expression in our country? That’s right…”them”.

Without “‘dislike, ill feeling, and antagonism” as options, there remains only abject subservience to the police state, all “happy” shiny little mixed-race or pro-racemixing people, and all applauding the pseudo-liberal State and multikulti society. Intellectual discrimination is central to a progressive (in the real sense) society, a society about to rationally choose its path to the future.

Yvette Cooper, a member of Labour Friends of Israel, is evil, as well as having been an expenses fraudster and freeloader who has never been punished. She must be removed from any position of power.

The young woman whose home was invaded by the “Murkyside” poundland Stasi “counter-terror” bad jokes has tweeted:

In an ideal world, every single one of those poundland Stasi police would themselves have their homes violated, and possessions confiscated, and members of their families questioned and alarmed. Maybe one day…

As regular readers of the blog will know, I was a barrister until the Jewish lobby procured my disbarment in 2016 (8 years after I had ceased Bar practice!): https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/.

Until very recent years, I retained a residual respect for the police, at least the rank-and-file. No longer. Useless at their proper job(s), and playing, many of them, at being “counter-terror” operatives. A bad joke force, nothing more.

https://twitter.com/fictions_pulp/status/1831678457295585686

Late tweets seen

I saw a few minutes of the structured “discussion” on Sky News with Sir Richard Moore, Chief of SIS/MI6 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Moore_(diplomat)] and William Burns, Director of the CIA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Burns_(diplomat)].

My impressions (I did not watch the whole discussion): the CIA Director seemed more thoughtful, far more considered, and far less less gung-ho than the SIS Chief, who seemed shallow in his judgments. As in? Well, as in “the Ukrainians have the will to continue fighting“. Really? Is that why the Kiev regime has to employ press-gangs to recruit young-ish men? Is that why the Kiev regime is running out of soldiers willing to fight?

It seemed to me that the CIA Director was quite interested in finding a negotiated solution in Ukraine, whereas the SIS Chief seemed a far smaller figure altogether, foolishly referring to the Kiev regime as “our Ukrainian friends“. They are not our “friends” at all, but supplicants and beggars, arrogant demanding beggars at that.

The UK has virtually no common history with Ukraine at all, and of course Ukraine only became a state (and then, only in name) 30 years ago. Now a brutal, shambolic dictatorship.

Incidentally,

In 2008, Burns wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”[17]

[Wikipedia].

Pity that Burns is not Chief of SIS! Still, there it is…

What bs is Richard Moore putting out to the public (and to Government? Or is he telling the British Government what it wants to hear, as happened with one of his predecessors before the invasion of Iraq?), about how “Ukraine” (the regime in Kiev) is fighting on, and even “winning” (does he go that far?—maybe not), the fact is that Russian forces are advancing, and will continue to advance, at present mainly in the Donbass region, then across all Eastern Ukraine, either this year or in 2025.

Russia cannot lose this war and will not lose it.

Late music

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Atterberg]

Diary Blog, 21 June 2023, with some thoughts about “narcissism”, “Jack Monroe”, and a personal memory

Morning music

Battles past

“Jack Monroe”, “narcissism”, and narcissists

I had missed that. It seems that there is now a template for suing “Jack Monroe” in the County Court. I wonder whether many people will be doing that.

Still no explanation from BBC Question Time as to why “Jack Monroe” was invited onto the show not long ago, thus facilitating more of her fraudulent activities. She was exposed years ago as a continual liar, and increasingly, certainly since mid-2022, as an outright fraud.

I myself have been surprised, over the past year, as to how outrageous the “Jack Monroe “grift”/fraud is and has been.

Thinking about the “Jack Monroe” fraud and/or “grift” reminded me of a similarly untruthful character I encountered 30 years ago.

When I returned from the USA in 1993, and started to try to make a living at the Bar (based in exceptionally-poor chambers in London), I did both civil and criminal cases, though I was never much at home in the criminal courts.

At that time (maybe still today, I do not know), solicitors employed unqualified stray persons as “outdoor clerks”, who would attend court hearings on behalf of the instructing solicitors, and in support of Counsel appearing. They had no rights of audience but were more or less messengers and “spear-carriers”.

Such “outdoor clerks” were people most of whom had no legal training at all: out-of-work actors, retired people in need of a financial top-up, all sorts. The advantage in employing them, for solicitors, was the low cost. I seem to recall that a recently-retired lady I knew got £10 or so (maybe £40 or £50 in today’s money) to attend. Most of the hearings were brief, and even with the waiting around etc, the “outdoor clerk” was usually free by lunchtime if not before. Any more-serious hearings, including trials weightier than minor traffic matters, would usually be attended by an articled clerk (trainee solicitor) or a solicitor in person.

One fine day, I was sent to appear in the magistrates’ court somewhere, and was met at court by an outdoor clerk, a rather swarthy mustachioed person, maybe late thirties, who looked more like what the police might term a “villain” than any kind of quasi-legal representative. As soon as he had introduced himself, a furious man accosted him and said “I need a word with you!“, upon which the pair adjourned to a nearby room where I could see them arguing.

The outdoor clerk, one Mitch Baird, then re-emerged, explaining that the furious man was a solicitor with mental health problems. I accepted that explanation by default. I was thinking more about the case in hand, the first appearance of a defendant in an indictable case.

After that, I was instructed on other matters (civil as well as criminal) by the same firm of solicitors, headed by a Jew called “Maxwell”, so encountered Mitch Baird fairly frequently. I met his West Indian girlfriend, with whom he lived (when around). A pleasant woman. I also met her mother. Their house (belonging to the mother) was a large detached Victorian house in the Stamford Hill area of London better known for its population of Hasidic Jews. I even attended a kind of garden party there, well-attended by an eclectic mix, including at least one Metropolitan Police detective (I would never have guessed his occupation).

That all-day barbeque/garden party, which I helped Baird to set up, was also notable for the amount of booze consumed: Baird and I alone drank (I think) 12 (it may have been “only” 8, but even so…) bottles of Bulgarian red wine between us (it seems impossible to me now…), before, late in the evening, heading to Le Caribe, “London’s only silver-service Caribbean restaurant” (now long-closed), a mile or so away, for a couple of imported (Trinidadian) Carib beers at the bar, overlooking a scene of gold-festooned Yardie types dining nearby. Baird then drove me home to Little Venice and dropped me off there. God knows what his alcohol reading would have been, had he been stopped.

Well, suffice to say that the said Baird was not to be trusted. Reports and complaints gradually emerged. For example, he had, apparently, actually taken money in cash from the family of a young Trinidadian visitor for legal defence, when the latter was supposedly legally aided! I had appeared for the defendant, managed to get the charge dropped as well (possession of an offensive weapon), but was never paid (Baird had obviously not put in the requisite legal aid papers).

In a civil case involving defamation, Baird had (in my own chambers, after a conference), got the lay client to make out a cheque for £2,000 to Baird himself. I was myself totally unaware of those facts at the time.

When the lay client discovered that my written advice was that the case was unlikely to succeed, he complained to my clerk that he had been cheated by both the Jew solicitor, “Maxwell”, and by Baird (I was cleared by the client of dishonesty but described in his letter as having not understood what a good case he had! His letter had gone to the Law Society (the solicitors’ body), I think, with the names of all concerned, such as MILLARD, in capital letters, as in the files of the Security Service. That detail has always stuck in my memory.

The lay client had demanded that my clerk, or I myself, somehow get back his money.

Though I was myself blameless (as was my almost useless clerk of the time), I could see the situation snowballing. My clerk had discovered that the £2,000 cheque (worth at least £6,000 today) had been paid into a bank account controlled by Baird’s girlfriend, Baird having himself been blackballed by all banks. I therefore pressured the girlfriend on the telephone, telling her (truthfully) that she could go to prison if the money was not handed back.

I am not a natural bully, but needs must, and after a great deal of bitter tears, the girlfriend did agree to give the money to my clerk, who returned it to the lay client.

I believe that Baird split up later with that woman. No loss (to her). She was probably unaware that she was but one string to his bow. In fact, a very nice St. Lucian bar owner woman had told me that various West Indian women were always telephoning the bar for Baird, leaving messages etc.

Baird then had the cheek to telephone me at chambers and threaten to “give you a good hiding”, as he put it, if I refused to give him, via my clerk, the £2,000. I invoked the name of the Metropolitan Police, then put the telephone down. I never heard from Baird again.

In the interim, though, I happened to meet, at court, that furious man described at the beginning of this story. It turned out that, far from being the lunatic described by Baird, he was a most reasonable fellow, a solicitor who had employed Baird in the recent past as outdoor clerk, and who had discovered that Baird was stealing money, tricking clients out of cash, demanding cash even when the defendant was legally-aided etc.

That solicitor also gave me some background. It seemed that Baird’s parents were mestizos from one of the main Caribbean islands (I forget which), and that his father was a pillar of the community (I think a surgeon). Baird was white-ish but his half-brother not. Baird himself had apparently been a shocking disappointment and source of shame to his parents, by reason of his various behaviours in the Caribbean.

That solicitor had told me how it had taken him a long time to untangle the skein of fraud, theft, and lack of any responsibility, of Baird. The Law Society had been on the solicitor’s neck, I think.

I was contacted not long afterward by that half-brother of Baird, who begged me to meet him and his Polish girlfriend to discuss the matter. Turned out that he worked in a senior (he said) or middle-management (my guess) role at Citibank. He was afraid of scandal tarnishing him, especially the fraudulent aspects of his half-brother’s behaviour.

I met the couple at Ronnie Scott’s, the famous Soho jazz club, which I had not visited previously, and which I found quite interesting. The “Citibank” Baird and Polish girlfriend (a blonde dentist), who seemed to have some kind of VIP membership (we were able to jump the queue to get in) were not unpleasant, and we discussed the problem amicably enough before parting.

What struck me at the time is how the fraudulent Baird had managed to get away with many things because most people, most of the time, believe most of what is told to them, especially when they are introduced (by others, or via mass media “validation”) to the fraudulent individual in such a way as to lull suspicion.

It takes time to wake up to the lies of a hard-core narcissist.

Here we come to the similarity with “Jack Monroe”, the so-called “Bootstrap Cook”. She was introduced to the public by sort-of-trusted organizations and people. The Guardian. The Observer. TV shows. Nigella Lawson, the Jewish TV cook. Others.

That validation (which to some extent continues— incredibly, “Jack Monroe” was on BBC Question Time recently, long after her “grifting” and outright fraud was exposed) makes many tend not to question her bona fides.

Even now, you see on Twitter those unthinking people perfectly happy to accept that “Jack Monroe” crowdfunded to “sue Lee Anderson”, then did not sue Lee Anderson (a few of the mugs even think that she did sue— and won!), and then (as she claims) donated all those crowdfunded monies to an unnamed food bank, indeed to one which she refuses to name. Meanwhile she tries to pull the old “mental health”, “physical health”, and “fear of stalkers and trolls” stunts, which she has used many times previously when suspicions about her gather.

Some commentators think that I am wasting my time on “Jack Monroe” and her mug supporters. Probably, but it makes me angry to see vulnerable, well-meaning, often elderly and, not-infrequently seen, disabled and sick people being taken for mugs by that cheat and liar, who is just laughing at them, if only they were able to wake up and see it.

Where are the police? Still seizing “racist” teddy bears? Still snooping on Twitter or blog posts?

Finally, I have no idea what happened to the egregious Mitch Baird. Maybe the bastard died. Many of those who target me seem to live relatively short lives. Or maybe he just faded into terminal obscurity.

More tweets seen

Leni Riefenstahl, Olympia

[The 1936 Olympic Games, Berlin— Hitler and the people]

More music

From the newspapers

This is the kind of untermensch we have been importing into this country for years, indeed for decades. I am generally anti the death penalty, but a general social problem now exists, and it may be that some brick walls and firing squads may eventually be necessary to solve it. When exactly that day will come, I do not know, but I know that it will come, and will have to be faced.

See also: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6034729/Asylum-seeker-raped-student-17-cemetery-replies-did-not-jailed.html.

He will be deported after serving his jail term.” So they say…

In any case, a thousand enter the UK for every one deported.

More tweets

Ha ha. Next, the idiot will be declaring war on Mars or Middle Earth. Better call for his nurse…

Ukraine is now not, in any recognizable way, a state at all. It only exists because propped up in every way by money paid by the taxpayers of the EU, UK, and USA.

What an incredible waste of money. Take away Zelensky’s ricebowl.

Ha. That might be an even bigger challenge for Greta Nut than making sense or accurate predictions.

See also: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/09/29/greta-thunberg-system-approved-wunderkind/; and https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/08/16/the-extinction-rebellion-levellers/; and https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/04/19/is-the-world-running-out-of-time/

“Thought for the day”…

“Thought for the fanatical Jewish lobby”…

More tweets

“Thought for the police?”…

Jesus H. Christ! The NHS is hugely underperforming, the UK’s roads are becoming badly potholed, people cannot get places to live, but the Indian money-juggler presently posing as Prime Minister is throwing your money at the Jewish regime in Kiev!

Late tweets seen

Billy Bragg will not do anything likely to annoy the Jewish lobby. He has seen what happens to entertainers (which I suppose he is) who get on the wrong side of the lobby. He wants to continue his trade…

As a matter of fact, Bragg may not be as famous as he imagines. I had not, I think, heard of him until a few years ago, maybe a decade ago (but not really knowing anything about him).

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

Not so amazing when you consider that the Jewish lobby has a stranglehold on mainstream media across much of the Western world, and especially the Anglophone world.

Late music

[Tangier]

An Unexpected Discovery

My blog, as regular readers will know, concentrates on ideas or matters of general import to society or the world. I do occasionally blog about other things, such as the less strictly legal aspects of my life at the English Bar, particularly if the story or anecdote has a humorous element or one which, to me, seems to say something about society as a whole.

When I blog about people I have known or had connection with, I usually keep them anonymous, or use initials only as identifiers. However, there are cases where the individual is either very well-known or, in my view, does not deserve the protection of anonymity.

Let us go back to December 2007, when I was beginning to have serious problems with the Revenue, problems which were not resolved until 2012. I made my last appearance in court (a truly ridiculous 3-day construction case at Central London County Court…long story, deserving a blog piece of its own some day) and left for my home in North Finistere, France (though I remained, purely nominally, a barrister in chambers, and at the practising Bar, until mid-2008).

Not long before I left for France for the last time (I had been bi-weekly commuting for 3 years via car ferry and air), a nuisance joined chambers. I had twice (successfully) opposed this barrister, one Brent McDonald, in fairly minor County Court negligence cases in the South West of England and had been frankly unimpressed by him. Though he seemed not unintelligent, he also seemed devoid of common sense: for example, insisting to a judge that a motor accident must have happened in a certain way because of the laws of kinetic energy! He was originally in the construction trade, I believe, and had a technical background. I disliked his attitude, which was very and unnecessarily confrontational. He was also a sore loser. If I am being completely honest, I thought that there was something wrong with him mentally.

That individual, I believe of Scottish origins, was, according to the senior clerk to chambers, married to an Indian (I think) woman, and they apparently had a child (in fact, if memory serves, two children). The Clerk said that he had plenty of good work, mostly legally-aided.

I was, at the time, a member of Rougemont Chambers, Exeter, which had burgeoned from a handful of people and not much work when I joined in 2002 to being a busy provincial set with a couple of dozen barristers and three clerks in 2007 (it is now merged with another set under a new name and is the largest set in Exeter and the largest in the South West outside Bristol).

The other members of chambers (it was always a surprise to me what poor judges of character many barristers are) were apparently impressed by McDonald at a reception chambers held for him, and the senior clerk was impressed by the list of solicitors supposedly willing to instruct him (and thus bring work and revenue to chambers). I abstained on accepting him into chambers, rather than voting against him, because both the Head of Chambers (who is now a Circuit Judge) and the Senior Clerk had persuaded all other members to approve him and I did not have the power to veto his acceptance.

In the first day or so, McDonald was not offensive and even remarked on how impressed he was that I was mentioned in the main legal directories (that “review” barristers and solicitors) as someone to brief on matters such as Caribbean and other offshore laws, and oil and gas questions, the latter particularly involving the Russophone jurisdictions where I had had very direct experience (including a year living in Kazakhstan).

It was not long, however, before McDonald started to buttonhole me on my political views, though only on the race question (including the Jewish Question). This was odd, because members of chambers rarely discussed anything political. McDonald was insolent and inquisitorial. To me, his attitude was unbelievable, not least because he had only just joined chambers and was in every way junior to me! Protocol is important to me. His demeanour was would-be intimidating, would-be bossy. I was fuming but courtesy also is very important to me. In fact, the bastard even remarked, half-sneeringly,  on how polite I was and how it was obvious that politeness was important to me!

McDonald effectively admitted that his antipathy toward me was based on (his kneejerk assumption about) my political views, combined with the fact that his wife and offspring (I think that he had two children) were non-European; as noted above, I believe that his wife was Indian. In the end, he grudgingly accepted that I had different views from his and we effectively agreed to avoid each other in chambers. Until he arrived, chambers had been a pleasant place. It was an object lesson in how one person can poison a whole environment very quickly.

So I left the practising Bar and my Exeter chambers and England, though not primarily (in fact, scarcely at all) because of McDonald (though his being there was certainly a disincentive to me, like the taste of a bitter piece of peel when eating a fruit).

I do not think that McDonald stayed long in those chambers before joining a larger set in Bristol, an offshoot of a London set. I noticed that he was himself now mentioned in the legal directories which he seemed to revere. They said that he “had come up through the ranks” and was well-regarded or some such.

I myself have always viewed such legal directories with skepticism, not so much because they recommended me at one time (!) but more because I had read glowing reports about people and organizations which did not chime with my direct experience of them, such as the “Emerging Markets” mini-department at Cameron McKenna (a large City of London law firm) for which I worked for 6 months in 1996-97, based for most of which time in Almaty, Kazakhstan (I later stayed on there, working with a very large American law firm).

That Cameron McKenna department was largely a Potemkin village created by an Australian woman of Russian-speaking (note speaking) origins, who would have been incapable of organizing the proverbial “piss-up in a brewery”, but who was very good at putting on an impressive front: when her department was about to be closed (when the **** hit the fan in various ways), about a year after I myself had moved on, that person not only managed to move just in time (and with a few toadies) to another large City of London law firm dealing with Russia, Kazakhstan etc, but the Times legal section and the main legal directories all (briefed by her and/or cronies, no doubt) lauded her new firm as having been “strengthened” by having this useless and devious woman and said toadies on board! (the last I heard of her, a few years ago, she had returned to the Antipodes and was an Australian trade delegate at a fairly high level, no doubt flourishing like the green bay tree…).

Anyway, returning to this McDonald character, I pretty much forgot about him for a decade, but then I started my blog and included a few reminiscences etc. So it was that I decided, recently, to see whether he was still at the Bar. To my surprise, I could not find him in the Bar Directory, or anywhere else, even by Googling. I did find some noted (i.e. appeal) cases, dating from 2008 or so. I wondered whether he had died, emigrated, even been disbarred! I drew a blank everywhere. Then I noticed that there was someone with the same surname at his last-known chambers. Not his wife at the time I knew him, because hers was a foreign, I think Indian, first name and this one was called Fran. Anyway, the Indian woman had not been at the Bar. So I thought that the surname must be co-incidence (McDonald being a fairly common name). Then, however, I noticed a few more facts.

It turned out that appeal cases from 2008 and later, proudly noted on that chambers’ website as having been done by Fran McDonald, had in fact been noted, in the law reports themselves, as having been done by Brent McDonald. I took a closer look.

The Bar Directory now has no public record for a Brent McDonald, but does now have an entry for one Lola Francesca McDonald…

Now a stranger move yet! It turns out that the barrister formerly known as Brent McDonald and now known as Fran McDonald has relocated to, of all places, the small New Zealand town of Nelson, at the top of NZ’s South Island.

What makes this move even stranger, on the face of it (and notwithstanding that Nelson seems a pleasant small town, reputedly the sunniest in New Zealand), is that McDonald (whether as Brent or Fran) was a personal injury specialist (though in Exeter he did other negligence-related and yet other work in the brief time when we were both members of Rougemont Chambers in 2007). There is, as far as I know, no personal injury legal work in New Zealand (see below for the reason for this).

The legal directories said:

“‘…rising star [Fran] McDonald continues to act on severe injury and fatal accident cases in the UK and abroad. She is very popular.’ (2012)”; and

“‘[Fran] McDonald is solely focused on personal injury and clinical negligence.’ (2014)”

(note the square brackets: looks as if Fran was still Brent in 2012 and 2014, despite the “she”; as for the Legal 500, that organization does not note McDonald’s New Zealand departure in its latest online offering: see below)

 “WORK DEPARTMENT

Personal injury; public inquiry; clinical negligence; product liability; inquests.

POSITION

Fran is a specialist barrister acting in the field of personal Injury who is recommended in both ‘Chambers & Partners’ and ‘The Legal 500’. Fran’s practice is focused on personal injury, including fatal accidents, inquests and inquiries.

The favourable references cease after 2016. The reason is a little vague (to me at least). I have no idea how long “gender reassignment” takes (or whether Brent/Fran underwent it), though, apropos of nothing much, I did once own a copy of the memoirs of April Ashley, my copy sadly abandoned in France in 2009, along with 99% of my library of 2,000 books. The April Ashley book was rare, too, the print run having been pulped.

I presume that the apparent hiatus after 2016 may have had something to do with what must be a very trying metamorphosis for anyone.

What makes the emigration to New Zealand odd is that it is clear, on the face of it, that McDonald built up a solid reputation in England in personal injury and the related clinical negligence area, but has now relocated to a country where there is effectively no personal injury or clinical negligence work, because New Zealand has a “no-fault” system, based on universal insurance, assessment of injury etc (see Notes, below).

I notice that McDonald, despite and perhaps justly boosting his/her personal injury repertoire on the London chambers’ website (to the exclusion of almost everything else), now lists as specialisms “employment law” and, even more weirdly (to my eye), nautical matters!

Fran’s main specialism in Nelson is issues relating to employment law. After completion of his exams in the new year he will resume practice over his full range of contentious interests including tort law (negligence, trespass etc), insurance, commercial/contractual disputes, professional liability, property disputes, medico-legal matters, engineering and construction and health and safety legislation.”

and

Many of his cases over the years have had a nautical theme such as claims involving distraint of containerised goods, allisions or breach of contract especially where jurisdictional/conflict of laws questions arose. Fran is equally happy to bring or defend claims. For example, he acted for UK Marines injured on the battlefield at the same time as being counsel for over 1,200 Iraqis alleging they were imprisoned, tortured or had family members murdered by UK forces.

The Nelson law firm names McDonald as Fran, as do the chambers in London (of which he/she is still, it seems, a member), but the London website refers to “she/her” whereas the New Zealand one has it as “he/his”. All very confusing… In addition, the New Zealand law firm shows McDonald as male, in a suit, shirt, tie, with short hair. The London website shows Fran as, or as if, female, with matching hair. Even more confusing…

The New Zealand law firm, Hamish Fletcher, which McDonald has joined in Nelson, has —actually not too unpleasing aesthetically, from the architectural point of view— offices on the floors above some retail outlets: Specsavers, a clothing shop and a “vape shop”, as can be seen via Google Earth.

Well, there it is. I am no psychiatrist, but it appears that the underlying motive force here is a wish for reinvention: the young man in construction or engineering becomes a barrister, marries, has children, changes sets, changes locations, changes sex, emigrates to the far side of the world and to very different circumstances, even (as it appears) metamorphosing in appearance again.

In the Russian proverb, “the soul of another is a dark wood” [чужая душа темный лес].

Does the above story tell us anything beyond the egregious McDonald’s personal odyssey? Someone seemingly rootless… is that typical of the age, typical now of UK people? I myself was once called, in jest, “the wandering Aryan”! It does reinforce my view of “legal directories”, not to mention chambers’ and law firms’ websites!

What about the “gender bender” aspect? A lady barrister I knew in London once was convinced that pollution of the water and air was leading to feminization in the males of both fish and humans (she was looking at her boyfriend at the time!). Was she wrong? I merely pose the question. When both April Ashley and (btw) a later friend of mine, Della Aleksander, had “sex change surgery” in Casablanca (April Ashley in 1960, Della Aleksander sometime in the early 1970s, I believe), such things were outrageous enough to draw down huge tabloid press interest. Now, it sometimes seems as though everyone and his dog is having a “sex change”! I do not think we can simply shrug our shoulders at all this. It may be that we are coming to the point where our whole civilization is about to experience a crisis.

Notes

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers’-register/?ProfileID=43962

http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/our-people/profile/fran-mcdonald

http://www.legal500.com/firms/9535/offices/9534/lawyers/90812

http://www.hflaw.co.nz/our-team/fran-mcdonald/

https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/resources/acc%E2%80%93helping-to-meet-the-costs-of-personal-injury

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson,_New_Zealand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Ashley#Biographies

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

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/when-reality-becomes-subjective/

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/26/the-tide-is-coming-in-reflections-on-the-possible-end-of-our-present-civilization-and-what-might-follow/

Extra Note

Many readers of my blog will be aware that I ceased to be even nominally a barrister in late 2016. For those who are not, and are curious as to why, please see:

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

Update, 6 May 2019

I happened to notice that the name of the subject of the blog post no longer appears in the online list of barristers belonging to his former chambers in England.

Update, 28 May 2022

Having seen that the original blog post has had a number of hits overnight, I checked out the website of that law firm in Nelson, New Zealand. It seems that the individual in question has now reverted to “Brent”.

What an unexpected and odd world we live in.

Update, 14 June 2023

Upon looking up the individual in question (on the website of the New Zealand law firm) for the first time in over a year, it appears that the individual no longer says anything about specializing either in personal injury or “wet” shipping matters, but now gives priority to business mediation etc, and even claims to have always done that kind of work. Really?

I cannot recall him ever doing that kind of work when I had the misfortune of being acquainted with him, whatever he may now claim. I should know. I did a bit myself when in the same chambers as him, and even sat as a business mediator now and then.

Oh, well, there it is…

Update, 15 July 2024

The blog post having had quite a few recent hits, I decided to see whether there was any further or better information that I should add. Turns out that the individual in question is still “Brent”, and now sports a beard. He moved on, apparently, from his former law firm a year ago and over the past year has been associated with two other law firms in turn, both on the South Island of New Zealand. He is not, however, and as of today’s date, on the websites of either.

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

https://twitter.com/AbusedLawyer

Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Update, 1 December 2018

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

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

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

Update, 13 December 2018

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

Update, 16 December 2018

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

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

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