I did not much like what I saw (on TV) of Bercow: my primary criticism of his behaviour is that he was biased. He openly ranted against the BNP to the schoolchildren’s play “Parliament”, at a time when the BNP were within sight of winning a few seats, in 2009 or 2010. A silly and nasty little person, who seemed unable to control his drunken slut of a wife.
Historical note
It’s an extraordinary thought that there is probably more time BETWEEN the painting of these two horses at Chauvet cave (>30,000 years ago) and Niaux cave (~15,000 years ago) as there is between the Niaux cave art and us #IceAgeArtpic.twitter.com/ZFAq7m2Abf
Mr Miller, 54, was speaking on the steps of the High Court on Friday morning after partially winning his case against the force which descended on his workplace in response to a tweet they deemed to be “transphobic”.
The limerick, which was posted on social media, was recorded as a “hate incident”, despite the police admitting that no crime was committed.” [Hull Live]
“He argued that Humberside Police, following the College of Policing’s guidance, had sought to “dissuade him (Mr Miller) from expressing himself on such issues in the future”, which he said was “contrary to his fundamental right to freedom of expression”.
The judge said Mr Miller strongly denies being prejudiced against transgender people, and regards himself as taking part in the “ongoing debate” about reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which the Government consulted on in 2018.
Announcing the court’s decision, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said: “The claimant’s tweets were lawful and that there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.
“I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect.”
The judge added that the effect of the police turning up at Mr Miller’s place of work “because of his political opinions must not be underestimated”.
He continued: “To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.” [Grimsby Live]
cc. Barnet Police, Essex Police etc!
It occurs to me that, just as Gandhi promoted the idea of “mass disobedience” in India, the users of social media might simply, en masse, refuse to go along with the nonsense that has been imposed for many years past, certainly since the Blair elected dictatorship passed the very bad law known as Communications Act 2003, s.127): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
Twitter users and others should take their courage in their hands and surge through the trammels put in their way by bad law and manipulative special interest groups such as the Jewish lobby.
Dominic Cummings and the Boris-idiot reshuffle
This is the person now effectively in charge of what passes for a government of the UK, in a situation where the part-Jew sociopath posing as Prime Minister cannot do anything but come up with schoolboy plans to build bridges over oceans etc:
I can't get enough of Dominic Cummings thinking he is a genius but actually being a certifiable nobheadpic.twitter.com/eYzlGDUzBC
This is like some low-budget sci-fi/futuristic film, in which the government is run secretly from a rubbish-strewn inner London street and by someone whose only camouflage missing is a stack of copies of The Big Issue.
Meanwhile, as in the days of the more corrupt late-Roman emperors, or the mid-1970s’ Harold Wilson government of “Lady Forkbender” and her “Lavender List”, influence and indeed power is wielded not only by some eccentric posing as a dystopian “genius” but also by the “ho” of the idiot trying to pose as Prime Minister of this poor country.
Boris-idiot has a problem, because he himself is actually incapable of running the proverbial whelk stall. His metier is that of the part-Jew public entertainer.
What makes it worse is that Dominic Cummings is actually right on several issues, such as, inter alia, the need to deport black and other criminals— and the equally important need to stop the HS2 madness.
Suella Braverman
“Suella Braverman…is mesmerically dim, with the new attorney general’s latest Channel 4 News interview suggesting not only that she could be outperformed at the dispatch box but that she could be outperformed by the dispatch box. Or indeed any other item of furniture in the Palace of Westminster.” [Marina Hyde, in The Guardian]
Just in case you weren't sufficiently worried for Britain, here's new Attorney General Suella Braverman – displaying all the intellectual clarity of a discarded potato salad that's been left to rot in the baking sun for two weeks.pic.twitter.com/6xgmOR5hQ5
Suella Braverman is yet another post-1997 political drone (elected 2015) who thinks that it is terribly clever to keep repeating the same phrases. I suppose that there are many average Joes who, reading the Daily Mail, Sun etc, think that a woman who is a barrister and has appeared in the High Court frequently must be highly intelligent, but those of us who have or have had similar status (and, as in my case, were also frequently in the High Court at one time) are harder to convince!
Lisa Nandy
Bin her. Bin her. Bin her. Das ist’s!
La vie litteraire francaise…
The Cabinet of idiots
“Whitehall is now littered with…secretaries of state such as Gavin Williamson, while Liz Truss – who’d lose a battle of wits with an emoji – is the longest serving cabinet minister.”
“I’m afraid Johnson’s much-vaunted reshuffle this week merely served as a reminder that the only positive discrimination scheme in this country that has long functioned to the highest level is the one that puts idiots in the cabinet. By this metric, the loss of Andrea Leadsom is a blow, but one that’s more than made up for by the promotion of the likes of Oliver Dowden, Alok Sharma, Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Suella Braverman. Braverman in particular is mesmerically dim, with the new attorney general’s latest Channel 4 News interview suggesting not only that she could be outperformed at the dispatch box but that she could be outperformed by the dispatch box. Or indeed any other item of furniture in the Palace of Westminster.” [Marina Hyde, The Guardian]
If only, after 1945, the European powers had agreed to co-operate in developing Africa as a continent, populating it with white people, taking care of the Africans, the wildlife, the environment, creating towns, cities, farms, with the environment, the animals, the birds being protected. No “African nationalists”, no corrupt and hopelessly incompetent African dictators or greedy African “democratic” politicians, no predation by marauders, whether African armed bands or greedy transnational companies.
Katie Hopkins seems to have been, in effect, expelled from Twitter. When the Jews got me expelled, Twitter weaselled about it being a “suspension”. I knew at once that it was a permanent expulsion. I also guessed correctly that it was meaningless, much like Twitter itself.
I doubt that Katie Hopkins will be “allowed” back on Twitter. She may realize before long that it really does not matter, because Twitter is 99% a waste of time in terms of real political influence. In her case though, I suppose that her various social media platforms were monetized, so she might suffer in that way.
The right-on idiot “antifa” types and pseudo-socialist scribblers etc are all ecstatic at her removal from their beloved echo-chamber, as seen in the triumphalism of the Daily Mirror report, below:
Here [below] is a pretty typical idiot of that sort, cheering on the “right” of the owners or officials of a huge transnational enterprise to censor or “unperson” someone whose views they (and/or in this case some Jewess who helps out on on a UK game show, apparently) dislike:
Here again, quite typical tweets from some other idiot-“antifa” tweeters:
Social media has given a voice to bigots and racists but we can help to silence them. The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to impinge on the rights of others.
I suppose that I must reiterate my view about Katie Hopkins. I disliked her attitude and most of her views from the first time I saw her on TV, which was when she did a 5-minute op-ed piece on BBC Daily Politics about 8 or 9 years ago. Her target then was those on disability benefits, and her views echoed those of the government regime of David Cameron-Levita, Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and the Jew “lord” Freud, inter alia.
Over the years, Katie Hopkins became a kind of female British “shock jock”. Her views are mostly very different from mine. She says that she is pro-Jew, pro-Israel (I think that I read somewhere that she herself is part-Jew, but I may be mistaken), anti-Islam (I am with her there, up to a point), anti-Islamist (I agree with her there), anti-mass migration into Europe (I am certainly with her on that), but she is also pro-Conservative, anti-Welfare State, anti-renter/pro-landlord (that may have changed now that she herself has to rent a home) and generally “libertarian” (anathema to me).
So I do not approve of many of her political stances, but have no objection to her expressing them. Those who had her expelled from Twitter just want to close down free speech by making a spurious distinction between “free speech” and “hate speech”.
What they really want is simply to ban views of which they disapprove.
Who are “they”, in this context? Well, mainly the Jew-Zionist element, but also the idiot-“antifa” element. The funny thing is that the “antifa” element is mostly anti-Israel, but when it comes to Jewish-supremacist influence and power in the UK, USA, France etc, the “antifa” idiots line up behind the Jews! As the now long-deceased husband of a friend of mine once said “one Jew can lead a thousand Englishmen by the nose!” That is so so true, sadly…
Likewise, Katie Hopkins bent over backwards to tell the Jews and Israel how much she loves them. Did it help her? Not a jot.
The same is true of the “alt-right” wastes of space. They all say how much they love Israel etc. Idiots. Breitbart, “Prison Planet” Watson, Tommy Robinson etc. One word from a well-connected or embedded Jew and, bang, they’re gone. Just like Katie Hopkins.
The privatization of public space
I first spoke about this matter when I addressed the London Forum in early 2017. It was novel then; in fact, as far as I am aware, no-one then was raising the point that the citizen qua citizen has no legal right to post (or even to exist, online) on the private-enterprise Internet platforms such as Twitter, Facebook etc.
There is also the point (which I touched on briefly in my 2017 talk) that while, legally or in terms of strict economics, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, ebay, YouTube etc are not monopolies, in practical terms, in real terms, they are. Yes, you can leave Twitter and get on GAB, but Twitter has about 500 million users, while GAB has (?) about 500,000, if that.
I have seen my views about the issue becoming more mainstream over the past three years.
The “antifa” and pseudo-socialist elements are so empty, ideologically, that they start bleating about the supposed rights of capital and “private property”! They begin and end with the simplistic statement that “Twitter [or whatever] is a private [in fact, publicly-listed] company. It can do as it wishes. It has ‘terms and conditions’ and so can remove anyone it wants for breach of them.”
Here [below] a few examples of such pedestrian thinking:
Additionally she chose twitter as her platform, which is a private company with terms and conditions of use, which she breached on numerous occasions. It's appalling she lasted as long as she did.
Of course, it is clear what is behind the censorship:
…and the “me too” “antifa” and pseudo-socialist (even self-describing “liberal”) rabbits go along with it, because, after all, “only” “nazis” and/or “fascists” are being censored and silenced, nicht wahr?…
I have often wondered what those imposing censorship by online mob (or backstairs influence) think will be the situation once they have banned everyone of whom they disapprove. Few seem to be aware that “the revolution devours its own children”.
Already I see some of the very “antifa” loudmouths and conspirators (who want others expelled from Twitter, “de-platformed”, “un-platformed” etc), themselves kicked off their platforms. “@resistinghate”, the small but unpleasant group fronted by Roanna Carleton Taylor of Derbyshire (formerly “@witchofpeace”, now “@antifashwitch”) has just been removed by Twitter, to take but one example.
For years, a minor Jew academic called Ben Gidley, with other Zionist Jews, tried to get Twitter to remove my account. They succeeded in the end (in 2018), but Gidley’s own accounts “@inthesoupagain” and “@antinazisunited” were also eventually removed or rendered inactive (though his personal Twitter account remains, I think, as does another of his Zionist fake “socialist” accounts, “@BobFromBrockley”).
Perhaps I should end with a quotation from John F. Kennedy:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.“
Update, 16 February 2020
I was wrong— after a week, Twitter “allowed” Katie Hopkins to resume tweeting…for now, on sufferance, like a person given a suspended sentence. Allowed her back on, so long as the Jewish lobby and the pseudo-socialists, and the pseudo-“human rights” pack do not convince some little person at a Twitter desk that she should not be removed again.
You see the issue: she has no right qua citizen to tweet, only the —effectively, no— rights available in contract to her as a party to a contract with Twitter. The laws of the UK, USA etc must eventually change to take account of the rights of a citizen qua citizen in contract with a quasi-monopoly.
The lady herself must know that she is on thin ice:
Sadly, Katie Hopkins is still tweeting pro-Israel, pro-Jew lobby stuff. She is simply unwilling to understand the realities of both her own and the general situation…
Such is life…
Update, 9 October 2020
Well, turn and turn about! Seems that I was right after all about Katie Hopkins: her Twitter account was later “suspended” for a second time, and this time permanently (just as mine was in 2018).
I sometimes think, in the manner of a latter-day G.K. Chesterton, that Twitter is a gigantic conspiracy to gather up all those interested in either commenting on society or changing it, then allowing the human atoms to bounce harmlessly off each other within the “echo-chamber”, never affecting anything seriously in the real world…
Update, 13 November 2020
Well, Katie Hopkins never did get back on Twitter, but (tellingly) the “Resisting Hate” group of idiot-“antifa” trolls under Roanna Carleton Taylor did return to Twitter. I suppose that they will be there so long as they are “useful” idiots…
Update, 14 July 2021
Well, Katie Hopkins never was allowed back onto Twitter, and “Resisting Hate” has also apparently been binned. Roanna, “Witch of Peace” and “@antifashwitch” has now become “@oilpaintwitch” and is not tweeting much about politics. I have no idea why (as I have seen alleged) the police suddenly took more interest in her weird activities of all kinds. There are a number of possibilities.
I never did discover what happened to the £11,000+ donated via the GoFundMe platform by about 700 mugs so that “antifa” cheerleader and petty online denouncer Mike Stuchbery could “sue Tommy Robinson”. Stuchbery’s Pakistani “legal team” (1-2 Pakistanis) seem, so far, to have drafted one “letter before action”, but that was about 2 years ago).
I do not say, necessarily, that Stuchbery and/or Roanna Carleton-Taylor simply “kept” the money, but if not, what happened to it? Perhaps we shall never know. Oh, by the way, Stuchbery has just this week been tweeting from Greece, where he is apparently residing in a villa while he enjoys the Greek food, drink, and weather for a few weeks…Not bad for someone who seems to be without gainful employment (though he sometimes ludicrously claims to “work three jobs”).
Elon Musk bought Twitter, sacked most of the “wokerati” that worked there, and allowed back most of those expelled in the preceding decade or so, Katie Hopkins being one. I myself decided not to seek readmittance.
I favoured Leave from the start (meaning from a while before the 2016 Referendum), but the process was royally mishandled by idiots such as Francis Maude (also a Common Purpose member, fyi), in fact so badly handled that I wonder(ed) whether that was not deliberate. Well, here we are, about to “leave”, though for now only on paper.
I wonder what kind of celebrations there will be. Not many and rather muted, I suspect. I am guessing that any “celebrations” will be rather squalid and sad, like New Year’s Eve used to be about 30 years ago in London, the Trafalgar Square fountains and statues boarded-up to protect them from drunken “revellers” (vandals and twerps, beer cans in hand, and with nowhere better to go).
The public mood is very downbeat, in my opinion: not sorry to be “leaving”, exactly; not scared either, but unenthusiastic, almost sullen.
As for Boris-idiot, looking at the first couple of months of his majority-government, my impression is that the man himself still looks like someone who, against the odds, has won the lottery, or inherited a great estate, and is not quite sure how to handle his unmerited good fortune.
Freedom of expression
Free speech (etc) continues to be attacked. Alastair Stewart of all people, who started political life as a “left-wing Communist” in the National Union of Students before getting into the absurdly well-paid newsreading line and becoming “mainstream”, has been sacked because a black “activist” and “lobbyist” from East London was too dim to understand a few lines of Shakespeare!
Katie Hopkins, meanwhile, has been “suspended” from Twitter (that’s what they called it when I was in reality expelled from Twitter in 2018…). She was the latest target of an unholy alliance of Jew-Zionists, Muslims and pseudo-socialist “anti-fascist” idiots, who all applaud the fact that a quasi-monopolistic finance-capitalist enterprise like Twitter can suddenly —and without being in any way accountable— “decide” to “de-platform” anyone it (i.e. its executives, or even minor office bods) consider to be “racist” etc.
Here below, NHS psychiatrist Tim G. Stevens, who tweets negatively about me from time to time, betrays a basically pedestrian mind. Twitter, says he, is a “private” company (let’s leave the exact terminology aside) and so can ban whomsoever it chooses.
Twitter, a private company, is entitled to ban whomever it chooses.
Governments, at least in democracies like our own, aren’t.
In fact, it is wholly inadequate to say that huge transnational organizations such as Twitter, which hold such an overwhelmingly large market share that they are quasi-monopolies, are simply “private”, or non-State, actors and so beyond the reach of potential civil rights legislation (the type of legislation which does not as yet exist but should exist).
The actor Laurence Fox has been attacked recently for daring to question “woke” nonsense:
When Laurence Fox meets Bonnie Greer again, he should ask her why it is, in what many call “racist” Britain, that a black American woman with no educational background (she started to read Law in Chicago but dropped out), and who has mainly been engaged in writing the kind of subsidized theatrical works that have an audience of 2.5 people, was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the British Museum. She even became Deputy Chair for a while!
When I had a Twitter account, Bonnie Greer joined a host of System-approved msm drones, talking heads, journalists and other scribblers, MPs etc, in blocking my tweets (nb. not my tweets to them or even about them, but on general topics).
So took some kind of degree and then taught in a secondary school for 5 years (1969-1974). Volunteered with Citizen’s Advice, sat as a lay magistrate in Surrey, sat on a tribunal for a while. Climbed up the Conservative Party organization in the 1980s/1990s and was elevated as a life peer in 1996. Apparently (looking at Wikipedia) not a mother, and married to a barrister who took silk and is, or was, a Deputy High Court judge; she herself appears to have worked full-time for 5 years only, on the face of it.
Now, this rather obscure lady remains a member of the Lords, has held ministerial positions, and has only to sign-in for 20 mins at the Lords to receive her £310 per day tax-free stipend, though I doubt that she is in need of the money.
I know almost nothing about this lady, so will not criticize her, but it seems to me that far too many MPs, as well as peers, have nothing very special to offer.
More about freedom of expression
The malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” “charity” has intimidated a music venue (again), the other victim this time (also not for the first time) being Gilad Atzmon, the Jewish but anti-Zionist jazz musician.
“The British military risks becoming irrelevant if it continues to focus on “missiles and tanks” as the main threats to the UK, the head of the Army has warned.”
“The army must “update and change the rules of war” according to the Chief of the General Staff, to be able to tackle new threats like cyber attacks, whilst also deterring countries that rely on heavy firepower.”
“General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said a focus on high-tech weapons that are no use against low-level threats like fake news and subversion “leaves us close to a position of dominant irrelevance”.”
“The main threat is not missiles and tanks, it is the weaponisation of globalisation, and those elements of globalization that have hitherto made us prosperous and secure: the mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”
“Secure borders, or living on an island, are no guarantees against the corrosive and intrusive effect of disinformation, subversion and cyber.”
“The Army head suggested that traditional concepts of warfare were “increasingly redundant”.”
General Carleton-Smith fails to mention, at least specifically, mass immigration (and the subsequent and consequent births) as a factor impacting the very survival of the UK as a state, a country, a society.
Of course, if he did mention it in that context, he would be sacked.
At one time, the UK was a fairly cohesive society. Now it is not. It is a seething volcanic caldera, disguised only by a thin and disintegrating crust.
Look at what happened just today (4 June 2019):
A Trump supporter is milkshaked by a hostile crowd in Parliament Square.
A baying mob of anti-Trump “protesters” bait and then attack what seems to be a lone middleaged man. A porcine woman leads the abusive and violent multi-ethnic pack, shouting “nazi scum!” repeatedly into his face. I suppose that he was brought up not to punch a woman in the face, even one like her.
Look at the policewoman (or PCSO) who not only does not attempt to arrest the milkshake-thrower but looks terrified, before she is pushed aside by the crowd as an irrelevance. The police are just useless these days. That “officer” made no attempt to protect a citizen standing in the street outside Parliament itself. Well, in the end, she is just one woman in a clown outfit.
Incidentally, I am not exactly a Trump fan myself; that is another issue.
We often think that the UK is becoming a police state. How is that reconciled with the imminent social breakdown I am predicting? In fact, the two go together, and both are linked to the now-fragmented UK society.
As society becomes fragmented, the easy-going policing of the past has to change to try to contain the chaos just below the surface. In addition, anything which disturbs the surface calm, or relative calm, has to be criminalized. So we see that, as the foreign invading hordes and their offspring have multiplied in number, so have the penalties increased for anyone who suggests that they should not be in the UK, or should be removed one way or another.
This started in the 1960s with the first Race Relations Act (1965), and became increasingly more oppressive with subsequent Acts (1968, 1976, 1985, 2000, 2003). It is clear why: the threat of public order upheaval, as more and more “blacks and browns” (and others) arrived in the UK and started to breed.
Free speech, freedom of expression generally, freedom of choice (eg in offering employment, or housing or whatever) “had” to be curtailed for reasons of “preserving the Peace” and in order to keep up the pretence that the multi-ethnic/multicultural society can work, albeit at the expense of a certain loss of civic freedom.
There was also the realization that, as the non-British and indeed non-European populations expanded in size, they had to be pandered to, not “offended” etc, not because the reverse would be impolite or undiplomatic, but because those increasingly huge populations might rise up against the white British people who “allowed” them to come to the UK (though most of the British opposed mass immigration; it was always the System and its politicians etc that caused the influx and its problems).
It was and still is the Jewish Zionist element that was and still is behind much of the legal repression and the “ethnic” influx itself (“The Great Replacement”).
Over the years, the censorship of speech and restriction of actions has expanded from races and “ethnicities” to other parts of the general population: religions, sexual orientations etc.
You can now say, or post online, relatively innocuous views, only to find that you are not only faced with a virtual (online) mob baying for your blood, but also quite likely with a policeman at your door or on the telephone. My own experiences include this:
If you say something that offends the general orthodoxy, you may lose your job, your professional status, your liberty.
The satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz lost her job —singing for a cruise line— simply because her views supposedly offended some Jews, even though her views had nothing to do with that job. Later, she sang satirical songs about some of the hundreds (if not thousands) of “holocaust” fake stories. That resulted in a farcical cycle of police persecution, prosecutions, eventual trial, conviction, sentence, appeal and now (at time of writing) further appeal.
Jez Turner set up the London Forum discussion group. He also made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, recalling how the Jews had been expelled from England more than once (and hoping that they might yet be removed again). Put on trial in 2018. Convicted. His punishment? A year in prison (he served 6 months).
I too was subject to action (by the same Jew-Zionist element): see above, and also
The Zionist campaign against free speech and free historical enquiry is being resisted, but the mere fact that such repression of free speech exists is very significant.
In the last few years, the privatization of public space has led to the abuse of power by the main online platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc), and even the organizations behind or around such platforms: paypal, patreon, and so on.
When Twitter started to remove “unwanted” opinion from its pages, many turned to GAB, only to find that there was a strong and focussed attempt by the ZOG powers to destroy GAB. So far, it has survived. However, the campaign against free speech continues, and shows no sign of abating:
Indeed, even a joke made (and posted online) about a Guy Fawkes event in a suburban garden can result in a police raid, evidence “bagged up” as for a murder case etc. Am I making this up to prove my point? No.
Measures against free speech and freedom of expression are just, overall, a symptom of what is happening. By that I mean the fragility of civil society generally. We see that, as the police “crack down” on social media posts or stickers put up on university campuses (incredibly, some young people got 4 years in prison for the latter, quite recently), comments made in blogs etc, in the real world of the UK, crime and especially violent crime is getting out of control: London infested by mainly black and brown “moped raiders” and “scooter raiders” and muggers, “road rage” incidents, brawls etc. The courts are far more lenient, usually, on those real crimes than they are on the fake crimes or notional crimes of pretended offence.
I have seen over the years how thin the veneer of society is in the UK. As long ago as the petrol protests of 2000, I noticed that that veneer was already very very thin indeed. Fights breaking out over the fuel pumps etc.
The police cover has been reduced, and while the police seem to be enthusiastically noting and acting upon reports of anyone seriously (or even unseriously, thinking of the dog taught to do a “Hitler” salute! The owner got a heavy fine…) criticizing the failing multikulti society (or the Jews that are mainly behind it), they seem far less interested in the traditional role of the police, i.e. investigating real crime and keeping safe the citizenry.
As for the armed services, they seem to be going the same way. Reduced in numbers, and with their focus on the approved shibboleths of the “multi-everything” society: multi-ethnic, multicultural, LGBT-whatever friendly, with confused aims, ever-lowering standards and little ability to counter either conventional threats or new dangers.
There again, what are the armed forces actually defending? We are now at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. There may be disputes about whether the Second World War ever need have happened, about whether an honourable armistice between the British Empire and the German Reich might have been concluded in 1940, but leaving all that aside, the British servicemen and civilians of that era (albeit bamboozled by Churchill and his cabal, so be it…) knew, at least in their own minds, what their own society was! Something like the picture given in the popular song There’ll Always Be An England:
Is there a British society at all now? There are bits and pieces still operative, but the society as a whole is now a jigsaw. There are fissures and rifts and splits everywhere. Racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, sexual, economic etc. Some always existed, but not to this extent.
So we see a situation where, at the very time when the society itself is not a coherent whole, the forces which might compel civic obedience and discipline are not numerous or powerful enough to do so, despite theoretically strict laws relating to various areas.
What will happen in a situation (which might come sooner than many imagine) in which the population is without luxuries or even necessities? Who will control those seething and uncontrolled masses? Not the depleted Army. Not the very depleted police.
A social national movement does not exist in the UK. It may be that the only way for one to exist will be for its existence to become the only way for the whole society to exist.
I tweeted (before Twitter expelled me) in the past about freedom of expression and how it is now under attack across the “West”; I have also blogged about it. It is not a straightforward issue but clarity is possible. The same is true when talking about the enemies of freedom.
Below, I link to a BuzzFeed “report” (propaganda piece) promoting the views of Jess Phillips MP, one of the worst MPs in the present House of Commons, who has now said (of a UKIP candidate, Carl Benjamin):
“The Electoral Commission should surely have standards about who can and can’t stand for election. If Facebook and Twitter can ban these people for hate speech how is it they are allowed to stand for election?”
It is hard to imagine being back in 1999, let alone 1989, 1979, 1969 (or any time before that right back to the 18th Century), when a Member of Parliament, even one as profoundly ignorant, uneducated and uncultured as Jess Phillips, would say that a civil service body should decide who should be allowed to stand for election!
Now there are certain kinds of people who cannot stand for election in the UK, and there is a debate to be had about whether those rules are too restrictive, but it has never been seriously suggested before that a candidate should be barred from standing simply because of whatever he or she has said!
Now, those who read my blog etc know that I have rather little time for “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin) or his fellow “alt-Right” vloggers (“Prison Planet” Watson etc) but I think that they have the right to speak, to speak online, and to stand for elections. As to Benjamin’s “rape” comments about Jess Phillips, well they were in very poor taste and certainly not chivalrous (though Jess Phillips has no time for courtesy and, still less, for chivalry, in any case), but I do not think that he should be arrested, questioned by police etc about them, nor prevented from carrying on his doomed attempt to become an MEP.
The general assault on freedom of expression in the UK and across the “West”
The attack on what might loosely be called “free speech” is being led and largely carried out by the Jewish or Jewish-Zionist lobby, monitored and supported by the Israeli state. This can be illustrated by a few examples from the UK, starting with my own experiences:
Alison Chabloz sang satirical songs which were posted online; she placed a link on her blog. She was persecuted, lost her job as a result, further persecuted, then privately prosecuted by the fake “charity” called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism”, which then led to prosecution by the CPS and conviction under the bad law of the Communications Act 2003, s.127. At present she is still appealing:
Jez Turner made a speech in Whitehall in 2015, in which speech he suggested that Jews should be cast out from England as they had been on several occasions in the past (eg under Edward I). After a long legal struggle with the Jewish lobby, more particularly the “CAA”, the CPS caved in and prosecuted Jez Turner. He received a 1 year prison sentence in 2018 (he was released on strict conditions after 6 months).
Tommy Robinson
The activist known as Tommy Robinson has been banned from both Facebook and Twitter.
I have written and spoken many times about the “privatization of public space”. In my case, I have been disbarred because Jews wanted to stop me tweeting and/or punish me for exposing them. I have been interrogated by the police at Jewish instigation. I have had other problems with the authorities in recent years. All the doing of Jew conspirators.
In the past, printed matter was the medium of political propaganda. Today, it is online matter that counts, but the online platforms and internet services are in few hands, and most of the hands that matter are Jewish.
An individual can now be effectively silenced by being banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, which can be the decision of a single capitalist “owner”, a manager or executive, or even some deskbound dogsbody.
In addition, that decision-maker, or a couple of such, can deprive the individual of money donations via removal of his or her Paypal, Patreon or other money-donation service.
Likewise, an organization can now be all but wiped out simply by the same methods. Just as I was expelled from Twitter (albeit that Twitter is just a waste of time and effort, really), so have been expelled (“suspended”, in Twitter’s weasel word) Alison Chabloz, Tommy Robinson and innumerable others. They have also been removed from Facebook, YouTube etc (I have no accounts on those platforms) and from donation sites, Paypal etc.
I see that Facebook has now removed Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam organization too (for “anti-Semitism”). The Jews are crowing. Maybe prematurely.
It is clear that power online is in very few hands. One decision by some Jew like Zuckerberg and an organization with literally millions of followers, such as InfoWars, can be sent spinning into outer darkness, with no right of appeal or legal redress qua citizen.
In the USA, these facts also mean that the Constitutional right to free speech is scarcely worth the paper it is printed on. I was always sceptical about it, on the basis that, yes, you can speak freely in the USA, so long as you do not mind losing your job, profession, business, home etc…Now the near-uselessness of the Constitutional freedom of speech is even more stark: by all means speak freely, but you are restricted to howling in the dark, or at least in the street. Your online “free speech”, meaning your communication with anyone not your immediate neighbour or family, is monitored, censored and can be completely taken away from you, not by the State, even, but by online platforms pressured by or owned by the Jewish Zionist lobby. We see that there are moves afoot in the UK even to prevent our taking part in already-stacked elections!
Conclusion
As European people and social nationalists, we can no more rely on online platforms than we can rely on getting elected in a rigged system, on fair reportage from the msm, or on getting justice under rigged legal systems.
Believe it or not, this idiot, Paul Bernal (see below), is a law lecturer! I feel sorry for his students at the University of East Anglia! According to his definition, even Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China had “free speech” (because you could *say* whatever you liked, but as a consequence might get shot…)
What an idiot! Absolutely prize…!
Time for the regular reminder that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
This blog post is not primarily about the Jess Phillips idiot-woman, but it is frightening to see the tweets of her supporters, showing the intellectual dullness even of the supposedly educated these days: see the tweet by one @docsimsim of Richmond, below
Jess Phillips my shero. She should be in the shadow cabinet atleast and possibly the next labour leader should she want the job. #StopBrexithttps://t.co/v0goH4HsOw
Others, however, have seen through the Jess Phillips Empty Vessel performance
Ignorance. Just ignorance. Sad indictment of how poorly ideas/policies are communicated. The MSM only interested in sound bites & those who produce them. The mouthpieces, eg Jess Phillips, always available for comment & contribute nothing. #BBCQT adds nothing to the discussion.
Here’s an American, one “Chris”, who seems to find it unobjectionable that some “authority” persons should “decide” on whether a candidate can be “allowed” to stand:
and here is Jess Phillips trying to make more publicity for herself while trying to squash down what little freedom of expression still exists in the UK:
Happy to discuss indeed. Personally I think we need a code of conduct that cannot be breached by those who stand as public representatives. I'd say saying you would rape someone if forced I'd say was a clear breach. I'll contact you for a meeting. Thanks https://t.co/iMlQvYIOBn
For those who are unaware, since being elected in 2015, Jess Phillips has squeezed every penny she can out of the taxpayers: not satisfied with a salary of nearly £80,000 and very generous “expenses”, she even “employs” her husband on £50,000 a year as “Constituency Support Manager” (he stays at home and is, presumably, a “house husband”). Yet she, this ignorant, rude, uneducated, uncultured creature, has the cheek to talk about “people with literally no discernible skills” getting high pay! That may be so, but she should look in the mirror, if she can bear it!
YouTube have banned me for 'hate speech', I think due to clips on Nazi policy featuring propaganda speeches by Nazi leaders. I'm devastated to have this claim levelled against me, and frustrated 15yrs of materials for #HistoryTeacher community have ended so abruptly.@TeamYouTube
— Mr Allsop History (@MrAllsopHistory) June 5, 2019
Update, 18 June 2019
Just one more random example of the slide into censorship and quasi-official lies or falsity:
A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4
The police, CPS etc, but especially police, seem incapable of distinguishing, or unwilling to distinguish, between “grossly offensive” (unlawful) and merely “offensive” (lawful) and tend to treat all “offensive” communications as “grossly offensive”, which runs counter to Court of Appeal and Supreme Court case authority.
This is what happens when plainly bad law, such as Communications Act 2003, s.127, is drafted and passed into statute.
I interrupt other blog writing to address an immediate issue. The activist known as Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Facebook, he having already been barred from Twitter. That news highlights again something that I have been writing about, blogging about, speaking about (at the London Forum in 2017) and tweeting about —before I myself was banned or rather expelled from Twitter in 2018— for years, the privatization of public space.
In past ages and, indeed, until about 20 years ago, public space was literally that: the agora of ancient Athens, the forum of ancient Rome, the barricades of revolutionary France, the brief outbursts of free speech in the Russia of 1917 or the early 1990s, and Speakers’ Corner by Hyde Park in London, where a youthful Millard (aged about 21) spoke to fickle crowds a few times in the late 1970s.
Today, the traditional fora of free speech, eg in the UK, are very restricted. Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) made a speech in Whitehall in 2015. He mentioned Jews a few times. That alone was enough (triggered by the malicious Jewish Zionists who denounced him, the supine police who are now so often in the Zionist pocket, the wet CPS who are not sufficiently resistant to the Zionists’ endless whining demands, a Zionist-controlled System-political milieu, and a Bar and judiciary which are frightened of their own shadows and even more of those of the Zionists) to have Jez Turner imprisoned for a year. He served 6 months and was only recently released to live for months more under considerable restriction.
The “public space” which is now most significant is online space. Twitter, Facebook, blogging platforms etc.
I myself was expelled from Twitter last year. I had been the target of both the Jew-Zionists and mindless “antifa” (aka “useful idiots” for Zionism) for about 8 years. I have also had my freedom of expression taken away in other ways, as well as having been interrogated by the police (again at the instigation of malicious Jew-Zionists) for having posted entirely lawful comments on Twitter. I was also disbarred, quite wrongly, for similar reasons.
Alison Chabloz was persecuted, prosecuted and convicted for singing satirical songs in the manner of 1920s Berlin. She is appealing her conviction and the result of her first-stage appeal. She has also been expelled from Twitter (as well as being made subject to a court ban from social media, which bars her from posting until mid-2019).
If Twitter or Facebook ban you, you may have some limited right of appeal, if they so choose to extend it to you. You have no legal right to stay on Twitter or Facebook despite the fact that, in real terms, they are near-monopolies. Yes, I am now on GAB, but GAB has only 500,000 users, if that, whereas Twitter has perhaps 500 million! The fact that, as I believe, Twitter is largely a waste of time, is beside the point.
The point is that, beyond your very limited contractual or other rights qua customer, you have no rights in respect of Twitter or Facebook (etc). Qua citizen, you have no rights at all. You have no right to post, and if the owners or executives of those companies decide to bump you off, off you go, whether you have 50 followers, 3,000 (as I did) or a million.
The Blair law of 1998 [nb: 1998 = 666 x 3…], requiring political parties in the UK to be registered, all but killed any semblance of real political-party democracy in the UK. Now, free speech both online and offline is being, on the one hand, criminalized or subjected to other State repression (at the instigation of the Jewish-Zionist lobby), and on the other hand choked off at source, by companies (under Zionist control or influence) barring dissidents or known activists from even posting dissenting or radical views online.
As to Tommy Robinson, I am not personally one of his supporters, and I deplore his attempt to play the sycophant for Israel and Zionism, but he has some views which are valid, in my opinion.
In any case, freedom of expression is indivisible. It is facile to make arbitrary distinction between some free speech, calling it “hate speech” and so unacceptable, and other speech which is labelled “acceptable” (politically approved) speech. That is mainly hypocrisy. Even my own relatively mild postings are and always have been targeted by the enemies of freedom, of which the Zionists are the worst.
So we have, not only in England but elsewhere (eg in France, under Rothschilds cipher Macron) the same repressive tendency. Sajid Javid, Amber Rudd, Theresa May, others, are enemies of the British people and enemies of freedom of expression. They seem to want to ban all political activity and all political or socio-political expression which does not support the existing System. It is immaterial whether you call it that or “ZOG”.
The System in the UK, in France seems to think that it can slowly turn the screw on repression, controlling the political parties (or setting up “controlled” new ones, as with Macron in France and, perhaps, the “Independent Group” in the UK), preventing free speech by putting the fix into Twitter, Facebook etc, only having controlled news on or in the msm (controlled mass media outlets).
The Soviet Union tried a less subtle form of all that, and it still collapsed in the end. What the System politicians, msm faces and voices etc, fail to see is that a head of steam is building up in the UK (and France) and, if bottled up by the State and those behind the curtain, will eventually explode.
Another example, taken almost at random from Twitter:
As well as censoring our content over the past few weeks, Twitter have now deleted all the people we were following, which in turn means we have lost a ton of followers
Please RT and follow if you’re still right behind us – we have no idea why Twitter is doing this pic.twitter.com/opwxMMr6fX
Another example. A typical pseudonymous Jew-Zionist tweeter (troll), below, exults that a very prominent pro-Corbyn Twitter account, “Rachael Swindon”, has been “suspended” (probably, like me, expelled):
In fact, Rachael Swindon has been reinstated, though only after Twitter’s vice-President for Europe intervened. Why should such people control the online public space? Again, why should the police barge in with large boots and interfere with free speech when no threats are involved? It’s all wrong.
The pro-Jewish lobby freeloader and careerist Tom Watson MP, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Watson_(Labour_politician) who has wormed his way to becoming Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (with his eyes on Corbyn’s purple day and night), has attacked Tommy Robinson in the House of Commons and asked YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s YouTube channel, which is his last online platform of any importance.
The excuse for Watson’s actions and statement has been the apparent fact that Robinson came to the house of one Mike Stuchbery, a failed (and sacked) supply teacher who poses as both “historian” and “journalist” online, and whose main activity seems to be online advocacy of opposition (including violence, though he usually uses weasel words) to any form of British or other European nationalism. Tommy Robinson has exposed the apparent fact that Stuchbery colluded with others to visit Robinson’s wife or ex-wife at her home. Robinson’s response seems to have been to do something similar to Stuchbery. Tom Watson, in his Commons statement, referred to Stuchbery as “journalist”, based presumably on Stuchbery’s politically-tendentious scribbles for HuffPost and other, smaller, online outlets.
In the end, if someone is prevented from making socio-political expression, that person can either subside into silence, or take other action. That other action might be peaceful, it might not be. When the repressed individual is a public figure with many thousands of supporters, those supporters may also take other action. That might include, potentially, and in the French term, “action directe” somewhere down the line.
Those (of various types: Jew Zionists, the politically correct, “antifa idiots etc) in our society, who crow at shutting down the freedom of others to make socio-political expression should, in the well-worn (Chinese?) phrase “be careful what they wish for”. The Spanish also have a phrase, a proverb in fact: “Do what you will, and pay for it.” Repression of views, not “allowing” people a public platform (and anyway, who is, for example, a blot like Tom Watson to decide who should or should not be allowed to speak?) can only lead to upheaval in the end.
It will be interesting to observe the UK political scene in the coming months and years.
A few tweets seen
A tweet with a few examples of the frequent passive but malicious incitement of violence against white people by “antifa” bastard Mike Stuchbery of Luton:
@MikeStuchbery_ is the coward who Doxxed #TommyRobinson's wife and children accompanied by the Media and a Crackhead. He is a Far Left Antifa Thug who needs exposing to the Whole country.
Below: self-described (fake) “journalist” and “historian” (failed supply teacher and house-husband) Mike Stuchbery inciting serious political violence but trying to deny it…
Below: fake “historian” and “journalist” Mike Stuchbery threatens minor Northern Ireland politico David Vance with a lawsuit. Does he have any idea how much a defamation action (for example) costs? He must have got the idea of constantly threatening to “sue” from the Jewish Zionists and their useful idiots on Twitter, who are always threatening legal action, and who often invoke the “sainted” name of Israel-based “Mark Lewis Lawyer” in this regard. In reality, Lewis is a wheelchair-bound blowhard fake, recently fined by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for his behaviour. At the Tribunal, he admitted that he often had no idea what he was doing because of his intake of prescription drugs. Oh…and Lewis’s own Counsel said that “he has no assets” and that “his sole possessions are his clothes and a mobility scooter”! See:https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/?s=mark+lewis
This individual has been proven to be an unhinged, hate-filled extremist, who has whipped-up his followers to engage in violent acts. this pathetic weasel should be charged with incitement to commit a hate crime on this evidence – pic.twitter.com/Ec2Yr9AAMM
Something called “Press Gazette” also refers to grifter Stuchbery as a “journalist” (does he have an NUJ card? I suppose that, these days, any wannabee can scribble for peanuts or for free in the HuffPost, silly little online “news” agencies, or for the (now often semi-literate) online msm “newspapers”, and then to call himself “journalist”…and in Stuchbery’s case, “historian”, too!…)
The more serious point here is that “Culture Secretary” Jeremy Wright MP thinks that he is entitled to ask YouTube to take down Tommy Robinson’s videos, Tom Watson MP having already demanded the same. Freedom? Free speech? Free country? Hardy ha ha…
Update, 11 March 2019
and still the tweets keep coming…
You are my favourite tweet thus far. Mike is just an observer? Excuse me for hooting with laughter. Mike is an extremist. It’s documented all over Twitter. He earns a living from incitement not observation. Yet he refuses to take ownership of the effect he has on others.
and Stuchbery has hit back with the piece below, posted on yet another of the plethora of new “news and comment” websites that pose as quasi-newspapers, in this case calling itself the Byline Times
Stuchbery (and many others on Twitter etc) really should refrain from using legal terms wrongly or pointlessly, eg, in that piece averring that Tommy Robinson defamed him. Well, that may or may not be the case, in the lay sense, but any actionable defamation requires publication. I have no idea whether in this case, Robinson published (meaning said or wrote to third parties) any of the allegedly defamatory material via video streaming etc. It seems not. Then there are all the other factors, such as the defences, one of which is that the statements, even if defamatory on their face, are true…
In any case, it costs vast amounts to sue for defamation, though in some open and shut cases it may be possible to find “no win, no fee” lawyers (in the old American parlance, “ambulance-chasers”) willing to take it on, with the help of specialized legal “insurance” (which in my view comes close to champerty, in the old Common Law sense)
…and here we see some supposed “comedian” (comedienne? Never heard of her), by name Janey Godley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janey_Godley , saying that those exposing Stuchbery are “a danger to free speech”:
In fact, I also must have missed seeing any support from Janey Godley for Jez Turner, imprisoned for making, in Whitehall, a humorous speech mentioning Jews and their history in England; neither did I notice the aforesaid Janey Godley (I had never heard of her in any regard until today) tweet anything in support of satirical singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz, persecuted by Jewish Zionists, then privately prosecuted by them before being prosecuted by the CPS (under pressure to take over the matter…) and then convicted, in effect, of singing songs.
An example, below, of the muddled thinking of many on Twitter and elsewhere: this idiot, calling himself/herself “66ALW88” (what?) thinks that the way to preserve free speech online is for the online platform companies to “crack down” on, er, free speech online…
Below, a tweet not at all significant in itself (there are literally thousands of unthinking, purselipped nobodies like this Irish “academic”, one Fergal Lenehan, around, all waiting for the chance to denounce people, to “report” to Twitter, Facebook or police, or wanting to ban the free speech of others not signed-up to the System/ZOG mental straitjacket). It is the trend, the existence of a large bloc of such nasty idiots that is of importance.
and here (below) is a well-funded basically Jew-Zionist organization which admits that it wants, inter alia, to stop the historian David Irving from conducting lecture tours. I think the reverse: that those who oppose freedom of speech on political, social and historical topics should themselves be stopped…
The fact that Irving has done this before does not mean that we should allow him to do it again. We have plenty of advance notice to prevent it this time.
Let’s try & stop this grotesque event from happening ever again.
— Anti-Fascism & Far Right 🥤 (@FFRAFAction) March 17, 2019
Update, 18 March 2019
Now the cowardly and mentally-disturbed grifter, Stuchbery, continues to try to claim the moral high ground, which is laughable (and note the support from a political cretin, “Leftwing Revolt”, in the thread below, who is a member or supporter of “Resisting Hate” and sees nothing wrong with someone he might disagree with being attacked with an axe! Resisting hate? You could not make it up…). I might not “support” Tommy Robinson, but I prefer him a hundred times over to Stuchbery and the “useful idiots” of “antifa”!
and (below), another little shit like Stuchbery, this time a New Zealander, who positively welcomes censorship and repression (and he is, wait for it…a “writer/director” of film and theater”!). One of the weird aspects of the present time is that those most eager to see censorship and ideological repression are “creative industries” drones, writers, film and TV people etc, and journalists.
and he retweets, approvingly, this (below) announcement of New Zealand governmental censorship. I personally have no wish to see footage of the recent New Zealand massacre, but that should be my choice, not the New Zealand (ZOG) government’s.
Chief Censor David Shanks has officially classified the full 17 minute video of the fatal Christchurch shootings as objectionable.
It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute this material in any form, including via social media platforms.
and…again: the same little shit, one Andrew Todd, does not want the accused to be allowed to defend himself in case he says something the New Zealand government (ZOG) does not want people to hear…
Not everyone on Twitter agrees with the idea of censoring views and people being found guilty as soon as they are accused, however:
So you believe in a system where your proven guilty before your convicted by a judge and group of your piers. Let me give examples of places this has happened: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and Uganda during the rule Idi Amin.
Here’s another one, below, a New Zealand journalist positively gagging for censorship (I had no idea that NZ was so ZOG-occupied):
FYI, more useful detail on how the big tech companies are failing to weed out hate speech videos and how they missed out on white supremacist videos https://t.co/lYdO10D2Nr
and yet another virtue-signalling “journalist” who is, it seems, an enemy of both freedom of expression and of the future of the European peoples…
I spent a good part of 2 years reporting on ISIS internet and how the group uses social media — in 2019 it's mind-boggling to me how well the coordinated cross-platform effort to remove them from the internet worked and how there hasn't been a similar one for white supremacists.
The grifter actually makes a joke out of his begging and scavenging!
It's been a challenging – and expensive(!) – couple of weeks, so if you enjoy the written pieces, the history threads, or whatever, you can always make a small tip through my Ko-Fi… https://t.co/Xd2iEmxucQpic.twitter.com/OJ7UGuAzPr
Tommy Robinson has now been banned from Twitter (welcome to the club…) despite (because of?) his being a candidate in the European elections (North West England).
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [John F. Kennedy]
Update, 5 June 20199
Another random example of how the quasi-monopolies of youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc have arrogated to themselves the right to censor and banish: [Update, 22 July 2022: the tweets etc noted have now been completely deleted]
Update, 18 June 2019
More…
A Dr Who writer @OldRoberts953 is expunged from a book by the BBC because he won’t conform to the latest transgender ideology. His views on transgenderism are probably shared by 90%+ of Brits but he’s now a Non-Person for the BBC. The net tightens around free speech. Please share https://t.co/G9fM2BK1e4
Grifter, “antifa” supporter, fake “journalist” and “historian” Mike Stuchbery is desperate to close down free speech for those with whom he disagrees politically. See his recent tweets, below. This is one of the worst enemies of freedom of expression in the UK.
YouTube shut down four major US white supremacist channels in the last 24 hours.
If they're serious about reversing the spread of radicalisation, here's four accounts in the UK they could shutter today… https://t.co/nNG4sk938a
The latest news is that some odd woman tied up with both “antifa” nonsense and Jew-Zionists has created a GoFundMe appeal on behalf of Stuchbery, supposedly so that he can sue the political activist known as Tommy Robinson.
I prefer not to comment on the proposed legal claim until I read more about the foundations for such claim. I presume that Stuchbery is doing this (the woman mentioned above may be raising funds for him but only Stuchbery himself can actually sue) because:
he knows or believes that Tommy Robinson has assets sufficient to satisfy any successful claim;
he has seen that others are already suing Tommy Robinson;
he thinks, perhaps, that a civil legal action will damage Tommy Robinson by starving him of funds;
if successful, Stuchbery will make a great deal more money than he gets at present via online begging or his part-time work in Stuttgart, where he now resides.
Were I the defendant, and leaving aside the potential substantive issues that might be in issue in the proposed case, I suppose that I should focus firstly on the fact that Stuchbery is
resident outside the strict jurisdiction (albeit still in the EU);
is a foreign national (as I understand, an Australian citizen);
has no real or other property in England and Wales;
has no means with which to satisfy any judgment on costs or in respect of any counterclaim or setoff that might be claimed by Tommy Robinson, should the Court decide against Stuchbery on one or more issues or otherwise.
I doubt that this claim will get off the ground. I certainly doubt that it will clear the probable first hurdle, as explained above, but we shall see. It appears, however, that plenty of mugs are donating to the said GoFundMe appeal at present.
Update, 25 November 2019
Stuchbery’s solicitors, Eve Solicitors (the firm is a limited company in fact, possibly in effect a one-man operation), are operating out of a rundown Victorian terrace in Bradford; several other small legal and other firms are operating nearby. The operation has only been in operation since 20 May 2019, at earliest:
The “firm” has only been at its present address since 28 September 2019, before which, i.e. from its incorporation in May until September 2019, it operated out of a tiny Victorian terraced house in a “Coronation Street” lookalike, Hudswell Street, Wakefield (Yorkshire).
The principal (and only named) solicitor is one Waseem Ahmed.
Where the name “Eve” came from, God knows. My only guess is “Adam and Eve”, as in the Cockney rhyming slang, “you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it!”
Only joking.
Having said that, when I was a practising barrister in London in the early-mid 1990s, I knew of Pakistani and other ethnic-minority solicitors (in London, in Luton and elsewhere) who used “English”-sounding names for their small firms. Some of them still owe me money! (Unpaid fees). I am sure that Stuchbery’s solicitor is not like that.
I looked earlier at the GoFundMe appeal set up to collect money for Stuchbery’s proposed legal claim against Tommy Robinson. So far, 262 mugs have donated a total (as of time and date of writing) of £5,209 to start the claim. I wonder whether they or others will donate the rest of the £15,000 asked for? Frankly, I doubt it, though the amount so far raised has been raised in only three days.
I doubt that the proposed lawsuit will either launch or get anywhere.
Further thoughts
The woman who is fundraising for Stuchbery, and who seems to have all day to tweet etc, has tweeted that “As many of you know, Mike Stuchbery is about to sue #TommyRobinson for harassment. He is backed by #ResistingHate and a full legal team.“
A “full legal team”? So that would be someone called Waseem Ahmed and…?
I do not say that “Eve Solicitors” (i.e. Mr. Ahmed) is a one-man-band (though it certainly seems to be), and I cannot say that there are no legal people offering advice etc from the sidelines (what used to be known at the Bar as “cocktail party advice”), but I do know, having been at one time a practising barrister who (in the 1990s) regularly appeared (weekly, at least) in the High Court, as well as in County Courts, and more occasionally other types of court and tribunal (both then and in the 2002-2008 period), that GoFundMe £20,000 will only serve to kick off such a case and claim, if I have understood its likely nature properly. Costs rapidly escalate.
Solicitors vary in their fees, barristers likewise. Simply to issue proceedings in a High Court action (which I suppose the proposed case would probably be) would be several hundred pounds as a minimum, and many thousands of pounds in some cases:
As a rule of thumb, a barrister will get anywhere from (as minimum) £500 a day on a small civil matter in the County Court, up to many thousands of pounds per day for almost any High Court matter, though there is no “limit” as such, and some barristers, eg the top commercial silks (QCs) will be on £10,000 a day or more. The spectrum is very wide.
As those who enjoyed Rumpole of the Bailey will know, a barrister usually gets a “brief fee” (to cover all preparation and the first day, if any, in court), then daily “refreshers”. How much are they? How long is a piece of string?
One of my own last few cases was a County Court commercial matter involving a large amount of cattle feed. Now that it is long ago since I last appeared in court (December 2007; this case was not long before that), I think that I can reveal, by way of illustration, that I was paid, that time, £5,000 as a brief fee and £1,000 a day for refreshers (in fact there were no refreshers, because the matter settled on the first day in court).
I have no real idea how much the case of Stuchbery v. Robinson might cost Stuchbery in legal fees if it is ever pursued to court, but my semi-educated guess (“semi” because I have not been involved with the Bar for over a decade) is that whoever presents it in court (unless doing it for free or on the cheap) will probably want a brief fee of perhaps £5,000 (at least) and (at minimum) £500 per day refreshers. Maybe £10,000 and £1,000 per day. It can be seen that, even at the lower estimate, a 2-week hearing (10 days in court, which this well might be) is going to cost £9,500 for Counsel’s fees alone.
Solicitors’ fees also vary widely. When I myself worked (overseas) for law firms (as an employed lawyer), the firms charged for my work at anything up to USD $500 (or about £400) an hour (I myself didn’t get that, sadly, the firms did); and that was over 20 years ago. I suppose that Stuchbery’s solicitors will not be very expensive, but will probably still charge maybe £50 an hour at absolute minimum. Solicitor case preparation might take hundreds of hours. 100 hours @ £50 p.h. = £5,000.
Then there are what solicitors term “disbursements”, i.e. the expenses of the case such as issue fees, witness expenses, whatever.
You can see how £20,000 can be quickly exhausted…
However, even if Stuchbery’s solicitors (solicitor?) can launch the proposed matter and fund a couple of weeks in court (and don’t forget that the solicitor, if in attendance, will also be charging for his time there), there is the matter of what happens if Stuchbery loses. No, that is not left to chance. The lawyers for the proposed defendant, Robinson, will in that event have to have their costs covered too. Even if they only come to the same level as Stuchbery’s (which I doubt), that puts Stuchbery (and possibly others who have funded the claim) £20,000+ in the hole. It could be a great deal more. Maybe even hundreds of thousands.
Stuchbery is an Australian citizen, maybe also a German one now (I do not know). He has no real property in the UK or, as far as I know, even in Germany, where he now lives. He has no, or no substantial, monies in the UK (or anywhere?). He does not have a substantial income or a full-time job.
On the above facts, and if Robinson applies in court for that, Stuchbery is almost certain to have to provide “security for costs”, i.e. [see above] monies “paid into court” (into a court-controlled account) to cover Robinson’s costs should Stuchbery lose his case. Likewise, on the above facts, that would almost certainly have to be the whole of Robinson’s likely outlay in defending the case. Certainly tens of thousands of pounds. Possibly over £100,000.
If Robinson applies for security for costs, if the court agrees with the application, but then Stuchbery cannot come up with whatever sum is demanded (I cannot think that it would be lower than £20,000; probably far far more), then the claim (the case) will be struck out, possibly with costs awarded to Robinson.
Stuchbery will probably have to raise £40,000+ even to start his case.
I think that my readers will understand better now why I think that Stuchbery has no chance of success regardless of the merits of his case (if any).
Presumably, Stuchbery does understand that, in a case like this, witnesses (he himself, Robinson, others) will have to give evidence, be cross-examined on that, all the while with Stuchbery staying in the UK, perhaps for weeks or even a month or more.
In fact, the practice of not arresting or charging those caught with various “illegal” drugs has been going on for years in the UK. The Thames Valley force may have extended it to a previously unheard-of extent but the rot (if that is what it is) set in decades ago, when some police chiefs decided that the terribly-valuable time of their officers was wasted in arresting persons found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Subject to correction, I believe that it was London Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick [see Notes, below] who, as Borough Commander of the bandit country which included Brixton, first introduced the policy.
Let’s pause right there. A police officer —fairly senior, so be it— decides, arbitrarily, that he is not going to enforce a law, or not always going to do so. There are arguments to be made in favour of decriminalizing some (or all) now-generally-illegal drugs, but that is a decision for the legislature, Parliament, to make, not a police officer.
Now there has always been a measure of “police discretion”, as when (forgive any possible anachronism around a policeman actually patrolling an area and so actually being in a position to catch someone doing something forbidden) a policeman finds a child “scrumping” (technically, stealing) apples or pears from an orchard or garden, that policeman then deciding to deliver a stern on-the-spot warning rather than arresting the child. Likewise, the motorist getting a ticking-off from a traffic cop rather than a speeding ticket for travelling a few miles per hour over the set limit. However, the examples given are minor crimes by any estimation. Possessing forbidden drugs may be considered minor by some, but not by most, even today. That becomes even more so when the drugs are “harder” than marijuana.
There is the other point that a distinction can be made between a policeman deciding to exercize discretion in a particular case, and a policeman (at higher level) deciding not to enforce certain laws as a matter of his own decision and in the geographic area under his command.
This is of course a grey area, but it is troubling when a police force decides, on its own initiative, to abrogate the plain words of valid legislation. True, there are many laws still on the statute books which are no longer applied, crimes which are no longer prosecuted, but they are mostly those which have fallen into desuetude by reason of effluxion of time: one good example of a crime which has not been prosecuted for several hundred years (if ever) is that of “entering the precincts of Parliament while dressed in a suit of armour”. For other bizarre examples, see the links in the Notes, below.
Those old crimes, still technically criminal but never prosecuted, are an amusement. What, however, about things which are not crimes at all, but which the police, under the influence of political correctness or pressure (usually from the Jewish lobby) have decided to treat as crimes or quasi-crimes? Another grey area? I have blogged previously about how Jew-Zionists made malicious complaint against me to Essex Police (about 2 years ago, in late 2016/early 2017):
In that case, the police were notionally acting in pursuance of a wrongheaded, badly-drafted but technically valid and quite recent law: Communications Act 2003, s.127, but were trying to stretch its ambit so that views expressed which were dissenting, dissident, controversial and (according to some Jews, at least) “offensive”, became “grossly offensive” and so could in principle be caught by the Act.
In “my case”, the prosecution never happened because (it now appears) the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] (and at a high level, in Whitehall…) took the commonsense view that a successful prosecution was both unlikely to succeed and not in the public interest. Leaks from the police, however, now make plain that some of their officers were completely in the pocket of an aggressive Jewish-Zionist cabal (the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA”); one police officer in particular seems to have acted effectively as an advocate on behalf of the CAA to the CPS, advocating for me and others (persons unknown to me) to be prosecuted. He lost his professional objectivity completely, it seems; thankfully (for me and for the rule of law) he was over-ruled. Bitter herbs for him, perhaps.
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” or “CAA” is now itself the subject of various police investigations around misuse of its charitable status; also, as some readers will be aware, one of its leading members, Stephen Silverman, was said (it was admitted) in open court (and by the CAA’s own lawyer) to have been an anonymous (pseudonymous) and sadistic Internet troll who stalked various women online.
More recently, in Summer 2018, I was harassed by a police constable based at Barnet, North London (which is effectively occupied territory), at the behest of a Jewish woman who had been firmly put in her place by Andrew Torba, CEO of the online GAB platform. That Jewish individual had demanded that Torba remove various accounts from his GAB platform (which is based in USA and Caribbean) and she had had the gall to threaten Torba online and publicly with “Scotland Yard”! Torba posted all the conversation on GAB and told her in very blunt terms to, er, “get lost”! Many GAB and Twitter account-holders also told her to “get lost”!
I was accused of having reposted one reply to that woman from Torba (which repost would in fact not be a crime in the UK anyway), but that did not stop PC…well, let’s just call him Plod…from sending me an (undated!) “Warning Notice” re. “harassment”, which under English law has to consist of at least two incidents, both of which have to be unlawful, whereas here was one (alleged) incident and that entirely lawful even on its face!
It was clear to me that the Jewish Zionist woman complainant, smarting from the whipping given to her online by Andrew Torba, had decided to make an entirely malicious complaint against me. I should add that she is or was a member or supporter of the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” and at one time used to tweet prolifically and negatively about me. The point is that the police should have realized that her complaint was both malicious and had no basis at all in law. They did not. They chose not to. Very alarming…
It is worrying when the police not only do not know the law they purport to be applying, but actually try to continue to insist that what is not the law actually is! Plod not only telephoned me at least once, but emailed me intimidatingly (as he thought) and, as said, sent a semi-literate, undated and completely ineffective (legally ineffective) “Warning Notice” to me.
What made that incident worse was the feeling that the police in Barnet were running wild and were not acting properly under law. I heard (though this was never confirmed) that “the said Jewish woman” is the ex-wife of one of the “Shomrim” faux-police or private Jewish police, who are based, it has been said online (correctly or not), at the building(s) of the Barnet Police! A private tribal militia operating out of London police stations? It would have been thought incredible only a few years ago.
I could have taken the above-mentioned matter further via official complaint against PC Plod, who, in my view, came close to committing “misconduct in a public office”, but contented myself with writing a detailed letter both to the Borough Commander in Barnet and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Even then, after some time, Plod harassed me via email once more! Only when I provided a face-saving way for him to get lost, did he.
I perceive a degree of drift here: the police deciding not to apply some laws on a blanket basis, in other cases as good as making up the law as they go along. Taken further, those tendencies could together collapse the rule of law in the UK entirely.
[photo: Mark Lewis, a Jewish Zionist solicitor who has emigrated permanently to Israel. He testified at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal in London —where he was a defendant found guilty on several charges—that at times he did not know what he was doing because of medications prescribed for him]
Some reading this may have already read my blog post about the “trial” of self-publicizing Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, whose Twitter account @mlewislawyer was once @MarkLewisLawyer:
That blog post dates from the first day of the hearing in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal and has been updated to (so far) 12 December 2018.
Now more information has become available about the abuse that [prescription] drug-sozzled Lewis handed out, not only to social-nationalists (like me, who had to block the bastard on Twitter a number of years ago!), not only to supposed “neo-Nazis” (as if their political orientation made death threats acceptable!), but also to a Jewish boy aged only 18! The father of that victim has now revealed some of those details to the Jewish Chronicle:
“Mark Lewis, the solicitor who was ordered to pay £12,500 for sending abusive social media messages to online trolls, also told a young Jewish man he hoped his father “would sit shiva for you soon”, the JC can reveal.”
Note: To “sit Shiva” is a ritual that Jews perform after a death:
“Mr Lewis was fined and ordered him to pay thousands in legal costs for “wishing death” on people on social media, many of whom had sent him antisemitic abuse or wished similar on him.” (so he said…)
“But the JC has seen Facebook posts Mr Lewis wrote to an 18-year-old who was supporting the Labour Party during the 2017 general election campaign, telling him to “f**k off you stupid c**t”, adding that his father “should have worn a condom”.”
“Lawyer sent abuse to [a Jewish] 18-year-old, telling him to ‘f**k off you stupid c**t’. The exchange was one of the allegations that was the subject of a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which has still not published its full judgment. Offensive messages Mr Lewis sent to people who had sent him antisemitic [messages] were reported separately.”
“Mr Lewis responded by saying the SRA was “faced with a choice between Holocaust denying neo-Nazis and a Jewish lawyer… It chose to side with the neo-Nazis”.”
“The father of Mr Lewis’s 18-year-old victim told the JC he came forward with the details because the “record needs to be set straight”.”
“He said he was frustrated Mr Lewis, who made Aliyah last week, was “being treated like a hero” in the wake of the judgment because people believed he had only been abusive to neo-Nazis.”
“The father added: “It was inappropriate behaviour from a solicitor. It was inappropriate for an adult, especially because it was directed towards someone who was only a few days away from legally being a child.”
“And also for someone who is allegedly a voice for the community – you don’t use that sort of language. It was my son, and it was abusive.”
“What frustrated me is that he was being treated like a hero. I want the story to be known that he’s not a good guy and that people shouldn’t give him any money. The record needs to be set straight.”
“[Lewis] blamed his outburst on Clonazepam, a sedative…side effects of which include aggression and hallucinations.”
“Following the ruling, two separate crowdfunding pages were established to support Mr Lewis raising more than £13,000 in total – in excess of his £12,500 costs.”
Notes
Lewis has now emigrated to Israel and is an Israeli citizen.
I intend to blog more fully about this Lewis character in due course.
Revealed: Mark Lewis told young Jewish man he hoped his father ‘would sit shiva for you soon’.. and his partner Mandy sent our convenor the same kind of abuse.. They've both now fled the UK.. https://t.co/qyR4qhEhRv via @jewishchron
Does Lewis claim to have been in a state of prescription-drug intoxication when tweeting the horrific stuff detailed in that Debating Culture blog above? Was his mind not quite…normal…for some other reason? We do not know.
Update, 16 December 2018
Here below, at the foot of this section, is one of Lewis’s tweets about me, from over 2 years ago. As you, the reader, will see, he refers to me as “failure as a barrister and as a human being”, among other things.
I suppose that most people who read that tweet were unaware of the irony: until Lewis got onto the “phonehacking” wagon, he himself was at rock-bottom. He had parted company with a firm of solicitors in Manchester under unclear circumstances (rather a theme…see below), had been divorced (ditto), and in or about 2009 was only making about £9,000 a year (as he admitted to a newspaper interviewer a few years later). Lewis was not exactly a hot property, as he admitted in a newspaper interview at the time of the “phonehacking” stories:
“I was devastated,” he says. “I’d been turned down for so many jobs, I’m thinking to myself, I can’t go on any more, you can only get so many knockbacks. I’m giving in and going to my flat in Israel and retire in Eilat.”
The phonehacking stuff paid off, and soon Lewis was busily creating a legend as “top lawyer”. Phonehacking work did not last long, of course. Technology moved on and phonehacking is now just a footnote in legal history (it’s a purely UK story anyway: hardly anyone in the USA has heard of it). Lewis left his next firm, in London (where he was a “consultant”), under acrimonious circumstances (he much later sued that firm and they countersued, but it is not publicly known how that ended, the matter presumably having been settled and sealed).
In 2013, Lewis married for the second time, his new wife being one-time local radio presenter Caroline Feraday. “Top lawyer” marries “celebrity” was how Lewis and Feraday presented the event. Stories were seen in the Press about how Lewis “had clients in the USA” to where he and la Feraday would be relocating (to her new apartment in West Hollywood, no less). She, in her turn, seemingly had various Hollywood opportunities lined up, the newsreading public was told. She already had a part in a TV sitcom arranged —had “been cast” in it—, the gullible (?) readers were told. More than that! She was busy “writing a book”, which was to be turned into a film and “several studios are interested…”*
Lewis, the Daily Mail’s tame showbiz reporter was told by Feraday, had clients in the U.S. and would “commute” between LA and London. As 1950s people were wont to say, “get you!”…
Lewis and Feraday moved to West Hollywood, flying Virgin Upper Class (well, after all, they were, er, “celebrities”, weren’t they?) to LA. They joined the West Hollywood branch of the Soho House club, on Sunset Boulevard.
“Celebrities” have more than a few thousand Twitter followers, of course, so they both “acquired” tens of thousands of new “followers”, Lewis ending up after a week or so with about 80,000! When caught out, Lewis claimed, ludicrously, that he had been “hacked” (yes, that makes sense! Naturally, his enemies would want him to seem more important and influential…oh, no, wait…). The Legal Cheek online news service reported it brilliantly deadpan. Very clever…
Of course, that would (pretty much) have to mean that someone, for no immediately-obvious reason, also bought tens of thousands of fake Twitter followers in the same week for Lewis’s then wife, Caroline Feraday…[Update, 18 May 2019: Caroline Feraday’s tens of thousands of fake —bought— Twitter “followers” have now dwindled to “13,000” but the real number must be a few thousand at most; a brief look at her tweets https://twitter.com/CarolineFeraday shows that hardly any Twitter users bother to “like” them, let alone retweet or reply. Many have no interaction at all, a few have 1 or 2 “likes”… When I was on Twitter, I had about 3,000 followers (all real) and had many many retweets, likes and replies].
Sadly, all that hype seemed to disappear like a mirage in Death Valley. La Feraday never did get into an American sitcom (or if she did,it must have bombed or been pulled immediately…there never was one, I am guessing). I have no idea whether she ever got any part in American film or TV. Her breathless “look at me, people—a celebrity in sunny Hollywood!” Twitter account said nothing (that I saw, anyway) about her getting a acting part, but that is unsurprising. After all, why should an acting part on American TV, or in a film, go to someone without any acting experience and who was nearly 40? The supposed book deals and film options also vanished without trace.
As for Lewis, his brave new Californian world crumbled into ashes. American lawyers soon realized that Lewis (unlike, er, me) had never qualified at the Bar of any American state and so was not qualified to practise in California (or any other state). Those lawyers made sure that the California Bar was aware of the foregoing. The upshot (whatever the causes…and I have heard a few stories) was that the marriage foundered after only a year (including a few months in LA) and Lewis returned to the UK in 2014 with his tail between his legs.
By the following year, Lewis had joined the well-known London law firm, Seddons, as a partner. At the time, I was surprised that Seddons had taken him on, but there it is. He left in 2018, just as it became known that he was coming up for “trial” in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (where he was found guilty on all charges). Seddons’ statement was that Lewis had resigned as a partner because of his upcoming “aliyah” (emigration) to Israel (he is now an Israeli citizen).
Lewis’s second ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, stayed on in LA, did some amateur comedy appearances there and a few 2-minute reports about the Oscars etc for the UK local TV news show, BBC South-East Today (cheaper than actually sending someone, I suppose), and eventually had a child in 2017 by another man.
Lewis is now an Israeli citizen and resident (he has or had a flat there). He is not now a partner or employee of any law firm in the UK and has stated that he will not seek admission to whatever Bar may exist in Israel. He has a degenerative progressive medical condition and is, apparently, on medication.
[note: much material about Lewis, including some newspaper coverage, particularly about his marriage to and divorce from Feraday, has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet, or at least from Google searches].
I wonder about whom this recent tweet by Caroline Feraday was…
Some people really know how to make you regret trusting them, don't they?
It should be added that, for someone with (supposedly) 13,000 Twitter followers, Caroline Feraday very rarely seems to get retweeted or even “liked”. I have never quite understood why people buy Twitter followers. She had about 5,000 one week, in about 2011 or 2012, then, in the course of a week or so, suddenly jumped to about 55,000! Lewis’s Twitter follower-count jumped from about 7,000 or 8,000 to nearly 80,000 (in the same couple of weeks). Still, Caroline Feraday is at least an animal lover, which counts for something (with me, anyway).
The life we show on social networks has turned into photos where we want to show things that sometimes do not exist or do not match reality. I decided to follow Caroline Feraday’s suggestion and participate in an… https://t.co/cXt4JsVZl3
In another tweet from a year or two ago, Lewis referred to me as, inter alia, “a sad unemployable git”. Well, we have seen that until he tapped into the “phonehacking” racket, he himself was virtually unemployable at the age of 40-something (and even Taylor Hampton, the law firm which brought the phonehacking claims, would not make him a partner but only retained him as “consultant”).
Millard disbarred for being a Nazi. He's a sad unemployable git who blames the Jews because he's a failure. https://t.co/kJ69rwcSFi
[above, Lewis’s tweet, not the first either, about me having been disbarred at the instigation of the UK Jew-Zionist lobby. His tweet was posted six months after the disbarment and is purely abusive. “Dave”, aka “Slatfascists”, is a Twitter troll with mental health problems (and on medication, just like, er, someone else…)].
I might add that my tweets from early 2017 about UKIP are now even more obviously true!
Now look…
Mark Lewis
has now been found guilty of serious breaches of the Code of Conduct for solicitors in England;
has admitted in his testimony in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal that he at times was unaware of what he said, did or wrote, by reason of ingestion of prescription drugs;
has “left” the law firm, Seddons, where he had been a partner for the past 2-3 years, and so is, er…in a word…unemployed;
cannot work in any case as a solicitor in England unless approved as such by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority as a sole practitioner or until such time as he is again employed by a law firm (neither seems to be the case at present anyway);
presents (eg at Tel Aviv Airport recently, filmed by RT News) a shambling, limping figure, able to walk for short periods using a stick, otherwise having to be pushed around in a wheelchair, his eyes bloodshot, his short statement (at Tel Aviv Airport) almost incoherent.
One has to ask the simple question, “so just who is the sad unemployable git?”...
“What goes around comes around”…
After Lewis’s admissions at his recent Disciplinary Tribunal, I commented, in a previous blog post, that “he is on the way out”. I was too kind. He’s finished.
(I shall probably blog at a later date about some of Lewis’s “forensic triumphs”, such as the Katie Hopkins/Jack Monroe case, but suffice to say right now that a lobotomized student would have been incapable of losing that one…)
Further Update, 19 December 2018
The Law Society Gazette has now published more news about Lewis and his “trial” in the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal etc.
So much for the “top lawyer” who now seems to be (to use one of Lewis’s insults to me) “an unemployable git”!
Lewis only had to pay a third of the fine considered by the SDT panel because:
“In its full decision published this week the SDT said it eventually came to the conclusion that a reprimand would not be a strong enough punishment and that a fine would be the most appropriate outcome. However, it reduced the fine from an initial estimate of £7,500 to £2,500 on account of Lewis’s financial struggles.”
The disciplinary panel judging and sentencing Lewis considered that:
“In mitigation, the tribunal accepted Lewis’ submission that he had limited means. He did not own his own house and [his] monthly expenses exceeded his liabilities.”
The Law Society Gazette says that the SDT panel added that:
“Although his former firm Seddons is paying him £10,000 per month before tax this was due to end in March [2019].”
What’s this? The “top lawyer”, “top libel and reputation specialist” etc has “financial struggles”? When for most of the past decade he has been tweeting and telling newspapers all about what a big success he is, with his classic cars and international client-base?
Either Lewis is not quite the “top lawyer” and huge success he has been claiming to be for the past 7+ years, or he was “economical with the truth” at the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. One way or another he has been telling what the Cockneys call “porkies”! That’s not very kosher!
So the “top lawyer”, with his supposed millions from the “phonehacking” racket and well-publicized libel cases etc, does not own his own house? (in London— he does have or had an apartment in Israel, according to a newspaper article several years ago).
Still, the fact that the SDT thinks that someone getting (after tax) pay of about £7,000 a month is “financially struggling” says more about London law firms than about Lewis, arguende! (that pay is in fact about the same, in real terms, as I was once paid, when an offshore lawyer many years ago).
The way Lewis managed to bamboozle the UK msm and so the poor duped UK public into believing that he was —or even still is— a “top lawyer” etc reminds me rather of the front once put up by another Jewish Zionist, the not so late and certainly unlamented “Robert Maxwell”, who has now also “relocated” to Israel, though he is not quite in a position to enjoy it. Maxwell never fooled me (even when I was in my late teens, in the mid-1970s); neither has Lewis.
Update, 23 October 2019
Seems that Lewis’s ex-wife, Caroline Feraday, has also fallen on hard times, living in a “Nowheresville” in California with her young daughter (Caroline Feraday is now a single mother). She says that she is unable to raise a mere $10,000 [£7,700], despite having some kind of (“office bod”?) job, and so has turned to GoFundMe. Strange. I thought that (she said) she was a “celebrity”? 15 minutes of fame? She was featured, in the past (in a few London newspapers), a decade ago though, as having property of considerable value both in the UK and Brazil (in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) as well as (since 2013) in California. What happened to those properties?
Surprisingly, she has, and within only one day (at time of writing), managed to raise nearly $2,000 of the $10,000 for which she asks.
The video of my talk to the London Forum on 4 February 2017.
The Zionist evil had the whole London Forum youtube channel closed down, but brave patriots have now reposted this video. Please spread this video as widely as possible to kick the Zionists in the snout, as they deserve!
Update, 19 July 2019
I just noticed that that YouTube channel has now also been closed. The basically Jewish Zionist censorship continues and intensifies. I think that we all know that there is only one way to restore freedom of socio-political expression to the Western world…
It has now been about three months since I was expelled from Twitter. Am I chafing under the restriction? No.
Most Twitter users regard removal from Twitter as akin to being cast into outer darkness, a phenomenon to be feared (if it happens to them), to be protested against (if it happens to those whom they regard as ideological friends), to be laughed at and celebrated (if it happens to those they dislike, hate, or oppose ideologically).
Twitter is in fact a habit akin to having a piece of chocolate with your morning coffee. I used to love posting my views and comments on the affairs of the day, as well as posting favoured music and art. Self-expression. I used to think also that I was, at least in a small way, influencing the national and even international debate. That might have been so, but only to a very limited degree.
My Twitter account had just under 3,000 followers when it was eliminated by the Twitter organization. The absurdity of imagining that you are much influencing society is shown when it is considered that –to take just one example and one which comes into my mind— a mentally-disturbed Jewess whose Twitter account is replete with long complaints about her illnesses, alcohol consumption, problems with the DWP, and those she dislikes politically (including me!), as well as pictures of her dogs and photographs of owls, actually has 500 more Twitter followers than had my account, with its –as I would like to believe, anyway!– intelligent, pithy views and comment on politics, strategy and society. She does follow thousands, though, whereas I followed only a few dozen accounts. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, has 598,000 Twitter followers, while Jeremy Corbyn has no less than 1.84 million. To extend the idea to absurdity, take the One Direction pop group: they have 31 million Twitter followers.
A superficial view might be to imagine that someone with many thousands (or, a fortiori, millions) of Twitter followers has huge influence or impact upon society, upon political views etc. A moment’s thought shows that even if that be true, the influence and impact comes out of what the tweeter does offline, certainly off Twitter, not what he or she posts on Twitter. Theresa May’s Twitter influence is a mere adjunct to her position as Prime Minister. As to such as “One Direction”, were they not well known as entertainers, their influence (whatever it may be) would be close to a zero point.
I keep in touch with comment on Twitter, read about this and that, largely out of habit, but am no longer fooled by the idea that those tweeting are influencing many outside their own existing circle (or “echo chamber”). I sometimes look at the tweets of the Jew-Zionist cabal on UK Twitter. The same few dozen idiots, mostly concentrated in parts of North London, still tweeting pretty much what they were tweeting five years ago— to as little effect.
Another example, that of the “Alt-Right”: “Prison Planet” Watson, meaning Paul Joseph Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson, a young-ish (about 38-y-o) blogger and vlogger (and who does not accept the “alt-Right” label now), tweets to his 904,000 Twitter followers from (as I read somewhere) a basement flat in the Battersea area. Consider that: 904,000 followers, when the Prime Minister of the country only has 598,000… On the other hand, who of the two has more real influence, let alone real political power? That is not even a question.
Another point is that many “celebrity” or would-be celebrity tweeters buy huge numbers of followers, in an attempt to “big up” (in the inelegant phrase of the day) their Twitter profile and so (they hope) their real-world profile. To take one example, not entirely at random: a certain well-known Jew-Zionist solicitor, very vocal about “anti-Semitism” etc, (and who is or was wont to scream imprecations to me and others about how we should die and how he looks forward to our deaths) had about 5,000 Twitter followers when I became aware of the bastard’s existence (around 2012). That follower count increased to about 80,000 within one week! I wonder how much those “followers” cost him and whether the fake total helped him to pose as a hot-shot lawyer and almost a “public figure”? At any rate, he now has about 20,000 “followers”. His fakery does not stand alone, there are many whose “follower count” is hugely inflated, but I seriously doubt the utility of doing things like that.
There is another point. Many Twitter users follow literally thousands of accounts, so the influence of any one account on the follower is likely to be very small.
It might be asked why I am now on GAB if I think that being on Twitter is a waste of time. GAB has only 500,000 users, against Twitter’s 400 million. I am on GAB mainly because it is possible to communicate with others of similar views easily, either publicly or privately (as on Twitter). In addition, I want to support a genuine free-speech platform.
Mao opined (later printed in the “Little Red Books”) that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”:
That may not be the whole truth, but political power certainly does not grow out of tweets on Twitter.
Further thoughts [22 August 2018]
I just saw that privileged, superannuated schoolgirl-type and politico-social one-trick-pony Caroline Criado-Perez has no less than 46,200 Twitter followers! There are innumerable similar examples on Twitter.
Ian Robert Millard 