Those who read my blog regularly will know that I am far from being an unalloyed fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think him wooden and not a genuine political thinker, someone who is stuck somewhere between the crypto-Communism of the Michael Foot era and the ideological madness of the contemporary self-described “Left” (I myself never use terms such as “Right”, “Left” as useful descriptors), the crazies who have rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of old-style socialism in and after 1989.
You get the idea.
Corbyn is, in short, a bit of a joke. I have blogged about him, and what I call Corbyn-Labour, in the recent past. He and his party are also in favour of, or not opposed to, mass immigration and the “multikulti” society.
I have little time for Corbyn as a political leader, as such. His poor intellectual level and Lego-brick level of understanding of society and international politics and geopolitics give little confidence.
On the other hand, there is or was something not entirely unpleasantly familiar about Corbyn. As I have blogged and (before I was expelled from Twitter) tweeted about him, he is a recognizable 20th century English type: the bearded “socialist” from the provinces (in Corbyn’s case, transplanted aged about 22 to London), wearing his Lenin cap, reading the Morning Star, Tribune and the Guardian, protesting against 1980s South African apartheid or Israeli West Bank settlements etc, supporting Castro-Cuba, “revolutionary” 1980s Nicaragua, “socialist” Venezuela etc.
Corbyn’s type, with variations, could be observed from around the time of the First World War, and up to the present day, in its “natural surroundings”: the Durham Miners’ Gala, the Tolpuddle Martyrs annual event, the conferences of the Labour Party and TUC, local constituency Labour parties, CND marches, steam rallies, heritage railways, allotments. So much of a “type” is Corbyn that he could easily be imagined included in a series of “English types” in the Edwardian cartoon tradition, complete with outsize head and a little descriptive caption.
Corbyn’s elevation to the Labour leadership was, as I have also blogged, little short of miraculous. Since 2015, Corbyn has also managed to fight off repeated Jew-Zionist attempts to unseat him. What do “they” want? They want Corbyn gone so that Jew-Zionists, lobbyists and placemen can once again control Labour. “They” already control the misnamed “Conservative” Party and have done since at least the end of the Thatcher era; until Corbyn’s accession, “they” controlled Labour too. They want that control back.
We have seen recently how some of Corbyn’s enemies in the Commons started to capitulate and leave the Parliamentary Labour Party, committing political hara-kiri
At the same time, however, Corbyn-Labour has made the mistake of trying to conciliate, making concessions to the Jew-Zionist element. It did that before, when it surrendered to “them” over the so-called “international” “definition” of “antisemitism” (in fact, adopted by fewer than 40 states out of about 200). Now Corbyn-Labour has given in on Chris Williamson MP and has suspended him.
Chris Williamson MP occasionally (maybe two or three times only) retweeted my tweets when I still had a Twitter account. However, when the Jew-Zionists noticed that fact, they criticized him for it, after which he stopped retweeting me and may have (I forget) blocked my account. Weak. It showed weakness in relation to the Jews. I have not forgotten that.
Now Corbyn, John McDonnell and some of their closest allies (as well as swathes of “useful idiots”) in Labour labour under the same cognitive dissonance problem: Corbyn and many of his supporters see what the Jewish-Zionist lobby is trying to do, want to fight against it, but at the same time tie their own hands behind their collective back by saying that they oppose “antisemitism” and are only against Israeli depredations and behaviour rather than being in any way hostile to Jew-Zionist lobby activity in the UK (or France etc).
Corbyn and most of Labour also go along with the largely-debunked “holocaust” narrative as well. It all just plays into the hands of the Zionist lobby, which controls or near-controls many Labour MPs. Yes, some have left (Luciana Berger, Joan Ryan, Angela Smith, Ian Austin, Chuka Fathead) and their political careers are finished. However, there are many like them still in place and reporting back: Stella Creasy is just one example. Mary Creagh, Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall also come to mind, inter alia, as do the outright Jewish Zionists such as Margaret Hodge.
Since Chris Williamson was suspended, the whole Jewish “claque” on Twitter and in the Press (in fact, in the msm generally) has gone mad again about Corbyn, “anti-Semitism” in Labour etc. It’s odd: we are told constantly that there is no “Jewish lobby”, and that individual Jews tweet or scribble purely as individuals, yet when something like this crops up, they all go the same way instantly, like a shoal of fish.
Corbyn-Labour, for all its flaws, is the only game in town right now for striking against the enemies of our British and European future. It can pave the way for social-nationalism down the road.
This is a crisis for Corbyn and his allies. They must either fight back against the encroaching, whining, pleading, manipulating and angrily-demanding Zionist lobby, or be “cribbed, cabined and confined”, imprisoned in a Zionist-constructed box made out of “antisemitism” allegations, “holocaust” fakery and a raft of trickster-drafted “definitions”, “regulations” and inhibition of free speech. Just say no!
Here we see the Jewish anti-Corbyn “claque-storm” in its “tweetstorm” mode, exemplified by this tweet, in which a Jewish woman wants the Labour Party to either disenfranchise its Sheffield Hallam branch (by putting it into “special measures”, i.e. ruling it from London), or to remove (or remove the rights of) the 40 members who voted for a statement (only 1 person voted against). You see the problem: the 40 English people count for less than the one Jewish or pro-Jewish one…If Labour did that across the country, it would be left without active members, the footsoldiers that win elections.
A good typical example of how, if you give “them” an inch, (((they))) take a mile: the Jew-Zionist lobby gets what it wants re. Chris Williamson, but then whines or blusters about how it is too little too late. Their next demand will soon be uttered…
Fiona Sharpe, spokesman for @LabourAgainstAS, said: ‘The decision of Labour's NEC ruling body not to allow Chris Williamson to stand as the Labour candidate for Derby North is too late in coming and totally inadequate. 3/6
When I wrote the above article, I thought that 30 or 35 states had “adopted” the “IHRA” definition of “antisemitism”. In fact, and as I now know, the true figure is only about 15, out of 200 states.
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.
Many will have seen the newspaper reports, not all accurate, about the result of the Crown Court appeal from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which ended today. Already the malicious “Campaign Against Antisemitism” supposed “charity” (Zionist propaganda, snooping and repression organization) has been spinning fake news. Gideon Falter, its Chairperson, has been quoted as saying that the verdict by a Crown Court judge in the appeal “sets a precedent” and means that “holocaust” “denial” (i.e. critical examination of the “holocaust” narrative) is now effectively illegal in the UK. That is of course nonsense.
Firstly, this was a decision by a Crown Court judge and so sets a precedent only in the most marginal sense.
Secondly, there will now almost certainly be a further appeal, on point of law, to the Divisional Court and, perhaps, yet higher. There are points of law in the Alison Chabloz case which are of general public importance and might even have to be considered by the Supreme Court in due course.
Thirdly, the learned judge [H.H. Judge Hehir] emphasized in his judgment that “anti-Semitism” is not a crime in the UK, and that “holocaust” “denial” is also not a crime:
“We emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive”
Alison Chabloz is expected to appeal her conviction and sentence further, initially to the Divisional Court. The fight for freedom of expression goes on!
Today, I found, on my WordPress blog Comments page, a comment which actually purported to come from me! It was sent from an email address named “ian.millard@yahoo.com” (which I have never had).
The comment was abusive and, more interestingly, purported to be from a Jew (anonymous/pseudonymous of course) who (he/it wrote) was “instrumental” in getting many of my reviews on Amazon UK (Amazon.co.uk) removed (and me barred from posting further reviews) “nearly ten years ago”. He/it claimed also to have had my Amazon USA (Amazon.com) reviews removed and my American Amazon account closed. Those events did occur, about 8 years ago. The London-based Jewish Chronicle contacted Amazon in the UK and had me barred from reviewing or commenting. As to what happened in the USA to get me barred on Amazon there, I have no idea. So much for “free speech” and expression in the USA, though! Where there are Jew Zionists in any number, there can be no freedom for non-Jews.
The comments section of my blog is monitored; only comments which are approved (in the sense of allowed to proceed) are posted publicly. Naturally, I am not going to approve the abusive comment of the Jew in question.
The Comments section captures all ISP user numbers from those posting comments. The comment in question was shown as 31.168.232.150. It was a simple matter to track down the origin of the abuse: Tel Aviv, Israel! Quelle surprise…
Turns out that the abuse seems to have come from a company called Bezeq International, also known as Bezeq Israeli Telecommunications Corporation Ltd. I had never heard of it, but soon found it via Google. That enterprise is, apparently, the Israeli equivalent of BT. It is a very large enterprise, which employs over 15,000 employees.
The unsophisticated nature of the abuse etc leads me to the provisional view that the abuser is a lone rat, rather than connected with the notorious Israeli “hasbara” propaganda effort, or (far less likely even than that) MOSSAD.
The Zionist free-speech destroyers have become very active in the UK and elsewhere over the past 20-30 years. Time for pushback.
Today I received another abusive message from (pretty obviously, though I cannot as yet prove it beyond a reasonable doubt) another Jew, this time one who, looking at its message, hates my support for persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz. Another one who used my name on a one-time-use email account, this time Hotmail. Blocked now, obviously.
The WordPress system took its ISP number: 82.132.222.121. Useful for later reference.
When I started my blog, I was braced for a daily dose of insolent and/or abusive messages. In fact, I think that I have only had about three or four such messages in three years. Worse things happen at sea.
Update, 1 February 2026
The Jew who was the main perpetrator mentioned in the original blog post about 9 years ago is one Daniel Sevitt, believed to have originated in London, but now apparently resident in the town/suburb of Ra’anana by Tel Aviv.
The evildoer is or was an IT specialist, it seems, and his overt online activity now seems to consist of replying (uninvited, and in an insulting fashion), to anyone tweeting critically of Israel and/or Jews: see https://x.com/danielsevitt/with_replies.
Many readers of this blog will have read of my experiences with the malicious and extreme Jew-Zionist organizations, “UK Lawyers for Israel” (UKLFI) and “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” (CAA), the memberships of which overlap in part. For example, the abusive Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis, who has now fled to Israel, is a leading member of both.
I dare say that many ordinary people on, for example, Twitter, have no idea that sometimes, when they see a veritable tweetstorm or at least tweetsquall —such as that backing Lewis during his recent Disciplinary Tribunal hearing (he was found guilty anyway)—, they are actually reading tweets which are part of a barrage put out and/or at least loosely coordinated by those two groupings. Below, two blog articles which reported on my experience of these organizations:
The CAA Pressured the DPP/CPS to Prosecute Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz
1. Jez Turner
In 2015, Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) of the London Forum made a speech in the street, in Whitehall, London. One sentence mentioned the Jews, in such manner as that they should be removed from the UK. The CAA, which had agents at the scene, reported Jez Turner to the police there and thereafter. Eventually, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] considered whether any offence of incitement might have been both committed and as to whether any prosecution was a. likely to result in conviction, and b. in the public interest. The CPS decided not to prosecute. Note that a prosecution under [the relevant part of the] Public Order Act 1986 requires the assent of the Attorney-General. In other words, Jez Turner could not have been prosecuted privately by the CAA for the alleged offence.
The CAA made application to the High Court for a judicial review of the no-prosecution decision made by the CPS. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), as head of the CPS, was the Respondent. On the eve of the relevant hearing in 2017, the DPP/CPS agreed to look again at their decision, thus avoiding a defeat but at the same time giving in to the demand of the CAA. After some time, the CPS announced that Jez Turner would now be prosecuted. He was, in 2018, in the Crown Court, no less than three years after he made his speech. He was, arguably, unlucky in his jury and possibly (I was not personally present) in his judge. He was given a full year in prison, of which half would actually be spent incarcerated (he was recently released). All for making a humorous speech in which one sentence said that the Jews should be (again) expelled from England.
2. Alison Chabloz
In the case of Alison Chabloz, who sang satirical songs, some of which mocked the Jew-Zionists, she was accused of having breached the (“bad law”) Communications Act 2003, s.127, in having, allegedly, posted online the said songs. The CPS refused to prosecute her or, rather, did not; with the time-limit of 6 months looming, the CAA took a private prosecution. Leaving aside the legal and technical argument on the merits, the CPS had the right to take over the case and, if it did, to drop it or to continue it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution and continue with it (though it in fact substituted other charges for the original ones…). The offence is summary only. Alison Chabloz was convicted at trial in 2018 and given a sentence of (depending on how it is read) a total of 12-20 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, plus community service “serf labour”, a financial penalty of £700, and a 1 year ban on use of “social media”. Note, however, that Alison Chabloz is appealing both conviction and sentence.
3. Nazim Hussain Ali
Mr. Ali led and spoke at an anti-Israel rally in London. The CAA individuals hung around, in their usual fashion, tried to catch Mr. Ali saying something or other, then (as in the other cases mentioned here) reported him to the police. The CPS refused to prosecute and so the CAA took a private prosecution. The CPS took over that prosecution and discontinued it. The CAA then wanted to have that decision judicially reviewed. It was. They lost.
The judgment is worth reading in full, but the most relevant parts are:
“The DPP took the view that, in all the circumstances, the words used were not “abusive” within the meaning of that provision, so that a prosecution was more likely than not to fail.”
and
“As the [legal precedent] authorities stress, article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] does not permit the proscription or other restriction of words and behaviour simply because they distress some people, or because they are provocative, distasteful, insulting or offensive.”
and
“this is a public law challenge, and this court can only intervene if the decision to take over the CAA’s private prosecution and discontinue it made by the Decision-Maker was irrational, i.e. a decision to which no properly directed and informed CPS decision-maker could have come. In my judgment, it cannot be said that it was irrational.”
My Thoughts
This was a big hit against the CAA. The CAA is an organization which for years has been making inflated claims, both in its own name and via sometimes pseudonymous and abusive Twitter (and other) accounts run by its leading members, notably Stephen Silverman (who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement”!).
Under its own name and under the real names of its leading members, but also under other account names, the CAA has for 4-5 years been threatening not only “anti-Semites” and “holocaust” “deniers” (historical revisionists), but anti-Zionist dissidents in general with unspecified police and other action, also sending, from pseudonymous Twitter accounts (etc) threatening and harassing tweets (etc) to and/or about individuals. Some people were constantly taunted online and even offline with threats about knocks on the doors of houses, arrests, prosecutions, trials, terms of imprisonment. Almost all figments of the sick imaginations of the CAA members in question.
Women in particular were targeted by a number of online social media accounts controlled by various CAA persons, and in particular by Stephen Silverman of Essex and his associate, one-time/sometime “film critic” Stephen Applebaum, of North London. The pair have been somewhat muzzled of late —having been exposed and had their real names etc exposed— and now mainly tweet (slightly less overtly venomously) as @ssilvuk and @rattus2384).
Another leading Jew-Zionist (at least in his own estimation) is one Gideon Falter, who apparently graduated from Warwick University in law, though if so did not carry through to becoming a solicitor or barrister. Falter, Chairman of the CAA, seems to have family money (his parents are said to own a house in a well-known street in St. John’s Wood, London where houses sell for anything up to £40 Million). He seems to spend most of his time on CAA or other Zionist activities. I suppose that that is one way in which, he may imagine, he validates his existence.
Falter has given evidence in several cases, but his evidence has not always been accepted as veracious. In the case of Rowan Laxton, in 2009, which therefore preceded the establishment of the CAA by 5 years, Falter gave evidence which, while accepted by the magistrates, was (at least impliedly) not accepted by the Crown Court judge at the appeal (rehearing), at which hearing Laxton was successful. He was fully reinstated at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is now H.M. High Commissioner in Cameroon: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/rowan-james-laxton–2
Laxton’s career success must be bitter for Falter, who has also had his testimony in other “anti-Semitism” cases strongly challenged…
Over the 4+ years since its foundation, the CAA has not been very successful. It has attempted to bring to trial (either by privately prosecuting people, or by making malicious allegations about them to the police and/or professional bodies) quite a large number of potential defendants. Most have either not been prosecuted or have been acquitted, or have been successful on appeal. A few people have been prosecuted for saying or writing rude things (quite likely justified anyway) about individual Jews (I noticed a few cases about landlords and property developers etc…). Most of those cases resulted in fines being handed down, by local magistrates, in the order of £50 or £100. Rather petty.
The larger scalps taken by the CAA are few, even if one includes the handful of successes by the UKLFI group: Jez Turner (now released after having spent 6 months in prison), Alison Chabloz (who is appealing now), a few minor harassment cases. The CAA failed to get the CPS to prosecute me for tweeting truth, and was too frightened to try to prosecute me privately, though UKLFI did get me disbarred in 2016 (8-9 years after I had anyway ceased Bar practice!).
The CAA has been —and I believe still is— under investigation both by the police and by the responsible officers of the Charity Commission. It has been criticized extensively by the more “Establishment” part of the Jewish power structure in England, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Chronicle. It recently suffered a considerable blow when one of its most active members, Mark Lewis, the venomous Jew-Zionist solicitor, fled to Israel after the conclusion of the Disciplinary Tribunal case brought against him by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.
The finances of the CAA “charity” are opaque. I suspect (educated guess) that two particular Jew millionaires, indeed billionaires, have contributed to the CAA, and for them a few tens of thousands of pounds a year is a bagatelle. However, even the ultra-wealthy are probably unwilling to give much to an organization which consistently manifests failure.
I should love to know how many Jews are members of the CAA (are any of its members non-Jews? Maybe there are a few doormats here or there). My guess would be hundreds rather than thousands. It has appealed for donations, run pledge drives etc, and recently tweeted to recruit a half-time-working “communications” person at a salary of £12,500-£15,000 a year. Hardly sumptuous. The CAA Twitter account was inactive from 20 December 2018 until 11 January 2019.
I have no idea what, if any, costs will be payable by the CAA in relation to the latest defeat in court, but I hope that they will be substantial.
The latest defeat by the CAA, and Mark Lewis’s flight to Israel (where he has said, repeatedly, on radio and TV, that Jews should all leave Europe), must mark the beginning of the end for the abusive and fake CAA “charity”.
Objectively speaking, it may be that the CAA has done much to stimulate “anti-Semitism” in the UK…
Good luck to Alison Chabloz in her upcoming appeal!
Below, a very recent tweet thread in which Stephen Applebaum of the CAA, under his most recent pseudonym, @rattus2384, and with other Jews, attacks the father of a 16 year old girl allegedly targeted by yet another Zionist. [click for full thread]
The CAA’s sting seems to have been largely drawn. The CAA Twitter account has tweeted only once (on 11 January 2019) since 20 December 2018. Gideon Falter has not tweeted since 5 September 2018 (except for two retweets, on 6 November 2018 and 7 December 2018). Both Silverman and Applebaum/Rattus have been somewhat muzzled of late. Now that they have been fully unmasked and exposed, they have evidently decided that they have to be more circumspect online. The CAA star is fast-waning.
Update, 18 July 2019
Well, like the cockroach, the CAA is still embedded…Having failed to have a Palestinian activist resident in the UK prosecuted [see above], the CAA Jew-Zionists try to get him another way, by having his professional regulator (he is a pharmacist) “investigate” his political life and then perhaps haul him before a disciplinary tribunal. This is what “they”, meaning (((they))) do…(for my own experiences, see below the CAA tweet…)
“Al Quds Day” leader Nazim Ali, who blamed “Zionists” for Grenfell Tower tragedy to face regulatory investigation following complaint by CAAhttps://t.co/vJRAm5s8xz
— Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) July 18, 2019
The UK professions now all have new, or fairly new, “Codes of Conduct” for the members of whatever profession is being “regulated”. These have been drafted by “Zionist” lawyers in almost all cases. Should the individual member of a profession be anti-Zionist, lo and behold, (((they))) make “complaint” about the “hate speech” or whatever that the individual is said to have uttered. A covert Zionist takeover, and an attempt to control the private and political life of the people affected.
Where “they” are, there can be no real freedom.
Update, 5 November 2020
The “Campaign Against Antisemitism” prevailed on the General Pharmaceutical Council to “prosecute” Nazim Ali. “Lawfare” misusing the professional regulations. Nazim Ali might have lost his shop, business, profession, decades of work, all because a pack of Jew extremists pretended to be “offended”.
As it was, the disciplinary case against Nazim Ali was heard mostly in the first week of November 2020. The result, given on 5 November 2020, was that the tribunal held that what Nazim Ali said in 2017 was not “antisemitic” but that it had been “offensive”. He was given an official (quasi-judicial) warning.
Ha ha! The CAA Jews thought that they were going to at least ruin and bankrupt Nazim Ali now that the police and CPS were not going to charge him with anything criminal. Instead, he was just given a warning.
The CAA cabal took Nazim Ali’s matter to judicial review, and the High Court decided to remit it back to the Tribunal, which found the case proved against him on two charges, but simply repeated the warning to Ali.
In other words, the CAA put out huge effort for effectively nothing. They are, however, claiming it as some kind of major Jewish victory…
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.”
[“…expenses exceeded his liabilities”? The Law Society Gazette either needs a (literate) sub-editor or one with better hearing, unless the SDT panel themselves do not speak English properly! No matter. Illiteracy is par for the course in online newspapers…]
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, that is— 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 considerably less, in real terms, i.e. taking inflation into account, than I was once paid, when active as an offshore lawyer many many years ago).
So much for the “top lawyer” who now seems to be (to use one of Lewis’s insults to me) just “an unemployable git”!
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 did Lewis.
19 December 2018: A few more thoughts
I just realized that the “British” Press, which for years has been publishing Lewis’s self-publicizing bull and pronouncements on legal issues as if he were a cross between Lord Denning and Oliver Wendell Holmes (with a dose of George Carman), has not seen fit to report on the supposed “top lawyer” being found guilty of online abuse; neither, therefore, has the (Jewish-Zionist-owned or strongly influenced) UK msm reported the fact that Lewis was let off lightly because he
was under the influence of prescription drugs (or so he testified to the Disciplinary Tribunal: strange that his unprovoked online abuse aimed at me —see previous blog posts— started years before he was on any experimental trial in respect of his MS condition and therefore before he was on the drugs used by his advocates in Tribunal to mitigate his bad behaviour);
“is of limited means” and “is struggling financially”.
Only the specifically Jewish “community” Press (eg the Jewish Chronicle) and the legal profession’s newspapers etc reported the outcome of Lewis’s “trial”. Quite a contrast with what happened to me in 2016 (anyone interested should just Google “Ian Millard barrister”…)!
“They” certainly look after their own…
And a further thought yet…
If Lewis is “struggling financially” and has no real property in the UK, it must (?) be presumed that he never did get the £1 Million or more damages he claimed from his former firm (he was a “consultant” there), Taylor Hampton.
Lewis claimed the money in respect (mainly, it seems) of various “phonehacking” cases prior to his departure (supposedly to live in Los Angeles) in 2013 (see previous blog posts about that particular piece of Lewis BS…).
Either Lewis failed in his case against Taylor Hampton solicitors, or he settled for a very very great deal less than the “seven figure sum” he briefed about at the time to the tame UK Press…
The managing partner of Taylor Hampton solicitors was reported by the legal press as having testified that he “was unsure what work Lewis actually did” while engaged (on what seems to have been a generous retainer) by the firm, which countersued Lewis in that case (which seems to have settled at the last minute on a non-disclosure basis).
More Lewis BS, in other words…thank God we seem to have seen the end of him.
[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.
Max Hill Q.C. is on the brink of taking up his role as D.P.P., in succession to Alison Saunders. It is too early to say what his official attitude will be in relation to political “crime”, “thought crime” and freedom of expression. While he has made some quite liberal remarks in the past in connection with Muslims, Islamists etc, he has also referred to “far right fanatics”, a meaningless phrase which is often used by Zionists and their msm doormats to label social nationalists and others.
Already, the unpleasant Zionist fanatics of the so-called “Campaign Against AntiSemitism” or “CAA” (themselves under police investigation for stalking, harassment and abuse of charitable status) have taken to Twitter etc in an attempt to put pressure on the new DPP. They want him to prosecute anyone criticizing Zionist individuals and groups under the UK’s draconian laws against so-called “hate speech” etc. Indeed, one of their doormats in the msm (himself apparently a Jew) has already publicized on Twitter and on the LBC (radio station) website a file relating to various “cases” where the police and/or CPS have not prosecuted mostly rather innocuous tweets and other online postings.
The Zionists of the CAA are using the entirely unrelated shooting event in Pittsburgh, USA to try to shut down legitimate freedom of expression in the UK…and are being aided and abetted by other Zionists in the decadent UK mass media milieu.
The new DPP, before he listens to any of the CAA’s nonsense, should bear in mind that, quite apart from the various alleged illegalities perpetrated by CAA persons (and which are currently under police investigation), the CAA has made a number of frivolous and indeed malicious complaints (to the police, to the CPS, to Twitter etc) against quite a large number of people, including David Icke, Al Jazeera TV, the Jewish anti-Zionist Gilad Atzmon, and even against me. In fact, in its 4+ years of operation, the CAA has only scored two “victories” of any significance, to wit against Jez Turner (Jeremy Bedford-Turner) and against the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz (who is in any case presently appealing both conviction and sentence).
The CAA’s membership numbers are secret, but thought by many to number only a few hundred, certainly not many more if its Parliament Square and other demonstrations are anything to go by. Crowds numbering between 50 and 200 individuals.
In order to assist Max Hill Q.C. and his staff in any deliberations, I commend my own experience of victimization by these Jewish-Zionist and pro-Israel fanatics. The events described took place in January 2017, so nearly two years ago now, and the blog post dates from about 18 months ago.
The Jew Stephen Silverman of South Essex, the so-called “Head of Enforcement” at the “CAA” (“Campaign Against Antisemitism”) fake charity, and who was exposed in open court (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) as a pseudonymous troll and stalker of women, has recently been complaining that the DPP will not meet with Silverman or his colleagues (who include Joe Glasman, an evil snooper, and Stephen Applebaum of Edgware, North London, soi-disant “film critic” and house husband; Applebaum was also a very malicious and pseudonymous troller and stalker of women before he was exposed).
If it is true that the DPP will not agree to have his ear bent by the CAA trolls, it must be because, at long last, the CPS (and police?) are waking up to the maliciousness of these Jews, and to their politically-motivated “lawfare” against those with whom they disagree (“those whom they hate” would be more accurate).
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…
As I have been predicting, it seems that the Labour Party will soon adopt in full or almost-full measure, the “IHRA” “definition” of “anti-Semitism”, which the Jew-Zionists claim as the “international definition”, even though only about 30-35 states, out of nearly 200 in the world, have “adopted” it.
I have written, on previous occasions, that even if Labour “adopted” this Zionist-drafted “definition”(strange that there is no “international definition” of being anti-European, anti-white, anti-British etc, only “antisemitic”… well, maybe not so strange!), that would not be the end of it. The Jews would then move on to demand more and more, until they achieved their strategic objective– to remove Jeremy Corbyn and to regain full control of the Labour Party, which control they lost when Corbyn became –against the odds– Labour leader in 2015.
Today, Margaret “Hodge” MP, a Jewish Zionist (and Labour Member of Parliament), laid it on the line: even if the IHRA “definition” is accepted in full, it will not satisfy the Jew-Zionists. What will? Ah, yes, the head of Jeremy Corbyn, served in all its non-kosher glory on a silver platter. That is what they really aim at.
Ideally, Labour should just tell the Zionists to go whistle for their stupid “definition” and, in fact and in general, should tell them where to get off. I doubt that that will happen. For one thing, Momentum, the ginger group so much part of Corbyn’s backing force, is run by (in fact is actually owned by a private company of) the Jewish Marxist Jon Lansman. Though Lansman seems to be far from typical, blood is thicker than water. Indeed, only yesterday, Lansman had the damned cheek (Jews call it “chutzpah”) to suggest that “Jeremy” should get “training” in how not to be “anti-Semitic”!
I have seen no response from Corbyn to this idea that he should subject himself to Jew-Zionist brainwashing. I suppose that he will continue the way he has gone so date: sitting on the fence between openly challenging the Jewish Zionist lobby and its shibboleths (in particular, the “holocaust” narrative and industry), and becoming an out-and-out doormat for the Jew-Zionist lobby (in the manner of most Labour MPs).
If only Corbyn had the confidence to appeal to the rank and file Labourites who back him! Many, true, have been brainwashed by Zionist infiltration of propaganda into schools, msm etc (not to mention fiction masquerading as fact, as in, e.g,, Schindler’s List and the like), but even some of those are now waking up:
In fact, many of the better Labour people on the ground are not very far from social nationalism, though the brainwashing so evident everywhere now would prevent most from seeing that.
@Bullshot2 my favourite grouse [re representation] at the moment is that EVERY SINGLE ADVERT which features a couple>>> has a mixed race couple, as if this is 99% of the population! Look!!
If the Jews get what they want and have Corbyn removed (or forced to resign), then Labour will probably do worse rather than better in any general election of the near future. On the other hand, if Corbyn stays but as effectively a prisoner of the Zionist lobby, he will –accurately– be seen as a weak leader. The voters will turn away from that.
The next general election is Labour’s to lose, and it begins to look as if it may do just that. I had thought that Labour would be the largest party in a hung Parliament. Now I am not so sure.
Update, 6 November 2019
A good typical example of how the Jew-Zionist lobby demands this or that, wears down resistance by constant bullying or whining and then, having got what it wants, moves on to the next demand and is perennially unsatisfied:
Fiona Sharpe, spokesman for @LabourAgainstAS, said: ‘The decision of Labour's NEC ruling body not to allow Chris Williamson to stand as the Labour candidate for Derby North is too late in coming and totally inadequate. 3/6
Ian Robert Millard 