Jeremy Hunt Works That Rogue State Status 190

When Jeremy Hunt decided to attack the United Nations on twitter yesterday, he didn’t expect them to respond. He got owned.

Professor Melzer is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. Professor Melzer is Swiss. He is an extremely distinguished lawyer and Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow in addition to Professor of International Humanitarian Law at the Geneva Academy. He served 12 years as a Red Cross Delegate. There is no doubting either Professor Melzer’s expertise or his independence in this matter.

When Professor Melzer says that “UK courts have not shown the objectivity and impartiality required by law”, people should sit up and listen. I have detailed judge Michael Snow calling Assange a “narcissistic personality” in a brief hearing in which Assange had said virtually nothing but “not guilty”, on the basis of prejudice Snow brought with him into the courtroom. Snow convicted him summarily of bail jumping and sentenced him to a virtually unprecedented 50 weeks. I have detailed Judge Arbuthnot, wife of a former Tory Defence Minister who co-owns a company with a former Head of MI6, mocking Assange and saying he can get all the exercise his health required on a Juliet balcony, as she dismissed a motion to have the bail charges dropped. I have detailed Judge Phillips of the Supreme Court choosing to rely on the French text and discount the English text of a treaty in arguing extradition was in order.

The bias of the British courts has been palpable and stinking. Hunt’s response to being called out, by saying the UN “should allow British courts to make their judgements”, is a nonsense. British judges have shown themselves to be utterly untrustworthy.

For almost ten years I have been documenting the incredible abuses of legal process and the barefaced displays of malevolent prejudice by the British judges who have been at the sharp end of the state’s persecution of Julian Assange. Yesterday I recommended an excellent summary of it all by Jonathan Cook. Yet every single episode has been entirely misrepresented by the corporate and state media to the extent that the ordinary population of the UK has been brainwashed into unthinking hatred of Assange. Those of us who have tried to explain the true situation have been systematically traduced by the state and “mainstream” media.

As Professor Melzer put it yesterday:

there has been a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation against Mr. Assange, not only in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom, Sweden and, more recently, Ecuador.” According to the expert, this included an endless stream of humiliating, debasing and threatening statements in the press and on social media, but also by senior political figures, and even by judicial magistrates involved in proceedings against Assange.

“In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy, and from deliberate collective ridicule, insults and humiliation, to open instigation of violence and even repeated calls for his assassination.

This is undeniably the truth. The British “liberal” establishment and media should be hanging their heads in collective shame at being called out by the United Nations on this. But they won’t.

I recall that, when the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary and Illegal detention ruled that Julian was being held against his will in the Ecuadorean Embassy and should be permitted to leave to Ecuador, in repudiating the UN Working Group – whom the UK had supported in every single one of hundreds of previous cases – then Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond stood up in the Commons and denounced the UN Working Group as being “lay people not lawyers”, when in fact every single one of the panel is an extremely distinguished international lawyer. Hammond’s lie to parliament did not surprise me; but I was genuinely astonished that the entire corporate and state media went along with this most blatant of lies and did not call it out. The BBC, Times, Financial Times, Guardian all reported Hammond’s comment that the UN panel were “not lawyers”. None of them would agree to publish a correction of this basic and easily verifiable fact.

Britain no longer makes a pretence of obeying the rule of international law. It simply refuses to acknowledge the concerns of the UN in the Assange case, happily dependent on the bubble of prejudice the political and media elite have manufactured. This is part of a general pattern of direspecting the UN. Theresa May as Home Secretary refused to let the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women inside Yarls Wood immigration detention centre to inspect conditions there. The Tory government reacted to the recent shocking UN report on poverty in the UK – none of the basic facts of which are challenged – by seeking to have the UN Rapporteur removed.

When you add this together with the UK’s refusal to accept the 13-1 Opinion of the International Court of Justice that the Chagos Islands belong to Mauritius, and the UK’s refusal to accept the ruling of the agreed International Chambers of Commerce Court of Arbitration that Britain must pay its debt to Iran, you get what is a very clear picture that the UK has gone full rogue state and has simply abandoned its support for the system of international law which was in very large part a UK creation.

To repudiate the institutions of international law at a time when the UK is leaving the EU and launching out on its own as a middle sized power, just at the moment when acting as a crony to the USA no longer gives you the protection of the biggest boy in the school, is unwise. But still more is it immensely sad to see the abandonment of the project for an international system based on the rule of law rather than on force. One by one, the UK is simply repudiating the authority of all the major international institutions that enforce international law. The UK is acting as a rogue state.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

190 thoughts on “Jeremy Hunt Works That Rogue State Status

1 2
  • Wikikettle

    Crowd Funding a prosecution of Alistair Campbell seems to be in the offing.

    • Sharp Ears

      The Observer gives him house room today with a whole page. Promoting the image of a spin doctor who worked for BLiar and who created the dodgy dossier that resulted in the killing and maiming of millions of Iraqis is obviously OK by them.

      The headline is ‘Politics, privilege and podcasts: at home with Alastair Campbell’. The author of the piece is one Nosheen Iqbal (shame on her) and there is a large photo of Campbell and his daughter. Campbell married Fiona Millar who was BLiar’s PA.

      There is another photo of him and BLair in a private jet (Bliar on the phone) with the caption ‘Alastair Campbell with former prime minister Tony Blair days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq’.

      I won’t give the link for obvious reasons. Sickening.

      • Dungroanin

        Both Mr&Mrs Campbell are constantly given oxygen in the media. Especially the unspeakable. I don’t bother reading anymore of their self regarding pieces. I think their son had a damascene moment at the last election if i recall correctly…

      • pete

        Re sharp ears at 08.06
        Peculiarly I noticed, after I had a gander at the Wiki entry for her, that Fiona Millar had an edit on her Wiki page by Philip Cross, where Cross, in 2012, deleted the reference to her Twitter account.
        I wondered why this might be and wandered over to see what the most recent twitter posts from her were. I noticed that, amongst other things, she had retweeted a post from David Schneider regarding “Why Willsman was wrong to say what he said” (see Craig’s latest post)
        Once again we see a on odd parallel of interests in the thrust of the New Labour opposition to Corbyn and his followers regarding, on the one hand, echoing the anti-Semitism allegations and on the other Labour’s stance on Brexit. It’s spooky to see so many of the folk beating the anti-Semitism drum and cheering the New Labour faction turn up on Fiona’s twitter feed. You could almost see it as a conspiracy.

  • JMF

    Interesting comments recently from Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamad who said there’s no evidence that Russia shot down MH17. He also talks about the black box and that Malaysia was basically denied this crucial information. Is it any wonder that people like JA are the greatest threat to those involved in the ‘wars by deception’

    • nevermind

      Surely you mean ‘ foreign powers’, SA, as in more than one. The mallability of MPs wallets when they are filled with petks and shekels, that special relationship whittling away at UK foreign policies ought not to be forgotten in such an investigation.

  • Sharp Ears

    One Andre Walker was on RT’s Crosstalk advising that Julian gives himself up and trusts in the US legal system about which he seemingly has no concerns. Perhaps he hasn’t heard of ‘enhanced interrogation’.

    Some in the media –and even some politicians– are creating a new image for Julian Assange. And it’s no wonder. A case can be made that the US crusade against Assange is a blueprint for criminalizing journalism. What fate is in store for Assange? Will journalism suffer the same?
    CrossTalking with Andre Walker and Ron Placone.

    Walker works for the New York Observer which was owned by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law. His holding is now held in a family trust.

    ‘In July 2006, Jared Kushner, a 25‑year‑old law student and son of a wealthy New Jersey developer, Charles Kushner, purchased the paper for just under $10 million. In April 2007 Bob Sommer became president of Observer Media Group, and subsequently served on the Observer Media Group Board of Directors. In January 2017, Jared Kushner announced he would sell his stake to a Kushner family trust, when he became a senior advisor to President Donald Trump. Kushner’s brother-in-law, Joseph Meyer, who has been the CEO of Observer Media Group since 2013, replaced him as publisher.’

    That’s how it all works.

  • mark golding

    Jeremy Hunt should regress back to making marmalade. He is ignorant like his vulgar and insulting father who as executive officer once said, “make way for a commander” to get a pink gin at a busy wardroom bar. Abuse of power is de rigeur in this family.

  • Carl

    The UK is not only a leading violator if international law. It is the joint first leading global warmonger, the primary facilitator of world tax avoidance, the centre of global corruption, chief in NATO propaganda, and has the most craven, obedient media in the industrialised world. Apart from that, it has every right to represent itself as the world’s moral compass and champion of liberal values.

  • Tom

    Yes, the rogue state is just to have another unelected leader. Hilariously, we’re all supposed to care who it is. Even Rory the Tory, who is alone in at least appearing reasonable, is plainly an MI6 man.

    • Bayard

      It may have passed you by, but in the UK there is no system of direct election of Prime Ministers. Thus all PMs are “unelected” by your definition.
      The MSM have. for years, been trying to make every general election a personal contest between the leaders of the parties concerned and, in your case and in many others, it looks like they have succeeded. In reality, though, the only voters who elect the PM are his or her constituents. If you want to vote for, say, Jeremy Corbyn, you have to go and live in his constituency. If you vote Labour anywhere else and think you are voting for JC, you are deluding yourself. You are simply enabling the current head of the Labour Party, whoever he or she may be, to be PM.

      • Dungroanin

        Where ever one lives, they are electing more than an individual, they are electing the manifesto that candidate is planning to help ennact in Parliament.

        Any MP that does not agree with the manifesto of the party they represent or ceases to support that party ought to stand under another manifesto and let their constituents decide again.

        The treacherous MP’s that have resigned their whips have no moral or i’d say legitimate mandate to remain an MP under fase pretence.

        • Jimmeh

          “No legitimate mandate to remain an MP” – I think the theory is that in a representative democracy, an MP should not be subject to the whims and moods of their constituents, except during General Elections. That includes deciding which party they want to join or leave. They are supposedly the full-time politicians, able to dedicate their time to informing themselves properly about political issues.

          I don’t agree with that theory. I think I am more closely-aligned with the idea of a delegate democracy, such that constituents can instruct their delegate what policies they are to support; and can recall/replace them if they are disobedient. In such a system you wouldn’t need full-time professional politicians (which we don’t get anyway), almost anybody could make a reasonably-serviceable delegate. Since they’re not full-time pros we could pay them less; and there would be much less scope for lobbying and corruption.

          Debate and decision-making would effectively occur in the public forum; it would be a type of direct democracy. Delegates would basically be messenger-boys.

          I find it thoroughly offensive when an MP elected on a party manifesto abandons that party mid-term, and signs up to a completely different set of policies. The fact is, hardly anyone votes on the merits or otherwise of the candidate; they vote for parties. And TBH, I’m expecting the Chuk gang to sink without trace at the next GE (and Chuk A himself will just run off back to a banking job in the City).

  • B

    Mr. murray,
    one question, since you had the opportunity to talk and meet with Assange: what about mr. Arjen Kamphuis? Is he still missing? Why the missing of a Wikileaks collaborator has been removed from all the media? What did Assange says about his disappear?

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      Kamphuis’ disappearance was covered quite extensively by Dutch media until December 2018. His close friend Ancilla van der Heest was also on “Pauw,” an important Dutch news show. After that there was basically no news to report. There was some speculation that he may have wanted (or needed) to disappear.

      For the Dutch police, it is still an open case:

      My real question is what Kamphuis was doing in Bodø. Apparently a secret Norwegian/NATO cybersecurity unit is located there (as well as an important NATO airbase). According to van der Heest, It is almost certain that Kamphuis was aware of this. A second phone he used was later turned on very briefly in Vikeså, south of Stavanger, another important NATO centre. It is all a complete mystery.

  • Sharp Ears

    This is the website for the Global Media Congress in Glasgow at which Hunt spoke. He was not named on the slot. It just says ‘A Senior Government Minister’. LOL. It finishes tomorrow.

    Details of the speakers flash up, four at a time. A list would have been better.

    This afternoon, the Zionist supporting ex Director General of the BBC and now editor of the NY Times, Mark Thompson, is in conversation with a Tina Steigler. I noticed some other BBC personnel on the attendee lists. Any jolly will do for them. Tonight they all go off to dinner at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum. The Glasgow Lord Provost Cllr Eva Bolander is holdiing a reception beforehand.

    I bet Julian’s name has not come up once.

  • Z54

    When it comes down to politics and law. the British along with their American brethren, are typical bottom feeders!

  • Sharp Ears

    Transcript: Hunt on CBS

    MARGARET BRENNAN: The U.S. has filed an extradition request with your government to have Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, here in the United States to face justice. We know U.N. officials raised concerns about human rights violations if he’s sent here. Does your government take that seriously?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY HUNT: Well, we have absolute confidence in the judicial processes in the U.S. The U.S. and the U.K. are the two countries that do more to stand up for the rule of law across the world. We- both our Constitution strongly respect the independence of the judiciary. But Julian Assange is someone who is alleged to have committed some very serious crimes, alleged to have led to people’s deaths. And so it is absolutely right that he faces justice and he has no more reason to escape justice than anyone else who is alleged to have committed crimes. So I think what’s happened is the right thing.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: So if you do become prime minister you would not stand in the way of an extradition of Assange to the United States?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY HUNT: Well we would have to follow our own legal processes just as the U.S. has to follow its own legal processes. But do I think- would I want to stand in the way of Julian Assange facing justice? No I would not.

    What a twerp.

  • Sharp Ears

    Just before Trump arrives, Hunt is falling into line on the Huawei ban.

    ‘And Mr Hunt said: ‘We have to look at the technical issues which are around whether buying products from a specific country could be a backdoor to espionage.

    ‘And we have to ask as Western countries whether it’s wise to allow one country to have such a commanding monopoly in the technologies that we’re – all of us – going to be depending on.’

    What a good boy!

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      If Mr Hunt wants to avoid backdoors to espionage, the UK should immediately cease purchasing anything from American tech companies. That the NSA uses American network equipment to spy on the entire world is well documented.

      But if this complete imbecile and failed marmalade exporter becomes PM, it will only be because the others decide to leave him in charge of the rapidly sinking ship and he will be too stupid to see this.

      • Borncynical

        “Hunt’s back view reveals that he either wears a spinal brace or body armour!”

        That might explain why he wasn’t quite able to kiss Trump’s feet. 🙂 Wasn’t for want of trying!

  • Sharp Ears

    What will Mr Hunt have to say, if anything, about the BP rip off of resources that rightfully belong to the Senegalese people. Instead, BP have paid £10 billion to a intermediary, Frank Timis, who acquired the rights to two gas fields with the help of the brother of the Senegalese President.

    BP is closely connected to the British government and establishment. The current chairman, Helge Lund, is Danish. British Gas, Statoil, McKinsey – the usual pathway –

    See Panorama tonight – BBC1 8.30pm
    ‘The $10 Billion Energy Scandal
    Panorama reveals how a controversial businessman will make billions of dollars from a suspicious energy deal. Reporter Mayeni Jones investigates the deal and uncovers secret payments made to the family of a senior politician. So why has one of Britain’s biggest companies agreed to invest in the project?’

    Timis, an Australian Romanian, has previous –
    African Minerals reveals Timis inquiry result

    Panorama is back to its good original self. Last time, they exposed (in two parts) the scandal of social care for adults with learning difficulties and autism at Whorlton Hall and then the elderly. The latter episode is coming up on 5th June.

    • Tony

      Timis also has two convictions from the 1990s for heroin dealing, and is under investigation for tax fraud, having paid £35.20 in tax in 2017, despite paying himself £670,000 from his business. He is the perfect, compromised character to do The Establishment’s dirty dealings (by proxy) in Africa.

      The above article was briefly on the beeb’s front page earlier today (still one-or-two good people working there), but it’s been disappeared to the archives now.

  • Gary

    Snoopers Charter, Fixated Threat Assessments (and FTA Centres), PRISM, Gagging Law, ignoring UN judgements and findings on Assange and Chagos, increasing use and abuse of Statutory Instruments, ignoring Electoral Commission, ignoring ‘purdah’, arbitrarily removing powers from Scottish Government, ignoring requests made (correctly and legally) under the Edinburgh Agreement etc etc

    Just ‘a few’ of the many incidences where our government has, in the full glare of the public eye, removed our rights and begun to actually head towards a more fascistic state. You DON’T have the right to free speech, a fair trial, protection under PACE or the Mental Health Act, the right to ANY kind of privacy at any time or any place, whatever you vote for can be overturned and removed without reason or notice or even your representative in any place of government getting to speak or vote on it. Elections don’t have to be above board or fair and they don’t have to stick to the rule of law THEY agreed to in the first place. They can victimise anyone who points this out and spend millions of pounds of OUR hard earned cash doing so.

    Meanwhile our press remains stony silent on ALL of these abuses. No newspaper no TV news will report on it. ONLY blogs on the internet will dare report on these things. And most of these blogs then become targets for DOS attacks, attacks on the author’s character, spurious libel cases, negative reporting and even spurious criminal cases.

    It’s clear what they are doing and exactly HOW they are doing it, although there will be MUCH more going on, likely worse, that we are not aware of.

    The public DOES know about this and yet we are docile. Some call us ‘sheep’, mockingly. I fear they might be right after all…

    • Sharp Ears

      Ref the UK and the Chagos Islanders. Hunt’s name comes up again. It seems that the same foot in mouth disease is still affecting him.

      Brian Cloughley writes.

      ‘On May 20 the United Kingdom appointed its first human rights ambassador to the United Nations and two days later the General Assembly of the United Nations overwhelmingly condemned the UK for its continuing colonial treatment of the Chagos Islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean, whose inhabitants it expelled fifty years ago.

      The irony escaped the UK’s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who announced that the new ambassador “will be central to our work in defending human rights across the globe.” ‘

  • Glasshopper

    I’m not sure there is any International law anymore. For a long time the US ignored it, as did others. Now there is no longer any pretense.

    The US, Russia, China, UK, France, to name a few, are all rogue states. And they’re the chief arms dealers too (no coincidence). But there is another much longer list that is too long to include here.

    That’s not to say that voices like Craig’s should not keep calling them out. Your work is important, and should not be taken for granted.

    Keep on keeping on!

    • Ken Kenn

      Now there is no longer any pretense.

      In a nutshell.

      Years ago at least the PTB had to pretend that the people mattered,

      No pretence from Trump he wants to make a bid on the UK.

      A low bid when British desperation kicks in post No Deal Brexit.

      This is why he thinks Boris and Nige are ” great guys “

      • Dr. Brian Everill

        To achieve any sort of ‘democratic organization’ in the UK, they need to divorce themselves from the technocratic, elitist, oligarchy, that is called, the ‘European Union’, which is nothing more than a cabal of wealthy corporate business people and their bankers who are looking out for themselves and their wealthy friends. ‘Desperation’ for more than a third of the population of the UK ‘kicked in’ a long, long, time ago, but you probably missed it? At this point it matters little to those desperate people who controls their already extremely difficult and fearful future? Maybe, all those in a ‘better’ situation should have had a little more ’empathy’ for those in more difficulty? Then this ‘Brexit’ may not have happened in the first instance?

      • Sharp Ears

        Coming to the UK soon? Chlorinated chicken.

        The Truth About Chlorinated Chicken review – an instant appetite-ruiner
        Just in time for Trump’s UK visit, Channel 4’s Dispatches looked at the food standard implications of a post-Brexit trade deal with the US. It wasn’t a pretty sight

        Piers Morgan said on ITV that he’s eaten it for years and he’s fine! Nuff said.

        • Dr. Brian Everill

          Instead of reacting to the fear of a situation which may, or may not occur, let’s get some ‘democracy’ first, and then we can do something about the ‘Chlorinated Chicken’ ourselves, without having to rely on the bankers cabal to make a law to help them make more money for themselves and their friends out of it?

  • MrK

    Jeremy Hunt has also been Health Secretary, during which he was very enthusiastic about an end of life tickbox euthanasia trajectory called the Liverpool Care Pathway, which involved “the removal of drugs, nutrition and hydration if they are judged to be of no benefit to the patient.” The term being ‘medically futile’. It is what people actually die of, instead of their disease. Including people who weren’t terminal. The resulting shortenes lifespan meant mulit-billions in savings for the health insurers.

    Jeremy Hunt told LBC radio: “It’s a fantastic step forward, the Liverpool care pathway, and we need to be unabashed about that.”

    How the LCP is reducing hospital admission time, in 2 charts.

    Simon Stevens worked for the NHS for most of his career. In the 2000s he became a Vice President for the UnitedHealth Group in Minnetonka, MN, which owns Ovations, of which he was Chief Executive from 2006-2009. Ovations owned the Evercare Hospice and Palliative Care Unit, which issued the report on which the Liverpool Care Pathway became based. Simon Stevens is also Chief Executive of the NHS. Stevens is also a Trustee of the King’s Fund, which was founded by Queen Elizabeth II, and whose patron today is Prince Charles.

    For the above reasons, this program is impossible to get rid of. It has already been officially abolished once, however it has simply been relabeled.

    And of course Jeremy Hunt thinks it’s great.

    • Sharp Ears

      Hunt as ‘Health Secretary’ (a contradiction there) went to the US several times to visit Kaiser Permanente, the giant US private healthcare provider. He took teams with him. All recorded on the internet. That is what the Tories want – a privatised health service in the UK. Go into the GP’s surgery or A&E with your credit card or insurance cover note. In the US, doctors have ‘offices’ not ‘surgeries’.

      Thatcher started things off in the 80s when she had meetings with Professor Enthoven, a US economist, here and abroad.

      ‘Enthoven has argued that integrated delivery systems — networks of health care organizations under a parent holding company that provide a continuum of health care services — align incentives and resources better than most healthcare delivery systems, leading to improved medical care quality while controlling costs.

      He is a member of the Institute of Medicine, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and is a former Rhodes scholar’

      Redwood and Letwin pubished a book in 1988 entitled “Britain’s Biggest Enterprise: ideas for radical reform of the NHS”. They are both still around, Letwin is even running things at the Cabinet Office, at the heart of the government.

      The BMJ op-ed –

      The “self funding” NHS patient: thin end of the wedge?

      The mantra is ‘Demoralize. Destabilize. Dismantle’ It is working out.

  • Dr. Brian Everill

    The whole smear against Assange in Sweden was a complete charade. It is standard ‘Propagandist Playbook’ to smear your ‘opposition’ with some form of ‘sex scandal’ to attempt to destroy their credibility. Usually, the brainwashed, who are so often led by the nose by the main stream media, lap it up, and their objective of destroying their target is achieved. It is what the CIA, and MI6, are about, this is what they do if they can’t kill you when they see you as a threat to their ‘power’.

  • Sharp Ears

    Liam Fox has been on the state broadcaster’s Breakfast programme. (I had never noticed before how close his eyes are together!) He sat next to Ivanka at the banquet last night. The presenter asked what they had talked about. As if he would tell us.

    The subject of the NHS came up from the presenter. Fox was particularly concerned to emphasize that, in the event of a trade deal with the US post Brexit, we, the UK, would continue to be responsible for the ‘regulation’ of the NHS, not its ownership or control, note. Great Liam. Keep on travelling around the world as the UK’s Trade Secretary, LOL.

    PS Where is Werritty? I still want to know what he and Fox were up to in Sri Lanka on their travels.

    There are no recent entries on his Register of Interests. All covered up in his government work now. A member of CFoI and past visits to Israel are recorded.

    Fox backs Hunt for PM. No deal OK’ed

  • Bill Boggia

    In very many respects -there seems clear evidence that the rogue British State is a terrorist state when it comes to it’s treatment of countries whose resources it wants to exploit – rather than reach fair agreement.

    I am not sure what the legal definition of a terrorist state is -but isn’t it against international law to fund terrorism – and by UK citizens paying taxes to the war chest of this rogue state – are we ourselves not then guilty of funding terrorism ?

    Just thoughts

  • Dungroanin

    Complete and Utter C…, moves out of the shadows as the lead string puller, and crowns himself PM to put the final nails into the coffin of the NHS as a free public service (burying it alive, mwahahaha) and delivers the people out of a shared commitment to rights and regulations with our closest neighbours and relations, and time travels the country back to the good old days of Upstairs/Downstairs, Downton Abbey, Aristocracy worshipping, that was seemingly put behind us at the end of WWII, by that glorious clear eyed Labour social democratic government.

    • michael norton

      They will not crown Hunt, he is a died in the wool Eurofanatic.

      Corbyn seems to have lost the plot, he is going to rob your gardens to build more houses.

        • Sharp Ears

          Jeremy Corbyn To Donald Trump: ‘We Will Defend Our NHS’
          Labour leader calls on the US president to “think on” as he addresses protest rally in central London.

          ‘He told the crowd: “We won’t stand for that. We will fight for that with every last breath of our body to defend the principle of a healthcare system as free at the point of need as a human right.”

          Then, in a direct message to Trump, Corbyn continued: “So I say to our visitors that have arrived this week: think on please about a world that is one of peace and disarmament, is one of recognising the values of all people, is a world that defeats racism, defeats misogyny, defeats religious hatreds that have been fuelled by the far right in politics in Britain, in Europe and the United States.

          “They have no answers, no answers to young people growing up and worried about their future, no answers to communities that have lost their industries, no answers for the people that are desperate in parts of the world to get somewhere to live, no answers to those who are desperate to get the medical help and support that they need, no answers to those going through a mental health crisis of any sort anywhere in the world.” ‘

          He speaks for me.

    • Dungroanin

      That car crash of a press conference surely confirms my opinion. “Jeremy would Michael maje a good PM” asks potus from the podium.

      ‘ That other Jeremy is not willimg to help so i’ve turned down a meeting with him twice’

      & ‘I’m more than happy to endorse the mayor of Londons bid for leader of the Labour party’

      ‘Was that ok Jeremy?’


      • Sharp Ears

        Won’t be long before the Orange One pushes off from these shores, never to be seen here again hopefully.

        ITV were broadcasting a sycophantic interview of him by Piers Morgan earlier. Sickening stuff and I switched it off. The BBC have an oik down in Portsmouth gabbling away with Dan Snow (another Snow!) about the D Day logistics with their weather person in Southwick House (yet another OB!) from whence the D Day operations were controlled and from where the D Day weather forecast came. (currently the ‘home to the Defence School of Policing and Guarding, and related military police capabilities.’

        Q How many BBC personnel down in Portsmouth today?

        • Dungroanin

          Looks likely that he will win a second term – so there will be a meeting between him and a future PM.

          Wouldn’t It be hillarious if that is Jezza he tries to (strong)arm wrestle – these allotment hands may yet raise a pained wince from the Donald; as well as the boot applied to his 2% motley protection racketeers backside as they depart these shores leaving their booty and huge amounts of evaded taxes behind.

          One aspect of this visit is how the valiant Bercow’s veto over Trump addressing parliament endured.
          Not a peep squeak from the blathering tories and neocon lib/lab/funny tingers.

          The highwater mark of hard brexit was passed weeks ago. Only an insane grab for power by the Fartager, can now deliver that reprieve for the shangrila denizens of the City. (it looks as if their mole in the EU, Macaroon, is not getting any traction with his 5th column sabotage. Mutti has her giant paw on him and cornered.

          The British electorate will have to decide if they believe the shock jock should be their fuhrer – I know what they will say.

          Sooner than they think – why are the tories going to take so long to get a vote from their poxy 100 (claimed),000 members (were they the ones that potus imagined lining the streets with flag)?
          It could be done in a few days.

          A summer election when the students are on their hols is the best time to minimise the young vote for the reactionaries.
          They may be dumb enough to wait until after the party conferences. Which will inevitably lead to rules on reselection passed, losing many of the er .. red tory types, certainly the ones who have departed Labour already.

          Finally i heard reports that Marine 1 and accompanying helicopters were buzzing over Corbyns constituency last night – probably in direct response to Malanias ear witness report of the cheers of many thousands at Corbyns speech near No 10, she must have informed hubby about his error in not noticing any anti-him crowds, She may have even taken a photo of the blimp!

          Keep buggering on SE, the blitz spirit is growing daily and the ex-kipper followers visages are forming a hollow eyed look as they realise they have been taken in by the overexposed gurning toerag and they finally smell his promised noxious Fart Age!

  • Sean Lamb

    I note that Per Samuelson claims that Assange was unable to have a normal conversation with him before going into court and launching a brilliant legal argument why Assange needed to stay in London within easy grasp of US extradition.

    Is it possible that the UK government deliberately drugged Assange to prevent him from giving instructions to his Swedish lawyer?

    If you read Andrew O’Hagan’s piece on Assange in the LRB he makes it fairly clear that the Wikileaks lawyers despised Assange and were only sticking around because they could soak up the large revenue stream Wikileaks generates from donations.

    I would have thought Assange’s predicament has become sufficiently dire that the grifters and show-boaters – Jen Robinson and Geoffrey Robertson – are luxuries he can no longer afford.

    • Dr. Brian Everill

      I’m sure that there is always someone somewhere who has written a ‘piece’ on why ‘the whole world’ ‘pretty much despised Assange’? However, thinking people, and people who are aware, know that is all ‘divide and conquer’ BS? O’Hagan’s piece is pretty much a typical tendentious article with little substance, lots of supposition, and conjecture regarding things that he would like to be the case? I think you can take that sort of drivel with the ‘pinch of salt’ it deserves?

      • Sharp Ears

        ‘Connection to Julian Assange
        In February 2014, O’Hagan wrote about his experience as a ghostwriter for Julian Assange’s autobiography by Canongate and Knopf. His essay, entitled “Ghosting”[20] which was published in the London Review of Books gained significant media attention because of his description of Assange’s character and his strained relationships with his past and present colleagues.[21][22][23]

        I didn’t have the energy to reach the end. You have to register too.

      • Sean Lamb

        Thank you for your input, Dr Everill.

        I too have an opinion on the merits or otherwise of Mr O’Hagan’s journalism, however at the moment I think the priority is to make sure Assange is getting ethical legal representation. He has a difficult enough fight as it is without having to also deal with a legal team that is secretly trying to undermine him. I am also concerned that he may have been deliberately drugged so that Per Samuelson could not receive instruction from him – of course if Samuelson had been working in good faith on behalf of his client he wouldn’t have needed instruction. So at this point I am putting concerns about Mr O’Hagan on the back-burner

        Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull made an astute observation re Assange on this matter:
        “So I think the you know, there’s a great old saying that anyone can go to jail if they get the right lawyer”

        • Dr. Brian Everill

          I’m not being contrary here, but how exactly do you believe that you are, “getting ethical legal representation” for Assange with your comment? Also, if it is as you say, that Assange’s legal team are “secretly trying to undermine him”, how ‘secret’ is it, since you appear to know about it, not that secret then? It is not beyond possibility, in the light of how Assange has been unjustly, and unlawfully treated to this point, that the ‘authorities’ would try anyway possible, including drugging him, to interfere with him defending himself? However, at this point, that he may have been drugged specifically for this purpose, is purely speculation, and not something that we, as ordinary citizens, can do anything about?
          I prefer to focus on exactly what is evident, and has been shown so obviously, to be the case. For example, that Assange has been unjustly, and unlawfully, treated and detained, by a rogue, terrorist organization, that he has successfully exposed and unmasked, who are at this very moment systematically persecuting him for his efforts to bring that information to the attention of the general public. These facts alone should be enough for any decent, relatively, intelligent person, to make up their mind about the serious miscarriage of justice that is taking place in the heart of Europe under the guise of British, Swedish, and US ‘Law’, or should I say ‘Lawfare’?

          • Sean Lamb

            “? Also, if it is as you say, that Assange’s legal team are “secretly trying to undermine him”, how ‘secret’ is it, since you appear to know about it, not that secret then?”

            How about fairly secret but not 100% secret?

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            ‘fairly secret’, now that’s amusing? Unless you are part of Assange’s inner circle, ‘fairly secret’ appears to mean ‘common knowledge’ as it would be not something difficult to ascertain as you, a member of the general public, already are in possession of this ‘knowledge’? However, your opinion on this ‘fairly secret’ information appears to be pure speculation, as, how could you know for certain, that what you state, is in fact the case? You may suppose, but that is all you are doing, supposition’ is not fact? ‘Secret’ means: ‘something that is kept, or meant to be kept, unknown, or unseen, by others.’ Something, i.e. the inner workings of the legal team in this case, that apparently has not been kept from you, as you appear to have ‘inside’ information regarding the workings of the law team assisting Julian Assange, thus making it not ‘secret’?

          • Sean Lamb

            Dr Everill,

            I think my suspicions were first raised when Jen Robinson went on numerous interviews across the world’s media saying how guilty Julian Assange was of conspiracy to attempt to hack a DoD network and how the USA was a big meanie for charging him for it.

            When your client is faced with a double inchoate offence (CONSPIRING to ATTEMPT to commit a crime) it is always a good idea in the first instance to say your client is innocent. As much as I regret the fact, the legal argument that the prosecutor is a big meanie is seldom crowned with success in the court

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            Your obvious attempts to try and undermine the confidence in the legal team who are acting for Assange, are not unnoticed? You state many obscure, unclear, and in certain cases, untruths, regarding Assange and his legal team. You stated that Robinson said:
            “Julian Assange was GUILTY of conspiracy to attempt to hack a DoD network”, when in fact she did not say that, even though you referenced something which also did not show that? This is typical of your attempt to mislead, and misrepresent, Assange, his legal team, and his situation. I’m not sure what, or who, you are, but I do know you are not sincere, and anyone reading this thread with any ‘disinterest’ will also see your insincerity I’m sure? I would like to say thank you for your input, but insincerity is never an enjoyable experience?

        • Dr. Brian Everill

          You are entitled to your ‘suspicions’, as are we all, however, those suspicions do not necessarily show that something is the case? Further, they do not show that the ‘secret information’ that you reference is in fact a secret at all? You may believe that something is the case without ‘proof’, but it would behoove others to question those beliefs as justified? You continue to state things about his ‘legal team’ as:
          “how guilty Julian Assange was of conspiracy to attempt to hack a DoD network and how the USA was a big meanie for charging him for it.”
          I would like to see for myself where Jen Robinson actually said that, “Julian Assange was GUILTY of conspiracy to attempt to hack a DoD network”, please reference your statement? I’d also like to see, or hear, any of his team say that the US is “a big meanie”, if you could reference that too, I would be obliged?

          • Sean Lamb

            “I would like to see for myself where Jen Robinson actually said that, “Julian Assange was GUILTY of conspiracy to attempt to hack a DoD network”, please reference your statement? ”

            Here you go


            Between 1:00 and 1:17 mark. She doesn’t dispute the allegation that Assange conspired to attempt to hack a computer, she said he was guilty but in a noble cause. Someone who robs a bank to redistribute to the poor might be a jolly fine fellow, but he is still guilty of bank robbery.

            What Assange needed was a lawyer who would say he was innocent.

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            Sorry, I watched the whole interview several times, and do not see Jen Robinson say anywhere, “he was guilty but in a noble cause”, you are putting words into her mouth. At 1:00 to 1:17 she was speaking about the ALLEGATION, not the ACT, It is not her job here to dispute the ALLEGATION, the allegation is a fact. Even when an allegation is proven false, it is still the allegation. A lawyer’s job is to dispute the ACT, to which the allegation relates, she cannot dispute the ‘allegation’.

            Regardless, here is what she actually said:

            Beginning 1:00 While the allegation itself, or the charge itself, is ‘Hacking’, if you look at the factual allegations, actually, it boils down to, having communicated with a source [the allegation is ‘having communicated with a source], and having provided assistance with, assisting him with, protecting him, protecting her, with anonymity in the context. Ending 1:17

            She does not say the words, ‘guilty’, or ‘nobel cause’ once?
            She does not say the words, ‘big meanie’ anywhere in this interview?

            Please be more specific in your interpretation of what you BELIEVE other say rather than what they ACTUALLY say?

            I’m afraid you are guilty of misinterpretation, in this example?

          • Sean Lamb

            “I’m afraid you are guilty of misinterpretation, in this example?”

            No, I’m afraid I am not. When she says “having provided assistance with, assisting him with, protecting him, protecting her, with anonymity in the context”, she then follows this up with a claim all reporters to this for their source.

            In this instance “protecting her anonymity” is the same as hacking into a DoD computer, hence she implies all reporters do this, from this it follows that Assange was guilty but it was a noble cause.

            That is a plea you make in mitigation AFTER you have a guilty verdict, it is not a plea you make if you want your client acquitted.

            Jen Robinson didn’t want to see Assange acquitted. Do you see why this approach might be problematic for him?

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            It is common practice for all Journalists to protect their sources. In many cases, if they did not protect their sources, then ‘whistleblowers’, like Manning for example, would probably not provide the information that they do, as they would be vulnerable to prosecution and persecution from the authorities they expose?

            You say, “In this instance ‘protecting her anonymity’ is the same as hacking into a DoD computer”. Here you are confused, in what universe does a Journalist ‘protecting the anonymity of his source’, constitute ‘hacking in to a computer’? That is false, and ‘hence she [does not} imply all reporters do this [hack into computers], [so] from this it [does not] follow that Assange was guilty but it was a noble cause.

            It seems you have an idea which you wish was the case, but to anyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear, is obviously not true?

          • Sean Lamb

            Dr Everill,

            I think at this point it should be obvious to every disinterested observer (if there are any) that you are being deliberately obtuse.

            This was obvious to me from the beginning, however I was aware it would not obvious to others.

            My point simply is if Assange wishes to avoid extradition to the US (no means certain since he has turned down extradition to Sweden which has much stronger protections), his legal team needs to argue either he is innocent or his activities had constitutional protection. Not that he is a very fine fellow.

            Of course if he actually WANTS to be extradited to the US, he should be all means continue with Jen Robinson as his advocate.

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            Your obvious attempts to try and undermine the confidence in the legal team who are acting for Assange, are not unnoticed? You state many obscure, unclear, and in certain cases, untruths, regarding Assange and his legal team. You stated that Robinson said:
            “Julian Assange was GUILTY of conspiracy to attempt to hack a DoD network”, when in fact she did not say that, even though you referenced something which also did not show that? This is typical of your attempt to mislead, and misrepresent, Assange, his legal team, and his situation. I’m not sure what, or who, you are, but I do know you are not sincere, and anyone reading this thread with any ‘disinterest’ will also see your insincerity I’m sure? I would like to say thank you for your input, but insincerity is never an enjoyable experience?

      • Sean Lamb

        Personally rather than focus on O’Hagan I would prefer to focus on the very real threat he faces from a legal team that refused at every opportunity to say Julian Assange was innocent when faced with a hacking charge – instead they preferred a strategy of wringing their hands and saying the USA was a big meanie for bringing such a charge. An innovative legal strategy but one unlikely to be successful in the long run. Since Assange clearly did the actions alleged in the later Espionage charges, the only question now is were his actions illegal or if they were illegal are they immune from extradition from their political nature. Nevertheless, I would still be deeply concerned that he continues with a legal team that were so slack in the past and have just refused the lifeline the Swedes unexpectedly offered him to extract himself from London.

        However, since it seems unavoidable, I would say this on O’Hagan. While at times I think O’Hagan was unfair (but not deliberately so) and ungenerous, I can fully accept he found his experience with Assange quite frustrating.

        There is, in my view, a very simple key to unlocking the Assange-O’Hagan interactions. Assange probably didn’t have much to do with the genesis of Wikileaks and probably didn’t suffer as much deprivation or mistreatment as a child as legend sometimes likes to depicts. He was sort of using O’Hagan to propagate his mythical life-story but doing somersaults to avoid putting his name to it in case anyone from his past popped up with some uncomfortable truths. At least that is what I took from it.

        • Dr. Brian Everill

          How do you arrive as such a conclusion, “Since Assange clearly did the actions alleged in the later Espionage charges”? Which acts are you referring to, of which you state he, ‘clearly did’? Please give us an example of your proof that he ‘clearly did’ those unlawful acts of ‘Espionage’? Also, if you would reference your proof so that we can all be clear about Assange’s ‘guilt’, as you so obviously are, I would appreciate it?

          • Sean Lamb

            “Since Assange clearly did the actions alleged in the later Espionage charges”

            He clearly obtained classified materials and published them. The Defense line has to be in this instance is not to dispute the facts in the indictment but to say his actions are protected by the First Amendment which is a constitutional guarantee which overrides the Espionage Act.

            Assange is clearly published classified materials as the indictment suggests, his claim is the interpretation of the Espionage Act which criminalizes this activity is unconstitutional. This is different from the approach needed on the hacking charge, where the obvious line of defense is to argue that the evidence is manifestly insufficient to support a charge of conspiring to attempt to illegally access a computer.

            Hope that helps

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            “He clearly obtained classified materials and published them.” “Publishing and obtaining classified materials” is, per se, not ‘Espionage’? To indict a journalist for this, is itself a crime? Only in the world of ‘Lawfare’ can anyone be convicted of ‘espionage’ for exposing War Crimes, and then be convicted of spying for doing so? By ‘showing’ those war crimes to the world it is not a crime, unless one has some twisted idea, some twisted notion, of what ‘spying’ is, as in this case? True, he is protected under the First Amendment from some twisted notion of what constitutes spying, but in reality, he does not need this protection as he is not guilty of the twisted notion in the first instance?
            Only in the ‘mafiosi world’ of the United States of Hypocrisy would anyone need to invoke a ‘First Amendment’ protection from a ‘crime’ that was not a crime to begin with?
            In any ‘just’, and ‘legitimate’, legal system this would be seen simply as a ruse to convict a Journalist of a made up ‘crime’ as a means of punitive action. Sadly, the US does not have such a system so acts according to the tendentious requirements of its mafiosi government? This is the real reason Assange should avoid extradition to a country run by gangsters? He cannot hope for anything like a fair hearing, or ‘justice’ in any shape or form from such a corrupt and morally-bankrupt people.?

          • Sean Lamb

            As I said above, it is now obvious you are being deliberately obtuse.

            Good luck, with whatever it is you are trying to achieve.

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            A common tactic of the establishment is to accuse the opponents of the very thing of which they are guilty?
            Whatever your agenda, it is not in support of Julian Assange? I think Assange is intelligent enough to know who is helping him, and who is not? I would say in your case, you are not!

  • James Caithness

    Regarding the corrupt British Judiciary, the UK Gov appointed how many Judges to the child abuse inquiry. Those judges had to go because they were found to be connected to the alleged perpetrators of the abuse.

  • Mike

    Ive been stating online for years that the UK has been operating as a rogue state. Everything from rendition for torture warmongering welfare deprivation protecting the patronised and privileged from judicial prosecution and investigation illegal arms deals you name it the UK state is up to its eyeballs in it with its homegrown media circus toeing the line suppressing the facts and selectively reporting joined up spin.
    The UK should have been condemned and sanctioned as a rogue state decades ago now it is truly out of control and doesn’t look like its even trying to find a way back.

  • Sharp Ears

    The robotic Jeremy Hunt has done it again.

    ‘Jeremy Hunt tweets:
    @Jeremy_Hunt “Very concerned by arrest of Russian investigative journalist Ivan Golunov.
    Journalists must be free to hold power to account without fear of retribution.
    We are following his case closely. #FreeGlunov #DefendMediaFreedom

    Patrick Henningson tweets @21WIRE
    “Jeremy, was this the same Ivan Golunov busted for dealing narcotics?

    Tony Cartalucci tweets @TonyCartalucci
    “Or the same Golunov working at the same Meduza Project based in NATO frontier state Latvia and funded by US corporate foundations?

    Jack Beckitt tweets:
    “With the current stage of hypocrisy involving Assange, politicians like you should not be let near the hashtag #DefendMediaFreedom

    h/t TLN

    There are also many references to Nils Melzer in the responses.

    He follows on with self promotion for the leadership, extolling his negotiating skills. Can’t say I’ve noticed them!

  • michael LEIGH

    In view of the fact as widely reported, the highly senior USA Government official a Mr Pompaeo statement’ to remove a senior British member of Parliament if he were elected the British Monarch’s first minister ‘ ?

    Given the fact that the current government of our much applauded common alliance of a shared language and political aims is with the USA, I am truly most surprised that the current government of the British monarch has not sought to answer this gross threat to it’s sovereignty had not been the subject of diplomatic rebuke at the least – why not ?

1 2

Comments are closed.