How the Establishment Functions 423

I suggested in my last post that the British Establishment may be looking for a way out of the terrible Assange debacle without raising difficult truths about the United States justice and penal system. The functioning of the Establishment, the way it forms a collective view and how that view is transmitted, is a mystery to many. Some imagine instructions must be transmitted by formal cabals meeting as Freemasons or Bilderbergers or some such grouping. It is not really like that, although different fora of course do provide venues for the powerful to gather and discuss.

I have a bit of a feel for it all, having been a diplomat for twenty years and member of the Senior Civil Service for six. And if I was advising someone who wanted to think of it seriously, I would say human nature doesn’t change; read Thackeray and Trollope, Harold Nicolson and watch the amazing Brian Cox in Succession. All these sources give genuine glimpses of insight.

Former foreign office minister Alan Duncan appears to fancy himself as something of a Harold Nicolson, though sadly lacking the wit or writing ability. Duncan has published his diaries. Duncan is the former FCO minister “for the Americas”, who cooperated with attempts to have Julian Assange removed from the Ecuadorean Embassy, and was the point man for the CIA’s various illegal schemes around Assange. Duncan referred to Assange in parliament as a “miserable little worm”.

And who was Alan Duncan’s best friend at Oxford? Why, none other than Ian Duncan Burnett, now Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the judge who heard Assange’s High Court appeals. As Alan Duncan’s diary entry for 14 July 2017 tells us:

“At Oxford we always called him “the judge” and they always called me “Prime Minister” but Ian’s the one who got there.”

On Alan Duncan’s birthday on 7 June 2017 Ian Burnett and his wife were part of the dinner celebration, alongside former Tory leader William Hague, and the arms dealer Wafic Said and wife. Wafic Said was central to the largest bribery scandal in British history, the Al-Yamamah BAE contract for arms to Saudi Arabia, where an eighty billion pound contract involved hundreds of millions in corrupt bribery payments swirling around Wafic Said and his friend Mark Thatcher.

The only reason several very rich people did not go to prison is that Tony Blair – another Oxford University man – and Jack Straw, the recipient himself of BAE largesse, made a historic decision that the Serious Fraud Office investigation must be stopped “in the public interest”. The Serious Fraud Office subsequently “lost” all the thousands of documents proving the corruption. Thus enabling the central fixer, arms dealer Said, to enjoy a jolly dinner and banter with the new Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, rather than eat his dinner in Ford open prison.

That, my friends, is how the British Establishment functions. It also of course enabled the continuing relationship that means British planes, missiles, bombs, mechanics, trainers and special forces are every single day involved in eviscerating women and children in Yemen. I do hope they are proud.

On 27 May 2018 Lord Chief Justice Burnett and Alan Duncan were at Chequers having lunch with Prime Minister Theresa May, Michael Gove and “journalist” Sarah Vine and – to quote Duncan – “two financier couples”. Thus do politics, the law, the media and big money mix, dear reader. These are not special events. It is the everyday milieu. Nobody needs to phone a judge and tell him what to think; they know what their circle thinks from constant experience and interaction, and they can extrapolate from the general to the particular.

The judges know what they are expected to think about Assange. The Scottish judges certainly know what they are expected to think about me.

The politicians freeload – Duncan’s birthday bash had been paid for by Tory party donor, Carphone Warehouse’s David Ross, whose unethical business practices I outlined two years ago. Some of us may feel distaste at the idea of having, or attending, birthday parties gifted by a businessman; but we are not politicians. Or judges.

There is no doubt that Jimmy Savile’s ability to mingle freely at precisely these kind of social gatherings, hosted by royalty and prime ministers down, provided him with the cloak of Establishment protection which enabled his decades of crime. To deny it is ridiculous. It is also very interesting how unanimously the Establishment has decided to protect Keir Starmer. They faced a real danger for a few years with one of England’s two main parties under the control of genuinely radical figures. Having managed to get the big money friendly Sir Keir Starmer into place and neutralise any possible threat to their wealth, the ferocity of the Establishment’s defence of Starmer is fascinating.

There is no doubt that Starmer was indeed Director of Public Prosecution and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009 when it was decided that credible allegations against Jimmy Savile should not be prosecuted (after they had reached that stage already decades too late). Of course the Director of Public Prosecutions does not handle the individual cases, which are assigned to lawyers under them. But the Director most certainly is then consulted on the decisions in the high profile and important cases.

That is why they are there. It is unthinkable that Starmer was not consulted on the decision to shelve the Savile case – what do they expect us to believe his role was, as head of the office, ordering the paperclips?

When the public outcry reached a peak in 2012, Starmer played the go-to trick in the Establishment book. He commissioned an “independent” lawyer he knew to write a report exonerating him. Mistakes have been made at lower levels, lessons will be learnt… you know what it says. Mishcon de Reya, money launderers to the oligarchs, provided the lawyer to do the whitewash. Once he retired from the post of DPP, Starmer went to work at, umm,

It is remarkable that the media has never got as excited about any of the lies told by Johnson, as they have done about what is in fact a rare example of Johnson saying an interesting truth. Starmer was indeed, as Director of Public Prosecutions, responsible for the non-prosecution of Savile.

But just as Savile was to be protected over actual sex crime, Starmer knew that Assange was to be persecuted over fake sex crime. Starmer’s conduct of the Assange case was entirely corrupt.

It is important for you to understand that Assange was never charged with any sex crime in Sweden. He was wanted for questioning, after Stockholm’s chief prosecutor had decided there was no case to answer, but a prosecutor from another district had taken up the case. Assange always believed the entire thing was a ruse to get him sent from Sweden to the United States. His legal team had offered the Swedish prosecutors the chance to interview him in the Swedish Embassy back in 2011, which should have enabled the case to be closed.

Under Starmer, the Crown Prosecution Service told the Swedish prosecutors not to come to London. The emails in which they did this were destroyed, and only recovered by an FOI request at the Swedish end. You will recall that, when after a further seven long years Swedish prosecutors finally did interview Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy, it resulted in the Swedish investigation being dropped.

Had Starmer not prevented it, the Swedish investigation could have been closed in January 2011 following interview.

Then in October 2013, while Starmer was still DPP, his staff emailed Swedish prosecutors in response to reports that they wished to drop the case, saying “Don’t you dare get cold feet”. The Swedes responded explaining they did indeed wish to drop it. The Crown Prosecution Service again dissuaded them.

Why was Starmer intervening to insist a foreign state continue an investigation that state itself wished to stop, and which involved no British nationals?

I am very confident there is no other example of the British DPP interfering in an overseas investigation in this way. It certainly was nothing to do with the ostensible subject matter of the Swedish investigation, which doesn’t rate a mention in the email correspondence. There can be no doubt that Starmer’s motive was entirely ulterior to the Swedish investigation, and almost certainly is related to the illegal CIA activity against Assange and the current US extradition effort. Starmer is revealed as a highly unscrupulous and mendacious character.

That has of course been confirmed by the downright lies Starmer told in seeking election by the Labour Party membership, when he stated he would maintain Corbyn’s popular left wing economic policies, particularly on rail and utility nationalisation. Once in power Starmer simply ditched these pledges in favour of billionaire-enabling policies, and started a purge of the left of the party on an epic scale.

The British Establishment likes Starmer. They can’t allow Boris Johnson – who is fast becoming a liability to them – saying true things about Starmer which they wish to be buried. Watching their propaganda apparatus act in unison to defend Starmer, and reconfirm in the popular mind the binary choice between their blue puppet and their red puppet, has been fascinating viewing.

As I frequently state, I don’t mind if you agree or do not agree, and I certainly want everybody to think for themselves. My aim is to point out facts that are insufficiently considered and project a different perspective to that commonly promoted in the mainstream media. I am not always right about everything. But I hope that you found reading this gave you some ideas to think through.

Correction: The 2011 offer by Assange was an interview in the Swedish, not Ecuadorean, Embassy. This has been corrected,


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

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


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

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>

423 thoughts on “How the Establishment Functions

1 2 3 4
  • Greg Park

    Yes, it is sick and very telling the way they justify Starmer refusing to prosecute Jimmy Savile. He had been the head honcho, Director of Public Prosecutions, for at least a year when it was decided to abandon the Savile case. Who is responsible for that .. Putin, Craig Murray?

    Equally telling is the way the politicians media depict Starmer as a model of integrity when they all know how brazenly he lied to get himself elected leader of the Labour Party — pledging himself to party unity and 10 core Corbynite policies. Every single one of his supporters and defenders knows it, knows what a dishonest careerist he is, so what does that tell us about them?

    Then, returning to child abuse matters, there is Starmer’s chief advisor Peter Mandelson. If Seamus Milne had been regularly “holidaying” with Jeffrey Epstein there would not be a person in the English-speaking world, of any age, who would have been left unaware of it. Strangely though not a word is breathed about Starmer’s consolidate being a tight member of the Epstein gang. It is completely verboten in the Westminster bubble and among the BBC, Guardian et al to question either Starmer or Mandelson about it. Why?

    • Stevie boy

      Being a self declared zionist is also not irrelevant when it comes to starmer, epstein and establishment corruption.

    • Courtenay Barnett

      Greg Park,

      Wasn’t Starmer also implicated in partying when Johnson had already implemented legal restrictions?

      If I am correct – then the pot is calling the kettle ‘black’.


  • Natasha

    “Starmer is revealed as a highly unscrupulous and mendacious character […] But just as Savile was to be protected from actual sex crime, Starmer knew that Assange was to be persecuted over fake sex crime. Starmer’s conduct of the Assange case was entirely corrupt.”

    Indeed. So, lets start calling him, and all the rest of them, (including Savile even though you can’t diagnose a dead body) what he and they patently are: psychopathic. Devoid of empathy, and with zero conscience.

    Some psychopaths can be identified with brain scans.

    Psychopaths are not just lone killers, devoid of humanity, preying on the vulnerable, who find it hard to mix with society. The truth is that you could have one as a friend, boss or even a partner. Psychopaths live among us and manage to blend into society, but you can spot them if you look hard enough.

    Perhaps we need to begin a conversation about what kind of humans we’d prefer elected to public offices? Prisoners have ‘personality tests’ on admission, such as the hare-psychopathy-checklist, and DSM-5: Antisocial Personality Disorder (Sociopathy). Politicians and prisons are both public domain institutions. Perhaps we can invite political candidates and the judiciary to volunteer themselves to undergo and publish results of their same ‘personality tests’ as prisoners and brain scans?

    Such ‘tests’ are already in widespread public institutional use and are widely written about in the peer reviewed physiology etc. domains, so we’re not asking anything extraordinary. This would give voters a huge incentive to vote for such open honest empathic conscientious candidates, prepared to ‘bare their soul’ as it were by volunteering to publish their own test results along side their campaigning material.

    Compared to those who would refuse. Perhaps afraid to publish they are amongst the personality types that are attracted to corruption power etc. with low empathy and conscience? This would give voters another set of tools to decide if a candidate appears a flawless work of angels or is the work of the devil?—psychopath-test-all-policymakers

    • Julian

      Yes, I totally agree. Having come across psychopaths in public life I realised that many people who seek office, even quite lowly in charities, councils and other similar bodies, often have sociopathic tendencies, and are absolutely the wrong people to have in those jobs. However, in our psychopath-friendly culture, the chance of implementing what you suggest seems less than zero to me.

      Have you read Political Ponerology: A Theory of Evil by Andrew Lobachievski (SP?) who wrote it in secret about the Soviet Union and how it promoted psychopaths to high office? It’s a companion to Snakes in Suits and the Psychopath Next Door.

      • Feral Finster

        Dr. Lobaczewski later emigrated to the United States and saw the same things he had seen in Communist Poland, albeit the socciopaths’ methods were on the whole more subtle.

      • Kerch'ee Kerch'ee Coup

        Requested it from Dorset library but unfortunately it had gone missing from.the local prison library branch.

    • Baalbek

      The problem isn’t so much ‘bad’ individuals as much as it is a political and economic system that selects for individuals with psychopathic or sociopathic behavioural traits (hello Anthony Blair). You can’t fix a broken system by removing the ‘bad’ people and replacing them with ‘good’ people because the ‘good’ ones will either become ‘bad’ (take your pick) or they will be ousted (like Jeremy Corbyn).

      The cover-ups, corruption, sleaze and lying that permeate present-day politics aren’t an aberration: this is how the system works. In other words it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Getting rid of the odious Starmer will not fundamentally change how the system works.

      • Blue Dotterel

        So, how might you change how the system works? I know you don’t have a magic answer. I just want to get an idea of how such a system could work. It is easy to identify a problem, but the key is to start thinking about how to solve it.

      • Natasha

        Agree, but at least the proposal to persuade just one candidate to volunteer their ‘psych test results’ could open the much needed conversation about the mental health of ballot box candidates and would be a focused positive goal to aim, no? Changing the system also requires a first step too. Better than not trying, surely? Ask Corbyn? Or Green MP Lucas?

  • Adrian D.

    The ‘data retention policy’ of Starmer’s CPS were key to both the Assange FoI & Saville ‘investigation’. For the Saville case it allowed the ‘independent; laywer to make the ‘there’s no evidence that…’ formulation that’s been so evident over the last week.

    Still yet to see anyone in our media even mention the ‘prosecuting journalists’ bit of Bozo’s accusations. Has anyone else?

  • M.J.

    “I would say human nature doesn’t change; read Thackeray and Trollope, Harold Nicolson and watch the amazing Brian Cox in Succession. All these sources give genuine glimpses of insight.”

    Thanks for this valuable bit of educational material, which I will make a note of.

    Your last sentence was true, this is worrying stuff about Starmer. Whether or not he had a hand in the decision about Savile (there are good arguments against it, so far as I can tell) it appears that he is trying to do a Blair. But I don’t think he has Blair’s charisma, so I’m not sure the next election will be like 1997. The fact of Brexit will be a constraint.

    • M.J.

      Just had an idea. Maybe you could design a course using the kinds of literary classics you mention as resource material, for students of history or politics entitled “The Establishment in History and literature: how it works”. Perhaps the Open University might be interested in something like this. It could be done at various levels in that case. In Scotland OU study is still subsidised, unlike England. In the hands of someone like yourself, it might be an effective rival to courses run for the wealthy elite by institutions like the New College for the Humanities.

    • Simon Sample

      The real Starmer story has been out there for a long time, with some of it from Craig himself.

  • fredi

    It’s great to see you back Craig, saying it as it is.

    The ‘truth’ about Sa vile was known by many including the police for about 20 years before he died, and Epstien at least 15 years.

    • Feral Finster

      Hell, *I* knew about Epstein in the 2000s, and I am a feral cat who doesn’t exactly run in Epstein’s circles.

      It beggars belief to think that none of the handlers of Epstein’s high profile friends, you know, the people paid to keep their erstwhile bosses out of trouble, none of these people bothered to take a Bill Clinton, a Prince Andrew or a Bill Richardson (to name a few) aside and warn them that this Epstein character is someone you might not want to be too chummy with.

      For that matter, it is also ridiculous to think that the intelligence agencies, with all their surveillance capabilities and manifest disregard for any kind of civil rights, none of them had a clue what Epstein was up to, none of them bothered to tell the Secret Service, MI5, MI6, whatever, that they might want to steer important politicians away from Epstein, lest something embarrassing happen.

      How naïve do they think we are?

  • Goose

    The MSM are the true enablers.

    The fury with which the UK media have reacted to the legitimate questions about Starmer’s past does indeed betray the fact he serves the same masters they do. Corbyn’s past remember, was searched with forensic rigour by these same media Starmer defenders. And Corbyn was held vicariously responsible for every CLP, PLP & NEC member’s utterance, as Peter Willsman, Chris Williamson et al can attest. Every tweet, even those of non-Party members was Corbyn’s personal responsibility. Right-wing trolls dishing out anti-Semitic abuse online ….that was apparently Corbyn’s fault somehow, for, we were oft. told by the MSM, Corbyn was responsible for the current zeitgeist.

    Oliver Eagleton produced an enlightening piece exploring Starmer’s previous role. In it Eagleton draws a picture of a devious, ‘deep state’ servant, a Uriah Heep type figure, someone who like Blair, is in awe of, and dangerously besotted by, US power.

    Starmer claims he didn’t undertake even a cursory review of the Savile case file, but surely that would be remiss given his role? The high-profile celebrity nature of it, and risk of controversy would surely push it up the chain of command, as you state.

    The errors of judgement aren’t isolated to that though. Assange, obviously, but there’s also the troubling Ian Tomlinson case in which Starmer refused to reconsider his decision not to prosecute thuggish, baton-wielding Simon Harwood, despite the fact pathologist who conducted postmortem on Tomlinson’s body producing the ‘natural causes’ finding, was suspended himself for misconduct in two previous postmortems he carried out.

    There’s the Gary McKinnon case. The autistic IT expert who had gained unauthorised access to US military databases, hoping to find information about UFOs.

    From the article(link below):

    “Theresa May suddenly withdrew the extradition order, concluding that “after careful consideration of all of the relevant material […] Mr McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights”. Starmer is reported to have reacted with fury. The next day he boarded a plane to Washington and met with Holder’s deputies to plead that this episode should not jeopardise their future relationship.”

    Starmer seems immersed in sketchy, secretive international power networks. A Trilateral Commission man with a history of acting like some go-between fixer. He’s certainly comes across as more authoritarian, slippery and secretive, and ultimately, probably dangerous, than Johnson.

    • Giyane


      Johnson is fake enough to pretend that the Uriah Heep clone makes his flesh creep, which is what Dickens observed about the English hating liars, in reality he probably sees him as an exact mirror liar to himself.

      Johnson also affected to despise Jeremy Corbyn , sneering at him after the election in the H o C. But in reality he probably recognises in Corbyn a man free from racism of any kind, like himself.

      What Craig beautifully describes here is the groupie affectations of modern politics, and the only thing they hate is anything that stinks of truth. Maybe the truth of the Gas crisis is that this little bubble of QE we call Britain, is no longer able to buy anything of real worth.
      Our politics matches our economy , bereft of real value, just as our politics are bereft of any intellectual worth.

    • M.J.

      Same q, Nicolson seems to have written tons of stuff: diaries, biographies, stuff on diplomacy, fiction, historical and political commentary … Maybe Craig would have us read the lot? To be honest, if I wanted to find out how the Establishment worked I might sooner look for a good DVD adaptation of a fictional work.

  • Jimmy Riddle

    Craig – very good to see you back.

    A very good, incisive piece – many thanks for this.

  • pete

    Craig, thank for another acute observation on the way the Union functions, it seems to accurately describe my understanding of the powers that be and their behaviour. There was never any point since Starmer took over the Labour party leadership that I would have entertained voting for him or that party, given their policy pronouncements as far as those statements had any clarity at all. When I hear folk talking about direct action I naturally get nervous, but when we are faced with two identical options what else can we do?

  • Tom Welsh

    A propos the ways in which the Establishment propagates its views and preferences, I am reminded of this interesting phenomenon involving creatures of a similar evolutionary and moral level:

    “Bacteria Communicate Using Chemical Signals Comparable to Radio Waves”

    Many bacteria (and indeed animal and plant cells) communicate by secreting special chemicals which influence the behaviour of other cells. Rather than specific instructions, this is more a matter of “something in the air” (or the intercellular fluid, as it might be).

  • Tom Welsh

    “The British Establishment likes Starmer”.

    That figures. In other news, dung beetles like dung.

  • RedStarTrout

    So Johnson throws a disgusting dead cat of a smear on the table to distract from his own crimes, a dead cat produced by the far right and long proved to be completely false, and all you can do is admire its fur and tickle its belly?
    This is disgusting.
    Even Tories have said Johnson shouldn’t have said it. It has no basis in fact and has been comprehensively disproved. The decision not to prosecute Saville was not taken by Starmer but by a review lawyer in the CPS based on inaccurate reporting, and faulty police work, by police investigators. The CPS were told that an eye witness statment was effectively hearsay and that none of the women wanted to prosecute, both of which were false. It turned out that the women had not been told by the police that there were other complainants, which would have encouraged them to continue.
    What Starmer did was order an inquiry into what had gone wrong. That was conducted by a QC and her report is available here:
    It’s worth reading, if not the whole 130+ pages then at least from page 66 which details and quoes from the CPS charging decision. Reading on, it is clear, even to a non-lawyer, that the police mishandled the case, that the women were reluctant to go to court individually but could have been encouraged if they knew about the others, that witness statements were incorrectly reported, and that with a little digging the police could have built a much stronger case – see page 103 for steps that could have been taken..
    I appreciate that you have grievances towards the ‘establishment’, but you also have a terrible habit of swallowing conspiracy theories whole. This story is a baseless conspiracy theory put out by the far right to smear Starmer. That Johnson used it to try to distract from his own crimes is bad enough. That you are happy to join him and not only repeat it but to amplify it, is worse.
    Are you really so keen to get back inside a court room?

    • craig Post author

      And who was the Director of Public Prosecutions while all the above happened? And you are suggesting he never had any involvement in the most media-interested case in his office?

      And you do realise that it is the actual basic function of the Crown Prosecution Process to see cases through by looking into and eliminating errors precisely of the kind you describe?

      • Carl

        Sir Keir was shocked when he found out *much later* what lovely old Sir Jimmy had been up to Craig, honest.

        • Goose

          Ah, the report…

          DPP Keir Starmer QC asked his Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC to investigate.

          Who would you pick to investigate your potential failings?

          • Goose

            And before feigned outrage ensues…

            Remember all the recent nonsense on BBC 2’s Newsnight, questioning ‘partygate’ and Sue Gray’s independence and impartiality?

      • John Monro

        I’d agree with you Craig. Initially I didn’t see it your way, and I thought Johnson’s comments were irrelevant and inappropriate. But I realise now that the office of Director of Public Prosecutions not only comes with a considerable salary, and much legal kudos, it also comes with responsibility. If Starmer genuinely didn’t have anything to do with the Crown Prosecution Service’s failure to prosecute Saville, then that has to be an admission of a serious failure of oversight, a serious failure of process, and a serious failure of the staff who made this decision not to consult with the Director – this was a sensational case, a renowned public figure who whilst when alive was widely and greatly admired, and the news was all over it. You couldn’t have a more contentious case to deal with. Starmer’s claims claim to be unaware of all this then must have been a serious abrogation of his public duties. Exactly the same could be said about his role in the Assange affair, he’s never been grilled about this. Again, it would have been nigh impossible for Starmer not to have been involved. The fact that he supports Assange’s extradition is all you need to know that Starmer has no humane ethics or morals, I don’t trust Starmer at all, I never have, he’s a nasty piece of work, politically ruthless, he’s a cuckoo in the Labour nest and is causing huge damage to ordinary citizens’ hopes for a better society. But he doesn’t do this on his own, at least half the Labour caucus must have similar non-existent ethics for him being continued to be supported in the party. They’re all feed at the same trough.

        • John Monro

          …and I should still qualify my comment by saying it was still irrelevant and inappropriate for Boris to make this claim when trying to deflect some well aimed criticism at his own serious failures, Boris was flailing and he’s a pretty nasty man when he does. It’s the underlying issues that need to be discussed, the bigger picture, which you have done, and how the media will play the public to pursue their own agenda, and their incestuous relationship with power and privilege.

        • DunGroanin

          DPP is also a political appointee.

          Who was he put there by and why?

          Clue: spin master general and Iraq war sexy dossier consigliere wasn’t far from it nor the whole NuLabInc NeoLib con artistes and mass murderers, to protect against legal actions.

      • RedStarTrout

        “the most media-interested case in his office?”

        There was no case – the police messed it up and the review lawyer decided they didn’t have enough for a case. The media didn’t know about, Starmer didn’t know about it, and Starmer had nothing to do with the decision not to prosecute.

        “the actual basic function of the Crown Prosecution”

        …service is to prosecute cases where there they decide there is a winnable case to prosecute. In this case, as presented by the police, there was not a winnable case.

        “eliminating errors precisely of the kind you describe?”

        Wrong. I did not describe the errors, I summarised the errors noted by the investigation set up by Starmer to find out what had gone wrong. Try reading the report, or indeed any report by any newspaper or fact checking service – there are enough of them out there.

        But more importantly, we now see you lining up to support Johnson’s smear against Starmer. This is a smear that has been disproved time and again by everyone from ‘The Times’ to the ‘New Statesman’. And today we see Johnson’s longest serving aide, who has been with him for 10 years, resign over it, along with two other advisors. Johnson’s dead cat stank too much for them, but you can’t resist telling everyone that it smells just lovely to you.
        I’ve also seen you lending your support to the thuggish dictatorships of Putin and Assad, and now you’re supporting Johnson and his far right lies, even when his old friends and aides won’t.
        Why do you have such a record of supporting the wrong people over the wrong causes? And of giving the enemies of Scottish independence an easy target.

        • Feral Finster

          It’s called “telling the truth as you see it without fear or favor” not “my tribe, my team, right or wrong”.

        • Carl

          “everyone from ‘The Times’ to the ‘New Statesman’”

          You reveal everything about yourself in that line.

        • John Monro

          Has Craig ever “supported” the thuggish regimes or governments of Assad or Putin? You’d best find the articles where he has. What I’ve seen of his opinions is that these two men, whether we like it or not, are the leaders of the countries of the Syrian and Russian citizens, and it is not our job to deprive these countries or their citizenship of their leadership when they are not threatening us in any way. Like me, Craig finds the interference of the US and the UK intolerable, and illegal. In Iraq, it has caused the death of at least 500,000 men, women and children, in Syria, not far off this number too, and in Russia, no deaths yet, but seemingly itching to get cracking with this. What Craig and I recognise is that Putin is demonised and treated as something separate from the Russian state and its people – that’s a huge error: he represents their interests, though he does so with some ruthlessness, I’ve no doubt. So when the US and UK totally ignore or deride him, they are doing the same to the whole Russian populace. And that’s wrong, and pretty stupid, very arrogant, and very dangerous. What you are saying about Craig is an undeserved slur.

          In regard to Johnson’s attack on Starmer, I do not agree with it, it is below the belt and not becoming of any person in authority, and diversionary, as it was intended. I’d also agree in part, now I’ve read a bit more about this, that Starmer really had nothing directly to do with the case around Savile, but as DPP he should have done, and that’s a major failure of the organisation he was paid to be responsible for. However, I accept that he has made a fulsome public apology, so we should give him credit for that. I still don’t like or trust him at all, re Assange, and his ruthlessness against the left wing of his own party and his lies about Labour policies. .It is difficult to describe him as a socialist in any way whatsoever, and yet he’s leader of the Labour Party. His namesake, Keir Hardie, will be turning in his grave. Hardie is often described as Labour’s greatest hero. What will history describe Keir Starmer, Labour’s greatest traitor?

      • RedStarTrout

        This lie seems to have started on Guido Fawkes in 2018. It was spread by the far right fake news site ‘politicalite’ in 2020, and then on facebook by far right groups including followers of the EDL.

        How Boris Johnson’s false claim about Jimmy Savile gained traction as a far-right conspiracy theory – by Arj Singh (iNews, 1 Feb 2022)

        Now that 4, oops, 5 of Johnsons advisors have quit over this, we only have the far right, you and Johnson peddling this lie.

        Oops again. Johnson said last night,

        “Let’s be absolutely clear, I’m talking not about the leader of the opposition’s personal record when he was director of public prosecutions and I totally understand that he had nothing to do personally with those decisions.”

        So now it’s just you and the fascists spreading the lie.
        Interesting company you’re keeping there.

        • John Cleary

          There is somebody on Craig’s blog who is actually defending Sir Shitstain.
          I’m going to post this. But I want to post in Germany first.

          You’ve been asked to provide a brief, haven’t you?

          I say that because you made the mistake.
          The mistake that often divides the serious researcher into these matters from the arriviste.

          You spelled his name wrong.
          Indeed, you only had to read your own link.

          You’re very good, very heavy. Very commanding of the fiddly bits.
          In command of your brief.

          Mistakes were made. The fog of war. These things happen.

          But they always seem to happen to friends of Britain’s ruling family.

          You DO know of the immense service rendered to Queen Elizabeth at the end of the war?

          You DO know of how your idiot Heir was duped into providing Savile with bulletproof protection in Glencoe.
          At Savile’s invitation your idiot Heir turned up in his full “Son of the Highlands” outfit. He, and Savile, and others of his retinue toured the town centre and made a big show of visiting the Post Office. Savile withdrew his pension while Charles and his lot stood there in their kilts, for EVERYONE to see.

          Not much point in going up against someone with those sorts of connections, is there?

          • John Cleary

            Just to be clear. I do realise that sometimes, these things happen with persons unconnected with the rulers, and that when I say always I do exaggerate slightly.

          • John Cleary

            RedStarTrout doesn’t seem to work on Saturdays.

            Or perhaps he works for the Guardian

            Mark Townsend, Home Affairs Editor

            Sat 5 Feb 2022 19.16 GMT

            A network of white supremacists, neo-Nazis and antisemites has celebrated Boris Johnson’s false claim that Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile.

            Is that you, RedStarTrout? Have you learned the correct spelling?

        • Martin Wiesner

          Craig, I’ve got a signed copy of Murder in Samarkand, I encouraged the SNP to vote for you as President, I sent a postcard to Julian in Belmarsh and I voted for Corbyn twice but it’s only now you tell me I’m reading the wrong blogs if I want to understand the British Establishment..

          Here’s the fellow that started the nasty rumour that’s going round that the press took any interest in Savile’s paedophilia before his death:

          Image description: 07/09/2018. London, United Kingdom. Carrie Symonds. File pictures of Carrie Symonds former Director of Communications at The Conservative Party pictured with Paul Staines, who publishes the Guido Fawkes website.

          No idea Boris was a fan of his blog though. I expect the lady on the left of the image is entirely unconnected.

      • David Ganz

        Perhaps you could make it quite clear what your views of Mr Johnson and his cabinet are?

    • Carl

      Most of the *genuinely* fake smears levelled against Jeremy Corbyn by Tory and liberal-centrist MPs and media originated on the far-right Guido Fawkes site. Why do I suspect this Red Star Trout person was not disgusted at all by those?

      • RedStarTrout

        Because I know what the Guido Fawkes site is like and I don’t read it. Life’s too short for that much shit.

        • Carl

          But not too short to twist oneself up like a pretzel trying to valorize a piece of sh&t like Sir Keir Starmer…..

    • Crispa

      This is what Johnson said in PMQ yesterday when asked about his comment.

      “On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s first point, I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but I am informed that in 2013 he apologised and took full responsibility for what had happened on his watch, and I think that was the right thing to do”.

      In other words, Starmer did accept responsibility for the failure to prosecute, and by the same token he must be responsible for the persecution of Julian Assange.

    • Fat Jon

      RedStarTrout blurted “Are you really so keen to get back inside a court room?”

      Is it just me, or does that sentence appear as a veiled threat? I wonder how you are planning to get Craig into a courtroom again? I had no idea that disseminating ‘baseless’ conspiracy theories was now a crime.

      At least you have avoided using the word ‘debunked’.

      • RedStarTrout

        I was just reminding Craig that while Johnson (and anyone else) can say what he likes in the House of Commons (apart from call a liar a liar), those of us not in the HoC have no such immunity, and repeating such a disgraceful lie is a bloody stupid thing to do.
        But if he wants to support Johnson against the facts, that’s up to him.

        • Giyane


          The day Johnson and facts meet , the chemical reaction will replace nuclear energy. Anyway thanks for the suggestion. Any other brainwaves you’d like to patent?

    • Peter Moritz

      “This story is a baseless conspiracy theory put out by the far right to smear Starmer.”

      And in what way is Starmer different from the Far Right? Maybe not very far right, but just enough to please the establishment and keep his career going to maintain ex-labour as a fake alternative, similar to the Dems and Repubs in his shining city on the hill?
      Because he follows similar politics in the name of a party once called itself socialist, he seems to be succeeding in fooling even folks that actually can read. As your comment demonstrates.

    • dermotmoconnor

      “Even Tories have said Johnson shouldn’t have said it. “

      Oh my, then that puts an end to it. Let’s take our moral compass from the ‘good’ tories.

      Wake up man, FFS.

  • DunGroanin

    The Great Knight Dope.

    His whiney nasally speechifying is reminiscent of the Major personae who was brought into dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the neoliberal/con world, with the WTO and such like – ended up with a Seat the Table, at.Carlyle with the like major evil bastards of the

    There are to this day long term CPS employees many who consider themselves trad Labour types , who seriously believe that the Assange persecution and high security jail is deserved because their hero Sir Keir intimated that JA had escaped rape charges because of statute of limitations on bringing charges ! Effing hell! I have nearly come to fisticuffs with these idiots who believe they have that inside info! Including some who knew him as young promising footballer – which explains his coiffure.

    The panto requires the change of ‘party’ in a two party state. It may well be that system is so corrupt it can no longer roll most of the people most of the time. The fake populism that led to BrexShit being sold to us led to real populism that let the Corbynites in and the many grassroots who rushed to join the Labour Party due to a promise of a return back to the Social Contract and a caring state that restricted the wealth gap and gave a common identity.

    Currently Bozo is transmuted into his own superhero Dead Cat and throwing himself on the table – but bent a clown and a naughty snarky entitled school boy all his life can’t help himself going off script I f that’s what it was.

    The Groaniads rush to defend the GKD today is as CM says a clear example of Narrative control by the Establishment as the racist state we live in delivers over 500 Covid deaths per day again and the BrexShit and Brittannia mentally Unhinged toadies run riot.

    I am still looking forward to CM’s take on the equally connected, through the Arbuthnot’s, new Foreign Minster Liz effing Truss as she stomps around.

    No need to hold back now let them have both barrels every time.

    • DunGroanin

      Argh – thumb typing typos-

      bastards of – the Empire

      Fascist State – even if it is racist.

  • Arbed

    Small error Craig:

    “His legal team had offered the Swedish prosecutors the chance to interview him in the Ecuadorean Embassy back in 2011.”

    You must mean the Swedish Embassy or the Australian High Commission – both of which were offered by Assange’s lawyers, I believe, along with phone or video interviews, which were and are common practice – if you are talking about 2011. After Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in June 2012, Sweden was offered the opportunity to interview him there around 31 times. It took until November 2016 – and the threat of the Swedish Supreme Court to cancel her “detention order” – for Marianne Ny to take up their offer.

  • J

    Other elements of the British state were also very accomodating to Savile et al.

    During the same week in July 1999, Prince Charles visited Jimmy Savile at Savile’s highland retreat in Glencoe while Prince Andrew was entertaining Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell not so far away in Balmoral. Three procurers of industrial scale blackmail in the circle of the British head of state, in the same week, in 1999.

    Any questions?

  • FlakBlag

    Gordon Dimmack has an interesting rant on YouTube about Johnston’s controversial attack on Starmer. He makes the interesting point that the establishment propagandists were quick to address the Saville comment, but almost utterly silent on Johnston’s assertion that Starmer prosecuted journalists. Presumably this bias is to prevent drawing attention to the plight of Assange.

  • Reza

    Brilliant and disturbing piece, thank you. It is quite clear too that Sir Keir Starmer QC has not changed one bit from when he buried the Savile case. He has read the 851 page Labour Leaks report and knows who’s involved and is fully aware of their criminal conduct. But instead of starting legal proceedings against the perpetrators he rewarded them and punished the innocent instead. Like the Labour Right in general, he is also virulently anti Muslim, with the consequence Labour have lost over half their Muslim supporters since he became leader according to polling last week. In almost every respect he is the very opposite of how he is portrayed by the political and media class. Yet even with them doing everything they can to boost him and prop him up his favourability ratings remain dire and get worse the more the public see of him..

  • Joe Mellon

    Not that anyone is really surprised, but when it is laid out in all its corruption and mendacity, when one contemplates the character required to behave so badly it is still a shock. It is disgusting, as is the media fawning on such people, as they previously fawned on the establishment darling Saville.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    I have no doubt Starmer is an oleaginous and noxious tool of the establishment. I don’t doubt for a moment his active involvement in the conspiracy to silence Julian Assange.
    The allegations concerning “establishment” protection of Saville should however be approached with extreme caution.
    The allegations against Saville that were instrumental in initiating Police enquiries came from the Duncroft Approved School near London, Heathrow. These initial allegations were “concocted” by residents / inmates of Duncroft in the 1960’s and were propagated through chat rooms on Friendsreunited and Care Leavers Reunited.
    1960’s Duncroft inmate, Susanne Cameron-Blackie aka Anna Raccoon (herself a participant in the chat rooms) investigated the veracity of these allegations and found them to be the fantasies of anonymous, attention seeking internet users.
    It’s a detailed, fascinating and fairly long read (17 pages), but recommended.

    The allegations against Saville were never tested in open court under cross examination. Saville was by all accounts a world class creep but the “most prolific paedophile in British history” as trotted out by MSM to sell copies? I hae ma doubts.
    Any decision by authorities to bring Saville to trial would have to factor in Saville’s lawyers using the discredited Duncroft allegations to argue that their “eccentric” client had a history of being subjected to unfounded accusations.

    • GG

      Eye-opening piece by Andrew Rosthorn/Lobster, thanks for posting. Very well worth reading. Sir Jimmy may have been a world-class creep – and he may have committed crimes – but it seems the best-known accusations were false. Well well.

  • Pnyx

    Brilliant, beautifully written, extremely insightful. This text should become compulsory reading in schools.

  • Joe Mellon

    Even in the days of your active service with the FCO Craig, the UK at least had some power and money along with the trappings of a (partially) failed state. Now it just has those trappings: a dodgy legal system; prosecution of politically inconvenient people; heavy handed policing; bizarre laws handing untrammeled power to the police and justice system; enormous inequality; oligarchs pulling the strings; corruption in public service; dysfunctional public services; widespread poverty; …
    No doubt you will recognize the features from your time in Uzbekistan.

  • Bruce W

    Craig, the reason a lot of people have a problem with your writing is phrases like “just as Savile was to be protected from actual sex crime, Starmer knew that Assange was to be persecuted over fake sex crime”. You cannot refer to any sex crimes as fake. Casting doubt over the claims made by the women in Sweden is unacceptable, whatever your own views about their motivation or facts of that case. Please don’t undermine your excellent work with lazy throwaway remarks like this. A recent hire by a Scottish newspaper who I thought highly of has dismissed your work as that of a “dangerous conspiracy theorist”; please prove them wrong.

    • glenn_nl

      What a silly thing to say. A false accusation is a fake crime. Are you just confused by semantics, or are you actually trying to say no woman has ever made a false accusation of a sex crime, and that nobody was ever had up for a sex crime that they didn’t commit (or never happened at all)? That’s as silly as Esther Rantzen’s absurd assertion that “children never lie”.

      Whoever called Murray a “dangerous conspiracy theorist” has no business working for a newspaper, Scottish or otherwise, if they are that lazy, dishonest or stupid, or combinations thereof. Murray has proved his case over and over, for many years.

      • Bruce

        Thanks for your albeit rude reply Glenn.
        The accusations weren’t tested in court so we can’t say they were false or fake. I happen to think the evidence available strongly suggests they may have indeed been false. However my point is that the word “fake” disrespects genuine victims of sex crime. Craig could easily have written “unproven” which should have appealed to his normally accurate style of writing. He clearly found ‘fake’ irresistible to contrast with the real Savile cases. Pity.

    • Republicofscotland

      “A recent hire by a Scottish newspaper who I thought highly of has dismissed your work as that of a “dangerous conspiracy theorist”;”

      Bruce W.

      That says it all really, I won’t even bother with the rest of your comment.

    • Squeeth

      @Bruce W. Facts may be inconvenient but these are undeniable; you may also have let the presumption of innocence slip your mind.

    • Joe Mellon

      > A recent hire by a Scottish newspaper who I thought highly of has dismissed your work as that of a “dangerous conspiracy theorist”;

      Tell me: did they bother to go into detail? “Craig said A.B.C., which is clearly disproved by D.E.F.” I suspect not. One can see there someone who has worked out how a career in the MSM works… Stay “on message”; grovel to the editor; disparage anyone telling the truth.

  • Republicofscotland

    Didn’t Starmer, when he was the head of the DPP, approve a decision not to prosecute any police officer for the blatant murder of Charles de Menezes in 2005?

    • Pigeon English

      If I remember well Cressida Dick was in charge of that operation/killing and the following cover up ! Since than I can’t stand her! Scandal after scandal with Met police proves me right. Totally corrupt incompetent and part of the “establishment”

      • Fat Jon

        It isn’t just the fact that Dick was responsible for the killing of De Menezes that makes me dislike her intensely; but the fact that afterwards she vanished into a FCO black hole for 2 years – where, despite being a public servant paid by the taxpayer, we were not allowed to know anything about her salary, grade, or job description. Nothing.

        And then, despite overseeing the killing of an innocent man, she suddenly re-appears as the biggest cheese of The Met.

        It all stinks to high heaven, as my late mother would have said.

        • John Hawkins

          Also apparently was at Oxford with Johnson, and I’ve heard him refer to her as ‘Cress’ which rang alarm bells.

  • John Mandleson

    I’m surprised Tatiana isn’t commenting – or is that not on the Russian Troll factories agenda?

    • Pigeon English

      Apart from you most of us like Tatyana/ Russian troll. At least she provides some interesting information and then it’s up to the reader to judge. Uk trolls are intellectually the worst! They just have “Russian troll” “How is the weather in St Petersburg” , variations on Ivan Vlad and the sophisticated one would mention Vodka. Exhibit A : John Mandelson.

      • Goose

        I assume Tatyana is an ordinary Russian citizen who posts with no hidden ulterior motive or agenda.

        Has she ever posted anything that wasn’t true?

        Calling someone a Russian troll has become the defacto standard response of those who can’t be arsed to think about anything going on in the world today. Those who would rather be spoon-fed their news information by the likes of CNN ,the BBC, Luke Harding, Rachel Maddow and co in the MSM. They find anyone questioning their ‘black & white’ worldview online deeply upsetting.

        It’s a highly pernicious trend this McCarthyesque jumping from respectfully disagreeing with others and debating topics, to flat out calling someone a traitor, who’s in collusion with a foreign state on the flimsiest of evidential bases. I think these kind of false paranoia-driven accusations are far more likely to divide our western societies in the longer than any foreign online actors could ever hope or dream of achieving. A society that can’t debate, is a society where freedom is dying.

        The people doing it probably know their accusations are BS too, but it intimidates and shuts down(or cancels) discussions they find uncomfortable among their fellow citizens. So they’re happy to continue.

        • Feral Finster

          Haven’t you heard? Anyone who doesn’t swallow the neocon agenda whole can ever always only be a “Russian troll”. Probably paid.

          We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

          “Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

          “There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

          “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

          Nuremberg Diary – by Gustave Gilbert | Interview with Herman Goering – by Carolyn Fuller (MIT personal websites)

          • Pigeon English

            During the Corbyn era those quotes were on my mind and I was asking myself if we live in neo-fascist State.
            I have less doubt now!

          • John Monro

            Feral, I think most of us will have read this extract before in some forgotten past, so it is very useful to be reminded.

    • Tatyana

      Oh, I understand you’re surprised! Just if you were smart enough to follow what I share, then you’d know I was granted some extra opportunity within Amazon and I’m busy with it.
      It’s just that sometimes people have life besides political blogs. Hobbies and crafts make people’s lives more filled with sense and communication, than you might think.
      *The most infuriated smiley here*
      [  ?  ]

      • Tatyana

        Very nice one!
        Actually, if I were into expressing emotions on this website, I’d suggest another signature across the smiley – it’s a well-known meme asking ‘if you’re russian then you can read this’.
        ☐ △
        The signs are: 5-pointed star – – that reads as ‘zh’ symbol in Russian;
        – reads ‘^’;
        square – resembles the symbol for the ‘p’ sound in the cyrillic;
        and a triangular sign – – for ‘A’.
        All together reads ‘zh – o – p – a’, I’m not sure if it has any relation, linguistically, to the ‘dupe’ word. But the sense is very much the same.

        • DiggerUK

          I will paraphrase an old English concept on free thought and inquiry. I have to say I know not who you really are Lady T, but here goes with some English wisdom.

          ‘You can’t make a fool a bigger fool by giving them foolish things to study’
          ‘You can’t make a wise person a fool by giving them foolish things to study’
          ‘But you might make a fool a wiser person by giving them anything to study’

          Keep trucking Lady T…_

    • Joe Mellon

      I have been called a “Russian Troll” many times, despite being born in Greenock of Scots/Irish ancestors going back as far as I know. Calling names is easier than engaging with the truth. Also: even if someone *is* Russian, it doesn’t make them a ‘troll’.

  • Stevie Boy

    The ‘nature’ of Saville was very well known in the 1970s, fact. Saville had a Disco in Bournemouth at the time and female acquaintances of mine would regularly mention that you had to be very careful when he was in town. It is inconceivable that ‘the establishment’ weren’t very aware of him then, but corruption at that time was rife, particularly amongst the Police.

    ‘The Establishment’ are very much a product of our public/private schools where the children of the rich are indoctrinated with the exceptionalism propaganda whereby they are taught that they were born to lead, know more (in Latin) and are better than the oiks. They graduate (no-one fails) to their exceptionalist Universities where the privilege and brainwashing continues and their career paths are mapped. Then they are let loose on the world: Infesting Government, the Forces, The Police, Banking and big business. They have their own clubs and organisations where they can meet and exchange their warped ideas and views. They marry into their own circles thereby ensuring genetic defects are maintained and ensuring their wealth is protected. Their pastimes invariably involve Horses, Dogs and killing things.
    Our society is controlled and owned by this scum. There is no hope.

  • J Kelly

    Sorry Craig, today I cancelled my subscription to your blog. Living solely on state pension, fuel bills are hard to meet.
    Hope you have no objection to my continuing reading your blog.

    • Tatyana

      Thanks for the reminder, J Kelly. This month gives hope to improve, so I will, figuratively, pick up the banner that fell out from your hands.

        • Tatyana

          Who knows, RoS, I wish I knew who knows…
          Looks like LePais published authentic papers. I listened today to some opinions. The first is it’s Kiev who made it public, despite of the private status. The second opinion was very sarcastic, alluding on beads and mirrors for poor silly aborigens.
          We are yet to see opinions of those who are responsible for their statements and wordings.
          But, the news on 2,000 troops sent by USA to Poland and Germany is scary.

          • DunGroanin

            I thought it was US troops sent from Germany?
            If so Germans shouldn’t let them come back and reclaim some of their land back from these overstayed visitors to house these Germans in need.

            As far as I understand Russians left decades ago and have no troops still in Germany (old East) ?

          • Rosemary MacKenzie

            and Dungroanin. I read Canada is moving its troops in the Uraine to the west in case the naughty Russians do attack. It just gets more and more stupidly comical, but I guess it beats doing real work for some people – State Dept US, British whatever – think of all the money that pours into these organizations – the yanks could have a health care system, the rest of us could have a universal basic income, university education could be free, anything you dream of.

    • Squeeth

      @J Kelly, If Craig or a mod can let me know privately what the sub was, I’ll pay it instead. Regards.

    • craig Post author

      Thank you so much for the support you gave. of course you are very welcome to read the blog – indeed, 99% of readers have never subscribed at all. The last thing I want is for anybody to subscribe for whom it is a financial burden. I hope all goes well with you.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.