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
  • joel

    Craig’s questioning has inspired another thought-provoking article from Jonathan Cook.

    Didn’t those enraged at Boris Johnson’s ‘smears’ of Starmer defame Corbyn at every turn?
    The media outrage at Johnson linking the Labour leader to Jimmy Savile is because his comments inadvertently exposed the dark underbelly of the British establishment
    7 Feb 2022

    Why so often are they the only writers willing to ask obvious questions of fixed establishment narratives?

  • John Cleary

    If any future student wishes to encapsulate the decline and fall of the British State they could do much worse than to compare and contrast the fates of Jimmy Saville and Nazir Ahmed within the legal system.

    The former, a great friend of Prince Charles and a lifelong servant of the Queen Mother, benefitted immensely from the sort of “mistakes were made” argument put up by RedStarTrout on this very blog. He sailed through life untouched.

    The latter, who made the mistake of tying the various rape gangs operating in his home city of Rotherham to the fanatical headchoppers of ISIS, was convicted on the basis of a staged phone conversation suposedly recorded in 2016. He got five and a half years.
    Peer Nazir Ahmed jailed for sexual offences against children – by Jessica Murray (The Guardian, 4 Feb 2022)

    I have personal experience in the use of staged phone conversations as a tool to corrupt the law.

    Back in 1999 I went after Jeffrey Archer for what he had done to me (and hundreds of others) at Anglia Television. As a result he was told to stand down from the London Mayor election. But he needed a reason.

    So he got in contact with Max Clifford, the “go to guy” in the media world, and together the pair hatched the plot to explain Archer’s decision. “I asked my friend to lie”.

    And that was that.

  • Jeremy

    Your assault on Keir Starmer with respect to Savile is poorly researched, scurrilous, and at odds with the facts. Here’s a glimpse of what actually happened:
    And no, Craig, you are not better informed, nor more honest and diligent than Nazir Afzal. When assembling arguments – as I’ve always told students and junior consultants who have worked for me – look for evidence that contradicts your initial conclusions and see if you can deal with it.
    On the Assange case, on the other hand, your analysis coincides with what we know (and that’s far from everything) about Starmer’s’s malign role in the persecution. I hold no brief for Starmer – although given the current choice of political leaders – he seems to me far preferable to the moral sinkhole currently occupying 10 Downing St.
    Final comment: it would have been useful and apprporiate for you to mention the role of the media – especially those members of the media (Guardian, BBC etc.) that pose as genuinely liberal (in the best sense) – but are, in fact, bulwarks of the establishment on which you rightly pour scorn.

    • Greg Park

      You link shows Nazir Afzal being paraded by the BBC, that bulwark of the Establishment upon which you yourself pour scorn. Can you not see what is obvious to everyone else, that Sir Keir Starmer is also a bulwark of the Establishment, fiercely protected even by alleged political enemies? He may while DPP have prosecuted other paedophiles but none of those had Savile’s connections or accomplices. In fact his zealous pursuit of other paedophiles makes his abandonment of the Savile case even more suspicious and dubious. Almost as suspicious and dubious as Tories spluttering outrage and resigning on behalf of a leader of the Labour party.

        • Greg Park

          Another Tory outraged on behalf of the leader of the Labour party. Nothing suspicious about all this .. at all.

      • Jacomo

        No, you need to do better than that. I think you need to treat Nazir Afzal as a credible witness, unless you have evidence otherwise.

        Starmer may or may not be a ‘bulwark of the establishment’, as you claim, but that is not basis for saying he failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile. Even if he did review the case, the review would say that the police said no witness was willing to give evidence – the fault here, it seems to me, lies with the police.

        This is Q Anon territory you’re getting into here.

    • Bayard

      “he seems to me far preferable to the moral sinkhole currently occupying 10 Downing St.”

      That’s Sir Keir’s job, to be politically identical but morally superior to Boris.

    • CarlJones14

      You are entirely right about the BBC, I won’t stoop to comment on the Guardian. Boris wants his book deal, his £100k speech tour and a £500k job as presstitute. The entire partygate thing is how they create drama and history so the sheeple get interested in ballot boxes. The only thing which matters is the lusion of democracy in a one party state. I don’t vote, I won’t lower myself, but Starmer might as well work for a certain Middle Eastern country.

  • Greg Park

    Matt Kennard: The British Establishment operates like the mafia. And Sir Keir Starmer is a made man.

    Understand that and everything you’re seeing makes a lot more sense.

    • Greg Park

      His consigliere is Lord Mandelson of Epstein Island /Lolita Express fame. (Although not if you rely on state or corporate news outlets).

      • John Cleary

        Greg, Mandelson is also a top-level Freemason. Check his family tree.

        He was also deeply involved in the child rape gangs that blighted the North of England from 1997 to 2010. (allegedly)

    • Jacomo

      Why is Starmer a made man? That seems a pretty dramatic statement to make.

      As I say below, he became DPP in 2008, so how is he responsible for the failure to prosecute Savile in 2002 and 2007?

      I tend to believe, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that this is a far right conspiracy amplified by a desperate Boris Johnson throwing muck in order to save his own skin. In which case, anyone who claims to be left or progressive should have nothing to do with it.

      Jeffrey Epstein, though – now there is a real life conspiracy. He is still described as a ‘billionaire financier’ but information in the public domain strongly suggests this simply wasn’t true. It seems that what he was, really, was a pimp to the elite.

      It is therefore correct to view anyone who associated with him with deep suspicion. Epstein had a huge contact book and worked hard to get the personal contact details of any influential person he met – but many of those people subsequently had nothing to do with him and were genuinely horrified to see their name connected with him.

      If you celebrated his birthday with him or stayed at one of his houses though… well, that’s very different.

  • Jon

    I don’t know a lot about the Savile story, though Craig’s view that he was “protected” doesn’t seem particularly far-fetched. I think as that story originally emerged years back, it was said that everyone in the media “knew”, but they were afraid of libel, since Savile could afford very good lawyers.

    Readers may be interested in this recent petition then, from 38 Degrees. I rather like 38D, even if they got the Laura Kuenssberg issue dreadfully wrong. But I am intrigued as to why the accusation being discussed is of “far right” character:

    Last night the leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer was subjected to a threatening hate mob who surrounded him and hurled abuse. They screamed “traitor”, “Jimmy Savile” and accused him of “protecting paedophiles”. [1] All less than a week after Boris Johnson hurled a far-right conspiracy theory – and lie – about Savile to Starmer in Parliament. [2]

    The Prime Minister of this country repeated a dangerous conspiracy theory in our Parliament, at the heart of our democracy. A week later, his opponent was intimidated by an angry mob and the police had to protect him. As one MP said: it’s disgraceful, profoundly un-British and “simply not the way we do politics in this country”. [3]

    We have a choice today – to ignore it or to stand against it. MPs from all parties are calling on Boris Johnson to apologise and withdraw his remarks – including a dozen senior Conservative MPs. [4] Together, we can show that we, the British public, won’t stand for it either.

    An open letter from hundreds of thousands of us could send that message today. Will you add your name to the letter demanding Boris Johnson apologise and withdraw his lie at the earliest opportunity? Clicking the orange button below will add your name to the open letter with one click. We’ll send a message to Boris Johnson for every 500 names added.

    • John Cleary

      It’s very characteristic.
      Whenever the Establishment wants to declare a thought “unclean” it reaches for the “Far Right” tag.

      A couple of years ago I tentatively began to explore on this blog the various child rape gangs operating throughout the Labour heartlands during the Blair/Brown years.

      I was attacked by a fellow poster. One I have time for, and I won’t name him.
      But I was surprised and dismayed by the ferocity.

      I have subsequently learned that this is the terrain roamed by that Yaxley character.
      The well has been deliberately poisoned.

      They don’t want us looking, and this is how they deter.
      Of course that just makes me the more curious.

      It all began, literally, on the day that Sir Anthony Blair appropriated the office of prime minister.
      Quite clearly, royal prerogative powers were employed. I can find no other way to account for the failures in one case of NINETEEN protective bodies. Bodies that are charged with the statutory duty to protect children.
      They fell like tenpins, one after the other. And it had to be an insider, steeped in the history and culture of the Labour Party at all levels. And of course one with no feelings whatsoever for the ordinary volk.

      I’m pretty sure that person is Lord Peter Mandelson.

      • Jon

        Hi there John. It is fairly clear that in the Rochdale case some folks were seeking to make a racially-motivated connection to the Pakistani community. I’d be quite happy to believe that some people who wanted to explore those connections in a neutral fashion were not racist, but yes, the likes of Tommy Robinson would have been shouting it to the rooftops. He is a racist, and racists will exploit outrage to further their agenda.

        The situation with Starmer is of a completely different character. I mentioned elsewhere on this blog my frustration with the economist Richard Murphy, who has also suggested that the PM was reaching into the “fascist” toolbox in making an accusation of Establishment corruption against Starmer. My question is why this label applies. Obviously, Starmer is white, so that is not the reason. I think Boris is a charlatan, but I don’t think he is smart enough to whip up a lynch mob, but perhaps that is the reason? I think this is pretty thin gruel, but moreover, Boris’ claim is not entirely outrageous, even though it is odd for such an Establishment man to be revealing that institution’s rotten nature.

        • Rhys Jaggar

          Jon, the brutal reality is that our society will be non-racist when ethnic minorities can be accused of the most heinous of crimes (e.g. child rape) and there will not be accusations of the legal charges being racially motivated.

          You know, that old Martin Luther King saying: ‘Judge ethnic minorities not on the colour of their skin but on the content of their characters’.

          I’ve not investigated enough to know whether the evidence is clear that huge amounts of organised child rape was being perpetrated by the Pakistani community or not.

          But if it were to be the case, then there should be no holding back prosecuting them in the just the same way as you would prosecute a tattoo-ridden violent member of the National Front 40 years ago…..

  • Jon

    On another note, I am an occasional follower of Richard Murphy, the British economist and promoter of MMT. I like his ideas, and I have one of his books. Unfortunately he posts too much, and makes himself quite furious every day. Posts are locked too quickly, and he is rude to an injurious degree with people who he disagrees with. He is smart, but not easy to like.

    So he was bound to post on the Starmer issue, and of course on the question of whether the media protect members of the Establishment. He has been warning against a coming fascism for some time, and while I don’t disagree that Johnson’s government has some far-right traits, Murphy is even more agitated than usual. I tried to comment some while back, on the issue of the Scottish Establishment wanting to shut down Salmond’s political career, and I got a metaphorical punch in the face for that, as I should have expected.

    Recent examples from Murphy (on his blog now, Fascism Is The Danger We Now Face, from 8th February 2022 – I won’t link, as that’ll get me into Craig’s spam trap). Frustratingly, these were in response to pretty measured comments, and Richard ends up looking like the erratic one:

    You want to wait until the coup is complete before you can spot fascism? Indifference like that precisely what lets fascists in

    So, you are willing to lie here to support fascism? You are denying the truth. Fascists are not welcome on this site.

    Then you are also deliberately lying and are now banned. Odd how many on the left could not hear what was very clearly said

    So the left-wing idiots, as you clearly are, are now aligning with the right to oppose Starmer? This is an outright lie that you are posting here. You are are banned.

    Another left wing excuser of attacks on democracy. As for [Jonathan] Cook and [Craig] Murray, I have no time for them either and never have. I have never pretended otherwise. Sorry – but those on the left trying to frame Starmer for Savile are joining in the campaign against democracy and have no place here. From now on it is straightforward deletion. The left when it meets the far right is just as dangerous.

    Urgh, I really want to carry on reading Murphy, but this feels well out of whack. And this is just on one thread – plenty more of that on others. What on earth is going on?

    • Stef

      Did we miss that Johnson also said Starmer had spent his time ‘prosecuting journalists’, by which we can only assume he meant Assange.

      • ASC

        That flew past virtually everyone, didn’t it? It’s been puzzling me since Johnson said it. Did Starmer oversee the prosecution of any other journalists or only Assange? And if Johnson did indeed mean Assange, what if anything does his comment mean? Whatever the case, it’s quite bizarre that the media itself completely ignored that side of Johnson’s equation – as journalists, you’d think they’d have some vested interest. Curiosity at least.

    • zoot

      anyone who looks at starmer and sees a defender of democracy is probably not an essential read.

    • A. Pessimist

      Jon, I feel exactly the same frustration as you about Richard Murphy’s attitude on this – he has posted a specific “explanation” today.

      He’s generally well worth reading on finance, economics, taxation, etc and in those fields well to the left of what the Labour Party has become under Starmer. And I have two of his books!
      This does remind me of the way he reacted both on the Salmond case and also to people who commented on his blog a few years ago on the “othering” of Jeremy Corbyn, and the allegations of anti-semitism and other smears, who were pointing out how these were part of a campaign to avoid the sort of policies Richard argued for ever being implemented.

      I get the impression that he wants to stay well clear of any discussion as to why our politics and economics are where they are, and of the roles of the “Establishment” and the media in keeping them that way – he sees that as a “far left” obsession, and presumably thinks he has to work within the confines of the existing system, and that we can get to a better place through our “democracy”, for which he has a fondness that many of us have lost in recent times.

      Although his current obsession with Johnson et al bringing us “Fascism” would suggest a dawning realisation that there are forces outside of that “democracy”.

      • Jon

        Thanks A. Pessimist. I fear that Murphy rather has history with Corbyn. As radical as Murphy is on MMT – and I don’t doubt he enjoys that image – I wonder if there is comfort available in coming back to the “fold” on certain issues.

        For example, the corporate media position is that Corbyn is not leadership material, he’s a ditherer, he’s too old, there’s no democratic decision process in the LP under Corbyn, etc. Now I think Murphy was at one point involved in designing “Corbynomics”, to what degree I don’t know – and Murphy came out of that process with complaints. I think I’ll never get to the bottom of whose fault that was, since Corbyn is inscrutable and Murphy is hot-headed. But Murphy is now happy to help liberals confirm their opinion of Corbyn, even to the degree he might be assisting reactionary forces.

        Insofar as Murphy might make this or that difference to UK politics, I wonder whether this strategy is a mistake. He isn’t compromising with grave doubts, he’s collaborating with enormous enthusiasm. He may yet end up propping up the status quo with fury, and unfortunately that will get him nowhere on MMT.

        I agree fully with your points on the media – that seems to be a common thread running through all his errors. He is wrong on whether Boris should be allowed to criticise the Establishment, he was wrong about the media bias in the Salmond case, and he was blinded by his dislike of Corbyn to see how the media uses propaganda operations to maintain limits on democratic choice. I like Murphy’s practicality and erudition, and honestly I don’t mind that he doesn’t have the same views I do, but his shutting down of other people’s views – and his banging a fist on the table to enforce it – is disappointing.

    • Natasha

      Richard Murphy … is also one of the authors of the UK’s (2010) Green New Deal (GND), as such, however prescient he may appear on some issues (e.g. MMT – Modern Monetary Theory), the GND defies the laws of physics, demanding many orders of magnitude impossible land and material inputs. He’s less smart than he imagines he is. For example, in 2019 he provided zero data refuting the evidence I’d given in a paper I was writing (in response to Extinction Rebellion’s aimlessness) and in my comments on his blog, giving copious evidence of the bio-physical limits to GND’s ‘plans’ – Guess how quickly it took him to ban me !?

      Shame. Because out host Craig Murray very badly needs to take on board the crucial insights MMT has to offer. Craig’s otherwise insightful analysis’ would significantly benefit from MMT’s double entry bookkeeping ‘lens’.

      A far better blog on MMT is written daily by one of the founders, prof. Bill Mitchell : “MMT provides a coherent aggregate explanation about the role of taxation in fiscal policy, which excludes any causal association between the government receiving tax revenue and spending.” (2021).

      • Jon

        I am sorry you were banned Natasha. Richard seems to be taking disagreement extremely personally, and he sees support for fascism all over the place. I was tempted to comment on one of his recent threads to add my voice to the list of left-wing dissenters, but I fear it would only earn me deletion, a ban, and some abuse.

        Sadly this means that the people who do comment under his articles are the highly regulars, and I suppose once they are established as recognisable, he permits them some leeway to disagree. I wouldn’t guess it would be safe to do that as a new commenter though.

  • Nick Straker

    Every time I read a piece by the likes of yourself Craig, or Jonathan Cook I say a silent prayer of thanks that real journalism still exists at least somewhere. Thank you

  • Brian Smith

    Thank you, Craig, for yet another well thought out & clearly written article describing the inherent corruption & connections amongst those who would rule us. It is truly scary how they play us all for fools, managing to keep us in the dark about their scurrilous scheming.

  • Mark Taylor

    Sir Ian Burnett took over from Baron Thomas, who when acting as President of the Queen’s Bench, allowed Oleg Deripaska to settle with Michael Cherney, in the case Cherney vs Deripaska. This effectively transferred $100 million of Deripaska’s illcit money into Israel, circumventing sanctions put on Cherney for money laundering by Intepol.

    Burnett was instrumental in signing off two court orders which blocked my lawsuit against Deutsche Bank which had been laundering bullion and cash to Estonia in the Danske-Estonia money laundering operation. Deripaska was the richest oligarch in Estonia. The lawsuit alleged that DB, JP Morgan, HSBC and others had rigged the price of bullion. This was proven true in 2016-2020 when the three defendants had been forced to settle in third party cases. Both DB and JP Morgan were forced to admit that they had ran a ‘criminal enterprise’ rigging bullion prices.

  • Jacomo

    Keir Starmer became DPP in 2008.

    Apparently, the main chances to prosecute Savile were in 2002 and 2007. So can someone explain why this decision not to prosecute is laid at Starmer’s door?

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.