Incredibly, I Face Investigation for Terrorism – Defence Funds Appeal 355

My phone is not being returned to me by police as, astonishingly, I am now formally under investigation for terrorism. Whether this relates to support for Palestine or for Wikileaks has currently not been made clear.

What follows is, unspun and unvarnished, my account of my interview under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act as given to my lawyers:

I arrived from Keflavik airport, Iceland to Glasgow airport at about 10am on Monday 16 October. After passport control I was stopped by three police officers, two male and one female, who asked me to accompany them to a detention room.

They seated me in the room and told me:

I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act

I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer.

I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.

I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.

They searched my baggage and my coat, going through my documents and taking my phone and laptop. They did not look at one document from Julian Assange’s lawyers that I told them was privileged.

They asked me about boarding cards for Brussels and Dublin they found and what I had been doing there. I replied I was at a debate at Trinity College in Dublin, while in Brussels I had attended a human rights meeting focused on the case of Julian Assange.

They asked me to identify the individuals from some visiting cards I had from the Brussels meeting (one was a German MP).

They asked me the purpose of my visit to Iceland. I told them that I was attending a coordinating meeting of the campaign to free Julian Assange. I said I had also attended a pro-Palestinian rally outside the Icelandic parliament, but that had not been a prior intention.

They asked how I earnt my living. I said from two sources: voluntary subscriptions to my blog, and my civil service pension.

They asked what organisations I am a member of. I said the Alba party. I said I worked with Wikileaks and the Don’t Extradite Assange campaign, but was not formally a “member” of either. I was a life member of the FDA union. No other organisations.

They asked if I received any money from Wikileaks, from Don’t Extradite Assange or from the Assange family (separate questions). I replied no, except occasional travel expenses from Don’t Extradite Assange. In December I had done a tour of Germany and received a fee from the Wau Holland Foundation, a German free speech charity.

They asked what other campaigns I had been involved in. I said many, from the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-Apartheid movement on. I had campaigned for Guantanamo inmates alongside Caged Prisoners.

They asked why I had attended the pro-Palestine demo in Iceland. I said one of the speakers had invited me, Ögmundur Jónasson. He was a former Icelandic Interior Minister. I said I did not know what the speeches said as they were all in Icelandic.

They asked whether I intended to attend any pro-Palestinian rallies in the UK. I said I had no plans but probably would.

They asked how I judged whether to speak alongside others on the same platform. I replied I depended on organisers I trusted, like the Palestine Solidarity Committee or Stop the War. It was impossible to know who everyone was at a big rally.

They asked if anyone else posted to my twitter or blog. I replied no, it was all me.

They asked how considered my tweets were. I replied that those which were links to my blog posts were my considered writing. Others were more ephemeral, and like everyone else I sometimes made mistakes and sometimes apologised. They asked if I deleted tweets and I said very seldom.

I volunteered that I thought I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of twitter. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide.

That was more or less it. The interview was kept to exactly an hour and at one point one said to another “18 minutes left”. They did not tell me why. At one point they did mention protected journalistic material on my laptop but I was too dazed to take advantage of this and specify anything.

They took my bank account details and copies of all my bank cards.


This is an enormous abuse of human rights. The abuse of process in refusing both a lawyer and the right to remain silent, the inquiry into perfectly legal campaigning which is in no way terrorism-associated, the political questioning, the financial snooping and the seizure of material related to my private life, were all based on an utterly fake claim that I am associated with terrorism.

I have to date not been arrested and not charged. Contempt of court is therefore not in play and you are free to comment on the case (although in the current atmosphere any kind of free thought is liable to vicious state action). I am safe and currently in Dublin. I intend next to travel to Switzerland to take this up with the United Nations.

My legal team have already made a submission against this outrage to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and are looking at the possibility of judicial review in the UK. We also have to prepare the defence against possible terrorism charges, ludicrous as that sounds.

I am afraid this all costs money. I am grateful for the unfailing generosity of people in what seems a continual history of persecution.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above


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

It would be extremely helpful if you could subscribe to this blog, even if only for £3 a month. Less than 0.2% of readers subscribe, and that does make it difficult. You can use the Paypal button below or standing order to the bank details above:

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


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

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

355 thoughts on “Incredibly, I Face Investigation for Terrorism – Defence Funds Appeal

1 2 3 4
  • Jon

    Solidarity, Craig. Bear in mind that every time they try to poke you, it means you have annoyed the bastards. Keep doing what you do – it keeps them in a permanent state of vexation!

        • Urban Fox

          Indeed, in cases like this it seems you’d be better off calling their bluff and stay silent until they arrest you or cut you loose.

          At least then you’d presumably have access to legal council and haven’t incrimanated yourself by making an innocuous statement/mistake that’ll be twisted seven-ways-from-sunday, to your disadvantage. And can also be brought up in any future “investigation”.

          Any solicitor worth his or her salt, will tell you don’t talk to the police, without council present ever! When you’re the subject of interest. No good can or will come of it.

          • Daniel

            I used to support Craig but as a sufferer of mild autism / Aspergers myself, I can’t help but think he might suffer from the same condition.

            In his offending tweet he says “ If that is a crime, send me back to jail.”

            And then he cries when he’s interviewed under counter terrorism legislation because he said he is willing to support proscribed organisations. Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut. Unless you have deep pockets and big connections – which Mr Murray clearly doesn’t.

            I’ve had a bit of bother in the past and I represented myself in court. But Mr Murray opens his big mouth and then runs to all his followers for financial help. It’s not on.

            If you believe what you are preaching, then study law books all night and defend yourself. Judicial review is £400 for submitting the form.

          • Justin

            That’s an interesting angle, Daniel, but I don’t think Craig could reasonably be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, as his social skills are extremely advanced. He not only understands people’s attitudes and perspectives very quickly and intuitively, but also has an uncanny knack for winning over their sympathies and enduring loyalty (as evidenced by this blog).

            I don’t agree that Craig should have kept his “mouth shut”, for that would be to cower in the face of oppressive threats of disproportionate harassment by the state for exercising freedom of political speech. Craig’s strong challenge on social media was designed to provoke and expose the over-extension of draconian legal powers by an authoritarian police state. That’s precisely what he was touting for, quite mischievously. What he gains from it is public attention to a clear abuse of the tyranny of exceptional anti-terrorism powers – the kind of tale of persecution which forms the lifeblood of this blog and attracts a loyal readership. So I think he stands to gain a net benefit from this in the long run. His courageous stand against the state’s lawfare tactics should be recognised and applauded by all of us less newsworthy plebs who could equally have our rights to free expression trampled by the same Orwellian legislation.

            Craig states clearly that “I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.” Any solicitor who erroneously advised him to exercise a right to remain silent when it is explicitly stripped away by Schedule 7 would be recommending that he commit an indictable crime – which could prove extremely problematic for both client and counsel (even if taken with a pinch of salt). As it would be an arrestable offence to fail to disclose any information that would be reasonably perceived as relevant to the question, the result could be counterproductive: he would be committing a crime, in and of itself, for which he could be immediately charged and detained for a longer period, regardless of the prospect of subsequent prosecution and conviction. So I don’t think it would be a helpful approach in the circumstances.

            I do have serious concerns over the quality of legal advice and representation he has received in the past, however. Having examined his defence against the indictment for jigsaw identification and his subsequent appeal against the judgement of contempt, I observed that the chosen grounds for defence, appeal and mitigation were relatively flimsy and the legal prose was not of a particularly high standard. His counsel failed to foresee that the initial affidavits and the appeal petition would each be summarily dismissed without detailed analysis or commentary. The eight-month term of imprisonment was longer than anybody had reasonably foreseen, and the application for mitigation on medical grounds was flatly rejected. The futile attempt to secure early release under the Home Detention Curfew scheme after serving only two months was spectacularly ill-advised, because it applies only to sentences of imprisonment within the criminal justice system and not to terms of imprisonment in cases of civil contempt; competent lawyers would be expected to know that. Predictably, Craig’s representations to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, the UK Supreme Court, and the ECHR were each summarily dismissed at the pre-trial stage, with no right to a full hearing. Such a string of manifestly unsuccessful outcomes – for such an obvious case of arbitrary abuse of judicial power, not to mention the wilful neglect of the basic human rights of liberty and freedom of expression – would suggest that the efforts of his legal counsel and representation were inadequate; such eminent advocates as Roddy Dunlop QC and Prof. Douwe Korff were arguably not worth the exorbitant expense, and the loyal supporters who stumped up for them were arguably short-changed.

          • will moon

            So you think the lawyers are to blame Justin? How does that play when we consider the Establishment’s power and the obvious corruption rife within the body-politic of the American Empire? Britain and the European Union are mere vassals of that Empire.

            Do you have legal or any other relevant experience to justify use of the word “flimsy

            Daniel you and me ain’t got nobody, Mr Murray does, why be bitter? Just let him do his thing, you do yours and I will do mine. I think it better to be a no-one than a someone, what do you think? I am sure many would disagree with me.

  • Jim McSporran

    I find myself unable to express fully how I feel about everything going on right now.
    For now I just want to state my absolute solidarity with you Craig & wish you the very best in dealing with this (latest) injustice.

  • Ebenezer Scroggie

    Has this claimed right for the police to deny the right to silence been tested at Court?

    If you had said that you would not participate in the interview until your lawyer was present, would they have arrested you under the terrorism act? If so, would then have regained the right to silence? Or does slapping the label of “terrorist” on somebody who is so clearly not a terrorist or affiliate of terrorism confer super powers on the cops nowadays?

  • Clark

    Thank you, Tony Blair, for making us all so safe – from non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and from people who publish stuff. I feel so much more secure for knowing that the police can detain me and my friends for expressing proscribed thoughts, and that I can be tried for it in a court held in secret. What a wonderful effin’ democracy I live in.

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      You’re right in thinking this is all stems from the Blair/New Labour catastrophe, Clark – and don’t forget the Terrorism Act 2000 came into being at a time just after the Good Friday Agreement and just before 9/11, when UK citizens were safer from terrorism than they had been in decades.

      [Note for our host’s lawyers should he be charged under the act for supporting proscribed organisations in his tweet: I’ve had a look at the list and it appears that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine* and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine – both of whose armed wings (the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades and the National Resistance Brigades, respectively) are believed to have taken part in the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood attacks – are not currently proscribed terrorist organisations, and neither it would seem are their armed wings. So voicing support for them in the defence of Gaza, or being unclear as to whom you wish to carry out the defence, should not be illegal in the UK.

      * Leila Khaled’s old lot – and not to be confused with the (Syrian-based) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command, which is a proscribed organisation.]

      • Lapsed Agnostic

        Further note for the lawyers: Scrub the above advice. I’ve just read our host’s offending tweet which specifically namechecks Hamas & Hezbollah – I previously thought he’d just encouraged Palestinian resistance in the event of a ground invasion of Gaza. Apologies for any confusion. Let’s hope the powers-that-be let him off with a slap on the wrist.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Squeeth. It might be best though if people on here didn’t sing the praises of proscribed terrorist organisations, lest it get our host in even more trouble. Comments on this blog have been used as evidence against him in a court of law before.

          • will moon

            “sing the praises”

            Do you have any evidence do for this assertion? If so, help me out. I have parsed Squeeth’s statement for some time and have been unable to grasp wtf he is on about. Is it a musical or a play or something else more modern like those dreadful cartoons, Southpark and such?

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Will. ‘Ooh-ah Hezbollah’ is a chant occasionally employed by the pro-Palestine crowd, including Celtic’s* Green Brigade etc. Unfortunately, since 2019 when Hezbollah was put on the proscribed list, it’s likely to fall foul of the Terrorism Act 2000.


            * Well done to the Bhoys for holding their own against Atletico last night.

          • will moon

            Got anything more modern and informative? The photograph is from 2008 and indicates very little. Your not suggesting Squeeth, is one of the people in the image are you?. If so, I think that a bit personal for my taste.

            Also, the two people appear to be in a bar or a pub. Stuff gets said in those places under the influence of a mind-bending drug

            Also, don’t you think an audio/video stream is more appropriate?. Squeeth (if indeed it is that virtual entity) and one or two random bams in 2008 do not constitute “the pro-Palestine crowd”. Unless you have more, things could go ill for your attempt to tie this doggerel to terrorism.

        • will moon

          Lapsed Agnostic couldn’t the British State treat him like, say, Jimmy Saville and just not investigate all his crimes, never mind prosecute him – in fact they could facilitate his crimes and run interference for him. Just as was done with with BBC and top people’s favourite, Sir James Savile. I wonder why Savile was not prosecuted and Mr Murray is prosecuted, don’t you?

          • Bayard

            LA, I have always imagined Sir Kid to be a cross between Kryten and Rimmer, with the humanity of the former and the empathy of the latter. Kryten certainly rocks Sir K’s “rabbit in the headlights” look.

          • will moon

            Though “old-skool Leeds-based gangsters with access to automatic weaponry” have been known to fashion “cloaks of invisibility”,they are threadbare and scruffy affairs compared to the magnificent plumage sported by this depraved sexual raptor. M Thatcher sent the filthy buzzard to Broadmoor in 84 “to break the unions”. The secret police, MI5 or whoever must have signed off on the frequent presence of this wicked rapist at Downing Street, and then following M Thatcher’s demise, his haunting of the various royal palaces. At his zenith he had full sets of keys to 36 British general hospitals, though why has never been explained or indeed, who gave Britain’s most prolific sexual criminal these keys. What do you think the logic of the security services is in this case Lapsed Agnostic, any ideas?

            Then compare this story to Mr Murray’s treatment or the carceral vengeance visited on Julian Assange. It makes my blood boil then run ice-cold.

            “Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their disaster is at hand, And their doom hurries to meet them.”
            Deuteronomy 32:35

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Bayard. Yes, there’s a bit of Rimmer in there as well – not so much Lister or The Cat though (except perhaps the vanity). On a vaguely related note, did you know that Starmzy’s immediate predecessor as Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald (now Baron Macdonald of River Glaven – wherever that is), has a conviction for supplying a Class B controlled substance? Well, now you do.


            Thanks for your reply Will. Few people in Britain (including the security services, who at that time were focussed on the provisional IRA, Soviet spies etc), knew what Savile was up to, as it’s unlikely they’d have been privy to the scuttlebutt on the Leeds side-streets that you slip down* etc. Savile raised a lot of money for hospitals, particularly Stoke Mandeville. He was trusted with the keys because Britain was a much more trusting society in the 70’s & 80’s.

            Funnily enough, I posted that very same verse of Pentateuch scripture on here a few days ago. Is that a bit spooky, or just a case of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?

            * Panic on the streets of London. Could life ever be sane again? (Fun fact: The ‘blessed DJ’ is Steve Wright – who’d upset Moz for some reason or other.)

            The Smiths – Panic (Official Music Video) (YouTube, 2m 12s)

          • will moon

            “By 1994, everyone at the BBC knew Jimmy Savile was a necrophiliac”
            Paul Gambaccini

            Since I imagine the BBC to riddled with MI5 assets, I find it hard to believe this info was not passed on, to the sundry intelligence operatives who run these assets. Information is currency in “the Secret World”, is it not?

            So a generous reading would say 94 but I am not generous on this issue. Once a person is consorting with the PM, never mind the Monarchy, if the domestic security service does not know the risk an individual poses to such key national figures, something is very wrong and if they do know the risk, it’s even wronger.

            Savile came to the attention of the police in the late 1950s, when he managed a nightclub. He had tortured some customers who had displeased him or caused trouble in his club. Some of these unfortunates had complained to the police about his extreme sadism but no prosecutions were recorded. People who can inflict effective sadistic violence on other people are a valuable commodity to certain communities (The Criminal, Intelligence and Pervert Communities spring immediately to mind). I think he started hanging out with Prime Minister, M Thatcher, in Downing Street in 1981, certainly early eighties.

            There was little or no trust during the 1980s, 15 million or however many people were losing their way of life, just so a few very rich people could get richer. M Thatcher, the Prime Minister and a Savile intimate, spoke about “the Enemy within”. She was a twisted freak, so they were like two peas in a pod – spent a lot of time together – probably an item. “Prepuce” is a word I had not heard before you used it, so I am sure you will catch my drift in view of your fascination with said mechanics

            Do you remember what thread you used the “spooky” term in? I was unaware of your usage and out of common decency would have used something else from the Old Testament. I have spoken to you before about the remarkable properties of sympathetic resonance. I know an old lady who met Savile multiple times in the ’70s when she was 16, 200 miles from Leeds but luckily for her it was in a public context. She said his patter was lewd and disgusting. She told me in the ’90s but she was a bit of a vain, shallow liar so it was hard to swallow, until of course the “truth” came out. John Lydon denounced him on the telly many years ago for his activities, again carried out hundreds of miles from Leeds. Surely the domestic security services or their operatives watch the telly?

  • Pears Morgaine

    ” The interview was kept to exactly an hour and at one point one said to another “18 minutes left”. They did not tell me why. ”

    They are required to ensure you have access to legal advice if held for more than an hour, that’s why.

    Surely they had a duty to inform you of this when they first detained you? You could’ve stalled them for an hour.

    As in the case of French publisher Ernest Moret this is clearly nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and very disturbing.

  • Scott

    Craig, a reminder that the US and UK government are doing exactly what they promised to do in the Stratfor email leaks as revealed in Wikileaks:

    “Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, TO INCLUDE EVERY PERSON LINKED TO WIKI”. (my caps)

    From the questions you were asked, it appears Assange was the primary focus. That your are now in the cross-hairs of the pro-Israel lobby, will be perceived as an added bonus.

    Donation made. Courage.

  • Ian

    This is appalling, particularly in a country which now pretends that it values free speech, free movement and free thinking. Highly reminiscent of the Soviet era, where state functionaries were deployed as thought police on behalf of snooping government agencies who hauled dissidents in for intimidating interviews without revealing any purpose or legal justification.
    In other words, this is harassment and intimidation of an individual who is clearly a target for the internal ‘security’ services of this benighted country. This individual has never hidden his support for free speech, justice and freedom – particularly of course for the entirely political jailing of Julian Assange. Because he is very articulate and can back up his beliefs with reason, evidence and knowledge of the law, he is highly resented by those who seek to manipulate public opinion in the interests of corporate power and undemocratic authoritarianism which now prevails in Western governments.
    I have no doubt the purpose of this entirely fabricated charge of ‘terrorism’ is designed to harass this person, intimidate him, tie him up in expensive legal defence which will be dragged out for months, and of course smear him in the public eye, no doubt with some selective and prejudicial leaks. The move to identify support for the suffering of 2 million people trapped in a ghetto with no defence at all (aka genocide) with support for ‘terrorism’ is the latest and worst example of the rightwing drive to silence legitimate views and the dissemination of facts which are contrary to establishment propaganda.
    You have to wonder what kind of state we now live in, and who they will come for next, as they seek to stifle and intimidate anyone who speaks up for justice, tolerance and human rights. Dark days.

  • Peter

    Welcome to the New Gestapo UK.

    We are going in a very bad direction, increasingly quickly.

    With the Labour Party all but dead under Starmer – Attlee, Bevan and Wilson et al. must be spinning in their graves – there is an urgent need for a new political organisation with heft to oppose the rapid descent of this country. At this point I don’t see one anywhere. Mick Lynch’s Enough Is Enough may be a start. Jeremy Corbyn’s Peace And Justice project … maybe.

    The way things are going, any progressive organisation that stood against the current race to hard-right authoritarianism would probably need to be prepared to see its leaders jailed, as we now see Braverman threatening legal action against journalists, the carrying of a Palestinian flag likewise, and this outrage being perpetrated against Craig.

    I wish you well with this, Craig, and if they proceed against you I have no doubt that a jury would give it short shrift.

    • Casual Observer

      In 45 when Clem, Ernie, and Aneurin came in, there was much for a Socialist party to do. By the time Harold Wilson got the top seat, and with Butskellism being the established modus operandi, socialism in the UK had nothing left to do.

      Labour has since the days of Wilson become solely a party of those so eloquently described by Orwell in his second part to The Road to Wigan Pier. It is merely a party that represents the views of bearded sandal wearers, and assorted cranks.

      No doubt there are problems of deprivation and exploitation still existent in the UK, but they are of very small beer indeed, and in no way of the scale that inspired the likes of Sydney and Beatrice, and many others.

  • Jerry Alatalo

    At this rate of “thought police” manifestation on Earth, one can envision a point in the near future when people will become law enforcement “persons of interest” for embracing a/the philosophical stance:
    “The most basic principle of all is that of not harming others, and that means all people, all life, and all things.” (All is Sacred), as spoken by the late Native American medicine man Rolling Thunder (1916-1997) …

    • will moon

      “become law enforcement “persons of interest” for embracing a/the philosophical stance”

      In the novel “A Scanner Darkly”, Philip K Dick portrays a repressive police state of such power and ferocity, that all individuals inform on themselves and anyone else they can think of, on a regular basis just to avoid the attention of the state. Technology masks the identity of the individual, so no one knows who anyone is when they report to the police. We are not that far away from the desolate totalitarian vision he describes in this novel.

      Dick spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how these nightmare police states would be manifested. He looks for the motive principle of the various security “nomeklaturas” that he writes about. In the work “Flow My Tears The Policeman Said”, as well as a security architecture of absolute ruthlessness and a plethora of possible worlds, he has a version of the internet which is some sort of planet-wide “sex-grid”, as our internet was before the marketing and salespeople got involved. The book was written in 1974 and the story behind the novel is so extreme and so traumatic, this blog is not an appropriate place to discuss it. I would recommend both novels as essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand what a police state actually is.

      This video of him speaking to a French audience in 1977 is only for those who are open-minded and resilient. He announces in the middle of this film that “we are living in a computer programmed reality” with a “Divine Programmer” and a “Dark Counterplayer” . He was conversant with Aramaic, Latin and a dozen other ancient languages and had a strong grasp of physics and mathematics as well being at the cutting edge of information theory and computing, due to him living very close to Berkeley, California and socialising with the generation of young computer nerds passing through the campus.

      Contemporary mathematics and physics is still catching up with his thought, but I read recently that globally, a large majority of professional mathematicians now affirm we live in a simulation. To borrow science theorist Thomas Kuhn’s terminology, Dick’s thought is mainly focussed on “the Context of Discovery”, ie the place where new scientific principles/laws emerge. His stories are simple and a teenager would be able to understand them

  • Goose

    No small irony here: your Oct 15 tweet was six lines long…

    “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
    — Cardinal Richelieu 1585–1642

    You must feel like you’re living in an episode of Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror,.. Kafkaesque.

    We’ve got senior politicians openly stating that Israel has the right to cut off water, power and food for over 2 million people. They don’t, it’s a war crime. And yet authorities are hounding you over a low-engagement tweet.

    • Tom Welsh

      And of course the French state that Richelieu ruled on behalf of the ineffectual king was the archetypal absolute monarchy. The one which, 150 years later, was to provoke the French Revolution.

      Edmund Burke would be surprised to learn that, after another 220 years, Britain would be as tyranically governed and as lacking in freedom as the French ancien regime.

      The British Constitution did its best, but in the end they wore it down and abolished it.

      • Phil Espin

        Tom, did the British Constitution ever really exist? It was never written down and the people were fooled into believing that made us superior to document based countries. Like the American rules based order the establishment make it up as they go along. Pretty obvious where the Yanks got the idea from.

        • Tom Welsh

          Valid point, Phil. But behind the contrast between “written” and “unwritten” constitutions looms the fact that any constitution – or law or treaty – has absolutely no force except what is given it by human judges, juries, and administrators.

          Often nowadays we see laws and treaties simply ignored. “What ya gonna do about it?”

  • glenn_nl

    Would the state apparatus have a problem if you took the position, “Free Palestine and Ukraine!” ?

    Would they state outright that calling for the liberation of Ukraine is ok, but not Palestine, because that’s different?

    Is calling for a ceasefire – on all sides – now judged to be antisemitism?

    Someone very close to me has speculated a number of times over the years, why didn’t the Jews get out of Germany when they could, back in the 1920s and 1930s. Even when it was becoming obvious how bad things were getting, they stayed on, hoping for improvement (and of course, not being willing to leave absolutely everything behind).

    Yesterday, she asked me if we were at that point now. Whether people of conscience ought to quit Britain for good and cut all ties, while they still can. I don’t recognise the UK as the country of freedoms, rights and integrity that I thought I was brought up in.

    • Emma M.

      I fear to ask those questions is to answer them.

      The only problem is, where is such a person of conscience to go? It feels to me whenever I look at the world and think there must still be some place that truly has freedoms, rights, and integrity, that there is nowhere anymore, just places in different stages of progression into tyranny. In this regard, the UK seems especially far along, much like some of the former British colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which don’t seem to have fared well either.

      I would love to be proven wrong on that, as I try to prove myself wrong on it regularly, but I never manage. Even places I’ve read into that seem free at first still seem like they have all bent or broke to foreign power and become arbitrary in some way. Maybe the North Sentinelese have all three in spite of the lack of some other things, like civilisation and the flu, but unfortunately they do not have a history of accepting immigrants.

      I truly don’t know where those of us who believe in such things as freedom, rights, and integrity belong these days. It feels as if we don’t anywhere. After years of observation and thought, the best I have come up with must be the jungles of Laos to live in a cave and practice free speech to the spiders who at least have more integrity and respect for rights than politicians, and the more time goes on, the more it sounds almost like a good idea rather than a joke.

      Everywhere is settled now and it’s a global world, and I fear there is nowhere to flee to like there was throughout history anymore, and that all we can do is our little acts of rebellion with a knowing and hope that no authoritarian state lasts forever.

      • Wally Jumblatt

        Where should one go?
        A real, adult, objective, grown-up Scotland would have been my answer.
        Perhaps in a decade when we’ve removed the cloying mustiness of Nicola’s poisonous regime, we could start to think about becoming that country.

  • steve brown

    It is reasonable to conclude that the UK is on the brink of fascism and dictatorship. These mindless grunts are just following orders. Believe in yourself.
    Courage from here in France.

  • guido

    it seems that Section 7 of the Terrorism Act is open and ready for abuse having no relation whatsoever with terrorism, as it could be suspected when it was approved and enforced into law in 2006

  • Macthomaidh

    In the preamble to Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689, it describes how the King had `invaded the fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power”. The Terrorism Act 2000 is another weapon of that “arbitrary despotic power” in this particular fascist state. A state, where even the so-called leader of the so-called opposition is a bedfellow and endorser of warcriminals and warmongering monsters. You Craig, are another) victim of that “arbitrary despotic power”. The tide must turn. Donation gladly sent.

  • koko

    “the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide” is a very interesting way to describe burning children alive, tearing civilians and children eyes before killing them, just for the fun of watching. Raping a girl and then drag her bleeding body naked in the streets of Gaza to the triumph of the croud.

    We have so many evidence because they are not ashamed of what they did, it looks normal to them so they post it as a story, waiting for likes.

    • glenn_nl

      The Palestinians did this – all of them? Even the children, who make up half the population of Gaza?

      Does indiscriminate bombing and the cutting off of food, water and electricity to a couple of million people count as “self defence ” to you, and perfectly reasonable to kill many thousands in return?

    • dean

      ffs, what are you basing this on? What evidence? Believe it or not, israel lies. 40 dead babies? Empirically proven to be bullshit. Children did die but if you hold a rave next to an illegal prison in the stolen homes of the prisoners then what the fuck do you expect to happen? Colonists make poor parents is the take away message.

      • Lapsed Agnostic

        If I was attending a rave in a modern country that has around *four* times the GDP per capita as East Germany did in the 80’s, dean, not to far from a border (less than a twentieth of the length that the German internal border was) separating me from terrorists/freedom fighters whose founding articles contain lines about talking trees and stones telling them to kill Jews, what the **** I would expect would be for the authorities to have constructed a properly-manned, half-decent fence between us. If I got shot or kidnapped, I wouldn’t be blaming my parents. Maybe it’s just me.

    • Bayard

      ““the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide” is a very interesting way to describe burning children alive, tearing civilians and children eyes before killing them, just for the fun of watching. Raping a girl and then drag her bleeding body naked in the streets of Gaza to the triumph of the croud.”

      Yes it would be, if any of those things actually happened, which they didn’t. That you are prepared to believe that they did says a lot about you and none of it very complimentary.

  • T

    This is pathetic and legally dubious to say the least. The furious lashing out of a political class who know the public are now seeing clearly exactly what they are. It is of a piece with Keir Starmer condemning “in the strongest possible terms” some individual issuing “a Jihadi chant”, even as he enables barbarism on the shores of the Med. The UFA* needs to smear and silence genuine moral voices like yours and Corbyn’s in order to resuscitate their position as the nation’s leading moral scolds. They are desperate at this moment.

    • pete

      I can’t think of anyone less likely to remain silent than Craig, however under the terrorism act you can be held for up to 28 days, thanks to Tony Bliar. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Nu Labore.

      • Lapsed Agnostic

        The length of time you can be held without charge under the Terrorism Act was reduced to 14 days in 2011, pete. Initially, Blair wanted the limit to be 90 days – and, according to a Sky News poll, 72% of the British public agreed with him.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Bayard. The poll was in the wake of the 7/7 bombings – which are still responsible for the largest number of deaths from terrorism in one day on mainland Britain – so that might explain it to some extent.

  • Fat Jon

    I really did not believe I would live to see the day when the police can detain someone for disagreeing with establishment policy.

    I have increased my monthly subscription; and hope that your case with the UHNRC serves to embarrass our so-called democratic government into backing down on the constant harassment of those who speak out against their fascist activities, and their unbelievable support for genocide overseas.

  • Vinnie the Pooh

    Well, pretty obvious no? There is a hit order out on you, and there is a lot of ways to make your life hell within the remit of the law, or slightly bending it, unfortunately. Forget about democracy-shmamocracy, rule of law and somesuch, I think UK is way past that.

  • Ehud Dror

    The UK has a duty and a right to protect its borders from operatives of Hamas and other terror organizations, and you have the right to continue to provide *indirect* support to those organizations in their continued campaign to destroy Israel, and the West. So you keep doing what you are doing, and the UK should continue to work the opposite. Or, you can choose better friends.

    • Werner Vornholt

      Sorry that you failed to understand my motivations for posing the questions, Ian: I’m taking the piss.

      To clarify –

      Firstly, and most importantly: anyone who wants to know Craig’s address can just look it up; it is neither secret nor difficult to find.
      Secondly, posting it but then redacting it looks a bit fishy. I assumed its inclusion was meant to lend authenticity to the “unspun and unvarnished” schtick in the article, but it was evidently an oversight.
      Thirdly, realising their “mistake” and then redacting it in the main body of the post but failing to redact the thumbnail looks like incompetence on the part of his moderators.

      [note to moderators: if you wish to redact CM’s address, do take notice of the third point, but also bear in mind the first and second – ie perhaps find something else to occupy your time. I’m taking the piss again.]

      All in all, not a good look.

      [ Mod: For your info, Werner – moderators don’t have the authority to change images in Craig’s blog articles: we’re just responsible for BTL comments, the discussion forum, and occasional proof-reading. We also don’t have the command line access that is required to regenerate thumbnails. But I’ll pass your remarks on. ]

    • Steve

      Hamas are terrorists, the Jews say so, the Jews also told you that they are God’s chosen people, however, Jesus said “suffer the little children to come unto me”

      • GreatedApe

        It might help if no kids were raised in denial of what we all are, so we could better deal with hierarchical psychology. Was in a park gym in London this summer these kids were chatting and the youngest said something islamic about angels being real, creation or something. I asked him nicely if he’d heard of evolution and he said is that trains? I said i meant about how animals naturally came to be, and he said something sweet about seeing puppies in clouds.

      • Tom Welsh

        Who knew that you could write a book saying that you are God’s favourite people and everyone must do as you say – and the suckers actually believe it!

          • will moon

            Keir Starmer is a Jew, having recently converted and is a Zionist. From what he has said since October 7, clearly he is a fanatical Zionist.

    • Ian

      Supporting, and caring about, the Palestinian people, in the face of the most brutal, vindictive and sadistic state – which possesses huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, compared to the Palestinian’s lack of any defence at all – is not ‘supporting’ Hamas, as any fool knows. Holding 2 million people in a ghetto, depriving them of food, water, medicine, and bombing their schools, hospitals, mosques, churches and homes, so they are destitute, homeless and easy targets for carpet bombing is real, long term, terrorism on an unimaginable scale, which anybody with a sliver of humanity left would deplore and condeman as outright evil. Just imagine they were Jews. What then? Turn away and say it’s their own fault for not acquiescing in their own vanishing?

  • Ebenezer Scroggie

    Anyone else remember this? It was the first time the new Terrorism Act was invoked:

    “Daily Telegraph:
    Heckler, 82, who dared called Straw a liar is held under terrorist law
    By Andrew Sparrow
    29 September 2005

    Labour had to apologise to an 82-year-old activist last night after he was roughly thrown out of the party conference for heckling Jack Straw on Iraq.

    The leadership faced angry protests from MPs and party members who accused it of stifling dissent and abandoning traditions of free speech.

    The Foreign Secretary was telling the conference that Britain was in Iraq “for one reason only” – to help the elected Iraqi government – when Walter Wolfgang shouted: “That’s a lie and you know it.”

    Mr Wolfgang, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a Labour Party member since 1948, was immediately surrounded by security staff in full view of the television cameras and ejected from the hall in Brighton as officials revoked his pass.

    When he tried to re-enter the secure zone, he was stopped by a police officer citing the Terrorism Act.”

    • Casual Observer

      Ah, Jack Straw. When ever I hear that name now I have a sort of Pavlovian reaction that makes me recall our host’s description of how Jack Straw MP treated potential voters in his constituency with a free curry lunch.

      Given that those in Blackburn who may have been attracted by such an offer, might be also inclined to be supporters of the Palestinian cause, and that such a sentiment may well be significant in many of the so-called ‘Red Wall’ constituencies, the current stance of Starmer et al is quite bizarre.

      How easy it would have been for them to condemn all violence and urge peace efforts.

    • Cynicus

      I am old enough to remember brave Walter Wolfgang (1923-2019)! He was later re-admitted to the conference and received a standing ovation.

      He was afterwards elected to the National Executive Committee. In those days Labour was a genuine political party, and not the Mickey Mouse institution it has since become.

  • Peter Mo

    40 Terrorist: interpretation.
      (1)  In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
       (a)  has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
       (b)  is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
      (2)  The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.

    • Casual Observer

      It might help to consider Alice’s encounter with Humpty Dumpty ?

      “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    • Bayard

      “before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.”

      Don’t you just love that retrospective legislation enabling people to break the law before it was even made?

1 2 3 4