A vast cloying morass of injustice has visibly submerged the British legal systems in anything connected to Palestine.
In a quite incredible series of linked and kinked events this week, the senior KC representing one of the Palestine Action activists in the Filton trial was in the Court of Appeal arguing against being found in contempt of court for his summing up in that case – a speech which I described at the time as the greatest legal speech I had ever read.
He fell foul of the quite incredible conditions imposed on the defence in that trial – they must not refer to the motive of their clients for action against Elbit, they must not refer to Elbit’s role in the Israeli defence industry, they must not refer to genocide or to ethnic cleansing in relation to Gaza.
Compare this to the public statements of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley and of then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper where they claimed that one of the defendants had attacked a policewoman with a sledgehammer – a blatant attempt to influence the jury in the Filton trial.
What is very plain in the Filton case, as in the Alex Salmond case, is that contempt of court rules are only applied to the defence and not to the prosecution.
Juries had been shown by the prosecution the notebooks of the defendants, with all information about Elbit and their operations removed.
The barristers were also forbidden from telling the jury that they have the right to acquit according to their conscience, irrespective of the direction of the judge.
The first Filton trial famously failed to return any guilty verdicts at all, and all defendants were found not guilty of aggravated burglary, with no verdict returned on more minor charges.
This was extremely important as the aggravated burglary charge carries the meaning of a deliberate purpose to cause harm to persons, not just to property (the phrase “aggravated burglary” does not obviously carry the connotation of intent to harm persons to the layman, but that is the purport in English law).
The acquittals on aggravated burglary were particularly annoying to the Starmer regime because this accusation about intent to harm people was a key part of Yvette Cooper’s entirely dishonest argument for proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
The Filton verdicts were a major setback for the government, and the unfortunate KC was dragged in by the judge for the unforgivable offence of securing the acquittal of his client in a situation which was extremely embarrassing to Starmer and Cooper.
The subsequent contempt case could lead to both the KC being disbarred and to his imprisonment. To add to the incredibly sinister story, this case is entirely secret. It is illegal to mention the contempt case at all – and could lead to imprisonment for contempt of anyone who mentions it.
Yet that is only the first layer of the heaving mass of injustice around this case.
The government has attempted to make it illegal to inform jurors of their established right to acquit according to their conscience.
In 2023 Trudi Warner was arrested standing outside a Crown Court in a climate activist trial, for holding a sign which said “Jurors. You have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience”. This legal principle is on a marble plaque in the Old Bailey.
The High Court dismissed the case against Warner, stating that she was informing the jury of an established legal principle. In 2024 the government dropped its appeal against the High Court ruling in Warner’s favour.
Yet astonishingly, the Metropolitan Police have again arrested Trudi Warner, for standing outside the Filton Trial holding the exact same sign. They arrested others holding the same wording as well.
The Metropolitan Police claim different grounds for arrest this time: under section 14 of the 1986 Public Order Act they banned the small protest by Trudy and a handful of others. That the protest threatened serious disruption or intimidation – the bar under the Public Order Act – is plainly a nonsense.
The increasingly fascist Metropolitan Police are simply seeking to find a way to get round the High Court judgment and prevent the jury being informed of their right to acquit.
In Judge Johnson the government have an entirely complicit judge in limiting what the jury may hear, and in the Metropolitan Police they have an entirely compliant tool in keeping knowledge of their rights from the jury.
Now we have to delve still another layer deeper into the stench of corruption around this case. The government decided to go for a retrial of the Filton case on the more minor charges on which the jury had been unable to reach a verdict, having returned not guilty on the major ones.
The limitations of what the barristers could say in their defence speeches were so extreme, that five of the six defendants in the Filton Trial decided to dismiss their barristers before the end of their case and make their closing speeches themselves.
Yes, you read that right. The barristers were forbidden from making the defence case, so the defendants had to speak for themselves.
To be plain, the defendants equally face the risk of possible imprisonment for contempt of court for breaching Judge Johnson’s orders in what they said to the jury, but unlike the barristers they do not of course face professional disbarment.
And what great speeches they all made. The Real Media website has done a fantastic job in documenting the trial, and I highly recommend you to read the closing speeches in full. But just this little segment from Charlotte Head’s closing speech in the Filton trial casts some light on what a monumental attempted stitch-up the egregious Judge Johnson has presided over:
The first thing that you might have noticed about the prosecution case is that they didn’t call a single security guard to give evidence. The prosecutor asked you to see things from Volante’s perspective [described in evidence as the most violent of the Elbit security guards], and you could have. She chose not to call him or any security guard to actually give evidence, because they know that they were the ones intimidating us. And if that wasn’t true, they would have called them to the stand.
The truth is that the security guards, like Elbit itself, have been shielded and sheltered by the state.
If this was a shop that we’d broken into, which I would never do by the way, then you’d expect the owner to come to court. You’d expect him to list all of the items that were damaged, and describe the impact it’s had on his business. But where is Elbit? You’ve heard a very detailed and very boring inventory of the tools we brought to dismantle the weapons. You even have – behind Tab 10 – pictures with information like the brand and the weight and the material of every single tool. So where is that information about the weapons that we dismantled? If this case is supposedly only about damage, then where is the inventory?
And I think that brings me to the CCTV. Everything that we’ve heard about the CCTV system came second-hand from PC Sarah Grant. Once again, the prosecution did not want to put an Elbit Systems employee in front of you to answer for themselves. They know that the explanation of why there is missing footage doesn’t make sense. The low frame rate cannot explain the missing footage. You’ve seen it. We spent way longer than a minute in that alcove. No matter how low the frame rate was, it’s impossible that nobody was pictured on that camera, where Volante was being incredibly violent. Coincidentally, we don’t have any body-worn footage from the alcove either. We also don’t have CCTV of the area where Luke [another Elbit guard] had Lottie screaming on the floor, or body-worn. Or when Mr. Volante hit Jordan in the neck with a sledgehammer – you only saw that because it’s captured on police body-worn.
PC Phoebe Webber accepted that there were CCTV cameras that covered all of these areas, and we know that security all had body-worn cameras. Sarah Grant accepted that someone would have to set the frame rates, but of course, Witness Alpha [described as a senior Elbit employee whose identity has been withheld from defence lawyers] , who hasn’t been here at all, couldn’t remember the password to access the settings. Could anyone really believe that a multi-million pound weapons and technology company that specializes in surveillance drones didn’t have a CCTV system that worked?
Not only were Elbit shielded from anything at all being said about their supply of weapons to Israel, not only was it forbidden to mention genocide and ethnic cleansing, but some key Elbit witnesses – I presume from Mossad or the IDF – were granted anonymity.
I previously reported that the police left the recordings of the video evidence, in their police evidence bags, in the custody of Elbit for over a year. Throughout this prosecution the Metropolitan Police, Elbit, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judge have been a part of a seamless zionist security operation.
This is from the closing speech of Zoe Rogers:
After hearing the 6 of us give evidence you might think it odd that what’s happening in Palestine has gone completely unmentioned, you might have noticed certain words that have been blacklisted, that until our closing speeches the word genocide wasn’t said once. There have been interruptions from the prosecution, quick subject changes from our barristers – it’s almost as if whole topics of conversation have been banned. The prosecution know full well that we are right that this factory is supplying weapons to Israel to be used in Gaza. That is why they are choosing to suppress it rather than contest it. The prosecution have decided that the legality of Israel’s actions is irrelevant in this trial. Because they know you could not in good conscience find us guilty of anything if you were allowed to hear the whole truth.
…Now I’m an ordinary person, with friends, family, a place at university, a cat I love, basically a whole lot to lose by going to prison. But you know that we all actually intended to be arrested on the 6th of August. We intended to go to trial. And I won’t speak for the others here, but the reason I was willing and confident enough to allow that, was because I knew that now, 20 months in the future, I would be standing in front of 12 ordinary people like you. Not politicians, not legal experts, not barristers and judges wearing 400 yr old horsehair on their heads, but a panel of my equals. You are the best counterweight to power and tyranny within the legal system as it exists today. It is a privilege to be judged by you. And I don’t say that to flatter you, but because as you’ve already heard, the right to trial by jury is under threat, with a Bill passing through the House of Commons as I speak. Juries as we know them today may not be around for much longer, precisely because your pockets cannot be weighed down by bribes from the rich and powerful. (And also because juries often refuse to convict in these kinds of cases). And that is a very powerful position for you to be in.
No one can tell you to convict in this case, not even the judge. In fact, the judge is explicitly not allowed to tell you to convict! You, and only you, can decide on your verdicts. But not only can you acquit us, but you have the RIGHT to acquit us. No one can punish you for your decision. No one can even ask you why.
On Tuesday the jury will start its third day of deliberation. Once the verdicts are in, it is going to be fascinating to see if Johnson attempts to find any of the defendants in contempt of court for their closing speeches. They went further than the barrister who has already been attacked in this way.
Let us now leave Woolwich Crown Court (a physical adjunct of Belmarsh prison) and head to the Royal Courts of Justice, where the Starmer regime held this week its appeal against the High Court finding that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful.
I have always suspected that the British deep state will ensure the proscription is upheld at the end of a charade of a legal procedure. I was not diminished in that belief by this article by Joshua Rozenberg, partner of lunatic uber-zionist Melanie Phillips, in which he argues that the extremely unusual forming of a five-judge court of appeal, including England and Wales’s two most senior judges, is to bolster the court with sufficient seniority convincingly to overturn Dame Victoria Sharp and her three-judge panel.
The hearing did not on the surface go terribly well for the Starmer regime. Their primary argument was that the proscription had been democratically approved by parliament and the courts had no right to interfere.
In terms of judicial consideration, the assertion that, in effect, the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply if parliament approves an Order which contravenes it, is problematic (though the English courts would probably uphold it in primary legislation).
In the real world, of course, the sham of democracy ignores the fact that Cooper, Starmer, Lammy and the lot of them are bought and paid for by the zionist lobby.
Huda Ammori’s (co-founder of Palestine Action) legal team made the obvious points of the effect of the proscription on human rights and freedom of expression. This was bolstered by a letter of 1500 signatories openly defying the law and declaring support for Palestine Action and opposition to genocide.
Ammori’s team were able to make rather more of a couple of points that had, in my view, been given insufficient prominence at earlier hearings.
The first is the argument that the measure has a disproportionately severe effect on the Palestinian community in the UK, who feel suppressed in protesting against the devastating attacks on their own people and risk false classification as terrorist.
It is worth noting that Israeli interests were extensively consulted before the ban was imposed, but not one single Palestinian was consulted.
The second is a more pointed emphasis on the astonishing argument by the Metropolitan Police and the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre in the papers recommending proscription, that designation as terrorism is necessary because Palestine Action keep appointing good defence lawyers and achieving acquittals.
This acknowledgement that the proscription is an attempt to undermine the criminal justice system should be key to the case. It is not a point that to date the judges have been willing to tackle – no judicial decision has acknowledged it so far.
The Starmer regime is intent on the entire subversion of the supposed protections of British justice. It is operating purely in the interests of a foreign state, in order to protect Israel from any potential consequences of the public revulsion against its genocidal onslaught on the Palestinians.
To complete this circle of crazed authoritarianism, after the open hearings on the government appeal over the proscription of Palestine Action concluded, there was a day of “closed hearing” where secret evidence is heard. Huda Ammori will never be told what was alleged in these hearings and never have a chance to answer.
I am the “petitioner” in the parallel judicial review in Scotland. That case should have concluded by now, except the Starmer regime has been introducing “secret evidence” in closed session. I do not even know when such sessions are happening, let alone what is said in them.
My “interests” are “represented” by regime-approved lawyers who are forbidden from any communication with me. We can guess at the lies that are being told in these closed sessions – such guesses might range from Iranian funding to bomb manufacture – but we cannot even testify they are lies.
The Starmer regime has now, for the third time, introduced a motion to “sist” the Scottish judicial review until after the English case has concluded, on the basis that it is undesirable for Scottish and English courts to reach differing conclusions.
This is the third time they have attempted to sist the case, so far without success.
We have applied for interim relief – that the proscription should be suspended in Scotland pending the judicial review, because it is so delayed, in order to avoid people being convicted of terrorism on the basis of an Order subsequently found unlawful.
The Starmer regime is making the process as long and drawn out as possible, partly to postpone a potential politically damaging defeat, but mostly as a matter of lawfare. Each hearing drains our financial resources. I am afraid this tactic against us does have the potential to succeed.
Unless we can widen our donor base we are not going to get this case over the line. That would be a great shame, because it is crucial not only for freedom of expression, not only as a stand against the genocide in Palestine, but as an assertion of the independent rights of Scotland and its legal system.
If you can help fund the case please do so. But if you know anybody else who has the means to make a contribution, and who supports the principles for which we are fighting, please speak to them and see if they can help. I am extremely grateful to the thousands who have contributed so far.
You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the lawyers, or through this blog.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/scottish-challenge-to-proscription/
Alternatively by bank transfer:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Or crypto:
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
With an elections charade coming up shortly,
why should anyone bother?
We don’t live in a democracy, and we never have…?
I believe that it is the privilege and duty of every citizen in a democracy (like the UK) to vote. It is the power of a ruler for a day, with the accompanying privilege and responsibility.
Refusing to vote means that you exert no influence at all. The party you would least want to be in power has a greater chance of coming in.
I was thinking this morning that in America, people who voted for Trump will have to learn their mistake through suffering the consequences. But the same applies to the ones who let him in by default. He was elected partly because one third of the electorate couldn’t be bothered to vote.
It is strange that people have died to get themselves or others the right to vote, while those who have it don’t wish to use it. I’m thinking of working-class people in this country two centuries ago, women one century ago, black Americans, black South Africans and subjects of colonial rulers less than a century ago.
But tomorrow almost everyone reading this will have that privilege. Go and use it!
Meanwhile Sir Mark Rowley and Starmer have both approved of police kicking a person, who has already been tasered and is collapsed on the ground, in the head repeatedly as perfectly reasonable behaviour when arresting someone.
Starmer on the Today programme this morning was the most passionate I have ever heard him supporting British jews and Israel. He even had the nerve to say he protected free speech.
Starmer’s claim that Zack Polanski is “not fit to lead any political party” is rather ironic.
Also, the Guardian had this to say:
“Footage of his arrest shared on social media shows two officers appearing to kick the 45-year old on or near his head”
Well, that is an interesting take on the situation.
Rowley has stated that the kicks delivered to the man’s head were justified because he may have had a bomb on his person. Does anyone here remember Jean Charles de Menezes?
Or the Gibraltar Three.
Or Mark Duggan.
Etc. etc.
But wait. Everything the state does to its victims is right, right, because the state is always right, and it’s antisocial and wicked to say otherwise in public.
Can we imagine what things are going to be like this country come Son of Covid?
He is, of course, supporting British Zionists, not British Jews. He is a self-professed “unqualified Zionist” so it’s not surprising. But any connection to the Torah is accidental, and his attitude to the ‘wrong sort of Jew’ – like Zack Polanski or the many Jewish genocide protesters he’s arrested as terrorists – is well known and often repeated.
One market for the Zionist gangsters’ propaganda has always been Jews themselves. They love it when there are headlines saying Jews have been attacked and they’re the ones saying how bad it is and what to do about it, as if they, you got it, represent the Jews. Incidentally this is also one of the functions of their fake interest in past German crimes which especially took off in the early 1960s (Eichmann trial). That had nothing to do with the schoolboy explanation that they wanted governments of goyim to feel sympathetic to their landthieving ethnic-cleansing colonialist cause.
Mr Sturmer seems every day to become a person who would fit rather better into a certain past European regime.
Although today the people giving orders are rather different ones.
“He even had the nerve to say he protected free speech”.
I expect that he does. Did he by any chance mention “free speech” by whom?
Obviously not British people.
Bernard Shaw suggested, half in jest, that things might go better if China would send a Chinese person to run Britain. Even he did not imagine that one day we would have a Martian in the job.
Funny Shaw should say that. The British civil service was modelled partly on the Chinese model beginning in the 1870s.
I expect Shaw was aware of that. He was not the foolish old dreamer that he is sometimes portrayed as.
Of course Starmer approves of zionists kicking defenceless people in the head, even nuns, it’s the nature of the beast.
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2026/05/02/israel-video-shows/
Indeed. What’s the point of being the Master Race if you can’t bully, torment and kill the lesser breeds without the law?
“He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
“Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
“‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing’”.
– George Orwell (O’Brien to Winston Smith, “1984”)
There is a lot of material in Craig’s posting. I propose a cooperative endeavor going through all the points raised producing legal argument, case law and logic which can be used in court.
For example how is this countered?
“they must not refer to the motive of their clients for action against Elbit, they must not refer to Elbit’s role in the Israeli defence industry, they must not refer to genocide or to ethnic cleansing in relation to Gaza.”
We need legal precedent etc. and everything else to present a concise counterweight. With the help (not reliance) on AI legal costs can be reduced. I have felt for some time lawyers even the most committed have not been as effective as they could be.
example from AI
Is motive a factor in sentencing of serious crime?
Yes, motive is a significant factor in the sentencing of serious crimes, though it is typically irrelevant when determining a defendant’s actual guilt. While most criminal charges focus on intent (the resolve to commit an act), sentencing focuses on blameworthiness, where the “why” behind the act can either increase or decrease the severity of the punishment.
We teach children not to touch exposed electric cables but especially not to grab them with their hands. Why? Because your muscles clench under electrocution so it becomes essentially impossible to let go of the electric cable.
Something tells me that being tasered is the whole reason why the lunatic didn’t/wouldn’t/couldn’t let go of the knife.
The repeated kicking in the head is wholly unjustified. It is reminiscent of George Floyd and will send shivers down the spine of any person sympathetic with BLM. That conduct is trained into Police officers…apparently by the IDF.
If necessary, they could have kicked him in the testes (given that the logic to getting a dog to unclamp their jaws from around a person is to punch or kick the dog in the anus)* but the fact that electric shock makes your muscles clench – and Police officers would know this – means that this is a very deliberate tactic (so the excuse of he wouldn’t let go of the knife doesn’t stand up to scrutiny) and that the decision to repeatedly kick him in the head was not justified by him clenching the knife. nor does the supposed IED threat when SOP would be to get the Public as far away as possible in the case a detonation was imminent.
This also comes in the context of an inquiry being opened into Orgreave.
Given past performance, I AM surprised that they didn’t have him shot.
*Note: I am wholly against violence and cruelty towards animals. I am merely spelling out a logic the Police could more reasonably have used.
Surely this absurd rigging of the legal system makes things worse for those in power. The savvy government would allow protests because they reduce the immediate social outrage. Now we have the pressure cooker with the safety valve welded shut – at some point it will explode. It indicates weak people panicking, presumably because of the pressure they are under from some hidden (so to say) agency. The pressure must be very personal, image existential.
It would do, if we had a free press. But the MSM, including the BBC, are controlled by wealthy Zionists. (Owen Jones is facing a libel lawsuit for pointing this out in the case of the BBC. It should be an open-and-shut case – he has cited ample, irrefutable evidence of the BBC’s pro-Israel bias – but civil lawsuits in the UK are usually decided by which side can spend more money on lawyers and appeals.)
The great mass of British people believe what they mostly see in the MSM. It doesn’t help that (as in 2003) both of the parties with most representation in Parliament are reading from the same script on this.
Actually, Townsman, Jones won that case:
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/03/12/owen-jones-beg/
He won one aspect. The case is still not over. Unfortunately.
– “The great mass of British people believe what they mostly see in the MSM.”
If that were true, the majority would support the genocide. They don’t.
The real problem is that they don’t have enough time after the pressures of life. Once you’ve found good journalism, as we have here, it’s easy to forget that most people don’t know how to find the good stuff on the vast internet, and don’t have time to go looking for it, sorting the wheat from the far more prevalent chaff.
Yes, the idea that ‘everyone’ believes what they see in the media is part of the mainstream media’s own narrative. ‘You can’t believe what you read in the papers’ was a common saying in the UK long before the internet. The scorn of ordinary people’s wisdom is part of the establishment’s blame game. They bandy around same stock insults BTL in the mainstream media, about the mass of voters regarding Brexit, Johnson, Trump, covid especially, as well as other issues. This conveniently ignores the fact that these ‘stupid’ voters were presented with very poor choices in the first place, and that even the semi-informed or averagely intelligent or ‘too busy’ were also craftily browbeaten or deceived by the media or politicians into making the ‘approved’ choices. Corbyn’s huge vote tally in 2019, won despite relentless mainstream propaganda is a classic example that not everyone does believe the media.
Do you think those in what you call the hidden agency are not savvy about what they are doing?
We’re in May now. It could certainly be an interesting summer in certain British cities, when you get the majority of native Brits in some areas feeling great about themselves because they’ve oiled their tattoos and knuckle-walked into polling stations to vote for Reform, while the majority of non-white Muslim Brits in nearby areas, or in the same areas, realise exactly what’s going on.
Ever thought that the version of democracy you’re pushing is part of the problem ?
Re: Paragraph 4
Can’t find anything about Mark Rowley* or Yvette Cooper claiming that a Palestine Action activist attacked a police officer with an axe. I was under the impression that the weapon in question was a sledgehammer.
* Not that it would surprise me if he had made such a claim, after his batshit “Jews-need-their-own-taxpayer-funded-police-force” comments yesterday.
Of course sledgehammer. Peculiar lapse – corrected.
Thanks for the clarification, Boss. As I mentioned, after his comments yesterday*, I wasn’t sure if he’d actually said that.
* Not to mention his open letter to Zack Polanski on TwitterX, which might reasonably be interpreted as election interference by a public servant:
https://x.com/metpoliceuk/status/2049890435514958018
What a d***head of a cop, writing an open letter to a politician on Twitter. From Emile Zola to Martin Luther King to Mark Rowley.
There should be some kind of prize this grandstanding fool can be nominated for. Best make it non-monetary, though. He’ll have trousered enough for his services to the CST and the rest of ZOG already.
@Brian Red, we studied political policing in Contemporary Issues in British Politics, from the ‘intellectual, liberal’ John Alderson, chief constable of Devon and Cornwall who warned something was going wrong with the relationship between public and police in 1979 (before riots in 1981), to the rantings of political police chiefs like I’m-the-saviour James Anderton, chief constable of Greater Manchester. Our lecturer depicted the Met as possibly the most corrupt police force in the world, with Robert Mark brought in to (publicly) reform it.
There were concerns that some chiefs were building paramilitary forces, enforcing personal crusades against things that weren’t crimes, being racist, attacking ‘Marxists’, antagonising working-class youth, adopting police tactics of colonies, using undercover police to monitor ‘sedition’ and attend every public meeting, sue allegers of wrongdoing for libel, cover for other police, break strikes, and fight reforms, accountability and anti-corruption measures. Of course it was all deeply misogynistic and there was a common perception of moving towards a police state.
Thanks for your reply Brian. Worth remarking that Rowley’s letter claims that the tweet Polanski retweeted was ‘inaccurate’ when, whether you think the bizzies’ actions were justified or not, the statement that officers were ‘repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a taser’ is a completely accurate description of events. Polanski initially backed down and deleted the tweet, but seems to have now reversed tack and come out fighting this morning on the Sunday politics shows.
—-
If your lecturer thought that the Met were possibly the most corrupt police force in the world SD, he or she probably didn’t know that much about West Yorkshire Police. They were bad enough in the 70’s & 80’s, but in this century, whole decades have gone by where 99% of the Class A’s they confiscated made it back into circulation (with the remaining 1% reserved for in-house use). And that’s not even the worst of it: that’ll be the trying to kill their fellow officers with fire. Obviously, like the Bataclan victims found with their genitals in their mouths, this has all been covered up.
Where are these checks and balances on executive power we heard so recently touted?
A very good point IMHO. Maybe defense lawyers should cite His Majesty’s comments to Congress in court, when they might help. Especially in jury trials, perhaps.
Should probably be ‘cheques’.
Full transcript of the King’s speech in US Congress at this link here.
Here is the relevant excerpt:
‘… “The Founding Fathers were bold and imaginative rebels with a cause. Two hundred and fifty years ago, or, as we say in the United Kingdom ‘just the other day,’ they declared Independence. By balancing contending forces and drawing strength in diversity, they united 13 disparate colonies to forge a nation on the revolutionary idea of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ They carried with them, and carried forward, the great inheritance of the British Enlightenment – as well as the ideals which had an even deeper history in English common law and Magna Carta.
“These roots run deep, and they are still vital. Our Declaration of Rights of 1689 was not only the foundation of our constitutional monarchy, but also provided the source of so many of the principles reiterated, often verbatim, in the American Bill of Rights of 1791.
“And those roots go even further back in our history: the U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances …’
Of course, whether the Magna Carta is credible as a document supporting liberty and democracy depends on how it is interpreted.
Hope you are feeling much better Craig, take care.
Banksy’s – High Court mural is more fitting than ever here.
https://www.rollingstone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/09/banksyhighcourt-e1757331087887.jpeg
Excellent work by Banksy on that occasion.
I’ve always felt that Banksy’s work is over-rated, simplistic twaddle.
The Starmer regime is intent on the entire subversion of the supposed protections of British justice. It is operating purely in the interests of a foreign state, in order to protect Israel from any potential consequences of the public revulsion against its genocidal onslaught on the Palestinians.
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman recently sat down with Bloomberg to talk about her time in the Biden administration and Trump’s foreign policy. incredibly she acknowledged that Israel has committed Genocide in Gaza, but that she still supported Israel and would continue to do so, unlike Starmer and Lammy she at least acknowledged Genocide, in other words Genocide is alright if it is done by us.
https://mondoweiss.net/2026/04/the-shift-biden-official-says-netanyahu-is-responsible-for-genocide-but-that-the-u-s-must-keep-supporting-israel/
Exactly so, Harry.
As for Wendy Sherman, all she did was to be more honest than her colleagues. After all, the USA exists on land stolen from the Native American peoples, in the course of which they were nearly exterminated. Ms Sherman seems to have admitted that Israel has followed the example of the USA on a far smaller scale.
My suspicion is this legal tampering follows logically from NATO conscripting us into a Cognitive War in 2021. The domestic population then become targets (witting or unwitting) for enemy information operations and their motivations can only be fully understood by the security and intelligence services who alone know what actually happened. But is “cognitive war” a real thing or just another way to keep the electorate out of foreign affairs? I think in adopting this concept of warfare our political class has been utterly treacherous and/or simple minded (probably manipulated!). They want to portray Palestine protest as little different to Ukrainian arson of Starmer’s property – just silly or misled people being manipulated by malicious outsiders and not reliable witnesses as to their own reasons for acting. As soon as you consider people in this way, democracy is just a bug in the system and peoples’ capacity for independent thought and action has been nullified.
I’ve not read it fully yet but this book (“Cognitive warfare: Grey matters in contemporary political conflict” by Adam Henschke, 2024) may substantiate the claim. He begins “…given that one of the founding concepts in liberal democracies is the right to free belief, including the belief that one’s governing bodies and democratic processes are problematic, how can liberal democracies justify engaging in cognitive warfare, when this seems to undermine the core values of liberal democracy?” It’s a good question but I am unsure if he has tracked the mission creep of it all into the courts and judges chambers …
Judging from blurbs, Henschke seems to live in his head so he probably hasn’t.
One interesting question that arises is what resources will the British state psywar forces put into Palestine-related and so-called Jew-protecting work in the next few weeks and months. “Did you hear someone say ‘Globalise the Intifada’? Here’s how to report it…”
I’m talking about the machine that among other things influences minds in connection with the Russo-Ukrainian war and, yes, vaccination, and indoctrinates tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of officials down to quite a junior level (e.g. in schools) about “misinformation” and “disinformation” etc.
I’ll put it right up there with Charles Stross’ creation of “Combat Epistemologist” as a state security position.
They got there ahead of us (in their long liaison with the literary world):
“The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), part of the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), has run a project called Creative Futures. This initiative brought together prominent science fiction authors and defence experts to imagine potential security challenges over the next century, with many scenarios focused on the mid-21st century.
“The goal was to use the writers’ ability to imagine complex, unconventional futures to complement traditional analytical methods like horizon-scanning. The resulting short stories explore threats from emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, autonomous weapons, and the geopolitical impacts of climate change and green technology.
“As Dr. Allen Stroud, a key figure in the project, explained, the aim is not to predict the future, but to use “accuracy-adjacent” fiction to explore plausible scenarios and ethical dilemmas, helping defence planners prepare for a complex and unpredictable world.”
In ‘ The Medium is the Massage ‘ by M. McLuhan and Q. Fiore, McLuhan wrote that using science fiction authors by big business was already ongoing. The book was written in 1967.
@Ewan2 – That is a quite brilliant piece of cross-referencing. What section of TMitM is it in? I flicked though my copy and couldn’t find it. The plot of Dan Brown’s “Inferno” (2013) is also of interest here.
HI Brian:
‘ Science fiction writing today presents situations that enable to perceive the potential of new technologies……….Big business has learnt to tap the s-f writer.’
I guess the subtext is that government scientists have limited imagination.
Most interesting and not something I am at all familiar with. My immediate thought, who is the ‘enemy’? You say “..their motivations can only be fully understood by the security and intelligence services who alone know what actually happened.” I humbly suggest this is because they, the ‘enemy’, only exist in their own heads and this whole “cognitive war” is just yet another projection of their own malformed persona onto the “enemy du jour”; whereby, it is they, themselves, who become the true enemy, the manipulators of the domestic population (as you imply). Personally I consider them neither deliberately treacherous nor simple-minded but sick – psychopathic, sociopaths who cannot see the world in any other way.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”
Attributed to the Soviet secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria. It refers to the miscarriage of justice in the form of the abuse of power by the jurists, who could find any defendant guilty of “something”, if they so desired.
Independent MP Zarah Sultana drew a sharp comparison between Keir Starmer’s past and present when recalling how, as a barrister, he defended an activist who broke into RAF Fairford to prevent war crimes in Iraq—calling it “not terrorism, but conscience.”
“That case became a landmark in lawful nonviolent direct action against an illegal war. That barrister is now our prime minister,” she said.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/palestine-action-gaza-zarah-sultana-challenges-starmer-b2781375.html
‘“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”
‘Attributed to the Soviet secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria’.
Or, 300 years earlier and a little more stylishly,
“If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged”.
– Cardinal Richelieu
How long before the pro-Palestinian Independent MPs are dragged out of the Commons chamber, I wonder? (Insert reference to Germany 1933 here if anyone can stomach another.)
I mean if telling the truth in court puts you at risk of being jailed, why should telling the truth in the Commons be any different?
Yes, the Montesquieu rubbish about the “separation of powers” was rubbish all along… Soon to be clear to everyone?
Well, Brian, to be fair to Montesquieu (and I think he deserves that), no scheme of government whatsoever has any power of its own if the people appointed to carry it out are mischievous and treacherous. Laws, treaties, constitutions, even scripture – all are “nothing but a scrap of paper”, as your friendly neighbourhood dictator likes to call them.
“While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government”.
– John Adams, Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848), pp 265-6. There are some differences in the version that appeared in The Works of John Adams (Boston, 1854), vol. 9, pp. 228-9, most notably the words “or gallantry” instead of “and licentiousness”.
“Know this clearly: if the strength of the people is absent from the public arena, neither leadership nor the institutions of the state, whose true mission is to serve the people, can function effectively”.
– Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, first public statement as Iranian Supreme Leader, 12/3/2026.
Also,
“Let me add, that only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters”.
– Benjamin Franklin, letter to the Abbés Chalut and Arnaud (17 April 1787).
Many thanks for this. (There are also relevant comments in Tocqueville.) And many thanks to Craig. I’m happy to send champagne to anyone who can get a journalist to disclose why no mainstream UK media will touch those statements by the accused in their defence.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It was predictable given Starmer’s behaviour in the Assange fiasco and Labour Leaks. His role now is to wreck the country, killing off Labour if necessary (since either Tory or Reform will continue the Great Work of neofeudal regression). And he is succeeding, with the help of ministers visibly paid by Israeli-related interests. I have never seen such a chaos of antidemocratic, corrupt, Zionist-driven government behaviour and its accelerating downward effect on UK prosperity and quality of life. Even France, with a similarly unpopular regime, is visibly more sane and civilised than we are now. We, collectively, know that we’re being shafted. We know the NHS is being parcelled off to corporate interests and we will never receive the same standard of care, that our energy costs are unregulated, our judicial system more compromised than at any time since Judge Jeffries. No surprise that all the ordinary people I speak to are angry: the postman, council workers, car wash owner, barristas, builders, doctors, care workers, all of them. The level of anger is much greater than it was with Poll Tax, which I remember well. But the pressure cooker is largely welded shut – representative democracy is almost dead. The entire country is a rotten borough. Yet Starmer behaves as though his Will can be imposed without effect. That, I believe, is fatally foolish and quite typical.
@Jorge – “The level of anger is much greater than it was with Poll Tax, which I remember well. But the pressure cooker is largely welded shut.”
How would you develop that observation? Those inside the pressure cooker start killing each other? Or themselves? Or the welding fails somehow leading to God knows what?
People have got to smash their smartphones to get anywhere, and sadly I don’t see this as on the horizon.
Although………remember the banging of pots and pans in the Argentinazo in 1999…
Nepal 2025 could also be a reference here… Switched straight back off…
Traditionally, Brian, when a safety valve is welded shut, the pressure builds up until it is great enough to burst the entire vessel. The result is a mighty explosion which sends metal fragments, along with boiling water and superheated steam, everywhere.
Be in a different room when that happens. Better still, be in a different street.
Britain is what is called in Germany a ‘Unrechtsstaat’ (‘state where the laws are corrupted’). (This term is usually used to refer to the GDR.)
“To be plain, the defendants equally face the risk of possible imprisonment for contempt of court for breaching Judge Johnson’s orders in what they said to the jury, but unlike the barristers they do not of course face professional disbarment”.
Is there some mistake here? “Judge Johnson”? Shouldn’t that be Judge Jeffries?
More generally, these cases and others in recent years make it perfectly plain to me, at least, that there is now no justice at all in the UK. Even the pretence of a society ruled by law has been abandoned.
Fundamental principles such as the rule of law, democracy, and the freedom of the individual have been central to Britain’s claims of civilisation down the years. Today, such claims can no longer be made without eliciting raucous laughter from more liberal nations such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and South Africa.
“Fundamental principles such as the rule of law, democracy, and the freedom of the individual have been central to Britain’s claims of civilisation down the years.”
I thought it was things like knowing whether an army colonel should do up the buttons on his blazer when sat opposite the wife of a suffragan bishop on a long-distance train in India.
That sort of distinction, Brian, came in afterwards – when Britain acquired its empire. I was thinking more of the days when British people strove for freedom within their own country.
Although it seems to be true always and everywhere that the recently oppressed are the most energetic and determined oppressors.
Oh, come now, Brian. The army colonel had a batman for doing up buttons etc.
@Tom Welsh, I think those claims have always been contested, or treated as implausible fictions. In Colonial Justice in British India: White Violence and the Rule of Law, Elizabeth Kolsky looks through 150 years of violent crime cases, and asks (p13):
Racial and misogynistic violence protected by legal systems which effectively gave immunity to Europeans in British colonies doesn’t sound much like modern formulations of the ‘rule of law’ to me.
This case makes the chance at fair justice at trial – look like a farce.
Is it just me, or do the two policemen in the photograph look rather puzzled by what they are being required to do?
IMO, The tattoos on show illustrate the lack of standards within the filth.
They look like spooks.
“the defence in that trial … must not refer to the motive of their clients for action against Elbit, they must not refer to Elbit’s role in the Israeli defence industry, they must not refer to genocide or to ethnic cleansing in relation to Gaza.”
If Israel sought a UK legal clampdown on support for the Palestinians and criticism of Israel – immediate imprisonment without trial aside – what more could they ask for over and above that? (Protest ban incoming.)
Peter, I heard elsewhere that a similar restriction is being placed upon the Jury in the hearing against 3 Ukrainian alleged arsonists said to have torched properties belonging to KS. In that; they are not to consider any motivation or causality for committing the offences (apparently said by some to be retribution for the non payment for sexual services provided by the three, ahem, male models). They are only to decide on the sole question of did they light the Fires or not. I also hear that nothing about this trial is being reported in the UK’s MSM.
What more? Well just reintroduction of capital punishment (as just very recently in Israel) and Martial Law…
The zionist subversion is everywhere, in the judiciary, in the media, in the church, in politics. It is like a virus that corrupt the very basic of human morals.
So one are free to walk in the streets of Europe chanting “From the river to the sea israel will be free”,“I support the genocide in Gaza”, “israel have the right to bomb children” and so on. Nothing will happen. How could so many people in power agree to this development?
The West is in downright spiral regarding this matter, past days israel hijacked and kidnapped majority Europeans when they simply tried to deliver aid to a people that endure genocide in Gaza. Hardly any politician nor media in the West protested and not a word from the heinous EU foreign rep Kaja Kallas. It is chilling how the european leaders simply throw their own citizens under the bus when it comes to israel. These people are nothing but fifth columnists and forget the phony “russian interference/collusion”-bs we heard for years, what have is a real collusion and that is the collusion in the US and the EU by israel. Just imagine if Russia kidnapped europeans in their quest trying to deliver humantarian aid to Ukraine. Oh all hell would break loose by the same fake humanitarians that rule Europe!
Meanwhile in israel they now use dogs to sexually assault palestinian prisoners, the sadistic and perverse engineering in israel is really something else:
“In one testimony to Euro-Med Monitor, 43-year-old Wajdi, who spent a year in detention, recounted being repeatedly raped by soldiers and a dog during interrogation.”
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/7022/%E2%80%9CAnother-genocide-behind-walls%E2%80%9D:-New-report-documents-testimonies-of-rape-and-sexual-violence-in-Israeli-prisons
While I am of course against antisemitism, when the self proclaimed jewish state weaponize bestiality, conduct genocide, engage in mass stravation and murder close to 25000 children, could one really be surprised when there is attacks against this very group like the recent stab attack? Israel is the only trigger of antisemitism.
The current situation with regard to Israel makes one realise that Germany and the nazis were not so very different from our government, police and media. If Germany had ‘won the war’ they would have been very welcome in Britain.
The idea that WWII was a war against Nazism or Fascism is a carefully curated myth. You only have to look which side the police were on in the Battle of Cable Street, or which side the U K government supported in the Spanish Civil War.
or how happily and intimately embedded the Royal Family was with the Nazis
If there weren’t incidents like this, the Zionists would have to arrange them. They absolutely love them. Neturei Karta have very probably made this point.
As well as £25m of host government money going to Shomrim coffers (as if they have a problem sourcing funding – this is nothing of that kind, being more like the payment of a fine), I suspect pro-Palestinian blood may be caused to be spilled in Britain before May is out.
I’ve said it before, but watch Victoria Tower Gardens. Planning difficulties are likely to evaporate.
Umm have you heard of the Ukrainian children extraordinarily rendited by Russia?
Wait until you find out the links between Israel and Russia!
Oh and have a look at Conservative Friends of Russia while you’re at it.
In an unprecedented move, Mark Rowley has called for the establishment of a large force of armed officers assigned exclusively for the protection of London’s Jews. He has declared that British Jews today face a level of danger never before seen, which would mean a peril exceeding that of 1290 when they were subjected to lethal persecution by Church and Crown and were expelled en masse from England. Here’s the Times of Israel-
“Rowley said he has requested urgent government funding to recruit 300 officers to protect the Jewish community. He said he wants a dedicated group of neighborhood officers and firearms officers to be permanently stationed in northwest London, calling it “essential.” ”
Rowley is a particularly pernicious operator, totally committed to the cause of Zionism. It seems that every successor in the role of Metropolitan police chief represents a further descent into the depths of authoritarian misrule.
It’s the groupthink on the right. Look at views expressed in the Telegraph, Times, Sun and Mail about the Middle East. Starmer and Rowley are part of that RW British establishment groupthink. The political right view Israel much more favourably than the average citizen because they’ve long been heavily lobbied on Israel’s positives as an ally : Israel’s a modern democracy; a sophisticated country with a well-developed financial sector, advanced tech – including military, AI and surveillance knowhow. it’s also aligned with the US worldview, as is the UK.
What do the Palestinians offer us? That’s cold calculation among western elites, and it was the same with apartheid-era South Africa. The Tory right and the US elites supported white rule until the bitter end there, because they could simply see no upside to black majority rule under the ANC and likely renationalisations etc. Ending injustice often requires politically defeating the attitudes of selfish people at home.
I wonder if the filth will be laying on special armed protection for trannies, who are subject to far more violence and persecution than Jews. Plenty of commentators feel free to object to the very fact of their existence, just as the same sort objected to the existence of gays a few decades ago.
Watch for Shomrim being allowed to carry guns – i.e. some of the Zionists’ guns in London being brought out into the open. Could it happen? Yes it could.
OMFG is Rowley going on about 1290 now? No flies on him. He’ll get a big advance for his memoirs even if nobody reads them who isn’t paid to. What’s his line on the Khazars?
I wonder how many of those recruits will be Reform/Advance UK freaks?
(Who already have their own supply of 3D printed firearms)
The Guardian carries a piece by minister of state for courts and legal services, and Jewish MP for Golders Green, Sarah Sackman. She’s been the leading advocate in govt, along with Lord Leveson in the HoL, for the controversial plan to abolish the ancient right to opt for trial by jury; albeit, in cases likely to produce a sentence of less than 3 years. Many believe the move is solely to ensure convictions in ‘conscience’ cases by a govt infuriated by the sight of Palestine activists walking free. A Judge, strictly interpreting the letter of the law, being more likely to convict.
Her piece criticizes lots of things; from the lack of solidarity from the liberal-left and unions ,to big tech algorithms, which, she claims, allow antisemitism & hate to proliferate. She talks about ambient (an environment) everyday antisemitism and mentions 9/11 and Oct 7. But nowhere does she criticise Israel’s extremist leadership; a leadership wanted for war crimes, or the genocide in Gaza.This is a major omission when it’s that injustice that makes many feel compelled to march in opposition against in the UK. How can she ignore the elephant in the room when the govt obviously thinks the two things are linked, and Starmer has expressed a desire to ban pro-Palestine marches.
Brian Leveson also wants more trials in magistrates’ courts, where the magistrate usually does whatever the clerk tells him, who himself does whatever the CPS and filth instruct. Curiously the conviction rate in contested cases tried by a magistrate is FAR higher than in the crown court where cases are tried by jury. No doubt Leveson’s Oxford University-conditioned excuse for a mind enables him to think up a few reasons for why this is in the interests of justice.
One of three articles since the incident (reported as an attack on Jews, not three people, one a Muslim) arguing for more protection for Jews in the Guardian. I could find nothing about protection for Muslims and Palestinians. Though I could take only so much trawling through the weird mixture of lifestyle articles and “culture” pieces etc designed, I deduce, to distract from the open propaganda. Certainly no criticism of the police for treating prone people’s heads as footballs.
The sentencing phase.
More pressure on the courts should be placed to allow sufficient time to present motive as a mitigating factor during sentencing. Direct witnesses straight out of Gaza such as UN reps or health workers need to be presented before the judiciary with material such as videos, news reports allowed. Putting together a concise package for judges requires some skill. Thats where I believe the emphasis should be.
“More pressure on the courts should be placed to allow sufficient time to present motive as a mitigating factor during sentencing.”
Peter, they know very well what is going on. English judges are hand-picked establishment figures. By and large they go to the same (private) schools; they are from the same class; same two universities; same Inns of Court. The are steeped in what is expected of them. Neither do they have any interest in rocking the boat. They know what is career-ending.
Because of all the above, they generally have second-rate minds, and the instinct to conform. They will do what they know is required of them.
They are full aware of what is going on in Palestine and Lebanon – and are willing to assist in closing down any dissent against what is, clearly, establishment policy on complicity.
Our own Scottish judiciary is similarly corrupt, for similar reasons – as part of the Unionist establishment, they are thrilled their English colonial masters – and ape them in every possible way.
We have the chance in Scotland to cast off this hellish broken polity – this false ‘union’. But our chances of success will rely in a root and branch reform of the legal establishment – particularly its upper reaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Penn_%26_William_Mead_-_plaque_-_01.jpg shows the plaque at Old Bailey, which reads:
Near this site WILLIAM PENN and WILLIAM MEAD were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury, Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others, who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights; and were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions.
‘The Starmer regime .. is operating purely in the interests of a foreign state.’
Not sure about that. There is also massive self-interest involved. It is critical for the British state to suppress awareness of the multifaceted British role in the Gaza Genocide.
Palestine Action were only outlawed once activists began drawing attention to the role of the British state and British Army. Likewise government efforts to outlaw ‘antisemitic hate marches’ only became serious when protesters began foregrounding Starmer, the BBC, etc, and Britain’s provision of every conceivable form of support to the genocidal apartheid state.
The depth of Britain’s involvement in the crime of the century needs to be kept hidden at all costs. And not just to protect the individuals responsible. How can they convince ordinary people to sign up for war against Russia if they themselves are regarded as being far worse? The same motivation lies behind hiding and denying Britain’s key role in the criminal assault on Iran.
‘The Starmer regime .. is operating purely in the interests of a foreign state.’
Perhaps a global organisation that transcends and underlies states. The ventriloquist, not his dummies.
That’s my sense too, Tom. Even if that ” global organisation ” doesn’t have a particular form, ie one distinct, identifiable entity*, but is more of a shared ( malign ) mindset and ( perverted ) ambitions, eg people like Gates/Musk/Theil may ( superficially ) disagree with and indeed dislike each other, but in essence they share the same worldview, ie the mass of humanity are no better than sheep to be herded – and who better, more equipped than these Plutocratic Masters of the Punyverse to do the herding?
* not to say that there ISN’T such a particular group; these shady enclaves/cabals like DAVOS, Bilderberg & the covert functioning side of the E.U/U.N/NATO don’t exist and get together to discuss who’s going to win the World Cup or Eurovision; they, along with their Oligarch-funded Think Tanks, are there to ( at least attempt to ) control the present and determine the future – in their own interests, of course.
I think of the reality of such a ” Secret Order ” in the same way Physicists posit the existence of Dark Matter, ie it can’t be seen, or in any way perceived by the senses, but * must * exist to explain certain effects and anomalies. Or at least, such a supposition is a logical consequence of otherwise inexplicable phenomena
Dark Matter was ‘invented’ because the current theories are faulty and the scientists don’t want to upset the applecart, and their careers, by going back to square one and starting again – probably !
In the same way, ‘Secret Orders’ are needed because the common understanding of democracy is totally flawed. When you understand that democracy is actually there to serve the rich and oppress the non-rich then it all begins to make horrible sense.
“It’s A BIG Club & You Ain’t In It!” [George Carlin]
Steve, this is utter nonsense. All current theories meet all the observable evidence. The idea that all scientists in the field are agreeing to a plot wherein they’re covering up the truth in order to keep a good lie going is simply silly.
On the contrary, far from “upsetting the applecart and their careers”, they would become rock stars, become internationally famous and secure the most promising career they ever imagined, were they to completely overturn current theory and put forward a better one.
This “probably !” of yours is doing a lot of work. For one thing you have zero evidence, and for another the premise is utterly daft, betraying an almost total lack of understanding of how science works.
I ask again – where do you get these notions from?
I would urge you to read Ben Goldacre’s books, starting with “Bad Science”. You would probably actually enjoy “Bad Pharma” too.
https://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/
Dark Matter IS an invention it has not been detected or observed, the theories on the expansion of the universe would not match observations without a ‘fiddle factor’, eg. Dark Matter. Even Einstein used a fiddle factor, the Cosmological Constant, to make his theory work, following observations this was later abandoned. Until the existence of Dark Matter is proved it remains just a theory – that’s the way science works !.
Ben Goldacre is not a physicist or mathematician so I doubt he’s commented specifically on Dark Matter.
DM is not an invention, it’s a theory, Steve. Not one which everyone agrees on, but it does go a long way to explain observed phenomenon as best we can given current observations. If you can think of something better, propose it! That is how science works, not by people sitting around with a set of beliefs they won’t let go of – that’s religion you’re thinking of there.
Phlogiston was a theory about combustion that held from the middle ages for a couple of hundred years, being superceded when oxygen – initially a theory in itself – was looked for, and then discovered. Hydrogen was identified on the sun before it was discovered on Earth, but it was theorised about.
The existence of atoms was itself a theory first known to be put forward by ancient Greek philosophers, but only became proven relatively recently. Just because something is a theory does not mean its all BS run as a scam by devious money-grubbing scientists.
*
Ben Goldacre isn’t a physicist with a specialty in dark matter – certainly – but he does understand the scientific method, and has great insight into why people have such doubts about scientists and science in general. (Here’s a bit of a spoiler – it’s because of poor understanding and lazy thinking by journalists and opinion makers in large part.)
It was helium that was first identified in the Sun, Glenn. (Via spectroscopy.)
“. The idea that all scientists in the field are agreeing to a plot wherein they’re covering up the truth in order to keep a good lie going is simply silly.”
Of course it’s silly because it is neither what is happening, nor what SB is saying. Nobody is doing any covering up because they all sincerely believe what they are saying is the truth is the truth. That doesn’t necessarily make it the truth. Even scientists can be mistaken, sometime.
Stevie Boy displays a complete failure of knowledge or understanding science and the scientific method.
Science works by making observations and from these constructing hypotheses to explain those observations. These can then be tested by experiment, or supported (or refuted) by further observation. If not refuted, the hypothesis can be used to predict further phenomena that may, or may not support the original hypothesis. If any further observations refute ANY element of the original hypothesis, then this is immediately discarded and better hypotheses developed and tested.
This is how ALL science works.
There is abundant observational evidence for the dark matter hypothesis including:
Galaxy Rotation Curves
Gravitational Lensing
The Bullet Cluster (1E 0657-56)
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
Large-Scale Structure Formation
Take the trouble to look these up.
The dark matter hypothesis has not yet been fully solved because so far it has only been detected through its gravitational influence on astronomical objects, not by DIRECT particle detection in a laboratory. While strong circumstantial evidence exists—such as galaxy rotation speeds, gravitational lensing, and cosmic microwave background anomalies—the specific particle or substance responsible remains unidentified, leading to a persistent gap between astronomical observation and physical identification.
The observations are undoubtedly true and verified over many years in labs across the globe by distinguished and highly skilled scientists, but so far, the laboratory based detection methods required to fully establish its nature and existence have not yet been devised.
This is an obvious difficulty for astrophysics in which vast and distant and all-encompassing phenomena can not be subjected to direct experimentation.
Taking this important scientific question further will require the established, well-defined gravitational effects of dark matter in space, to be detected directly by appropriate instrumentation in the Lab, or devising a means of producing the underlying particle or mechanism in a laboratory setting. While astrophysical evidence (galactic rotation, lensing, cosmic web) is overwhelming, conclusive proof requires a confirmed, non-gravitational detection.
The discovery of the Higgs Boson is a suitable parallel. Peter Higgs, working in Edinburgh in 1964 hypothesised, based on observations and calculations, a mechanism to explain why subatomic particles have mass. This was nicknamed the Higgs Boson.
It was not finally discovered until July 4, 2012, by collaborations at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva – a piece of kit that was large enough, and designed specifically to study subatomic particles. By smashing protons at high energies, scientists identified a new particle with the predicted mass through its decay into photons and Z bosons, confirming the existence of the Higgs field that gives particles mass.
This is how science works – in the particular fields of astrophysics and particle physics.
There is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain concerning expounding on matters about which you have limited knowledge. But, in my view, as someone who has both performed scientific research and taught science in Universities, it is so much better to try and guide people through the methods by which science creates new knowledge, than to denigrate those who do not yet have it.
I hope this helps.
Bayard: Of course it’s silly because it is neither what is happening, nor what SB is saying.”
Yes he did, actually, just above:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/05/the-morass-of-injustice/comment-page-1/#comment-1097739
SB also maintains that the entire world of medicine is all in on a scam with fake diseases, fake vaccines and fake deaths. The same is true for climate scientists, who are all in on a huge con. Come to think of it, you buy into that nonsense yourself, right Bayard? But find yourself incapable of either admitting it, or discussing it.
I don’t expect you to admit an error, ever.
Blah, blah, blah. Get back to me when the dark matter hypothesis has been solved, until that time it could just as well be a pan galactic goat leaving huge invisible poops all over the galaxy. The point was that until proved it’s just a theory to make the science work, albeit it may be correct, there again it may not. Science is never consensus.
Stevie,
You miss the point again. In science, nothing is EVER proved. All theories/hypotheses are just the best available models to explain observable phenomena at a given time. They are both provisional and contingent. This means that it is accepted only tentatively based on current evidence (provisional) and that its acceptance depends on specific, surrounding context or conditions (contingent).
If the facts change, I change my mind. Only a fool is certain of anything.
The power of science lies in providing a working mental model of the Universe (or whatever) that offers some explanation of observable phenomena upon which to base present practice and subsequent investigations.
All that varies is the degree of ‘confidence’ (in the statistical sense) that we can attribute to any given hypotheses (we are NEVER certain in the ordinary sense).
If and when the laboratory and instrumental observations concerning dark matter that I describe above become available, all that will happen is that the hypothesis can be tweaked (or rejected) and to the extent they support the current paradigm, that will increase ‘confidence’ in it.
But nothing is ever ‘proved’ in the natural sciences. But it helps us better understand what is going on.
You should try reading, perhaps – or even going to night school to learn something. It might make you happier – and you will certainly be better informed.
Thanks for the advice John, I’ll bear that in mind 🙂 . You don’t seem to be aware that you’re just saying, more or less, the same thing as I am, albeit in a condesending manner.
FYI here’s some alternative views, enjoy the read.
https://www.space.com/astronomy/dark-universe/does-dark-matter-actually-exist-new-theory-says-it-could-be-gravity-behaving-strangely
https://www.globalresearch.ca/models-replace-reality-modern-cosmology/5919421
There’s no need for any obscurantism about global puppeteers. The British ruling class are some of the worst people on the planet.
Yes, they are, but that FACT neither obviates the possibility of some wider network of co-ordinated fuckery nor lessens it’s likelihood. Is it not evident that The British Ruling Class ( and it’s centuries-old financial WMD – The City of London ) is deeply entwined with * complementary * entities elsewhere; these entities meet fairly regularly at certain locations, eg DAVOS, and work in concert to effect or prevent particular outcomes?
Nonetheless…..if you are suggesting we put aside such, eh…..speculations and focus on what’s happening in ” our own ” time & place, you’ll find no objection from me. Though I believe, ultimately, it will not be possible to separate the local from the global if we hope to achieve some kind of deeper understanding of what’s happening in the world; and why it’s happening
It’s currently called the Epstein Class
It’s an emotion I strive not to succumb to ( successfully ), but it’s becoming very difficult NOT to hate this utterly perverted * Labour Party * & it’s loathsome creep of a leader; the epitome of the coward ( can anyone even imagine him anywhere near front lines of a conflict he seems intent on forcing other people to fight and die in? ) emboldened by proximity to and agency over tooled-up ( legal, ie the ” Law of the Land ” & literally, ie a quasi-military Police Force, eg The Met) goons.
It seems clear that – as has been averred previously – Starmer was installed at the behest of and with the contrivance of the Deep State ( it shouldn’t be necessary by this stage to either describe or * prove * the existence of the latter ); now it appears he/they are accelerating the assault on formerly-held-to-be-inviolable Civil/Human/Citizen Rights – possibly because Starmer is almost universally detested ( except by, well, you know who ) and the consideration is that it will not be possible to keep him as P.M for the remainder of * Labour’s * term of ( mis ) governance. No doubt they’ve got some other compromised mouth/arse-piece groomed to replace him when the time comes for Gormless to step aside and reap his rewards for services rendered.
Given the sheer uselessness of 99.9% of the U.K Political Caste, it’s a very serious concern how this accelerating attack on – for lack of a better term…..the People will/can be countered. Who will stand-up to the Zionist Fascism that has infiltrated every U.K institution, most egregiously ” Westminster ” & the entire UK Police Force, and, if not halted. will see the end of whatever individual & collective democratic rights we have left?
This is why it wouldn’t just be ” better ” if people like Craig; Tommy Sheridan; Eva Comrie among other good, decent fighters ( against the fascistic tide ) are elected next Thursday – in the Scottish Elections – but absolutely imperative. Likewise in the rUK Council Elections.
Never were genuinely good people more urgently needed to keep some kind of light glowing in the ever-deepening, misanthropic gloom threatening to fully engulf the body politic
You certainly wouldn’t hire Starmer to babysit. Unless you were a sadist.
Just watched Zack Polanski on Laura Kuenssberg’s BBC 1 Sunday show, and I think he did admirably in batting away her predictable line of questioning. Amusingly, she harangues him about alleged antisemitism for ten minutes, then, with no small irony, asks why the Greens don’t simply stick to talking about Green issues anymore?
We all know what is being referred to as rising antisemitism(hostility to Jews), is in fact a rising tide of disgust with the state of Israel. Asserting protesters are motivated by hatred for Jews is a gaslighting operation by the big-two parties designed to hide their complicity in genocide and make those protesting genocide question whether not, they are the ones somehow in the wrong.
Gilad Atzmon (who is ex-Jewish) has described perceptively how some who buy into the Jewish identity consider that anything to do with attitudes towards anti-Semitism is a matter that should be thrashed out first and foremost among Jews shouting at each other… Hello Laura and Zack. Strangely this does not parallel the attitude taken by the black liberation movement etc. – or indeed by any other liberation movement.
Zionist propaganda about support for Palestinians is essentially a holocaust denial effort.
By contrast, Trevor Phillips essentially committed a hate crime on his show
There are some interesting parallels between the current government crackdown on free speech and government attempts to crackdown on the activities of the socialist movement in the 1880s.
May 1885 saw an evident behind closed doors agreement between the Liberal Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, and the police to stop political meetings in Trafalgar Square, which then extended to alternative meeting points with police dispersal acting on the pretext of “obstruction” with arrests, prosecutions and imprisonments. It was pointed out to no avail that the police took no action to stop Salvation Army marches which were just as obstructive.
Otherwise political rivals combined to form the Free Speech Campaign. More stringent restrictions followed with the banning of public meetings in Trafalgar Square, intensified police action, more arrests, and culminating in the “Bloody Sunday” of 13th November 1887 with 3 deaths and over 200 injuries.
Then as now it is when the State feels threatened that it is not in control that it resorts to ever more desperate measures to regain it.
Banning radical speech spurs propaganda of the deed.
Mass carrying of trackers has somewhat changed the landscape though. Still when you gotta fight you gotta fight…
Will the host regime in Britain be told to ban Nakba day commemorations on 15 May?
The Scottish cup final on 23 May could also be interesting, given the solidarity that many Celtic fans like to express for their brothers and sisters in Palestine. There has been pro-Palestinian activity in Dunfermline too.
As a * born * Celtic supporter – albeit kinda passively so these days ( still like seeing them do well, though ) – I’m both proud of that section of the club support’s long-standing solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine; and surprised it hasn’t ( yet ) been proscribed. We won’t be surprised if that is changed before the cup final and anyone caught in possession of ” Pro-Palestine materials ” ( ie a conscience and moral compass ) chucked-out the stadium and if caught waving – or as it will be termed…” brandishing ” a Palestine Flag arrested and imprisoned, without trial & indefinitely; such is the hysteria being whipped-up and extreme measures being proposed.
All this antisemitism suddenly appears in the form of protests against Israel, just as Israel starts perpetrating even worse human rights violations that usual. Entirely coincidental, we are told! These dreadful antisemites were there all along, just waiting for their opportunity.
Starmer & Co also tell us that supposed hatred against Jews started with and is exacerbated by marches against genocide and for peace. No evidence is presented apart from the weakest causality, while studiously ignoring what caused the marches and protests in the first place.
Hi Craig. You said it was illegal to mention a certain contempt case. Would i be breaking the law if I shared your post on social media?
Apparently the Zionists don’t do war crimes, well not in the eyes of the English government they don’t.
“The Foreign Office has quietly shut down its in-house unit logging Israeli war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon.
The Guardian revealed last week that the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) cell, which helped government staff assess the scope of Israel’s breaches of international law, has closed amid budget cuts.
The cuts will also mean the shuttering of the open-source monitoring project at the Centre for Information Resilience (CIR), an independent non-profit. As a result, the Foreign Office will lose access to a database of 26,000 verified incidents, thought to be the largest database of its kind.
John Purcell, head of public affairs at the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, said: “How can the general public have any faith that our government is avoiding complicity in war crimes when it is scrapping the unit that monitors them?” ”
https://novaramedia.com/2026/04/28/foreign-office-closes-its-own-unit-tracking-israeli-war-crimes/
Just as the Met says it won’t investigate alleged war crimes committed by British nationals in the IDF. Hard not to think the two things are linked : the FCDO removing access to the database of detailed incidents, and the Met refusing to investigate.
When you think about it, the whole antisemitism hysteria around Corbyn and the mass expulsion of members that followed – plus many more leaving in disgust at the persecution – was probably a protective move by Labour’s right to prevent the left ever regaining control of the party. For only those on Labour’s right had little concern about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. McSweeney, Starmer et al, knew at some point mandatory selection could be introduced, allowing constituency members real say in candidate selection, thus they needed a way to prevent the left rejoining in the future. Having the absurd IHRA definition of antisemitism in place, was a way of preventing people rejoining. Obnoxious scheming from the right. It means Labour are finished as a progressive party.
If the Greens do well in the Locals the media and Labour, Tories are going to go into overdrive ramping up the antisemitism accusations, because, hollowed out as political parties as they are, it’s all they’ve got.
For Greens, it’ll be exhausting defending the party. And it won’t matter one jot whether the allegations are true or not. For as we saw with Corbyn’s Labour, the fact it’s constantly regurgitated and leading the news – putting spokespeople on the defensive – means it sinks into the public conscience that the party must have deep problems, i.e., there must be truth in it, otherwise, why would the media be making such a big fuss?
The fact the big-two can only be propped up by smearing and lying about parties and leaders wishing to change the status quo, is a testimony to the rotten state of our so-called democracy and the lack of any meaningful free press.
Yes, it’s already clear that Polanski’s religion is affording him no protection at all from the antisemite smears.
As before, everyone in the country expected to connive in the fiction that our zionist politicians and journalists are ‘moderate’ anti-racists, while those who protest genocide are racist extremists. The individuals best known to have participated in or run cover for the Gaza Genocide presented to the public as the most anti-racist and admirable of all.
From this morning’s interview : https://x.com/ThatTimWalker/status/2050941799733022732
Trevor Phillips snaps : “Don’t try that one on me!” and “But you’re not all Jews!” when Polanski points out he’s Jewish, and goes on the pro-Palestine marches and has seen no hostility to Jews, and the anger is directed at Israel.
It’s unthinkable that Phillips would interrupt Margaret Hodge or Louise Ellman, and dismissively claim they don’t speak for all Jews like that. Or even people like John Mann and John Woodcock (Lord Walney) who aren’t Jewish, but appear to be Zionists.
As Zack Polanski all but suggests to Phillips : If you are a non-Zionist Jew, your views don’t count?
That’s why Sky gave him a prime-time show. They knew Phillips had been suspended by Labour for Islamophobia and was best friends with Mandelson.
Solid.
zoot
The same politicians and media make the most outrageous insinuations about pro-Palestine protest organisers being somehow linked to Iran and other organisations, without a shred of proof. Yet they would allege antisemitism, if someone were to imply Israel, or its embassy, may be influencing/rallying communities in opposition to the marches.
We’ve got a situation in which politicians will believe anything and everything bad about those they disagree with. And nothing bad at all about Israel, and its far more extensive, problematic network of influence over politics and the media, including social media advantageous algorithm boosting(Axel Spinger’s acquisition of the Telegraph, being the latest).
“When you think about it, the whole antisemitism hysteria around Corbyn and the mass expulsion of members that followed – plus many more leaving in disgust at the persecution – was probably a protective move by Labour’s right to prevent the left ever regaining control of the party. ”
And it would have to be done in time for the present events in West Asia to kick off, if those events have been in the works for a few years.
Conflating criticism of Israel and Zionism as Anti Semitism is false, but Zionist fanatics do this all the time. Here is why it is false….
Professor David Miller was subjected to extreme vilification for his criticism of Zionism and was eventually sacked from Bristol University, whereupon he claimed wrongful dismissal at an Employment Tribunal
He claimed his belief that Zionism is “inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial” was a philosophical belief, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
He won, Zillur Rahman, who represented the academic at the tribunal, said his client has been “vindicated” and the “landmark case” marked “a pivotal moment in the history of our country for those who believe in upholding the rights of Palestinians”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-68211872
Do the claimant’s beliefs qualify as protected philosophical beliefs?
209. As set out in the agreed issues, the belief relied on by the claimant is as follows.
(1) political Zionism (which the claimant defines as an ideology which holds
that a state for Jewish people ought to be established and maintained in the territory that formerly comprised the British Mandate of Palestine) is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial, and;
(2) political Zionism ought therefore to be opposed. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6707c243366f494ab2e7b67d/Miller-judgment-1400780.2022-JDT…pdf
What constitutes a philosophical belief capable of protection?
Under the Act, ‘belief’ is defined as any religious or philosophical belief, or lack of belief. However, whilst religious belief is relatively easy to recognize, in the absence of any statutory definition, identifying a philosophical belief can be much more of a challenge.
This means that guidance must be sought from case law where, in the 2009 case of Grainger Plc vs Nicholson, regarding the question of an employee’s conviction about climate change, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) set out five criteria when it comes to philosophical belief:
The belief has to be one which is genuinely held
it has to be a belief, and not simply an opinion or viewpoint that’s based on the present state of information available
it has to relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behavior
the belief has to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
it has to be worthy of respect within a democratic society, and not be incompatible with human dignity or conflict with the fundamental rights of others. https://www.davidsonmorris.com/philosophical-beliefs/
Essentially, an employee will only be afforded protection under the Equality Act if their own subjective belief meets all of these criteria. The philosophical belief doesn’t have to form part of a fully-fledged system of thought that governs the entirety of a person’s life
Staggering,a morass indeed.
13th century justice looks enlightened and progressive by comparison.