I publish below in full the Note we have submitted to Court today to re-establish the separate Scottish judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action. Not only is the state doubling down on prosecution of pro-Palestine activists, a new National Security State Threats Bill is being fast tracked through parliament to extend the attack on free speech.
Under this bill receiving a benefit including “information” from a state entity designated as “hostile” by the Home Secretary will be a crime bringing up to 14 years in prison. So publishing casualty figures from Iranian sources, for example, will be terrorism. Publishing information about Ukrainian attacks on Russia will be illegal.
This is the relevant clause of the Bill. My emphasis:
17C Obtaining etc material benefits from a designated body
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
(i) obtains, accepts or retains a material benefit which is not an excluded benefit, or
(ii) obtains or accepts the provision of such a benefit to another person,
(b) the benefit is or was provided by or on behalf of a designated body, and
(c) the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that the benefit is or was provided by or on behalf of a designated body.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person agrees to accept—
(i) a material benefit which is not an excluded benefit, or
(ii) the provision of such a benefit to another person,
(b) the benefit is to be provided by or on behalf of a designated body, and
(c) the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that the benefit is to be provided by or on behalf of a designated body.
(3) Material benefits may include financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information…
Please note there is specifically no public interest defence, no journalism defence and it is to be illegal to receive true information. It is not about the spread of disinformation, it is about the spread of information contrary to the British state narrative. Receiving information from a designated enemy of the UK is the offence, whether you publish it or not.
There in no modern precedent for this in peacetime. It is being forced through all its parliamentary stages – three readings, amendments and two Lords sittings – in a single day. I have repeatedly said that liberal democracy has collapsed. I do not need further proof.
Under the current legislation, yesterday prominent international lawyer Dan Kovalik was detained in Liverpool, his phone and laptop seized and he was questioned about his support for Palestine. Dan is a lawyer. He is entitled to lawyer/client confidentiality. His clients include the President of Colombia and other international figures. The UK is a rogue state.
In the height of irony, I was detained at John Lennon International AirPort in Liverpool, England by anti-terrorism police concerned about my opposition to the Genocide on Gaza and the war on Iran. They seized my phone, computer, fingerprints and DNA sample. More to come . . . pic.twitter.com/WOtXQLjjO2
— Dan Kovalik (@danielmkovalik) June 29, 2026
What a nice surprise to run into @CraigMurrayOrg in Beirut. Of all the gin joints in the world . . . pic.twitter.com/GHDtofXI5K
— Dan Kovalik (@danielmkovalik) February 20, 2025
The UK state is currently attempting to gaslight us with a concerted campaign of messaging about a few millions in aid to Gaza – much of which is concentrated on assisting ethnic cleansing by various medical and educational routes for people to leave Gaza. But with Labour Friends of Israel member Andy Burnham to take over as PM with former Chair of Labour Friends of Israel James Purnell as his Chief of Staff, support for the Genocide will continue unabated.
The absurd National Security (State Threats) Bill shows that attack on dissidents and free speech will continue at home too. The debanking by Lloyds of The Canary is another prong of the extraordinary destruction of civil liberty under New Labour.
So I am determined not to bow to the sisting of the Scottish judicial review and we have lodged a motion to “reclaim” or restart proceedings.
We have not yet reached the actual Scottish judicial review or had any chance to give the arguments we will use there. It is my intention that we will attack the proscription in the most fundamental way, making these points among others:
- There is an active obligation on states to do everything possible to stop a Genocide. By contrast, the UK has done everything in its power to facilitate Genocide, including protecting its supply chain.
- It is patently absurd to call a non violent direct action group a terrorist organisation
- The state should not be treated as neutral or infallible by the courts. The false narrative on Iraqi WMD, and the terrible deaths and destruction to which that narrative led, should be a warning the state can get it very wrong.
- As a former senior civil servant who was in the FCO during that period, I can testify to the pressures on civil servants and agencies to produce the evidence and policy recommendation that Ministers wish to hear
- The evidence base produced by JTAC to support the proscription recommendation was fundamentally untrue. The Filton jury proved that the Met Police and JTAC assertions of escalating violence, carrying weapons with intent to harm, did not happen as a matter of fact. The jury rejected the aggravated burglary and violent disorder.
- Only one Palestine Action activist has ever been convicted of an offence of violence, and there the jury specifically found no intent
- Lady Justice Carr in the Appeal Court judgement both relied on Sheriff McCormick’s sentencing remarks in the Thales case. But there were no convictions of violence in the Thales case. Sheriff McCormick misrepresented the evidence. Last week he the Sheriff Appeal Court in Scotland overturned his finding of anti-Israeli racism against Mick Napier of Scottish Palestine Solidarity Committee. The inaccurate and frothing remarks of one zionist Sheriff are not a basis for proscription.
- Lady Justice Carr ruled that the Home Secretary must be given “appropriate latitude” and a “wide margin of appreciation” in security cases. But the Home Secretary should not be idealised. They are a politician, and in this case a politician who is parti pris. Yvette Cooper is massively financed by the Zionist lobby. The courts should operate in the real world not in an idealised and unrealistic one.
Lady Carr’s judgement is entirely and directly predicated on the notion that in any conflict in law between the state and the citizen, special deference should always be given to the state as more noble and trustworthy. That reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
To get heard at all we have to roll back Lord Young’s extraordinary ruling that the English Court of Appeal judgement should be accepted as law in Scotland in the interests of “comity”. This overturns centuries of doctrine on the separate jurisdiction of Scotland going back to the Treaty of Union itself – though it does reflect what had in truth been the unchallenged though illegal practice of deference to England in such matters.
I live in Scotland and it is in Scotland that my human rights are being restricted, The English Court of Appeal simply has no jurisdiction over me or ability to cancel my right to a judicial review before the courts of my own jurisdiction in my own country, a review which crucially had already been granted on the merits of the case.
This is the Note we have entered in support of our Motion. Before you read it please understand that we cannot continue the case without funding. This is incredibly expensive, and we have been through months of lawfare where the UK government has continually stalled the action, increasing the costs until we have real difficulty continuing. Please speak to anyone you know who is sympathetic and has some financial ability to help. Over 1700 people have donated so far. Donation links at the end of the page.
The Note published below addresses only the procedural question of lifting the sist and allowing the Scottish judicial review to proceed. It does not set out the full substantive case against the proscription of Palestine Action. That will be developed once the case is back before the Scottish courts. In summary, the Note argues:
- The English Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to bind Scottish courts on matters of Scots law.
- The principle of “judicial comity” does not require Scottish courts to follow the English decision.
- The requirement under the Court of Session Rules for the “speedy determination” of judicial reviews has been ignored.
- The UK Government’s litigation strategy north and south of the border is inconsistent and designed to delay resolution.
- The proper course is for the Lord Ordinary to report the case to the Inner House so that Scotland’s highest civil court can determine the matter under Scots law.
The substantive arguments against the proscription itself — including the state’s obligation to prevent genocide, the flawed evidence base, and the improper deference shown to the Home Secretary — are set out above and will be developed fully in the restarted proceedings.
For ease of reading I have deleted many pages of footnotes from the Note.
PAPER APART FOR THE PETITIONER
1. THE PETITIONER’S MOTIONS
1.1 The petitioner moves the court:
(1) To recall the sist granted on 28 May 2026, in respect that the Court of Appeal handed
down its judgment in Ammori v SSHD (Appeal No. CA-2026-000583) on 15 June
2026 ([2026] EWCA Civ 721), and the question of onward appeal from that decision
was resolved as regards the Court of Appeal by that court refusing on 22 June 2026 the
applicant’s application made to it under CPR 52.3B (which application was opposed by
the Home Secretary) for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
(2) To invite the Lord Ordinary to report the whole cause to the Inner House for a ruling
under and in terms of rule 34.1(1) of the Rules of the Court.
2. RECALL OF THE SIST
2.1 On 28 May 2026 the court sisted this cause till such time as the Court of Appeal gave its
judgment in Ammori v SSHD (Appeal No. CA-2026-000583) “and the question of onward
appeal to the UK Supreme Court being resolved”. The court also adopted a fall-back
position of the sist being lifted by effluxion of time to 27 September 2026, if the question
of onward appeal to the UK Supreme Court had not been resolved by that date.
The non-applicability of forum non conveniens considerations in the present
case
2.2 There is no dispute that the Scots law principle of forum non conveniens (which was
subsequently imported into English law 1) may apply in public law cases. But in Tehrani
v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 47, 2007 SC (HL) 1 Lord
Hope noted at para 59: that
“the plea of forum non conveniens can never be sustained unless the court is satisfied
that there is some other tribunal having competent jurisdiction in which the case may
be tried more suitably for the interests of the parties and for the ends of justice.”
2.3 But for a court to be able to uphold a plea of forum non conveniens it requires (1) that the
courts of England have jurisdiction to adjudicate over the matters at issue between the
parties in Scotland and (2) there is an identity between the parties in the different
litigations. Neither of these conditions apply in this case: the English courts have no
jurisdiction to determine any matters of Scots law (including whether Palestine Action has
lawfully been proscribed as a “terrorist organisation” as a matter of Scots law); and the
petitioner in these Scottish proceedings is different from the applicant in the English
proceedings.
2.4 The UK wide proscription of Palestine Action does not in any way change the fact that
Scotland and England remain wholly distinct legal jurisdiction whose systems of criminal
law, in particular, “are as distinct from each other as if they were two foreign countries”,
as Lord Hope put it in R v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Granada Television
Ltd [2001] 1 AC 300, 304G—H.
2.5 And just why in the present case it be should thought in the interests of the parties who
have sought to support Palestine in Action Scotland, and who are facing (the threat of)
prosecution in Scotland by the Lord Advocate under Scots law that there cease to be any
consideration of the merits of the challenge under Scots law to the proscription of Palestine
Action as a terrorist organisation is not explained, whether by the UK government in
seeking the sist or by the Lord Ordinary in granting it.
The decision of the EWCA in R (Liberty) v. Prime Minister and the principle of
“judicial comity”
2.6 Because there is no identity between the applicant parties in the English and Scottish
judicial reviews and because these judicial review deal with different, and non-
overlapping, issues of law (respectively: whether or not Palestine Action has lawfully been
proscribed in England and Wales under English law; and whether or not Palestine Action
has lawfully been proscribed in Scotland under Scots law) the Advocate General could not
include a plea of forum non conveniens in her Answers.
2.7 Given that there was no identity of parties and no identity of issues the Advocate General
instead referred to and relied upon before this court a “soft law” principle of “judicial
comity”, relying heavily in this regard on observations from the Court of Appeal in England
and Wales in R (Liberty) v. Prime Minister [2019] EWCA Civ 1761 [2020] 1 WLR 1193
(Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp P).
2.8 The issue of public law which was being discussed in R (Liberty) v. Prime Minister [2019]
EWCA Civ 1761 [2020] 1 WLR 1193 wasprecisely that raised and considered by the Inner
House in Vince v. Advocate General for Scotland [2019] CSIH 51, 202 SC 90. This was
whether the court could and should positively ordain the Prime Minister to carry out his
duties under Section 1(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 to “seek to
obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the
Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the
President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act
requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate
and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the
European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union’’.
2.9 But unlike the situation arising with the proscription of Palestine Action across the UK,
the issue of decision in Liberty/Vince had no direct implications for individuals’ civil
liberties, nor did it involve the criminalisation of conduct across the various legal system
within the UK.
2.10 By contrast, those who seek by their action in Scotland to support Palestine Action are
subject to Scots law, and would be liable to prosecution at the instance of the Lord
Advocate under Scots criminal law and procedure.
2.11 It is therefore necessary – as a matter of legal certainty – for the position in Scots law
to be authoritatively determined. As we have seen this can only be done by a Scottish court,
and not by any court sitting within the English legal system, including the UK Supreme
Court sitting in an English appeal, even where (which is not guaranteed) it has allowed
intervention from parties from other parts of the United Kingdom. This is because Article
XIX of the Acts of Union 1707 provides, as a fundamental condition of the Union between
Scotland and England that
“no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench,
Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-hall; and that the said Courts, or
any other of the like Nature, after the Union, shall have no Power to cognosce, review,
or alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, or stop the Execution
of the same.”
2.12 Accordingly, no court in England and Wales has jurisdiction to pronounce orders
which purport to extend to the realm of Scotland. This extends (as Lord Mansfield –
speaking against the background of the terms of the Acts of Union of which he would have
been well aware and to which he would have been particularly sensitive, being himself a
Scot raised in Scone in Perthshire – confirmed) to the writ of habeas corpus:
“to foreign dominions, which belong to a prince who succeeds to the throne of England,
this Court has no power to send any writ of any kind. We cannot send a habeas corpus
to Scotland”
2.13 In claiming in Liberty in a judgment handed down on 22 October 2019 that it is “wrong
as a matter of principle for litigants to press for determination of issues which are already
being litigated in another jurisdiction within the United Kingdom in public law cases”, the
Court of Appeal seems to have invented or newly minted constitutional principle. This
was not a constitutional claim which appears to have been known to, or applied by, the
very same (formally Divisional) Court (Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Sir Terence Etherton
MR, Dame Victoria Sharp P) in its judgment handed down just six week before on 11
September 2019 in Miller v. Prime Minister [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB).
2.14 In Miller – despite the fact that the Scottish proceedings of challenging the prorogation
of Parliament had already been raised and determined at first instance in Cherry v.
Advocate General for Scotland [2019] CSOH 70, 2020 SC 13, and this decision of the Lord
Ordinary was already known to be on appeal to the Inner House, before the English court
even heard argument – Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame
Victoria Sharp P sitting as a Divisional Court did not – whether on grounds of judicial
comity or forum non conveniens – decline to hear the case, and allow the Scottish litigation
to take its course. Instead, they decided to hear the case as a matter of English law and
hand down its judgment, noting as follows (at paras 1-2):
“1. …. The main issue we have to decide is whether the decision of the Prime Minister
to seek the prorogation of Parliament is justiciable (is capable of challenge) in Her
Majesty’s courts or whether it is an exclusively political matter.
We heard argument on Thursday 5 September and the following morning gave our
decision. We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable. It
is not a matter for the courts.
In formal terms we granted permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed the
claim. We acceded to an application that any appeal from our order could leap-frog to
the Supreme Court pursuant to section 12(3A)(c) of the Administration of Justice Act
1969 should leave to appeal be granted.
“2. Parallel proceedings were progressing in Scotland. They had been issued long
before the order to prorogue Parliament had been made in the context of a growing
concern that the Prime Minister might secure prorogation either side of the date
appointed by statute for the departure of the United Kingdom from the European
Union, currently 31 October 2019. Their focus changed following the prorogation
order.
On Wednesday 4 September Lord Doherty sitting in the Outer House of the Court of
Session dismissed the claim. He too concluded that this was not a matter for the courts.
An appeal is proceeding in the Inner House of the Court of Session. We have had the
advantage of reading Lord Doherty’s judgment.”
2.15 In sum, the discussion, observations and decision of the EWCA in R (Liberty) v. Prime
Minister concerning the principle of “judicial comity” is simply not a reliable guide to how
that concept might be applied within the context of the UK constitution, and in particular
as regards parallel litigations being pursued occurring at the same time north and south of
the border. It should be treated with extreme caution. To quote the Advocate General’s
own words in relation to Cherry and Miller litigations concerning the prorogation of
Parliament:
“Those cases arose during an exceptional period on matters of critical and immediate
national importance and must be viewed in that context.”
2.16 Precisely the same (if not more so) can be said of the Vince and Liberty litigations. The
Liberty decision is in any event readily distinguishable from the present proceedings. It
does not establish any general approach to be followed by this court. It certainly does not
give an authoritative or accurate account of the principle of judicial comity, certainly as it
might be prayed in aid within the UK.
The decision of the UKSC in Jwanczuk
2.17 Instead, the more authoritative and most recent discussion of that principle of judicial
comity in the decision of the UK Supreme Court in R (Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions [2025] UKSC 42 [2026] AC 699. As the UK Supreme Court notes in
its judgment (at para 61 – emphasis added):
“[A]s a matter of practice based on comity and good sense, rather than on legal rules
of precedent, decisions of any of the appellate courts of England and Wales, Northern
Ireland or Scotland will be treated as having persuasive authority when a similar legal
point arises in one of the other jurisdictions. The weight which is attached to them will
generally depend, in the first place, on how convincing the reasoning is found to be.
Where practical problems are liable to result if the earlier decision is not followed,
those will also be a relevant consideration. …. The question which arises in this appeal
is whether greater weight should be given to a decision, and if so, how much weight,
where it concerns the interpretation or application of a statutory provision which
applies in more than one jurisdiction, or where, as in the present appeal, distinct but
identical statutory provisions apply in different jurisdictions”.
2.18 The UKSC Jwanczuk decision was handed down on 20 November 2025. It therefore
postdated both the Court of Appeal in Liberty and the order of 16 May 2025 of
Chamberlain J in R (Juliette Poynter and others) v the Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions to stay an English JR pending a decision (then at avizandum) of the Lord
Ordinary, Lady Hood, in Fanning v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025]
CSOH 50, 2025 SLT 787. Jwanczuk was therefore a UKSC decision in a case to which
the UK Government was a party and it had been decided well before the sist hearing.
2.19 The Advocate General appears to have referred this court, very much in passing, only
to paragraph 100 of the Jwanczuk UKSC decision. This is where the UK Supreme Court
observed that “pragmatic good sense, is generally for the appellate courts of the United
Kingdom to treat each other’s decisions on the interpretation of legislation with great
respect, since it is undesirable that there should be conflicting decisions on the
construction of provisions which are intended to apply in the same way in more than one
jurisdiction”.
2.20 But it is clear from the Jwanczuk UKSC decision read as a whole that these remarks
in paragraph 100 were never intended to be read in isolation. They are immediately
followed paragraph 101 where the UK Supreme Court in Jwanczuk states unequivocally
that “however, appellate courts should not regard themselves as being under an obligation
to follow decisions which they consider to be wrong. They do not require to identify some
other compelling reason for departing from a wrong decision. They do not have to identify
exceptional circumstances. It is better that they should explain clearly why they consider
the decision to be incorrect, give what they consider to be the correct decision, and grant
leave to appeal to this court so that the difference of views can be resolved without undue
delay”.
2.21 Because this court appears not to have been referred fully to the UKSC decision in
Jwanczuk as a whole there is a danger that this court made its decision to grant the
Advocate General’s motion per incuriam inadvertently misdirecting itself in law (notably
in the court’s observation that “where the identical matter extending to Scotland has been
argued and determined by a competent court in the UK, it is contrary to the principle of
comity for this court to seek to re-litigate that issue”). That would appear to be an
allusion to what was said in paragraphs 28-29 in R (Liberty) v. Prime Minister [2019]
EWCA Civ 1761 [2020] 1 WLR 1193. But what is said there is not consistent with what the
UK Supreme Court overall says in Jwanczuk.
2.22 The decision of the UK Supreme Court in Jwanczuk, a case in which the UK
Government (of which she is a member) was a party, was clearly central to the question of
the weight that should be afforded in the present case to this claimed principle of judicial
comity. In their jointly authored judgment in Jwanczuk the UK Supreme Court held that
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Underhill, Elisabeth Laing and Falk LJJ in
[2023] EWCA Civ 1156 [2024] KB 275) had misunderstood and misapplied the principle
of judicial comity when the Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.
Arguably too judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in in R (Liberty) v. Prime
Minister [2019] EWCA Civ 1761 [2020] 1 WLR 1193 also failed properly to understand,
expound and apply the principle of judicial comity in that case.
2.23 The Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Jwanczuk wrongly thought that the
principle of judicial comity across the UK required the English courts to follow the decision
of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in O’Donnell v Department for Communities
[2020] NICA 36 [2021] NI 490. Despite the judges of the Court of Appeal of England
and Wales holding and expressing some doubts about the correctness of that NICA
decision, the English court held that the NICA interpretation was to be followed in England
and Wales, because the EWCA judges were unable to say that the NICA decision was
“clearly wrong” or that there were other “compelling reasons” to depart from it.
2.24 In their jointly authored opinion in Jwanczuk Lord Reed and Lady Simler instead
confirmed (at § 92) that
“a decision of an appellate court in one part of the United Kingdom on the decision of
an appellate court in a different part of the United Kingdom is not a matter governed
by the law of precedent”
and (at § 94) that in the different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, in relation to
“legislation which applies across the United Kingdom (or Great Britain, as the case may
be) … it is even more important that statutory provisions should be interpreted
correctly than that they should be interpreted consistently”.
Their judgment further noted (at §§ 66, 67, 98, 101, 102) that
“66. … [C]onsiderations of comity and practicality strongly encourage the adoption of
a common approach, but the Scottish and English courts will nevertheless diverge
where they are unable to accept the correctness of each other’s decisions. The adoption
of this approach has not caused practical problems in the administration of the
criminal law …
67. … When it comes to questions of civil law, any differences between the approaches
adopted by the intermediate appellate courts to legislation which applies across the
United Kingdom can normally be resolved by an appeal to the Supreme Court. Indeed,
the resolution of such differences is one of the justifications for the Supreme Court’s
existence. […]
98. … It cannot any longer be assumed that similarly worded legislation enacted in
different parts of the United Kingdom should necessarily be treated in the same way.
There are different legislative and executive bodies, which may be acting for different
reasons, and on the basis of different background material.
Issues of justification under the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular, generally
depend on judgements about legislative choices made in the light of conditions in the
jurisdiction to which the legislation applies, and the constitutional arrangements in
place in that jurisdiction. […]
100. … [I]t appears to us that the best approach, as a matter of pragmatic good sense,
is generally for the appellate courts of the United Kingdom to treat each other’s
decisions on the interpretation of legislation with great respect, since it is undesirable
that there should be conflicting decisions on the construction of provisions which are
intended to apply in the same way in more than one jurisdiction. As we have indicated,
it may be appropriate to attach particular weight to another court’s view of the
meaning of statutory language where it is difficult to say with any confidence that one
interpretation is correct and another is wrong. Somewhat less weight may attach to
another court’s interpretation of a similar but different provision.
101 However, appellate courts should not regard themselves as being under an
obligation to follow decisions which they consider to be wrong. They do not require
to identify some other compelling reason for departing from a wrong decision. They
do not have to identify exceptional circumstances.
It is better that they should explain clearly why they consider the decision to be
incorrect, give what they consider to be the correct decision, and grant leave to appeal
to this court so that the difference of views can be resolved without undue delay”
(emphasis added).
2.25 What may properly be drawn from the UKSC decision in Jwanczuk is that it is
fundamentally important for the proper functioning of the multi-jurisdictional
constitutional polity of the United Kingdom that the primary appellate courts within each
of those jurisdictions are confident in their ability and constitutional duty to make their
own decisions – independently of what other appellate courts may have decided – on what
is the correct interpretation in and for their particular territorial jurisdiction, even of
statutory provisions which are common across the UK. They must not consider themselves
to be bound by the decisions made in another jurisdiction.
2.26 In Marshall v. Caulfield [2004] EWCA Civ 422 [2004] ICR 1502 (in a decision upheld
by the UKSC in Jwanczuk) the late Laws LJ, made the point that even where the
substantive statutory law is identical north and south of the border even first instance
courts and tribunals are not bound by decisions of the Scottish courts (whether the Inner
House or indeed in employment the Employment Appeal Tribunal when sitting as a
Scottish court north of the border). He stated (at §§ 32-33):
“Now, statutory provisions which give dominion to courts in one jurisdiction
(international or otherwise) over courts in another are apt, here at least, to father
constitutional tensions.
But it is at least clear, and here is the point on this part of the case, that it would be a
constitutional solecism of some magnitude to suggest that by force of the common law
of precedent any court of England and Wales is in the strict sense bound by decisions
of any court whose jurisdiction runs in Scotland only or—most assuredly—vice versa.
Comity and practicality are another thing altogether. They exert a wholly legitimate
pressure. Mr Hogarth’s argument on this part of the case is thus in my judgment
mistaken. The EAT here was not obliged by law to follow the Court of Session. And
this court certainly is not”.
2.27 The fact that Scotland and England remain different legal systems, means that the
decision of the courts in England are of comparative law interest only and in no sense
constitute any form of binding authority on Scottish courts, no matter how low in the
hierarchy of courts the Scottish court or tribunal might be, or high within the English legal
system the English court decision at issue might be. Indeed as Lord Neuberger observed
in Willers v Joyce and another (No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 [2018] AC 843 at paragraph 22:
“22. …. The traditional view in Scotland has been that, subject to some possible
exceptions, judgments of the House of Lords in English appeals are at most highly
persuasive rather than strictly binding”.
2.28 And this position has, of course, been statutorily reaffirmed by the Westminster
Parliament in relation to decision of the UK Supreme Court when it provides in Section 41
of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, so far as relevant, as follows
“41. Relation to other courts etc
(1) Nothing in this Part [3 concerning the UK Supreme Court] is to affect the
distinctions between the separate legal systems of the parts of the United Kingdom.
(2) A decision of the [UK] Supreme Court on appeal from a court of any part of the
United Kingdom, other than a decision on a devolution matter, is to be regarded as the
decision of a court of that part of the United Kingdom.”
“Speedy determination” as the “key principle” in judicial review procedure in
Scotland
2.29 Further and in any event, the court appears to have granted the Advocate General’s
motion for a sist in these judicial review proceedings on the understanding that “a sist of
proceedings, whether on an agreed or opposed basis, is a regular feature of litigation”,
without having been referred to the relevant Rules of Court set out in Chapter 58 which
contain the principles which are applicable specifically to judicial review applications, as a
distinct form of recourse to the courts in public law matters.
2.30 Rule of Court 58.11(2) specifies that
“when permission is granted, the Lord Ordinary must make such orders for further
procedure as are appropriate for the speedy determination of the petition” (emphasis
added).
2.31 “Speedy determination” is the key principle for judicial review procedure.4 The aim is
“to focus the issues so that the court can reach a decision upon them, in the interests of
sound administration and in the public interest, as soon as possible”5 (emphasis added).
2.32 The only express mention of the possibility of the court pronouncing a sist within the
context of Chapter 58 judicial review procedure is within the context of the pre-permission
procedure for intimation, service and advertisement of the petition, the lodging of answers
and relevant documents, and notification of intention to contest. Rule 58.4(5)(h) allows
that the court might sist the cause for legal aid, but only, per Rule of Court 58.4(4), after
having “regard to the need for the speedy determination of the petition” (emphasis
added).
2.33 Rule 58.12(2) again specifies that “at the procedural hearing the Lord Ordinary may
make such order for further procedure as is appropriate for the speedy determination of
the petition and in particular may make any of the orders listed in rule 58.11(2)” (emphasis
added).
2.34 Yet Rule of Court 58.11(2) does not list the sisting of the cause as being a possible option
in terms of the court’s procedure in judicial review application where permission has been
granted.
2.35 In this, the judicial review rules are to be contrasted with various Rules of Court
applying to procedures other than judicial review, where express provision is made
regarding the possibility of the court pronouncing a sist.
Where was the legal foundation in the Rules of Court for the court pronouncing
the sist of 28 May 2026?
2.36 Against the general principle of statutorily construction that expressio unius est
exclusio alterius it is unclear just what was the legal basis upon which the Advocate
General for Scotland relied as giving this court the power to pronounce a sist in these post-
permission judicial review proceedings, given that the possibility of pronouncing a sist is
not listed among the particular orders which may be pronounced by the court in relation
to the speedy determination of a judicial review petition once permission has been granted
for it to process,7 and there is nothing in the Rules of Court applicable to judicial review
procedure which would allow for it.
2.37 The Advocate General therefore has this further question to answer in these
proceedings: why, when seeking a sist of these post-permission judicial review
proceedings, did the Advocate General fail to identify to the court any specific Rule of Court
on which she relied as the source of a power to sist and made no reference to principle of
“speedy determination” which applies to the procedure to be adopted in judicial review
application, both before (per Rule of Court 58.4(4)) and after permission has been granted
(Rules of Court 58.11(2) and 58.12(2))?
Sist is ex facie not conducive to “the speedy determination” of the judicial review
petition.
2.38 Whatever the presumed legal basis upon which the sist was founded and pronounced,
it clear that ex facie the 28 May 2026 order for sist does not constitute “an order for further
procedure which is “appropriate for the speedy determination of the petition.”
The court’s past interlocutors to be construed and applied consistently with the
requirement for “speedy determination” of this judicial review petition.
2.39 What this means is that – in the event of any ambiguity in the wording of the
interlocutor pronouncing the sist – the court is obliged under and in term of Rule of Court
58.11(2) to adopt and apply any possible interpretation of that order which shortens the
period of the sist, over any alternative reading which might lengthen it. This is an
application of the general rule of construction in favour of validity.
2.40 Any alternative reading (even if a possible reading) which would result in the sist being
in place for a longer rather than a shorter period cannot – consistently with the court’s
duty to ensure the speedy determination of this petition for judicial review – be adopted
by the court.
2.41 A final resolution of this issue as to whether or not this decision is going to be
considered by the UK Supreme Court would have been if the Court of Appeal had given its
permission to appeal against its decision (such as was done by it in Benkharbouche v.
Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2017] UKSC 62 [2019] AC 777 granting the Secretary
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs’ application to it for PTA to the UKSC8).
We would then all know, for certain, that the case was going to the UK Supreme Court for
its consideration and determination.
2.42 But that is not what has happened in this case. Instead, it is common ground that the
Court of Appeal summarily refused on the papers filed on Monday 22 June 2026, the
applicant’s application for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. As far as the
Court of Appeal is concerned the question of appeal to the UKSC has resolved by it. So
what we can say is that the Court of Appeal is now functus.
2.43 As we have noted, in order to have been properly and lawfully pronounced by the
court, the court’s interlocutor of 28 May 2026 imposing a sist has to be read in a manner
which is compatible with the principle of speedy determination of this judicial review
application.
2.44 It is wholly compatible with the wording of the court’s interlocutor of 28 May 2026 –
and one which is consistent with the speedy determination requirement – for the court to
find that on the fact of this case the sist conditions have been purified and therefore the
sist has fallen.
2.45 This is because the Court of Appeal duly gave its judgment in Ammori v SSHD on 15
June 2026 [2026] EWCA Civ 721 and one week later, on 22 June 2026, duly resolved, as
far as it is concerned, the question of onward appeal from this judgment to the UK
Supreme Court by refusing such permission to appeal.
2.46 It is presumed that the Advocate General will say that an alternative reading of the
court’s interlocutor is to be preferred, which involves the procedure in this judicial review
being paused until and the question of whether or not there was going to be onward appeal
to the UK Supreme Court has been resolved by the UK Supreme Court.
2.47 It is open to the “disappointed would-be appellant” in the English proceedings within
28 days of the Court of Appeal’s refusal to make an application direct to the UK Supreme
Court for its permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. And the UK
Supreme Court typically takes 6 to 8 months – and sometimes as much as a year – before
giving its decision on whether or not to grant such permission to appeal. These are
significant delays.
2.48 This would not be compatible with the “speedy determination” principle and is
therefore not a reading of the interlocutor one which it is open to the court to prefer over
the petitioner’s reading of it.
The UK Government’s position before the courts north and south of the border
is incompatible with the requirements of “speedy determination”
2.49 In any event, one may question the Advocate General as to what the UK Government’s
true position on this matter of the need for speedy determination of these Scottish
proceeding.
2.50 The litigation strategy from the UK Government as represented by the Advocate
General to date in these Scottish proceedings has appeared to be one of “kicking the can
down the road”, as far as the court will allow it. But that is simply not compatible with the
“speedy determination” principle which applies in these Scottish judicial review
proceedings.
2.51 The UK Government appears to want to treat these judicial review proceedings as if
they were a commercial litigation. It is submitted that its adopted litigation strategy runs
contrary to its constitutional responsibility of seeking clarity and a final authoritative
ruling from the courts on the crucial issue of public law, constitutional law and Convention
rights raised by these applications. The approach taken by the UK Government both in
the English proceedings (and in the Scottish proceedings) to date is frankly impossible to
reconcile with the (now canonical) observations of Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
(dissenting on the result) in Belize Alliance of Conservation v Department of Environment
[2004] UKPC 6 [2004] Env. LR 38 at para 86 that
“it is now clear that proceedings for judicial review should not be conducted in the
same manner as hard-fought commercial litigation.
A respondent authority owes a duty to the court to cooperate and to make candid
disclosure, by way of affidavit, of the relevant facts and (so far as they are not apparent
from contemporaneous documents which have been disclosed) the reasoning behind
the decision challenged in the judicial review” (emphasis added).
2.52 In the English judicial review proceedings south of the border the UK Government has
to date adopted an approach of alternatively seeking to impede delay the English judicial
review proceeding or demanding the expedition on the part of the applicant (for example
in seeking PTA from the EWCA) as it suits their litigation strategy. Thus:
– the UK Government first of all opposed permission being granted to the applicant in
the English proceedings: R (Ammori) v. Home Department [2025] EWHC 2013
(Admin) (per Chamberlain J. judgment handed down on 30 July 2025)
– the UK Government then unsuccessfully appealed against the grant of permission to
take the judicial review: R (Ammori) v. Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311
[2026] WLR 1000 (per Lady Carr CJ, Lewis LJ, and Edis LJ judgment handed down
on 17 October 2025.
– the UK Government lost in the substantive hearing of the judicial review application
before the Divisional Court: R (Ammori) v. Home Department [2026] EWHC 292
(Admin) [2026] HRLR 9 (per Dame Victoria Sharp President of the King’s Bench
Division, Swift J and Steyn J handed down on 13 February 2026.
– the UK Government then sought and obtained an expedited hearing of its appeal to the
Court of Appeal with hearing dates between 28 to 30 April 2026.
– as noted above some 6 week later, on 15 June 2026 a 5 judge Court of Appeal (Lady
Carr CJ, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Edis LJ Vice President of the Criminal Division of the
Court of Appeal, Lewis LJ and Whipple LJ handed down its decision upholding the Uk
Government appeal.
– once the EWCA judgment was handed down the UK Government then immediately
filed a motion with the Court of Appeal requiring that the applicant apply to that court
for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court by 22 June 2026 (i.e. just seven
days of that court’s substantive decision upholding the UK Government appeal
– an application for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court was duly put before
the Court of Appeal by the applicant on 22 June 2026. But the UK Government then
opposed the grant of permission, which was then refused by the Court of Appeal.
2.53 Had the concern of the UK Government truly been for there to be a final authoritative
decision applicable across the UK on the lawfulness of the proscription of Palestine Action
it would have supported the applicant’s PTA application. As we have seen from what
happened in Benkharbouche v. Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2017] UKSC 62 [2019]
AC 777 Such support from the UK Government would have rendered it far more likely that
the Court of Appeal would grant permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
Inconsistency in the UK Government’s position depending on whether facing
courts north and south of the border
2.54 Given its decision to oppose PTA before the Court of Appeal it may reasonably be
anticipated (for the sake of consistency if nothing else) that the UK Government will also
oppose any application for PTA made by the applicant direct to the UK Supreme Court.
2.55 The Advocate General can and should be asked by the court to confirm to it just what
the UK Government’s position is on this matter.
2.56 But it all rather looks as if the UK Government in the English proceedings is seeking
to delay (and indeed bring an end to this case at the level of the Court of Appeal decision
without further consideration by the UK Supreme Court.
2.57 The underlying claim and thrust of the position of the UK Government north and
south of the border is in fact contradictory and impossible to reconcile.
2.58 In the Scottish proceedings, the UK Government position as represented by the
Advocate General has been that the present proceedings should really be paused, until the
UK Supreme Court has given permission to appeal and then it can authoritatively
determine for the whole of the UK the legal issues raised by these challenges..
2.59 But in the English proceedings, the UK Government is actively seeking to stop the case
going on to the UK Supreme Court.
2.60 Such opportunistic “cakeism” being demonstrated by the UK Government depending
on which side of the border it is being called to account, is not a position which this court
should tolerate or permit to continue.
Conclusion on first part of the motion
2.61 The petitioner therefore renews the first part of his motion and moves this court, for
all the reason set out above, formally to lift the sist which was imposed on these
proceedings on 28 May 2026.
3. FURTHER PROCEDURE – REPORT TO THE INNER HOUSE
3.1 The Advocate General appears to be proceeding on the basis or assumption that if the UK
Supreme Court on an appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upholds the
lawfulness under English law of its proscription as a terrorist organisation in England and
Wales, this this ruling will apply equally to and for Scotland (and to and for Northern
Ireland).
3.2 And if the UK Supreme Court says that Palestine Action cannot properly be proscribed
under English law then – on the Advocate General’s analysis at least – it must follow it
cannot have been properly proscribed under Scots law or under Northern Irish law, again
on the assumption there are no principles specific to English law, Scots law or Northern
Irish law that might allow for a different approach on this issue to be taken across the
internal national jurisdictions of the UK.
3.3 But as we have seen from the UKSC decision in Jwanczuk that is to approach matters from
completely the wrong way round. What Jwanczuk tells is that the courts in each of the
jurisdictions of the UK have to reach their decision independently of how courts in other
UK jurisdictions have reached them.
3.4 One of the central planks offered by the Home Secretary in justification of her decision to
proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was an incident in Scotland in June
2022. In her written statement to the House of Commons made on 23 June 2025 (over 3
years after the Glasgow incident) she said this of it:
“During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in
2022, the group caused over a million pounds worth of damage including to parts
essential to submarines.
The Sheriff, in passing custodial sentences for the attackers’ violent crimes, spoke of
the panic among staff who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs
were thrown in the area where they were evacuating.
He further recorded the extent of damage to legitimate business activities which
included ‘matters of nationwide security’ and disputed the groups’ claims its actions
were non-violent.”
3.5 But it is important to bear in mind that in the English proceedings no challenge is made to
the Home Secretary’s statement made in justification for the order at issue that what
occurred during a protest incident at Thales SA, in Glasgow on 1 June 2022 constituted
acts of terrorism on the basis that they involved the use or threat of action which was said
to “serious damage” to, and only to property and was “designed to influence a government
to advance a political, religious or ideological cause” such as to fall within the ambit of
section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
3.6 Because the Claimant’s application for permission for judicial review on this was refused
in the Administrative Court below (see R (Ammori) v Home Secretary [2025] EWHC 2013
(Admin) at [77]-[80]), the retrospective characterisation of what is said to have happened
in Glasgow on 1 June 2022 at Thales SA as “terrorism” is not a matter which can be
disputed in the English proceedings. Indeed the Court of Appeal (in its judgment at para
150) relies heavily on what it understands from the sentencing sheriff’s reported remarks
as happened in Glasgow on 1 June 2022 in support of its finding in favour of the lawfulness
of the Home Secretary proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
3.7 This is a matter which can however usefully and properly be examined in the present
Scottish proceedings. A court in Scotland is in far better position to understand and
situate the circumstances of the June 2022 protest action at Thales SA in Glasgow in
respect of which the five individuals charged all pled guilty to charges of breach of the
peace. Two of these five also pled guilty to “damaging property” in gluing their hands to
the edge of the roof. And one of the five, in addition, pled guilty to behaving in a threatening
or abusive manner when police arrive to de-bond her hands from the roof when she was
obstructive and required to be restrained using leg restraints. The first four accused were
sentenced by the Sheriff to serve a total of 12 months incarceration and the fifth who
resisted arrest received a total sentence of 14 months imprisonment.
3.8 Much was made by the Home Secretary and by the courts in England and Wales that the
sheriff mentioned in his remarks the setting off of “pyrotechnics including smoke bombs”
at the start of what turned out to be a day long occupation of the premises. The sheriff
noted in his sentencing that “in one criminal justice social work report it is said that ‘the
offence is non-violent in nature and was planned as well as intended to cause disruption’”.
He then comments in passing that “throwing pyrotechnics into areas where people are
being evacuated could hardly be described as non-violent”.
3.9 But the reality is that fireworks are not firearms. The throwing of smoke bombs was
charged as and only as “breach of the peace”. None of the individual was charged with any
form of terrorism offences. The justification for the Home Secretary to found on the
circumstances of this case as a primary basis for the proscription in Scotland, as well as
the rest of the UK, of Palestine Action can therefore usefully be considered and determined
by the courts in Scotland in the present proceedings.
3.10 The UK Supreme Court indeed welcomes the opportunity of being able to hear at the
same appeals from the decisions of the (intermediate) appellate courts in relation to
legislation which applies across the United Kingdom. The resolution of any differences in
approach as between the Scottish and English intermediate appellate court is indeed said
in Jwanczuk one of the justifications for the UK Supreme Court’s existence.
3.11 What hearing appeals from Scotland and from England together means is that the UK
Supreme Court to get the benefit of the views of experienced appellate judges from both
sides of the border: see for example: R (Cart) v. Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28/Eba v.
Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29; and Cherry v. Advocate General for
Scotland/Miller v. Prime Minister [2019] UKSC
3.12 This course of hearing Scottish and English appeal together ensures, too, that a final
authoritative ruling can be handed down by the UK Supreme Court which unequivocally
applies to both sides of the border and thereby enhances and achieves the legal certainty
required to ensure compatibility with and respect for the Convention rights of all those
many individuals, north and south of the border, affected (including in relation to its
chilling effect) by the decision of the Home Secretary to list Palestine Action as a proscribed
terrorist organisation.
3.13 Against that background it is clear that the proper course to be followed in this case is
for the Lord Ordinary to report this case to the Inner House.
3.14 Accordingly, once the sist has been lifted in accordance with the first part of this
motion, the petitioner moves that the court – acting under and in terms of Rule of Court
34.1(1) – report the cause as a whole to the Inner House for its ruling on the substance of
this judicial review challenge.
3.15 Rule of Court 34.3(2) provides that “[t]he decision of the Inner House on a report to it
under rule 34.1(1) shall be final”: qv Davidson v. Scottish Ministers (No 3): incidental
application re Leave to appeal to House of Lords, 2005 1 SC (HL) 1 at §13.
3.16 This means that any decision of the Inner House, on the court’s Chapter 34 report to
it, is habile to be appealed to the UK Supreme Court (see subsection 40(2)(a) of the Court
of Session Act 1988), provided that the necessary permission to appeal has been granted
by the appropriate court (subsections 40(1) and/or 40(3) of the Court of Session Act 1988).
3.17 The petitioner submits that, instead of considering the petition and answers at a
substantive hearing and reaching his own determination on it, the option of reporting the
case to the Inner House is the most appropriate procedure to be adopted by the court in
all the circumstances of this case.
3.18 If this proposed course of action is followed then it will at least allow the possibility of:
the Inner House making a decision on the Scottish challenge; and then for the UK Supreme
Court to have the benefit of the decision of two appellate courts, respectively determining
under Scots law and separately under English law, the lawfulness of the proscription of
Palestine Action. The UK Supreme Court will then be able to determine this matter finally
and most importantly authoritatively both in and for Scotland, and in and for England and
Wales.
3.19 Any suggested alternative course which may be anticipated from the Advocate General
on behalf of the UK Government – for example that the present proceedings remain sisted
pending the determination by the UK Supreme Court of any appeal against the decision of
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, leaving the petitioner with the possibility simply
of applying to intervene in any English appeal in the UK Supreme Court – would be wholly
unsatisfactory for at least the following reasons, among others:
(1) Any resulting decision of the UK Supreme Court in a solely English appeal would not
be binding as a matter of precedent in and for Scotland
(2) The UK Supreme Court might choose to deny outright any application for the
petitioners to intervene
(3) Even if the UK Supreme Court allowed the possibility for an intervention by the
petitioner, that court might determine that it will allow limited intervention only on
particular aspects or arguments, rather than the full range of the argument which the
petitioner might wish to present
(4) Any arguments which the UK Supreme Court might allow to be heard from the
petitioner, would be considered and determined against a background of there being
no independent Scottish court consideration of these arguments.
(5) It is particularly important for the UK Supreme Court to hear the views of the Scottish
courts because one of the main justifications on which the Court of Appeal of England
and Wales relied upon in deciding that Palestine Action was engaging in and
advocating for terrorism is a decision and sentencing remarks of a sheriff in a
criminal case at Glasgow Sheriff Court and how the Scottish authorities (the police
the Crown and the sheriff) dealt with it (Ammori, [2026] EWCA Civ 721 paras 53,
150). Therefore, it is crucial that there is a complete and full understanding of the full
details and circumstances of that decision (and all other Scotland related decisions),
which only the Inner House can bring.
3.20 Accordingly the petitioner renews the second part of his motion and once more invites
the Lord Ordinary to report the whole cause to the Inner House for a ruling under and in
terms of rule 34.1(1) of the Rules of the Court.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 The petitioner in the present proceedings – and the applicant in the English proceedings –
hold the common position that the UK Supreme Court should be afforded the last and
authoritative word on the lawfulness under Scots law and under English law of the
proscription of Palestine Action in Scotland and separately in England and Wales.
4.2 This aim can only be achieved by the court following the course of action which the
petitioner urges on the court.
4.3 The UK Government’s position by contrast seems to be one of impeding or delaying the
final authoritative resolution of these matters, whether in Scotland or in England and
Wales. That course should not be permitted it by this court.
4.4 In all these circumstances the petitioner renews his motion as enrolled and moves the
court to grant both parts of that motion.
AIDAN O’NEILL KC
We desperately need more money to continue this legal case. Each stage of hearing like this costs over £30,000 and the eventual judicial review will cost much more.
Again please contribute if you can but do not contribute if it causes you difficulty. If you know people who are able to afford to help and likely to be sympathetic, please do contact them and ask their assistance. We are trying to keep a lot of very good people out of prison.
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
‘It is being forced through all its parliamentary stages – three readings, amendments and two Lords sittings – in a single day’
A needless precaution surely in an institution dominated by mindless chauvinism, warmongering and militarist halfwits? The latest addition to the gang, the People’s Andy, being one of the most ardent.
Regarding Labour gaslighting over Gaza, another pillar is the group ‘Labour Friends of Palestine’. Not just resolutely silent on Labour complicity in the Genocide but this week whitewashing key Genocide enablers Yvette Cooper and Hamish Falconer as the keynote speakers at its summer reception.
Of course. What does anyone propose to do about it?
The british political class has no priority other than The War On Russia, namely, in getting Americans to fight for them again.
For their part, the Americans sure are touchy when it comes to Israel.
Unconditional support of Israel is just as big as priority for the British ruling class as goading Russia. They’ve torn up their ancient legal norms and even the facade of their democracy just to protect the zionists’ genocide of Palestinians and Lebanese.
As for what to do about Parliament being dominated by authoritarian British chauvinist warmongers and militarists? I have no idea. Even the bloody Greens and Scottish nationalists belong in that category.
“Unconditional support of Israel is just as big as priority for the British ruling class as goading Russia.”
The reason why the british are so slavish in their support of Israel is because they want to curry favor with the Americans.
Those who are familiar with the “Looney Tunes” canon may recall the yappy little dog that follows Spike The Bulldog around, singing Spike’s praises, getting slapped around by Spike, and getting Spike into stupid fights.
The uk is that yappy little dog.
An external view.
In truth their maniacal priority is regime preservation at all costs, in the context of a rapidly decaying polity. Much of the rabid Russophrenia has to be understood through the prism.
As for war the state of the YooKay & Eurocuck militaries belies all the brave talk of rearmament or fighting Russia in earnest. As for the Trumpenreich, we all saw it’s best efforts against Iran…
Much as I would love to believe it, I don’t. The US has been busy acquiring control over more and more of the oil and gas supply by mostly foul means (NS2 pipeline, Venezuela piracy). Who controls energy controls the means of production and survival. Check out Richard Medhurst on this, it is the neocons project going back decades. Capital is suddenly flowing into the US as they ramp the costs and risks of doing business elsewhere.
Regime preservation is hardly aided by constantly trying to pick a fight with Russia so that britain can run screaming to the Americans “Article 5! Article 5!”
Nope, the *appearance* of doing so. Without ever actually doing it.
Not least because the Trumpenreich is in no fit state to fight WW3, it just wants to seem so. Yet in truth the DPRK, would be too much for them to handle.
It’s why the bloated orange fleshbag is trying to ineffectually force his decrepit vassals to “rearm”. Which won’t work because they’re too depraved & corrupt and the underlying socio-economics etc are too far gone.
In a british court, there is only the friend – enemy distinction. The law is irrelevant. Surely by now you know this.
“Friends” (such as Israel or Ukraine) are permitted everything and the law only serves to further their interests.
“Enemies” (such as Russia or Gaza) are permitted nothing, and the law is used as an instrument of persecution.
Is the National Security State Threats Bill available in Plain English?
Listen to Kernow Damo, or Paul Holden discussing it with Owen Jones
Also, Crispin Flintoff has a very revealing video about “Manchesterism” (Freeports/zones)
As I understand, the heart of the new bill is fighting front organisations of states considered hostile. In the past, agents of hostile states might work out of their embassies, now it’s front organisations. Hence the bill. But it has the danger of giving too much power to the executive to ban legitimate journalism, and humanitarian or academic activity. It may be too late to stop it now, but an amendment bill in future might help.
No,
The cunty, obtuse, repetitive and open-ended wankerese is an integral feature of the YooKay political experience.
Even if there were, it would not matter. The law simply means whatever important people decide it means at any given moment. When that interpretation is no longer convenient, then the same law means something else.
@TomT – I’m not sure if this is a good answer to your question, but the bill’s “explanatory notes” published by parliament and prepared by the interior ministry (“Home Office”) are here:
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/66801/documents/8443
A stated intention is to criminalise acts that a person ought to have known were “prejudicial to the interests of” the monarchist regime called the “UK”.
“…I have repeatedly said that liberal democracy has collapsed…”
Did democracy ever exist…?
“Did democracy ever exist…?”
Perhaps not, but we were a great deal closer to it before 2014 than we are today.
I suggest that neither England nor Britain has ever been remotely democratic. In the 19th century, when huge numbers of citizens agitated for democracy, efforts were made to erect a convincing facsimile of it, but – as in the USA – the owners always remained in charge.
I suggest that, rather than democracy which never existed, what we have lost is morality; decency; honour; and loyalty. While they may have been hard men capable of making hard (and sometimes wrong) decisions, Palmerston, Russell, Disraeli, Gladstone, Salisbury, and most pre-1914 political leaders were gentlemen by their lights, who had a strong sense of duty to the nation, the Crown, and the people as a whole. Many of the old hereditary peers had a strong sense of noblesse oblige, as well as a remarkable amount of useful knowledge and experience.
We no longer have people of that type, although Viscount Stansgate (aka Anthony Wedgwood Benn) and Enoch Powell were late exemplars – among others. Today’s politicians and civil servants seem to be largely motivated by selfishness or foolish ideology (or both).
Is that the same Enoch Powell whose most famous action was to make a speech in 1968 opposing the Race Relations Bill that would (and did) criminalise landlords saying they’d only let their properties to tenants who weren’t black?
Powell may have been loyal to his fellow racists but was the antithesis of “morality; decency; honour” with “a strong sense of duty to…the people as a whole” and “a strong sense of noblesse oblige”
I hope you fervent “anti-racists” enjoy the multicultural, multi-religious, polyglot mess that has been made of Britain since 1968.
One might add: overpopulated by a factor of 4. The prospects are not good; luckily I shan’t be around much longer to witness it.
Now, Tom, you know that it is simply not allowed to challenge the All Immigration Is An Unalloyed Good holy cow. How very unprogressive of you. Coincidentally, I was just seeing reports from ( hitherto ) unspoiled small communities in rural England that are about to have significant numbers of * illegal * ( ie arrived on People Smuggling boats ) dropped into their green & pleasant villages: sans consultation, forewarning or even the slightest chance of rejection: simply imposed. Hundreds of exclusively young men from cultures radically different from the * host * culture.
Of course, even stating the situation in these terms will be interpreted as ‘ scapegoating poor, vulnerable, * Asylum Seekers * ‘ – y’know, the kind that dispose of all their identifying * papers * by the simple expedient of chucking in the sea en route to Benighted Blighty,, having traversed several EU Open Borders supporting countries on the way.
Anyone who thinks this is all just circumstantial happenstance needs a forceful shake. Bear in mind….. the UK is preparing to fight a country with the vast military capability, experience and national pride, ie Russia, yet, supposedly is powerless against rubber boats full of unarmed civilians entering the country. Absolutely ridiculous; of course there is * Intelligent Design * behind all this. Maybe the Psychos That Are imagine all these fighting age, single men will be able to be conscripted/pressganged into the looming War to end all……….life on Earth ( the Elite will survive, natch. or so they imagine )
Thanks, Robert, for reassuring me that there are still some reasonable people online! It’s a principle of mine that one should first think and then – if necessary – emote. If you do it the other way round, the emoting distorts your thinking and you end up getting everything wrong.
In this case, thinking tells us that the UK is already grossly overpopulated, can barely feed its population by importing half its food, and has barely enough drinkable water. Its electricity is the most expensive in the world. The first step is hardly to bring in more people.
I also notice that while a nation can accommodate large numbers of people of different appearance, garb, religion, language, customs, and laws, there are quite hard limits. If the mixing is done on too large a scale or too quickly, explosions can happen.
That is a strong argument against unlimited – or, indeed, any – immigration – but it is unnecessary as the overpopulation argument is stronger still.
Those (apparently the majority, especially in the establishment) who emote first and think (if at all) second allow their feelings of pity for the poor displaced or badly treated immigrants to dictate their policy preferences. Unfortunately, uncontrolled immigration is an irreversible process. Once foreigners are in the UK, it will prove very hard if not impossible to get them to leave.
Of course, those who think that Britain was never a very good place to start with won’t mind.
Well said, I concur.
Controlled immigration, based on a provable need and fully sponsored, maybe. The mess we have now is a disaster waiting to happen, and very soon.
The Swiss recently proposed a sensible, IMO, population cap, unfortunately for them that failed.
@Robert – What is this “host culture”? Those who are born filthy rich and those who are in shall we say the lower two-thirds of the population, and let’s say we are just talking about white British people who were born with British citizenship, on the whole have not the slightest clue about how each other live. Even the way they speak English, the sociolects they use, are very different from each other and sometimes not mutually comprehensible. What they do when they’re children, teenagers, how they meet their spouses, how they treat their parents, where they get an income from, how they sort out accommodation, what they do to relax, how they raise their own children, etc. etc. – it’s as if they’re on different planets from each other, but you talk about the culture. How is this reference to “culture” any more realistic than making the point that there are a number of laws under which the rich and the poor are always treated exactly the same – sleeping under bridges, begging, and stealing bread?
@Stevie – Agreed it’s a mess waiting to happen, and that is an understatement. This is because weaknesses in what is good in society (let’s call it basic humanity and goodwill towards other people) just weren’t capable of staving off the prospect of the apocalypse to come. The buildup of pressure therefore continued. The same applies to smartphone addiction.
An interesting question is how far back can we trace these weaknesses? Focusing on smartphone addiction, which seems to be a widespread plague all over the world, no culture that I am aware of (although I have no info about smartphones in Tristan da Cunha) put up any resistance to speak of. Perhaps the problem goes back a few thousand years? (This is what Wilhelm Reich thought – he may have been right.)
Lines along which the apocalypse will break upon us include ethnic divisions and they also include a division between men and women, and between grownups and children.
When Son of Covid comes which can’t be too far off, it’s going to be GRIM.
@ Brian R.
Yo B, not sure what point you’re making. Are you suggesting that Culture is an illusion or that it only serves the interests of the ” better off “? Sorry if I’ve just failed to get your meaning.
A while back there was a debate, actually, it wasn’t a debate, just an assertion, by someone on Wings Over Scotland that there is no such thing as Scottish Culture – and this from ( ostensibly ) a supporter of Scottish Independence. I asked whether it was just Scotland that lacked a Culture, or whether every country/ race/ nationality was similarly bereft of anything identifiably theirs .
I also suggested the person making this assertion ask, eg a Spanish person if they thought their country ( Spain ) had a Culture: having lived there I know first hand how much Spaniards love & value things like Flamenco, the fantastic guitar-playing/singing/dance/costumes and what they term ” Duende ” ( roughly, Soul/Spirit ) with which that artform is – at it’s best – infused: granted this is mostly – though not exclusively Andalusian ; likewise, Bullfighting, and their rich culinary tradition. The Catalans too are VERY proud & protective of their Cultural Heritage – personified by those Human Towers we’ve probably all seen.
I reckon if you asked any Spaniard/Catalan or for that matter French, German, Malian, Latino/a, Inuit, Native American etc if they were possessed of a Culture they would answer emphatically in the affirmative. Yip, even English 🙂
Of course Culture, like everything else is not totally static and even, eg distinct national artforms like Flamenco manage to evolve whilst still retaining basic elements of the form that makes it identifiable. Worth remembering that despite now being VERY much identifiably Spanish, it’s origins lie in the Islamic/ Gitano ( Gypsy ) cultures that were such a massive influence on that country.
Point being ( yes, there is one coming ! )……..whilst the * Melting Pot * theory has it’s merits – and, indeed, is kinda inescapable, people gonna people with other peoples, it takes a strong sense of National Identity to be able to absorb other – * foreign * – cultural influences without risking the diminuation/erasing of one’s own.
Would it matter if in say 100/200/300 years white skin colour no longer exists? No, not to me it wouldn’t – and not just because I won’t be around. Would it matter if distinctly Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish cultural characteristics have been homogenised out of existence? Yes it would, even though I won’t be around to witness that sad loss.
Open Borders; Cultural Diversity; Multiculturalism etc are all fine ideas/ideals – philosophically, I agree with all of them. I just think, as a species, we are simply not ready for that; still too much religious/ ideological/ racial/ national attachments to allow those ideas to work harmoniously. Not to mention the malign effect of – in philosophical terms – Materialism ( eg the paradigm that Matter is the fundamental basis of Being ) and in political terms Neoliberal Consumer/ Financialised Capitalism.
Until we as a species evolve more comprehensive modes of Being & Understanding ( the nature of Existence ) throwing disparate peoples together to fight and struggle for whatever crumbs fall from the High Table, things like Mass Immigration are fraught with hazards and potential for civil strife.
Melting Pot or Ball of Confusion. Time will tell
@Robert – I am questioning the existence of this “host culture” that you say some young illegal male immigrants are from cultures incompatible with at close quarters. The rulers are whipping up British nationalism – the British national identity, national pride, white British pride, etc. – precisely with reference to immigration, especially illegal immigration. This suggests there wasn’t much to the identity before, because if someone is proud of something they’ve got then surely they’ll be proud and pleased regardless of whether they think they’re losing it. What actually is this “it”?
I get it that we are all more likely to respond more strongly when we think someone has picked £1 out of our pocket than if we see a £1 coin lying on the street, but another point is that this doesn’t mean the person who has stolen the £1 from us is who we are being told it is.
The nativist view (neutral term chosen here) seems to be that the “liberal elite” (USA term chosen here) has encouraged immigration without a care for the wishes of the people already living in the country, and whose forebears have lived here for generations, because…because said elite are woke woke woke as hell. The problem with this is that the reason that large-scale immigration has been allowed is absolutely not one of ideology.
The rulers don’t give a toss about the population, native or otherwise, and never have, and certainly they don’t have any respect for any culture the working class has got. Recently I listened to some material by Melvyn Bragg, a guy who is not from a posh background, and on the topic of working class culture in Britain (because he is oh so unpatronising, yeah right, so he makes sure to address this topic), he went on and on and on about brass bands as if that’s the only culture the working class have got … He may well know something about working class culture more broadly, and not just about brass bands, if he hasn’t forgotten it all, but if he does he’s not willing to cross the line of being genuinely unpatronising about it and thereby risk alienating his mostly privileged audience (and other top figures in the BBC, gentlemen’s clubs, and the House of Lords). Of course the working class has culture, or at least it did until everything went SMARTPHONE, but what on earth is this British culture that they are supposed to have in common with the rich? When has that ever existed?
@ Brian R
” The rulers are whipping up British nationalism – the British national identity, national pride, white British pride, etc. – precisely with reference to immigration, especially illegal immigration….”. Oh for sure they ( ” the rulers ” ) are doing that: but are they not also the ones that are enabling – at least not preventing – the levels of immigration that are causing such concern amongst the communities that are being most affected by this – what I think can be accurately described as – Social Engineering? Cui bono from increasing social tensions? I think you know the answer
There has always been movements of people since, well, there have been humans – and even their precursors – the difference now is one of scale, eg within the continent of Europe literally millions of non-Europeans have entered; this must be having significant effects; not – necessarily – exclusively negative effects, obviously, but it’s hard to really determine this as the whole issue has been so politicised – from both sides of the argument. In fairness, it can’t be anything other than a political issue, eg what influence has UK/West Geopolitical military/ economic involvements in other countries had on the creation of the ” Refugee Crisis ” ( EVERYTHING is a fckn ” crisis ” these days, huh? ) and what are the REAL impacts of this in the countries most affected by mass immigration, eg Germany, France, Spain, Italy and to a lesser extent ( so far ) the UK?
Just one example of the * fuzziness * of the * logic * often deployed currently , probably not definitive, but does illustrate what’s going on…..the recent incident of a man driving his car into a crowd of people going about their day in Ealing, London; the perp was described as – quote…” a British man born in Somalia ” LOL – so, in actuality a Somalian man living in the UK! Then there is the ” Asian Grooming Gang ” scandal/ cover-ups and other related affairs
On the other side we have opportunist ( Israeli- funded ) useful idiots like Tommy Yakety Yak Robinson and his Bucket-on-the-head Crusaders exerting themselves to incite a Race War ( after they’ve watched the football and had their full English grease-fest, naturally ) and * new * political parties using the issue to garner support and ultimately – they hope – electoral success.
I’m using the term ” Host Culture ” neutrally, simply as a description of where immigrant people are moving, trying to move to and entering legally or * illegally * . Not sure how else to describe such places/countries.
Yes, of course people in the host countries will feel – be encouraged to feel – resentment at what they perceive to be preferential treatment given to foreigners if they themselves are struggling, eg with such things as affordable/ availability of housing, jobs, NHS access etc. We may condemn such – apparent – scapegoating, but unless we ourselves are in that scenario eg on a housing waiting list for years, we really have no idea what it’s like – and no right to make value judgements on those who are.
How about Governments being focused on the needs and concerns of those who are already here, rather than on bringing even more people in who will also struggle and add to the already existing social problems?
Just to add, and I don’t intend any self-congratulation here……whenever I’m in my native Glasgow these days and note ( the fact of ) more and more people of African origin, I feel not the slightest resentment or anger at them, often wondering what brought them here, the struggles they faced in their own countries – not to say tragedies and how it is for them living, eg in some deprived housing scheme. I wish them well: but will adding significantly to their number really help them – or * us *, ie native-born inhabitants? I really doubt it will; as Tom said earlier, are there not already more people in the UK than can be adequately * accommodated *?
“In this case, thinking tells us that the UK is already grossly overpopulated, can barely feed its population by importing half its food, and has barely enough drinkable water. ”
Well, with live births per woman at a rate of 1.76, even with all the immigrants “breeding like rabbits”, that is a problem that will soon solve itself, if all immigration is stopped. Meanwhile all those pensioners who were looking forward to a quiet retirement will have had to kiss that goodbye as there will be a shortage of young people working to pay for the would-be pensioners’ pensions.
“Coincidentally, I was just seeing reports from ( hitherto ) unspoiled small communities in rural England that are about to have significant numbers of * illegal * ( ie arrived on People Smuggling boats ) dropped into their green & pleasant villages: sans consultation, forewarning or even the slightest chance of rejection: simply imposed. Hundreds of exclusively young men from cultures radically different from the * host * culture.”
If true, (any source other than the “yellow press”?) this just goes to show the extent to which the whole immigration subject has been weaponised in order to give the British an enemy other than the ruling oligarchy, who are the ones actually responsible for the mess that the UK is in.
@ Bayard.
I don’t seek out such things, but I saw this in passing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0URRDm8V1A
Yes, the Immigration issue is being being weaponised – I said as much in a comment, above – but that doesn’t mean there aren’t pertinent ( particularly to those directly affected ) aspects to it.
” …..the ruling oligarchy, who are the ones actually responsible for the mess that the UK is in.”. Again, agreed, but, again, as I also said, the ‘ ruling oligarchy ‘ are responsible for the whole shitshow in the first place. Do you really think if the latter were in reality against mass immigration it would be happening?
Don’t know about you but I can easily distinguish between Immigration and Immigrants. The latter are – for the most part and as far as I can tell ( how can anyone really know the minds/motivations of anyone, particularly people we’ve never met and know nothing about in advance? ) are simply seeking better lives for themselves – don’t we all do that?
The former is a political policy created and acted upon by people who themselves will almost certainly never be negatively impacted by what they create. Ever seen any posters declaring ” IMMIGRANTS WELCOME HERE ” in the ‘ Stockbroker Belt ‘ or Morningside?
Representative democracy, as a practical matter, is a fraud, an exercise in passing the buck, in avoiding responsibility. Everyone in power claims to answer to and derive their authority from someone else, going ultimately back to “the people” who themselves do not directly exercise power, and who would find it difficult to exercise as a collective action problem, even if they had the formal authority to do so.
The technical term for this is a “beard”. That is, a cover for the rulers to do what they want, even though the rulers themselves may be wildly unpopular. After all, your elected representatives approved this. If you don’t like it, you can vote for a different carefully vetted corporate imperialist muppet, so until then, shut up and fall in line!
What this means is that real power is often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, who typically don’t even want to stand for election because they don’t want the voters to know what their programs are, much less to exercise any oversight. Robert Moses is the classic example here.
Even that minimal level of scrutiny is too much for some, and real power is often exercised by people not formally part of any government structure. Corporate lobbyists or Robert Kagan come to mind.
This is the principle advantage of a democracy over a more authoritarian system. A Lukashenko or a Xi cannot tell the public that he hears their concerns, but sorry, his hands are tied, the Parliamentary Ombudsman made a ruling that the decision has to first go to the sub-committee and then the full committee and they won’t meet until after the by-election, so sorry, he wishes he could help but there’s nothing he can do. Everyone knows who makes the decisions and where ultimate responsibility lies. Who calls the shots and where the buck stops.
Of course, heartwarming happy horseshit rhetoric aside, a Starmer or a Johnson isn’t going to let any law or procedure get in the way of something he wants, like bailing out the billionaires at the casino or an escalation of the War On Russia.
The Chinese and Canadian response to the COVID lockdown protests is most illustrative here. The Chinese government gave way to the protests. The restrictions were lifted. The Canadian government ignored every law, right and principle in putting the protests down, even their own courts said so, but somehow, nobody was punished or faced any consequences. Instead, a different corporate imperialist muppet was installed.
Note that a Putin or a Xi does not have this luxury. Everyone in Russia and China knows where the power lies and where the buck stops. There is no way a Lukashenko can tell the public that he hears their concerns and that he’d really like to help, but parliamentary procedures mean that his hands are simply tied.
OTOH.
Why do we want/need representative democracy ? Don’t we actually just want the best qualified and most experienced to just run the country ? I personally don’t want to be ‘represented by people who I consider to be selfish, egotistical, corrupt, incompetents. And that is basically every single MP we currently have, fuck ’em all.
The Chinese system is based on providing the ‘creme de la creme’ into government. Their system works for their country and people’s and has thousands of years of historical experience. No, it doesn’t prevent corruption, but their policy of executing the corrupt helps. Westminster would be empty if we executed our corrupt MPs.
For representation, the Swiss system of referendums seems to provide a degree of people power. A similar mandatory system in the UK could provide a representational link.
The problem with our idiocracy is that we are now at the stage of keeping doing the same things whilst expecting a different outcome. Time for radical change ?
I concur, Stevie Boy. But the question arises: who is to choose the best qualified and most experienced? Either control will default to those who already have it, or we run into an eternal regression. That’s why I have always found the idea of “merit” so unsatisfactory.
Don’t get me wrong: there certainly have been, and still are, many selective systems that do a good job of choosing “the best”. But mostly where there are objective standards, like who can correctly solve the most mathematical or engineering problems.
When it comes to human affairs there is so much uncertainty and controversy that one person’s choice of “the best” can be someone else’s “worst”.
What I can say is that these matters are of the very greatest importance to us all, and deserve far more attention than they get. (But of course if that means “more research”, that is taken to mean “more money”, which hands over control to the wealthy…)
@Stevie – Have you got some more info about how the “creme de la creme” are provided into government positions in China? Are you talking about the civil service examination? What kind of backgrounds do the top performers come from? Surely the elite all told (whether in government jobs or otherwise) is as hereditary as it is elsewhere?
The Chinese leadership tends to love Cambridge university the same way Putin loves (or loved) Eton.
“But the question arises: who is to choose the best qualified and most experienced? Either control will default to those who already have it, or we run into an eternal regression.”
There is a perfectly good method of choosing the best qualified, which is used by organisations throughout the world, which is to have the candidates work their way up through the organisation, starting at the bottom. Only then do they get an understanding of what the job entails and, at the same time, those who are not up to the job, at some point make their incompetence manifold. In the West, this system has largely been discarded in favour of bring in people from outside the organisation, most notably in politics, where the qualifications for becoming a member of the government are practically nil. You wouldn’t entrust your brain surgery to someone who had no experience but thought they’d make a good doctor, or want to ride behind a bus driver who’d never driven before and hadn’t taken a test, nor yet fly with a pilot who’d done it on a computer and thought it looked easy, yet the job of making the country’s laws and providing members of the government is something that can be left in the hands of people with no prior experience – and this is the “best form of government”?
Red Brian. Try this for more info, other sources will exist. [Note. Larry Romanoff’s work is interesting, though some might say he is a bit antisemetic, maybe his views represent a deeper chinese belief, who knows ?]
“How Does China Evaluate and Choose its Leaders? Understanding China’s University System”
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/politics/3337/
The chinese system is based on ability, certainly those who eventually reach the top are highly educated people. Unlike the overwhelming majority of british MPs. The same can be said for Iran. It seems only the west values idiots !
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/07/01/treasury-ditched-numeracy-test-to-increase-diversity-hires/
The spread of bourgeois democracy followed the reach of the bourgeois media. This is clear in British history from the parallel between the continual expansion of the franchise and the increase in size of the part of the population influenceable by means of periodical publications…
From a bird’s eye viewpoint it also has a lot to do with advertising….and with the ideal of advertisers – getting the punters to feel respected and involved.
Every day more pervasive Totalitarianism in Wonderland…
Al Kalifa/Kaeida proxies in charge of Syria and Lebanon good, new born babies in Gaza hospital incubators bad..
civic minded pernsioners – terrorists, dual national murderers unmolested by domestic or international law
right to lower bills from adjascent offshore wind bad, gutsy data centres to be used on us good
Israeli control of governments good, public scrutiny of the coup – bad.
Peoples’ forums , due process and juries impossible, armed AI controlled public elimination robots coming through your door….
All very true. But soon you may be imprisoned for life for saying such things.
Where are the Mongols when you need them?
The regime of which you speak murdered about 10% of humanity 🙂
How would we know that ?
Why do you need to know when you can believe?
Wasn’t it the mongols who sacked Rome, then moved to Brittany before invading blighty ? Or was that the vikings ?
Good on you, Craig. It is beyond belief that a Labour government could do this, which I suppose just emphasises their complete divorce from anything Labour ever stood for. Starmer’s leaving gift to the arms and Israel lobbies who virtually dictate the legislation for him. That is now two central planks of the ECHR removed, to which we are signatories – freedom of speech, freedom to protest and even a third, freedom of movement. I doubt even the Tories would have forced through such a blatant dismantling of our legislative freedoms, the cornerstones of any postwar liberal democracy, the ones our elders fought and died for. Quite astonishing and shameless that British democracy can be so quickly and fatally damaged by unquestioned subservience to a genocidal foreign power, whose determination to criminalise protests and suppression the truth is unparalleled, vicious and evil. And we spinelessly acquiesce in our own descent to that level of betrayal and iniquity.
It all depends what you understand by “a Labour government”. Political parties are allowed to call themselves whatever they want, even if the “Labour party” couldn’t care less for working people. If you substitute the phrase “a government that calls itself ‘Labour'” things become more understandable.
Never mind the semantics, it is obviously in contrast to the values Labour used to stand for, as in the post war years, and what Starmer and LFI have transformed it into, a more authoritarian and repressive government than the Tories. And many voters thought it retained the broad ethos of its former incarnation. Thus it is a betrayal, they were mugged, as was the country.
Agree however it is the Uniparty. Each successive government is more extreme, lab, con or coalition.
We do not have the luxury of ignoring “the semantics”, as you patronisingly put it. “Semantics” means language, which is our only means of mass communication and getting ourselves organised as a society. “Never mind communication”???
Confucius explained this 2,500 years ago or so.
“A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect”.
– (“The Rectification of Names”) Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4-7, translated by James Legge
Allowing for a certain vagueness due to the difficulty of translating from ancient Chinese, that says it all. If the “Labour Party” is not the original Labour party, and does not further the interests of the common working people, “affairs cannot be carried on to success”.
Do you know the meaning of patronising? Or are you trying to illustrate it? Haha.
Ian, it’s hard to avoid seeming patronising when one has to explain such basic facts.
Semantics means meaning.
I’ve always loved the observation that we need definitions so sharp that no tyranny can withstand them.
Political parties in Britain may be allowed to call themselves whatever they want, but not if they want to stand in elections they aren’t.
Missing the point by a country mile. Basic facts.
Starmer will be remembered as the turning point in Britain becoming an authoritarian, militarist, arch-zionist state. Not by the current media-political class obviously, but by history.
I think that started in earnest with Johnson proroguing Parliament so he could force through hard Brexit for the Americans, and then soon afterwards imprisoning the population and closing the economy because of a winter virus. Starmer’s election ‘victory’ was a necessary cover for the fundamental lack of democracy, by making it look as if we really could vote for ‘change’. To be fair to the man, Starmer’s ousting probably means he was one of the better guys, actually, despite his posturing on defence this week (which had the slight feeling of being under duress anyway).
Could not be more obvious by now that people outraged about ‘proroguing’ have no problem whatsoever with genocide or with jailing those who try and stop it as terrorists. It’s not something unique to you, it’s virtually all Lib Dems, Labour centrists, Caroline Lucas et al.
I can’t see how restoring Britain’s independence and sovereignty – as far as may be possible after decades of immersion in the Brussels treacle pond – has anything to do with the USA.
Some people argue that escaping from the control of the EU is futile since we still have to cope with a dishonest, treacherous, and murderous government in London. It’s very simply: we must deal with our problems one at a time. We cannot cope with the London problem by also saddling ourselves with the even worse Brussels problem.
Just look at – and listen to – the unelected people who run things in Brussels. Von der Leyen, Kallas… each worse than the last. It’s hard to say whether their dishonesty is more shocking than their ignorance or their naivety. And now they want to go to war with Russia, which could crush them – and us – like flies. If the Russian government were ever convinced that the UK intended to harm Russia and was capable of doing so, it could render the entire UK uninhabitable within one hour.
“To top it all off, one in four members of the 705-seat European Parliament has a criminal record. We are talking here about people that, mostly in their home countries, have been visited, questioned or detained by the police or convicted in a court of law. In other words, the highest representative organ in the EU is made up of ordinary criminals. For one quarter, but still, those people enact laws that the 450 million EU subjects have to adhere to! An admirable feat, to say the least.
“The core of the problem is that Western elites and peoples may think they have “values,” with many wishing to uphold these, but that is just not possible. This is because since the mid-1980s the West in fact only adheres to one single value: money. Everything in the “West” is expressed in monetary value, everything has a price. And where everything has a price, there remains nothing of value. Therefore, even the one value that the West has and truly respects, that is money, is meaningless”.
https://www.unz.com/article/putin-and-western-values/
Sorry, but you forget quarter of a million elderly and far from elderly died of pretty unnatural causes and swiftly curtailed end. Though not broadcast to the masses, a million people in the UK alone aged from nursery school to mid sixties ARE still maimed for life since early in 2020 and the mid 2021 onwards casualties of the miracle. These folk matter. The 600,000 who can’t work cos their body is totally damaged have been replaced from abroad.
It may have been manipulated to various ends but there was a bioweapon doing the rounds… Perhaps the cock up was that instead of targetted sabotaging the economy of China it went how shall we say VIRAL. it wasnt a seasonal cold and your granny getting given massive amounts of Midazolam mean she didnt have a fighting chance. Some countries did actually bother to try and save people strange as it might seem. The UK had almost the highest casualties per capita just by policy. So Boris is guilty of more than a coup and acting as errand boy for the military industrial meat grinder
The measures in the National Security State Threats Bill were proposed by the “British” government’s go-to “independent barrister” on matters of “terrorism”, Jonathan Hall, a guy who just happens to be married to the daughter of former Master of the Rolls and current patron of “UK Lawyers for Israel”, “Lord” John Dyson:
https://www.uklfi.com/about-us-2/our-patrons-2
Wait a minute… the bill is about deterring and combatting the influence of foreign powers? R-i-i-i-ght.
A donation on its way. Thanks for all the good work that you do
Excellent piece Craig, thank you very much.
“I have repeatedly said that liberal democracy has collapsed. I do not need further proof.”
Indeed so.
“But with Labour Friends of Israel member Andy Burnham to take over as PM with former Chair of Labour Friends of Israel James Purnell as his Chief of Staff, support for the Genocide will continue unabated.”
An observation and a question:
Andy Burnham’s response to this will most surely be a litmus test of his foreign policy stance, but do we have firm evidence at this point as to what his stance is or will be?
ChatGPT notes recent lack of commitment one way or the other from both men, citing Chris Doyle:
https://www.newarab.com/news/burnhams-new-pro-israel-chief-staff-greeted-suspicion
And it is at least notable that Burnham was calling for a ceasefire in October ’23 when Starmer was supporting genocidal mass-starvation policies and was whipping against a ceasefire.
Not all so called ‘Friends of Israel’ support the genocide, and so far Burnham is keeping fairly tight-lipped on his future foreign policy.
Starmer’s support for the genocide made voting Labour impossible. Despite his seemingly very good domestic economic policies if Burnham maintains that support then voting Labour will remain impossible.
But at this moment, it seems to me, naively perhaps, that we can’t be sure what Burnham’s policy will be.
PS. Perhaps naively again, could it be that this is being pushed through so quickly because they think that Burnham wouldn’t do it or wouldn’t support it?
Don’t kid yourself. Burnham’s policy will be whatever keeps the Americans happy.
Some cystal ball…nightmares … If you wake up I’m told you can control the outcome of your dreams… we can at least resist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iLf2h_fo-w
I can scarcely believe I am reading this.
What on earth has happened to the country I was born in?
As I have written elsewhere, I truly didn’t leave my country, it had already left me.
It will take a revolution to see me visit it again.
Donation just given. Keep it up.
I see that the Canary has just been gutted by Lloyds (no apostrophe?).
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/07/01/qyni-j01.html?pk_campaign=wsws-newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws-daily-newsletter
“I see that the Canary has just been gutted by Lloyds (no apostrophe?)”
Didn’t you hear? Proper spelling and punctuation is elitist. You are forbidden to act in an elitist way unless you are one of the elite.
Slogan- mind control
“Genocide good, Putin bad”.
Dredge- bottom scrapers.
Good one. How about
Dictatorship’s bad
Democracy is better
than alternatives
OTOH:
Trump’s democracy
Gives that system a bad name
We need good people
Good people, like the Genocide Democrats, and this lot
https://jacobin.com/2026/02/uk-israel-gaza-genocide-media
Every liberal leader in North America and Australia and virtually all those in Europe should be in the Hague for their participation in the Gaza Genocide.
You know this
Johnny0h45
The Western alleged Democrats apply the same characteristics to the so called ‘ Regimes ‘ and are busying themselves ( particularly the minor Ex – Imperialist Powers) with shoring themselves and their political and military belief s up by denying dissent.
They are not very confident of their actions and beliefs if they have to do that.
There is a Hierarchy of dissent which starts with Israel closely followed by the US.
The hold that Israel has considering it a small country is interesting.
What they have in terms of information on many politicians may be interesting too.
Maybe a lot of it is in The Epstein files as 1.5 million files have still not been published.
Sounds like a Conspiracy theory but why are they all trying to protect Israel and even Trump at
the expense of their own economies and people?
Do they know something we all don’t know?
What I do know is that being ‘Democracies ‘ they have to be elected and many people on the left -right and
even the centre are not pleased with them at all.
Unless the Democratic Elections are cancelled due to war or some other real or unreal manufactured threats?
It’s the self harm of pretty well off countries that I don’t understand.
Every country takes sides – that’s sort of normal but pleasing Israel and the US unquestionably is surely economic suicide.
MARK M CUTTS
“Sounds like a Conspiracy theory ”
Well it sounds like a plausible theory involving a conspiracy, if that’s the same thing.
I am sure that the Epstein Files are just the stuff we know a little bit about, but that there are many other sources of highly troubling information touching on the personal and business lives of prominent political and business figures out there. If they could not be compromised, they would not be allowed to reach their high positions.
They say that if you see one cockroach, there are a hundred more that you never see.
MARK M CUTTS:
The contradictions in the current US position are there to see. Its allies both domestic and foreigh are going to be hurt (perhaps more than their adversaries). If the US decision to go war and its current acceptance of the status quo are part of an advanced imperial plan the question raised is why now ? Would the timing of their aggression have been more propitious at an earlier date or have they timed it just right ?
If this does not get resolved shortly I believe the economic consequences (both domestic and foreign) will extend well into 2028 (and beyond). With a US election scheduled for November this year the Republican party are going to get hammered; that is if they have an election of course, rather economic catastrophe, and the civil war Mr Bannon has been dreaming of for a long time.
Arrested at John Lennon Airport:
It is important to remember that the assassination of Lennon was a CIA operation. He had been inactive for about 5 years but the surveillance was maintained. It was thus possible to get a good idea of what he was planning to do.
As with other assassinations, a false narrative was created in order to disguise who was really responsible.
The shooting actually took place in the vestibule of the Dakota Building which would have made it very difficult/impossible for somebody outside the building to be the assassin.
About an hour after the shooting, Detective Ron Hoffman admitted to reporters that the shooting took place inside the building. He also claimed not to know anything about reports of a second gunman.
(this exchange is available over the internet)
A Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA has produced very little but it does confirm that the Agency was interested in him.
Now, if the CIA is interested in someone and that person is then shot dead, that obviously makes the CIA a reasonable suspect. And then the evidence really starts to pile up.
This is an interesting listen, especially when it has been revealed that there were unsuspecting victims across the globe wherever the CIA were /are..
and the various ways this “project”was inflicted, from Mengele type experiments, to clockwork operatives for domestic terror and assasinations
I have always thought psychiatrists should be banned …(especially those ex Nazis and Ukrainian Zionist types)
“We Uncovered The Master Plan That Peter Thiel Doesn’t Want You To See” (More Perfect Union, 29 Jun 2026) – video, 29m 58s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQulJS-R50
Re: ‘The UK state is currently attempting to gaslight us with a concerted campaign of messaging about a few millions in aid to Gaza – much of which is concentrated on assisting ethnic cleansing by various medical and educational routes for people to leave Gaza’
Funny how our host appears to think that anyone from pretty much anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa who’s claimed asylum in the UK must have their sob story automatically believed, but people wishing to leave an *actual war zone* for treatment for their injuries in the West, rather than what’s currently passing for hospitals in Gaza, should be denied because ‘ethnic cleansing’.
In all the comments I’ve read on here about the situation in Gaza, I don’t recall a single one advocating that the West takes refugees from there – not even just women & children. I don’t claim originality here, but I’m increasingly of the opinion that many on the pro-Palestine Left don’t particularly like Palestinians – rather it’s that they just really don’t like Israelis/Jews.
Rather than advocating for taking refugees from Palestine – people who actually want to stay there – wouldn’t we be better off advocating that the genocidal state of Israel wasn’t bombing and starving them out of there in the first place?
Answer – of course. And if you weren’t so obsessively desperate to score cheap points off our host, you might have realised that’s exactly what he – and the rest of us – are doing.
Of course I’ve realised that he’s been advocating that Israel stop bombing Gaza (and Lebanon), Glenn, along with hundreds of millions of other people – and I’ve also realised that it’s been having *precisely zero* effect. The Israelis aren’t even listening to (arguably) the most powerful man in world demanding that they stop bombing Beirut because it could wreck his much-vaunted peace deal with Iran, which he’s relying on in the mid-terms. They simply don’t care. So what’s to stop them thinking: well we’ve killed 80,000 Gazans and most of the world hates us and is accusing us of committing genocide, so why don’t we just do an actual genocide and kill the rest of them? If the West takes refugees from Gaza, then they at least should survive.
I’m not advocating that Gazans be forced to leave, but I’m fairly sure that not every Gazan wants to stay there – although Hamas probably want them to. If you think that critiques of those who wish to deny people injured in war appropriate medical treatments are cheap political points, it probably says more about you than me.
Has anyone asked them what they prefer? Give them medical care in Gaza and start rebuilding it. At the same time the UK has been bending over backwards not to accommodate refugees from Palestine since this started.
Thanks for your reply Nick. As far as I know, no one has asked Gazans what they prefer. I suspect that, in the absence of Hamas minders, most would say they wanted to leave. Have you seen the state of the hospitals in Gaza? In addition, why should Western doctors have to risk their lives to treat Gazan patients, and suffer many other privations there as well? The UK has not been bending over backwards not to accommodate refugees Palestine. How many of the small boat people are Palestinians?
RLA, I think that Gazans would like to know, before leaving, where they would be going, what life would be like there, how they would support themselves, and what compensation they would receive for their land, houses, and other property.
Although I think most of them would prefer to stay right where they grew up and lived before the ethnic cleansers tried to get rid of them. If they could get their land, homes, and other property back.
What passes for Western civilisation is said to depend on property rights, among other agreements. Why don’t those rights extend to Palestinians?
Thanks for your Tom. I think that most Gazans would be aware that, if granted permission, they would be going to Western countries where, even though it’s deteriorating markedly in Europe, the quality of life is much better than living in a tent in Gaza, even for those who don’t work and live on benefits. Perhaps, if they could wave a magic wand and go back to their lives before 2023, they would prefer to stay in Gaza, but rebuilding will take decades, Israel will probably demand at least half of the strip for their own ends, and Palestinians surely won’t get any compensation for their losses (just like Ukrainians). There’s also the possibility that Ben Gvir & Smotrich etc will come to power and begin exterminating them en masse on some spurious pretext, while the world looks on doing nothing but going on marches and expressing their horror & revulsion on social media (and no doubt this website).
The British government would continue to arm it and provide surveillance. Jailing any citizens who tried to stop it as terrorists. Smearing protest as antisemitism.
A very active participant in genocide.
distasteful your equation of asylum claim with “sob story” too. Just saw that.
The ‘sob story’ reference was an allusion to a tweet from our host a while ago, Nick, in which he wrote that he’d been intervening on behalf of an asylum seeker who claimed to have suffered all manner of ills in his home country. When people in the replies asked him for evidence to support this, our host could provide none, then started calling them ****s, which is maybe not the best idea when your home address is easily available online. Undeniably, most asylum seekers in the UK are economic migrants. They are not fleeing war, famine or political persecution. The reason that around 75% are granted asylum is because the low-paid officials who deal with asylum claims generally don’t want the hassle of going up against lawyers.
source for this 75% figure? How do they know, have they strapped them to a lie detector?
Thanks for your reply Nick.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
The 75% figure is a rough average for initial grants and successful appeals from the last decade. You’re very welcome.
I don’t imagine the Home Office use lie detectors, but successful asylum seekers need to provide a modicum of evidence to support their case. For example, scores of Iranian asylum seekers claiming to be Christians will show footage from their phones of their being baptised in the church that my father attends. He tells me that, in all but one case, as far as he’s aware, their baptisms were the only time they’ve been in attendance.
The Israelis would stop in a moment if America was serious – surely you’re not making the case that you’re completely ignorant of that fact?
Surely you’re also not making the case that you’re totally unaware that western governments are actually highly concerned about how unpopular they are making themselves, state propaganda notwithstanding? “Zero difference” indeed.
You’ve also shifted to a position from saying that everyone here (and Palestine supporters generally) hate Jews and Muslims to accusing them of wanting to deny Palestinians medical treatment. That’s got to be a hallucination. You’re the only person suggesting anything of the kind.
You’re here to take cheap shots, make false accusations, and generally be a tedious nit-picking, slippery detractor for everything our host does and stands for. Why deny it?
Weren’t you just recently claiming that black people are far more prone to violence and criminal behaviour generally? I hardly see you as representing and advocating fairness and decency.
Of course the US administration is serious, Glenn. It really doesn’t want the Straits of Hormuz closed for months, resuling in US gas prices soaring, let alone years. (Sure the US is awash with oil, but that’s mainly lght, tight crude from fracking, not that sort that’s generally used to make gasoline). Western governemts are highly unpopular at the moment mainly due to effects of appalling economic mismanagement since the financial crisis, as well as mass immigration. Very little of it is to do with Palestine. How many votes did Galloway’s Workers Party get in the last general election, or were obtained by Your Party in this year’s local elections? Basically rounding errors.
For the record, I have never claimed that everyone on this site (or Palestine supporters generally*) hates Jews & Muslims and wishes to deny them medical treatment in the West – or that even most of them do. Our host on the other hand… I haven’t made any false allegations, and I wouldn’t refer to castigatimg those who wish to deny people seriously injured in war proper medical treatment, as our host seems to be doing, as ‘tedious nit-picking’ – but maybe that’s just me.
I was recently claiming that black people are far more prone to violent criminal behaviour, and the reason for that was because it’s true – whether you like it or not.
*Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that most the UK’s National Front (or rather what’s left of it) were/are big supporters of Palestine.
I’m inclined to think, after reading the breathless idiocy in RLA’s comments, that the moment some Palestinians from Gaza are brought to the UK for medical treatment, RLA will start dancing around claiming that these refugees are taking beds away from British people.
Doubtless also, RLA believes Gaza Palestinians are being brainwashed by Hamas into wanting to stay in Gaza – regardless of the fact that Hamas remains the legitimate government in Gaza after Israel decided back in the early 2000s not to allow local government elections in the region after the Palestinians voted out al Fatah in favour of Hamas.
All these shallow circular arguments RLA makes leads me to consider the possibility that RLA is here purely to flood the comments forums and distract proper discussion – because s/he has something against Craig Murray, because of his beliefs and activism.
yes and disbelieving their “sob stories” etc. disgusting attitude.
Thanks for your reply Jen. What are you on about though? I want Palestinians seriously injured in the war to have proper medical treatment in the West – which I would imagine would largely take place in private hospitals paid for by western governments – and yes, whilst there, they could claim asylum and, seeing as they’ve come from a war zone that they couldn’t leave by other means, they would have a better case than 99% of asylum seekers from other countries.
Of course I don’t believe that Palestinians are being brainwashed by Hamas to stay in Gaza. Hamas has no need to do that because only a very small number of Gazans can obtain permits to leave, and the rest of them literally have nowhere else to go (unless they’re very strong swimmers and can circumvent the anti-swim netting and get to the Sinai coast).
From 2005 to 2023, Israel had no involvement in Gaza, apart from brief military incursions in 2009 & 2014 (in which thousands of Palestinians were killed) as well as targeted strikes against people it deemed terrorists. Hamas has been the de facto government because it won a war with fatah in 2007. There haven’t been elections since 2006.
I have several things against our host: one is his promotion of violent activity in the UK (not least against policewomen FFS), which he appears to believe is the way to win reasonable people over to the Palestinian cause. I can inform you (and him) that it’s not. (On a personal note, I’ve also been left a bit out of pocket by him in the past – but then many people have.)
FAO Nick B:
Last year around 7% of asylum seekers in the UK came from Afghanistan. I would imagine that the vast majority are young men. What were they fleeing from? Oppressing women? ****ing kids? There’s far more disgusting things in this world than my attitude.
‘ So what’s to stop them thinking: well we’ve killed 80,000 Gazans and most of the world hates us and is accusing us of committing genocide, so why don’t we just do an actual genocide and kill the rest of them? ‘
The idea seems to be to shovel the Gazans into The Sinai desert so as that Kushner / Witkoff and his mates can make a killing ( pardon the pun ) for developing real estate for the well off buyers.
Not necessarily Israeli buyers – anyone rich from across the globe.
Not a stone can be laid until that forced Exodus is carried out.
Looking at it from a capitalist point of view would you be investing in small country in which Israel’s enemies can virtually fire missiles at will?
The Israelis want to feel ‘safe’ and they are rapidly realising that without the back up of the US their safety ( Forever?) is not guaranteed similar to the Ukranian safety ( Forever ?) situation.
So, there is a Plan as they say.
Before you lay one foundation you need to look at The Gulf States current situation and recognise that Iran has proven that the big bullies can be beaten or stopped in their tracks temporarily at least.
Complicity in attacking a country ( and it may be one that Europe and the UK may find out fairly soon ) has consequences.
Of course shovelling poor defenceless people is easy money but like any invasion you have to be prepared occupy your invaded country with armed forces – not drones – real armed people in order to keep control of that country.
It appears that if the US can not ‘control/occupy ‘ Iran then Israel has no chance of controlling it.
If I were Wittkoff and Kushner I would hold off on printing the glossy brochures at the moment as everyone has a plan and the US and Israel have just had massive punch in the face.
Meanwhile the BRICS ( who really do have plan ) are watching Trump’s Peace Wars in astonishment and apparently are cracking on with building Thorium Reactors which theoretically ( I’m not a Scientist or a Son of a Toolmaker or an ex Goldman Sachs employee) could power China and maybe the BRICS countries for tens of thousands of years.
It’s old American technology which was dropped in the 1960’s because you could make Plutonium for bombs out of it.
I am certainly going to look out for the brochures for that.
The MSM and bought politicians will not be promoting or enquiring into this technology much.
And because it’s not covered by the mainstream – it can’t be true of course.
From a Non Scientists view it looks like the future.
Similar to Garlic Bread.
Thanks for your reply Mark. Yes, I’m sure that Kushner & Witkoff would love for all the Gazans to be deposited somewhere in the Sinai peninsula. Unfortunately for them, the US government can’t control Egypt, despite it being run by the al-Sisi administation they helped install. So quite why our Glenn thinks they control Israel is beyond me.
You can make plutonium for bombs out of traditional uranium reactors, which was the main reason they were initially built – the electricity was just a bonus.
Why not both?
“…..rather it’s that they just really don’t like Israelis/Jews.”
That was almost a good comment, shame you couldn’t restrain yourself at the end. I think that most non-Zionists can be pardoned for not liking Israelis.
Thanks for your faint praise Bayard. If it’s of any interest, I don’t like most Israelis, and I also don’t like plenty of non-Israeli Jews – but I don’t want Palestinians to have to suffer any more than they already have done.
If I had a house I would host Palestinian children and the adults accompanying them if they were orphans and offer them whatever respite through the only means I could …. a garden, creative activities.. no substitute for their own family but I would if I could…. and have somewhere in mind if I could raise funds, a small gesture.
but better than what our politicians give them, which arrive in depleted urainium & steel casings.
The national security bill is fascist legislation designed to stifle opposition to unlawful genocide by those who signed the genocide prevention legislation.
If , after the last two decades of party political shit shows, we are still in want for a centralised political system with local representatives, there are ways of preventing corruption and bypassing/abolishing the need for general elections by self serving careerists and liars,
How about choosing people at random, saving 300million plus on GE’s, by using a random computer that chooses from Constituencies NI numbers. The woman/man pulled will be asked whether they would like to represent voters in said constituency for 1 year( corruptive influencers want long term access to politicians).
Political parties would wither away as those selected at random would group and debate in policy groups that demand most urgency and or support from voters.
Control freaks who would like to spread their views to all would like to tell people what to do and by their actions stick out instantly.
Gender bias could also be dispersed with by having female and male NI’s seperately available.If a male rep. Served for a year, then the next rep. could be drawn from the female list. Nobody would serve twice or consecutive terms, the software would/should not allow this.
My guess would be that the environment, all forms of energy creation, the cost of living and issues currently ignored such as a care and mental health acts would feature according to reps grouping around them, as their constituents want.
The civil service behind these normal people, amateurs who want to do this job for a year, who then instruct the next rep of their last yearly progress, the civil service would bend over backwards to make this work, just as they work for the current impossible hucksters, liars and cheats.
Party politics is toxic and open to infiltration by beliefs and ‘benefit showering’ as we can see.
That National catch and suss all bill is their only way to shut uus up and control our lifes. Change will not be painfull, except for the Lords and HoC, as they would have to take their hats coats and all their habitual bile.
Sell Westminster, it would make a great Mall, Hotel and or refugee/ homeless hostel.
Contribution on the way. Best to you all, Craig and family, take care.
This system is called Sortition.
A Citizens’ Assembly chosen by random selection from the whole population.
This is/was Extinction Rebellion’s only political demand.
Paul Holden on the alarming clauses in the new ‘security’ bill, which are deliberately worded to give almost any convenient interpretation of people’s thoughts, writing and public appearances as ‘supporting terrorism’. As decided by the home secretary or her minions.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-204445473
Richard Medhurst agrees:
https://x.com/richimedhurst/status/2072414713909064137?s=20 (see all three tweets in the thread)
Aid workers, journalists, bloggers, opinion columnists, anybody in public – all potentially liable for arrest for discussing, referring to, or explaining facts or opinions they government doesn’t want you to. And if that should fail in court, they have pioneered a wonderful solution – just have a retrial, behind closed doors if necessary. And if the defence lawyer makes points they don’t like – like reminding the jury of their rights – then charge him too, twice if necessary.
How rapidly the Starmer regime have outlawed free speech, and protest. Now it seems to include thinking too, or simply being informed.
In better news, Craig has had some good news about his health, on his twitter feed.
EU on the same track.
“EU court backs criminal prosecution for sharing RT videos”
https://www.rt.com/russia/642490-eu-court-rt-germany/
Not much point in clicking a link to RT from the UK, it’s banned!
Which UK do you live in? I could read the article no problem.
The blocking is probably being done by the companies:
I was reading at Middle East Eye dot net last night via my landline/ADSL. When I tried to view the same page via my mobile device which connects via a different provider, I found that the same website “couldn’t be found”. I checked my URLs very carefully, and eventually searched for Middle East Eye dot net on my mobile device using DuckDuckGo. Links duly appeared in the results, yet following them still produced the same “couldn’t be found” page.
Judgment of the Court in Case C-67/25 | Traugott Ickeroth
The prohibition on broadcasting content from the channel Russia Today applies
also to a website accessible to the public free of charge
The applicability of that prohibition depends neither on whether the activity pursues a profit-making objective nor on the extent or duration of the broadcasting
https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-07/cp260094en.pdf (link to press release from The Court of Justice of the EU)
“The German court handling the case had doubts about whether these citizens could be held accountable, as access to “the website in question could be accessed free of charge and was financed solely by donations from its users.”
The European Court of Justice resolved this issue by determining that an “operator” in this context is “any person responsible, directly or indirectly, for providing access to prohibited content, including in the context of non-profit activities or when a website is funded through voluntary contributions from third parties.” This means that distributing Russia Today videos in the EU can lead to criminal prosecution.
“Only that interpretation makes it possible, as envisaged by the EU legislature, to prevent the broadcasting of the propaganda put in place by the Russian Federation and, consequently, to protect public order and security in the European Union,” the European Court of Justice stated.”
The full listing of the judgement and opinion can be found below:
https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/jurisprudence?sort=DOC_DATE-DESC&searchTerm=%22C-67%2F25%22&publishedId=C-67%2F25
Talking about fat cunts, don’t view these pix on a full stomach.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15947289/Nicola-Sturgeon-tipple-london-husband-SNP-embezzlement.html
That needs a content warning.
John Lennon, a man of peace. He hit women and abandoned his first son – said he was “unwanted” – even though Lennon condemned his own father for doing the same to him. Nice guy – not!
He also bragged about how much money he could make by writing a song – thought that that made him important.
Must be nice to be perfect ? The past is a foreign country, it’s no good looking at it through modern eyes. No genius is perfect, I bet even jesus was a bugger when he was pissed. Hey, and let’s not forget some historical women had issues as well.
Give peace a chance !
Language Sir, I’m referring to the man from Nazareth.
Here’s a useful aide memoir of who is polluting our media and minds.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/07/02/billionaires-media-ownership/
re: Operation Barbarossa
In continuation of the earlier discussion of this issue in the Ukraine Forum you will find a YT-lecture by historian Götz Aly with Engl. subs about Germany 1933-1945:
“How was it possible?”
recommended
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/ukraine-date-nov-2023/page/52/#post-106992
AG. I can recommend the writings of Shane Quinn. He’s a WW2 historian that writes factually without obvious bias. IMO.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/shane-quinn
What has Britain’s nominally liberal party had to say in Parliament about this new National Security Bill?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I want to begin by making clear that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. Our country faces co-ordinated hostile campaigns by state-sponsored and state-linked actors who actively undermine our democracy, terrorise our citizens and erode our core values. The Home Secretary has referenced Iran, China and Russia; we know that in the future there will be others.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats support the principles of the Bill. We gave been clear that we also want this legislation on te statute book and will not hold it up. We fully recognise the unprecedented security challenges that we face, confronting more serious and less predictable threats than at any time since the Cold War. In 2025 alone, MI5 reported a 35% increase in state threat activity on the previous year, including more than 20 Iran-backed plots to kidnap or kill on British soil.
Our nominally liberal party again, demanding a crackdown on a children’s television programme
Tom Gordon (Harrogate) (LD)
Today in Parliament I raised the growing concern over ‘Masha and the Bear’, a Russian cartoon streamed to British children on Netflix and ITVX, and flagged by Ukraine’s Centre for Countering Disinformation as a Russian soft power tool.
I called on the Leader of the House to secure a statement from the Secretary of State for DCMS on what the Government intends to do.
https://x.com/tomgordonLD/status/2072781913878917417
First comment under Tom’s highlights a search on X that shows he has never posted anything about Gaza.
FFS! Is it April 1st again? Will Paddington – alleged place of origin the Orinoco, but those highly reliable Teletubbyland East Counter Disinformation ( ahahahaha ) sources are telling their counterparts in The Shire that he actually came from the Volga; will he be getting proscribed next: or what about that suspected double-agent, Winnie, will those other ” bears of little brain ” in MI5/6 be planting Novichok in his gaff too?
What is utterly laughable is fckn clowns like Gordon actually taking to Soc Med to announce this piece of exceptional – even by Brit Pol standards – idiocy; as if it’s some kind of noble act of patriotism, when it is in fact dribbling gibberish/ infantile propaganda
The UK has become – FUBARville
We had empires run by emperors.
We had kingdoms run by kings.
Now we just have c*ntries.
Imo, one perfect joke on the current state of morals.
Just want to add, that you media are not covering sone important shift re. Ukraine.
They just decided to establish a National Pantheon, with many of nazi criminals in it. Their government voted ‘pro’, unanimously.
Ukraine has excavated the remnants of some Melnik and re-burried it in Ukraine with much drama.
The scandal is BIG within Poland, who strongly objects to the glorification of nazis, especially those who slaughtered Poles, women and kids. I mean bandera, the national hero of Ukraine. Poles are simply annoyed by ukrainian habit of erecting monuments to him and calling him a ‘freedom fighter’.
Polish government’s statement on the issue even used ‘Small Poland’ referring to the territories which used to be Poland then, and are internationally recognised as Ukraine now.
And these people pretend to be bothered by Masha and the Bear more, than by open nazism in Ukraine?
British politicians don’t believe in anything, particularly their own countries. They are career politicians which means that they wil, for money, regurgitate and repeat any nonsense to prop up their joke of a career. They are lower than cockroaches and deserve utter contempt.
However impolite this might sound, Stevie Boy, I’m sorry to say, I’m not bothered.
I think every country is free to elect it’s own government. What they get is the direct outcome of their actions/inactivity..
E.g. in my country many are disappointed with the ruling party re inner matters, method of management, corruption and especially too soft reaction to the corruption.
There’s a massive movement to vote for the Communists this autumn. Not because the Communists are better, but simply because they are the major opposition.
I, for one, watch the events with bewilderment. People look like a bunch of stupid guys, making wrong decisions, based on wrong data. As if the current Communists aren’t the other cheek of the same butt 😉
Would be nice to live up to October and see what the things turn out in the end. Hope no drone or missile demolish my hard-earned dwelling by that time 😉
” I’m not bothered.I think every country is free to elect it’s own government”
Unlikely, the EU has interfered in many European nations elections – such as in Romania, Moldova and Estonia.
RoS
If they aren’t bothered , why should I be? If they’re not happy, they may act and change this, imo
If they are ok, so ok, I mind my own life. Since nobody asked my government to interfere – and thus inderectly asked me to increase my taxes payments – I really am not bothered.
Do not help if you aren’t asked for help.
By the way, have you heard anything about the new law that will put you in prison. For a term of three months to five years. For reposting content bearing the RT logo?
I wonder, what if someone shares RT’s weather forecast? 🙂
Remembering what they did to Julian Assange, I’m really not optimistic about ‘democracy’ and ‘rule of the law’. Freedoms are taken away from people too easily these days.
Ultimately, all of this is about the fact that there are people on our planet.
People form communities—sometimes based on truly bizarre criteria. These communities elect key decision-makers —governments —and then people simply go on with their own difficult lives.
Governments sometimes exacerbate the hardships of life in order to face less scrutiny regarding their own actions. This allows them to play their own games with other governments without anticipating a harsh public backlash. Consequently, they might —for instance— sponsor and arm radical Islamists in the Middle East, radical Zionists in Israel, or radical nationalists in Ukraine.
All of this is just a way to spend the public purse without accountability, lining their own pockets.
They d’not care that armed, hateful people are now stationed on someone’s borders.
After a certain period, they leave office scot-free*.
I first came across this site back when Theresa May was the Prime Minister. How many have come and gone since then?
*Google translate suggested this. Never heard it before, so if wrong, please comment
“I wonder, what if someone shares RT’s weather forecast?”
Back in the 18th century in Britain, nearly every crime carried the death penalty, even something as trivial as deliberately damaging Westminster Bridge. However this didn’t mean that hundreds of people were hanged every week. What it meant was that the people in charge could decide whether you were someone they wanted rid of, in which case you would be hanged, or whether you were just unfortunate, in which case your sentence could be commuted to a fine or a lesser punishment. So will it be with the application of this new law. Thorns in the side of the Establishment (the British ruling elite) like Craig will be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law, people accidentally sharing RT’s weather forecast, who are not in the habit of saying nasty (even though true) things about Israel’s government, or generally going against the official narrative, will be ignored.
Hello Tatyana. Best wishes to you.
– “I, for one, watch the events with bewilderment. People look like a bunch of stupid guys, making wrong decisions, based on wrong data. As if the current Communists aren’t the other cheek of the same butt 😉
Would be nice to live up to October and see what the things turn out in the end. Hope no drone or missile demolish my hard-earned dwelling by that time 😉”
Yes, that’s how I feel. That’s how I felt as Starmer’s Labour was elected.
And I have the same wishes as you – for you, me, and everyone.
“People form communities—sometimes based on truly bizarre criteria. These communities elect key decision-makers —governments —and then people simply go on with their own difficult lives”.
That is a sufficiently plausible theory for most purposes, but I feel obliged to point out that it has never been true. Even after the French and American Revolutions, the people who led the revolutions formed the new governments – and made quite sure that they and their friends would go on doing so.
The “key decision-makers” co-opt each other and then set up facsimiles of democracy that are sufficiently realistic to keep the common people grazing and chewing the cud contentedly. The elections and suchlike are purely ornamental.
“If they aren’t bothered , why should I be? If they’re not happy, they may act and change this, imo”
Tatyana.
You’ll be bothered alright – when the missiles and drones from their lands head towards Russia, for they are now EU/US/Israel/UK staging posts against Russia.
Brussels is demonising Russia – before it attacks it, and any Europeans who speak the truth about it, face the wrath of the EU bigwigs.
“This is properly insane: quite literally the worst example of censorship I’ve ever heard of anywhere.
I checked the actual ruling (which you can see here: courthousenews.com/wp-conten…) and, to be clear, it isn’t just censorship in the conventional sense – blocking access to a website or removing content from platforms – this is the criminalization of information relayed by private citizens, with prison sentences attached.
And the most insane aspect if that it does NOT matter if the information relayed is accurate or not. It just matters that it originates from RT or other media outlets banned in the EU.
In other words, truth isn’t a defense anymore in the EU, it literally doesn’t matter. It’s purely based on the identity of the speaker.
The ruling is actually explicit about this: the regulation, quoted by the Court says that the prohibition applies to “any content,” and they draw no distinction based on what the content actually says. If it originates from banned outlets, it’s banned.
It is, quite simply, a complete unraveling of the entire post-Enlightenment legal and philosophical project where entire generations of Europeans fought to move from “who says it” to “is it true” as the operative question.
Think about the absurdity of it: if RT publishes a video saying the sky is blue and you share it on a publicly accessible website in the EU, you’d fall within the scope of this ruling, making you liable to criminal prosecution.
Completely and utterly absurd. But that’s the EU today for you”
Some bears must be more equal than others I bet Yogi Bear is approved of, (but not Russian, or Scottish. bears either.)
The BBC are great at using fictional content to discriminate and create unsympathetic characters and baddies who are invariably.. Scottish. so nothing has changed since Douglas Hurd’s early attempts to hide our worth by rubbishing us with “Sctoch On the Rocks”. (some utter crap called “Vigil” was a contemporary effort with Scots as baddies/in the gaslighting).
On censorship …the escalator of doom speeds ever faster as you run against it. Legislation is in the air to force You Tube and others, to punt content from mainstream liars like the BBC to the top of the all-gory-them especially for news..and then demand paid subscription to watch anything on You Tube nobling making, viewing, sharing of alternative perspectives…
Why was the Canary banking with Lloyds in the first place?
Who would you recommend ?
It seems that no UK bank can truly be trusted. They are all part of the establishment infrastructure, and with cash being used less and less everyone is at risk if they don’t conform.
Stevie Boy
A good question.
The US orders The Swift System to ‘de- bank ‘ countries never mind awkward political individuals.
Never known the banks not to comply.
Maybe the Big Banks would end up being de-banked if they didn’t comply with the US’s requests (orders)?
And I reckon not many Israeli politicians have ben de- banked for horrific crimes neither.
Debanking is liable to become a weapon used unjustly with no effective redress, not just against organisations like Canary but against individuals e.g. by the USA against members of the ICC, or the UK government against pensioners carrying placards convicted of supporting a proscribed organisation.
There may be a need in the future, if bodies like the EU or UK governnent don’t protect the banking civil rights of people adequately, for an alternative economy that might work by barter with reference to an agreed list of values. There was the “deben” system in Ancient Egypt – the deben being a ring or coil of copper. Goods were exchanged according to their agreed value in debens, without physical debens actually changing hands. Today we might have cryptocurrencies like the monero, often used in illegal transactions and liable to seizure. However the monero could be used like the “deben” in a community with an agreed list of prices. But this depends on people being part of a supportive network. If a dictatorship arises in the future such networks may be underground, used by people who refuse allegiance to TPTB. “The beast forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, slave and free, to have a mark placed on their right hands or on their foreheads. No one could buy or sell without this mark, that is, the beast’s name or the number that stands for the name.” (Rev 13:16-17).
Corr. ‘governnent’ -> ‘government’
Debanking is already used against individuals in the UK.
Try sticking your head above the parapet and see what happens.
Like Nigel Farage and the FSU (who have expressed support for The Canary over this issue). Over 400,000 individuals were ‘de-banked’ in 2023-2024, banks don’t have to give a reason but any suspicious activity could trigger a de-banking.
Individuals have a right to a basic payment account but…
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jul/19/what-are-the-uk-rules-on-access-to-banking-and-how-are-disputes-settled
Pears Morgaine:
I take it that by “FSU” you mean the Free Speech Union rather than the Financial Services Union?
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2026/07/02/debanking-scandal/
Please beware alphabet soup; if we abbreviate things enough, the Powers That Be won’t have to censor us!
For reference: in some towns in England the green middle class is already using its own currencies for exchange of services among its members, e.g. if you want a head massage based on fairytales in exchange for scitar lessons for your eldest, come to
CaliforniaTotnes or Cambridge.As for Nigel Farage, it’s interesting how the main political parties that aren’t Reform are treating his stunt in Clacton. They are basically saying they don’t consider the residents of that area worth being asked for their votes. The London political class (possibly with an enclave in Salford) sees this as a smart move. Some of them, as I understand it, are sharing jokes about rubbish bins, encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. People in Clacton may see things very differently. This includes both Reform voters and those who detest Reform. The political
herdclass may perhaps take a different view if Reform win the Manchester mayorship in a few months’ time, when “Hail to the Chief – he’s a northerner, you know” may have started to reap diminishing returns.Very interesting that none of the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, or Green parties have the guts to say “We don’t think this by-election was necessary, but we certainly welcome the chance to be able to put our programme to the people of Clacton”.
Supporting Count Binface because they haven’t got the guts to put up their own candidate isn’t a dignified look either for the government party or for any of the older opposition parties. It’s essentially pooping on the electorate during an election campaign.
Nigel Farage’s team surely gamed this eventuality.
Even with government and “opposition” all behind Binface, Farage may increase his majority of 8000 and almost certainly will increase it if there’s another Henry Nowak-type video and the acceptability of clownishness drops out of the window.
That is a good question.
I wondered that.
I have banked with the Bank of Scotland since the Royal Bank of Scotland let my parents down hard about 50 years ago. Then the BoS was acquired by Halifax. Now I have been told that my “Halifax” and “BoS” accounts are to be administered by Lloyds.
Perhaps all the Western banks are just subsidiaries of one huge corporation. BlackRock?
Halifax has been owned by Lloyds for years.
See also Wickes and Travis Perkins – same company, different brands.
“Perhaps all the Western banks are just subsidiaries of one huge corporation.”
In some sense, yes. Same goes for car insurance companies. And also betting companies – and not just Betfair and Paddy Power. Plus electricity companies etc.
There needn’t be formal ownership. Google seems to hold Microsoft’s goolies in its leather-gloved fist – and Samsung’s goolies too.
donated (05/07/2026) a few euros, hope will arrive safely.
Yes, draconian laws to circumvent the rights of the individual, circumventing redress in law, and third party ie Zionism MI5/6 and CIA Nazi regimes replacing human rights! They only right one has in our land, to raise the standard, at glenfinnan!
A recent case of legitimism in practice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbürger_movement
Who is the main Stuart contender nowadays? Is it still the duke of Bavaria?
Starmer is trying to force YouTube to force-feed users with government-approved media and suppress independent, dissenting voices.
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/07/05/starmer-attack-media/
A further effort to sew everything up before he leaves.
There’s a UK government green paper on the UK media which can be read online (an executive summary is here) and a chance to participate in a public consultation.
Participation is complicity.
There is NO UK to begin with, Scotland is held by corrupt Scottish politicians and the corrupt judiciary and COPFS.
https://nitter.poast.org/i/article/2073919892781211722
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FHMiLMlRXMAEwjnl.jpg
It is part of a very distinct pattern.
‘Starmer has already banned social media to try to prevent young people informing themselves about his and Israel’s crimes. He is criminalising protest that informs the public about the crimes of the US, Israel and the UK. He is ramming new legislation through parliament in a day to criminalise information from sources he doesn’t like. Finally, he is ordering tech companies to give the government backdoor access to ordinary people’s private messages. Banks are cutting off anti-genocide campaigners — and the Canary news outlet — almost certainly at the state’s prompting.
And now he wants to destroy a whole ecosystem of people gaining information — and those making a living or additional income by providing it. All to prevent the public exercising its right not to listen to the state-corporate propaganda channels spewing disinformation.
So far, presumptive new PM Andy Burnham has given no indication that he will reverse or even slow down the war on public self-education. In fact, his record suggests the opposite: in 2025 he backed the so-called ‘Online Safety Act‘ that already forms a key plank in Starmer’s war on inconvenient information — and backs the social media ban for under-16s.’
But he’s such a niiiice man, look how he bubbled and burbled with such ersatz aiemotion when leaving the office he served with impeccably kosher honour; before nobly standing aside to allow Sir Andrew Burnham-Down Bum Bailey of Blackrockchester to continue the great and necessary work of turning Angletown & it’s disparate provinces of Jockland, Wallies, Norn Land of Ire into a land fit for Gazzilionaires and ridding it of the pestilent poor and troublesome scoundrels with thoughts of their own.
His name will be forever esteemed wherever & whenever cuntz gather – from Chipping Sodbury to Sodom – to Gomorrah to Galashiels & Donbass to Dumbass glasses will be raised in tribute to a truly great Englishman – Mr…….eh……..pretty sure it starts with K……Krampus? no, oh this is embarrassing ….Mr……Kevin? no that’s not it …..Mr……..well, can you believe that? such an incredible man who done such incredible things, like..um….fighting off three Russia- controlled Ukrainian rent chaps single-handedly with the entire UK Political/ Legal + MSM Establishment and achieving the supreme feat of becoming the UK’s most unpopular PM ever and I can’t remember his name……Kelvin? yeah, think that’s it, or is it Alvin? no, it’s def Kelvin, got it…..Mr Kelvin Stardust
Local democracy champion The People’s Andy says he will never give Scottish people permission to vote on independence, despite a majority of Scots wanting an indy referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74yy1yd340o
Did he say *which* people he champions?
Always read between the lines and look for the unspoken statements.
Yes, and neither will any PM ever give such permission: Even if one wanted or was inclined to, eg to recognise the now fairly settled majority for a referendum in Scotland, he/she would simply not be allowed to do so. The idea that such a epochal event as permitting the opportunity to ” break up the UK ” was ever/ will ever be determined by politicians – even a PM – is fanciful to say the least; that one was previously permitted was down to the perception, based on polling figures in the years preceding 2012, that there was little support for it and in the knowledge that the entire UK Establishment and MSM could be marshalled to ensure the defeat of the * Separatists * – and so it proved to be the case. There is also the certain involvement of the Security Services in influencing the outcome. Despite all of which, the result was much closer than had been assumed; so close, the Ps that B will ensure such an opportunity never happens again
England – as – Britain, it’s actual as opposed to nominal controllers, have too much to lose by Scotland becoming Independent – economically as much as politically.
This is why Craig and others – myself included – understand that Independence will have to taken; it will never be willingly conceded. This will require unavoidable confrontation with the British State – not, hopefully, armed struggle, I can’t see THAT ever happening – which, in turn, will require a political vehicle made of much sterner and robust material than the current SNP clown car: that party having been gutted, neutered, poisoned beyond redemption
And at the same time that the publics access to data is being limited, the government is allowing zionist defence company Palantir to access UK medical, defence, police and local government data. You will have nothing and be happy, smile damn you, we see you !
Now those great defenders of free-speech-as-long-as-it-conforms-to-*our*-criteria – The Uniparty, are trying to coerce YouTube into prioritising – and try not to laugh here …..’ trustworthy ‘ news sources like the BBC, Channel 4, Sky; and penalising the platform if it doesn’t comply. For ” prioritising trustworthy blah…” read… ” you fucks have had it too easy for too long with your Chris Hedges, The Grayone, Judge Nap, Daniel Davis, and in the UK George Galloway, new ‘ kid ‘ – to me anyway – Crispin Flintoff and with some degree of ambivalence Owen Jones ( still a bit of a ” nice lad with the * right * views but never says anything too * controversial * ” for my liking ) and I suppose The Duran is at least half British. Yeah, they all have to go, or at least be so ” de-prioritised ” as to become virtually invisible – if the ratbags get their way that is.
It remains to be seen if they will, but the intent is clear – and has been for some time – State control of all information of any significance.
Just imagine what an even greater intelligence/ accurate information dystopia the UK would be if this ever comes to pass. There could be a nuclear weapon exchange going on and the BBC will be giddily promoting one of it’s Drag Queen idiot shows, ITV ‘ I’m A Total Z-List Tit, Get Me In There ‘, Sky exclusive coverage of The Ozempic Awards – ‘ Direct from Hollyweird! ‘ and not to be outdone in the intelligence-insulting stakes GB News an interview with someone who knows someone who is related to someone who once worked in a shop Queen Kate walked past
For the time being, it’s a green paper with proposals that might or might not get implemented. You can read the whole open consultation document “Presented to Parliament by the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts by Command of His Majesty.” (be warned, it’s a very very very boring read)
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/watch-this-space-a-new-strategic-direction-for-uk-media-green-paper-and-public-consultation/watch-this-space-a-new-strategic-direction-for-uk-media-green-paper-and-public-consultation
At first I thought the process was open to comment from any citizen of UK but it appears it’s only open to you until 31 August, “If you run a channel that publishes news or current affairs content to a UK audience, that’s the window to actually have a say in how “trustworthy” gets defined, rather than finding out after the fact.” As you mention Robert, such channels as Judge Nap, George Galloway etc would be affected.
A couple of links to articles discussing this:
https://thecybersecguru.com/news/uk-youtube-prominence-law-bbc-media-act/
This article emphasises that the “first move is to ask platforms to make these changes voluntarily. Legislation is the fallback, not the opening play.” There is also some interesting detail about what’s already in place:
“This is not a new legal concept invented for social media. It is a direct extension of a regime the UK already runs on connected TV. The Media Act 2024, which got Royal Assent in May 2024, created a prominence and availability duty for what the Act calls television selection services (TSS), things like smart TV home screens and streaming box interfaces. Under that regime, Ofcom designates which PSB apps (BBC iPlayer, ITVX, and so on) get guaranteed placement, and Ofcom is currently running a consultation on the code of practice that spells out how TSS providers comply, with a final version expected later this year. BBC iPlayer gets automatic designation. Everything else goes through an Ofcom assessment process built around agreement objectives that balance prominence against a platform’s ability to innovate and a broadcaster’s public service remit.”
You Tube has also “alerted creators to the UK government’s proposal for mandatory changes regarding how content is discovered on the site, with traditional broadcasters potentially being favored.”
https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/youtube-urges-creators-to-fight-proposed-uk-algorithm-changes-3383111/
Whilst I would be against any kind of “prominence regime” enforced by governments of any kind one also has to ask what oversight is there regarding how you tube and other platforms implement and regulate their own “prominence regimes.” Don’t the platforms have the ability to push narratives of the kind they want and isn’t that just as bad as any government having the ability to do so. How do we fix that?
The various you tube shows I frequently watch, Judge Nap, Dialogue works, Mr.Galloway, House of El and others ought to be conferring on a response.
“Whether it’s the Online Safety Act or proscribing Palestine Action, the UK now has a reputation for being at the forefront of ‘first world’ authoritarianism.”
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2026/07/05/youtube-ruined-uk/
Sky is buying ITV and it has been approved. that would never have been approved in the 1990s, by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission /Ofcom or whoever…who is the current Minister for Disinformation Media and Sport anyway? Goebbels?
You can clearly see Airstrip One coming together around us.
All together now – not just the nurses!
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
WEALTH IS HOLINESS
AI IS ALL-KNOWING
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
Indeed, Tom. It’s like the current Political Leaderships view 1984 not as an ( increasingly prescient ) dystopian fiction, but as a blueprint for how to control populaces
Starmers parting Modus Operandi… a Big Boy Did It And Ran Away ..book of unpopular draconian legislation.
And every new twist of the garotte has that gilding of Royal Assention,
If you were counting your twilight years
would you be poncing about in heavy stolen jewel encrusted regalia
like Battenberk? tossing a few crumbs of tax accountability in your wake?
Pretending people liked you?
Whatever happened to “all that glistens isn’t gold?”
This has me extremely worried; Israel and the Trump cult seem determined to start a war with the entire Islamic world:
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestine-al-aqsa-us-israel-strip-jordan-custodianship-sources-say
– The US and Israel are “actively working” to strip Jordan of its historic custodianship of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque complex, and are pursuing a new arrangement that would see the management of the revered Muslim site closely align with Israeli interests, multiple sources have told Middle East Eye.
…
– Two US officials told MEE that Washington had drafted a paper on how they envisaged the mosque’s future. The officials said that the Trump administration would like to see the Al-Aqsa Mosque stripped of its Muslim identity, with the site turned into a landmark tourist attraction that hosts all three Abrahamic religions.
“…with the site turned into a landmark tourist attraction” – it seems they want to reinstall the moneymakers that Jesus threw out of the temple two thousand years ago, and re-commodify religion itself.
See Peter Oborne’s article here:
http://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/jordan-faces-existential-choice-over-defence-al-aqsa
– Forty-two years ago, the Shin Bet narrowly thwarted a planned Jewish terror attack at Al-Aqsa complex. Ehud Yatom, one of the Shin Bet commanders who stopped the atrocity, told Israeli media in 2004 that had it gone ahead, “it would have meant the entire Muslim world against the state of Israel and against the western world, a war of religions”.
Oborne also gave this 19 minute interview at Double Down News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK1s7IcTdtQ
Of course the Western propaganda “public service” media will make hardly any mention of this extreme religious provocation, so that Muslim anger can be depicted as a racial / cultural / religious compulsion for senseless violence.
Clark.
The Zio-Monster and Washington only respect power nothing else, if a nation cannot project power, then its fair game.
Agreed.
Thanks for the link to double down news, Clark, we are living in Endzeit, Goetterdaemmerung is upon us. The western genociders and resource strippers are hell bent and bound to the tail of beelzebub, as long as they can keep the great masses in check with sports, festivals and hope of another discombobulated regurgitation of more of the same policies by AB, just more controlling and threatening to the public.
Time has come to talk tough to those so called representatives and deny them access to us.
Dont invite cllrs.and MPs to whatever you are organising, and let them know why they are not welcome, take pictures and videos of their possible reaction and of our well fed storm troppers in their hobnail boots, should they be called to stem our fun,
publicise it and do not use phones or any other electronic means to talk to each other.
Take you all good care.
The most practical suggestion I heard this week regarding the current Bond Villains of the World,
Tax them and Sanction them until they have less leverage on governments, stop polluting, and causing poverty etc
Non dom corporations should never have been allowed to operate anywhere as they did, we wouldn’t be here now.
I’d suggest taxing them till the maniacal glee drips off their faces and hits the floor
nevermind:
– “…we are living in Endzeit, Goetterdaemmerung is upon us.”
Agreed.
You take good care too, nevermind.
Unfortunately, it looks like things have to get worse before they can get better.
Jordan, Saudi and the Gulf States have to really have their noses rubbed in the brown stuff before they can wake up. Decades of traitorous, cowardly actions against their brothers, the pigeons are coming home to roost. No decent person will mourn their total humiliation.
Agreed.
Yep, just yesterday I read how the pathetic arab leaders in the region instantly whined after Iran attacked an oil tanker, meanwhile they sit idly by when close to 90k arabs are not only attacked but killed in Palestine, Lebanon. They are so out of touch these cretins, such dupes for the israeli interests. The only thing that matters for these class of people is their obsession to preserve the statius quo, that is, protecting their monetary wealth. ‘Why bother if some 90k arab are killed when I got billions of money’ seems to be the logic by these treasonous people.
and they are trying to expel the Armenian Christians of Jerusalem, and they bombed the Christian communities in Gaza, then the Lebanon.
“The Project” will never have enough land or power because it is based on megalomania, nobody is safe, just that some people are currently nearer than others to the hell on earth we see, yet the aggressors flip flop between ancient shrine worship to deluxe malls and luxury hotels
Agreed.
Dodds O’the Glen
The irony with Netanyahu and Trump is that I’m pretty sure they don’t believe in their versions of Zionism – Christian or Judean.
They serve one thing only, which is money and the making thereof by political means and on many occasions Wars.
Like all the Farage Believers who wrap themselves in The Crusader Flag and many of the MAGA believers I would bet a Pound to a Penny that a lot of their earnest Churchgoing Christians see some of these people onYoutube/Facebook and the telly and think:
‘ I’ve never seen them at our Masses and Prayers in my whole life! ‘
Better a Sinner Saved?
Not in the case of any of the above named.
p.s re: The De – banking debate.
Apart from dodgy dealings by some customers ( except in The City of London of course) who says that someone or some associations/blogs/websites etc MUST be De -Banked?
Is there or are there Laws in each country that have to be abided by?
Or is this in the ‘ legal ‘ arena of Shadow Fleets and ‘ International Rules of law?
Meaning NATO and Western World Law – nothing to do with the UN as far as I know.
In other words what would happen if these Banks told the people giving the orders to get stuffed as they are good customers?
Who is doing the ordering and is it legal?
If refusal to do it is illegal then there must be laws around with penalties surely?
The relationship between banks, the establishment and government is so tight that one can assume they operate as one. T&Cs are the laws that enable them to do as they like, and one has to accept the T&Cs to use their services. Banks are essentially criminal enterprises with the sheen of respectability.
Stevie Boy
Of course they are but The biggest Financial Pirate Ship in the world of Finance is the City of London.
The US Financial Regulators are deemed to be very strict so, a lot of US rich people and Corporations prefer to join The City of London Crew.
You can get away with more dodges in the UK.
And of course we have Mossack – Fonseca Lands across the globe where very little is admitted or seen in terms of actual income and profits.
What I was trying to ascertain is who does the choosing as to who is chosen.
I’m sure at Lloyds or any other bank there isn’t a Captain Mainwaring and Sergeant Wilson checking XYZ just in case Mrs Smith has gone from being a diligent Chairwoman of Towns Women’s Guild to a leading member of a terrorist Group in Budley – Salterton with links to ISIS.
T+ C’s aside someone ( and that’s the bit that is puzzling ) if it is not the bank employees is ‘advising ‘ the banks as to who to de-bank.
Is it a case of grassing or a case of choosing?
If it’s choosing it ‘aint the bank.
Farage had a run in with Coutts bank a while ago.
Somebody must have asked Coutts to de- bank him.
I’m no fan of Farage but the same question applies.
Who is doing the selection for whom and who should be de-banked?
Worse than that -why do the banks comply?
The life of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya appears endangered after persistent abuse according to a Guardian report.
We could end up with another Steve Biko.
The most recent London Review of Books has an excellent article on what Burnham needs to do and why the Treasury and Palantir will brief against him and ensure he cannot reform taxation or care/health care. And a second article about Gaza and how the US and Netanyahu have consistently blocked any peace talks. The Scalia wing of the Catholic church, the millionaires backing Vance, the man who makes the pussygrabbung Trump look like a loveable rogue, have declared torture and targeted assassination to be legal instruments of US policy, and Scalia famoudly asserted that everyonr has the right to buy a US election. Meanwhile we are fed football, but until every single caregiver is paid as much as Harry Styles, or, better, no footballer is ever paid more than a NHS nurse, football and all other televised sport should be taxed intio extinction, and everyone watching sport as the world burns should be made to wear a large albatross around their neck.
Labour Right Israel asset Josh Simons expected to lead Downing Street head of policy unit under Burnham, Labour allies say.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/05/former-makerfield-mp-lined-up-key-role-burnham/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_tw_post_lined-up-key-role-burnham/
Unless of course it’s Novac Djocovic who sacrificed a tournament in order to refuse the “covid” jab. Now that he reaches the Wimbledon semifinals they’re saying “This is not normal! How can a 39 year old do this?” Join the dots…. He is saving lives.
I must admit that I have been watching the tennis fair more than the football. In fact I feel guilty about watching this year’s World Cup at all. I consider that the soccer pageant is acting as cheerleader for the present pathological deprivations of the US Military Industrial Complex in much the way as did Dylans proverbial Mr Tambourine Man and what he represented for the earlier genocidal assault on the Mekong Delta.
Clement Atlee, famously quoted by Mrs Thatcher, argued that referendums are a device for dictators. The point being that the dictator in question concedes. merely the mirage o fcontro lto his subjects.whilst framing and interpreting the question that is the very issue. One might say the same for VAR, which has been employed to do detriment of certain teams but has remained unused for others, Argentina vs Egypt being the blatant case.
Have posted haiku on forum: Contemporary poetry
Listening to the westminster bread and circuses debacle, political parties slinging past numbers of released dangerous prisoners at each other, making out that there is a difference between them, even if their policies are merging when it comes to controlling us.
It is time to disband political structures, we can see the strings that keep these puppets dangling from and unless we find mechanism to cut them off.
Collective masochism makes us all bend over and still we dont learn from the induced threats to democracy, sustainable living and autonomous local communities, we are to be divided perpetually, the only way to control us.
In three weeks we will realise that their ideas will not change much at all, that the genocide in Gaza and the combined westbank gets worth.
Unless the jewish population rejects the ultra right Zionists and settlers, sending the latter back to their countries and homes/families they came from, this murderous cabal will carry on murdering children, torturing medics and doctors, tealing land, properties, oil,water and Gazan gas.
There is an end to everything, ‘it is what it is’ has outlived its purpose, we the people say so, Palestine is a country from Ashdod to the Golan.
What hurts more, censorship or self censorship?
I think it was Orwell who described the latter as the most pernicious of all and yet it’s become inescapable.
What exactly are you are censoring yourself about? Don’t be vague. What issues would youlike to speak your truth on but think you can’t.
nevermind
I am reasonably convinced that the best Propaganda is not necessarily the info you polish up for the waiting world but the information
the information that is hidden from the waiting world.
For instance in Gaza a group of people were relaying the World Cup to the people in tents and I read that the Israelis killed the organisers.
The BBC et al have said nothing and that is strange because despite their reports are usually emotionally based and not factually based.
They like an emotional story because they have to pretend to care despite being un critical of Israel and the US.
You can’t know what you don’t know if no-one is telling you something.
The beauty of the internet is that there are people telling you all sorts of things.
It is up to us whether we believe the info or not.
The BBC and other ‘information ‘ outlets do not have the monopoly of the ‘Truth’
In fact I’m sick of the adverts that the BBC puts out as if they are the ultimate arbiters of ‘ The Thruth ‘ when most
people know that they are the best at Lying by Omission.
World leaders indeed.
There were only ‘ Tens of Thousands ‘ of people at Ayatollah Khameini’s funeral.
Everybody else stayed in out of fear.
It’s just absolute denial and that same denial may lead Europe into a war against Russia.
The Gruniad’s take on it:-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2026/jul/08/gazas-world-cup-screenings-in-pictures
Says the organiser’s taxi was struck by a missile. No speculation as to whether this was deliberate or random.
Pears Morgaine
That was down to bad luck and coincidence then?
Probably another one of those Conspiracy theories that the Pompous Press point out a lot.
No – Israeli spite.
Oh it probably was deliberate but the IDF do have a habit of shooting at anything that moves; and many things that don’t.
The Fraudian either cannot or will not say if the missile strike that hit the taxi was deliberate because for one thing it does not have a reporter in Gaza (and Israel would bar Western news media from having reporters in the Occupied Territories) and so it, like so many other Western MSM outlets, relies on Israeli government and linked sources to tell it what to say.
As always, one has to ask, “Why Is This Lying Bastard Lying to Me?”