After eight months of obstructionism from the Labour Friends of Israel government of the UK, tomorrow is the day on which the Scottish Court of Session will finally decide whether to go ahead with the judicial review it granted in January, or kowtow to Downing St.
I publish below two of the three main papers we have submitted for the hearing. The UK government has submitted nothing in advance, obviously confident it has it stitched up. The third main paper, the amended petition, I don’t have in clean form at the moment but will upload later.
It is unlikely anyone reading this in the next 11 hours of night time in Scotland will be able to get to Court Number 1 of the Court of Session in Parliament Square by 8.30am tomorrow, but if you can I should be most grateful for the moral support.
I am stating in my affidavit baldly a direct challenge to the government’s honesty. Whether this is a sensible legal strategy I do not know, but it has the virtue of being the truth.
The “paper apart” giving the argument for this hearing from the legal team makes the point very clearly that in acceding to the UK government’s continued sidelining the Scottish case the court is behaving in an unprecedented way and breaking its own rules. I have removed at least as much footnote from the Paper Apart as text remains, for the sake of readability. If anyone wants a full copy let me know.
Wish me luck. I am sleepy.
IN THE COURT OF SESSION
SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF CRAIG MURRAY
IN THE
PETITION
of
CRAIG MURRAY, residing at Edinburgh, EHl0
PETITIONER
For judicial review of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order
2025
At EDINBURGH on the NINETEENTH day of AUGUST 2026, in the presence of DAVID
JAMES FINLAY HALLIDAY, solicitor and notary public, Halliday Campbell WS,
solicitors,
COMPEARED CRAIG MURRAY,
residing at Edinburgh, EHl0 who being solemnly sworn hereby
DEPONES as follows:-
1. I was a member of the Diplomatic service from 1984 to 2005 including six years as a
member of the Senior Civil Service.
2. One of the positions I held in my career was Head of the FCO section of the Embargo
Surveillance Centre, a cross Whitehall and armed forces body, whose objective was the
enforcement of sanctions on Iraqi weapons procurement.
3. To the best of my knowledge and belief, as a result of my work on Iraq, I held the highest
possible levels of security clearance within the UK government system, including some
which entailed a specific visit to Washington to obtain.
4. Although at the time of the publication of the government dossier on Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction I no longer held this position, then being ambassador designate to
Uzbekistan, I knew a great deal of background and many of the individuals concerned
with Iraqi weapons monitoring across Whitehall.
5. When the government dossier on Iraqi WMD was published, to my certain knowledge at
the time much of it was factually incorrect. I was on training within the FCO at the time
and spoke with several officials including some who had been directly involved in
production of the dossier.
6. I therefore know for certain that many of the individuals involved were well aware that
the dossier, which they were involved in producing or agreeing, was factually wrong. One
senior official directly concerned with the production cheerfully and cynically
acknowledged to me that it was “bollocks”. A member of FCO Research and Analysis
Department, a year after the publication, told me that people in that department had
been in tears at the pressure put on them to agree the dossier.
7. The hard truth is that officials will produce the narrative which ministers want, in order
to justify the policy which ministers wish to implement. Many civil servants take the view
that the ministers are elected democratically and make the policy, and it is the civil
servants’ job to fix the facts around the policy.
8. The policy that ministers wish to follow is gleaned by civil servants from official minutes,
from ministerial pronouncements in public or in parliament, from conversations with the
Minister’s private secretary, from the Permanent under Secretary, from remarks made by
the minister in public or private meetings with others, and a variety of different routes.
9. The Chilcott report stated that:
The judgements about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the
same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified
and
It is now clear that policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and
assessments. They were not challenged, and they should have been.
10. I can testify that challenging the government’s desired version of the truth on that
occasion was extremely difficult and civil servants felt intimidated from doing so. The
pressures were sharply illustrated by the death of Dr David Kelly, whom I knew slightly.
11. We know from Iraq that the UK government sometimes promotes a narrative which is
factually false in order to justify its policy.
12. That is the case in the prescription of Palestine Action, with a narrative of an escalating
pattern of violence, much relied upon by the Home Secretary. It was also relied upon by
the English Court of Appeal as a predictor of Palestine action’s future behaviour. Yet it is
an entirely false narrative.
13. In matters of intelligence and national security the government can in particular not be
relied upon to produce an honest narrative of the facts, and the civil service cannot be
relied upon to act with integrity in the service of government.
14. I have given, from personal knowledge, the example of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. Let me also give the example of torture and extraordinary rendition, also
from personal knowledge.
15. I gave evidence on complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition, appearing in person
for questioning before the Joint Human Rights Committee of the UK Parliament, the
Intelligence and Security Committee, and committees of the European Parliament and
the Council of Europe.
16. I am a whistleblower and I do not believe there is any longer any serious denial of my
testimony on torture and extraordinary rendition, which is widely cited and a key source
on the subject. But the government denied it at the time.
17. My purpose in this affidavit however relates to one key aspect of the governmental
behaviour on torture and extraordinary rendition. This illustrates the willingness of civil
servants to hide the evidence of what policies are being pursued and why, at the
instruction of or in pursuit of the perceived wishes of ministers.
18. I refer to the report of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee on
Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition 2001-2010 HC 1113, under the chairmanship of
the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC. Paragraphs 130 and 131 of this report are crucial to my
evidence.
” 130. This was not unique to the Agencies. Their sponsoring Departments appear to have
adopted the same approach. We heard evidence from a former FCO official, Craig Murray,
who suggested that “there was a deliberate policy of not committing the discussion on
receipt of intelligence through torture to paper in the Foreign Office”. In July 2004, when
he was Ambassador to Tashkent, he raised concerns about the use of Uzbek intelligence
derived from torture in a formal exchange of telegrams with the FCO. Mr Murray drew our
attention to FCO documents from the same time, which we have seen, one of which
referred to “meetings to look at conditions of receipt of intelligence as a general issue”. He
told us that the meetings specifically discussed the receipt of intelligence under torture
from Uzbekistan and were absolutely key to the formation of policy on extraordinary
rendition and intelligence. Mr Murray told us that, when he had given evidence to the
Foreign Affairs Select Committee about this, they sought the documents from the FCO
which replied that the “meetings were informal meetings and were not minuted”. He went
on to say:
the idea that you have regular meetings convened at director level, convened by the
Director of Security and Intelligence, where you are discussing the receipt of intelligence
from torture, and you do not minute those meetings is an impossibility, unless an actual
decision or instruction not to minute the meetings has been given . … Were it not for me
and my bloody-mindedness, … you would never know those meetings had happened.
Nobody would ever know those meetings had happened.
131. We note that we have not seen the minutes of these meetings either: this causes us
great concern. Policy discussions on such an important issue should have been minuted.
We support Mr Murray’s own conclusion that were it not for his actions these matters may
never have come to light.”
The footnotes are essential as they detail evidence including documentary evidence, not
available to the public, which supported my testimony.
“229. Craig Murray was the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to July
2004, during which time he raised concerns about the UK’s use of intelligence derived from
torture. He had been in contact with the Gibson Detainee Inquiry, with a view to appearing
as a witness. He contacted the ISC in August 2014 for the same purpose and gave evidence
to the Committee in 2016.
230. Mr Murray gave the example of photos of a torture victim in Uzbekistan that he had
sent to the FCO, which sent them to a Professor of Pathology at the University of Glasgow,
who is said to have reported that the victim had been beaten about the face and neck, and
eventually had died of immersion in boiling liquid.
231. Oral evidence – the former FCO official, 20 October 2016; FCO telegram from the
Director General, Defence and Intelligence, to the British Embassy in Tashkent, 22 July 2004
(‘Receipt of intelligence obtained under torture’).”
19. The Government response to the committee made no challenge to this account.
20. So the government machinery, especially in matters concerned with intelligence and
national security, demonstrably can produce a false narrative. The fact it comes from
government should not imbue their narrative with a false authority. Not only that, but
the written record from government can deliberately conceal inconvenient facts, policies
or other information.
21. I can testify to the truth of both these assertions from direct personal experience. They
should be borne in mind when considering the government’s assertions about Palestine
Action.
22. We have a blatant example of deliberate concealment before us. As a result of the closed
session process in Scotland, a number of redacted phrases in a Proscription Advisory
Group document have been unredacted and introduced into the open sessions.
(Respondent’s 6th inventory of productions, 7 /103 to 7 /106 of process)
23. None of these phrases was redacted because its revelation would impact UK national
security. I state that as a former expert practitioner in the field. What is obvious on the
face of these redactions is that every single one of them tends to strengthen the case
against proscription. That is why they were redacted by civil servants anxious to conceal
truth in order to forward the agenda of government.
24. This is one small example of the much bigger picture.
25. In an earlier hearing, the Advocate General stated that the reason the Scottish Counter
Terrorism Strategy Board (CONTEST) found that Palestine Action was not close to
meeting the bar for proscription, is that CONTEST is a mere “local board” without full
knowledge of the facts.
26. In fact, to my experienced eye the much more probable explanation is that CONTEST
Scotland is remote from the political desires of London ministers – in this case
particularly to please Israel – while JTAC and the Proscription Advisory Group operate
under their direct influence. The Scottish view is the less distorted view.
27. The government’s narrative of an escalating pattern of violence is simply untrue as a
matter of fact. I have been closely following all trials of Palestine Action activists and to
my knowledge there has been only one single conviction for violence against the person,
and even in that one instance the specific charge of intent was rejected by the jury.
28. The government’s claims of the escalating pattern of violence were heavily based on two
cases, usually called the Filton and Thales cases.
29. In the Thales case, in Scotland, there were no convictions for violence. In parliament
introducing the proscription and in subsequent media statements, the Home Secretary
relied on rather florid sentencing remarks by a Scottish sheriff without mentioning that
key fact.
30. I view it as relevant that the Sheriff Appeal Court in Scotland recently overturned a
decision of the same Sheriff McCormick in another case of a pro-Palestine activist; and
the court’s remarks called into question the fairness of McCormick’s proceedings.
31. In the Filton case, I attended in person two days of the trial of six activists, plus the
sentencing hearing. I carefully read detailed reports of the case every day, both trial and
retrial.
32. In an effort to substantiate its claims of violence against Palestine Action, the State
brought six charges of aggravated burglary, and six charges of violent disorder. There was
also one charge of grievous bodily harm with intent.
33. I believe these are the main “serious charges” to which the Advocate General referred in
response to my petition.
34. All six charges of aggravated burglary failed before a jury, returning not guilty. So did the
six charges of violent disorder, returning three not guilty and three no verdicts. These
charges were not attempted again by the prosecution at retrial. GBH with intent also
failed. GBH with no intent was found guilty.
35. So there is simply zero factual basis for the narrative of an escalating pattern of violence.
There is no charge of violence at Brize Norton.
36. The extent to which the state ‘s case for proscription rested on this false narrative of
violence is vividly illustrated by the bloodcurdling list of charges in the third paragraph of
page 5 of the gisted report of the Proscription Review Group in the respondent’s 6th
Inventory of Productions:
“The criminal offences of Aggravated Burglary (s.10 Theft Act 1968) and Violent Disorder (s.2 Public
Order Act 1986) have been applied to the majority of offenders identified as being directly involved in
each of these incidents, while more specific criminal offences have been applied to individual subjects
for: Administering a Noxious Substance (s.24 Offences against The Person Act 1861); Threats to Kill
(s.16 Offences against The Person Act 1861); Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) (s.47 Offences against The
Person Act 1861); Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) with intent (s.18 Offences against The Person Act
1861); and Participating in Activities of an Organised CrimeGroup (s.45 Serious Crime Act 2015).”
37. I understand from contact with defendants across a number of cases that the state has
failed to obtain a single conviction on any one of the specific charges identified in that
long list. Today 19 August the state has failed yet again, as the jury in the second batch of
eight defendants in the Filton trial did not convict on any of eight charges of violent
disorder.
38. The state has now brought charges of violent disorder against 14 individuals and
achieved zero convictions.
39. This is a narrative which proved entirely false.
40. I find it a reflection on the honesty of the government and of its legal representatives
that these jury verdicts, which are a matter of fact, and the collapse of this narrative has
not been admitted in these proceedings and the false narrative has not been withdrawn.
41. They may of course be relying on concocted evidence from the security services in closed
proceedings, on which I am unfortunately unable to comment.
42. Similar caution needs to be exercised in relation to the claims of the extent of property
damage. In the Filton trial, the damage was not evidenced. The jury was given an
inventory of the tools the defendants had taken to break or damage Israeli weapons, but
no account at all of what was actually damaged.
43. It is my understanding from trial reports that concealing what was damaged from the
jury was a ruling by the judge, in pursuit of his further ruling that the motives of the
defendants in acting to prevent genocide must not be put to the jury.
44. Only after the verdicts in the second trial was an alleged account of the damage from
Elbit Systems given to the court. The defence lawyers attempted to question this
account, but this was not permitted by the judge. He accepted a figure of £1.1 million
from an insurance claim. As this was not open to interrogation I do not know if it
includes consequential loss.
45. Similarly the extent of property damage at Thales has not been subject to scrutiny. The
Sheriff also referenced £1.1 million and it is not clear if this includes consequential loss.
The aircraft leased by the RAF under the Private Finance Initiative which were sprayed
with water based paint at Brize Norton were reported to have been back flying within
ten days. Whether they would otherwise have flown earlier I do not know.
46. It is unique to designate an organisation involved in damage to property only as a
terrorist group. The least that might be expected is a serious explanation of the property
damage, which is subject to some ability to scrutinise.
47. There is no serious effort by government to itemise property damage by Palestine Action
in a transparent way. Let alone to give comparison to property damage by similar direct
action groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion which have not been proscribed.
48. The JTAC documents reveal no effort to quantify property damage or to make the
relevant comparisons. Again, I question the fundamental evidence base of the
proscription.
49. That property damage alone, which does not endanger life, is capable of being classified
as terrorism is an unusual feature of UK legislation. As opposed, for example, to property
damage to an air traffic control facility which obviously might result in deaths.
50. Some actions of other direct action groups in, for example, closing down railways and
major motorways for substantial periods, have had far greater economic effect on the UK
than actions of Palestine Action. They have been dealt with by ordinary criminal law.
51. As there is no escalating campaign of violence, and the property damage is not life
endangering nor on a massive scale, that feeds directly into the question of whether
proscribing this kind of “terrorism” is having disproportionate effects in constraining
human rights.
52. I have met personally with scores of people over the age of 70 years old who have been
charged with terrorism offences for no more that speech and assembly. All of them are
entirely respectable members of society, often from distinguished professions. Many are
pacifists, and Quakers. We do not have a consolidated figure from the Crown Office for
how many face charges in Scotland.
53. Across the UK I understand over 3,500 are charged. Recently 1,855 were listed in a single
day at Westminster Magistrate’s Court. While the simultaneous listing was explained as
an error, a further 152 were arrested, the vast majority for speech offences, outside the
courtroom.
54. Being charged with a terrorism offence is life changing. Not only do they face possible jail
sentences, they face serious international travel restrictions. On 9 August 2026 in
Glasgow I met one who told me that, as a consequence of being charged with a terrorist
offence, his home and car insurance premiums had gone up by over £600 a year in total.
I had previous met a lady who suffered debanking.
55. None of those that I have met charged with speech offences including placards was
previously a member of Palestine Action or participant in their direct action. At the last
hearing it was claimed on behalf of the Advocate General that I effectively represent
Palestine Action in this case. In my own view I do not. I represent myself as a resident of
Scotland whose human rights are curtailed in Scotland, and insofar as I can be said to
represent a group, I would view that group as the ordinary citizens of Scotland whose
human rights are being curtailed by this proscription, who usually had no past
connection to Palestine Action.
56. That all of this is proportionate is an absurd contention and the heartlessness of the
state apparatus and those who control it fill me with dread.
57. I am a resident of Scotland. I believe the direct action campaign of Palestine Action was
necessary, proportionate and in general well conducted. I should like to be able to say so
here, in Edinburgh, where I live. I apply for protection of my human rights to the court of
my own jurisdiction.
58. Where there is obviously a major and widespread effect on human rights of ordinary
citizens, a “margin of appreciation” that assumes the executive violating people’s rights
to be undeniably beneficent, truthful and well-intentioned is not reflective of the real
world.
59. I have a perspective that gives weight to that fact from relevant personal experience. I
am particularly keen to put this testimony before a judicial review in my own jurisdiction.
It is not a perspective available in the English case.
All of which is truth as the deponent shall answer to God.
Signed:
This: NINETEENTH day of AUGUST 2026
At: EDINBURGH
before me DAVID JAMES FINLAY HALLIDAY, Solicitor and Notary Public
~
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
(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”.
2.2 On 30 July 2026 the UK Supreme Court granted its permission for the claimant in the
English proceedings to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and
Wales in her Judicial Review Ammori v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 721. The Supreme Court
has fixed a two day diet (4 and 5 November 2026) for the hearing of this appeal
https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0099.
2.3 The question of onward appeal to the UK Supreme Court now being resolved, the sist falls
to be recalled.
3. THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RENEW THE SIST
3.1 On 19 August 2026 the respondent advised the petitioner that the position of the UK
Government is that it will be moving this court to “renew the sist” (sine die ?) and that the
UK Government will oppose the reporting of this cause to the Inner House.
3.2 Neither the legal nor factual bases upon which the UK Government will argue that the
court should adopt these positions has not been vouchsafed to the petitioner.
3.3 As is clear from the repeated applications made by the respondent to sist these proceedings
– as well as the respondent’s previous reliance on (misplaced) claims concerning “judicial
comity” and (it may be anticipated, given remarks by the respondent’s counsel at an
earlier hearing) fanciful and wholly unfounded submissions concerning res judicata
/issue estoppel – the UK Government’s position in relation to these Scottish proceedings
is to seek to try and avoid (or at the very least delay) the UK Government having to defend
in open court its policy of the proscription of Palestine Action on two fronts in two separate
jurisdictions.
3.4 The Advocate General’s motion for a new sist to be imposed in this case is of a piece with
that overall aim. It is not however open to this court to accede or facilitate any such aim
of the respondent further to delaying matters in the progress of this case, as we have noted
above. Instead, the only orders which this court may competently pronounce as regards
further procedure following the lifting of the 28 May 2026 sist are orders which ensure the
speedy determination of the petition”.
3.5 In seeking a further sist of these post-permission judicial review proceedings the Advocate
General has failed to identify or specify any specific Rule of Court on which she relies as
the source of the court having power to renew this sist.
3.6 That is because there is no such Rule of Court. The relevant Rules of Court applicable to
judicial review proceedings are set out in Chapter 58. This Chapter contains the principles
which are the court is obliged to apply within the context of procedural decision within
judicial review procedure, as a distinct form of recourse to the courts in public law matters.
These Chapter 58 rules make it clear that the principle of “speedy determination” 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)).
3.7 Whatever legal basis upon which the Advocate General now seek this court to renew and
continue a sist in this case, it clear that ex facie an order for sist does not constitute “an
order for further procedure which is “appropriate for the speedy determination of the
petition.” The Advocate General has therefore to satisfy that the principle of speedy
determination of judicial review application should be disapplied in the circumstances of
this case. She has to date failed to specify any such ground.
3.8 When acceding to the Advocate General’s motion to sist these on 28 May 2026 this court
stated that “a sist of proceedings, whether on an agreed or opposed basis, is a regular
feature of litigation” in explanation/justification for the sist. In so stating the court
misdirected itself, and acted per incuriam. This is because judicial review proceedings
are not “regular litigation”. And sists are not a regular feature within the context of judicial
review proceedings.
3.9 A search for cases in which a sist has been pronounced in judicial review proceedings
(whether in the Outer or Inner House) reveals only two Outer House case, in both of which
a sist was pronounced in highly unusual circumstances. In Craig v. Parole Board [2013]
CSOH 110, 2013 SLT 953, because of a formal written undertaking given to the court on
behalf of the Scottish Parole Board, that if two conjoined pending NI and E&W UKSC
decisions found against the Parole Board on a Convention rights issue (re Article 5(4)
ECHR and the need for oral hearing in parole cases) the UKSC decision would be followed
by it in Scotland. This meant that the Lord Ordinary, Lord Pentland, did not have to deal
with this ground of challenge and so after dismissing the common law case simply agreed
to sist the remaining aspect of the JR challenge pending the UKSC decisions.
3.10 In Greenpeace Ltd v Advocate General for Scotland [2025] CSOH 10, 2025 SLT 303,
three JRs had been raised in Scotland to beat the 3 month time bar and got first orders.
Before the case reached the permission stage, parties agreed to sist the JRs pending UKSC
decision. Again the sist was done by agreement In any event, given that permission had
not been considered or granted by the time the sist had been pronounced, so the provisions
of Rule of Court 58.11(2) on which we rely – and which provides that “(2) When permission
is granted, the Lord Ordinary must make such orders for further procedure as are
appropriate for the speedy determination of the petition” – did not come into play.
3.11 So in both the cases in which a sist was pronounced the court was simply endorsing the
prior agreement of the parties, and so no argument was put before the court as regards the
competency of such a course. And there are simply no cases (other than this court order
of 28 May 2026) in which a sist of judicial review proceedings was pronounced by the court
in the face of opposition by any of the parties.
3.12 As we have noted judicial review proceedings – unlike ordinary litigation – are
proceedings characterised by the principle of “speedy determination”. This is the key
principle for judicial review procedure. The aim of judicial review procedure 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”
3.13 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).
3.14 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).
3.15 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).
3.16 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.
3.17 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.
3.18 Against the general principle of statutory construction that expressio unius est exclusio
alterius, the legal basis upon which the Advocate General for Scotland purports now to
rely, as she would have it, to give this court the power to pronounce a further sist in these
post-permission judicial review proceedings, is unclear, 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 proceed, and there is nothing in the Rules of Court
applicable to judicial review procedure which would allow for it.
3.19 In these circumstances the primary position of the petitioner is that this court should
refuse on grounds of competency the respondent’s motion for a new sist to be placed in
this case on the grounds that:
– to grant a sist at this stage of these proceedings would be incompatible with the
principle of speedy determination which applied to the present judicial review public
law proceedings; and
– there is no applicable Rule of Court (nor any inherent power compatible with the
principle of speedy determination) under reference to which a sist might properly be
pronounced.
4. PROCEDURE TO DATE
4.1 Permission was granted for this judicial review to proceed as long ago as 26 January
2026. By interlocutor pronounced on this date the following timetable and case
management orders were made:
– parties to adjust their pleadings until 9 February 2026 being two weeks prior to the
date of the procedural hearing fixed for 23 February 2026
– final versions of parties’ pleadings to be lodged no later than 16 February 2026,
being one week prior to the procedural hearing fixed for 23 February 2026
– affidavits to be lodged in respect of those facts founded on by a party at the substantive
hearing no later than 16 February 2026, being one week prior to the procedural
hearing fixed for 23 February 2026
– statements of issues to be lodged no later than 16 February 2026, being one week
prior to the procedural hearing fixed for 23 February 2026
– notes of argument to be lodged no later than 16 February 2026, being one week
prior to the procedural hearing fixed for 23 February 2026
– parties to confirm whether they are ready to proceed to the substantive hearing no later
no later than 16 February 2026, being one week prior to the procedural hearing fixed
for 23 February 2026
– 23 February 2026 at 10am being fixed as the date for the procedural hearing;
– parties to lodge a list and bundle of authorities, marked up to indicate the parts the
party intends to rely on no later than 7 March 2026, being 10 days prior to the
substantive hearing.
– 17 and 18 of March 2026 at 10am fixed as the dates for the substantive hearing;
4.2 This original timetable appears to have slipped and was not adhered to.
4.3 Instead by interlocutor of 26 March 2026 the court – after granting a declaration under
section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 that these proceedings are proceedings in
which a closed material application may be made to the court and refusing in hoc statu the
respondent’s motion for the proceedings to be sisted – set out the following timetable for
further procedure:
– by 4pm on 9 April 2026 for the respondent to lodge with the court and serve on the
Special Advocates, any application in terms of section 8 of the Justice and Security Act
2013, together with any material subject to any section 8 application;
– by 4pm on 15 April 2026 for the Special Advocates to advise the respondent
whether they object to any section 8 application, and intimate to the Respondent any
submissions in response to any section 8 application,
– by 4pm on 29 April 2026 for the respondent to intimate to the Special Advocates
any response to the Special Advocates’ said submissions,
– by no later than 6 May 2026 for the Special Advocates and counsel for the
respondent to meet in order to narrow any outstanding section 8 issues;
– by 4pm on 13 May 2026 for the Special Advocates and Counsel for the respondent
to notify the court whether a hearing to consider the section 8 application is required,
– no later than 4pm on 15 May 2026, if a hearing is considered to be required,
appoints for the Special Advocates and Counsel for the respondent to lodge with the
court a Joint Minute in terms of RCS 104.9(5) identifying the issues which cannot be
agreed between them, together with any CLOSED Notes of Argument and/or CLOSED
affidavits that they wish to rely upon,
– on Wednesday 27 May 2026 at 10am for a CLOSED court hearing to be held before
the Hon. Lord Young;
– within seven days of the hearing of 27 May 2026 for the respondent to provide,
if required, any further disclosure to the petitioner, to do so;
– for the Special Advocates and Counsel for the respondent to agree, if possible, a date
for a CLOSED substantive hearing together with a procedural timetable for the
respondent and Special Advocate to intimate to each other and to lodge with the court
any CLOSED Note of Arguments and any CLOSED affidavits that they wish to rely
upon at the CLOSED substantive hearing;
– no later than 10 days prior to the substantive hearing for parties to lodge a list
and bundle of authorities, which should be marked up to indicate the parts the party
intends to rely on
– by no later than 4pm on 2 June 2026 for parties to adjust their pleadings and to
lodge final versions
– appoints notes of argument, statements of issues, productions and affidavits to be
lodged no later than 4pm on 9 June 2026;
– assigns 10 June 2026 at 9.30am as the date for a further continued procedural
hearing in respect of open procedure at which the petitioner might participate
4.4 Again, this timetable was not adhered to.
4.5 By interlocutor dated 28 May 2026 orders with the following effect, among others were
pronounced by the court:
– permission granted to the respondent under sections 8 and 11(4) of the Justice and
Security Act 2013 for:
(i) the respondent to withhold sensitive material otherwise than to the Court and
the Special Advocate, for the purpose of the respondent’s section 6 application;
(ii) the sensitive material lodged by the respondent in relation to the section 6
application to be kept separately from the process by the Deputy Principal
Clerk;
(iii) for the sensitive material lodged by the respondent in relation to the section 6
application not to be borrowed or inspected by any party other than by a legal
representative of the Secretary of State or by any Special Advocate; and
(iv) the requirements of RCS 4.5(1)(b), 4.6 and 4.11 to be disapplied in respect of
the sensitive material lodged by the Respondent in relation to the section 6
application
– sists the cause until 30 July 2026 (being the date when the question of onward appeal
to the UK Supreme Court from the decision 15 June 2026 of the Court of Appeal of
England and Wales in Ammori v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 721 had been resolved)
(which occurred on 30 July 2026).
4.6 There has already been significant (and frankly unacceptable) delay in the progress of this
judicial review application since permission was granted on 26 January 2026 for the
matter to proceed to a substantive hearing and decision.
4.7 The delays in progressing this matter may largely be attributed to litigation tactics adopted
by the respondent in this case, which run contrary to the requirements properly to be
expected of public authorities when faced with public law based challenges to the
lawfulness of their actions.
5. THE LITIGATION STRATEGY OF THE UK GOVERNMENT IN THE ENGLISH PROCEEDINGS
5.1 In the Ammori proceedings before the English courts the UK Government has appeared
to conduct their defence to these challenges as if a “war of attrition”. In the English
proceedings the UK Government has taken (ultimately ill-founded) procedural points and
has pursued procedural appeal wherever possible.
5.2 Its overall aim in adopting such tactics appears to be to delay as much as possible any final
reckoning before and by the court as to the lawfulness of the policy to proscribe Palestine
Action in England and Wales and perhaps also seeking to deplete the financial resources
available to the claimant to fund the prosecution of this challenge.
5.3 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.
5.4 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.
5.5 In any event, notwithstanding the UK Government opposing permission to appeal from
the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in its favour, the UK Supreme
Court granted the Ammori applicant such permission and the matter is now, as we have
noted above, going to a substantive hearing before the UKSC on 4 and 5 November 2026.
6. THE SCOTTISH DIMENSION TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROSCRIPTION OF
PALESTINE ACTION
6.1 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).
6.2 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.
6.3 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.
6.4 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.”
6.5 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.
6.6 Because the Claimant’s application for permission for judicial review on this ground 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.
6.7 This is a matter which can however usefully and properly be examined in the present
Scottish proceedings. So too is the issue of consultation with actors in Scotland. A court in
Scotland is in a far better position to understand and situate the relevant actors in the
Scottish context; and separately, 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.
6.8 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”.
6.9 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. So too can the issue of consultation
with relevant Scottish actors, a matter not considered by the courts of England and Wales.
7. FURTHER PROCEDURE: REPORTING THE CAUSE TO THE INNER HOUSE
7.1 The only question which is therefore before this court is what procedural orders should
now be pronounced in this case (given the history slipping timetables and frankly
unwarranted delays) which will best allow for the “speedy determination” of the petition.
7.2 The reality of this situation is that the present challenge to the proscription in Scotland
will not be finally resolved by the decision of this court at first instance.
7.3 Whatever decision may be taken by the Lord Ordinary – whether to uphold or refuse the
challenge to the proscription in Scotland of Palestine Action – will be reclaimed against to
the Inner House.
7.4 Neither will any decision by the UK Supreme Court on the Ammori appeal finally and
authoritatively determine the question of the lawfulness of the proscription in Scotland of
Palestine Action, because the UK Supreme Court will be exercising its jurisdiction as a
court of England and Wales rather than as a Scottish court and its decision on this matter
will bind neither this court nor the Inner House. 9 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.”
7.5 In these circumstances it is clear that the most expedient course for this court to take in
order to ensure the speedy final and authoritative determination of the present challenge
is for this court to report the whole cause to the Inner House, without the matter going to
a substantive hearing and determination by the court.
7.6 The Inner House will be properly placed to hear and determine – without the benefit of
the view of the Lord Ordinary – the substantive challenge to the proscription in Scotland
of Palestine Action because it will have the advantage of knowledge of two reasoned
decision from the English courts – on the equivalent proscription in England and Wales –
at this stage of proceedings.
7.7 The petitioner now 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.
7.8 Rule of Court 34.3(2) provides that “the 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.
7.9 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).
7.10 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.
7.11If 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
at the same time 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.
7.12 The UK Supreme Court indeed welcomes the opportunity of being able to hear at the
same time 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 to be one of the justifications for the UK Supreme Court’s existence.
7.13 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 41. Indeed, standing that a powerfully
constituted bench of three in the Divisional Court (including the President of the King’s
Bench Division) reached one conclusion on the lawfulness of proscription; and a (very
unusual) bench of five in the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion, the Supreme
Court would perhaps be assisted to an even greater extent than normal by also having the
reasoned determination of the Inner House available to it.
7.14 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. Such an authoritative determination affording legal certainty is
needed in the present context, given that individuals in Scotland have been arrested and
prosecuted, and continue to face the risk of arrest and prosecution, for offences grounded
in the proscription of Palestine Action.
7.15 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.
7.16 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.
7.17 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
inappropriate, 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
petitioner 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.
(6) In any event, there is no identity of parties (or arguably interests) between the
English and Scottish proceedings. Ms Ammori, the applicant in the English
proceedings, is a co-founder of Palestine Action and may be said to be a
representative of that organisation. But membership of an association is not to be
conflated with a desire to express support for the organisation and its action and
aims. The petitioner in the present Scottish proceedings is in no sense a
representative of the proscribed association. He is not its agent, or alter ego, nor
can he bind it in any way, nor does he in any sense act for it. He seeks to review the
proscription order because he is not, in Scotland, ‘able to freely express his political
support for the organisation’. It is on that basis that he has standing to pursue the
present challenge as a concerned and politically involved citizen and Scot.
7.18 In the whole circumstances 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.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 The petitioner in the present proceedings accepts that that the UK Supreme Court should
be afforded the last and authoritative word on the lawfulness under Scots law of Palestine
Action in Scotland. That is a separate question in law from the issue of the lawfulness
under English law of the proscription of Palestine Action in England and Wales. There are
undoubtedly some common background factual and legal issues as between the two
challenges. It is accordingly expedient that the two appeals be heard and determined at
the same time before the same bench of the UK Supreme Court.
8.2 This aim can only be achieved by the court following the course of action which the
petitioner urges on the court.
8.3 The UK Government’s position by contrast seems to be one of impeding or delaying the
final authoritative resolution of these matters in Scotland. That course should not be
permitted it by this court.
8.4 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
MARK BONI, ADVOCATE
TONY CONVERY, ADVOCATE
I am afraid we do desperately need more funds to get through this. All the delay and procedural trickery set out above is designed to bleed us dry and, to be honest, it is working.
Please 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
Good luck Craig. If I wasn’t 400 miles away I’d be there tomorrow.
Scottish Independence Now!
Good Luck for tomorrow Craig. It means so much on many levels.
Scottish Independence now!
Craig, possible typos; I’ve messaged you.
Devastating.
We”ll see if there is any justice to be had, any more.
Hasta la victoria siempre – best of luck !
Valliant.
“12. That is the case in the prescription of Palestine Action”
“prescription” should presumably be “proscription”.
Good luck and best of wishes with it!
Good luck Craig, as Clark said Its a bit too far for me to get to Bonnie Scotland, soon to be independent!
I hope that some will be able to join you in support, take care and thanks for your persistence were others would have long given up.
Friends of israel.
Friends of genocide. One thought
Defeat the empire.
JohnnyOh45.
Is it any wonder JFK wanted AIPAC registered as a foreign entity – the below was posted by AIPAC on X yesterday 19th of August.
“AIPAC congratulates the 21 pro-Israel candidates who won their primaries tonight in Florida, including several who defeated anti-Israel candidates determined to undermine the U.S.-Israel alliance.
We congratulate pro-Israel incumbents Sen. Ashley Moody and Reps. Aaron Bean, Gus Bilirakis, Kat Cammack, Kathy Castor, Mario Diaz-Balart, Randy Fine, Lois Frankel, Scott Franklin, Carlos Gimenez, Mike Haridopolos, Laurel Lee, Anna Paulina Luna, Brian Mast, Jared Moskowitz, Jimmy Patronis, John Rutherford, Maria Elvira Salazar, Darren Soto, Greg Steube and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
With their victories, more than 254 AIPAC-backed candidates from both parties have now advanced to the November general election.
These results demonstrate that AIPAC’s nearly 7 million members are resolute in their determination to help elect pro-Israel leaders between now and November, and in the many cycles ahead.”
Hi Republicofscotland:
At the least the US polity has the virtue of being open about it. I note that the proposed 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) [aims to structurally integrate the U.S. and Israeli militaries and defense tech industries] is out there for discussion. Whereas the UK Military agreement/deal with Israel in 2020 has not been publically discussed or reviewed by Parliament as reported by Declassified U.K https://www.declassifieduk.org/secret-uk-israel-military-deal-in-place-throughout-genocide/
What I find apparently anomalous is that Gulf states who have vast resources consistently fail to have their strategic interests prioritzed by the US/Empire despite the huge financial leverage they appear to enjoy over Israel. This suggests that the system of Empire and the ideological supporters of Israel and the Genocide regards its functionality to the Empire as symbiotic or intrinsic to it. Therefore what function(s) does it serve ? Is it merely ideological (I.E part of of the Western Imperial elites racist ideology which it seeks to impose on the world ?) or is to safeguard the structure of neo-liberal capitalism that Israel and its supporters become indispensable ?
I err to the economic side of the argument [I am not an economist – as you may be able to tell] and I am influenced by Professor Michael Hudson and Professor Steve Keen.
– “What I find apparently anomalous is that Gulf states who have vast resources consistently fail to have their strategic interests prioritzed by the US/Empire despite the huge financial leverage they appear to enjoy over Israel.”
These states’ ruling elites’ legitimacy with their populations is very fragile. They’re religious monarchies, but their elites are hypocrites, living it up on vices supplied by the West, breaking all the rules they enforce upon their subjects. So they need money, petrodollars, to buy weapons, security, surveillance, centralised means of control, which are developed primarily by Israel, tested and demonstrated upon the Palestinians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure
Hi Clark.
I accept that a certain amount of protection money/resources will need to be paid to ensure the safety of the Gulf states’ elite. However as the petro-carbons they produce have real economic and productive value these economies and their importance to the global economy is far greater (on the surface) than that produced by Israel and its ideological supporters. Simply put the Gulf states can afford bigger bribes to the US administration, which if it were purely transactional would prioritise the flow of oil [via the Strait of Hormuz] which is in the Gulf states strategic interest. The fact that this is not happening begs the question why and leads one ask what function(s) do Israel and its supporters provide that make its importance greater than the flow of petro-carbons to the world economy ?
Apologies if this is not a helpful reply. I am not an economist and am trying to figure this stuff out. I also omitted in my reply to RoS that UK Parliamentarians are not disclosing whether they are part of the Labour or Conservative Friends of Israel, which is another difference between the UK and US political elite.
JohnnyOh45
Yes the integration of US and Israeli militaries – means Israel will have access to just about every section of the US military and intelligence platform, and of course the coming Golden Dome Project, which was originally meant just to cover the USA – the Atlantic Archipelago aka Britain, used to have a defence deal with Israel that was renewed every decade, it is now a permanent thing, we are now chained to Israel.
The problem the Gulf State have is that they are mainly nasty dictatorships that oppress their citizens, so they have very little choice but to cooperate with the US who could easily use their citizens to overthrow their nasty regimes – for example the House of Saud has between 5,000 and 15,000 family members – its an absolute monarchy that runs the nation via appointed officials, as for Bahrain, I recall when David Cameron was PM he sold the absolute monarchy all kinds of weapons, shotguns, shields, tasers etc, to use on the citizens of Bahrain who rallied against the monarchs nasty regime.
Then of course the West exploits the Sunni – Shia divide to its advantage.
Thanks RoS.
I take your point but conversely if the oil does not flow there is also a high chance of regime change. At least if the Saudi regime stood against the US agrression and blockade the Saudi street may actually support them ?
@RoS – “Is it any wonder JFK wanted AIPAC registered as a foreign entity”
^ An important factor in his assassination, especially with Lansky having been booted out of Havana. No way were they going to accept reclassification in Washington, under FARA, as working for foreign interests.
I really hope that you are successful, however every single judge in Scotland has sworn the oath of allegiance to an English monarch, to be loyal to them and their heirs – and every single judge in Scotland must also be appointed – with Westminster’s approval – Scottish judges are bound by UK constitutional supremacy.
https://nitter.poast.org/pat11060/status/2073091479904399621#m
RoS
It’s slightly worse than that, viz:
“I, [full name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
The heirs are not a problem, because you do not have heirs until you are dead (exception: heir apparent)
The problem lies with the oath to his successors.
That is everybody in the line of succession.
Every sitting MP (and every sitting judge) has sworn to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William, Harry, George, Louis and Charlotte. At least.
Anybody expecting justice to be visited upon Andrew will have a long wait.
I say Andrew because he is the one we know about, thanks only to the United States and the release of the Epstein papers.
Who knows what else is being hidden by the servants in Parliament?
***********
Good luck Craig.
John Cleary
That’s right John, in Scotland every MSP has to swear the oath, yet we the likes of Swinney spouting the nonsense that his loyalties lie with the people of Scotland.
How can anyone declare that we live in a democracy when MPs have to swear such an oath. Anyone who swears such an oath is an enemy of democracy.
Here is a better proof. According to the recent YouGov polls, 50% of Britts believe Israel is commiting genocide in Gaza and only 17% do not believe it does. Earlier, Pew Research polls found that 58% Britts view Israel negatively. So how is that possible that in a “democratic” country the government is acting to the contrary of public opinion?
There hasn’t been an English monarch since 1707.
Gregor McIntosh
Let me guess Gregor, hmm…. they are British, there’s just one wee problem with that – if that’s your position, there is NO British crown, only a English one (which is being pushed as British) and a Scottish one which is still alive – but there’s no monarch of Scotland.
Apologies if I’m being presumptuous of your position – if your position is something else.
I think you’ll find that there hasn’t been an English monarch since 1066. Every one since then has been of (Norman) French or German descent.
Frank using that logic we’re all descended from somewhere else, no – King Charles was born in Buckingham Palace, and the last I looked that is in England – his mother (Queen Elizabeth II) was born in Mayfair London in 1926, so she was English as well – her father George VI, was born in Norfolk England, are you starting to get the picture yet.
The Windsors are German, Stuarts Scottish, Tudors Welsh. The last English king of England was Tricky Dicky.
Squeeth & Bayard
There’s no denying that the monarchs I’ve named are ENGLISH – oh their genealogy might be a bit more exotic – but they themselves are English.
Just because you’re born in a stable doesn’t make you a horse ! 🙂
“King Charles”, aka Mr Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, was circumcised in Buckingham Palace too, by ritual child genital mutilation specialist Jacob Snowman.
Snowman married into the Wartski family that later supplied the guy’s wedding ring.
Squeeth,
Richard Nixon was never King of England!
Although he was probably a good fit for the job as most of them have been knaves like him. Having said that, compared to most of his successors as POTUS, Tricky Dicky was a saint and would be regarded as a dangerous Commie Pinko by today’s standards in the USA.
Well, King Charles is actually a quarter Russian and a quarter English, the rest being a mixture of various European royal families, mostly Danish or German.
Going by the birthplaces of his great-grandparents, Bayard, Bonnie King Charlie is five-eighths English, one-eighth Danish, one-eighth Austrian and one-eighth Russian. Of course, you can always go back further and get a different result – and if you go back far enough, you’ll find he’s about 98% sub-Saharan African and 2% Neanderthal.
Further contribution made. I see this as my small contribution to the joint struggle for independence for Scotland and for Palestine, as well as the continued struggle against the ever-increasing authoritarianism of the Brit state in thrall to the foreign Zionist entity which it was instrumental in creating.
I wish you every success.
If the principle of the ECtHR’s notion of ‘margin of appreciation‘ is to be applied consistently to facts from the ground up, then ¶¶6.7-6.9 of the Paper Apart should inherit categorical persuasiveness – THAT, rather than governmental concealment behind inscrutable ‘national security’ concerns, would be in keeping with protection for rights and freedoms necessary in a democratic society.
Outside the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand at one of Julian’s appeals, I told you that I loved you for all of your efforts aimed at freedom. I still do Craig. I’ve made a small financial contribution and I wish you success.
Impressive. It deserves to succeed. But more to the point, it has to be done. I wish I could be there to support you but failing that I will contribute what it would cost me to do so, a kind of virtual financial attendance. More power to your arm.
At the time of writing I have no idea whether the court has found in your favour or not. I strongly suspect the later. Interestingly, over on Wings, Stu Campbell has just published Police Scotland’s response to his claim that allegations of serious crimes on their patch have not been investigated. Is there anyone out there who still believes our police and our judges are doing the job we pay them to do?
“Sorry Petitioner, the Court of Session is completely out of stock of legal decisions today, but we’ve got one coming in sometime next week.”
https://xcancel.com/Broonpot/status/2090383302528025042
IMO, if the courts rule against the UK Government, this could either force the de proscription of Palestine Action, UK wide, or force a devolution of prescription, aka the legal power to proscribe or de proscribe organisations as terrorist organisations, to the Scottish Parliament. I don’t believe there will necessarily be a “constitutional crisis”.
Good luck!
Just spotted this Novara Media vid in the recommends on youtube, posted on the 19th, and guess what the jury asked the judge at some point or other, and guess what the judge said in response?! Hey ho, let’s hope it catches on (the bit in question is about 1.5 minutes in):
Jury REFUSES To Convict Palestine Action Defendants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6EdEspcA28 (15 minutes)
You were right to state that the Labour government case is based on obvious lies (as in 2003), which makes Scottish submission all the more craven and toe-curling.
UK is not back in the EU – yet? – but let me share this from today´s nakedcapitalism.com re: Europe and Israel:
“The EU Commission’s Secret Plan to Share EU Citizens’ Most Sensitive Data With Israel. – For three years the Von der Leyen Commission has been secretly negotiating to hand over its citizens’ data to a state committing multiple genocides.”
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2026/08/the-eus-von-der-leyen-commission-is-considering-sharing-eu-citizens-most-sensitive-data-with-israels-genocidal-state.html
p.s. You wouldn´t believe the level of either cluelessness and/or dishonesty (aka “lies”) common in Germany still when it comes to Israel even if we near end of year #3 of “Gaza”.
Were it not for “10/7” – argh – the sainthood of the state of Israel and the virtual infallibility of Zionism would still be standard for 99,99% of Germans. Now luckily that at least has changed to an extent that cannot be ignored.
However, naturally, elites strike back helped by the traditional gullibility of many older Germans who are all anti-NATO and anti-war but have a romanticized image of Israel due to you know why. That to overcome needs time and energy.
Here even the harshest leftwing critics of Israel will call Hamas a terrorist organisation and Oct. 7th a “senseless massacre”.
Even when they are actual historians you mostly have to remind them of such simple things as “international law” and what it said and what it says re: Israel and the occupation – staggering levels of incompetence.
What was the outcome?
Do you have the same lawyers as WOS?
As far as I’m concerned each and every one of them – should be given a medal.
“Five activists who broke windows and threw red paint at a Barclays Bank branch in protest over Israel’s genocide in Gaza will not be sentenced as terrorists, a judge has ruled.
Judge Robert Altham told a packed room at Preston Crown Court on Friday that the damage the activists caused with their August 2024 direct-action protest in Burnley was “significant”.
However, Altham said he was “not satisfied” that the damage met the statutory measures of “serious damage” required under the terrorism act.
Visibly relieved, the defendants filed out of the tense courtroom to a gathering of family and friends who cheered and clapped. “Thank God,” one said, hugging a friend.
Brendon O’Hagan, 28, Amanda Kelly, 31, Mohammed Malik, 28, Hmeera Atiqnisar, 31, and Alma Yaniv, 70, were convicted of criminal damage this June over the August 2024 protest which caused £212,805 worth of damage.
In the agreed facts of the case, the prosecution’s lawyers acknowledged that, at the time of the protest, Barclays provided investments and loans to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms firm.”
https://www.declassifieduk.org/barclay-5-palestine-activists-will-not-be-tried-as-terrorists/
This wouldn’t be the same Barclays Bank that were boycotted over their support for apartheid South Africa, would it?
Boerclays….
Bayard
Yes.
https://www.aamarchives.org/campaigns/barclays-and-shell.html
At the end of a short video of Douglas Murray being interviewed on Newsnight, posted June 4th, he says the following:
Why is it the case that Saturday after Saturday we have thousands of people going through major British cities who support the death cults who would murder Jews and the rest of us next? That’s a question you and I and Newsnight should answer.
“You Can’t Say That on the BBC!” — Douglas Murray Just Did — And It’s EXPLOSIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHYBudLqyOs (UK News Daily 5mins… the bit I’m referring to is at 4mins 15secs)
I happened to be on the Jerusalem Post website a couple of days ago checking out an article that came up in a search I was doing and, as such, spotted a review of a book he wrote published last year, which I just got round to reading a bit earlier. I then checked out the book on amazon and a few of the reviews, and then thought I’d do a search on youtube to see if I could find a vid of him in discussion with someone who had taken his arguments apart, like Norman Finkelstein, for example, and, in the process, came across the Newsnight interview video.
I know he’s a very influential right-wing commentator, but I’ve never got round to checking out his ‘views’ before, and I can already see that much of what he disseminates is premised on falsehoods. I don’t know who wrote the ‘amazon’ review of his book, but this is what it says in the first paragraph:
Douglas Murray…. confronts what he views as the most pressing issue of our time: why Western support of the Palestinian cause is ultimately playing into the hands of a much more dangerous force.
Well he’s obviously not referring to Western governments, and can only be referring to the millions around the world who have marched in support of the Palestinians, which have of course included many Jews…. But I don’t suppose he ever mentions that rather inconvenient fact, as with our political leaders and the MSM. Anyway, here’s a link to the review of his book on the Jerusalem Post website:
Douglas Murray sets the record straight on Oct. 7, Israel-Hamas War – review
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/culture/article-852239
I’ve been keeping tabs on Tony Greenstein’s court case this past week in-so-far as there’s been any reporting of it, and I just did another search to ascertain what the latest is, and ee bah gum, the jury found him not guilty:
Brighton man cleared of supporting Hamas on social media
A 72-year-old man has been cleared of inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Tony Greenstein, from Brighton, was found not guilty at Kingston Crown Court on Friday, August 21, by a jury of five women and seven men after two hours and 11 minutes of deliberation.
The charge related to three social media posts made on October 7, 2023, the day of the Hamas-led attack on Israel.
Mr Greenstein, a Jewish anti-Zionist activist, described Gaza as a “human prison” during the trial.
He told the court he believed the attack was “justified,” but denied supporting Hamas.
He said: “When a colonial power holds another people down, they have the right to resist.”
On Thursday, Mr Greenstein, whose father was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi told the court that Palestinians had been “locked up” for 57 years.
He said: “It was a cage in which people lived.
“Imagine you could not escape 25 miles north of here and five miles wide, and imagine having to live there and not being allowed out.”
Judge Sarah Plaschkes KC interrupted Mr Greenstein several times during his evidence, asking him to stop discussing the broader history of Israel and Palestine.
She warned him against treating the trial as a “political forum” and reminded the jury that they were “not concerned with events in the Middle East.” ……
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/26486332.brighton-man-cleared-supporting-hamas-social-media/
Hilarious, and typical of Tony of course. Great news, and very well done that jury.
Evidently the judge pondered on whether to charge Mr Greenstein with contempt of court because of his final speech which he did himself instead of his lawyer. but decided against it after “calm reflection”, describing the speech as “rambling”.
It is the opposite of “rambling”, comprehensive and cogent I would say.
I read it from this X link https://greghadfield.medium.com/tony-greenstein-the-most-important-half-hour-of-my-life-d03f7877a492.
Amazing speech by Mr Greenstein and, as you say, the opposite of rambling.
I would urge everyone on here to take the time to read it. It’s quite long but then he is fighting the forces of fascism on our behalf here, so if you can, read it. It’s inspirational. And he certainly hands the prosecution barristers (and Her “Honour”) their learned arses on a plate.
Yes, when I did a search this morning (and posted the link to the Argus article etc), an article by the Jewish Chronicle came up (most of which you can’t see because you have to sign up these days), and guess what the headline and subheadline was, as you’d expect by/from a zionist propaganda rag:
Judge ‘considered contempt of court charge’ against Tony Greenstein before he was cleared of inviting support for Hamas
Judge Sarah Plaschkes KC ultimately decided that ‘a rambling speech delivered by an old man’ would not affect the jury’s decision
I expect the judge had the media in mind when she said that!
And the Jewish News headline had him as an ‘Anti-Israel activist’:
Anti-Israel activist cleared of inviting support for Hamas after 7 October
I won’t bovver putting links to the articles.
Tony posted an excellent article on the 13th, a few days before the court case was due to begin, which covers several different aspects of this issue and is well worth reading in full (it’s quite long!), including:
I have gone back to the original debate on the Terrorism Act in December 1999 to see how the government represented the legislation at the time.
The government, in the form of Jack Straw, lied to the House of Commons repeatedly. Terrorism was redefined in the Act to include ‘serious’ damage to property….
Opposition to Genocide is not Terrorism – It is the IDF not Hamas That Should Be Proscribed
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-webinar-in-support-of-my-defence.html
PS The link doesn’t look very specific….. but I just checked it after posting, and it takes you direct to the article
[ Mod: Link to the actual article duly inserted. ]
Tony Greenstein´s speech in court:
https://jewishvoiceforliberation.org.uk/article/the-jury-has-spoken-supporting-palestinian-resistance-is-not-terrorism/
Good news for civil liberties!
I’ve come across Greg Hadfield (who posted the text of Tony’s closing speech on his Medium site) at some point in the past, but I couldn’t recall what it was about, so I did a search, and then it all came back to me. The following is an article on The Canary, a Skwawkbox opinion piece, posted in November last year:
Greg Hadfield acquitted as another vexatious Zionist prosecution collapses
Retired Brighton-based journalist Greg Hadfield has been acquitted today of the vexatious harassment case brought him at the behest of the local – and potentially national – Israel lobby for exposing an obscene X post by right-wing former Labour MP and Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) chair Ivor Caplin, 67.
Hadfield, a retired Sunday Times news editor who wrote extensively on his personal website about the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam in which JLM played a leading role, was charged with: “sending by public communication network offensive/indecent/obscene/menacing message/matter” under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, after posting a screenshot on X last year showing an example of the explicit gay porn with which Caplin peppered his (since-deleted) X account alongside posts supporting right-wing Labour.
Greg Hadfield: not guilty
Caplin, a former Blair defence minister, has still not been charged after being arrested in a paedophile sting operation.
The judge’s verdict in the case is damning. Hadfield has published it here in its entirety – and it reveals that the prosecution doctored the tweet Hadfield sent. In essence, they made it look like he had just shared an explicit screengrab – not that he had screengrabbed a tweet liked by Ivor Caplin. The context here is of course crucial – as even the judge identified that Hadfield was acting as a journalist and whistleblower over Caplin….
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/11/17/greg-hadfield-not-guilty/
The following Argus article from September 2021 also came up in the results:
Brighton Labour conference: Greg Hadfield expelled from party
A FORMER chairman of Brighton and Hove Momentum was refused entry to the Labour Party conference.
Greg Hadfield, a Labour member for 15 years, was automatically kicked out of the party for organising Resist at The Rialto, which has been taking place this week.
The event features banned organisations Labour Against the Witchhunt, a campaign against what it regards as politically motivated allegations of antisemitism, and Resist, a group founded by former Labour MP Chris Williamson.
The former chairman of Brighton and Hove Momentum has faced a number of suspensions from the party over recent years, but was finally expelled earlier this month after announcing he was organising the event on Twitter….
That’ll be the Starmerfuhrer then!
I was wondering where Greg got hold of Tony’s closing statement, and figured that Tony gave him a copy to post on his Medium platform, and given the above (what it says in the Argus article), I think that may very well be the case. Brilliant speech by the way (thanks Crispa), and well WELL worth reading, and I couldn’t help but laugh at the following bit:
When they [the Counter Terrorism Police] asked me directly whether I supported Hamas against the Israeli army, I gave them an answer I will repeat again, because it is my whole case:
“I would probably support the devil against the Israeli army. That doesn’t mean I support the devil in itself.”
I expect the jury had a quiet chuckle as well.
As far as I’m aware (but I’m not sure) the foreperson (I just looked that up!) will initially call for a show of hands when the jury retires to reach a verdict, and what with Tony’s closing speech, I have little doubt they all had him as not guilty from the get-go….. But they couldn’t very well go back to court after just one minute, and so they spent the next 2 hours and 10 minutes deliberating the weather and whatnot before deciding THAT should do us! And then all went for a drink at the nearest pub!
I expect just about everyone who follows Craig is aware of Tony’s involvement with Labour Against the Witchhunt, but just in case there are some people who aren’t, here’s a section from the wikipedia entry for LAW:
Officers and membership
In May 2019, LAW was reported to have approaching 400 members.[5] LAW’s secretary was Stan Keable, who was expelled from the Labour Party,[1][6] as were the vice-chair, Tony Greenstein and its chair, Jackie Walker.[2] Peter Firmin was also linked to the group.[7] Gerry Downing, with others, was excluded from LAW in January 2018 following comments he made about the role of Jews in society and other matters, which were described as antisemitic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Against_the_Witchhunt
PS The following section (which I just this minute read) follows on directly from the above section, under the sub-heading Sponsors:
Sponsors of the group included Moshé Machover, Ken Loach, Noam Chomsky,[2] Alexei Sayle[9] and Ian Hodson, president of the Bakers Union.[10] Michael Mansfield, who was a supporter, said he joined to defend legitimate criticism of Israel. However, he withdrew after being presented with messages posted on social media on behalf of the group.[2] The group later said that the messages had been sent without their knowledge or approval.[11] In April 2019, LAW announced that Ken Livingstone had become its honorary president.
I’ve not heard the bit about Michael Mansfield before (I’m about two/thirds of the way through his book Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer at the moment, which I picked up in a charity shop and highly recommend), but there’s a link to the following Jewish News article (October 3rd, 2018) in the wikipedia entry with more details:
Top QC withdraws support for ‘witch-hunt’ group over ‘unacceptable’ messages
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/top-qc-withdraws-support-for-witch-hunt-group-over-unacceptable-messages/
PPS Tony no doubt posted a piece about the episode at the time (which, if he did, I’m gonna try and find)
Apologies for so many posts, but I just checked Caitlin Johnstone’s Medium site, and something she related in her latest post immediately made me think of Douglas Murray (see my post up the page at 07.22 yesterday). She’s posted about it before, a couple of months or so ago, but I’d forgotten about it:
Chikli argued [Amichai Chikli, the Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs] that the western right doesn’t care about antisemitism, so it doesn’t make sense to place emphasis there, but “radical Islam interests them very much.”
I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Zionists promote Islamophobia because convincing westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to like Israel.
This is a fact, not an opinion. Last year Drop Site News published a leaked polling report that had been commissioned by the Israeli government which found that while Israel’s reputation is crumbling throughout the western world, one way to salvage it would be to foment panic about Muslims.
Drop Site reports the following:
“Israel’s best tactic to combat this, according to the study, is to foment fear of ‘Radical Islam’ and ‘Jihadism,’ which remain high, the research finds…..
And THAT of course is exactly what Douglas Murray is doing.
Our Entire Civilization Is Run By Oligarchs And Empire Managers — And Other Notes
https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/our-entire-civilization-is-run-by-oligarchs-and-empire-managers-and-other-notes-e051b242f217
Sorry, but I just checked my inbox about an hour ago now and there was this email posted at 2.29am with a link to the following:
VICTORY – A Jury Acquits Tony Greenstein of ‘Terrorism’ Charges at Kingston Crown Court in JUST 2 HOURS – The Zionists Are Furious
Judge Sarah Plaschkes Spewed Bile & Venom as Her Determination to Have Me Convicted was Thwarted
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2026/08/victory-jury-acquits-me-of-terrorism-at.html
I’m beginning to think Tony is superhuman!
Yeah good one, the Canary has a fairly good article on it.
“Greenstein delivered a blistering closing defence to the jury that resulted in spontaneous applause echoing from the packed public gallery.”
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/08/22/greenstein-trial-verdict/
A forum thread has been started on the future of technology – as indicated now that a humanoid robot has beaten Usain Bolt’s 100 metre record. The World Humanoid Games is ongoing in Beijing, China…
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/future-of-technology-as-indicated-now/
Events include the “scenario-based”, i.e. doing work that is currently done by human workers.
(Please don’t reply here, but on the forum thread at the above link ^.)
One day in Gaza.
Plant yourself. 24 hours.
Live, breathe. My challenge.
UN report on the desperate conditions.
Stating the bloody obvious while doing fuck all – The UNs Mission Statement !
UN agencies remain the primary logistical backbone keeping millions of people alive through food distribution, water purification, and emergency medicine in active conflict zones. But the UN is only as strong as its member states allow it to be. The paralysis we see is the direct result of the political choices of major powers. We should not downplay the vital framework of international law, nor the heroic work of aid agencies on the ground operating under severe restrictions imposed by others.
Yup, that’s the UN’s purpose, then, now and in the future: clearing up the mess the US leaves in the wake of its pursuit of control of the world’s resources.
‘we should not downplay the vital framework of international law’.
Yep we should stop the threats and sanctions applied by the warmongers against the ICC and ICJ from within the USA, England, France, Germany and the malviolent settlers and Zionists in occupied Palestine.
I am sure thats what MJ meant
Thanks M.J.
I will review.
Its on the cards – but will it happen?
“Given that Trump is trapped in nightmare of his own making with Iran – unable to win and unable to get out without admitting defeat – news came this week that in his desperation he might reach for the ultimate weapon.
Former U.S. Congresswoman Margorie Taylor-Greene tweeted this week:
“They are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings. Yes you read that correctly. It’s real. I’m not speculating, I know. And it’s pure evil.”
Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar said this week he was “quite certain” the weapon would be the B61 tactical nuclear bomb already present in the U.S. Central Command’s region.
Earlier this month, NBC News reported that a plan to use tactical nukes is being drafted by Pentagon’s policy chief Elbridge Colby, who for more than a decade has called for the U.S. to develop capabilities to fight a “limited nuclear war.””
https://consortiumnews.com/2026/08/22/watch-twtw-neo-israelites-vs-neo-ottomans/
If the US used nuclear weapons on Iran, the fallout, as I understand would destroy the access of the Gulf States to desalinated water. In other words the US would have achieved the same thing as a attack by Iran on its own allies.
It would be a humanitarian disaster rendering the Gulf States uninhabitable within weeks, except for people with emergency supplies. Small wonder that even a right-winger like Taylor-Greene denounces the idea.
That’s not why she’s denouncing it. She’s denouncing it because she thinks it would be evil to drop nuclear bombs on Iran.
Thanks for the correction. You’re right that her main point was a fundamental objection to crossing the nuclear threshold.
There is almost a consensus among Russian pundits that Trump has no choice but to nuke Iran.
“Burnham in Ukraine to hand over UK blueprints to make long-range missiles” [BBC]
How do you spell traitor ?
Starmers little posterboy with cash and missiles for Ukraine,fueling the corrupt neo nazi regime whilst dithering with doing anything for us bar raising taxes and using the judiciary to cover up their zionist friends control freakeries. Elections will not change this dire situation.
I define traitors as those who, during an international conflict, support the opposite side to their own country, the latter here being the UK.
In Kyiv today, Andy Burnham said to his Ukrainian hosts, “My nation kept the flame of European freedom alive in the 20th century, you hold that flame in the 21st”.
EXACTLY! The position of Ukraine – a democracy holding the fort against attempted aggression by a dictatorship, is similar to that of Britain in 1940.
There’s one aspect which might not be so obvious: because Ukraine is fighting for its life, necessity compels them to be inventive and innovative in military technology and methods, which has resulted in them finding ways out of apparently impossible problems, and winning against the odds.
Zelensky is also a Churchill to his people, another parallel.
As Burnham said at the end of his speech in Independence Square earlier today, as had Zelensky earlier in his own speech to his own people:
Слава Україні!
So MJ sees all those who support Palestine and its rightful ownership of their occupied land as traitors because our Government supports this genocide as well as the meatgrinder tactics of the Minsk 1+2 abusers, with all of Europe adament in their support for the terror Ukraine unleashed on Donbas and Luchansk.
Thanks for making this clear as glass MJ, it explains your stance and objections to an Independent Scotland, a treacherous and sad affair, go duff your cap to Burnham Macron and Bibi.
“I define traitors as those who, during an international conflict, support the opposite side to their own country, the latter here being the UK.”
M.J.
The “UK” is not a country, England controls the military and decides which wars will be fought – and what propaganda will be released, Russia is not my enemy and its not the enemy of many Scots, and I bet its not the enemy of many English, Welsh and folk from NI either – no its only the English government (which is also aiding and abetting in genocide) that sees the Neo-Nazi dictatorship running Ukraine as ally that’s needs come before its own citizens.
“Zelensky is also a Churchill to his people, another parallel.”
M.J.
Indeed he is, both mass murderers – and I doubt, Ukrainians see Zelensky as any kind of saviour – I don’t how many clips I’ve watched of the Neo-Nazi’s trying to snatch men from the streets of Ukraine only to be thwarted by Ukrainian citizens stopping them.
“On August 22, 1943, these photos of the brutal genocide in Bengal (India) were published for the first time, where British imperialism, led by the hand of the Western idol Winston Churchill, exterminated up to 5 million Indians from starvation.
The British government, in 1942, made the decision to steal all rice reserves from the native population of Bengal (India), occupied by the British, to send food to British soldiers on the war front, all this in the midst of a crop crisis due to the damage of a cyclone in the region.
Faced with the shortage of food caused by the British, food began to be hoarded and increased in price, depriving the population of food for good and starving them to death.
After the publication of the photos of the genocide in Bengal, the scandal reached Britain and the House of Commons… Winston Churchill’s response to the scandal was to claim that the extermination of 5 million people in Bengal was “natural selection” because the Indians were an “inferior race” that “reproduced like rabbits”.
https://nitter.poast.org/DaniMayakovski/status/2091119007956889697#m
Bengal famine was mainly the result of over population, half a million disease ridden war refugees and supplies of food from Burma being cut off because of the Japanese occupation.
You can say this about any famine: too many people, not emough food.
“Bengal famine was mainly the result of over population”
Pears Morgaine.
Now do Ireland, or Tasmania – you Perfidious apologiser.
Cut the crap, M.J. If Ukraine is a democracy, you are a tin soldier man.
Yuri K
August 24, 2026 at 19:06
… and if Russia is a democracy, you are a Ukrainian.
Russia is a semi-democracy, and this is OK. Just like UK.
“… and if Russia is a democracy, you are a Ukrainian.”
Neither are democracies, nor is any European state, apart from, possibly Switzerland. All are oligarchies. Russia, however, has more of the characteristics of a democracy than Ukraine, like holding elections.
“I define traitors as those who, during an international conflict, support the opposite side to their own country, the latter here being the UK.”
Ah, another Humpty Dumpty. Meanwhile, in the rest of the Anglophone world, 99.99999% of us use the dictionary definition: a person who betrays (the trust of) another.
BTW, it really isn’t a good look to sign off your comments with a Nazi slogan.
PS. When watching the live internet broadcasts of the ceremonies in Independence Square in Kyiv, with an angelic sounding choir singing afterwards, what struck me was Russia’s madness in attempting aggression against its own cousins, people like themselves, whom they should have expected to fight off invaders with the same resilience that they did in the 1940s.
If Putin has any sense, he should get out of his cousins’ house now, which he was foolish enough to try to take over by force, and cut his losses.
Слава Україні!
M.J.
Like Number Ten Downing street – Brussels is robbing its own citizens to to prop up a Neo-Nazi dictatorship running Ukraine – and like EU citizens – citizens who live in the Atlantic Archipelago aka Britain, are suffering badly for it, as billions in public cash are given to a a failed Neo-Nazi regime, much of which is syphoned off due to corruption.
“The European Commission has approved €6.1 billion ($7.1 billion) in new weapons purchases for Ukraine, the commission said on Monday. The tranche is part of a €90 billion loan allocated by Brussels for budgetary and military aid to Kiev earlier this year. In April, the EU approved a €90 billion ($105 billion) emergency loan for Ukraine that allocates €30 billion for budget support and €60 billion for military aid in 2026-2027. The loan, backed by joint EU borrowing and repayable only if Kiev receives war reparations from Russia”
Like the US taxpayer who has kept the Zio-Monsters afloat to allow them to commit genocide, Westminster will steal as much money from the public purse as it can – to keep the vile nasty regime running Ukraine in power – whilst the folk back home can’t afford to heat their homes or put a decent meal on the table due to ever increasing price rises.
I can only hope Putin does the decent thing and crushes Ukraine quickly – if not citizens of the EU and the Atlantic Archipelago aka Britain will continue to pay through the nose, to prop up a Neo-Nazi dictatorship in Ukraine.
WW2 was just another power game between the Great Powers, and the “freedom” and “democracy” narratives were voiced post-factum to make the winners look better than they actually were. But it is quite amazing how efficiently M.J. collects and resonates all such propaganda narratives. I see 2 options here: either he is well paid for this or he is completely brainwashed.
Yuri K.
Yes I have my suspicions about a few of them, but our host likes us to be gentlemanly towards each other, which is fair enough.
“Like the US taxpayer who has kept the Zio-Monsters afloat to allow them to commit genocide, Westminster will steal as much money from the public purse as it can – to keep the vile nasty regime running Ukraine in power – whilst the folk back home can’t afford to heat their homes or put a decent meal on the table due to ever increasing price rises.”
Ukraine is not the only nasty regime that Westminster has been stealing money from the public purse to keep in power: Britain holds $850Bn of US treasuries, that’s $850Bn in extra borrowing so that it can be lent to the USA
Bayard.
England has also been illegally holding onto Venezuelan gold for years now – to comply with illegal US sanctions against the nation, now the US terror and pirate state, will steal Venezuela’s gold – as England is set to send the gold to the States, the US is already illegally holding onto Afghanistan’s gold.
Any nations leaders would be silly in this day and age – to send assets outside its borders, for them to be frozen, the minute another nation/bloc with clout – decides to place sanctions on your nation because your nations government did this or that – and they don’t like it.
M.J.
“people like themselves, whom they should have expected to fight off invaders with the same resilience that they did in the 1940s.”
Tell that to the far-rightists ukrainians that started off this conflict circa 2012/2013 when they started to forcefully puling away Ukraine from Russia, ignoring their ethnic and lingual russians in Ukraine and ignored even russian culture as such, so much for brotherhood.
Jack
August 24, 2026 at 15:35
What about the SNP?
At least until Sturgeon took over, they “started to forcefully puling away Scotland from England, ignoring their ethnic and lingual English people in Scotland and ignored even English culture as such, so much for brotherhood”.
“What about the SNP?”
I’m impressed with the SNP’s censorship of the media, they’ve managed to ensure there has been no coverage of the civil war in the Lowlands and all the English people being killed by the Scottish Nationalists and vice versa. You would have thought that at least something would have leaked out.
Jack
Burnham jamming with a Neo-Nazi soldier in Ukraine yesterday – no doubt he’s (Burnham) already had a duet with Netanyahu – or an IOF monster.
https://xcancel.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2091930230919196758#m
Stevie Boy
Very true, all Burnham is doing is painting a giant bullseye on the back of England’s assets – I’m surprised Putin hasn’t struck some of them yet.
Apparently, the ‘blueprints’ are for the anglo-french storm shadow cruise missile, which are 1990s technology and would take the Ukranians years to manufacture assuming they could even get all the materials. These ‘blueprints’ will only be useful for Ukraine to sell on to other regimes. Burn’em is indulging in vacuous PR to bolster his image amongst mentally deficient UK supporters. It’s going to be interesting to see who lasts longest: the traitor or the Nazi. Putin has no need to worry with these ‘leaders’.
Stevei Boy.
Thank you for that reply, I found this today.
“French President Emmanuel Macron says France will provide Ukraine with additional interceptor missiles and accelerate deliveries of military equipment following a deadly Russian attack on the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih.
In a post on X on Saturday, Macron said he had spoken with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after a daylight “double strike” on the city and expressed his “deep concern” over the attack.
“It is crucial to provide Ukraine with all the necessary means to defend its airspace and thwart this aggression,” he said, adding that France would step up its support, including through the deployment of interceptor missiles.”
I’ve also read that Poland, Finland, and Lithuania are being lined up to host nukes/more nukes because they border Russia, and something else is stirring – “Norway recently signed an agreement to join France’s “nuclear umbrella,” with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre citing Russia’s military rearmament as the catalyst.
The move makes Norway the ninth country to align with France’s forward deterrence framework, following similar overtures from Sweden and Denmark, as European allies solidify a backup plan in case US military support wavers.”
https://united24media.com/world/nato-weighs-nuclear-expansion-as-poland-finland-lithuania-emerge-as-options-21249
Republicofscotland
The only thing the EU/UK has an advantage in is that their combined GDP is much bigger than Russia’s
Meaning that from their tax takes and other state charges they could in theory keep the pressure up on Russia for a long time.
The flaw in this approach is that all of them have to get elected every so often.
Because of Trump’s antics in The Mid East the same voters are not going to take kindly to getting skinter and skinter and paying money to another nation.
Ironically the most fervent opponents of this fund raising effort are mainly on the right.
The Liberals go along with it and the Left of Centre mainly, because the US and the Western World MSM are for it.
They are for it for the same reason as trotting out Anti – Semitism as an attack on all Jews.
What the people accusing other people of Anti- Semitism mean is that to attack Israel is an attack on all Jews which patently is not true.
Were people against Mussolini – Hitler and Pinochet because they were Catholics?
No – because they were Right Wing Fascists – that’s the reason.
Yet -when all is said and done amongst the voters it is always the economy.
Nothing altruistic – it is their personal economy that worries them the most.
My opinon is that the world is already in Recession.
Due to the Russia /Ukraine war and the massive problems storing up in the Mid East I think we may be heading for a World Depression.
The effects of that are frightening for all the world, particularly the poorer parts of the world.
The UK/EU/US and Ukraine are not exactly kind to their poor either.
When destitution meets desperation, this is right where Fascism thrives.
Europe has the T- Shirt and history on how Fascism arises.
A lot of well off people lived with it and a lot of not well off people fought it on principle.
I’m not sure which side is going to win but. here it comes.
I see two of the most Brit State supplicant slugs of the Slithering Numpty Party – Spineless Swinney & Gregor Samsa Gethins have been wheeled out to parrot the Uniparty line – verbatim, ie how the martyrs, saints & heroes of Tellytubbyland East are fighting for us all – aye, that’s right, us all, and don’t you forget it. The Imaginot Line of Golden Toilets has to be paid for somehow; and that’s why our Great Leader – Sir Andrex of Oop North has selflessly contributed XXXXX£Bs of fucking docile believe-whatever-their-told gaslit ” I STAND WITH * insert current State Propaganda here * ” vote-fodders’ money whilst their own standards of living are flushed down the toilet – and not the golden kind.
Those slimy sellouts – Swinney & Gethins – and the entire SNP Clown Show – have the fucknig nerve to unilaterally declare ” Scotland Stands With UKraine ” – does it fuck; how dare these bought n sold worms presume to speak for ” Scotland ”
if they’re so sure of that, have a poll asking those of fighting age if they would go to Ukraine to fight Russia. I’m absolutely confident the results would be the same as in, eg Germany where something derisory like 15% replied in the affirmative – and that despite having Globalist jackal Blackrock Merz and his ” how can we help you kill more Russians? ” death-drooling fanatics + equally unhinged MSM relentless screaming for more carnage ( do those fucks never learn – will they have be utterly battered, blasted and bludgeoned into silence AGAIN? )
The SNP are so gung-ho about ( notionally ) ” fighting the Russians ” but won’t lift a finger to fight for Scotland’s Independence; on the contrary, are tying our country ever-deeper into Brit State psychopathy and potentially fatal military delusion. The whole Brit shitshow makes me sick – it’s servile * Scottish * fan club even more so
MARK M CUTTS
Good points Mark – I think Russia can hold out in an economic sense, with the aid of BRICS nations – also I think it was the GrayZone or MintPress, I can’t recall that had an article on showing that Colombian mercenaries are now fighting for Ukraine.
Robert Hughes
Yes Robert we should despise those treacherous b*stards – but we shouldn’t be surprised at their actions – colonial admins are a mainstay of any colonising nation, wishing to control another nation, Alf Baird points this out in his excellent Determinants of Independence, as did old hands such as Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire.
There’s nothing for us at Holyrood, its is packed with so called politicians who want the status quo to remain intact, in effect its an extension of Westminster in Scotland.
Robert Hughes.
Robert, I forgot to add this:
“Crown Estate Scotland has refused to answer key constitutional questions about who they act for, what authority they rely on, and how Scotland’s seabed is being leased for major energy and data infrastructure projects.”
https://xcancel.com/ScotlandTh82958/status/2091556070280089604#m
Yes, RoS, they – the SNP Gov – are the exact equivalent of historical Colonial Admins; though in some senses worse. In previous examples of colonial takeover/rule, the subjugation was a consequence of actual invasion and imposition by force; in Scotland’s case, that hasn’t been necessary. All that has been required is the infiltration-by-stealth of the one Political Party that ( once ) stood in opposition to the colonial power.
As stated previously, the truly shocking thing is how quickly and thoroughly this subversion/neutralising has been achieved
Robert Hughes
Re, my 9.56am comment.
Below is the FOI that Salvo asked the Scottish Crown Estate, which answers to US, not England of the foreign monarch of England the (SCE) works for US, but they refuse to answer any important questions.
They’re another shower of treacherous b*stards we’ll need to deal with.
https://xcancel.com/salvo_neil68417/status/2091171932792148267#m
To Labour the truth,
Genocide is policy,
Not, anomaly.
Tony Greenstein outside Kingston court after the unanimous Not Guilty verdict in his trial:
‘I wanna see David Lammy, Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, and the rest of them inside for having helped Israel perpetrate a genocide. We stand on the right side of history; they stand with the Nazis and with all the other dictators of the past. They have no morals.’
Given that fact, what meaning is there in these people’s endless refrain that they Stand with Ukraine?
Hi Zoot
I celebrate the acquittal by the jury of Tony Greenstein. May both be preserved.
As for the other point, my assumption is that those who advocate the position you indict will assert that seeking justice for Palestine is not incompatible with seeking justice for Ukraine. How congruent those positions are is a separate matter and would necessarily include contextualisation and attributions of motive to the various parties.
You disagree with Tony Greenstein’s assessment, that they have no morals?
Hi Zoot.
Tony expresses himself as he sees fit. I was responding to the point that you made about Ukraine. I don’t think this was part of Tony’s speech outside the court following his acquittal ? From my perspective the principles with respect to the Gaza genocide are clear and can be applied universally. The people you indict for their vociferous support for Ukraine should also be able to articulate the principles at stake and they can then be applied vis a vis Israel/Palestine[Gaza], Israel/Lebanon, Israel/Syria, Israel/Iran, US/Iran, US/Palestine, US/Syria, US/Iraq, US/Lebanon, US/Venezuela and the UK/Palestine, UK/Russia etc. Establishing if their positions on Ukraine and Gaza etc are congruent can then be judged.
Look more closely at the reality of it.
Consider which governments in this world are providing Israel with every conceivable form of support for its merciless mass murder of children.
Then consider which governments alone are arming Ukraine, seeking to escalate and broaden the conflict with nuclear-armed Russia and scorning any peace initiatives.
Notice anything?
Hi Zoot [reply to 17:41 post].
I can see that there is a significant constituency who are apathetic to the Palestinian genocide but are vociferous in their condemnation of the actions of the Russian state vis a vis Ukraine. Whether this is congruent will be for its advocates to explain (if they care to). I think Mr Murray in his blog has articulated a nuanced position on the Russia/Ukraine conflict and I have previously commented on this.
It’s explained by them taking all their cues from the people who dominate western politics and media. (Hence not seeing Palestinians as human beings; Russia having no legitimate national-security interests, and so on).