When I turn up at Peterlee Magistrates’ Court tomorrow morning, then the moral victory will be mine, since my accusers will have failed in their attempt to force me to commit suicide. Moreover, if my trial went ahead, then, regardless of the outcome, my parliamentary candidacy at North West Durham would be resumed there and then, incorporating a challenge to either or both of my accusers to stand against me. In this age of Keir Starmer, David Evans and Assaf Kaplan, then one of them could have the Labour nomination for the asking.
Not that my accusers are my reason to consider returning to the electoral fray. The margin of victory at North West Durham was 1,144. With three years’ notice, then I could take more votes than that. More than the margin of victory between the Conservatives and Labour, or vice versa. Of course I could. The Brexit Party no longer exists, and Watts Stelling is very unlikely to give it a fourth go, in his seventies. The de facto Conservative majority is therefore about five thousand. It might still be worth a punt, though.
A punt to strengthen families and communities by securing economic equality and international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends, including national and parliamentary sovereignty. To build on Brexit as a double opportunity, both to reorganise the British economy under the direction of a more democratic State, and to develop a fully independent and a peaceable British foreign policy.
To exercise the leading role in the pursuit of economic equality of those who suffered most from its absence, namely the working class, and the leading role in the pursuit of international peace of those who suffered most from its absence, namely the working class and the youth, insisting that the working class in Great Britain was indivisible.
To celebrate the fact that Britain was ethnically diverse down to every ward, that Britain was home to people from every inhabited territory, that Britain had a large and growing population of mixed ethnic heritage, and that Britain was therefore the world centre of the liberation struggle of the Global South, accepting no definition of anti-Semitism beyond, “Hostility to or prejudice against Jews.” To use that celebration against the central role of the City of London, and of its network of tax havens under British sovereignty, in the oppression of the Global South.
To insist on an approach to climate change which protected and extended secure employment with civilised wages and working conditions, which encouraged economic development around the world, which upheld the right of the working classes and of people of colour to have children, which held down and as far as practicable reduced the fuel prices that always hit the poor hardest, and which refused to restrict travel opportunities or a full diet to the rich.
And to reverse deindustrialisation at home, while bringing an end to the harvesting of young men in endless and pointless wars abroad, as two of the many policy implications of the scientific fact of binary and immutable biological sex, implications that also included action on men’s health and on fathers’ rights.
This list is not exhaustive.
As to tomorrow, the use of my existing convictions as character evidence against me is a circular argument, since the allegations made against me by one of my accusers were used as character evidence against me at that trial. After my having been convicted on the basis of those allegations, it is now proposed to try those allegations on the basis of that conviction. Round, and round, and round it goes. Her further allegation against me was made only after I had pointed out that logical fallacy. It was nothing but an attempt at back-covering, and I was never charged in relation to it, seriously damaging her credibility.
At my previous trial, she withdrew under cross-examination her central allegation against me, something for which I have never been arrested, and which has never even been mentioned to me by anyone else, before or since. Yet that shocking and deeply distressing allegation was what provoked an obvious mental health crisis on my part, as professional analysis of the material has now confirmed. Again, then, she has little or no credibility.
Nothing to link me to any anonymous letter relating to her has ever been produced, and again my previous conviction cannot be used to suggest a pattern of such behaviour, since that conviction was obtained on the basis of the allegation that I had sent that letter. In any case, that would itself be a specific criminal offence, and again I have never so much as been arrested for it.
It is in fact she who is Scottish, whereas I have never lived in Scotland, nor have I been there in some years. She would have been far better placed to have had it sent than I would have been, and that in the runup to a trial at which it was to be presented as evidence of similar behaviour. What has been found to link me to that letter? My fingerprints? My DNA? My handwriting? There is absolutely nothing. It is irrelevant that the stamp was bought in Durham, since there is a Post Office here in Lanchester, and of course that is the one that I use.
My second accuser has set his allegation in the context of numerous other lurid allegations against me. But none of those is on the charge sheet. Since several of them are of very serious criminal activity, all of which I entirely deny, then I submit that they should be disregarded, since they would have to be tried at Crown Court, which they never have been. Indeed, I have never been arrested for any of those, either.
This action is an abuse of process by a longstanding political opponent who has spent over a decade aspiring to the Labour nomination for the parliamentary seat of North West Durham, which I contested as an Independent in 2019. That nomination is now available. Nothing would better curry favour with the people who ran the Labour Party in the North East in general, and in County Durham in particular, than to land me with another criminal conviction. They truly hate me, and so does he.
At the root of the specific blog post in this case, which was deleted after less than 12 hours (mostly overnight) and which certainly never appeared on any “local news site” or whatever he suggests, is a recent leaked report into the staff of the Labour Party, which revealed that he, who was the party's London Regional Director at the time, employed the infamous Angry Black Woman trope against Diane Abbott. He has been racially abusing me for nearly 20 years, and now his true character stands exposed. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to put that on record in open court. The impending Forde Report into racism in the Labour Party is universally expected to name him, which goes to the heart of his character and credibility.
Furthermore, he is now Head of Media Relations UK for HSBC, bankers to the Colombian and Mexican drug cartels. If he wanted to talk about character, then I would be more than happy to call people who would testify to the character of the man who made his living laundering the reputation of the bank that laundered money from such sources. In fact, I would be more than happy to do so even if he were not prepared to talk about my character. I would be delighted to talk about his. For example, there was the time when his brother-in-law tried to murder me. My accuser was running the office of a Cabinet Minister at the time, so I was too frightened to report it to the Police, as he had known that I would be.
Head of Media Relations UK for the biggest bank in the world, former London Regional Director of the Labour Party, former Head of Press and Media for the Labour Party, former Chief of Staff to the Government Chief Whip: the idea that he could be harassed by little old me is even more laughable than the suggestion that I could harass a former Police Officer who was now a Safeguarding Officer. They both deserve to be laughed out. And each of their accounts has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.