Monday 21 October 2024

The Second Time As Farce?

The bombing of Al-Qard Al-Hassan shows how precise the Israelis are. Their every killing is intentional. They do not cause collateral damage. They goad the Iranians for "failure" to inflict civilian casualties.

As to whom the Israelis would impose on Iran, affections have lately been transferred to the ridiculous fantasist Reza Pahlavi, who is supported by a mostly elderly three per cent of Iranian-Americans, heavily concentrated in and around Los Angeles, and by almost no one else in the world. They have been prominent in the off-the-books state and institutional violence against the pro-peace encampment at UCLA.

Throughout this century, the Israeli flag has been prominent at Far Right events the world over, while the Iranian monarchist flag may also be seen at the small but vicious pro-Netanyahu counterdemonstrations in London. Those habitually assault the Police, who nevertheless have to tolerate them under political pressure to provoke a confrontation with the peaceful marchers for peace, and thus to provide a pretext for banning those events and for rounding up tens of thousands of dissidents. Life in Iran must be intolerable.

The Democrats, who are now the Dick Cheney Republicans, may retain a residual attachment to the longstanding neoconservative and liberal-interventionist aim of installing as Iran's new regime the weirdest political cult in the world, which had been based in exile since 1981, leaving it no constituency in a country of which half the population was under 30 years of age.

The Americans relocated that People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mojahedin-e-Khalq) to Albania between 2013 and 2016, not without local resistance, although it also maintains a considerable presence in the France of Emmanuel Macron, as well as an office in Cricklewood.

Consider how the world turns, since that outfit was headquartered for many years in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where it participated in atrocities committed by the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard. During the Iraq War, Biden's, Bush's and Blair's Boys bombed the PMOI/MEK into surrender, as part of a deal with Iran to hand over certain al-Qaeda suspects who were of course in any case opponents of the Iranian regime. Oh, how the world does turn.

Opponents of the Iraq War were screamed down as Islamists and revolutionary Marxists due to the presence of a few of each in our enormous ranks. But now the plan is to hand over Iran to the people who really do manage the remarkable feat of being both, yet who were nevertheless closely allied to Saddam Hussein.

But if Israel now wanted the Pahlavis instead, then the Americans would presumably have to jump to it. Donald Trump would be glad to do so, recognising kindred spirits. Half the American electorate would now vote for Donald Trump if he were dead, and will vote for his dynastic successors at every opportunity. At last, the United States has a conservative movement and party in the purest Old World sense, straightforwardly loyal to rule by a particular House. But it is not, as had once seemed likely, the Bourbonesque Bushes, but America's Bonapartes. Or Pahlavis. Like Napoleon, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi even crowned himself. Your move, Donald.

A Dangerous Phenomenon For Any Democracy

50.4 per cent to 49.6 per cent is an awful lot tighter than the 2016 referendum in Britain was, so where are the cries for a second referendum in Moldova? The No side had been in the lead until the last minute counting of 180,000 votes from Moldovans who were already living in the EU, and thus not in Moldova, 90 per cent of whom at least allegedly voted Yes. But we are expected to believe that only five per cent of the 300,000 Moldovans living in Russia voted at all.

And yet we are also expected to believe that the size of the No vote, and the fact that Maia Sandu was going to have to face a runoff ballot for President, were due to "Russian interference". They no longer have to lose for that to be the case. They just have to get less than 100 per cent of the vote. Their pre-planned programme of repression will then be put into effect. Now into its second century, Fascism has always been what was now called centrism, but with its back to the wall.

Strictly Off The Record: Day Two

If you are Douglas McKean, then Oliver Kamm is convinced that you and I are one and the same. I hate to have to tell you that I have never heard of you. He first contacted me about this at lunchtime on 4 July, so General Election day was obviously slow on The Times, and he has promised to involve the Police, from whom I have heard nothing. Anyone with news of any developments, do please contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com. Strictly off the record, of course.

Also please contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com with any news on the case of Fr Timothy Gardner OP, which was supposed to have been heard at Newcastle Crown Court in July, but of which I can find no trace. While this is not the only arrow in my quiver, unless Fr Gardner was convicted, then the latest accusations against me have absolutely no credibility, and nor does the propensity evidence that alone secured my conviction in 2020, to breach of the suspended sentence for which I wrongly pleaded guilty in 2021, leading to my imprisonment. Fr Gardner's non-conviction is not the only thing that could vindicate me. But it would do so. Any information would therefore be most gratefully received. Again, strictly off the record, of course.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

Justice Delayed: Day 117

Even assuming, and it was far from clear, that the Crown had presented any evidence whatever on the morning of Wednesday 19 June, then no later than the afternoon of Thursday 20 June, I would have been found not guilty unanimously in the time that it took to walk to the jury room and send a note to the judge. On Monday 6 November, the only Prosecution witness did not turn up, having been suspended from the Police. Since then, he has been "asked to resign" because of his conduct of my case. On Friday 14 June, my barrister formally complained.

Lo and behold, on the morning of Sunday 16 June, enough Police Officers turned up at my door to take down an al-Qaeda cell, and behaved roughly as if that were what they were doing. Everyone is laughing, and not at me. Late that night, a nonsense additional charge, quite different from the stated grounds of the arrest, was added, with no expectation that it could possibly stick, but in order to postpone what would have been that week's open-and-shut acquittal. Be at Durham Crown Court on Wednesday 26 February 2025, almost exactly two years, although we dispute the timeline, after the original complaint was allegedly made. When I shall be found not guilty. But the process is the punishment.

Rather than embarrass itself any further, the Crown did not even ask for me to be remanded. Nor did it dispute that the Police had found nothing on my laptop or on my phone, even though the latest allegation therefore cannot be true. And nor did it dispute that its only witness had been sacked from the Police because of my case, or that this latest action against me was a revenge attack for my barrister's complaint, both of which are now on Monday 17 June's record of Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court, as is the cleanliness of my devices, of which the Police are nevertheless keeping possession, requiring me to replace them at considerable expense.

I wish that my solicitor had used such terms as "Mafia hit" and "punishment beating". I am using them now. This is a punishment beating for the sacked policeman. And it is a Mafia hit by some Fredo Corleone, because the latest complaint was supposedly made before I had withdrawn from the General Election, a withdrawal that has rendered it pointless in its own terms. Other than the unpaid position to which I was elected unopposed well over a year ago, and which has therefore been kept vacant ever since, I have no intention of contesting another election to public office.

Welcome to the Starmer State, which institutional Britain has treated as the status quo since Keir Starmer became Labour Leader. I am not the only dissident that it persecutes, and things are already getting an awful lot worse now that Starmer is Prime Minister.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The Safeguarding Challenge: Day 466

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and the allegation at the base of any outstanding charge has been made in order to incite my suicide.

That purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com, by each and all of the members of the Board of the Catholic Safeguarding Standards Agency, currently Nazir Afzal, Amanda Ellingworth, Wesley Cuell, Bishop Paul Mason, Sarah Kilmartin, Jenny Holmes, Sir David Behan, and Sr Una Coogan IBVM.

That purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com, by each and all of the members of the Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Committee, currently Gail McGregor, Paul Weatherstone, Fr Christopher Hancock MHM, Canon William Agley, Catherine Dyer, Canon Martin Stempczyk, Canon Peter Leighton VG, Maureen Dale, and Tony Lawless.

And that purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com, by each and all of the members of the Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Team, currently Meriel Anderson, Ian Colling, Andrew Grant, Kirsty McIntyre, Lisa Short, Yvonne Brown, and Petra Scarr.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and the allegation at the base of any outstanding charge has been made in order to incite my suicide. I should emphasise that there is absolutely no risk that I might ever give anyone the satisfaction of my suicide.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The CPS Challenge: Day 466

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service as part of its organised persecution of the opponents and critics of Keir Starmer, which is its principal national priority.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from seeking the position of General Secretary of Unite the Union on a programme including disaffiliation from the Labour Party, a proposal that would be hugely popular two years into a Starmer Government.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from establishing a thinktank 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.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from establishing a weekly magazine of news and comment, a monthly cultural review, a quarterly academic journal, and perhaps eventually also a fortnightly satirical magazine.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from taking journalistic, political or other paid work for fear of losing my entitlement to Legal Aid.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service out of the same racism that has caused it to refuse to prosecute the Police Officers in the case of Stephen Lawrence.

And I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to incite my politically motivated murder, a murder that the CPS has already decided would never lead to any prosecution.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the members of the CPS Board, currently Monica Burch, Stephen Parkinson, Simon Jeffreys, Dr Subo Shanmuganathan, and Kathryn Stone.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the CPS senior leadership, currently Tristan Bradshaw, Dawn Brodrick, Mike Browne, Steve Buckingham, Matthew Cain, Gregor McGill, Grace Ononiwu, and Baljhit Ubey.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the members of the CPS Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, currently Simon Jeffreys, Stephen Parkinson, Michael Dunn, Deborah Harris, Dr Subo Shanmuganathan.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the members of the CPS Nominations, Leadership and Remuneration Committee, currently Kathryn Stone, Stephen Parkinson, and Monica Burch.

And each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the 279 members of staff of the CPS North East Area, by definition including, but not restricted to, Chief Crown Prosecutor Gail Gilchrist, and the Area Business Manager, Ian Brown.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The Clergy Challenge: Day 1170

I invite each and every bishop, priest and deacon of the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle to contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com if he thought that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me.

Not legally guilty; Bill Cosby is legally innocent. Factually and morally guilty. No name would be published except at the request of its bearer, but if anyone ever did get in touch, then the readers of this site would be the first to know. The current total is zero.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The Representatives Challenge: Day 1170

As already stated on the day after my release: "The instant that Labour lost control of Durham County Council, then I was granted an unsolicited tag for more than 10 weeks of future good behaviour. I invite each and every Member of Parliament for the area covered by Durham County Council, each and every member of Durham County Council, and each and every member of Lanchester Parish Council, to contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com if they thought that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me. Not legally guilty; Bill Cosby is legally innocent. Factually and morally guilty. No name would be published except at the request of its bearer, but if anyone ever did get in touch, then the readers of this site would be the first to know." The current total is zero.

And I invite each and every Member of Parliament whose constituency fell wholly or partly in County Durham to contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com if they thought that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me. Not legally guilty; Bill Cosby is legally innocent. Factually and morally guilty. No name would be published except at the request of its bearer, but if anyone ever did get in touch, then the readers of this site would be the first to know. The current total is zero.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

By Convention

It is inconceivable that all, or even very many, Conservative MPs would contest the next General Election on a commitment to withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so it is inconceivable that Robert Jenrick would lead the Conservative Party into that Election.

We do not yet know the grounds on which they would get rid of Kemi Badenoch. But there would be something. In 2005, after the members' choice had been deposed in favour of Michael Howard without a vote's having been cast by anyone, then the Conservatives did not win. But they did make significant gains. And UKIP failed to win a single seat.

Action and Solidarity?

The "wrong" people seem to have won, or at least to have done better than "expected", in Moldova, so of course it must be down to "Russian interference". The place may as well already be in the EU.

As for Yulia Navalnaya, no one much in Russia had ever heard of her husband before, albeit under prison camp conditions, he dropped dead of natural causes as we fortysomethings sometimes do. It is we cockroaches that survive. Yet when Navalnaya, of whom no one at all has ever heard, did not win the Russian Presidency, then the tedious cry will be that the election had been rigged. It very possibly will have been. But not against her. Still, she will be proclaimed the "rightful" President in the manner of Juan Guaidó, who as much as Alexei Navalny embodied, and in Guaidó's case continues to embody, the meaninglessness of the distinction between centrism and Fascism.

See also Maia Sandu, who has banned the display of the Saint George's Ribbon, being ever-loyal instead to the Iron Guard, therefore to the NATO that spends a fortune depicting such phenomena as the good guys of the Eastern Front, and thus also to the EU.

Sunday 20 October 2024

Strictly Off The Record: Day One

If you are Douglas McKean, then Oliver Kamm is convinced that you and I are one and the same. I hate to have to tell you that I have never heard of you. He first contacted me about this at lunchtime on 4 July, so General Election day was obviously slow on The Times, and he has promised to involve the Police, from whom I have heard nothing. Anyone with news of any developments, do please contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com. Strictly off the record, of course.

Also please contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com with any news on the case of Fr Timothy Gardner OP, which was supposed to have been heard at Newcastle Crown Court in July, but of which I can find no trace. While this is not the only arrow in my quiver, unless Fr Gardner was convicted, then the latest accusations against me have absolutely no credibility, and nor does the propensity evidence that alone secured my conviction in 2020, to breach of the suspended sentence for which I wrongly pleaded guilty in 2021, leading to my imprisonment. Fr Gardner's non-conviction is not the only thing that could vindicate me. But it would do so. Any information would therefore be most gratefully received. Again, strictly off the record, of course.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

Fiscal Drag, Indeed

Rachel Reeves is a purely titular Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Cabinet colleagues ignore her and deal directly with a Prime Minister who does not rebuke them. Still, she is the Second Lord of the Treasury to his First, so they must both take responsibility for the £149 increase in energy bills, for the 22 to 44 per cent increase in water bills, for the zero growth in GDP, for the mere 0.3 per cent retail growth, for the steepest September reduction in consumer confidence in 48 years, for lower investor confidence than there was under Liz Truss, and for the five per cent increase in the number of firms at risk of collapse.

Male life expectancy has fallen by 266 days, yet Reeves plans to put up the pension age. The capital expenditure rules have been scrapped, which may or may not be a good thing depending on the details, but which is a clear breach of the Labour manifesto. As is the straightforwardly bad abandonment of the commitment not to increase National Insurance contributions. Fiscal drag is also a directly manifesto-breaching increase in income tax.

And neither Reeves nor anyone else knows whether VAT on school fees is supposed to be a permanent source of income, or a means of closing those schools. It cannot be both. During this Parliament, the measures that it had been supposed to fund will be deemed to have been achieved, and the tax will be discontinued. If that required both a new Chancellor and a new Education Secretary, then those there would be.

Not To Be Served, But To Serve

Do the four known suicides of wronged subpostmasters prove their guilt? Here is your weekly reminder that this could not have been an executive summary of this. That would have been impossible, since they bear no resemblance to each other. It is all here, including on the ludicrous definition of "grooming" that was used to hound Canon Michael McCoy to his death, and including on the nonsense about Fr Timothy Gardner OP. Something has changed since 3 May 2023. What is it? And where is the original report?

I have no qualms about styling Fr Gardner OP as such, since he has not been laicised, nor, unless I am very much mistaken, has he been dismissed from the Order of Preachers. It has been 23 weeks since I emailed the Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Susan Dungworth, in the following terms: "I appreciate that this is not strictly your responsibility, but I have been completely unable to find an email address for Northumbria Police, so please forward this to them. Fr Timothy Gardner OP is due back before Newcastle Crown Court in July. As set out below, ... the case against Fr Gardner needs to be halted immediately. At the very least, his solicitor and barrister need to be made aware of these facts. Very many thanks."

I do not resile from this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this or this. Rather, I reiterate every word of each and all of them. There was no cathedral sex party. The move from the old Bishop's House to the new one made a profit. There was no allegation of sexual assault against Bishop Robert Byrne CO, who should sue every media outlet that had suggested one.

Although I am often asked, I know neither where nor how Bishop Byrne is. But I am often asked. I am not doing Marko Rupnik, because that would involve siding with the people who had done nothing for Bishop Byrne. They and Rupnik can all go to Hell in the same handcart. Nor am I interested in anything that you might have to say about Bishop Joseph Strickland unless you had fought for Bishop Byrne.

I may not, but I may, accept the present report when Bishop Byrne had done so, and to the extent that he had done so. His Lordship has yet to do so to any extent. At least while that remains the case, then I reject the whole thing out of hand, and so should you. The sum total of the charge sheet against Bishop Byrne is that he did not automatically do as he was told by the hired help. But Pat Buckley, who died in May, did not like Bishop Stephen Wright, so Bishop Wright must be all right.

Indeed, His Lordship preached well at his Enthronement. He clearly has a deep spirituality. There was also a speech by a self-identified survivor of clerical sexual abuse, one Maggie Vickerman. Neither her case, nor those to which she referred, had anything to do with Bishop Byrne, if they really happened at all. How do we know? At most, they were long before his brief time in this Diocese. If anything, certain people with some responsibility for them were in that sanctuary. Nor did Ms Vickerman make any attempt to disguise her theological agenda. Well, nor do I make any attempt to disguise mine.

Justice Delayed: Day 116

Even assuming, and it was far from clear, that the Crown had presented any evidence whatever on the morning of Wednesday 19 June, then no later than the afternoon of Thursday 20 June, I would have been found not guilty unanimously in the time that it took to walk to the jury room and send a note to the judge. On Monday 6 November, the only Prosecution witness did not turn up, having been suspended from the Police. Since then, he has been "asked to resign" because of his conduct of my case. On Friday 14 June, my barrister formally complained.

Lo and behold, on the morning of Sunday 16 June, enough Police Officers turned up at my door to take down an al-Qaeda cell, and behaved roughly as if that were what they were doing. Everyone is laughing, and not at me. Late that night, a nonsense additional charge, quite different from the stated grounds of the arrest, was added, with no expectation that it could possibly stick, but in order to postpone what would have been that week's open-and-shut acquittal. Be at Durham Crown Court on Wednesday 26 February 2025, almost exactly two years, although we dispute the timeline, after the original complaint was allegedly made. When I shall be found not guilty. But the process is the punishment.

Rather than embarrass itself any further, the Crown did not even ask for me to be remanded. Nor did it dispute that the Police had found nothing on my laptop or on my phone, even though the latest allegation therefore cannot be true. And nor did it dispute that its only witness had been sacked from the Police because of my case, or that this latest action against me was a revenge attack for my barrister's complaint, both of which are now on Monday 17 June's record of Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court, as is the cleanliness of my devices, of which the Police are nevertheless keeping possession, requiring me to replace them at considerable expense.

I wish that my solicitor had used such terms as "Mafia hit" and "punishment beating". I am using them now. This is a punishment beating for the sacked policeman. And it is a Mafia hit by some Fredo Corleone, because the latest complaint was supposedly made before I had withdrawn from the General Election, a withdrawal that has rendered it pointless in its own terms. Other than the unpaid position to which I was elected unopposed well over a year ago, and which has therefore been kept vacant ever since, I have no intention of contesting another election to public office.

Welcome to the Starmer State, which institutional Britain has treated as the status quo since Keir Starmer became Labour Leader. I am not the only dissident that it persecutes, and things are already getting an awful lot worse now that Starmer is Prime Minister.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The Safeguarding Challenge: Day 465

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and the allegation at the base of any outstanding charge has been made in order to incite my suicide.

That purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com, by each and all of the members of the Board of the Catholic Safeguarding Standards Agency, currently Nazir Afzal, Amanda Ellingworth, Wesley Cuell, Bishop Paul Mason, Sarah Kilmartin, Jenny Holmes, Sir David Behan, and Sr Una Coogan IBVM.

That purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com, by each and all of the members of the Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Committee, currently Gail McGregor, Paul Weatherstone, Fr Christopher Hancock MHM, Canon William Agley, Catherine Dyer, Canon Martin Stempczyk, Canon Peter Leighton VG, Maureen Dale, and Tony Lawless.

And that purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com, by each and all of the members of the Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Team, currently Meriel Anderson, Ian Colling, Andrew Grant, Kirsty McIntyre, Lisa Short, Yvonne Brown, and Petra Scarr.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and the allegation at the base of any outstanding charge has been made in order to incite my suicide. I should emphasise that there is absolutely no risk that I might ever give anyone the satisfaction of my suicide.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The CPS Challenge: Day 465

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service as part of its organised persecution of the opponents and critics of Keir Starmer, which is its principal national priority.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from seeking the position of General Secretary of Unite the Union on a programme including disaffiliation from the Labour Party, a proposal that would be hugely popular two years into a Starmer Government.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from establishing a thinktank 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.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from establishing a weekly magazine of news and comment, a monthly cultural review, a quarterly academic journal, and perhaps eventually also a fortnightly satirical magazine.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to prevent me from taking journalistic, political or other paid work for fear of losing my entitlement to Legal Aid.

I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service out of the same racism that has caused it to refuse to prosecute the Police Officers in the case of Stephen Lawrence.

And I am morally and factually innocent of every criminal offence with which I have ever been charged, and any outstanding charge is being pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to incite my politically motivated murder, a murder that the CPS has already decided would never lead to any prosecution.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the members of the CPS Board, currently Monica Burch, Stephen Parkinson, Simon Jeffreys, Dr Subo Shanmuganathan, and Kathryn Stone.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the CPS senior leadership, currently Tristan Bradshaw, Dawn Brodrick, Mike Browne, Steve Buckingham, Matthew Cain, Gregor McGill, Grace Ononiwu, and Baljhit Ubey.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the members of the CPS Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, currently Simon Jeffreys, Stephen Parkinson, Michael Dunn, Deborah Harris, Dr Subo Shanmuganathan.

Each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the members of the CPS Nominations, Leadership and Remuneration Committee, currently Kathryn Stone, Stephen Parkinson, and Monica Burch.

And each of those eight statements stands as a matter of record unless and until it had been expressly denied to davidaslindsay@hotmail.com by each and all of the 279 members of staff of the CPS North East Area, by definition including, but not restricted to, Chief Crown Prosecutor Gail Gilchrist, and the Area Business Manager, Ian Brown.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The Clergy Challenge: Day 1169

I invite each and every bishop, priest and deacon of the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle to contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com if he thought that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me.

Not legally guilty; Bill Cosby is legally innocent. Factually and morally guilty. No name would be published except at the request of its bearer, but if anyone ever did get in touch, then the readers of this site would be the first to know. The current total is zero.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

The Representatives Challenge: Day 1169

As already stated on the day after my release: "The instant that Labour lost control of Durham County Council, then I was granted an unsolicited tag for more than 10 weeks of future good behaviour. I invite each and every Member of Parliament for the area covered by Durham County Council, each and every member of Durham County Council, and each and every member of Lanchester Parish Council, to contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com if they thought that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me. Not legally guilty; Bill Cosby is legally innocent. Factually and morally guilty. No name would be published except at the request of its bearer, but if anyone ever did get in touch, then the readers of this site would be the first to know." The current total is zero.

And I invite each and every Member of Parliament whose constituency fell wholly or partly in County Durham to contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com if they thought that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me. Not legally guilty; Bill Cosby is legally innocent. Factually and morally guilty. No name would be published except at the request of its bearer, but if anyone ever did get in touch, then the readers of this site would be the first to know. The current total is zero.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

Saturday 19 October 2024

The Deadly Game of Deregulation


Under the influence of corporate gifts, hospitality, political donations and lucrative consultancy contracts for legislators, the UK major parties are competing to see who can slash people’s rights and protections the most. The deadly game is called deregulation and its aim is to enhance corporate power and profits.

Many of the social tragedies are rooted in deregulation and associated power of corporations, which pays no attention to human consequences. Some 30,000 NHS patients were given blood transfusions, or treatments made using blood products, contaminated with hepatitis C or HIV. Over 3,000 people have since died, and thousands more live with health conditions. Was lack of regulation worth it? 72 people died in the Grenfell fire tragedy because the government was content to let housebuilders use combustible foam insulation. 97 people died and 766 were seriously injured in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster. Left to themselves, most entrepreneurs do nothing or as a little as possible. Therefore, in democratic societies people expect the state to intervene.

Regulation is created for good reasons. Would you drive a car, ride an aeroplane, visit a restaurant, and consume food, medicine and water without assurance that they meet some standards of safety? Would you not like environmental laws that prevent pollution of air, rivers, seas and lakes, and prevent diseases? No one wants to be subjected to gangster capitalism which denies decent wages and working conditions to staff. No one would hand their savings and pensions to third parties without some assurance that they can be trusted. No one wants to be subjected to age, race, gender, religion and other forms of discriminations and be prevented from living a fulfilling life. People expect to be protected from monopolies extorting excessive profits.

Good regulation when enforced engenders trust, a vital ingredient in managing daily transactions with faceless corporations. It sets benchmarks for business and individual practices. It protects people from exploitation and discrimination. It regularises patterns of behaviour and minimises transaction costs. It addresses market failures and encourages innovation – for example, food with lower salt and sugar content, safer transport and lower carbon emissions. Yet there is a concerted effort by corporations to eliminate regulation and hard-won social rights. Google’s CEO claims red tape is “killing” Britain” as he seeks to dilute social responsibility of social media platforms. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer sucked-up to big business by adding that he wants a “bonfire of red tape”, whilst remaining silent on social costs.

Labour government is diluting financial regulation. Chancellor Reeves said that she supported the Conservatives’ decision to introduce a secondary objective for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. This states that the regulators must “facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy … and its medium to long-term growth”. Protecting customers and financial system is no longer the sole duty of regulators.

Ring-fencing speculative banking from retail was a major step in controlling the contagion effects of 2007-08 financial crash. The government will let banks amass £35bn, increase from £25bn, of customer deposits before needing to ring-fence retail banking from riskier investment operations. The maximum amount that banks will have to refund to fraud victims is to be slashed from £415,000 to £85,000. The $63.2 trillion shadow banking industry is already unregulated and hedge funds and private equity is running amok. Banks and insurance companies are pushing for lower capital adequacy requirements. After the 2007-08 crash the state provided £1,162bn of cash and guarantees (£133bn cash + £1,029bn of guarantees) to bailout ailing banks. Another £895bn of quantitative easing was provided to prop up corporate bonds and securities market. The post-crash cap on bankers’ bonus, which was designed to curb reckless risk-taking, has been scrapped and bankers are free to act recklessly to enrich themselves with the full knowledge that they will be bailed out.

The government is to bulldoze planning regulations to enable builders to build new houses. Environmental laws are local objections are particularly targeted. How many more will end up in flood plains? People will find it hard to object to the building of toxic incinerators or electricity pylons in their neighbourhood. It will be boom time for builders and landlords as with pre-tax annual median wage of £28,764, not many will be able to afford to buy a house. Letting local councils build affordable housing remains a taboo. We have seen housebuilding deregulation before. In 2013, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats coalition government extended “permitted development rights” to facilitate conversion of empty offices, shops, agriculture buildings and warehouses into residential properties without full planning permission. Councils could not compel developers to provide affordable housing. A study for the London Assembly noted that many homes are smaller than the minimum space standards and of poor quality.

Richer councils used the law for social cleansing. They bought up property in poorer areas and dumped the low paid, elderly and unemployed in those areas. Social dumping has put extra pressure on transport, congestion and pollution. Many new arrivals struggle to find family-doctors. Local schools end up with higher staff-pupil ratios and hospitals are barley managing. Yet none of these aspects are considered in the rush to deregulation.

In opposition, Labour promised significant improvements in worker and trade union rights, but the Employment Rights Bill retains large part of the oppressive Tory fire and rehire on lower wages and zero-hour contracts. It lets employers violate laws. In March 2022, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers and replaced them with cheaper agency workers. Its CEO told parliamentary committee that the company knowingly broke UK employment law because that was profitable The Prime Minister said that the government would “take them to court”, but did nothing. Under the Employment Rights Bill employers will remain free to “break the law on redundancy or fire-and-rehire consultation or refuse to reinstate an unfairly dismissed worker. Employers will remain free to choose whether to obey the law, and to buy themselves out of trouble if they decide not to do so”.

Tories have long targeted workers and are aiming for further deregulation. Senior Tory Kemi Badenoch says statutory minimum wage is harming businesses and also wants to roll-back women’s right to maternity pay even though some 12m people, including 4.3m children, live in poverty. Other senior Conservatives want to sack striking workers, have longer working week; end the workers’ right to paid holidays, rest breaks and rights for time off if you’ve got kids and your kids are unwell and lower pay in regions outside London and South East England.

The government is pandering to corporations who always welcome regulations that benefit them. They welcome bailout of banks and energy companies, billions in subsidies and tax reliefs. They like regulations which create monopolies and enact barriers to entry. Consider the case of external audits. It is a market created by the state requiring companies, universities, hospitals, trade unions, public bodies, local councils and others to submit to an annual audit. The market is reserved for members of select few accountancy trade associations even though they routinely deliver dud audits. Just four accounting firms Deloitte, KPMG, PwC and EY conduct 96% of FTSE 350 and collect vast amounts in fees. Between 2010 and 2022, some 250 listed companies collapsed. Despite public evidence of financial problems, auditors did not raise any ‘red flags’. It is hard to think of any instance when auditors drew attention to financial misconduct. At BHS, the PwC audit partner spent just two hours on audit and thirty-one hours on consultancy. To appease BHS directors, the audit report was backdated. When regulators began investigating KPMG’s dud audits of Carillion, the firm submitted false files and documentation. Yet, no major firm is shut-down and none ever calls for deregulation of their jurisdiction or tougher regulation.

The headlong rush to deregulation will create more social problems. It seeks to appease corporations who have no loyalty to any place, people, product or country. It is eliminating people’s rights secured after decades of struggles. The absence of public regulation does not mean that the regulatory space remains vacant. Instead it is filled by private actors who make unfair rules. Note how private car parking operators exploit motorists. Insurance and credit card contracts written in obscure language bamboozle people and the law is always playing catch-up. If corporations were ethical and responsible, we wouldn’t need detailed regulations, but they are not.

The War On Independent Journalism

Paul Knaggs writes:

When ten Metropolitan Police officers descended on journalist Asa Winstanley’s North London home before dawn, they weren’t hunting for terrorists. They were hunting for words.

This raid, conducted under the guise of counter-terrorism law, represents something far more sinister than a simple police operation. It marks the moment when Britain’s slide from democracy to soft authoritarianism became impossible to ignore.

Let us be crystal clear about what happened: Armed officers invaded a journalist’s home at 6 AM to seize his electronic devices, not because he poses any threat to public safety, but because he dared to report critically on British foreign policy and Israel’s actions in Gaza. The supposed crime? “Encouraging terrorism” – a charge so nebulous it could encompass virtually any criticism of state power.

I’ve spent decades observing the steady erosion of British civil liberties, but even I am shocked by the brazenness of this assault on press freedom. The raid on Winstanley isn’t an isolated incident – it’s part of a calculated campaign of intimidation. Richard Medhurst detained at Heathrow. Sarah Wilkinson’s home ransacked. Each case following the same playbook: dawn raids, device seizures, and the hanging threat of terrorism charges.

Some will argue that these measures are necessary for national security. But let’s examine that claim: How does arresting journalists who report on Palestine protect Britain? How does silencing critics of foreign policy make us safer? The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t. These laws exist not to protect the public, but to protect the powerful from public scrutiny.

The timing is hardly coincidental. Under Prime Minister Starmer’s leadership, Labour has transformed from a party that once championed civil liberties into one that weaponises state power against political dissent. Winstanley has continued to be a thorn in the side of the British establishment, exposing its covert ties to Israel and collusion with the Israeli lobby. His book, Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn, laid bare the smear campaign against the former Labour leader, implicating current Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in the process.

Now, with Labour in power, there are justified fears that the apparatus of the state is being turned against those perceived as political enemies. The message is clear: critique Israel’s actions or the UK’s support for them at your peril.

The absurdity of the situation is stark. Winstanley’s work is entirely in the public domain. If there were genuine suspicions of terrorist links, surely an arrest would have been made rather than this public spectacle of a pre-dawn raid. This is not about uncovering hidden evidence; it’s about creating a chilling effect on journalism that challenges the official narrative.

Even the operation’s name, “Incessantness,” seems designed to instil fear, suggesting an unrelenting pursuit of those who dare to dissent. It’s a tactic straight out of an authoritarian playbook, not befitting a nation that prides itself on being a beacon of democracy and free speech.

The implications of these actions extend far beyond the individuals targeted. They strike at the heart of investigative journalism and the public’s right to information. If journalists can be intimidated into silence under the threat of counterterrorism laws, who will hold power to account?

As Michelle Stanistreet and Anthony Bellanger of the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists respectively stated, “Journalism is not a crime.” The deployment of anti-terror legislation against journalists is a disproportionate and dangerous overreach that threatens to stifle press freedom not just in the UK, but globally.

In August, Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service issued a warning to the British public to “think before you post” and threatening that it would prosecute anyone it deemed guilty of what it calls “online violence.”

“Journalism is not a crime”

An extract from The Electronic Intifada states: “The police raid on Winstanley’s home and the seizure of his devices appears to be the latest use by British authorities of repressive “counterterrorism” legislation to crack down on journalists and activists involved in reporting on or protesting Israel’s crimes, including its ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.

In December, Winstanley reported for The Electronic Intifada on how British counterterrorism police arrested Mick Napier and Tony Greenstein, two prominent activists, for saying they support the Palestinian right to resist Israel – a right enshrined in international law.

As part of his bail conditions, Greenstein, an author and contributor to The Electronic Intifada, was ordered “not to post on X (formerly Twitter) in regards to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.”

In mid-August, British journalist Richard Medhurst was arrested on arrival at London’s Heathrow Airport, detained under the Terrorism Act (2000), and had his phone and recording devices that he used for his journalism seized.

“Richard Medhurst’s arrest and detention for almost 24 hours using terrorism legislation is deeply concerning and will likely have a chilling effect on journalists in the UK and worldwide, in fear of arrest by UK authorities simply for carrying out their work,” Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the UK’s National Union of Journalists and Anthony Bellanger, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, said at the time in a joint statement.

“Both the NUJ and IFJ are shocked at the increased use of terrorism legislation by the British police in this manner,” Stanistreet and Bellanger added. “Journalism is not a crime. Powers contained in anti-terror legislation must be deployed proportionately – not wielded against journalists in ways that inevitably stifle press freedom.”

Nonetheless, later in August, British counterterrorism police raided the home of Sarah Wilkinson, a Palestine solidarity activist with a large following, also reportedly in relation to content she posted online.

The international community must not remain silent in the face of these egregious attacks on press freedom. Human Rights Watch has already called for the repeal of the repressive provisions of the Terrorism Act. It’s time for other organizations, governments, and individuals committed to democratic values to add their voices to this demand.

To those who say this is hyperbole, I ask: What would you call it when armed police raid journalists’ homes at dawn? When devices are seized without arrest or charge? When the state uses counter-terrorism laws to silence political criticism? If this isn’t authoritarianism in the making, what is?

The raid on Winstanley’s home should serve as our wake-up call. Britain’s proud tradition of press freedom didn’t end with a bang but with the quiet click of police boots on a journalist’s doorstep before dawn. Unless we act now to repeal these draconian laws and restore genuine press freedom, we may soon find ourselves living in a country where the only permitted truth is the official one.

The question isn’t whether you agree with these journalists’ views. The question is whether we want to live in a country where holding the wrong views can bring armed police to your door at dawn. Today it’s Palestine solidarity activists. Tomorrow it could be anyone who challenges state power.

We must demand an immediate end to these police raids on journalists, the repeal of the speech-criminalizing provisions of the Terrorism Act, and a return to genuine press freedom. Otherwise, we risk becoming what we once claimed to fight against: a state where fear silences truth, and power operates without accountability.

Just a minute, there’s a knock on the door…

Who Are The Terrorists?

Craig Murray writes:

I have a confession to make.

When a journalist writes this it generally means they will proceed to reveal something they hope will actually show them in a good light or justified in some way. But I have a real confession to make, of something I did that was wrong.

Somewhere in the UK, among the papers of a dead loved one which nobody has the heart to throw out, in cardboard boxes in dusty attics or deep in the filing cabinets of Jeremy Corbyn, exist still a few copies of thousands of letters bearing my authentic signature.

These letters, on expensive paper with an impressive Foreign and Commonwealth Office crested header, state that the British Government will not deal with the African National Congress because it is a terrorist organisation.

Many of them go on to state that Nelson Mandela is a terrorist who was rightly convicted of terrorism by a South African court after a free and fair trial.

I really did write those thousands of letters, not just sign them. I did not believe a single word of it, and was only “doing my job” as a civil servant, but in a sense that makes it worse.

So I know how many government functionaries currently feel in carrying out the government’s policy of supporting and indeed actively participating in genocide.

When I joined the FCO, in my “fast stream” intake of 22 I was one of only two who were not public school and the only one who was not Oxbridge. I also had the unusual background of being a member of CND, Friends of Palestine and various other activist groups. 

I could not be excluded because in the several days and stages of public examinations I had (tied with 2 others) outperformed everybody else of the 80,000 people who had entered the Civil Service administrative exams (it was 1984 with 3.5 million unemployed).

But the security services were not happy, and my “positive vetting” was delayed. This is an extremely exhaustive process (nowadays direct vetting) for those with the highest security clearance. An MOD officer, usually retired military, is assigned to investigate everything about you for months, including interviewing many who know you.

So while I joined the FCO in September 1984, for five months I was not given a job but rather put on full time French language training together with three other misfits (one of whom I think was being given extra investigation because his uncle was Roger Hollis).

In the end my positive vetting was left with a query, and I was pulled in to see the Head of Personnel Department. They said that they had decided to grant my vetting certificate, but that I was going to be placed on the South Africa (Political) desk as a direct test of whether it was possible for me to put my politics aside and function as a civil servant.

So I did. You tell yourself many things to get by, chiefly that the UK is a democracy and ministers are elected by voters to determine policy; whereas you as a civil servant are merely carrying through the wishes of the voters.

Thatcher was Prime Minister and she simply was a straightforward supporter of apartheid. This is much denied but I am an eye witness. Geoffrey Howe was Foreign Minister and it was never easy to determine what he thought about anything. Junior ministers running day to day policy were Lynda Chalker and Malcolm Rifkind, who were both viscerally anti-apartheid.

But the line that Mandela was a terrorist and the ANC a terrorist organisation was dictated by Thatcher and absolutely insisted upon.

It is difficult now to explain the intensity of feeling in the UK and the strength of the anti-apartheid campaign. Scores of letters would arrive every day, many from MPs, and – this bit is hard to believe now – in those days every letter would be answered point by point, not with a generic reply.

I was writing those replies by hand, and then giving them to the secretaries to type up. In 1985 the Department got its first word processor and I was able to draft forty template paragraphs and select from those for the replies. But out those replies went from Craig Murray, stating that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, thousands of them.

I was very actively involved in the Whitehall battle to change the policy, but that is a different story which I have in part explained before.

But this is an extremely important thought that I want you all to ponder.

In 1985, the Terrorism Act 2000 was still 15 years away. There was no such thing as a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act.

Under today’s legislation, every single one of those people writing in support of the African National Congress or out campaigning for the release of Nelson Mandela would have been liable for arrest under Section 12 1 (a) of the Terrorism Act.

That is the danger of allowing the state to dictate whom you must consider a terrorist and punishing those who disagree with the state.

In 1985 the official position of the British state was that the ANC were terrorists and apartheid South Africa were the good guys.

In 2024 the official position of the British state is that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists and apartheid Israel are the good guys.

The state can be wrong.

It is therefore not an irony that Starmer and Cooper banned Nelson Mandela’s grandson from entering the UK as a “terrorist sympathiser” because of his support for Palestine. In this as so much else, Starmer is a follower of Thatcher.

The difference forty years later is that the state is now persecuting British citizens and locking them up for daring to say that the state can be wrong.

The ANC example explains why it is essential we do not give way to this pressure.

Let us face facts. Like most resistance units against colonialism, the ANC were indeed forced by the exigencies of asymmetric warfare into actions that were careless of, or even targeted the lives of, colonial settler civilians.

That did not put them on the wrong side of history. Apartheid South Africa was wrong just as Apartheid Israel is wrong. Occupied people have, in international law, the right of armed resistance. Within that context of lawful struggle, individuals remain accountable for individual war crimes.

The Terrorism Act, abused by the Israel lobby to make it illegal to support Israel’s opponents, is fundamentally bad legislation. It literally provides for up to 14 years in jail if you “express an opinion” in favour of a proscribed organisation.

40 years ago it would have been used against the large majority of the population who “expressed an opinion” in favour of the ANC, officially viewed as a terrorist organisation.

The sickening ratcheting up of pressure on Palestine supporters by super Zionist Keir Starmer continued yesterday with a 6am raid on highly distinguished journalist Asa Winstanley. All his electronics and journalistic materials were seized.

Panicked Zionist “elites” who run western states are lashing out in fear at their opponents. As their popular support evaporates in the face of clear evidence of appalling Israeli atrocities, they are resorting to the methods of fascism.

Revealing, Not Hiding


Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader killed by Israeli forces aged 61, spent his entire life confined to the Gaza Strip or in an Israeli prison. Yet his actions had an impact not only on Israel, the Palestinians and the Middle East – they will also have a bearing on the outcome of the US presidential election on Tuesday 5 November – and even on the whole future of Western liberal democracy. 

As the architect of the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, Sinwar intended to discredit the belief of Israel, the US and their allies that “the Palestinian Question” could be safely ignored. He succeeded in this aim, but he also presented Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ultra-nationalist cabinet with an opportunity to deal with the Palestinians by making Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank, uninhabitable.

Despite the pleas of President Joe Biden, it is unlikely that Netanyahu will now retreat from his ideologically driven war when he believes it is succeeding. He greeted the death of Sinwar with a war whoop, declaring that “the forces of good can always beat the forces of evil and darkness. The war is still ongoing, and it is costly”.

As he lay mortally wounded in an armchair in a ruined house in Rafah in south Gaza, did Sinwar have a few moments to reflect on how his calculations and miscalculations had affected the world? He had learnt fluent Hebrew in prison and translated books on security in Hebrew into Arabic, but he cannot have foreseen that his deadly raid on 7 October might ignite a regional war.

Biden’s reaction

His biggest miscalculation – though here he was at one with many foreign policy experts the world over – was probably a belief that Biden’s administration would refuse to support and sustain a lengthy Israeli war effort. He might have mistakenly assumed that Biden would see it as being against US national interests, as well as damaging to Democratic Party hopes of holding on to the White House.

As it is, at a critical moment in the presidential election campaign, American voters are seeing a feeble and floundering Biden still on their screens instead of Kamala Harris. Netanyahu is unlikely to give the Democrats a pre-election boost by agreeing to a ceasefire when his old ally Donald Trump may be the president-elect by the end of next month.

The death of Sinwar might be a “game-changer”, but only in the unlikely event that Netanyahu wishes to change the game, just as he believes he is winning it. Indeed, the next predictable event in the region is likely to be the long-awaited Israeli air strike on Iran which may hugely escalate the regional conflict.

For all his triumphalism, Netanyahu may privately guess that, while the death of Sinwar is a big symbolic victory for Israel and a defeat for the Palestinians, Hamas is by no means going to go out of business.

Most assassinations of political or military leaders down the centuries have less impact – or sometimes a contrary outcome – than the perpetrators had intended. One of the few exceptions was the assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in Tel Aviv by a far-right fanatic in 1995, which opened the door for Netanyahu to become prime minister for the first time a year later. Nearly all Hamas leaders since 1990 have been assassinated, but Palestinian resistance to Israel has grown stronger rather than weaker.

The death of Sinwar is certainly a political blow to Hamas, the biggest it has suffered since the start of the war. But it is unlikely that he was in effective operational control of the scattered bands of Hamas fighters.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing of paramilitary commanders had two effects: an initial organisational disruption of the paramilitaries following the killing; but also, through a process akin to Darwinian natural selection, a tendency for the new commander to be tougher and more ruthless than the old.

A James Bond problem

Israel and Western leaders tend to demonise their enemies, such as President Bashar al-Assad in Syria or President Vladimir Putin in Russia. This fosters a delusion that, if only these bad people were eliminated, all would be well.

“The West has a James Bond problem when it comes to its adversaries,” writes Will Brown, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in a recent piece. “It tends to see them through the simplistic archetype of a seemingly unstoppable mastermind villain always two steps ahead [as in James Bond movies].” Hence the exaggerated rejoicing and expectations in Western capitals when some much-hated figure like Sinwar is eliminated.

Sinwar certainly wanted to set the Middle East on fire, but he was probably surprised by his success in doing so. Indeed, this upsetting – not to say wanton – destruction of the regional applecart would not have happened without the co-operation of Washington and Tel Aviv. He had studied Israeli history during his 22 years of imprisonment, but he might have understood why this happened better if had studied the US.

Had he done so, however, he would scarcely have expected the Biden administration to get itself locked into another for ever war in the Middle East, the very thing Biden had said he would never do after America’s grim experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Political and military chickens born out of this weird policy in Gaza are now coming home to roost just at the wrong moment for the Democrats, who like to contrast their responsible statecraft with the chaos of the last Trump presidency.

The ineffective West

The greatest damage to the Western liberal democracies may be the utter discrediting of their claim to be opponents of the mass killing of civilians in wartime. For over a year, they have stood by while mass graves are filled first in Gaza and now Lebanon.

Israel discounts as exaggerated the figure of 42,438 dead and 99,246 injured from the Palestinian-run health ministry in Gaza, but these numbers are accepted by UN agencies. Similar savagery is now being visited on Beirut and Lebanon, where Western journalists, banned from Gaza, can witness the destruction first hand.

The US and its Western allies have stood largely silent, and certainly ineffective, for over a year while this killing and mass displacement, blatant and unconcealed, has continued. Governments in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin may avert their eyes from these atrocities and absolve themselves from blame, but the rest of the world is less forgiving. Any future pretence by the Western democracies that they care about human rights, or even the right to life, will be derided as the grossest self-interested hypocrisy.

Whatever Sinwar may have thought he was doing, he precipitated a course of events – thanks to the merciless communal punishment of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians by Israel – which is sending a wave of hatred through the region, capsizing for decades any bid for compromise and reconciliation.

Further thoughts

People horrified by the mass killing of people in Gaza often say that the mainstream media is concealing or playing down what is happening.

But what I find most depressing is that the mainstream media is, on the contrary, often revealing – not hiding – the horrors of this conflict.

But these revelations appear to make no difference to the attitudes of the Israeli and US governments. A recent example of this is a well-sourced New York Times report about Israel’s systematic use of Palestinians as human shields.

It is worth quoting a few paragraphs: “An investigation by The New York Times found that Israeli soldiers and intelligence agents, throughout the war in Gaza, have regularly forced captured Palestinians… to conduct life-threatening reconnaissance missions to avoid putting Israeli soldiers at risk on the battlefield.

“While the extent and scale of such operations are unknown, the practice, illegal under both Israeli and international law, has been used by at least 11 squads in five cities in Gaza, often with the involvement of officers from Israeli intelligence agencies.”

Copious detail follows.

Wes Streeting Wants To Experiment On You


Only last month, Health Secretary Wes Streeting was warning us sternly against “killing the NHS with kindness”. This week, true to his principles, he announced an intention to start experimenting upon fat people in partnership with Big Pharma.

The five-year experiment is part of a £279 million deal struck with Lilly, the world’s biggest drug company, and aims to determine whether giving weight-loss injections to the obese will boost the economy. It will have two prongs. On one side, the NHS will identify potential participants for its trial on the basis of obesity, plus some combination of “hypertension, sleep apnoea, cardiovascular disorders and unhealthy levels of … cholesterol”. It will then dose them with Mounjaro, Lilly’s competitor to Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (better known as Ozempic). Meanwhile academics at the University of Manchester will be collecting data about the effects of the drug on “health-related quality of life and changes in participants’ employment status and sick days from work”.

Accustomed as we are to seeing the nation’s relatively poor health as a terrible financial burden, effectively Streeting is urging us to flip the script and see it as a possible goldmine. For ministers and managers desperate for cash injections to help get their most troublesome patient back on its feet, the implicit model must look deliciously appealing. At a price, it seems he is allowing one company exclusive access to a patient population: both to their bodies directly, via the use of a particular product, and apparently to some of their data afterwards. If public health does indeed improve as a result, the crippling financial burden on frontline resources, taxpayers, and employers will ease. Yet even if it doesn’t, sick people might continue to be a source of revenue in future, as companies like Lilly pay for access rights in the search for lucrative remedies and good publicity.

Later on, once voters have got used to thinking of national ill health as an economic resource to offset the drain on public finances, similar initiatives might be rolled out for other expensive UK-wide disorders. Mental health conditions like depression and anxiety appear prime candidates for future government interventions like this one. In Streeting’s imagination, perhaps, biotech companies will start flocking to our shores, lured by the juicy prospect of exclusive access to a centralised pool of patients. Lazarus-like, the NHS will eventually stagger out of the tomb, throwing off its bandages. The economy will boom, replete with newly svelte and mentally balanced workers. Government ministers will dance nimbly in celebration to the sounds of Taylor Swift.

But aside from such grand visions, there are several more mundane questions that might be posed about rolling out Mounjaro as a state-backed strategy. Some of these hinge straightforwardly on what is already suspected about side effects. Vomiting is commonly reported, as are other relatively minor but still unpleasant gastric issues. A bigger issue is that even where nausea is absent, such drugs seem to remove a major source of subjective pleasure in life — namely, delight in eating — for which the satisfaction of once again becoming an efficient source of productivity units may come as scant consolation.

Described as the “King Kong” of weight loss jabs, Mounjara’s key ingredient is terzepatide which, like semaglutide, works partly by causing appetite suppression. According to a former user of the latter “I didn’t even think of (food). … Looking at a bag of Doritos was kind of like looking at a pair of socks”. Another admitted: “Almost immediately I couldn’t eat at all. I couldn’t drink. I couldn’t do anything. Tea and toast in the morning is my go-to and I could not touch it from the very first day.”

To people of ascetic sensibilities, this might seem a negligible price to pay for health; but then again, ascetics are unlikely to need Mounjaro or Wegovy in the first place. In contrast, we constitutionally sybaritic types tend to place enormous importance in life on the sensory joy and comforting reassurance which food can bring, an enthusiasm which evidently crosses cultures, culinary tastes, and pay packets. Unless you are literally starving, food is practically the one daily pleasure in life you can reliably count on, be the fare grand or humble; and if it wasn’t for the prospect of breakfast, lunch, and dinner, some of us wouldn’t bother getting out of bed at all. Indeed, along with what has become known as an “Ozempic face” and an “Ozempic butt” — both unfortunately drooping — there is now talk of an “Ozempic personality” to match, involving anhedonia, depression, and a loss of libido.

“Unless you are literally starving, food is practically the one daily pleasure in life you can reliably count on.” The counterargument says that obese people are often fed up with obsessing about food in one way or another; and that regaining mobility means they will be free to get out and about, and so discover less one-dimensional sources of personal meaning instead. Maybe so. But testimonies suggest that old fondnesses are not so much permanently extinguished by the drug as temporarily quashed.

The woman who used to think Doritos looked like socks reported that, after quitting the drug, “everything came back full force”; “all the crazy cravings that I’ve struggled with for the sweets, the junk food.” Another said: “Suddenly it was like my body woke up and discovered, ‘Hey, I like bread’”. In some cases, it is thought that people will need to become lifelong Mounjaro users in order to avoid relapsing into enjoying food again — a tragic indictment of late modernity if ever there was one.

Indeed, to me the most interesting issues arise when we consider what kind of society we inadvertently might be creating in future, by introducing such ruthlessly effective weight-loss drugs at scale now. Politicians, it seems, aren’t properly exploring the landscape of nearby possible worlds. If, for instance, without pharmaceuticals such as Wegovy and Mounjaro, just over a quarter of us are likely to become obese at some point — the current figure — then this also suggests that, with access to the drugs, a quarter of us are going to become indifferent to food and perhaps even vaguely nauseated by it, in some cases for life.

What then is going to happen to the nation’s restaurants and pubs? What will happen to regular family meals round the dinner table, nearly a thing of the past anyway as many of us favour mindless mastication in front of the telly? What about luxury food products, presently coveted as obvious temptations and sold to the public as such — and to the companies and industries that produce them? It seems to me you can’t chemically neuter a huge part of the population’s taste buds and not see swingeing social effects elsewhere.

Another interesting question concerns notions of personal responsibility. At the moment, there is still too much emphasis on personal choice for obesity in many people’s minds, with structural features such as addictive hidden sugars and contributory environmental factors being improperly discounted. Equally, it would be an overstatement to say there was nothing an individual could do to change his or her shape.

But with drugs available, obesity will become statistically much rarer. Fatness will become even less socially acceptable than it is now in the eyes of other people, and notions of personal responsibility yet more salient. Obese people who have ready access to the drugs and yet who fail to take advantage will become conceptualised by fellow taxpayers as wilfully stubborn drains on the public purse. They may even be thought undeserving of benefits, or of other NHS help. We have officially moved out of the “kindler, gentler politics” phase into the “tough choices” era, after all.

At the same time, in cases where the NHS positively withholds free treatment from someone in future — maybe, say, after an allotted period of treatment is up — it seems likely that such an individual will then see herself as having extra reason to blame the system for her physical state. Effectively, the NHS’s adoption of Mounjaro at scale will embolden some to equate the state’s failure to prevent obesity in their own case as equivalent to causing it. Already we have Daily Mail testimonies from hard-up private buyers of semaglutide, complaining it is “disgusting” that the jobless might get the medicine for free, when they themselves have to pay. Grievance culture can take many creative forms; feeling hard done by because the government won’t pay for injections that make Doritos look radically unlike Doritos is quite possibly the next one.

In the meantime, slender fashionistas on fashion show front rows are secretly buying Ozempic to make them yet more ethereal; adolescent girls are seamlessly incorporating the drug into their already vast repertoire of ways to mortify the flesh; plastic surgeons are busy informing those with “Ozempic face” about which fillers and surgeries are best to purchase, in order to disguise the sag. The future of weight loss is already hurtling towards us. Rather than focusing on appetising-looking new financial opportunities, we should probably have a proper think about the hidden additives.

Justice Delayed: Day 115

Even assuming, and it was far from clear, that the Crown had presented any evidence whatever on the morning of Wednesday 19 June, then no later than the afternoon of Thursday 20 June, I would have been found not guilty unanimously in the time that it took to walk to the jury room and send a note to the judge. On Monday 6 November, the only Prosecution witness did not turn up, having been suspended from the Police. Since then, he has been "asked to resign" because of his conduct of my case. On Friday 14 June, my barrister formally complained.

Lo and behold, on the morning of Sunday 16 June, enough Police Officers turned up at my door to take down an al-Qaeda cell, and behaved roughly as if that were what they were doing. Everyone is laughing, and not at me. Late that night, a nonsense additional charge, quite different from the stated grounds of the arrest, was added, with no expectation that it could possibly stick, but in order to postpone what would have been that week's open-and-shut acquittal. Be at Durham Crown Court on Wednesday 26 February 2025, almost exactly two years, although we dispute the timeline, after the original complaint was allegedly made. When I shall be found not guilty. But the process is the punishment.

Rather than embarrass itself any further, the Crown did not even ask for me to be remanded. Nor did it dispute that the Police had found nothing on my laptop or on my phone, even though the latest allegation therefore cannot be true. And nor did it dispute that its only witness had been sacked from the Police because of my case, or that this latest action against me was a revenge attack for my barrister's complaint, both of which are now on Monday 17 June's record of Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court, as is the cleanliness of my devices, of which the Police are nevertheless keeping possession, requiring me to replace them at considerable expense.

I wish that my solicitor had used such terms as "Mafia hit" and "punishment beating". I am using them now. This is a punishment beating for the sacked policeman. And it is a Mafia hit by some Fredo Corleone, because the latest complaint was supposedly made before I had withdrawn from the General Election, a withdrawal that has rendered it pointless in its own terms. Other than the unpaid position to which I was elected unopposed well over a year ago, and which has therefore been kept vacant ever since, I have no intention of contesting another election to public office.

Welcome to the Starmer State, which institutional Britain has treated as the status quo since Keir Starmer became Labour Leader. I am not the only dissident that it persecutes, and things are already getting an awful lot worse now that Starmer is Prime Minister.

This post will appear daily until further notice.