Wednesday 31 January 2024

High Commission?

UNRWA, to which please donate here, exists at all at the insistence of the Israelis. With their powerful connections in the United States, they refused to allow the nascent United Nations High Commission for Refugees to deal with the Palestinians, as that would have sullied those whom it was spirting to Israel. It was a racial purity thing.

Israel now claims that only four of more than 30,000 UNRWA employees were somehow or other involved in the attacks of 7th October. UNRWA did not sack 12 people, since of the 12 originally named, two were dead, one did not work for UNRWA, and one was unidentifiable, possibly a made up person.

So, four down from the start, and another four down today, making an overall reduction of two thirds, from 0.04 per cent of UNRWA's staff to 0.013 per cent, and that is the number of those against whom there are merely allegations. File alongside 40 beheaded babies, babies hung from washing lines, a baby baked in an oven, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and all the rest of that rubbish.

As is the manner of the Israeli settler Right, and indeed of its British supporters, Daniella Weiss is usefully coarse, not so much saying the quiet part out loud, as unaware of the existence of a quiet part. Her call for the people of Gaza to be relocated to Britain is faithful to the spirit of her Lehi parents. She cannot imagine anywhere worse in the world.

That tendency completely controls the Labour Party. It commands considerable influence in the Conservative Party, at least until we take possession of the Daily Telegraph; I now think of it as "we", and so should you. Believe the Liberal Democrats when their MPs gave a proportion of their salaries to UNRWA, and when, even in these cash-strapped times, their councils made donations to it. The Lib Dems fielded Luciana Berger as a parliamentary candidate last time.

But when I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Keir Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.

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, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.

Wigs and Caps

To their Thatcher, Trump, Wilders and Milei toupées, those who besport themselves in such headwear now need to add the Reeves. Labour is going into the General Election to the right of the IMF, and specifically committed to a cap on benefits for third and subsequent children, but to no cap on bankers' bonuses.

Tax cuts for whom? 42 per cent of adults do not have the gross monthly incomes from all sources of just over a thousand pounds to pay income tax, and most of the rest might get a tax cut of, what, fifty quid a month? If that. In any case, the IMF, speaking for all the rest of that lot, has specifically said no in advance. This could turn nasty.

Already, it is all kicking off in Argentina. That, in turn, means that Javier Milei could reach for an invasion of the Falkland Islands. He is mad enough, the claim is of course fundamental to the Argentine Right, and then what would his fanboys say, in between taking receipt of their redundancy notices from the Telegraph Group and moving onto their new desks at Rachel Reeves's Labour Party?

But when I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Keir Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.

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, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.

A Political Horizon, Irreversible Progress

10 years ago, Andrew Mitchell called for an arms embargo on Israel, and that was before either a ruling of the International Court of Justice that genocide in Gaza was plausible, or an attack on a West Bank hospital by IDF soldiers disguised as medical staff, who murdered three of the patients in their sleep. In their hospital beds. However responsible Iran may be for arming those who have killed three American troops based illegally in Syria, we and the Americans are more so for arming this. And for what? What do we get out of it?

The EU has stopped funding UNRWA, to which please donate here, but non-EU Norway is leading the righteous shaming of European states, EU and otherwise, into continuing to do so. If Britain were to join so very close an ally as Norway in this rallying of the troops, then that would be a Brexit benefit alongside the making good of David Cameron's remarkable offer to recognise a Palestinian state without having to wait for the permission, which can obviously never be given, of the Gaza ethnic cleansing and resettlement conference. A Labour Government would wait for that permission, and Keir Starmer has dismissed the critics of that policy as "fleas", which is exactly the sort of language that those conference attendees use. Starmer's public school was very minor. He probably thinks that Seven Pillars of Wisdom was a prog rock album, and that Glubb Pasha was one of the Ewoks.

But when I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.

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, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.

Continue Honestly To Believe

I would have no side in a fight between a racist and a paedophile. Down to the present day, all of my enemies have been at least one of those, and at least half of them have been both. But I do not believe that Laurence Fox is a racist, nor that the people who have successfully sued him are paedophiles. They are just objectionable in other ways.

If Fox is a politician, then I must be a statesman. I have lost far more elections than he has, and I have very occasionally even won a few, which is more than can be said for him. Not that there was, or presumably still is, any limit to his ambition in that area. Although he deleted the tweet, he called for the abolition of the monarchy as long ago as 31st October 2021, because of the then Prince of Wales's environmentalism. Whoever could Fox have wanted as the elected Head of State? Reclaim, indeed. Similarly, Richard Tice has told the BBC three times that Nigel Farage ought to be President when Donald Trump was again. Reform UK, indeed.

Elsewhere in the libertarian undergrowth, Liz Truss is opposing the Government's anti-smoking measures. Such measures really have worked in the past, at least against the tobacco that has been their target, and which has gone from ubiquity 30 years ago, to the point where you would stop for a second if you saw anyone smoking it in the street. If that can work, then why not the same against cannabis? And if plain packaging would make no difference, then why are the tobacco companies so desperate to prevent it? But that age thing is just daft, and it smells like a Trojan Horse for identity cards.

I want to be on the committee that decided which flavours of vape were acceptable. So long as I did not have to vape, or at least not in such a way as to take nicotine. Although I have done so a couple of times. When in Rome. But I talked my way out of drinking hooch. That word reminds the Pulp and Pulp Fiction generation that we have been here before. This is alcopops all over again. Yet not even John "Back to Basics" Major and Michael Howard, or their authoritarian New Labour successors, proposed state licensing of flavours.

But trust Truss? What does the great libertarian have to say about the Public Order Act, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act, the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act, the Nationality and Borders Act, the Elections Act, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, the National Security Act, the Online Safety Act, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, with both the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and the Criminal Justice Bill, in the pipeline? What is she doing for Julian Assange? And if you need to, then look up Ayanda Capital.

Yet what are we offered instead? Wes Streeting does not know the difference between a ward and a bay, and he has no idea what state hospitals are in, if he imagines that whole new "wards", by which he means bays, could be magicked up for the transgender. There should be bays for people with penises, and bays for people without, strictly segregated for the safety of the latter, not because all men are rapists, but because all rapists are men.

No, it is not too late. When I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Keir Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.

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, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.

The Safeguarding Challenge: Day 204

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.comby 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, Carol Lawrence, Jenny Holmes, Sister Frances Orchard CJ, and Sir David Behan.

That purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.comby each and all of the members of the Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Committee, currently Monsignor Andrew Faley, Gail McGregor, Paul Weatherstone, Father Christopher Hancock MHM, Father Jeff Dodds, Canon William Agley, and Catherine Dyer.

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, Paul Brown, Lisa Short, Yvonne Brown, and Robert Appleby.

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 204

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 contesting the next General Election.

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.

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 Sir Max Hill KC, Monica Burch, Rebecca Lawrence, Mark Hammond, 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 Dawn Brodrick, Steve Buckingham, Mark Gray, Sandra McKay, 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, Mark Hammond, Michael Dunn, and Deborah Harris.

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 Sir Max Hill KC, Rebecca Lawrence, 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 908

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 908

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.

Furthermore, I invite each and every other candidate for the parliamentary seat containing Lanchester 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. In this case, names most certainly will be published, including as part of my election literature. The current total is zero. If that remained the case when the next General Election was called, then my literature would state that each and all of my opponents, by name, did not think that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me. At least in that event, then I challenge Oliver Kamm to contest this seat.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

Tuesday 30 January 2024

Unchecked Goods?

Jim Allister's parents were from County Monaghan. How many of that mind are almost literally irredentist, coming off the nearly vanished Protestant minorities in the three Ulster countries that were allocated to the Free State? Still, the old joke about "the workers united will never be defeated" has been that no one would ever find out whether or not it was true. But had we reckoned without action co-ordinated among 16 trade unions in Northern Ireland?

The DUP are not Tories. That was the UUP. The DUP is a thoroughly populist affair in relation to its target electors. Offer it enough money for them, and it will sign up to almost anything. Including a First Minister who believes the IRA Army Council to be the sovereign body throughout Ireland. And including the permanent regulatory alignment of the United Kingdom with the European Union, because what has been announced today cannot work any other way, and it is on this that the British Government has insisted. You can be an Ulster Unionist, or you can be a Brexiteer. But you cannot be both.

Transparency International, Indeed

Rupert Neate writes:

The UK has fallen to its lowest-ever position in Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index, which ranks countries by experts’ views of possible corruption in public services.

The UK fell from 18th (out of 181 countries) in 2022 to 20th in 2023, its lowest position since the research was revamped in 2012. It means that, according to the research, Britain is seen as more corrupt than Uruguay and Hong Kong.

The lower ranking coincides with concerns about possible corruption in the awarding of PPE contracts during the pandemic, according to the research published on Tuesday and based on “impartial surveys from experts and business leaders”. The UK was ranked at between the eighth and 11th most transparent country in the world between 2012 and 2021. However, it fell to 18th in 2022, and then joint-20th in 2023.

Daniel Bruce, the chief executive of Transparency International UK, said the findings should act as “a wake-up call for government”.

“The continued fall in the UK’s score shows a country heading in the wrong direction. It’s clear that business leaders and other experts are more concerned than ever about political corruption and the abuse of public office in the UK,” Bruce said.

“We need urgent action from ministers – not just words – to restore much-needed confidence in the integrity of political and public life.”

The total corruption perceptions index score awarded to the UK was 71 out of 100 (where zero means a country is perceived as highly corrupt and to 100 means it is perceived as very clean). It is the lowest the UK has ever scored on the index, and a drop of two points on 2022 and nine on 2018. The UK has experienced the biggest five-year decline of any western European country, according to the research.

The score is based on data from eight independent sources, including the Economist Intelligence Unit and the World Economic Forum. “All surveyed experts and business executives for their views on abuses of public office for private gain and bribery in the UK,” Transparency International said.

The anti-corruption charity said the scandal around the awarding of PPE contracts during the pandemic and concern that “both the UK government’s anti-corruption champion and independent advisor on ministerial interests [had] resigned”.

It added: “The data shows that while perceptions of bribery generally are improving, there are growing concerns over cronyism and patronage in politics, and its effect on the management of public funds.”

Denmark is ranked as the least corrupt, followed by Finland and New Zealand. South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Somalia are at the bottom of the rankings, meaning they are seen as the most corrupt. The US is 24th.

A UK government spokesperson said: “Integrity, professionalism and accountability are the core values of this government and we have robust safeguards to protect our institutions from corruption. Our forthcoming anti-corruption strategy will outline the UK response to strengthen resilience against corruption in the UK and internationally.

“Our controls over fighting economic crime, including fraud and corruption remain among the strongest in the world and last year we announced plans to strengthen our ethics and integrity through reforming business appointment rules, increase transparency and accountability in public appointments, and improve the quality and accessibility of departmental transparency releases.”

To Entertain Peace

Curt Mills writes:

Just as 2016 defined the politics of its decade, so 2024 has the potential to send an electroshock to political consensus in the 2020s. It starts with Russia. Vladimir Putin’s crusade for a fifth term in office is preordained, but not pro forma. One had only to take in the Wagner Group warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin’s quixotic attempt at a power grab last June to understand that politics in an autocracy is complicated.

As Dmitri Tremin, the pro-Putin former director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Moscow Center, put it, “It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that Russia is run and largely owned by the same people.” As a senior Russian official separately observed: “Russia has privatised politics.”

Putin is not invincible — the battlefield performance in 2022 was a demoralising failure for the Kremlin — but he remains notably undefeated. Though Putin marches toward a Stalin-length tenure, he does not preside over a Stalin-style totalitarianism. (And it is not fully clear this former self-professed democrat from the country’s most Occidental metropole truly lusts after North Korean-level control.)

The standard-issue summary of modern Russia features Putin as thuggish spoiler to the imbecile, but right-minded, management of President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s. That sells Yeltsin simultaneously too short, and too liberal. Tony Wood’s Russia Without Putin was a seminal innovation in interpretation. Summarising the argument, the left-realist writer Thomas Meaney says, “the Yeltsin-Putin years appear together as a coherent unit”. Fast-forward and Putin has a heartland constituency, much of which has borne the battle of Russia’s elective war of national pride.

Amongst the most gnarly coverage of this war, there has been scattered reporting of Putin reinstituting notorious Soviet Order No. 227 at a far smaller scale — the execution of retreating soldiers. It’s hard to know what to believe. Recall: Russia’s initial underperformance was a surprise; the potency of the Prigozhin putsch attempt was on few radars; and Putin’s grander comeback in 2023 seemed unlikely amidst the successful Ukrainian offensive of 2022.

But at the risk of further forecasting, the Russia “bulls” are beginning to look right — just a year or so late.

The tailwinds for the Kremlin are now considerable. From Washington (where further funding is in existential doubt) to Warsaw (where Volodymyr Zelenskyy has antagonised even Europe’s hawks) there is a sense that Ukraine is either a stalled or losing venture. Russia increasingly commands the agenda. Once Putin placates his various constituencies and quite likely wins in a rout in March’s presidential election, he will turn his full attention to both the war and gaming out the US election. Domestic opposition to his rule will be at an all-time ebb.

So don’t be surprised if Putin sues for a temporary, shock peace in the middle of 2024.

If entertained in America, Britain, France and Brussels, hardliners on the Western side will be horrified. But they also have had two years at the wheel with only a count of bodies to show for it.

The game theory for Russia is clear enough. Putin has demonstrated his willingness to flout international convention and can, clearly, launch new offensives in the hope of gaining more Ukrainian territory if Donald Trump wins the White House (and adopts a dovish disposition — which is not a guarantee).

Whereas if Biden somehow pulls off re-election, Putin can all but bank on a divided Congress (Republican Party control of the Senate is near certain) to obstruct Washington diving back into the quagmire.

The rationale for Biden to entertain peace is also clear: he can cut his losses.

Biden can claim a frankly lame victory. But most importantly, he can remove the albatross of an increasingly unpopular war, which (redolent of the Iraq War in the mid-2000s) is highly motivating to Republican voters to oppose. Turnout will decide the next US president. Biden needs to defang the conservative base if he has a prayer.

Given how apocalyptic were assessments of Russia’s position until fairly recently, the longer-term tailwinds are also remarkably positive for the Russians. Whilst hardly in lockstep with Putin’s agenda — contra the caricatures of the “Russiagate” tier of analysis — it is the case that the Republicans are now the most important Western party open to hearing out the case for Russia being afforded a sphere of influence.

“The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernisation of the alliance. … We have the right to ask, ‘Against whom is this expansion directed?’” Putin posited during his infamous 2007 Munich Security Conference address to an anxious audience that included the independent senator Joe Liberman and that senator from a very different GOP, John McCain.

Back in the day, even entertaining the idea that NATO expansion had been foolhardy was relegated to small publications in Washington, ivory towers and internet chatter — and maybe Senator Rand Paul. Now it’s GOP mainstream orthodoxy, with a vanguard of new voices such as Senator J.D. Vance and Senator Josh Hawley, and a potential National Security Advisor in Elbridge Colby. That orthodoxy will be cemented when Trump likely gallops to the Republican nomination in the coming weeks.

The Kremlin has already sent out the bat signal, for any watching. “The West is really changing its tactics — maybe even thinking about clarifying the strategy,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov riffed at the end of December. “There are some approaches, some whispers: why don’t you [Russia] meet with someone in Europe who would be ready to talk, talk about Ukraine without Ukraine itself.”

Putin spoke in a similar cadence in his New Year address. There was a “track two” working group in 2023, anchored by the former Council on Foreign Relations chair, Richard Haass, and it is possible if not likely that other such discussions exist that have so far been kept out of the press.

For the Democrats, if they mean what they say (and most evidence suggests that they do), they will take heed of Biden’s address to the NATO summit in 2022. Putin, said the president, “still doesn’t understand that our commitment to our values, our freedom is something he [we] can never, never, ever, ever walk away from”. Will the same Biden really gamble that the negotiation of Ukraine’s future be handled by Trump? More likely: 2024 will mark the endgame, for all sides, for delusion in Ukraine.

It is important to remember that Biden, who has a history of being underestimated, is himself a wildcard. As farcical as it seems to hardline advocates of foreign policy restraint, there are hawkish criticisms of Biden’s conduct in the Ukraine war.

Even when Biden appeared on the brink of reviving the Bush Doctrine — “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” he thundered in Warsaw in 2022 — Biden quickly walked back from the edge. As implausible as it may sound, a Wall Street Journal editorial asked on New Year’s Day: “Does Biden Want Ukraine to Win?”

In the Great War, there were apparatchiks in the Kaiserreich that urged a fight to the death even after the collapse of the undeclared dictatorship of Erich Ludendorff and the abdication of the Kaiser himself. Similarly, and a year earlier, Aleksander Kerensky incautiously fought a war he inherited from the Tsar he had deposed and succeeded — with disastrous consequences. In a more contemporary example, President George W. Bush doubled down on an Iraq War “surge” following a rout in the 2006 midterm elections. Doubtless there are those urging Biden to a similar show of resolve after the setbacks of 2023.

But neoconservatives and interventionists cannot count the forty-sixth president as a true believer. For as many examples as there are of Biden the “empire politician”, there are counterexamples of Biden the expedient bleeding-heart, as well as of Biden the survivor.

Casting his vote against the first Gulf War in 1990, Biden struck a note of Trumpian panache in the Senate: “What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?” Biden was joined in that vote by his longtime friend John Kerry (who is leaving the Administration this spring to campaign for Biden).

Kerry was the 2004 Democratic nominee for president with Biden as the odds-on favourite to be Kerry’s first choice to be Secretary of State. As Barack Obama’s man in Foggy Bottom, Kerry was notorious for his logorrheic attempts to stabilise relations with Russia and Iran. On the latter front, this is a reputation that Biden bears, as well — although he has shown no particular interest in Iran, nor in the type of bargain brokered by his frenemy old boss.

But in formal remarks after his first meeting as president with Putin in June 2021, Biden mentioned Ukraine only once. How heavy a lift would it be for Biden to merely revert? Much of the world has moved forward as if Covid-19 never happened. After all, what’s another war in Eastern Europe?

Declaring the American exodus from Afghanistan in 2021, Biden broke briskly from pre-existing US policy. From the White House’s historic if seldom-showcased Treaty Room, Biden announced: “Our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan are becoming increasingly unclear.”

Unconstructive Behaviour?

If the International Court of Justice had delivered anything other than a total defeat of Israel, then the BBC News that afternoon would not have led on the retirement of a football manager in five months' time, the next day's newspapers would have talked of little but that ruling, and there would have been no obviously prearranged distraction of attention in the form of a coordinated revenge attack on UNRWA.

Just as the only predominantly non-white countries to have sided with the United States over Ukraine have been the American military colonies of Japan and South Korea, so Japan has been the only such country to have become an active participant in the genocide of Gaza by "suspending" the funding of UNRWA, to which please donate here. Ethnically diverse down to every locality and with people connected to every inhabited territory on Earth while the mixed-race population increased exponentially, Britain should have absolutely no part in this.

The people behind the allegations against UNRWA told you that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and more recently that 40 babies had been beheaded, that babies had been hung from washing lines, and that a baby had been baked in an oven. They themselves really have killed babies by turning off the electricity to incubators. Their right to do so was asserted by Keir Starmer and David Lammy.

Alone in the world, Lammy alleged that Hamas had been "raping babies" on 7th October. Thus did he combine the war propaganda machine's twin obsessions of babies and rape, manifest over many decades. Supporters of Israel are now wedded to every social policy of the #MeToo, #IBelieveHer and #BelieveAllWomen crowd, who in turn are now wedded to every economic and foreign policy of the people who support Israel, where two governing parties, going back before the present unity coalition, differ from Hamas in not allowing women to be candidates for public office.

They are welcome to each other in their marriage made in Hell. The British political faction that embodies that position is riding high in the polls, although it is impossible to see how its return to government would effect any practical change. It is now as devoted to the EU as it is to NATO. The Labour Right has not always been. Big American liberal money, much of it also tied to Israel, created the right wing of the Labour Party as a distinct tendency and has always controlled it very tightly, but that tendency nevertheless used to be ambivalent about the EU. Several prominent figures had no time whatever for it.

Now, however, the Labour Right can and should be attacked on two fronts by reference to the EU's economic war on Hungary because Viktor Orbán was having a stopped clock moment over Ukraine. It wants to re-subject us to Orbán's legislative will in the Council of Ministers, and to that of his partisans in the European Parliament. And it wants us to be militarily limited by him due to our being committed to his defence. He has still yet to approve Swedish accession to NATO. Why would Sweden want to be in his club? Yet it does, and on our behalf so do Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP. All of those therefore also favour at least a very close alignment with the EU legislation to which Orbán, among others, is a contributor.

But when I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.

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, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.

The Safeguarding Challenge: Day 203

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.comby 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, Carol Lawrence, Jenny Holmes, Sister Frances Orchard CJ, and Sir David Behan.

That purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.comby each and all of the members of the Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Committee, currently Monsignor Andrew Faley, Gail McGregor, Paul Weatherstone, Father Christopher Hancock MHM, Father Jeff Dodds, Canon William Agley, and Catherine Dyer.

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, Paul Brown, Lisa Short, Yvonne Brown, and Robert Appleby.

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 203

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 contesting the next General Election.

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.

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 Sir Max Hill KC, Monica Burch, Rebecca Lawrence, Mark Hammond, 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 Dawn Brodrick, Steve Buckingham, Mark Gray, Sandra McKay, 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, Mark Hammond, Michael Dunn, and Deborah Harris.

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 Sir Max Hill KC, Rebecca Lawrence, 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 907

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 907

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.

Furthermore, I invite each and every other candidate for the parliamentary seat containing Lanchester 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. In this case, names most certainly will be published, including as part of my election literature. The current total is zero. If that remained the case when the next General Election was called, then my literature would state that each and all of my opponents, by name, did not think that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me. At least in that event, then I challenge Oliver Kamm to contest this seat.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

Monday 29 January 2024

32 Weeks On

Nominations have been closed for 32 weeks, eight months, so when is the election?

If you know, you know.

Roll of Honour

These are the Labour Peers who defied a whip to abstain and voted against the Rwanda Bill:

Baroness Blower
Baroness Bryan of Partick
Lord Cashman (left the party under Jeremy Corbyn, back now)
Baroness Chakrabarti
Lord Davies of Brixton
Lord Hacking (a Conservative hereditary who defected to Labour under Tony Blair, left the party again, and re-joined only in 2021)
Lord Hendy
Lord Sikka

Ken Clarke and Justin Welby both voted with the Government, so they can get lost. No Conservative voted against, nor did any Lord Spiritual.

The Torn and Ragged Fabric of Public Life

Recover from the five t-words in a 615-word piece in the very Financial Times, and consider that when the fire sale has gone too far even for that, then it really has gone too far. Edwin Heathcote writes:

When he left school, Norman Foster worked in the Treasurer’s Office at Manchester Town Hall. He credits the vast Victorian building, designed by Alfred Waterhouse, architect of London’s Natural History Museum, with turning him on to architecture.

The huge gothic structure is remarkable, a monument for a metropolis that wanted to express the industrial supremacy of its mills with a building that evoked the splendour of the medieval Flemish cities that held sway in a former golden age of cloth.

Such buildings are testament to a very different age. The UK government is now considering loosening the rules for allowing councils to sell off assets. This is bad news for everything from libraries to swimming pools, town halls to toilets.

Since 2010, council assets have been sold off in attempt to fill a £15bn hole in central government funding. More than 800 public libraries, 1,000 swimming pools, over 200 playing fields, half of all magistrates courts and 1,000 public toilets have been closed.

London is dotted with luxury hotels and apartments inside buildings that were once grand symbols of civic identity. The Old War Office in Whitehall recently reopened as a hotel; Admiralty Arch will open to guests next year. County Hall, London’s version of Manchester’s Town Hall, now houses Shrek’s Adventure!. Foster’s City Hall on the south bank of the Thames has been abandoned by the mayor and Greater London Authority.

At the end of the 19th century, London County Council was building social housing, fire stations, clinics, ambulance stations, bandstands, parks, street furniture, public toilets, schools and major engineering projects; the infrastructure of everyday life. Birmingham once pioneered a form of “municipal socialism” under Joseph Chamberlain in the 1870s and the city owned its own gas and water suppliers. Now, the council is deeply indebted.

Boroughs across the country are facing bankruptcy. Selling off structures that are expensive to staff and look after seems like a quick fix for financial struggles; the task of balancing the cost of roof maintenance on a leisure complex with that of running social services is unenviable. But the legacy of these sell-offs is a diminished public sphere that fails to show care for its citizens or its cityscapes.

We have learnt nothing from the disastrous disposal of council housing from 1980 onwards. Of council homes sold off under Right to Buy, 40 per cent have been rented out by private landlords, many to social tenants with landlords’ profits subsidised by the state. It has been a huge transfer of wealth from public to private — a levelling down.

Asset stripping the public realm has been disastrous; libraries are missed as refuges for the elderly, the young and those without internet, the lack of sports facilities contributes to poor public health, a lack of toilets makes cities inhospitable.

But there is also attrition on civic identity. When amenities in which citizens have pride are stripped away, a sense of alienation fills the void. Who are cities for? To sell off what would never be built today suggests they are run for the benefit of developers.

Helsinki is building huge public libraries for its citizens, Tokyo has commissioned its most revered architects to design public toilets. Flanders in Belgium, that inspiration for Manchester Town Hall, has superb new public buildings from museums to market halls. Architecture is at the heart of all of these — an art capable of creating civic cohesion and identity.

The UK has neglected the gift the municipally minded Victorians left us. Even the smallest structures — a toilet, a water fountain — matter as much as the major monuments. Collectively, council buildings create the fabric of public life. And it is torn and ragged.

A Dangerous Moment For Britain


It’s easy to ignore the siren voices that seem almost eager to send Britain to war. Yet such voices grow louder. Last week, General Sir Patrick Sanders, Chief of the General Staff, declared that Britain must prepare a citizen army and put itself on a war footing. In a similar vein, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said that Britain must shift from being a post-war country to a pre-war one. Even Boris Johnson now claims to support conscription. Presumably the tens of billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the more than 600 service personnel who sacrificed their lives, were never involved in a military conflict.

In response to Sanders’s comments, the Ministry of Defence said that there were no plans to revive national service — a position echoed by Number 10. That makes sense given Britain ended conscription in 1960. If our country could end national service at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the high point of the Cold War, it seems outlandish to say its return is now necessary.

Yet it would be wrong to dismiss such views as either making noise to get more resources, as with Sanders, or peacocking for attention like the former prime minister. Because, while the present debate may possess an almost surreal bent, things will feel different under a Labour government, particularly if the conflict in the Middle East intensifies. While Sunak and Shapps are happy to reject calls from the head of the British Army, Labour’s desire to win credibility on traditionally Conservative terrain, such as defence, will mean otherwise.

Precedent suggests as much. While David Cameron’s participation in the removal of Muammar Gaddafi was catastrophic, the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan blunted Britain’s martial impulses during the 2010s. In contrast to the brutal fighting British forces saw in Helmand two decades ago, not a single member of the armed forces died on duty during the Johnson premiership. For any criticisms one can make of the Tories since 2010, foreign adventurism (with the exception of Libya) isn’t one of them.

So could the pendulum really swing back under a Keir Starmer premiership? The signs are certainly there. After all, when Starmer’s efforts as Director of Public Prosecutions to help extradite autistic hacker Gary McKinnon came to nothing (they were scotched by none other than Theresa May as Home Secretary), he boarded a plane to Washington the next day to meet with deputies of the US Attorney General. When May’s decision came through, the now Labour leader was said to be furious.

Then there was the case of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who was subject to extraordinary rendition and torture by the US. After his release without charge, Mohamed produced evidence of British collusion in his torture — and it fell to Starmer to decide whether the MI5 officer responsible would face prosecution. He decided they would not, and would later arrive at the same conclusion for an MI6 officer accused of sanctioning the torture of detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. In other words, Starmer’s record shows he is happy to genuflect to both Washington and Britain’s domestic security apparatus. This, combined with a desire to fend off claims of being too Left-wing, are a recipe for a prime minister who looks more like Blair than Boris on foreign affairs.

When vying to become Labour leader, Starmer promised to introduce a “prevention of military intervention act” that would stop “more illegal wars”. Under such legislation, military action would occur if a lawful case were made and authorised by the House of Commons. Yet all of this was dispensed with during recent airstrikes on Yemen. Whether or not one believes Parliament should be given such powers — a point of contention — this underscores how the Labour leader’s flip-flopping applies just as much to foreign affairs as it does to things like public ownership.

It’s important to note that Starmer will do anything to win. But just as importantly, he is (like the rest of the Labour Right) a full-throated Atlanticist, who possesses an almost compulsive desire to please Washington. This cohort views Atlanticism as part of their personal identity, and a tool to bash the Left, rather than something of instrumental value in policy terms. As with Brexit, the idea that Britain could ever determine its own course is unthinkable to them.

Finally, one can also see how issues of foreign policy might quickly appeal to a Labour prime minister whose opportunities for domestic reform are constrained. Unable, or unwilling, to solve the major problems impacting millions of voters — from housing to eviscerated high streets — an overseas crusade could seduce. At a dangerous moment for Britain and the world, Labour’s next premier sounds suspiciously reminiscent of its last but one. I’d wager Starmer is more likely to lead us into the next pointless war than almost anyone on the Tory benches.

The Safeguarding Challenge: Day 202

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.comby 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, Carol Lawrence, Jenny Holmes, Sister Frances Orchard CJ, and Sir David Behan.

That purely factual statement is acknowledged as such, unless and until it had been expressly repudiated to davidaslindsay@hotmail.comby each and all of the members of the Hexham and Newcastle Diocesan Safeguarding Committee, currently Monsignor Andrew Faley, Gail McGregor, Paul Weatherstone, Father Christopher Hancock MHM, Father Jeff Dodds, Canon William Agley, and Catherine Dyer.

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, Paul Brown, Lisa Short, Yvonne Brown, and Robert Appleby.

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 202

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 contesting the next General Election.

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.

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 Sir Max Hill KC, Monica Burch, Rebecca Lawrence, Mark Hammond, 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 Dawn Brodrick, Steve Buckingham, Mark Gray, Sandra McKay, 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, Mark Hammond, Michael Dunn, and Deborah Harris.

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 Sir Max Hill KC, Rebecca Lawrence, 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 906

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 906

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.

Furthermore, I invite each and every other candidate for the parliamentary seat containing Lanchester 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. In this case, names most certainly will be published, including as part of my election literature. The current total is zero. If that remained the case when the next General Election was called, then my literature would state that each and all of my opponents, by name, did not think that I was factually or morally guilty of any criminal charge that had ever been brought against me. At least in that event, then I challenge Oliver Kamm to contest this seat.

This post will appear daily until further notice.

Sunday 28 January 2024

Base Lines

First it was "north-eastern Jordan", and now it is on "the Jordanian-Syrian border". Give it until the morning. From the start, the King of Jordan has been adamant that those American troops had been killed in Syria. Where the American bases are illegal, and where people have been trying to kill their residents since long before the war in Gaza.

It is often asked, "How would the Americans like it if Mexico set up such bases in Texas?", or something in similar vein. That is a very good question, and here is another. Might not these American troops be more usefully deployed to Texas at the moment?

Meanwhile, the obviously undeterred Houthis have launched yet another of their attacks that managed to kill no one, injure no one in the slightest, or in this case even damage the ship, HMS Diamond. Undoubtedly grounds to kill more of the people who happened to live on or near the scraps of ground from which the Houthis had happened to launch their most recent drone attack, such as it was.

More broadly, the Houthis are not nice. I mean that they are really, reallyreally not nice. But while the genocide of Gaza persisted, then not even a nuclear strike could lift their blockade of the Red Sea, and now also of the Gulf of Aden. That is why hardly anyone is even trying. Unfortunately, British participation in this pointless enterprise is supported across the parliamentary spectrum, if it can be so described.

But when I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Keir Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.

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, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.

A Dead Issue

I have met the kind of people who could devise something like execution by suffocation with nitrogen gas. I have lived at very close quarters with them. The only thing that could horrify me more than their being anywhere near public policy in the United States would be if they were anywhere near public policy in the United Kingdom.

Anyone who could invent such a procedure is capable of anything that had ever been done by any of my old wingmates, and that was often far in excess of anything of which he had ever been convicted. As I understand it, you do not go to Holme House for murder, or with that on your record. But there were murderers in there. I have spent 23 hours of the day locked up with some of them.

The restoration of capital punishment would effectively decriminalise murder. Even if the legislation provided for it, then no judge could conceivably accept a majority verdict in a capital trial. In the Britain of the twenty-first century, there would always be at least one of 12 randomly assembled members of the general public who would vote to acquit anyone rather than risk the imposition of the death penalty. In fact, there would always be at least two or three. Those who wanted to bring back what they saw as higher qualifications for jurors would, if anything, increase that number.

If there were never any realistic possibility of a conviction for murder, then no one would ever be charged with it. Instead, ways would be found of convicting murderers of manslaughter, resentment of the injustice of which we have seen in Nottingham in recent days. So convicted, they would almost certainly be released earlier than if their records were of intentional homicide. Britain would become a very much more dangerous place.

In any case, who among the kind of people who became judges in today's Britain would ever impose the death penalty? Who among the kind of people who became prosecutors in today's Britain would ever seek its imposition, or chance that by bringing a charge of murder? Even if there were a high likelihood of conviction. Indeed, especially so, on principle. Elect them, you say? Well, Members of Parliament are elected, and they rejected capital punishment by 403 votes to 159 the last time that the House of Commons divided on it at all. Under a Conservative Government. 30 years ago next month.

Israel's Mainstream, Not Its Fringes

Those of you who understand British euphemism will understand what I mean when I ask that, as a matter of urgency, you please contact davidaslindsay@hotmail.com if you might be in a position to assist in presenting half a million to two million people, in the runup to the General Election, with the facts about Zionist anti-British terrorism, about the Israeli arming of Argentina during the Falklands War, about the USS Liberty, about Jonathan Pollard, about the "Labour anti-Semitism" scam of the Corbyn years, and that have been valiantly brought to light since 7th October by the Israeli media, among whose luminaries none shines brighter than Gideon Levy:

Isaac Herzog, Yoav Gallant, Israel Katz: Israel's president, defense minister and foreign minister. The president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Joan Donoghue, chose to cite all three of them as evidence of suspicion of incitement to genocide in Israel.

The judge did not cite the far-right fringes, neither Itamar Ben-Gvir nor Eyal Golan; neither retired generals Giora Eiland (let epidemics spread in Gaza) nor Yair Golan, the man of peace and diagnostician of processes (let Gaza starve).

The third of the provisional measures issued by the court Friday, signed by former Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, Israel's ad hoc judge in the case, orders Israel to take all measures within in its power to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. 

The ICJ ruling is a masterpiece of caution and moderation. Only in Israel, which deceives itself and denies to distraction, can one "breathe a sigh of relief" and even "celebrate" in its wake. A state that is on trial for genocide in the court of the United Nations should be ashamed of itself and not celebrate anything.

A state whose president and senior ministers are suspected of inciting genocide should wear sackcloth, not marvel at its own great imaginary accomplishment. Every Israeli should have squirmed in their seat Friday from the mere fact of the trial, and felt a deep sense of shame and humiliation upon hearing the explanations for the ruling.

An Israeli tank takes position at the western entrance of Khan Yunis' refugee camp as Palestinians flee with a few belongings to safer areas further south in the southern Gaza Strip, on Thursday.

There may be Israelis who heard for the first time what their country has done and continues to do in Gaza in this war. This time, not even its propagandist media – which had protected them until now with infinite dedication, showing them nothing – could rush to their aid.

It is a little more difficult to accuse this court of antisemitism now, after it did not order Israel to stop the war. This did not bother the Channel 13 News political correspondent.

Moriah Asraf Wolberg, wearing a necklace with a pendant in the shape of Israel including the West Bank, did not concede to the antisemites of The Hague; she continued to recite the mantra that the court is hypocritical, and the world is hypocritical and Israel is waging the most just and moral war in the world. Anyone who wants to believe this even after the order of the court in The Hague is welcome to do so; one may believe any fiction.

Above all, however, we must pay attention to the wisdom of the court, which focused on Israel's mainstream, not its fringes. Herzog, a former Labor Party chairman and the most unifying, statesmanlike person in Israel; Gallant, whose dismissal was physically prevented by the protest of the center-left; and Katz, who despite calling Saturday for the prosecution of the head of the UNRWA refugee agency (!), is considered relatively moderate.

They are the main suspects in the incitement to genocide. The incitement to the genocide of the Palestinian people may have been invented by Meir Kahane, but it's already nearly in the public domain.

In post-October 7 Israel, the proper reaction to the punishment of Gaza is: "It is an entire nation out there that is responsible," in the words of the president who signs shells; "I have released all restraints. … We are fighting human animals," as the defense minister said – when he was head of the IDF Southern Command he was fond of calling for cutting off "the head of the snake" – or: "They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery," as Israel's No. 1 diplomat, Foreign Minister Katz, threatened on October 13, when he was serving as energy minister.

The judges in The Hague diagnosed perfectly what we here refuse to admit: Israel's problem is its mainstream, not its lunatic fringes. It is the mainstream that brought us to The Hague, it is the mainstream that incited to genocide, after Israel convinced itself with unbelievable ease that after October 7 everything is permitted. Fortunately, in The Hague they seem to think differently, very differently.

Finding of Fact

Craig Murray, of course, writes:

In finding there is a plausible case against Israel, the International Court of Justice treated with contempt the argument from Israel that the case should be dismissed as it is exercising its right of self-defence. This argument took up over half of Israel’s pleadings. Not only did the court find there is a plausible case of genocide, the court only mentioned self-defence once in its interim ruling – and that was merely to note that Israel had claimed it. Para 41:


That the ICJ has not affirmed Israel’s right to self-defence is perhaps the most important point in this interim order. It is the dog that did not bark. The argument which every western leader has been using is spurned by the ICJ.

Now the ICJ did not repeat that an occupying power has no right of self-defence. It did not need to. It simply ignored Israel’s specious assertion.

It could do that because what it went on to iterate went way beyond any plausible assertion of self-defence. What struck me most about the ICJ ruling was that the Order went into far more detail about the evidence of genocide than it needed to. Its description was stark.

Here Para 46 is crucial:


The reason this is so crucial, is that the Court is not saying that South Africa asserts this. The Court is saying these are the facts. It is a finding of fact by the Court. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of that description by the Court of the state of affairs in Gaza.

The Court then goes on to detail accounts by the United Nations of the factual situation, quoting three different senior officials at length, including Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner General of UNRWA:


This of course explains why the immediate response to the ICJ ruling was a coordinated attack by Israel and the combined imperialist powers on UNRWA, designed to accelerate the genocide by stopping aid, to provide a propaganda counter-narrative to the ICJ judgment, and to reduce the credibility of UNRWA’s evidence before the Court.

The Court works very closely with the UN and is very much an entrenched part of the UN system. It has a particularly close relationship with the UN General Assembly – many of the Court’s cases are based on request from the UN General Assembly. In a fortnight’s time the Court will be starting its substantive hearings on the legal position in the Occupied Territories of Palestine, at the request of the UNGA. There are five specific references to the UNGA in the Order.

The Court spent a great deal of time outlining the facts of the unfolding genocide in the Gaza Strip. It did not have to do so in nearly so much detail, and far too little attention has been paid to this. I was equally surprised by how much detail the court gave on the evidence of genocidal intent by Israel.

It is especially humiliating for Israel that the Court quoted the Israeli Head of State, the President of Israel himself, as giving clear evidence of genocidal intent, along with two other government ministers.


Again, this is not the Court saying that South Africa has alleged this. It is a finding of fact by the Court. The ICJ has already found to be untrue Israel’s denial in court of incitement to genocide.

Now think of this: the very next day after President Herzog made a genocidal statement, as determined by the International Court of Justice, he was met and offered “full support” by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission and Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament.


When you take the detail of what the Court has found to be the actual facts of the case, in death and destruction and in intent, I have no doubt that this is a court which is currently minded to find Israel guilty of genocide once the substantive case comes before the Court.

All of Israel’s arguments were lost. Every one. The substantial effort Israel put into having the case dismissed on procedural grounds was brushed aside. So was self-defence. And in its findings of the facts, the Court plainly found to be untrue the Israeli lies about avoidance of civilian casualties, the responsibility of Hamas for the damage to infrastructure, and the access of relief aid to Gaza.


Those are the facts of what happened.

Do not be confused by the absence of the word “ceasefire” from the Court Order. What the Court has ordered is very close to that. It has explicitly ordered the Israeli military to stop killing Palestinians.



That is absolutely clear. And while I accept it is tautologous, in the sense it is ordering Israel to obey a Convention which Israel is already bound to follow, there could be no clearer indication that the Court believes that Israel is not currently obeying it.

So what happens now?

Well, Israel has responded by killing over 180 Palestinian civilians since the Order was given from the International Court of Justice. If that continues, South Africa may return to the Court for more urgent measures even before the ordered monthly report from Israel is due. Algeria has announced it will take the Order to the UN Security Council for enforcement.

I doubt the United States will veto. There has been a schizophrenic reaction from Israel and its supporters to the ICJ Order. On the one hand, the ICJ has been denounced as antisemitic. On the other hand the official narrative has been (incredibly) to claim Israel actually won the case, while minimising the coverage in mainstream media. This has been reinforced by the massive and coordinated attack on UNRWA, to create alternative headlines.

It is difficult to both claim that Israel somehow won, and at the same time seek to block UNSC enforcement of the Order. My suspicion is that there will be a continuing dual track: pretending that there is no genocide and Israel is obeying the “unnecessary” Order, while at the same time attacking and ridiculing the ICJ and the wider UN.

No matter what the ICJ said, Israel would not have stopped the genocide; that is the simple truth. The immediate reaction of the US and allies to the Order has been to try to accelerate the genocide by crippling the UN’s aid relief work. I confess I did not expect anything quite that vicious and blatant.

The wheels of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small. The ICJ having flagged up a potential genocide so strongly, it may well fall to judges in individual nations to restrain international support for the genocide. As I explained in detail, the Genocide Convention has been incorporated into UK law by the International Criminal Court Act of 2001.

There will, beyond any doubt, have been minutes issued by FCDO legal advisers warning of ministers being at risk of personal liability in UK law for complicity in genocide now, should arms shipments and other military and intelligence cooperation with the Israeli genocide continue. In the US, hearings have started already in California on a genocide complicity suit brought against Joe Biden.

Of course I wish this would all work faster. It will not. The UN General Assembly may suspend Israel from the UN. There are other useful actions to be taken. But this is a long slog, not a quick fix, and people like you and I continue to have a vital role, as everybody does, in using the power of the people to wrest control from a vicious political class of killers.

This was a good win. I am pleased that this course for which I advocated and lobbied has worked and increased pressure on the Zionists, and that my judgment that the International Court of Justice is not just a NATO tool like the corrupt International Criminal Court, has been vindicated.

It cannot help the infants killed and maimed last night or those to die in the coming few days. But it is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.