Friday 13 September 2024

Misters and Sisters

Is Mridul even a female name? Mr Idul Wadhwa is a biologically intact male without even so much as a gender recognition certificate, making him as plainly and simply a man in a sari as I would be if I were to don such a garment on a stag night, an image that is now in your mind.

Yet Mridul Wadhwa was appointed to a job that was legally reserved for a woman, and without any professional qualification in the field. But appointed by whom? If Wadhwa is a trustee of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, then he is the only man who ever has been. Few of their names have ever screamed “global majority”, either, and their occupations have been as one would have expected. Wadhwa was appointed and protected by middle-aged, middle-class, white women who were practically indistinguishable from the dreaded TERFs. Likewise, the Russell Group has apologised for having sought, “examples of unlawful speech which universities would be expected to take steps to restrict, including antisemitic, Islamophobic or gender critical speech.” And who runs the Russell Group?

Like several other regular contributors on matters of gender identity, J.K. Rowling bears more than a passing resemblance to the middle-aged, middle-class women who are conspicuous at trans events. Young men tend to be sceptical of this as much as of #MeToo, as well as tending to be very left-wing economically, and strongly anti-war internationally; all those things are connected. But behind a small number of mostly older male transvestites march hordes of young women, a large minority but still a minority of whom think that they are men. Alongside those young women march a goodly number of their academic instructors and administrators of the same sex, as such instructors and administrators do now tend to be. Whether she likes it or not, Judith Butler is a woman. By some distance, she is the most cited female academic in the world. And who is citing her? Humanities academia is ever more heavily female.

It was a Conservative Government that presided over gender self-identification day in and day out. The public sector and its vast network of contractors simply presupposed it. It came to be treated as already the law only after 2015. Go back to 2010, and the concept itself was unheard of. This happened entirely under the Conservatives. In 2022, there was a rare television depiction of Margaret Thatcher. In Prince Andrew: The Musical, she was played by one Baga Chipz, a drag queen. Gender self-identification is the inexorable logic of the self-made man or the self-made woman, and a figure comparable to Thatcher, emerging in the Britain of the 2020s, would be assumed to be a transwoman, just as Thatcher herself emerged in the Britain of everything from Danny La Rue and Dick Emery to David Bowie and The Rocky Horror Show. In a generation’s time, everyone will be saying out loud that Tony Blair had always been as androgynous as Thatcher. Leo Abse wrote eye-opening books on both.

Still in thrall to one of the two most androgynous figures ever to have emerged in British public life, who destroyed the stockades of working-class male employment while creating a new ruling elite of middle-class women funded and empowered by the State, the Right produces almost none of its own gender critics, and of course ignores the absolute soundness of the Morning Star and of Counterfire on gender self-identification, or the fact that both the Alba Party, and the Workers Party of Britain, have been founded in no small measure because of this issue. Instead, a platform is given to ostensible refugees from a Left from which their economic views had often suggested a dislocation, and their foreign policy views even more so, long before anyone remotely mainstream had ever suggested that human beings could change sex, or that biological sex did not exist.

Knowing their new audience and that it paid a lot better than their old one, and manifesting the fact that centrism and right-wing populism were con tricks to sell exactly the same economic and foreign policies to different audiences by pretending to wage a culture war, the permitted voices of gender criticism joined gleefully in the takedown of Jeremy Corbyn, broadly hint that they think that Alex Salmond was a rapist, simply call Julian Assange a rapist in so many words, therefore never miss an opportunity to brand George Galloway “a rape apologist”, and parrot the #IBelieveHer case for the genocide of Gaza, a case that several of them have made for every previous neoconservative war, and most of them for at least one.

Those of a certain age have dusted down the file of lurid allegations that they deployed against white working-class men during the Satanic panic of the Thatcher years, and which have been levelled, practically word for word, against every designated enemy since. At best, they raise no objection to the same treatment of racialised communities in Britain, who are today’s Enemy Within, which is why that status will very soon be enjoyed again by the working class in general and by working-class men in particular, insofar as that has ever ceased to be the case. That said, the General Election campaign revived the Enemy Within of the better part of the last decade, and the role of the likes of Hadley Freeman, previously a catwalk correspondent but apparently now a Reith Lecturer in waiting, gives them no right to complain about the lack of impact of the Cass Review.

The most basic of checks would have confirmed that the mural, and the wreath, and the “not understanding English irony”, and the “friends from Hamas and Hezbollah”, and all the rest of those, were complete dross, as everyone who did bother to check did find out. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found precisely two cases of anti-Semitism in entire report into the Labour Party, neither of them involved Corbyn or indeed anyone who was still a member of that party, and even in relation to those, it was found in court that it was, “arguable that the Defendant [the EHRC] made an error of law in relation to Article 10 ECHR.”

Rather than defend that at judicial review, the EHRC settled with Ken Livingstone, whom it had continued to pursue despite knowing that he had Alzheimer’s disease, and with Pam Bromley. As a matter of record, “Labour anti-Semitism” never existed. But it does now. Labour has expelled more Jews under Keir Starmer than under all its previous Leaders put together, most or all of them for what has been found to be the protected characteristic of anti-Zionism; there would not be enough time left in this Parliament to change the law on that. It was no wonder that Andrew Feinstein stood against the Leader who had turned Labour into an anti-Semitic party, halving his vote.

Yet the EHRC report may as well never have been published for all the difference that it is making to the political debate, and those who revel in that sorry fact are therefore in no position to object that the Cass Report may as well never have been published for all the difference that it is making to the popular culture in which these matters are decided. The soaps and the nine o’clock flagship dramas are of course filmed long in advance, but things that are broadcast much sooner after completion, or even live, are making it quite clear that that Report is to be filed alongside those Declarations which the anti-vaxxers used to issue to each other and then assume that everyone had heard of them. Through popular culture, it was immediately made a commonplace that Dr Hilary Cass had disregarded 98 per cent of the literature in the field because it had not matched her preordained conclusion.

Now take a look at who controls the cultural sector. People whose intersection of sex, class and generation matches the gender critics’ perfectly, and who are usually the same colour as well, just like the people who expel pro-ceasefire students, who send in thugs to give them a beating, who connive to revoke their visas, and so on. All while driving out or keeping down the gender critics, and while marching with those who threatened them with extreme violence. Those centrist mums and centrist aunties need to have a word with their own peers.

Needle Points

Even the BBC has had to admit that the “citizens’ jury” was heavily weighted towards one side. The legalisation of assisted suicide would give to a High Court judge in the Family Division such power over life and death as no judge in this country had enjoyed since the abolition of capital punishment. My paternal grandfather was born before such working-class men could vote, and my maternal ancestors included African slaves, Indian indentured labourers, and Chinese coolies. We who come off the lower orders and the lesser breeds, and perhaps especially those of us who are disabled, know perfectly well who would be euthanised, and how, and why.

Even if we had made it past the industrial scale abortion that disproportionately targeted us, then we would face euthanasia as yet another lethal weapon in the deadly armoury of our mortal enemies, alongside their wars, alongside their self-indulgent refusal to enforce the drug laws, alongside police brutality and other street violence, alongside the numerous life-shortening consequences of economic inequality, and alongside the restoration of the death penalty, which is more likely than it has been in two generations under a Prime Minister who was a former Director of Public Prosecutions.

All this, and the needle, too? This is class and race war, and we must fight to the death. That death must not be ours, but the death of the global capitalist system. Having subjected itself to that system to a unique extent, Britain is uniquely placed to overthrow it, and to replace it with an order founded on the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilisation to the point of natural death. That foundation would and could be secured only by absolute fidelity to the only global institution that was irrevocably committed to that principle, including the full range of its economic, social, cultural and political implications.

Austerity Is Labour’s Choice


Every day, my constituents make tough choices. Tough choices like deciding whether to heat their homes or put food on the table. Tough choices like taking out a loan to pay for this month’s rent. Tough choices like selling their home to pay for their family’s social care.

People are making tough choices because governments have made the wrong choices. We warned that Tory austerity would weaken our economy and decimate our public services. We were ignored, and the poorest in society paid the price. Austerity is not just a buzzword. It is the ongoing, brutal reality for millions of people who have been pushed into destitution. It is the face of desperation and anxiety of those forced into a spiral of debt. It is a freezing cold night for the record numbers of people sleeping rough on the streets. It is the graveyard for those left without vital support: more than 300,000 excess deaths have been attributed to austerity policies.

We often talk about austerity in terms of cuts to public spending, but that is just one side of the coin. By starving public services of resources, the government manufactured a convenient excuse for their privatisation. We saw this most acutely with the NHS: an underfunded public service does not just cause satisfaction to plummet, but the belief in the principle of public healthcare itself. Austerity was never about saving money (the UK’s debt pile increased every single year under the Tories). It was about transferring money from the poorest to the richest. Between 2010 and 2018, aggregate wealth in the UK grew by £5.68 trillion. 94% went to the richest 50% of households. 6% went to the poorest 50%. As child poverty was heading towards its highest levels since 2007, Britain’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth.

It was a political decision to defund, dismantle and auction off our public services. And it will be a political decision to repeat this failed economic experiment. ‘It’s going to be painful’, the Prime Minister told the nation last week, prepping the public for ‘difficult choices’ ahead. Did he get permission from the Tories to reuse their trademark slogans? Other ministers have gone one step further, indicating that they do not have any choice at all but to impoverish children and pensioners. Keeping children in poverty is unavoidable, apparently, if we want to restore the public finances. Scrapping the winter fuel allowance is a necessity, we were risibly told, if we want to stop a run on the pound.

It is astonishing to hear government ministers try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. The government knows that there is a range of choices available to them. They could introduce wealth taxes to raise upwards of £10 billion. They could stop wasting public money on private contracts. They could launch a fundamental redistribution of power by bringing water and energy into full public ownership. Instead, they have opted to take resources away from people who were promised things would change. There is plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands — and we will not be fooled by ministers’ attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they know they don’t have to take.

Not least because, for some ministers, there is no need for regret at all. No, scrapping the winter fuel allowance is allegedly the progressive choice, since it takes support away from those who don’t need it in order to direct assistance to those who most need it. The reality is quite different. Means-testing does not make sure support goes where it is most needed. Just 63% of pensioners who qualify for Pension Credit actually apply for it. If this becomes the gateway for Winter Fuel Payments, almost 1 million poorer pensioners will miss out. The IFS have calculated that it would cost the government over £2 billion to ensure a 100% take-up, higher than the £1.4 billion they say they will save in making the cut.

Beyond that, there is a far higher price to pay. That is the destruction of a fundamental principle: universalism. A universal system of welfare reduces the stigma attached to those who rely on it, and removes barriers for those who find it difficult to apply (both are reasons why the take-up of means-tested payments is so low). What next for means testing? The state pension? The NHS?

If the government really cares about wealth inequality, they wouldn’t attack the principle of universalism. They would raise taxes on the wealthiest in our society. That way, we ensure everyone has the support they need and that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.

Politics is about choices. The Labour Party was created to alleviate the conditions of the worst-off; those who choose to push children and pensioners into poverty should ask themselves: is that what my constituents elected me to do? I am proud to work alongside other MPs in Parliament who were elected to speak up for a more equal world. We believe austerity is the wrong choice — and our door is always open to those who want to choose differently.

The principle of universalism is the principle of a society that cares for everyone. That is a principle worth fighting for.

Largely Unaffected


Labour’s case for renationalising the railways is strong. But even after this renationalisation, all the actual trains themselves will still be privately owned. Recently published accounts for Angel Trains — one of the three companies that own our trains — show why this is a problem.

Labour’s renationalisation case is this: since Covid, passenger numbers collapsed and are only now beginning to recover. Without passengers, the train firms would have gone bust, so the Department for Transport gave the train operating companies — the firms that you buy a ticket from and run the trains, like Northern, Southern, Thameslink, or Crosscountry — new contracts.

Private train operators still run the railways, but the government collects all train fares, paying rail operators with a mix of those fares and taxpayer subsidies to make up the shortfall. That subsidy is huge, around £30 billion since 2019.

The train operating companies, or TOCs, take the subsidy and pay dividends to their shareholders out of it. Labour argues that if TOCs depend on huge public subsidies, they should be taken back into public ownership.

Public money will stop leaking out of the companies via dividends into investors’ hands, and can be reinvested in rail. Replacing a patchwork of regional rail operators with one national firm could also bring more efficient, co-operative work across the whole network.

The TOCs run the rail firms on time-limited “franchises,” so Labour plans to simply take each TOC back into public ownership when those rail firms’ franchises run out over the next five years.

However, these TOCs don’t own their trains. The 1994 privatisation of publicly owned British Rail fragmented the railways, selling engines and carriages cheaply to separate “rolling stock companies” or Roscos.

Angel Trains, Porterbrook and Eversholt were the three Roscos formed in 1994 which still dominate the market, leasing old British Rail trains among their more modern stock. They don’t build trains, they are basically middlemen who buy the trains and then lease them to the TOCs. Taxpayers subsidise the TOCs who then lease trains from Roscos.

It’s a big money maker. Angel Train’s latest accounts, released this week, but covering the year to December 2023, show the firm paid £110 million in dividends to its owners. The previous year it paid them £124.6m. So money from the publicly funded — and soon publicly owned — railway flows to Angel Trains and out to its owners.

Angel Trains overall turnover was £339m, so the dividend was equal to nearly a third of its total income — the firm is very committed to rewarding its owners.

Angel Trains is not worried about renationalisation. The Tories already did some limited, temporary nationalisation, taking obviously failing lines like Transpennine back into public ownership.

Angel Trains says the “impact” of this move “on the company remains broadly beneficial.” The government have stepped in, but its business of renting out trains remains stable.

Its annual accounts suggest it wasn’t worried who would win the election. They say the Rosco model looks secure because “both the Conservative and Labour parties acknowledge the value that private investment in rolling stock and rail infrastructure can bring the wider economy.”

Angel Trains, like so much privatised British infrastructure, is foreign-owned. Since 2021, PSP Investments, the Canadian public-sector pension fund, has been the main owner, holding about 64 per cent of Angel Trains.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently said she wants to encourage the “Canadian model” of big pension funds investing in British infrastructure, but Angel Trains shows, yet again, that these can be as keen to suck cash out of the public sector as other big private investors.

A minority stake of about 10 per cent of Angel Trains is held by investment firm Amber Infrastructure, which in turn is largely owned by the family firm of Texan oil billionaire Woody L Hunt and his relatives.

Amber Infrastructure makes clear why it likes Roscos. Its website describes how Angel Trains’ business was made out of rail privatisation.

“However, it is the TOCs that are responsible for the operation of the train services under agreements with the Department for Transport. As a result, their lease revenues are largely unaffected by changes in passenger numbers.”

A train business which is “largely unaffected” by how many passengers buy tickets, that will deliver regular income without worrying about getting folk from A to B is very attractive to investors.

In July 2024, British asset management firm Arjun Investments, working with the University Pension Plan Ontario, bought a 10 per cent stake in Angel Trains, an example of another Canadian pension firm enjoying an easy ride.

Labour’s renationalisation plans are good: they will stop the TOCs handing over cash to their shareholders for poor, subsidised services. They could bring efficiencies of a nationally integrated service. We should support them, especially if the Treasury tries to delay them by allowing the private franchises to run longer than necessary, or try and get the Department for Transport to run the nationalised services as if they were competing businesses rather than a unified public service.

But they are limited. The 1994 privatisation broke the rail into three parts: the railways, the train operators and the trains. The railways were renationalised in 2002 because the privatised Railtrack let too many passengers die in crashes. The TOCs will be renationalised over the next five years. But the trains will remain privately held by the Roscos.

The Roscos are a study in what economists call “rent seeking,” where businesses grab money by manipulating the social or political environment to squeeze money for someone else rather than creating new wealth with increased productivity or innovation.

There is a real danger that Labour will not only allow “rent seeking” to go on in areas like the Roscos or water firms, but will also encourage more “rent seeking” if, say, the National Wealth Fund backs private investment that is reminiscent of the old private finance initiative.

The fact that some Labour MPs are personally involved in the most literal rent seeking, such as bad landlords like Jas Athwal, brings this danger closer.

Moron or Bastard?


Reams of commentary will be written about the battle for the Tory leadership, because newspaper pundits confuse blowing hard on cold ashes with real manual labour. But if reading it all seems too much like hard work, then this column is for you. Today’s piece won’t be about “What the Conservatives must do to become fit for government”, since I don’t want them back in government, ever. No, the purpose of our inquiry is to suss out what kind of opponent the party’s next leader will be: the fights they’ll pick, the parliamentary votes they’ll force and the hurdles they’ll heave into the path of better politics. And I believe the best way to do that is with a game involving two words. As you glance across the contenders, ask yourself this: are they a moron or a bastard? / I am not in the business of throwing insults, but using two technical terms with specific definitions that draw upon three decades of rightwing history.

“Moron” you may remember from the autumn of 2022, when Liz Truss became prime minister and announced the biggest tax cuts in half a century, promising more to come – much more. It was what markets wanted, apparently – until markets plunged into turmoil and demanded the UK pay penalty rates to borrow, inevitably dubbed the “moron premium”.

Moronism is shorthand for a particularly toxic strain of rightwing supply-side economics. It dominates the fringe of any Tory conference, where hobgoblins fresh out of university talk moistly about Laffer curves, planning deregulation and Pinochet’s Chile, but it has grown ever more virulent within the parliamentary party over the past decade.

And “bastard”? For that our source is John Major. Normally as mild as soap, as prime minister he was caught on tape admitting that the Eurosceptics within his own cabinet had overrun him. The anti-Brussels headbangers were simply too dangerous to sack. “We don’t want another three more of the bastards out there.” That was 30 years ago. By the early 2010s, the Tory bastards had Brexit in their sights, while a decade later they chunter about immigrants, transgender rights and woke police officers, and can start at least three culture wars over breakfast.

Four candidates are left in the Tory leadership race, but ideologically they fall on one of two sides: those for whom libertarian economics comes first, and those who speak golf-club identity politics. There was a time when Tories could blend the two, as Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell did, but the globalised economy makes that impossible today. For one branch of modern Conservatism, “socialism” is the main enemy (a cunning codeword for the welfare state and workers’ rights); for the other, it is open borders. Each will nab the other’s language, of course, but ultimately their positions are incompatible. Anti-statism or the nation state, free capital markets or closed labour markets, globalisation or anti-globalism: in the end, as the young people say, you’ve got to pick a lane.

In all of Westminster there is only one example of a front-rank politician who successfully manages to be both a complete moron and an utter bastard, and his name is Nigel Farage. His ability to sport the dual faces of contemporary rightwing politics is part of his siren appeal to the Tory base. It means the greatest unifying candidate in Conservative politics leads a rival party. But the public schoolboy turned tribune of the working class is rarely held to account on his policies. The rightwing press do not ask him to explain how he can triple the tax cuts dreamed up by Truss and scrap NHS waiting lists. The BBC treats him as a panel-show pony rather than a politician. But no one heading the most successful political party in democratic history will be treated with such chuckling indulgence. Whether they want to or not, each Tory candidate has to pick a side.

Robert Jenrick This is the guy who had himself filmed at 4am watching Albanians get rounded up and flown to Tirana. The video mainly showed him nodding his jowls at each deportation, presumably thinking he looked like Churchill. Yeah, Churchill the dog. Obviously a bastard.

Tom Tugendhat He gets labels like “liberal” and “centrist”, perhaps because he’s the nearest thing the Tories have to George Smiley, wearing heavy glasses and looking rueful about the trajectory of his career. In reality, he’s happy to leave the European convention on human rights and wants more cash for the army and the police. He’s also the MP who, after Putin invaded Ukraine, demanded the UK “expel Russian citizens – all of them”. Bastard.

James Cleverly The anti-bastard, he’s the only contender who recognises that rightwing voters didn’t just flood towards Farage: they also opted for Ed Davey and Keir Starmer. This leaves the former Brexit supporter urging “deregulation” and quoting Thatcher, that “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”. Well, the problem with Thatcherism is that eventually you run out of other people’s assets to flog, which is partly why Britain is now in so deep a hole. Moron.

Kemi Badenoch Talks like a bastard but walks like a moron. When her mentions have gone a bit quiet, she links Rachel Reeves to Chairman Mao or claims it was no big deal for Britain’s economy that it ran the largest empire in history (perhaps it was all for charity). Look at her platform, however, and the former protégée of Michael Gove is primarily about ever freer markets and ever more capitalism. Moron.

Playing Moron or Bastard? has helped me do more than clarify where each candidate really stands. It’s also shown up the gaps in our politics. There is no big party now defending fiscal conservatism; the nearest is the one led by Starmer. The next Tory leader might well play havoc opposing Labour’s spending cuts. While the Conservatives have always traded as the party of business and property, the game we’ve just played shows how ideologically fractured the business lobby is today. Even as the CBI hymns Labour’s green energy plans, the hedge fund billionaire Paul Marshall buys The Spectator. Just as Donald Trump can still count on Silicon Valley, so the British right is propped up by the shadow bankers and loophole merchants.

But that’s me falling back into high-fibre columnism. We might as well enjoy a free show. The final bout for who leads His Majesty’s Opposition will be a moron pitted against a bastard. My money is on the last two being Kemi v Robert. What you might call Bad Enoch v Sad Enoch.

John Woodcock’s Dark Underbelly


In July John Woodcock, a UK government adviser on political violence, wrote to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper warning of a potentially deadly new threat to MPs.

Writing on 13 July in the wake of the victory of four independent MP in that month’s general election, Woodcock (a former Labour MP who now sits as an independent peer in the House of Lords under the title Lord Walney) said there was a “concerted campaign by extremists to create a hostile atmosphere for MPs within their constituencies to compel them to cave into political demands”.

To drive home the gravity of the problem Woodcock added that the “conduct of the election campaign in many communities has underlined the gravity of the threat to our democracy”.

In an interview with The Guardian the next day Woodcock went further, identifying a particular pattern of abuse “created by aggressive pro-Palestine activists”.

Invoking the attempted murder of Donald Trump, Woodcock said the shooting was “a vivid reminder of the vulnerability of all politicians”.

He added: “We have seen the growth in the UK of US-style politics of aggressive confrontation and intimidation which is unfortunately, exactly the toxic environment that could lead to another assassination attempt on a UK politician, of which we have already tragically seen a number in recent years.”

Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered during the runup to the Brexit referendum in 2016, while Conservative MP Sir David Amess was murdered in 2019.

The peer then called on the Home Office to investigate what he called a “dark underbelly” of abuse. To give substance to his claims, Woodcock submitted a dossier containing allegations of abuse during the general election.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced the day after Woodcock’s public comments that she was launching a rapid review of harassment faced by candidates in the election.

She said there had been an “alarming rise in intimidation, harassment and abuse towards candidates, campaigners and volunteers from all parties, which simply cannot be tolerated.”

Thanks to an enterprising Freedom of Information request by the Novara Media website, the Woodcock dossier is now in the public domain.

Middle East Eye has analysed the dossier.

A close examination of its contents raises many questions about the methodology, and indeed the elementary competence, of the government adviser on political violence.

Some of Woodcock’s evidence consists of sources that upon inspection appear either partisan or unreliable.

Equally troubling, MEE found that the dossier consists of allegations made on social media platform X, formerly Twitter, and in press reports, with no evidence of any attempt to independently substantiate them or even establish that they were credible.

MEE put this to Woodcock last week but did not receive a reply.

MEE asked what criteria he used to determine what counted as abuse and intimidation. No response.

MEE also asked Woodcock whether he had carried out any kind of assessment of the allegations he had passed onto the Home Office. No answer.

Partisan sources

The Woodcock dossier is a slender and threadbare document, barely two pages long, and there is no evidence of original research.

It reports allegations of abuse against eight parliamentary candidates who stood in the July general election.

Six were Labour candidates, one was Conservative and one Reform UK.

The six Labour candidates had all faced challenges from independents campaigning on pro-Palestinian platforms: Jess Phillips, Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting, Rushanara Ali, Stella Creasy and Jon Ashworth.

Citations in the dossier included a social media post by an anonymous account on X called “habibi”.

That account, which appears to be a partisan source, has described pro-Palestinian marchers as “haters” and a peaceful protest as a “hate march”.

Woodcock did not point out this essential background. / He has since reposted a post on 28 August by “habibi” claiming that the Green Party in 2024 “just can’t get enough extremism”. 

Another account belongs to right-wing social media commentator Chris Rose.

Rose criticised former Labour MP Jon Ashworth during the election campaign for having “accused others of ‘Islamophobia’”, saying that he now “faces the divisive extremism he often dismissed”.

He also posted in May that “seeing a Muslim councillor shout “Allahu Akbar” whilst surrounded by Palestine flags was “alarming. It’s alien to me.” The councillor, Mothin Ali, later said he had received death threats after the video in question, reported in the press, went viral.

Rose said that same month that climate activist Greta Thunburg, arrested at a pro-Palestinian demonstration wearing a keffiyeh, should be “sent to Gaza with her ridiculous tea towel on”.

In November last year ahead of Armistice Weekend, Rose posted a photo of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, with the fake satirical caption: ‘Please, if it’s not too much trouble. Could we kindly ask that you postpone your calls for Jihad, Muslim armies, Intifadas, genocide chants & anger towards anyone calling Hamas terrorists for this weekend? Apologies for bothering you, thank you.’

Once again Woodcock failed to highlight Rose’s record as a partisan commentator.

Lumping in protesters with criminals In some cases the alleged abuse and intimidation listed in the dossier was under police investigation.

For example, Labour candidate Stella Creasy’s office was damaged by vandals during the campaign. By the time the dossier was sent to Yvette Cooper, the police had launched an investigation into the incident.

Another example from the dossier is Rushanara Ali, Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who said she received death threats and had police protection during the campaign.

Her rival independent candidate Ajmal Masroor condemned the abuse she faced, although Woodcock did not mention this.

But other cases featured in the dossier have not led to police investigations. These include Birmingham Yardley MP Jess Phillips facing “jeers and chants during her acceptance speech”.

Another case, reported by Novara Media, was a poster reading “Vote for Genocide, Vote Labour” put up in Wes Streeting’s constituency, Ilford North.

In its list of cases, Woodcock’s dossier fails to distinguish pro-Palestinian protests from criminals who abused, threatened and intimidated parliamentary candidates.

In fact, his dossier appears to muddle the two.

Crucially police action against pro-Palestinian protesters has been limited.

Open Democracy reported in early February that arrests at pro-Palestine marches were at a lower rate than at the Glastonbury music festival last year. It estimated that an average of 0.5 demonstrators at Palestine protests were arrested for every 10,000 attendees.

And a recent Home Affairs Select Committee report in February found that both police and organisers had characterised the protests as “overwhelmingly peaceful”.

Unsubstantiated allegations

The dossier records that Jon Ashworth, former MP for Leicester South “said that he had been screamed at for 45 minutes and chased down the street during the campaign, on one occasion having to seek refuge in a vicarage (where protestors continued to wait until he emerged).”

He was also “filmed and taunted by a known Islamist extremist in the street; an individual separately now being charged under terrorism offences”, according to the document.

The individual, Majid Freeman, has been charged with encouragement of terrorism and supporting a proscribed organisation in an ongoing case unrelated to the election. / But some of Ashworth’s claims since the election have been challenged.#

Ashworth claimed on 10 July that Majid Freeman was a “key campaigner” for Shockat Adam, who unseated him as MP, and demanded that Adam “condemn this individual”.

 But Ashworth deleted the post on X shortly after receiving a warning from lawyers acting on behalf of Adam.

In an interview with MEE in late August, Adam said that “I would never intimidate or condone intimidation for anybody.”

There is no evidence that Woodcock made any attempt to assess the veracity of Ashworth’s allegations and independently substantiate them.

And there is no indication that Lord Walney sought to substantiate other allegations he cited in the dossier. MEE asked him whether he did - and received no response.

Selective case

Most baffling of all, the Woodcock dossier is selective in the cases it includes. Many independent candidates credibly claim they faced abuse. The government’s political violence commissioner does not mention a single one of them.

On 15 July, Shockat Adam - who unseated Ashworth - claimed he had suffered abuse during the campaign. In late August, he told MEE that he faced significant racial abuse during the general election campaign.

“People from my team were often racially abused when they knocked on doors or on polling day," he said, "including my son, who was standing outside a polling station and was greeted with the P-word.”

Adam added that the abuse has continued after the election: “I have faced a torrent of abuse online and in real life, as have people in my family.”

MEE asked Woodcock whether he looked at these claims once they emerged - no response.

And on 3 July, during the election campaign, Palestinian-British independent candidate Tanushka Marah’s campaign office was attacked and vandalised following weeks of what her campaign claimed was orchestrated harassment by pro-Israel activists.

Marah said she had experienced “secret filming of our events and volunteers, misinformation about me and the campaign, theft of electoral materials and apparent planting of these materials in a supermarket.” (Marah has previously written for MEE.)

This case was missing from Woodcock’s dossier.

Then there is 23-year-old Leanne Mohamad, the British-Palestinian who stood as an independent against now-Health Secretary Wes Streeting and lost by 538 votes.

The dossier cites posters attacking Streeting put up in the constituency.

But it does not mention that Mohamad said on 30 June that she was receiving a “deluge of daily abuse”. / Streeting himself during the campaign highlighted and criticised Islamophobia - which he said was being levelled against Mohamad. He even mentioned it in his acceptance speech on 5 July.

Yet this was not featured in Woodcock’s dossier.

Death threats

There are more examples: In Blackburn during the election campaign, it was widely reported that Labour and independent canvassers engaged in physical scuffles.

Independent candidate Adnan Hussain’s campaign claimed that Labour supporters had threatened them and inflamed the situation.

Hussain, now an MP, said he had become “fearful” of going out to campaign, and added that “I am now left with many of those who accompanied me and my team feeling upset, traumatised and scared to be out in Blackburn alone”.

Kate Hollern, the Labour candidate, in turn accused the independents of “intimidatory behaviour”.

The situation in Blackburn received no attention in the dossier.

MEE asked Hussain about his experience during the election. Hussain told MEE on Tuesday that the “extreme level of intimidation and abuse” he faced during the campaign meant that on a handful of occasions he considered stepping down.

“I received numerous death threats, on my personal number,” he said. “There were threats of my house being burnt down, threats to rape my family members, and threats of violence.

“My friends and family were constantly concerned for my safety, to the point where my campaign manager took it upon himself to contact the Home Office to arrange guards; nothing, however, came of this.”

MEE put Hussain's comments to the Home Office, which said: “Political intimidation and abuse has no place in our society and we take reports of intimidation, harassment and abuse extremely seriously.

“We are working with the police and with Parliament to provide appropriate mitigations to ensure elected representatives are able to go about the business for which they were democratically elected.”

Physical assault

Hussain also said that there were occasions on which he was followed home after campaigning.

“On one occasion, members of my campaign team were actually physically assaulted.”

Hussain told MEE that that he expressed concerns to the relevant authorities but did not think they were being taken seriously.

This has continued since he has been elected, he said. “A few weeks ago, at 2am, my family and I were alarmed when doors to the front and back of our home were banged upon. Three white males had trespassed into my garden and come to the doors of my house, for reasons still unknown to me.”

Hussain said he thinks threats to politicians “must be taken very seriously” regardless of political orientation and background.

This, he feels, is not the case at the moment: “I have not been contacted by any authority or body wishing to discuss my experience as an Independent candidate and MP.”

MEE asked Walney what criteria he used to select which cases and election candidates to investigate for the dossier, receiving no response.

In his comments to the home secretary, Woodcock highlighted “in particular” that there was a pattern of intimidation by “aggressive pro-Palestinian protesters” - despite not having examined allegations of intimidation faced by pro-Palestinian independents.

Diane Abbott, a Labour MP and mother of the House of Commons, criticised Woodcock in a post on X, formerly Twitter, attacking his statements after the dossier was submitted as a “crude effort to demonise all those who support Palestinian rights“. 

Woodcock chaired the Labour Friends of Israel group from 2011 to 2013.

He was suspended from the Labour Party in 2018 over accusations he sent inappropriate texts and messages to a former staff member, although Woodcock denied the allegations.

After the recently elected Labour government announced it was suspending 30 out of 350 arms sales to Israel, Woodcock took to social media on 2 September to slam the decision, saying he hopes British ministers would “reflect on the depth of hurt felt” by the Israeli government.

MEE asked the Home Office when the results of the review launched by Yvette Cooper were expected to be made public.

MEE also asked whether the Home Office considers there to have been methodological flaws in Woodcock’s dossier, and whether it is investigating abuse faced by parliamentary candidates.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Political intimidation and abuse must have no place in our society and we take reports of intimidation, harassment and abuse extremely seriously.

“We are working with the police to provide appropriate mitigations to ensure locally elected representatives are able to go about the business for which they were democratically elected.”

Justice Delayed: Day 84

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 428

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 428

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 1132

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 1132

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.

Wednesday 11 September 2024

Reform or Die?

Keir Starmer has read Lord Darzi's report, and will be announcing more of the same, only in an even more extreme form. "Reform" always means "privatisation and cuts". It is called "Reform" because it is what Nigel Farage would do. Centrism and right-wing populism are con tricks to sell exactly the same economic and foreign policies to different audiences by pretending to wage a culture war. That said, even Farage turned up to vote to save the Winter Fuel Payment, and even he drew the line at voting to keep the two-child benefit cap.

Leanne Mohamad's near miss at Ilford North will go down as the great disaster of the 2024 Election, the narrowly lost chance to save the National Health Service in England. Tony Blair is back, Alan Milburn is back, and the 10-year plan for the NHS is being written by Paul Corrigan. In 1997, those three brought the concept of NHS privatisation from the outer fringes of the thinktank circuit to the heart of government. Since then, it has been the policy of all three parties except under Jeremy Corbyn, and of most Labour MPs and all Labour Party staffers continuously. The new intake of Labour MPs has been carefully chosen to be sound on this highly lucrative issue.

Labour's 1997 pledge card had promised to abolish the NHS internal market, and the final week of its campaign had been a countdown of days to save the NHS. Those were barefaced lies, and the opposite of the truth. Here we are again. Except that Wes Streeting is perfectly open about his bought and paid for intentions. He seeks and accepts such income streams because he agrees with what they stand for.

Back when Milburn was running a Newcastle Trotskyist bookshop called Days of Hope, known to its clientele as "Haze of Dope", it was obviously costing far more than it could possibly have been making, but it clearly suited someone's purposes to have a distraction from the Communist Party bookshop down the road. Yet in 1979, Corrigan was a parliamentary candidate for the Communist Party. Think on.

Justice Delayed: Day 82

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 426

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 426

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 1130

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 1130

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.

Tuesday 10 September 2024

I Am Not A Number

Are these early releases that unusual? I was less than two weeks into a 12-month stretch when a wholly unsolicited letter under my cell door told me that I would be let out after three months. I duly was.

If anything, I can only wonder what any nonviolent offender might have done to be required to serve 40 per cent of a sentence. In my experience, it is 25.

If that is not normal, then anyone would think that the entire system had thought from day one that I was as obviously innocent as numerous Prison Officers and successive Probation Officers never tired of telling me that I was.

Time and Motion

The reason that I have never been a Member of Parliament must be that I have never felt so strongly about anything that I have been moved to abstain.

But the Government can dig in its heels all it likes. If the House of Lords passed Ros Altmann's fatal motion tomorrow, then the Statutory Instrument to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment would be lost. It could not happen, so that would be that. Them's the rules.

If the Government had not wanted to run that risk, then it ought not to have used this device for the sake of speed and for the avoidance of scrutiny. If you do not play nicely, then nor will other people, and sometimes, as here, they should not. The report of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is devastating. This may be that House's last chance to show that it served any useful purpose. One of them really ought to.

The North Remembers

This year, across Scotland, the North of England, and North Wales, there were numerous narrow Labour gains, and there were numerous narrow Labour holds for the second time running. As we buried 50 per cent more frozen pensioners this winter than last, we shall remember.

In the summer of 1992, official opinion was that the Conservative Party was going to be in power forever. Yet all of that came crashing down on 16 September. From then on, the Major Government was in its last days. Those dragged on for four and a half years. But everyone knew that they were its last days. Likewise, the Starmer Government has just entered its last days. Stretched out over almost an entire Parliament. But still obviously its last days.

Justice Delayed: Day 81

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 425

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 425

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.