Another St George's Day Masacre!

Fittingly, it was St George's Day (2024) that saw the Prefect Prime Minister- demonstrably not the Perfect PM- ushering in the UK's new 'defence' spending, (to be) hiked to 2.5% GDB by 2030- six years hence. Wreathed in Union Jack requisite to the post, Sunak battled to insert the tiniest ounce of sincerity, proclaiming that the globe is now at its "most dangerous... since the end of the Cold War." "Fully funded, with no increase in borrowing or debt," well, not the nature of any 'debt' with which Sunak's tax-efficient family are ever likely to have to concern themselves.

Ben Wallace, on the BBC, was performatively beside himself with glee. Cost in mind, will be "fully funded," was put to the former Defence Secretary. But, true to his ilk, Wallace barely broke stride, musing that 'the pledge' might require yet further public spending cuts. The UK is not, as of this moment, upon a war footing, both Sunak and Wallace were keen to outline. Conversation followed predictable lines, flowing fair seamlessly into the EU's NATO commitments. At no point did a US accent venture forth, at no time did the overseer's fatherly head loom above the parapet, nor did it need to.

The sense of security, of which both Tories spoke, becomes vanishingly distant. The mighty US's slipstream, ever deepening, produces quite the shadow to match these days. It would not be unrealistic to recognise Sunak's referenced threat, though better observed reasoning might contest the route taken. Starmer searched in vain for his absent soul- ever the fruitless task- manufacturing a most God-awful Saint's Day charade. The Guardian Newspaper published a more considered article upon St George's Day and the nation's worth, by the former Head of the Labour Party. Related yet more ear-catching, the BBC has recently commissioned a BBC Radio 4 series, 'When It Hits the Fan.' The series is quite the ear opener! Also broadcast on St George's Day, it featured a half-hour conversation with Matthew Freud that seriously- barely short of citing specific instances- put both news outlets to shame. Freud may well have openly traced the source of decline back to dear ol' Uncle Rupert but his damning of current UK journalism was deservingly thorough and widespread, on this occasion biting also at the hand.

Back on the subject of defence spending, neither Sunak nor his minion was pressed to elaborate upon quite how much more dangerous the globe has become in consequence of the nation's funding of Saudi Arabia's bombing of Yemen, nor it's continued funding of the Gazan Genocide. Nor was either man asked to comment specifically upon the UK's lapdog partisan conflagration in the Red Sea and Yemen- no reflection required! Nor was the UK's complicit starving of Palestinians, via cuts to UNWRA funding, broached. Nor its continuation of the arming of Israel and the IDF. Along with the biggest bully, the UK is now fully immersed in the Genocide! Arming the perpetrators. Shackling those who seek to curtail the suffering. Pretending to balance evidence of mounting war crimes against the latest Israeli apologist! Obfuscation around the genocide! Little wonder that certain UK politicians are so very wary of the ICJ?

In order, the three news items that followed, hot on the heels, may have raised many eyebrows, many shackles! Each could be linked, more closely than through monies alone.

Next came the flag-waving pronouncement that the first Rwanda flights were booked and warming upon the tarmac. So, when those betrayed souls who have been granted asylum here find themselves still to be marched up the boarding steps, will we UK citizens be permitted to question quite how the UK's commitments towards the Refugee Convention will be defending those asylum-seekers; those who have been granted protection within the 'safe' country sought? Presumably, UK militia will, in future, be expected to work at the behest of a government that is in breach of international law, more than it will be required to defend the human rights of citizens within the UK? Curious. Must our safety, henceforth, to be so very dependent upon our neighbour's jeopardy?

Then came the continuation of the Post Office saga, injustices meted out to the Postmaster-generals! High Management lining up to worm their ways from the spotlight of culpability, demonstrably also not defending the rights of the citizenry!

Next upon a conveyor-belt of values the UK's militia may be tasked with defending came the UK's waterways and all that they stand for! Could it be that, unbeknownst to us, water companies have been charged with laying down an encircling slick, through which all those (not) illegal asylum-seekers may find themselves having to swim, or wade? Further addition to the pledged 2.5%! 'To discharge or not to discharge?' that has become the question.

One may be forgiven for, perhaps, wondering quite what the UK's militias will actually be charged with defending? And along who's borders? It doesn't seem to be us or, in any manner, upon our behalf. Are those bells, I hear?

St George, of course, was far more Middle Eastern than ever he was British. We could speculate as to who might, with a modern day twist, be represented by the dragon... and who might be aiding and abetting this dragon.

Boycott, Divest and Sanctions.

Ultimately, the aim has to be open and honest,
freedom from all Israeli oppression for the Palestinian people.
Nothing less!
Simply substitute 'Palestine' for 'Ukraine' in any sentence uttered by the BBC and therein lies a wealth of possibility. In truth the two countries are not so very similar. Israel's occupation of Palestine has been in operation since 1967, as recognised under international law (International Criminal Courts), arguably since 1948. The onslaught is more targeted, the weapons more sophisticated, the death toll greater, the consequent oppression more sustained, the cityscapes more dystopian! The firing zones expanding, the schools being earmarked for demolition. Pogroms accelerating!

Israeli Government functions as an apartheid regime.


B'Tselem, the most prominent of Israel's human rights organisations opens with:
"The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories strives for a future in which human rights, liberty and equality are guaranteed to all people, Palestinian and Jewish alike, living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Such a future will only be possible when the Israeli occupation and apartheid regime end."

Human Rights Watch describes itself thus:
"Human Rights Watch investigates and reports on abuses happening in all corners of the world."
In April, Human Rights Watch released a 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed,” finding that
"Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution."

"the omission does a terrible disservice to child victims in Israel/Palestine, and the question remains:
why doesn’t the UN secretary-general value the lives of Palestinian children as much as the lives of Ukrainian children?"

Amnesty International campaigns for a world in which human rights are enjoyed by all. It's standing worldwide is immense, deservingly so. In May 2021 Israeli Government and the Israeli 'Defence' Force attacked Sheikh Jarrah, a Palestinian neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. In an often repeated scenario Palestinian lives were brutally cut short, their homes were bulldozed and their land stolen. Amnesty meticulously compiled a report, stating:
"Amnesty International’s new investigation shows that Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT, and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis.
This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law."

Three highly and internationally respected organisations, all employing the term 'apartheid,' all speaking specifically about Israel. The 'great and impartial' BBC did deign to mention, 'Amnesty; news teams are again being despatched to the Occupied Territories,' but genuine reportage remained then, and remains now, long, long overdue. During the yawning absence of actual journalism thousands of Palestinians have been slaughtered, thousands of homes have been bulldozed, thousands of acres of land stolen- the Nakba has barely stuttered.

In 2017, upon the release of the explosive exposé, 'The Lobby,' (Electronic Intifada), the Israeli Government were, oh so briefly, given to inglorious partial retreat, when spy, Shai Masot was caught upon camera boasting about his "political hit list" to an undercover reporter. Masot was likely 'thrown under the proverbial bus' upon his expulsion from the UK. Habitual liar, inexplicably then PM, Boris Johnson, blustered a pathway through the 'affair. 'Conservative MP, Crispin Blunt (hit listed), spoke of
"interference in another country's politics of the murkiest kind."
Post his Conservative MP days, Alan Duncan wrote in his diaries,
"interference at a high level in British politics, in the interests of Israel"

Inside Corbyn's far more determinedly targeted Labour Party, Emily Thornberry MP, called for an enquiry. It has been speculated, in the light of the quickly shelved report, as well as the far greater and damaging antics revealed inside her own party, that Thornberry's hasty climb-down was driven to placate the right of the (New) New Labour Party. Whatever the reasons, Sir Keir Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (just in case you'd missed the memo) has worked his royal blue socks off to bury all findings... latterly, even the findings of his own orchestrated internal report, the Forde Enquiry.

At grassroots level it has long been recognised- although seldom broadcast- that the weaponising of anti-Semitism (ref: 'Weaponising Anti-Semitism,' Asa Winstanley, the 'Forde Report,' Martin Forde QC) has done far more to stoke acts of racism than it has to correctly identify and to properly address these transgressions. The 'fearless' BBC obediently continues, intermittently, to nudge the 'expulsions from the Labour Party' button, whilst covertly omitting to mention the disproportionate number of expulsions that 'happen to be' Jewish (ex) members. Not even a little bit curious? As the incomparable Chomsky once proffered to a young and dazed Andrew Marr,
“I’m not saying you're self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
Eamonn Holmes, Richard Madeley, the eternally spot-lit Piers Morgan- fingers crossed for the latest 'phone hacking' revelations- may continue to wail about 'deplatforming,' but, glaringly, they're still here, pushing the narrative of choice. Others, those espousing genuine contra-opinion, continue to 'self censor' or to suffer the consequences.

Currently, two of Labour's most committed and hard-working, long-serving anti-racists are being denied the Labour whip by Sir Keir Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, whilst several of those 'serving' upon his front bench remain, frequently unchallenged, permitted- encouraged?- to continue to weaponise anti-Semitism as and when suits, uncommented upon by the likes of the BBC.
Simon Hattenstone, on 'Ken Loach and anti-Semitism' (Guardian reporter, supporter of zero tolerance on anti-Semitism), "You can’t make such an accusation without supporting it." (line 193)
Rachel Reeves (Shadow Chancellor, equating Ken Loach with anti-Semitism), defending a stance which appears to have been handed down from on high, “Well, look, I’m not on the body who makes these decisions,”
How can she know what she thinks if she hasn't and doesn't (think)? Riding the free pass!

Whilst it's good to see Simon and the Guardian questioning the validity of some of these statements being thrown about by many of those who would describe themselves as 'authorities' or (even) 'journalists,' one has to wonder where the Guardian was during the heat of the fabricated crisis in the Labour Party.

The MSM scripted narrative 'is' that Labour were an "Institutionally anti-Semitic" Party. The narrative being that the EHRC investigation judged Labour to be so. But they didn't! The ECHR investigation cleared Corbyn of any anti-Semitic acts; ECHR even said that Corbyn's right to comment upon the report should be 'protected.' Curiously, (or perhaps not!) omitted from the narrative is the fact that nearly 40% of the 'complaints made' regarding anti-Semitic behaviour were found to have concerned non-members. Further, as few as 0.07% of actual members (comments) were thought to require further investigation, many of the 0.07% requiring no further action. The more the narrative leaks the weaker the argument becomes. Just 0.07%!

Really though, for the chances of a genuine alternative government the opportunity has long since flown! If, as polling suggests, New Labour do get the gig in 2024 the best that we might hope for, perhaps dangled at press briefings, may be a hand-painted sign bearing the slogan, 'Under New Management.'

Replete with greenscreen, (mostly) blank-faced youth ranged behind him, Sir Keir Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, has been desperately oiling the wooden cogs of his clunky delivery style. But, fear not, Zionist David Evans continues to fabricate any means to yet further deplete the Party's thinking base, as narrative instructs, unreported by the 'fearless' BBC. So, in such a climate of control, it must have appeared an act of the most bizarre self destruction when the second, aforementioned, long-serving anti-racist, Dianne Abbott, seemed to jump before being pushed, when she allegedly accidentally 'hit send,' forwarding a most awkwardly worded self-analysis upon the hierarchy of racism. Anyone even half-abreast of the shenanigans afoot inside Labour will already have recognised, with diamond-cut certainty, that Evans and co would already have targeted Dianne Abbott for culling. Even so, Abbott's enabling of such (BBC et al) narrative currently presents as inexplicable... a narrative of hierarchical racism? Outrageous!

Except...

Former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer's instant removal of the whip would suggest otherwise. Sir Keir Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, is remarkably Johnsonesque in his 'denial' of any facts, contentions, issues et al which do not suit his narrative. Maybe, outside of the courts, he is not so nimble upon his toes as his 'friends' in the MSM would have us believe? Maybe he has been schooled far more similarly to the thoroughly discredited Boris Johnson than he cares to admit; maybe he is more of a fan than he pretends? Maybe Sir Keir Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, has experienced a far too elevated sense of liberation since his time in the Crown Prosecution Service, no longer the inconvenient constraints of 'honesty' for him! Maybe he is far too enamoured by the curious inversions of the Commons, whereby those calling out the lies are to be judged differently to those who commit to them? Either way, Martin Forde, QC, fully recognised and recorded former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer's personal take upon the hierarchy of racism that currently presides within (New) New Labour. Martin Forde wrote, and has since spoken with sadness, about the years of targeted racism that Dianne Abbott has faced, with little if any support from NEC. Fellow MP, Apsana Begum, has served far fewer years but she is more than fully abreast of the unspoken hierarchy. Apsana's politics are too considered for Sir Keir Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, to deign to scribble a postage note of support for the young socialist.

Because, here's the thing, by lending blind support to Israel's apartheid behaviour in the Palestinian Occupied Territories- greatly enabled via his factional behaviour against the Party membership- Sir Keir Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, is actively bringing closer to fruition the UK's own endorsed hierarchy of racism. Written large in the Forde Report can be found the evidence that anti-Semitism trumps all other forms of racism. Take the time to watch Al Jazeera's The Lobby (Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom) and one very soon learns that so much more elevated stands anti-Semitism that, in some circles, it is now common accepted practice to contradictorily employ false claims of anti-Semitism in order to target non anti-Semites as specified by the Israeli Lobby. Follow that if you can!

And, that brings us round to the point of it all! Sunak's Anti-Boycotts Bill! Maybe the UK's fragile democracy will escape this time but consider the groundwork! Consider the stripping away of democratic rights to free speech and open debate that had to be undertaken in order to bring us to such an historic low! As if watching the privatised railways, the privatised water companies, the privatised utilities crumble, the growth of the food banks, the tented empty shop doorways, the altered narrative that is quickly acclimatising the nation to an acceptance of the mounting refugee death toll as some sort of inevitability.

Currently there is another Israeli lobby targeted film doing the rounds. It may, increasingly, be accessed but, unless one rips away the sticking plaster and peers at the raw under belly, one could be forgiven for being unaware of its existence. The film is titled, 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn, the Big Lie!' and it is narrated by none other than Alexei Sayle. George Osborne's (2017-2020) Evening Standard isn't impressed... but then that has to be a positive, right? The film revisits some of the injustices meted upon our electoral system. It may well be the case that the weaponising of anti-Semitism wasn't solely responsible for the loss of the 2019 GE but it acted as a fulcrum about which other factions were able to revolve, a unifying factor if you will. The Lords may now be a cluster of disingenuous ex-Labour MPs the heavier, Chuka Umunna and Change UK may be relegated to the rogue's gallery of political mishap (JP Morgan Chase, something to do with asset extraction at the Royal Mail), numerous Labour Constituencies may now be mere hollowed-out puppet organisations, (New) New Labour may even be rearranging deck chairs but aim low and expect to miss the target!

As current Government- New Management riding the slipstream- would have it the Anti-Boycott Bill would remove from the ordinary citizen much of the right to conscience. Substituting, 'your' Government (Braverman included) would instead fulfil this arduous role, stripping away any right to collective actions against another state, that might be (say) in breach of human rights or international criminal law, determining on your behalf, to react economically, and/or politically, at the behest of (also say) the leaders of the 'free' world, the US of A. However, regardless of its internationally acquired status as an apartheid state, exempting, thus elevating to an altogether higher plain, actions by the State of Israel inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.

Should the Anti-Boycotts Bill ever come to fruition, if not under surely one of UK's most hateful governments, then under minimal-change New-Management-New-Labour, the UK will have adopted its very own hierarchy of racism, as dictated by a government that is not necessarily our own! Perhaps, Dianne Abbott was on to something, after all. Consider that!

So, how does society move forward upon any issue if there is no debate and no discussion?

The Dishonourable Toolmaker's Son.

In the unlikely event that you missed the memo, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's father was a toolmaker. Likely far too momentous to have also featured upon this first, weighty memo, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was once the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service. Two memos!

It has been demonstrated that the UK's Main Stream Media is, at best, inconsistent. The BBC's recent debacle with Gary Lineker would be a case in point. Further, if one steps back and surveys the range of other 'main stream' outlets, then one may also be given to surmise that the scope of political allegiances at the top of the various establishments is not very wide-ranging. One is still at liberty to access information regarding either ownership and/or editorial make-up of the 'different' organisations. Having done so, in the light of resultant, irrefutable evidence and by association, it would appear that the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer has demonstrated himself to be generally compliant to the 'slant' being aired. Yet, even so, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer has, thus far, shown little to impress. 'Underwhelming' is a term that springs to mind. And, 'underwhelming' with favourable winds, soft lighting and a considerable deal of editorial leeway. To those who 'support' him, stand in line behind him, relay his whipped messaging, and supportively don the rose-tints the evidence must, by now, have begun to gall. The YouGov site has done some work here.

Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's stance of hanging limply in the breeze has yet to reap those jealously sought gains. In stark behavioural contrast, adopting his Stalinist role as head of the Labour Party, we find that thin ice and threat also has yet to yield the desired 'popularity,' even the sort of superficial popularity that may be routinely and religiously caked on prior to each and every public outing. 'Collar up or collar down?' has, thus far, reaped minimal returns. Within the shelled Party base he currently commands a 37% positivity rating. Amongst the wider public the positives are further thinned out, leaving him with a 20% positivity rating. As many as one in five, that high??

Right Honourable Member, Nadhim Zahawi's YouGov predictably ushers incurious minds clear of mounting evidence to the contrary, instead the linked page tentatively hints at the Labour Party's former (weaponised) issue with antisemites. The rosettes may clap obediently and loudly bang their wooden spoons against pots yet, even so, approaching half (41%) of the Party faithful remains unconvinced.

One could be forgiven for never having heard tell of Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's commissioned Forde Report. Of note here, the report was actually commissioned by the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer. Even if one had stumbled upon mention of the Forde Report one would have had to venture beyond the boundaries of MSM to have unearthed any of the report's findings. QC Martin Forde's words and conclusions have, thus far, fallen upon stony ground. In light of the veritable circus that was made of 'The Labour Party's pseudo-saturation of antisemitism' this fact should be of considerable concern to anyone with honourable expectations from the nation's news coverage. Again, 'inconsistent.' Or, consistent in an altogether more worrisome manner?

The fact that Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was named, by Labour Party supporting parents, after Keir Hardie, may or may not have crept into the public collective consciousness. A former member of Labour Young Socialists in East Surrey, one could ponder whether current leader, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, might yet have excluded younger self, plain Keir Rodney Starmer. The inconvenient historical snippet likely flutters back and forth, depending upon who might be the current targeted audience. The Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer has formerly written for magazines, 'Socialist Alternatives' and 'Socialist Lawyer.' As recently as during the Labour leadership contest he stood 'alongside' picketing University College Union staff, pledging 'heartfelt support' (at least whilst the TV cameras were there, collar down on that occasion). In 2021 Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was condemned by and dismissed from the Haldane Society of Lawyers for a raft of justifiable reasons:
* Starmer’s ‘appalling policy positions’
* his manoeuvres to force Labour MPs to support a bill to allow ‘intelligence sources’ – including civilians – to commit crimes
* his disregard for migrants’ rights
* his assault on free speech
* his behaviour over schools during the pandemic
* his lack of support for unions
* his inaction on anti-Black and anti-Muslim racism
* his inaction over abuse of transgender people
For reasons upon which we could speculate the BBC appears to have steered clear.

Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, currently presides as Leader of the Opposition, which, in statistical terms, shows him as
a) elected but not at the fore of governmental power
b) currently at the head of the second largest group of elected MPs
Both of which are factually accurate, at present, and may be stated as simple matter of fact. Also factually accurate is the title, 'Leader of the Labour Party,' although the latter 'appellation' frequently presents as more problematic, because 'Leader of the Labour Party' carries with it an element above simple numerical weight, an air of authority, the suggestion that the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer might be the current embodiment, the essence, of the 'Labour Movement,' at least that part that currently resides within the House of Commons.' Yet, if we conjure up any image- imagined or otherwise- of the wider Labour Movement it is surely impossible not to conjure up also supporters, perhaps crowds, the embodiment of hope amongst the 'ordinary' working class. And, herein lies a hurdle.

The former, much-distanced, leader of the Labour Party enthused the requisite crowds and sparked hope from the wider labour movement, whereas Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer struggles in this domain. 'Collar up collar down?' Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, instead, still requires significant 'wardrobe' assistance in the field. At conference, where expulsions, exclusions, camera angles, security and, of course, the BBC's well documented art of judicial editing are ready PR tools, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's tentative outings into the wider public remain strained. Cardboard cut-out, perhaps. Archived footage and images of larger gatherings- other crowds, other speakers- may require Photoshopping, cropping, close-ups to exclude the yawning empty spaces just out of shot. There is always the chance that the sharp-eyed observer will spot the omission, the crop, the misrepresentation, * the (big) lie!

Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair KG was once, allegedly, a Trotskyist, brought about after reading the first volume of Isaac Deutscher's biography of Leon Trotsky. Whilst cramponing his trajectory to Leader of the Labour Party he, allegedly, made it clear to then Labour leader Michael Foot that he had "come to Socialism through Marxism" and considered himself on the left. Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair KG, allegedly, believed that the "Labour right" was bankrupt. "Socialism ultimately must appeal to the better minds of the people," Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair KG, allegedly, proclaimed. Friend and colleague, David Blunkett, Baron Blunkett, was once described by various individuals as a highly vociferous member of the "Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire," allegedly showing support for the 1984-85 (NUM) striking miners and declaring Sheffield City Council a "nuclear-free zone." David Blunkett, Baron Blunkett, allegedly and in the 1980s, was a prominent member of the labelled "loony left," steadfastly refusing to cooperate with the then government program of rate-capping (solely) certain Labour-run councils.

The above alleged facts are all readily available, easily accessible. Imagine the rich seam pertaining to the wider membership that might yet await the more determined miner. Weaponising the information, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer might then seek to have members expelled or temporarily excluded, timed to coincide with any due and ongoing selection processes, omitted from (say) council, mayoral, NEC or other internal Labour Party selection processes, de-selected from prospective parliamentary elections, or he might not. The processes would either draw the full attention of the MSM, painting the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer as the 'worst sort of Stalinist,' or it would not, in which case the theatre might proceed, the audience either blissfully or wilfully 'unaware' regarding the immense (and thoroughly dishonourable) backstage efforts afoot. Imagine!

Deploying the shadowy figure of one David Evans, current General Secretary of the Labour Party, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer has opted for the former. For reasons best known to those who own the newspapers, who rig the TV and radio stations, the UK's MSM has opted to ride the slipstream, to remain shtum. Moral bankruptcy aside, the British Empire was not founded upon ignorance- not their's anyway- nor was it founded upon democracy. Students of British history will, no doubt, recognise the pattern as very much a continuum. Even so, Operation Legacy is going to require some serious modification if it is to progress in quite such an efficient and ruthless manner.

Dutiful members of the Labour Party may, indeed should, have felt obligated to familiarise themselves with the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's recentish adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The document is short and to the point, as should be any, essentially, anti-racist definition. Due and resultant obligation of members should have been twofold:
1) to ensure that no transgressions ensue,
and, not immediately evident,
2) to ensure that the authority choosing to adopt said definition cannot seek to exploit any specific wording or phraseology to the detriment of the diligent member.
Within the main body of the Labour Party, part one should have been simple, straight forward, a given. Amongst the vast majority of Labour members- ideally the whole- it should not be unreasonable to expect, and to embrace, full and whole-hearted agreement. But then, merely to have had to also consider the second part might suggest potential transgressions, perhaps unforeseen concerns.

With hindsight, observing the events which seamlessly followed, hot on the heels of the adoption, would surely lead any seriously impartial journalist to conclude that transgressions, which did not so much 'trickle down' as 'cascade;' were not so much 'unforeseen' as 'calculated for. ' Did not Angela Raynor, in her fit of peak, hint at the major artillery that had always lain in wait? 'Unforeseen concerns' tended to revolve around the words:
"the following examples may serve as illustrations."
more specifically, the vast accumulation of 'evidence' that swiftly built up in relation and/or pertaining to example number 7:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour."
Also, the subtle nuances being brushed upon around mention of 'the actions' or 'the state' of "Israel." Nuances are only really 'nuances' so long as they remain nuanced when viewed from both sides... it turns out the Westminster lobby pass journalist is not 'passed' to cover certain nuances, maybe also 'no longer adequately equipped' to do so?

By the end of 2021 the BBC 'calculated' the loss of former members to have been in the region of 90,000. As of August 2022, the Independent reckoned the figure to have risen to just shy of 100,000. Middle East Eye broke from the pack in seeking to delve more into who, multiples thereof, it was that was actually being expelled. The nation wanted to know, 'how could the Labour Party have harboured so very many antisemites?' The MSM (lobby pass) attack-dogs orchestrated a pile on!

Meanwhile, many of the smaller and independent sites, with their more honourable, democratic goals and absence of lobby passes, busily set about unearthing and reporting upon precisely which types of offence were being committed, instances proving very much more difficult to trace than was otherwise being 'reported.' Instances were proving elusive, vague, mostly absent. More noise was being called for. Cavalry at the BBC and the Guardian sounded the reveille!

Comprising ostensibly loyal Jewish members of the Labour Party, Jewish Voice for Labour set about delving a little deeper. Minimal effort soon reaped rewards. JVL discovered that the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, was, in fact, questionably using the shield of 'antisemitism' with which to attack, calculatedly suspend, and/or expel, disproportionately, Jewish members. An extensive Labour Report on the issue of antisemitism within the Party unearthed the unreported detail of '0.24% of the membership having been investigated.' Whilst a fraction of these may indeed have transgressed, the figure recorded merely 'investigations.' So, somewhere fewer than 0.24% of members. A wider survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research reported 5% amongst the general public being guilty of harbouring some antisemitic thoughts, so over twenty times greater. Figures that did not support the purge were, quite naturally suppressed. Lobby pass MSM completely circumnavigated the issue, hence the leak.

Historically, the major party of antisemitsim has consistently been the Conservative one but, as Coulson's image might contest, "we don't do history!" Well, "only selectively.". The Campaign Against Antisemitism has fairly consistently found the Conservative Party to harbour the greater number of antisemitic attitudes.

Those denied Westminster lobby passes discovered that Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's Party was in fact 'purging' five times as many Jewish (former) members as non-Jewish ones. When Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer elected to further widen the 'antisemitism net and to proscribe four groups 'currently then' residing within the Labour Party- 'Socialist Appeal,' Labour in Exile,' Labour Against the Witchhunt' and 'Resist'- the mirror finally cracked, any lingering doubt was surely and finally dispelled. The lobby group did not concur; the mirror was duly replaced, with a different yet indistinguishable mirror.

When Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, via sidekick David Evans, elected to retrospectively proscribe those same four Labour Party groups- thus expelling yet further members for, essentially, an absence of clairvoyancy- expectations of the lobby group reaction were suitably low. The Westminster lobby group did not disappoint. Or rather, they continued to do so!

The Labour Party, even Angela Raynor, are somewhat cagey upon the subject but it has been estimated that as many as 200,000 former members have now left the Party, one in three, the vast, vast majority of them without having been expelled. Concerned about potential bankruptcy, Ann Black of Labour's National Executive was anxious to discover more. The top five reasons, she discovered, were:
👉 Bullying of members and attacks on party democracy
👉 The party’s treatment of Corbyn and the Left
👉 Starmer’s support for apartheid Israel and the right-wing Jewish group, the Board of Deputies
👉 ‘Labour no longer represents us’
👉 Starmer is a liar / can’t be trusted
Entirely predictably, incidents of antisemitism in the UK are on the rise, recorded to be up 34% between 2020 and 2021. Israel's ongoing pogrom against Palestinians and the state's war crimes and persecution of Palestinian people in the illegally occupied colonies has, no doubt, contributed to the 34% rise. When Labour MP Kim Johnson spoke truth to the Commons Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer immediately disciplined the member and, within hours, she was carefully retracting the facts. But, as Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer understands in his capacity as former Director of Public Prosecution, facts cannot be made to work like that. In the latest annual 'trust in the media' survey of 24 countries the UK ranked second to bottom, its lowest standing since the survey's origins.

As Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, personally or via suitable acolyte vessel, loves to remind his fast shrinking audience, he is, "not Jeremy Corbyn," and that he "intends to root out antisemitism!" The smaller venues, the nodding BBC presenter of choice, may serve to drive home the message... or, perhaps, not... The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer is very precise, with his 'former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service' words, never will he fumble the term and let slip, "anti-racist." Historically, of course, he has even been caught taking the knee- collar most definitely down!- during "a moment." Or, was it a misplaced 'moment of royal deference' stock photo? We all have them, Sir Keir, those, what, 'embarrassing moments?' But, just to be clear, 'antisemitism!' Not, 'anti-racism?'

Neither has the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, been quite so very comfortable, collar up or down, wearing his 'anti-sex-pest' suit. Recent investigations have suggested that there may be as many as 56 'serving' MPs facing allegations of sexual misconduct, 56 known about MPs. More targeted investigations have uncovered that at least two currently reside within the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, front bench. MP Neil Coyle, likely, more keenly appreciates Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's dilemma. Thank heavens that the union jack is inanimate. Lighting, collar down, Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, "is not Jeremy Corbyn!"

Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was appointed Queen's Council, at the age of 39, in 2002. In 2008 the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was made Director of Public Prosecutions. During PMQs, in 2022, alleged, already notorious fabricator, Right Honourable Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson PM, in an effort to distract from any number of personal, national or international misadventures, accused Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer of 'stopping Jimmy Savile from being charged.' The confected smokescreen duly arose and, as is the nature of smoke, billowed and rolled, intertwined, morphed and remorphed, such that it was very soon made impossible to fully distinguish genuine and resultant outrage from the original smoke! All the same, the questionable fact refuses to go back into its box. Citizens of certain age will recall the voice of Jimmy Savile upon the BBC (Yakety Yak!), increasingly, his features upon the BBC (Top of the Pops), increasingly his lecherous behaviour, his self-aggrandisement (Jim'll Fix It), increasingly his inadequate shorts, his skimpy string vest. It would be fair to comment that Jimmy Savile started creeping-out certain viewers and listeners several decades prior to his long-overdue and posthumous unmasking!

Thank heavens that the law courts do not operate upon the say-so of creeped-out school children. None-the-less, when Alison Levitt QC drew her conclusions from the consequent investigation into whether the CPS had been right not to charge Jimmy Savile she expressed reservations. She went on to say that, “On the face of it, the allegations made were both serious and credible; the prosecutor should have recognised this and sought to “build a prosecution.” Three of the victims told her that if they had received more information from the police at the time of the investigation- and particularly if each had been told she was not the only woman who had complained- they would “probably have been prepared to give evidence.” QC Alison Levitt said that, in the case of two of the allegations, there would have been a “realistic prospect of conviction” if the women had given evidence. When 'Full Fact' reached out to both the Labour Party and the CPS, in order to delve that little bit deeper, a spokesperson stated that, “in line with the established data retention policy”, none of the records for the decision not to charge Savile in 2009 were kept. Starmer duly apologised and spoke of a "watershed moment," and, with much public support from many highly reputable sources and individuals, he was not judged, nor was he sanctioned retrospectively.

Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when the Crown Prosecution Service (again) decided not to pursue the police killing of Jean Charles da Sila de Menezes on 22nd July 2005. On 4th May 2006 the Crown Prosecution Service announced that no charges would be filed. The misnomer 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission had allegedly initiated two, no two, investigations. Good enough for the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer. In 2010 Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the unlawful killing of Ian Tomlinson, a decision which led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up. In a publicly driven effort to reverse the decision, Harwood was subsequently prosecuted for manslaughter. Harwood was acquitted but dismissed from the force.

When it came to light that the police had, for nearly four decades, been infiltrating small leftwing groups, some officers fathering and then abandoning their own children, instead of helping to uncover the national deceit, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, then Director of Public Prosecutions, again opted to defer. In 2021, Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, whipped Labour MPs to support the updated SpyCops Bill. Thirty-four Labour MPs defied the Chief Whip.

Julian Assange has been, effectively, left to die in Belmarsh Prison, maybe worse still to come! Assange brought about degrees of actual journalism that Westminster lobby-pass 'journalists,' likely, do not even bother to dream of. Amongst the many scoops he achieved through Wikileaks- for which the world owes him a great debt- Assange highlighted to the public the US Apache helicopter, Crazy Horse 1-8, gunning down 11 unarmed civilians, on 12th July 2007. The Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, then Director of Public Prosecutions, reacted to Assange's avante guarde journalism by ensuring that inhumanely imprisoned Assange be fast-tracked through to extradition and likely further torture in the US. When the Swedish team showed hesitancy he replied, "Don't you dare get cold feet." Hats off to Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions! Ken Loach, also expelled from the Labour Party, has sought to shed light upon Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's role in the political imprisonment of Julian Assange. There are many conspiracy theories floating about, most of them patently absurd, but even the worst of them does seem to serve its purpose. At the time the Guardian Newspaper prided itself as being at the fore in breaking this human rights story...
... the Westminster lobby-pass 'journalists, really, might as well not be there.

Since days of knighthood and honorary righteous battles of yore Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer has broadened his horizons, the casualties of war littering the fields, Prime Ministerial office glittering alluringly in the distance. He has left behind the £160,000 bill of chauffeur-driven rides for walking distance (4 mile) journeys to the Crown Prosecution Service. Left behind those days of First Class inter-continental flights. Left with us the £20,000 worth of four first class flights to good ol' DC! Taken merely £1,000,000 as 'Head of the Crown Prosecution Service,' £336,000 in pension benefits. Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions, seriously depleted army, has moved on. Far less over-remunerated- over-remunerated, none-the-less- successor Alison Saunders managed the same feat at around a 70% reduction in costs to the general public.

Isn't it often said that money attracts money? To put a bit of modern day spin upon the term, one might opine that 'money of a specific sort attracts further money of similar sorts.' So, operating within such a value system, it must come as little surprise to learn that Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, is able to (almost) bankrupt the Party he professes to lead, whilst raking in quite so very much on a more personal level. Already he writes for Murdoch's Sun newspaper, effectively lowering any remaining bar yet further. Almost, it comes as no surprise to learn that Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, has shown himself easily capable of crawling under that same, aforementioned, remnant bar, by accepting donations from Mulalley and Co Limited, the cladding company recently ordered to pay £10.8 millions for their role in the Grenfell Tower travesty.

Former Director of Public Prosecutions, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's Labour Party's recentish attack (ad) on PM Sunak has rounded upon an individual (and his wife) who really deserve very little leeway- whatever it is, the pair likely already owns many more than they require. The UK's sagging democracy, however, deserves a great deal better! Not content with dragging the Labour Party (unreported) through the thickest and oiliest mud, a falsely emboldened Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer has now set about trashing that tiny remnant of decency that remains hanging. Whatever else 'the Sunaks' may legitimately be targeted for, 'favouring the mass liberty of child molesters' should not be numbered amongst them. More to the point, the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer does often like to remind, he was, not so very long ago, Director of Public Prosecutions. Check the dates!

When Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer stood in the Labour Leadership Election, in 2020, the Former Director of Public Prosecutions enthused- although, even then, not really 'enthused'- the considerable membership with promises of unity, solidarity and ten (heartfelt) continuity pledges, some dared (fingers crossed) to hope a somewhat deflated hope. Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, Former Director of Public Prosecutions, spoke of a devolved membership where local members would be free to put forward their own candidates for election. Gaze shifting around the room, Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer was (TV debate) filmed raising his hand at the requisite moments. In 2022 Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer confirmed that he was no longer making the ten socialism-based pledges with which he had swayed the Party.

Boldly circumventing due reflection, Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, armed with former Director of Public Prosecutions mask, ushered John Ware's controversial Panorama 'documentary,' 'Is Labour Antisemitic,' over some meaty bumps in the road. Instead of seeking to explore the veracity of claims to the contrary, Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer elected to pay (Labour funds) substantial damages to seven (former) members who (interviewed) claimed that Labour had defamed them, in stating that they were "disaffected former staff" and that they had "axes to grind." Labour's legal team at the time argued that (Corbyn's) Labour "had a strong defence" and that the case was probably winnable. By the time that the (still suppressed) Forde Report flopped on to the coroner's slab the money was long gone! Martin Forde QC has since spoken of a broadcast John Ware Interview with solemn-faced ('defamed') Benjamin Westerman, referencing the cited moment when Westerman described the 'antisemitism' he faced at the hands of Rica Bird and/or Helen Marks. 'And/or' here denotes the fact that the "Are you from Israel?" moment cannot be specifically attributed; in fact transpires that it cannot be attributed at all, transpires that the words- as used by John Ware to illustrate rampant antisemitism- were not spoken at all. Reporting long after the fact, the Guardian (28th Feb. 2023) wrote that the whole affair was, with the permission of Westerman, recorded, that the tape and transcript "are both publicly available and clearly show that it is not true." Helen Marks and Rica Bird are both Jewish, both are former members of the Labour Party, numbering amongst the 200,000. The Guardian Newspaper, doing what the Guardian does best? Think back though, where was the Guardian during that 'MSM (lobby pass) attack-dogs orchestrated pile on!'?

Alongside Martin Forde's buried report upon antisemitism within, formerly Jeremy Corbyn's, now Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's Labour Party, another uniformly ignored report has been the 'Labour Files.' Al Jazeera conducted its own investigation into the roundly denied angle of 'antisemitism having been weaponised by right-wing factions operating within the Labour Party.' Martin Forde referenced the four-part series in his own research. In terms of actually digging down into the various shenanigans that were then afoot within the Party machinery Al Jazeera's journalism rather shames that which was 'half-conducted' by the BBC's Panorama (Is Labour Antisemitic?), which instead stumbled at the first hurdle. 'Labour Files,' third episode of four, 'The Hierarchy,' has recently won the Gold Award for documentaries at the New York Festivals Film and Television Awards. It is fortunate that other, and non-UK, Main Stream Media outlets are not so restricted as are ours. Yet, how we scorn censorship when it is conducted by (certain) other lesser-nations. A brief search for a BBC link to the award returned nothing.

Charting a careful pathway through casualties and wreckage, promises and pledges shattered, one could be forgiven hesitancy but, taking Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, former Director of Public Prosecutions, at his (current) word, the Labour Leader is (at time of posting) adamant that the slowly unfolding carcrash that is Brexit is to be 'respected.' Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer wishes to 'move on' and presumably reactively deal with consequences, injuries, mishaps as and when they occur- mop up the blood as it flows, rather than staunch flow and treat the wound. "Honourable!" a suitable spokesperson might contest. They might well!

In 2019 Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, 'boldly' advocated for a referendum on the Brexit withdrawal agreement, stating that, "campaigning for a public vote must be an option". During quieter moments of reflection, can we be certain whether he charts, ruefully or otherwise, the Party's short journey from mass gatherings of young enthused supporters on to operating under the twin shadows of Mr and Mrs mini-me Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves? During the 2016 leadership election Right Honourable Wesley Paul William Streeting nominated the Right Honourable Owen Smith- revolving door aficionado- formerly Pfizer, now tucked up all cosy with pharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb. Right Honourable Wesley Paul William Streeting, meanwhile- one eye to the same revolving doorway, perhaps- has accepted a £15,000 donation from John Armitage, massive Tory donor and gateway to UnitedHealth, itself lobbying for ever greater access to the NHS. Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer's, former Director of Communications, Ben Nunn, was himself Associate Director of Incisive Health, another driver for NHS privatisation- ergo Pharma Starmer!- now Senior Council at Lexington Communications- "defining influence on the policy and business landscape for over 20 years"- and writing in the Guardian newspaper. Full circle? We may have lost democracy but we've won... remind me, what exactly is it that we've (supposedly) won? And why is it that Rupert Murdoch looks so very satisfied with himself? Can formaldehyde do that?

"Welcome to Stronger Together – Labour’s roadmap to develop key policies ahead of the next General Election."
"We proved that we’re stronger together. Labour wants to harness that spirit to start building a fairer, greener future for everyone in Britain."
"Together, we can do it again."
Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer,
former Director of Public Prosecutions
Leader of the Labour Party


* The members 'outside' looked from the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer (collar down) to the Right Honourable Rishi Sunak PM, and from the Right Honourable Rishi Sunak PM to the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, and from the Right Honourable Sir Keir Rodney Starmer to the Right Honourable Rishi Sunak PM again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

* With thanks and with apologies to George Orwell R.I.P.
* Now screening- 'The Big Lie', narration by Alexei Sayle.

Schrödinger's Democracy.

Of course, said cat could not have been both alive and dead at one and the same moment, that wasn't Schrodinger's point. I would suggest, the theoretical cat would most likely be dead, or effectively dead, and therein lies the root of the premise. Schrodinger was using imagined cat to illustrate the then 'current' postulation upon the minefield that is quantum mechanics. So that we simpletons might pretend to grasp at the theory Schrodinger created the thought experiment whereby, until the box, within which the cat is slowly dying of radiation poisoning, is opened, it will be possible to imagine both an alive and a dead cat with equal, if scant, conviction. Until the moment of opening, unless there is any undue delay, we cannot be sure. Thus, in some sort of alternate reality, the dying cat is really both alive and dead at one and the same time.

Schrodinger, though, wasn't seeking to illustrate, or accommodate, any sort of alternate reality. And, it's round about here that things start to get tricky.

Without wishing to become sidetracked into something well beyond my powers of reasoning I might just reference a particularly interesting book that touches upon quantum entanglement, 'A World on the Wing,' by Scott Weidensaul, specifically the second chapter, 'Quantum Leap.' The entire book is wonderful- brilliant, exhilarating, sad, hopeful, brushing upon apocalyptic, thrilling and devoid of reason, all these things and so many more. But, if you're not interested in birds perhaps stick with just the second chapter.

Had Schrodinger been alive, living in the UK today, I wonder if he would have had the time to contemplate the current state of Little Britain; contemplate specifically the state's curious entanglement within a different sort of Schrodingeresque reality? I am, here, referring to a world within which certain 'choice' individuals may concurrently inhabit two diametrically opposing realities. As a teacher I witnessed just such a stance- on a far lesser scale- on numerous occasions, watching certain, less honest, individuals twisting themselves into variously impossible realities in their attempts to deny a reality that was, for all others, as clear as day.

Upon many of those occasions I often found myself fighting back the urge to laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation. Sometimes, given time to readjust, even the offending individuals would permit themselves an ironic smile. But, then there's the scale and the import of the mistruth, the subterfuge, the lie!

So, Brexit is finally done! It has been proclaimed. Even Sir Keir- former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, just in case you'd missed it- has been heard to utter the solemn words. "Labour will support it!" the honorary fellow pronounced, as if closing an obituary.

Rishi Sunak- UK PM at time of writing- was less austere. His "Windsor Framework" pronouncement was described in many and variable terms. To my mind, first impression was nothing so much as that of Windsorian schoolboy, gleefully failing to observe the gaping holes left all-to-clear to his gathered classmates, very much the Debating Society B-team. The BBC, nor Channel 4, appeared to have noticed; neither did they bother to revisit the speech. Again, it fell to the less publicised, non-lobby journalists, to point out that, in his haste to deliver, Sunak appeared to have quite forgotten that the nation's current Government Front Bench is made up entirely from ardent- some might say 'rabid'- Brexiteers. Unable to help himself, Sunak proffered up the virtues of remaining within the EU in such a gushing manner that the words almost tripped over one another

'Northern Ireland finds itself in the wonderfully unique position of having unfettered access to both the EU and UK markets,' the man beamed. He did not pause to reflect upon the fact that the rest of the UK had also recently had such access; the eyes did not betray the slightest remorse as to his stance in the Brexit 'debate,' nobody expected the charlatan to have done so. More is the pity that none of the UK's incestuous MSM deigned to enlighten the subjects. All those gathered journos, all those newspaper columnists, the mighty BBC? "A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing," the most simple search might attempt to 'reassure' us. "A Watchdog," no less! Tenacious! Or not... either way.

In the current scrabble for affirmation, credibility, limelight, platform, one might so easily have missed the preceding-bar-one PM also singing the praises of being inside the EU. Although, this man's words were on the part of Ukraine, where he is viewed more as a conduit to further arms procurement, continued proxy-conflict, definitely a greater number of bloody deaths, perhaps even international escalation. Here's hoping!

It may not be entirely the woeful standards to which the UK's MSM is held (down) that is to blame, but surely they are also culpable in enabling such Schrodingeresque 'reality' to perpetuate.

Battling also to thrust his own face and his woes into the spotlight, and upon the nation, care of another lobby-journo- I forget who- recently gave platform to the Head of the ERG, the European Research Group. A tearful Steve Baker was eager to lend his support to Schrodinger's Northern Ireland Protocol, grateful to have finally been able to 'turn the page.' The intervening years have cost the man dear, his, "mental health," "the beard!" Of course, one should never make light of the mental anguish of another, even if that someone happens to be a vociferous supporter of such fellow cabinet members as Priti Patel, the innumerate Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch. Were global powers capable of wresting all manner of dubious individuals 'free' from their captive acolytes, their acolytes free from under their ignoble reign, then imagine the sharing that might have issued forth! Who wouldn't have preferred an enlightening series of wellbeing chats with certain of history's less savoury characters, over the historically documented alternatives that actually played out?

Lest we should forget, the Right Honourable Steve Baker MP, has devoted much time to the wellbeing of countless others, with his tireless pursuit of verifiable facts; various guises, Head of the grandly named European Research Group (ERG), Trustee to the charitable Global Warming Policy Foundation, Founder (no less) of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, Deputy Chairman of the COVID Recovery Group. Wow! Perhaps then it was burnout that led to the poor soul incurring quite so much mental stress? No wonder he was suffering, all those hours working his little blue socks off, on behalf of his less fortunate minions.

And here culpability branches out, spreads its reach, as 'twere. Are we to, so unquestioningly, accept that all it requires is for a couple of lofty titles and some abused charitable status to deflect (or deflate) the journalistic capabilities of so many of the UK's MSM? Really? When all it takes is but a few moments to fill in the gaps and to identify the overview.

Steve's badge of righteousness, the ERG, the sole purpose of which transpires to have been to undermine all justification for the formulation of the European Union, specifically with regard to the UK's continued membership. Not so much 'research,' instead being diametrically opposed to genuine research, much 'muddying of waters' and cheer-leading so many after-the-fact lies- '£350 million' being the prime example. Perhaps the group names or titles are there to daunt, certainly not to enlighten. The COVID recovery group- would that it was- might, on the surface, appear to be searching out precisely the sorts of answers the country desperately requires. Peel back the own-brand stickotape film to reveal that any genuine 'recovery' is once again diametrically opposed to the group's purpose- 'ha ha, not us, not our recovery, in fact our recovery, perhaps ultimately our lives, might be forfeit to this group's purpose. Most harmful, indeed most likely to become the root of other people's mental anguish, might be Steve's charity work on behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Any genuinely hard work done in this sector is likely to have been focused upon unfocusing, perhaps thrusting fingers into ears and loudly humming the National Anthem (suggest the original) as the contra-evidence continues to pile up. None of those lobby journos ever seems to want to ask ailing Steve to balance the fossil fuel funding skid-mark against the scout-badge charitable status.

Fellow lobby journo and Dacre's Angel, Sarah Vine, is also looking to bathe in some of that mental anguish balm that she continues to fiercely wrench away from so many (not illegal) refugees. I wonder if the statistics are there- just for the free-thinking journalists, of course- to inform the UK reader just how many of the life-risking refugees are empty-handedly fleeing war or similar conflict. Point of information: how many of those fleeing conflict are trying to escape from warfare being compounded via UK exported arms sales, perhaps to Saudi Arabia or Israel? And still we await the moment when just one from the gathered lobby-crowd deigns to point out that none of the refugees are in fact 'illegal.' That it is not illegal to flee persecution. It really isn't that difficult! I did recently hear someone dare to suggest that the UK has effectively removed all safe routes of passage for refugees, wonder who dared to first whisper that? And, was a lobby card removed in consequence? What would Schrodinger have thought? As a cultured individual, it's unlikely he'd have consulted the Daily Mail.

So, for clarification, the 1951 Refugee Convention and subsequent 1967 Protocol, as signed by 190 countries, of which the UK was the founding signatory, should leave no-one in any doubt.
"The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
UNHCR serves as the ‘guardian’ of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. According to the legislation, States are expected to cooperate with us in ensuring that the rights of refugees are respected and protected."
And upon the overuse of the term, "illegal refugees."
"Grounded in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of human rights 1948, which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, is the centrepiece of international refugee protection today.(1) The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention."
Honestly, it doesn't take long; it's all internationally agreed.
"A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion."
Instead of pretending such anger, before forcibly bussing persecuted refugees into areas where MPs have calculated that their presence will whip up hatred and further stoke locals of racist bent, Braverman (Patel before her) should devote some of that angry energy to reading the text. If Braverman really is looking at breaking with international law then I would suggest that this separation from European neighbours is indicative of a move towards fascism.
"The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules."
Simple! Even a member of Britain First should be able to grasp the thrust of the article. Remember, They're not boats, they're people!

To 'embrace' the term "illegal refugees," whilst seeking to break with international law? Another Schrodinger moment for us to savour? The late great Tony Benn spoke much truth to power; in amongst so many wisdoms he also said that 'we should carefully watch the way our politicians deal with refugees, because that's the way in which they might one day deal with us.'

Britain's sorry rank of lobby journos does little to wrest us free from our trance-like state. That isn't to claim that there are not proper journalists beavering away out there. But, even where the calibre of the journalist might be internationally renowned, forcing an idea through the editorial sieve of the paper-of-choice- imagine that of the Daily Mail!- cannot be easy. Just the other day George Monbiot braced into the wind in choosing to highlight- more twilight- the perilous state of Sir Keith Starmer's- former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service- New-new Labour Party, digging where the likes of the BBC, Channel 4 and, formerly, the Guardian have feared to go.

Leaving so much pith in the sieve, George Monbiot merely touches upon issues that time, by design, (as with Grenfell, Windrush, Hillsborough, Orgreave et al) has somewhat dulled. Although, in pursuit of proper democratic accountability, the fuller implications remain immense! The article does its best to fight a corner, through several vital links (Forde Report, a BBC 'clarification') and a couple of incomplete and vaguer anecdotal jumping off points. Yet again it is left to the un-editorially bound journalists, as at Novara Media- sadly less widely viewed- to properly do what we are told journalists are supposed, and claim, to do.

George Monbiot provides one such jumping off point with, "It interviewed a former Labour official who, it claimed, was confronted in a disciplinary hearing “by the very antisemitism he’d been investigating.”" Monbiot was referencing the BBC Panorama programme, 'Is Labour Antisemitic?' a piece that did more than most to undermine the UK's democratic right to free elections. The highly litigious journo who uttered the words certainly appears to have cut quite a meaty chunk off one corner here. It appears that said Labour official, Ben Westerman, encountered no such antisemitism, appears to that the words, "Are you from Israel?" were never uttered, appears to that the taped interview, care of journalists at The Canary, corroborates the rebuttal of the elderly Jewish lady in the process of being expelled by Westerman. "... the very antisemitism he’d been investigating," or perhaps not, but never mind. He was and, at the same time, he wasn't? Schrodingeresque? The tape does not appear to support both realities.

The sabotaging of Nord Stream 2 is another case in point, the real world and the other one, where the UK's MSM elects to live. It just doesn't appear to suit the chosen narrative; 'Putin's illegal war!' perhaps holds rather less weight if it transpires that the globe's greatest transgressor, dear ol' US, regarding any (other) state's right to self determinism, is also (and yet again) indulging in internationally illegal activities. I guess constant reference to the concept of democracy, whilst endlessly being involved in regime change at all manner of locations around the globe, is its own corruption of more Schrodingerism. We might regard the incomplete Wiki-page of US regime changes as a shameful list but there are others who would likely beam with pride, perhaps specifically at their own part in whichever coup.

Both the US and Little Britain guard their 'democratic' 'rights' to defend whatever it is they've hatched, perhaps colonised, although not so much the rights of others (cite Palestine) so to do. And they will 'protect' these 'rights' with the full force of whichever respective laws, respective Police Forces, manned and womanned not entirely by "bad apples." I'm going to stick the ol' neck out and suggest that, for any member of the public who has had cause to question the UK's Police Force, the Guardian headline, 'Met Police Misogyny: the rot runs even deeper than thought,' barely touches the surface. I might be so bold as to claim that the UK's Police Forces are fast deteriorating into little more than state mercenaries for Government and private hire, but what do I know?

Or, we can sit back and join our former-bar-one-inconsequential PM in celebrating the 'overdue' decoration of one Stanley Patrick Johnson, no relative, with a thoroughly deserved knighthood. Must be alright and above board because even our journos are embracing it- Rachel Johnson, no relative, is already on her feet and applauding. Why, it's almost as if Stanley's a nurse during lockdown. No noses were (allegedly) broken, no bottoms (allegedly) slapped, no inner thighs (allegedly) groped, in the making of this Knight of the Realm. There are two possible realities, which will we choose to inhabit?

First They Came For The Socialists...

When Martin Niemoller first penned these words his message to whoever might have cared to consider them was short and to the point! Just four short lines. By the time that he had committed the thoughts to paper he had already made the painful transition from Hitler supporting anti-communist to concentration camp survivor. A slightly longer version of the poem/verse followed in which the also targeted communists gained a mention.

Entirely dependant upon to which historical period one wishes to relate the verse significant further peoples or groups could reasonably be added to the list. Yet to do so would rather detract from the focus, certainly it would broaden our perceptions of any alluded to persecutors, many of whom are likely to be white (colonial) males. Not exclusively so, of course, but significantly so.

The theme, or the gist, is quite clear; it conjures up thoughts of a society populated with indifference. Or pretended indifference born of fear. To brush in specifics would undermine the impact. The pretext under which socialists or the communists are rounded up is either left to the imagination or else invites further historical study. The fact that, in either version, the penultimate half line cites the gathering up of the Jews rather contextualises the whole. But then there's the lonely 'me' at the end.

Because the work is a short poem we are left to analyse it on our own terms... partially on our own terms. Maybe the culminating 'me' represents a last hidden Jew? Or, is Martin Niemoller here looking to broaden the field? Either way the message is a powerful one!

Martin Niemoller died in 1984. If he was here today he might be able to tell us, as I have always preferred to believe, that the 'me' is an abstract, that we can very easily substitute in the persecuted peoples of our choosing. As such the words are also open to lazy misrepresentation, even abuse! The term, 'cancel culture' springs to mind, barked with indignant pomposity care of LBC or GB News.

I like to think that Martin would not object to his powerful words being used in reference to, and in defence of, any of many native North American tribes. Surely it's an irony of the highest order that so many of the US military helicopters have been named after the persecuted peoples they have displaced. Or the Australian Aborigines? Or New Zealand's Maoris? Where to start with Central and Southern America, or Africa? Or the Palestinians? All, or almost all, of these people- surviving, hanging on, or since exterminated- seem to be connected by the blighted issue of colonialism. So, pick a cause!

Why not travel full circle and back to our opening thought?
'First they came for the socialists...'
That the BBC or the Guardian have elected not to pick up on this issue should serve as due warning, albeit a worryingly silent one. If we know where to search and to read between the lines we may find that the establishment ('they') have indeed come for the socialists, are currently still in the process of coming for the socialists.

Harking back, as I am wont to do, to the Labour Party's alleged anti-Semitism tsunami we should be encouraged to turn as many stones as is required of us. The alternative is that we permit somebody else entirely to colour the narrative according to their own particular pallet and whims. What substitutes for the news media in the UK would have it that the stones are best now left well alone, that it would be anti-Semitic to do otherwise. Too much hurt has already been caused, they feign!

Yet, if we were attending a high school social sciences or modern politics class, it would be highly remiss of the teacher not to encourage her more keyed-in students to shine a spotlight brightly upon the issue. Kick a few of the topmost stones about a bit and we will very soon, and surprisingly easily, be persuaded that Jeremy Corbyn was afforded more than ample cause to argue that the issue (anti-Semitism) had been 'weaponised to political ends' (my approximation of his words). If we search through footage of Starmer's post 2019 election speeches and interviews it is also easy to find and listen to Starmer stating much the same sort of thing. Delve and we can find images of him, pre LOTO days, in attendance at precisely the types of meetings that would see other party members being retrospectively judged and then expelled from the party he now pretends to head!

Corbyn's words remain consistent and honest. Whereas, pre-EHRC report, Starmer's words writhe, slippery as snake oil. We may find one Starmer post election, metamorphosed into an eviscerated-changeling post EHRC report. Even if we endeavour to read the document in its entirety we will find nothing with which to endorse or to support Starmer's weasel words. Starmer and dangerous sidekick, David Evans, repeat (ad nauseam), that they are 'coming for the anti-Semites,' the truth is that they're 'coming for the socialists!' If we care to look more closely at the internal machinations of Starmer's 'New' New Labour, specifically the mounting expulsions, we might be given to note that many of the targeted individuals are quite specifically Jewish (former) members, or they will number amongst the aforementioned 'socialists,' likely they will be both of these things... a tiny minority of them will be of the 'anti-Semitic' ilk frequently being referenced by Starmer and his cabal. I am going to venture further here and to attempt to contextualise many of those cited cases of anti-Semitism, something that would have been denied me from inside the party.

To contest that the Labour Party membership is/was without fault would be naive, yet the truth is necessarily more complex than this. I could state that the members I know, and have known, are not anti-Semitic, yet there is now considerable ongoing evidence to suggest that, for other members and former members, this is no longer such a clear cut issue. Under Starmer Jewish members, specifically those tending more towards socialism, are now being disproportionately targeted in what could easily be argued as an anti-Semitic manner. Further, I am going to venture to suggest that the manner in which disingenuous sources such as the Jewish Chronicle, AIPAC, Labour Friends of Israel and the BOD have shaped the current Labour drive has undoubtedly fuelled anti-Israeli thought. For those who even bothered to peer behind the screens it must have been profoundly evident why Corbyn, as Labour leader, was so reluctant for his party to adopt the ticking time-bomb that was the full IHRA definition on anti-Semitism. Elsewhere, it is highly doubtful whether useful idiots like Schofield were even required to gen up on the wording, in order to be able to bark on cue. I think it may still prove a useful exercise to consider one's own position before re-familiarising oneself with the precise wording of all eleven examples. Careful now, how you approach that latest or next condemnation of further Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip, in the face of hot air onslaught from Mail-reading 'Jonathan' at your next dinner invite. Remember, it's by design that Jonathan doesn't seem capable of differentiating between 'Israeli' or 'Jewish' thought and action.

To speak out (and invite expulsion) or to hold one's tongue?
'and I did not speak out...'

Starmer's Labour currently operates with the same sort of 'free pass' that was afforded the BBC et al and the Guardian in 2019- many other MSM outlets (several of which have been consistently and repeatedly far more culpable) needed no such 'invite.' By the time that we are again free to properly discuss what actually happened to our democracy at that time it will likely be far too late! Merely an academic exercise! Think Windrush, think Hillsborough, think Orgreave and consider adding Grenfell and the 'awarding of Covid contracts' to the same never-never list. Oh, I know that there's significant dissent amongst the electorate but there's also one hell of a lot of indifference, much as is implicit with Niemoller's short verse.

"Oh yeah? What about that visit to Hammam Chott?" Jonathan might have retorted. He didn't, and for two very sound reasons- one being that Jonathan is fictional and an example, two being that the retort is far more likely to have been delivered along the lines of, "Well, what about that photo of Corbyn with that terrorist... in Tunisia, was it?" Imagine here theatrical nods of support from any fellow useful idiots around the table, as Jonathan sets to reward himself with a well-earned swig of red. At which point eyes set to glaze over as formerly have so many brains.

I doubt there's many a Western politician, with any degree of longevity or international drive, who has managed to fully avoid meeting or sharing a stage with any character with whom they happen to profoundly disagree... or with a 'discredited' character with whom they happen to wholeheartedly concur. Try drawing up a list of characters with whom Netanyahu has shared a stage! Or Blair. Or Regan. Or either Bush, Senior or Junior. Or Trump! Or Thatcher! Each, after their own particular fashion, party to more than their own fair share of selective terrorism. Or Nelson Mandela. But such pursuits are anyway a distraction. Check the date! Make the effort to find out why Corbyn was even there. But, I'll save you the time.

He was there to lay a wreath in commemoration of sixty victims of yet another internationally illegal bombing on the part of the IDF (the 'Defence' part has to be ironic, right?), when mighty Israel elected to bomb Hammam Chott in Tunisia. So, any Corbyn connection to terrorism would have been in opposition to terrorism. At the time of this act of terrorism, just one of countless Israeli bombings of a peacetime sovereign nation, even the United States- the jets were anyway their's- was driven to spinelessly abstain, as opposed to veto, the United Nation's condemnation of this war crime! Now, ask yourself, how is it that the entirety of the BBC and the people's Guardian managed to miss all of that? Took me half an hour, just to check the dates and the numbers. Operation Wooden Leg! October 1985, fewer than two years after the death of Niemoller.

If one had ever been given to the misconception that the UK is a thriving democracy then Corbyn's tenure of the Labour Party has surely revealed an alternate reality! Undoubtedly books will be written, to lay bare the lie, books to line the dusty parliamentary and politics shelves of our more well-appointed libraries, those still in operation. Perhaps, in twenty years, the topic will be permitted out into the light, the BBC, a privatised Channel 4, will permit the subject fair game for a late night airing? Perhaps there will be a replacement gatekeeper Giles-Brandreth-type-clone standing by to ensure just the right degree of tilt?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me- and there was no one left to speak for me.


Step into the spotlight Prime Minister Boris Johnson!

Slipping Through The Cracks.

Many other people have thought to observe, perhaps to comment upon, that humanly invoked phenomenon of 'things' that either manage, against our better judgements, or, far worse, are being permitted to 'slip through the cracks.' We consider this phenomenon to be a peculiarly human one because it invites reflection, whereas, outside of the human experience, other things- fortuitous or otherwise- simply happen. It is, I would surmise, the human act of reflecting upon an event that has passed that sometimes permits us to consider something as having 'slipped through the cracks.' If the event, whatever this happens to be, is not observed and later reflected upon then nothing, no matter how significant or momentous, can ever be considered to have properly 'slipped through the cracks.' Not without a significant element of human spin!


Further, if this 'thing' is ever to be considered to have 'slipped through any cracks,' then there has to have been a moment, at some point in the past, when it will have been possible to have prevented such an occurrence. The moment has passed, nothing can now be done, the moment of possible retrieval has been somehow overlooked or otherwise negated, therefore the aforementioned moment has 'slipped through the cracks.'

'Slipping through the cracks,' is the coming to fruition of something negative, either in reality or to be perceived as such. Sometimes this occurrence may be wholly negative but, at one and the same time and by others, it may be differently perceived. But this variable perception does not necessarily afford the event a more positive status, perhaps instead a more misunderstood one. Thus, another humanly invoked phenomenon of 'perspective' falls into play. We are, we like to keep reminding ourselves, a 'clever' species. These days we are frequently so darned 'clever' that even the very worst instances of a thing being permitted to 'slip through the cracks' may be re-perceived as not having done so. Such 'cleverness' might earn the species a hearty pat upon the back, very much a self-congratulatory pat on the back!


If only reality were half so easily moulded into compliance. Of course, it never is.

A further human phenomenon of 'acting positively upon information received' might, in an ideal world or situation, equip us sufficiently that we are able to prevent the very largest, and most-worthy, things from 'slipping through the cracks.' The 'fact' that it is so very frequently presented to us that we have 'acted positively upon information received,' and thus prevented something momentous from 'slipping through the cracks,' strongly implies that we are not collectively such a 'clever' species after all.

Maybe then, we are rather a stupid species?


The correct information was there, we gathered it in, we acted upon it, we prevented the momentous thing from 'slipping through the cracks.' But, did we? Alarmingly, and with monotonous regularity, the answers are tending towards 'no, we did not!'

Of course, individually and outside of the bubble, we may already know this much. Collectively, we are now, all-too-often, given to the modern day corruption of observing pertinent information being 'assimilated' on our behalf, through the thoroughly disingenuous filtration process of monetary interests. That is to write that, 'the means of information dispersal' has been corrupted, bought up and repackaged! Simplified! Selectively simplified! Screened!


The UK is, we are forever being told, a democracy so, should we choose to lift a corner of this screen and to peer at what lies beneath, then we might find that we already know some or even all of this. Just occasionally we may have to dig a little deeper, but often we find that those monetary interests are in such a hurry that they've barely bothered to cover their tracks. In the twenty-first century the likelihood will often transpire to be that the 'collective-we' have been otherwise distracted. The disinformation only ever needs to run just 'deep enough.' Were it more subtle, it might even be considered an art form, those monetary interests have certainly moulded it and re-presented it as such. Somewhat 'brutalist' perhaps?


Individually many of us may well be intelligent, likely as defined by our own very selective criteria, yet, collectively, I think not! When, and if, the human species is ever to be observed from 'afar' will we be judged to be intelligent, as befits those who choose to lift and see beyond the screen, or markedly less so, as befits those who do not? And how will those who know what lies beyond be judged, those who see the screen as the screen it is, yet elect to observe the flickering images projected upon it as if they are somehow real?

With this in mind, how should we view the following?

1. The House of Commons vote to deny sanctuary to unaccompanied child refugees.

2. The UK 2019 General Election.

3. The US Impeachment of President Trump.

4. The Israeli expansionism inside the Occupied Territories.

5. The continued global use of plastics.

6. The manner in which the global climate crisis has impinged upon plans for economic growth.

7. Western farmers' responses to the 'information' that there may be only 100 harvests left.


Peeling back the screen and peering at what lies behind, for further reference, I offer you:

1. 'The Dirty War on the NHS,' John Pilger.

2. 'The Great Hack,' Carole Cadwalladr.

3. 'The Lobby,' Al Jazeera.