The penny finally drops...

 

Membership number: L0098072

Dear Anthony,

We have been notified by your bank that your Labour Party membership Direct Debit has been cancelled.

If this was unintentional and you would like to set up a replacement Direct Debit, then it takes just two minutes.

Just call 0345 092 2299 or visit this page to keep your Labour Party membership up to date.

Or, if your circumstances have changed and you would like to alter the amount that you pay, then you may be eligible for one of our discounted rates.

If you have recently retired, work fewer than 16 hours per week, or are under 27, then you can opt to pay a reduced amount of £2.96 per month.

If you are now in full time education, you can pay as little as £12 per year – we just need to know your place of study and expected year of graduation.

All you need to do is let us know which rate best suits you, over the phone on 0345 092 2299 or you can email us at labourmembership@labour.org.uk.

If, however, you are thinking of leaving the Labour Party, then we would like to express our sincere thanks for all the support you have given to the Labour Party and we would urge you to reconsider.

Labour has a plan for change and the work of change is underway. We want you to be a part of it. 

Please let us know if you wish to resign your membership. Visit this page to resign.

If you have any questions please contact the team on 0345 092 2299 or you can email us at labourmembership@labour.org.uk.

Thank you,

Labour Membership

Reference CAS-8130880-D8Y3R8 Panorama: Trump, Israel and the War on Iran

Dear BBC Complaints

The point is that whether the war is illegal is not a matter of legal debate.  It is not the "view of Seyed Ali Mousavi, the Iranian Ambassador to the UK".  It is International Law.  The UN Charter clearly states "Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council."  Israel has failed to do this.  Their representatives are simply allowed to lie directly into the lens and since they are never challenged on the legality of their actions they do not have to defend them logically.  Neither have you responded to my questions as to why Israel's invasion of Syria which is simultaneous to these events is not commented on at all in what claims to be a balanced geopolitical analysis.  The BBC website has a War in Ukraine tab and a war in Gaza tab but Israel's war in Syria (ongoing since 8 December 2024) is assiduously concealed from the public.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Miller

Reference CAS-8130880-D8Y3R8

Dear Mr Miller,

Thank you for getting in touch with us about Panorama: Trump, Israel and the War on Iran.

I understand that you feel this programme is biased in favour of Israel.

Reviewing the broadcast, a number of contributors were featured to provide a broad spectrum of perspectives on the conflict. As you have noted this included Israeli Politicians Ohad Tal and Tzipura Hotovely. Seyed Ali Mousavi, the Iranian Ambassador to the UK was also featured, and explained his view that there is no doubt that the US strikes were in violation of the United Nations Charter.

By reporting on claims made by any of our contributors, the BBC is in no way endorsing them. All of these claims are the personal views of the contributors themselves, and not representative of the BBC.

In all our news coverage we are committed to reporting fairly, accurately and with due impartiality. We are editorially independent and not subject to political influence or agenda.

When reporting on a political news story, we present the facts and explore arguments from across the political spectrum so our audience has the information it needs to form its own view. BBC News never takes a position on any story.

We have noted that you feel this broadcast was biased and your feedback has been shared with the relevant teams at the BBC.

We very much value your feedback. Complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC. This ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly, and helps to inform decisions about current and future content.

If you’d like to understand how your complaint is handled at the BBC, you might find it helpful to watch this short film https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints. It explains the BBC’s process for responding to complaints, what to do if you aren’t happy with your response and how we share the feedback we receive.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team 

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Please note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number).

Some old Pear Shaped Inserts

 

Pear Shaped Series 2 Episode 5

 

Unsolicited email from the BBC

Dear  Mr Miller 

Please find the results of an investigation by the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit into editorial complaints about 'Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone': https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone

This is being published at the request of the BBC Board alongside a report by Peter Johnston, the BBC’s Director of Complaints, which can be found here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/report-peter-johnston-review-gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone.pdf

If you remain dissatisfied with the ECU’s response it remains open to you to contact our regulator Ofcom. Details of how it handles complaints can be found using this link: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/bbc/how-ofcom-deals-with-bbc-complaints--what-you-need-to-know

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Please note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number)

Dear BBC Complaints 

I didn't complain about it? 

Have you perhaps got me muddled up with the Board of Deputies of British Jews or the Campaign Against anti-Semitism?

It is an easy mistake to make as we are virtually indistinguishable.

Yours Sincerely 

Anthony Miller 

Women were prevented from taking the pill in the 1950's - Amnesty International

 

Saw this video online today and for my own sanity felt compelled to point out that women were not "prevented from taking contraception" in the 1950s.  The contraceptive pill wasn't invented until 1960.  A large number of women on Facebook told me I had missed the point of the video.  But I'm not commenting on that.  I'm just making an observation that this video contains an obvious factual error in the hope that someone will correct it.  Among the ludicrous arguments why the video is right and I am wrong that were advanced were that I was focusing on just one still when in fact the narrator literally says the words "women ...we'ren't allowed to take contraception".  I then had to listen to a load of people telling me contraception wasn't available to women in the 1950s when condomns (a spin-off of Goodyear's vulcanisation process) had been massively promoted by multiple governments during two world wars in an attempt to keep a lid on STDs.  Someone even told me that "other forms of contraception were available but were hard to get" as if there was a magic way of not getting up the duff only available to the wealthy in the '50s.  There wasn't.  Well, yes there were other methods than the condom but they all had one thing in common ...they were all variations on the barrier method which is unreliable and takes a bit of the spontenaity out of sex.  Well, I suppose there was the Knaus–Ogino rhythm method but if that worked I wouldn't be writing this, would I?  It isn't that I don't have any sympathy with the general points being made but this video's opening statement is so stupid it's equivalent to saying before 1938 people weren't allowed to split the atom...

Clarence

 

This week whilst wandering through the Ronnie Barker BBC box-set I rediscovered Clarence. I really liked this series when it went out.  The plot is proposterous as Barker plays a removals man who can't see anything with hilarious consequences   It's an obviously silly and implausible conceit - something that seems as though it belongs in a silent comedy or a Viz cartoon strip - but it does allow for a lot of good (if not all politically correct) visual gags.  Comedy also comes from Clarence's inability to admit that he has any disabilities or shortcomings.

However, what I find most interesting about Clarence is that most sitcoms are about people trapped in situations that they cannot escape from.  Clarence, conversely, is about two people who come into some money excaping their humdrum lives.  Domestic servant Jane Travers - Josephine Tewson - inherts a small prefabricated cottage and they decide to escape the city for the countryside.  Perhaps one of the things that makes the series work is that it's a romance which is a departure for Barker who usually plays loveable but scheeming rogues who are more inclined to lust than love.  Not that Clarence doesn't have a few schemes - mainly to get the bolster out of the bed he and Travers share.  Another thing that makes it work is attention to period detail.  There are lots of references to 1930s events from the Cornonation of George VI to the release of Disney's Snow White.  And many of Clarences amusing stories date from his time in the trenches during World War I which would have been accurate for a man of his age at that time.  Barker wrote it himself under the pseudonym of Bob Ferris (a Clement/La Frenais Likely Lads/Porridge in joke) and so it gives us a window into his view of the world which one doesn't always get in his other work.  This is as near as Barker gets to playing himself.  On a bit of a tangent apparently the Two Ronnies sign off "It's a Goodnight from me and Goodnight from him" was an in joke about Corbett being a standup (playing himself) whereas Barker was an actor (playing others so never actually there at all) or something...

Anyway Clarence only ran for 6 episodes but that's enough.  Not everthing needs to go on and on.  It was what it was and resolves with Jane and Clarence marrying in the tradition of most memorable romantic fiction from Jane Austin to the Brontes to Mills and Boon to Barbera Cartland to ...okay but it's not too twee.  Although one does sometimes wonder what happened to Clarence and Travers.  Presumably they lived happily ever after in a prefabricated cottage with an outside toilet and chicken coop and avoided the oncoming blitz soon to be over the London they wisely left...

Meanwhile in Hansard

 

....the Government tries to square the circle of how to solve the problem that what was said yesterday (I do not advise you to follow this link here as it might be illegal and I am a coward, it is simply included as a citation) cannot be repeated today... This made me wonder what can be said about the decision to ban Palenstine action and I guess we're on safe ground quoting what is in Hansard...

As Madam Deputy Speaker observed the debate itself was only 90 minutes long so that "—it has to conclude at 5.27 pm—which means Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit of four minutes to begin with and that only a few will get in before the debate has to conclude."  So it's quite impressive really that given the anemic amount of time found for the debate that there were things said in the debate that the Government thinks it cannot repeat in its own records.

Junior Minister Dan Jarvis (for Yvette Cooper was on bigger tings) promoting the Statutory Instrument (the so called Henry VIII power) said : "The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK, and has pledged to escalate its campaign. This disgraceful pattern of activity cannot be allowed to continue. In applying the legislative framework, the Government assess that Palestine Action commits acts of terrorism....   Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property, with the aim of progressing its political cause and intimidating and influencing the public and the Government. These include attacks against Thales in Glasgow in 2022 and against Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol last year. In such attacks, Palestine Action members have forced entry on to premises while armed with a variety of weapons, and damaged or demolished property, causing millions of pounds’ worth of criminal damage. As the House has heard, Palestine Action members have used violence against people responding at the scene.  During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over £1 million-worth of damage, including to parts that are essential for our submarines. Palestine Action Toggle showing location of caused panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentences for the perpetrators, the sheriff said: “Throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.” The Government also assess that Palestine Action prepares for terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members in carrying out significant levels of property damage at targets right across the UK. For example, Palestine Action has released an underground manual that encourages its members to create small groups or cells and provides guidance about how to conduct activity against private companies and Government buildings. It explains how to operate covertly to evade arrest and provides a link to a website, also created by Palestine Action, which contains a map of target locations across the UK.  The Government assess that Palestine Action promotes and encourages terrorism, including through the glorification on social media of its attacks involving property damage. Palestine Action’s attacks are not victimless crimes; employees have experienced physical violence, intimidation and harassment, and they have been prevented from entering their place of work. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and we cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action. By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action’s veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, and degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name. We must be under no illusion: Palestine Action is not a legitimate protest group. People engaged in lawful protest do not need weapons. People engaged in lawful protest do not throw smoke bombs and fire pyrotechnics around innocent members of the public. And people engaged in lawful protest do not cause millions of pounds’ worth of damage to national security infrastructure, including submarines and defence equipment for NATO. Proscribing Palestine Action will not impinge the right to protest. People have always been able to protest lawfully or express support for Palestine, and they can continue to do so."

The Right Honourable Mr Jarvis then went on to waffle on about Russian Imperial Movement for a long time further eating into the strict 90 minutes of debate without giving way.  When he did veteran left winger Clive Lewis MP said: "I thank the Minister for giving way, and for some of the things that he has said. Everything he has spoken about could be dealt with under criminal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) mentioned the suffragettes. I think we need to give the context of a little bit of history. The suffragettes carried out a campaign of window-smashing, poster and paint defacement, cutting telegraph and railway lines and targeted bombing and arson, but specifically avoided harming people [Note : this is not strictly historically true.  The suffragettes bombing and arson campaign killed 5 people. I'm sure Herbert Henry Asquith would have proscribed them if he had thought of it]. There is a long history in this country of direct action that pushes the boundaries of our democracy. It is very difficult for all of us, but this is still direct action, not terrorist action.

Alistair Carmichael for the Liberal Democrats raised the point that : "The Minister has spoken about some of the history of this, but there is more recent history. The last Government introduced the Public Order Act 2023 to deal with Extinction Rebellion. The Home Secretary, who was then on the Opposition Front Bench, listed all the various crimes that could be dealt with. She said then: “the Government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest. Police officers themselves have said that this is, ‘a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable’.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 63.] She was right then, and is wrong today, is she not?"

Richard Burgon said "I want to speak specifically about Palestine Action. It is most regrettable that the Government have tabled one order banning three organisations, when it knows that there is political disagreement on Palestine Action. That is no way to bring terror legislation to the House. I want to be clear and to put on the record that I would be supporting the order today if it referred only to the organisations Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. Leading legal and human rights organisations Amnesty International and Liberty have condemned the proscription of Palestine Action. Liberty said: “Targeting a protest group with terrorism powers is a shocking escalation of the Government’s crackdown on protest...This move would be a huge step change in how counter-terror laws are applied.”

Amnesty International UK said: “We’re deeply concerned at the use of counter-terrorism powers to target protest groups...they certainly shouldn’t be used to ban them.”

They both urged the Home Secretary to rethink before bringing this to Parliament. Yesterday, several United Nations special rapporteurs, including those for protecting human rights while countering terrorism and for promoting freedom of expression, said they had contacted the UK Government to say that “acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism”.  Likewise, Lord Charlie Falconer, the former Justice Minister, stated that the “sort of demonstration” seen at a military base by Palestine Action would not justify proscription as a terrorist organisation. Today, we are not voting on whether people agree with Palestine Action’s tactics; we are not voting on whether people think its aim is right or wrong. We are voting on whether the actions it has taken against property, not against people, should lead to its being treated as a terrorist organisation, when what it has done can be prosecuted as criminal damage. There is a long history of protest activity including acts of trespass, criminal damage, sabotage and more. Indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent statement repeatedly refers to criminal damage and the live court cases, showing that there is already legal provision to deal with Palestine Action.

There are a variety of potential consequences if the proscription of Palestine Action is passed. Supporting or joining Palestine Action could carry up to 14 years in prison. That risks criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters. Thousands have supported or volunteered with Palestine Action, including nurses, students, retirees and professionals. Many have never engaged in direct action, but risk being criminalised. Today, I met representatives of Amnesty International who offered a number of frightening examples of how our constituents could be placed at risk of prosecution under section 12 of the Terrorism Act and could face a maximum sentence of 14 years if Palestine Action are proscribed.

According to Amnesty International, a person who tweets, “I oppose the war crimes in Gaza and I think that Palestine Action has a point,” could easily fall foul Toggle showing location of this provision, as could a person who says to another, “I do not support all the methods used by Palestine Action, but I think protest is important and I respect the personal sacrifices members of Palestine Action are willing to make, risking arrest to challenge war crimes,” or an individual with a placard that reads, “Palestine Action is peaceful—it should be de-proscribed.” 

This legislation could affect constituents who have never been a member of Palestine Action and who have never and would never commit direct action. Speeches or comments they make in community meetings could be trawled, and they could end up facing legal proceedings resulting in a prison sentence of up to 14 years. That concerns us all.  People out there view terrorism as meaning heinous acts such as shooting people, blowing people up, assassinating people and other acts of violence. I urge colleagues to consider the consequences for their constituents of proscribing Palestine Action alongside these other groups."

As expected Jeremy Corbyn had a good old waffle : ""As the debate opened, I intervened on the Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I just need an explanation—I hope that we will get one—as to why groups are always put together in these orders and not dealt with separately. There are clearly different orders of concern here. I want to speak solely about Palestine Action.We live in a democratic society, and we have to understand where our rights have come from. The hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) represents the place where in 1932 the mass trespass took place, led by Benny Rothman—a Jewish activist in the Communist party at that time—who was demanding rights of access to the countryside. He was roundly condemned by all the mass media and the Government of the day, he was put on trial and he was put in prison. He was eventually released from prison after mass protests in his support. TWithout Benny Rothman and those others, that access to the countryside simply would not have happened at that time.We can look at all the other people who over decades of our history have stood up for free speech and democracy. We can go back to the Chartists, to the suffragettes and to those who campaigned to end apartheid in South Africa. Interestingly, during all the apartheid years, while the British Government did condemn the African National Congress and did indeed believe for a while that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, they never banned the ANC in Britain, because they were advised that it was important that there should be a place where people could express that voice of hope for the end of apartheid. [Were they?  Or did Mrs Thatcher just not think of it and not have a statutory instrument she could activate in only 90 minutes?] The women who went to Greenham Common to protest about the deployment of nuclear weapons there were never labelled as terrorists either. Yes, they were charged with criminal trespass, as many others have been. Indeed, those who undertake direct action are well aware of the risks they take. However, it crosses an enormous threshold to suddenly make such an announcement about Palestine Action, which speaks out against the horrors of what is happening in Gaza, where hundreds are mown down every day by the Israel Defence Forces simply for queuing for food when they are desperately hungry and their children are starving. Surely we should be looking at the issue that Palestine Action is concerned about, as well as the supply of weapons from this country to Israel, which has made all that possible. If the order goes through today, it will have a chilling effect on protest. I quote a letter sent to the Home Secretary on 28 June: “Direct action is a longstanding and respected part of British political history. From the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to striking miners, to anti-apartheid campaigners occupying institutions and disrupting trade, civil disobedience and direct action have always been necessary forces for progress and justice.”"

The debate started at 3.57pm and the House divided to vote at 5.26.  Exactly an hour and a half.  Just slightly less than 14000 words were spoken.  Apart from Mr Javis who was bringing the statutory instrument only Conservative opposition Assistant Whip Harriet Cross (what the late Pillip Martin would have described as "one of nature's number twos") spoke in favour of the motion.  Clearly the arguments for proscription are so self-evident that it only took two people to express them.  Proceedings then moved to the House of Lords who rubber stamped it and Palestine Action was thus officially proscribed on the stroke of midnight...

Postscript 

Dear Anthony Miller

Thank you for contacting the Speaker’s Office.

 

In the debate in question, the Deputy Speaker had imposed a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, as many MPs wished to contribute. 

 

The words “we are all Palestine Action” were spoken after the Deputy Speaker had said “Order” as the time limit had been reached. Although the microphone remained on for a few seconds, Ms Sultana no longer had the Floor. It is standard practice for the Hansard record to stop when the Chair intervenes to bring a speech to an end when the time limit has been reached.  This is not uncommon; it also happened for Ellie Chowns’s speech in the same debate. 

 

Thank you for taking the time to write and I hope this addresses your concern.

 

Kind regards,

Isis-Raine

Isis-Raine Williams

Speaker’s Office Administrative Assistant

House of Commons Speaker’s Office

 

 

House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA

parliament.uk

This is disputed 

Grok, are you named after the Groke?

Nope, not quite! My name's inspired by Robert A. Heinlein's sci-fi novel "Stranger in a Strange Land," where "grok" means to deeply understand something. The Groke from the Moomins is a chilly, eerie character—I'm more about warmth and insight! Think of me as a friendly guide, not a frosty specter. Any other questions about my origins or what I can do for you?

Norman's Column

I always admired Norman Tebbit for his column in the Telegraph.  They obviously bunged him well for it but he put in so much more effort than most other columnists do.  For example... He would literally read every comment below the line and respond to them.  Raising counterpoints, responding to arguments, even on occasion altering his opinion.  He'd then weave these updated opinions into the next column so it wasn't just "subject of the week" but more like a continuous narrative mixed with a right wing soap opera.  His opinions were still bollocks and frequently repugnant but he tried to see other points of view and tried to engage with other people even if he wasn't always successful.  Of course he was semi retired then and had fuck all else to do but it was what I would call proper activism.  Engaging with, debating and listening to the public.  So many politicians today don't even try to engage.  They go from Oxford PPE course to the Council to MP without ever brushing by a real person.  Then they lock themselves away in their ivory towers and only appear with the public in carefully choreographed photo ops, usually in a factory surrounded by lots of plebs in high vizes who can't answer back.  Tebbit (a bit like Major) actually liked the intellectual challenge of a debate.  I mean, Kemi "it's too early for policy" doesn't even have opinions, she just throws shit at the wall to see what will stick.  And Starmer actually states publicly that he doesn't even read the speeches his spads write for him.  Tebbit wasn't particularly likable but he was a real person and he wasn't a fake.  I wish we had more politicians who weren't fakes.

Food fight

People say the IDF are wrong to not let UN aid agencies distribute food aid in Gaza but they have to be careful that the aid isn't stolen by Hamas.  Can you imagine what would happen if Hamas got their hands on lorry loads of food?  They would surely use it as a weapon.  Very soon a giant food fight would ensue and IDF soldiers would be at the mercy of custard pies and flower bombs at every street corner.  They may not be lethal but eggs and milkshakes used as projectiles can really hurt.  Just ask Nigel Farage...

The gentler sex

It always makes me laugh when people cite the Suffragettes as an example of non-violent direct action.

They literally invented the letter bomb...

When they weren't horse whipping Winston Churchill at railway stations ...

Or blowing up the tube network...

Or bombing Westminster Abbey...

Or committing arson all over the place...

They had their own nitroglycerin factory.

Compared to the Suffragettes XR & Palestine Action are incredibly tame.

The Pankhursts were bad motherfuckers

Oppenpornheimer

 

Finally got round to watching Oppenheimer.  

Now I'm no great feminist but... 

Oh dear ...

Someone obviously said to Christopher Nolan:

"Look mate, you keep making these really long depressing films about catastrophic military incidents which are very good drama but I really feel given it's a lot of mainly male physicists sitting round discussing particle wave duality that what would really elevate it intellectually would be to stuff in a bit of gratuitous soft porn.  Florence Pugh's a good sport, why don't you ask her to get her tits out for the lads? Sure she'd do it and it'll be a lot more upbeat than people being vaporised by a nuclear explosion."

The British Political Class Lord Haw Haw Hard for Bibi and Trump

 

Well, we all knew that the United States was going to take illegal unilateral action against Iran didn't we?  Top hint was when Sir John Sawers former C at MI6 was wheeled out on the media to brief the press about how he thinks the United States should further shatter the United Nations Charter with preposterous arguments along the lines of "Well, Israel has started this war now, might as well join in."  Presumably this is the government "de-escalating" things.  Or maybe it's the government trying to sugar the pill that Trump left the G7 early because everyone else said "Don't bomb Iran" but Trump was looking for something "Better than a ceasefire".  For those of my readers who are not British C is a codename - you can guess what the other three letters of the code are?  Does anyone remember when Civil Servants were grey figures like Sir Humphrey Appleby who claimed to impartiality for constitutional reasons?  Well, if they're so impartial, why when they resign do they all express such vociferous and hawklike views with regard to foreign policy and war?  In the good old days, MI6 lied to us assiduously that Iraq had nuclear weapons and we were "45 minutes from doom" but these days they expect us to believe that just having some fissile material that you might be able to possibly get enough of to make a bomb out of one day is enough to justify taking military action that's totally illegal.  I won't say unprovoked because the complex relationship between Iran and Israel is a little more complex than that but clearly (because Bibi said it) the bombing of Iran was an action that Israel had been planning for some time therefore it cannot be "immediate" and "necessary".  When you point this out to Israeli mouthpieces there's a whole load of whataboutery but the reality is they should at least go through the motions of taking their disputes to the UN before launching into unilateral action.  Still, there's plenty of US Senators who are jolly today believing that war war is better than jaw jaw.  More fool them.  You'd think at least the warmongers could get some new material than WMD lies - going to show us Colin Powell's Powerpoint again? - but they don't even have that much respect for us.  So the usual suspects are out Quislinging hard.  "Iran’s nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat" says former human rights lawyer Sir Keir Starmer who must know this is downright illegal.  Piers Morgan meanwhile promotes pum that "Key difference between President Trump’s attack on Iran and the Bush/Blair attack on Iraq is that Saddam had no WMD, but Iran’s been rapidly enriching its uranium from 3-60% for what can only be one ultimate purpose: weaponising it to build nuclear bombs."  If you read that carefully what it says is that it was wrong to invade Iraq because it had no nuclear bombs but okay to bomb Iran because it had no nuclear bombs.  Such is the topsy turvy logic of the warmonger.  Rishi Sunak has also been rushing out to give Israel and the US political cover as has Kemi.  I wonder how when an emboldened Trump invades Canada or Greenland they'll sell that one?  This is why I don't post here much anymore.  It's too depressing.  If you tried to keep up with all the warmongering and lies you'd go mad...

Anyway, seeing C made me think of M in the EON Bond films.  To avoid them being banned in certain countries and maximize his sales Albert R. Broccoli changed the books so all the villains are international criminals and members of SPECTRE (until the copyright disputes) and it creates a comforting world in which whilst M and General Gogol are rivals and even enemies there is a mutual respect between them.  As the Master used to say woolly thinking but comforting when worn close to the skin... Many of the films actually start with discussions down the United Nations about how to avoid war as a result of the distrust being generated by the villain's manufactured conflict.  If only the real world was actually like that ...but I guess the idea of world peace has gone for a burton because no one anymore remembers the 22 million dead of WWI and the 75 million dead of WWII anymore except when all the now regularly replaced Prime Ministers stand outside the Cenotaph once a year dressed in black mouthing platitudes about how they remember them.  Still, slightly better than Trump who can't even do that and uses such events as campaigning platforms and when he visited Aisne-Marne cemetery in France called the US fallen "mugs".  

Truly it is hard to find a more revolting man.

Israel jumps the shark...

 

Just when you think things couldn't get more bonkers down Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has jumped the shark and launched an unprovoked missile attack on Iran for no discernable tactical reason and with no warning.  So for all the Zionists driving me bonkers on twitter ... no, pre-emptive strikes are almost all illegal under international law (a bit like moving your civilians into an occupied territory - Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).  

Under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter (to which Israel is a signatory) "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The only exception in international law for pre-emptive action is the Caroline Test.  In 1837 during the Upper Canada Rebellion, the British launched a preemptive attack against a US ship on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls.  There was no warning and so much discussion about whether such an attack was ethical.  The British argued it was because the other side were planning an attack.  In response then then US Secretary of State Daniel Webster formulated the following definition of an "ethical" pre-emptive" attack.  Such an attack could only be lawful if ...

"[The] necessity of self-defense was instant [and] overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation ..., and even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized the [invader] to enter the territories of the [invaded country] at all, [they] did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it."

This test was reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal after WWII, which sayeth ...

"the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

Given the Iranians were not planning to launch a nuclear missile the very next day it's hard to see how the "pre-emptive" strike was in any way legal. and it's even harder to understand why our politicians are giving Israel political cover with nonsense about their being our ally...

Do they follow international law?

Are they members of NATO?

Do we have a treaty with them?

Have they signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Did they send troops to help us in Iraq or Afghanistan?

No

No 

No

No

No

The Labour Party when you email them to tell them you're leaving over their Gaza policy...

 Dear Anthony,

Thank you for RSVPing to 💭🌹Thursday Be a Councillor: Croydon (Online)🌹💭! Thousands of people across the country are getting involved, and we appreciate you joining us.

I mean, become a Councillor?  With the Council now bankrupt so many times that "Commissioners have been sent in" from Whitehall ... Is it worth voting in local elections at all? Labour holed the Titanic that was Croydon Council's finances in a series of ill advised investments that are adequately chronicelled elsewhere and since then the Tory Mayor has been little more than a one man band playing as the ship sinks. The only solution for the Council is never-forthcoming debt forgiveness and for Councils to be banned from the kind of dodgy PPP Brick by Brick deals that allow ruthless “businessmen” to fill their boots with public cash whilst the details of the deals are hidden from public scrutiny… No there’s never been debt forgiveness before, but then there were proper guardrails before the previous Tory governments removed them in what amounted to a Spiv’s Charter. And not one penny of the effectively half inched money has ever been returned. Where did the Fairfield Halls grand piano go? Surely you don’t need to be Poirot to solve that one? No local administration is ever going to be able to pay back what Croydon Council owes … It’s stuck in a doom loop and is effectively run from Whitehall ...a Constitutional crisis as a democratically elected Mayor is put on pause by the very party that bankrupted the Council in the first place. Once central government starts switching off democratic institutions for an “emergency” it’ll be easier and easier for them to find an excuse whenever they fancy… The Council’s been in one kind of special measure or another for so long now I don’t know how anyone has the enthusiasm to either stand or vote for the emasculated Councillors or Mayor anymore. Yet still they email me like nothing’s gone on.

“Would I like to be a Councillor?”. 

They must be truly desperate for people to pilot the ghost ship…. 

We are in banana republic territory…

The advert that's never deleted

 

Someone you vaguely know and trust from the TV said something that was so important it had to be removed from the internet because it never happened but don't worry despite there being zero evidence of this we're convinced you will click and this link and if you don't we'll show you ever more

clickbait over and over again.  You will never escape our endless scamming.  Even at your funeral there will be an oration about this secret so dark that no one can speak it but the internet remembers it.  The internet never forgets.  Particularly twitter which will remind you forever of the thing that never happened every other post because it can't possibly write an algorithm to detect this scam.

So keep reading... Don't let them get away with it.  You'll thank me later.  You'll be spinning cartwheels.  Don't let them suppress this.  Be one of the ones that knows.  One day it will all come out.  Trust me.  All you need is to invest your money in the place they don't want you to know about.  Trust in me.  Trust in me.  Trust in me.

Paul Smith Loadsofmoney

Has anybody else noticed the similarity between Monaco based property investment adviser & promoter "Paul Smith Wealth" (Yes, he appears to really call himself that) who now lives in Monaco (or is on a very long holiday there) and obnoxious 1980s plasterer Loadsofmoney?  Are they in fact one and the same person?  Smith certainly looks as though he could be an older Loadsofmoney and appears to have the same dress sense.  Of course in the 80s Loadsofmoney was a comedy stereotype made famous by Harry Enfield.  These days I regret to say the Loadsofmoney is a social media influencer who you can WhatsApp at +1 (443) 788-0858 "I've got some helpful info to share".  Although you might want to consider that country code of Monaco is actually +377 and +1 is the dialing code for the United States and 443 is the area code of the State of Maryland which seems rather peculiar for a man who lives in a European tax haven...?

Imagine assassination. It's easy if you read...

It's amazing people read "The Catcher in the Rye" and the message they took from it was assassinate John Lennon or Ronald Reagan.

Personally I found the book so boring I literally couldn't tell you what happened in it.  Apart from some teenager wandering about aimlessly being a bit of a wanker ... which is sort of what they do anyway so not really much of a plot.

It's one of many books I read in my 20s and 30s in an attempt to improve myself as an artist.  The problem is I haven't improved and I can't remember whole chunks of it.  Which is odd because I can remember vividly some parts of some books.  And I can remember whole films and TV series from childhood.  But this book has faded away.  I guess I never really understood it.  I also think it didn't contain a single joke.  Even that book William Golding wrote about a man shipwrecked on a rock trying to survive on limpits has more depth.

Anyway, it just came to mind as I saw a video online of Lennon larking about and signing autographs in Central Park and I remembered walking past his memorial and googled his assassination.  His murderer even used hollow point bullets to make sure his internal organs would not be repairable.  For such bullets may not be legal in war following the Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 but civilians can still buy them. That's hatred and capitalism.  So much hatred from such a little boring book.

I had to wonder if J D Salinger had said anything about the murder... But he famously went into a giant sulk like Holden Cauliflower.  Evil comes in many forms...