Barry Gilheany ✍ It was the week that the dam burst on the long suspected racist behaviour of the Reform UK leader, and it the opinion polls are to be believed, the possible next UK Prime Minister Nigel Farage, while a pupil at the independent school Dulwich college between 1974 and 1981. 

It is not recent news about his antics. Michael Crick his biographer quotes the objection to Farage’s appointment at the age of 17 to the post of prefect for his final school year by the Master of Dulwich College, David Emms, by a teacher in the English department, Chloe Deakin in a letter to Mr Emms, Ms Deakin related how a colleague who taught Farage “described his publicly professed racist and neo-fascist views” and how “yet another colleague described how, at a CCF (Combined Cadet Force) camp organised by the College, Farage and others had marched through a quiet Sussex village very late at night. And when it was suggested by a master that the boys who expressed such views ‘don’t really mean them’, the College chaplain himself commented that, on the contrary, in his experience views of that kind are deep-seated, and are meant.[1] 

It is on that last comment that History will judge whether Nigel Farage is still the person who “meant” those views. It is the view of this article that in the last week, history has pronounced its verdict: he, despite his rhetorical weapons of deflection, evasion and rationalising (the ‘banter’ excuse) most certainly is. For his lifelong MO of blowing racially charged dog whistles and fanning fears about immigration and cultural change are the refined and distilled product of the experiences of his school mates felt at his hands all those years ago.

Over the last two weeks the Guardian newspaper has gathered evidence from twenty school contemporaries of racial bullying by Farage which he allegedly engaged between the age of 13 and 18. The story broke on Tuesday 18th November when the first allegations were made. Among his repertoire of racist abuse were the targeting of minority ethnic children, singing a “Gas ‘em all” song that referred to the killing of Jewish, black and south-east Asian people and burning a school roll in a year where there were said to be more Patels than Smiths. Among the accusers were the BAFTA and Emmy winning Jewish film director Peter Ettedguii who claimed that when he was 13 and 14, Farage would sidle up to him and say “Hitler was right” or “Gas them”. Another minority ethnic pupil claimed that when was about nine, 17 tear old Farage targeted him. “He walked up to a pupil flanked by two similarly tall mates and spoke to anyone “different” the pupil said. “That included me on three occasions; asking me where I was from, saying ‘that’s the way back’ to wherever you were from.”[2]

Cyrus Oshidar has said Farage repeatedly called him a “Paki.” Another pupil from a minority ethnic background, told the Guardian that he had also been directly targeted by Farage. Seven other contemporaries have corroborated Farage’s abuse of Peter Ettedgui. For example, Anthony Butler said: “I clearly recall him relentlessly hectoring and bullying him with shouts of “stupid yid” in the playground.'' Rickard Begg, who was in the same year as Farage at O-level, also recalls the abuse of Peter Ettedgui as being direct and designed to hurt. Noting that Ettedgui “never reacted to him,” Begg tellingly comments that “Farage picked on the soft guys who wouldn’t stand up, rise to the bait. That’s the way he worked” [3] The modus operandi of bullies everywhere and every time.

Before going onto trace the racist lineage from Farage the teenager to Farage the adult, it is worthwhile to explain the social and institutional frameworks at the time in which Farage could operate. It was an era of casual racism in British society. As Cyrus Oshidar reminisces, Farage wasn’t the only one speaking “the language of the time” but “he was the only one in Dulwich saying it regularly”.[4] The claims of racism swirling around and his attempts to palm it off as “banter” (of which more later), revisits the pain for those whose who had lived experience of the racism of that era such as Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London whose parents moved to the UK from Pakistan in the 1960s and who has spoken before of facing childhood racist abuse in Tooting, south London. ''For being called the P-word at that age doesn’t just hurt way, it changes you” Khan has said. “It changes how you pronounce your name. It changes the way you talk to friends, and it changes the way you walk down the street.”[5]

Never as in this case has the old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” sound so inappropriate and criminally ignorant of the effects of not just racist abuse but of bullying in schools and other formative institutions (e.g. scouts, cadets and junior sports clubs) in terms of changing conscious behaviour but also unconscious psychological patterning in, for example, fear and avoidance of groups and aversion to working and organisational cultures.

The storm of allegations racism against Farage lays bare the nature of the institutions which schooled young men like him. An anonymous letter writer to the Guardian who went to a private boy’s similar to Dulwich College and also belonged to the combined cadet force found that the racist behaviour exhibited by Farage was normal. Not surprisingly since these schools were built to train young Englishmen for Empire-building and were deeply racist in the 1980s. This particular school had a quota for the maximum number of Jewish pupils and that pupil recalls his German teacher, routinely, and publicly the one Muslim boy in his class. Another Guardian letter writer, Richard Gordon Hartley, recalls his time at a top public school in the 1970s where Jewish people were routinely assailed with the Y-word, while the N-word was routinely aimed at any person with darker skin. Being American, he was merely thought of as stupid. He recalls the National Front winning a mock school election in 1979, and Enoch Powell and Patrick Moore, among others, being invited as speakers and receiving rapturous applause for spouting their racist bile.[6]

The recrudescent racist and classist toxins in the public school system are attested to by the poet, journalist and musician Musa Okwonga who attended Eton in the 1990s and encountered not dissimilar attitudes from that of Farage two decades previously from a pupil who boasted that his great-grandfather was a slave driver to it being common to hear “Jew” or “rabbi” being used to describe anyone thought to be mean with their money, and peers of his erupting into racist stereotype rants whenever there was coverage of the West Indies cricket team on television.[7]

Okwonga expresses little surprise at the trajectory of Farage’s life post-Dulwich College life. For he writes that just as a mosquito requires stagnant pools of water in which to thrive, so his former classmates provide the perfect breeding ground for the toxic bigotry that has recently reemerged in British society. He despaired at the sight of a  man whose racist prejudices have accelerated since his student days being hailed as a returning hero at a reunion event. Most disappointing for him was to see an old and close friend embracing the politics of Boris Johnson.[8] It is probably just a morsel of hope that the current Labour cabinet is the first in British history to have been entirely state school educated, but maybe that is a start in tackling this toxic sludge at the heart of British society.

Farage’s explanation for and defence of the racist allegations about him during his Dulwich days have all the characteristics of the slippery evasiveness that defines his public life (traits which faux anti-establishment figures like him always claim to see in political elites pleading the banter defence or the fallback position of blaming wokeness; shifting from denial to non-denial (“ I did not intentionally hurt anyone” – analyse that) to the darker, conspiratorial, gaslighting narratives of the motivations of those coming forward decades after the alleged events in the way that a serial sexual offender like Jimmy Savile would accuse his prey of ambulance chasing and lying for financial benefit.

That is the first line of defence that Farage offers: that the accusers are all liars which as one of his Jewish accusers points out is an antisemitic trope: that Jews lie about their own suffering in pursuit of some devious, unstated end.[9]

The second is that he cannot be held responsible for something he did as a child, which according to Jonathan Freedland, is the reason why some Jewish community officials are prepared to cut Farage some slack despite the gratuitous tone and nature of the antisemitic abuse he inflicted upon Peter Ettedgui. However, that the Jew baiter of Dulwich College of the 1970s cannot be accused of antisemitism in 2025 falls down on examination of his more recent pronouncements concerning Jewry. In 2017, the Board of Deputies for British Jews said he had “crossed the line into well-known antisemitic tropes “, after he had nodded that Israel had both the Republican and Democratic parties “in their pockets”. Farage replied “In terms of money and influence they are a very powerful lobby” explaining that “there are about six million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it’s quite big.”[10]

So.a word to the wise for Palestine advocates. By all means criticise how lobby/interest groups like AIPAC operate in the USA and UK Lawyers for Israel works in Britain but refrain from wading into tall tales about Israel or a faceless, amorphous “Israel lobby” or Zionist Occupation Government capture of the US and UK governments (the basis for the latter alleged occupation is the fact that Keir Starmer’s wife is Jewish). By all means criticise the pro-Israel default positions of both the UK and US governments but avoid conspiracist myths around Israeli capture of these governments. They are not the same phenomena and believing the latter narrative puts you in the Faragiste orbit.

In the following three years Farage was checking every available box in the Jew baiter’s credo. The Board of Deputies in 2020 denounced him for trading “in dog whistles and tropes. He fulminated against “globalists”, “cultural Marxists”, Goldman Sachs and the perennial hate figure for those who see his hidden hand behind the destruction of nation states and their replacement by global government – George Soros. In a 2020 interview for Newsweek, Nine Jobs Nigel who started out as a commodities trader in the City of London took aim at “unelected globalists shaping the public’s lives based on secret recommendations from the big banks.”[11]

As the 2020s progressed, Farage mired himself deeper in the ordure of the American far right sitting alongside Alex Jones of Infowars as they celebrated the greatest hits of antisemitic conspiracism from the Bilderberg group to New World Order. He was no less ingratiated by at least six times by Rick Wiles, a far-right pastor who would later brand the impeachment of Donald Trump as a “Jew coup”[12]

It was said of former Labour Cabinet Minister and Labour Left icon of the 1980s Tony Benn by former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson that he “immatured with age”. In a sense, Nigel Farage has matured in that his youthful racist bullying has metastasized into vintage Farage port of nativist nationalist demagoguery which has already led the UK to the needless disaster of Brexit and which is shifting the Overton window on immigration and multiculturalism in at least some parts of an increasingly culturally divided society. Where Farage has, of course, not matured is in the ability to reflect on actions such as that of his schoolboy racist bullying or even the strategic value of a full apology (even if appearing insincere to his detractors.) His ‘man of the people’ shtick, his entitled confident demeanour which soon turns snarly when put under scrutiny and his arbitrary and authoritarian style of party leadership were all birthed at Dulwich College.

But even if he does not get the keys to 10 Downing Street in 2029, he can bask in what may even be a greater triumph for him than Brexit – the shifting in the terms of debate and discourse of immigration policy at the heights of government. He is, in the words of Musa Okwonga, a Pied Piper leading his followers to a future of exhilaration. But he has enabled a Labour government to bend their migration policies to his will to such an extent that “record numbers of overseas-trained doctors are quitting the UK, leaving the NHS at risk of huge gaps in its workforce, with hostility towards migrants blamed for the exodus”.[13]

What more plans has Nigel got in store for us?

This article is dedicated to the victims of bullying, be it racial, sexist, homophonic, transphobic or on any grounds of difference.

References

[1] Michael Crick (2022) One Party After Another, The Disruptive Life of Nigel Farage. London: Simon & Schuster pp.27-28.

[2] Danile Boffey, Henry Dyer, and Mark Blacklock Farage rejects claims of abuse at school: ‘I never tried to hurt anybody’. The Guardian, 25th November 2025 p.14

[3] Former classmates reject claim by Farage his remarks were ‘banter’. The Guardian 26th November 2025

[4] Ibid

[5] Daniel Boffey, Khan says Farage claims are reminders of slurs he faced as child. The Guardian 29th November 2025, p.7

[6] Racism claims against Farage are no surprise. Guardian Letters 26th November 2025.

[7] Musa Okwonga, I had to put up with Farage types at Eton. Guardian Journal, 25th November 2025.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Jonathan Freedland. These Farage allegations matter – look at who he is today. Guardian Journal. 29th November 2025 pp.1-2

[10] Ibid, p.2.

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] Okwonga, op cit

Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.

The Childhood Racist Parents The Racist Adult 🪶 Nigel Farage’s Schooldays And The Possible Prime Minister-In-Waiting

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Five

 

A Morning Thought @ 2986

Gearóid Ó Loinsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 30-November-2025.


Councillors at Dublin City Council put forward a motion to dename Herzog Park in Rathgar, Dublin. Chaim Herzog who the park was named after was the sixth president of the Zionist state of Israel. He had previously been a member of the Zionist paramilitary organisation Haganah, from which sprang the infamous Irgun gang. They were a key part of the Zionist takeover of Palestine and the Nakba. His son is the current president of the Zionist entity and thus bears responsibility for the current genocide, even though the Israeli president is somewhat like the Irish president: mainly though not entirely ceremonial.

The call to remove his name from the park is in response to the current genocide being carried out by Israel and also the role of Herzog in the Nakba. He is like all the leaders of the Zionist paramilitary groups a criminal. When he was elected in 1983, the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and Israeli atrocities, including the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in which up to 3,500 people were murdered at the behest of the Israelis with the involvement of the then Israeli minister of defence Ariel Sharon, was a very fresh memory. Only months had elapsed between one event and the other. That anyone would consider him worthy of having a park named after him, is bizarre. But such are politics in the southern Irish state.

The political establishment were outraged, showing their true colours, claiming that this was tantamount to an erasure of Jewish history in Ireland. It is nothing of the sort. We should remember the pogroms against Jews in Limerick in 1903 and the role played in them by people who went on to found the Irish state itself. We should also remember that as with Jews in Europe, many played an important role in the Irish trade union movement and also took part in the War of Independence.[1] 

Not that the neoliberal extremists who run Ireland would want to remember them. In fact, this very interesting aspect of Jewish life in Ireland is not commemorated by the great and the good and most of the Irish population is blissfully unaware of it. There are no parks named after these particular Jews. It is the establishment which erases Jewish life in Ireland. Herzog was Irish, but so was the Nazi propagandist William Joyce, known as Lord Haw Haw. Being Irish and being part of our past is not merit enough to have a park named after you. In one case, one of these two openly collaborated with the Nazis and the other actively took part in the Nakba and all that ensued thereafter. The right-wing Irish government minister Helen McEntee has tried to draw a distinction between the current Zionist regime and its genocide and the previous regimes. But there is none. Chaim Herzog is one of the founding criminals of Israel. Without him, there would be no Netanyahu and no genocide in Gaza.

The powers that be scuppered the attempt to rename it.

Lord Mayor Ray McAdam said that the legislation pertaining to the renaming of placenames has not fully commenced and there was insufficient information contained in the report submitted for the elected members of Dublin City Council to make “an informed decision” in relation to the proposal.[2]

An alternative name already exists for the park and that is Hind Rajab Park with activists erecting street names in Irish and English on the park. Hind Rajab is the little girl who was murdered by the Israeli forces as part of their genocide in Gaza. It was a particularly brutal slaying, even by the abysmally low standards of the Zionists. Her last call was recorded and is heart breaking.[3] She should have 335 parks named after her, one for every bullet that struck the car she and her family was in.

Though the southern establishment has never been good at renaming streets. The GPO was the centre of the 1916 rising against the British. The main thoroughfare was then known as Sackville Street, named after a previous British Lord Lieutenant. They renamed it after Daniel O’Connell a sectarian quisling who saw Ireland’s role within the Empire and who would have been horrified by the actions of Pearse and the rebels of 1916. To add insult to injury, two streets that border the GPO are Prince’s Street North and also Henry St. - this being named after Lord Henry Moore. On the opposite side of the street, two other streets are to be found, North Earl Street and surprise, surprise Sackville Place. Nelson’s Pillar no longer looms over the GPO, in its place is an ugly metal Spire, having been blown up in 1966 by a republican group to mark the anniversary of the rising. But even Nelson has been spared the ignominy of having Nelson St. renamed.

In fact, after independence the Dublin Corporation seemed loathe to change street names. It was proposed at the time:

That Capel Street be renamed Silken Thomas Street.

That Beresford Place, home of trade union headquarters Liberty Hall, be renamed Connolly Place.

That Gardiner Place and Row be renamed Thomas Ashe Street.

Some suggested street name changes put before the Corporation at the time were accepted, for example, renaming Great Brunswick Street to Pearse Street.[4]

However, many British imperial rulers and gentry still have streets, indeed major thoroughfares named after them, Westmoreland and Grafton being two of the more prominent ones. And appropriately perhaps for the neoliberals now moaning about the attempts to remove the name of a murderous criminal like Herzog from a park, even property developers have streets named after them, such as Bachelor’s Walk, Sir John Rogerson Quay and Westland Row. Quite telling in the midst of a housing crisis. As a child I recall being told that Talbot St was named after a pious Catholic teetotaller, given to Opus Dei like mortifications of the flesh, one Matt Talbot, but it was not. In 1821 It was named after a former Lord Lieutenant one Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, 2nd Earl Talbot, who served as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, from 1817 to 1821. Our rulers crop up everywhere.

The people who are kicking up a storm over attempts to rename Herzog Park to Hind Rajab Park are the same ones have refused to change the names of streets of those involved in dominating Ireland for centuries, largely because they have continued that domination through various guises. It as James Connolly said:

England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.[5]

The south of Ireland, is a neo-colony, it should not surprise us that the government wants nothing to do with name changes that would upset the Zionists or the British. We should see to it that the street signs Hind Rajab Park remain in place and regardless of what the government do, the postal service and other public services should always use that name, not the Zionist name and refuse to attend to service requests with that name. A simple instruction from the unions to their members would suffice, but they have done nothing on the genocide. So don’t hold your breath.

References

[1] Come Here to Me (18/11/2013) Jewish links to Irish Republican and Socialist politics (1901-1960s). Sam. 

[2] RTE (30/11/2025) Report relating to renaming Herzog Park to be withdrawn – Lord Mayor. 

[3] See.

[4] Come Here to Me (10/07/2014) What’s in a name: Some Dublin street names that survived the chopping board. Donal. 

[5] Shan Van Vocht, January, 1897. Reprinted in P. Beresford Ellis (ed.), James Connolly - Selected Writings, p. 124

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

Renaming Herzog Park 🪶 Removing A Stain

Labour Heartlands Written by Paul Knaggs.

When Zarah Sultana declared there is “no room for socially conservative views in a left-wing socialist party,” she wasn’t simply staking out political territory. 

She was drawing a line through the very heart of the British working class, severing the labour movement from its deepest roots. And in doing so, she exposed a profound fracture in contemporary left politics: the unbridgeable chasm between a managerial liberalism that speaks in the language of academic abstraction, and a working-class socialism grounded in place, community, and lived experience.

This is not an abstract dispute about party membership criteria. It strikes at something fundamental: can there be a socialism that despises the people it claims to represent?

The uncomfortable truth Sultana and her liberal allies refuse to confront is this: most working-class people are socially conservative and economically left-wing. Not because they lack education or enlightenment, but because their politics emerge from material reality. From the street they grew up on, the pits their fathers worked in, the schools their children attend, the shops on their high street, the dead they bury and the living they care for. This is not ideology absorbed from university seminars. This is politics forged in the foundry of actual existence.

Continue @ Labour Heartlands

The Socialism Of the Hearth 🪶 An Anchor Against The Rootless Liberal Tide

Dr John Coulter ✍ As an ardent, life-long Royalist, I’ve had deep concerns that our beloved British Monarchy under the present King Charles III was in danger of heading the way of one of his predecessors, Charles I during the 1640s.

That was a dark period in British history, which saw the nation descend into a bloody civil war, Charles I eventually put on trial, with a verdict of death by beheading. His execution heralded in years of Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth and the crushing of the latest Irish rebellion.

It would be several years before the Monarchy would return under Charles II, a period known as the Restoration in the 1660s.

I’m not suggesting such would have been the backlash against the former Prince Andrew and his links to the late convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, that King Charles III would have been sent to the Tower of London, or even forced to abdicate.

But what was very clear that had King Charles III not acted against his younger brother, the now ordinary Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (AMW), even the most loyal of Royalists could have been calling for a radical reform of the Monarchy.

While Charles’ reign may have rattled along, the problem was what type of legacy and throne would he have handed over to his successor, his eldest son Prince William?

Had the King not acted firmly to strip AMW of his titles and privileges, Prince William may have inherited a vastly reduced Crown which bore no resemblance to the high-profile reign of the late Queen Elizabeth II. Indeed, it may have been a Monarchy more akin to some of the low-profile monarchs across Europe, or even the virtually non-existent Russian Royal Family.

King Charles III has had a number of challenges in his life, let alone his reign, such as his divorce to the late Princess Diana, who was seen by many as the People’s Princess; his relationship and marriage to the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles, his health challenges, and the fact that he was a pensioner by the time his mother died and he ascended to the throne.

And these challenges don’t include all the problems and allegations surrounding his youngest son, Prince Harry, and AMW.

Perhaps over the Royal Family’s Christmas dinner this year, the conversation should be about who will be the best working Royals in 2026. Perhaps the groundwork should now be made for Prince William to ascend to the throne rather than waiting for his dad to die.

Our late Queen Elizabeth II, her husband Prince Philip, and the Queen Mother were all blessed with longevity in life. Charles III is in his seventies. If the past Queen had stepped aside and let him on the throne in his forties or fifties, would his reign have been even more popular?

What we Royalists don’t want to see is a republican movement developing in the United Kingdom akin to that which has developed in Australia. Albeit one person, but King Charles III has already had to face the humiliation of being heckled in public whilst on an official duty because of AMW.

What is also in no doubt is the popularity of Prince William and his wife, Princess Catherine. If ever there was a ‘dream team’ set of Royals, it is them.

Having had the privilege of meeting Prince William as part of a crowd during one of his walkabouts in Belfast some years ago, he is a very down to earth person who takes his Royal duties very seriously, but at the same time can converse politely with the common people. He will make a tremendous King Billy if he decides to take that name!

Prince William is now in his early 40s age-wise and has been prepared for his future role as King for quite some years. Unlike his uncle, AMW, he has taken to his Royal duties like a duck to water. Put bluntly, the sooner he is allowed to become King, the better.

A future King William could also be the much-needed catalyst for healing the rift with his younger brother Prince Harry. At one time, it seemed as if we had the ultimate ‘dream team’ in The Firm, as the Royal Family is affectionately known - a King William and Queen Catherine, with firm support from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Sadly thus far, this fairy tale has become a family nightmare.

The perfect plan would be to give King Charles III and the former Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles a couple more years in the spotlight as Monarchs, then graciously step aside to allow Prince William and Princess Catherine to ascend to the throne.

It would not be treated as an abdication crisis as befell the Monarchy in 1936 when King Edward VIII relinquished the throne to enable him to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

Charles III abdicating would be merely a smooth transition of the Crown from one generation to the next, hopefully allowing the future King William the chance for a long reign like his grandmother, Elizabeth II.

Likewise, the Royal Family needs to draw up a shortlist of working Royals who have the least scandal - if any - associated with them, and get them to work across the UK and the Commonwealth, especially as trade ambassadors to bring much-needed employment to the nation.

As for AMW, the tactic would be to hide him from public view for the remainder of his natural life in the same way as the unfortunate Prince John of the United Kingdom, who died as a teenager in January 1919.

He was the fifth son of King George V and Queen Mary, but suffered from epilepsy and was kept out of public view during his lifetime. For the sake of the future of the Monarchy, AMW must suffer the same fate in terms of his public non-existence.

Elizabeth II once described 1992 during her reign as her ‘annus horribillis’, her horrible year. 2025 could be branded as King Charles III’s ‘annus horribillis’.

With human beings, you will always have scandals. But if King Charles III and Prince William can work together as father and son to rebrand the Monarchy and prepare William to be the People’s King, just as Diana was the People’s Princess, then the future for the British Monarchy does indeed look rosy. However, 2026 will be a crucial year in this rebranding.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

Where Now For The British Monarchy?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Four

 

A Morning Thought @ 2985

Anthony McIntyre  ⚑ As I tumbled out of bed this morning, sore after a different type of tumble while walking the dog last night through Wheaton Hall, I consoled myself with the fact that I had a bed to lie in. 

In Gaza where people used to have beds, thousands were murdered in them as they slept by Israeli bombs. Our aches and pains are inconsequential compared to lost limbs and lives.

There is a lot of solidarity activity taking place today and it is invigorating to know that Drogheda Stands With Palestine is, as always, determined to play its part. Unfortunately, aside from our West Street vigil in under two hours time, I will not make Dublin or any of the remaining events. I am not crying off with a sore hand. My wife is an American - yes, an immigrant - and because of that my daughter and son hold dual Irish-US citizenship. Resulting from that, a long standing arrangement for a Thanksgiving event has been put together for the weekend, with friends and family on the guest list. So for the sake of peace in the house where I usually have the last word - yes love - I will not be at today's major events in support of peace in Gaza.

The theme of solidarity weaving its way through today's activities, invites some reflection on the targeting of the group Palestine Action in the UK by the genocide enabling Starmer regime. The Starmer ban on Palestine Action to cite Jonathan Cook constitutes:

the first time in British history a civil-disobedience organisation has been declared a terrorist group, one now treated as on a par with al-Qaeda.

So what actually is this atrocious act of terrorism that many British pensioners are perpetrating? It amounts to little more than holding placards stating “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Consider that against the treatment of British born Israeli SS officers serving in the IDF who are free to roam the UK at will on return from perpetrating acts of genocide in Gaza. Has anybody yet been prosecuted for proclaiming they support Israel's actions in Gaza? Have such supporters of Israel ever been labelled terrorist by Starmer, who, as I have said repeatedly, openly endorsed the use of war crimes in Gaza in endorsing the Israeli intent to deprive the civilian population of electricity and water?

It is sometimes said that Starmer is what stands between democracy and the supposed fascism of Nigel Farage. Really? Gideon Levy, one of the most courageous journalists alive because he lives Tel Aviv but incessantly condemns the Israeli government for its crimes against humanity including genocide, said of the Zionism that Starmer supports:

The fascist resemblance between coalition and opposition is no accident. It is called Zionism. In 2025, you can no longer champion this national ideology without being a fascist or a militarist. It is now the essence of Zionism. Maybe it was that way from its start, and honesty requires that we admit that.
Netanyahu and Bennett, Ben-Gvir and Lapid are Zionists like almost all Israelis. When it comes to the land, they believe in Jewish supremacy and the lie of a Jewish and democratic state. Fascism is the inevitable consequence of this. It is no longer possible to be a Zionist and not a fascist.

Levy, given his circumstances, must feel like an authentic Nazi-averse Jew, living in a society surrounded by Nazis. 

Few of us may have heard of Justice Martin Chamberlain. He was the British judge that granted a judicial review of the decision to ban Palestine Action. That review began on Thursday and is being heard by a three judge panel. On Tuesday lawyers for the execrable Starmer government will resort to Closed Material Proceedings. This is a well established trick of deception resorted to by successive British governments when they seek to bamboozle the courts through the use of intelligence dossiers for the purposes of obtaining the ruling they seek. Many victims of British state violence in the North have found their quest for truth subverted by CMPs. Their usage has always been associated with dictatorships in Stalinist Russia or Latin American. As Western governments have acquired a more authoritarian character, they have increasingly articulated into the processes and mechanisms of their repressive state apparatuses, the practices of the totalitarian regimes. Significantly in a move described as highly irregular Judge Martin Chamberlain was not included in the panel hearing the judicial review. 

Jonathan Cook makes the point that:

this is not the first time Justice Chamberlain, who is noted for his independence, has been removed unexpectedly from a judicial review hearing in an Israel-related case. Earlier this year, he was replaced by two other judges after he granted a legal challenge to the government’s continuing sale of parts for F-35 jets to Israel, despite the fighter plane’s use in the killing of many tens of thousands of civilians and the destruction of more than 80 per cent of all buildings in Gaza.

As brazen as it is bleak, I feel it is incumbent on us to stand with the people threatened by the ban who include 'former senior military personnel, barristers, doctors, priests, Holocaust survivors, and a former adviser to King Charles.' Expressing support for Palestine Action is not a crime but an expression of opposition to genocide. 

In the unsweetened words of Jonathan Cook:

This already looks like a self-evident stitch-up to extricate Sir Keir Starmer and his ministers from the mess they have made of British terrorism laws – all so they can continue conspiring in Israel’s genocide.

While it is not yet illegal in this part of Ireland to express admiration for the banned group, for the record I support Palestine Action. And I will continue to support it from prison if ever jailed for my words. 

Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Palestine Action

Open Letters From Anne Applebaum. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

I wasn’t planning to write another article, given the rapid approach of Thanksgiving. But the leak to Bloomberg of Steve Witkoff’s phone conversation with Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy advisor, was so infuriating that I did write, again, about Trump’s disastrous envoy and his disastrous negotiation, for the Atlantic:
Pay attention to the dates, because the timing matters. Steve Witkoff spoke with Yuri Ushakov, a Russian official, on October 14. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held a meeting with President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., on October 17. Trump had been hinting that he would offer to sell Tomahawks, long-range cruise missiles, to the Ukrainian army. But he did not.
Why not? Perhaps because Ushakov listened to Witkoff’s advice and persuaded Russian President Vladimir Putin to call Trump on October 16. Witkoff, in other words, may have helped block that sale. And that would make Witkoff responsible for prolonging the war.

I know many believe they have an explanation, but actually we don’t know why Witkoff always sees the war from the point of view of the Russians, or why he always seeks to persuade Trump of their point of view as well.

Continue @ Open Letters.

Trump And Witkoff Are Prolonging The War

National Secular Society ★Written by Stephen Evans.


Every so often, a judgment comes along which resets the terms of a debate that has drifted on for decades. The UK Supreme Court's ruling in JR87, concerning a Belfast primary school's approach to religious education (RE) and collective worship, is one of them.

Its implications extend beyond Northern Ireland. They speak directly to long-ignored human rights concerns around the rest of the UK's collective worship laws – concerns ministers and legislators can't simply shrug off any longer.

At the centre of the case was a state school where RE followed a Christian-centric syllabus and collective worship was Bible-based, and a family who chose to challenge these long-standing arrangements in Northern Ireland. The family argued the arrangements were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court found the school's setup breached Article 2 of Protocol 1 – the right to education, which includes respect for parents' convictions – read alongside Article 9's protections for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The Court agreed that what children experienced wasn't "objective, critical and pluralistic" education. It was, in fact, "indoctrination" – a curriculum designed by churches to encourage pupils to accept Christian belief as true and as the basis of morality.

And the Court did something crucial. It made clear that offering a parental right to withdraw their children from RE or collective worship is not an answer. Withdrawal places an "undue burden" on families and risks isolating children who really should expect equal treatment.

As in Northern Ireland, the law in both England and Wales still mandates a daily act of Christian collective worship in every state school. In Scotland, 'religious observance' is required. The only human rights safeguard is the parental right to withdraw – the very mechanism the Supreme Court has now deemed inadequate.

In practice, Ofsted hasn't monitored compliance in English schools for years, and some schools simply ignore the law because they recognise how hopelessly out of step it is with a diverse, largely nonreligious society. A bill being considered in the Scottish Parliament would make matters worse; it would make it harder for parents to withdraw their children.

The Supreme Court judgment must now force a reckoning. A state-mandated act of worship is hard to square with the Court's insistence that education must respect the full range of pupils' religious and philosophical convictions. You cannot simply patch over a discriminatory default by inviting families to opt out, with all the "undue burden" that brings.

The status quo was shaped to suit vested religious interests – and those interests still exert far too much influence over the education landscape.

The established Church retains privileged seats in the House of Lords, which bishops have used to resist even modest reforms to England's collective worship law. Meanwhile, faith school providers exert immense influence over local authorities, academy trusts, and the Department for Education. Their lobbying power ensures that policies continue to privilege religion.

This influence sustains a system in which state-funded schools can discriminate in their admissions and impose worship on children regardless of their own beliefs. It allows confessional RE to persist. And it encourages politicians to turn a blind eye to equality and human rights concerns, in fear of upsetting religious interests.

The Supreme Court's judgment exposes how inappropriate this settlement is. The law should be protecting children's freedom of belief, not the institutional privileges of religious bodies. Yet the defence of the status quo nearly always comes from institutions with a direct interest in maintaining it.

For years, legal commentators have affirmed that 'religion or belief' includes nonreligious worldviews. The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces this principle, effectively demanding that schools reflect a broad range of modern beliefs – religious and nonreligious – rather than privileging one religion.

Religious education requires serious reform to achieve this balance. Wales has already led the way on this. In England, the recent curriculum review perhaps provides a way forward to ensuring all children and young people have an equal entitlement to a "objective, critical and pluralistic" education about religions and worldviews.

Continue @ NSS.

The Supreme Court Has Spoken 🪶 Now Collective Worship Laws Must Go

Right Wing Watch 👀 Written by Peter Montgomery.


In yet another fundraising pitch in which President Donald Trump tells supporters that God saved him from an assassin’s bullet so Trump could save America, the president enlists supporters in his much-discussed desire to get into heaven.

“I want to try and get to heaven,” starts an email sent to supporters on Sunday. He describes being on stage in Butler, Pennsylvania and “feeling the hand of God tilt my head at the very last millisecond.”

“He didn’t save me for a participation trophy,” the email says. “He saved me because I have a date with Heaven and the only way I earn my place there is by finishing the mission He spared me for: saving America.”

The idea that Trump can only “earn” a place in heaven by successfully enacting his agenda as president is contrary to core Christian teachings about grace, faith, and salvation. But it seems to be a rhetorical advice he deploys to appear spiritually humble and appeal to his conservative Christian supporters.

It also suggests that if Trump can only succeed as president with a continuous flow of contributions, then sending him cash could actually be helping get him into heaven.

Continue @ Right Wing Watch.

Trump 🪶 Send Me Money So I Can Earn My Way Into Heaven

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Three