Social Items

TPQ

Seamus Kearney 🎤 In 1982 the British army formed the Force Research Unit ( FRU) and terminated the Special Reconnaissance Unit ( SRU).

But Freddie Scappaticci continued his work without hindrance as he was still attached to 39th Brigade and his unit Commander Gordon Kerr, still held overall command.

By this stage Scappaticci had a military serial number - 6126, but he was often simply referred to as '26' within close military circles. His code name was 'Steak knife', but the spelling was later altered by the media, not the military, and changed to 'Stakeknife'.

His serial number was later changed to 9001, but Stakeknife remained his code name. A special bunker was reserved for him, known as the 'Rat hole' in Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn and over the course of his long service with the military, Scapatticci accumulated a total of 18 handlers.

In 1983, as a result of the arrest of Robert Lean in Belfast, an arrest which threatened to wipe out the Belfast Brigade, Freddie Scappaticci fled South across the border and remained there for a number of months. Once Lean retracted his evidence the possibility of a 'Supergrass' trial collapsed and Scapatticci felt he was safe to return to Belfast. It was while he was in the Free State that he was promoted to OC of the Internal Security Unit in 1984, which saw his former OC, a British agent like himself, become his Adjutant.

In September 1983, after the Great Escape from the H Blocks of Long Kesh, it was Freddie Scappaticci and his SBS colleague who interviewed all escapees and quizzed them on their future plans, their whereabouts and their intentions on whether to vacate the country or return to Active Service with the IRA. Subsequently, all relevant information was fed to the Task Co - Ordinating Group ( TCG) and discussed at senior level.

After James Young was arrested by the IRA as a suspected informer, he was handed over to the ISU and held in a house South of Jonesborough, in the Free State. He was interrogated by Scappaticci and his colleague, the former Marine, over the course of 3 days in February 1984. When Scapatticci informed his handler on the location where Young was held, that information quickly went up the chain of command to the TCG and a decision was taken to contact the Gardaí in the South to send a rescue mission. Unfortunately for Young the Gardaí raided the wrong house in the Cul-de-sac and Young was frog marched out the rear door and across nearby fields, while the other Volunteers from the South Armagh IRA walked out the front door and into a waiting car. However, as the car left the scene it was flagged down by the Gardaí and the occupants checked. Before they were waved on a senior Gardaí officer surveyed one of the men and said:'Fancy you being a defence to anybody'.

This comment was an obvious referral to the IRA Court-martial of James Young, and it wasn't lost on the IRA Volunteers in the car, as they correctly linked it to Scappaticci and his colleague, as both men had already left the scene 24 hours earlier.

James Young was duly executed after admitting his guilt on 13th February 1984, five days after his abduction and left on a roadside near Crossmaglen in South Armagh.

The South Armagh IRA clearly identified their informer and had grave reservations about Scappaticci when he questioned James Young about IRA operations in the South Down area, Young 's area of influence, and on the identity of other key IRA personnel, which had nothing to do with Young's arrest.
They later contacted the IRA leadership in Belfast and told them not to send Scapatticci to them again, pointing out that they suspected him of being compromised. Despite their protestations, the South Armagh IRA was ignored and Scappaticci kept in position to wreak further havoc inside the IRA 's command structure.

Seamus Kearney is a former Blanketman and author of  
No Greater Love - The Memoirs of Seamus Kearney.

Stakeknife 🕵 The Rise And Fall 🕵 Act Ⅴ

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

 

A Morning Thought @ 3055

Gary Robertson ⚽ Scottish Cup weekend provided some with a welcome distraction from the league.

And with the possibility of a “giant killing” always on the table fans headed to stadiums across the country, some in hope rather than expectation but all with a sense that “this is the cup, strange results happen in one off games.” 

The weekend opened with Championship strugglers Airdrie hosting Premiership St Mirren. With a mere 19 mins on the clock a Devaney rocket flew past Airdrie's Stone giving the keeper no chance and it looked like it could be a long evening for the North Lanarkshire men. Controversy in the 36th minute had many asking why VAR wasn’t in operation as the home side's Barjonas was wrestled to the ground by King inside the box only for man in the middle Clancy to wave away claims for a penalty, leaving home fans enraged and in my opinion rightly so. Rarely do I find myself agreeing with pundit Craigan but on this we do. If VAR was in operation that was a spot kick. 

Second half however belonged to the men from the Albert Bartlett. Spurred on by a sense of injustice and resolve as well as a passionate home crowd Airdrie found their way back into the game, a Henderson shot eluding all, making it 1-1 - . . . and the first potential shock of the weekend could be on the cards. A combination of smart defending, top goalkeeping and wasteful finishing meant by full time there was nothing to separate the two and extra time would be needed, penalties if need be but a winner had to be found. 

Always a champion of the underdog I was by this point routing for Airdrie but Saints' Idowu had different ideas and his shot slamming into the back of the net on the 115th minute the game was up for Airdrie. The home side deserved much more, they worked their proverbials off, matched St Mirren in all areas of the pitch and on another night with a different referee or VAR we could and probably should have been looking at Airdrie progression. 

Saturday saw postponements for both Aberdeen and Dundee United as God in his infinite wisdom decided that the already sodden North East of Scotland needed yet more rain, leaving both pitches unplayable. This left only 3 cup games and a smattering of fixtures further down the leagues with Peterhead’s match also succumbing to the weather. Cup replays to be played 17th and 18th of February
.
One match however that did go ahead saw league one leaders Inverness home tie with East Fife. The home side dispatching the visitors with ease and maintaining their grip at the top of the table. A comfortable 3-0 victory, three points clear, a job well done as they strive to push back to the Premier League. Bearing in mind they produced seven seasons in the SPL the last being only in 2017. 

Saturday afternoon matches saw a Chris Kane double help Dunfermline take care of Kelty Hearts and almost 3,000 at Borough Briggs watched a five goal thriller where Partick took care of business coming out 3-2 winners against home team Elgin. 

And so came Celtic …. A 5-30 kick off and with the renewed spirit of times past at Celtic, I mean what could possibly go wrong? 

From the moment of kick off though the home team appeared nervous almost as if the weight of expectation was too much for them. Some sloppy defending (which has been the hallmark of Celtic's season so far) yet miraculously the score remained 0-0 at half time. 

Now I’m not privy to what’s said in the dressing room at half time but I find it hard to believe MON turned around to “Super Liam” Scales and said “I want you to go out there and have your worst ever performance for Celtic Liam” . If those were the instructions he certainly obliged and in the 49th minute Dundee's 48 Ethan Hamilton's left foot shot from 20 yards curled into the net. In all honesty it was no less than the visitors deserved. Celtic 0 Dundee 1. Nervy times among the fans who did attend a half empty Celtic park, the result of a boycott and protest against the board. Indeed it wasn’t difficult to pick out individual voices and some choice words for the performance and for Dermot Desmond et al. That’s football politics and TBH I’d rather avoid that although I can assure you at 6-45pm I was questioning my life choices and whether or not the fans had a point. 

The second half saw a slew of missed chances, off the line clearances and wasted opportunities. It looked very much like we were about to have our first cup shock of the weekend. A mini shock perhaps but a shock nonetheless. Despite end-to-end football the clock slowly ticked round to the 90th minute. Injury time. Cup favourites heading out, the Dens Park faithful jubilant. Stoppage time. Five minutes. Five precious minutes to save a season. Cometh the hour (or the 96th minute) cometh a new hero. In chaotic scenes somewhat reminiscent of Adam Idah's late cup winner against the Rangers, with time ticking away and all hope having packed its bags and waiting for the final whistle to end Celtic's miserable season a beautiful cross from Tounekti was audaciously back heeled into the net by the coolest man on the pitch, Celtic's deadline day signing Junior Adamu. The stadium erupted, he’d pulled us back from the brink, let’s get on and win this now Celtic. So they did, as very quickly into the first period of extra time McCowan found Tounekti who’s goal sent Parkhead into raptures and only some fabulous goalkeeping from the Dundee stopper kept the score down. Celtic prevailed and onward to the next round. 

Now thing I feel I have to comment on “the penalty that was a penalty but was instead offered up as a free kick”. I’m an old man, I’ve watched football pretty much all my life and how Graham's push Inside the box on “Stan” Cvancara was judged so quickly by VAR to have not been a penalty And for them to release the VAR ruling to the fans (via Premier Sports) at Half Time. Baffles me. Did they realise they’d made a mistake and needed to cover it up quickly? I don’t want to go down the “paranoid fan” road here but if it quacks, walks and looks like a duck chances are it’s a duck. Either way in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t make any difference. It would be nice to see consistent refereeing and for two incidents, exactly the same, in two games to be met with similar outcomes . . . Scottish referees yeah!

The other I have to question was the boot in Kieran Tierney's face. The Dundee player received a yellow for this yet other times straight reds have been showing for such dangerous play. Did Murray mean it? You’ll need to ask him but once again the referees should be asking themselves some very delicate questions. Tierney was poleaxed and had to be substituted. Incredibly dangerous reckless play. I wish Kieran a speedy recovery. ❤️‍🩹 

Sunday saw the Rangers out to avenge their 1-0 humbling by Queens Park at Ibrox during the Clement period. 

What followed was an emphatic victory for Danny Rohl's men. What a difference a year makes. An eight goal demolition followed including a hat trick for Rangers captain James Tavernier sending the boys in blue through with ease to the next round. A tortuous afternoon for Queens Park but one that will be fondly remembered by Rangers' Ryan Naderi who scored his first and second goals for the club. The pick of his and of the whole match being his bullet header in the 8th minute to start the party for the Ibrox men. A kid of 22 with a very bright future ahead. A shrewd piece of business by Rangers. Remember the name. 

To wrap up the weekend we were blessed with a match on Terrestrial TV as Stenhousemuir took on Falkirk at Ochilview. Granted, not a match of high quality but I’ve seen worse 0-0 draws this season. The action was relentless and as the scoreline suggests there was nothing to choose between the Premiership side and League one Stenhousemuir. Extra time settled the argument though and a strike from Falkirk's Spencer in the 104th minute seemed to crush the spirit of Ochilview and Falkirk quickly added a second in the 108th minute from the head of Barney Stewart. 

No shocks but some very close calls, plenty of goals, talking points and a few controversies. 

The quarter final draw was made soon after the airing of the Falkirk victory, and their reward a home tie against either Dundee Utd or Spartans but the tie of the quarter final has to be the Glasgow Derby when the Rangers host Celtic. 

The full draw is as follows 

St Mirren v Partick Thistle
Falkirk v Dundee United/Spartans
Rangers v Celtic
Dunfermline v Aberdeen/Motherwell

Ties to be played on or around 7/8th of March 

TBC . . . 

🐼 Gary Robertson is the TPQ Scottish football correspondent.

Sodden Sheep, Scales, Scrapes And The Scottish Cup

Anthony McIntyre ☠ It is gratifying to be a witness to Sir Keir Squirmer desperately trying to find wriggle room in a rapidly shrinking space while the sharks within his own party, and without, circle him. 

Their senses heightened by the scent of blood and the wails of wounded prey, they, like some sandwich board religious fanatic, proclaim the end is nigh. Hopefully they devour him, and we can echo Stalin's comment on the death of Hitler, that's the end of the bastard.

At every turn in the genocide in Gaza Starmer refused to call it for what is it. He even supported Israel's stated intentions to deprive the civilian population of the occupied territory of water and electricity, later lying that he had done no such thing. So when we watch him stand up in the British parliament and denounce Peter Mandelson as a liar, our sole response is pot-kettle-black.

Electronic Intifada rightly asserts that:

Starmer has arguably gone further than any previous Labour leader in pushing an extreme pro-Israeli narrative in the British political sphere, once announcing that he supports “Zionism without qualification.”

Behind Starmer lurks Morgan McSweeney, about whom Electronic Intifada contends that:

It is impossible to understand the slavish pro-Israeli stance adopted by Keir Starmer and the Labour Party in recent years without understanding McSweeney.

In the 1990s McSweeney, according to the Jerusalem Post, became closely acquainted with the Hashomer Hatza'ir kibbutzim . . . as a volunteer at Kibbutz Sarid in the Jezreel Valley.' This was a Zionist movement that played a central role in Israel’s settler-colonial project. The Kibbutz McSweeney lived on was built on land stolen from Palestinians a century years ago, twenty two years prior to the formation of the Israeli state.

McSweeney campaigned for Steve Reed in Lambeth local authority elections in 2006. Reed is currently Housing minister in the Starmer government and has been a long time backer of Labour Friends of Israel. When, in 2020, Reed met with Trevor Chinn, an Israeli donor and recipient of the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honour:

Secret minutes obtained by The Electronic Intifada show just how strongly the UK’s main opposition party has been captured by the pro-Israel lobby.

Chinn had also secretly funded the right wing Starmer's bid to become Labour leader in 2020. He would go on to fund McSweeney's company Labour Together. McSweeney concealed financial donations 'to protect Trevor' amounting to almost one million pound. The company was fined as a result. 

Between 2008-2010 McSweeney worked on public relations for the right wing Labour MP Margaret Hodge also a strong supporter of Israel. During the genocide Hodge could be found swanning around the elite of Israeli society in what she called an act of solidarity. 

In 2015 McSweeney was the brains behind the ultimately failed bid by Liz Kendall to win the leadership of the Labour Party. During the genocide Kendall refused to condemn the use of white phosphorous by the Israeli military.

Michael Gove who wants the IDF to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize described McSweeney as “a fighter ruthless in identifying the real enemy.” The real enemy of course in the genocide was Hamas, with McSweeney seeking to face down Starmer critics: “We can be stronger … We need to make it more about [Hamas].” When Starmer refused to apologise for expressing his support for Israeli war crimes McSweeney chipped in “if anybody should apologise for indifference towards Palestinians” it should be Hamas .

McSweeney in a his bid to get Starmer elected as leader 'lionised' both the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel which he viewed as essential in bringing down Corbyn

Writing in July 2025, Middle East Monitor summed up matters:

Labour under Starmer has been captured by a narrow, unrepresentative network of pro-Israel donors and lobbyists. Their influence was decisive in undermining Corbyn’s leadership, installing Starmer, and silencing members who demanded a just policy on Palestine.

As Israel’s genocide in Gaza has killed more than 68,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, the Labour government has aligned itself with Israeli war crimes—refusing to halt arms sales, authorising surveillance flights over Gaza and granting Israel political cover on the international stage.

Labour’s latest scandal is not simply about undeclared donations. It speaks to the hollowing out of democracy inside Labour and its subordination to interests directly tied to the Israeli state. Decisions in Labour today are shaped less by members or voters than by figures like McSweeney . . . 

If Starmer falls on his sword, it is hoped that the next head to roll under the blade of Madame Guillotine shall belong to Morgan McSweeney. Lice in the locks of humanity, the pair of them. 

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Sir Keir Squirmer

Barry Gilheany ✍😔The daily fallout continues in Britain from the revelations concerning the revelations about New Labour guru Peter Mandelson.. 

With the latest batch of documents released by the US Department of Justice concerning the reach of influence of the late serial sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the resignation of PM Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, it is important to delve beneath the headlines behind the downfall of Mandelson and the former HRH Prince Andrew (and maybe the PM himself and other Establishment figures) to name and examine what the nexus of elite power, finance and celebrity surrounding Epstein was. A bespoke organisation of patriarchy crossing political and ideological lines in which men of power and privilege traded favours and resources and which required cowed and subservient women to service both the perverted sexual needs of those in the circle and the day-to-day functional running of the operation.

Before digging down and dirty into the sordid and criminal vortex of misogynistic abuse and exploitation that was the Epstein network, let us briefly reprise the events of the last week. Peter Mandelson, consummate networker and connoisseur extraordinaire of wealth and privilege resigned in September 2025 as UK ambassador to Washington after an earlier tranche of DOJ data dump revealed photographic evidence of his friendship with and residence in the properties of Epstein. This was after Epstein's conviction for soliciting under age sex in 2008. He was then found to have informed Epstein by email, when Secretary of State for Business in the administration of PM Gordon Brown, of market sensitive developments in relation to Brown’s attempts to deal with the effects of the 2008 global financial collapse and of proposals to cap bonuses for bankers: effectively insider trading. 

The resulting outcry led to Mandelson’s resignation from the House of Lords and from the Labour Party. But the real gotcha moment came at Prime Minister’s Questions at noon on Wednesday when at the third time of asking Kemi Badenoch, Conservative leader, drew from Keir Starmer an admission that he had known of (if not to the fullest extent) of the erstwhile peer of the realm’s links to Epstein, post his conviction. For all his angry denunciations of Mandelson’s “treachery” and his indignant assertions that he “had lied and lied again” during the vetting process prior to his ambassadorial appointment; the mood on the Labour benches and within the wider party is that the buck stops with him. Certainly, it is impossible to disagree with Gordon Brown’s assertion that Keir Starmer is facing the most serious crisis of his Premiership yet. 

That no heads have rolled in the United States because of the thousands of references to Donald Trump in the files (and of assorted Democrat and Republican luminaries) does not lessen the morality tale that the whole sorry episode tells us about British and Labour politics; that appointing someone with Mandelson’s record of sleaze (two dismissals from Blair’s first cabinet for inappropriate financial relationships) to Britain’s top diplomatic posting on the rationale that his making friends and influencing skillset was ideal for dealing with the caprices of Donald Trump sets a very low bar for competence and integrity in public life. As things stand, Starmer’s government is in a limbo state with authority leaking away from it but with no obvious successor to Sir Keir in sight.

However, in the words of Marina Hyde, rather than “being massively more obsessed” with the fact of this “network of incredibly famous and powerful men trying to help a known ex-con minimise and wave away his under-age sex crimes,” we should be “more concerned about the actual Sex Bilderberg.”[1]. For in her sarcastic takedown of the New Statesman’s banner headline on the Mandelson affair as the “scandal of the century” it is not even the scandal of the scandal. For all the discussion and analysis of the fallout is possibly:

a mass displacement activity, driven subconsciously or consciously by men, so we don’t have to reckon with the fact that we now have searchable records of the way some of the most powerful guys in the world, who have huge sway over our lives, talk and think about women. And girls.[2]

So how did this para-state or para–Multinational Corporation operate? The Epstein files reveal the full organisational structure and culture of World Patriarchy Inc. It is a milieu in which “the men are rich and powerful, and the women are not.” They lay bare:

the private behaviour of a male ruling class, as they network, joke and trade information. Women exist at the periphery, tolerated because they provide sex, they grace a table.[3]

In the division of labour in this gilded dystopia, the men are the billionaires, the tech giants, the bankers, statesmen, politicians, leaders, people who need to be cultivated as they provide Epstein ways to bolster his tentacles of influence. The women exist as little better than paid servants, as insignificant plus-ones. They feature in Epstein’s world as objects to be manicured and optimised for the male gaze – teeth seen to, weight lost, STDs treated, features fixed. (“You might want to see a doctor about reducing the nose a little before you turn 23,” Epstein suggests to an unnamed woman in July 2017).[4]

In the organisation chart of this transnational criminality, the role of CEO without the kudos of power and authority is occupied by Lesley Groff, Epstein’s long-term executive assistant. She heads up the team of women helpers tasked with attending to every need and whim of the male movers and shakers constantly at their beck and call. Her job specification is the organisation of schedules, snacks, and women. She is on first name terms with a global rota of female personal assistants – Elon Musk’s Mary Beth and Anne and Richard Branson’s Helen. They liaise with each other about their employers’ dietary preferences (Branson likes Sauvignon Blanc, Pinot Grigio and Rose. No Chardonnay please!) When Epstein has a meeting with the ex-US Treasury secretary Larry Summers in 2012, Groff reminds her female colleagues that “Larry is VIP!” and tells them that “We should be prepared with snacks with Larry.”[5]

Gross greases the wheels of the Epstein operation by sorting out the diaries and travel schedules for her boss so that he can meet his powerful clients as he traverses the globe between Paris, Los Angeles, New York, and London. At short notice, she sorts out invites to two seminars in 2012 on power and money to the great, good, and not so good of the worlds of Big Tech and High Politics – Jeff Bezos, Jes Staley, Bill Clinton, Peter Thiel, Bill Gates etc. In parallel she organises the logistics of the more sinister aspects of the Epstein global enterprise – the travel and visa arrangements for the women that Epstein wants to accompany with on his trips around the world. She handles innumerable requests to transport women from Eastern European cities: “Organise for [redacted] to come from Moscow to Paris arrive 2.40 sat, leave late sun night, she will send her passport.” She sends out details of the addresses that women should be picked up from (“Girls to meet at 71st Street with their IDs. Heli to East Hampton. She gets saunas fixed, steam rooms serviced, makes sure the modem is working in the bedroom.”)[6]

Not that it would prick the consciences or self-awareness zones of these men had they committed their indiscretions in front of their female servants, but away from their observations the full extent of their Access Hollywood, locker room type banter is laid bare. “By the way,” Sultan bin Sulayem messages Epstein early on a November Tuesday morning in 2013. “The Ukrainian and Moldovan arrived. Big disappointment the Moldavian is not as attractive as the picture.” “Photo shop,” Epstein suggests. “Not only that she was too short and skinny” the Sultan replies. In the aftermath of Epstein’s release from prison in July 2009, Peter Mandelson asks “How is freedom feeling?” To which Epstein replies “She feels fresh, firm and creamy.” “Naughty boy,” Mandelson responded and asks “How shall we celebrate” eliciting this reply from Epstein “With Grace and Modesty (the names of two strippers. While there are just 525 messages referencing “pussy”, the word is often coyly used as a barely disguised unit of communication currency. Men sign off messages to Epstein wishing him “lots of P.” “Happy New Year with lots of P” or “Happy Birthday and a year full of health, money and lots of P.” Reflecting on the health benefits of sex, the Canadian longevity doctor Peter Attia writes to Epstein in an email “Pussy is, indeed, low carb. Still awaiting results on gluten content though."[7] Sexism with the New Age wellness touch.

Since the revelations in the Epstein files are widely perceived to have undermined faith in the workings of liberal democracy, increased contempt in politicians as a category regardless of party affiliation, and to be a boon for anti-system populists, it is worth looking at the involvement of two radical figures from the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum in Epstein’s circle. Entering stage right is Steve Bannon the intellectual guru for the Alt-Right and former Trump adviser. Bannon acted as a mentor for Epstein’s appearance in a documentary series designed to salvage his public image. In return Epstein gave Bannon high end gifts, including a Hermes Apple watch. In one 2019 exchange, Bannon offered this pearl of wisdom “first we need to push back on the lies”, “crush the pedo/trafficking narrative” and “rebuild your image as philanthropist.”[8] A piece of counsel straight from the playbook of Donald Trump’s notorious mentor Roy Cohn whose mantra was deny, attack, never admit fault. In a video of an interview released as part of the new files, Bannon asks him: “Do you think you’re the devil himself?” Epstein replies: “No, but I do have a good mirror.” When told he has “all the attributes of the devil,” he says, “The devil scares me.”[9]

Entering from the left is one of its most iconic, cross-generational figures – Professor Noam Chomsky. In February 2019, 11 years after he had pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor, Epstein told an associate he had received advice from Chomsky over how to deal with the clamour of public and media response to the multiple allegations against him. Chomsky’s advice reads as follows “The best way to proceed is to ignore it . . . That’s particularly true now with the hysteria that has developed about abuse of women, which has reached the point that even questioning a charge is worse than murder." [10] 

Written in the #MeToo era, these comments are a stark reminder that of how women’s rights and autonomy have been blind spots in parts of the Left; particularly in the Left landscape that relegates concerns like gender relations and sexism to the margins in the pursuit of class and/or anti-imperialist revolutions. Chomsky has made his post-linguistic career around his “manufacturing of consent”, about how the mass media acts as the conduit for the agenda of corporate capitalism through the framing of news and information via the lens of the dominant elites. That and his strident, almost reflective opposition to US foreign policy has earned him a devoted following among generations of radical students and activists. However, his downplaying, if not actual denial, of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s and the Bosnian genocide in the 1990s and his equivocal attitude to the Russian invasion and war in Ukraine has attracted condemnation from scholars and commentators whose concerns about human rights and social justice has a wider remit than the nefariousness of the US at home and abroad which has been Chomsky’s all consuming passion.

Documents released by US House Democrats in November 2025 partially contained comments attributed to Chomsky, calling it “a most valuable experience” to have maintained “regular contact” with Epstein. Their contact did involve finances, including Chomsky communicating with Epstein for advice throughout a complex fight pitting him against his children from his first marriage that revolved around money and the purchase of an apartment. His second wife and spokesperson Valeria Chomsky arranged for an associate of Epstein to post a $20,000 cheque meant to help “administering the Chomsky challenge in linguistics” at another juncture. This affiliation also gained Chomsky invitations to holiday together and recognisable names to his orbit.[11]

In the absence of any response from Noam and Valeria Chomsky about the content of the Epstein related emails including the authenticity of the 2019 advice attributed to Noam, then not a few would consider it to be an appropriate epitaph for someone who spent a lifetime fulminating about the power of elites but who in the twilight of his life moved around and helped to grease the palms of the most sordid elite perhaps in human history. At least the penny seems to have dropped among Chomsky’s acolytes including Zara Sultana, joint leader of the ill-starred British uber left Your Party who has scrubbed the photos of her with her erstwhile guru and all references to him on the party’s website.

There are many lessons to be drawn from the Epstein scandals. There is the corrosive effects on democracy of the “revolving door” between government and business and the value of the knowledge and contacts that political leaders which is central to the accumulation and operation of such unaccountable power. There is the lack of transparency at the highest levels of decision making in the UK. Had Mandelson been summoned to the Select Foreign Affairs Committee for confirmation of his appointment then the whole sorry episode would have been avoided by its veto. There is the toxic, boys club working culture at 10 Downing Street under the now departed Chief of Staff McSweeney with uncomfortable echoes of Dominic Cummings “reign of terror” during Boris Johnson’s Premiership. Related to this power grab has been the diminution of the authority of the PM and the cavalier disregard for the PLP which has responded by flexing its numerical muscles forcing an almost unprecedented of U turns by the executive. But the dark heart of the Epstein enterprise. was the industrial scale grooming, trafficking and sexual exploitation of women and girl children, a global paedophile ring. Anyone who traded information, jobs, or favours while knowledgeable at any level of Epstein’s (and maybe other’s) offending is party to a crime against humanity.

References

[1] Marina Hyde, Remember the men who aided Epstein, despite his crimes. Guardian Journal. 4 February 2026 pp.1-2

[2] Marina Hyde, Silly me for thinking the story here is mass abuse of women. Guardian Journal.7 February 2026 pp.1-2

[3] Amekia Gentleman, Epstein’s world: where powerful men matter and women exist to serve them. Guardian. 7 February 2026 pp.14-15

[4] Ibid, p.14

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Jason Burke, Daniel Boffey and Emine Sinmaz,   Epstein’s network. Extraordinary details from vast cache of files. The Guardian. 5 February 2026 p.9

[9] Ibid

[10] Ramon Antinio Vargas, ‘Best ignore it’ Emails reveal Chomsky advice to guilty sex offender. The Guardian 4 February 2016 pp.8-9

[11] Ibid

⏩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.

Right, Left And Centre🪶 The Epstein Network As Global Patriarchy

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

 

A Morning Thought @ 3054

Cam Ogie ✍ Keir Starmer likes to present himself as a lawyer’s lawyer: forensic, risk-averse, intolerant of ethical shortcuts. 

Yet his own account of how he handled Peter Mandelson turns that brand into self-parody — and raises a devastating question about judgment, leadership, and moral seriousness.

Starmer has acknowledged that he was aware of Mandelson’s continued association with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sexual offences involving a minor and public status as a registered sex offender, before appointing him UK Ambassador to the United States. That admission alone should end the discussion. A lawyer who identifies a red flag and proceeds anyway doesn’t get to later plead surprise — not in court, not in government, not in leadership.

And this wasn’t just any figure being waved through. Mandelson is not some naive first-time appointee who made a single unfortunate misjudgment. He is one of the most repeatedly disgraced senior figures in modern British politics: twice forced to resign from cabinet, repeatedly implicated in lobbying scandals, and synonymous with the idea that rules are flexible for the well-connected. This is a man whose entire career has been a case study in how power insulates itself from consequence.

Which makes Starmer’s decision to appoint him after clocking the Epstein connection not merely careless, but actively reckless. What followed compounded the error rather than mitigated it

And that recklessness didn’t end with the appointment. When Mandelson was later removed as ambassador, Starmer still never raised the possibility of expelling him from the Labour Party. No disciplinary process followed. There was no disciplinary push, no red line drawn or no boundary was enforced, no acknowledgement that Epstein-linked behaviour — layered onto an already extensive record and toxic history of malfeasance in public office — might itself be incompatible with party membership. Mandelson was not forced out; he stepped aside voluntarily on his own terms. Starmer did not intervene — he observed.

That detail matters, because it exposes the hollowness of Starmer’s main defence: that Mandelson later “lied.” Even once the appointment had collapsed, Starmer still didn’t treat the issue as grounds for decisive action. That isn’t deception preventing accountability — that’s leadership choosing not to exercise it.

At this point, trusting Starmer as a lawyer becomes genuinely absurd. It’s like appointing someone with a widely known friendship with Jimmy Savile as head of child services, then responding to outrage by saying, “Well, he lied to me.” Not because the comparison is theatrical, but because the logic is identical: prior knowledge removes plausible deniability, especially where sexual abuse is concerned.

Then there’s the part Starmer would prefer to remain sotto voce: his chief adviser, Morgan McSweeney, is a long-time Mandelson protégé. A political inheritor of the very culture now being framed as an unfortunate oversight. The idea that Mandelson’s soft handling occurred in a vacuum — untouched by loyalty networks or adviser influence — strains credulity to breaking point.

So when Starmer asks us to believe he was misled, what he’s really asking us to accept is that:he knew about the Epstein association:

  • deemed it acceptable,
  • appointed a man with a long record of ethical scandal anyway
  • failed to act decisively when the appointment collapsed
  • never even raised party expulsion
  • relied on advice from a Mandelson-aligned strategist
  • and now insists the real problem is that Mandelson wasn’t honest after the fact

That isn’t legal reasoning. That’s institutional self-protection dressed up as professionalism.

Most grotesque of all is the attempt to spread responsibility so thin that it evaporates. By suggesting everyone — cabinet, party, public — was somehow equally “misled,” Starmer reframes the scandal as a misunderstanding rather than a failure of judgment. In that telling, the real victims are politicians embarrassed by timing, not the actual victims of Epstein’s abuse, who barely register in the calculus at all.

Strip away the spin and what remains is bleakly clear: a leader who knew, appointed anyway, shielded a serially disgraced figure, failed to act even when the damage was obvious, never raised expulsion, leaned on a compromised advisory structure, and now hides behind the idea that lies only matter once they become politically inconvenient.

That isn’t integrity. It isn’t leadership. And it certainly isn’t the mindset of someone you’d trust to defend you when the facts are uncomfortable.

If this is Keir Starmer’s standard of judgment — slow, evasive, internally protective, and morally reactive — then the real mystery isn’t why people criticise him.

It’s why anyone would trust him at all.

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.

The Lawyer Who Didn’t Cross-Examine

People And Nature ☭ Written by Simon Pirani.


Thirty-five years ago, Turkey was shaken by strikes. An eight-week stoppage by mineworkers, between November 1990 and January 1991, won support from other workers, and took up political demands. It was a turning point for the workers’ movement. At that time I was working for the North East Area of the National Union of Mineworkers here in the UK, editing their newspaper. With their support, I travelled to Turkey, and then published a pamphlet about the workers’ movement. Here’s a PDF version: please download, share and copy it.

And here is the introduction and chronology with which the pamphlet began. Simon Pirani, January 2026.

The Turkish miners’ strike of November 1990-January 1991 was far, far more than just a strike.

Firstly, it brought into action not just the strikers but the whole community: this it had in common with all movements that really challenge the established order of things. The most downtrodden people in Turkish society, the women, were on the front lines.

While in many strikes the majority of participants are only occasionally called to picket lines or demonstrations, in this case the daily marches involved most strikers, and their families too. The march to the president’s palace in Ankara, begun by this activated mass on no-one’s instructions – and ended only by heavy police and army intervention – was the spontaneous movement of the working class in a most spectacular form.

The second reason this was far more than a strike was that it began with a demand for more pay … but rapidly went on to demand “bread, peace and democracy”. Zonguldak [the mining town on Turkey’s north coast] saw its action as political – and this on the eve of the Gulf war in which Turkey was an essential part of the US-led alliance. At the end of December [1990], 150,000 metal workers joined the miners on strike; in mid-January textile workers came out. A general strike on 3 January was supported by 1.5 million.

It took much manoeuvring, by the right-wing leaders of the Turk-Is union confederation, to get the metal and textile strikes called off. That opened the way for the government to ban all strikes, on the grounds of Turkey’s participation in the Gulf war. That in turn put the miners in a corner; their strike ended on 28 January.

I went to Turkey just after the strike ended. Some socialists I spoke to hoped that the miners, despite their isolation, would fight on. When the wage deal was finally signed, such people were crestfallen.

Others, instead of living on hopes and crying when they were dashed, thought about the lessons. They understood – as rank-and-file miners did – that, once the textile and metal strikes had been stopped, and the miners isolated, not even they could defy the state single-handed. They understood that the strike’s gains could be measured in terms of political development.

The march forward, and ultimate victory, of the workers’ movement, internationally, does not depend on whether the strike movement is “up” or “down” – or on whether workers are apparently ready to accept socialist ideas. It depends on forming leadership which lives not on hope, but on understanding; which works in every struggle for workers’ interests, independently of state and employers, and to break the hold of the treacherous “leaders” on the workers’ movement.

By bringing the lessons of the Turkish workers’ struggle to the attention of workers everywhere, I hope this pamphlet helps that process forward.

How the struggle unfolded

1980s: Zonguldak’s mines, which supply coking coal to iron and steel plants, face increasing competition from imported South African and Australian coal.

In a decade, Zonguldak’s share of Turkey’s coking coal market falls from 90% to 30%. The town falls from being the seventh most productive per worker in Turkey to the 18th.

1985: Turkey’s ruling Motherland party announces three five-year plans to increase production levels at the Zonguldak mines. But little is done, and eventually the town is put on an urban redevelopment programme.

1989: A five-month strike by 24,000 workers at the Karabuk and Iskenderun steelworkers, to which Zonguldak supplies coal, wins a 250% wage increase.

Late 1989: An accident in Yeni Celtek pit, caused by a methane explosion, kills 68 miners. A joint protest strike is staged by Zonguldak’s coking coal miners and the workers in private lignite mines.

September 1990: The coal miners’ union, Genel Maden-Is, starts talks on a wage deal to run for two years. They demand increases of nearly 500%, which would raise face workers’ pay from 540,000 Turkish lira (TL) per month to 2,500,000 lira (£94.25 to £436). The Turkish Coal Company offers 250-300%. The lignite miners, members of Turkiye Maden-Is, are not involved in the talks. Because their coal is used for power stations, the law forbids them to strike.

17 November 1990: The miners’ union, preparing for conflict, calls a meeting in Zonguldak of all trade union, social and community organisations, which declares support for the strike.

Sevket Yilmaz, general secretary of the Turk-Is union confederation and leader of the powerful textile workers’ union, tells the meeting that no other wage deals will be signed while the miners’ dispute is unresolved.

30 November: Talks fail. The miners’ strike begins.

On the streets of Zonguldak, 1991
Every morning from then on, the miners and their families meet at the pit-heads and march to a mass rally outside the union office. Artists, writers, opposition political parties and others join the demonstrations.

2 December: The Zonguldak Chamber of Commerce declares its support for the strike and join the rally. The next day, the town’s lawyers arrive in their gowns.

10 December: The Ankara-based Human Rights Association devotes their annual Human Rights Day to the miners. “By this time our demands had passed from economics to politics”, explains a union spokesman. “We began with slogans like, ‘we don’t ask to live like European workers; we just want to live like humans’. Then we took up the slogan ‘bread, peace and freedom’.”

26 December: 85,000 metal workers at 230 private- and state-owned factories go on strike for wage increases.

31 December: As a “New Year present”, Turkish president Turgut Ozal ups the Coal Company’s wage offer to 1,250,000 TL (£283) per month for underground workers, and 900,000 TL (£150) per month for surface workers.

In a New Year statement, the miners’ union says it is fighting for “bread and democracy”.

3 January 1991: A general strike in protest at the government’s wages policies, called by Turk-Is, is supported by 1.5 million workers.

4 January: The miners and their families set out to lobby Chankaya, the presidential palace in Ankara. They are taking up an offer, made by president Ozal on TV, to “open Chankaya to you, to come and drink tea and discuss our problems”.

The 50,000 demonstrators plan to travel in 1000 hired buses, but police stop them – so they start to march, and spend the night 17 kilometres down the road at Devrek.

Textile union leader Sevket Yilmaz repeats his promise that no wage deals will be signed until the miners’ dispute is settled.

5 January: A meeting between the prime minister, Yildirim Akbulut, and union leaders, breaks down without agreement.

The march to Ankara, January 1991
By the evening, the marchers arrive at Mengen, 35 kilometres south of Zonguldak, and camp in freezing temperatures. Blankets and other aid are sent from all parts of Turkey.

Economist Murat Celikkan, interviewed in the press, claims the “process of dispute and resistance between the government and the workers has itself become a political (rather than economic) process”. Economist Nail Satligan said it was “the most militant action by public sector workers ever, in Turkey” and heed would be taken “especially by oil workers, in a sector where strikes are considered illegal”.

Labour minister Imren Aykut claims, provocatively, that the miners’ movement “may be infiltrated” by supporters of Iraq.

6 January: 12 kilometres outside Mengen, the marchers arrive at a barricade, erected by police and soldiers under Ministry of Interior orders. Their way to the main Istanbul-Ankara highway – which is also the principal road link from Europe to Asia – is blocked.

One group of miners tries to pass the barricade, and 186 of them are arrested. The majority, around 60,000, simply refuse to move, and wait for union leader Semsi Denizer, who is in talks with the government.

“Before coming to the barricade”, reported Hurriyet:

Denizer held a meeting in Mengen with the women taking part in the march, asking them to return home. All the women rejected the idea . . . 
Throughout Sunday, the number of participants swelled, reaching a new high [between 80,000 and 100,000] as more and more people came from Zonguldak and surrounding towns.

Relief food, blankets and woollen garments poured in for the marchers from supporters all over Turkey. But state forces cut the roads from Ankara, and then the road from Zonguldak too, to stop supplies getting through.

The marchers simply refused to budge. Union leader Denizer meets the regional governor at Bolu and telephones miners in Ankara.

They tell him to send the marchers back to Zonguldak; he refuses. The crowd spends a second night on the road.

7 January: After meeting with other leaders of Turk-Is, Denizer reverses his decision on the march, according to Hurriyet. He convinces the marchers to return to Zonguldak, and resumes talks with the government.

Mid-January: 135,000 textile and paper workers go on strike for more wages.

23 January: Textile workers’ leaders sign a wages deal and return to work. Union leader Sevket Yilmaz is reported ill.

25 January: The metal workers’ strike ends. The unions involved reach an agreement with the government for wage rises of 150-300%.

26 January: All strikes (in practice, that means the miners’ strike) are banned for two months. The reason given is Turkey’s involvement in the war in the Gulf.

28 January: After 58 days on strike, the miners resolve to return to work, without signing any agreement on wages.

Had they continued to strike illegally, the wage negotiations would automatically have been broken off, and their contract referred to the Higher Arbitration Court whose decision is final.

“It wasn’t nice to go back, but we had taken it as far as we could”, said a union spokesman.

12 February: Miners’ leaders ask union members to accept a deal which means about 1,800,000 TL (£300) per month for face workers and 1,200,000 TL (£200) per month for surface workers, before deductions.

“Do you think that will last us until 1992?”, shouted a miner at the mass meeting. “I don’t know, but when the war’s over the workers’ demands will again become the focus of attention”, answered union leader Denizer.

Threats by president Ozal, to close pits if mineworkers pursued their economic demands, turned the strike into a political challenge to his strategy, Cetin Uygur, former president of the Yeni Celtek miners union and editor of a workers’ newspaper, said in an interview in the pamphlet.

“The whole pay struggle became an educational process for workers: they became more politically conscious. The Gulf war hastened this process. With wave after wave of demonstrations the union leaders became small ships without rudders, tossed along by the movement itself.

Cetin Uygur

"But they didn’t stay that way. The union re-established a discipline, you could call it feudal, which was part of these unions’ heritage, that was a real barrier in front of the workers’ movement." It was this discipline that made it possible for the leaders to turn back the march to the Turkish capital, Ankara." It was the union leaders, and the opposition parties who had at first supported the workers’ movement, who “blocked the workers’ way – not the soldiers and police. At the critical point they told the workers to turn back.

"Had the marchers passed the barricade, Turkey could not have involved itself in the Gulf war to the same extent. The obstacles to the development of democracy would not have been so big. A door could have been opened for many struggles, not just by the workers but by other sections."

The government was facing “a revolt supported by the villagers, the peasants, the students and the unemployed” and the union leaders and opposition parties came to its aid at a crucial moment, Uygur said.

The strike, he argued, “contains invaluable lessons for Zonguldak, for the whole working class and for other opposition forces in society.”

To Zonguldak workers it showed that the strike committees which were formed during the demonstrations should be transformed into strong workplace committees, to organise the struggle on a daily basis.To other opposition forces it showed “the necessity to be very sensitive to struggles elsewhere. ‘Support’ for these struggles means making the struggle yourself.”

🔴Read Cetin Uygur’s whole interview, and interviews with strikers and women’s committee members, in the pamphlet Bread, Peace and Democracy. It is free to download here.

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

‘Bread, Peace, Democracy.’ 🪶The Turkish Miners’ Strike Of 1991

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)