Nobody Cares about Britain

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Reform will play "we are the victims"-card in the local counties, shifting the blame on Labour. And many Brits will believe it.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Reform will play "we are the victims"-card in the local counties, shifting the blame on Labour. And many Brits will believe it.

I'm not so sure. Warwickshire, where I now live, now has a council dominated by Reform, and coverage in the local radio and online media (where most people get their local news) is pretty negative, simply because Reform are so disorganised and incompetent.

Even soft-ball interviews reveal councillors complety out of their depth, which is no great surprise because most of them, including their local leadership, lack any political experience. Our current county council leader is, following the resignation of the previous leader after only a few weeks, a 19-year-old student. It's a similar story in Nottinghamshire, where I'm originally from.

Governing is a lot more complicated than they expected.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Evernote Link

Amid a weak front-bench, the one Tory routinely garnering attention is Badenoch’s beaten leadership rival Robert Jenrick who, alone among his colleagues, seems to have mastered social media. But his successes are discussed largely in terms of his ambition to snatch the top job. In recent months, leadership speculation has been the only Tory story garnering attention. Some favour Jenrick, others the more genial James Cleverly, the former home and foreign secretary. Some muse about a return for Boris Johnson. And the leadership talk reveals a broader debate. Brexit and its aftermath shifted the party’s core demographic. In prioritising the more working class voters in the north and midlands, the Tories, in essence, sacked the other half of its electoral coalition. They scorned the major cities, graduates and much of the well-heeled south. But that Leave-voting demographic is more drawn to Faragist politics, with Reform looking like the primary party of the traditionalist right.

 

[Ellie]

A painting by Banksy of a judge using a gavel to beat a helpless protester appeared on the walls of the Royal Courts of Justice before quickly being covered up by guards.

Banksy confirmed the artwork was his by posting a picture of it on Instagram on Monday morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2025/sep/08/court-staff-cover-up-banksy-image-of-judge-beating-a-protester

 

[Innula Zenovka]

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2025/sep/08/court-staff-cover-up-banksy-image-of-judge-beating-a-protester

I want to know how people would respond if an anti-immigration group with opaque funding were using similar tactics to those deployed by Palestine Action -- that is, if they were targeting the offices of immigration solicitors and refugee support organisations when the offices were shut and smashing windows, destroying equipment and so on. Or if an anti-abortion group, possibly funded from the US, were doing something similar to abortion clinics.

I would want those groups banned. So, since I don't think a group's politics should figure in the decision about proscribing it, I don't see how I can complain about Palestine Action being banned.

 

[Isabeau]

Somewhat long read.

What is a reactionary centrist, and does the UK have them?

A term favoured by US progressives can help us understand Britain’s drift to the right

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

In a newspaper column, reactionary centrism can seem like level-headed pragmatism. But proximity to power reveals its dogmatism and incoherence. The theory is that validating national populist or even fascist values and moving towards them on policy will capture some of the voters seduced by the promises of parties further to the right. Every time Labour tries this, Reform gains ground and Labour’s own coalition disintegrates further. Yet the party remains committed to the strategy.

The government does not seem inclined to do any of this. Despite understanding themselves as critical thinkers, reactionary centrists are conformists at heart. And they are so unmoored in our current age because, increasingly, there is no social consensus for them to conform to. Affluent countries the world over are balkanising into fascist and anti-fascist factions. One must simply pick a side. There is no longer such a thing as “British public opinion” (if there ever was). Rather, half the country supports socially illiberal parties and half supports (broadly speaking) liberal ones, similar to the split in the Brexit referendum.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Somewhat long read.

What is a reactionary centrist, and does the UK have them?

A term favoured by US progressives can help us understand Britain’s drift to the right

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

More In Common divide up British public opinion rather differently

The Seven Segments of Britain

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The Guardian: Revealed: how Boris Johnson traded PM contacts for global business deals

 

[Innula Zenovka]

What Banksy’s RCJ mural maybe gets wrong

9th September 2025 Judges are not to blame for the protest laws promoted by the executive and passed by parliament and implemented by the police and prosecuted by the Crown * The Royal Courts of Ju…

davidallengreen.com

(No, it's not just that judges here don't use gavels)

 

[detrius]

What Banksy’s RCJ mural maybe gets wrong

9th September 2025 Judges are not to blame for the protest laws promoted by the executive and passed by parliament and implemented by the police and prosecuted by the Crown * The Royal Courts of Ju…

davidallengreen.com

(No, it's not just that judges here don't use gavels)

I think Banksy is actually a group of 5-6 elderly ladies.

Two apply the stencil while the rest look out for passerbys and provide cover.

Where were you on Sunday evening, Innula?

 

[Isabeau]

I‘m not sure the aim was to depict accurate garb. It would seem to me that the image was more about representing the justice system as a whole, what is happening at the moment, and not individual judges.

And no, I don’t believe it did fail (as the blog says) as people are talking about it. He wrote a whole blog post about it, although his thoughts were mostly about the mural, and less about the message it was trying to convey.

He could have included his thoughts on the 800+ people who were arrested a few days ago (whatever his views are on that), but instead wrote an essay on what Banksy’s mural got wrong according to him, and the “1001 respondents on social media pointed out in merry unison, the judge is using a gavel, and judges in our jurisdiction do not use gavels.” Did he actually count them?

Maybe he is someone who just takes everything literally. He may have simply needed to point out these mural garment discrepancies because he wanted to join the 1001 social media voices in their helpful education of the masses, and it was not at all the need to discredit the overall message, idk.

From my perspective, this is a great example of reactionary centrism, but I could be wrong. It’s just a blog, and I don’t know him. He may have already spoken often about the subject.

 

[detrius]

Well, if British judges usually don't use gavels, then that judge specifically got that gavel to assault a protester, which clearly indicates criminal intent.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

“Reactionary centrist.”

the new MLK letter:

“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice”

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I‘m not sure the aim was to depict accurate garb. It would seem to me that the image was more about representing the justice system as a whole, what is happening at the moment, and not individual judges.

And no, I don’t believe it did fail (as the blog says) as people are talking about it. He wrote a whole blog post about it, although his thoughts were mostly about the mural, and less about the message it was trying to convey.

He could have included his thoughts on the 800+ people who were arrested a few days ago (whatever his views are on that), but instead wrote an essay on what Banksy’s mural got wrong according to him, and the “1001 respondents on social media pointed out in merry unison, the judge is using a gavel, and judges in our jurisdiction do not use gavels.” Did he actually count them?

Maybe he is someone who just takes everything literally. He may have simply needed to point out these mural garment discrepancies because he wanted to join the 1001 social media voices in their helpful education of the masses, and it was not at all the need to discredit the overall message, idk.

From my perspective, this is a great example of reactionary centrism, but I could be wrong. It’s just a blog, and I don’t know him. He may have already spoken often about the subject.

I'm sorry, but I think you rather miss the point.

He goes on to say,

Criminal damage is wrong, and as this appears to be criminal damage then this makes this wrong.

Those embarrassed by the failure of the usual RCJ security theatre will no doubt press for an investigation and prosecution.

If there is a prosecution and a conviction then there will be no doubt that this was criminal damage.

But if there is a prosecution there may also be a defence, and an acquittal.

If so, the artist would be saved by the very court process they are depicting in the mural.

Which would be ironic, don’t you think

That is, the law as it stands is clear -- painting something, whether it's a mural or a tag, on something you don't own is criminal damage unless you have the owner's permission.

Nevertheless, if prosecuted, Banksy may well mount a defence, perhaps by arguing that painting the mural was a proportionate exercise of his ECHR Article 10 right of freedom of expression by commenting on the way the law is being used to clamp down on demonstrations, and they may well be acquitted.

If that happens, as DAG comments.

If so, the artist would be saved by the very court process they are depicting in the mural.

Which would be ironic, don’t you think.

Joshua Rosenberg, to whom the article links, makes the point that the photo Banksy pointed must have been staged, since

The person who just happens to be walking past might appear to be a barrister. But no barrister would be fully robed when leaving court during the weekend when the picture was taken.

And look more closely at his wig. It looks to be like a bench wig, worn by judges in court. A judge would never dress like that while walking along Carey Street.

But Rosenberg's main point is similar to that made by David Allen Green

Judges are required to apply the criminal law to demonstrators brought before the courts. But they do not beat down helpless defendants. There can be room for debate about particular sentences. But these issues are never black-and-white.

Banksy is making much the same point as does Nigel Farage when he complains about "two-tier justice" and Lucy Connolly. They're wrong in both cases -- the courts are applying the law as it is.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Elon Musk, Nigel Farage and the right’s spiral of extremism

Podcast and piece on erasing the boundaries that keep the bully boys out

nickcohen.substack.com

 

[Free]

This is kind of Britain news. Mostly it's just further evidence that (most of) the press is hugely biased.

Leak exposes Washington Post boss Will Lewis’s role as secret adviser to Boris Johnson while PM

The publisher of the Washington Post, Will Lewis, is facing fresh questions over his independence after a cache of leaked files revealed he gave extensive support to Boris Johnson as a secret political adviser when Johnson was prime minister.

The files shed light on how the media executive, who at the time was vice-chair of the Associated Press news agency, worked behind the scenes with Johnson as his premiership was engulfed by a series of scandals.

Lewis’s meetings with Johnson, which took place over a six-month period in 2022, were not disclosed in official transparency records, in an apparent breach of government rules.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The Epstein Birthday Book leads to the resignation of Peter Mandelson, Britain's Ambassador to Washington

Starmer was a fool to tie himself to Mandelson and Blair

The corruption of the Third Way never dies

nickcohen.substack.com

Evernote Link

A couple of reservations, though. First, while condemning the left for supporting Blair and Clinton's "third way," Cohen probably, for obvious reasons, doesn't seem to remember how he fell out with the British left by supporting Blair when he dragooned the UK into supporting Bush II's invasion of Iraq on the basis of the dodgy dossier. Second, given the rules of the parliamentary Labour Party it's almost impossible to see how Starmer could be replaced as PM against his will.

That apart, it's nevertheless worth reading for its insights into both the Democratic and Labour parties' move to the right over the last 30-odd years.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

What Banksy’s RCJ mural maybe gets wrong

9th September 2025 Judges are not to blame for the protest laws promoted by the executive and passed by parliament and implemented by the police and prosecuted by the Crown * The Royal Courts of Ju…

davidallengreen.com

(No, it's not just that judges here don't use gavels)

I disagree with David Allen Green on that point: "Judges are not to blame for the laws promoted by the executive and passed by parliament and implemented by the police and prosecuted by the Crown."

This is too simple. Judges often have quite comfortable wiggle room to decide about how big a punishment is or not. This means it enables room for misuse of that power.

Just take a look at the USA: same law applied to white and black people. Black people are more likely to get prosecuted and harsher than the white people for the same crime.

So "judges can not be blamed" in general is wrong. They can be blamed for racial bias, if evident. They can also be blamed for the same happening based on other believes or other reasons as well. So in short they can be blamed for a lot of things potentially.

For me personally this mural is about a perceived tendency by Banksy that at the moment the UK's judiciary system has the tendency to go down more on the wrong as the right people, who deserve it. I cannot tell if this is the reality, just my take and 2 cents about what it should tell the public.

It is probably about the pro palestine demonstrations, where 890 people were arrested a few days ago.

Arrests at rally against Palestine Action ban rise to 890

The majority of the arrests were for supporting a proscribed group, police say.

www.bbc.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I disagree with David Allen Green on that point: "Judges are not to blame for the laws promoted by the executive and passed by parliament and implemented by the police and prosecuted by the Crown."

This is too simple. Judges often have quite comfortable wiggle room to decide about how big a punishment is or not. This means it enables room for misuse of that power.

Just take a look at the USA: same law applied to white and black people. Black people are more likely to get prosecuted and harsher than the white people for the same crime.

So "judges can not be blamed" in general is wrong. They can be blamed for racial bias, if evident. They can also be blamed for the same happening based on other believes or other reasons as well. So in short they can be blamed for a lot of things potentially.

For me personally this mural is about a perceived tendency by Banksy that at the moment the UK's judiciary system has the tendency to go down more on the wrong as the right people, who deserve it. I cannot tell if this is the reality, just my take and 2 cents about what it should say the public.

The immediate context of the mural, protests against the prosecution of people demonstrating in support of the Palestine Action group, recently and contentiously proscribed as a terrorist organisation (rightly in my opinion, given the definition of terrorism in British law, but that's an argument for another day) hasn't yet led to any convictions, let alone sentences, so the concern is somewhat premature.

At the moment, everything is waiting on the outcome of some appeals about the lawfulness of the proscription, and if these are successful it will be an example of the judiciary upholding the rights of individuals against the state, which they often do here.

The British criminal justice system is, thank God, nothing like the US one, much to the disgust of the far right.

If judges are to be blamed for something, the superior courts in Britain are very quick to put them right.

As to the complaint that judges have too much discretion when it comes to sentencing, the fact is that they don't, in fact, have much discretion at all. This is something I do know a bit about. Generally, after someone is convicted, the prosecution and defence both agree on what the likely sentence should be, given the general sentencing guidelines, and if they do disagree it's generally about whether the facts of the case fall at the top end of one sentencing bracket or the bottom end of the next one.

Assuming the courts do allow the Terrorism Act prosecutions to proceed, none of the protesters who have been arrested so far is at risk of any sort of custodial sentence, at least not if it's their first offence, and I think the most likely outcome in most cases is a conditional discharge (conviction but no sentence) or a small fine. The worst they have to fear is a low level community punishment. Anything more severe will almost certainly be subject to an appeal, which will almost certainly be successful.

Banksy's mural has very readily been appropriated by the far right, who have made loud complaints about what they see (wrongly, to anyone familiar with the sentencing guidelines) as unduly harsh sentences imposed on both last years' rioters against asylum hotels and on people using social media to stir up hatred.

Photos of Banksy mural edited to feature England flags – Full Fact

Thousands have shared altered photos of street artist Banksy’s most recent mural at London’s Royal Courts of Justice.

fullfact.org

This harks back to the Daily Mail's infamous headline "Enemies of the People" attacking the High Court ruling that the government had to obtain the consent of Parliament before triggering Article 50 to leave the EU.

The problem is that everyone has their own idea of what the fair outcome of a case should be (i.e. what they think ought to happen). The courts can't deliver that. They can deliver only what they think the laws of England and Wales say has to happen (Scotland has its own legal system). If they get it wrong, there are superior courts to put them right.

Populists of both the left and right who attack the judiciary for following their duty by applying laws passed by parliament want to take us down a very dangerous, Trumpist, road. To my mind, the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus was spot-on when he said "the people should fight for the laws as they fight for the walls of the city."

Having, in another life, seen the English criminal courts in action day after day, I have the greatest respect for our judiciary, who take their duty of impartiality and independence very seriously indeed.

 

[Ellie]

I see Banky's latest mural as in a similar spirit to his past projects, including Dismaland and The Walled Off Hotel With far more personal risk attached.

Benevolent Banksy: 10 Times Banksy Has Done Something For Charity | MyArtbroker

Pictures of elderly protestors being led away by police in handcuffs illustrate an extraordinary situation caused by this proscription. Retirees, including a magistrate, a teacher and a priest, are among hundreds of people arrested so far on suspicion of committing terrorist offences. Police arrested some for holding banners supporting Palestine Action, but others for simply protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza or supporting Palestinian rights generally.

The divergence from international norms was highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights who described the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as being ‘...out of step with comparable liberal democracies’, adding: ‘Protest movements claiming to defend human rights, that are an irritant to property rights or affect certain national security interests…are not typically treated as “terrorist”, even where they could technically come within a national terrorism definition.’ Kemp believes the government’s decision not only risks ‘...violating basic human rights protections that the UK claim to uphold, but also further damaging the standing of the UK internationally.’

‘For Palestine Action to be proscribed primarily for their protests that cause damage to property (and property that falls squarely within the target of their protest, not random or untargeted public infrastructure, for example) is a major and dangerous shift in the law,’ says Martha Spurrier, a human rights barrister and former Director of the advocacy group Liberty."

Moves seeking to ban protests over Palestinian genocide in the UK sadden me. I don't see prohibiting protests as a good way to damp down associated social unrest at all.

The British government banned Palestine Action under an antiterrorism law, but an intelligence document said most of its activity “would not be classified as terrorism.”