How The Establishment Destroyed Britain’s Free Press

 

When one considers press censorship, it is tempting to take an anachronistic view that Britain is a bastion of press freedom, with newspapers of left and right expressing diverse opinions and flourishing.

The story in mainland Europe is different. In continental German, French, Iaian and Spanish governments don’t have any ethical problems about censoring the press as the British establishment always has, and in most smaller EU nations, the press is owned by political parties. Europe of course, does not have Britain’s long tradition of democracy and freedom of speech, either actual or illusory.

Since the Second World War, there has existed in Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and so on, numerous laws restrict in some way what the press may or may not print particularly when it comes to criticizing government policy, and lately of course, new laws preventing criticizm of Islam have been introduced.

Laws that were originally intended to prevent or restrict the promotion of fascism and holocaust denial are now being expanded to include ever greater spheres of political discourse (i.e. hate speech,) – which, by the way, demonstrates   why even nazis must be allowed to argue their case if they can find a patform. Banning any single idea is always the thin end of the wedge. This is not comparable with Great Britain, where it is still legal in principle to promote fascism or deny the holocaust in national newspapers.

Where legislation is absent, however, as in Britain, “soft censorship” is strongly present. Through various laws which govern, ostensibly, how we must act towards one another in society, the government has effectively controlled what we may say to one another. This was achieved through “Race Relations” laws which were drafted and passed by Britain’s Jewish community.

Jewish Home Secretary Jack Straw passed the Malicious Communications Act last decade which pertained to the internet in theory, but in practice governments what media outlets may say also – they are, after all, communications. Without referring to the media by name, British governments have managed to institute censorship by the back door. Ironically straw would be unlikely to be considered for high office now, his party, Labour, desperste to pick up the Muslim vote, has become the Jew hating party.

Britain’s notorious “right-wing press” has until recently avoided the establishment’s attempts to control it – until very recently. Politicians have long bemoaned the influence of ‘far right’ daily newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, for both of these papers have been outspoken against mass-immigration and multiculturalism in recent decades. They also led the successful campaign for an EU referendum and Britain’s subsequent vote to leave. Even politicians over in Brussels have derided these two newspapers for their persistence in printing a critical view of what goes on in the the EU’s behind-closed-doors policy making sessions.

These two papers have now fallen under establishment control and are edited by people sympathetic to the globalist, cultural marxist, anti – democratic world view of Britain’s major political parties, the EU, the United Nations, and the banking cartel. This can be clearly seen in their recent about-turns in political alignment.

Earlier this month, the the long serving editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre,  was replaced as Editor-in-Chief by former Guardianista George Greig. Greig is a known for his ultra left positions and has immediately shifted the Mail’s stances on key issues, including just this week denouncing opponents of Theresa May’s disgusting Brexit sellout as “saboteurs”. (Sabotaging the establishment’s plan to integrate our nation into a European federal superstate?) The Mail has also, almost immediately scrubbed any discussion of immigration from their pages. Greig’s appointment is widely believed to have been orchestrated by the British establishment to censor the Mail by proxy.

Earlier this year the Daily Express’ owner, soft porn baron Richard Desmond announced that the paper was to be sold. The purchaser was Trinity Mirror, the publisher of the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror. The Mirror papers are Britain’s most widely read left-wing newspapers although to call them left wing is understatement, they are Maoist.

Their political allegiance lies firmly with the Labour Party, not respectable old Labour, the party of the working class, but Jeremy Corbyn’s Islamophiliac loony left that thinks importing ten million illiterate, uneducated Muslim peasants to britain will somehow culturally enrich us. Interestingly, the long-term Editor-in-Chief of the Express, Hugh Whittow, was ‘retired’ almost immediately after the acquisition and replaced with former Daily Mirror Editor Gary Jones. Needless to say, the Express has now conveniently dropped its reporting of issues pertaining to immigration and is soft peddaling on its support for Brexit.

Not long ago these takeovers would have been referred to the monopolies commission and the Trinity Mirror aquisition of the Express almost certainly rejected. There now remains not a single daily newspaper critical of mass-immigration, nor any realistically Eurosceptic ones, although news websites such as Breitbart or The Anti Media are going from strength to strength.

Anybody who believes there hasn’t been some collusion involved in the acquisitions and appointments that have occurred at both of the right of centre papers in the same year is clearly not paying attention. Without having to pass a single law to this effect, the British government has succeeded in neutering the only newspapers which had remotely stood up for the interests of the Silent Majority.

Now it’s down to us citizen journalists.

US Lobbying Group Accuses UK of ‘Attempting to Silence Criticism of Islamism’


Tommy Robinson – picture: Huffington Post

Controversial British activist Tommy Robinson was arrested on contempt of court charges earlier this year for filming inside Canterbury Crown Court while four suspected rapists were being tried. Robinson,  real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has been invited to the USA to speak at a closed-door conservative event and publicly address Americans in Washington.

The Middle East Forum, seven members of congress, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, invited Robinson on Wednesday to give a talk at the Conservative Opportunity Society in November, provided legal proceedings against the activist end favorably and permit him to travel abroad.

While Robinson’s political views may be a tad extreme for most, he has a point in accusing the UK government and legal system of failing to act properly and justly in failing to prosecute the predominantly Muslim members of gangs that for many years groomed and abused vulnerable, under age girls in British towns. Police and care authorities were pressurised by politicians to ignore reports of these crimes until a wave of public presure, led in part by Robinson, forced then to act.

 Supporters of Tommy Robinson Gather Outside Central London Court (VIDEO)

In a press release, the ME Forum accused the British government of “attempting to silence criticism of Islamism”, adding that Robinson will shed light on the matter and his work confronting Islamist extremists during his visit to Washington. There is a lot of evidence to support the allegation, and similar behaviour from the ruling elites of Europe have been one of the drivers of resurgent nationalism. Multiculturalism does not mean giving Muslims a licence to rape.

Furthermore, the US organization has vowed to “continue to support Mr. Robinson personally, as well as the general right to publicly discuss controversial subjects – including those related to Islam – without facing legal jeopardy.”

The group has lobbied the US government to pressure the UK throughout Robinson’s recent legal proceedings, also issuing numerous statements in support of him and his activism.

Government Fund Launched To Help Preserve Decaying Churches

St Chahttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2018/09/01/TELEMMGLPICT000173057493_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqeCwD--eYyhoJsbXUMQsWbRYttIy5bmvXE6XMwzZiu3k.jpeg?imwidth=1400's, Rochdale
St. Chad’s Rochdale – Picture credit: Credit: Alamy Stock Photo via Daily Telegraph

Launching a government funded £1.8m scheme to maintain and preserve some of Britain’s most beautiful churches that are at risk, Historic England Chief Executive, Duncan Wilson, said: “ We are committed to supporting congregations who care for these extraordinary buildings and pleased that the pilot will be looking not only at the buildings themselves, but also at how they can be imaginatively used so they can once again be at the heart of local communities.”

The scheme, to be managed by Historic England, will pay for urgent repairs and support the efforts of volunteers to maintain listed buildings including churches, synagogues, and meeting houses in two pilot areas, Suffolk and Greater Manchester. The tasks involved often require specialist skills.

The pilot regions were chosen because one is more urban and other other more rural, and the scope of the project has been based on the recommendations of last year’s Taylor Review which examined the sustainability of English churches and cathedrals. The report stated that church buildings play a “vital role” in offering public services, and give communities a sense of identity.

It recommended that they should be opened up for other uses, such as Post Offices, flu jabs and youth clubs to help ensure a more sustainable future for the buildings. The Daily Stirrer and our predecessor were, as usual, way ahead of the game when we suggested ten years ago that such a scheme was needed.

The diocese of Manchester has already earmarked for help from the scheme, Anglican churches which could benefit from the fund, including St Chad’s, Rochdale (above), a Grade I listed church in need of repair, and St Thomas, Halliwell which needs modernising and plans to work with a local school.

Manchester’s churches are already used to host foodbanks, breakfast and holiday clubs, credit unions and debt advice centres and support services for refuges and asylum seekers.

Now we will make another suggestion that we hope politicians and bureaucrats might one day catch up with. Part of the cost of this scheme could be offset if government departments and local councils stop giving generous grants to Muslim organisations for the building of Mosques and ‘Islamic Study Centres (aka training schools for jihadists.) There is no place in civilised, tolerant Britain for the brutal and primitive laws and customs of a medieval religion like Islam.

Prominent Labour Brexiteer REVEALS How EU Will Try Last Minute Switch To Shaft Brexit

German born former Labour MP Gisela Stuart and a leading leave campaigner in the run up to the Brexit referendum,  now Chair of Change Britain, said member states will come in at the very end of the Brexit process to try and salvage some kind of free trade deal, Stuart said on the BBC’s The Daily Politics magazine programme.

She told presenters Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn: “I have negotiated for 15 months with Barnier and that is a typical position.

“The member states come in at the very end and you will not have a deal until five minutes to midnight.

“All kinds of things which you thought were agreed or not agreed will raise their heads again.”

Remain supporting Labour MP Clive Lewis, one of the noisiest scaremongers who predicts catastrophe if we leave the EU on any terms other than those dictated by Brussels was asked if that reassures him.

He said: “No it does not because five minutes before midnight is not like ‘ooh you turn into a pumpkin’ it is queues at ports.

“That is not project fear this is the reality, you have got Jacob Rees-Mogg saying it could be 50years before we begin to feel the benefits of Brexit. My constituents have not got 50years to wait.”

Brexit hardliner Rees Mogg has said no such thing,  what he has said Britain is heading for a no deal exit from the EU, but why would anyone expect a remain supporter to be anything but a lying piece of shit. The whole Remain campaign was built on lies. Their biggest lie, and one of the most frequently repeated is that Britain cannot survive outside a trading bloc like the EU, which they claim is the largest such bloc in the world. Actually, its the only bloc of its kind in the world and it’s membership of 27 nations out of a total of 195 nations, most of which are doing quite nicely than you, suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for national survival.

During a phone-in on LBC this week, Mr Rees-Mogg said: “I think we are heading to WTO and I think WTO (World Trade Organisation) is nothing to be frightened of. I think we should carry on negotiating until the end. I don’t think we necessarily need the theatrics of walking away, but the truth is that WTO is likely to be all that they will offer us.”

In fact the trading terms for cross border trades observed by WTO members are not much different to trading terms between EU member states, but do not impose any ‘free movement’ or ‘open borders’ restrictions.

Brexit-supporting Fishermen Worried May Will Sell Them out After ‘30 Years of Torment


British fishermen fear Theresa the Appeaser May will sell out their industry to the EU, as Brussels negotiator Michel Barnier courts their European rivals in Denmark. It is outrageous, but typical of the Euronazis approach to negotiations that Brussels is making promises to EU member states about what they will be allowed to do in british territorial waters…

Trump Gets Tough after EU Threatens Taxes on Jeans, Bourbon, and Harley-Davidsons

U.S. President Donald Trump is adopting a tough on the European Union, after the Union’s unelected leaders threatened to impose punitive tariffs on leading American brands in retaliation for his attempts to protect the jobs of American steelworkers. “So now we will also impose import tariffs,” threatened Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the unelected European Commission, at an event in Hamburg, Germany.

Brexit-supporting Fishermen Worried May Will Sell Them out After ‘30 Years of Torment
British fishermen fear Theresa the Appeaser May will sell out their industry to the EU, as Brussels negotiator Michel Barnier courts their European rivals in Denmark. It is outrageous, but typical of the Euronazis approach to negotiations that Brussels is making promises to EU member states about what they will be allowed to do in …

Liam Fox Savages Labour’s ‘Betrayal’ Brexit Plan with UK in EU Customs Union
We’ve said it before and its certain all of us will say it again. If you lumped the whole of the parliamentary Labour Party together, they would just about equal the intellect of a retarded five year old suet pudding. Why would any sane person want to keep us in the EU customes union, which …

Europhile Tory Patten brands votes like Brexit ‘appalling and a sin against parliamentary democracy’
Former Conservative Cabinet minister ‘Lord’ Chris Patten has spoken of his ‘horror’ over Brexit and warned the EU was ‘devouring’ his party as Remainers rage, raged against the dying of the Europe projects hoping to block the flagship EU bill during the first day of a marathon 48-hour debate. Long time Europhile and elitist meritocrat …

Corbyn Comes Out: UK Can’t Stay in EU Single Market After Brexit
He’s been a lifelong opponent of the unemocratic, protectionist EU who has been held to ransome for a year and a half by the rabid remainmers in his party. now at last Jeremy Corvyn has come out of the closet and said there can be no half – arsed, half – in, half – out …

Why Brexit: A Reader Explains
In answer to the question “Why Does Britain Want To Leave The European Union” posed in a comment thread (in one of our other locations) a reader gave this explicit answer which is worth sharing as widely as possible. Why does the United Kingdom want to leave the European Union? David Reardon, M.A. International Relations …

Could Italy’s Banking Crisis Drag Down Mario Draghi?
The latest banking crisis in Italy risks focusing scrutiny on the leadership of both the Bank of Italy and Italy’s financial markets regulator Consob. The decision to give the central bank’s current Chairman Ignazio Visco a fresh six-year mandate despite his having presided over one of the worst banking crises in living memory …

Why does the United Kingdom want to leave the European Union?
I worked for the European Commission, the administrative branch of the EU governing bureaucracy for several years, though I was not an official but an external consultant. On the way to my office in the Batement Jean Monnet in Luxembourg City every morning I would pass a large plaque, The words etched on it described the vision of Monnet, Coudenhove – Kalergi, Robert Schuman, Paul – Henri Spaak and others, of a Europe in which there were no French people, no Germans, Italians, Dutch, Belgians and eventually, as the community expanded, no Britons, Spaniards Portuguese, Greeks, Austrians, Swedes etc., only Europeans,

Brussels Foreign Affairs Chief Mogherini Still Wants Turkey to Join EU

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini said in Malta on Friday that accession talks with Turkey have not been halted, following a Turkish referendum that gave President Erdogan dictatorial powers. Despite this rejection of the democratic principle all EU members are in theory expected to uphold, Mogherini still wants the predominently Islamic middle easter nation, to join.

Threat Of Major Scandal Prompted Early Election Move – UKIP
Leaders of the (UKIP) have made astonishing claim that Prime Minister Teresa May’s calling an early General Election was done to pre-empt a series of by-elections that could be called following alleged electoral fraud. Accusing the Conservative government of “putting party before country”, UKIP appeared to suggest the scandal and ensuing disqualification of MPs could rob the government of its slender majority.

Nigel Farage Swipes Back At Irrational, Screeching, Crazy Clinton
US Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton launched a hysterical, irrational attack, filled with half truths and blatant lies, against the most prominent figure in the campaign to get Britain out of the EU (Brexit), UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, during a speech at a rally today. Mrs Clinton, responding to Farage’s address to a large and enthusiastic audience at a Donald Trump rally, may have been rattled at the prospect of having such a hihly effective campaigner in the rival camp …

Rebellion Against EU Authoritarianism Escalates As 8th Member Nation Threatens Referendum
Brussels went too far, they crossed the line in moving from an economic union to a political pan – European political empire. In the end it was a race as to which member state would quit first, Britain, Natherlands, Denmark or Italy. In the event it is Britain.

Is Brexit A Harbinger Of Doom For The ‘Experts’
The Brexit vote, the decision by a democratic majority in Britain to leave the European Union has sent shockwaves around the world. Not only does the EU now face a tsunami of departures, the usurpation of democracy by ‘experts’ ( technocrats ) has been challenged and exposed as a sham.

Sir Bill Cash makes BRILLIANT point about May’s Brexit sellout

brexit-brexit-news-chequers-bbc-newsnight-newsnight-chequers-chequers-meeting-chequers-brevet-soft-brevet-1410594Bill Cash (picure: BBC )

Long term opponent of the EU and prominent Brexiteer Sir Bill Cash expressed “deep disappointment” on BBC Newsnight yesterday at Tereason May’s betrayal of her country in presenting a Brexit plan that complies with all EU demands but offers no concesions from the EU on British demands. The plan was agreed after an all day cabinet meeting   at Chequers. Cash responded by claimed that “the law of the land” is not being applied.

Appearing on the news magazine show Cash, Conservative MP and veteran Brexiteer, said some very important questions have been raised by the statement the Government had put out.

He told BBC presenter Evan Davis: “First, does it meet the tests of the referendum itself?

He continued by making a point: “The Repeal Act that went through two weeks ago specifically says that the 1972 Act will be repealed on Brexit day.

“Now when it does that it quite clearly also says you can’t stay in the single market, you can’t stay in the customs union, you can’t stay in the European court.

“That’s what becoming rather disturbing.”

Police State Britain

BS WB MENKEN D

Authored by Neema Parvini via The Mises Institute,

This article will demonstrate how the United Kingdom has steadily become a police state over the past twenty years, weaponizing its institutions against the people and employing Orwellian techniques to stop the public from seeing the truth. It will demonstrate, contrary to official narratives, that both overall levels of crime and violent crime have been increasing, not decreasing, as the size of the state in the UK has gotten bigger. It will also expose how the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010, deliberately obscured real crime data with estimated crime rates based on survey data as opposed to the real numbers. I will demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion perpetuated by progressive myths, life was much safer in Britain during the era of classical laissez-faire from the 1850s to 1911.

In his 10 years in power from 1997 to 2007, Tony Blair passed an astonishing 26,849 laws in total, an average of 2,663 per year or 7.5 a day. The Labour Party continued this madness under Gordon Brown who broke the record in 2008 by passing 2,823 new laws, a 6% increase on even his megalomaniac predecessor. In 2010, Labour’s last year in power before handing over the reigns to the Blairite social radical, David Cameron, there was a 54% surge in privacy cases brought against public bodies, and the Cabinet were refusing freedom of information requests at a rate of 51%. The vast number of new laws under Labour does not count the 2,100 new regulations the EU passed in 2006 alone, which apparently is average for them.

Many of these vast changes under Blair and Brown were in the area of criminal law. By 2008, Labour had created more than 3,600 new offences. Many of these, naturally, were red-tape regulations. To give you an idea:

  • Creating a nuclear explosion
  • Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
  • To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden
  • Disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer
  • Obstructing workers from carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway
  • Offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day
  • Allowing an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre
  • A ship’s captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the International Grain Code on board
  • Scallop fishing without the correct boat
  • Breaking regulation number 10 of the 1998 Apple and Pear Grubbing Up Regulations
  • Selling Polish Potatoes

There are many more. However, there were also some more serious breaches of civil liberty.

One common tactic of the Blair government was to use a moral panic to pass radical new legislation. For example, in 2006, he passed the Terrorism Act that overturned habeas corpus and gave the British police the right to detain anyone for any reason for 90 days. At the time, this got widespread public support because of the recent 7/7 bombings in London. This means that, in the UK, the police can arrest you without you necessarily having committed a crime if they can brand your activities as “terrorist” or “extremist.” Although these laws were ostensibly brought about to combat Islamic terrorism, the ever-expanding definitions of “far right” and “extremist” demonstrate how they can be weaponised against the British people.

Another area in which the Labour government used moral panic cynically to overturn longstanding common law principles was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which they used to eliminate the double jeopardy rule and, as per the MacPherson report, to put an end to colour-blind policing.

Recently there have been an increased number of cases in which the British state has encroached on civil liberties in a near-openly tyrannical way. The Count Dankula case, for example, in which a man was arrested for “hate speech,” then tried and made to pay a fine for telling off-colour jokes about the Nazis on Youtube. Then there was the young woman who was found guilty of being “grossly offensive” for posting Snoop Dogg lyrics on her Instagram account. And, most recently, the political activist Tommy Robinson was arrested and tried in mere hours for recording outside a courtroom. In each of these cases, despite some protests against the legal rulings, the media broadly sided with the courts, citing the technicalities of the law – in the former two cases section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 (another Blair special) – and brand anyone who would protest “far right” or “extremist.”

“Gaslighting” is a word from the world of psychology; it is a technique of manipulation to achieve power. Here are eleven warning signs:

  1. They tell blatant lies.
  2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
  3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
  4. They wear you down over time.
  5. Their actions do not match their words.
  6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
  7. They know confusion weakens people.
  8. They project.
  9. They try to align people against you.
  10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
  11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

The British state has become increasingly Orwellian in its gaslighting of the British public since at least 1997 with near-total complicity from the media. In a recent article for Quillette, I argued that this has been the case in both Britain and the USA for years.

This has especially been the case in the area of crime. During a period in which both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have become increasingly statist and interventionist on both an economic and civil level, we have been continually told that one of the positive effects of ever-increasing government control is that society is becoming more peaceful. This is the narrative, for example, of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. In 2005, The Guardian told us that since 1995 overall crime had decreased by 44%. Almost a decade later the same publication wondered out loud what could be causing the continued decline in crime rates in the UK. And just a few years after that, they had changed their tune completely decrying sudden increases in violent crime and blaming this on cuts in police numbers. In the first few months of 2018, the shocking increases in instances of violent crime in Sadiq Khan’s London, which in the past year has seen rises of 31.3% in knife crime, 78% in acid attacks, 70% in youth homicides, 33.4% in robberies, 18.7% in burglaries, 33.9% in theft and 30% in child sex crime.  But this story told by The Guardian – of a general trend down in crime over the past twenty years followed by a sudden and inexplicable spike – is simply not true, as I will demonstrate in this paper.

In 1997, Tony Blair famously ran on a platform of being ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’. Unfortunately for him, the reality of empirical crime data had stubbornly refused to comply with his anointed vision through his first years in power. “New Labour” were famous for the efficiency of their propaganda machine. American readers will no doubt be aware of Mr. Blair’s complicity in making exaggerated claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” in the run up to the war in Iraq, but few readers – British, American, or otherwise – will know that the Blair government was also lying about the extent of crime in Britain. The Labour Party, who were so much about media perceptions and political spin, needed to find a way to show on paper that their “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” agenda was making good on its promise. So, in 2003, Tony Blair permanently changed the way crime is reported in the UK by introducing the National Crime Recording Standard’ (NCRS). Up until that point, crime in the UK was reported using hard data drawn from actual arrests and convictions from the police. However, from that point onwards, the official statistics were to be drawn from the British Crime Survey which estimates crime based on a survey of 50,000 people aged 16 or over. This works much like how television companies produce estimates for their show ratings. So that means that the statistics you see quoted in newspapers like The Guardian are not hard figures, but estimates drawn from surveys. Whatever the merits of this method, it produced a graph for the Blair government that looked like this:

parvini1

This change ostensibly came about because – as part of the “tough on the causes of crime” part of their pledge, Labour wanted to count victims as opposed to the total number of offenders. Of course, this takes a huge number of crimes out of the data. For example, as it was introduced in 2003, because only over 16-year olds could be interviewed, crimes against minors were not registered in the official statistics. Also, because interviews had to take place in private properties, street crime habitually would not show up in these numbers. Of course, so-called “victimless” crimes – fraud or online crime – do not show up in this data either. Once you start to account for some of these caveats, it becomes more obvious why this extraordinary change in methodology would produce a downwards trend in the data. In fact, it was explicitly designed so that, because of these changes, it could not be compared with numbers before 2002.

In 2007, Ken Pease and Graham Farrell estimated that the survey data could be underestimating violent crime by as much as 82%, with the real number of victims closer to 4.4 million than 2.4 million. This massive margin of error means that the real crime rate becomes a matter for debate as opposed to a question of hard evidence. It seems to me that this was a deliberate choice by the Blair government. Hence, we now find the BBC wondering about what the real crime rate might be.   And this is where the true extent of the Orwellian nightmare of the Blair and Gordon Brown years dawns: by making the crime rate an estimate neither political party can reliably point to the facts, and it always becomes a question of one difficult to substantiate narrative against another. “Post-truth” did not start with Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump – Tony Blair was doing it from the minute he stepped into office.

However, real numbers of convicted offenders are still recorded and kept, although they are somewhat difficult to obtain. In the run-up to the 2010 British election, Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, requested the real numbers from the House of Commons library which duly produced a series of independent reports. Incidentally, once the leader of the Tories, David Cameron, became prime minister in 2010, Chris Grayling became the Secretary for Justice and, to my knowledge, was happy to let this little detail slide and continue with the survey-based methodology. It is funny how power can change the incentives for action.

In any case, the numbers that Grayling requested are damning for anyone who claims that either overall crime or violent crime decreased in the UK between 1997 and 2010.

The population of the UK was about 58 million people in 1997. In 2008, that had increased to 62 million, an increase of 6.87%. In that same period male violent crime convictions in England and Wales increased by around 63.92% from 49,153 in 1997 to 80,574 in 2008. So violent crime convictions increased by more than ten times the growth of the population.

Increases like this can been seen across virtually every category of crime. Convictions for persons under 18, for example, increased by 60.18% from 12,806 in 1997 to 20,513 in 2008, in keeping with the average increase in violent crime, this is ten times the rate of population growth in the same period. Knife crime practically doubled during the Blair years, from 3,360 offenders in 1997 to 6,368 in 2008. In 1998 there were 5,542 robberies, in 2008 there were 8,475. From the year 2000 to 2008, the total number of arrests for any offence went up from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, an increase of about 17%.

For the claim to be true that violent crime went down 44% during the 00s in the UK, it would have to be at a time when violent crime convictions went up 64%. For the claim to be true that overall crime went down in from 1997 to 2008, it would have to be at a time when overall convictions for crime went up by 17%. Both claims seem extraordinary: how could there be a rise in convictions without a corresponding increase in crime? The methodology that measures victims through estimates from survey data clearly is not getting this correct.

If we use recorded convictions in this way, as opposed to estimates, we can make meaningful comparisons to the past as Peter Hitchens does in The Abolition of Liberty. As we have seen, the total number of convictions in England and Wales for 2008 was around 1.47 million for a population of 62 million people, around 2.25% of the population. According to Hitchens the comparable number in 1861 at the height of laissez-faire was 88,000 for a population of 20,066,224, or around 0.44% of the population. In 1911, before Leviathan and the welfare state had really had a chance to grow, the number was 97,000 for a population of 36,075,269, or around 0.27% of the population. The claim that crime has risen because of government cuts to the numbers of police also cannot stand since in 1911 there were 51,203 officers whereas by 2009 there were 144,353 officers. The increase in police officers from 1911 to 2009 therefore is 181.92% compared with an increase of 71.86% in total population. So the size of the repressive apparatuses of the state have increased greatly, and with it the total number of criminals.

It is clear that with less personal freedom and a bigger and more invasive state comes less personal responsibility and greater lawlessness. It is also clear that as the British state has become more top-down in orientation than in its common-law past, it has levied increased coercive legislative power against the British people it supposedly serves. The state is now behaving in an openly Orwellian manner with near-explicit contempt for the public.

UK government survives key Brexit parliamentary vote

Britain’s Conservative-propped-up-by-Northern-Irish-DUP government survived a move to strengthen parliament’s power to intervene if no divorce deal is reached with Brussels by the end of this year. A rebellion by pro-EU MPs was headed off after they were promised a “meaningful vote” on the outcome.

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s position would have neen under threat had she not won the vital parliamentary vote on Wednesday. The victory will allow her government to offer lawmakers a take-it-or-leave-it decision on any final Brexit deal.

MPs voted by 319 to 303 to reject an amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which sets the legal framework for the UK to leave the European Union.

Pro-EU politicians spent months lobbying for parliament to be given the opportunity to stop Britain crashing out of the EU without a future trade deal, which they say will be a disaster for the British economy.

May offered parliament a vote on the final terms of any deal with Brussels, but has rejected what she sees as any attempt to undermine the chances of a strong Brexit deal. Those opposed to a hard Brexit wanted the option to return negotiators to talks with the EU, rather than crashing out with no trade deal at all — something the government says will weaken its position in the eyes of Brussels.

Read an analysis by European commentators in Deutsche Welle: ‘Armageddon’ Brexit: ‘No deal’ scenario could hit fuel and food