During the Question Time Ukraine Special last night, former Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt (who is married to Stephen Kinnock) smugly came out with this disconnected-from-reality take:
“First of all you said something that made me almost chuckle before, when you said ‘Putin will think that the UK’s leading the efforts against Russia right now’ of course it’s not. The EU is leading the effort against Russia so I don’t think they’ll see Boris Johnson as a particular leader in this field”
Leaving aside the fact David Lammy can be seen nodding along to this nonsensical bilge, Thorning-Schmidt is clearly oblivious to the UK government trying to go further and faster than almost all of the EU when it comes to sending military equipment, banning Russia from SWIFT and sanctioning more Russian assets than the US and EU combined. It was not the UK that dithered on sanctions, or carved out exceptions so Italy could carry on exporting luxury handbags to Putin’s regime.
Even Kremlin spokesman Maria Zakharova contradicts Lammy et al: “London plays one of the leading, if not the main, roles, leaves us no choice but to take proportionately tough retaliatory measures. London has made a final choice of open confrontation with Russia.” A back handed compliment to London’s leading role against Russia.
Of course it’s not just Thorning-Schmidt becoming deranged by this self-loathing brain rot.
The inhumanity of our Govts resistance to fleeing refugees is depriving the kind and generous hearts of the British people of their capacity for compassion… we want to help… please let us.
— Deborah Meaden 🇺🇦 (@DeborahMeaden) March 8, 2022
"I'm very grateful to you Boris" says Zelensky, calling for tighter sanctions.
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) March 8, 2022
The UK lags behind the EU and US.
Apart from the UK, are there any other western democracies that are still allowing members of Putin's government to buy and sell assets, set up companies, and raise money? Is the UK alone or are there other safe havens for them to use?
— Jessica Simor QC (@JMPSimor) March 6, 2022
.@BrookesTimes pic.twitter.com/js62y6GW7k
— Anna Soubry (@Anna_Soubry) March 4, 2022
Very funny seeing these stupid fucking op-eds saying "Putin feels like he can attack Ukraine because we are all too woke" instead of saying "it's because he literally owns our Prime Minister"
— Nish Kumar (@MrNishKumar) March 5, 2022
Did he thank you and @pritipatel for being world leading in the raising of obstacles to 🇺🇦 refugees? Or for the succour you continue to give to Putin- and Tory-backing 🇷🇺 oligarchs? https://t.co/Wuw6K3AiS8
— ALASTAIR CAMPBELL (@campbellclaret) March 10, 2022
Orwell’s oft quoted point that “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality” could be re-applied to remoaners, it is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any tweeting, FBPE hashtagging, blue ticker would feel more ashamed of crediting Boris for something than of stealing from a poor box. All of this is without going over those who revelled in Russia’s foreign minister insulting Liz Truss, because our enemies are less bad than any Tory. Yesterday’s polling showed how those on the ground in Ukraine actually feel, without the luxury to sit back and play political point-scoring via Twitter. Boris is the most popular politician after Zelenskyy among the Ukrainian people, though in the minds of deranged Remoaners he may as well be Putin…
Some of the most erratic QCs on Twitter really did not like Guido’s report yesterday on new guidelines for barristers on social media. Former Change UK candidate Jessica Simor QC asked Guido to take her picture out of the article which shows examples of her questionable language. Simor even attempted to argue that she had only ever sworn once on Twitter, which came as news to Guido whose cursory search quickly collated multiple instances…
Which one of these was the only time you have ever sworn on Twitter? pic.twitter.com/AvKbcU3kkX
— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) October 21, 2019
It seems to Guido that one of the reasons QCs were so upset by yesterday’s article is that that there quite possibly have been a good few of breaches of these new guidelines, with the twitterers in question regularly engaging in language that may be “considered distasteful” and that is “designed to demean or insult.”
Jolyon Maugham QC has even encouraged complaints, stating that he welcomes regulatory oversight. To be fair to him, Guido can see that he has been much more careful and measured in his online conduct than other members of his profession. If you see behaviour online that is genuinely in breach (comments that have clearly been designed to demean or insult), why not report the barrister using the Bar Standards Board’s online reporting form here?
UPDATE: See more colourful tweets from Sweary Simor here…
In the froth of the last few weeks, the hapless antics of the tiny remaining cabal of diehard anti-Brexit lawyers have almost been overlooked, as yet another legal challenge to Brexit was crushed. Jessica Simor QC was judged wrong on more or less every argument she tried to make as she went down in flames Jolyon-style…
Simor tried to seek a judicial review of May’s triggering of Article 50, arguing that it was unlawful because it was “based upon the result of a referendum that was itself unlawful as a result of corrupt and illegal practices, notably offences of overspending committed by those involved in the campaign to leave the EU”. Simor’s initial case had already been rejected in December, she appealed against this on seven grounds. The judges hearing the appeal shredded every single one…
Simor’s first ground was that the referendum failed to comply with Common Law due to “corrupt and illegal practices” and therefore “could not properly be taken to express the democratic will of the people”. The judge said he was “unable to accept [Simor’s] submission as even arguable”…
The judge rejected any notion that any breaches of the rules affected the outcome of the referendum result, stating “there is simply no evidential basis for the proposition that the breaches, or any of them, are material in the sense that, had they not occurred, the result of the referendum would have been different.” The car crash attempt from the Oxford Internet Institute to try to “prove” that Vote Leave’s alleged overspending had already been dismissed by the original judge as “essentially speculative and based on propositions that were patently unsound.” The Carole crowd won’t enjoy hearing that…
To quote the Lord Justice Hickinbottom, “Ms Simor’s difficulties do not end there.” Simor submitted three other substantive grounds, trying to argue that May’s Article 50 notification was unlawful and that she was guilty of a “continuing failure to respond to the developing evidence of illegality in the EU referendum”, which were all also rejected by the judge as “unarguable”. Three further technical grounds were also dismissed. About as crushing a defeat as you can get…
The judge noted that “the Applicants clearly oppose the UK leaving the EU; and hold strong views to that effect”, before adding a warning that “Judicial review is not, and should not be regarded as, politics by another means.” Not that it’ll stop Jolyon & Co. taking gullible people’s money for his never-ending series of unsuccessful lawfare campaigns any time soon…
