Total Visits

Wednesday, 27 June 2018



Recently I was interested to read of the launch of a new pro-Brexit group.  This group is particularly interesting because it is a Left-wing patriotic venture.  

Within living memory it would not have raised any eyebrows for there to be a group of Left-wing patriots, but nowadays we are so used to the Left accusing anybody who shows any pride in their Nation of being “Racists” or “Fascists” because the Left has become increasingly Internationalist in its thinking. 
The “Full Brexit” started with a foundation statement which I reproduce here :-


Founding Statement

Brexit offers a historic opportunity for democratic and economic renewal. This opportunity is being squandered by Britain’s political class. The Full Brexit will set out radical arguments for a clean break with the European Union. Instead of the conservative nostalgia of the Eurosceptics, our arguments will put the interests of working people – the majority of citizens – at the centre of the case for a democratic Brexit.

In the EU referendum, British voters seized the opportunity to protest against a politics that offers no real alternatives and an economic model that leaves many behind. The Leave campaign’s slogan, “take back control”, resonated with millions of people whose interests are no longer represented in British politics. For this revolt, Leave voters have been slandered as dupes and racists. The Full Brexit stands up for and with the majority of British people: not just Leavers, but also Remain voters who believe the decision must be respected, and for everyone hungry for meaningful political and economic change.

Eurosceptics rightly complain that powerful elite Remainers are conspiring to sabotage Brexit. But this is not the main reason Brexit is adrift. The real cause is that the entire political class lacks any compelling vision of Britain’s future, leaving most British citizens without effective political representation.

Having lost touch with ordinary people, political parties have retreated into European Union policymaking networks. After decades of integration, few politicians, civil servants or academic experts can now imagine any kind of future outside of the EU. Yet Leave campaigners on the right also lack any positive vision. Nostalgic bluster about “Global Britain” has led only to the sterile argument about free trade agreements versus the Single Market and the Customs Union. This wrangling about trade fails to address the problems that led people to reject the EU.

The problems of low investment, stagnant wages and ageing infrastructure that blight our towns and cities require a much more fundamental reconsideration of Britain’s economic and political model. Lacking ideas about how to tackle the deeper problems, politicians on all sides are defaulting to conservative positions, seeking to minimise change, whether through full single market membership or “regulatory alignment”, mostly to defend vested interests like the City of London.

This lack of vision threatens to neutralise Brexit’s potential to renew our political and economic life. EU rules are not neutral: they lock in a set of neoliberal policies that tightly constrain governments’ capacity to innovate, experiment, and tackle voters’ concerns. By preventing practical redress of voters’ grievances, this corrodes representative democracy. Brexit offers a precious opportunity to change this. If this opportunity is squandered, the public will rightly conclude that voting changes nothing. Disengagement and cynicism will intensify and populism – rampant elsewhere in the EU – will surge, threatening what is left of our parliamentary democracy.

A challenge to the logic that “There is No Alternative” is urgently needed, and this must come from the left. The Full Brexit is not a political party. We do not all agree about each and every policy or document on this website. But we do agree, first, that the left’s proper role is to be the architect of a better, more democratic future and, second, that a clean break with the EU is needed to realise that potential.
To this end, we will provide analysis of the present political situation and proposals for the future. We will engage with the public, politicians and anyone who shares our democratic ethos. And we will conduct our work in solidarity with those on the left in other European countries to develop a genuinely internationalist and democratic politics of national sovereignty.

Brexit offers an unprecedented opportunity to reshape Britain for the better. Please join us in that mission.

Founding Signatories

​Christopher Bickerton, University of Cambridge
Philip Cunliffe, University of Kent
Paul Embery, Trade Unionists Against the EU
Thomas Fazi, Author and Journalist
Maurice Glasman, House of Lords
David Goodhart, Author and Journalist
Matthew Goodwin, University of Kent
Pauline Hadaway, University of Manchester
James Heartfield, Author and Journalist
Kevin Hickson, University of Liverpool
Lee Jones, Queen Mary University of London
Costas Lapavitsas, School of Oriental and African Studies
Martin Loughlin, London School of Economics
Tara McCormack, University of Leicester
Jasper Miles, Goldsmiths College, University of London
Peter Ramsay, London School of Economics
Richard Tuck, Harvard University​
Bruno Waterfield, Journalist
Philip B Whyman, University of Central Lancashire
Suke Wolton, Regents Park College, University of Oxford

Prof Mary Davis, London; Anshu Srivastava, Architect and Community Organiser; Prof William Mitchell, University of Newcastle, Australia; Prof Danny Nicol, University of Westminster; Prof Phil Hammond, London South Bank University; Dr Paul Stott, SOAS University of London; Dr Jim Butcher, Canterbury Christ Church University; Jonathan Rutherford, Writer; Dr George Hoare, London; Kevin McCullagh, London; Lord Moonie, House of Lords; Alex Harries, Labour Party; Tracy O’Sullivan, Colchester; John Penney, Labour Party; Prof Steve Hall, Teeside University; Leon Russell-Hills, Electrician; Nick Harding, Labour Party; Mike Morris, Guildford; J Brian Harrison-Jennings, Former General Secretary, Association of Educational Psychologists; Dave Harris, Retired Lecturer; Mike Dunford, Labour Party; Peter Hurst, Liverpool; Dr Vanessa Pupavac, University of Nottingham; Alexander Birchall, London; Sue Heap, London; Prof Wolfgang Streeck, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne

Their website can be found here >>> A new development involving Professor Matthew Goodwin for consideration:

I thought the analysis of why the British Political Establishment is making such a mess of Brexit was extremely interesting and very perceptive.  

Just to remind you here is what has been said:-  “The real cause is that the entire political class lacks any compelling vision of Britain’s future, leaving most British citizens without effective political representation.
Having lost touch with ordinary people, political parties have retreated into European Union policymaking networks. After decades of integration, few politicians, civil servants or academic experts can now imagine any kind of future outside of the EU.”

This searing analysis does implicitly lay stress on the increasingly urgent need to get rid of the British Political Establishment who infest Parliament with their “Institutional Uselessness” and their corruption of its constitutional purpose to be the voice of the Nation. 

I feel I can do no better than to quote Oliver Cromwell:-  "You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Friday, 22 June 2018



It was always a bad idea for any sort of patriotic party to be standing in the Lewisham East by-election.  Let me explain why and please bear with me in being brutally honest about it.

When I was aware that the Labour MP, Heidi Alexander, was stepping down and causing a by-election in the Lewisham East constituency, I was immediately very doubtful as to whether it was worth the English Democrats standing there.  Although I should say that I would never discourage any of our members from standing even in the most unpromising areas if they really want to do so and have the necessary resources to do so.  Even in the most discouraging constituencies there may be some potential converts to the Cause of England!

Lewisham East is certainly such a seat.  Looking at the 2011 Census results Lewisham is a place where relatively few people identified as being “English” and surprisingly few even identified as being in any sense multi-cultural “British”.  

Since 2011 the misleadingly named “Conservative” Party (which actually is led by “Liberal” zealots) has continued with the unrestricted, uncontrolled mass immigration of New Labour and so every single year since then half a million or more immigrants have come to England, many of them settling in places like Lewisham.  That together with “white flight” or the continuing movement of English people out of such places, has led to a near total population displacement where the indigenous English population is largely absent. 

In an area where the indigenous populations are still there, what we see across Western Europe is that the patriotic and nationalist vote rarely exceeds 50% and is usually not more than 30%.  

Because of the way electoral politics works people should not get discouraged at that percentage because a block vote of 30% of the electorate would generally get the candidate elected.  That is of course unless the 30% is split up amongst various parties, as is the case at present in England, with the Conservative Party in particular always standing as a spoiler even in the most unpromising seats for the Conservative Party. 

The “Conservative” objective in doing so is of course to prevent any other party from breaking through, even where they do not actually want to win that constituency.  
This Tory strategem is very much like the Aesop’s Fable of ‘The dog in the Manger’!  
The top of this article is the picture of ‘The dog in the Manger’. Here is that story:-

“A Dog was lying in a Manger full of hay. 

An Ox, being hungry, came near and was going to eat of the hay. 

The Dog, getting up and snarling at him, would not let him touch it. 

“Surly creature,” said the Ox, ” you cannot eat the hay yourself, and yet you will let no one else have any.””

Sure enough in Lewisham the Conservatives and most of the parties to the Left were putting up what is now rather curiously (in such constituencies) still called ethnic minority candidates even where the real ethnic minority in such a constituency would be “White English”!

UKIP put up a black “ethnic minority” their popular London Assembly Member David Kurten.  

The new and it seems politically naive ‘Democrats and Veterans Party’ put up the splendidly named Massimo Dimambro who had 2013 votes in Lewisham Deptford for UKIP in 2015.

Anne Marie Waters who is the Leader of her own new UKIP splinter party which she has called the anodyne “For Britain” very unwisely put herself up to stand in this constituency.  She got 266 votes this time under her new flag compared with the last election where she stood in the constituency then as UKIP candidate when she got 3886 votes!  

Judging from comments on social media it would seem that some of her supporters had got sucked into thinking that she might have been able to do well in this constituency.  For the reasons that I have explained above that was always going to be difficult. 

I had predicted that UKIP, For Britain and the Democrats and Veterans Party together would not get 5%.  In the event combined they got 3.2%.  

Even adding in the Conservative spoiler Candidate's 3,161 the total Right of center vote was only 3874 which is 12 short of just UKIP's vote in 2015.

A point of debate was which of them would avoid being beaten by the Monster Raving Loony Party.  In the event the ones beaten by the Loonies were the Democrats and Veterans Party. Anne Marie Walters managed to avoid that fate by a margin of 173 votes. 

It would be interesting to see what the paltry results in this by-election will have on the future development of UKIP, The Democrats and Veterans Party and in particular on the For Britain Party, whose leader Anne Marie Waters had staked so much of her credibility on making a reasonable showing here.

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

Article called “Pale, Male and Stale?” reported to the Police as a Racist, Sexist and Ageist "Hate Crime".

Article called “Pale, Male and Stale?” reported to the Police as a Hate Crime.

I have been calling on people from our side to be more active in using the weapons of Political Correctness against its advocates. I recently came across another opportunity to set an example of what can easily be done.

I am therefore setting out below my correspondence with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) over a blog item entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” by Lisa Hornung.  

Having got no satisfaction I then reported both the Organisation and the author to the police.

Here is the correspondence with the NCVO and the police:-

4th May 2018

Society Building
8 All Saints Street
N1 9RL

Dear Sir

Re:  Your Blog article Entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” - complaint
entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” 

This is an expression which is both sexist, racist and ageist and insulting, abusive and grossly offensive against older white men.  Lisa Hornung also makes the fundamental error of stating that charities should be run to make “diversity a top priority”.

Anyone involved in running a charity ought to know that “Diversity” is not the primary objective.  The primary objective of a charity is to be run to achieve its charitable purposes.  “Diversity” if it is to be considered to be an objective at all, is certainly no more than a second or third order objective.  Of course what Liza

Hornung means by this comment, which is contrary to the fundamental Laws of Charity here in England, is that charities should, in her Leftist, Internationalist political world view be run in such a way as to conform with her view rather than in accordance with English Law and practice. 

Taken together this article and the relevant tweet on the NCVO’s twitter account which reads as below are anti-White, anti-male, anti-older comments which are grossly offensive, abusive and insulting both within the meaning of Section’s 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and contrary to within the meaning of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Our researcher @ncvolisa looks at the lack of diversity in volunteering, and how we can address it:

Pale, male and stale?

1.25am – 30 Apr 2018”

I am hereby making a formal complaint against your organisation generally and Ms Hornung in particular.  I shall consider your response and in the light of that make a decision as to whether to report this matter to the police as a “Hate Speech” Crime.

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook

Letter received from National Council for Voluntary Organisations dated Friday, 11th May 2018

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Re:  Complaint reference 4/05/18/1

Your letter of 4 May was referred to me in line with our complaints policy and I have reviewed your concerned.

The phrase you refer to is used as a shorthand for the issue under discussion, as befits the headline of an article.  It is not used in an abusive or insulting manner.  Indeed, the blog post title is deliberately phrased as a question, and the answer that the blog post sets out is that this ‘civic core’ contribute greatly through their volunteering.

You object to the recommendation in the blog post that organisations wishing to address a lack of diversity may wish to make doing so a top priority.  It is NCVO’s firm and long-held view that organisations are made stronger by involving people of all ages and backgrounds and that seeking to enhance the diversity of volunteers is a positive move for any charity.

You may like to note that the Charity Commission is of a similar view:

In conclusion, I am content that NCVO and our staff have acted entirely appropriately and that the blog post raises no credible grounds for complaint.

If you are not satisfied with this response, our complaints policy gives you the opportunity to have it reviewed.  Should you wish to do so, please contact the complaints coordinator, Tracy Kiernan, at this address.


Aidan Warner
External Relations Manager

And my reply: dated 29th May 2018

Mr Aiden Warner
External Relations Manager
Society Building
8 All Saints Street
London  N1 9RL

Dear Sir

Re:  Complaint Reference 4/05/18/1

Thank you for your letter of the 11th May. 
We do not agree with your characterisation of what is clearly a racist, ageist and sexist “Hate Speech” Crime.  In the circumstances we shall be reporting your organisation and Ms Hornung to the police with a view to prosecution. 
On the subject of diversity; what you and the Charity Commission have said is merely a subjective political assertion, as would be the counter assertion that homogeneity gives organisational coherence and strength. 
These are matters of political and philosophical debate and do not negate the laws against “Hate Speech”.
Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 30 May 2018 16:10
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident

Dear Sir
Re:  Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident

I wish to report both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and also Ms Lisa Hornung, the author, for her blog item on the NCVO’s website found here >>>  >>> entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?”  Such a remark is anti-white, racist, anti-man, sexist, anti-older people and ageist.  It was also put out on their Facebook and Twitter accounts.
We have made a complaint to NCVO and set out below the contents of our letter which explains my reasoning.  This offending article and the supporting Facebook and Twitter postings were publicised, inter alia, in Essex.
Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook
English Lobby
“Protecting English Culture and Values”
A not for profit lobbying organization

From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:23
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident 
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email, if you wish to report a hate incident then I’m afraid that you will either need to call into Essex Police on 101 and press the option to report a crime please be aware our phone lines are very busy and there is usually a wait or if you have access to the internet please report it on line on the below link.

Kind Regards

Essex Police
Crime Bureau

From: Robin Tilbrook
To: Crime.bureau
Sent: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:47
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident 
Dear Sir

RE:  Report of “Hate Crime” incident

Thank you for your email. 

I have reported Hate Crimes to you via email before.  What is different about this one?

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook
English Lobby
“Protecting English Culture and Values”
A not for profit lobbying organization

MR ROBIN TILBROOK                                                   Date: 01/06/2018
Quires Green, Walls Green                                    Crime Ref: 42/76534/18

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

I am writing about the crime you reported to us on 30/05/2018.

The details of this offence have been recorded and allocated Crime Reference Number: 42/76534/18.

Crime can be both emotionally and physically traumatic for victims, resulting in a considerable amount of street.  If you feel the need for confidential support or assistance, please contact Victim Support on 0808 1689111.

We are carrying out further investigations and we may be in contact with you if we need to obtain any additional information.

Should you require any further advice or have any additional information regarding this investigation please telephone the police non-emergency number 101.  Please quote your crime reference number in all correspondence.

Yours sincerely

PSE 76567 James Swatton
Essex Police

Code of Practice for Victims of Crime

The code of Practice for Victims of Crime sets out the services to be provided to victims of criminal conduct by criminal justice organisations in England and Wales.

Enhanced entitlements are provided to victims of the most serious crime, persistently targeted victims and vulnerable or intimidated victims.
You can find out more about the Victims code of Practice at:

  • Read the full Victims Code of Practice

  • Download the leaflet for ‘Information for Victims of Crime’

  • Making a Victim Personal Statement

  • More Information on Crime, Justice & the Law

  • Get support as a Victim of Crime

Saturday, 2 June 2018

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs

On Friday, 25th May, I happened to tune into Tommy Robinson’s live feed on Facebook not long before he was arrested by seven (yes seven!) West Yorkshire Police under the dishonest claim that he was inciting a “Breach of the Peace”. 

From what I saw at the time and from what I have seen since I stand by my assertion that that claim was dishonest.  As so far as I can see there was no basis for saying that he was inciting a Breach of the Peace. 

In fact the police’s actions afterwards suggest that that was always a lie.  At the time all we heard was that within two hours of his arrest he had been sentenced to 13 months imprisonment and taken off to Hull Prison. 

All we knew about the reason as to why this has happened was that His Honour Judge Marson QC had made an Order forbidding press coverage on the basis that it might prejudice “THESE proceedings”.

It probably is that this Judge’s Leftist background has led him to be far harder on Tommy Robinson than he would have been on a mainstream Leftist, fellow traveller and journalist.  Given the inevitable as time goes on increasing preponderance of Leftists, multi-culturalists in the judiciary would now be no real prospects of running that aspect of the argument in court but the sentence is still a severe one and the courts are supposed to take account of a quick plea of guilty in discounting by a third the sentence that they would otherwise have imposed.  

The Judgment in effect is therefore saying that the Judge thought that 15 months would have been appropriate to add consecutively to the 3 months that were triggered by the plea of guilty.  That strikes me as a wholly unreasonable sentence which should be possible to reduce quite significantly on appeal if Tommy Robinson is minded to do so.  How publicity could be relevant to proceedings against Tommy Robinson or even Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as he is properly described in the heading of the Court Order was one of the mysteries of the situation. 

I like many others that saw what happened or heard about it and then watched were amazed, appalled and outraged at what had apparently happened in our country to Tommy who is after all an heroic figure! 

It seemed clear that the politically correct British State had in the words of one commentator “gone too far this time”. 

There have since been a series of protests, on the quite understandable basis from what we knew, that Tommy Robinson seemed to have been arrested and then sent down for 13 months without any proper due process, trial etc. 

Many generous offers of help were also being made, particularly by Ezra Levant offering help with Tommy’s legal fees and also Lord Pearson offering payment of his legal fees.  General Batton and Lord Pearson of UKIP even both went so far as to threaten to prosecute the current Home Secretary, Sajid Javid.  I found this somewhat odd as I cannot think there would be any prospect of getting a magistrate even to issue the summons to prosecute the Home Secretary over injuries sustained in a prison. Whilst pursuing one part of his ministerial responsibility, he does not have any direct operational involvement with them.  I can however understand that in the heat of anger at the moment them making threats which in the cool light of day now look implausible. 

Another implausible call was of course for Habeas Corpus and Common Law.  Under Common Law judges did have a very wide discretionary power to punish for contempt of court.  Habeas Corpus is the traditional order of the court whereby a Judge orders and the name comes from the Latin recital to the order to the person who has the body of the prisoner who is to be produced to the court.  In a situation where the court has ordered a person to be imprisoned that of course has no relevance.  It was an historical order principally against officers of the Crown or the King himself who had wrongly imprisoned somebody. 

Reasonably sizeable demonstrations have been held and various speakers, including both UKIP’s and For Britain’s Leadership made speeches about how outrageous and unconstitutional the decision to imprison Tommy Robinson has been.  I suspect they all now feel a bit embarrassed.  No doubt they were acting from the best motives, but the facts that have now come out have delivered them over for ridicule by our collective multi-culturalist opponents.

What has now come out is that there was already a restriction order on further publication of any details about the trials of 29 defendants in yet another horrific example Muslim/Pakistani heritage pimping child prostitute gangs.  The facts include the all too normal use of extortion, violence and drugs against their victims, together with huge criminal profits.  Such orders are made against the media and against all journalists.  It is because Tommy Robinson, for some time now, has been saying publically on his website, on his output and where relevant in court that he is a journalist that he was clearly caught by this Order. 

In the circumstances I think it likely that he was correctly advised, by his very experienced Counsel, Matthew Harding, from a legal point of view to plead guilty to the charge of breach of this court Order i.e. contempt of court.  That Court Order was made to try to ensure that these criminals could be fairly tried.  The consequence of it being impossible to fairly try them means that they might go free.  The Order against the media was therefore a sensible Order to make, provided of course that once the criminals were convicted that the media were not only free to report on it but actually did so. 

Of course part of the reason why we are all so suspicious about the “Fake News” from the mainstream media is that they frequently choose to make a big fuss about historic cases against old white men rather than to report the real crisis that is going on around us at the moment of these Muslim child rape gangs.  Our suspicion was further raised by the treatment of Tommy Robinson who has been the key torch bearer throwing light on this issue to the embarrassment of the British Political Establishment.

Once it is understood that Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court it becomes obvious that this would automatically trigger his suspended sentence for 3 months imprisonment to which he was sentenced in Canterbury Crown Court last year.  Therefore Tommy would be going to prison for at least that 3 months sentence.  I think it would also be inevitable that any Judge would then add to that sentence.

I do however think that an immediate actual custodial sentence of a further 10 months was a very stiff sentence and it is there that we and Tommy Robinson himself should perhaps be directing attention, since that sentence is of course appealable. 

There is also the disparity of treatment between Tommy Robinson and other reporters whereby he has been singled out for punishment when usually mainstream media reporters are not punished.  There is also the fact that he is completely outside the self-censoring system which revolves around the Defence and Security Media Advisory whereby the mainstream media decide what they are going to report and what they are going to censor in the interests of their globalists/internationalist, multi-culturalist owner’s agenda. 

I came across a very good article explaining this system which I reproduce below. 

The other point to bear in mind is of course that the Judge that decided to sentence Tommy Robinson for an additional 10 months over and above the 3 months that were triggered by his pleading guilty, is His Honour Judge Geoffrey Marson QC who was one of the first products of the change to the judicial appointments under Tony Blair whereby a Judicial Appointments Commission was set up with rules, which Tony Blair’s friend, Lord Irvine, said would ensure that “nobody with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary. 

Judge Marson was appointed by Tony Blair’s personal friend and former flatmate, Charlie Faulkner, who, as Lord Chancellor presided over the dismantlement of the ancient and traditional English office of Lord Chancellor.  Faulkner replaced it with the EUish institution of a “Ministry of Justice” which has since presided over the virtual implosion of the English Court system.  Judge Marson is I suspect a typical example of such appointment as his own old chambers proudly boasts of being multi-culturalist, Park Square Barristers of 6 Park Square East, Leeds, LS1 2LW say that they are “Progressive - … we have a strong balance of women and BME members.”  Here is a link to their website >>>

I mentioned above the control centre of Establishment spin the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee.  Here is that interesting article I mentioned:-

D-Notices, State Censorship And The Cynical Collusion of Mainstream Media

BTruePublica: If you’ve been following the Skripal/Novichok/Chemical weapons/Syria drama unfold through TruePublica you’ll be up to date on most, if not all, the relevant information there is to know.
On several occasions, we have published news relating to the D-Notices sent out by the state to censor the mainstream media in both print and broadcast to ensure that their version of the story, one filled full of holes, didn’t go, well, mainstream.
One question raised a few times by our readers was, who is it actually decides when to issue a D-Notice and who sits on its committee.
Here is the explainer and an interesting one it is too.
Get Briefed, Get Weekly Intelligence Reports - Essential Weekend Reading - Safe Subscribe
A DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) — formerly a DA-Notice (Defence Advisory Notice), and before that called a Defence Notice (D-Notice) until 1993—is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for “reasons of national security.”
In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices were only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are today slavishly complied with by the media.
In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what might be published and what was discouraged; and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices (Defence Advisory Notices).
One of the recommendations resulting from the 2015 review of the DA-notice system, included the renaming of the system to the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee.  In 2017, the notices were reworded and then reorganized into the following categories:
  • DSMA-Notice 01: Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities
  • DSMA-Notice 02: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapon Systems and Equipment
  • DSMA-Notice 03: Military Counter-Terrorist Forces, Special Forces and Intelligence Agency Operations, Activities and Communication Methods and Techniques
  • DSMA-Notice 04: Physical Property and Assets
  • DSMA-Notice 05: Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions
From here, it gets interesting because in 2015 the ‘committee’ from all accounts seemed to change shape, which beforehand had been made up of state officials, and some elements of the press, particularly in times of real national security such as the world wars. Nowadays it is made up of a few state officials and mostly – the mainstream media.
There are 15 senior media people who sit on this censorship committee. As well as the BBC, ITV, ITN and Murdoch’s Sky News, representing broadcasters, there are a variety of representatives from the broadsheet and tabloid press, regional and Scottish newspapers and magazines and publishing – including two News UK and Harper Collins, (both owned by Murdoch) as well as Trinity Mirror, the Daily Mail and the Guardian.
On the government side of the committee are the chair from the MoD and four intelligence connected representatives from the MoD (Director General Security Policy), Foreign Office (Director for National Security), Home Office (unspecified post) and Cabinet Office (Deputy National Security Adviser for Security, Intelligence, and Resilience).
The DSMA committee itself obviously likes to project the view that it is a rather dull and uninteresting meeting of minds and that there’s nothing going on to report. But these meetings are to discuss and agree what can and cannot be printed or broadcast in the mainstream media. Then, instead of going back to their respective places of work and simply passing on the message – the state then issues notices to the same people who just agreed not to print the scandals the government just asked them not to print in the first place.
SpinWatch makes an interesting point by highlighting exactly how much the mainstream media collude directly with government on controlling the output.
as a former vice chair of the committee (a journalist) put it, ‘is emphatically not censorship… but voluntary, responsible media restraint’. Then working at Sky News, that vice chair, Simon Bucks, is now CEO at the Services Sound and Vision Corporation, the broadcasting service which says it is ‘championing the Armed Forces’. Bucks also wrote that the DSMA committee is ‘the most mythologised and misunderstood institution in British media… “Slapping a D-notice” on something the establishment wanted suppressed has been the stuff of thrillers, spy stories and conspiracy theories for more than a century”.
The reader should have gathered from that statement alone, that indeed, slapping a D-Notice on the media is not the stuff of conspiracy theories otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. The conspiracy is that that the mainstream media stand accused of colluding in important cover-ups with and for the state. That is not a theory – that is a fact.
The Labour party is currently attacking freedom of speech and the free press, if there was indeed one to speak of, with a Bill tabled by deputy Labour leader Tom Watson (known as Labour’s ‘bully boy’) this week. This Bill was described by the Financial Times thus: “it would force our hand and chill freedom of expression in this country. Investigative journalism – such as the FT’s expose of The Presidents Club this year – could well become too risky given the potential costs.” It would be handing rich individuals a licence to harass the press, free of charge.”
Thankfully this draconian measure failed.
No doubt being caught up in the expenses scandal that the Telegraph printed didn’t exactly help with Mr Watson’s general view that Britain should benefit from a free press. His proposal came a couple of days after the World Press Freedom report showing Britain is now languishing nicely in 40th place in a group of other countries who also despise free speech – by those who try to hold power to account.

Here are the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee’s Media Members:-

Nominated By...
John Battle
Head of Compliance
Independent Television News  
Paul Johnson
Deputy Editor
Guardian News and Media 
Joe Fay
Group Editor
The Register

Charles Garside
Assistant Editor
Daily Mail
James Green
IHS - Jane's News & Analysis  
David Higgerson
Digital Publishing Director
Trinity Mirror Regionals 
Michael Jermey
Director of News, Current Affairs and Sport
David Jordan
Director of Editorial Policy and Standards
James MacManus
Executive Director
News UK
John McLellan
Scottish Newspaper Society
Charles Redmayne
Chief Executive Officer
Harper Collins UK
Ian Murray
Executive Director
Society of Editors
Sarah Whitehead
Head of Home News & Deputy Head of News Gathering
Sky News
Laura Adams
Editorial Director, Archant

Owen Meredith

Head of Public Affairs


Here is a link to their website>>>

There was also some interesting fall-out for the multi-culturalist British Political Establishment which I think was able to see that large numbers of traditionally minded patriots are now absolutely fed-up with the way things are going and are close to the point where there could be widespread civil disorder.  Whether they take any notice of that information we will see shortly.   So far it looks to me as if the official reaction is likely to be to try to clamp down still further which I suspect will be like sealing the lid on a pressure cooker!