“Hello Roy Schestowitz,” told me Pest Control today regarding an item I discussed with them yesterday [2, 1]. “Please reply to the MCC Neighbourhood Compliance North Team who sent you this letter if you wish to make comments. You have blanked out the sender details.”

I replied: “They told me to contact you.”

At the moment they seem to be playing ping-pong regarding an important matter in our area. Several of us in the street are looking after wildlife and clarity is needed.

This ping-pong routine is beginning to remind me of what they did half a decade ago [1, 2, 3]. Both sides tell you to talk to “the other side” as if the goal is to waste your time.

Earlier this month: If You Glorify Violence, Then Some People Will Eventually Do It | The Second Antisemitic Attack in Manchester on October 2nd Came From Brett Wilson LLP (Almost at the Exact Same Time as the First) | Brett Wilson LLP Acting in a Way That We Deem Antisemitic, Disrespectful, and Highly Insensitive | Safety Precautions and Hate Crimes | Brett Wilson LLP Not Only Attacks People During Funerals But Also During Fasting on Holiest of Days (and the Latter is Intentional)

estimate, based on documents sent to me from Brett Wilson LLP, that they’re willing to spend about a million pounds (not dollars, pounds) lawyering up against me and against my wife. It’s obscene and we know they’re funded by mystery financiers. Probably rich people desperate to silence our Web sites.

This morning in Tux Machines I published: It’s Not Justice When One Side Denies the Other Side the Ability to Even Speak

And in Techrights I published: How Not to Silence Tux Machines (It’ll Only Backfire, Badly)

So at this point my wife and I have a million-pound (not dollars, pounds) “gun” pointing at us. Judges won’t overlook this. It’s lawfare, i.e. it’s misuse of a licence to bully people and censor sites. It would be a stain on the aura of the Magna Carta.

Earlier this month: If You Glorify Violence, Then Some People Will Eventually Do It | The Second Antisemitic Attack in Manchester on October 2nd Came From Brett Wilson LLP (Almost at the Exact Same Time as the First) | Brett Wilson LLP Acting in a Way That We Deem Antisemitic, Disrespectful, and Highly Insensitive | Safety Precautions and Hate Crimes

will say frankly, and upfront, that the accusations aren’t baseless. I firmly believe that all the evidence exists and the facts are on my side.

Highly irresponsible thugs did something really horrible 10 days ago. I won’t be able to comment about it fully until the case is over and other sites have said a lot more earlier today [1, 2]. This blog post will focus on more personal aspects.

10 days ago I wrote to the Court: “It is Yom Kippur today. We will respond to you tomorrow. This is important because we must also add to the bundle about 50 PDFs which will show the need for Adjoining of Case Numbers KB-2024-003529 and KB-2024-001270.”

This is an important message and the timing of the message was not of our own choosing. It was also minutes after a terror attack on a local synagogue.

It matters a lot because our legal advisor is a Jewish man who lived near that synagogue, which they (Brett Wilson LLP) are fully aware of; he went on BBC to say people painted swastikas on his own home. Aside from it, it’s Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year to him, so they basically sent threatening letters to both my wife and I on the equivalent of Xmas Eve at 4:30PM, then a very large number of pages (PDFs to both of us) on the equivalent of 10AM Xmas Day when people are literally fasting for over 24 hours (no water either, so health too is at risk), having always shown mean intent and already attempted to book the Hearing for the equivalent of Boxing Day; they attempted this a long time beforehand, back in January 2025.

How could they not know? I’ll write about this in the future.

And perhaps unintentionally (a subject to be covered another day or year), they also did this type of thing also during a funeral.

They’re not just cruel, they’re reckless and extremely insensitive. We’ll treat this accordingly and report what they did based on the hard evidence.

The SRA will be informed fully of what they did.

Then again, consider the fact they represent alleged sympathisers of Hamas. One client, who commented about October 7 2023 only several days after the attack (as if he wasn’t too sure what to say or whether it was a bad thing), made a public statement tacitly justifying acts of terrorism as a route towards peace.

It is my honest opinion that Brett Wilson LLP is a highly antisemitic firm. I’ve already seen plenty of circumstantial evidence of this. This firm also attracts antisemitic clients.

October 2 years ago:

My complaint deals with feeding of nature [1, 2]; it would be immoral to prohibit or forbid that, more so without disclosing any relevant laws or selectively enforcing alleged rules.

I ticked the following boxes in my complaint:

• “has done something that compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the Council”
• “has prevented another person from gaining access to information to which that person is entitled to by law”
• “has conducted themselves in a manner that could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or the Council into disrepute”

A short or preliminary (can be expanded upon later, elaboration upon demand) of the complaint:

I am hereby filing a complaint, without any undue discrimination or ill intent. It is a short complaint the premise of which is, the local authorities are issuing contradictory instructions regarding the feeding of birds in open spaces with grass and trees, as well as providing plenty of fresh water during heatwaves in summertime. Not only us but also neighbours provide food to the birds, which we acquire at personal expense and distribute responsibly so as to avoid remnants being left on the ground. We are receiving contradictory instructions and and those are not based on any law, just ad hoc statements like “please stop feeding pigeons immediately.” (28/08/2025)

Based on official Web sites of the Council and the national authorities alike, there is no legal basis upon which to demand this. Public servants ought not be used for harassment by proxy, more so is the complaints have been doing drugs in their back yard for over a decade (and we never complained). While the issue withstands assessment and scrutiny we shall not refrain from doing the moral thing, which is to feed nature responsibly, just as neighbours do. I already discussed the matter in great length over the telephone on 28/08/2025 (call answered by [redacted]).

To avoid retaliation I prefer for the matter not to be disclosed at this time. The submission reference is #6025138, but I will not disclose any names.

N the final weeks of the Biden Administration ceasefire was secured in Gaza and Lebanon.

In prior years ceasefire calls or attempts were also made in Ukraine.

The corporate media likes to frame any “ceasefire” news as some sort of Trump thing when as a matter of historical facts he only ever helped Russia on several levels.

Today’s media really sucks. It tries to change history, maybe for clickbait.

But there are still some people out there who are debt-free and actually save money.

People of that latter group like to talk about securing assets or “diversifying investments” etc. People with a ‘survivalist’ mindset or survival instincts do not look ahead or foresee danger; instead they wait for something to happen and then respond to that, putting out fires instead of preventing fires (to use a metaphor if not a real scenario).

Some people like to believe that hoarding money will make them very safe, even if the process of making that money harms their physical and mental health, not only shortening the life but also lessening its quality. Some processes of hoarding money increase the risk of getting arrested. How’s that for safety?

Some people make bunkers because of an assumption of looming war/s; some lose money to classic scammers, including the fear-mongering “bunker industry”. Some become drug addicts. Some try to “spread” the assets/money, but that often focuses on: 1) multiple bank accounts. 2) multiple banks. 3) like (2) in several countries. 4) gold/silver 5) fakecoins (‘crypto’). 6) a safe at home. 7) car (loses value fast). 8) home (endless maintenance). 9) jewellery (value lost immediately once purchased).

Yes, a car is a liability and constant cause of unforeseen expenses, including several annual bills, never mind the wear and tear. It is a truly terrible form of investment. There is no “magic” or “perfect” option.

Here’s another: purchasing future supplies – inevitable or unavoidable commodities – years in advance (some not perishable), especially when inflation rates are high and financial rewards for savers are low. This option relies on ample storage space. Does that pay off? Maybe.

Inflation is still high; governments changed what they measure.

DID not imagine the Labour Party would challenge COVID-19 policies of the Tories. I was right, that just didn’t happen.

Now we have like 50,000 more people than before dying each year in England and Wales. Cause? Unknown. They don’t want to talk about it, let alone investigate.

New ONS data is out today (about mortality). In England and Wales, for Week 49 of 2024, deaths rose ~1000 people/week (compared to pre-pandemic times). Same is true for Week 48, Week 47, and Week 46 (maybe a bit less, no less than 800-900/week). They say they’ve “solved” COVID-19 but after mass vaccination we end up with about 10% more deaths than before the pandemic, even in late 2024. I checked this every week on Wednesday, i.e. every time they updated data. The population size only rose by 1-2%, why did deaths rise by about 10%?

How do they expect people to trust authorities (and the press) if they keep gaslighting the public about this?

After scandals (cover-ups) like the tainted blood and Horizon, why should we assume there’s nothing more to see here? When will more be known? 40 years from now?

As noted elsewhere [1, 2], this year we have a Free software person running:

Voting is Friday, i.e. 4 days from now.

Description:

Original video link
parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/168f642a-5708-4b1a-9…
Hansard link
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-04-18/debates/9…
We know, by all the different measures, that many more people are dying now than were before the pandemic.
In particular, the impact on people’s hearts, and increasingly younger people’s hearts, deserves attention. The British Heart Foundation reported last June that since the start of the pandemic, 100,000 more people have died than would have been expected. That is surely significant cause for us to take this question seriously.
We know that there are adverse effects from the vaccination. Everybody acknowledges that; it is a question of the extent to which those effects have been manifested.
I am afraid, is that the MHRA is significantly deficient in the way it operates. The Cumberlege report—this was referenced in the earlier debate—raised concerns about the way treatments are regulated and licensed that have not yet been addressed.
I am afraid that through the covid episode many of the same concerns were manifested in relation to the vaccines.
We now know that the MHRA knew about the effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine on blood clotting as early as February 2021, but issued a warning about that only some months later—in April, a month after other countries had suspended the AZ vaccine. The MHRA also knew about the prevalence of heart problems and myocarditis in February 2021 but did nothing about it until June that year. In the intervening time, millions of people were vaccinated without the knowledge that the MHRA had. As has been said, we found out recently that Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There has been very little comeback against it for that, and no meaningful fine. As we heard, just a few thousands pounds were charged in expenses.
The regulatory system that oversees the pharmaceutical companies is surely deeply conflicted, not least due to being partly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it was set up to represent.
It is significant and of concern that they have made so much money out of the vaccines, and so far do not appear to be making due recompense for some of the acknowledged harms— I am not talking about the wilder claims—that their vaccines have been responsible for. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether the indemnities against civil and Government action that the Government awarded to the vaccine manufacturers at the beginning of the production process still apply if it transpires that the companies misled the Government and the public about the safety and efficacy of their product?
The inquiry has been mentioned. There are so many unanswered questions and apparent red flags that it surprises me that the media and Parliament are not more up in arms about excess deaths.
I am surprised that more attention is not being paid to this question.
The fact is that this scandal—if it is a scandal—suits no one in high places in our country.
It is true that we have an inquiry, but as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, surely it is asking the wrong questions.
It is very concerning that the module looking at the vaccination programme has been postponed.
It strikes me that the inquiry is essentially asking the wrong questions; it is really just asking why we did not do more lockdowns quicker. That seems to be its prevailing question for the experts—not whether the whole response was the right one, and crucially, in the light of what we now know, whether the final response of a mass vaccination programme was as safe and effective as was claimed.
We are rightly proud in this country of the effectiveness, speed and operation of the vaccine production and roll-out. It was a triumph of effective collaboration between Government and the private sector. The operation of the roll-out was a victory that all people can acknowledge, but it is not enough to say that the roll-out was done well. Was it done safely? Did it need to be done on the scale on which it was done? Particularly, did young people need to be vaccinated at all? We all remember Kate Bingham and others saying early on that the vaccine was only for the older population. These questions are increasingly being asked by the public and raised in the media.
Let me conclude quickly with what I have been doing. I hope that we will get more answers from the Minister than I have had so far from the Government. On 17 April 2023—a year ago yesterday—I wrote privately to the Secretary of State, asking him for evidence that justified the Government’s assertion that there was no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. I did that because I had so much correspondence from people raising that concern. I said: [..]