Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Friday 31 July 2020

Spectator Man Eulogises Tommy Robinson

Those who go back a few years with Zelo Street may remember that it was a post responding to a Spectator article by James “saviour of Western civilisation” Delingpole that first brought Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson, to my attention, and, indeed, soon afterwards to my doorstep. And it is once again Del Boy who has been singing the praises of the former EDL head man in the latter’s hour of need.
"Gay marriage" ... "Global warming" ... "Red meat conservatism" ... "Far right sympathy ... "Twitching right arm" ... "Full on white supremacism" ... "Batshit conspiracy theories" ... "Remaining credibility down the pan"

Delingpole, still an occasional fixture at the Speccy, along with fellow bigots Rod Liddle, Taki Theordoracopulos and Doug Murray The K, and a big pal of the loathsome Toby Young, has this time used his platform at the convocation of the irredeemably batshit otherwise known as Breitbart to tell the world “Tommy Robinson Driven Into Exile by Arson Attack; Suspects BLM”. No, Del. Lennon claims that is what happened.

But do go on. “Robinson is currently taking refuge in Spain. In a statement on Parler he said that he did not think the arson attack on his wife’s property had anything to do with his track record of outspoken views on Islam”. Did you bother finding out more? No.

There is more in the same vein. “In a subsequent Parler statement, Robinson expressed his disappointment at the way the attack and its aftermath had been reported in the mainstream media, which implied that he had invited the arson assault because he had disparaged Black Lives Matter”. Bullshit. No citation, and none will be forthcoming.

Del Boy swallows Lennon’s paranoid whining whole, including “a violent revolutionary marxist ideology … a violent Marxist ideology at the very core of BLM leadership … BLM Marxist activists and ANTIFA defaced the Churchill statue … Had Churchill not won the war … there would be no black people living in the UK”. Bullshit. There had been black people living in the UK for hundreds of years before World War 2.
Delingpole shows just how much of this particular Kool-Aid he has been prepared to dink as he claims Lennon is “a working-class lad, handy with his fists, not afraid to get into a fight, unpolished, impulsive, with a string of minor criminal convictions”. Assaulting a Police officer, Mortgage fraud, attempting to enter the USA illegally, contempt of court. Yeah, dead minor, all of those. And he talks of “the arson attack on his wife’s property”.

Except, had Delingpole bothered to do his research - as Lizzie Dearden of the Independent did - he will know that the alleged arson attack was against a vehicle, not, as he suggests, against a house. Nor does he address Lennon’s Brexiteer hypocrisy, opposing the EU and then exploiting freedom of movement in its last days.

Nor, indeed, does he explain his obsession: he, as a posh boy (and pretentious with it) eulogising a violent thug - or is it just because he and his pals are bigots, and Lennon’s doing the same thing, and isn’t as scared as Del at admitting it? He’s a fan of Lennon because his idol is doing what Liddle, Murray and Co would love to see done. Heck, Murray has also just laid into BLM. The posh alt-right and the EDL aren’t so far apart.

We know Stephen Lennon is a far-right extremist. Thanks to James Delingpole, we now know the names of some of his fellow travellers. I’ll just leave that one there.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Shamima Begum - Sun In The Dock

As those who look in regularly on Zelo Street will know, the Court of Appeal found earlier this month that Shamima Begum, who had effectively been rendered stateless after leaving the UK for the Middle East, should be allowed to return so she could contest the decision to revoke her British citizenship. There was also a blatant leaking of the judgment by those working in the service of the Super Soaraway Currant Bun.
This leak was in turn put before Mohammed Akunjee, who has represented Ms Begum’s family members, by the odious flannelled fool Master Harry Cole, then, apparently, still at the Mail on Sunday, but in line to replace the non-bullying Tom Newton Dunn as political editor of the Sun. It looked very much like an invitation to Akunjee to commit contempt of court. As a result, the invitation was declined. And the Sun article promptly vanished.
Unfortunately for Master Cole, Akunjee committed the exchange of messages between the two of them to Twitter, so the whole world could see the extent of the pretend journalist’s idiocy. As Cole had also referred to Zelo Street as a “mad blog” and “bollox”, this guaranteed his appearance here. And, my goodness, is he sore about that? [Yes - Ed.]
But that was not the end of the matter: today, as BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Daniel Sandford has told, “The government has been given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Begum … Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Flaux, and Lord Justice Singh who ruled against the government earlier this month said there were points of public law that the Supreme Court should decide on, and the case should be heard ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’”. But what about the leak?
Ah well. “The High Court judges have referred The Sun to the Attorney General for (briefly) publishing a leak of their earlier judgment. The remote hearing in the Administrative Court this morning heard that the government is conducting an internal inquiry into how the leak happened”. That’s most interesting. I do hope Master Cole takes notice.
Because, whatever his protestations, that exchange with Mohammed Akunjee identified him as someone working at the Sun, whether he had taken up the political editor’s role or not. In any case, the MoS would hardly have been interested in a story that had a very short shelf life - and was being broken between Wednesday night and Thursday morning,
Perhaps he believes that, with the horrendously clueless Suella Braverman in charge at the Attorney General’s office, and the Government in hock to its press pals, any leak inquiry will apply the appropriate coat of whitewash and nothing will prevent his being able to score More And Bigger Paycheques For The Benefit Of Himself Personally Now.
But as Mohammed Akunjee might take a different view - that exchange of messages is still live on Twitter as I type - Cole’s optimism may be sadly misplaced. One can only wonder what Rebekah Brooks will make of it all. Apart from giving someone a noisy bollocking.

So bring on the leak inquiry. I’m sure it will make for capital entertainment.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Piers Morgan - Photo Pants On Fire

The perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog were crowing loudly earlier this week at a howler by the Guardian’s picture desk, after a piece by Owen Jones on the anti-Semitic outburst of grime artist Wiley was mistakenly illustrated with a photo of Kano. “Owen Jones felt forced to apologise this morning after the Guardian illustrated his column on grime artist and antisemite Wiley for [?] rapper Kano” they told.
And what's more, Ron

What had happened is that Jones had filed his piece, and the Guardian then added the photo. This is common practice; given the nature of copyright, and the circulation numbers, publications need to be sure they give appropriate credit to whoever holds the rights to the image. That is left to the picture desk. Some understood this; others pretended not to.
So it was that Jones ended up having to tell someone who goaded him with “It’s easy to say it wasn’t me” by pointing out “Do you want me to pretend that I had something to do with this? No newspaper columnist ever has any say over the image used with their column. That doesn't make this any less unacceptable”. Point made? Not as such.
Because it was at this point that former Screws and Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan intervened to tell Jones that he knew more than the Guardian man. “This isn’t true. I never let any column go to print or appear online without reviewing it first, including all pix. Precisely for this reason”. What say Jones to this alleged voice of authority?
I have never heard of any columnist being given approval over the image used with their columns in advance. That's never happened once in the near decade I've worked for newspapers, and I had absolutely nothing to do with what happened yesterday whatsoever”. Case closed? Nah, Morgan was only just getting warmed up.
I don’t understand why any columnist would ever let a column go to print or online without having sight of the final version. Where’s the personal responsibility here?” Sniffy, much? But Nadine Batchelor-Hunt had seen enough. “There's a difference between seeing the final version of the *text* of the article & then seeing photos the editor is going to use - I've never had an editor show me photos they're gonna use … So don't do this, Owen has had so much sh*t over something that's not his fault already”. Indeed he had.
And almost as Luke Savage concluded “Piers Morgan is talking nonsense to try and discredit Owen Jones. Maybe his own brand is so big he gets final. approval on everything, but I'm sure he knows this isn't the standard throughout media”, the cavalry arrived. From a most unexpected direction - Morgan’s own outlet, Mail Online.
Owen Jones received a DM telling him “this from Piers is completely untrue. I (and many other) reporters have had to upload a Piers column. There is no ‘final approval’. The editor asks for the relevant images, pic desk upload them, and reporters put them in the article and caption them. The article is then set live. Piers does not review it before this happens”.
All that was left was for Tim Robinson to administer the coup de grace: “How strange that Piers would now choose to die on the hill of whether pictures that go in a newspaper are accurate or not”. Ah, shades of that inglorious exit from the Mirror.

Once again, the Old Media faithful prove their ability to talk well, but lie badly.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Thursday 30 July 2020

Theresa May And A Naughty Tory

A quick perusal of That Spreadsheet - compiled by someone in the Tory Party and noting the behavioural, shall we say, eccentricities of its MPs, shows that former MP for Dover Charlie Elphicke is one of those named. The comments against his name say simply “Inappropriate with female researchers”. Just what that meant was spelt out this morning at Southwark Crown Court when Elphicke was convicted of sexual assault.
Charlie Elphicke

As the BBC has reported, Elphicke “denied groping the women in similar situations nine years apart. He was convicted of one count of sexual assault in 2007, and two further counts against a second woman in 2016. His wife Natalie Elphicke, the current Dover MP, said her husband's actions have ended their marriage. He will be sentenced in September”. We learned “There is a very real possibility he faces immediate custody”.

The Beeb’s report also told “Elphicke's trial heard he had lunged at a woman, aged in her 30s, at his London home in 2007 on the first night his wife was away after the birth of their son. He forced his victim on to a sofa and groped her breast while trying to kiss her, before chasing her and chanting ‘I'm a naughty Tory’”. What a creep. And there was more.

In 2016 he twice sexually assaulted a parliamentary worker aged in her 20s, first attempting to kiss the woman and grope her breast. ‘He had his mouth open, continually trying to kiss me,’ his victim told the court. ‘It was like a disgusting, slobbery mess.’ In the second assault several weeks later, he ran his hand up the inside of her thigh towards her groin”. Proper Donald Trump fan and no mistake.
That much is bad enough, but then a thought enters: if Elphicke’s name was on That Spreadsheet, then senior party figures would have known he was a creep. But that did not stop him having the whip restored in late 2018, as the Guardian reported at the time: “Two Conservative MPs who had the party whip removed after being accused of sexually inappropriate conduct will be allowed to vote in Wednesday’s crucial ballot to decide whether to sack Theresa May”. One of those two was Elphicke.

On the Labour benches, there was a united front displayed against Elphicke’s reinstatement, merely so Theresa May could save her own skin. Dawn Butler called her action “a betrayal of women” while Jess Phillips said it was “totally despicable”, adding “When Theresa May said she wanted parliament and politics to change, she lied”.

Writing in the Independent, Sean O’Grady observedThere is no parliamentary or Conservative Party rule that links suspension to events of national significance. It was surely on the discretion of the whips, and presumably with the knowledge of the party hierarchy - party chair, chief whip, leader. In any case, it was a disgrace. Not the greatest disgrace we’ve seen in the palace of Westminster this year, but a pretty grubby little business nonetheless”. Would Ms May’s successor have done differently? I doubt it.

Charlie Elphicke, contrary to some press reports, is not merely “naughty”. He’s a creep, a serial sex pest and will be expected to have to sign the sex offenders’ register. He shouldn’t have been let loose in the Palace of Westminster, and when the Tories knew what he was like, most certainly should not have had the whip restored.

But that is what the Tories get up to in the 21st Century. Some parties never change.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Covid-19 And Batshit Denial

While alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson continues to bluff his way through the UK’s handling of the Coronavirus pandemic - there are still hundreds of infections confirmed each day, and around 500 deaths in the past week - his actions, and those of his Government and media cheerleaders, pale into insignificance when put alongside the horror show that is the right-wing in the USA.
There, Covid-19 is effectively out of control in some states, most notably those that reopened their economies prematurely. This was not helped by Combover Crybaby Donald Trump cheering on Republican Governors for approving the premature actions. Worse, it is Trump’s fellow right-wingers who are taking the fall for the whole shambles.

Those who look in regularly on Zelo Street will remember Brexit Party Oberscheissenführer Nigel “Thirsty” Farage being granted permission to enter the USA so he could address those unable to get into a much-trailed Trump rally at Tulsa, OK, where he ended up addressing an empty car park. Inside the arena, where The Donald gave his usual rambling spiel, no-one wore a mask. So the virus was spread around.
One of those infected was former Presidential hopeful Herman Cain. More than 30 days on, and he is still hospitalised. Cain is 74 years old; as an African-American, that puts him in two high risk categories. Yet rally attendees were packed together, no-one wore a face covering - and several Trump staffers later tested positive for Covid-19.

It gets worse: as Daniel Lippman at Politico has reported, one of the co-founders of Turning Point USA has just succumbed to Covid-19. “The co-founder of conservative student group Turning Point USA, Bill Montgomery, has died from complications of the coronavirus, according to two friends of his. Montgomery, who started it in 2012 with young conservative star Charlie Kirk, died at the age of 80 on Tuesday from Covid-19, according to pro-Trump conservative strategist Caleb Hull”. Another in a high risk group.
And while TPUSA’s other co-founder Charlie Kirk “stated that he believed that the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions should self-quarantine”, he has also said “Do not force me to wear a mask, it’s that simple. I’m not gonna do it, I’m not … the science around masks is very questionable … we have a huge civil liberty issue here”.

Not much liberty when you’re dead, Charlie. But it gets even worse: cheerleading for the right-wing, hosts at Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse) are actively downplaying the horrendous death and infection figures, typical being Laura Ingraham, telling “Texas...looking pretty good. Bad news for the ‘Shut it all Down’ Democrats”.
Texas has fewer than half the population of the UK. What she praises is a seven day average daily infection rate of around 7,500. Deaths in the Lone Star State are running at well over 300 a day (equivalent to 750 for a UK-sized population). And a prime time host at the right’s favourite broadcaster says that is “looking pretty good”.

Small wonder that lawyer Andrew Laufer told Ms Ingraham “Having over 7k new cases today isn’t pretty good. It’s a damn tragedy. Get your head out of the glue jar”.

Be thankful if you’re not in the USA right now. There's nobody flying the plane any more.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Libel Claims - So It IS About The Money

Twenty hours on, and still there is no sign of their legal setback on the Twitter feeds of Countdown numbers person Rachel Riley and her pal, minor thesp Tracy Ann Oberman, although a statement has been offered by their lawyer Mark Lewis. They attempted to sue barrister Jane Heybroek over a Retweet, were then unable to pony up any evidence of reputational damage, and ended up paying some of Ms Heybroek’s costs.
That last is most unusual in a defamation action. What is also unusual is the tardiness of our free and fearless press in reporting the matter. Mail Online, which had been so quick in reporting the earlier “meanings” hearing, to assert that Ms Riley and Ms Oberman had “won” that one, took another four hours to put out a report.

But now that Mail Online, the Guardian (see HERE), and others have reported the collapse of the much-vaunted action, two things have been made crystal clear. Here’s the first, courtesy of the Guardian: “In 2019 Heybroek had retweeted a link to a lengthy blog post by a man called Shaun Lawson entitled ‘Beneath Contempt: How Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley harassed, dogpiled and slandered a 16-year-old child and her father’. The article made allegations about the actions of Oberman and Riley towards a young Labour activist who had made comments about antisemitism in the party”.
Although no mention is made of the fact that Shaun Lawson is Jewish (just a little relevant when Ms Riley and Ms Oberman have made their names synonymous with acting against allegations of anti-Semitism), the effect will be to promote, to amplify, Lawson’s comments. That may not be what the pair had in mind when they set out along this particular road.

The second and rather more important clarification comes as a result of Lewis’ statement, which may not be on his Twitter feed, or indeed the website of Patron Law, where he is a partner, but has been given out to the press and reported extensively.
Here’s what he said: “Tracy Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley chose not to proceed further after the Judge had determined that the opinion expressed was capable of being defamatory, in circumstances where Jayne Heybroek claimed that she had promptly deleted her retweet … Their libel insurers did not see any advantage in pursuing a case over the liability of a retweet that was deleted so quickly and therefore the insurer paid a very modest sum”. Continuing the case would mean spending their own money.

Do go on. “Regrettably the defamatory tweeter lives in South America and has no visible assets. There are bigger fish to fry, in the pursuit of those who choose to maintain a serious libel”. No Mark. Just no. That should read “the blogpost author who you claim has defamed your clients”. Now compare with what Lewis said last year.

This is not about money … They’re not looking to enrich themselves by taking legal action. They’re looking to stop vile lies”. But they won’t go after someone they can’t extract money from. Also, Ms Riley has not helped matters with a Tweet tellingIf anyone comes across any actionable libel about me, my lawyer [Mark Lewis] and I would be most interested. A lot of charities I support could use a few quid and I have no qualms generating it through compensation”. Not about money? It sodding well IS about money.

As in extracting it from others, but not spending it themselves. I’ll just leave that one there.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Wednesday 29 July 2020

Jane Heybroek’s Unanswered Questions

Only two months ago, Mail Online was claimingCountdown star Rachel Riley and actress Tracy-Ann Oberman have won the first round of a High Court libel battle against a barrister after a judge ruled a blog link she shared on social media 'could be considered defamatory.’ Ms Riley and Ms Oberman are suing barrister Jane Heybroek after she shared a link on Twitter to a blog published in January last year”.
He lost this one ...

At the time, Zelo Street pointed out that there had been no victory. This, it now transpires, was most prescient: the libel action brought by Ms Riley and Ms Oberman has now collapsed. Moreover, they have agreed to make a contribution to Ms Heybroek’s costs. It is a far cry from the declaration of intent signalled early last year.

Then, as the Guardian reported, “The Countdown presenter Rachel Riley and former EastEnders actor Tracy Ann Oberman are preparing legal action against up to 70 individuals for tweets relating to their campaign against antisemitism in the Labour party, according to the pair’s lawyer”. And who was their lawyer?

Mark Lewis … said he will go to court and force Twitter to release the details of individuals who made the contentious posts if users do not voluntarily comply with his request to provide formal contact details”. Otherwise known as a Norwich Pharmacal order. These have to be paid for by the claimant. Ultimately, none were made (no comment). And of the original 70, Ms Heybroek was the only one against whom a claim proceeded.

So what did she do? She Retweeted a Tweet by Shaun Lawson which contained a link to a post he had written. As she has now told, this “had been re-tweeted/shared by hundreds of people. Some of those people were threatened with legal action like me; others were not”. She was sued “despite the fact that I had deleted my re-tweet before I had even received Letters of Claim”. So what damage had her actions allegedly done?
... so did she ...

I did not even know how long my re-tweet had been live for. Neither, it seems, did Ms Riley or Ms Oberman. There was no evidence, that I am aware of, to suggest that anyone had read the blog article as a result of clicking the link in my re-tweet”. She was being sued, despite the claimants being unable to pony up evidence of reputational damage.

Note also that the press were told that the action by Ms Riley and Ms Oberman was “for tweets relating to their campaign against antisemitism”. Shaun Lawson, who Ms Heybroek RTd, is Jewish. His grandmother is a Holocaust survivor. Yet, had she lost that action, it is not inconceivable that accusations of anti-Semitism would have followed.

So why proceed, given there was no evidence of reputational damage, or indeed any social media engagement? This part of Ms Heybroek’s statement today is telling. “Ms Riley and Ms Oberman were being represented, from the very outset, on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis, and had ‘after the event insurance’. This meant that there was almost no risk to them in bringing the claim. Many people would have felt forced to settle for reasons of pragmatism”. Nobody wants to literally bet the house on an uncertain outcome.

Not so much “sue us if you think you’re hard enough” (the default position of many newspapers and magazines), but “dare to defend yourself if you think you’re hard enough”. All over an article whose author is not being pursued. You read that right.
... and so did she

Why so? Well, Lawson lives in Uruguay, and it is believed that there would be some difficulty enforcing any order for costs or damages. But Mark Lewis said last year “This is not about money … They’re not looking to enrich themselves by taking legal action. They’re looking to stop vile lies”. So why not proceed against Lawson anyway?

After all, Ms Riley and Ms Oberman aren’t short of a bob or two, so if it’s about defending reputations, and not about money, why not pursue the person whose article is at the centre of events? Perhaps Ms Riley, Ms Oberman and their chosen lawyer will let us know.

As to who has won this one, consider this: out of Mark Lewis, Rachel Riley, Tracy Ann Oberman and Jane Heybroek, only one of them is discussing the case on Twitter today. Those who brought and pursed the legal action have been conspicuous by their silence.

Thanks to Ms Heybroek and her legal team, we are now better informed about the legal actions being brought on behalf of Ms Riley and Ms Oberman. Even if the digesting of that information has left a decidedly unpleasant taste in its wake.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Sun Japan Trade Deal Scoop ISN’T

And so the odious flannelled fool Master Harry Cole continues his mission to take a total lack of journalistic ability higher and higher within the crumbling walls of the Fourth Estate: he has now completed his move from the increasingly wayward Mail on Sunday, where he was merely deputy political editor, to the Murdoch Sun, where he has inexplicably been appointed to replace the non-bullying Tom Newton Dunn as a real political editor.
This move has brought forth an alleged “Exclusive” this morning, as Cole has told the world “UK to sign first trade deal as an independent nation ‘within weeks’ after ‘significant breakthrough’ in daily Japan talks. Ministers set for September wrap up in breakneck trade negotiations after 40 years bound to EU. Read all about it”. So what’s the story?

Negotiations opened on June 8 and have been conducted daily until today's ‘significant breakthrough’ … The top-level dialogue is at an “advanced stage” and ministers believe they could wrap it up by September … The accord will reduce the cost of Japanese tech devices, such as PlayStations, and allow the UK to sell more luxury cars there”.
There is more. “The arrangement will be implemented on January 1, 2021 - as soon as the UK’s transition period out of the EU expires. The outline of the agreement is based on the EU-Japan deal from last year”. And as Fred Flintstone might have put it, hold it … HOLD IT! We have been here before. And Cole’s article is mere Government propaganda.

Consider this passage: “the UK has sought a further ‘reduction or elimination’ of Japanese tariffs on goods imported from Britain [has it got a reduction, though?] as well as ‘ambitious commitments on market access’ to UK businesses [which means nothing] … A Government source said: ‘Japan is happening - and it’s happening soon.’” That last indicated nothing more than Master Cole’s ability to take dictation.
We already knew what was going on vis-a-vis a Japan trade deal, as the Independent covered the subject last month, bringing us the bad news that the UK had been given the deal by the Japanese to sign on the dotted line by the end of July - or else face disruption come 2021. All Cole has confirmed is that the UK is indeed signing on the dotted line.

As the Indy put it, “Japan has become increasingly exasperated with Britgov ‘playing games’ and has referred back to its clear and concise missive much as EU finds itself constantly having to refer back to UK promises in its political declaration”. Which means that what Japan is imposing on the UK now, the EU will do very much the same thing.
Far from some great success, all that the Sun report has confirmed is that a now weakened UK has done as it is bloody well told - and increases the likelihood that the UK will cave in to the EU as well. Worse, the deal with Japan may have the same outline as the EU deal, but it will not be as good. Not if the EU has Most Favoured Nation status written into it. If Master Cole doesn’t understand that, he needs to do some research.

Newton Dunn made claims about a UK-Japan trade deal back in January that were not credible; his successor has merely continued the propagandising.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the UK is being royally rolled over. As we were warned.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Tommy Robinson - LOCATED

We now know that Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson, has been out of the country for some weeks, amid claims that he will have to relocate himself and his family outside the UK and in an EU member state, which is an interesting move for such an ardent supporter of Britain leaving the EU. There has, though, been some confusion about where in mainland Europe he is relocating.
Some claims have been made that Lennon was in Greece; he isn’t. While Stanley Johnson, father of our alleged Prime Minister, managed to get to Greece from the UK by flying via a third country, that ruse would probably be beyond Lennon. Moreover, it seems that he is not on Tenerife either. It had been assumed he would be there because of his closeness to Lutz Bachmann, the German far-right leader who has a villa on the island.
May be trying to avoid this sort of thing ...

But the dead giveaway was when Lennon asserted in his latest video that he had driven his family out to their new location. As I pointed out yesterday, that would entail not only driving across both France and Spain, it would involve a long sea crossing by car ferry from Cádiz to Santa Cruz de Tenerife. So enquiries began to see where in Spain - because Spain is where he is - Lennon had relocated himself.
... in this country, but not here ...

Meanwhile, journalist Lizzie Dearden, still keeping tabs on Lennon despite the threats and abuse, has pursued his claim that he had had “an arson”. The Independent’s home affairs and security correspondent noted “Anyone getting excited about Tommy Robinson's video should bear several things in mind … 1. He only says he's 'looking at relocating' family abroad … 2. He is facing a libel trial over his remarks about a Syrian boy, and they are seeking £100,000 in damages”. As well as costs. And there is more.
He says the arson attack was 'targeted against my property, not against my property, against my wife's property’ … The ownership of homes and other assets is a key issue when deciding the amount of damages awarded if a defamation case is lost”. BUT “Bedfordshire Police say they do not have a record of arson against his family home … They do have a record of reported car arson in June, but would not give further details”.
As always with Lennon, the assertions have to be studied carefully: he may relocate, which means he equally may not. Also, he’d have to arrange medical insurance for his family, especially with the transition period ending soon. He and his wife would need to apply for, and be granted, residency. So where has he holed up?
Sadly for Lennon, there is no need for an act of doxxing, because he has done the deed himself. Matthew Collins of Hope Not Hate discovered that The Great Man’s photos of his game of Paddle showed, in the background, the name MANOLO SANTANA RACQUETS CLUB. Which is near Marbella. In the province of Andalucía.

Of course, that doesn’t mean he is living in that area: after all, there is a motorway junction nearby. But good of The Great Man to tell the world where to start looking - and those looking may include lawyers chasing him for fees and costs.

The stay of Stephen Lennon in Spain may be for a time, but not for all time.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at