Lee Anderson has faced ridicule for a social media post celebrating St George’s Day – where some dodgy spelling was arguably the least of the problems.
The former Tory deputy chairman announced in March that he was switching to Reform UK following the fall-out from saying “Islamists” had “control” over London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan.
The Ashfield MP already has a history of making controversial statements – he has argued food bank users “cannot budget” and criticised England footballers for taking the knee. Last summer he said migrants should “fuck off back to France”.
Now free of the governing party, “30p Lee” on Tuesday posted a special message to mark the day that celebrates the dragon-slayer of legend and England’s patron saint.
He wrote in an X message introducing a video: “Trigger Warning.
“If you are a Guardian reading, advacado eating, Palestinian flag waving, Eddie Izzard supporting Vegan then this clip is probably not for your consumption.
“Happy St George’s Day!”
Note the spelling “advacado”.
In an accompanying video, he points to his St George’s flag cufflinks and says: “Look at these here look, flag of St George.
“It’s St George’s Day today and this country of ours has been a gift to the world. Look at the industrial revolution, culture, art, music, sports.
“Everywhere you look on this planet, you see some of that. Oh by the way, happy birthday William Shakespeare.”
But many had problems with his interpretation of, well, most of it.
The website of English Heritage, the charitable trust that looks after the national heritage, points out that St George was born in what is now Turkey, and died in a Roman province of Palestine.
The Christian martyr St George, who is the patron saint of Georgia and Portugal among others, is also a “Palestinian hero”.
It’s this background that informed many of the mocking responses to Anderson’s post.
Lee Anderson speaks of the gifts that England has given the world on St George's Day. What a shame he failed to mention the English language. It's probably because he's not quite mastered it. "Advacado", anyone? pic.twitter.com/wfn97S0p2M
The Ashfield MP already has a history of making controversial statements – he has argued food bank users “cannot budget” and criticised England footballers for taking the knee. Last summer he said migrants should “fuck off back to France”.
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/HhgF8E8VkBYXhl0JAcuYP3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/cameras-banner-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&title=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/" data-a2a-title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial">Share</a></p><p><em> </em><em>The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available </em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/#relists_explained"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Over the past couple of conferences, the Supreme Court has continued to clear out the rolls of relisted cases. Remarkably, the Supreme Court denied review without comment in the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-consider-next-steps-in-murder-case-in-which-prosecution-admits-error/">most recent newly relisted case</a>, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/escobar-v-texas-2/"><em>Escobar v. Texas</em></a>, in which Texas conceded that erroneous DNA evidence had contributed to the defendant’s conviction for capital murder.</p>
<p>The court denied review on March 24 in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/franklin-v-new-york/"><em>Franklin v. New York</em></a>, involving the right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them. But Justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf">Samuel Alito</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf#page=5">Neil Gorsuch</a>, in separate opinions respecting the denial of certiorari, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/alito-and-gorsuch-call-for-court-to-reconsider-confrontation-clause-precedent/">suggested that the court would need to revisit</a> the landmark 2004 decision in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7792517891204110362&q=crawford+v.+washington&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47"><em>Crawford v.Washington</em></a> that narrowed the use of hearsay testimony in criminal trials.<span id="more-319465"></span></p>
<p>The court also denied review this week in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shockley-v-vandergriff/"><em>Shockley v. Vandergriff</em></a>, which asked the justices to decide whether the fact that an actual judge considered a prisoner’s claim to be meritorious was enough to demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate” the claim — the showing necessary for a prisoner to obtain the “certificate of appealability” necessary under federal law to appeal the denial of the prisoner’s habeas corpus petition. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-517_4fc4.pdf">dissented from the denial of certiorari</a>.</p>
<p>That brings us to the upcoming conference. There are 96 petitions and motions on the docket for this Friday’s conference. Only one of them is on its first relist: <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>.</p>
<p>David Asa Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial in Texas state court for murdering his boyfriend and methamphetamine supplier Aaron Estrada. His direct examination was interrupted at noon by a lengthy overnight recess. The trial judge, in an instruction whose limits could charitably be described as “not a model of clarity,” told defense counsel to act as though Villarreal were still “on the stand,” and thus not to confer with him about his testimony overnight. In a series of offhand comments, the judge suggested counsel might still confer about sentencing and trial logistics, just not about Villarreal’s testimony. Villareal’s attorney objected that such an instruction interfered with his client’s right to confer with his counsel. The next day, Villarreal finished testifying, was convicted, and drew a 60-year sentence.</p>
<p>Villarreal’s case implicates two aging Supreme Court criminal procedure precedents. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/80/"><em>Geders v. United States</em></a>, held that a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from speaking with his counsel during an overnight recess between the defendant’s direct and cross-examination. But <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/272/"><em>Perry v. Leeke</em></a>, 13 years later, held that a trial court does not violate the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from consulting his counsel during a fifteen-minute recess between his direct testimony and cross-examination.</p>
<p>By a 2-1 vote, the court of appeals affirmed Villarreal’s conviction, though noting confusion among the lower courts on the subject. And Texas’s highest court for criminal appeals, the aptly named Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, likewise affirmed by a divided vote. It concluded that by placing off limits only discussion of the defendant’s ongoing testimony, the trial court had complied with the Sixth Amendment.</p>
<p>Villarreal now seeks review, asking the court for further guidance about the universe of circumstances not covered by <em>Geders</em> and <em>Perry</em>. Texas opposes review on the ground that, “[w]hile there is a split of authority concerning such orders,” orders restricting a defendant’s conferring with counsel during substantial recesses “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf#page=17">are rarely issued</a>.” The state argues that the decision in Villarreal’s case comports with the Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment precedents.</p>
<p>On the one hand, it has been a long, long time since the Supreme Court last weighed in on this issue: Most readers would consider me <a href="https://store.thanatos.net/cdn/shop/products/2021KY-650_1024x1024@2x.jpg?v=1658666493">an old man</a>, I have been practicing for over 30 years, and I didn’t even begin law school until <a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61ylKuCU26L._SY355_.jpg">the year after <em>Perry</em> was decided</a>. But the current courts shows little appetite for weighing in on constitutional issues of trial practice. This case seems unlikely to result in more than an opinion dissenting from denial of review. I would be happy to eat crow on this.</p>
<h3><strong>New Relists</strong></h3>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-557.html">24-557</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a trial court abridges a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.</p>
<h3><strong>Returning Relists</strong></h3>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/"><em>Apache Stronghold v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-291.html">24-291</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-21b-religious-freedom-restoration/section-2000bb-1-free-exercise-of-religion-protected">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.<br />
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/"><em>Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-131.html">24-131</a><br />
<strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.<br />
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/"><em>Snope v. Brown</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html">24-203</a><br />
<strong>Issue:</strong> Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.<br />
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/l-m-v-town-of-middleborough-massachusetts/"><em>L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-410.html">24-410</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/neilly-v-michigan/"><em>Neilly v. Michigan</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-395.html">24-395</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether restitution ordered as part of a criminal sentence is punishment for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ellingburg-v-united-states/"><em>Ellingburg v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-482.html">24-482</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether criminal restitution under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-ii-criminal-procedure/chapter-232-miscellaneous-sentencing-provisions/section-3663a-mandatory-restitution-to-victims-of-certain-crimes">Mandatory Victim Restitution Act</a> is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/">Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
BRUSSELS — The EU has sent Ukraine 220,000 rounds of ammunition since pledging in March to get the war-stricken country 1 million shells in 12 months,…
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson
