Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

My latest novel, Hitler’s First Lady is getting positive feedback that it is a real page turner because its explosive and shocking take on historical facts.

Here are the questions which I am continually asked:

Was Hitler gay? Was the British Royal family looking for a peace deal with the Third Reich? Did Churchill reach an understanding with Hitler, clearing the way for the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union? Did Germany offer Britain peace terms in 1941 so generous that they treated Britain as undefeated and even undefeatable? What part did Hess really play?

Through a lifetime of research, family connections and anecdotal evidence, I have concluded that not all the dynamics of World War II and the rise of the Third Reich are as we have been taught. Murky undercurrents at the heart of the British establishment clouded the facts.

Hitler’s First Lady records a new version of key events, through fictional personal dramas and actual historical sequences. Why? There are no witnesses to qualify my version of events. For this reason I have written Hitler’s First Lady as a work of fiction. The test of the best historical stories is to be judged as “faction” – it’s the only way that I can challenge the accepted view of history. I pass that challenge to you; read Hitler’s First Lady and make your own judgment.

Buy or Download Hitler’s First Lady

Without getting into the specifics of any of them, this blog is concerned about the cost to taxpayers of big set piece trials covering public issues from corporate fraud, through phone hacking, to sex crimes, which have a very high cost to taxpayers running into many tens of millions, yet which nevertheless achieve a  low conviction rate. This is usually because the statute under which the prosecution is brought is ambiguous, or the hard evidence in scant, or  too much reliance is placed on pointing fingers, coincidence, circumstantial evidence and so forth. The combination may look like mega dodgy doings, but that is not enough for a jury to properly convict. A jury is required to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is or are guilty. They cannot reach such a conclusion if no part of the evidence is conclusive.

Of late there seems to have developed a culture at the office of the public prosecutors that it is enough to put together a collection of suspicions, call it evidence and test it in court. If it could be done free, perhaps, though it would still be unfair to blight the lives of innocent people while the proceedings unfold. But at a time when all manner of needy services are in crisis because of government cuts, there is no excuse to organize cash cow trials for lawyers under the vague excuse of serving the public interest.

The public interest is served first by having laws and regulations which are well drafted and clear, second by having investigatory practices which turn up clear and compelling evidence amounting to proof of guilt, third to prosecute in a concise and expeditious way. It is never in the public interest to launch complex and expensive trials where these conditions have not been met. Even if convictions are achieved they may well be unsound and overturned on appeal.

There needs to be some thinking done here.

Buy Books

Visit website