On 23 December 2009, Martin Fletcher reported thus in The Times:
"The Government has no reliable statistics on how many Somalis now live in Britain. One official reckoned that there were 150,000 legal immigrants and THREE TIMES AS MANY ILLEGAL ONES."
In the same article, Fletcher reminded us of what the former Foreign Office Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown, had warned us of before leaving office in July.
"The main terrorist threat comes from PAKISTAN AND SOMALIA, NOT AFGHANISTAN”.
Somali immigrants have already tried to mount terrorist attacks in Britain and Australia.
On 22 December 2009, Hazel Barrett informed us thus in The Guardian:
“NEWLY REPORTED CASES OF HIV IN THE UK ARE HIGHER THAN EVER BEFORE. BETWEEN 1995 AND 2006, THE RATE OF HIV INFECTION AMONG BLACK AFRICANS IN THE WEST MIDLANDS INCREASED 100-FOLD, compared to a two-fold increase among white people, a three-fold increase among black Caribbeans and a six-fold increase among other mixed ethnic groups (according to the region's strategic health authority figures).
Taking the Ethiopian and Eritrean population as one example: they are predominantly young and single, tend to live alone and are often sexually active. Their culture and language restrict the information available to them. This group therefore represents A RESERVOIR OF HIV INFECTION which is both a concern for the immigrant community itself AND THE HOST POPULATION…
SOCIAL NETWORKS AMONG THE ETHIOPIAN AND ERITREAN COMMUNITIES IN THE WEST MIDLANDS DO NOT CONDONE OR TOLERATE THE DISCUSSION OF SEXUAL ISSUES…
THE RESPONDENTS IN OUR STUDY SAID THEY BELIEVED THE UK WAS ‘CIVILISED’ AND THEREFORE THEY COULD NOT CONTRACT HIV/AIDS, THAT THE PROBLEM HAD BEEN LEFT BEHIND IN AFRICA...
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA IS HOME TO 67% OF GLOBAL CASES OF HIV/AIDS, but it is dangerous to think of the disease as just an African problem now that we can travel easily between continents.”
On 22 December 2009, Gordon Brown was quoted thus by The Daily Express:
"I have got absolutely no doubt that WE ARE TAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY… WE HAVE BEEN IN AFGHANISTAN LONGER THAN THE SECOND WORLD WAR, LONGER THAN THE FIRST WORLD WAR… IT HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME, BUT WE HAVE A STRATEGY."
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that, in 2008, 536,000 immigrants signed up with a GP practice in England and Wales alone.
On 22 December 2009, The Daily Mail quoted the response of Dr Richard Fieldhouse, Chief Executive of the National Association of Sessional GPs, which represents locum doctors, to these figures.
Dr Fieldhouse said:
"THE WORKLOAD AT PRACTICES IS STRAINING AT THE SEAMS. Quite a lot of cover is for BURNT OUT GPS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT COPE WITH THIS. People can only work so many hours a week. Some locums have seen bookings increase by 30 per cent year on year."
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayer's Alliance, added:
"Existing patients must always come first and IT IS CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS PAID FOR THE NHS THROUGHOUT THEIR WORKING LIFE SHOULD FACE DELAYS OR QUEUES AS A RESULT OF RECENT IMMIGRATION USING THE NHS AHEAD OF THEM."
Despite the appalling workload of many GPs and the disappearance of quality time with them that the British are suffering as a result of mass migration, the New Labour government (the one that imported the 536,000 immigrants into our country last year) has decreed that the NHS must find savings of £20 billion over the next four years.
On 22 December 2009, The Oldham Evening Chronicle reported the decision of Barbara Jackson to stand down as Chairman of the Oldham East and Saddleworth Conservatives Association.
The Chronicle explained:
"Traditionalists have been angered by Mr Cameron’s plans to take control of shortlists TO IMPOSE WOMEN AND ETHNIC MINORITY CANDIDATES to boost their numbers in Parliament.
Mrs Jackson, an active member for 30 years, claimed… Mr Ali had threatened management that HE WOULD RECRUIT FAMILY AS MEMBERS TO TAKE OVER THE ASSOCIATION IF HE WAS NOT SELECTED. Mrs Jackson said she had been labelled RACIST for complaining.”
Mrs Jackson herself said:
“I won’t give in to BULLYING TACTICS FROM ANYONE NO MATTER WHAT THE RACE, COLOUR OR SEX. I’m still a Conservative but I’m very disappointed with the party. The way they have done it is just wrong because THE ELECTORATE DESERVE A CHOICE. THEY have decided who our candidate is and that’s it, full stop. The constituency should be guiding the candidates, not the other way round.
VERY ABLE PEOPLE IN OUR CONSTITUENCY HAVE BEEN REJECTED. Why they think it’s acceptable I can’t understand.
It’s an exercise in ticking boxes AND POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION. THEY WANT WOMEN AND ASIANS.”
Councillor Chris Shyne added:
“It was a stitch-up. It wasn’t a selection it was a proclamation. IT’S NO LONGER A DEMOCRATIC PARTY. IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN. The candidates have not been selected by traditional members of the party, THEY HAVE BEEN SHIPPED IN BY FAMILIES.
IF THIS IS THE WAY CAMERON IS RUNNING THINGS BEFORE HE BECOMES PM THEN WHAT WILL HE BE LIKE AFTER?
THERE WERE PEOPLE LOCALLY THAT WANTED TO STAND but it was pre-determined two years ago and they have made us look like idiots.”
Barrister Kashif Ali, who was chosen to fight the Oldham East and Saddleworth seatm had this to say:
“The reality is THERE WERE NO OTHER GOOD CANDIDATES who wanted a seat.”
In other words, according to the Asian gent favoured by Cameron, he was the only decent candidate on offer.
Cameron imposed Kamran Ghafoor upon the voters of Oldham West and Royton.
On 20 December 2009, in an interview with The Sunday Times, Tony Blair said this:
“It’s not true that NOBODY LIKES ME… There is a completely different atmosphere around me OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY… 'They don’t see anything wrong with being successful financially and also DOING GOOD WORK.”
Doing good work for whom, Tony?
For the hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who are now dead? For the dead and wounded British soldiers and their grieving loved ones?
Haven’t seen much evidence of that, Tony.
The Sunday Times articles told us that Tony B believes he is “doing good work… in Palestine”.
I wonder how many Palestinians would agree with his assessment? Perhaps he’s had a change of heart recently but, when he was Prime Minister, he was just about the most pro-Jewish holder of that office ever.
Anyone out there doubt what I’m saying here? Do you think Our Dear Former Leader went to war in Iraq on behalf of the most convincing, charismatic and politically persuasive leader of the Western World ever, George Bush? Well, maybe, but who was pulling the smirking chimp's strings behind the scenes?
I’ll give you a clue.
In the 5 April 2003, edition of the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, the admirably honest Israeli journalist, Ari Shavit, said this:
"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, MOST OF THE JEWISH, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."
“Pushing” you as well, eh Tony?
The Sunday Times added:
“Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has divided his time between unpaid humanitarian work and LUCRATIVE ACTIVITIES ADVISING BANKS, COMPANIES AND ARAB GOVERNMENTS. There has been criticism of his high fees for public speaking, but Blair responded…
'If all I wanted to do was make speeches, let me tell you, I COULD MAKE FIVE TIMES THAT NUMBER… Nobody says Bill Gates is bad for moving from business to philosophy. Why shouldn't a politician DO A BUSINESS MODEL when they change their life’?”
“Do a business model,” Anthony?
Reaping the rewards of your treachery, more like.
On 20 December 2009, Professor Anthony Seldon, who once described Tony Blair as a "political colossus" and penned the biographies "The Blair Effect", "Blair" and "Blair Unbound", said this in The Observer:
“Having written a two-volume biography of Blair, and edited three further books on his governments, I believe that something has changed within him and that HIS CONVICTIONS HAVE MOVED TOWARDS PERVERSITY…
Deep down, he must know that HE MADE ERRORS OVER IRAQ, but he adamantly refuses, like Eden, to acknowledge them. A similar insensitivity can be seen over HIS CONSPICUOUS DISPLAYS OF AFFLUENCE… He cannot seem to see that IT IS NOT WORDS ABOUT RELIGION OR MORALITY THAT CARRY FORCE WITH PEOPLE, BUT ACTIONS…
HE SHOULD ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISLEADING THE BRITISH PUBLIC OVER THE REASON FOR COMMITTING BRITISH TROOPS TO FIGHT… BLAIR SHOULD SHOW CONTRITION FOR OTHER ERRORS OF JUDGMENT…
Blair's style rarely tolerated divergent opinions. MANY IN THE FOREIGN OFFICE AND ACROSS THE ARMED FORCES WERE UNHAPPY OVER THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR AND THE WAY IT WAS PLANNED, BUT BLAIR DID NOT CREATE A CLIMATE CONDUCIVE TO THEIR VIEWS BEING HEARD…
He should admit to failing to… achieving real pressure on Israel to move towards a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict WHICH UNDERLINES SO MUCH OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE MUSLIM WORLD WITH THE WEST”.
Trust me, Anthony, this man has never been up for putting any “pressure on Israel”.
That’s never been his job and never will be. If “pressure on Israel“ was part of the job description, he’d resign.
On 17 December 2009, Leo McKinstry opined thus in The Daily Express:
“THE CULTURE OF GREED, ENTITLEMENT AND SELF-INDULGENCE STILL MAINTAINS ITS GRIP ON PARLIAMENT.
Despite outrage over their spectacular expense abuses, MPS CONTINUE TO SHOW UTTER DISDAIN FOR THE BRITISH ELECTORATE WITH THEIR EXTRAVAGANT PAY CLAIMS AND LAVISH PERKS. Our politicians seem impervious to shame, indifferent to the concept of public service…
It is no wonder that THE BRITISH STATE IS HEADING FOR INSOLVENCY WHEN OUR PARLIAMENTARIANS ARE SO PERSONALLY RECKLESS WITH OUR MONEY...
The MPs’ official Code of Conduct, drawn up in 1995, requires that members ‘must adhere’ to the principles of 'SELFLESSNESS, INTEGRITY, OBJECTIVITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, OPENNESS, HONESTY AND LEADERSHIP‘. These qualities have been distinguished by their absence from the House of Commons.
The same self-serving attitude can be seen in MPs’ limited workload. THEY GIVE THEMSELVES FAR LONGER HOLIDAYS AND SHORTER HOURS THAN MOST BRITISH WORKERS… The real purpose of MPs’ constituency operations is two-fold: to justify their well-upholstered existences and to ensure their re-election. That is why they are so desperate to have their beaming faces in the local papers or their sentimental voices on the local radio. IT IS ALL PART OF A GIGANTIC EGO TRIP.
Entry into politics used to involve sacrifice. NOW IT IS ALL ABOUT SELF-ENRICHMENT. All too many of our MPs would struggle to succeed in the real world of business or commerce, yet BY GREASING THEIR WAY UP THE PARTY HIERARCHIES, THEY CAN BECOME WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS WITH EXTENSIVE PROPERTY PORTFOLIOS AND SECURE PENSIONS ALL UNDERWRITTEN BY THE TAXPAYER.
The sense of entitlement among MPs is rampant, reflected not only in the fiddling over mortgage payments but, just as nauseatingly, in the determination to claim for every possible item, no matter how trivial. JACQUI SMITH’S PAYOUTS FOR SINK PLUGS AND HER HUSBAND’S HOME PORN MOVIES WERE ALL TOO EMBLEMATIC OF THIS CULTURE. If ordinary members of the public had behaved the way a phalanx of MPs have done, THEY WOULD INSTANTLY BE SACKED FROM THEIR JOBS AND MANY WOULD BE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR FRAUD OR THEFT.
NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRACY, WHICH OUR POLITICIANS HAVE CONSPIRED TO DESTROY. THROUGH THEIR SURRENDER TO BRUSSELS, THEY HAVE HANDED OVER MUCH OF THE GOVERNANCE OF THIS COUNTRY TO THE EUROPEAN UNION. INDEED 80 PER CENT OF OUR LAWS NOW ORIGINATE WITH THE UNELECTED MACHINERY OF THE EU. FURTHERMORE, MUCH OF OUR DOMESTIC LIFE IS NOW RULED BY QUANGOS AND AGENCIES OVER WHICH WE HAVE NO SAY.
Westminister’s politicians have proved useless in the defence of genuine accountability, partly because THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH KEEPING THEIR SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH, PARTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE DEEPLY SUSPICIOUS OF PUBLIC OPINION, ESPECIALLY ON ISSUES LIKE CRIME, IMMIGRATION, AND MULTI-CULTURALISM. THEY PREFER TO EXPLOIT THE BRITISH PUBLIC THAN SERVE ITS INTERESTS.”
On 16 December 2009, The Christian Institute's web site cited an interview given by Gordon Brown to "a gay lifestyle magazine".
"I’M FIGHTING TO GET ALL THE COUNTRIES IN EUROPE TO RECOGNISE CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS CARRIED OUT IN BRITAIN. WE WANT COUNTRIES WHERE THAT HASN’T BEEN THE CASE – ESPECIALLY IN EASTERN EUROPE – TO RECOGNISE THEM".
The Christian Institute added:
"Mr Brown listed civil partnerships as A KEY ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LABOUR PARTY AND SAID THAT HE HAD ALWAYS GIVEN GAY RIGHTS ‘STRONG SUPPORT’.”
On 14 December 2009, Leo McKinstry opined thus in The Daily Mail:
“LABOUR HAS BROUGHT OUR ONCE GREAT NATION TO THE BRINK OF FINANCIAL AND MORAL COLLAPSE. Not content with tearing apart the fabric of society and corrupting the democratic process, the Government has so badly mismanaged the economy that the state is now almost insolvent. Any individual behaving like the Labour Cabinet would have been declared bankrupt and charged with criminal negligence.
Gordon Brown and his socialist cronies always put the interests of their party before the real needs of the country. They care nothing about the long-term future of Britain. That is the cynical spirit that shone through Alistair Darling’s Pre-Budget report last week. In presenting his economic plan, the Chancellor’s central duty was to explain how the Government would begin to reduce the crippling deficit which stands at £180BILLION. THIS COLOSSAL SUM, BY FAR THE LARGEST DEFICIT IN BRITISH HISTORY, SHOWS HOW RECKLESSLY THE STATE HAS BEEN SPENDING BEYOND ITS INCOME. Indeed, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT BY 2012, THE INTEREST COSTS ALONE WILL HAVE RISEN TO £63.7BILLION, THE EQUIVALENT OF £2,000 FOR EVERY TAXPAYER IN THE COUNTRY...
No attempt was made to cut back on the Government’s vast expenditure programme, beyond the vague talk about future ‘efficiency’ savings. But the idea of Labour making ‘efficiency’ gains is laughable. WITH ITS MISUSE OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY BROWN’S REGIME HAS BECOME A BYWORD FOR INCOMPETENCE…
MASS IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN ANOTHER VITAL TOOL FOR LABOUR. AS THE FORMER NO10 AIDE ANDREW NEATHER REVEALED, THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY OPENED THE FLOODGATES IN ORDER TO REFASHION SOCIETY AND ‘RUB THE RIGHT’S NOSE’ IN MULTICULTURALISM, EVEN THOUGH ALL SURVEYS SHOW THAT 80 PER CENT OF THE BRITISH POPULATION IS OPPOSED TO UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION.
WHAT LABOUR WANTED WAS TO CREATE ‘A NEW SOCIAL ORDER’, to use Harriet Harman’s phrase, ONE WHERE ALL CONCEPTS OF TRADITION, NEIGHBOURHOOD AND PATRIOTISM WERE OUTMODED. THE FACT THAT THIS POLICY IS PROFOUNDLY UNDEMOCRATIC MEANS NOTHING TO THE CABINET.
In fact, THE GOVERNMENT’S CONTEMPT FOR DEMOCRACY IS AMPLY DEMONSTRATED BY ITS IMPOSITION OF MASS POSTAL VOTING IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, A MOVE THAT HAS LED TO WIDESPREAD FRAUD. Like nationhood, democratic integrity means nothing to a bunch of charlatans who will do anything to maintain their power.”
On 14 December 2009, Ken Macdonald QC, who was Tony Blair’s Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003 to 2006 and Gordon Brown’s until 2008, presented the accusatory essay, INTOXICATED BY POWER, BLAIR TRICKED US INTO WAR, in The Times.
This is it:
“The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. THIS WAS A FOREIGN POLICY DISGRACE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that TONY BLAIR ENGAGED IN AN ALARMING SUBTERFUGE WITH HIS PARTNER GEORGE BUSH AND WENT ON TO MISLEAD AND CAJOLE THE BRITISH PEOPLE INTO A DEADLY WAR THEY HAD MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR THEY DIDN’T WANT, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible. Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister’s mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas?…
BLAIR’S FUNDAMENTAL FLAW WAS HIS SYCOPHANCY TOWARDS POWER… WASHINGTON TURNED HIS HEAD AND HE COULDN’T RESIST THE STAGE OR THE GLAMOUR THAT IT GAVE HIM. IN THIS SENSE HE WAS WEAK AND, AS WE CAN SEE, HE REMAINS SO. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating THE SELF-REGARDING MANTRA THAT ‘HAND ON HEART, I ONLY DID WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RIGHT‘. But THIS IS A NARCISSIST’S DEFENCE AND SELF-BELIEF IS NO ANSWER TO MISJUDGMENT: IT IS CERTAINLY NO ANSWER TO DEATH. ‘Yo, Blair‘, perhaps, was his truest measure…
IN BRITISH PUBLIC LIFE, LOYALTY AND SERVICE TO POWER CAN SOMETIMES COUNT FOR MORE TO INSIDERS than any tricky questions of wider reputation. IT’S THE REGARD YOU ARE HELD IN BY YOUR PEERS THAT REALLY COUNTS, SO THAT STEADFASTNESS IN THE FACE OF ATTACK AND THREATENED EXPOSURE BRINGS ITS OWN RICH HIERARCHY OF HONOUR AND REWARD. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure…
IT IS PRECISELY THIS PRIVATELY ARRANGED NATURE OF BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT POWER, STUBBORN BEYOND SYMPATHY FOR YEARS IN THE FACE OF THE MODERN WORLD, THAT HAS BROUGHT OUR POLITICS SO LOW. If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt. This would be a serious blow to the integrity of the State. It would not restore trust…
THE TAX ON DISHONESTY IS RISING… CITIZENS BELIEVE DEEPLY IN A DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO KNOW AND THEY NO LONGER ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR UNWORTHINESS TO ENJOY ITS NOURISHMENT. Naturally, THIS IS A LESS COMFORTABLE WORLD FOR PEOPLE IN POWER, BUT IT’S A MUCH BETTER WORLD FOR EVERYONE ELSE. The real tragedy of Iraq, beyond all the danger and the terrible loss, is that it rendered any affair of the heart between government and people no more than a wisp, like A LIE IN THE WIND. It broke faith…
We have seen enormous acts of courage on the part of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most heart-rending sacrifices have been made… But none of this sprinkles, as he might once have hoped it would, any starlight on Tony Blair. On the contrary, it is entirely the work of WARRIORS THRUST CARELESSLY INTO DEATH’S WAY BY A PRIME MINISTER LOST IN SELF-AGGRANDISEMENT and a governing class too closed to speak truth to power.”
The rats are leaving the establishment ship at a wonderfully alarming rate, are they not?
If anyone out there thinks I’m being harsh, associating MacDonald with the bringers of Black Death, I ask you this: why did he not speak out when it mattered? Was he really “tricked into war”? Were the parliamentarians and the press who lusted for it at the time equally “tricked”?
Ladies and gentlemen, many thousands of us knew the score. We knew why the war was being fought and in who’s behalf. But the bought media did not allow us a mainstream voice. The establishment, of which Ken MacDonald was an integral part, was banging the drum for war and it didn’t want those unworthy of the “right to know” afforded the “nourishment” of any truth contrary to the Blairite spin.
Many of the elite characters slavering for a great slaughter at the time will, indeed, have been “tricked”, in so far as they chose not to question what they ought to have been questioning. In so far as they did not investigate in any depth what they should have.
MacDonald was one of those who went along with “a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions”. He wasn’t interested in challenging and/or exposing Tony Blair’s “sycophancy”. He, with many others, aided and abetted Bush and Blair as they “went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want”.
The MacDonalds were much better placed to know what the reality was than the many, outside the loop, who protested. And, if they were not aware of the full facts, they would easily have been able to find out what they were if they had chosen to do so.
A great many concerned British citizens, who believed “deeply in a democratic right to know”, did.
That’s why I say Ken MacDonald is a bit of an old, murine ship-leaver.
Nevertheless, if his belated condemnation helps to nail Tony B Liar to the cross, I’d forgive him the long silence on these matters.
In defending the Pre-Budget Report, Gordon Brown said this on 13 December 2009:
"We will always protect the services of the mainstream majority."
Anyone out there laughing?
No, thought not.
On 13 December 2009, The Daily Mail quoted an extract from a letter titled “Handling Extremist MEPs” and marked “Restricted”, which was circulated to the heads of Britain’s European embassies by Matthew Rycroft, the UK’s top EU diplomat.
This sentence stood out:
“FCO Ministers have decided that there should be no other contact with MEPs of any nationality who represent racist or extremist views.”
Thus did David Miliband's Foreign Office happily disenfranchise almost a million English people who cast their vote for the BNP.
You see, the letter was formulated immediately after Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons were elected to the EU Parliament on behalf of the British National Party. Up until this letter was sent, all British MEPs could normally expect to receive private briefings from FO officials.
On 12 December 2009, the Foreign Office explained that the letter was meant to remind diplomats of the "longstanding’ policy on those who represent racist views."
David Miliband's dad, Ralph, (christened Adolphe) was an immigrant whose own parents were Polish Jews.
Ralph's father, Sam Miliband, had been a soldier in the Red Army.
Almost immediately upon arrival in England in 1940, Miliband was moved to write the following in his diary:
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist... They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world... When you hear the English talk of this war YOU SOMETIMES WANT THEM TO LOSE IT TO SHOW THEM HOW THINGS REALLY ARE".
Which does tend to make you think that old anti-Nationalist Adolphe wasn't exactly all that grateful to those who had just given him and his dad sanctuary, doesn't it?
On 28 February 2004, The Guardian reported thus:
"Driving around the capital with other labourers... Ralph acquired a sense of England and its underlying structures. 'We found out about MIDDLE-CLASS MEANNESS AND SNOBBERY'...
One boiling afternoon during his first summer in London, he went to Highgate cemetery, found Karl Marx's grave and, standing with his fist clenched, swore, 'My own private oath that I WOULD BE FAITHFUL TO THE WORKERS' CAUSE!'
Not that he intended to remain a worker himself: he found clearing bombsites 'an arduous business' and felt a distance from his fellow labourers...
HE WANTED TO BE AN INTELLECTUAL."
Hmm, I guess, David's dad was one of those up-the worker Jews who wanted to do the thinking for the labouring classes but wasn't all that keen on getting his hands dirty.
In 1941, Miliband applied to study politics at the London School of Economics. He was accepted and spent a cosy, cosseted war in Cambridge, (where the LSE had re-located) well out of the way of the bombs.
Whilst there, one presumes he spent his war figuring out how to "show" the mean, snobbish, rabid nationalists of ye olde England "how things really are".
Given that his sprogs got to be youthful (and very powerful) Cabinet Ministers in both the Blair and Brown governments, I think you can safely say he succeeded.
On 12 December 2009, the following Peter Oborne essays were published in The Daily Mail:
“THE PAST 13 YEARS HAVE SEEN AN EXPLOSION IN THE TAKE-HOME PAY OF INVESTMENT BANKERS, HEDGE-FUND MANAGERS AND PRIVATE EQUITY SHARKS. AS A DIRECT RESULT OF NEW LABOUR TAXATION POLICY, MASSIVE PRIVATE FORTUNES HAVE BEEN CREATED ON A SCALE NOT SEEN SINCE BEFORE WORLD WAR I…
But the gains of the richest and poorest members of society have come at the expense of a third, and much larger, group - middle-income earners… They are the ones who have been milked dry to pay for the massive increases in public spending over the past decade. And they are the ones to whom Chancellor Alistair Darling has turned again in order to balance the national finances now that Britain faces economic catastrophe…
Earn more than £20,000 a year… you can expect to be bled dry by the state. Labour MPs are so divorced from reality that they have become oblivious to what this means to ordinary, hardworking men and women… Labour ministers haven't a clue how hard it is to get by on £20,000 a year - the equivalent of around £300-a-week take-home pay - however much you scrimp and save.
Experts say rebuilding the shattered public finances will cost the average family £2,400 a year for a staggering eight years. Yet New Labour is so bloated and corrupt that the Government is supremely indifferent to what this means for individuals across the country… By a savage irony, it was these middle-income earners who voted Tony Blair into power in the Labour landslide of 1997. In return, Labour punished them from the start. Indifferent to their concerns, Blair preferred to rub shoulders with the billionaires of the undeserving super-rich, to whom he doled out tax rebates and peerages.
Meanwhile, the middle classes got clobbered by stealth taxes, NI rises, student tuition fees, fuel tax rises and all the other hidden levies that Gordon Brown used to fund Labour's massive expansion of the public sector. Labour became ever more inventive at finding ways to knock the hard-working people of Britain - and none of them was more invidious than Brown's immoral decision to abolish dividend tax relief on earnings from pension funds, which led to the gradual closure of occupational pension schemes.
Nor did Labour simply attack the financial interests of middle income people. The party also launched a surreptitious assault on their very way of life. Take, for example, their deliberate policy of allowing unlimited immigration into Britain. This was excellent news for members of the 'boss class', who could use the extra labour to drive down wages. And it was excellent news for the well-off, because domestic help became more plentiful, as well as cheaper. But for hard-working families struggling to make ends meet on £20,000 or £30,000 a year, immigration has been a disaster. For countless workers it has meant being priced out of the job market by cheaper competition from Eastern Europe. For families, it has meant children coping with larger classes and fewer English speakers at the local state school. For others it has meant being knocked off the housing list. And for everyone it has meant extra pressure on public services…
This summer the TUC published a devastating study entitled Life In The Middle: The Untold Story Of Britain's Average Earners, which showed how those on average income have lost out terribly in recent years. As TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber noted 'those on real middle incomes got left behind under the Conservatives, were left out of Labour's boom that has now busted into recession, and are now fearing for their jobs and homes as unemployment bites'.
Recently, Labour propagandists have been trying to spread the notion that there is a class war between ordinary decent people and David Cameron's Tories. In truth, there is a class war, but not the one Labour strategists have invented. THE KEY BATTLE IN BRITISH POLITICS IS BETWEEN A PAMPERED, COSY AND CORRUPT POLITICAL CLASS WHICH HAS LOST ALL CONNECTION WITH THE REAL WORLD - AND THE MASS OF ORDINARY PEOPLE BETRAYED BY POLITICIANS OF ALL PARTIES."
"Never has it been more generally agreed that the modern world is a 'knowledge economy'… And yet, does the average pupil end up knowing more or knowing things more deeply than, say, 50 years ago? COULD THE AVERAGE PUPIL OF TODAY DO LONG DIVISION, OR SPEAK FRENCH, OR WRITE AN ENGLISH PARAGRAPH, OR EXPLAIN THE GREAT REFORM BILL, OR FIND VALPARAISO ON A MAP, OR OPERATE THE LAWS OF THERMO-DYNAMICS BETTER THAN HIS OR HER EQUIVALENT HALF A CENTURY AGO?
Perhaps not, the defenders of current education would say, but modern pupils know much more about saving the planet, safe sex, Eid, and challenging racism, not to mention things not even thought of in the 1950s, such as the internet. They learn more that is 'relevant'. They also, modern educationalists argue, acquire more 'skills'. Instead of being crammed with sterile facts, they know how to engage with a subject. They learn less mere 'what', but more 'why' and 'how to'…
For all the patter about diversity, EDUCATION HAS BECOME MORE HOSTILE TO THINGS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE IMMEDIATE EXPERIENCE OF THE PUPIL. Much less pre-20th-century history or literature is taught. Fewer pupils learn foreign languages, let alone dead ones. Individual sciences have been conflated into the easier 'dual science' paper. We heard this week that A QUARTER OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS NEVER TEACH PUPILS THE LORD’S PRAYER…
ONE OF THE WORST THINGS ABOUT BEING BADLY EDUCATED IS THAT YOU ARE EASILY BORED. If somebody asks, 'How could Jane Austen/Plato/Mozart/William the Conqueror/Einstein or whoever be relevant to inner-city kids?', the answer is surely that it is the kids, not Jane Austen etc, who have the problem. It is the job of teachers to help them out of it.
There is a nice bit in Boswell’s Life of Johnson when Dr Johnson stops a poor boy and says, 'What would you give, my lad, to know about the Argonauts?' 'Sir, I would give everything I had,' the boy replies. But we have given up teaching poor boys about the Argonauts. WE HAVE DESPAIRED OF THE TRANSFORMATION WHICH EDUCATION CAN BRING ABOUT.
Schooling is now effectively compulsory from the age of four to 18. But TOO OFTEN, THE PEOPLE WHO EMERGE FROM THOSE LONG YEARS HAVE NOT LEARNT THE 'WHAT' OR THE 'HOW TO' OR THE 'WHY'.
You can see this in the practical things of daily life. HUGE NUMBERS OF DRUGS, IT TURNS OUT, ARE WRONGLY ADMINISTERED IN HOSPITAL BECAUSE NURSES HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS PRECISELY. NO ONE TAUGHT THEM THE HABIT OF ACCURACY.
How many people can draft, unaided, a letter or email that coherently makes an argument? How many people can calculate their own tax, or work out whether they are choosing the right pension? How many people can begin to understand the legal system or argue successfully with a bureaucrat or comprehend with any accuracy what their doctor is telling them?
More important still, HOW CAN PEOPLE ENJOY THE RICHNESS OF OUR CIVILISATION IF NO ONE HAS INTRODUCED THEM TO ITS GLORIES?”
On 12 December 2009, the Home Office Minister, Shahid Malik, was quoted thus by The Press:
"Being a justice minister, Home Office minister at the time and being a high profile Parliamentarian who is outspoken on extremism, terrorism and white supremacists I hope you agree it is reasonable".
The Press explained:
“Dewsbury and Mirfield MP Shahid Malik gave his bride-to-be an £8,000 diamond engagement ring, the latest Commons expenses reveal. And documents published by Parliament… show that TAXPAYERS ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR INSURING THE RING… The lavish ring is itemised on Mr Malik’s home contents policy with the Halifax. Last year the policy, PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, cost £382.46, but his renewal for this year rose to £549.68...
MR MALIK, ELECTED IN 2005, WAS REVEALED AS BRITAIN’S MOST EXPENSIVE MP TWO YEARS LATER WHEN HE CLAIMED £185,000 IN EXPENSES.
He hit the national headlines in May this year when the Daily Telegraph first published MPs’ expenses which showed Mr MALIK POCKETED £700 FOR A MASSAGE CHAIR AND £1,050, HALF THE COST OF A 40 INCH PLASMA TV… Malik claims £400 a month for food and £17.50 a month for Sky TV… He claimed £1,547.40 for ‘damp and repairs’ which included cleaning his decking and in April he claimed £2,250 for ‘home maintenance’. Taxpayers also pay his dry cleaning bills… He was also paid £188.99 for a dishwasher and £48.94 for a wall bracket for his giant TV…
Commons officials rejected a claim for £66.73 for brushwood and bamboo cane for his garden fence… Commons officials initially rejected a £1,900 claim for new windows for his Peckham flat… In an e-mail Mr Malik wrote back that it was actually for three doors and one window. They needed repair because they were ‘inappropriate from a security perspective'."
Well, Malik, my old Muslim, I reckon you probably do need the extra security.
But not to protect yourself from “white supremacists”, most of whom would, I’m sure, think you’re doing a simply suberb job of exposing the endemic corruption at the heart of British politics.
No, it would be the long-suffering silent majority of decent, British folk whom you should be on your guard against. I should imagine many of these will be absolutely livid that a wallet-stuffing chancer like you gets to claim £185,000 for wedding rings, massage chairs, dishwashers and the like.
The Press continued:
“The Press asked Mr Malik whether he thought it was ‘reasonable’ to claim for the ring insurance, his decking cleaning and a wall bracket for his TV.
HE DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.”
Very wise, Mr Malik.
Hiding out in your newly secure Peckham flat would be the sensible option, I believe.
On 12 December 2009, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury was quoted thus by The Daily Express:
“The trouble with a lot of Government initiatives about faith is that THEY ASSUME IT IS A PROBLEM, IT’S AN ECCENTRICITY, IT IS PRACTISED BY ODDITIES…
THE EFFECT OF THAT IS TO DE-NORMALISE FAITH, TO INTENSIFY THE PERCEPTION THAT FAITH IS NOT PART OF OUR BLOODSTREAM. And you know, in great swathes of the country, that’s how it is.”
On 12 December 2009, Ann Owers, Chief Inspector of Prisons, was quoted thus by The Guardian:
"I haven't seen prison governors so worried about the future in all the time I've been doing this job... There's always the potential for something to go more seriously wrong...
I am now seeing prisons that are being told, 'YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THAT GOOD. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REACH THE GOLD STANDARD - YOU ONLY HAVE TO REACH THE BRONZE STANDARD.' Prisons obey the law of gravity – they come down much more quickly than they went up."
Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator wrote this in the 11 December 2009 edition of The Daily Telegraph:
“Never in history have politicians talked more about the importance of education. Never has it been more generally agreed that the modern world is a 'knowledge economy'… And yet, does the average pupil end up knowing more or knowing things more deeply than, say, 50 years ago? COULD THE AVERAGE PUPIL OF TODAY DO LONG DIVISION, OR SPEAK FRENCH, OR WRITE AN ENGLISH PARAGRAPH, OR EXPLAIN THE GREAT REFORM BILL, OR FIND VALPARAISO ON A MAP, OR OPERATE THE LAWS OF THERMO-DYNAMICS BETTER THAN HIS OR HER EQUIVALENT HALF A CENTURY AGO?
Perhaps not, the defenders of current education would say, but modern pupils know much more about saving the planet, safe sex, Eid, and challenging racism, not to mention things not even thought of in the 1950s, such as the internet. They learn more that is 'relevant'. They also, modern educationalists argue, acquire more 'skills'. Instead of being crammed with sterile facts, they know how to engage with a subject. They learn less mere 'what' but more 'why' and 'how to'…
For all the patter about diversity, EDUCATION HAS BECOME MORE HOSTILE TO THINGS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE IMMEDIATE EXPERIENCE OF THE PUPIL. Much less pre-20th-century history or literature is taught. Fewer pupils learn foreign languages, let alone dead ones. Individual sciences have been conflated into the easier 'dual science' paper. We heard this week that A QUARTER OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS NEVER TEACH PUPILS THE LORD’S PRAYER…
ONE OF THE WORST THINGS ABOUT BEING BADLY EDUCATED IS THAT YOU ARE EASILY BORED. If somebody asks, 'How could Jane Austen/Plato/Mozart/William the Conqueror/Einstein or whoever be relevant to inner-city kids?' The answer is surely that it is the kids, not Jane Austen etc, who have the problem. It is the job of teachers to help them out of it...
WE HAVE DESPAIRED OF THE TRANSFORMATION WHICH EDUCATION CAN BRING ABOUT. Schooling is now effectively compulsory from the age of four to 18. But TOO OFTEN, THE PEOPLE WHO EMERGE FROM THOSE LONG YEARS HAVE NOT LEARNT THE 'WHAT' OR THE 'HOW TO' OR THE 'WHY'.
You can see this in the practical things of daily life. HUGE NUMBERS OF DRUGS, IT TURNS OUT, ARE WRONGLY ADMINISTERED IN HOSPITAL BECAUSE NURSES HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS PRECISELY. NO ONE TAUGHT THEM THE HABIT OF ACCURACY.
How many people can draft, unaided, a letter or email that coherently makes an argument? How many people can calculate their own tax, or work out whether they are choosing the right pension? How many people can begin to understand the legal system or argue successfully with a bureaucrat or comprehend with any accuracy what their doctor is telling them? More important still, HOW CAN PEOPLE ENJOY THE RICHNESS OF OUR CIVILISATION IF NO ONE HAS INTRODUCED THEM TO ITS GLORIES?”
On 11 December 2009, Sir John Sawers, Tony Blair's former Chief Foreign Policy Adviser and now head of MI6, said this to the Chilcot inquiry:
"There are a lot of countries ... where we would like to see a change of regime. That doesn't mean one pursues active policies in that direction."
I wonder if Sir John ever bothered to say this to Tony B?
If he did it didn't cut much ice, did it?
On 8 December 2009, Gordon Brown's Immigration Minster, Phil Woolas, said this during a BBC Radio 4 interview:
"There are 285million people who visit the United Kingdom every year".
I wonder how many of these visitors ever bother to leave?
As a result of a grotesque level of anti-British machination and deceit at the highest level, ladies and gentlemen, it may well be that we are already outnumbered in our own land by the alien who has no intention of leaving.
On 5 December 2009, Hans Blix, the Swedish lawyer who was the UN’s Chief Weapons Inspector in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was quoted thus by
The Daily Mail:
“Like witch-hunters of the 17th century, they were convinced they (Bush and Blair) had their witch in front of them… THEY SEARCHED FOR THE EVIDENCE AND BELIEVED IT WITHOUT CRITICAL EXAMINATION… THEY EXERCISED VERY BAD JUDGMENT. A modicum of critical thinking would have made them sceptical. WHEN YOU START A WAR WHICH COST THOUSANDS OF LIVES YOU SHOULD BE MORE CERTAIN THAN THEY WERE…
We found a few documents and some conventional weapons - grenades and so forth - NOTHING MORE.
The message that should have gone to the intelligence services was that YOUR SOURCES MUST HAVE BEEN BAD. IF YOUR SOURCES ARE BAD IN THESE CASES, MAYBE THEY'RE BAD IN OTHERS…
If the UK had really insisted then on the UN path being exhausted, they could have slowed the military build-up ... but that wasn't the case… They eventually had so much military in the Gulf that THEY FELT THEY HAD TO INVADE…
THE WAR, IN MY VIEW, WAS ILLEGAL... THE BRITISH KNEW THE EVIDENCE WAS THIN, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT BEFORE THEY STARTED SHOOTING”.
After Blix said that Bush and Blair had “MISLED THE PUBLIC”, The Daily Mail opined that Bush and Blair were “men who were so desperately seeking to justify the invasion… that THEY WERE DEAF TO REASON AND BLIND TO LOGIC.”
“Hans Blix… revealed that Mr BLAIR TRIED TO FORCE HIM TO CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF WMDS IN IRAQ TO PLACATE THE AMERICANS…
Mr Blix dismissed the 'dodgy' Downing Street dossier on Saddam's weapons which made the case for war as 'A POLITICIAN'S TWIST'. The claim that Iraq could fire chemical weapons in 45 minutes was 'HYPERBOLE'. Mr Blix's inspectors viewed 700 supposed WMD sites in the months before the war but found nothing more than a handful of empty chemical munitions.
Five weeks before the invasion he revealed these findings to the UN and six days later Mr BLAIR TOLD HIM HIS REPORT HAD UNDERMINED AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR THE UN PROCESS. But Mr Blix stuck to his guns AND WARNED THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER NOT TO INVADE…
Asked whether Mr Blair could be tried for war crimes, Mr Blix said:
'Well, YES, MAYBE SO'… Mr Blix said HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO TESTIFY TO THE CHILCOT INQUIRY INTO THE WAR BUT HAD NOT BEEN ASKED TO ATTEND.
The inquiry heard yesterday that BRITISH TROOPS WERE DELIBERATELY PUT IN GREATER DANGER IN ORDER TO INCREASE MR BLAIR'S INFLUENCE WITH THE AMERICANS…
The chances of Gordon Brown being called to give evidence increased yesterday when THE INQUIRY HEARD HE HAD REFUSED TO RELEASE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO REBUILD BASRA FOLLOWING THE INVASION…
He (Blair) knew for certain soon after the occupation that SADDAM HAD NO CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS... Disgracefully, however, IT TOOK THE BRITISH AND AMERICANS MONTHS TO ADMIT THAT THEY WEREN'T THERE, and it wasn't until January, 2005, that the U.S. announced that the search had finally been abandoned...
The Chilcot inquiry has clearly reawakened so many memories... Sir John would only need to lift the phone and - much to Blair's discomfort - THE MAN WHO WARNED HIM ABOUT THE ABSURDITY OF GOING TO WAR ON A FALSE PREMISE would board the next London-bound plane.”
On 5 December 2009, Ulrich Schluer, a member of the Swiss People's Party that voted to ban the building of any more minarets in Switzerland, was quoted thus by The Sun:
“I'm surprised a country like GREAT BRITAIN with its grand tradition of liberty and freedom IS NOW GAGGING MPS WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT MUSLIM EXTREMISM. If there were an Islamist bomb attack in London YOU CAN HARDLY DESCRIBE THE PEOPLE WHO DID IT AS FRIENDS."
4 British Muslims murdered 52 people in London on 7/7/2005.
Mr Schluer continued:
"I'M FEARFUL FOR THE FUTURE OF BRITAIN. (Me too, Ulrich) WHEN PUBLIC FIGURES ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH OR EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN RELEVANT LANGUAGE, IT ISN'T REALLY A FREE COUNTRY AT ALL".
You’re right there, Mr Schluer.
The PC Crowd have ensured that we are now living in a pseudo-Marxist, totalitarian society, whose elite, strangely, would rather cuddle up to greedy bankers, international finance and the immigrant hordes than the average British worker.
Mr Schluer added:
"POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS GETTING BEYOND A JOKE AND COMPROMISING HARD-WON FREEDOMS IN MANY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES."
Oh yes, Mr Schluer!
It's really nice to hear a politician, even a Swiss one, saying it.
"Speaking out about Muslim extremists and using such terms to describe them is not Islamophobic."
It used to be called telling the truth.
"As in other European countries, WE HAVE SEEN MUSLIM LEADERS AND IMAMS SLOWLY TRYING TO INTRODUCE SHARIA LAW. It happens step by step. At the moment there are 17,000 young Muslim women in Switzerland who aren't allowed to choose their husbands. Forced marriage goes against Swiss law and the liberty which should be enjoyed by everyone who resides here. The minaret ban received huge support because VOTERS FELT STRONGLY THAT THIS POLITICAL SYMBOL APPEARING IN OUR TOWNS AND CITIES WOULD LIKEWISE UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY."
As do most of the British, I’m sure.
"Whoever wants to come is warmly welcome, but they must accept that life is governed by the Swiss democratic process. If I decide to go to live in Turkey, I would have to accept the law of that country.”
On behalf of the British people, thanks for saying it like it is, Mr Schluer.
On 5 December 2005, Rod Liddle said this in The Spectator:
“THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF STREET CRIME, KNIFE CRIME, GUN CRIME, ROBBERY AND CRIMES OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN LONDON IS CARRIED OUT BY YOUNG MEN FROM THE AFRICAN-CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY.
In return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us.”
I wonder, given that PC isn't the force it once was, how many would dare to say that they'd happily swap the rap, the curry and the diversity for a bit of a purge?
I have this sneaking feeling that, if the British were allowed a secret ballot, they might just vote to put things back the way they were before the Windrush arrived.
And Big Brother began importing black criminality.
On 1 December 2009, French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, expressed his glee thus at the appointment of Michel Barnier as Commissioner for the Single Market, with power to dictate to London‘s markets:
“Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, INCLUDING THE CITY [OF LONDON]? I WANT THE WORLD TO SEE THE VICTORY OF THE EUROPEAN MODEL."
The 2 December edition of The Times commented:
"HIS IMPLICIT THREAT WAS JUST WHAT DOWNING STREET HAD FEARED when Mr Barnier, formerly an agriculture minister, was given the portfolio last week.
Mr Darling, writing in The Times today, says that it would be a 'recipe for confusion' if firms were supervised by the EU as well as national watchdogs and that Britain would not accept new laws that could lead to taxpayers picking up the bill for bailouts ordered by Brussels...
Terry Smith, a prominent banker, said that the threat of increased regulation was already threatening the City’s future.
'I’ve never seen so much work going on by companies, individuals and teams of people to evaluate relocation out of the UK,' he said."
And the destruction of our British way goes on.
"Recipe for confusion," Alistair? I'll say. But it's a confusion created by your lot DELIBERATELY, WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.
You won't "accept new laws that could lead to taxpayers picking up the bill for bailouts ordered by Brussels"?
Oh you will, my dear chap, and well you know it. We are locked in now to the EU way and IT WAS YOU WHO DID THE LOCKING! EU law takes precedence now, Alistair. Many, many years of Westminster treachery has ensured that we are now subject to Sarkozy, Barnier and co. at the European level and to the richest and most powerful of the globalists at an international level.
You, the Tories and the Lib Dems all betrayed us, Alistair.
No amount of phoney chauvinism will ever dissuade us of that.
On 30 November 2009, former New Labour Minister, Tom Harris, dared to say this on his own blog:
"This post from Alex Smith of LabourList has caught my attention...
'THE LABOUR PARTY HAS EMBRACED AN IDEOLOGY THAT ACTIVELY UNDERMINES THE BELIEFS AND CULTURE OF ORDINARY WORKING PEOPLE. IMMIGRATION, WHILST THE MOST TOPICAL, ISN’T THE ONLY BATTLEGROUND. One by one, it seems that THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL OUTLOOK OF MANY IS SCORNED UPON BY AN ELITE WHO, WHILST LAUGHABLY PAINTING THEMSELVES AS ON THE SIDE OF THE ‘OPPRESSED’, CHOOSE TO STUDIOUSLY IGNORE THIS PARTICULAR SUBJUGATION. ON ISSUES RANGING FROM SCHOOL/PARENTAL DISCIPLINE (’CHILD ABUSE’), TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (’BARBARIC’), TO PATRIOTISM (’LITTLE ENGLANDER’), TO EURO-SCEPTICISM (’XENOPHOBIC’), TO IMMIGRATION (’RACIST’), TO MORALITY (’BIGOTED’) – ACROSS ALL THESE ISSUES AND MORE, THE GENERAL BELIEFS OF VAST SWATHES OF THE ELECTORATE ARE DEMONISED AND RIDICULED BY AN ELITE INTERESTED ONLY IN SECURING THE DOMINANCE OF THEIR OWN PARTICULAR WORLDVIEW’…
He clealry (sic) has a point... And although Merrick talks of immigration as just one of the pressure points, it’s clearly near the top of an awful lot of people’s agenda today.
A few weeks ago... I was forced to concede by commenters that LABOUR HAD, IN THE PAST, BEEN GUILTY OF ATTEMPTING TO SHUT DOWN DEBATES ON IMMIGRATION BY SHOUTING 'RACIST'... IT WAS STUPID AND WRONG...
Knocking on doors in my constituency on Saturday morning, I once again had to try to defend the government’s policies on immigration. This is a very regular occurrence these days, particularly in so-called 'solid' Labour areas. These people are not racists by any stretch of the imagination, but THEY ARE WORRIED. AND THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS NOW BECAUSE IT’S ONLY NOW THEY FEEL THEY HAVE 'PERMISSION' TO DO SO... More often than not, the people expressing the concerns are the people least likely to have benefited directly from Britain’s economic growth to 2008. And they have as much right to have a say in this area – and to be listened to – as anyone else.
I DETECT A HUGE AMOUNT OF SNOBBERY FROM SOME ON THE LIBERAL LEFT TOWARDS SUCH PEOPLE AND THEIR VIEWS...
And WE ARE WAY, WAY PAST THE POINT AT WHICH WE CAN SNEER 'RACIST' AT GOOD PEOPLE FOR DARING TO HOLD A VIEW WITH WHICH WE’RE UNCOMFORTABLE."
I wonder why Tom Harris is saying what he is saying right now?
Does he imagine that he can hang on to his seat by baring his behind, the “stupid and wrong” one, a few months before the election? Does he think he will be forgiven for 12 years of saying nothing, for saying it now, when the immigrant horse has well and truly bolted?
Actually, that’s not quite right, is it? He did say something. He was one of those who, by his own admission, sneered “racist at good people”. He was one of those who stood by and applauded whilst the “liberal left” were directing their PC bile “towards such people and their views.”
And all the while those we did not want here kept piling in.
You will never be forgiven, Tom. However, as the frank confession may help, eventually, to put things right, you may just get to keep your head.
On 30 November 2009, Communities Secretary, John Denham, said this at a TUC meeting:
'We can only challenge racism and race inequality effectively as part of a strategy that tackles all forms of inequality and disadvantage. THIS MUST INCLUDE POORER WHITE WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES, as well as disadvantaged minority ethnic communities. AGENCIES WHICH HAVE BEEN BLIND TO THESE ISSUES, OR THOUGHT THEIR ONLY REMIT WAS TO ADDRESS MINORITY ISSUES, MUST RE-ASSESS THE WAY THEY WORK…
We have to avoid the perception that SOME GROUPS ARE SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT."
It’s not a perception, pal, it’s a historical truth which was codified in law in Harold Wilson’s first government.
“When we target help at one group, WE CANNOT ALLOW OTHERS TO BE LEFT BEHIND, OR TO FEEL DISCONNECTED.”
It never bothered you before, why, when Labour voters are deserting you in droves, does it bother you now?
“By ensuring that our policies are both fair, and seen to be fair... we properly address the complexities of the problem: ensuring that the white working class boy struggling in class gets the support that he needs, JUST AS HIS BLACK AND ASIAN CLASSMATES DO."
An admission, surely, that such “policies” were not “fair” before.
The “black and Asian classmates” of the “white, working-class boy” got preferential treatment over him.
The 30 November edition of The Telegraph commented thus:
“His comments are the latest attempt by ministers to address fears over immigration in Labour heartlands, and confront the threat from the British National Party. They follow a speech by Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this month in which he said it was 'not racist' to talk about immigration.
Addressing the Trades Union Congress today, Mr Denham pointed to similarities between black and white working class groups. POOR WHITE BOYS HAD MORE IN COMMON WITH THEIR POOR BLACK CLASSMATES THAN WITH MIDDLE CLASS WHITES, he said.”
Anyone out there, other than a PC creep, a New Labour jobsworth or a brainwashed zombie, think that the UK's “poor white boys” have more in common with a black lad from Rwanda or Somalia than they do with their own kith and kin?
The Telegraph continued:
“The inequality agenda should focus on ’need’ and not 'outdated ideology or assumptions which may no longer be true', he said. These could lead to white working class boys being ''overlooked'.”
Too late, Denham, old sport.
Way, way too late. Your mealy-mouthed pseudo-confessions will do you no good at all. The British people know you now. You’ve been playing the traitor far too long and much too obviously. The cuddly-wuddly, see-through guff you’re spouting here is less the sinner come to glory than an over-promoted, New Labour wallet-stuffer worried that the voters are about to turf him out.
On yer bike, Denham. Your lot “singled out” a load of unwanted foreigners for “special treatment” over the last twelve years, and you left the “white-working-class… behind” in the process.
And that process was DELIBERATE.
That’s treason in my book.
On 28 November 2009, The Telegraph quoted Ashok Viswanathan, a founder of Operation Black Vote thus:
"RADIO 4 IS STILL TOO WHITE AND HAS A TWEENESS TO IT, but their response to the criticism has been positive… You look at the faces at the station and it doesn't look like twenty-first century Britain.”
The Telegraph explained:
“BBC Radio 4 is reviewing its programming in an attempt to increase its appeal TO ETHNIC MINORITIES following criticism that IT IS 'TOO WHITE'…
Mark Damazer, the station's controller, is conscious that RADIO 4 IS REGARDED AS ‘TOO WHITE’ AND MET WITH RACE EQUALITY CAMPAIGNERS THIS MONTH TO DISCUSS MOVES TO MAKE THE STATION'S WORKFORCE MORE DIVERSE…. He has previously admitted that THERE IS A PROBLEM over the lack of black and Asian presenters".
Ashok Viswanathan is Indian.
Mark Damazer is Jewish.
On 27 November 2009, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK’s ambassador to the United Nations in 2003, said this at the Chilcot Enquiry:
“I regarded our invasion of Iraq as legal but OF QUESTIONABLE LEGITIMACY, in that it didn’t have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states or even, perhaps, of a majority of people inside the UK.”
On 27 November 2009, the following Peter Oborne articles were published in The Daily Mail:
“Mandelson now only seems truly at home in grand country houses or on the yachts of billionaires such as his Russian oligarch friend Oleg Deripaska, whose guest he was during the summer of 2008.
The truth is that his attendance at a shooting party with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's son is a perfect parable of the decadent Left's embrace of everything it claims to despise. Nor is Mandelson an exception.
PRACTICALLY EVERY MEMBER OF TONY BLAIR'S CABINET WHICH TOOK OFFICE IN 1997 HAS SINCE SOLD OUT TO WEALTH AND POWER. BLAIR HIMSELF IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. SINCE LEAVING OFFICE, HE HAS BECOME A POPULAR MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PLUTOCRACY; A CONSULTANT TO AN INVESTMENT BANK WHO HAS EARNED AN ESTIMATED £15 MILLION SINCE LEAVING DOWNING STREET. WHILE AT NO 10, BLAIR WAS SHAMEFULLY ATTRACTED TO EXTREMELY RICH MEN…
Numerous ministers from the Blair years have exploited their Whitehall experience to go on to earn fat fees in the private sector. Indeed, SOME OF THOSE WHO BOASTED LOUDEST ABOUT THEIR WORKING CLASS CREDENTIALS, SUCH AS JOHN PRESCOTT, HAVE BEEN AMONG THE GREEDIEST.
Nor should it be forgotten that MPS' CULTURE OF CHEATING OVER THEIR EXPENSES TOOK ROOT DURING THE NEW LABOUR YEARS (although, of course, many Tories were just as bad…
THE LABOUR PARTY HAS LOST ITS MORAL CENTRE. ITS LEADERS HAVE NAUSEATINGLY SOLD OUT TO THE ARISTOCRATIC LIFESTYLE AND WORLD OF HIGH FINANCE THAT THEY CLAIMED TO ABHOR.”
“In his infamous Commons speech, Blair conjured up an apocalyptic vision of the danger that a bomb composed of nuclear materials might pose on the streets of London. The implication was clear — in order to avert such a threat, Iraq had to be invaded as soon as possible. Yet THE IDEA OF IRAQ BEING ABLE TO PLANT SUCH A DIRTY BOMB ON THE STREETS OF LONDON WAS PURE FANTASY. SUCH MENDACIOUS BEHAVIOUR FROM A PRIME MINISTER IS BREATH-TAKING. If the chairman of a leading company which was being floated on the London stock exchange had been as cavalier with the truth about his firm’s financial wellbeing, there is no question that the fraud squad would have mounted an investigation and that the chairman would have been arrested, tried and, in due course, sent to jail.
The irony is that Tony Blair has since moved into the City, where HE WORKS AS A CONSULTANT TO THE INVESTMENT BANK MORGAN STANLEY.
Meanwhile, Blair is not alone in his complicity in spinning lies in the run-up to the war with Iraq. How many of his senior Cabinet ministers — who are still in government — knew what he was doing, yet failed to lift a finger to stop him? For instance, JACK STRAW WAS FOREIGN SECRETARY AT THE TIME. HARRIET HARMAN, LABOUR’S DEPUTY LEADER, WAS IN A SIMILAR POSITION. Back in 2003, she was Solicitor General and would have been aware of all the details of how Blair brought pressure to bear on the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to make the crucial judgment that the war was legal. She, too, must have at least suspected that Blair was lying.
The biggest question, however, relates to the position of Gordon Brown. At the time of the invasion he was Chancellor and by far the most powerful member of Blair’s Cabinet. The Chilcot Inquiry must now find out what access Brown was given to intelligence material. Most vitally, WAS HE PRIVY TO THE CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE THE BRITISH PEOPLE ON THE EVE OF WAR?”
On 26 November 2009, Alex Brummer opined thus in The Daily Mail:
“Mervyn King, the independently minded governor of the Bank, revealed that in the heat of the great financial panic of last Autumn, the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street took the most astonishing step in her 305-year history. IN A SECRET OPERATION WHICH HAS REMAINED UNDER WRAPS FOR 14 LONG MONTHS, THE BANK FUNNELLED £ 61.6BILLION OF EMERGENCY LOANS INTO THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND AND HALIFAX BANK OF SCOTLAND.
The emergency assistance, provided under the Bank of England's powers as lender of last resort, was supplied with the FULL AUTHORISATION OF THE PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN AND THE CHANCELLOR ALISTAIR DARLING. Yet, despite the extraordinary scale of this crisis funding (equivalent to almost twice the annual defence budget) LABOUR'S LEADERSHIP NEVER FELT IT NECESSARY TO TELL THE COMMONS OR THE TAXPAYER - WHOSE MONEY WAS BEING PUT AT…
If it can successfully keep the lid on tens of billions of secret loans, it is reasonable to wonder whether they are also hiding from us any more multi-billion credits that have been made to other financial groups or building societies. More broadly, WHAT ELSE IS BEING HIDDEN FROM THE SCRUTINY OF THE COMMONS AND THE TAXPAYER in order to propagate the myth that Gordon Brown is the man who rescued Britain's finances?”
On 23 November 2009, The Jewish Chronicle cited the objections of Sir Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya, to the appointment of two Jews to the five-member Iraq inquiry headed by Lord Chilcot.
Sir Oliver said:
“BOTH GILBERT AND FREEDMAN ARE JEWISH AND GILBERT AT LEAST HAS A RECORD OF ACTIVE SUPPORT FOR ZIONISM. SUCH FACTS ARE NOT USUALLY MENTIONED IN THE MAINSTREAM BRITISH AND AMERICAN MEDIA.”
The Jewish Chronicle added:
“Sir Oliver drew attention to the appointment of Holocaust historian and Winston Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert, and the war historian and ‘BLAIR DOCTRINE’ ARCHITECT Sir Lawrence Freedman, who advocated HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO AND AFGHANISTAN. THE TWO MEN WILL BE MADE PRIVY COUNSELLORS in order to sit on the inquiry committee.”
There is one Jew in the UK for every 150 non-Jews.
This means that, as regards the composition of the Iraq Inquiry Committee, Jews are over-represented by a factor of 100 to 1.
The fact that both of these Jewish gentlemen would almost certainly be sympathetic to the governmental behaviours of New Labour would not be likely to increase the confidence the interested party might feel at their appointment.
On 22 November 2008, Robert Watts said this in The Sunday Times:
"Up to a third of large country houses sold in the past four years have been bought by foreign buyers, according to new research.
Wealthy Russians, Chinese, Middle Eastern and Indian buyers are increasingly displacing traditional owners of rural retreats in the home counties and immersing themselves in hunting, shooting and other rural pursuits.
Thirty per cent of all properties sold for more than £4m in the past four years were bought by international buyers, according to Savills, the estate agents."
On 21 November 2009, The Tony Rennell article, 'This isn't the Britain we fought for' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII’, was published by The Daily Mail.
This cited many of the comments of WWII veterans, as they surveyed what the world they fought so hard for had become, as featured in the book, The Unknown Warriors by Nicholas Pringle.
Here is what a Commando who took part in the disastrous Dieppe raid (4,000 men were lost) thinks of New Labour:
“MORE OF A SHAMBLES THAN SOME OF THE ACTIONS I WAS IN DURING THE WAR”!
“THOSE COMRADES OF MINE WHO NEVER MADE IT BACK WOULD BE APPALLED IF THEY COULD SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS TODAY. THEY WOULD WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD THEY FOUGHT SO DAMNED HARD FOR.”
A former Durham Light Infantryman wrote:
“OUR BRITISH CULTURE IS DRAINING AWAY AT AN EVER INCREASING PACE,' 'AND WE ARE ALMOST FORBIDDEN TO MAKE ANY COMMENT.”
A widow from Solihull blamed the Thatcher years “when WE STARTED TO LOSE ALL OUR INDUSTRY AND PROFIT BECAME THE ONLY AIM IN LIFE'.
Speaking of her husband, a veteran of Dunkirk and Burma, she said:
“It is 18 years since I lost him and AS I LOOK AROUND PARTS OF BIRMINGHAM TODAY YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW YOU WERE IN ENGLAND… He would have hated it. He also disliked the immoral way things are going. I don't think people are really happy now, for all the modern, easy-living conveniences.
I DISAGREE WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGES… RUBBISH TV PROGRAMMES, SO-CALLED CELEBRITIES AND, MOST OF ALL, UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION. I AM VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY IS BEING TRANSFORMED.
I go nowhere after dark. I don't even answer my doorbell then.”
A Desert Rat who fought at El Alamein and in Sicily, Italy and Greece added:
'THIS IS NOT THE COUNTRY I FOUGHT FOR. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, LACK OF DISCIPLINE, COMPENSATION MADNESS, UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION - THE ‘DO-GOODERS’ HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER FOR.”
A former “Land Girl” had this to say:
'In my day, DRUGS WERE UNKNOWN, FAMILIES REMAINED TOGETHER, DIVORCE WAS A RARITY AND CHILDREN FELT SECURE. WE'RE NOW CONTROLLED BY GERMANY AND FRANCE. WHAT A SAD IRONY! WERE OUR SACRIFICES MADE SO HOOLIGANS MAY RUN WILD AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR BE ACCEPTED AS THE NORM BY TV INTERVIEWERS AND SOCIETY IN GENERAL”?
An RAF mechanic quoted the following poetic lines:
'I mourned them then,
But now surviving IN A WORLD,
INDIFFERENT TO THEIR HOPES AND DREAMS,
I GRIEVE MORE FOR THE LIVING’.” More...
I grieve for the living too.
That’s why I’m standing for parliament in the next General Election.
I WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!
If you want it too, ladies and gentlemen, you’re going to have to stop voting for those who stole it!
It’s as simple as that.
On 21 November 2009, Councillor Peter Hobbins, a former Tory Parliamentary candidate who dared to send emails to colleagues attacking the list of prospective Parliamentarians for the safe Orpington seat, was quoted thus by The Daily Mail:
“I have been contacted by a Mr Dilon Gumraj and a Zerha Zaidi and others who are all on the approved Conservative Parliamentary Candidates list. NOT ONE OF THEM HAS A ‘NORMAL’ ENGLISH NAME. They want to be the PPCs for Orpington and asked me for my personal advice on how they would be the best candidates for the Orpington Constituency.
My view? FOR HELL’S SAKE. WHY ARE THE CANDIDATES DEPARTMENT SO KEEN ON THESE FOREIGN NAMES?!!!! Maybe I should change my name to something foreign – how does Petrado Indiano Hobbinso sound to you?”
The Daily Mail added:
“Mr Hobbins also said he was fed up with reading about ‘Africa’ on the CVs of would-be candidates…
Chuka Umanna, Labour’s Parliamentary candidate for Streatham, South London, said:
‘The language used by Councillor Hobbins – shortlisted by David Cameron to run London – IS OFFENSIVE IN THE EXTREME AND SHOWS HIS PARTY HAS NOT COME TO TERMS WITH MODERN BRITAIN. We are told the Tory Taliban surge in Norfolk was an isolated incident – but CLEARLY THERE IS A GROWING INSURGENCY IN THE PARTY.’
A Tory spokesman said:
‘COUNCILLOR HOBBINS HAS BEEN IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED from the Conservative Party and from the Conservative Group on Bromley council and he will play no part in the selection of the Parliamentary candidate. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR RACISM IN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY’.”
“SHE HAS HURT ME TO THE POINT I CAN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE. I HAVE ENDURED A LOT OF PAIN AND SUFFERING. I AM COVERED IN SCARS… and I have been roaming the streets. I try my best all the time but SHE ONLY FOCUSES ON MY MISTAKES.”
A 12-year-old African girl describing her treatment at the hands of her asylum seeking mother - The Daily Mail - 21 November 2009.
The Mail added:
“The youngster wrote about the sadistic punishment rituals her mother, A FORMER BANKER, subjected her to. The girl told how she was made to 'stool down', WHICH INVOLVED HER PLACING A FINGER ON THE FLOOR AND TRYING TO BALANCE FOR ONE HOUR WHILE HER MOTHER, 37, WAS BEATING HER.
SHE WAS ALSO BEATEN WITH A STAR WARS TOY AND WHIPPED WITH A COMPUTER LEAD after she was sent to get money from a cash machine and the card was swallowed.
THE GIRL AND ONE OF HER YOUNGER SIBLINGS WERE ALSO LEFT HOME ALONE FOR FOUR DAYS…
Lisa Worsley, prosecuting, said the mother had left her children alone in February while she went to the capital… On another occasion the girl went to the cash machine for her mother but used the wrong pin and lost the card.
'When she returned SHE WAS WHIPPED ALL OVER HER BODY WITH A USB CABLE, DRAGGED BY HER HAIR AROUND THE SITTING ROOM to the stairs, a Star Wars toy was used by her mother, the defendant threw it at her and told her to put her hands down,' said Miss Worsley.
'She had put her hands around her face to protect her while being whipped… HER MOTHER TOLD HER THAT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO STOP UNTIL BLOOD CAME OUT OF HER BODY.'
In mitigation, defence counsel Judith McCullough said her client had fled her home country to escape an abusive relationship and TO 'PROTECT HER CHILDREN'.
The defendant sat with her head bowed as she was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS with a two-year supervision requirement. The children were taken into care BUT HAVE SINCE RETURNED TO HER.”
That’s what THEY have been importing into our country for the last 60 years, folks.
That’s what THEY house ahead of us and that’s what THEY created the Brit-bashing race laws to protect.
On 17 November 2009, Graeme Paton, the Education Editor of The Daily Telegraph, told us this:
“SCHOOLCHILDREN ARE BEING ASKED TO DEBATE WHETHER ‘ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE FASCISTS’ as part of classes TO COMBAT VIOLENT EXTREMISM…
Children are asked to discuss why certain phrases – including ‘They’ve taken your jobs’ and ‘They get better treatment’ – are used to inflame public opinion. Another exercise aims to dispel common ‘myths and stereotypes’ surrounding asylum seekers. This includes views that they are a drain on the UK economy, get priority in council housing waiting lists… and can be linked to rising crime…
Koser Mahmood, AN ENGLISH TEACHER at a school in Lancashire, where most pupils are white British and a fifth are from ethnic minorities, said: ‘Counteracting violent extremism is an important part of the COMMUNITY COHESION PROGRAMME... Many teachers lack the confidence AND VOCABULARY needed to address it. But WE MUST ADDRESS IT’…
Schools should have a named teacher to whom pupils can report any concerns of GROOMING BY EXTREMIST GROUPS."
“Grooming by extremist groups” meaning having any young person told any unfashionable facts that haven’t been vetted by the PC Crowd and their immigrant foot soldiers, I suppose.
You know, stuff like, “they’ve taken your jobs”, “they get better treatment”, “they are a drain on the UK economy, get priority in council housing waiting lists… and can be linked to rising crime”.
All of which very, very provable assertions happen to be true. Apparently however, according to Koser Mahmood and co., mentioning such truisms equates to “violent extremism”, “inflaming public opinion” and “grooming by extremist groups”.
Or so they would have our young folk believe. New Labour would rather our youngsters be brainwashed into thinking that the stark realities are “myths and stereotypes” and that “all white people are Fascists”, than have them apprised of the simple truth.
There's a sewage works worth of dirty work to be done before the anti-Brits are flushed out of the system.
It's a job to die for.
On 21 November 2009, Peter Oborne opined thus in The Daily Mail:
“There are three main areas where Blair may have committed illegal acts while in office. The first concerns corruption, whereby BUSINESSMEN OR LARGE CORPORATIONS WERE ABLE TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT POLICY OR GAINED OTHER FAVOURS IN EXCHANGE FOR DONATIONS TO THE LABOUR PARTY (for example, the change in policy over tobacco advertising secured by Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone after he gave £1million to the party).
But the most shocking aspect of the Blair administration - which is ironic, since it introduced the Human Rights Act - was its apparent indifference to human rights. Fresh evidence is emerging every week of the alleged COMPLICITY OF THE BRITISH STATE IN THE TORTURE OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS, particularly after President Bush's White House took a much more brutal approach to such enemies of America after the bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001.
It is inconceivable that British intelligence agents would have been involved in the torture of terror suspects without explicit ministerial sanction. The question is how much did Blair himself know - and THE EVIDENCE HE DID IS GETTING NEARER HIS DOOR ALL THE TIME. A Human Rights Watch report into British complicity with torture is to be published on Tuesday and will add to the pressure.
The third area of potential illegality concerns the still highly controversial decision TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ in March 2003. A number of legal experts argue that THE WAR WAS ILLEGAL AND TONY BLAIR IS THEREFORE GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES. This is why the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, whose public hearings finally get under way in London next week, is potentially SO DANGEROUS FOR BLAIR. The key question under review is whether THE FORMER LABOUR PRIME MINISTER LIED TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE…
Now that he is a private citizen, and his dreams of the European presidency have evaporated, he is vulnerable as never before.”
On 20 November 2009, Paul Belien, the author of "A Throne In Brussels: Britain, the Saxe-Coburgs and the Belgianisation Of Europe", said this in The Daily Mail:
"DEVOID OF PATRIOTISM AND CONTEMPTUOUS OF DEMOCRACY, HERMAN VAN ROMPUY PERFECTLY EMBODIES THE CULTURE OF THE EU. HIS SOLE POLITICAL IDEAL IS THE CREATION OF A FEDERAL SUPERSTATE, DESTROYING NATIONAL IDENTITIES ACROSS EUROPE...
The tragedy of Van Rompuy's political career is that he used to have a very different outlook. When I first met him in 1985, he was much more sceptical about European federalism. A conservative Catholic, he had been heavily influenced by the Flemish philosopher Lode Claes, WHO PASSIONATELY BELIEVED THAT WITHOUT A GENUINE SPIRIT OF NATIONHOOD, THERE COULD BE NO DEMOCRACY AND NO POLITICAL MORALITY.
Van Rompuy wrote elegantly about THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADITIONAL VALUES AND THE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE CHRISTIAN ROOTS OF EUROPE. He was so disgusted by the Belgian establishment's rejection of these principles he told me he was thinking of leaving politics. But his bosses the Flemish Christian-Democrat Party were appalled at the thought of losing this bright young star. So he was offered rapid advancement up the political ladder.
Van Rompuy accepted, and embarked on a series of shabby compromises which brought him high office but proved HE HAD SOLD HIS SOUL.”
On 18 November 2009, Kevin Maguire said this in The Daily Mirror:
“Tony Blair for President of Europe is one defeat Gordon Brown should welcome. THE WARMONGER WHO RAN AWAY FROM PARLIAMENT TO MAKE HIS FORTUNE doesn’t deserve the prestigious role… The Cabinet sounded like a Government yesterday when, for once, Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband sang from the same song sheet. But Blair slithering through a divided field tomorrow night to be crowned King of the EU with his Cherie Antoinette would be a disaster. THE SELFISH EX-PM DOESN’T DESERVE THE BRUSSELS JOB AFTER QUITTING THE COMMONS TO CASH IN ON HIS INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS, MAKING £15MILLION AND BUYING A COUNTRY MANSION.
Major, Thatcher, Callaghan and Wilson all served their time after eviction from No.10 instead of being too grand to go back and represent their constituents. BLAIR HAS ALSO PROVED A LOUSY MIDDLE EAST PEACE ENVOY, THE IRONY OF APPOINTING THE INVADER OF IRAQ TO WAVE AN OLIVE BRANCH PROVING NO JOKE FOR OPPRESSED PALESTINIANS…
Dodgy Uncle Tony’s such a toxic figure these days it would be impossible to make the EU case with him lording it in Brussels… Labour’s priority, and that of the Euro-friendly Liberal Democrats, must be to persuade people that the EU is a good thing.”
There he was, saying all the right things about Blair and up popped the crumby, left-wing Europe-sniffer.
They just can’t help it, can they?
On 17 November 2009, the Reverend George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party, was quoted as saying that people were “sick” of “Labour’s ANTI-CHRISTIAN, ANTI-FREE SPEECH AGENDA AND LAWS” in The Daily Telegraph.
Interestingly, he added:
“Christians in the past may have voted Labour, but [THEY] HAVE SILENCED CHRISTIANS AND THEIR ANTI-TRADITIONAL FAMILY POLICIES HAVE CREATED A VACUUM WHICH NICK GRIFFIN CAN FILL."
George Hargreaves is black.
On 16 November 2009, Leo McKinstry opined thus in The Daily Express:
“Instead of protecting our society, THE LEGAL SYSTEM HAS NOW BECOME A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE BRITISH PUBLIC. We live in a land where THE STATE METES OUT PUNISHMENT TO THE INNOCENT, NEGLECTS THE VULNERABLE AND REWARDS THE CRIMINALS. THE BASIC ETHICS OF OUR CIVILISATION HAVE BEEN INVERTED BY A POLITICAL ELITE THAT PREFERS TRENDY MARXISM TO TRADITIONAL MORALITY.
In this twisted world, THE GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME A MONSTROUS, COWARDLY BULLY. AGAINST ORDINARY CITIZENS IT WIELDS ITS POWER IN AN EVER MORE ARBITRARY AND AUTHORITARIAN MANNER, DEMANDING TAXES, IMPOSING FINES, RESTRICTING FREEDOMS, MAINTAINING SURVEILLANCE. YET IN THE FACE OF REAL CRIMINAL MENACE, IT COWERS PATHETICALLY, WHIMPERING ABOUT THE ‘HUMAN RIGHTS’ OF OFFENDERS AND REFUSING TO LOCK UP THUGS.
THE REASON FOREIGN CRIMINALS ARE ABLE TO DRAG OUT LEGAL CASES TO PREVENT THEIR DEPORTATION IS BECAUSE THE LABOUR STATE, IN ITS OBSESSION WITH MIGRANT ‘RIGHTS‘, IS SUCH A SOFT TOUCH.
Any robust, morally confident government would not have to resort to bribes to expel undesirables. Indeed BY MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATION’S FRONTIERS, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THE COUNTRY TO BE AWASH WITH ALIEN BRUTES IN THE FIRST PLACE. IN LABOUR’S BRITAIN, SOMEONE WHO FEEDS A DUCK IS FINED BUT SOMEONE WHO KILLS A CHILD IS GIVEN A LUMP SUM.
AND GORDON BROWN HAS THE NERVE TO LECTURE US ABOUT HIS ‘MORAL COMPASS‘.
THE LEGAL PROFESSION… IS NOW A KEY PART OF THIS SOCIAL REVOLUTION, HAVING BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE LEFT-WING ELITE. SOCIALIST INTELLECTUALS used to believe they could only bring about change by seizing control of the economy. But in the Sixties they changed their approach, sensing that THEIR PROGRAMME COULD BE ACHIEVED BY TAKING COMMAND OF STATE PROFESSIONS SUCH AS SOCIAL WORK, TEACHING AND THE LAW. It is no coincidence that SO MANY KEY LABOUR FIGURES HAVE BEEN LAWYERS, NOR THAT THEIR FLAGSHIP MEASURE, THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 1998, HAS BEEN THE KEY INSTRUMENT FOR SUBVERTING THE TRADITIONAL MORALITY OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM. THEIR REVOLUTION HAS SUCCEEDED BEYOND THEIR WILDEST DREAMS.
TRAGICALLY FOR BRITAIN, JUSTICE IS THE LOSER.”
On 16 November 2009, Melanie Philips said this in The Daily Mail, after Gordon Brown determined to apologise to all of those who were aggressively migrated to the colonies as children by the Gordons of former times:
“With all due respect to the sensitivities of Australia, there are many, many things for which the British people would rather like an apology from their Prime Minister. He could have started, for example, with HIS RUINATION OF THE BRITISH ECONOMY. HE COULD THEN HAVE SAID HE WAS SORRY FOR FLOGGING OFF OUR GOLD RESERVES AT A KNOCKDOWN PRICE, BANKRUPTING THE COUNTRY WITH THE LARGEST PUBLIC DEBT IN ITS HISTORY AND ALLOWING THE BANKING SYSTEM TO BE BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES ON HIS WATCH.
HE COULD HAVE SAID HE WAS SORRY TO HAVE CHANGED THE CULTURE OF THIS COUNTRY BY STEALTH THROUGH A POLICY OF MASS IMMIGRATION, TO HAVE DESTROYED BRITAIN'S ABILITY TO GOVERN ITSELF BY RATIFYING THE LISBON TREATY, AND TO HAVE BROKEN HIS MANIFESTO PROMISE TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE IN DOING SO.
He could then have gone on to apologise for ripping the heart out of the professions, along with our once-peerless Civil Service and police force, not to mention the emasculation of Parliament and the British constitution.
And while he was about it, HE COULD HAVE GONE DOWN ON HIS KNEES AND BEGGED FORGIVENESS FOR ENSLAVING EVER GREATER NUMBERS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE THROUGH THE DEPENDENCY CULTURE, AND FOR DESTROYING THE LIFE CHANCES OF MILLIONS OF BRITISH CHILDREN THROUGH THE ONSLAUGHT AGAINST MARRIAGE AND THE TWO PARENT FAMILY ALONG WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BRITISH EDUCATION SYSTEM.
His litany of offences could have ended with the act for which no apology can suffice - THE HEINOUS CRIME OF COMMITTING BRITISH SOLDIERS TO A WAR IN AFGHANISTAN without a coherent strategy or adequate equipment to safeguard both military and mission.
But there has been not one syllable of apology for any of these things for which he and his government are responsible. Instead, he chooses to issue an apology for a policy in which he had no involvement whatsoever...
Such 'gesture politics' apologies are often made to people who are dead… The Archbishops' Council of the Church of England issued an apology addressed to Charles Darwin - 126 years after his death - for 'misunderstanding' his Theory of Evolution.
But then, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SEEMS TO SPEND ALL ITS TIME APOLOGISING FOR EVERYTHING EVER ASSOCIATED WITH IT, including slavery, the offensiveness to Muslims of Christian doctrine and missionary activity in the Third World.
Indeed, THE CHURCH APPEARS TO BE APOLOGISING FOR THE VERY EXISTENCE OF CHRISTIANITY ITSELF. And this surely is the most troubling aspect of this mania for acts of abasement. It is that THESE MEANINGLESS APOLOGIES FOR THE PAST TEND TO BE MADE BY THOSE WHO ARE BUSILY DESTROYING THE PRESENT.
While political or church leaders wear their consciences on their sleeves by apologising on behalf of (or even to) the dead, THE DAMAGE THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CAUSED TO THE PRESENT-DAY CONDITION OF BRITAIN OR TO THE CHURCH IS INCALCULABLE.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that SUCH LEADERS ARE ACTUALLY ASHAMED OF THE COUNTRY ITSELF for which these past misdeeds stand proxy. IT IS FOR THAT TREACHEROUS ATTITUDE THAT THEY REALLY SHOULD BE APOLOGISING."
On 15 November 2009, Rod Liddle said this in The Times:
“There is something a little pitiful watching Gordon Brown tell the country how worried he is about immigration and how it must not be a taboo issue...
There is no issue, with the possible exception of Iraq, on which LABOUR HAS BEEN MORE DECEITFUL TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, OR HAS MORE EGREGIOUSLY BETRAYED ITS CORE WORKING-CLASS SUPPORT. The only reason Brown is addressing the issue now is that WE ARE SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM AN ELECTION…
We know from the Labour backbencher Chris Mullin’s diaries that MINISTERS WOULD NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION BECAUSE THEY WERE TERRIFIED OF BEING CALLED RACIST: SO THEY DID NOTHING.
More recently, THE FORMER HOME OFFICE ADVISER ANDREW NEATHER SUGGESTED THAT THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT THREW OPEN THE DOORS TO VAST NUMBERS OF IMMIGRANTS PRECISELY IN ORDER TO CREATE A TRULY MULTICULTURAL BRITAIN, whether or not the British public wanted such a thing. (Every opinion poll suggests that they did not)
Labour ministers insist that the previous Conservative government was lax on immigration, too — but that is a specious argument. IN 2006 NEARLY 600,000 IMMIGRANTS ENTERED BRITAIN, MORE THAN 10 TIMES THE NUMBER WHO ARRIVED IN THE LAST YEAR OF JOHN MAJOR’S GOVERNMENT; THE SCALE OF DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN BEYOND REASONABLE COMPARISON.
WE SHOULD BE CLEAR: IMMIGRATION IS PRIMARILY LABOUR’S MESS, AND IT WAS A DELIBERATE POLICY.
Even now the argument will be queered by the usual platitudinous drivel; that while addressing this important issue WE MUST ALL NONETHELESS EMBRACE THE VIBRANCY OF MULTICULTURAL DIVERSITY. THE PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS PREFACE THEIR ANSWERS WITH THIS SORT OF STATEMENT TEND NOT TO HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS TO CUT-PRICE PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, FRUIT PICKERS AND SO ON.
You cannot have it both ways: BROWN WISHES TO CAPTURE THE VOTES OF THE WHITE WORKING CLASS BY TALKING ABOUT IMMIGRATION BUT NOT ACTUALLY DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THEY IN TURN RESENT, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, THE FACT THAT THEIR COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN CHANGED BEYOND RECOGNITION; THAT STREET CRIME FIGURES ARE UP EXPONENTIALLY; THAT IT’S HARDER TO ACQUIRE SOCIAL HOUSING; AND THAT THEY ARE PRICED OUT OF JOBS…
It would be far more honest of the government if it said: TOUGH LUCK, LABOUR VOTERS — WE WANT A CHEAPER UNSKILLED AND SEMI-SKILLED WORKFORCE AND WE HAVE NO MORAL OR INTELLECTUAL OBJECTION TO YOUR TOWNS AND CITIES BEING TRANSFORMED BY HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT SHARE YOUR CULTURAL VALUES. THAT, AFTER ALL, HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PAST 12 YEARS, EVEN IF IT IS ONE IT HAS NOT DARED TO ARTICULATE BUT HAS INSTEAD PURSUED BY A SORT OF CACK-HANDED STEALTH.
Nor, aside from the carefully nuanced rhetoric, is there very much in the prime minister’s speech which offers a solution to the problem. For example, he wishes councils to look more kindly on social housing applications from long-term local residents but of course THE COUNCILS ARE STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO OFFER HOUSING FIRST TO THE HOMELESS AND AN AWFUL LOT OF IMMIGRANTS ARE, DE FACTO, HOMELESS WHEN THEY ARRIVE…
Working-class voters… know who to blame — and CROCODILE TEARS SHED A FEW MONTHS BEFORE POLLING DAY tend to confirm, rather than dissipate, that blame.”
On 8 November 2009, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of “the world's most powerful, and most secretive, investment bank”, Goldman Sachs was quoted thus by The Sunday Times:
“I KNOW I COULD SLIT MY WRISTS AND PEOPLE WOULD CHEER... We’re very important… WE HAVE A SOCIAL PURPOSE”.
The Sunday Times added:
"Washington has bolstered the US economy and banks to the tune of $12 TRILLION...
Does Blankfein not acknowledge that IT IS MADDENING FOR MOST OF US TO WATCH GOLDMAN GOBBLE UP SO MUCH CASH WHILE WE STRUGGLE? Quite the opposite. He insists WE SHOULD BE CELEBRATING HIS BANK’S SUCCESS, NOT CONDEMNING IT.
‘EVERYBODY SHOULD BE, FRANKLY, HAPPY,’ he says... Blankfein goes on to say something equally audacious. WE SHOULD WELCOME THE RETURN OF TITANIC PAYDAYS AT GOLDMAN…
Okay, forget bail-outs, forget bonuses, forget all the money stuff, if you can. Surely Blankfein cannot dodge the playwright David Hare?… Hare argues that IT IS ‘BLACKMAIL’ TO SAY THAT THERE CANNOT BE A RECOVERY UNLESS WE LET BANKERS GET ON WITH WHAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE AND PAY THEMSELVES SQUILLIONS…
Blankfein has no time for such soft talk…
‘I’ve got news for you,’ he shoots back, eyes narrowing.
'IF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM GOES DOWN, OUR BUSINESS IS GOING DOWN AND, TRUST ME, YOURS AND EVERYONE ELSE’S IS GOING DOWN, TOO’…
Talking to him is like talking to A MAN WHO HAS GREENBACKS, NOT BLOOD, RUNNING THROUGH HIS VEINS...
CALL HIM A FAT CAT WHO MOCKS THE PUBLIC. CALL HIM WICKED. Call him what you will.
He is, he says,
JUST A BANKER ‘DOING GOD’S WORK'."
"Just a banker doing God's work"?
And you're going to vote for the same old crew next time around, ladies and gentlemen? You're going to vote for those who will leave such Godly bankers untouched and sniggering?
Are you really going to leave the insanely greedy few to carry on hogging at the trough at the expense of the decent many forever and ever Amen? Are you really going to vote for the corrupt and sleazy, old guard politicians who kow-tow to the Goldman alumni and allow them to assume great offices of state after they're all done milking the system?
You're really going to vote for this $68-million-dollar employee of the Lord?
That is what you'll be doing, you do know that don't you? Because it's the Lloyd Blankfeins who really grind the organ. The Blairs, the Bushes and the Browns are just the trained-up monkeys.
On 8 November 2009, the Jeremy Clarkson article, “Get me a rope before Mandelson wipes us all out” was featured in The Sunday Times:
This is it:
“I’ve given the matter a great deal of thought all week, and I’m afraid I’ve decided that it’s no good putting Peter Mandelson in a prison. I’m afraid HE WILL HAVE TO BE TIED TO THE FRONT OF A VAN AND DRIVEN ROUND THE COUNTRY UNTIL HE ISN’T ALIVE ANY MORE.
He announced last week that middle-class children will simply not be allowed into the country’s top universities even if they have 4,000 A-levels, because all the places will be taken by Albanians and guillemots and whatever other stupid bandwagon the conniving idiot has leapt onto in the meantime.
I HATE PETER MANDELSON. I hate his fondness for extremely pale blue jeans and I HATE THAT PREPOSTEROUS MOUSTACHE HE USED TO SPORT IN THE DAYS WHEN HE DIDN’T BOTHER TRYING TO COVER UP HIS LEFT-WING FANATICISM. I HATE THE WAY HE QUITE LITERALLY LORDS IT OVER US EVEN THOUGH HE’S RESIGNED IN DISGRACE TWICE, AND NOW HOLDS AN IMPORTANT DECISION-MAKING JOB FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT ELECTED. Mostly, though, I HATE HIM BECAUSE HIS ONE-MAN WAR ON THE BRIGHT AND THE WITTY AND THE SUCCESSFUL means that half my friends now seem to be taking leave of their senses.
There’s talk of emigration in the air. It’s everywhere I go. Parties. Work. In the supermarket. My daughter is working herself half to death to get good grades at GSCE and can’t see the point because she won’t be going to university, because she doesn’t have a beak or flippers or a qualification in washing windscreens at the lights. She wonders, often, why we don’t live in America.
THEN YOU HAVE THE CHAPS AND CHAPESSES WHO CAN’T STAND THE CONSTANT RAIDS ON THEIR WALLETS AND THEIR PRIVACY. They can’t understand why they are taxed at 50% on their income and then taxed again for driving into the nation’s capital. They can’t understand what happened to the hunt for the weapons of mass destruction. They can’t understand anything.
They see the Highway Wombles in those brand new 4x4s that they paid for, and they see the M4 bus lane and they see the speed cameras and the community support officers and THEY SEE THE ALBANIANS STEALING THEIR WHEELBARROWS AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE BECAUSE IT’S RACIST.
And they see Alistair Darling handing over £4,350 of their money to not sort out the banking crisis that he doesn’t understand because he’s a small-town solicitor, and they see the stupid war on drugs and the war on drink and the war on smoking and the war on hunting and the war on fun and the war on scientists and the obsession with the climate and the price of train fares soaring past £1,000 and the Guardian power-brokers getting uppity about one shot baboon and not uppity at all about all the dead soldiers in Afghanistan, and HOW THEY GOT RID OF BLAIR ONLY TO FIND THE LYING TWERP IS NOW GOING TO COME BACK EVEN MORE POWERFUL THAN EVER, AND THEY THINK, ‘I’VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS. I’M OFF.’
IT’S A LOVELY IDEA, TO GET OUT OF THIS STUPID, FAIRTRADE, BROWN-STAINED, MANDELSON- SKEWED, EQUAL-OPPORTUNITIES, MULTICULTURAL, CARBON-NEUTRAL, TRENDILY LEFT, REGIONALLY ASSEMBLED, BIG-GOVERNMENT, TRILINGUAL, MOSQUE-DRENCHED, ALL-THE-PIGS-ARE-EQUAL, PROPERTY-IS-THEFT HELLHOLE AND SET UP SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT WHERE?
You can’t go to France because you need to complete 17 forms in triplicate every time you want to build a greenhouse, and you can’t go to Switzerland because you will be reported to your neighbours by the police and subsequently shot in the head if you don’t sweep your lawn properly, and you can’t go to Italy because you’ll soon tire of waking up in the morning to find a horse’s head in your bed because you forgot to give a man called Don a bundle of used notes for ‘organising’ a plumber.
You can’t go to Australia because it’s full of things that will eat you, you can’t go to New Zealand because they don’t accept anyone who is more than 40 and you can’t go to Monte Carlo because they don’t accept anyone who has less than 40 mill.
And you can’t go to Spain because you’re not called Del and you weren’t involved in the Walthamstow blag. And you can’t go to Germany ... because you just can’t.
The Caribbean sounds tempting, but there is no work, which means that one day, whether you like it or not, you’ll end up like all the other expats, with a nose like a burst beetroot, wondering if it’s okay to have a small sharpener at 10 in the morning. And, as I keep explaining to my daughter, WE CAN’T GO TO AMERICA BECAUSE IF YOU CATCH A COLD OVER THERE, THE HEALTH SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU END UP WITHOUT A HOUSE. OR DEAD.
Canada’s full of people pretending to be French, South Africa’s too risky, Russia’s worse and everywhere else is too full of snow, too full of flies or too full of people who want to cut your head off on the internet.
So you can dream all you like about upping sticks and moving to a country that doesn’t help itself to half of everything you earn and then spend the money it gets on bus lanes and advertisements about the dangers of salt. But wherever you go you’ll wind up an alcoholic or dead or bored or in a cellar, in an orange jumpsuit, gently wetting yourself on the web. All of these things are worse than being persecuted for eating a sandwich at the wheel.
I see no reason to be miserable. Yes, BRITAIN NOW IS WORSE THAN IT’S BEEN FOR DECADES, BUT THE LUNATICS WHO’VE MADE IT SO GHASTLY ARE ON THEIR WAY OUT. Soon, they will be back in Hackney with their South African nuclear-free peace polenta. And instead the show will be run by a bloke whose dad has a wallpaper shop and possibly, terrifyingly, a twerp in Belgium whose fruitless game of hunt-the-WMD has netted him £15m on the lecture circuit.
So actually I DO SEE A REASON TO BE MISERABLE. Which is why I think it’s a good idea to tie Peter Mandelson to a van.
SUCH AN ACT WOULD BE CRUEL AND BARBARIC AND INHUMAN. BUT IT WOULD AT LEAST CHEER EVERYONE UP A BIT.”
Mmm... "cruel and barbaric and inhuman"...
If correctly applied to the right creepy people, I think a spot of cruelty, barbarity and inhumanity would go down a treat with vast majority!
“Such and act” sure would cheer us up, Jeremy. However, it would cheer us up even more if Blair, Brown, Straw, Harman, Livingstone, Fred "the Shred", Goodwin, Lord Levy and Dame Shirley Porter were tied to the same van.
Go here for more Chronological Quotations 9