IMMIGRATION

A report by the OECD has shown that the UK has taken the highest number of so-called asylum seekers of any country in the world for the last 4 years running. More even than countries the size of the USA and Canada.

This report coincides with a forecast from the Government Actuaries Department which predict that 5 million immigrants will arrive in the UK over the next 25 years.

The response from Des Browne, the Labour immigration minister, was to deny that the immigration would happen: ‘I don’t believe that these figures are going to materialise. A significant number of changes are going to take place between now and then’.

Sir Andrew Green from MigrationWatch said that: ‘Government assumptions about future immigration have consistently been well below the actual out-turn. In fact even higher numbers are likely as the government’s policies contribute to continuously rising immigration. They have themselves repeatedly said that they see no upper limit to legal immigration.’

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

A pub landlord who had put up a joke sign, referring his car park as ‘The Porking Yard’, has had an ASBO (anti-social behaviour order) slapped on him. This followed a visit from the police.

Leroy Trought, from St Judes in Bristol, thought the name was appropriate as it reflected the area’s connection to the butcher’s trade.

But the presence of a mosque nearby led to complaints. Muslims do not eat pork.

The police claim that the complainants included schoolteachers, community leaders, and Somalis.

A spokesman for Bristol City Council said: ‘The ASBO was sought after we received a number of complaints from the community who found the sign to be racially and sexually offensive’.

Quite how the complainants, or the police and council officials, could interpret a picture of a pig to be sexually offensive is unknown.

THE POLITICS OF EXPEDIENCY

A recent enquiry to Oliver Letwin about the recent report of the £9.3billion deficit in Scotland, which the English are having to pay, has elicited the following response:

‘Oliver Letwin has asked me to thank you for your letter of 17 January in which you argue against the Barnett formula.

We are committed to maintaining the Block and Barnett Formula as the basis for funding the expenditure programmes of the Scottish Executive. It is an intrinsic feature of the devolution settlement and has provided an important measure of financial stability and continuity since the Scottish Parliament was established.

However, a Conservative Government is committed to matching Gordon Brown’s spending plans for Scotland which will not be possible with a strict application of the Barnett Formula. That is why we will supplement the funding of the Scottish Executive over these years, something which has happened on a number of occasions in the past such as Gordon Brown’s decision in December 2001 to write off Glasgow City Council’s £900 million housing debt.

It is all about making devolution work. We accept the logic of devolution and the fact that the Conservatives will not be in charge of devolved services after the General Election. The James Committee did not look at savings in Scottish Executive Departments for this reason. In the interests of the stability of the devolution settlement at a time of potential tension, we have therefore decided to maintain spending in Scotland at the same level as Gordon Brown for the time being.

In the run up to the next Scottish Parliament Elections, Scottish Conservatives will be campaigning on a similar programme of public service reform and eradication of waste which will deliver better value for money and better public services in Scotland.’

Words cannot express the despair at this response. There is little wonder that the Conservatives have been so soundly defeated in the last 2 general elections and are set to be trounced again. Nor is there any wonder that all those values and principles which we value so much are being destroyed in the neo-communist politically correct onslaught.

The Scottish parliament has tax raising powers and if they decide to spend money in excess of what they can pay for out of existing resources, then they can put up their own taxes. There is absolutely no reason why English taxes should be raised as a result of a socialist Scottish spending programme.

The Conservatives give no thought at all to the interests and rights of the English. They are totally unfit for government and we, the English, need a new party to represent our interests and to fight to save our country from becoming nothing more than an EU satellite, and a neo-communist state - albeit a useful milch cow.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH (bonus)

‘Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.’

- Jacques Barzun (American academic, writer and historian)

I'M ALL RIGHT JOCK

A report in The Scotsman newspaper in December last year highlighted recent figures which demonstrated the scale of the English subsidy to Scotland, which is the third wealthiest region in the UK.

The amount spent in Scotland in 2002-3 was £40.9billion, whereas the amount raised in taxes was only £31.6billion. The shortfall, 11% of GDP, had grown by £1billion from the previous year.

The shortfall totalling £9.3billion was paid for by the English.

The report also revealed that the amount spent on public services is £6,579 per head in Scotland compared to only £5,652 for the UK as a whole. Spending on the NHS in Scotland was 113% of the UK level and 116% of the UK total for ‘social protection’ (ie welfare).

This has been primarily brought about by the Barnett formula, which fixes the expenditure on services in Scotland at a higher rate than that for England.

But the real impact of the £9.3billion needs to be properly examined. Scotland cannot pay its own way when only accounting for internal expenditure. Therefore who pays for the UK membership of the EU, for Defence, Foreign Aid and the cost caused by so-called asylum seekers? None of that expenditure is paid for from Scottish taxes, which are already insufficient to pay for internal Scottish expenditure to the tune of £9.3billion - and that deficit is increasing.

The answer is the English pay for all this.

To add insult to the injury, we English then have all these Scottish MPs and ministers telling us how to spend our money. As if the English are incapable of spending their own money.

But matters get even worse. The Conservatives believe that the Barnett Formula is insufficiently generous to the Scots, and intend to supplement it with a block grant. This matter will be examined shortly.

ETHNIC CLEANSING

A report from MigrationWatch UK has revealed that in some parts of the England, almost 70% of all babies are born to immigrant parents. The average across the UK as a whole has risen from 12% a decade ago to 20% now. This is based on data from the Office for National Statistics.

Across inner London, 55% of all births are to mothers born abroad, while in the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham and Westminster the figure is 68%. The figure across Greater London is as whole is 47%.

In Bradford, Birmingham, Cambridge, Leicester, Manchester, Oxford and Slough the figure is more than 30%.

Most of the immigrant mothers were from the New Commonwealth countries.

Ethnic minorities currently make up 8% of the population. These recent figures demonstrate that those who are now ethnic minorities will form the majority of the population in roughly 50 years unless there is a radical change of government policy.

29% of the current population of London belongs to an ethnic minority group.

The ethnic minority population grew by about 50% between 1991 and 2001 to over 4.5 million. This figure is likely to be an underestimate due to the numbers of illegal immigrants in the UK. These illegal immigrants could number as many as 1million.

London has already experienced ‘white flight’ as the English leave. The English are being turned into a racial minority in their own country.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Michael Howard has had the temerity to speak out in support of those whose lives have been ruined by illegal gypsy/traveller camps. The result is that he has been likened to a Nazi.

What Michael Howard has proposed is that the old laws of trespass be updated and changed so that travellers can be fined or even jailed if they set up unauthorised sites. He further proposed that the planning law is changed so that travellers cannot buy land, develop it, and then apply for retrospective planning permission.

Kevin McNamara, the Hull North Labour MP, has gone so far as to claim that Michael Howard’s comments had the ‘whiff of the gas chambers’ about them. In reference to travellers, Kevin McNamara said: ‘They are an easy target to attack, to blame all sorts of difficulties on - to appeal to people’s basest motives and I really do feel there is a whiff of the gas chambers about this’.

Rodney Bickerstaff, a hard-left ex-union leader and a trustee of the Labour Party movement for traveller’s rights supported Kevin McNamara by saying that ‘We should be a shining example to Europe - a Europe that as we know found a solution for travellers and gipsies in the 39-45 war. Instead, what happens just before an election, its chosen as something that will really inflame opinion’.

Michael Howard’s own grandmother was murdered in Auschwitz.

Downing Street has refused to condemn Kevin McNamara’s comments.

Those who watched the television reports on this issue, cannot but have noticed the high number of BMWs, Audis and 4-wheel drive vehicles owned by the travellers, who often pay many hundreds of thousands of pounds for the land they turn into a caravan site. These people are not paupers. Many of them are Irish.

Kevin McNamara is a hard-left MP and has previously courted controversy over remarks sympathetic to the IRA and his calls for the abolition of public schools, for which he was dubbed ‘The Hypocrite’ after it was discovered that he subsequently sent his own children to public school.

But as we know, some people are more equal than others.

This whole traveller controversy is political correctness in its purest form. The travellers are portrayed as victims, despite the fact that they are the aggressors. Those who dare to criticise the travellers and the politically correct view are demonised and denigrated.

The travellers are wrecking large parts of England’s green and pleasant land, and are adversely affecting the quality of life of many traditional rural communities.

This is all precisely what political correctness is designed to achieve. To oppress and wreck.

The English Rights Campaign will examine this in much more detail in the near future.

GRANDSTANDING OVER AFRICA

Labour’s recent grandstanding over Africa, with the report of the Commission for Africa calling for an extra $25billion of aid per annum and the cancellation of all African countries’ debts, has coincided with the revelation that the life expectancy in Zimbabwe has halved since Mugabe came to power.

The average Zimbabwean can expect to live to only 33 years - down from 63 years under Ian Smith when the country was Rhodesia (when the country then had the highest life expectancy in sub Saharan Africa). At that time it was the breadbasket of Africa, whereas now it is another Marxist basket case.

Zimbabwe’s plight has been worsened if not caused by the invasions of white owned farms and land grabbing. Some of the best farms and land have been taken by Mugabe and his henchmen.

Rhodesia had been subject to international sanctions, whereas Zimbabwe has received large amounts of foreign aid.

The lesson of this paradox is lost on Labour and Tony Blair - and nearly all liberal opinion too for that matter.

The USA has reportedly distanced itself from the latest report calling for more aid for Africa, and other countries are showing a distinct lack of enthusiasm too. The USA is opposed to any automatic cancellation of debt and the British proposals were rejected at the G7 summit last month.

Zimbabwe is incontrovertible proof of the benefits of British rule in Africa and the damage done by Marxist dictatorships.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Tony Blair has accused the Conservatives of planning to cut government spending. He has alleged that the Conservatives plan to cut £35billion from the NHS, education etc (as if those were the only departments which spend government money - in fact the largest slice of the £519billion of government spending goes on ‘Social Protection’ - ie welfare - and only £90billion is spent on the NHS and £68billion on education).

The Conservatives point out that the difference between their plans and the Labour plans, is that they intend to increase government spending by 4% each year whereas Labour intend to increase it by 5%.

The Conservatives are outraged at the Labour lie. As if they would cut government spending, even after all these years of a Labour government. As if they would even contemplate such a thing!

And why not?

Since coming to power in 1997, Labour has created 111 new quangos at an annual cost of £6.5billion a report from the Centre for Policy Studies has revealed. Then there is the UK government gross contribution to the EU which is in the region of £12billion per annum. There is the Scottish subsidy of roughly £10billion per annum. The Conservatives have themselves highlighted that the asylum system is costing £3billion per annum.

Those 4 items alone total £31.5billion, and that is before we take a look at the subsidy to Wales, the cost of the Politically Correct Industry (PCI), or any efficiency savings - such as the closure of the Scottish and Welsh offices.

All of this is in fact paid for by the English (which will be fully examined in the near future).

Then there is the saving in social security payments if mass immigration is ended and we utilise British labour instead. There are the extra tax revenues which would flow from a more prosperous British industry when it is freed from the EU red tape (the total cost to the UK of membership of the EU has been estimated to be in excess of £30billion), or the extra revenues which would be created once we are free from the EU Common Fisheries Policy and we once again regain control of our own waters for our own fishermen and extend our territorial waters to a 200 mile limit as do all other countries.

The Conservatives should be promising to cut government spending, not by closing hospitals, but by reversing the socialist/neo-communist agenda.

Regrettably, they are too wet to do that.

THE WAR ON TERROR

Despite condemning a group of animal rights fanatics ‘terrorists’, a judge has refused to grant the victims of that terrorism an order for a 25 mile exclusion zone, which would have kept those terrorists away from the affected locality.

Instead, the judge said that he would give the terrorists one last chance.

This is despite a long campaign against the Halls, who had run a guinea pig farm. The local residents had also been affected and targeted. This included graffiti, night-time use of loudhailers, hoax bombs, cars being damaged, bricks thrown through windows, firebomb attacks, smear campaigns and cut telephone and electricity lines.

Most depraved of all, the corpse of Gladys Hammond had been dug up from her grave and stolen. The body has not been returned and is still missing.

The judge granted an injunction which would allow protests to continue on Sundays only, between 12pm and 3pm.

One of the terrorists, John Curtin, had previously been convicted for trying to dig up the body of the Duke of Beaufort. This had been an anti-hunt protest. Another, Mel Broughton was jailed for 4 years in 1997 for trying to smuggle incendiary bombs into an animal testing facility. Another, Kerry Whitburn, is a full-time activist and has been jailed several times.

One wonders what kind of a track record it will take before a judge understands that these terrorists will not stop.

BLUNKETT LAND

It would seem that Labour has become alert to the growing danger posed to them by English patriotism. David Blunkett has decided to respond to this by setting out his own vision for a better England, both in a recent speech and in an article for the Daily Mail.

‘Now is the time to be proud of our Englishness’, he begins, before opining that ‘We can be English and British, as the Scots and Welsh are British. And we can be Pakistani or Indian and British or American and Canadian and British’.

So that has cleared that up then. Anyone can be British.

But the crux of his argument is that ‘We should celebrate St George’s Day. Not in a chauvinistic way, but in a joyous fashion...Let us celebrate our landscape, our coastlines and the architecture of our great Victorian cities such as Sheffield. Let us celebrate our poetry. Just think or our poetical tradition, from Chaucer to Shakespeare, Milton to John Keats and Wilfred Owen...Let us rejoice in our music, from folk to choral and from our world-beating renaissance of popular music over the past 50 years, through to our great composers...And what about our humour?’

As if we do not need a sense of humour.

He continues: ‘We can cheer ourselves up by rejoicing in the best of what England has to offer. We can build a new sense of English identity, finding its place among the plural identities of the United Kingdom and supporting a wider sense of Britishness. Englishness can be experienced, asserted and celebrated in the fabric or our existence as a community: in our habits, casts of mind, the culture that we daily create and re-create. In this way, we can overcome bigotry, insularity and hostility’.

He concludes with a flourish: ‘We can have pride in ourselves and confidence in our future - building outwards from our localities, to a sense of Englishness as part of a United Kingdom and wider European Union’.

Oh yes? Is that so.

Politics is about more than rambling like some spaced-out hippy. And so is English patriotism. We have real issues that need to be properly addressed and we need fundamental change.

We were never consulted about the creation of the EU. We only voted for a common market. We were we not consulted and why are we paying £12billion or so into the EU? Every last penny of that money comes from England - not Scotland or Wales.

We were never consulted about mass immigration. Why not? Why are we being turned into a racial minority in our own country?

We were never consulted about the devolution of Scotland and Wales. Why not? That devolution affected us too. Why were our interests sacrificed so willingly? Why are all those Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on English affairs? Why are the English paying up to £10billion per annum to subsidise Scotland? And then there is Wales.

Why are we having a Third World NHS inflicted on us?

Why have successive governments set up an entire industry to promote political correctness? Why is our culture and our interests being jeered and sneered at so contemptuously? Why are these unelected and unaccountable quangocrats ramming this neo-communist creed down our throats?

There is no reason for any of these things and we are not going to be fobbed off with a lot waffle about reading poetry or celebrating the English landscape. It is Blunkett who can go and take a hike in the countryside and not us.

A SOCIALIST BUDGET

Amidst all the fine tuning and penny pinching of Gordon Brown’s latest budget, two items stand out.

Firstly, he has continued with the policy of the nationalisation of the family. He has announced that single mothers will receive more subsidies in an attempt to get them out to work, which will of course entail them leaving their children in nurseries.

There is no reason why single mothers should not be allowed to bring up their own children. The government should have reinforced the institution of marriage by making tax allowances transferrable between husband and wife, rather than paying people to take care of other people’s children. The growth in the number of single mothers has grown as the status of marriage has been undermined.

Secondly, it has been announced that the UK has lost one million manufacturing jobs since Labour was elected to government. Last year 93,000 jobs were lost. This demonstrates that the real economy is not booming as much as the state sector, and that the UK growth rate may well not be sustainable.

To make matters worse, Germany has announced that it will cut corporation tax to only 19%. This is against the UK rate of 30%. The rate for Austria is 25%, for Poland it is 18%, and for Estonia it is zero.

As Labour continues to spend and tax, imposing ever increasing taxes, there is a very real danger that the UK will no longer be able to compete with the lower taxed EU countries and will be taxed into recession.

IMMIGRATION

Desmond Browne, the government immigration minister, has recently revealed that only 1 in 15 failed asylum seekers are deported. Out of 62,700 asylum seekers whose applications failed, only 4,100 were actually deported.

Some of those whose application failed went on to make further appeals.

This should be set against the recent Channel 4 debate (last Saturday evening) about immigration. After being repeatedly told that the audience had been selected by a national pollster (which should have alerted the more cynical to what was coming), that audience voted by a large majority that the government had not lost control of immigration.

Apparently allowing in electricians with no fingers and not deporting failed asylum seekers is all quite OK to a Channel 4 audience.

During the debate, not even those speaking against the government policy referred to the fact that the English will be a racial minority in this country before the end of the century, if not within 50 years. Nor did they draw attention to the millions of people who are unemployed, on incapacity benefit, or otherwise economically inactive (eg they have taken early retirement - voluntarily or otherwise).

Instead, all parties preferred to spout inanities such as: ‘we are a nation of immigrants’. This is complete bunkum. This country, in its natural state is an emigrant country, not an immigrant country.

The real case against mass immigration was not put.

THE LOONY LEFT

At a time when some local neighbourhoods are being blighted and swamped by gypsies and other travellers, who routinely flout the planning laws, it is regrettable, although predictable, that some of the monies raised by comic relief are to be allocated to gipsies’ groups to help them with their ‘basic rights’. This is to include legal advice.

£100,000 has been granted.

Further to that comes the news that the new powers which have been granted to councils to combat the spread of illegal gypsy sites are almost totally ineffective. The new temporary stop notices are supposed to be used by councils to stop gypsies adding extra caravans to existing sites.

However, it has now been revealed that they cannot be used if the caravans are the gypsies' ‘main residences’. As caravans are gypsies’ main residences, the new powers are useless. This farce comes shortly after it was revealed that John Prescott’s department had ruled that gypsies’ human rights were to take priority over planning regulations.

So much for our green and pleasant land.

But this is not the first time that John Prescott has been celebrating diversity. His department has previously been caught out denying that the English even exist. The letter concerned is a gem and is reproduced below:

‘Thank you for your letter.

Mr Prescott has asked me to write to you regarding your claims of discrimination. After making enquiries I believe you are a citizen of the United Kingdom and have a native ethnicity.


I shall attempt to answer your comments. Firstly, I assume you are referring to the Census form that has no facility for stating English nationality. This is because there is no such nationality as English as laid down by various acts of Parliament and accession. Persons born in the United Kingdom are citizens of the United Kingdom and are therefore British/English.

Secondly, you state that your children are unable to practice their religion at school. Since 1989, all non-denominated schools in the United Kingdom have had the right to Christian assembly removed. This was because it was felt to be insensitive to the needs of ethnic minorities being forced to practice a creed different to their own. There is however, no reason you cannot attend church services of your own denomination in your own time.

Lastly, you are complaining that you cannot celebrate your patron saint’s day without punitive financial penalties being imposed. Again, there is no reason preventing you from celebrating in your own time as long as your celebrations are kept within legal restraints and do not interfere with the sensitivities of any ethnic minority.

I trust this answers your queries.

Yours sincerely

R Morrison

PP Rt Hon John Prescott’

This is the type of thinking that is produced when the working-class bruiser starts aping a middle-class trendy-lefty.

In fact the real reason for the restraints being imposed on English culture, is not the sensitivities of ethnic minorities at all. There has not been a clamour of protests emanating from various ethnic minority groups complaining about St George’s Day, or our Christian heritage and culture.

Those complaining about the English are the neo-communist politically correct and they do so for their own purposes. They are citing the alleged sensitivities of ethnic minorities partly to try and draw race into things and to further race war politics, and partly as they think that it makes them look good.

It is their aim to destroy English culture and any concept of the English as a nation.

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

In Labour’s latest attack on marriage, the government is now planning to introduce legislation which will confer the same rights on couples living together as are currently conferred on married couples.

This will not only erode the status of marriage, as is the intention, but will also give unmarried women a claim on a boyfriend’s assets and income. Such boyfriends will have no say in this of course, other than to terminate the relationship in order to try and avoid the financial liabilities of the planned law.

Undermining the status of marriage has long been a communist and feminist ambition. This ambition takes no account of the wishes of ordinary people, who in the main still prefer marriage, nor of their interests, nor that of their children.

Cohabiting couples are much more likely to break up than married couples.

If couples choose to get married and incur the legal responsibilities that that entails, then the government should recognise this by making tax allowances fully transferrable between husband and wife. Instead, Labour have consistently financially penalised married couples and have consistently undermined marriage, which is the bedrock of our society.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The anti-motorist and ultra-politically correct chief constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrum, has got himself into a spot of bother after he used the term ‘queers’. And it could not have happened to a more deserving individual.

Needless to say, he apologised for his slip, relating to activities in public lavatories, when he was challenged by one of his officers. Needless to say, his apology was not enough.

He has now issued a formal statement of regret, and says that the fact he was challenged about his terminology ‘reflects well on the modern culture of North Wales Police’.

Needless to say, a whole host of gay rights groups are up in arms and are not satisfied. A spokesman for the Gay Police Association said that his members would be ‘shocked and disappointed’ and that Mr Brunstrum’s words ‘will have affected the confidence that his lesbian and gay staff and gay communities in North Wales have in him’.

Stonewall has pronounced that the term ‘queer’ is only appropriate when used by gay people themselves.

Perhaps Mr Brunstrum should be sent on one of the courses about how not to offend minorities which he has been keen to send his officers on.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

In the latest allegations by the so-called Commission for Racial Equality of racism in the police, there have been calls for undercover anti-racist squads and for a new offence of ‘racial misconduct’.

This is all positively Orwellian.

Quite why the CRE considers itself to be on such a moral high ground, when its own history is littered with allegations of and court cases relating to racism, is unclear. The people of this country do not need lectures on morality from a collection of communists and their liberal fellow travellers.

The CRE is also critical of the fact that the police have failed to meet their racial targets. It would seem that there are too many English policemen in England.

APPEASEMENT/THE WAR ON TERROR

At a time when the government allows foreign terrorists out of detention and into a tagged house arrest rather than deporting them, comes the news that the government will not even withdraw the House of Commons privileges to the IRA which it specially altered the law to provide.

Those who prefer to call themselves Sinn Fein, including Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, have been revealed by the Irish government to be on the IRA’s ruling Army Council.

It is inconceivable that Tony Blair and the British government did not know this all along, and yet the IRA has received up to £440,000 per annum in parliamentary allowances. Those allowances have now been cancelled, following the recent IRA bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney. Nevertheless, the government has decided to allow these bank robbers and terrorists to continue to using parliamentary facilities including the MP’s bars, restaurants and libraries.

So much for the war on terror and so much for our parliamentary democracy.

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

A report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has highlighted the damage done to the traditional family and the institution of marriage by Labour. Families are now subject to the highest incremental tax burden in the world.

A single wage married couple is subject to a 70% tax rate on every extra £1 earned above the average wage (£20,079) once tax credits are taken into account. As earnings increase the tax credits are withdrawn and higher income tax and national insurance contributions have to be paid.

For single people, the incremental tax rate is only 33%.

The comparable figures for married couples in the US is only 45%, Japan 20%, France 21% and Germany 46%.

Other countries do allow married couples to share their tax allowances unlike the UK, where married couples are penalised.

This report coincides with yet another which highlights that only 11% of young women wanted to put their children into nursery while continuing to work full time and 67% believed that men should be the main provider in a family if possible. 25% wanted to give up work altogether, while 65% wanted to work part time due to financial pressures.

Yet it is government policy to increase those financial pressures by increasing taxation to pay for nursery care. Labour should stop trying to nationalise the family, and should instead make tax allowances fully transferrable between married couples and let them decide for themselves how they wish to raise a family.

Instead of evolving policies which suit the interests of the people, Labour is social engineering and trying to adopt the people in order to suit their own neo-communist theories.

It was the policy of various communist sects in the 1970s and 1980s for the state to bring up children. This policy has now been adopted by all 3 main political parties.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Russia and the United States will surpass in power the states now called great as much as the great country-states of the sixteenth century surpassed Florence. Is not this a serious consideration, and is it not especially so for a state like England, which has at the present time the choice in its hands between two courses of action, the one of which may set it in that future age on a level with the greatest of these great states of the future, while the other will reduce it to the level of a purely European Power looking back, as Spain does now, to the great days when she pretended to be a world-state’.

JR Seeley, writing in 1884

It should never be forgotten, that England’s demise as a great power was foreseen more than one hundred years ago when she was in her prime. Those who were determined to see this country remain great, were known as Social Imperialists, and wanted social reform internally coupled with a vigorous defence of the national interest.

In particular, they wanted an end to free trade which was free in only one direction, due to the very substantial tariffs imposed on British goods by virtually every other advanced country (including the USA and Germany). They also wanted to see the British Empire turned into a federal union with a single foreign and defence policy, backed by an imperial army and navy.

Despite a very spirited campaign led by Joseph Chamberlain, the political establishment remained unquestioningly committed to free trade and refused to even try to unify the empire - although Britain did eventually start to build up its navy in response to the threat posed by Germany.

The Social Imperialists lost.

The rest, as they say, is history.

THE ENGLISH HOLOCAUST

The Commons Health Select Committee has found that between 25,000 and 32,000 people per year are needlessly dying due to hospitals failing to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) among those undergoing surgery.

Preventive drugs for DVT cost only £1 per day, which is far less than treating those with the condition.

This statistic comes on top of the revelation that the MRSA superbug kills at least 5,000 patients a year, and is believed to be a factor in 10,000 more deaths.

This very week it has been announced that it is intended to remove funding for drugs to help Alzheimers patients because, at £2.50 per day, they are considered too expensive. The total cost is only £60million per year.

Past revelations have included the fact that many of the elderly ejected from their nursing homes die as a result of the shock. Up to 12,000 people were estimated to die each year.

This is all despite the NHS budget having being doubled since 1996/97 to £64.5billion.

Meanwhile, it has further been revealed this week that 1 in 20 asylum seekers are infected with HIV. The treatment for an HIV patient with drugs costs £15,000 each year. Therefore if 5,000 new HIV positive asylum seekers are admitted into NHS care each year out of 100,000 asylum seekers, then the cost of treating these asylum seekers is rising at a rate of £75million every year (ie the annual cost is £750million after 10 years).

The cost of medical care is of course far cheaper in the third world, from where the asylum seekers have come.

This of course follows the government plans to legalise euthanasia.

What kind of society is it, that treats its sick and elderly in this way?

How can the voters of England register their dissatisfaction with John Reid, the health secretary? They cannot. John Reid is Scottish and he is totally unaccountable to those who he is so shabbily treating.

All these people having their lives needlessly ended in the name of socialism.

The sooner the NHS is denationalised the better.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The so-called Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has called for racial discrimination in favour of black pupils and teachers.

Trevor Philips has been impressed by the results of one study in the USA where the segregation of black boys into their own classes has resulted with an improvement in their educational performance, and has now called for segregation in the UK. Trevor Philips is also calling for extra pay for black teachers in order to attract them into the profession and so become a role model for young black boys.

Headteachers and others have attacked the recommendation as being counter-productive if not illegal.

The differences in educational performance are not a matter of race, although the CRE might want to make it one. Children from an Asian background, where family ties are stronger, do better at school and it is that fact which should be taken into consideration, rather than trying to twist the issue into one of race. White children from broken families can underachieve as well.

It is to be noted that Trevor Philips has not called for a change in the law to reinforce marriage.

The CRE does not take into account the impact of pro-black discrimination on the English host population, or consider what might be in their interests.

Others might conclude that this is evidence that the multi-cultural experiment is a failure, and that it should be abandoned.

IMMIGRATION

A doctors’ report has revealed that 1 in 20 so-called asylum seekers are HIV positive.

This is alarming news, not only for the cost to the NHS, which now cannot even afford to pay for drugs to treat Alzheimers disease, but also for the obvious inevitable spread of the infection into the UK population as a whole.

The infection is particularly bad for those from Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION/CEHR

One certainty which will follow a Labour victory at the coming general election, is that there will be a major intensification of the British Inquisition. Labour’s plans, outlined last Thursday, include new equality legislation and the creation of a major new quango: The Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR).

We are currently witnessing what the politically correct understand to mean by human rights, and it is merely a guise for political correctness. Socialists/communists have been spouting about equality for most of the 20 century and it is as poisonous now in practice as it always has been.

The new quango will promote so-called equal rights for women, ethnic minorities, the disabled, the elderly, homosexuals, transexuals, various religious groups, and belief groups! It would seem that the minorities will be the majority.

The intention is that the CEHR will replace the existing equalities bodies, such as the so-called Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). But Trevor Philips has objected and has been assured that the CRE will continue in place until 2009. In which case we may be subject to the both the CEHR and the CRE at the same time - hardly something to look forward to!

Currently, Trevor Philips is reported to be heading a £400,000 ‘Equalities Review’.

The CEHR has been promised an annual budget of £200million.

HUMAN RIGHTS/THE WAR ON TERROR

Although the judiciary are revelling in their latest show of liberal snobbery, the granting by the Court of Appeal of the appeal by Shabina Begum against a decision by the High Court regarding her demand that she need not wear a school uniform (of which there were several versions), in the name of human rights, the full extent was coming to light of their unsuitability and the desperate need to subject judges to the democratic process by making them elected by the very Hoi Polloi whom they look down their noses at.

It has now been reported in Friday’s Daily Mail, that Shabina Begum, who began her protest when she was still only a 14 year old orphan, has in fact been helped and encouraged in her stand by the Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation. Her brother, Shuweb, who is a Hizb ut-Tahrir supporter originally confronted the assistant head and told him that Shabina Begum would from then on be wearing the jilbab robe. Shuweb has been acting as a ‘litigation friend’ throughout the legal proceedings.

A spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir confirmed that the organisation had given advice to Shabina Begum, who was represented in court by Cherie Blair and had been granted £35,000 in legal aid.

The school headmistress had told the Court of Appeal that she had been concerned at the attempts by fanatics to influence her pupils towards Islamic extremism, but the judges clearly have not been too fussed about that.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in many Arab and European countries for its extremist politics. It is an a political organisation, although for many Muslims politics and religion are the same. The BBC website contains the following passage relating to an August 2003 Newsnight programme:

‘An influential British Muslim has told Newsnight that unless action is taken against an extreme Muslim group operating in the United Kingdom then we could soon be experiencing terrorist attacks along the lines of those in Baghdad and Jerusalem. Hizb Ut Tahrir or HT is an Islamic splinter group, which is banned in many countries around the world. It operates freely in Britain (needless to say - erc). But Newsnight has discovered that its website promotes racism and anti-Semitic hatred, calls suicide bombers martyrs, and urges Muslims to kill Jewish people.’

The BBC is hardly an institution that is unduly critical of Muslims. The website goes on to quote a passage from an HT promotional video:

‘I think Muslims in this country need to take a long, hard look at themselves and decide what is their identity. Are they British or are they Muslim? I am a Muslim. Where I live, is irrelevant.’

The website then goes on to quote a senior Muslim figure who would only speak anonymously:

‘I believe that if Hizb Ut Tahrir are not stopped at this stage, and we continue to let them politicise and pollute the youngsters minds and other gullible people minds, then what will happen in effect is that these terrorism acts and these suicide bombings that we hear going on around in foreign countries, we will actually start seeing these incidents happening outside our doorsteps.’

The website makes the following report:

‘In 1994, Newsnight reported on fears over their rising influence and their militant message. Hizb Ut Tahrir was controversial and condemned as openly racist. The National Union of Students described them as “the single biggest extremist threat in the UK” and tried to ban them from campuses. After fading from view in the late 1990s, today the group is once again visible. And this time, it's apparently respectable.’

That is not so. It is respectable only to its followers and the Court of Appeal.

IMMIGRATION POINTS SYSTEM

Both the Conservative and Labour parties are advocating the adoption of some sort of points system, similar to that of Canada or Australia, in order to manage immigration. However, the two parties are apparently at loggerheads on immigration despite each advocating a points system. How is this?

The fact is that those countries which operate such a system (eg Australia and Canada) are immigration countries. As also are the USA and New Zealand. These are all countries which promote immigration and have done so for centuries. They are relatively sparsely populated and need new immigrants to help develop their economies and colonise the uninhabited parts of their countries.

The UK is, in its natural state, an emigrant country. Likewise Ireland and much of Western Europe. It is these countries which sent emigrants into the new world in order to colonise and populate it. In the USA, for example, the emigrants were able to cultivate the corn belt and forge a new life for themselves.

But that has now changed. These former emigrant countries now face a never ending tide of immigrants from the third world. These third world immigrants are drawn to the UK in particular as they can claim generous benefits, work in the black economy quite easily, and also do have cultural ties with other members of the immigrant communities already resident here. Illegal immigrants also know that they are most unlikely to be deported and may even benefit from the amnesties which are routinely announced.

The overwhelming majority of these immigrants settle in England, which is not sparsely populated and is already occupied by the English. England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

A points system per se, is not an end in itself, but is a means to an end. It is a means of ranking immigrants in terms of suitability and is not a means of stopping them from entering the country. What matters is the underlying immigration policy and whether or not the party involved is either for or against mass immigration.

The points system was first advocated by the English Democrats Party (EDP), who are firmly opposed to mass immigration (see their website linked on this blog). Robert Kilroy-Silk (RKS) cribbed the policy from the EDP when he was still in UKIP. (RKS aborted plans to negotiate with the EDP and preferred the Scottish based New Party instead, and went on to form Veritas with some members from the New Party and other ex-members of UKIP.)

The Conservatives then cribbed the policy from RKS, and in turn found that Labour cribbed it from them, in order to upstage them.

But it is how the points system is applied which matters. A party which seeks to end mass immigration is going to use such a system very differently from one which is advocating an increase in mass immigration, as is Labour.

Charles Clarke blurted the truth out about Labour policy recently, when he was at a meeting in Gateshead. He said: ‘We want more migration, more people coming to study and to work. We want more people coming to look for refuge’.

It should not be forgotten that Charles Clarke is a public school Marxist, who was a Looney Lefty in the 1980s. His track record can leave no one in any doubt that he means what he says. Labour will increase mass immigration.

As for the Conservatives, they intend to abdicate responsibility to a vote in parliament once a year when the level of immigration will be set at whatever level the majority of MPs decide. It should not be forgotten that the Conservative Party contains many who favour mass immigration.

The Conservative Party also intends to abdicate responsibility to the UN to decide who enters the UK as an asylum seeker, a policy which RKS has cribbed from them for his new party Veritas. The UN has already made clear that they will refuse to cooperate with this policy (which is therefore unworkable), and if they did cooperate there is no doubt that their officials will be offered bribes as they were in Iraq by Saddam Hussein (a scandal which has led for calls for Kofi Annan to resign).

The English Democrats policy remains consistent.

To transport asylum seekers across other countries and even several continents to bring them here, is the least effective way of helping genuine refugees for reasons previously set out by the ERC and also by the Futurus document elsewhere on this site.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the English Rights Campaign is opposed to mass immigration.

I'M ALL RIGHT, JOCK

2 March 2005

In order to save £2.50 per day per patient, the government quango the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has decided to recommend that Alzheimer patients should be denied drugs which are able to halt the progress of the disease for roughly one year - giving those affected an extra year of quality life.

This is a appalling way to treat our elderly, and has rightly provoked an uproar.

The NHS of course can afford to prescribe Viagra, and also perform sex-change operations at public expense in order to comply with transexual human rights - but not afford to properly care for our elderly.

The amount the NHS spends on Viagra is greater than the amount spent on drugs for dementia (£80m for Viagra and £60m for anti-dementia drugs).

The sooner the NHS is denationalised the better.

But what is being overlooked is that the proposed penny-pinching is only applicable to England and Wales. Scotland, of course, has its own arrangements and a far bigger NHS budget courtesy of the Scottish parliament and the English taxpayer.

It is yet another case of “I’m all right, Jock”.

The English do not have their own parliament to represent their interests, and that is why we are continually losing out.

ORGANISED CRIME AND ASYLUM SEEKING

1 March 2005

The Detainee Support and Help Unit, a lottery funded charity which has received £350,000 of lottery money to assist asylum seekers, has had its funds frozen after claims that its manager, Comfort Afolabi, had helped asylum seekers obtain forged identity papers.

She was recorded helping a Radio Five Live undercover reporter to get a forged passport and national insurance number. Mrs Afolabi, who is a Nigerian, advised the undercover reporter, who was posing as a Zimbabwean asylum seeker, that she could put him in touch with a contact who would supply the false papers.

The reporter duly met Mrs Afolabi’s contact and paid £400, but did not receive the fake documents.

Mrs Afolabi denies the charges.

The money given to this ‘charity’ was awarded by the National Lottery Community Fund, which has now been wound up.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

1 March 2005

Three Breckland councillors have been castigated for refusing to take part in an ‘equality training’ programme - covering ethnicity, gender, disability, age and sexual preferences.

Roy Rudling, the town mayor, said that he was ‘proud to be English’ and said that he would be the first to refuse to take part in the programme, which involves spending about two hours working through a booklet and then taking a test by telephone.

He was backed by fellow Conservative, Earl Cathcart, who said that he found ‘the idea that I need to be taught how to deal with other human beings offensive’.

Another Conservative councillor, who was in favour of the proposals in principle, said that as a ‘white, straight man born in Norfolk’, he was ‘one of the most downtrodden people in this country’.

The stand made by the three councillors, which was prompted by a presentation by the consultants, the Grass Roots Group, at a full council meeting has been attacked by all political parties.

The Conservative leader, Cliff Jordan, said: ‘I think we all benefit from this training, but more importantly the staff will benefit and the people out there that we represent will benefit as well’ and that ‘we are doing more than any other council in Norfolk on race relations’.

Robin Goreham, the Labour group leader, said : ‘These few comments we have had illustrate how important it is that all members receive this training’.

The Standards Board for England has stated that the comments the three councillors have made could break its code of conduct. Up to a five year ban from public office could be imposed if the councillors were found to have failed to treat others with respect or brought the council into disrepute.

The so-called Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has announced that the council would be breaking the law if it did not run the training, and said that Breckland had a legal duty to eradicate discrimination and properly train staff and councillors.

The idea that democratically elected councillors should be answerable to the quangocrats of the CRE shows just how far down the road to a neo-communist totalitarian state the UK has become.

In a few weeks, we will no doubt be treated to the spectacle of Michael Howard asking the CRE permission to raise the immigration issue during the general election (as has been the case for Conservative Party leaders for the last two general elections).

A BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR USE

28 February 2005

Hans Bury, Germany’s Europe Minister, has described the new EU constitution as ‘the birth certificate of the United States of Europe’ (USE). He went on to say that: ‘It is not the end point of integration, but the framework for - as it says in the preamble - an ever closer union’.

By so saying, Hans Bury has nicely exposed the lie, being put about by Jack Straw, that the treaty would be the end of the transfer of power to the EU. The treaty was ‘thus far and no further’ he has recently said.

Those who are in favour of this treaty, can be under no illusion as to what they are advocating. The degree of power already ceded to the EU, and the power which will be ceded if the UK agrees to this treaty, will essentially lead to the abolition of the UK as an independent nation state.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

27 February 2005

For 2 centuries the people of the Cornish fishing port, Pedstow, have held what is termed ‘Darkie Day’ processions. This local celebration is believed to have been started when a slave ship was forced to dock in Pedstow by a storm one night in the 18th century. The African slaves danced and sang plantation songs on the Pedstow quayside, to the fascination of the townspeople, who have re-enacted the scene ever since.

Twice a year, for 200 years, the locals black up their faces and sing traditional ballads in a procession which also holds collections for charity. Tourist chiefs have described the festival as a ‘traditional Cornish custom’.

But now the police, who descended in force with video cameras for the last procession on New Year’s Day, have sent the tapes of the procession to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will decide if the procession is in breach of the Race Relations Act.