THE BRITISH INQUISITION

This time it is a case of: “I’m NOT all right, Jock.”

The latest outbreak of purported racism which has thrown the race zealots of the British Inquisition into an apoplectic fit has occurred in Scotland between Mr Danny Meikle, a Labour councillor in south Lankarkshire, and a Welsh constituent, Mr Tecwyn Thomas.

Mr Thomas has claimed that he was subjected to ‘a torrent of foul language’ from Mr Meikle when they got into an argument about the disposal of English sewage on Scottish land.

Mr Thomas has lived in Mr Meikle’s ward for the last 3 years.

At Lanark sheriff court, Mr Thomas claimed that he and a friend had visited Mr Meikle’s surgery to ask about a letter to which he had not received a reply. Mr Thomas claimed that Mr Meikle had said that he ‘wouldn’t answer any of your fucking letters, boyo’ and: ‘You don’t fucking frighten me, boyo’.

Mr Meikle told the court that he had sworn at Mr Thomas and his friend as they refused to leave his surgery: ‘I asked them to fuck off. I asked them to leave on two occasions but they wouldn’t. I then asked, ‘What word did you not understand? Was it the fuck off or the boyo?’

The use of the term ‘boyo’ was held to be racist. Mr Thomas was fined £750 and is now having to consider his position as a councillor due to the councillor’s code of ethics.

It would seem that using the term ‘fuck off’ is acceptable, but the use of the term ‘boyo’ is not.

Mr Hugh McLachlan, a reader in law and social sciences at Glasgow Caledonian University, has advised that people should now be careful using terms such as Jock, Mick, Taffy or Scouser: ‘If “boyo” is racist, people should be careful of using the word “Jock”.’

Needless to say, the English Rights Campaign will not be taking any notice of this nonsense.

THE EU

It is a sad fact that if one puts a socialist in charge of something, then there is a strong likelihood that there will soon be quotas, shortages and/or surpluses and a misallocation of resources in general. And so it has proved again.

Peter Mandelson, one of Tony’s cronies, was appointed the British EU commissioner a year ago, and took up the role of trade commissioner. Now there is a shortage of bras across the EU.

Mr Mandelson decided to try and restrict the numbers of Chinese garments allowed into the EU. In bygone years, and in the USA today, a desire to restrict cheap imports would have resulted in the imposition of tariffs to cancel out the effect of the cheap labour [or subsidies, or whatever]. Tariffs have the benefit of still allowing the market to distribute the items affected, and also have the benefit of raising tax revenue.

Mr Mandelson decided to implement voluntary quotas. The result is that there are now estimated to be 48million jumpers and pullovers, 17.5million trousers, 6.5million bras and 4.6million shirts and T-shirts impounded in warehouses across the EU, as the Chinese have already reached their annual quota.

Meanwhile there is a shortage of these goods, especially bras, in retail shops. Some retailers are facing extreme financial difficulties as they are unable to sell goods. According to the British Retail Consortium, at least £50million worth of clothing has been blocked from entering the UK from China even though it has already been paid for.

Prices are expected to be forced up due to the shortages.

Meanwhile, EU trade negotiators have flown to Beijing to try and reach new agreements for the allocation of the quotas [how the communist Chinese must love the irony of the free-trade West pleading with communists to agree quotas for the distribution of goods].

Mr Knight the chief executive of JJB Sports said:

‘It’s absolute and utter chaos. The whole thing is a complete mess caused by imbeciles who don’t know how business works.’

Meanwhile, Mr Mandelson has been enjoying his summer hols in Italy.

MULTICULTURALISM

Lord Tebbit, a former Tory government minister, has been recently making comments about multiculturalism. This is a topic about which he attracted some criticism [needless to say] many years ago, when he mentioned a ‘cricket test’ to see where immigrant communities’ loyalties really lie.

Last week, in an interview on the ePolitix website and regarding the 7/7 bombings, Lord Tebbit said:

‘I do not think had my comments been acted on those attacks would have been less likely. What I was saying about the so-called “cricket test” is that it was a test of whether a community has integrated.

If a community was looking back at where it had come from instead of looking forward with the people to whom they had come to, then there is going to be a problem sooner or later.’

And:

‘A multicultural society is an impossibility. If you have two cultures in one society then you have two societies. If you have two societies in the same place then you are going to have problems, like the kind we saw on July 7, sooner or later.’

Regarding Islam, Lord Tebbit said:

‘The religion is so unreformed since it was created that nowhere in the Muslim world has there been any real advance in science or art or literature or technology in the last 500 years.’

On Friday last week, Lord Tebbit gave an interview in which he expanded upon his views:

‘We’ve generated home-grown suicide bombers through a combination of the permissive society, which is the ugly and uncivilised society, together with a Muslim population that is deeply rooted in its own moral code and unable to see the defects in its own society.

Put these two together and it is an explosive mixture.

We can’t have a multicultural society. Our culture is what defines a society, so if we have two cultures we have two societies living in the same territory. That’s a recipe for trouble.

We’ve got it in an extreme form here because of the interaction of the refusal to stand up for our own culture and also the worthless nature of some aspects of it.’

He continued:

‘The conflict is when the moral code of Muslims comes into contact with the depravity of our inner-cities. They are supposed to be loyal to a Government which when faced with drunkenness extends the licensing hours and when faced with a wave of teenage abortions introduces more sex education in schools which may require a young Muslim to role-play as a homosexual father.’

Lord Tebbit argued that Muslims should have been taught ‘what is good in this country - its history, its traditions, its tolerance, its democratic system’. He continued:

‘What we’ve taught them instead is if they go out with a strict moral code late at night he sees drunken, vomiting, foul-mouthed youth abusing themselves and anyone else within range and he sees a culture in which we have generated an enormous amount of teenage pregnancies and irresponsibility.

And he’s not going to integrate into that, is he?’

Lord Tebbit is making some good points. It is of course not the case that some Muslims became suicide bombers because of Britain’s yob culture and there are very many non-Muslims who deplore the breakdown in law and order. Muslims do have the additional problems integrating which their religion brings, and that is the key factor.

But Lord Tebbit has completely ignored the effects of political correctness.

The Loony Left first impacted upon the political scene in the UK in the early 1980s, under Ken Livingstone in London. It is now 25 years later.

Over these last 25 years schoolchildren have been taught the wonders of anti-racist maths etc, year after year. A whole generation has grown up having being systematically brainwashed by the neo-communists.

A whole generation of ethnic minorities [and English people too] and the population as a whole have been indoctrinated to believe that any attempt to stop mass immigration is racist; that if ethnic minorities do worse at school then it is due to racism; that the fact that ethnic minorities may be less wealthy is because they are victims of racism; that if ethnic minorities cannot get a job it is because of racism; that the racist English are better off because of the slave trade and hence all their wealth is because of racism; that if there are Palestinians being killed then it is due to the aggression of the West and Islamophobia; that the invasion of Afghanistan was an act of Islamophobia; that the war on terror is Islamophobia; etc, etc and etc.

As per the March Quote of the Month [bonus] from Jacques Barzun: ‘Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred’. We are now seeing the consequences of that.

This evil nonsense has got to be stopped and the ideology opposed and exposed as the neo-communist sham that it is. The Politically Correct Industry, the quangos and government departments responsible, needs to be shut down.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The British Inquisition has been exposed for the anti-British poison that it is by 2 recent events.

Firstly an editor, Alan Buchan, of a local paper called North East Weekly has been charged with inciting racial hatred, as a result of an article he wrote opposing the construction of a prison and asylum centre in his area.

The article attracted one complaint to the police.

[See English Rights Campaign entry dated the 14 August.]

Meanwhile, Mohammed Al Massari’s Al Tajdeed station and its sister website have called for attacks on British troops in Iraq.

Al Massari is a Saudi dissident and Al Qaeda supporter who is based in London. He was granted permanent residency in the UK in 2000. A previous Tory government tried and failed to deport him to the Dominica Republic [which was understood to be a safe 3rd party country]. The government was thwarted by the judiciary and the Tories merely accepted that.

No action has been taken against Al Massari, who has even defended the publishing of videos allegedly showing the deaths of 3 Black Watch soldiers near Fallujah, and who has stated that ‘all British targets are legitimate targets’.

Further comment is not necessary.

THE WAR ON TERROR

Despite all the rhetoric about fighting a war on terror, and the pretensions of being a world military power, the British armed forces are overstretched and have never been weaker.

Labour recently announced that the RAF is to lose 20% of its personnel and 20% of its combat jets. This includes the scrapping of the entire fleet of 46 Jaguar fighter bombers. One of the 5 frontline Tornado squadrons is being disbanded. The Nimrod reconnaissance fleet is to be cut from 21 to 12. Several air bases are also being closed.

Meanwhile the aircraft carrier Invincible has been decommissioned, which reduces the Royal Navy to only one carrier given that the Ark Royal is still being refitted and will remain out of action for another 2 years.

The number of frigates and destroyers is to be cut from 31 to 25.

The overstretch in the Army has been well documented, as has the news of ongoing reductions and disbandment of historic regiments. This is despite the overstretch and despite the clear deficiencies shown at the start of the invasion of Iraq, when boots melted and there was even a rationing of toilet paper.

Meanwhile Iran has resumed its nuclear programme, and there has been the recent threat by Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Major-General Zhu Chenghu that China would attack over one hundred American cities with nuclear weapons if the United States interferes in a war between Communist China and Taiwan.

General Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organized by the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry on 14 July. During the function Zhu said:

‘We...will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the [Chinese] cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will also have to expect that hundreds...of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.’

General Zhu has previously said that China has the capability to attack the USA with long range missiles. The general is a professor and dean in China’s No. 1 National Defence University Strategic Defence Institute which is under the direct leadership of the CCP’s Central Military Committee.

The problem of cutting back on the navy and RAF is that it takes far longer to build these services up again if that becomes necessary, than it is to train infantry. Not only does there need to be the manufacturing capacity to build aircraft and ships [including the shipbuilding yards], but the ships and aircraft have to be built, then the weapons systems have to be built and installed, and then the personnel have to be trained to use the weapons systems and fly the aircraft or sail the ships. This could take years, especially if there is a shortage of shipbuilding/manufacturing capacity, in which case the shipyards and aircraft building facilities themselves have first to be constructed.

If anything were to happen to the Royal Navy’s sole aircraft carrier, then the fleet would be without air cover. The lessons of the sinking of the Repulse and the Prince of Wales in 1941 by Japanese aircraft should not be forgotten.

Nor should the lessons be forgotten of the Falklands War, which was the result of the Argentine junta, seeing the scale of the then proposed cuts to the Royal Navy, concluding that the British had neither the means nor the will to defend British territory.

The recent fleet review on the 28 June in celebration of Trafalgar, was a sign not of British strength, but of British weakness. Despite putting everything bigger than a rowing boat to sea, we could only muster about 40 vessels of the 167 ships present. Yet the Royal Navy was by far the largest in the world 100 years ago and was still the third largest in the 1970s.

Also at the Trafalgar celebrations there was the politically correct nonsense about blue fleets and red fleets, so as not to offend the French.

[It is a good job that Nelson was not too fussed about offending the French.]

Al Qaeda and our other enemies are most unlikely to be respectful of such a display.

Robert Mugabe is currently butchering his way around Zimbabwe as he knows that we do not have the military means to do anything [in addition to the lack of political will]. Mugabe is being supported by China.

It is all very well Tony Blair embroiling us in a war in Iraq, but if we can only pay for that war by cutting the defence budget, then it was not in this country’s interests to have become so embroiled.

For all Mr Blair’s big talk of his decision to remove Saddam Hussein, the fact is he did not have the military power to do any such thing. The decision he had to make, was whether or not to tag along with the USA and play a supporting role. It was the USA which removed Saddam Hussein, they easily were capable of doing so by themselves, and they were determined to do so irrespective of the UK.

The war on terror may yet take many unexpected turns. We are still looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and that country is far from stable. Warlords control much of the countryside, Opium production is at a record high, and Al Qaeda remains a force to be reckoned with on the ground.

The situation in Iraq is dire.

These defence cuts are wrong.

The neo-communists of Labour have always held the military traditions and the sense of patriotism which they bring in contempt. As we know from Margaret Hodge, a public school Marxist, they would expect those who would otherwise be employed in manufacturing, shipbuilding or the armed services to stack shelves in Tescos.

NATIONHOOD AND NATIONALITY

In a recent Newsnight programme, Kirsty Walk interviewed Anjem Choudry about Mohammed Al Bakri, who has recently left the UK for Lebanon and now finds that he is supposedly barred from coming back.

Bakri has a Lebanese passport but not a British one, despite having lived here for 20 years.

Choudry, who is a colleague of Bakri, defended Bakri’s comments about not being willing to inform the police if he knew of impending acts of terrorism by Muslims, and argued that this was based upon ‘Devine revelation’.

Choudry announced that he too would not inform the police even if he knew of impending acts of Muslim terrorism. He said:

‘It’s not allowed for me to cooperate with the police and it’s not allowed for me to cooperate with the British government’.

Apparently, this was due to the ‘Divine revelation’.

Kirsty Walk took issue with this and pointed out that Choudry was British, having been born in Britain, and should therefore uphold the laws of this country. Choudry retorted that the he did not ‘think the two correlate’ and further stated:

‘The fact that I have a British passport means that I have a travel document. I can come in and go out of Britain as I please. My allegiance is to Allah and to British Muslims.

If you are born in a box, it does not make you a horse’.

At which point a speechless Kirsty Walk ended the interview.

This all ties in with those matters raised in the English Rights Campaign blog entry dated the 15 July. Mr Choudry does not consider himself to be British, notwithstanding his British passport. He is certainly not English and a decision will have to be made as to how the English react to so many such people, who are openly hostile to this country, living here.

So far as Bakri is concerned, it is Veritas policy that those asylum seekers with children should be allowed to stay here. Presumably, with his 7 children, Veritas regard Bakri as being as British as Winston Churchill.

(One needs a sense of humour when it comes to Veritas.)

The bloodthirsty and outrageous comments that have been made by Bakri should not be forgotten. For example, to promote a conference in London(istan) to commemorate the third anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Bakri gave an interview in which, regarding the Beslan massacre of schoolchildren in Chechnya, he stated:

‘If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.

As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay.

The Mujahideen (Chechen rebels) would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians.’

Shortly after 9/11 Bakri stated:

‘September 11 was a towering day in history, a day to remember and yes, there are many, many positive results - many, many good things. It has exposed the capitalist world order and its evil policies.’

Bakri was originally granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK despite having been arrested for advocating the assassination of John Major at the time of the 1991 Gulf War (although he was never charged).

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

1. ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’

Whether Bakri would be able to successfully sue the British government for breaching his human rights is anyone’s guess. But there is no reason why we should have to take the risk.

The English Rights Campaign disagrees with the Veritas immigration policy. Far from allowing Bakri back into England, his Lebanese wife (who has also been recently voicing her hatred of the English) and the rest of his brood should be dispatched to join him.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

It is ironic, that someone who has been a key promoter of the British Inquisition now finds himself a victim of it.

Sir Ian Blair, known as ‘Britain’s most politically correct policeman’, and has recently courted controversy at an employment tribunal about his intervention [when he was deputy commissioner] relating to allegations of racism against 3 detectives.

This matter was highlighted in the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 30 June.

The Met has also been prepared to fund the visit to London by Yusuf As-Qaradawi, and Islamic extremist who is banned from both the USA and Egypt for supporting suicide bombers.

The Met has also hosted gay police conferences etc.

Meanwhile, the Met is discriminating against English applicants in its drive to achieve a target of 25% non-white officers by 2009 - this requires over 80% of new recruits to be non-white over the next 4 years.

Sir Ian has phased out the term ‘visible ethnic minority’ and replaced it with ‘minority groups’, and has further altered the Met’s logo so as not to supposedly discriminate against short -sighted people.

This nonsense has been implemented at a time when we are supposed to be conducting a war on terror. Sir Ian Blair should quite rightly be held to account over this, especially as he was so nonchalant about the threat of terrorism that he commented that the Met’s anti-terrorism operation as ‘the envy of the Western world’ only 30 minutes before the first suicide bomb detonated.

The fact is that the police response to the bombings has been competent and impressive, apart from the shooting of Jean Menezes [a Brazilian illegal immigrant]. This shooting was deliberate and the 7 shots to the head were intended to kill.

Appalling as this shooting was, no one can doubt that it was a terrible mistake. One can only have the utmost sympathy for his family [not that that is much condolence].

However, the police seem to have botched the publicity of this killing and untruthful statements have been made. There have been allegations of Jean Menezes vaulting the ticket barrier, which would be understandable if he was trying to avoid being uncovered as an illegal immigrant, and those allegations have now been exposed as false.

There have been allegations of a cover up. Sir Ian Blair, it now emerges, made a request to keep out the Independent Police Complaints Commission [IPCC]. That request was turned down.

A group calling itself Justice4Jean has emerged and has called for Sir Ian Blair’s resignation. It has been critical of the police for: [1] the Shoot to Kill policy; [2] the incompetence which led to the shooting of Jean Menezes; [3] the alleged cover-up.

If we are to expect the police to fight the war on terror, then they must be able to count on our support. Sir Ian Blair should not resign for the shooting of Jean Menezes. There is nothing wrong with him making a request relating to the involvement of the IPCC. Of course he should be free to make such a request!

The Justice4Jean campaign is not an innocent creation either. It 3 main members are Yasmin Khan, Asad Rehman and Alistair Alexander. Yasmin Khan is a campaigner for Corporate Pirates, an anti-Iraq war pressure group, and is a longstanding anti-Iraq war protestor. In an article entitled ‘SpOILs of War: The neo-liberal carve up of Iraq’ in May this year, Yasmin Khan wrote:

‘The people of Iraq are paying the blood price for a global economic system fuelled by plundering the world’s resources from the poor and handing them over to the multinationals. The challenge for activists in the G8 countries must be to find ways in which we can be most effective in our solidarity with those in the South who face the brunt of capitalism’s destructive nature.

As the US Empire fights to expand its neo-liberal hegemony across the world, activists have to think tactically about where and how they can be most effective to challenge this. Iraq is where the US and UK’s neo-liberal policies are the most exposed and the most opposed and therefore, it is on the issue of Iraq that campaign against the further expansion of such polices and their devastating impact can be most effective.

The G8 summit in Gleneagles in July brings together Bush and Blair to plot further expansion of their market driven agenda under the guise of third world development. This provides a unique opportunity for the anti-capitalist, anti-war and green movements to come together and expose the reality of the violence of these development programmes as seen through the illegal expansion of neo-liberalism policies in Iraq. It also allows us to highlight the real reason why we went to war - to expand the US’s free market policies.’

Asad Rehman and Alistair Alexander are involved in the ‘Stop the War Coalition’. Alexander is the press officer for that organisation, and Rehman was a founder member of it.

Rehman is currently a paid political adviser to George Galloway, the Respect MP, and campaigned for Amnesty International for 10 years. He has described his involvement with Respect and Justice4Jean as being ‘completely separate existences’. He is active in the International Social Forum process, which claims to bring together diverse social movements globally to challenge issues on race and diversity, Islam and human rights, global justice, racism and police brutality, globalisation and war. He is also Chairman of Newham Monitoring Project, supposedly the UK’s oldest community based anti-racist organisation.

The ideology of Respect is basically a hybrid between communism and militant Islam. In an interview last year, Asad Rehman made the following comments:

‘One of my main political interests is the whole discourse of human rights and progressive thought within Islamic politics: where is the politicisation of the Muslim community going? And can a new concept of political movement be constructed to integrate this community at the front line of struggles alongside the traditional progressive left?’

And:

‘Perhaps the most inspiring dynamic within the anti-war campaign has been the high level of Muslim involvement – not only on the streets, but within the leadership and organisation of the anti-war movement. This was a unique development.

Around 86 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi voters have traditionally voted Labour. The party has progressively sold these communities down the river; not only on Iraq and Palestine, but also on domestic issues through the new asylum and immigration laws, anti-terrorist legislation and the UK’s derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights. The present demonisation of Muslims, and more generally the black community, is unparalleled historically. All this explains why opinion polls suggest that more than 50 per cent of Muslim voters will no longer vote Labour.

What is certain is that, with the daily killings and tortures of Iraqis and Palestinians, the creation of ethnic and economic apartheid in Palestine, the increasingly racist direction of UK asylum, immigration and anti-terrorist legislation, these issues need to be represented in mainstream British politics.’

And:

‘My political background is Marxist, but I’m also a Muslim. In the past on the left you would have had to stay quiet if you believed in God. Now you’ve got people who are saying, ‘I’m for the Muslim community and I also believe in the left.’

The Justice4Jean campaign is exploiting the shooting of Jean Menezes to pursue their own agenda. This is a political organisation and should be treated as such.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘I shall not forget my Edinburgh and Scottish roots. It’s part of my identity and I shall have the interests of the city, my home country and the Scottish Tory Party very much at heart.’

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the MP for Kensington & Chelsea

Sir Malcolm is one of the Scottish political refugees who have lost their seats in Scotland and have decided that a safe seat in England is more to their liking - especially since the Tories remain an insignificant force in Scotland. Sir Malcolm lost his Edinburgh Pentlands seat in the 1997 Labour landslide.

It is all very well for Scottish grandees like Sir Malcolm, still advocating Scottish interests from his safe London constituency, but this merely reveals the extent of the influence of the Tory McMafia and the extent to which English interests are losing out.

Sir Malcolm has recently opined about the Tory failure to win the last election - as well he might. Sir Malcolm said:

‘The choice is whether we continue down the cul-de-sac of the last 8 years or whether we choose an alternative conservative tradition... The last 8 years have been deeply, deeply defective. There is no excuse that is convincing as to why a party that has been in opposition for 8 years should be flat-lining. To have seen no increase in the share of the Conservative share of the vote, despite the intense unpopularity of the Government, is indefensible.'

Sir Malcolm criticised the Tories’ concentration on ‘classic right wing Conservative issues’ such as the EU, immigration and asylum. Scottish Tories were openly criticising Michael Howard’s concentration on these issues immediately after the general election.

Of course, the immigrant communities only make up less than 1% of the population of Scotland, and the issue of immigration is therefore less compelling for the Scots. Also the recent terrorist bombings occurred in England not Scotland.

The problem with the Tory proposals on immigration and asylum at the general election is that those proposals would not work if implemented. Giving the House of Commons a vote to set the number of immigrants to allow into England, is not a commitment to end mass immigration. The proposal to hand over control of asylum policy to the UN was rejected by the UN and was grossly irresponsible. UN officials can be bribed and we are supposed to be conducting a war on terror.

Michael Howard was unable to identify one other country which was prepared to set up holding centres for the processing of asylum seekers, which was another Tory proposal.

The Tories lost the election because their policies were not credible.

Sir Malcolm is right when he refers to the Tories as being ‘deeply, deeply defective’, which is why the English need their own party to represent their own interests in their own parliament.

Given his comments about the importance of his Scottish roots, Sir Malcolm may find that the English prefer to elect Englishmen to represent them in an English parliament.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The UK Film Council, a Lottery funded quango, has granted £150,000 of Lottery money to fund the distribution of a Bollywood film called ‘The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey’.

The film, the most expensive ever made in India, retains the usual Bollywood song and dance sequences. But its story purports to be about the lead up to the Indian Mutiny1857. In fact, it is an anti-British pack of lies.

Mangal Pande, was a young sepoy (an Indian soldier in the service of the British) of the 34th Native Infantry. He shot at his sergeant-major on the parade ground. When the British adjutant rode over, Pande shot the horse out from under him and as the officer tried to extricate himself Pande severely wounded him with a sword. Drawn by the commotion the commanding officer of the station, General Hearshey, galloped to the scene accompanied by his two sons. Pande panicked and instead of shooting at the general, turned his rifle on himself and pulled the trigger. He survived this suicide attempt and was later court-martialled and hanged. As a collective punishment the 34th Native Infantry was disbanded; its shameful fate being publicly proclaimed at every military station in British India.

There was a widespread feeling among the sepoys that the 34th Native Infantry had been treated too harshly.

It was a subsequent event at Meerut a few weeks later that was the start of the mutiny, when sepoys from the 3rd Light Cavalry mutinied and, accompanied by a mob from the bazaar, poured into the cantonment where the Europeans lived and murdered any Europeans or Indian Christians they could find. (One of the major reasons for the Indian Mutiny was resentment against Christian missionaries.) Whole families, men, women, children and servants, were slaughtered. Some sepoys tried to protect their officers but they were in the minority. The cantonment was put to the torch and after a few hours of mayhem the sepoys, fearing retaliation as the British recovered and organized the European forces, fled down the main road to Delhi and the Palace of Bahadur Shah, the last of the Moghuls.

Most of the Europeans in Delhi were murdered along with Indian Christians. Some managed to escape the city only to be killed by villagers or brigands on the roads to Meerut or Agra.

However, the film tells a very different story. It shows scenes of British officers murdering civilians, flouting the slavery ban, and bidding for a slave girl to be sent to a brothel for the exclusive use of British officers. Another scene shows an officer ordering the destruction of a village after the villagers refused to set aside land for opium production.

Yet none of these events happened. The British East India Company, which ran India at the time, did not deal in opium at all.

The film further alleges that the mutiny started because British officers ordered Muslim and Hindu sepoys to use gun cartridges greased with animal fat, which is forbidden by their religion. One scene shows an officer threatening to open fire on the Indians with cannons unless they obeyed the order.

Yet this did not happen either. There was a rumour that the cartridges had been greased with animal fat (a mixture of cow and pig), and this rumour was a key factor. But the cartridges had in fact been withdrawn and the rumours were wrong. The British had realised their mistake and tried to have the sepoys make up their own grease from beeswax or vegetable oils.

The Indian Mutiny involved the savage massacre of many British and European civilian families by the rebels, particularly the Cawnpore massacre, where the British garrison was commanded by General Sir Hugh Wheeler. Wheeler had served in India most of his life and had an Indian wife. At the start of the siege there were about 1,000 Britons including 300 women and children. The British had held out for 3 weeks before accepting terms for safe conduct to the Ganges. In the event, after they had left their compound they were massacred. Only 4 escaped. The women and children were led away and were subsequently literally hacked to pieces and thrown down a well.

It should not be forgotten that the British were hopelessly outnumbered. In 1857 the total number of soldiers in India was 34,000 Europeans of all ranks and 257,000 sepoys.

A spokesman for the UK Film Council said that: ‘The film is not a documentary, and is not intended to be. Our decisions have to be based on the quality of the film, not the politics’.

This is wrong. The film is anti-British and foreign. Other countries would not be helping to fund the distribution of our films in their countries, especially if we were telling lies about them.

Furthermore, the film is being distributed at a time when Muslim terrorists have committed bombings in London and when we are faced with a serious threat of internal Muslim extremism. The film can do no more than exacerbate the recent crisis and encourage anti-English hatred.

Its funding is totally inconsistent with Labour’s supposed get tough policy. The rules of the game have not changed. Once again, Tony Blair has been exposed as a political showman. For the neo-communists the game has remained the same: to politicise minorities against the English majority.

In the event of a new English parliament, hopefully with English Democrats in government, one of the priorities will be to remove these neo-communists from their quangos and rid this country of the curse of political correctness once and for all.

This is necessary not only to win the fight in the war on terror, but also for the health and stability of our nation.

THE BALKANISATION OF ENGLAND

John Prescott continues to undermine local democracy and increase the power of his cherished regional assemblies, notwithstanding the rejection of regionalisation by the voters of the North East region.

This not only affects planning applications and the plans for concreting over large parts of England for Prescott’s new housing programme. It also affects his plans for traveller sites.

£8million is to be spent to create 58 new traveller sites across England. The plans also involve the refurbishment of 44 disused sites. Local councils have been ordered to identify new locations for such sites.

Local residents, whose lives are often blighted by traveller sites, remain powerless to act to prevent the desecration of their communities.

Many travellers are from Ireland and are in fact quite wealthy.

Meanwhile, local councils continue to see the unelected regional assemblies muscle in regarding house building and planning applications.

IMMIGRATION

We are now witnessing the ridiculous situation where British born and trained medical staff are unable to get jobs in the NHS. This is at a time when the NHS continues to recruit personnel from the Third World, despite the fact that such recruitment deprives the Third World of much needed medical staff and despite the inevitable deaths (estimated to be ‘millions’ by the BMA and the RCN) which that recruitment thereby causes.

There are further allegations that there is a need for mass immigration on economic grounds. This is rubbish.

It has been estimated by Migrationwatch UK that 2.1million new homes will be needed over the next 20 years simply to house immigrants, including so-called asylum seekers. The 2.1million is a conservative estimate and excludes illegal immigration.

The cost of building these 2.1million homes has been estimated to be as much as £125billion! Then there are the costs of the extra schools, hospitals and roads which will also need to be built as well as other infrastructure costs.

The reason why some businesses find it economic to employ immigrants is because they do not have to meet the inevitable infrastructure costs of immigration. It is the rest of us who have to do that.

If businesses, including the NHS, had to make an up-front payment of, say, £100,000 per immigrant - cash - as a contribution towards the infrastructure costs, then the rationale for immigration would be altered, and organisations would be more inclined to employ their fellow countrymen.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The editor of a local free paper in Scotland called ‘North East Weekly’ has been charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act, which gives the police powers to arrest and charge people for: publishing or distributing written material that is threatening, abusive, or insulting and that is intended to stir up racial hatred or by which, in the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.

The editor, Mr Alan Buchan, who is also the owner of the paper, published an article entitled, ‘Perverts and Refugees’, relating to Labour plans to build a new centre for the detention of asylum seekers and also a new prison. The article attracted one complaint to the police.

The article says:

‘The people of rural England have been in massive rebelling (sic) over the establishment of refugee centres holding upwards of 5,000 immigrants because they were fully aware that their communities would be swamped and turned into cesspools.

As a result the government has abandoned its plans for England and now could be looking at a refugee complex of over 5,000 and a prison unit of 800 for Buchan.

The reason that the people of rural England have reject (sic) this is that they know their communities would be turned into ghettos where murder, rape, robbery, assault, break-ins and numerous other crimes became prevalent.’

This police action is in contrast to the police openly tolerating, if not offering financial assistance to, those Muslim extremists who have been excusing/condoning terrorism elsewhere in the UK.

It is wholly wrong that British people cannot express their views relating to mass immigration without fear of prosecution from the police. It can never be the case that only views which the government and its agencies approve of are the only ones which are allowed. Such would be tantamount to the abolition of a free society.

It is to be noted that there was an attempt to hack into this blog and delete the item entitled ‘Multiculturalism and Islamophobia’ dated the 2 August. That item primarily consisted of quotations from a manifesto written by Muslims for the self-appointed Muslim Parliament of Britain. That manifesto is available to users of the internet to this day and has attracted no criticism, let alone threats of criminal prosecution, despite its contents and its supremacist ideology.

The English Rights Campaign is not in the business of debating the merits of Islam. But the recent terrorist bombings in London(istan) are matters which cannot be ignored, and that includes an assessment of the reasons for those acts of terrorism.

The English Rights Campaign will continue to advance the English patriotic cause and continue to oppose those matters relating to neo-communism and political correctness, irrespective of whether or not that meets with the approval of the British ruling class or its agencies.

THE LOONY LEFT

Relate, the counselling service for couples, has decreed that Mother’s Day and Father’s Day cards are discriminatory.

Apparently, Relate believes that such cards discriminate against single parents, step parents and homosexuals and that such people might be offended. Instead Relate believes that children should celebrate ‘someone special’.

Denise Knowles, a Relate counsellor, said:

‘We have to be aware now that the word “family” is a broad term and that we cannot make assumptions. So when children are making cards, they should be asked whether they would like make a card to send to someone special and to think about who that someone special is likely to be.

Many kids nowadays would say “which mother and which father?”. A pupil might want to make a Mother’s and Father’s Day card but also make one for their “second dad” or “second mum”.

If children are happy and safe being brought up in a family where the parents are of the same sex, we have to allow the child to produce the kind of card they want to produce. There are also ethnic and cultural influences to consider.’

According to Relate, in Muslim and Hindu families, children may regard their parents as figureheads and may regard older brothers and sisters or grandparents as being equal if not more important in bringing them up.

This is all very well, but the biological fact remains that a child has one mother and one father. There may be all kinds of other relationships involved in some cases, but the purpose of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day is to celebrate mothers and fathers. There is no reason for Relate to interfere with that other than political correctness.

This has nothing to do with helping children. It is about the indoctrination of children. Relate is merely trying to show its politically correct credentials by undermining marriage to children. The organisation is a disgrace.

THE NHS

Once again, patients in England are having to accept second rate NHS treatment due to the penny-pinching bureaucratic procedures of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is responsible for the rationing of drugs.

This time it is the treatment of cancer patients that is affected.

Xeloda, a new and actually cheaper drug is being denied to bowel cancer patients despite being cheaper and easier to administer than the existing drugs. Xeloda can be taken orally and has been shown to be very effective in dealing with the early stages of the disease.

NICE is refusing to even consider approving the drug until next year. This is despite the fact that the drug has already been approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and is already in use in Scotland.

This is yet another example of “I’m All Right, Jock”.

Up to 7,000 patients are likely to be affected in the next year. The extra cost of using existing intravenous treatment is estimated to be roughly £22million.

NICE is already mired in controversy regarding its attempt to withhold drugs for Alzheimer’s patients and a new breast cancer drug.

IMMIGRATION

The feeblemindedness with which Labour if supposedly fighting the war on terror has been exposed again by Ominaya Alabi - a Nigerian fraudster.

This individual had already been deported for defrauding the benefits system. He had entered the UK in the early 1990s and had assumed more than 100 aliases in order to defraud credit card companies, in addition to defrauding the benefits system. He was convicted and deported in 1996.

However, he returned to the UK within 4 months using the name Abdul Bello. This time he was given ‘leave to remain’ after marrying a British woman, from whom he is now separated.

Needless to say, Abdul Bello, as he now styled himself, recommenced from where he left off. He stole letters from neighbours and then applied for credit cards using their names. He was arrested again in 2000 for fraud. He was convicted and sentenced to two and a half years in June 2001 after admitting 14 charges of false accounting and deception.

It was believed that he had stolen in excess of £250,000 from his fraud and false benefit claims. Gerald Howarth MP claimed that Alabi hade made ‘a laughing stock of Britain by exploiting our goodwill’. However, as the investigators could not prove his true identity, he was able to escape deportation. The authorities could not prove that Bello and Alabi were the same person.

However, Alabi now faces deportation for a third time when he used his real name when charged by police for motoring offences 2 weeks ago. Alabi had been living in Berkshire using the name Kevin Campbell and making yet more false benefit claims. Alabi is under investigation by Bracknell Forest, Windsor, and Maidenhead councils for benefit fraud.

The fact that Nigerian immigrants can freely enter this country, even after being deported for fraud, and repeatedly commit further fraud demonstrates the complete absence of effective immigration controls. It is no wonder that Al-Qaeda is able to infiltrate terrorists into the UK. Labour’s obsession with mass immigration is a scandal.

We are faced with an exceptionally bloodthirsty terrorist campaign in England as a result.

It is England which is facing the worst of this. We are being ruled by an illegitimate Labour government as a result of the manner in which they rigged the constitution and the election.

They should resign, and allow a free and fair election of an English parliament.

THE LOONY LEFT

Even the Scouts are now celebrating diversity.

In Britain’s biggest scout jamboree for 50 years in Chelmsford, 10,000 youngsters (7,000 from other European countries) have been advised to ‘be prepared’ and bring their own condoms.

The guidelines for the event point out that different cultures have different attitudes to sex and that ‘due to the multicultural, multi-faith, nature of Scouting, and to avoid offending any religious or cultural sensitivities, condoms will not be available on site.’

Life was much simpler in the innocent days of Baden-Powell.

IMMIGRATION AND THE NHS

The latest example of the damage resulting from Labour’s policy of mass immigration is the scandal of British doctors being unable to find employment.

As a result of changes to the training system for doctors, called Modernising Medical Careers, there has been a fall in the number of places in the middle training grade of roughly 50%, at the same time as the number of places in medical schools has increased, leading to around 5,300 newly trained doctors emerging every year who are seeking middle training grade positions. It is these newly trained junior doctors who cannot find places in the NHS for the middle training grade posts.

Up to 2,000 of such people are now believed to be unemployed, while the NHS continues to recruit foreign doctors to fill places.

This is typical of a socialist centrally planned bureaucracy such as the NHS, and is a perfect example as to why that organisation should be denationalised. It is one of the hallmarks of socialist command economies that there are shortages and bottlenecks. This is intrinsic to socialism.

Furthermore, these junior doctors have cost roughly £237,000 to train over a period of 6 years. Many still have substantial debts which they are struggling to repay. One such person is Melissa Marlow, who has debts of £50,000 and is now unemployed.

This would be laughable, were it not so serious. The NHS continues to suffer staff shortages and continues to recruit personnel from the Third World, and yet is rejecting home grown applicants. The impact of the poaching of Third World health staff was recently highlighted by the both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing in a press release:

‘BMA chairman Mr James Johnson and RCN General Secretary Dr Beverly Malone warn that the migration of healthcare workers from developing nations is not only claiming millions of lives, but also preventing the world’s poorest people from escaping poverty.’

For all Mr Blair’s grandstanding at the G8 summit about solving poverty in Africa, he is not interested if it involves him abandoning the policy of mass immigration.

There is nothing compassionate about mass immigration at all. It is fatally harmful to 'millions' of those living in the Third World, and is against the interests of the people of this country.

SOCIALIST SNOBBERY

Despite the recent terrorist attacks in London(istan), Cherie Blair remains unrepentant regarding so-called human rights legislation and the extent of the political correctness of the judiciary.

Mrs Blair is herself a part-time judge. She was speaking to 1,000 Muslim lawyers and academics in Malaysia as part of a lecture tour.

Regarding the London blasts, Mrs Blair said:

‘It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and which cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation.

Were it otherwise, it would not have been necessary for the Islamic Human Rights Commission to have warned London Muslims after the attacks to stay at home for fear of reprisals.

Our institutions are under threat, our commitments to our deepest values are under pressure, our acceptance of difference and others is at a low point.’

Mrs Blair added that the courts had to act, ‘as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics.’

Mrs Blair cited the detention of so-called asylum seekers who had been detained as terrorist suspects in Belmarsh prison, which the judges had ruled was unlawful and which led to the release of those foreign terrorist suspects into England. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 was ruled to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.

It should be remembered that in overturning the above legislation regarding the Belmarsh detainees, Lord Hoffman pronounced:

‘The real threat to the life of the nation... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.’

This is of course a very easy thing for a Law Lord to say, given that he is most unlikely to be found on a bus or a tube train.

Mrs Blair’s term ‘majoritarian’ is a revelation and shows how the socialist mentality works. The majority are of course the English. She is more concerned about the ‘rights’ of so-called asylum seekers and terrorist suspects to enter this country.

Since Labour is a minority government, gaining only 36% of the vote and relying on Scottish and Welsh MPs for their parliamentary majority in the governance of England, it is hardly surprising that Mrs Blair thinks the majority vote is beneath her.

As we know, with socialists, some people are more equal than others - and some votes count for more than others.

THE LOONY LEFT

Labour has now decided that the terms ‘bachelor’ and ‘spinster’ are politically incorrect, and that such terms are ‘not clear enough’ regarding the status of homosexuals. The term ‘single’ is now to be enforced for marriage and the new civil partnerships certificates (aka gay marriages).

It is expected that the Church of England will soon come under pressure to abolish the usage of the terms as well.

Bachelor is a term which has been used for more than 600 years.

A government spokesman said: ‘The proposal is to make things consistent so civil marriages and civil partnerships are registered in the same way’.

MULITCULTURALISM AND ISLAMOPHOBIA

There still remains talk of Muslims being victims of so-called Islamophobia and Labour remains committed to bringing in a new law against the incitement of religious hatred, which will carry up to a 7 year jail sentence.

It is Muslim pressure groups who are calling for this new law, and they have been very adept at exploiting the 9/11 attacks and the supposed backlash which they claim Muslims have faced. They are portraying Muslims as being victims and demanding the new law as supposed protection.

Yet this is complete nonsense.

The demands for a law against criticism of Islam are at least 10 years old, as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) acknowledge, and are based on intolerance and bigotry.

The MCB was formed in 1997. Before that date there were, and remain, a multitude of Muslim pressure groups. One of those is the self-appointed Muslim Parliament of Britain which emerged in the early 1990s. This pressure group was launched with a proposed manifesto drafted by the Muslim Institute, after some consultation. The organisation has routinely been given airtime to pronounce on Muslim opinion, although it has more recently been eclipsed by the MCB. The manifesto is illuminating as it exposes the deep-seated hostility to the British and an hysterical Muslim viewpoint. It also demonstrates the concept of multiculturalism in practice. The document is therefore worthy of close examination.

It sets out the prevailing position in 1990 thus:

‘It is a matter of deep regret that the Government, all political parties and the mass media in Britain are now engaged in a relentless campaign to reduce Muslim citizens of this country to the status of a disparaged and oppressed minority. We have no alternative but to resist this invidious campaign.’

The manifesto openly admits that Islam is the most ‘politicised’ of the major religions, and that the concept of Ummah, a ‘world body of Muslims’, is supremely important to ordinary Muslims (‘we are Muslims first and last’). It therefore concludes that:

‘The option of “integration” and/or “assimilation” that is on offer as official policy in Britain must be firmly resisted and rejected... Muslims must develop their own identity and culture within Britain and as part of a global Muslim community, the Ummah.’

The manifesto deals with the role of women:

‘The position of women has long been the target of a vicious hate campaign directed against Islam itself. The West’s jaundiced view of women in Islam has gained strength by the attempt of women from some westernised Muslim families to feign a bogus “liberated” lifestyle. The fact is that a Muslim woman cannot be a western woman... Muslim women have a higher and nobler place in society than the so-called “emancipated” women have in the West.’

The manifesto also holds a contemptuous view of British youth:

‘Our youth is largely uncontaminated by the culture of alcoholism, drugs, sexual promiscuity and other forms of delinquency that is rampant among the youth of mainstream British society.’

Of the 9 ‘general guidelines’ as to how Muslims should lead their lives in Britain, point 4 states:

‘Every Muslim must ensure that his/her lifestyle does not absorb the moral laxity prevalent in the secular culture of modern Britain today.’

Point 7 states:

‘Jihad is a basic requirement of Islam and living in Britain or having a British nationality by birth or naturalisation does not absolve the Muslim from his or her duty to participate in jihad: this participation can be active service in armed struggle abroad and/or the provision of material and moral support to those engaged in such struggle anywhere in the world.’

Point 9 states:

‘Every Muslim must pursue his or her personal goals within the framework of the Muslim community in Britain, of the Ummah, and of the global Islamic movement.’

In reading these points, it is not surprising that British Muslims have been taking up arms against the West, including Britain (eg in Afghanistan). They have been openly encouraged to do so for at least the past 15 years.

The manifesto is subtitled ‘a strategy for survival’ and it sets out the need for that strategy thus:

‘Recent events have made it clear that Muslims in Britain, indeed throughout Europe and North America, will have to make a conscious effort if they are to survive. The time-honoured assumption that the generally liberal, open and tolerant ethos of the West would guarantee the survival of Islam and Muslims is a thesis no longer tenable. Muslims are faced with a vicious assault on their identity. Recent statements by leading figures in British Government and public life have made it clear that they expect, demand and will not be satisfied with anything less than our total “assimilation”. Essentially their attitude towards Islam has not changed since the Crusades; their strategy remains the same, only their tactics have changed. Muslims living in the West have to adjust to an environment that is far more hostile than had been assumed.’

Needless to say, Britain comes in for particular attack:

‘The history that is immediately relevant to the Muslim situation in Britain relates largely to British colonialism. The British colonial mind is the immediate source of their fear of Muslims. Muslims in Britain are viewed as “ex-colonials” who have received the additional favour of having been allowed to settle in mainland Britain. Britain as a colonial power, having “civilised” its possessions and then “granted” them freedom, now feels entitled to expect the ex-colonials to become British like the British. Any assertion of the superiority of Islam culture or civilisation on British soil is not to be tolerated. The British state sees it as its duty to achieve total assimilation... British view of Islam is rooted in colonial history.

Among us there is the truly “ex-colonial” fringe that accepts the British view of Islam and Muslims and is offended by what it calls the Islam of the mullahs and the “ignorant” masses. This is the “modernist” position. They pay lip- service to Islam but are embarrassed by such strong assertion of our faith as has been visible in the Muslim campaign against The Satanic Verses. In today’s Britain these modernist, apologetic Muslims want to keep “politics” out of mosques and maintain a submissive posture towards the British government. In their role as a colonial power the British used the modernists to deflect and abort Muslim opposition to their rule; they promoted an emasculated form of Islam from which the component of jihad was subtracted. They are now attempting to do the same in dealing with Muslims living in Britain. The same language (“moderates”) is used to describe these individuals and the regimes that promote and support them.

But the Muslim masses living in Britain today have seen through the game. The British design to destroy Islam and assimilate Muslims , in partnership with the modernist “Islamic lobby”, has been exposed by The Satanic Verses affair. Their plan to deflect and render ineffectual Muslim anger over The Satanic Verses was defeated by Imam Khomeini’s fatwa.’

The manifesto also criticises Muslim governments, including the ‘Saudi regime’ for failing to protect ‘the honour of the Prophet of Islam’. The Satanic Verses provokes an almost lunatic paranoia in the manifesto:

‘The Satanic Verses is not an ordinary “book”, it amounts to a declaration of war on Islam and Muslims. The circumstantial evidence, eg the size of the advance paid to the author, and the media and literary hype that accompanied its publication, leaves us in no doubt that The Satanic Verses is the result of a conspiracy. This means, above all, that Muslims have to fight a prolonged campaign to defeat the designs of the conspirators and their supporters.’

The outcome of which the manifesto declares that:

‘The Muslim community may have to define “no go” areas where the exercise of “freedom of speech” against Islam will not be tolerated.’

The manifesto rejected extending the blasphemy law to cover Islam, is it deemed that law too weak.

The manifesto dismissed Britain as ‘a post-Christian, largely pagan society’ and urged the need to arrest:

‘The “integration” and “assimilation” of Muslims themselves into the corrupt bogland of western culture and supposed “civilisation”.’

It is against this background that Labour are so keen to introduce the concept of Islamophobia, and extend the British Inquisition to cover incitement to religious hatred, notwithstanding the fact that it was the failure to either veto the publication of The Satanic Verses or to kill Salman Rushdie, as per the fatwa, that is the source of the demands for a law against so-called Islamophobia.

The manifesto is important as it demonstrates not only a mentality widespread amongst Muslims, but also because that mentality is in keeping with the neo-communist ideology of politicising groups within society against the majority - in this case Muslims against the English. It is England where Muslims mostly live, and the use of the term British is too general in that it would include anyone who has a British passport, as do many Muslims themselves. It is clear from the manifesto that the term British means white - ie English.

It further demonstrates that those writing the manifesto, which was the product of consultation among Muslims, did not see themselves as British at all. The British ruling class is united in presenting the present crisis as if it is nothing more than the product of a handful of extremists and that the majority of Muslims are politically no different to the English. That is a gross distortion.

The Muslim parliament has condemned the recent suicide bombings in London and is regarded as being a moderate organisation. Nevertheless, the manifesto reveals it to be a supremacist organisation feeding off political correctness.

The manifesto sets out the concept of multiculturalism for all to see. It is positively hostile to the concept of integration. Its contempt for, and hostility towards, the host English community is plain. If the manifesto’s comments reflect even only a sizeable minority of Muslim opinion, rather than a majority, then we are in serious trouble. The MCB will be unable to represent that minority view at all - with or without Sir Iqbal Sacranie. Sir Iqbal will no doubt be dismissed as belonging to the ‘modernist’ and ‘ex-colonial fringe’.

It is imperative that mass immigration is stopped.

Although the police are currently achieving significant successes against one of the terrorist cells, they are themselves urging caution. It is reported that MI5 believe that there is at least one other terrorist cell in existence. Meanwhile the political fight against the terrorists has scarcely begun.

That political fight must also include a fight against political correctness, which needs to be recognised for the neo-communist creed that it is. It is evil. This creed is in an unholy alliance with Muslim extremism and both must be firmly opposed and destroyed.