QUOTE OF THE MONTH [bonus]

‘If you set up a school and it becomes a good school, the great danger is that everyone wants to go there.’

John Prescott [the Deputy Prime Minister]

One should never underestimate the ‘great danger’ posed to the socialist state by those parents who want to send their children to a good school.

It is much better to ensure that all schools are equally bad.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Mr and Mrs Roberts, two pensioners [73 and 68 respectively], were subjected to an 80 minute interrogation by the Lancashire Police after they had asked the Wyre Borough Council to display Christian literature in council buildings.

There is no allegation that the couple had been rude, threatening or bad tempered.

The couple, who are both Christians, had written to the council and telephoned them in response to the council’s policy of promoting gay rights. The council distributes gay rights literature in council buildings and advertises its theatre as a venue for civil partnerships [aka gay weddings]. The Roberts had therefore asked if they could make Christian literature also available in these places.

For simply making that request, the couple were referred to the police who sent 2 officers to interrogate them. The officers warned the couple that they were ‘walking on eggshells’ and that their ‘homophobic’ actions were close to being ‘a hate crime’.

Mr Roberts said:

‘[The police] warned me that being discriminatory and homophobic is in line with hate crime. The phrase they used was that we were “walking on eggshells”. One of the officers told me my views were very strong. I told him I had nothing against gays personally but I would go on a demonstration against gay rights.

He asked me if I would be violent towards gays. I said I am not a violent man.’

The council accused the couple of having ‘displayed potentially homophobic attitudes’ and a spokesman said:

‘The council referred this matter to the police for further investigation with the intention of challenging attitudes and educating and raising awareness of the implications of homophobic behaviour.’

MERRY CHRISTMAS

This last year has witnessed a noticeable rise in the awareness of English question and of the manner in which the rights and interests of the English have been denied. There has been the creation of a wide range of English nationalist blogs. The English Rights Campaign itself did not exist this time last year. Other campaign organisations have either sprung up or else become more assertive and effective.

The era of the unquestioning acceptance of the ascendency of political correctness and Anglophobia is drawing to a close.

For those who have supported this blog and its campaign, and to English nationalists everywhere, the English Rights Campaign would wish a very Happy Christmas and a successful New Year.

THE LOONY LEFT

Teignbridge District Council in Devon has run into a difficulty in its determination to eradicate homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals. It has not only been unable to find any such discrimination, but it has further been unable to find any homosexuals either.

Despite a 3 year search and a £3,000 budget, the council has finally had to admit that there are no local homosexuals for them to rescue. This is despite the services of a market research firm to seek out homosexuals.

The local population is 120,000.

Councillor David Corney complained:

‘To suggest it was not possible to contact anybody is incredible. I am concerned the research was not properly done.’

Mrs Lynn McElheron, the council’s community initiatives manager, said:

‘There was concern that the minority groups had not been contacted. But to pursue it would have cost more money.’

Labour has put pressure on local authorities and quangos to ensure that they cater for minorities, under threat that they could lose funding.

So if there are any locals who wish to declare themselves as homosexuals, then Teignbridge District Council has funding available to tell you how victimised you are. Otherwise, there is a danger that the council will not be able to accuse the local population of being homophobic etc.

TORY SOCIALISM

Below is an extract of an article in The Observer in which David Cameron plays up his ‘progressive’ credentials regarding immigration:

‘His tone on immigration, however, best demonstrates Cameron's courtship of liberal opinion. Praising the cultural and economic benefits of immigration, he added: 'We will have a big amount of emigration and immigration, but will also recognise that a responsible government needs to look at the level of net migration in terms of also providing good public services and having good community relations.'

Defending the language on immigration in the last manifesto - which he wrote - Cameron admitted there was a 'very deep perception problem' over Tory handling of the issue, but said the politician who got immigration most 'spectacularly wrong' was the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett.

'He was the person who talked about us being swamped: he used irresponsible language at the same time as having a chaotic immigration policy.

'I want the Conservative party to do the opposite: use moderate, reasonable, sensible language, and to have a policy that actually delivers.'

Asked if he would ditch the quota policy, widely criticised for rejecting people who have suffered genuine persecution, he said it would be included in the policy rethink that he recently launched. 'I want these policy reviews not to think "we're committed to this": I want them to think "this is the big challenge facing the country - what are the right ways of meeting [it]"?'.

Cameron said he was committed not just to giving genuine refugees asylum 'but also to taking them to our hearts, and feeding and clothing and schooling them'.’

‘Liberal opinion’ is another term for the politically correct.

Mr Cameron is quite open in that he wants ‘a big amount’ of immigration. He is committed to the continuation of mass immigration.

Net migration is not the issue. One can reduce net migration by increasing the emigration of the indigenous British. That is hardly a proper solution to the immigration problem. What is needed is an end to mass immigration.

Mr Cameron speaks of a ‘very deep perception problem’ regarding the Tory immigration policy. But whose perception is he referring to? One doubts it is the perception of those who recognised that the Tory immigration policy would not work. Those he has in mind are the politically correct.

This is confirmed with his criticism of David Blunkett as using ‘irresponsible language’. This trick is a favourite of the pro-mass immigration mulitculturalists. They quibble the terminology of the case against mass immigration rather than the logic of it.

It is all very well Mr Cameron grandstanding regarding so-called asylum seekers and how he we should be ‘taking them to our hearts’ etc, but he does not make out the case that the best way to help genuine refugees is to pay organised crime rackets to smuggle so-called asylum seekers into this country and then further pay lawyers and so-called human rights activists to try and keep them here regardless of the merits of their claim.

The best and most effective way to help refugees is to help them in their own or neighbouring countries.

All Mr Cameron is doing is grandstanding.

THE WAR ON TERROR

Below is a copy of an article in The Times:

'Britishness test' for imams is abandoned
By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

PLANS to force foreign-born imams to take a “Britishness test” were scrapped yesterday in the second climbdown in less than a week on proposals to tighten scrutiny of mosques.

The Home Office dropped the idea after opposition from Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. Five days ago Tony Blair’s plan to give police the power to close mosques suspected of having extremist links was ditched after opposition from Muslim leaders and the police.

The latest retreat came after protests from Muslim leaders and other faiths who objected to a Britishness test being made part of immigration laws. An estimated 85 per cent of the 2,000 imams working in the UK are foreign-born.

The climbdown comes despite longstanding concern from senior ministers and the security services that radical imams entering the country from Pakistan and the Middle East are driving young British Muslims to extremists.

Under the proposal all foreign-born ministers of religion would have had to sit a test on Britishness after being in the country for two years.

The aim was to ensure that they understood the multicultural society in which they preached and provided pastoral care to their communities. It was also intended to answer concern within the Muslim community that some foreign-born imams had little concept of the world in which young British-born Muslims had grown up or the problems they faced.

But yesterday Tony McNulty, the Immigration Minister, announced that the idea first put forward by David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary had been ditched.

Mr McNulty told a press conference at the Home Office that he had bowed to fears from all faith communities over the proposed test on life in Britain.

He said they had all expressed concern that foreign-born preachers would face tougher immigration requirements than other migrants if they were tested on life in Britain after living in the UK for two years.

“There was concern that somehow ministers of religion were being treated differently,” he said. “We have listened to that.”

He said there was no compelling reason to treat foreign- born ministers of religion differently from others seeking to stay in the UK.

Instead foreign-born ministers of religion will only take a test on life in Britain, including its constitution, legal system, customs and religious life, if they apply to settle after four years or seek citizenship after being in the country for five years.

The original proposals were put forward before the July 7 terror attacks but amid concern in the Government that some imams could speak little English and had hardly any knowledge of Western societies.

A Home Office consultation document put forward the testing regime because of the “potential influence which ministers of religion can — because of the respected position which they occupy and through the preaching and pastoral functions they may fulfil — exert among their congregation”.
Government ministers wanted imams to show an understanding of the religious needs of those from their own faith who have been brought up in the UK. It was also proposed that foreign-born preachers would have to produce evidence that they had taken part in the civic life of the community including mixing with other faiths as part of a drive to improve community cohesion and end ghettoisation.

The Home Office said it hoped that a tougher English language test for foreign-born religious leaders would automatically mean they had a knowledge of British life.

An official said: “If someone has to take a test showing they are a confident user of English, both written and spoken, they will have inevitably learnt about life in Britain. They will have read newspapers and listened to the BBC.”

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said last night: “I do not understand why the Government has dropped this plan.

“We welcomed the idea. We thought it made sense that people coming here to preach should have a good grasp of our country’s history.”

It would seem that Labour are more concerned to be seen not to be discriminatory and to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, than they are in winning the supposed war on terror.

If foreign imams are inflaming Muslim opinion, then they should not be let into the country in the first place.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Seldom in the course of European negotiations has so much been surrendered for so little.’

William Hague [the ex-Tory leader and new Tory shadow foreign secretary], commenting on the outcome of the recent EU summit.

The outcome for the UK is appalling. Tony Blair has simply agreed to forego not only more than £1billion per annum of the British rebate, but has also agreed to pay more over to the EU in the first place. The combined cost will lead to a 63% higher net payment in the period 2007-2013 than in the last 7 year period.

The total net cost being £40billion [ie a £15billion increase] over 7 years.

This increase is being funded by the English taxpayer - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all in deficit. It is English taxpayer’s money which Tony Blair is giving away.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Christmas this year has been the most contentious ever, with the British Inquisition trying to either ban it outright, or re-label it as something else. The English Rights Campaign has already highlighted some of this [eg see the entries dated the 7 and 11 November 2005].

A report for the Waveney District Council in Suffolk recommended that the funding for Christmas lights does not ‘fit with the council’s core values of equality and diversity’. This was because Christmas is a Christian festival.

The report recommended that the funding be reduced and then withdrawn over a 2 year period.

Only 0.5% of the local population claimed to practice a religion other than Christianity.

Meanwhile in Lambeth, that bastion of the loony left, the local council had decided to refer to the Christmas lights as being winter lights.

Even the Royal Mail fell foul of the politically correct, as a direct result of its own political correctness. A 68p stamp, which could be used to send letters to India, was withdrawn after Hindus alleged the stamp was insensitive. This was because the stamp depicted a man and woman with Hindu markings worshipping the baby Jesus.

Apparently, this was the Royal Mail attempting to be inclusive. The Royal Mail’s stamps are designed by a multi-faith committee.

When the Hindu Forum of Britain urged the UK’s 750,000 to send unstamped letters to the Royal Mail HQ, it was decided to withdraw the stamp.

Meanwhile, the Home Office threatened to withdraw funding for a memorial carol service for victims of crime, alleging that it was ‘too Christian’.

Each year hundreds of grieving relatives have attended a carol service in the church of St Martin-in -the-Fields in Trafalgar Square, in memory of murder victims. However, Home Office officials recommended that the £2,000 grant be withdrawn unless the service became ‘multi-faith’ and is held in a secular venue and not a church. A letter to the event’s organisers said:

‘I appreciate the service is a source of great comfort for those who attend. I am, however, concerned that this service could be seen as a Christian service and could therefore exclude parts of the community that would benefit from attending a memorial service. Before we can make a decision on future funding arrangements I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some evidence that this event reaches all parts of the community.

I would also be interested in any ideas you have on improving the multi-faith aspect of the service such as possible alternatives to holding the service in a church.’

Eventually, it is understood that the Home Office backed down - for the time being - and the service is to continue.

Meanwhile, in Havant in Hampshire, the Tory council decided to have a ‘Festival of Lights’ and not Christmas lights, in order not to offend non-Christians. Father Christmas was done away with completely. This is despite the fact that 99.1% of the local residents are white.

However, in Wolverhampton the politically correct suffered a setback. For several years the Christmas lights, costing £150,000, had simply spelt out the word ‘Welcome’ in several different languages [needless to say]. This year, Elias Mattu, an Asian councillor and Christian, met with the local officials and insisted that Christmas should return to the city. This year, the lights say ‘Happy Christmas’.

But Preston was not so fortunate. The local mayor Bhikhu Patel, a Hindu, abolished the annual carol concert. In its place is planned a multicultural event in the New Year, which will consist of an evening of Afro-Caribbean and Asian music. Mr Patel said:

‘I want a multicultural peace and harmony event. It will be a culturally cohesive, more inclusive event. I do not think carol singing is suitable for my mayoral year.’

Mr Patel has also replaced the traditional Christian blessing at the start of a council meeting with Hindu prayers. He has also been criticised for requesting that the taxpayers fund a trip for a delegation of 11 people, including members of his own family, to visit his home village in India.

15% of Preston’s population belong to an ethnic minority.

Meanwhile, Christmas decorations were banned in a Peterborough Jobcentre office in order to avoid offending non-Christian religions. After an outcry of protest, the decision was reversed. Sukhi Wahiwala, of the Peterborough Bhat Sikh Associations said:

‘Although we don’t celebrate Christmas ourselves, Sikhs in Peterborough really enter into the spirit of things. It is madness to say people who are not Christian will get offended by a few presents and a bit of tinsel.’

The Headmistress of the Bournville Community Infants School, in Weston-super-Mare in Somerset, banned the exchange of Christmas cards at school on the grounds that it was bad for the environment. Janice Taylor said that the ban was part of ‘ongoing work on recycling and protecting the environment.’ She continued:

‘It is important to instil recycling principles in children at a young age so they grow up to be environmentally aware.’

A spokesman for Friends of the Earth said:

‘We would not discourage people from sending Christmas cards. What we would advise is to buy cards made from recycled paper and after Christmas make sure you recycle all the cards you have received.’

To sum matters up, a survey by the employment law firm Peninsula, revealed that about 70% of employers had banned Christmas trees and decorations. Over 2,000 employers were contacted in the survey.

The managing director of Peninsula, Peter Done, said:

‘The workplace is now the latest in an increasing number of places affected by the wave of political correctness being imposed on festive traditions. To ease fears of offending other faiths and excluding minorities, firms are increasingly banning Christmas decorations and traditions from the workplace.’

TORY SOCIALISM

In the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 14 December, regarding David Cameron’s rapid descent into socialism with his politically correct quotas for Tory candidates, made the comment that:

‘The status of homosexual candidates is unknown.’

We need not have worried. Mr Cameron has quickly clarified that issue with his appointment of an open lesbian, Margot James, as a vice chairman of the Tory Party, along with a female Muslim, Sayeeda Warsi, as well.


Miss Warsi was a race relations adviser to Michael Howard and was a Tory candidate at the last general election.

Miss James is a multi-millionairess as a result of a successful business career, and also has already stood as a Tory candidate at the last general election. She has now been given special responsibility for women’s issues.

It would seem that the promotion of homosexuals will take place without formal quotas.

Both of these women are expected to be included in Mr Cameron’s new candidates list system.

The difficulty in commenting on these matters is that it is all too easy for the politically correct to interpret such criticism as an attack on the ‘minorities’ themselves. It is not. It is an attack on those who seek to exploit such ‘minorities’ for their own ends.

Miss James is probably a very capable and nice person. Likewise Miss Warsi.

Mr Cameron’s gimmicks merely demean not only himself, but also his colleagues and the Tory Party itself.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The latest victim to feel the pressure of the British Inquisition is childcare expert, Lynette Burrows, who is the author of Fight For The Family.

Miss Burrows was contacted by the police relating to comments she had made on Radio Five Live, when she stated that she did not believe that gay men should be allowed to adopt boys. She believed that the risk of such adoption was as obvious as allowing two heterosexual men to adopt a girl.

It would seem that the comments provoked a complaint to the police, who contacted Miss Burrows the next day. Miss Burrows said:

‘This very serious voice read me a lecture about homophobia, telling me there had been a homophobic incident recorded.

I asked why she was wasting my time and hers when crime is out of control, and what crime I had committed. She said: “Oh, it’s not a crime” but said it was their policy to investigate remarks that the homosexual community regarded as homophobic.

She was definitely leaning on me and I regard it as sinister in the extreme. It’s a free country and I am entitled to express my opinion on matters of public importance.’

A Metropolitan police spokesman said that racist, homophobic and domestic incidents were ‘priority crimes’ and that:

‘It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. It is about reassuring the community.’

Of course, it is in fact about pandering to the politically correct. The general public are not reassured by such overt police implementation of politically correct ideology.

Needless to say, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation condemned Miss Burrows’s views as being ‘challenging and unpleasant’. One can always rely upon the BBC.

TORY SOCIALISM

It has not taken long for David Cameron to establish his socialist credentials. He has proved himself rapidly to be the politician which he threatened to be and as we had been warned about [see English Rights Campaign entry dated the 15 November 2005].

Mr Cameron has frozen the current processing of candidate selections, as from Monday, and has introduced what are, in effect, quotas for women, ethnic minority and disabled candidates.

The status of homosexual candidates is unknown.

Mr Cameron claimed that his recent victory in the Tory leadership election gave him a ‘clear mandate’ for his ‘positive action’ plan, although he denied that it was ‘crazed political correctness’.

Presumably, he regards it as sensible political correctness.

In future, local Tory associations in Tory held and the 140 or so target seats will be compelled to select their candidates from a ‘priority list’. Half of those on the list will be women and 10% will be ethnic minorities.

The priority list is to be drawn up by a new committee headed by Bernard Jenkin and Theresa [‘nasty party’] May, who is a key figure in the Tory Women2Win campaign. Women candidates ‘of all ages and backgrounds’ are to be headhunted and mentored.

Mr Cameron said:

‘I plan to change the face of the Conservative Party by changing the faces of the Conservative Party.’

If his plans fail to compel the local Tory associations to select a sufficient quota of female and ethnic minority candidates, then Mr Cameron promised ‘further steps’ to force them to do so.

But most startling of all, was that Mr Cameron was not only of the opinion that too many Tory MPs were Englishmen, but he has also taken the view that there are too many conservatives as well.

Mr Cameron has appealed to anyone to come forward as a Tory candidate. He said:

‘I’m today appealing to every woman in Britain, and everyone from a black or minority ethnic background who shares my passion to change Britain for the better, who shares our values, sitting at home, to apply to stand for Parliament in the Conservative cause.’

He also stated:

‘Until we’re represented by men and women in the country, regardless of race or creed, we won’t be half the party we could be.’

Furthermore, associations will be required to set up panels, including those who are not necessarily Tories, to interview the candidates. Furthermore, he has also decreed that local associations will not be deciding who the Tory candidates are. Instead, the association will be required to conduct a ballot which could even include any voter in the constituency - Tory or not.

Perhaps we will soon see Trevor Phillips, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and the rest of the Parekh commissioners selecting Tory candidates? Perhaps Abu Hamza will have a say?

Once upon a time, the concept of racial engineering, anti-English ethnic cleansing and quotas for women would have been recognised by the Tories for the socialism which it is. That they are now advocating this themselves demonstrates the extent of the philosophical defeat which the Tories have accepted.

But that they would willingly allow their own associations to be sidelined in order to change the Tory Party from being a conservative party, beggars belief!

REGIONALISATION

Below is a copy of a recent press release relating to regionalisation. It seems that Labour is now trying to resurrect this issue.

Those who oppose the balkanisation of England should make their views known.


Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Press Notice
Session 2005-06 7 December 2005


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NEW INQUIRY
IS THERE A FUTURE FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT?
In the light of the ‘no’ vote in the North East devolution referendum on 4 November 2004, the Committee has decided to examine issues relating to regional government, including:

• the potential for increasing the accountability of decision-making at the regional and sub-regional level, and the need to simplify existing arrangements;

• the potential for devolution of powers from regional to local level;

• the effectiveness of current arrangements for managing services at the various levels, and their inter-relationships;

• the potential for new arrangements, particularly the establishment of city regions;

• the impact which new regional and sub-regional arrangements, such as the city regions, might have upon peripheral towns and cities; and

• the desirability of closer inter-regional co-operation (as in the Northern Way) to tackle economic disparities.

The Committee invites written evidence on the points above and other relevant topics by Monday 23 January 2006. Witnesses who wish their evidence to be treated in confidence should contact the Committee clerk in advance. It should also be noted that decisions about who to call for oral evidence are likely to be taken on the basis of evidence received by this date.[The form which such evidence should take is set out below B please note in particular the restriction on length and that wherever possible it should be submitted by e-mail or on disk].

Oral evidence sessions will be arranged and will be announced in due course.

Contact: Elizabeth Hunt, Joint Committee Clerk 020 7 219 3927/ mailto:%20hunte@parliament.uk

***********************************************************

Written evidence must if possible be submitted in an electronic format, either on disk or preferably by e-mail. It should be in MS Word or Rich Text format. If sent by e-mail it should for this inquiry be sent to mailto:%20odpmcom@parliament.uk. The e-mail must include a contact name, telephone number and postal address. The e-mail should also make clear who the submission is from. If sent by post it should be sent to the Clerk, ODPM Committee, Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. Witnesses without access to a computer are respectfully requested to take particular care that submissions are legible.

Submissions should be as brief as possible, and certainly no more than 3,000 words. Paragraphs should be numbered for ease of reference, and it would be helpful to include a brief executive summary. Those submitting evidence are reminded that evidence should be original work, not previously published or circulated elsewhere. Once submitted no public use should be made of it. Guidance on the submission of evidence can be found at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/odpm/Written_Evidence.cfm

Further details of the Committee, including its current membership, can be found on the Committee's homepage at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/odpm.cfm Information about the Committee can also be obtained from 020 7219 4972.

THE PAREKH REPORT [8]

‘1.6 Notions of Britishness originated in the 18th century, were developed in the 19th century, and were cemented through much of the 20th century. Nevertheless, in the words of the editors of Political Quarterly, in the journal’s first issue of the new millennium:

“The British have long been distinguished by having no clear idea about who they are, where they are, or what they are. Most of them have routinely described England as Britain. Only business people talk about a place called the United Kingdom ... It is all a terrible muddle.”

1.7 If arguing with the past is one simple duty of citizenship, then arguing with the present, it follows, is another. “Suddenly, in the space of a moment,” writes Bill Bryson in his bestselling Notes from a Small Island, “I realised what it was that I loved about Britain.” In a way this travel book about England, Scotland and Wales introduced the inhabitants of these places to themselves. It depicted Britain as an endearingly eccentric place some of the time, and as essentially welcoming, friendly and calm most of the time. The author offered up a handful of criticisms - urban planners insufficiently respectful of tradition, a bossy landlady who interfered with his freedom, a waitress who did not understand him, an inflexible official, someone with a passionate interest he did not himself share - but basically he found Britain as a whole lovable. No wonder the book was a bestseller. This is how he summed it up:

“Suddenly, in the space of a moment, I realised what it was that I loved about Britain - which is to say, all of it. Every last bit of it, good and bad - Marmite, village fetes, country lanes, people saying ‘musn’t grumble’ and ‘I’m terribly sorry but’, people apologising to me when I conk them with a careless elbow, milk in bottles, beans on toast, haymaking in June, stinging nettles, seaside piers, Ordnance Survey maps, crumpets, hot-water bottles as a necessity, drizzly Sundays - every bit of it ... What other nation in the world could have given us William Shakespeare, pork pies, Christopher Wren, Windsor Great Park, the Open University, Gardners’ Question Time, and the chocolate digestive biscuit? None, of course.”

1.8 It is beguiling but also remarkably limited and excluding list. Consider who and what it leaves out. For a start, it omits Scotland and Wales - the author claims to be writing about Britain (the “small island” of his title), but much of this list, as indeed most of the book itself, is limited to England. Further, the list is limited in effect to the rural southern counties. It leaves out the English regions, with their distinctive identities and needs, and the urban and institutional life that is the daily experience of the vast majority of British people. It also leaves out the third of the population who are, by the government’s own figures, classified as living in poverty. Most are unlikely to think of Gardners’ Question Time and Ordnance Survey maps as epitomising their country. Equally, it leaves out all or most people in Britain who have close family or community links with Africa, Bangladesh, the Caribbean, China, Cyprus, India, Ireland, or Pakistan. There is barely anything in the list that resonates with their experience and perception of the land where they live. The references to Windsor Great Park and Christopher Wren evoke a national story that excludes them, or relegates them to subservient and marginal walk-on roles. Other than mentioning stinging nettles and careless elbows, the list leaves out all conflicts, difficulties and tensions, both in the present and in the past - it is both apolitical and ahistorical.

1.9 Significantly, the list gives no sense of the changes that have taken place in the very world it celebrates - the world of village fetes, country lanes and haymaking. Here, as elsewhere, there are conflicting loyalties and complex identities; profound disagreements about gender equality, sexuality, the upbringing of children, the nature and role of families; concerns about social class, status, life-chances and employment; disputes about the truth or otherwise of religion and the basis of morality; and unsettling anxieties about the cultural and economic dislocations brought on by modernisation and globalisation.’

The rather silly quote from the Political Quarterly does not merit much attention. Most people in this country know ‘who they are, where they are, or what they are’. It is not such a ‘terrible muddle’ as all that.

What is more important is the attack on a travel book. Bill Bryson, an American who was born in Iowa, is a travel writer. His book, Notes from a Small Island, was a best seller and he wrote it as a farewell to Britain just before he returned to the USA. One review of the book describes it thus:

‘After nearly two decades in Britain, Bill Bryson took the decision to move back to the USA. Before leaving his much-loved home in North Yorkshire, he took one last trip around the UK, and in this book, he turns an affectionate but laconic eye on his adopted country.’

Yet this travel book is criticised for being ‘both apolitical and ahistorical’. Bill Bryson himself is sneered at because, ‘basically he found Britain wholly lovable’ and consequently, ‘no wonder the book was a bestseller’.

The sheer political incorrectness of it! A travel book that was apolitical and ahistorical, that actually loved Britain! By God! It was even a bestseller!

AND JUST WHY SHOULD NOT HE FIND BRITAIN ‘WHOLLY LOVABLE’?

Bill Bryson, as are the rest of us, is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to feel nostalgic about Britain. That is not a crime.

It is not obligatory for immigrants to hate Britain.

WE CAN DO VERY NICELY WITHOUT ANTI-RACIST TRAVEL BOOKS.

The Parekh commissioners actually sincerely believe that travel books should be political and subject to their approval - even those written by Americans. This attitude and the comments quoted above betray more about the politically correct than the object of their derision. They reveal their true neo-communist intolerance of free speech, and their contempt for Britain in general and England in particular. They betray the fact that political correctness is not, nor ever has been, about promoting tolerance. It is about enforcing intolerance and encouraging hatred.

The report’s criticisms of the book being limited to the southern English counties is factually wrong and plain silly. Bill Bryson lived in Yorkshire, which is in northern England. The references to beans on toast, stinging nettles, seaside piers, drizzly Sundays etc are not confined to ‘the rural southern counties’. There are drizzly Sundays in Scotland and one presumes that the Welsh have encountered Marmite.

Yet the report tries to create division between southern England and the ‘English regions’. The report is in favour of regionalisation as are its commissioners to this day. The report further tries to create class division by alleging that the poor are excluded. As if beans on toast is an aristocratic delicacy and as if village fetes are attended only by the well-to-do.

The report further tries to create racial division, by claiming that ethnic minorities are left out. Since the book was written about Britain, then it is not surprising that it does not describe parts of the Indian subcontinent or Africa. The allegation that the book’s references to Windsor Great Park and Christopher Wren ‘evoke a national story that excludes [ethnic minorities], or relegates them to subservient and marginal walk-on roles’ is pure race war politics.

Mass immigration into the UK is a recent phenomenon and so references to events and buildings built before the Second World War will not include references to ethnic minorities, who are, by definition, minorities anyway. What the report is really attacking is the concept of Britishness/Englishness.

As if that is not enough, the report then launches into a sneer about the book’s references to village fetes, country lanes and haymaking. The report alleges that these references do not include ‘profound disagreements about gender equality, sexuality, the upbringing of children, the nature and role of families’ etc. The report cannot abide any view that is inconsistent with the political correctness of its commissioners.

ONE CAN REFER ABOUT HAYMAKING WITHOUT HAVE TO INCLUDE ISSUES OF SEXUALITY AND GENDER EQUALITY ETC.

The problem is the extent of the political correctness and outright communism of the Parekh Commission itself, and not the contents of a travel book or the views of those who buy it.

There is one aspect touched on in the quote from the book which does require further comment. And that is the “musn’t grumble” and the “I’m terribly sorry but” attitude, which the report assigns to the English.

Given what is happening to our country, it is about time that we did grumble, and certainly about time that we stopped apologising. It might only be an expression of politeness, but the reality is that the English have nothing to apologise for. We have been too polite for too long. We have spent too long making the best of a bad job. We have been too tolerant of those who are openly contemptuous towards us.

The time has come to assert our own interests in our own country.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, has spoken out against political correctness, in the row over the banning of the wearing of a crucifix by the schoolgirl, Sam Morris.

Miss Morris, 16, who has worn a necklace with a crucifix to school for the past 3 years, was suddenly told to remove it and was sent home when she refused. The crucifix allegedly broke the school’s jewellery policy.

Miss Morris has since resumed her school attendance - minus the crucifix.

However, the Sinfin Community School in Derby, does allow Sikhs to wear a religious bangle to school.

Also, despite the growing problems of a knife culture, Sikhs have a special exemption from the 1996 Offensive Weapons Act regarding the kirpan, a six inch long sword, which they are forbidden to use in anger, but can use in self-defence.

Miss Morris’s mother said:

‘Sam has worn this necklace for more than three years. No one has told her to take it off before, and she doesn’t want to remove it. She thinks it is very unfair when other people are allowed to wear religious symbols. It just ends up creating a divide between pupils.

Everyone is being told that they should be living in unity, but this rule is not right. Sam has just as much right to celebrate her own religion.’

The deputy headmaster who sent Miss Morris home said:

‘We are very comfortable with our policy and believe we are being even-handed and fair. Most of our pupils understand allowing Sikhs to wear a bracelet is a compulsory part of their religion. That is why we give them dispensation to do it.

Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbol, and Samantha was excluded because she refused to remove her necklace.’

However, Dr Carey dismissed the prevention of a schoolgirl from wearing a crucifix as ‘nonsense’ and said:

‘It may represent a worrying hostility towards Christianity and all religions by a minority of people in leadership.’

Dr Carey continued:

‘It is sad when a child is banned from a school because she wears a crucifix, and it’s called a piece of jewellery. What nonsense. We must avoid the kind of political correctness which is creeping in and undermining, it seems to me, the public expression of the Christian faith.’

Dr Carey further pointed out that there were:

‘[Those] who want to privatise religion, push it to the boundaries, not allow in a voice in the public arena and go the way of France. I think that would be a retrograde step and it would not be the Britain I know ... If you take the Christian faith out of British identity what have you got left?

Now that is not to say you can’t be British and Jewish, or British and Muslim, but we are talking about British identity. The majority of the people of this land identify themselves by a common language, by common culture and all these things matter, and also by the Christian faith itself.’

What Dr Carey says is of course true. But that is why the politically correct are so hostile to Christianity - because they wish to destroy British culture and the concept British identity.

LINKS

Please note that there have been 3 extra links added. One is the Workers of England website. This is a new union to represent people living in England. The union is not affiliated to any political party or movement.

The second link is to the Northwing website, which is also campaigning against political correctness etc.

The third link is to the new Action in England website, which contains a whole host of stirring stuff.

THE EU

Tony Blair’s recent generosity with English taxpayer’s money has been insufficient for our EU ‘partners’. They have demanded more.

Despite offering to forego £1billion a year of Britain’s rebate, and a further offer to increase Britain’s contribution by another £1billion a year for the years 2007 to 2013, Britain was still savaged by other EU countries including the new members from eastern Europe.

Mr Blair’s generosity with our money also comes just after, for the eleventh year running, the EU auditors have refused to approve the EU’s ‘accounts’ due to the scale of ongoing fraud and mismanagement.

Mr Blair has not won any concessions from the French and their allies regarding the Common Agricultural Policy [CAP]. The CAP remains completely unscathed in the present rounds of negotiations.

The demands that Britain’s rebate is completely phased out remain un-placated.

This is another failure in the policy of appeasement, and another failure for Britain’s effete Foreign Office. It was the French demands, in the wake of the failed French referendum, which started off the attack on Britain’s rebate. President Chirac was determined to draw attention away from his own failure and unpopularity.

Instead of rejecting those attacks out of hand, Labour has tried to negotiate the orderly surrender of the British rebate. That policy is a failure, and in all likelihood Labour will make yet further concessions of offers of more English money to the EU.

This once again highlights that the only course open to the UK, given the considerable differences between the interests of the UK and the demands being placed upon us by the EU, is to leave. And the sooner the better.

ANGLO SAXON MYTHOLOGY

The English Rights Campaign has recently received an email, a copy of which is below and which is self-explanatory:

‘Hi,
My name is Baz and I am an archaeologist based in Australia.
Doubtlessly you will be aware of the great Anglo Saxon cultural treasure that is the poem Beowulf - a great epic about a heroic ancestor of the North Seas peoples.
Currently a film is being made in America which will see Beowulf cast as an 'African'. The film is literally riddled with historical nonsense.
In my country misrepresenting another culture contravenes relevant race/religion laws and we are fighting it on that basis. Academics, cultural groups, Odinists and individuals from around the world are expressing their outrage and since it is a relatively small scale production we believe that a decent amount of letters to the sponsors may just halt production.
If this film goes ahead it sets a precedent that our culture and heritage is 'up for grabs'.......so act now before we see Will Smith accepting an Oscar for his portrayal of Richard Lionheart's amazing victory against the Luftwaffe at Waterloo! (Or similar such nonsense)
Information is at:
www.princeofthelies.blogspot.com

Please feel free to spread the word - we need 'all hands on deck' for this one!
Be well and Prosper!
Baz’

THE PAREKH REPORT [7]

‘1.2 The interacting forces and trends of the present include devolution, and consequent questions about English, Scottish and Welsh identities; globalisation in a wide range of spheres, including economic, political and cultural; changes in Britain’s sense of itself as a world power; cultural and moral pluralism, especially in views of gender relations, sexuality and the structures of families and households; and - the principal subject matter of this report - the recognition that England, Scotland and Wales are multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multicultural, multi-community societies.

1.3 Each of these changes involves dislocations in the way people see themselves and in how they see the territorial, political and cultural space - “Britain” - where they meet, and where they seek to build a common life. What will emerge? Possibly, and deplorably, a Britain where people are divided and fragmented among the three separate countries and among regions, cities and boroughs, and where there is hostility, suspicion and wasteful competition - the politics of resentment. The prevailing mood could turn out to be one of aloofness and apathy towards other European countries, and disinclination to be involved on the world stage - for example, in action to protect the global environment or international human rights. There could be profound divisions by culture, religion and history, with no joint deliberation among people of different religious or philosophical beliefs, or among people with different perceptions and collective memories of the past. There could be a punitive and impatient attitude towards the poor. There could be widespread intolerance of numerical minorities of many kinds, including communities with roots in Africa, Bangladesh, the Caribbean, Cyprus, Hong Kong, India, Ireland and Pakistan, and of Gypsies, travellers and asylum-seekers. A Little Englander mentality, and its equivalents in Wales and Scotland, could hold sway.

1.4 Alternatively, Britain could develop as what this report calls a community of communities.’

And:

‘1.5 The forging and nurturing of such a society involves, at the outset, reinterpreting the past.’

From the outset, the Parekh Report advocates a multi-everything society, and that it is opposed to an English parliament, with its condemnation of Britain potentially being ‘fragmented among the three separate countries’.

Given that the Scots and Welsh have had power devolved down towards their own parliament/assembly, then there is no reason why the English should be denied their own autonomy. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, in particular, has continued to voice hostility towards an English parliament:

‘I see [Britishness] as subversive of all nationalisms and fundamentalisms ... The transformations I embrace are not those of devolution ... [which has] relegated black Britons to second class status ... I embrace quite a different vision which cannot survive in these smaller stronger nations, not even if a powerful and popular civic bond is promoted by political leaders ... Politically active black and Asian people like myself have spent years fighting against shrinking and simplistic identities which many in our communities are drawn to ... And yes there are the restive English (remember Defoe who said “From this amphibious ill born mob began, that vain, ill-natured thing, the Englishman”) on whose lands most of us live.’

More recently she has written that:

‘Britain could carry on becoming a modern, confident internationalist nation or a sadly balkanised one, progressive hopes turned to ash.’

Alibhai-Brown all too well recognises and is fearful that the creation of an English parliament would be a bulwark against the politically correct, neo-communist agenda.

The Parekh Report caricatures a false choice between a ‘Little Englander mentality’ and ‘a community of communities’. In fact the outcome has been neither, but 7/7.

The term ‘reinterpreting the past’ is simply a more ascetic way of advocating the re-writing history. The whole thrust is one of thought control. That the English are too prejudiced to be allowed to think for themselves or allowed their own freedom.

Once again, the report’s aim is to tell the public what they may or may not do and think.

This is the true nature of political correctness. It is about the subversion of the national culture and the implementation of thought control as a means of undermining and controlling society.

THE LOONY LEFT

Isambard Kingdom Brunel may have been one of this country’s greatest engineers and a genius, but his penchant for cigars has fallen foul of the politically correct.

Heinemann, the publishers of a 32 page book, The Life of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, aimed at young schoolchildren, has had Brunel’s cigar airbrushed out of a picture of the great man. The original photograph shows him with a cigar firmly clenched in his mouth. The airbrushed version does not.

The English Rights Campaign is unaware of young schoolchildren, 5-7 year olds, taking up cigar smoking.

This episode demonstrates the extent of the intolerance of the politically correct.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The Avon and Somerset Constabulary has this past year rejected 189 applications to join the police for no other reason than the applicants were white. The police force has complained that English males are ‘over represented’.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has pointed out that other police forces are also adopted similar policies of anti-English discrimination.

The police are trying to reach a target of ethnic minorities accounting for 7% of the personnel by 2009. Currently ethnic minorities account for 4.6%.

In Avon and Somerset, although 189 English males were rejected [because they were white], every ethnic minority, female or disabled applicant was processed on to the next stage. The force described this as ‘positive action’ and defended itself by saying that 40% of the applicants interviewed were English males.

Paul Hazel, who is in charge of personnel training at the Avon and Somerset police, said:

‘The majority of those deselected were white men because the force is over represented by white men. We are always trying to improve our record in the area of diversity and will continue to try to more accurately reflect the cultural diversity of all our communities and meet the objectives set by the Home Office.’

Meanwhile, in London English men are having to wait 3 years before they might be able to join the police. This is because Sir Ian Blair is trying to reach a target of ethnic minorities accounting for 25% of the London police.

This pursuit of race quotas is what is meant by those who talk about equality.

Positive discrimination is supposed to be illegal. Positive discrimination is anti-English discrimination. It means that the English are treated as second class citizens in their own country.

But as we know, with socialists and communists, some people are more equal than others.