QUOTE OF THE MONTH [bonus]

‘Which brings us to the European Union.

The EU tried to use 9/11 for a massive power grab over immigration, the creation of a European public prosecutor, the European arrest warrant, expansion of Europol, the introduction of corpus juris, the abolition of common law rights against the power of the state, and introduction of a new and unheard category of ‘crimes against the Union’.

A beneficial crisis if ever there was one. As one British lib-dim put it “bin Laden has done more for European integration than anyone since Jacques Delors”.

Five years later, and the French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy proposes that all member states’ national governments should surrender to Brussels their few remaining powers to make decisions on asylum seekers.

The EU’s enthusiasm for mass migration is undimmed. In July the Commission announced with some pomp that it had decided to create a “common response” to the “common challenge” on immigration. It said it was committed to ensuring that “the fundamental rights of migrants and refugees are respected and that migrants in host countries are able to benefit from a mutual process of adaptation and integration”.

Bullshit. What about the rights of those of us expected to put up with all this nonsense? In any case, I don’t recall ever being asked if I approved of all this.

Were you?’

Ashley Mote MEP, speaking at a recent conference entitled The Making and Meaning of Britishness, organised by the Right Now magazine.

The full speech is below:

We Want Our Country Back

By Ashley Mote MEP

Independent, South-East England

We want our country back.

But is anybody listening?

Since Blair came to power, more than one million foreigners have come to live in the UK, despite applications for asylum going down.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been invaded – and we have let it happen.

Britain is now experiencing a form of collective madness. Could we ever have imagined we would hear a minister of the crown – in this case Ruth Kelly – saying in all seriousness that women wearing the veil should be seen more on television, presumably reading the news.

Then, within days, we hear from another member of our dyslexic, dysfunctional, disorganised, disgraceful, nauseating cabinet – Jack Straw, our previously invisible foreign secretary – that Muslim women should take their veils off.

Is it any wonder this country is in such a mess over immigration – multiculturalism – tolerance – national identity and supposed integration? No-one in government is prepared to face up to the facts….no-one since 40-odd years ago, when these problems began.

Great Britain is unrecognisable from 40 years ago. Look at any film made before – say – 1965 and the differences are stark, horrifying, and entirely for the worse.

What started as a trickle of immigrants from the West Indies has become a flood tide from virtually the whole world.

Yes, many thousands of newcomers have contributed to our society – integrated – spawned children born British - become British themselves. Most came here speaking English with at least some idea of the anglo-saxon way of doing things.

But not any more. The EU has seen to that.

You don’t need me to dwell on the consequences. In recent years…

- We have been importing crime, disease and poverty as well as skills and talent.

- More than one in ten criminals in our jails were born elsewhere

- Tens of thousands more in our prisons were born in the UK to migrants (a fact conveniently forgotten by the Home Office when it finally got around to releasing the figures.)

We endure…

- Severe overcrowding in our towns and cities, in our schools and hospitals, on the roads

- Appallingly poor education for tens of thousands of children

- Vicious gangs of youth on the street

- Hospitals logged-jammed with imported long-term illnesses – specially Aids and TB

- Huge additional burdens on public services and the welfare state

- Housing shortages

- Depressed wages at the bottom end of the market

And…

- Our natural resources running out – particularly water and power, and particularly in the south-east.

In a phrase – Britain Is Full

In fact, we were full long ago. Some demographers have suggested the ideal sustainable population of the UK is some 30 million – a figure passed almost 100 years ago.

Just imagine if every other car on the roads suddenly disappeared…every other passer-by wasn’t there.

Alternatively, just imagine the uproar when we all have to queue at standpipes in the road just to get a cup of tea or a shower. Only last week Londoners were advised to move out to reduce demand for resources, they are already so serious.

But we know all that…

My focus today is on the recent devastating problem to emerge from this flood tide of immigration – the link between Islam and terrorism.

I want to look at its impact on the UK. Mr Blair and his wimps won’t face it. David Cameron has been distinctly quiet on it – surprise, surprise! So its up to us, ordinary people who care about preserving all that is best in Britain, to grasp the nettle.

Let’s start with a few facts…and we have to start with Islam

I am not going to generalise about Muslims, of course not. Most are peaceable, hard-working contributors to society. No, I am talking about the fact that – within their midst – there is a hard core of revolutionaries who are anything but peaceable contributors to society.

They have mounted a war against our country. Enemy guerrillas are operating within our gates.

And we are not facing a war against terror. This is a war of religion. We are back to the dark ages. We are being obliged to defend ourselves against alien beliefs and ideas that others want to impose on us. They claim a God-given right to enforce their beliefs on us by mass murder.

Where we use secular government, and freedom of thought, as pillars supporting a peaceable society, Islamists claim law and government are exclusively in the hands of God. More precisely that means fallible human beings who presume to act for God – or Allah, as they prefer.

Such claims are utterly absurd to a rational western mind. Such beliefs cannot reasonably be discussed with anyone.

But, even the threat such fanatics represent is destabilising our society here and in other parts of the world, precisely because they are fanatics and regard death in their cause as glorious.

Just look at their record:

Since the turn of the century they have murdered some 3000 innocent people in New York…200 innocent tourists in Bali…333 children and their teachers in Beslan,…292 people, mainly Africans, in two US embassies…300 French and American peacekeepers in Lebanon…52 innocent travellers in London, 191 in Madrid…and 200 in Bombay.

Then there’s the half a million killed in Darfur, the 4000 Katyusha rockets fired into northern Israel, ritual be-headings of hostages in Iraq, of monks in Thailand and Christian girls in Indonesia.

Muslims stone their own women-folk to death without the slightest pretence of administering what might be regarded as even basic justice.

They hurl the foulest of insults at Jews and vow to wipe Israel off the map, if possible with nuclear weapons.

The list is awesome. Since 9/11, Muslim fanatics have slaughtered over 26,000 people, and wounded over 50,000 more in nearly 6000 separate attacks in more than 50 countries.

Then, when the Pope refers to an old text pointing out the murderous habits of Islam he finds himself vilified to the point that his office issues an apology. Pathetic.

Some may say I’m over-stating the link with terrorism. But am I? It wasn’t a bunch of Scottish rugby players who flew into the twin towers. It wasn’t a Welsh choir who blew up the London tube stations. It wasn’t Irish navvies – nor, for that matter, Spanish farmers - who detonated the train in Madrid.

It wasn’t Hindus or Sikhs, or the Japanese either.

So when the self-appointed, self-important secretary general of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, as these busy-bodies choose to call themselves, Muhammad Abdul Bari next complains about what he calls “Islamophobia”, he needs to remember these incontrovertible facts.

He also needs to explain why he can say in almost the same breath that Britain is the best place to practise the Islamic faith, and then claim that there are potentially two million home-grown Muslim terrorists in the UK.

Inflammatory, yes, but not as inflammatory as his colleague Abu Bashir, who boasts that Allah has decreed Islam as the only religion allowed on earth. Mr Bashir says immigration is a revival of jihad and Muslim power over infidels. “Islam and jihad go together. One is the consequence of the other.”

He also told Al Jazeera television that “there is no democracy in Islam. Democracy must be replaced by allah-cracy. We want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the book but enforced.”

Col. Gaddafi agrees with him. He told the same network that “Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe. There are 50 million Muslims in Europe already. They will turn it into a Muslim continent within three decades.”

Meanwhile, back in London, Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations in the UK, has been calling for Islamic law to cover family affairs. Even Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, managed to point out that we have one legal system here and told Dr Pasha “if you want sharia law, live somewhere else.” The Muslim socialist peer Lord Ahmed agreed with him.

All of which makes the calls for moderation from the Muslim Council all the more unbelievable. We have yet to hear the two supporting statements needed to make these appeals credible.

First, that the Muslim community in the UK recognises that the problem is centred on their young impressionable men, and the imams who teach them…and that they will root them out quickly and with vigour. We can’t – they must.

Secondly, that Muslims are here as immigrants, come here to become a part of British society, and not as colonists to impose their way of life on us.

Mr Bari needs to stop encouraging Muslims not to vote in UK elections. He needs to stop claiming that the Muslim Council of Great Britain is their real government. He needs, perhaps, to remember that most Muslims would just like to lead a quiet life in a peaceful environment.

The BBC needs to stop giving air time to Muslim fanatics who rant on for 12 minutes demanding free speech for themselves but not for anyone else, who advocate mass murder and claim a monopoly of so-called religious insight. (Contrast that with the BBC’s omitting to mention in any news broadcast that net immigration had jumped by 50 per cent in the last year.)

When you add such isolationist attitudes to the terrorism issue, there is only one possible conclusion, and we have to say it out loud: Islam is the problem. We have to ask if there can ever be such a person as a British Muslim?

Perhaps we should remind these advocates of death and destruction, and the moderates who protect them, that a truly revolutionary Muslim would be one who sought to change these Islamic attitudes and beliefs. Little hope of that.

If things go on as they are, eventually we will face what effectively will be civil war – at least to the extent that the indigenous population will forcibly try to remove significant elements within the immigrant population

It might start with simple, lawful objectives like trying to remove and repatriate people who have overstayed, committed criminal offences, incited violence and so on. But it could spark a reaction which escalates all too quickly to urban warfare.

So we had better say it now – if you wish to establish Islamic law in the UK, our answer is – No you cannot. Furthermore, you have no place here. You are not welcome. Go and live where your life-style and religious beliefs are accepted.

There are good, long-standing reasons why we should make our reaction plain.

Enoch forecast trouble – others have said much the same.

Winston Churchill said “The influence of Islam ultimately paralyses the social development of those that follow it”.

Mrs Thatcher said – quite recently in Washington: “Stand firm against Islamist fanatics who hate our beliefs, our liberties and our citizens. We must not falter. We must not fail. We also need to renew our resolve that – however bitter or lengthy the struggle - this evil will not prevail”.

They were both right.

The only way a people retain control of their territory is by occupation. Allowing foreigners to take it over is tantamount to treason – which is probably why Blair quietly abolished the death penalty for treason.

Self-preservation is the most fundamental of human instincts. That, and a deep-seated desire to live in a group with common values, and a willingness to fight for its protection. Conflict over territory is nothing new. History suggests it is the norm.

Look a little deeper and you’ll find there is also good genetic justification for the parallel existence of distinct groups – protection of the species, survival of the fittest, hybrid vigour. Particularly in the case of humans, we can also add the development of the intellect.

As a racial type, for instance, we know that the Chinese are cleverer than Africans – indeed cleverer than most of us. HG Wells forecast where that eventually leads.

Which is why man has never tolerated large numbers of outsiders for long. Past experience suggests a state of neutral uncertainty is about the best that might emerge eventually. But not if one group attempts to overwhelm the other – which is what we have now, here in Britain.

The rapid creation of new countries from heterogeneous peoples by legal means is impossible. The communists in Russia discovered that, and right now the European Union is also discovering it.

As ever, it is ordinary people who suffer the upheaval and damaging consequences until these ill-founded experiments fail.

We are not impartial beings. We have strong natural tendencies to protect what is ours. Eventually instincts of survival overcome almost all challenges, however powerful and however apparently lawful.

At present we have left-wing busy-bodies trying to encourage massive migration from poor countries to the wealthy. But these busy-bodies have other, unspoken objectives – a dilution of national identities and the beginnings of a world super-state which the bureaucrats will dominate and from which there will be no escape.

That is why this current battle to preserve our country and our identity is crucial. Our only claim to the British Isles is that we are here. Our forebears settled and developed it. We now control it – at least for the moment – and we must defend it or lose it.

Such nationalism, in the best sense of the word, is not necessarily aggressive towards others. For established communities it should be essentially defensive. (Yes I know Iraq and Afghanistan embarrass that statement, but they are another issue and I don’t have time to deal with it today.)

What I am saying is that the nation is a natural unit for stability, and must be defended with courage and at all costs – whatever they may be.

Imposing our moral or cultural values on others is, or should be, unnecessary. But defending them from attack by hostile groups or individuals is essential.

That is the situation today. Even the same Trevor Philips admitted in July that immigration is changing the nation and is fundamentally different from all previous migrations to these islands.

Yet, never, ever, has any government included such fundamental change as part of its election manifesto. And never yet have we had a serious balanced debate in this country about the desirability or otherwise of immigration. The Refugee Council, the legion of lawyers making a good living from human rights for migrants, and politically correct do-gooders just shout “racist”. Rather than participate, their purpose is to prevent a serious discussion, and most of the time they succeed.

Meanwhile, our children are to be taught about “secure values and beliefs”, according to the new curriculum. Communism was a secure value. Homicidal Islam is a secure belief. Are we really so stupid as to encourage such nonsense in our own kith and kin?

What happened to teaching the differences between right and wrong, I ask?

We may be a free, open and liberal society, but that is no reason to allow our openness to be used to enforce illiberal practices. Quite the reverse. We have an absolute right to expect the active support for our way of life from those who choose to come and live here. We have an absolute right to expect them to defend what attracted them in the first place.

If, as we are told, the Muslim population makes up less than three per cent of the total, there is no way it can be allowed to hold a moral or actual gun to the head of the majority, still less attempt by moral outrage to veto government policy.

Which brings us to the European Union.

The EU tried to use 9/11 for a massive power grab over immigration, the creation of a European public prosecutor, the European arrest warrant, expansion of Europol, the introduction of corpus juris, the abolition of common law rights against the power of the state, and introduction of a new and unheard category of ‘crimes against the Union’.

A beneficial crisis if ever there was one. As one British lib-dim put it “bin Laden has done more for European integration than anyone since Jacques Delors”.

Five years later, and the French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy proposes that all member states’ national governments should surrender to Brussels their few remaining powers to make decisions on asylum seekers.

The EU’s enthusiasm for mass migration is undimmed. In July the Commission announced with some pomp that it had decided to create a “common response” to the “common challenge” on immigration. It said it was committed to ensuring that “the fundamental rights of migrants and refugees are respected and that migrants in host countries are able to benefit from a mutual process of adaptation and integration”.

Bullshit. What about the rights of those of us expected to put up with all this nonsense? In any case, I don’t recall ever being asked if I approved of all this.

Were you?

None of which prevented a recent parliamentary report arguing for “policies of welcome and integration…and secure citizenship, social and political rights for migrants throughout the Union”.

On the other hand, an attempt to persuade the Commission that “the mass regularisation of illegal immigrants is not a solution” and that “relaxing rules on immigration has a knock-on effect” were voted down by the centre right and socialist MEPs.

The EU’s own directive on migration allows all citizens of all member states to live and work anywhere they choose. Since enlargement less than two years ago parts of Eastern Europe have become empty quarters like that of Saudi Arabia – but for different reasons. Everybody has moved west – well, over 1.5 million have so far.

Indeed, the EU actively encouraged it, by – for example – limiting farm subsidies in Poland and rationalising Polish industry – both of which immediately put large numbers of Poles out of work.

Now, barely two years later, adverts in Polish and Lithuanian are appearing in British local papers begging their nationals to return home, the need for workers there has become so urgent. The Polish government is even releasing criminals early from jail because there are so many job vacancies.

Yet here local councils all over the country are struggling to find more money just to cope with housing, education and welfare demands for the latest influx from Eastern Europe. Others are paying migrants to go home.

None of which stopped our new minister for Europe, Geoff Hoon, from suggesting that immigration was a problem solved only at the European level.

Presumably he had not forgotten Bulgaria and Rumania when he said that. Tsar Kiro, leader of the 400,000-strong gypsy community in Bulgaria boasted recently that, once the borders are open next year, the huge Bulgaria problems of crime and corruption will be exported to the EU.

When this boast was put to the Commission by my colleague Robert Kilroy-Silk, the Commission replied that it was ‘monitoring developments’. So that’s all right then.

Robert also asked for the Commission to respond to the Turkish president’s recent claim that Islamic fundamentalism is reaching what he called ‘dramatic proportions’. So far he has not had a reply.

Given what happened after enlargement – when our government under-estimated migrants by some 3000 per cent – what are we to make of present estimates of over half a million Bulgarians and Rumanians planning to come here next year?

With average family earnings there of some £100 a month is it any surprise many thousands have secured passports already, and long queues form every day in the capital Sofia for passports and visas.

In next door Moldova and Macedonia another half a million people have already got Bulgarian passports so that they can migrate too. These ‘portable’ passports are freely available for less than £100, no questions asked. Rumania and Bulgaria might be the countries joining the EU, but Moldova and Macedonia will arrive at the same time via the back door.

And in the teeth of all this evidence, the British government announced earlier this month that it was planning to lift restrictions on numbers allowed in from the new member states.

So what else is the government’s response to all this? Stop wearing the veil!

The words Nero, Rome and burning spring to mind.

John Reid, the Home Secretary, in his quest to become prime minister, quietly disbands his hunt for released prisoners who should have been deported.

He announces, instead, that exit controls will be introduced by 2014…by which time the UK will have sunk under its own weight into the North Sea…and – in any case – the problem is not who leaves but who arrives.

Everywhere you look you see hopelessly inadequate responses by officialdom to real problems.

- Foreign criminals being paid to agree to serve their sentences at home

- Immigration Appeals Tribunals fiddle the books and their decisions.

- Migrants from Eastern Europe claiming child benefits for children they left behind.

- The head of the Church of England is obliged by political correctness pressures to allow Ramadan to be “celebrated” – if that is the right word – in Windsor Castle.

- Wounded soldiers back in British hospitals are attacked by Muslim visitors to the same wards

- Illegal migrants are allowed to work on the land by describing themselves as agricultural students.

- Schools that turned down local children are forced to find places for migrants who’ve just arrived

- Muslim chemists refuse medicine to British patients on religious grounds

- Villains use women’s veils to escape from police

- Imams buy houses while claiming benefit and legal aid

- Unskilled British workers are unable to find work at a fair hourly rate, despite their financial obligations, because the jobs have gone to migrants at rates often well below the minimum wage. (Now why would a Labour government allow that – it makes no sense.)

- British schoolchildren are unable to find work in the summer holidays for much the same reasons.

- Migrants are eligible for tax credits in the UK based on much lower previous earnings in their country of origin. This deprives the British exchequer of revenue properly due.

Then we come to some of the other facts and consequences.

Far more rapid population growth amongst migrants than indigenous people, according to reports from areas with high migrant populations.

According to Business magazine, a real out-of-work population of over five million, more than three times the official figure. This suggests either widespread abuse of the benefits system, massive government incompetence, or official deceit.

Some 12 per cent of children in British primary schools not speaking English as their mother tongue.

So what’s to be done? Some 75 per cent of the British, including those who migrated here originally, want much tougher controls. It will not be easy, but it has to be done. And if not now, when?

But however tough we need and want to be, that can’t happen until we leave the EU.

Then we can follow the example of the Australian government which has told migrants that they should leave if they cannot accept that Australia is a secular state and that all its laws are made by its elected parliament.

The education minister Brendon Nelson told Muslims who will not accept local values that they should “clear off.”. Another minister, Peter Costello, told reporters “Immigrants, not Australians, must adapt. Take it or leave it. This is our country, our land and our lifestyle. Take advantage of one other of our great Australian freedoms – the right to leave”.

I am never going to lead a great political party – but I have a few ideas about how we need to change things – and soon.

Restore our border controls.

No amnesty for illegals. Out. And out now.

Same with convicted criminals. And their families.

Encourage lawful migrants to return home

Overstays deported. New applications from outside the UK

All arrivals without papers or proper documents returned to their last place of safety.

No access to the benefits system. New arrivals must bring assets to support themselves.

Citizenship should be open to applicants who can demonstrate a real knowledge of British history, culture and traditions, and speak the language well.

English is our language. No translations provided by official sources with public money.

Abolish quangos dealing with racial issues.

Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is an EU invention and meaningless, and the Blair government’s statutes which weakened or destroyed our constitutional birthrights.

Abolish employment targets for minorities. Merit should be the reason for offering an applicant a job.

Restore the teaching of British constitutional history in schools.

Restore links with the British Commonwealth and restore the right of kith and kin to return to the UK.

Re-establish the difference between migration and genuine pleas for asylum.

That’s not an exhaustive list, but it is a start.

Such a policy is not isolationism, nor racism – whatever that is. It is realism.

Nor are we alone. We sometimes forget the French feel much the same about the invasion of their country. So do many Dutch, Danes, Swedes and others – even the Germans.

The Swiss control their borders, so do the Japanese, the Australians…and the Saudis, lets not forget!

So should we.

The British are an outward-looking people, happy to befriend our neighbours.

London is one of the great cities of the world, happy to welcome visitors from all parts of the globe.

Britain is a global trading nation, happy to do business with all.

But we are British…and that’s the way it should remain.

That means being masters in our own house.

(ends)

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Below is a copy of a press release issued today by the English Constitutional Convention:


SCOTTISH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CHAIRMAN
TO CALL FOR A “STRONG ENGLISH PARLIAMENT”
AT INAUGURAL MEETING OF PATRONS OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

“I have become convinced that England has a growing sense of national identity as strong as ours, and therefore that an English Parliament, if the people want it, is as much your right as we claimed it to be ours.”

Canon Dr Kenyon Wright, CBE, the former Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that paved the way for devolution in Scotland, will call for a ‘strong English Parliament’ to be established, ‘alongside the Scottish Parliament and a strengthened Welsh legislature – all equal parts of a reformed and healthier UK’, when he addresses the inaugural meeting of the Patrons of the English Constitutional Convention at 4pm on Tuesday October 24, 2006, in the Strangers’ Dining Room, House of Commons, Westminster. The English Constitutional Convention has been established jointly by the English Democrats Party and the Campaign for an English Parliament.

Canon Wright, formerly an active campaigner for the regionalisation of England, will declare that he now believes only the establishment of a Parliament for England will answer “the so-called West Lothian Question”. He will describe the current constitutional settlement as “undemocratic nonsense” and argue that simply banning Scottish MPs from voting in the Commons on English legislation will “create more problems than it solves”.

Canon Wright will say: " Two things have changed my personal view. First, it is now clear after the North East Referendum, that regional government is a non-starter in the foreseeable future, and we cannot wait for further change. Second, I have become convinced that England has a growing sense of national identity as strong as ours, and therefore that an English Parliament, if the people want it, is as much your right as we claimed it to be ours. Could the ‘Claim of Right for Scotland’ with which we began our work be followed now by a ‘Claim of Right for England’?”

Canon Wright will also state that, “the initiative must come from the people, not just the official political structures. In this context I commend to you the recent Report of the POWER Inquiry (chaired by Helena Kennedy). It brings out the growing disengagement with formal politics, and makes 30 important recommendations for change. It concludes with this statement: ‘An alliance for change needs to be built amongst the most clear sighted (politicians) but only a sustained campaign for change from OUTSIDE the democratic assemblies and parliaments of the UK will ensure that meaningful reform occurs. We, the people, have to stake our claim on power.’ That is what the Scottish Convention did. I believe it is what you will do.”

At the meeting Mark Gill, Head of Political Research at MORI, will also set out the results of a recent opinion poll that indicates 41 per cent of voters support ‘England as a whole to have it own national Parliament with similar law-making powers to the Scottish Parliament’.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, will set out the reasons for establishing an English Constitutional Convention: “2007 will mark 300 years since England’s parliament was abolished and 10 years since devolution for Scotland and Wales was agreed. During the referendums that preceded devolution in Scotland and Wales the people of England were promised a debate by our political masters about the future of its governance, yet for a decade they have declined to enter into such a debate. Now we are starting the process”.

Other Patrons who have lent their support to the Convention and are likely to attend the inaugural meeting include: Lord Hylton; the Earl of Mar and Kellie; Lord Beaumont of Whitley; Lord Stoddart of Swindon; Professor Roger Scruton; Air Vice Marshall George Lamb; Dr Vernon Colman; Dr Simon Lee; Professor Christopher Bryant; Professor Jeremy Dibble; Professor Hugo de Burgh (Head of Journalism, University of Westminster); Andy Smith (Director, Otterson Smith Gordon); Reverend Richard Martin; Jervis Kay QC; Bishop Michael Reid (Penial Church); Iain Dale; Neil Addison (Barrister); and Roy Faires (Editor, This England).

ENDS

For further information contact: Martin Minns 07710 073 866
wpress@globalnet.co.uk

THE BBC

Below is a copy of an article which appeared in the Evening Standard:

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News
21.10.06

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.'

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘The gaps in the labour market are, very naturally, being filled by migrant workers. That, in itself, is a good thing, not a bad thing.

We should not try to unlock the potential of our own citizens by locking out the citizens of other countries. When willing, able and energetic people come to this country to work, they don’t crowd out other people from the labour market.’

Dave Cameron speaking today in Edinburgh.

Mass immigration is a bad thing. The policy of mass immigration is a cruel and wicked policy. It is and is intended to cause harm to our country.

We should ‘try to unlock the potential of our own citizens’ by keeping out unwanted and unneeded immigrants. That is exactly what we should be doing.

Foreigners have their own countries.

England exists for the benefit of the English. This is our country. It is not some international dumping ground.

Dave’s comments are economically fatuous. Mass immigration drives down wages and living standards as it must. The laws of supply and demand are not subject to Tory expediency.

Those who have had contact with the real world will be well aware of how mass immigration is causing unemployment amongst the English.

The above quote demonstrates that those who wish to stop mass immigration can be in no doubt that voting Tory is out of the question.

The English Democrats are the only responsible party who are committed to bringing a complete end to mass immigration.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

A 14-year old schoolgirl was arrested by the police, questioned and held for 6 hours after allegedly making a racist remark in the classroom.

The incident occurred during a science tutorial at the Harrop Fold High School in Salford.

The girl, Codie Scott, has been released without charge.

Miss Scott had been unable to attend school the previous day to the alleged incident due to a hospital appointment, which meant that she had missed the start of a project. The teacher had therefore allotted her to a group of others to sit with. This group consisted of 5 Asians, only one of whom could speak English.

The alleged racist remark was a request by Miss Scott to be allowed to join a group who spoke English. Her mother said:

‘She asked to be taken out of her group because the other 5 students were Asians and 4 didn’t speak English so there was no point in her being with them. When she pointed this out to the teacher she was accused of being racist.’

Miss Scott said:

‘I had to sit there with 5 Asian pupils. Only one could speak English, so [the teacher] had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then [the teacher] sat me with them and said, “Discuss”.’

The Asians started talking in what is believed to be Urdu. So Miss Scott approached the teacher:

‘I said “I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?” But she started shouting and screaming, saying, “It’s racist! You’re going to get done by the police”.’

The schoolgirl was then escorted out of the classroom and spent the rest of the day in isolation, before being arrested by the police a week later.

The school is currently considering what further disciplinary action to take. The headmaster, Dr Antony Edkins, said:

‘An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a student towards a group of Asian students new to the school and new to the country.

We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form.'

IMMIGRATION

Jack Straw has caused some controversy with his comments that he has asked those Muslim women who wear veils to remove them when meeting him at his constituency surgeries. He has said that he feels ‘uncomfortable’ speaking to someone whose face he cannot see.

He has further criticised the practice of being a ‘visible statement of separation and difference’.

Jack Straw has previously been noted for his political correctness, most recently in his condemnation of the Danish cartoonists and his refusal to condemn the Muslim protests outside the Danish embassy.

Mr Straw has been criticised by the usual suspects and also the Liberal Democrats and senior Tories too. Oliver Letwin, the Tory policy director, said that it would be ‘a dangerous doctrine’ to start telling people how to dress. Sayeeda Warsi, a Tory vice chairman, said:

‘It’s not long ago in this country that white, middle-aged men were telling us how long our skirts should be. Now they are telling us how long our veils should be.’

Also the Bishop of Durham has criticised Mr Straw.

Meanwhile, we are told that Labour has changed its stance on immigration. Apparently, Labour has abandoned its purely economic argument for immigration and is to tell a new advisory panel on the issuing of work permits that it must also take the affect of immigration on social services into account. John Reid, the Home Secretary, has said:

‘It isn’t fair, or sensible, if in assessing immigration levels we don’t take into account the effects of immigration on the schools, and hospitals and housing.’

Labour has consistently denied that there was any upper limit on immigration at all.

This momentous policy shift, we are told, occurred ‘in unnoticed remarks to Labour colleagues at his party’s annual conference’.

Oh yeah.

The Labour party conference ended more than 10 days ago. We are told, it would seem, by some unaccredited source, that this fundamental shift in a policy of such importance has happened in some unidentified remarks and it has taken 10 days before anyone realised what had happened.

We are being taken for fools!

A more likely scenario is that some spin doctor is feeding a gullible press spin in order to manipulate the news headlines and make Labour appear responsible on immigration.

Meanwhile, the stories emerging as to the expected tidal wave of immigrants from Rumania and Bulgaria continue to change almost by the day. Either Labour will take those measures necessary to stop this further wave of mass immigration - or they will not.

It has now been revealed, that in addition to the forecast 600,000 Rumanians and Bulgarians who will migrate unless they are stopped, there are in excess of another 300,000 ethnic Rumanians in Moldova who have rushed to get Rumanian passports, who will also be heading our way unless they are stopped. Moldova is not even an EU member.

That is another 1million immigrants! It is known that many tens of thousands of these are criminals and gangsters. Moldova and Bulgaria are particularly affected by organised crime.

We do not need spin. There is no need for Mr Reid to be dropping hints, winking, nudging or putting out spin that he might do something about Labour’s commitment to mass immigration.

The days when the general public took any notice of hints and winks and spin etc on immigration policy or long gone.

Either Mr Reid will stop these 1million immigrants entering this country - or he will not. Labour’s policy is defined by what they DO, not by what unaccredited spin they circulate in the press.

Mr Straw has missed the point in his remarks about veils. It is not that there are a few women who choose to wear veils that is the problem. The problem is that mass immigration is rapidly increasing the growth of the Muslim population and the wearing of veils merely makes the population growth more visible.

It is mass immigration that is the problem.

IMMIGRATION

Below is a copy of the new English Democrats immigration policy which was approved unanimously at their AGM on Saturday:

Policy proposal on immigration

Revised manifesto statement:
We need to change immigration policy so that it better reflects the needs and wishes of the people of England.

There should be a points system for entry to the UK which is based on the Canadian and Australian model. Points should be awarded for, among other things: educational and professional qualification; family links with England; financial resources; the ability to speak English. In other words, entry should be determined by our needs as a society and the ability of newcomers to be absorbed into the prevailing public culture. High priority should be given to creating a peaceful society which is bound together by shared values and perceptions. The wishes, security and interests of the people of England should be the dominant factors in determining asylum and immigration policies for England.

Should there be an economic need for immigration it should be met by the employment of people on fixed term work permits. Our aim should be to meet the need for skilled workers from within. A points system should be used to bring an end to mass immigration and only allow that immigration which is in the national interest. A points system should not be used to facilitate and legitimise a continuation of mass immigration.

International law is not fixed for all time. We should not feel bound by rules that were devised several decades ago when circumstances were very different. Asylum seekers should seek asylum in a state adjoining or nearby the state from which they are fleeing. None of the UK's immediate neighbours are terrorising regimes. The UK should refuse to accept any further asylum seekers and should instead give financial assistance to genuine refugees in their own or neighbouring countries, where such financial assistance will have the greatest beneficial impact. In order to end the mass inflow of asylum seekers into the UK, the UK must withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees.

Our principal concern is to preserve and build on what is left of English cultural unity and social cohesion. The preservation of our identity and culture are at least as important as economic considerations. We do not accept the fallacious but widely publicised economic arguments for mass immigration. For the most part they greatly exaggerate the economic benefits and wholly ignore the economic, social, and cultural costs. The people of England have never voted for nor supported mass immigration. The English Democrats support whatever measures are necessary to bring mass immigration to a complete end. Such measures should include:

• Thorough border controls with all inward and outward movements through ports being logged to provide the best quality information on migration movements.
• Stronger visa requirements for countries with a reputation for illegal movements.
• The deportation of all illegal immigrants. There should be no amnesties. Illegality should not be rewarded by the granting of citizenship. Nor should organised crime rackets be allowed to profit from people smuggling. Discovered illegal immigrants should be offered the choice between cooperatively returning straight home, or being sent to a distant offshore holding centre during the processing of their repatriation case.
• The repeal of the Human Rights Act and the withdrawal of the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights. Both of these flawed items of legislation have perversely assisted criminals while offering little of substance to the law-abiding population.
• Punitive fining and possible withdrawal of trading rights of companies, company directors and other employers who employ illegal immigrants.
• The deportation of all those immigrants who have been convicted of a criminal offence or who are advocates of, or active supporters of, extremist behaviour of a violent, separatist or destabilising nature.
• The strengthening of the customs and immigration services and the vigorous enforcement of the law. The English Democrats recognise that successive Labour and Tory governments have handed over control of immigration to the EU to such an extent that it is impossible to regain proper control of immigration without leaving the EU. The English Democrats firmly support withdrawal from the EU, subject to referendum approval, and will campaign forcefully to that end. Once the UK has left the EU full border controls can be restored.