THE LOONY LEFT

Apparently it is Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month. This has given rise to a reworking of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.

Pupils aged 14 to 16 at Leystonstone School staged a play called Romeo and Julian, a gay version of Shakespeare’s play. In addition to the obvious changes, two of the original characters, Mercutio and Benvolio, were reimagined as women. It would seem that drama teacher, Jo Letson, had re-written the play to challenge ‘homophobia and homophobic bullying’.

Harriet Harman responded to a demand by Philip Davies for a parliamentary debate on political correctness by saying:

‘I seem to remember that in Shakespearean times, boys would play girls and girls would play boys and the whole point was trying to work out which was which. There is going to be a debate next Thursday about new equality legislation so we can ensure everybody in this country is treated with fairness, respect and not subject to prejudice and discrimination - and indeed cheap shots from you.’

Professor Stanley Wells, chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, said:

‘This seems to be another way for pupils and teachers to see meaning in the plays. It is a legitimate exercise to find meanings for modern audiences in the myths and legends of the past - especially if it helps people to understand each other.’

Headmaster, Luke Burton, has described the pupils’ efforts as ‘inspirational’. A school spokesman said:

'The play is just one example of the varied and creative ways schools are tackling issues of prejudice and bullying.’

It is nauseating that the Loony Left pick on children and seek to exploit supposed oppressed minorities for their own ends. They seek to caricature society as prejudiced whereas they are enlightened. In fact, it is they who are prejudiced and the bullies, and they seek to encourage if not impose a hatred of society.

THE LOONY LEFT

The article below speaks for itself:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/014-50228-068-03-11-902-20090223STO50152-2009-09-03-2009/default_en.htm
How has the EU improved gender equality in the past 30 years?
Women’s rights/Equal opportunities - 24-02-2009 - 13:34

Gender equality: where do we stand?

In the last 30 years the European Union has striven to seek gender equality in all aspects of its work. As a result many tangible changes over equal working conditions, discrimination and violence. To date campaigns have been varied and included the help of NGOs and charities.

EP legislation: Equality at work

Since the 1970s the EU has used legislative powers to push for equal pay. MEPs amended equal pay legislation in 1999 and have reviewed it every 2 years from 2002.

In 2006 the number of female managers in the European Union was 32.6%. There was also a rise in the number of women MEPs from 19% in 1979 to 31% in 2009. However, there is still a pay gap. Women in Europe earn on average 15% less than their male counterparts.

Condemning violence against women

It is estimated that around a quarter of all women in Europe have experienced physical acts of violence at least once in their adult lives. The "Daphne Programme", launched in 1997, aims to fund and support projects charged with eradicating violence against women. The programme also supports schemes aimed at safeguarding young people.

The Parliament unites against forced prostitution

In 2006 before the football World Cup, the committee on gender rights and female equality (FEMM) launched the campaign, "Red Card to Forced Prostitution". The scheme has been reused at other sporting events such as the Euro 2008 football championship.

The Chair of Parliament's Women's Rights Committee Anna Záborská (EPP-ED) said, "this so-called 'Red Card to Forced Prostitution' campaign was a great success because it contributed positively towards reducing trafficking and forced prostitution during the championship games."

Creating greater visibility of equality issues

In 2006 the European Institute for Gender Equality was created in Vilnius to promote gender equality, fight against discrimination and analyse and disseminate data on gender equality.

As well as the measures mentioned above, the Parliament also draws attention to specific issues with its own initiative reports from Members which can become valuable tools for raising awareness.

Future issues at the Parliament


* 5 March: There will be a seminar on the position of women and
the European elections.
* Two pieces of legislation being considered: on Maternity and
self-employed workers (Vote in committee April, vote in plenary May)

REF. : 20090223STO50152

HOOD ROBIN

It has now been revealed that many bank executives who have been thwarted in their demands for their bonuses, are now demanding huge wage increases instead. The Royal Bank of Scotland has already increased salaries by no less than 10%!

Shaun Springer, a leading Ciy head-hunter has predicted that basic wages could double over the next few years as bonuses are withdrawn. Someone who had been earning £150,000 with a bonus of ten times that amount might instead have a basic salary of £300,000 and a bonus of two or three times that amount.

Inflation is virtually zero at the moment, and those in the real economy who have lost their jobs because of the bankers will not be receiving any salary at all - never mind an increase.

THE WAR ON TERROR

A variety of so-called human rights lawyers and activists have had a busy time welcoming the admission of Binyam Mohamed into Britain. This Ethiopian Islamist has made allegations that Britain was complicit in his alleged torture while being held at several locations around the world before being moved to Guantanamo Bay.

The taxpayer has had to pay an estimated £250,000 bill for flying this Ethiopian Islamist to Britain in a private plane and security arrangements. No doubt a claim for damages against Britain will soon follow, as has been the case with other supposed British residents released from Guantanamo Bay.

Quite apart from the money-grubbing claims of these extremists and all their lawyers, the attempt to portray the extremists and terrorists as victims, and the British as aggressors must be rejected out of hand.

Binyam Mohamed should not have been jetted into Britain. He is not British and has no right to be here. He was arrested in Pakistan on suspicion of plotting to explode a dirty bomb. He was using a false British passport. He was then detained by the USA.

We should stop apologising and send him back to Ethiopia or Afghanistan if her prefers. He can take all his lawyers with him.

HOOD ROBIN

Below is an article from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-a-sorry-tale-of-scottish-shame-ndash-and-english-tolerance-1623819.html

Dominic Lawson: A sorry tale of Scottish shame – and English tolerance

Gargantuan folly has occurred North of the Border. And who is paying the costs?

Sometimes I wonder if hubris is a Gaelic word, rather than ancient Greek. It seems only yesterday that all of Scotland was in uproar over the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB.


The leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, sought to find ways to block the deal, in an attempt to avoid the humiliating capture by an English firm of a Scottish institution whose incorporation predated the Act of Union. The former bosses of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland attempted to mount a counter-bid, claiming that the English were getting the business on the cheap, with the connivance of the Government in London. Their argument looked ridiculous then – and now it looks positively insane.

As the full horror of HBOS's balance sheet gradually emerges, like the beast from 20,000 fathoms, the proper fury is entirely that of the Lloyds TSB shareholders, who now realise that the deal could end up forcing their own – hitherto perfectly sound and well-managed bank – into nationalisation. Gordon Brown took a lot of credit for the rushed merger – it would never have gone ahead if he had not personally guaranteed Lloyds TSB's chairman, Sir Victor Blank, that he would prevent the competition authorities from blocking the deal, as they assuredly would have done in normal circumstances. Now the more cynical among Lloyds TSB shareholders see the deal as a cunning way for a Scottish Prime Minister to get largely English private investors to pay the costs of more gargantuan financial folly from North of the Border.

Gordon Brown can protest in vain that he – and indeed his equally Scottish Chancellor, Alistair Darling – was denounced as "a traitor" by the Scottish Nationalists when he pushed the deal through. It is now his sorry fate to be despised by English and Scots alike. Note, by the way, that there was no such uproar in Scotland when the Westminster Government took a majority stake in RBS, thus saving the other of Edinburgh's banking behemoths from immediate liquidation.

Since over half of the Scottish economy is bankrolled directly by Westminster – amounting to a gigantic subsidy by English taxpayers – this arrangement could be seen as entirely normal, exciting neither outrage nor gratitude. It certainly helps to explain why Alex Salmond, himself a former chief economist of RBS, made no fuss about that particular bail-out. I think we can rule out embarrassment as a factor, although given that Mr Salmond declared a year ago, "The Scottish banks are among the most stable in the world", it would have been the natural human emotion in such circumstances.

Not the least of the ironies of the Caledonian debacle is that it was the takeover of the National Westminster Bank by RBS a decade ago which lies behind so much of what subsequently unfolded. RBS had in fact to fight a bitter battle with the Bank of Scotland for the control of NatWest. Both Scottish banks were much smaller than the English financial institution they wanted to buy, and both were openly dismissive of the fuddy-duddy "Captain Mainwaring" London management of NatWest who did not understand the modern style of banking, which believed in a much more 'dynamic' use of capital.

In the end Sir Fred Goodwin of RBS made a more convincing example of ruthlessly aggressive Scottish management – hence his nickname of Fred the Shred – and he took control of NatWest. The deal, in terms of its ability to generate maximum income from a relatively narrow capital base, was the model for the later disastrous bid for ABN Amro, which as we now know, was the final hubristic act resulting in Sir Fred's – and Edinburgh's – nemesis.

I say Edinburgh, because it was Scotland's financial establishment which backed Sir Fred Goodwin to the bitter end. None more so than the once cautious and reliable Standard Life, which, when questions were raised by some London-based investing institutions about the sanity of taking over the deeply troubled ABN Amro, put its entire corporate publicity machine behind Sir Fred. This – which may be no coincidence – is the same Standard Life which this week has reimbursed £100m to policy-holders whose pensions it had invested in so called "cash deposits" (supposedly the safest of all investments) which actually turned out to include toxic mortgage-backed securities.

You might think I am exaggerating the element of specifically Scottish swagger in all of this; I offer as partial evidence the fact that at RBS's annual shareholders meeting in 2007, the directors took their seats to the pumped-in sound of the theme music from Braveheart. By the time of the last annual general meeting, this nationalistic tub-thumping was suddenly omitted – just as well, since some of the disillusioned investors had begun to challenge the board over its tradition of being dominated by Scots: Sir Tom McKillop, RBS's chairman, mounted what was described by a reporter at that AGM as "a heroic defence". Very Braveheart, although some tax-payers might now be wishing that Sir Tom had been given the same treatment that William Wallace endured at the hands of the vengeful English, rather than allowed to resign without a scratch on his body.

The same people might have imagined that Sir Tom would receive the parliamentary equivalent of ceremonial disembowelment when last week he faced the inquisitors of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee. The tone, however, was set at the outset when the Committee's chairman, John McFall, looked warmly at McKillop and asked him for a straight answer to his first question, in the following way: "Sir Tom, a straight answer – you come from Irvine!" McKillop answered happily: "Dreghorn actually, but near enough!" I can't have been the only Englishman watching this live on television to feel a spasm of profound irritation at this cosy moment of Scottish bonding.

Or perhaps I was: one of the more interesting aspects of this whole affair is that there has been no public anger directly addressing the fact that it precisely the two Scottish banks which taxpayers have had to prop up at a cost to date of £35bn. It is not Scottish bankers who are being subjected to abuse on all sides, but all bankers, regardless of whether they have required the taxpayers' support to remain in business.

Perhaps it is simply because Royal Bank of Scotland had some time ago rebranded itself as RBS and the Bank of Scotland as HBOS. These new corporate identities were achingly fashionable – following British Airways' adoption of "BA" and British Petroleum's renaming itself "BP" – and in dire circumstances their meaninglessness conveys a suddenly most useful obscurity. Or perhaps it is because the English – which is to their credit – have no particular animus against the Scots, and certainly nothing approaching the almost pathological suspicion which a very large number of Scots have of the English.

Imagine, for example, what might have been the case if the banks which had needed to be bailed out with the taxpayers' billions were not those run by Scots of fiercely meritocratic mien, but London-based concerns dominated by boards consisting entirely of pin-striped English ex-public schoolboys. I wonder if Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and John McFall – or indeed the British public as a whole – would have been quite as understanding.

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS

Figures from the Office for National Statistics [ONS] reveal that immigrant workers now comprise 13% of the workforce, occupying 3.8million jobs. This is an increase from 2million jobs, 7.5% of the workforce, when Labour came to power in 1997. Two thirds of these immigrant workers are from outside the EU. Non EU workers now account for 9% of the workforce, up from 5.3% when Labour took office.

Labour prefer to focus on British nationals in work, which includes those immigrants who have been given British citizenship. Giving immigrants British passports does not address the problem.

Figures from Migrationwatch UK reveal that there are 1,172,000 immigrants from the EU working in Britain, but only 287,600 British workers working elsewhere in the EU, including 52,000 who are working in Ireland, which has always had a close relationship with Britain.

These figures show that British people, predominantly the English, are being pushed out of work by Labour’s policy of mass immigration. Membership of the EU and the immigration that entails, likewise, by allowing mass immigration into Britain, is pushing British people out of work.

English people being pushed out of work is the direct and inevitable consequence of Labour’s policy to reduce the English into being a minority in England.

RACE WAR POLITICS

A report by Civitas, entitled Music, Chess and Other Sins, has revealed that many of Britain’s 166 Islamic schools are promoting fundamentalism and a rejection, if not hatred, of Western values. Some had website links to sites promoting jihad. Many of the sites were closed down just before the report was published.

Most of the schools are private, although an increasing number are seeking state funding. The Madani Girl’s School in London stated on its website:

‘Our children are exposed to a culture that is in opposition with almost everything Islam stands for. If we oppose the lifestyle of the West then it does not seem sensible that the teachers and the system which represents that lifestyle should educate our children.’

Other websites condemned Harry Potter books, playing chess or cricket and listening to Western music.

Meanwhile, secondary schools have been encouraged to set an exercise for children as young as 11 to imagine the 7/7 bombings in London from the terrorists’ point of view. This is as part of citizenship lessons introduced by Labour, who have now said that the exercises would be withdrawn.

Schools in West Yorkshire, Birmingham, Sandwell and Lancashire are already using the exercises for pupils.

A suggested group exercise requires schoolchildren to ‘prepare a brief presentation on the 7/7 bombings from the perspective of the bombers’ and are asked to summarize the ‘reasons … for the actions of the London bombers’.

Chris McGovern, director of the History Curriculum Association said:

‘In my view, this is extremely dangerous. Asking pupils to empathize with terrorists may lead to sympathy, and sympathy begins to lead to justification. You begin to glamorise it - it’s disastrous.

This shows how out of touch the education establishment is with the rest of society.’

Sail Suleman, Calderdale’s hate crime co-ordinator [apparently there is such a thing] and author of the advice pack for the exercises, said:

‘Why do young people go out and do what the bombers did? Was it pressure from individuals they were hanging out with? Hopefully, we’ll encourage pupils to stay away from those individuals.’

How Muslim children are educated in their own private schools is, within reason, their business. There is no reason for the state to fund such extremist schools, however. Muslims are entitled to maintain their own culture, as the English might wish to maintain their’s in their own ex-pat communities around the world - and in England. The problem is when the Muslim minority becomes extremist, and the sheer weight of numbers. It is the violence and intolerance of the extremism, and the scale of immigration that is the problem. Coupled with the multiculturalization of England that encourages the minority to demand the abolition of any concept of the English national culture.

This is compounded when the state itself is promoting a rejection of Western values, both in the crass exercises now being used across England and in political correctness. Schoolchildren do not need to speculate as to why the 7/7 terrorists committed their atrocities. They told us why [see the English Rights Campaign item dated 28 September 2005].

IMMIGRATION

David Cameron has made comments to the effect that he wishes to see mass immigration reduced to the levels seen in the 1980s and 1990s. He has claimed that immigration was not an issue then.

With due respect, it was an issue although the government was ignoring it. Britain had changed from being an emigration country into being an immigration country, immigration was on a firmly upward trend with a rapidly rising number of so-called asylum seekers, and political correctness was steadily spreading throughout the state sector and the media.

Mr Cameron has averred that he wishes to see immigration restricted to 50,000. He is unclear whether he is talking about the gross immigration figure or the net immigration figure [there is a major difference]. Net immigration was at around 50,000 per year in the 1990s. When Enoch Powell made his Birmingham speech in 1968, he was complaining about an gross immigration level of 50,000 per year from the New Commonwealth [see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 22 November 2005].

England is overcrowded. We do not need nor want mass immigration. Mass immigration must be brought to a complete end. That is the policy of the English Democrats.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH [bonus]

‘Every time a customer of RBS defaults, the taxpayer picks up the bill.

If the assets of our state-owned banks fall in value by just 1 per cent that wipes a horrific £20billion off their net worth - costing the taxpayer £20billion, or a figure not far off the size of the defence budget.

If these bank assets fall in value by 5 per cent then the taxpayer loses £100billion - the equivalent of what it costs to fund the NHS in an ordinary year.

If they fall in value by 25 per cent- a possibility that should not be ruled out - then the taxpayer loses £500billion and we are all utterly bankrupt. That is the shattering truth or our parlous situation.’

Peter Oborne, writing in today’s Daily Mail.

THE LOONY LEFT

In what is described as a drive for sex equality in sport, Tessa Jowell has written to sports chiefs to lobby them to pressure the International Olympics Committee [IOC] to open all sports categories to both sexes. The aim is to introduce events such as all-male synchronized swimming and all-male rhythmic gymnastics, as well as female wrestling and boxing, at the London 2012 Olympics.

The IOC has the power to decide whether there will be any changes. Hopefully, Tessa Jowell’s zealotry will be rejected.

A report by the Office of National Statistics [ONS] reveals that women in their 20s earn as much as men. It is only when women have children that a pay gap emerges. This is because many women choose to stop work, or work part-time or change to less demanding jobs. Miss Conn of the ONS said:

‘There is a very small gender pay gap for those aged 18 to 21. It is non-existent for those aged 22 to 29 years.’

On average, women have their first baby at 30.

However, a spokesman for the so-called Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

‘One of the major causes of the pay gap, beyond the concern about women and men who are paid different rates for the same job, is the fact that they choose low-skill part-time jobs after they have children. We want to know if that is a genuine choice or a Hobson’s choice based on the limited opportunities available to women to work more flexibly.’

Despite the facts, the so-called Equalities and Human Rights Commission, which is clearly on an exercise of social engineering, merely repeats the doctrine that women are victims. In the economic slump we are now in, most ordinary people are more concerned to keep their jobs and to maintain their standard of living, rather than politically correct dogma.

It is too easy to scoff or shrug off this type of boring nonsense. But we cannot afford such malicious tripe, nor the politically correct quangos that promote it. The so-called Equalities and Human Rights Commission should be closed down. That is the policy of the English Democrats.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Last week witnessed the insidious extent of the British Inquisition. There was the anti-English banning of the St George’s Day parade by the Labour Sandwell council. They explained that they were allocating an increase in funding to support a Party in the Park instead. They alleged that the parade would have created an ‘unhealthy atmosphere’ and ‘tribal excitement’. In other words, the parade had been dropped as it might attract those with political views that Labour might disagree with.

It was also announced that Prince Harry is to be sent on an army diversity course, as a result of comments he made in a video he made [see English Rights Campaign item dated 6 February 2009]. Philip Davies MP said:

‘This is a complete waste of time and money. A huge industry has mushroomed to cash in on diversity and equality.’

A more vindictive example of the British Inquisition was the news that a school receptionist faces the sack following her daughter discussing heaven and hell to a classmate. Jennie Cain’s daughter, Jasmine, had been told off by a teacher and had come home in tears. The teacher had said that Jasmine ‘couldn’t talk about Jesus‘. Mrs Cain, who works at the school, sent a private email to 10 Christian friends asking them to pray for the families and the school:

‘I asked them to please pray for us, please pray for Jasmine, please pray for the school and pray for the church.’

A copy of this email found its way to the headmaster and Mrs Cain is now being investigated for professional misconduct.

The British Inquisition’s determination to suppress the truth was demonstrated by the news that Labour had tried to bully and discredit the Office for National Statistics [ONS] with a whispering campaign after it had released data revealing the surge in the number of non-British born people working here. The ONS’s report showed that the number of foreign workers had increased by 214,000 to 3.8million in the year to December. At the same time, the number of British born workers in work fell by 278,000 to 25.6million. Labour MPs had accused the ONS of trying to embarrass Gordon Brown over his pledge of ‘British jobs for British workers’.

As the general election draws ever closer, then the level of persecution and smears are likely to increase.

SPIV ECONOMICS

These are trying times for Labour, as their economic policy unravels along with the banks. Gordon Brown has been very adept at trying to avoid responsibility. Even so, the appointment of Sir David Walker to investigate the bank bonuses and report at the end of this year has demonstrated Labour’s determination to cover-up.

Sir David, who was nicknamed Mr Whitewash following his involvement in two previous enquiries, has been adept at pocketing bonuses himself as chairman of Morgan Stanley International. Vince Cable MP said:

‘Instead of dealing decisively with the problem, as President Obama, the Swiss and others have done, the Government is clearly playing for time in order to avoid doing anything to upset the bankers.’

The Treasury is citing human rights as a reason for not preventing the bank bonuses. A Treasury source said:

‘It wouldn’t stand up in the European Court of Human Rights. We can’t come along and say we’re legislating to override someone’s employment rights.’

This comes at a time when unemployment is nudging 2million and is expected to reach 3million by 2010, and when the Bank of England is forecasting that the economy will shrink by as much as 6%. This fall is at a time when the value of sterling has fallen sharply, which should help output as exports are cheaper and imported goods more expensive.

The evidence to the Treasury select committee by the bankers Lord Stevenson, Andy Hornby, Sir Fred Goodwin and Sir Tom McKillop led to the exposure of the sacking of Paul Moore, because he had advised that HBOS had exposed itself to too much risk with its aggressive expansion. He had been sacked by the then chief executive of HBOS, Sir James Crosby, who subsequently was appointed as deputy chairman of the Financial Services Authority [which is now lining up substantial pay and bonus increases for its employees] which is supposed to oversee the banks. Sir James has now resigned.

It was revealed that the acting chairman of UK Financial Investments Ltd, Glen Moreno, has been involved in a tax avoidance scheme involving a bank in Liechtenstein. He too has been jettisoned as Labour belatedly tries to distance itself from their banking chums.

It is now revealed that the Lloyds chief executive, Eric Daniels, who had told the Treasury select committee that his £1million a year salary was modest, and who said he would not be taking a bonus for 2008, is in line for a pay and bonus package of up to £7million in 2009. He did not tell the Treasury select committee that HBOS, with which Lloyds is merging, is about to announce a loss of a staggering £10billion. This merger was, to quote one disgruntled Lloyds shareholder, ‘cooked up at a cocktail party’, at which Mr Brown personally brokered the merger in a discussion with Sir Victor Blank, the Lloyds Bank chairman. Sir Victor has been acting as a Downing Street ‘business ambassador. The Lloyds share price has now fallen rapidly. It has now been forecast that Lloyds will need more taxpayers’ money and may well be fully nationalized.

Labour are shovelling taxpayers’ money at a useless bunch of greedy bankers who have not only wrecked their own banks, but the entire British economy too. And they do not give a damn other than their own personal embarrassment.

In the real economy, Labour have just announced that a £7.5billion contract for new trains is to go to a consortium involving the Japanese, in preference to a British company. Presumably, this is to show that Labour are committed to globalization and not nasty protectionism. Labour’s claims as to the number of jobs either created or safeguarded have been met with derision. 30% of the value of the contract will be spent overseas and the first 70 trains will be built entirely in Japan. This can only be at the expense of British jobs.

A third of the workers employed at the Olympic site in London are immigrants. Only 63% are British and 8% are Irish. Some jobs offering salaries of up to £65,000 are being advertised abroad. Recently it was revealed that 136 illegal immigrants were working on the site.

Just before Christmas, BAE Systems warned that it was in danger of having to close its Land Systems business, which is Britain’s only remaining tank maker. This follows a decision to cancel a £16billion order for armoured vehicles. Obviously such a closure would mean that we would be dependent upon foreign tanks to equip the army, and the order cancellation is against the backdrop of casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the army still having to rely on Land Rovers rather than armoured vehicles. Then there is the matter of the much promised aircraft carriers [see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 16 December 2008].

None of this is consistent with the spin that Labour is resorting to Keynesian policies to try and get the economy moving again. That would have involved tax cuts or extra public expenditure to put people into jobs and pump demand into the economy. All Labour are doing is using taxpayers’ money to bail out the current banking cartel. This is not due to a global downturn, it is due to Labour’s economic policy.

Mr Brown commented recently that the British economy was being held back by foreign banks not lending here and further reiterated his commitment to globalization:

‘Protectionism protects nobody. This is a time not just for individual, national measures to deal with the global financial crisis. This is the time for the world to come together as one.’

Mr Brown went on to condemn the retreat of foreign banks to their own national markets and away from international banking:

‘This financial mercantilism - which is foreign banks retreating to their home base - will, if we do nothing, lead to a new form of protectionism. Indeed, a de-globalisation which would lead to a reduction in trade and cross-border business activity, which would be followed by the old trade protectionism of the past.’

This is hogwash. Mr Brown is trying to demonise protectionism as a means of frightening people away from reality. The reality is that export markets are always more risky for a variety of factors [eg a different culture and language, increased costs of transportation, local preference for local products, movements in exchange rate, unstable local governments, etc]. In a recession firms have to retrench to their home markets. This is a natural process.

In a recent press conference, Mr Brown let slip the truth:

‘A principal reason for this is the reduced availability of credit across the economy because of the retrenchment of many overseas banks back to their home markets and the withdrawal of non-banking financial institutions from funding. This is a major loss of lending capacity, happening in all economies and happening in ours. So even as UK banks might seek to meet their commitments to existing customers, overall credit availability in the economy remains inadequate to support growth and recovery. To put this into perspective, over half of new corporate loans in Britain and 40% of new mortgages over the last decade came from foreign banks and non-bank institutions.’

This was confirmed by the chancellor, Alistair Darling, who told the House of Commons:

‘Over the last ten years, lending by foreign banks and non-bank institutions accounted for over half of new corporate loans and 45% of new mortgages here.’

Mr Darling also said:

‘We must not give way to financial protectionism - which could be every bit as damaging now as it was to trade in the 1930s.’

A further problem is that British banks have been relying on the international money markets for their funding. They have not been lending to the home market, nor relying on locally funded savings and deposits for their funding. 80% of the lending of major British banks, including RBS, HSBC and Barlcays, has been overseas. Only 20% of their balance sheets are made up of traditional loans to British households and firms. Some of the worst debts the banks have are these overseas mortgages and commercial lending, including the US sub-prime mortgages. The Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, on whose yacht Lord Mandelson and George Osborne had their afternoon cocktails off Corfu last summer, obtained a £2.8billion loan from a consortium of banks including RBS.

The taxpayer is now having to bail out the banks for these defaulting foreign loans. But the central issue is that the British banks cannot fund the domestic market and have relied on foreign sources to fund themselves. The growth of the British economy has been dependent upon foreign funds rather than domestic savings.

One of the major acts for which Mr Brown is directly responsible is the collapse in the pension funds due to the £5billion per year tax raid he made on them when he became chancellor in 1997. This act depressed the source of funding for British banks and the British economy. This has had a cumulative effect as had the unregulated scale of bonus payments [see the English Rights Campaign item dated 16 October 2008 and 20 January 2009]. The fact is that Mr Brown is directly responsible for the financial collapse with which we are now confronted. He is directly responsible for the slump.

He has not embarked on a Keynesian economics to get us out of this slump. He is not reflating the real economy, he is simply bailing out the current banking cartel. This is spiv economics.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Below is a copy of an English Democrats press release:

St. George's Day Parade is Banned!


Yesterday various newspapers reported the story of this latest attack on any expression of Englishness;
e.g. The Daily Star's report was:-

ST GEORGE’S DAY IS 'RACIST'

13th February 2009
By Ross Kaniuk
The Daily Star
_________________________
FURY erupted yesterday after it was revealed a family charity event to celebrate the life of St George is set to be banned.

Councillor Yvonne Davies claimed the parade created an “unhealthy atmosphere” and inspired young boys to be racist.

She wrote: “It is not only the parade which is the problem, but the tribal excitement it creates.”

Sandwell Council in West Bromwich, West Mids, voted to withdraw its financial support and leave organisers with the “impossible” task of raising £10,000 to cover costs.

But organiser Trevor Collins, of the Stone Cross Saint George Association, said: “To suggest the parade is racist is ridiculous and offensive.

“When you see the kids, everyone out having fun, it is a beautiful sight. Everyone is welcome.

“The council’s decision means we have to foot the bills for insurance and security. We have got to come up with £10,000 in two months, which seems impossible.”

The parade, involving 15,000 people, on April 23 is backed by the Royal British Legion and attended by ex-servicemen.

Organisers said one of the aims of the event, held since 1998, is to reclaim the Saint George Cross from right-wingers and make it a source of pride.

John Midgley, of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: “It is an outrageous decision.

“There is nothing racist about celebrating the day of the patron saint of England.”

The local Labour Councillor,( http://cmis.sandwell.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Member.aspx?personID=235 ) , Ms Yvonne Davies, reportedly said, in an email copied in to her Labour Colleagues, that:- " ...the parade .... creates a very unhealthy atmosphere .... - particularly amongst young males and I'm afraid I would support its demise for that reason..... It is not only the parade which is problem, but the 'tribal' excitement it creates in its wake." Classic, Official, Nu-Labour, blatant, anti-English racism?
Does it make your blood boil? It does mine!


The Race Relations Act 1976 provides remedies against Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Harassment and Victimisation. If critical remarks are made violating your dignity, or are intimidating, hostile and offensive and are intended to make you feel uncomfortable, in asserting your Englishness, then they would be classic instances of “Harassment” as defined in Section 3A of the RRA.


If this local authority does not offer at least the same assistance to the parade as it has offered to other racial/national/ethnic groups, as defined under the RRA, then claims can be brought of Direct and/or Indirect Discrimination pursuant to Sections 1(1) (a) and 1A of the RRA.



It seems that the local authority and its councillors are ignoring the fact that Englishness has been (repeatedly) held by the courts to be a protected category under the RRA? (Ealing LBC – v – The Race Relations Board HL/PO/JU/4/3/1205 and BBC Scotland – v – Souster CofS 019/18(16)99. )



The courts have also provided guideline figures for the level of damages. In claims in the higher category, each instance should attract an award of over £25,000 for "hurt feelings"!



What can we all do? We urgently need a fighting fund to challenge this case and all others like it! If every member of our FB Cause spends just £1.50 by telephoning 0907 706 7060 then we will easily have the funds needed! So please call 0907 706 7060 as often as you can afford!



Also you can:-

1. Complain to Sandwell District Council - http://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/contact-the-council/customer-services/complaints/

2. Complain about Ms Davies and her colleagues to the Standards Board for Councillors - http://www.standardsboard.gov.uk/Makingacomplaint/

3. Sue her, her colleagues and the Council. To do so either needs a) money; or b) legal costs insurance cover (eg in your household contents insurance); or c) qualifying for Legal Aid (if you think you do ring the Legal Services Commission for a list of solicitors who are "contracted".



Also, if we haven't already had them in full retreat by then, we can all congregate at Stone Cross on the Day http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=92803615073 and peacefully demonstrate our support for St George and England!



Robin Tilbrook

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Robin-Tilbrook-Chairman-English-Democrats/33932349564



P.S. Whatever else you do please telephone 0907 706 7060 at least once!

FREE SPEECH

Below is a recent article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
Whatever happened to free speech?
Britain was once renowned around the world for defending people's right to speak out. Not any more, says Philip Johnston.

Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 8:21PM GMT 12 Feb 2009

Comments 359 | Comment on this article

Geert Wilders: Dutch politician Geert Wilders lands at Heathrow despite ban over anti-Islam views
Geert Wilders is an anti-Islamist who regards the Koran as inherently inflammatory Photo: EPA

The refusal to admit the oddball Dutch MP Geert Wilders to Britain yesterday marks a further retreat from this country's traditions of free speech. It stands in stark contrast to what happened exactly 20 years ago tomorrow, when Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie for insulting the Prophet Mohammed in his book The Satanic Verses.

In retrospect, that was a turning point in the country's history of free speech, an event that appeared to demonstrate indomitability, yet turned out to be a defeat. An unambiguous stand was taken on Rushdie's behalf by the government of the day, which denounced the threat to his life and broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. Sir Geoffrey Howe, then foreign secretary, told the Commons: "This action is taken in plain defence of the right within the law of freedom of speech and the right within the law of freedom of protest."

Despite mass book burnings, protests around the world, including in Bolton and Bradford, and threats of violence, the work continued to be published and sold. How could it be otherwise? This was Britain, after all, the citadel of free speech. We would not be brow beaten into denying the rights of one of our citizens, or anyone else for that matter, from having their say, however controversial or offensive their opinion might be.

Sadly, the past two decades have seen a pusillanimous flight into cowering capitulation. We seem to have forgotten what free speech entails, how hard it was fought for and how important it is to defend. It is the value with which this country is most associated throughout the world. It is why Britain has been home, over the centuries, to so many political dissidents who would have been persecuted elsewhere, and why those who live in autocracies that brook no criticism tune into the BBC World Service.

They see this as a place able to accommodate opinions that are obviously crazy, offensive or even seditious, a country where a view can be held and expressed, provided – and this has always been true – that it does not foment violence.

Geert Wilders is an anti-Islamist who regards the Koran as inherently inflammatory and believes he is justified in saying so. He has made a 17-minute film, Fitna – an Arabic word meaning test of faith – setting out this thesis and was invited to show it at a private screening in the House of Lords. The film can be seen on the internet, so there is no question of stopping its dissemination. It contains some unpleasant images of bomb explosions, of captured hostages facing death and of chanting mobs interlaced with passages from the Koran.

Wilders claims that these verses from the holy book of Islam are being used today to incite modern Muslims to behave violently and anti-democratically. You may think he is wrong to say this; you may agree with him; you might, like the lords who invited him to Britain, think it is something worthy of discussion, given the obvious problems caused around the world by radical Islamism and the violence perpetrated in the name of the religion. It is hard, in a free country, to understand why it is a view that must be suppressed.

What, then, possessed the Home Office to ban Wilders – an unprecedented action against a democratically-elected politician from a European state, who is entitled to free movement within the EU? By any measure, it was an extraordinary decision; yet it was not even raised in parliament, the supposed guardian of our freedoms, though some MPs have commented on the ban, largely to support it.

Were Wilders a terrorist preaching violence against particular groups, it could be understood on public order grounds. The order issued by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, read: "The Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

Yet what possible threat to public security is posed by a Dutch MP showing a film, in private, to a smattering of peers on a Thursday afternoon in February? Of itself, the film does not call for violence against Muslims; indeed, it suggests that Islam is a cause of violence, a view with which you are entitled to agree or feel strongly about, but not to prohibit.

The reason for the ban appears to have been the possibility of protests by some Muslim organisations against Wilders's visit. In other words, his freedom to express a view and the liberty of peers to hear it in an institution supposedly devoted to free speech, were set aside in the face of intimidation – the opposite of what happened in the Rushdie case, even if that author was forced into hiding.

What is particularly insidious is the application of double standards. One of those most opposed to Wilders's visit is the Muslim peer Lord Ahmed, though he denies allegations that he warned parliamentary authorities that 10,000 demonstrators would take to the streets. Yet two years ago, Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh, a Palestinian previously detained on suspicion of fundraising for groups linked to al-Qaeda, to Westminster to meet him. When he was criticised for doing so, he said it was his parliamentary duty to hear Rideh's complaints. He does not appear to see any contradiction with the position he now adopts against his fellow peers.

Had a foreign parliamentarian who disliked Christians and considered the Bible to be inflammatory planned a visit to Britain, does anyone imagine he would have been prevented from doing so? No, and neither should he have been. This must work for everyone.

The arrest and possible prosecution of Rowan Laxton, a Foreign Office diplomat, for railing at the Israeli invasion of Gaza from his exercise bike in the gym, is the latest example of an equally sinister development – the denunciation of opinions expressed in private, as with Carol Thatcher's "golliwog" comments. Free speech is about understanding that some people hold a different view from you, whether you like it or not. When we start to alert the "authorities" to thought crimes we really are one step away from the dystopian world that Orwell invented as a warning, not a prophecy.

The Government that has treated our liberties in such a cavalier way is having none of this, of course. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said the film made by Wilders was "full of hate" and therefore fell foul of British laws, though he admitted that he had not seen it and therefore could not judge. But, in any case, is he right? Is it against the law?

People have always been free under the criminal law to speak their minds, provided they did not, in doing so, incite others to commit violence or infringe public order. Rabble-rousers trying to whip up the mob have never been the beneficiaries of this latitude: there is, in other words, a difference between license and liberty. However, it is necessary to demonstrate that the words complained of are likely to stir up hatred and public disorder, not merely to complain that they are unpleasant or objectionable to some. Imams have been allowed to continue preaching in mosques when it could be argued that they have overstepped this mark, as when they have called for the death of homosexuals or Jews.

Wilders is no advertisement for free speech. After all, he wants the Koran to be banned. But that is not the point. It is what this affair says about us, not him, that matters. Is Britain now adopting a position where people who support suicide bombers and jihad are able to make known their opinions without legal challenge, whereas those who oppose them cannot?

The very people who in 1989 were demanding the murder of Salman Rushdie for writing a book are today leading the charge against a Dutch MP for making a film. The fundamental difference is that 20 years ago, the government supported free speech; today, it has cravenly surrendered. It is simply not good enough to say that Wilders should not be heard because he might provoke a backlash from those who do not like him or his views. That is not upholding the law. That is appeasement.

IMMIGRATION

At a time when the media is filled with those who can do little but prattle about climate change and of the need for sustainable development, it was announced this week that at least 16 new developments have been given the go-ahead to build houses and offices on flood plains. In every case, the local authorities ignored objections from the environment agency.

Paul Leinster, chief executive of the Environment Agency, said:

‘There are already millions of people at risk from flooding and this number is set to rise due to the impacts of climate change.’

At least 2million homes are on flood plains already. England is overcrowded and the pressure of the population increase, the primary driving force of which is immigration, is forcing people to live on flood plains.

Labour’s immigration policy to increase the population to 70million by 2031 [see the English Rights Campaign item dated 11 February 2009 ] can only make matters much worse.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

A foster mother with an unblemished record, who has looked after more than 80 children has been struck off the register, because a Muslim girl in her care converted to Christianity. The mother was a practising Christian herself and the social workers had not objected to her attendance at church.

The Muslim girl had been baptised when she was 16 years old. Social workers accused the mother of failing in her duty to preserve the girl’s religion and said that she should have tried to stop the conversion.

The mother has lost her only source of income and has been forced to move to a one bedroom flat. The mother said:

‘I did initially try to discourage her. I offered her alternatives. I offered to find places for her to practise her own religion. I offered to take her to friends and family. But she said to me from the word go, “I am interested and I want to come”. She sort of burst in.’

The mother’s lawyer said:

‘There is no doubt that the event that provoked the council was the decision by the girl to be baptised. This girl was 16 and has the right to make this choice, so for the council to react in this way is totally disproportionate.’

The multiculturalization of England demands that immigrants do not adopt English culture The multiculturalists are prepared to persecute people, deny foster children the opportunity to be raised by a successful foster mother, and deny a 16 year old the right to decide her own religious convictions, to that end.

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS

The recent prominence in the news given to the issue of British jobs for British workers ignores the longstanding nature of the problem.

Labour’s policy of mass immigration, from both the EU and elsewhere, has led to the gradual replacement of British workers who are having to compete with those from other countries with far lower standards of living [see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 16 December 2006].

A report from Migrationwatch UK before Christmas revealed that most of the 1.34million jobs created since 2001 had gone to foreigners. Over the same period, the number of British born people in work fell by 62,000. Eastern Europeans had taken 469,000 of the new jobs.

This debate is coming against the backdrop of many politicians and pressure groups, including Tories, who are demanding that illegal immigrants be given an amnesty to enable them to work legally. Boris Johnson has pronounced that there would be ’hugely increased’ tax revenues if illegal immigrants were granted citizenship.

Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch UK said that such an amnesty would cost at least £500million per year. Even Labour balked at the suggestion. Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said:

‘I have always thought that Boris was a bit of a nincompoop and these proposals are naïve in the extreme.’

Nevertheless, Labour has been introducing amnesties in practice. Failed asylum claimants and those whose claims were never even decided are being given permission to stay, in an attempt to clear the backlog of asylum applications. The approval rate is 40% and up to 180,000 are expected to be granted permission to stay. Furthermore, Linda Costelloe Baker, who monitors government visa refusals, told the Commons Home Affairs Committee that around 15% of short term visas issued by British embassies were issued in error. This is being exploited by organized crime and illegal immigrants. With 2million visas issued each year, this means that 300,000 illegal immigrants are being allowed into Britain every year.

Net immigration in 2007 was 237,000 according to the Office of National Statistics. 577,000 immigrants entered Britain. This is the second largest total after 2006. In the decade since Labour came to office in 1997, the number of immigrants increased by 2.5million.

The OECD has urged the government to employ more immigrants in the public sector. Martine Durand said, ‘immigrants are the most vulnerable in times of economic crisis’. The OECD pointed out that immigrants would be unlikely to return home as their home countries would also be suffering from the economic downturn.

Sir Andrew Green wrote:

‘Australia starts with an annual limit to immigration and uses the points system - based on age and qualifications - to select successful candidates within that limit.

The British system does not limit the numbers of immigrants and is not intended to. It is certainly not tough - as the Government claims. It allows tens of thousands of migrants to come here “on spec” looking for work.’

Labour has only reduced the number of work permits to non EU nationals by only 14,000. Labour are letting in even more Bulgarian and Romanian workers. Under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, the permits issued will be increased from 16,500 to 21,250.

The whole concept of allowing in immigrants to fill alleged job vacancies where there are skills shortages, or where it is alleged that there are recruitment difficulties, is nonsense. If there is a shortage, then the price [the wage rate] increases to attract more workers. We have a large reservoir of unemployed and the number registered unemployed is expected to reach 3million by Christmas, with incapacity benefit hiding yet more millions of hidden unemployed.

The population is expected to reach 70million far sooner than originally thought. Such a figure is now expected to be obtained in 2031, according to the House of Commons library. The points system is being used to legitimize mass immigration and not end it.

To make matters worse, Labour is aggressively pursuing political correctness. Harriet Harmen, the so-called Equalities Minister, has proposed new equality laws that will allow companies to discriminate against Englishmen in favour of women and blacks.

The increase in unemployment is the direct and inevitable result of government policy.

THE WAR ON TERROR

President Obama’s commitment to close Guantanamo Bay has met with almost universal acclaim. What to do with the remaining inmates has excited the usual people, with some even trying to get some of the Islamist inmates into Britain.

One such inmate is Binyam Mohammed, who is described as being a British resident. This Ethiopian came to Britain as a so-called asylum seeker in 1994 when he was 16. His asylum claim was turned down, although he was granted exceptional leave to remain in 2000 [there‘s a surprise]. He converted to Islam and worshipped at a mosque attended by radical Muslims.

In 2001, he went to Afghanistan. He claims that he had been using drugs and went to Afghanistan to kick the habit and to find out more about the Taliban. The US authorities claim that he joined Al Qaeda and was trained to build and detonate a radioactive ‘dirty bomb’.

He was arrested in Pakistan at Karachi airport by Pakistani authorities who regarded him as a terrorist. He had tried to board a flight to London using a false British passport [as one does].

He claims that since his arrest he has been moved around several countries and has been subjected to torture, details of which he recorded in a diary that, presumably, those detaining him were happy for him to keep as he was moved to various locations. Naturally, a host of human rights lawyers are involving themselves and are trying to get him into Britain.

Whatever the merits of his claims of being tortured, what has this to do with us? Let this Ethiopian be returned to Ethiopia, or Afghanistan if he prefers.

There has been a brouhaha over a US request that 25 lines be edited out of court papers relating to this matter, which has provoked criticism of Britain adopting a craven attitude to the USA. The Telegraph reported on the 7 February:

‘Despite the criticism of the government's stance, intelligence sources have revealed that there was a second, legitimate, reason for doing as the US government asked in restricting the material published: MI5 is more dependent than ever on the CIA for help in monitoring the 2,000 terrorist suspects in the UK.

The CIA is now running a large network of its own informers in the British Pakistani community. Their information has helped thwart terrorist attacks in the UK and locate senior al-Qaeda operatives abroad.

The US has stepped up intelligence gathering in the UK to such an extent over the last 18 months that one in four CIA operations designed to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks on the US homeland is now conducted against targets in the UK.’

HOOD ROBIN

It is now apparent that the banks are lining up about £4billion in bonuses for themselves. This is following the £1trillion cost of the bank bailout [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated the 20 January 2009].

The USA and many other European countries are imposing restrictions on bank remuneration. France has a set of new rules expected to come into force in 2 weeks and the USA has capped top executive pay at $500,000 for all banks in receipt of taxpayers’ money. Not so Britain - not even on those banks which are effectively nationalized. Instead, Labour are trying to kick the issue into the long grass by announcing the setting up of an enquiry.

The banks are talking about the need to attract the best people, and that bonuses might be a part of employment contracts. That is irrelevant. They cannot pay the bonuses if they do not have the money. In fact, they are insolvent. They have the money because Labour has given them large amounts of taxpayers’ money.

Using taxpayers’ money to award bankers bonuses is unacceptable.

Labour simply do not understand as they are a part of the problem, and a part of the spiv culture. Bankers are regarded as being above the law and not subject to the same economic rules as ordinary plebs. They do not get their hands dirty for a living. Access to the high life and taxpayers’ money is a right as they are so important.

Labour are of a similar mentality. They have awarded peerages to their donors. They are used to hobnobbing at international conferences, the EU or on oligarch’s yachts off Corfu. Awarding themselves and their supporters cushy jobs on quangos - with the attendant inflation proofed pension.

Just today, it has been revealed that Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary no less, has been pocketing £116,000 of taxpayers’ money for a second home when she was in fact lodging with her sister.

The British ruling class is taking the ordinary taxpayer to the cleaners.

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS

Below is a copy of an article from today's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4560267/Foreign-worker-row-reignited-by-claims-of-Polish-men-given-jobs-barred-to-Brits.html

Foreign worker row reignited by claims of Polish men given jobs barred
to Brits

A new foreign workers scandal has erupted after it emerged another house boat is being moored in Britain to provide accomodation for staff from abroad who are accused of taking local jobs.

The converted barge is being brought into Kent where a new gas-fired plant is being built at the E.ON power station on the Isle of Grain.

Furious local workers say the increasing majority of jobs are being given to Polish, Lithuanian and Portuguese men, who they say will be housed on the boat.

Police are preparing for potential trouble at the site on Wednesday when trade union Unite is due to stage a demonstration there.

It follows the problems elsewhere in the country last week when 700 workers went on strike at the Lindsey oil refinery near Grimsby, after contractors brought in non-British labour and housed some of them on a converted prison ship.

Some of the Italian workers living on that ship claimed they could not leave it without being attacked by angry locals.

A further 3,000 Britons walked out in sympathy at 14 refineries and power stations.

French engineering firm Alstom, who have been at the centre of the row over foreign labour, are the lead contractor on the Kent power station, which involves 15 sub-contractors including Polish companies Remak and ZRE.

Alstom insist they have given British firms and workers a fair opportunity to bid for the contracts and employ mainly British people.

But the unions and local people dispute that.

A spokesman for Unite said: "We know of at least two sub-contractors who are not allowing UK workers to apply for jobs at Grain Power
Station.

"We're not saying foreign workers are taking all of the jobs but there is clear evidence that UK-based labour are being blocked from even trying to get work there. That is why we are staging our demonstration."

Kyle Upton, 20, a labourer who has lived on the Isle of Grain all his life, said: "I was earning really good money with an American steel company on another project involving gas tanks but that finished so I decided to try and get a job at the power station.

"I contacted Alstom about work and was told there was none available, the positions were all taken.

"But then I found out some Polish labourers who had been working with me on the American project had been given jobs at the power station."

A spokeswoman for Alstom vigorously defended the claims.

She said during the peak of the 30-month construction phase of the gas-fired power station up to 2,000 people will be working there, and she said two thirds of them will be British.

She said: "We do not and will not discriminate against British workers. We are employing UK sub-contractors and non-UK sub contractors on site at present employing both UK and non-UK labour.

"Today we have around 15 sub contractors working at Grain, the overwhelming majority are British, only two being non-UK companies.

"We always give British firms and workers an equal chance to bid for work on the project."

Asked if she knew about Unite's claims that the two Polish sub-contractors were not allowing UK workers to apply for jobs, she added: "I am not aware of that."

Meanwhile, Alstom has applied to Medway Council for planning permission to moor an accomodation barge at Damhead Creek, near Grain Power Station, between now and November 2010.

Alstom's spokeswoman said: "This is not only to house foreign workers, this is a contingency plan to provide accomodation for anyone of the workers who may need it.

"The Isle of Grain is a remote and isolated location so accomodation is clearly an issue."

The boat will house up to 200 workers but she did not specify when it will be moored there.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The British Inquisition is determinedly rumbling along and becoming more extreme [as all such witch-hunts do].

Recently, there was the furore over some remarks made by Prince Harry in a video he had shot in March 2006, in which he referred to one of his army colleagues as ‘our little Paki friend’ and subsequently referred to another camouflaged soldier as looking like a ‘raghead’.

So what? This is the army and not the girl guides. But, apparently, these remarks were deemed by the race zealots to be racist and so Prince Harry has been denounced.

But who published the remarks? Prince Harry did not. No, it was a Sunday newspaper which paid a large sum to obtain copies of the 3-year-old video which it promptly published. That allowed for much of the press and media to indulge themselves in the anti-racist self-righteousness.

Had they been really bothered about not causing offence, then they would not have paid large sums of money to publish material that they professed to be racist.

Now Carol Thatcher has fallen foul of the race zealots. In a BBC green room with Adrian Chiles and Jo Brand, Carol Thatcher apparently used the term ‘gollywog’ in reference to a tennis player - comparing his hair to that of a gollywog figure which used to appear on the side of Robertson’s jam jars.

Reportedly, Jo Brand was angry and walked off in disgust and Adrian Chiles was reportedly ‘outraged’ and ‘upset’, although, reportedly, Carol Thatcher’s version is that no one said a word about the comment. Whatever the truth, the remark was reported to executive producer Tessa Finch. After failing to produce a sufficiently grovelling apology, Carol Thatcher has been fired.

Where Carol Thatcher has been naïve, is that she ever thought that she could talk so freely and use politically incorrect language to someone like Jo Brand, who is hard Left. We now know a little more about Adrian Chiles.

Shami Chakrabarti said on tonight’s Question Time that we had now learned that such a term as ‘gollywog’ or ‘Paki’ is racist, . That is the point, in that the politically correct have successfully imposed their view on everyone else. Such terms are racist because the politically correct tell us they are racist and an alternative view is not permissible.

The common feature of the case of Carol Thatcher and Prince Harry, is that they had made private comments which were then published by others and denounced. We are in the era when private comments are only permissible if they are politically correct. Even the Tories agree with this, as Theresa May demonstrated tonight on Question Time, and Dave Cameron denounced Prince Harry’s remarks as ‘completely unacceptable’.

Writing at the time of the Prince Harry episode, Andrew Alexander wrote:

‘It is hard to see why anyone in his right mind would want to be monarch of a country bursting with such pious, pompous, prudish, sanctimonious, semi-hysterical, self-righteous, mealy-mouthed, whining prigs.’

Exactly.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Lord Mandelson, speaking now from his ivory tower, is suggesting that those currently striking in response to Brown’s broken promise of “British jobs for British workers” should hop on a plane and look for work on the other side of Europe.

Lord Mandelson is, of course, right to point out that it is not just foreign workers who find jobs here; many British workers have found jobs on the Continent. Most don’t come with the perks enjoyed by Mandelson and his friends, the Kinnocks, who are now extremely rich socialists, but I am told there are jobs in Poland for British plumbers - as long as they are willing to work like Poles for Polish wages.

Working in Europe was all very well for Mandelson. He took a ticket to Brussels, got rich, stacked up a pension most people can only dream about and made friends with plenty of jet-setters with luxury villas and yachts into the bargain.

But to suggest that the unemployed should leave their families behind to hop on a budget flight to work thousands of miles away is daft.’

Norman Tebbit, writing in the Daily Mail.

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS

Below is a copy of an article from today's Sun:

Kavanagh
Why foreign worker row will erupt into a headache for GordBy TREVOR KAVANAGH Published: Today

THE only surprise in the row over Grimsby’s foreign workers is that it took so long to erupt.

When jobs are scarce, why should skilled Brits stand idle while hundreds of Italians are imported.

For years we have been told what we can and cannot do by unaccountable Brussels directives.

Now in hard times, we are no longer prepared to put up with the lunatic attempt to turn the EU into an artificial nation state.

Europe’s overweening power, and the Government’s refusal to act, are turning migrant labour into a toxic new factor in this slump.

Gordon Brown casually handed strikers their slogan when he promised “British jobs for British workers”.

“Deputy PM” Peter Mandelson fears unemployment — here and in Europe — could unravel the EU.

Yet Mandy fuelled the blaze by telling strikers if they don’t like Italians taking our jobs, they should go to Italy and take theirs!

He should understand that this clash over foreign workers is just the first puff of smoke from the volcano.

This small island was never going to cope long-term with three million uninvited, sometimes unwelcome and often illegal, guests in seven short years.

Nor, as times get tougher, will we quietly accept the Government’s prediction of ten million more.

The strikes at oil, gas and chemical plants are only the start.

There are plenty more foreign-only deals waiting to explode, not least the £12billion Olympics where thousands of non-UK workers are being hired.

Brits of all backgrounds, including established migrants, have been simmering over immigration for a decade.

They were treated with contempt as Labour recklessly opened the door to countless newcomers.

Yes, the vast majority are decent, law-abiding workers, grateful for our hospitality.

But there is an ugly side to immigration we are not supposed to talk about...

Freeloading on the welfare state, jumping housing queues and mopping up health and welfare provision for which they have paid no tax.

Immigrants feature disproportionately in criminal violence.

Organised gangs from Africa, Albania and Asia run ruthless drug and vice rings. And ministers do absolutely nothing about it.

Labour champions equality but ignores its own natural supporters — hard-working tradesmen priced out by EU rivals.

Labour vigilantly imposes Health & Safety fascism yet turns a blind eye to migrants exploited as slave labour.

Unions hail the minimum wage as their greatest triumph while workers compete with foreign rivals who work all hours for what they see as a king’s ransom.

Labour decided long ago that all immigration is good.

If it raises tax revenue, the more the merrier.

All minorities, even those with no link to this country, take priority over the established population.

Inner cities are colonised by entire communities who live, pray, dress and speak as if they still lived in tribal villages.

Shockingly, there are 300 schools where English is not the first language.

Labour is obsessed with its diversity agenda, yet it sits mute as women in ghettos are kept ignorant, forced into marriage or, in some cases, murdered for refusing.

Any attempt to raise matters like this is denounced as “racism”.

Labour effectively silenced Tories with this ugly smear. Now they are being forced on the back foot because the same charges are being levelled from their own side.

Trevor Phillips, black chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has spoken bravely about his party’s mistakes on race.


Threat

Past and present immigration ministers have talked about action, while at the same time waving in 150,000 workers a year.

Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas warns Labour MPs risk a dangerous threat from an increasingly strident BNP.

But it is Birkenhead rebel Frank Field who speaks up for the whole country.

“Stakes could not be higher,” he warns. “The men and women on these picket lines are not just fighting for their jobs, they are asserting their national identity.

“Anger should be directed at this Government.”

Couldn’t put it better myself.

GORDON BROWN concedes he might have put the economy at risk when he removed the Bank of England as City watchdog in 1997.

But he seems bewildered that greedy bankers took advantage of this loophole, plunging Britain into the worst slump in the Western world.

Will he go a little further and admit that on the day after Labour came to power, he and Tony Blair were told in a blazing face-to-face row with Bank governor Eddie George that this was precisely the risk they were taking?