THE LOONY LEFT

Of 44 Church of England bishops, only 5 thought that the church bells should be rung to celebrate St George’s Day.

The bishops had been written to by Libby Alexander who believed that church attendances were falling due to ‘the lack of assertiveness or confidence emanating from the top’ and the ‘strangulations of political correctness’. Less than half the bishops replied and those who did were either unenthusiastic or hostile. Some claimed that there could be a backlash from other religious groups.

Mrs Alexander wrote:

‘What an uplifting, wondrous sound it would be if bells rang out to remind the country that Christianity exists and that churches are there to welcome.’

The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, said: ‘I am not sure assertiveness is a Christian value’. The Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Rev Dr Peter Foster, said: ‘There would be dangers in putting on “public displays” of confidence.’

Assertiveness is definitely not a Church of England value.

THE EU

For those who have not actually seen the YouTube sensation of Dan Hannan telling Gordon Brown the facts of life in the EU parliament, the link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc9TVlzdEsc

THE LOONY LEFT

Despite the economic crisis and the unemployment caused by Labour’s economic policy, Labour remain determined to continue promoting political correctness and the deculturalisation of England regardless.

The Department for Local Government has spent money from its Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund to donate £25,000 to the British Humanist Association [BHA], which is aggressively campaigning against religion - especially Christianity. The BHA has further received £35,000 of funding from the so-called Equality and Human Rights Commission to promote secularism. The president of the BHA is the Labour stalwart, Polly Toynbee.

The BHA has been responsible for advising Local Authorities that: ‘Religious pictures on the walls may seem inoffensive to those of the religion in question but can create a hostile or offensive environment for others.’

The BHA has been pleased that funding helped activists within the City of London Police to rename ‘prayer rooms’ as ‘quiet rooms’. So-called equality officers have been advised to promote ‘humanists and non-religious people’.

A spokesman for the Department for Local Government said that its funding of the BHA was part of a ‘broader strategy to build cohesion’.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Further to the item posted earlier today, it would seem that Mr Kumarasiri was wrong. Having a brown skin does not protect someone from the British Inquisition:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7956570.stm
Page last updated at 12:53 GMT, Saturday, 21 March 2009
Foreign ban postmaster leaves job

Mr Kumarasiri said he could not serve people if he did not understand them.

A postmaster from Nottingham who refused to serve customers who could not speak English has left his job.

Sri-Lankan born Deva Kumarasiri, who worked at the sub office on Sneinton Boulevard, made the national news after announcing his policy.

He had claimed non-English speakers frustrated other customers and made it difficult to do his job properly.

But managers at the Post Office said the service was for all and they were concerned about the impact on trade.

There were also reports that Polish migrants had been boycotting the branch.


I suspect people in this country would be offended by what this man was doing
John Heppell MP

Abida Raja, whose family runs the branch, said they had to take action. He said: "It was my brother's decision because obviously he was very upset by those comments, because we're losing customers because of it.

"He had to do something about it, because obviously we don't feel that way about anyone else, we don't discriminate against any customer coming in, because obviously the customers keep the business going."

Mr Kumarasami's policy had also been criticised by the Racial Equality Council and MP for Nottingham East, John Heppell.

Mr Heppell said: "This was a little bit strange. What do you do with tourists?

"If I was abroad and if someone refused to sell me a stamp because my French or German was not good enough, I think I would have every right to be offended and I suspect people in this country would be offended by what this man was doing."

Mr Kumarasiri had told the BBC he had turned away about six customers who had wasted his time and annoyed other customers by not being able to understand English.

He had said: "I am part of a service but how can I serve them if I don't understand what they are asking for?

"When I came to England I obeyed the British way of life, I got into the British way of life.

"That is what I ask everyone else to do - respect the country where you are working and living."

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/printerfriendly.aspx?itemid=1282105
InTheNews.co.uk
Foreign language ban postmaster removed
Saturday, 21 Mar 2009 12:02

Mr Kumarasiri is now working at a different post office in the area.

A postmaster working in Nottingham who refused to serve customers who couldn't speak English has been removed by the store's owner.

Sri-Lankan born Deva Kumarasiri's decision to turn away customers from a post office in Sneinton Boulevard for their failure to integrate into British society by not speaking English made the national newspapers earlier this week.

Mr Kumarasiri stated that it was difficult to serve customers who spoke in foreign languages.

Speaking to the BBC Nottingham East MP John Heppell said the postmaster's decision would cause difficulties to tourists.

"If I was abroad and if someone refused to sell me a stamp because my French or German was not good enough, I think I would have every right to be offended and I suspect people in this country would be offended by what this man was doing," he added.

Local newspaper the Nottingham Evening Post reports that Mr Kumarasiri was now working at a different post office but was determined to maintain his stand on customers speaking English.

It reports Mr Kumarasiri as saying: "I will continue with my policy and try to do what is best for the people of Nottingham."

© 2009 www.InTheNews.co.uk .

QUOTE OF THE MONTH [bonus]

‘I had to say something, because too many people are afraid to. The person who’s born here can’t do anything or he’ll be accused of being racist. You can only complain here if you’ve got brown skin.

And the white man, what does he do? Nothing. He has to keep it under his clothes, or his hat, or whatever we say, until it builds up and up like a balloon, until one day it’ll explode and we’ll have riots and hatred and I don’t want that. I just want people to be proud to be ‘British.’

Deva Kumarasiri, a Sri-Lankan-born postmaster who is refusing to serve customers who do not speak in English.

Local Muslims are now circulating a petition demanding that Mr Kumarasiri is sacked.

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS

Below is an article which exposes how committed Labour are to the promotion of mass immigration, despite knowing that British people are being put out of work because of it:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/90163/Firms-told-how-to-employ-foreigners

FIRMS TOLD HOW TO EMPLOY FOREIGNERS

ANGRY: Tory Chris Grayling

Friday March 20,2009
By Mark Reynolds

TAXPAYERS are footing the bill for a string of seminars teaching British companies how to legally recruit more foreign workers – as the number of unemployed in the UK rockets past two million.

Under an initiative branded “absurd” by critics, the Government is running a number of “free lessons” to encourage firms to legally employ non-EU workers.

Yesterday the Home Office defended the taxpayer-funded seminars, which allow bosses to quiz experts on how to legally bring in extra foreign labour.

On the same day the Royal Bank of Scotland confirmed some 2,700 jobs, more than two per cent of its workforce, are to be axed.

Costing a total of £20,000, the classes proclaim to show how employers can tap into potential resources that offer “new solutions to the labour and skills shortages being experienced in the UK today.”

The series of seminars – already held in East Lancashire, Liverpool, Dorset and next month to be staged in London – are being hosted by the UK Border Agency, part of the Home Office, and the British Chamber of Commerce.
ì
“The focus must be on up-skilling British workers and not employing foreign workers."
î

Last night furious critics attacked the move, calling on companies to look to the rising number of skilled and professional British workers who are seeking jobs.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “Of course Britain should not bring down the protectionist barriers in a recession, but this will deal a further blow to Gordon Brown’s credibility in the eyes of many people after his boasts about ‘British Jobs for British Workers’.”

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, added: “This is an absurd use of Government money.

“The focus must be on up-skilling British workers and not employing foreign workers.

“With unemployment rising weekly it is inexcusable that British workers shouldn’t have a first crack at jobs as they come available.”

But a British Chamber of Commerce said: “The BCC is involved in these programmes to ensure businesses do not fall foul of the law by employing illegal migrants.”

A Home Office spokesman added: “We have always said that we would run our immigration system for the benefit of the UK, and that is why we introduced a flexible points system which allows the Government to control the numbers of people coming to the UK from outside Europe, ensuring that they have the skills this country needs.

“We are working with businesses to help them understand these tighter controls.”

IMMIGRATION

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162782/English-second-language-seven-school-pupils.html
English is a second language for one in seven school pupils

By James Chapman
Last updated at 3:03 AM on 18th March 2009* Comments (0)

The high number of pupils who do not speak English as a first language can make classroom teaching difficult

One in seven primary school pupils does not speak English as a first language.

The number who normally speak a foreign language rose last year to 565,888 - 14.3 per cent of the total.

In some areas, English is a foreign language to more than 70 per cent of four to 11-year-olds, putting enormous pressure on teaching staff. And there are ten schools without a single pupil who has English as a first language, new figures show.

Teachers say large concentrations of children with a poor grasp of English can lead to some schools being unfairly condemned by inspectors.

Parliamentary questions have revealed that in 2004, 452,388 primary school children spoke English as a second language. By last year this figure had increased by 113,500, a rise of almost exactly 25 per cent.

In secondary schools, the proportion of pupils who do not have English as their native language has increased from 8.8 per cent in 2004 to 10.6 per cent last year.

The soaring figures reflect the fact that immigration into the UK is now five times higher than when Labour came to power in 1997. Net immigration has increased from 48,000 that year to 237,000 in 2007.

Shadow immigration minister Damian Green said the figures suggest that almost a million primary and secondary pupils now speak English as a second language.

He said: 'These shocking figures illustrate how difficult life is for many teachers because of the Government's long-term failure to control immigration.

'They show why we badly need an annual limit on immigration.

'Australia has a limit which it has just reduced because of the recession - Britain should be able to do the same thing.

'The number of pupils with English as a second language makes life difficult for teachers, parents and pupils.

'Whether or not they can speak English, everyone suffers when it's more difficult for teachers in the classroom.

'This is also a huge pressure on local authorities trying to cope with uncontrolled immigration.'

Conservative MP Damian Green: 'Everyone suffers when it's more difficult for teachers in the classroom'

Mick Brookes, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: 'Where you have a child or a group of children with no English at all admitted to a school, the school needs to create some facility for translation, just in terms of the quality of their education .

'Children may well come with languages which are not commonly dealt with in this country.

'We are now hearing head teachers complaining that they and their schools are being unfairly judged because they have a large number of children with English as a second language.

'Schools are bending over backwards to accommodate these children and then Ofsted comes in and gives them a kicking for poor overall standards.

'But as well as being a challenge to schools, there are real success stories.

'In my own experience, a child came from Estonia with very broken English and two years later she was winning the school spelling competition.'

More and more local authorities are now insisting they need more money to help cater for the dozens of languages spoken in some schools.

In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, only 23 per cent of pupils speak English as their first language.

At one school, Nelson Primary in East London, three-quarters of pupils are not native English speakers and some 56 different languages are spoken.

Headmaster Tim Benson said his teachers have to use many more hand gestures than usual, as well as drawing pictures.

Teaching assistants fluent in particular languages are brought in to help small groups of children through their lessons.

Schools Minister Jim Knight acknowledges there can be problems with high numbers of students whose English is not up to scratch.

Despite his problems, Mr Benson says schools in areas like his are better equipped than many trying to deal with newer immigrant populations.

Schools in shire counties 'really struggle' and desperately need more cash, he warned.

'In places like Lincolnshire and Suffolk this is all new to them and the mindset is not there to provide for these children. They haven't got the staff and they haven't got the funding.'

Schools minister Jim Knight has admitted that 'undoubtedly there can be problems' for schools with large numbers of non-English speakers.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears will tomorrow call for an 'honest debate' about the pressures that migration can put on local public services.

She will announce that anyone from outside the EU applying for a student or work visa will be required to pay a special tax levied on migrants.

The cash produced by this will go to local authorities who are currently struggling to cope with the impact of immigration on their schools, GP surgeries and other public services.

Ministers hope the tax will raise £70million over the next two years.

Miss Blears is expected to say: 'This fund will pay for the public services in the areas where migration has the biggest impact on our local communities'

The Children's Department said last night: 'The language of instruction in English schools is and always has been English.

'We have listened to concerns of headteachers and are increasing funding in the ethnic minority achievement grant to £206million by 2010, to bring students weak in English up to speed.

'We also equip schools to offer effective English teaching for new arrivals, with a comprehensive support package.'

IMMIGRATION

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4992172/Seven-million-immigrants-cant-be-good-for-Britain.html

Seven million immigrants can't be good for Britain

The Government has not considered how to fit enough new arrivals to create a city the size of London into the already over-crowded South East, says Alasdair Palmer.

By Alasdair Palmer
Last Updated: 6:22PM GMT 14 Mar 2009

The UN predicted last week that the population of Britain would rise to 72 million by 2050. Actually, the increase will probably happen faster than that. According to the Government's own figures, Britain's population will reach 71 million not in 40 years, but in just over 20: its forecast is that we will get there in 2031, because it thinks the number of immigrants who will arrive here is going to be higher than
the UN's prediction.

The rise will be almost entirely the result of immigration. If there were to be no immigration at all into Britain, the population would hover around its present figure of 61 million. But the Government predicts that net migration into Britain (that is, the total of those coming in minus the total number of people emigrating) will be around 190,000 a year for the foreseeable future.

The consequential population increase, which may be as high as 10 million, is enormously significant. It represents adding a city bigger than London (the population of which is now about seven and a half million). England, with a population density of 395 people per square kilometre, is already the most crowded country in Europe: we are packed more densely than the Dutch in Holland. There are nearly three times as many of us squashed into every square kilometre here as there are in every square kilometre of France.

Most of the new immigrants will gravitate towards the South East, because that's where the jobs and the money are. Suppose seven million migrants end up in the South: the existing infrastructure will have to be drastically overhauled. Already, there are acute shortages of housing, of school places and of doctors. Seven million extra people will mean several million more cars driving on roads which are already permanently congested. The provision even of such basics as water will have to be completely rethought.

Has the Government a plan for dealing with any of this? It has not. It has not seriously considered what needs to be done to supply an extra seven million people with the necessities of modern life, still less contemplated the impact it will have on the environment. The Government's only response has been to dismantle planning restrictions in order to allow private companies to build houses on every available piece of land, including public green spaces such as parks.

And yet the increase in population will be entirely the result of Labour's policy of encouraging immigration at historically unprecedented levels. In 1997, Labour abolished the "Primary Purpose Rule", which required immigrants to show that "marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the UK". Immigration by spouses increased by 50 per cent as a consequence, so that more than 40,000 arrived last year. Labour has also trebled the number of work permits granted since 1997: nearly 140,000 were issued in 2008, compared with around 47,000 in 1997. Whether deliberately or not, Labour also lost control of the asylum system after 1998, so that between 1999 and 2000 asylum seekers were, at over 80,000 a year, the
largest category of immigrants to the UK.

The number of asylum seekers has now dropped to not much more than 20,000 a year. But net immigration is going to remain extremely high, in spite of the economic recession, for the simple reason that life in the UK is a hell of a lot better than it is in most developing countries. Relative stability, freedom from arbitrary violence and predatory government are as important as free education, medical care and benefits for your family if you are out of work. It makes life here far better than anything that could be reasonably expected in most developing countries. That is why the number of people who will do everything they can to ensure that they can immigrate to this country will remain very high.

Should we turn them away? There is a moral case for high levels of immigration, based on the view that we have an obligation to share our wealth with the less well-off, wherever they come from. That, however, is not the case for mass immigration that Labour has put to the electorate, perhaps because it is aware that not many people are persuaded by it. Labour's argument has been couched entirely in terms of economic self-interest – and that case is almost totally spurious.

Were either main party to propose bringing back serious and effective restrictions on immigration, they would gain significant electoral support, and not just from the white working class. Some of the strongest supporters of reducing immigration are recent immigrants, for they suffer most from the competition of newer arrivals who are willing to work for even less in even harsher conditions. The consensus among the bien pensants that immigration is an unalloyed benefit has been so strong for so long that it will take a great deal of political courage from either Labour or the Conservatives to oppose it. But does anyone seriously think that squashing in an extra seven million people over the next 20 years is going to make this country a better place in which to live?

THE LOONY LEFT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4995787/Euro-chiefs-ban-Miss-and-Mrs.html

Euro chiefs ban 'Miss' and 'Mrs'
The European Parliament has banned the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' in case they offend female MEPs.

By Simon Johnson
Last Updated: 3:06PM GMT 15 Mar 2009

The politically correct rules also mean a ban on Continental titles, such as Madame and Mademoiselle, Frau and Fraulein and Senora and Senorita.

Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.

Officials have also ordered that 'sportsmen' be called 'athletes', 'statesmen' be referred to as 'political leaders' and even that 'synthetic' or 'artificial' be used instead of 'man-made'.

The guidance lists banned terms for describing professions, including fireman, air hostess, headmaster, policeman, salesman, manageress, cinema usherette and male nurse.

However MEPs are still allowed to refer to 'midwives' as there is no accepted male version of the job description.

The booklet also admits that "no gender-neutral term has been successfully proposed" to replace 'waiter' and 'waitress', allowing parliamentarians to use these words in a restaurant or café.

It has been circulated by Harold Romer, the parliament's secretary general, to the 785 MEPs working in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Struan Stevenson, a Scottish Conservative MEP described the guidelines as "political correctness gone mad."

He said: "We have seen the EU institutions try to ban the bagpipes and dictate the shape of bananas, but now they see determined to tell us which words we are entitled to use in our own language."

Philip Bradbourn, another Conservative MEP, vowed to ignore the booklet, which he described as a "waste of taxpayers' money" and called on Mr Romer to reveal its cost.

He added: "I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions, which I have used all my life, and will not be instructed by this institution or anyone else in these matters."

Seven years ago, an attempt to amend noise laws came close to effectively outlawing bagpipes.

However, a number of bizarre EU rules remain in place, including a directive stating that every pair of rubber boots must be supplied with a user's manual in 12 languages.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘A Grecian philosopher, who visited Constantinople soon after the death of Theodosius, published his liberal opinions concerning the duties of kings and the state of the Roman republic. Synesius observes and deplores the fatal abuse which the imprudent bounty of the late emperor had introduced into military service. The citizens and subjects had purchased an exemption from the indispensable duty of defending their country, which was supported by the arms of barbarian mercenaries. The fugitives of Scythia were permitted to disgrace the illustrious dignities of the empire; their ferocious youth, who disdained the salutary restraint of laws, were more anxious to acquire the riches than to imitate the arts of a people the object of their contempt and hatred; and the power of the Goths was the stone of Tantalus, perpetually suspended over the peace and safety of the devoted state. The measures which Synesius recommends are the dictates of a bold and generous patriot. He exhorts the emperor to revive the courage of his subjects by the example of manly virtue; to banish luxury from the court and from the camp; to substitute, in the place of the barbarian mercenaries, an army of men interested in the defence of their laws and of their property; to force, in such a moment of public danger, the mechanic from his shop and the philosopher from his school; to rouse the indolent citizen from his dream of pleasure; and to arm, for the protection of agriculture, the hands of the laborious husbandman. At the head of such troops, who might deserve the name and would display the spirit of Romans, he animates the son of Theodosius to encounter a race of barbarians who were destitute of any real courage; and never to lay down arms till he had chased them far away into the solitudes of Scythia, or had reduced them to the state of ignominious servitude which the Lacedaemonians formerly imposed on the captive Helots. The court of Arcadius indulged the zeal, applauded the eloquence, and neglected the advice of Synesius. Perhaps the philosopher, who addresses the emperor of the East in the language of reason and virtue which he might have used to a Spartan king, had not condescended to form a practicable scheme, consistent with the temper and circumstances of a degenerate age. Perhaps the pride of the ministers, whose business was seldom interrupted by reflection, might reject, as wild and visionary, every proposal which exceeded the measure of their capacity, and deviated from the forms and precedents of office. While the oration of Synesius and the downfall of the barbarians were the topics of popular conversation, an edict was published at Constantinople which declared the promotion of Alaric to the rank of master-general of the Eastern Illyricum. The Roman provincials, and the allies who had respected the faith of the treaties, were justly indignant that the ruin of Greece and Epirus should be so liberally rewarded. The Gothic conqueror was received as a lawful magistrate in the cities which he had so lately besieged. The fathers whose sons he had massacred, the husbands whose wives he had violated, were subject to his authority; and the success of his rebellion encouraged the ambition of every leader of the foreign mercenaries. The use to which Alaric applied his new command distinguishes the firm and judicious character of his policy. He issued his orders to the four magazines and manufacturers of offensive and defensive arms, Margus, Ratiaria, Naissus, and Thessalonica, to provide his troops with an extraordinary supply of shields, helmets, swords, and spears; the unhappy provincials were compelled to forge the instruments of their own destruction; and the barbarians removed the only defect which had sometimes disappointed the efforts of their courage. The birth of Alaric, the glory of his past exploits, and the confidence in his future designs, insensibly united the body of the nation under his victorious standards; and, with the unanimous consent of the barbarian chieftains, the master-general of Illyricum was elevated, according to ancient custom, on a shield, and solemnly proclaimed king of the Visigoths. Armed with this double power, seated on the verge of the two empires, he alternatively sold his deceitful promises to the courts of Arcadius and Honorius, till he declared and executed his resolution of invading the dominions of the West. The provinces of Europe which belonged to the Eastern emperor were already exhausted, those of Asia were inaccessible, and the strength of Constantinople had resisted his attack. But he was tempted by the fame, the beauty, the wealth of Italy, which he had twice visited; and he secretly aspired to plant the Gothic standard on the walls of Rome, and to enrich his army with the accumulated spoils of three hundred triumphs.’

Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Honorius and Arcadius were the two Roman Emperors, the empire being divided between east and west.

The English are not the first people to be betrayed by their leaders.

There have been documentaries which liked to portray Alaric and the Visigoths as misunderstood asylum seekers. That is bunkum. They were bloodthirsty barbarians who sought to plunder and destroy the Roman Empire. Alaric did proceed to plunder Rome and the Visigoth rampage through Italy and southern France, combined with the other barbarian invasions, did ultimately destroy the Western Roman Empire.

The eastern half of the Roman Empire, known as the Byzantine Empire, survived another thousand years until the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The controversy surrounding the small band of Islamist extremists who demonstrated at the homecoming parade in Luton of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment continues.

When the soldiers, who had returned from Iraq, marched through Luton, a small mob of Islamist protesters, from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah [ASWJ], shouted abuse and waved placards saying: ‘Anglian soldiers: Butchers of Basra’ and ‘Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists’.

This was a disgraceful episode intended to denigrate our soldiers and stir up hatred. However, as a video of the event has shown, the protesters came off the worst. Members of the general public reacted very angrily and confronted the protesters, shouting ‘scum’ and ‘no surrender to the Taliban’.

The police formed two lines between the general public and the protesters to keep them apart, before hustling the protesters away. It is believed that PC Plod have not charged the protesters, although one member of the general public was issued with a fixed penalty notice and another has been charged. Nathan Draper said:

‘A 6ft 5in copper jumped on me and chucked me to the ground. He broke my glasses. I was held in the police station for ten hours and I still have the cuff marks. I’m being charged with racially aggravated harassment but it was them who were shouting racist things.’

One of the protesters, a teacher and leader of the Luton branch of the now banned al-Muhajiroun, Sayful Islam, said:

‘The anger has been rising. The parade was the final insult. They have killed, maimed, and raped thousands of innocent people. They can’t come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community.’

It has been revealed that one of the protesters, Jalal Ahmed, is a baggage handler at Luton airport. His airside pass has now been revoked and he will be subject to a full investigation by his employer, Menzies Aviation. Most of the protesters are believed to be on benefits.

Subsequently, Anjem Choudary, who has close links to ASWJ, described the parade as ‘vile’ and the soldiers ‘terrorists’ on the website Islam For The UK. Mr Choudary was interviewed by Kirsty Walk on Newsnight, in which he claimed that far from welcoming the soldiers home, ‘people should be indicted for war crimes’ and that he was ‘representing the Islamic viewpoint’. He claimed that Britain should not have soldiers in Iraq is it was ‘not your land’.

Kirsty Walk put it to him:

‘It is clear that you are not happy with life in Britain, with the way things are in Britain. I think you have actually even said you would like the flag of Allah flying above 10 Downing Street. You believe in Sharia Law and so forth. You are free to leave Britain, if you don’t like what happens here. Leave, you are a free man.’

Mr Choudary replied that what he was doing was ‘within the framework of freedom and democracy’ and that people ‘are calling for an alternative to the British way of life’.

It emerged that all homecoming parades would now be targeted by the Islamists.

Mr Choudary has been interviewed by Kirsty Walk before [see the English Rights Campaign item dated 23 August 2005], when he claimed that his British passport was nothing more than a travel document. There is an alternative to Mr Choudary and his ilk deciding that they might leave, and that is that the decision is taken for them and their travel documents are withdrawn.

RACE WAR POLITICS

The English Rights Campaign item dated the 2 March 2009 consisted of the reaction of the Steadfast Trust and Tony Linsell to the next census and the exclusion of a question relating to the English as an ethnic group. The Office for National Statistics [ONS] had backtracked from a previous understanding that there would be a tick-box for the ethnic English.

The Steadfast Trust correspondent complains that the ONS now intends to remove the ethnic English tick box and instead only include English as an option under National Identity. The correspondent complains that:

‘A person’s “National Identity” has no actual meaning in law and carries no legal status. In effect someone can record their Ethnicity as Pakistani and their National Identity as English.’

The Steadfast Trust are concerned with equality under the various race relations legislation for the ethnic English and believe that they need the ethnic English data to enable this and to give the ethnic English status under that legislation:

‘Simply having a “place name” English identity (rather than the benefits of an “ethnic identity”) is not tolerable as it leaves the Ethnic English open to discrimination. In effect the Ethnic English have a non-identity. Discrimination against the Ethnic English is a growing problem and this can’t be combated if those who are so discriminated aren’t identified in law. For instance if the Ethnic English are under-represented in employment and feel that this is down to discrimination against them because of their ethnicity it would be quite possible for an employer to point to a fellow worker who might be Hungarian, or Irish or Afro-Caribbean and say they are not being discriminatory as all these people could be identified as English.’

Tony Linsell points out that the National Identity question is to replace the previous census question: ‘What is your country of birth?’. Tony Linsell highlights the attempt by the British state to corrupt the meaning of language:

‘In addition to the state sponsored British identity with its British history, culture and institutions, there is an inclusive and very thin state sponsored Englishness – ‘whatever your ethnicity you can be English if you want to be.’ An essential part of this systematic campaign is to suggest that England is a nation. Progressives play with words by changing their meaning so as to suit their interests. If they can get people to believe that England is a nation they will get away with the idea that national identity is determined by where you live. In other words, if you live in England you are English.’

Instead of an ethnic English tick box, we are to be reduced to settling for a white British tick box. Beth Moon of the ONS revealed that the reason for the removal of the proposed ethnic English tick-box was to encourage ethnic minorities to describe themselves as English: ‘We don’t want only White people to call themselves English’.

Such a statement is pure race war politics. The next census will be corrupted by anti-English racial hatred. Tony Linsell writes that Beth Moon also alleged that there was too little room on the form for an ethnic English tick-box:

‘Beth Moon also mentioned that the extent of the census form has to be limited and that it cannot include all the questions various groups would like included. There was obviously too little space to put in an English tick-box but enough room to put in a tick-boxes for Irish and for Gypsy or Irish Traveller. In any other country such obvious manipulation would be thought scandalous and insulting. Can you imagine an Irish census form that had an English tick-box but not an Irish tick-box? Only the half-witted English would allow such a thing.

I asked the meeting Chairman, Peter Benton, why, in view of the alleged shortage of space on the form, could room be found for an Irish tick-box and another for Gypsy and Irish Traveller. He replied, “They are discriminated against.” The clear racist implication, indeed the logic of this, is that the English discriminate against others but are not discriminated against.’

The lesson from this is that we cannot expect the British state to act fairly or be anything other than politically correct. The British state is anti-English. The corruption of the meaning of language, the control of language and all forms of media, and the imposition of a politically correct view on the population is political correctness in its purest form.

However, Tony Linsell has raised some interesting issues, which need further examination. As a grammatical fact, England is a country - not a nation. We should reject any attempt to impose grammatical nonsense upon us. It is the English who are a nation.

The English Democrats manifesto deals with the issue of Englishness and the people of England. The relevant part of the manifesto, written by Tony Linsell himself some years ago, states [italics are as in the manifesto]:

----------

England and Multi-culturalism
It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society.
However, multi-culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.

The English
It is common for those who assert their English identity to be challenged in a way that would be considered insulting if directed elsewhere. So as to avoid misunderstanding, and to meet the demands of those who are hostile to any assertion of Englishness, we have set out below what we mean by the English.
The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are defined. To be English is to be part of a community. We English share a communal history, language and culture. We have a communal identity and memory. We share a we sentiment; a sense of belonging. These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist. Our community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist and we have the will to continue to exist.

The People of England
The people of England are all those UK citizens who live in England. In electoral terms, the people of England are all those UK citizens who are on the electoral roll of an English constituency. The people of England therefore includes the people of many nations, all of whom share a common UK citizenship.

----------

The English Democrats manifesto clearly recognises that the ethnic English are a nation. That, for the English, ethnic and national identity are one and the same. This is a fact and not a matter of debate. The English were a self-governing nation until the formation of Britain. We remain a nation within Britain. The existence of ethnic minorities in England does not preclude we English from our culture, our history and our nationhood. Immigrants become British - not English. They acquire British passports. Those from the immigrant communities tend to refer to themselves as British-Asians, British-Pakistanis, or Black British etc. Very few refer to themselves as English and those who do may well do so as they have English blood in their veins.

If anyone in England was English, then any culture in England would be English. Such an ideological construct might suit the muliticulturalists, but it would make complete nonsense of historical fact and our understanding of society. Nor are the immigrant communities making such absurd inventions. It is only the politically correct who are doing so.

The English Rights Campaign item dated the 21 July 2005 examines the issue of nationhood and nationality, listing 6 matters for consideration. Those matters remain highly relevant as is the English Rights Campaign item dated the 28 September 2005. To deem immigrants as English is to propagate a lie.

Tony Linsell and Steadfast are concerned with English ethnicity in order to represent English interests within the race relations legislation. That may have some merits, and one needs to use all weapons to hand, but it is doomed to failure. The British state will not treat the English fairly and our very existence is a threat to its hegemony, especially if we demand our rights following the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. The British state will resist with all its means the demands for equality for the English within the union, and likewise demands for equality with other ethnic groups.

Immigrants may have their ethnicity, but that does not make those ethnic groups a nation. Black British may include those from the Caribbean, various African countries or even the USA, for example. They may have shared racial identity or ethnicity, but not a shared national identity although they may acquire British citizenship. The English do have a shared national identity in addition to their ethnicity and in addition to their British citizenship.

Moreover, the English founded England. We are England’s Staatsvolk [responsible for England’s formation, its institutions and culture]. Immigrants have their own countries in addition to their right of abode in Britain, be it citizenship or other residency status. The English do not and have nowhere else to go. The various North American natives, such as the Inuit in Canada, have special homelands where they can enjoy their culture and autonomy. Nunavut is the homeland of 25,000 Inuit. Are we English to be denied our own homeland despite our far greater sense of nationhood, history and advanced national status? Are an indigenous national minority such as the Inuit entitled to more rights than a indigenous national majority such as the English, who in turn are a very small ethnic minority globally and also in the EU?

To treat the English as nothing more than an ethnicity would be to assume that we are as disparate as all the other ethnic minorities. That is not the case. To treat us as being nothing more than an ethnicity and as being no different from an immigrant ethnic minority would be subversive and pure race war politics.

It takes more than tick-boxes on a census form to forge nationhood. The several centuries of the British Empire did not make the various peoples of that empire members of the British nation despite their status as British subjects. They ultimately demanded independence and were prepared to fight and kill for it. Even the Americans rebelled. Likewise, the several centuries of other empires [eg Ottoman, Russian, or the Holy Roman Empire] failed to make the various peoples of those empires one nation. The Austro-Hungarian Empire failed to make even the Austrians and Hungarians one nation.

All Labour’s blather about Britishness is merely a con to allow them to rig elections and loot England for the benefit of Scotland and Wales, and allow Labour politicians to lord it over the English. It is spin to cover up the fact that Gordon Brown is not accountable to those over whom he governs. Gordon Brown is afforded far greater international status as prime minister of Britain than he would ever be afforded as prime minister of Scotland, drowning in all its banking debts.

So how should we English react to the English-haters at the ONS? We should not accept the attempted politically correct corruption of the meaning of language. We should stick to our own understanding, based on history and fact, of our own identity and nationhood. And we should unequivocally condemn the ONS’s attempt to encourage immigrants to lie in filling in the census forms.

SPIV ECONOMICS

The £260billion guarantee for the Lloyds Banking Group has been announced and the news received with a certain nonchalance. The cost and frequency of the bailouts has almost become commonplace.

However, the shareholders in Lloyds are rightly angry that their investments have been diminished by the bungled merger with and bailout of HBOS. It has been estimated that every taxpayer will need to pay an extra £806 per year to keep the scale of government borrowing under control. When families start having to find roughly £1,600 [if both husband and wife are working], simply to stem the increase in government borrowing, and especially if the guarantees that Labour have been so willing to give to the bankers are called in and push the borrowing up still further, then the anger will turn to a hatred of those issuing these guarantees - Labour.

Despite the insolvency of the banks, news of the extravagance of the bankers’ pay continues. Larry Fish, who retired from RBS in May, is being paid £1.6million each year. His pension pot was increased by £2million to £19million in 2008; Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension pot was increased by £8.3million; and Gordon Pell’s pension pot was topped up by £1.4million. This is despite the tens of billions RBS lost. It has further been revealed that RBS provides a £1.6million home free of charge to its chairman.

RBS is now set to use £807million of the taxpayers’ money used to bail it out to shore up its pension scheme, which is now in a £1.99billion deficit. The RBS pension is extremely generous. Most staff make no contributions and can retire at 60 on two thirds of final salary.

At Northern Rock, Adam Applegarth received a golden goodbye of a year’s salary of £760,000 and a pension top up of £109,000; Andy Kulpers received a golden goodbye of £708,000; Bryan Sanderson, the former chairman, received a severance package of £340,000 [£85,000 per month for the 4 months he worked for the bank]; and Ann Godbehere claimed £173,000 in expenses for commuting from her home in Switzerland and pocketed £786,000 for only 10 months work. This is despite the bank going bust and having to be bailed out by the taxpayer. 400 junior managers are expected to be paid up to 10% of their salary.

Despite the debacle at Lloyds Bank, whose shares have fallen from 614p in early 2007 to roughly 42p now, Eric Daniels, the chief executive, receives £1million per year, is believed to have ‘non-dom’ status and receives an annual allowance of £25,000 for his ‘tax and financial planning’. His pension pot is worth £2.8million.

Back in the real world, it has been revealed that those remaining defined benefit pension schemes have a combined deficit of £219billion. The Pension Protection Fund, which was set up to bail out insolvent pension schemes, produced figures showing that the decline in value in equities was responsible for the black hole.

Meanwhile, the banks are not passing on the base rate cuts. The latest cut in base rates resulted in a mortgage rate cut of only 0.1% from the Alliance and Leicester, which has now been taken over by the Spanish Santander. Average bank savings rates have been slashed to a paltry 0.17% for an instant access account, while customers who are overdrawn on the current accounts face being charged a 18.62% interest rate. This is outrageous bank profiteering.

The ordinary English taxpayer is being taken to the cleaners.

THE CULTURE OF CRIMINALITY

A recent study by the London School of Economics [LSE] has estimated that there may be between 524,000 and 947,000 illegal immigrants in Britain. The LSE report had been commissioned by the Tory London mayor, Boris Johnson, who has been promoting an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Mr Johnson said:

‘If people are going to be here and we’ve chronically failed to kick them out, it’s morally right that they should contribute in their taxes to the rest of society.’

The experience from other countries demonstrate that amnesties merely encourage an escalation in illegal immigration. Italy had an amnesty in 1988, allowing 119,000 illegal immigrants to settle. Another amnesty in 2002 resulted in no less than 700,000 being allowed to settle. Likewise, Spain had an amnesty in 1985, allowing 44,000 to settle and this increased to 700,000 in an amnesty in 2005.

Labour has been quietly introducing amnesties. In December 2008 it was revealed that more than 50,000 so-called asylum seekers, who should have been deported, would be allowed to stay, because their cases had not been concluded or their files had been lost. Officials were granting permission to stay at a rate of 40% of the outstanding files, which was expected to lead to as many as 180,000 being given amnesties.

The only surprise in the LSE figure is that it was not higher, although the amnesties being given by Labour will hide the true number of genuinely illegal immigrants. A previous estimate by the Home Office produced a figure of between 310,000 and 570,000. Yet this estimate was clearly far too low for the reasons set out in the English Rights Campaign items dated the 26 May 2006 and 22 November 2005. In actual fact the true figure then was in excess of 1million.

Organized crime grows rich from illegal immigration. Those who are promoting amnesties should hang their heads in shame for condoning criminality. There is nothing moral about promoting illegal immigration. It is highly immoral.

Illegal immigrants should be deported.

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS

Lord Mandelson has claimed that East European immigration had not had ‘an adverse effect on the employment of British nationals’. He further said:

‘I think it’s important to note that the nationals coming here from the original eight new accession countries are helping to fill gaps in our labour market our British nationals are either not available to fill or are unwilling to fill.

There are jobs available for British nationals despite the circulation of workers that has resulted from EU enlargement.’

Paul Kenny of the GMB union commented:

‘Peter Mandelson is given to making sweeping statements about the UK labour market and how it operates. Unfortunately, most of his statements turn out to be sweeping with no foundation in fact.’

The real point here is that Labour have abolished the British labour market. In a properly functioning labour market a shortage of workers would lead to an increase in wages in order to attract more workers. Likewise a surplus of workers would tend to depress wages. Under Labour, Britain has been flooded with immigrants from across the globe and this huge surge in low skilled workers is pushing down wages. Further skilled and unskilled immigration from the EU countries is further pushing down wages.

If firms can hire cheaper workers from abroad, or fill perceived shortages with immigrants, then the normal market corrective mechanism does not operate. Rising unemployment and falling living standards are the direct and inevitable result of Labour policy.

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Speaking at the recent Scottish Labour conference in Dundee, Gordon Brown let slip a couple of matters that shed light on Labour’s economic policy.

As has been alleged already, Mr Brown is pumping the line that the banking crisis is all a global problem requiring a global solution:

‘I believe there is an emerging consensus that where capital flows are global we cannot just have national supervision, but need global supervision too.’

Mr Brown set out four areas to be covered by his new global financial policy:

The regulation of tax havens
International principles to end the ‘short-term bonus culture’
The monitoring of the whole financial system
A global framework for international financial supervision

Mr Brown asserted that:

‘You solve a global problem not by separatist solutions but by us all working together.’

Mr Brown then continued to give an example of the benefits of us all working together:

‘Let us remember that, when Scottish banks collapsed, the whole of the UK came together to stand by our banking system to prevent the banks from total collapse. With an investment bigger than the Scottish administration’s entire budget and giving guarantees that no country the size of Scotland could ever have been able to give.’

This is disingenuous. From where in the UK did all the money come from for the bail out of the Scottish banks? Scotland, by Mr Brown’s own admission could not afford it. Northern Ireland is scarcely able to underwrite such largesse, and ditto Wales.

It is England where the money has come from. And when all the hundreds of £billions were being showered onto the Scottish banks, who was supposed to be representing English interests? The reality is that no one did. England was simply looted, and Mr Brown is determined to loot England even more. He continued by saying that he would uphold the findings of the Calman Commission on Scottish devolution - whatever they might be - and further alleged that:

‘People know that what scars Scotland is not its border but its poverty.’

In fact Scotland is one of the wealthier regions of the UK. This kind of greedy, self-centred whinging by Labour’s McMafia is unjustified and uncalled for.

Mr Brown is trying to shift responsibility for the governance of British banking onto some global institution. He is trying to dodge the issue. It does not require a global supervision to stop greedy bankers in the UK helping themselves to English taxpayers’ money, nor to stop Labour ministers using English taxpayers’ money to lavish extortionate pensions upon incompetent banking fat cats.

We do not need Mr Brown and Labour grandstanding as global leaders. Their bombast does not absolve them from their squandering of English taxpayers’ money bailing out a banking cartel and the ruination of the economy for a generation to come.

We need an English parliament to represent English interests.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

There have been calls for the resignation of Phil Woolas, Labour’s immigration minister, after he attacked the Office of National Statistics [ONS] for publishing statistics regarding immigration.

Labour ministers were described as ‘fizziing’ with anger when the ONS revealed that the number of foreign workers increased by 175,000 to 2.4million last year, when the number of British workers fell by 234,000. The ONS has also published statistics which show that foreign-born people make up one in nine of the UK population. Mr Woolas had complained in a letter that the statistics had been published by the ONS ‘with no ministerial involvement and indeed despite my objections.’ He further stated:

‘What’s worse is that the press release highlighted the one in nine figure as the main finding. So the Government gets the blame by some for whipping up anti-foreign sentiment when it is the independent ONS who are playing politics.

The justification from the ONS who had, our of schedule, highlighted the figure two weeks earlier because it was “topical” is, at best, naïve or, at worst, sinister.’

When challenged about his statements, Mr Woolas said:

‘The ONS need to be aware that they are entering shark-infested waters. It’s not the role of the ONS to dictate the debate.’

Labour’s policy of reducing the English into being a minority in England must involve the displacement of English workers. This is the direct and inevitable consequence of Labour policy.

The ONS has published statistics revealing the consequence of Labour policy. The truth is politically incorrect, and it is that to which Mr Woolas objects. He would rather the truth be suppressed.

THE EU

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/12702/-Bill-Jamieson-Social-meltdown.5049797.jp
Bill Jamieson: Social meltdown threatens Europe
Published Date: 08 March 2009

PLUNGING stock markets, collapsing banks, soaring unemployment: I cannot recall a period in more than 30 years in journalism when the flow of business and financial news has been as unrelentingly bleak as it is now.

We have entered a Dante's Inferno of economics. From America to Japan, Germany to Brazil, Ireland to Taiwan, the falls in industrial output, financial prices and confidence have been beyond the scale of anything we have seen since the Great Depression. This was the comparison that even a few months ago many recoiled from making for fear of hyperbole. Now it is frighteningly real, with markets in the midst of an epochal destruction of wealth.

From America last Friday came news that unemployment soared by 651,000 last month to 8.1%. It is the 14th consecutive month it has risen, and to the highest in 25 years. The latest losses bring the total from the start of the recession in December 2007 to 4.4 million – with 2.6 million of that coming in the last four months. On Wall Street the mood is black, with share prices being driven to fresh 12-year lows.

But it is not the United States – dire though the mood now is on Wall Street and Main Street – that concerns me most. The UK and mainland Europe look altogether more worrying. I do not think that in Britain we have yet grasped the depth and magnitude of the economic crisis that is unfolding and its implications for government spending and debt. And in continental Europe the signs of deepening recession are
everywhere evident.

A global slump in demand has battered the export-driven economies of France and Germany. Debt de-leveraging has struck at the heart of consumer credit-driven countries such as the UK, Ireland and Spain. Looking east, the crisis looks even more acute, with mounting worries over Western European bank exposure to countries such as Rumania, Hungary and the Ukraine.

The astonishing falls in industrial output portend serious social problems by themselves. Germany and France suffered output falls of 14% and 14.8% respectively between October and December, while Italy has suffered an 18% drop from recent peaks. But combined with severe corrections in highly geared housing markets and budget deficits rising at alarming speed, the EU finds itself in a deeper crisis than recent cosy – and ineffective – summit meetings have portrayed.

Problems in heartland EU economies are being compounded first by growing signs of stress elsewhere in the Eurozone and second by the growing possibility of a financial failure in some of the countries of the former Soviet Union. It is Europe that has the potential to turn the world's flickering lights into a black-out.

First, some facts and figures. Eurostat confirmed last week that Euro zone GDP plunged by 1.5% quarter-on-quarter in the final three months of 2008 – the third successive quarter of contraction.

The decline was widespread across the Eurozone. The most eye-watering was in Germany, the Eurozone's biggest economy, where GDP plummeted 2.1% quarter on quarter – the sharpest drop since unification in 1990.

Italy dived 1.8%, France 1.2%, and the Netherlands 1.9%. Germany's private sector shrank last month at its fastest rate in more than a decade while engineering orders posted their biggest decline in 50 years. The Ifo Institute's business climate index fell last month to its lowest level since re-unification and last month German firms applied to the authorities to put a staggering 700,000 workers on short time.

Europe's steel market is suffering its worst collapse in decades with EU output tumbling almost 46% year on year in January. Nor is the outlook any better in the services sector. It plumbed new lows last month with the services sector Purchasing Managers Index plunging at a record rate. Economists now expect Euro area GDP to decline by around 3% in 2009 and to be only flat overall in 2010.

In several countries – Spain, Greece and Ireland in particular – a collapse in the public finances now looms. In Spain, unemployment has now climbed to 3.3 million or 14.5% of the workforce. Ireland's budget deficit has already reached 9.5% of GDP, the highest in the Eurozone. Unemployment is at a 12-year high of 10.4% and is forecast to hit 12.3% this year.

Last week EU leaders meeting in Brussels for an emergency summit briskly slapped down pleas of help from Eastern Europe. And later last week came an extraordinary statement from Joaquin Almunia, the European Commissioner for Monetary Affairs, that the Eurozone has a way of bailing out its members if they face a crisis. Although no bail-out possibility existed under European Union laws, there was a solution that would avoid members having to seek help from the International Monetary Fund.

And what form might this solution take? "This solution exists", he insisted, "don't fear this for a moment. But by definition these things should not be explained in public."

That may be some comfort to those of a Brussels mindset. But to anyone in the real world this is to take public policy back to the medieval era. How is confidence in the European single currency to rest on a Baldrick-like cunning, secret plan? Has the cause of ever closer union come to this – a plan so sensitive it cannot be revealed in public?

If the stresses and strains within the Eurozone are worrying enough, consider what lies to the East. Hopes over the past decade of a linear rise in living standards and prosperity led to a surge in foreign currency borrowing. But these massive loans now look increasingly shaky as many former Soviet Union (FSU) currencies have plunged.

Latvia, whose economy is set to contract by 12% this year, and whose credit rating has been downgraded by Standard & Poor's to junk, is already in receipt of IMF aid. Another IMF support recipient is Hungary, burdened with a larger debt-to-GDP ratio than almost any other new EU member. A third is Ukraine whose GDP is set to contract by 10% this year. "No end in sight to political and economic chaos" was the crisp summation of The Economist.

Some countries such as Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Poland are holding up relatively well. But across the FSU some $400bn (£283bn) of short-term debt falls due for renewal or roll-over this year. The fear is that failure in one area could spark disaster elsewhere. Another is that there might be a stampede for the exits by foreign investors and particularly banks.

This appalling picture suggests that there is a risk over the next 12 to 18 months of serious political and social unrest in some of the countries to the east. The sense of anger and grievance is likely to be more keenly felt in those EU economies where populations have grown accustomed to standards of living that are relatively high compared with many countries in the FSU. One evident area of concern would be countries with a high and rising levels of youth unemployment.

For if, as the signs now suggest, we are in for a long, slow protracted recovery – one stretching out for five to seven years – the ingredients for explosive frustration are there.

That is why these astonishing falls in industrial output portend serious social problems well beyond anything Europe has experienced since the end of the war.

THE EU

Below is an article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/4934431/Its-the-Europhiles-versus-reality-and-reality-is-going-to-win.html

It's the Europhiles versus reality, and reality is going to win
Milton Friedman was right to predict that the euro might not survive a recession, notes Simon Heffer.

Simon Heffer
Last Updated: 7:20AM GMT 04 Mar 2009

During the current crisis we have several times heard invoked the wisdom of Milton Friedman about the unfeasibility of the euro as a currency surviving a recession. In an interview not long before his death three years ago, Friedman said: "The euro is going to be a big source of problems, not a source of help. The euro has no precedent. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a monetary union, putting out a fiat currency, composed of independent states. There have been unions based on gold or silver, but not on fiat money – money tempted to inflate – put out by politically independent entities."

It is what lies below the surface of this observation that is putting not just the euro, but the entire confection of the European Union, under such intense pressure. Any recession would bring into play tensions between idealism and nationalism: the desire by those who pilot the European project to maintain the confection for as long as possible and as intact as possible, that it might come out on the other side of this economic horror bloodied but unbowed; and the inevitable identification of hundreds of millions who stand outside the fantasy world of the political class with their own nation state, their own nationals and their own national interest. Without a degree of coercion beyond what even this undemocratic, Sovietised swindle has attempted in the recent past, the national interest will in the end prevail.

There have been auguries of this for some months, while we have waited for the breakdown of the condition of denial in which Europe's political class finds itself. We recall last September's banking summit, at which the Germans decided to go freelance to shore up their own banking system, not least because it appeared that theirs was in far better shape than that of almost any other European country. Then about a month ago one of the most pro-European newspapers in the EU, Le Figaro, carried an article by one of its economics experts that for the first time took the paper's readership into its confidence about the gravity of the situation: it admitted that a country could drop out of the euro.

Last week Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the European Central Bank (ECB), said much the same; and Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister, followed that with a hint of Germany's unwillingness to continue to bankroll the more economically delinquent nations of the 27 and implying, for good measure, that Franco-German relations had probably not been so bad as this since Monty and Eisenhower chased the Wehrmacht over the Rhine in 1944.

The truth is that Europe has never had so dire a crisis since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957. Sauve qui peut is the watchword. President Sarkozy has entered a familiarly Gaullist phase, ignoring EU competition policy and pushing through a €6 billion support for the French car industry; other manufacturers, notably in eastern Europe, have protested to no avail.

Mr Sarkozy's assertion that he is not a protectionist is purely rhetorical. When a German minister says that "now is not the time" to let workers from the EU's former eastern bloc countries have full immigration rights in Germany, he is saying the same thing. Gordon Brown may not be able to ensure British jobs for British workers, but the Germans are determined to keep their jobs for German ones.

This bending of the rules – or rather this wholesale disregard of them – is the surest sign of a currency, and quite possibly an empire, in terminal decline. Mr Trichet went to Dublin last Friday to try to calm the Irish, whose own crisis brought 100,000 protesters on to the city's streets 10 days ago. He said the usual stuff about Ireland's being able to come out "well placed" to take economic opportunities after the slump. He was less able to square the political point about how Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, will win an election if he swallows the medicine the ECB is forcing down his throat: spending cuts, public sector wage cuts and eye-watering tax rises to bring Ireland's deficit down to the levels demanded of a member of the eurozone.

But the dishonesty with which all this is being addressed is breathtaking. Joaquin Almunia, the EU's economy commissioner, has initiated "disciplinary action" against France, Spain, Malta, Greece, Latvia and Ireland for breaking the fiscal rules by running excessive deficits. The offenders could be fined. It would be pointless. Both Greece and Portugal have been fined in recent years and have never paid a penny.

There have already been riots in Greece. The government in Latvia has been thrown out, and the Latvian people are now aware that whatever replaces it will have no scope to pursue anything other than an even more unpleasant economic policy. The danger of civil disorder is already spooking Mr Sarkozy, whose intelligence services have told him that it is not just the banlieues that are at risk of going up in smoke. Imposition of the strict rules on these six countries could lead to revolutions in some of them, Ireland not excluded. How would any fines be paid? With a loan from the Germans? Forget it.

Tomorrow the ECB is meeting to discuss the interest rate, and it is predicted that it will be cut from two to 1.5 per cent. That would make little odds in countries that, like Latvia, have literally run out of money. The IMF is trying to build up a special new fund to bail out countries in distress. It may soon become apparent that this attempt at a currency for disparate nations is about to disappear under the weight of reality – nationalist reality – and the big boys are going to have to come in and sort some nations out. For some countries there will be only three means of staying in the euro. One is to impose the discipline, and risk rioting and the fall of governments. The second is to persuade the ECB to bend the rules to such an extent that the illusion of the euro's strength (it is still, as I write, at an incomprehensible 90p against sterling) is forcibly broken and the speculators have their own field day with it, at last. The third is to get the lender of last resort – the Germans – to bail out countries in trouble.

The Germans have, quite commendably, refused already to do that. When Ferenc Gyurcsany, the Hungarian prime minister, asked them for a €190 billion handout last weekend to prevent a new economic Iron Curtain from going up across the continent, Angela Merkel told him to get lost. She has the German people and, more to the point, German business behind her: why should they pay for the unregenerate behaviour of others? Why should they worry about the collapse of the zloty and the forint? Why should it bother them that Latvia's debt now has junk rating, or that the Irish are almost broke? If Mrs Merkel wants to stay in power, and German workers wish to keep the fruits of their own labours, they must harden their hearts.

As for the rest of Europe, it must choose either to devalue and end the pretence of economic strength, or persist and risk the breakdown of individual governments. Either way, it is never glad confident morning again for the EU and its bastard currency. Milton was right.

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS

Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that in the 6 month period to September 2008, 10,680 National Insurance numbers were issued to immigrants in Newham, where the 2012 Olympic site is based. This is three times the actual number of jobs currently available on the site.

A third of these immigrants were from Eastern Europe, although India accounted for the largest group, [almost 1,800].

It has previously been revealed that only 63% of those currently working on the site are British [see the English Rights Campaign item dated 16 February 2009].

RACE WAR POLITICS

James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has announced in a speech to Labour’s Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic annual general meeting in Leicester plans for the so-called Equalities and Human Rights Commission to assess how unemployment is affecting ethnic minorities, women, the disabled and older workers, and to recommend what actions the government should take.

Mr Purnell pointed out that in previous recessions unemployment has risen faster amongst ethnic minorities:

‘In the past, too many were left behind in bad times. Ethnic minority workers suffered the most in the Tory recessions. Employment levels amongst ethnic minority workers fell by 10 percentage points in the 1990s recession - much worse than the rest of the country.

Just think of the waste of human potential. Whole communities were abandoned, families where no one then worked for generations.’

Mr Purnell said that Trevor Phillips had agreed to assess whether any groups were being disproportionately affected by the recession:

‘When we identify particular problems, we will know we need to adapt our policies to make sure no one is left behind this time.’

Since when the so-called Equalities and Human Rights Commission, or the communist Trevor Phillips, has been qualified to set economic policy is unexplained. Once again, Labour are trying to portray certain favoured groups as victims.

This is yet another example of anti-English discrimination in England.

SPIV ECONOMICS

Figures from the Office of National Statistics [ONS] have recently revealed that once the liabilities of the two nationalised banks, RBS and HBOS/Lloyds, are added into the government accounts, then the national debt stands at a frightening £2trillion - or £33,000 for every man, woman and child in Britain.

Government borrowing is expected to reach £87billion this year - 47.8% of national income, which is well above Gordon Brown’s now abandoned 40% ceiling.

Meanwhile, Labour are making a big noise about the pensions and bonuses that the bankers have been helping themselves to. If Labour was sincere in its opposition to such bonuses and pensions, one wonders why they approved them.

Northern Rock, which lost £1.4billion in 2008, is to introduce a new bonus scheme to reflect its new role to increase mortgage lending. The chief executive, Gary Hoffman, said:

‘Pay for performance is not a bad thing. Someone who goes the extra mile is likely to deserve more.’

Meanwhile, it was revealed that HSBC gave £32.4million in bonuses to its five highest paid bankers last year, despite a 60% fall in profits and despite taking taxpayers’ cash from Bank of England in a swap for long-term mortgage loans. HSBC is now trying to raise £13billion from its shareholders to strengthen its balance sheet.

But Labour has focused attention on the greedy, yet hapless, Sir Fred Goodwin who made special arrangements to secure an early retirement pension of £693,000 per year. This is despite the fact that as chief executive of RBS he presided over a loss of £24.1billion last year. This is the biggest loss in British corporate history. The 50-year-old Sir Fred’s pension pot has been especially doubled from £8million to £16million to ensure that he would receive a pension of £13,000 a week for the rest of his life. Given that RBS is insolvent, this is taxpayers’ money that Sir Fred is being lavished with.

Sir Fred also has other pensions worth £37,000 per year from previous employment.

Sir Fred has responded by pointing out that the Treasury minister, Lord Myners, had been specifically told of the arrangement and had agreed to it in October last year. This makes it a binding contract which Labour will not be able to renege on despite all their grandstanding. Despite calls for his resignation, Lord Myners, a close ally of Mr Brown, shows no signs of any contrition for his actions.

Setting aside the anger that Sir Fred’s special pension arrangements provoke, the real story of the day was the scale of the RBS loss and that Labour were using taxpayers’ money to insure up to £325billion of potential future losses at that bank. This is in addition to another £25.5billion direct cash injection, which follows a previous cash injection of £20billion.

Meanwhile, Peter Cummings, 53, who was in charge of HBOS corporate lending division where losses have reached £6.7billion, has been awarded a pay-off of £600,000 and an expected pension of £400,000 per year.

Losses at HBOS totalled £10,8billion and need to be set against the profit of £807million of its new partner Lloyds, which is now in talks with the government for its own bad debt insurance scheme. It is expected that the taxpayer will need to insure up to £250billion of bad debts of the new Lloyds Banking Group. The Lloyds share price continues to plummet.

The danger posed to the taxpayer and the economy by all these insurance guarantees with which Labour is bailing out the bankers is potential awesome [see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 20 February 2009].

Labour are now getting ready to print money and give that to the banks too.

RACE WAR POLITICS

Below is an item from the Steadfast Trust concerning the issue of next census form and English ethnicity:


The ONS and the 2011 Census

Submitted by: Steadfast Trust correspondent, 8th Jan 09


The next census will be taken in 2011. Prior to a ‘Main Census’, a ‘Test Census’ is taken in order to asses the proposed format of the eventual main survey; the test census taken in 2007 had a tick box for people to record both their “National Identity” and “Ethnicity” as English. A person’s “National Identity” has no actual meaning in law and carries no legal status. In effect someone can record their Ethnicity as Pakistani and their National Identity as English. The important and relevant question in the census therefore concerns a person’s ethnicity. As explained in the article which follows, ethnicity gives “legal rights, benefits and privileges that are enjoyed by racial and ethnic groups” – there are no equivalent rights for one’s National Identity.

The Steadfast Trust attended the ONS (Office for National Statistics) road-shows which were set up to allow feedback on the proposed census. Despite not having a single objection from anyone present to the inclusion of the English Ethnicity tick box, for some reason the ONS decided that the 2011 main census would not carry that tick box and would instead only include the “National Identity” question. The English would in effect be included as and grouped under ‘White British’.

The census form is important as it is a means of gathering statistical information about the different groups that appear on it. It is also important because other ethnic monitoring forms, such as those you might fill out at work take their lead from this national census. If you are not on the census form it is unlikely that you will be on any other monitoring form. If you aren’t on any of these monitoring forms then you and your community are statistically invisible and as far as the Steadfast Trust is concerned it makes it all but impossible to gather statistical information on the main beneficiaries of our charity – the English! A charity whose beneficiaries are identified on the census and other monitoring forms are not disadvantaged in this way.

Simply having a “place name” English identity (rather than the benefits of an “ethnic identity”) is not tolerable as it leaves the Ethnic English open to discrimination. In effect the Ethnic English have a non-identity. Discrimination against the Ethnic English is a growing problem and this can’t be combated if those who are so discriminated aren’t identified in law. For instance if the Ethnic English are under-represented in employment and feel that this is down to discrimination against them because of their ethnicity it would be quite possible for an employer to point to a fellow worker who might be Hungarian, or Irish or Afro-Caribbean and say they are not being discriminatory as all these people could be identified as English. In other words, a person of any ethnicity could be identified as English if they so wish but still maintain protection under the law for their actual ethnicity – save for the Ethnic English themselves who are granted only a worthless National Identity! This inequality and lack of protection could apply to discrimination in employment, housing, health or education (and more).

Neither is it appropriate to be placed as ‘White British’. In England (or throughout Britain) the English have as much right to be properly recognised as everyone else. It could also raise problems in a devolved United Kingdom when, for instance, specific funding to counter under performance in education is awarded by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. White British does not specifically identify the English (even though the vast majority of White British statistically are English). Where the English suffer disproportionably to others who may be labelled as ‘White British’ – their lack of identification makes it near impossible to rectify this imbalance and discrimination; this is not a problem for any of the other groups that appear on the census form.

The article which follows first appeared in the latest edition of the Steadfast journal (- Steadfast is an independent pressure group and is not connected to the Steadfast Trust). We would urge you all to read Steadfast and especially the latest edition. There is also a petition that you can sign Here to register your protest at the omission of the English from the census form.


ONS & Institutional racism - Tony Linsell

In 2006 a press release from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggested that the 2011 census would provide a tick-box for those who wanted to record their identity as English. On the surface this seemed to be just what we wanted but on closer inspection it became apparent that the old ethnic identity question was to remain the same as in 2001 (front page Q.8) but a new question was to be introduced asking, ‘How would you describe your national identity?’ (front page Q.15) This new question is to replace the straightforward 2001 Census question, ‘What is your country of birth?’

National Identity?
It is believed that the national identity question was introduced under pressure from the Commission for Racial Equality and the political establishment who are eager to promote an inclusive English identity. In a nutshell, the new English national identity belongs to anyone who is a UK resident and wants to call themselves English. For example, members of the Bangladeshi community can record their ethnicity as Bangladeshi, and their national identity as English on the grounds that they live in England. Thus English national identity is little more than a place name identity. It is not an identity that gives the legal rights, benefits and privileges that are enjoyed by racial and ethnic groups.

Does it matter?
One of the very many consequences that flow from official non-recognition of the ethnic-English is that the formation of charities for the English is discouraged and the people who attempt to form them are treated by the Charity Commission as racists. In reality it is the Charity Commission that is hideously racist and discriminatory. One of the practical consequences of such institutionalised racism is that it prevents the registration of charities that specifically serve the needs and interests of the ethnic-English. Another consequence is that English communal organisations do not receive any form of state funding. This is in stark contrast with the many thousands of ethnic-specific charities and other communal organisations which annually share many millions of pounds of state funding. So, yes, it does matter.

Ethnic English
On behalf of Steadfast I wrote to the then Census Director, Ian Cope, and pointed out that the 2006 ONS press release was misleading because ‘national identity’ is not the same as ‘ethnic identity’. The proposed census form will leave the ethnic English statistically invisible.

Until the ethnic English have the same statistical information available to them as is available to other ethnic groups, our community will be hindered in its attempts to challenge and end the institutionalised and other forms of racism perpetuated against it. The immediate and most obvious form of institutionalised discrimination is the failure of the British state (UK) and its institutions and bodies to recognise the existence of the ethnic English and to collect information that will help that group fight the discrimination it is subject to on a daily basis.

Extract from a letter to Ian Cope,
Director Census England & Wales, 9th March 2006

Following long and detailed correspondence with Ian Cope we were relieved to see the proposed 2007 Test Census, which included an ethnic-English tick-box. (see front page Q.13)

Consultation
It was made clear to ONS in 2006 that on the matter of ethnicity and identity we wanted to be consulted in the same way that other ethnic groups are consulted. I went to an ONS Census road-show meeting in London 2006. Following that there were no invitations of any kind until 2008 when we were asked to complete a general survey form, which we did, and were given the opportunity to attend another census road show in November, which I did. The census roadshows are not consultation exercises; they are an opportunity for ONS to tell an audience what is being done and why it can’t be done differently.

Too good to be true
On my journey to the meeting I recalled snippets of various conversations over the past two years where there had been discussion of the 2011 census. The general belief amongst English Community activists was that the British ruling elite would not allow an ethnic-English tick-box to appear on the census form or on ethnic monitoring forms. The reason for this being that the British state is intent on promoting in England an inclusive British identity and an inclusive place-based English identity. Both are of course concocted but the education system and the broadcasting media relentlessly promote them. In view of this it was to be expected that there would be behind the scenes moves to get the English tick-box removed from the census form.

In addition to the state sponsored British identity with its British history, culture and institutions, there is an inclusive and very thin state sponsored Englishness – ‘whatever your ethnicity you can be English if you want to be.’ An essential part of this systematic campaign is to suggest that England is a nation. Progressives play with words by changing their meaning so as to suit their interests. If they can get people to believe that England is a nation they will get away with the idea that national identity is determined by where you live. In other words, if you live in England you are English. (see page 46)

It is a clever strategy but an obvious one to those who give any serious thought to the matter. But the great unwashed are easy to manipulate; they will tick an English tick-box on the census form and think they have registered something more significant than a ‘place identity’.

No Surprise
It was therefore no surprise to learn at the census roadshow meeting that the ethnic-English tick-box has been removed from the proposed census form, which is included in the White Paper presented to parliament in November 2008. The ONS has in effect gone back to giving us a White-British tick-box which does not make it possible for us to register our ethnicity. We are, as before, merged with Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and other White people who regard themselves as British. (see front page Q16) In one respect it is worse than having the 2001 British tick-box because with that many people wrote in English under Other. The new tick-box labelling deters such deviancy.

Political? What us?!
Beth Moon, of the ONS, revealed in her presentation that the National Identity question had been introduced so that members of ethnic minorities could describe themselves as English – “We don’t want only White people to call themselves English.”

These sentiments conflict with other claims made on the day that ONS is non-political and concerned only with collecting and presenting statistics. Why in that case is the ONS making it its business to engage in social engineering – such aims and objectives are surely outside the official powers of ONS.

The job of the ONS is to act as an impartial observer and gatherer of statistics. It should not be a willing participant in the shaping of perceptions. It should not contrive to prevent members of probably the largest ethnic group in England from registering their ethnicity and thereby being denied the same rights, benefits and privileges that are so freely given to other ethnic groups.

Not enough room
Beth Moon also mentioned that the extent of the census form has to be limited and that it cannot include all the questions various groups would like included. There was obviously too little space to put in an English tick-box but enough room to put in a tick-boxes for Irish and for Gypsy or Irish Traveller. In any other country such obvious manipulation would be thought scandalous and insulting. Can you imagine an Irish census form that had an English tick-box but not an Irish tick-box? Only the half-witted English would allow such a thing.

I asked the meeting Chairman, Peter Benton, why, in view of the alleged shortage of space on the form, could room be found for an Irish tick-box and another for Gypsy and Irish Traveller. He replied, “They are discriminated against.” The clear racist implication, indeed the logic of this, is that the English discriminate against others but are not discriminated against. I pointed out that, for a start, the English suffer from massive institutionalised discrimination that hinders them in forming ethnic-specific charities and gaining state funding. The English are greatly under-represented in Law and Medical schools. This is not because there are not enough well-qualified English applicants but because the schools discriminate against them. I could have mentioned the training scheme run by the Environment Agency which invited applications from all ethnic groups, including Irish, Scottish and Welsh, but refused applications from the ethnic English. There are the English working class children who suffer from as many, if not more, social and educational disadvantages as any other ethnic group but they do not have the communal organisations to help them overcome their problems because institutions of the state such as the Charity Commission deny their existence. To assert an ethnic-English identity is to invite all sorts of challenges that are not directed at other ethnic groups.

When I complained to Peter Benton that the removal of the English tick-box greatly hindered us in detecting and challenging anti-English discrimination he replied that the new census form produced “a rich statistical environment from which more information than ever before will be gathered”. He said that the ethnic-English can be detected by cross-referencing the answers in Questions 15 and 16. Those who tick the first boxes in each question are ethnic-English.

One of the problems with this argument is that the instructions in Question 15 ask the respondent to tick all boxes that apply. It is therefore probable that many English people will tick both the English and British tick-boxes. Likewise, many of those who believe their ethnicity is British will tick both boxes. Even if the ONS cross-references each individual form they will not be able to accurately determine how many people are ethnic-English.

The big question is, will the ONS do the cross referencing for us and present the census data in a way that separately identifies, as best they can, the ethnic-English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and British? Or, will they simply lump all those ethnicities together under White-British? So, for example, will we be able to easily see the links between housing, education, health, etc. and the ethnic-English?

“The rich statistical environment” will make it difficult to clearly identify the ethnic English and the discrimination from which they suffer. If the instructions in Question 15 asked for just one box to be ticked, it would greatly improve the accuracy of a cross reference. The simple inclusion of an English tick-box would solve the problem and indicate a willingness to rectify past shortcomings.

Discrimination
At the Census roadshow I felt that had I been Black or Asian, or had been speaking for an Asian or Black ethnic group, my concerns would have been received more seriously and not treated in the dismissive way they were. ONS clearly has no intention to gather statistics helpful to the ethnic English – for us, the so-called consultation process has been a sham. But not it seems for Gypsies and Irish Travellers. The only consultation we have been involved in is when we forced it upon them. Other ethnic groups were invited to attend various meetings and treated with respect but we had to battle to make our views known. Ian Cope, who dealt with us fairly and with consideration, seemed to accept the validity of our case and an English tick-box was included on the 2007 Test Census. It was then decided to remove the tick-box but nobody thought it worthwhile to tell us or seek our view. Perhaps this is connected with the appointment in October 2007 of Glen Watson as the Director of the Census for England and Wales.

Institutionalised Racism
It is a classic symptom of individual and institutionalised racism that the guilty do not recognise or acknowledge that they are racist. This was clearly shown to the satisfaction of the state in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The English are subject to a particularly virulent form of institutionalised racism which deems that they discriminate but are not discriminated against. Surely it is the task of those responsible for the census to put aside their preconceptions and provide a neutral service that allows the statistics speak for themselves.

Repent!
The underlying factor in anti-English discrimination throughout the British state is the failure of the ONS to gather the statistics that would identify discrimination. It is because we are not on census forms that we do not appear on so-called ethnic monitoring forms. It is due to the failings of the ONS that the ethnic-English are statistically invisible. It is due to the ONS that officially we do not exist and do not have the communal organisations or the funding or the statistics to identify, prove and challenge discrimination. It should be a priority of ONS to rectify that situation.

The struggle goes on
This matter is not finished. If the institutions of the British state will not treat us fairly and with respect we will have to turn to campaign action. There were people, like Len W, who refused to fill in the 2001 census form because they thought it unfair and insulting that there was no English tick-box. I suspect there will be a very much larger number of people who will tell the ONS what to do with their 2011 census form.

IMMIGRATION

The full impact of Labour’s policy of mass immigration was revealed by the Office for National Statistics this week. The Labour Force Survey showed that in the middle of last year there were 6,486,000 people in Britain who had been born abroad - and more than 6 million of these were in England. These figures are increasing at a rate of 300,000 per year.

The number of East Europeans in Britain has increased by between 400,000 and 500,000 over the past four years, and the number from outside Europe has increased by 700,000. One in nine of those living in the UK have been born abroad.

However, these figures record the children of those born abroad as British, rather than as immigrants, and the figures do not include those immigrants living in hotels, boarding houses, hostels, caravan sites, or students living in halls of residence. Needless to say, nor do the figures include illegal immigration.

The foreign born population has increased by an average of 313,000 per year since 2004. Home Office figures showed that the number of immigrants being given the right to settle in the UK permanently has trebled under Labour. 145,965 foreign nationals were granted the right to settle in Britain last year, compared with 58,725 in 1997.

Labour remain determined to reduce the English into being a minority in England - regardless of the consequences on jobs, taxation or social stability.