Category Archives: bbc bias

Court of Appeal asked to set aside LJ Hickinbottom’s Order because of Bias

 

 

The English Democrats have applied to the Court of Appeal to set aside Lord Justice Hickinbottom’s Order – on the Grounds of ‘Apparent Bias’.

The English Democrats have now made an application to the Court of Appeal to set aside Lord Justice Hickinbottom’s Order.

Here is the text of the statement in support of our Application:-
1.         General Introduction
The Court is referred to the Claimant’s Judicial Review Grounds (‘the JR Grounds’) and the Claimant’s Written Submissions (‘C Submissions’) for the background facts and core submissions of law in this matter.  Terms defined in C Submissions are applied here.  The Court is also referred to the First Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Resistance (‘the SGR’) and the Claimant’s reply to the same (‘C Reply’).
The application for permission was considered by Spencer J. and, by order dated 18.6.2019 and sent to the Claimant’s solicitors on 19.6.2019 (‘the Order’), he refused permission to issue judicial review proceedings and, pursuant to CPR r. 52.12 (7), declared that the application for permission was “Totally Without Merit”.
Accordingly, the Claimant was denied the right it would otherwise have to an oral renewal hearing heard in open court.  Pursuant to r. 52.8 (4) any appeal against the Order must be made ‘within 7 days of service of the order of the High Court refusing permission to apply for JR’.  Pursuant to r. 2.8 (3) (b) (iii) the date of deemed service (21.6.2019) was excluded and this application had to be filed by 4 pm on 28.6.2019.
It is notable that, notwithstanding 35 pages of detailed submissions in support of the application for permission in the JR Grounds, C Submissions and C Reply (that the learned judge below declared he had read ‘very carefully’) the judge’s decision on the merits of the claim is set out in three short paragraphs amounting to 13 lines and around 150 words, three lines of which merely rely upon five paragraphs in the SGR.  The learned judge, with respect, scarcely engaged with the Applicant’s constitutional arguments on the by-passing of Parliament through use of the Royal Prerogative. The published opinion of the Rt Hon. Sir Richard Aitkens was not addressed at all.  Put shortly, Hickinbottom LJ treated an argument supported by a distinguished former member of his own court as “Totally Without Merit”.
It is notable and a matter about which the Claimant is legitimately aggrieved that, although the Claim was issued on 1.4.2019 and the SGR filed and served on 17.4.2019, the claim was not considered by a single High Court judge for over two and a half months after issue, in spite of an application for expedition and notwithstanding the obvious constitutional importance of the claim.  Moreover, this was in spite of an order by Supperstone J. that, although refusing an application for expedition, did so taking into account that the Defendants had (at that time) undertaken to file and serve the SGR by 14.6.2019; and thereby suggesting that the application for permission would be determined shortly thereafter.  In that time, much debate about whether and how the UK should leave the EU had continued and the then Prime Minister has resigned as a result of her policy on Brexit. It is apparent that Supperstone J. did not envisage the degree of delay which eventuated. 
2.          The learned Lord Justice was either actually biased against the Claimant as a litigant and/or against the outcome sought by the Claimant; alternatively, the published positions of the learned Lord Justice were such as to give the appearance of apparent bias; and in either case his Order should thereby be set aside
Legal framework
The relevant principles are set out in a series of recent cases of high authority:-
R v Bow Street Magistrate ex p Pinochet [2000] 1AC119 (House of Lords)
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties [2000] QB 451 (Court of Appeal)
Millar v Dickinson  [2002] 1 WLR 1615 (Privy Council)
Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 (House of Lords)
Taylor v Lawrence  [2003] QB 528  (5-member Court of Appeal)
Lawal v Northern Spirit  [2004] 1 All ER 187  (House of Lords)
Pinochet, Re [1999] UKHL 52 (15 January 1999) 
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/52.html
Cite as: [1999] UKHL 52
The authorities give rise to three categories of case in which decisions may be set aside on the grounds of partiality:-
First, in cases in which a judge has been influenced by partiality or prejudice (Locabail para 3) (actual bias).  Bias may be described as a predisposition or prejudice against one party’s case or evidence on an issue for reasons unconnected with the merits of the issue (Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1117 at [28],  per Scott Baker L.J.  Bias also includes ‘an inclination or a pre-disposition to decide the issue only one way, whatever the strength of the contrary argument’ (Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004] UKHL 34; R (on the application of DM Digital Television Ltd) v OFCOM [2014] EWHC 961 (Admin)).
Pre-determination and apparent bias are distinct concepts: R (on the application of Persimmon Homes Ltd) v Vale of Glamorgan Council [2010] EWHC 535.  In British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin) at [168], [277], a case concerning a complaint about predetermination and a duty to consult, Green J. found that ‘The law focuses upon actual predetermination but also the appearance of predetermination’. 
Moreover, as Lord Goff of Chieveley held in R v Gough ([1993] AC 646 at p.659):
“Bias is such an insidious thing that, even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by bias“
A judge’s comments may also demonstrate actual bias (O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2) [2013] UKSC 36 at [53], per Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC).  A precautionary approach to recusal is a sensible one (Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWCA Civ 1515 at [39]) and (at [41]) the decision made by a judge whether or not to accede to an objection based on apparent bias is a ‘multi-factorial decision’.
Secondly, in accordance with the principle that no man may be judge in his own cause.  This covers situations where the judge has a pecuniary interest, or, occasionally, some other form of interest.    Such an interest will automatically disqualify a judge (Locabail para 4). 
Thirdly, in circumstances in which “a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased” (apparent bias):  per Lord Hope of Craighead in Porter at para 103.     In this regard,
(1)            “Public perception of the possibility of subconscious bias is the key”:  per Lord Steyn in Lawal at para 14; and
(2)            The “indispensable requirement of public confidence in the administration of justice requires higher standards today than was the case even a decade or two ago”:  per Lord Steyn in Lawal at para 22.
In Porter v Magill (at p.494 E-H paras 102-103) Lord Hope suggested that the traditional test formulated in R v Gough ([1993] AC 646) should be modified, so as to bring the English test fully into line both with other common law jurisdictions and with the manner in which the ECtHR has interpreted article 6.  In so doing, Lord Hope largely adopted, with one modification, a suggestion from Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR in In re Medicaments (no 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700.  The test thus reformulated is that:
“The court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge is biased.  It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.”
As Lord Hope of Craighead emphasised (at para 88), a tribunal must not only be independent, but also it must not appear to lack independence.
If there is any doubt it should be resolved in favour of recusal:  per Court of Appeal in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd  [2000] QB 451 at para 25.
The Strasbourg jurisprudence is to very similar effect.  In Findlay v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 221 at p.224 the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Strasbourg Court’) held that:
As to the question of ‘impartiality’, there are two aspects to this requirement.  First, the tribunal must be subjectively free from personal prejudice or bias.  Secondly, it must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect.”
(Para 74, emphasis added)
The concepts of independence and impartiality are closely linked: see, for example, Lord Bingham at para. 8 of R. v. Spear [2003] 1 AC 734:
‘The European Court has defined with great clarity and consistency the meaning of the article 6(1) requirement that a tribunal be independent and impartial. It is enough to quote paragraph 73 of the court’s judgment in Findlay v United Kingdom 24 EHRR 221, 244-245:
“The court recalls that in order to establish whether a tribunal can be considered as ‘independent’, regard must be had inter alia to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence. As to the question of ‘impartiality’, there are two aspects to this requirement. First, the tribunal must be subjectively free of personal prejudice or bias. Secondly, it must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect. The concepts of independence and objective impartiality are closely linked and the court will consider them together as they relate to the present case.” 
It should also be remembered, as the court pointed out at p 245, para 76, that in order to maintain confidence in the independence and impartiality of the tribunal appearances may be of importance.”
(Emphasis added)
The Strasbourg Court has also found that actual or apparent bias can affect the independence of a tribunal and thereby impact upon a litigant’s right, in the determination of his civil rights, to a fair and public hearing.  (Of course, in this case the right to a public hearing has itself been precluded by the learned judge’s decision.) 
In Findlay v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 221 at p.224 the European Court of Human Rights held that:
‘…in order to establish whether a tribunal can be considered as ‘independent’, regard must be had inter alia to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence.
‘As to the question of ‘impartiality’, there are two aspects to this requirement.  First, the tribunal must be subjectively free from personal prejudice or bias.  Secondly, it must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect.’
(Para 73, emphasis added)
Possible actual bias against the Claimant as a litigant
The Claimant is a political party whose public policies are (inter alia):
(1)                That England should be independent from the United Kingdom; and
(2)                That the United Kingdom (or an independent England) should leave the European Union.
That the Claimant is a political party is of particular importance: the said positions are not merely the political views of an individual (which might be distinguished from his or her merits as an individual by a fair minded judge with different opinions) but are the policy positions by which the party is legitimately identified and judged.
Comments may indicate bias (O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2)) and, ‘even though [the learned judge] may in good faith [have] believed that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously [have been] affected by bias (R v Gough).
In support of this and the following allegation of actual bias, the Claimant relies upon what it respectfully submits is the paucity of the reasoning of both the learned Judge below and of the learned Lord Justice herein and the steps they took (by wholly unjustified TWM declarations) to remove the possibility of any oral hearing  and shut down the challenge. 
Possible actual bias against the outcome sought by the Claimant
This claim is distinguishable from claims (for example) involving alleged electoral offences committed by adherents of a Leave vote or (in other circumstances) a candidate or political party.[1]  In those cases, while campaigners are identified by their political positions (distinguishing such cases from any case in which a litigant may have a political opinion but which is entirely incidental to the matters at issue), the allegations fall to be determined on their merits and are not linked directly to the prospect of the UK leaving the EU.[2]
Here, as has been alleged at the outset, the decision of the Lord Justice of Appeal directly affects the possibility of – and materially contributes to – the United Kingdom leaving or remaining in the EU: an outcome that the learned Lord Justice has demonstrated he is opposed to. 
Apparent bias
Alternatively, even if the Court is not satisfied that the learned Lord Justice was actually biased against either the Claimant or the outcome sought by the Claimant, ‘a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased’.  Moreover, there is at least a possibility of such apparent bias and so the Court should allow the Application.
Outcome if either of these grounds are successful
The Order of the 19th August be set aside and reconsidered.  In the reconsideration, pursuant to CPR r. 52.15 (3), the Court of Appeal has the power (on paper or at a hearing) simply to give permission for judicial proceedings to be brought, thus avoiding the need for a further hearing in the Court of Appeal to determine whether to grant permission.  The editors of the White Book (at Vol 1, 52.15.2/3) discuss the solution to the ‘Gordian knot’ of the costs escalation that would be caused by a hearing of an appeal in the Court of Appeal and suggests that, in the event a single judge considers an application for permission to appeal (to the CA) arguable, he or she should grant permission to bring JR proceedings.
It is submitted that such an outcome would have been particularly appropriate in this case.  The decision of Spencer J. was not only made without a hearing but precluded the right to a hearing in the High Court, notwithstanding substantial evidenceand detailed legal argument.  This puts into sharp relief the need for open justice where there can be no suggestion that individual judges are shutting out important litigation.  It might be argued that the very existence of the right to preclude an oral hearing is invidious, non-compliant with ECHR Article 6(1) and should be removed.  Regardless, it is particularly important to ensure a public hearing of the Claimant’s case – one of overwhelming public importance whatever the merits either of the legal case or of the consequences of the declaration sought – in circumstances where the learned Lord Justice has (it is regrettably necessary to say) improperly failed to recuse himself notwithstanding his (at least) apparent bias.
Further Points
Lord Justice Hickinbottom’s political activism is directly opposed to the English Democrats who are a patriotic and nationalist party.  Multi-culturalism with its emphasis on trying to break society up into diverse “communities” is directly contrary and inimical to any true nationalism including English nationalism, with its emphasis on integration and assimilation into the (English) nation.  Essentially the Applicant political party’s policies favour national unity, defining the nation as England, whereas multi-culturalism is divisive.  This is nothing to do with race.  Many fine members of the ethnic minorities love England and share her values.     
It is also assumed that Mr Justice Hickinbottom is also, in National Identity terms very opposed to the English Democrats as it seems that he is proudly Welsh, despite having lived and worked most of his life in England.
In his biography of Master Arbitrator 2018/2019 of the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators it says that he is a member of the London Welsh Male Voice Choir for over 20 years and he and his wife have a house in Cardiff where they spend most weekends.  Companies House also records that he was formerly a Director of the London Welsh Centre Ltd and the London Welsh Centre Trust.  No judge strongly associated with one of the other nations which make up the United Kingdom should have had anything to do with a case brought by the English Democrats, not least on a subject as contentious as the legality of the UK’s ongoing membership of the EU.      
Mr Justice Hickinbottom is also on publically available record as being intensely Europhile and it is on their public website that he is a Fellow of the European Law Institute whose published first objective is:-  “To evaluate and stimulate the development of EU law, legal policy, and practice, and in particular make proposals for the further development of the acquis and for the enhancement of EU law implementation by the Member States.”    
This is a political stance which is clearly in direct opposition to, not only the policies of the English Democrats, but also specifically in direct opposition to what this case was about, which was to try to achieve a “No Deal” Brexit.  The Appellant wrote to the European Law Institute on 5th September 2019 asking if the information on their website regarding Lord Justice Gary Hickinbottom is up to date and accurate.  No such confirmation has yet been received but this application is made now to avoid any delay.  If confirmation, as expected, is received then it will be forwarded to the court.
This case is therefore a much more direct example of apparent bias than there was in the Pinochet case
(Pinochet, Re [1999] UKHL 52 (15 January 1999) 
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/52.html
Cite as: [1999] UKHL 52)
where Lord Hoffman was simply a prominent supporter of an organisation which had expressed its opposition to General Pinochet.  Lord Hoffman had not made any statements, that anybody was aware of, that opposed General Pinochet himself or specifically called for his prosecution.
The European Law Institute’s 2018 activity report proudly boasts of the activities of “ELI members who silently work behind the scenes each day to inch the ELI’s unique organisation towards achieving its causes” says that the 1372 Fellows (i.e. including Lord Justice Hickinbottom):- “must be natural persons and must actively engage, by their professional, vocational or scholarly activities in European legal development.  They … participate in the Institute’s activities based on their personal and professional convictions and without regard to the interests of any clients or stakeholders.”  There is no known instance of anyone opposed to their state’s membership of the EU being admitted to Fellowship of the ELI.  The ELI is also an avowed supporter of the Facrtortame doctrine, which treats “Community Law” as federal and holds that even laws of constitutional importance in Member States must give way to Community Law. 
The ELI’s report also shows that the ELI receives a substantial proportion of its funding from the European Union. 
Furthermore it says that in order to join this “pan-European…membership based organisation” not only do you need to fill out an application and pay the fee but you also have to submit two references from amongst the current members and your application is “subject to Council’s approval”.  It is assumed this is on the basis that if you are not Europhile enough then your application will not be accepted to join the European Law Institute and that therefore the Learned Lord Justices’ pro EU and anti-Brexit political views are manifest.
The requirement for judges who have an apparent bias on issues raised in a court case to recuse themselves from dealing with it is of longstanding in English Law.  In addition in Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights there is the provision:-
“In the determination of his civil rights… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an … impartial tribunal.”
The tribunal cannot be “impartial” if the judge determining the matter is openly partial about key elements of the case before him as here.
Furthermore it is also submitted that it is wrong in principle for the court to make a finding without properly hearing the case that an Application is “Totally without Merit” where the Application is supported, not only by a professional solicitor, but also by professional Counsel and, in this case, also by very senior professional Senior Counsel.  It is an abuse of the questionable “Totally without Merit” bureaucratic device of blocking further consideration of a Judicial Review.  This may also be a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights of a right to a “fair and public hearing”.
In the premises both Mr Justice Spencer and Lord Justice Hickinbottom were wrong to make findings of “Totally without Merit”.
3.         Controversy with Claimant/Applicant/Appellant
Multi-culturalism is of course a Left-wing political ideology whose key objective is to undermine traditional society.  It and its proponents like Lord Justice Hickinbottom are at direct loggerheads with the English Democrats stance on multi-culturalism which is set out in their manifesto as follows:-
“3.16 England and Multi-Culturalism
3.16.1 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. The wearing in public of clothing designed to conceal one’s face is at variance with English culture and current security considerations. The European Court of Human Rights supports this view with its ruling ECHR 191 (2014).
This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.”
Mr Justice Hickinbottom suggested his disapproval of the Claimant in his Order when he highlighted that the Claimant is a “political party”.
This is a case in which the Claimant sought judicial review of the decision by the Prime Minister, purportedly exercising the Prerogative powers of Her Majesty, to agree to an extension of the period before which the United Kingdom would withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union (‘A50’, ‘A50.1’, etc; ‘the TEU’).  The remedy sought was a declaration that no such Prerogative power existed and that the UK had, in consequence, withdrawn from the EU, in domestic, EU and international law, on 29.03.2019.
Consequently, any judge making any judicial decision that affects the outcome of this case would be responsible either: (a) by allowing the case to proceed, for an ultimate judicial determination that leads the United Kingdom to leave the European Union; or (b) by ending the claim (including by refusing permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal),  for allowing the UK to remain within the EU unless and until further steps are taken (or the effluxion of time without legislation, or a further extension of A50, on 31.10.2019). 
Moreover the purpose of a judge’s declaration that an application for permission to appeal is “Totally Without Merit” is to deny a claimant/applicant the right to an oral renewal of its permission application; as does a single judge of the Court of Appeal making the same declaration (which in this case would be final and un-appealable).
The Claimant is a political party in respect of which donors of more than £500 must be individuals on the electoral roll in the UK or bodies based in the UK (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s 54) and the majority of whose members are resident in England and (it is reasonable to suppose) were electors eligible to vote in the referendum on membership of the European Union held on 23.6.2016 (‘the Referendum’).  The Claimant was publicly committed to the Leave campaign during the Referendum and has since continued to publicly campaign for the UK to leave the EU.  It also has a publicly expressed policy of support for the independence of England from the remainder of the United Kingdom, a policy advertised by its name.  Essentially the Appelant’s/Applicant’s political position is a logical extension of the process of balkanisation of the UK started by the then Labour Government’s devolution legislation in the late 1990s.   It also reflects the deep animosities created in England through the use of Welsh and Scottish votes to force membership of the EU onto England, which in turn suffered disproportionately from membership. 
4.         Public Controversy with Solicitor
Lord Justice Hickinbottom was formerly the Senior Liaison Judge for Diversity. His proposal to fast track representatives of multi-culturalist diversity client groups featured in the Law Society Gazette.  Here is the text of the article:-
“Judicial fast-track would boost diversity
Creating a judicial career fast-track for young lawyers could help improve diversity on the bench as they work their way up the judicial ladder, the most senior solicitor judge has told the Gazette.
But such a scheme would be just one of many entry points rather than an exclusive European-style career judiciary, Mr Justice Hickinbottom (pictured), recently appointed to the Court of Appeal, said.
This is one of a range of ideas being considered by senior judges, including developing a generic judicial skillset so applicants would be recruited for their judging abilities and then trained for specific roles.
Sir Ernest Ryder, senior president of tribunals, believes that would create a more objective selection system because ‘you aren’t just looking for someone who looks like you and looks like a good family judge. You are looking for a group of lawyers who satisfy the competencies we want from a judge – now how are we going to train them and where are we going to deploy them?’
Another driver for change is that fewer solicitors are applying successfully for court roles.
Ryder stressed: ‘One thing I am absolutely sure about is I want solicitors’ skills.’ And that means looking at ways of fast-tracking solicitors from part-time roles because ‘we know we can train someone to the appropriate level in a shorter time than it takes now’, he said.
Hickinbottom said that multiple entry points could speed up improvements in diversity. ‘We take judges from the top of the profession,’ he said. ‘But we could also take lawyers in as district or circuit judges in their twenties and support them up through the system. It happens in other jurisdictions and attracts a lot of women.’
However he recognised that those coming up through the ranks could be viewed differently and acknowledged it would require a residential judicial college.
He is not in favour of people becoming a full-time judge without doing a part-time role first. ‘That is dangerous. You can’t go back so you have to enjoy it,’ he said. ‘Most do, but, for those that don’t, it is hell.”
In response Robin Tilbrook, the solicitor who has conduct of this matter, and who is also the Chairman of the English Democrats, had the following letter published in the Law Society Gazette in which the then Mr Justice Hickinbottom’s comments were directly challenged.  Here is the text of the letter:-
“Dear Sir
Re: Judicial fast-track would boost diversity – 31st October 2016


I viewed your above story with great disquiet as it seems that this proposal from Mr Justice Hickinbottom seems somewhat symptomatic of the various questionable, not to say flaky “Reform” initiatives launched by various members of the Judiciary of the England and Wales jurisdiction.

I suspect that most other practitioners, who have a court based practice, will have noticed that, whilst many of the Judges that we experience are still of excellent quality that there is nevertheless an increasing proportion who are not of that quality. They are being appointed by the Judicial appointments system, which was politicised by Lord Irvine when he was Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor to ensure that “no-one with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted. 


With the utmost respect to the learned Mr Justice Hickinbottom, the focus of any public service ought to be on actually delivering a service to the public rather than tick-boxing “Diversity” quotas in a fashion reminiscent of the appointment system in the Soviet Union.”
As Lord Justice Hickinbottom, is a former solicitor, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Judge may have read this criticism of his multi-culturalist agenda and have noted that Robin Tilbrook is an opponent.  In any event it was unwise with respect and inappropriate for a judge who had been in open conflict with the Applicant’s solicitor to be assigned to the case.  Judges should take care not to preside over the cases of those whom they have been in dispute, whether contractual, political or otherwise.  
5.         In the Premises
Lord Justice Hickinbottom’s decision should be set aside and the Application for Permission to Appeal reinstated for reconsideration to another Lord Justice of Appeal.

[1] For example, the recently concluded appeal of Leave.EU v the Electoral Commission (2019), Central London County Court (unreported) and the ongoing appeal of Vote Leave v the Electoral Commission.
[2] Although it should be noted that the findings of the Electoral Commission in the above cases were relied upon by the Claimant in Wilson v the Prime Minister R (Wilson) v [2019] EWCA Civ 304 in support of a judicial claim that sought to require HM Government to take particular steps because of illegalities found by the EC (and since under appeal).

WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Donald Trump and his Campaign Team famously developed the expression “Fake News” to comment on the left-liberal, blatant bias of the US mainstream media. 
In this country I think the mainstream media are at least as biased as the US media. 
For the last three years or more we have had wall to wall and utterly shameless and blatant Remainer bias from the BBC and all the other main broadcast channels on any topic relating to Brexit. 
Charles Moore on last week’s Question Time brilliantly exposed the BBC’s and Question Time’s bias against Leavers, whilst the BBC’s Fiona Bruce desperately tried to shut him up!
The mainstream media’s bias however goes much further than disproportionate coverage to include outright censorship of any story which goes against their internationalist, left-liberal bias. 
I think few stories illustrate this better than the coverage of our case. 
The English Democrats are bringing a High Court case using the Judicial Review procedure to sue Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Case No. CO/1322/2019).  We have a strong case that, according to law, the United Kingdom left the European Union on the 29th March at the expiry of our two year notice period which was given under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. 
This case is therefore the only realistic chance that we have of getting any real Brexit.  The media are falling over themselves to report displacement activity that cannot make any difference.  For example, as I write this, they are falling over themselves to report about Nigel Farage and his new Party.  The safe fact for the Remain supporting media is that however many MEPs Farage’s Party wins it cannot make any difference whatsoever to whether we are in or out of the EU or on what terms!  Misdirecting Leave support into that cul-de-sac is therefore useful for Remain.
I and numerous others whom I know of have tried very hard to get the mainstream media to report about the case, but with very little success. 
This is of course also in stark contrast to the massive and persistent reporting of the much less important constitutional case brought by Gina Miller to require the Government to get an Act of Parliament to permit it to serve the Article 50 Notice.  That case, as I am sure anybody who listened to any of the “news” output of the mainstream media, received literally massive coverage because the Remainers in the media thought that it might derail Brexit.
By contrast our case which may actually get a Declaration that we are already Out of the European Union has only had the Mail On-line do two items about it, both of which were top trending political news stories on-line. 
I have been informed that those in charge of the Mail On-line were told by the Daily Mail’s new editor (who is a Remainer) that they were to let the story drop. 
The Express On-line also began to cover the story, but again I understand they were told to drop the story by their new owners from the Mirror Group. 
Apart from those two media outlets there has been, so far as I am aware, no other coverage at all. 
Given the significance of this case I think we can draw some important conclusions from this treatment. 
The first is that despite the claims of the mainstream media to report “News”, this claim is quite simply ‘fake news’.  The so-called “News” which they report is subordinate to their propaganda objective of furthering their internationalist, left-liberal bias. 
So, any of us that take our understanding of what is going on in the world from the mainstream media is therefore running a big risk that their awareness of news will be so tainted by this propaganda objective that their understanding may well be led into fundamental errors about what is going on. 
This of course has important implications for political policy and decision making because our politicians seem to take much of their agenda from what appears in the mainstream media.  No wonder they make such a mess of almost every decision that they are involved in!
Also no wonder so many people are misled into supporting displacement activity!
Another important point to consider is the effectiveness of social media.  Despite not receiving any proper coverage by the mainstream media, we have still been able raise over £80,000 toward the case.  That does enable us to carry on with the case with some confidence.  However against that we have to set what happened with the Gina Miller case where the fake news mainstream media furore led to the funding of a case which cost over £1.2 million!  Social Media therefore is helpful but does not fully compensate us for being completely cut out of the mainstream media reporting. 
Last but not least, it also does need to be noted that the Remainer cartel politicians like Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson have been campaigning for social media access to be cut-off for all those who oppose the current British Political Establishment cartel. 
Our window of potential opportunity on social media is therefore already being closed off, as the recent treatment of Tommy Robinson so vividly demonstrates!
This of course means that it is urgent to find ways to break through politically before the window of opportunity finally closes on us!

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

Last Friday afternoon the story broke in the mainstream media that 20 more, as the BBC called them “Asians”, had been convicted of horrific offences of “child grooming” from the Huddersfield area. 
Most of the offences occurred during the period of Labour Government in the Labour controlled area of Kirklees.  These had been systematically covered up by Labour Councillors and MPs, social workers, police and all the usual suspects that we are all too familiar with from the Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester etc. “grooming gang” cases. 
Even now the BBC cannot bring themselves to admit that these men are of Pakistani heritage Muslims, and Chinese, Vietnamese, or any other “Asians”. 

After the murder of the internationalist Labour MP, Jo Cox, by the deeply disturbed Thomas Mair (actually more as a product of the failure of “Care in the Community” than of political extremism), the English Democrats decided we would stand in the ensuing by-election.   
The Constituency was of course exactly in the area affected by this case.  The local media, the local BBC and all the local politicians were in the know about what had been going on for many years in Kirklees.  Nevertheless claimed that it was disgusting of anyone to stand in that Constituency against Labour!

So, as soon as we announced that we were going to stand, that Establishment bastion of Remain, the Electoral Commission, decided to remove without any consultation or prior notice, our registered “Description” “England worth fighting for!”  This was said to be offensive!   
What is truly offensive is the way that the Establishment had closed ranks to try to pretend that nothing untoward was going on in Kirklees and their claims that our standing was damaging “social cohesion” between the “local communities”. 

The media, particularly in the shape of Channel 4, tried to do a hatchet job on us.  They not only secretly filmed at our conference to try to get people to say things that they could use against us. Also they tried to create a situation where there would be a fight by getting a probably drunken Labour Councillor to attack our campaign stalls. 

I had taken, as it turned out, the very sensible precaution of making sure that our stalls were in the square just outside the Batley police station, so the whole thing was witnessed by the police.  They, very reluctantly, had to get involved to prevent the Labour Councillor from doing any more criminal damage.  Needless to say that they didn’t actually prosecute her, despite the fact that several of our people gave witness statements which, if the boot had been on the other foot, would certainly have led to prosecutions! 

Channel 4 were looking rather depressed at the failure of their wheeze, but they nevertheless showed their hatchet job which was broadcast just before the by-election. They broadcast a clip with the Councillor saying that we shouldn’t be standing but didn’t mention, of course, her appalling conduct!

Whilst this was all truly offensive, nothing compares with the betrayal of vulnerable white English girls and their families by Labour, by police and by local officials, by the media and by the British Political Establishment generally.   
That is something which should live in infamy for generations to come and which should motivate anyone who cares for England and the English people to campaign all the harder to at least remove all the guilty from any positions of authority or influence!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!
 
There are two parts to this story.
 
First the Labour candidate in the biggest election this year has an address which does not exist as his home address in his nomination papers. This means that if he is elected then that result is voidable as having a false address in his nomination forms is the offence of “Corrupt Practice”. We have reported this to the Police who have confirmed that “South Yorkshire Police is investigati(ng) an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections”
 
Second we have here a classic “Electoral Fraud” story of the type that BBC Sheffield so eagerly ran when it was alleged that Paul Nuttall of UKIP had committed a nearly identical election fraud as is alleged in this case.  That was in the Stoke By-election, so it is not even directly related to either Sheffield or South Yorkshire! Now however the local BBC are trying to protect a Labour MP from adverse publicity which might, as Labour put it in Mr Nuttall’s case, “call into question” Mr Jarvis “fitness for office”!
 
There is no credible basis for The BBC’s excuse of saying that giving this story the proper level of publicity would put Mr Jarvis under risk of attack, especially as it is his failure to give his home address which is the basis for him being investigated by South Yorkshire police!  So how would anyone know his address?
 
Here is a link to the Statement of Persons nominated where you can see Dan Jarvis’ false address >>> https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Statement-of-Persons-Nominated.pdf
 
There is no Marsham Road in London.

So this is what the charge-sheet against Dan Jarvis MP and/or his agent Paul Nicholson might look like:-
 
CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF THE FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981
Details of Offence on or before 6th April 2018 at the offices of Sheffield City Council in the County of South Yorkshire used an instrument, namely a local government election nomination form relating to Dan Jarvis which was and which they knew or believed to be false with the intention of inducing the Returning Officer, Dr Dave Smith, to accept it as genuine and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or another person’s prejudice.

(Upon conviction an indictment of this offence which is called the “Misuse of a Statutory Instrument”, the person convicted may be sentenced up to 10 years imprisonment.)

CONTRARY TO SECTION 65A(1)(A) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983
On or before 6th April 2018 in the offices of Sheffield City Council in South Yorkshire Dan Jarvis or his Election Agent caused or permitted to be included in a document, namely a local government election nomination form relating to a candidate stated to be Dan Jarvis which was delivered or otherwise furnished to Dr Dave Smith the returning officer for use in connection with the Sheffield City Regional election in South Yorkshire to be held on 3rd May 2018 a statement of the home address of the said candidate, which you knew to be false.

(This offence is labelled a “Corrupt Practice” and the successful election of a candidate found guilty (whether personally or by his agent) of a “Corrupt Practice” is void and anyone found personally guilty of a Corrupt Practice is prohibited from holding any elected office for a period of five years.)
 
So you can see that the probable minimum outcome of the investigation of this case would be that Dan Jarvis’ election would be declared void. He may also be disqualified from office for five years.  It is therefore absurd that the BBC is refusing to report a police investigation which will probably result in this election result being declared void.
 
The general location of what is probably Mr Jarvis’s real address can quite easily be found on the Barnsley Council’s website where the location of his home address is given on the published Notice of Persons Nominated for Election as the MP for Barnsley Central here >>> https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/media/5855/statement-of-persons-nominated-barnsley-central.pdf.
 
I have therefore specifically warned BBC Sheffield that unless the BBC does its job and properly reports this issue then I shall be complaining to OFCOM over clear breaches of the “Ofcom Broadcasting Code”, Sections are 5, 6 and 7.  They have not done so and so I shall be complaining.
 
In Section 5 in breach as follows:-
 
Section Five:
Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and
Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions
(Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and
section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)
Principles
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy 
and presented with due impartiality.
To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are
complied with.
Rules
Meaning of “due impartiality”:
“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself
means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate
to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an
equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every
facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may
vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the
likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content
and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm
and Offence of the Code, is important.
Due impartiality and due accuracy in news 
5.1
News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented
with due impartiality.
5.2
Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected
on air quickly (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, corrected quickly). Corrections
should be appropriately scheduled (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, appropriately
signaled to viewers).” 
The BBC are failing to report views and failing to act with due impartiality and are ignoring the requirement to report with due accuracy and are excluding the reporting of news because of their biased views and opinions
 
“5.5
Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters
relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person
providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or
over a series of programmes taken as a whole. 
Meaning of “series of programmes taken as a whole”: 
This means more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing
with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like
audience. A series can include, for example, a strand, or two programmes (such as a
drama and a debate about the drama) or a ‘cluster’ or ‘season’ of programmes on the
same subject.”
 
This is a matter of political controversy and so their duty of due impartiality applies.
 
“5.7
Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with
due weight over appropriate timeframes.”
 
They are failing to present relevant views and facts at all.

“5.8
Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question
the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.”

They are not declaring their personal interests as Labour supporters and not allowing adequate representation of alternative viewpoints.
 
“5.12
In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and
major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of
significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme
or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be
misrepresented.”
They were no doubt asked by Labour or by their candidate not to report this story and by agreeing not to do so they are complicit in giving undue prominence to their views and opinions.
 
Section 6 the BBC appear to be in wholesale breach of.  Not only in this matter but also in failing to give equal treatment to the candidates in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election and significantly the direct failure of their reports to comply with Section 6.10, which requires that:-
 
“Any constituency or electoral area report or discussion after the close of
nominations must include a list of all candidates standing, giving first names,
surnames and the name of the party they represent or, if they are standing
independently, the fact that they are an independent candidate. This must
be conveyed in sound and/or vision. Where a constituency report on a radio
service is repeated on several occasions in the same day, the full list need
only be broadcast on one occasion. If, in subsequent repeats on that day, the
constituency report does not give the full list of candidates, the audience should
be directed to an appropriate website or other information source listing all
candidates and giving the information set out above.”

 

Look North’s BBC’s Evening News item from 6.30 -7.00 p.m. earlier last week carried a report by Look North’s News Political Editor, Mr James Vincent on the powers of the role of the new South Yorkshire Mayor.  This was in the proposed Mayoral office and he commented “nice view but no powers”!
 
There was then a discussion in the BBC studio amongst Look North’s in-house staff  commentators, Ms Amy Garcia and Mr Harry Gration, who were complaining about the cost of the election address booklet and of the election generally.
 
This was the second or third occasion that Look North has referred to the South Yorkshire Mayoral elections in which they only referred viewers, who wanted more information, to the official election website but did not spell out at all the names or the parties of the candidates in the election.


https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif(The link to the code is here >>>  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april-2017.pdf
 
The correspondence on this matter which sets out both issues is below, in chronological order:-
—–Original Message—–
From: Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
To: robintilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 7:39 pm
Subject: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE
Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate
In the Statement of Persons Nominated as a candidate in the election, Dan Jarvis has the non-existent address in London of 76 Marsham Road.  No postcode is provided.  Whereas there is a 76 Marsham Road in Kings Heath, Birmingham, there is none in London.  
It therefore seems that on his nomination paper Mr Jarvis has made a declaration that his address is 76 Marsham Road, London – clearly a false declaration and so it seems that he has committed an electoral fraud, which upon conviction would probably get him disqualified from holding elected office, not only as Mayor, but also as an MP!
Here is the Electoral Commission Guidance set out in:-
Guidance for candidates and agents Part 2b of 6 – Standing as a party candidate.   April 2017 (updated December 2017.
The relevant part of the Guidance states:-
“Home address form 1.12
The home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must make a statement to this effect on the home address form and give the name of the constituency in which your home address is situated or, if you
live outside the UK, the name of the country in which you reside.
1.13
Your home address:
• must be completed in full
• must not contain abbreviations
• must be your current home address
• must not be a business address (unless you run a business from your home)
1.14
Your address does not need to be in the constituency in which you intend to stand.”
 
76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR does however exist and that is Great Minster House which is a Barrett luxury development whose website address can be found here >>> https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h634701-great-minster-house/ .  This is a new development in which Right Move shows that a 2 bedroomed flat is currently for sale at £2,650,000! (Click here >>>  http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48448119.html .  
Also in the Mayoral Booklet for Election Addresses Mr Jarvis has given his address as 200 Duke Street, S2 5QQ, Sheffield, which is not only not a residential address but is also not really a proper address at all.  It is actually the side of the Labour Party’s Sheffield office!  
The proper address of Labour’s office is given by Mr Jarvis’ Election Agent, Mr Paul Nicholson, who gives his address as the proper address Labour’s Sheffield Headquarters of Talbot Street, S2 2TG. 
So the two addresses that Mr Jarvis has given in his paperwork for this important election are both addresses that he neither lives at nor works at!
In the Stoke By-election Labour said:-  “Mr Nuttall’s use of an empty house as his address raised questions about his fitness for public office”! 
The English Democrats take the view that if Labour felt that it was proper to report Mr Nuttall to the Police when the address given by him was both a real one and one which he presumably had leased then in this worse case the matter should be reported to the police and so we have done so.
David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election said:-  “I always knew that Dan Jarvis MP was a Notts man with no real connections with Yorkshire at all, but now it appears that he cannot even give a proper address for his candidacy. 
This can only mislead electors in South Yorkshire into wrongly thinking that Dan Jarvis is someone with roots here in Yorkshire.”
David continued:-  “Furthermore if Dan Jarvis has committed an electoral fraud offence then it could be a wasted vote for Labour supporters to vote for him when he could soon be disqualified.  
The honourable thing for Mr Jarvis to do now would be to stand down from this election.  If he follows this advice it will be interesting to see whom he recommends his supporters to vote for.  I suspect it will be the equally anti-English Regionalist Yorkshire Party, which, just like Dan Jarvis, is not campaigning for the traditional Yorkshire at all, but for the EU Yorkshire & Humber Region which excludes parts of traditional Yorkshire and includes parts of traditional North Lincolnshire and whose main effect is to begin the break-up of England”
 
David Allen
St Edmunds House
Anchorage Lane
Doncaster
South Yorkshire  
DN5 8DT  
Tel: 01302 781347
Mobile: 07450 098964 
Email: Davidsallen64@gmail.com
 
 
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Mobile : 07778 553395
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
Twitter: @ RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat
Supporting VotetoLeave.EU
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.
The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.
 
 
—–Original Message—–
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
To: robintilbrook < robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 4:56 pm
Subject: FW: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 
Hi Robin,
 
I can’t find the mayoral booklet for election addresses, I’m not sure it’s been made public yet. Do you have a copy?
Can you scan a page and send it me?
Thanks,
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
 
 
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 
Liz
 
Enclosed is a picture of Jarvis’ entry in the booklet. I’ve also included a picture of the statement of nominations which has incorrect and incomplete London address too. If you need a better picture please let me know.
 
Regards 
 
David Allen 
 
 
 
From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 April 2018 18:54
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Fwd: Your Email 13/4/18
 
 
———- Forwarded message ———
From: STEPHEN LEACH < Stephen.Leach@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 18:24
Subject: Your Email 13/4/18
To: davidsallen64@gmail.com < davidsallen64@gmail.com>
 
Good afternoon
 
I can confirm that South Yorkshire Police is investigation an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections.
 
Regards
 
DI Steve Leach
SYP Cyber Crime
Stephen.leach@southyorkshire.pnn.police.uk
 

SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp

https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: James Vincent <james.vincent@bbc.co.uk>; Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Tim Smith-Leeds <tim.smith@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: Your Email 13/4/18 
 
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 10:52, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 
Hi David,
 
We’ve decided we won’t be running the story. This is due to the safety risk posed to Dan Jarvis and his family.
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
Hi Liz
 
Thanks for your message.
 
I am sorry to say I am not surprised. I suspect the real reason is more likely the political risk to what appears to be a BBC preferred candidate.
 
I fail to see how reporting him being investigated for electoral fraud constitutes a compromise to his or his family’s safety, bearing in mind his allegedly bogus London address is a matter of public record.
 
Each of the other candidates have had their home addresses published and perhaps myself and my family the most likely to be safety compromised amongst them.
 
Actions like this do nothing to dispel the growing belief that the BBC is ‘The Guardian’ on air and has abandoned any pretence of balance, particularly since BREXIT.
 
I am sorry you have been given the dirty job of being the messenger when it was you who dared to pick up the story in the first place.
 
This complaint is in no way directed at you personally.
 
Regards 
 
From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 April 2018 15:51
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Dan Jarvis
 
Liz,
 
Further to your statement regarding the alleged compromise of the Jarvis family safety.If you would be so kind would you tell me , who told you this and the reasons they gave?
 
Regards
 
https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif
 
——- Forwarded message ———
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 16:16
Subject: RE: Dan Jarvis
To: David Allen < davidsallen64@gmail.com> 
 
David,
 
I’m not prepared to go into the details, but we have looked into this extensively and come to the conclusion that there would be a genuine and increased risk to Dan Jarvis and possibly his family if we were to broadcast anything that might lead to his address being discovered.  I’m sure you are aware that these are difficult times in terms of the security of elected MPs, and especially so for someone like Mr Jarvis who is so publicly associated with our armed forces.   Please be reassured that this decision was taken after discussion with the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield and after a great deal of thought.
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
 
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Dan Jarvis 
Liz,
 
Thank you for you reply.
 
Please can you identify, by name and position, the members of the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield responsible for making this decision.
 
Regards
 
David Allen
 
 
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 09:27, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 
David,
 
The managing editor is Katrina Bunker, the Assistant Editor is Mike Woodcock.
 
But if you’d like to make a complaint you can do so here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
I await your response to this complaint.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely
 
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Mobile : 07778 553395
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat
Supporting VotetoLeave.EU
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

WHY IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MANIPULATING WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS?

On Friday the 15th September there was another Islamist terror attack in England on London’s Underground. The home-made bomb partially went off at Parsons Green Tube Station.

When it was first being reported very shortly after it had happened, there were various pictures and clips which had been filmed on people’s mobile phones put up onto the internet in which you could see what was happening, including the above picture of the bomb.

The initial reports were of people who were in the carriage and who heard it go off who said that it wasn’t a bang, it was a sort of “whoomp”. There was a smell, smoke and some flames. People were desperate to get off the tube train and there was a wild panic to get off the station away from the train in which people were injured in the ensuing stampede.

At first the mainstream media were talking up the possibility that this attack could have been done by “Far-Right Extremists”. As their hopes of that faded there was an increasing unwillingness in the mainstream media, whether it be Sky, ITV or BBC, to report on what type of people were thought to be the perpetrators.

Even though it has since become clear that the people who have been arrested so far are young male Muslim “refugees” it is only recently that it has become crystal clear that the principle suspect is one of the Syrian child refugees that so much fuss was made about to bring them over to England. This was regardless of such and with no attempt to vet whether they were dangerous or not. Well now we know of course that at least some of them are going to prove to be dangerous Jihadists! So much for the effectiveness of our British authorities in showing any interest in looking after our own People!

One thing however that was striking on the day as reporting of the news story progressed on Friday was that, by the 6 o’clock BBC Radio 4 news, the BBC was reporting that the bomb had “exploded”, that there had been a “wall of flame” and that “29 people had been injured”, the obvious implication being, to anybody who didn’t know better, that the people were injured by the bomb, rather than as they actually were by the panic and stampede to escape from the station. The bomb of course did not “explode”. The videos at the time showed that there was not a “wall of flame”, at most the flames were a foot high and perhaps only six inches high.

What better example of fake news could you get than this distortion from the BBC?

The question that then arises is why would they do it? But then you have to think what Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has been saying in response to Islamist attacks in London. After the car ramming and knife attack on Westminster Bridge he said:-


“Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days – no reason to be alarmed. One of the things police and all of us need to do is make sure we’re as safe as we possibly can be.

“I’m reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world.

“But we always evolve and review ways to make sure we remain as safe as we possibly can.”

After the van rammings and knife attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market he said:-

“Our city is filled with great sorrow and anger tonight but also great resolve and determination because our unity and love for one another will always be stronger than the hate of the extremists.

“This is our city. These are our values and this is our way of life. London will never be broken by terrorism we will step up the fight against extremism and we will defeat the terrorists.”

And:-

“I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.

“London is the greatest city in the world and we stand together in the face of those who seek to harm us and destroy our way of life.

“We always have and we always will. Londoners will never be cowed by terrorism.”

In stark contrast to these remarks however, after the attack on Muslims near the Finsbury mosque, he said:-

“The Met have deployed extra police to reassure communities, especially those observing Ramadan.”

The moral of these quotations seems to be that, whilst Muslims must be protected whatever the cost to taxpayers, the rest of us must simply get used to being attacked by Islamists.

This agenda is confirmed by what he is reported to have said in New York:-

“Living with terror attacks – like the one that hit New York at the weekend – is ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’.

‘It is a reality I’m afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.

‘That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but also it means exchanging ideas and best practice.”

In short what people like Sadiq Khan want to happen is that the general population accepts the story that these sorts of Jihadi terror attacks are now simply part and parcel of living in a big city, rather than what they obviously actually are, accordingly to common-sense: Which is the consequence of the British Establishment allowing unrestricted immigration by large numbers of unvetted Muslims, often from very troubled parts of the world, who too often bring their wars and their Jihadi mentality with them!

It should also be noted that when Islamists get involved in suicide bombing or other suicidal terrorist activity, their focus is currently being completely misunderstood by the authorities and, in particular being mis-reported by the mainstream media.

What we have to understand is that a Jihadist deciding to undertake such a mission is thinking of it not in terms of a “suicide mission”, but of a “martyrdom operation”. This explains why the London Bridge terrorists were wearing fake suicide vests. The point of doing so was to make sure that the police wouldn’t try to capture them and instead would shoot them dead!

It should be remembered that the point of a “martyrdom operation” is obviously to be martyred and is therefore done in reliance on the statements in the Koran and the Haddith that he who dies in Jihad will automatically go to Paradise and be rewarded by Allah with celestial virgins in a jewelled palace for eternity!

Jihadists truly believe that this is what will happen to them if they die in Jihad. So if their life has not been lived fully accordingly to Muslim law then they are a person who is more likely to feel that a “martyrdom operation” will get him to paradise, despite his sins, than if he had lived a blameless life.

It therefore makes no sense for commentators to talk about the fact that some pf those Jihadists who commit martyrdom operations have not lived strict Muslim lives!

We need to realise that the killing of unbelievers in a “martyrdom operation” is not the goal of the operation; it is merely the goalposts which enable the goal to be scored. That is getting into Paradise by being killed whilst on Jihad.

No wonder the mainstream media do not want people to understand what is going on because if they did then maybe the demand to end Muslim immigration would rise from its current opinion poll rating of about 47% to a pitch where almost everybody who was not a Muslim would be saying no to any further Muslim immigration!

THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY

THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY IS NOT THE INEQUALITY BUT THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TAKEN FROM TAXPAYERS FUNDS


I have read with amazement the mainstream media’s coverage of the BBC’s pay scandal which in its obsession with politically correct equality seems to have missed the main common sense point.

It should be remembered that the BBC exists primarily on a so-called syndicated tax. This is the “Licence Fee” which forces us all to pay the BBC £147 for the right to use a television whether we watch the BBC or not.

Any of us that do not pay the “Licence Fee” can be prosecuted and potentially sent to prison.

It is also worth remembering that everyone of those whose taxpayer funded pay has just been revealed is being paid more than the Prime Minister (who is currently paid p.a. £150,402)!

So now we all know where so much of our money goes!

It seems that it is being paid to people whose contribution to any serious public interest benefit (which you might expect from a taxpayer funded entity) is often extremely questionable.

It is also interesting to consider what these now revealed salaries show about the BBC’s bias. Almost all their top names are Leftist Remainers! In fact the only one who isn’t, that I have noticed so far, is Andrew Neil.

I ask you:-

1. Whether Chris Evans, with his declared pay of £2.2m (14,966 times the licence fee!), or Graham Norton, with his declared pay of £850,000 (5,783 times the licence fee), are doing anything socially useful that is worth such a huge amount of taxpayer money?

2. Also whether even the supposedly more serious “public interest” broadcasting personnel, such as Huw Edwards (£600,000), Eddie Mair (£425,000) are worth anything like the money they are being paid?

In the circumstances I wonder if I would be alone in suggesting that far from raising any of the BBC’s women’s salaries, what should be done is to reduce the salaries of all those relevant employees of the BBC so that none gets more than the Prime Minister?

Further I would say that as regards all positions that are taxpayer funded – that is right across the UK State – all their pay should be subject to a maximum figure of what the Prime Minister gets, unless there is a specific reason justifying the exception (such as the need to recruit a particular person whose salary has to exceed the Prime Minister for reasons of competition with other potential employers).

Given the general lack of talent amongst senior UK State employees, and the UK’s various quangos, I would doubt whether that condition would often be met!

Who would agree?

BBC Daily Politics Interview

BBC Daily Politics Interview


In recent times it has become ever clearer to anyone interested in politics that the so-called mainstream media has long given up on professional, or in many cases, even ethical standards in its determination to propagandise for its own mostly Left-Liberal internationalist, pro EU/NWO view point. There are, of course, some honourable exceptions.

However I would not normally include the BBC in such exceptions!

There are however residual aspects of standards of professionalism within the BBC which cannot be found in ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or Sky.

One example there is that as part of a tick box exercise of maintaining political impartiality, the English Democrats do get invited occasionally to take part in news or current affairs programmes, such as the Daily Politics.

On Monday 15th May, I was invited to go to the Daily Politics studio at Millbank, Westminster. I was interviewed by Jo Coburn, details of whose background can be found here >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Coburn

Jo of course carries a Scottish name and I do not think there is any doubt as to her credentials as a Left-Liberal internationalist, pro EU/NWO.

I have been interviewed by Jo Coburn on various occasions before and would say that she has always been polite, but has asked much more hostile questions of me than I see her asking those interviewees from the Left! 

This is of course a price that has to be paid for daring to mention, let alone stand up for, the taboo ‘E’ words of “England” and the “English”! Here is the interview >>> None of the “established parties” have a manifesto for England, but they have policies for Scotland and Wales, says the leader of the English Democrats. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-39923071/general-election-2017-english-democrats-leader-robin-tilbrook

Have a look and see what you think.

THE BBC THINKS “LEAVE” VOTERS ARE:- ‘POOR, THICK, OLD WHITES’?


THE BBC THINKS “LEAVE” VOTERS ARE:- ‘POOR, THICK, OLD WHITES’?

The BBC’s Freedom of Information specialist, Mr Martin Rosenbaum, has published an article which I produce below, in which he claims that the data shows that the poorer, less well-educated, or elderly “white” population voted more heavily for Leave than for Remain in the EU Referendum.

Although he does quote briefly Dominic Cummings who was the internet and data focussed campaign director of Vote Leave. Dominic Cummings says the better educated are more prone to irrational political opinions because they are more driven by fashion and by group mentality.

In effect Mr Rosenbaum dismisses this view since it does not suit his or the BBC’s agenda to acknowledge that in today’s England the better educated have been subjected to a more longer and more sustained effort to convert them to ensure that they emerge as left, liberal internationalists and far more likely to support the EU’s transnational statist agenda.

Mr Rosenbaum also ignores those analysts who have talked about “Clacton man” as being of the sort that he has characterising as Leave voters and also “Crawley man” who has higher education qualifications and is an aspirational, striving middle class person.

In my view however the most glaring failure of the article is so very typical of the BBC group mentality. This is over the question of what he calls “ethnicity”. The first point to make is that he has clearly made no effort to understand what the law means by the word “ethnicity”. This has been set out now for decades, clarified in the Mandla – v – Dowell-Lee [1983] UKHC7 case in the House of Lords Appeal Court, which in effect ruled that ethnicity was limited to self-identified sub-sets of a national racial group i.e. that Sikhs without any of their Sikh specific clothes or styles or equipment were indistinguishable from other North Indians, but because of their cultural markers and self-identification were an identifiable sub-set of North India and therefore an “Ethnicity”.

On this legal basis the English, for example, are an identifiable sub-set of British and therefore an ethnicity.

The English have also been specifically accepted by courts as a national identity, national origin, nationality and as a racial group.

Despite this long established legal position, Mr Rosenbaum uses the word ethnicity in a context which shows he has virtually nothing in the way of a definition behind the word except that they are perhaps non-“White”.

This leads him to the absurd position of talking about “Asian” as if they were all the same. So it is a monochrome world in which he cannot tell the difference between a Sikh, a Muslim, a Hindu, an Indian, a Pakistani, a Bangladeshi, a Gujarati, a Tamil etc! Nor does it seem that Mr Rosenbaum is able to tell the difference between the English, the Scottish or the Welsh. This leads him to ignore one of the key findings of the Ashcroft polls which was that of the top 30 Leave voting local authorities, 100% – that is every single one of them – were constituencies which had the highest proportion of people who responded to the 2011 Census stating that they were “English only”.

Isn’t it interesting and certainly typical of the BBC that its group think mentality even now still makes it impossible for it to understand or accept that the English had by and large and very sensibly realised that the EU was and is an enemy of “the very idea of England”?

So no Mr Rosenbaum. The English are not poor, stupid or uneducated, they are merely people who care for England and didn’t want to see England broken up into EU “Regions” and overwhelmed by unrestricted mass immigration from other parts of the EU. Also they don’t want or to be made to pay for the poor and economically failing parts of the EU – when we have got enough problems that need to be fixed before we can think about dealing with other people’s problems!

Here is the article:-

Local voting figures shed new light on EU referendum


The BBC has obtained a more localised breakdown of votes from nearly half of the local authorities which counted EU referendum ballots last June.

This information provides much greater depth and detail in explaining the pattern of how the UK voted. The key findings are:

The data confirms previous indications that local results were strongly associated with the educational attainment of voters – populations with lower qualifications were significantly more likely to vote Leave. (The data for this analysis comes from one in nine wards)

The level of education had a higher correlation with the voting pattern than any other major demographic measure from the census

The age of voters was also important, with older electorates more likely to choose Leave

Ethnicity was crucial in some places, with ethnic minority areas generally more likely to back Remain. However this varied, and in parts of London some Asian populations were more likely to support Leave

The combination of education, age and ethnicity accounts for the large majority of the variation in votes between different places

Across the country and in many council districts we can point out stark contrasts between localities which most favoured Leave or Remain

There was a broad pattern in several urban areas of deprived, predominantly white, housing estates towards the urban periphery voting Leave, while inner cities with high numbers of ethnic minorities and/or students voted Remain

Around 270 locations can be identified where the local outcome was in the opposite direction to the broader official counting area, including parts of Scotland which backed Leave and a Cornwall constituency which voted Remain

Postal voters appear narrowly more likely to have backed Remain than those who voted in a polling station

The national picture

Education

A statistical analysis of the data obtained for over a thousand individual local government wards confirms how the strength of the local Leave vote was strongly associated with lower educational qualifications.

Wards where the population had fewer qualifications tended to have a higher Leave vote, as shown in the chart. If the proportion of the local electorate with a degree or similar qualification was one percentage point lower, then on average the leave vote was higher by nearly one percentage point.

Using ward-level data means we can compare voting figures in this way to the local demographic information collected in the 2011 census. Of the main census statistics, this is the one with the greatest association with how people voted.

In statistical terms the level of educational qualifications explains about two-thirds of the variation in the results between different wards.

The correlation is strong, whether based on assessing graduate and equivalent qualifications or lower-level ones.

This ward-by-ward analysis covers 1,070 individual wards in England and Wales whose boundaries had not changed since the 2011 census, about one in nine of the UK’s wards. We had very little ward-level data from Scotland, and none from Northern Ireland.

It should be noted, however, that many ward counts also included some postal votes from across the counting area, and therefore some variation between wards will have been masked by the random allocation of postal votes for counting. This makes the results less accurate geographically, but we can still use the information to explore broad national and local patterns.

Age

Adding age as a second factor significantly helps to further explain voting patterns. Older populations were more likely to vote Leave. Education and age combined account for nearly 80% of the voting variation between wards.

Ethnicity

Ethnicity is a smaller factor, but one which also contributed to the results. Adding that in means that now 83% of the variation in the vote between wards is explained. White populations were generally more pro-Leave, and ethnic minorities less so. However, there were some interesting differences between London and elsewhere.

The ethnic dimension is particularly interesting when examining the outliers on the graph that compares the Leave vote to levels of education.

wards in Birmingham illustrate the pattern of ethnic minority populations being more likely to support Remain.

There are numerous wards towards the bottom left of the graph where electorates with lower educational qualifications nevertheless produced low Leave and high Remain votes. This is where the link between low qualifications and Leave voting breaks down.

It turns out that these exceptional wards have high ethnic minority populations, particularly in Birmingham and Haringey in north London.

In contrast, there are virtually no dramatic outliers on the other side of the line, where comparatively highly educated populations voted Leave. Only one point on the graph stands out – this is Osterley and Spring Grove in Hounslow, west London, a mainly ethnic minority ward which had a Leave vote of 63%. While this figure does include some postal votes, they are not nearly enough to explain away this unusual outcome.

In fact, in Ealing and Hounslow, west London boroughs with many voters of Asian origin, the ethnic correlation was in the other direction to the national picture: a higher number of Asian voters was associated with a higher Leave vote.

Overview

This powerful link to educational attainment could stem from the lower qualified tending to feel less confident about their prospects and ability to compete for work in a competitive globalised economy with high levels of migration.

On the other hand some commentators see it as primarily reflecting a “culture war” or “values conflict”, rather than issues of economics and inequality. Research shows that non-graduates tend to take less liberal positions than graduates on a range of social issues from immigration and multi-culturalism to the death penalty.

The former campaign director of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings, argues that the better educated are more prone to holding irrational political opinions because they are more driven by fashion and a group mentality.

Of course this assessment does not imply that Leave voters were almost all poorly educated and old, and Remain voters well educated and young. The Leave side obviously attracted support from many middle class professionals, graduates and younger people. Otherwise it couldn’t have won.

While there was undoubtedly a lot of voting which cut across these criteria, the point of this analysis is to explore how different social groups most probably voted – and it is clear that education, age and ethnicity were crucial influences.

After these three key factors are taken into account, adding in further demographic measures from the census does little to increase the explanation of UK-wide voting patterns.

However, this does not reflect the distinctively more pro-Remain voting in Scotland, since we are short of Scottish data at this geographical level. It is clear as well that in a few specific locations high student numbers were also very relevant.

To a certain extent, using the level of educational qualifications as a measure combines both class and age factors, with working class and older adults both tending to be less well qualified.

But the association between education and the voting results is stronger than the association between social or occupational class and the results. This is still true after taking the age of the local population into account.

This suggests that voters with lower qualifications were more likely to back Leave than the better qualified, even when they were in the same social or occupational class.

The existence of a significant connection between Leave voting and lower educational qualifications had already been suggested by analysis of the published referendum results from the official counting areas.

The data we have obtained strengthens this conclusion, because voting patterns can now be compared to social statistics from the 2011 census at a much more detailed geographical level than by the earlier studies.

The BBC analysis is also consistent with opinion polling (for example, from Lord Ashcroft, Ipsos Mori and YouGov) that tried to identify the characteristics of Leave and Remain voters.

Local patterns

The data we have collected can be used to illustrate the sort of places where the Leave and Remain camps did particularly well: it is hard to imagine a more glaring social contrast than that between the deprived, poorly educated housing estates of Brambles and Thorntree in Middlesbrough, and the privileged elite colleges of Market ward in central Cambridge.

It is important to bear in mind, however, that most of the voting figures mentioned below also include some postal votes, so they should be treated as approximate rather than precise. It is also important to note that the examples are limited to the places for which we were able to obtain localised information, which was only a minority of areas. The rest of the country may well contain even starker instances.

Leave strongholds

Of the 1,283 individual wards for which we have data, the highest Leave vote was 82.5% in Brambles and Thorntree, a section of east Middlesbrough with many social problems. Ward boundaries have changed since the 2011 census, but in that survey the Thorntree part of the area had the lowest proportion of people with a degree or similar qualification of anywhere in England and Wales, at only 5%. And according to Middlesbrough council, the figure for the current Brambles and Thorntree ward is even lower, at just 4%.

Second highest was 80.3% in Waterlees Village, a poor locality within Wisbech, Cambridgeshire. This area has seen a major influx of East European migrants who have been doing low-paid work in nearby food processing factories and farms, with tensions between them and British residents.

Other wards with available data which had the strongest Leave votes were congregated in Middlesbrough, Canvey Island in Essex, Skegness in coastal Lincolnshire, and Havering in east London.

Remain strongholds

The highest Remain vote was 87.8% in Market ward in central Cambridge, an area with numerous colleges and a high student population, in a city which was strongly pro-Remain.

This was followed by Ashley ward (85.6%) in central Bristol, a district featuring ethnic diversity, gentrification and alternative culture.

Next highest was Northumberland Park (85.0%) in Haringey, north London, which has a substantial black population.

Other wards with available data which had the strongest Remain votes were generally located in Cambridge, Bristol and the multi-ethnic London boroughs of Haringey and Lambeth.

In the middle

The count for Ashburton in Croydon, south London, split 50-50 exactly, with both Leave and Remain getting 3,885 votes, but that did include some postal ballots.

Nationally representative

As for being nearest to the overall result, the combined count of Tulketh and University, neighbouring wards near the centre of Preston, was 51.92% for leave, very close to the UK wide figure of 51.89%. The individual ward of Barnwood in Gloucester had Leave at 51.94%. Both figures however contain some postal votes.

Given that a few councils provided even more detailed data down to the level of polling districts, it is possible to identify some very small localities that were nicely representative of the national picture.

The 527 voters in the neighbouring districts of Kirk Langley and Mackworth in Amber Valley in Derbyshire, whose two ballot boxes were counted together, produced a leave proportion of 51.99%. And this figure is not contaminated by any postal votes.

So journalists (or anyone else for that matter) who seek a microcosm of the UK should perhaps visit the Mundy Arms pub in Mackworth, the location for that district’s polling station.

Similarly, the 427 voters in the combined neighbouring polling districts of Chiddingstone Hoath and Hever Four Elms to the south of Sevenoaks in Kent delivered a leave vote of 51.6% (again, without any postal votes).

Switching areas

The data obtained points to 269 areas of various sizes (wards, clusters of wards or constituencies) which had a different Leave/Remain outcome compared to the official counting area of which they were part.

This consists of 150 areas which backed Remain but were part of Leave-voting counting areas; and 119 in the other direction.

The detailed information therefore gives us an understanding of how the electorate voted which is more variegated than the officially published results.

Scotlandvoted to Remain – but some wards backed Leave, analysis shows

Every one of Scotland’s 32 counting areas came down on the Remain side. Yet, despite the fact that most Scottish councils did not give us much detailed information, we can nevertheless identify a few smaller parts of the country which actually backed Leave.

A cluster of six wards in the Banff and Buchan area in north Aberdeenshire had a strong Leave majority of 61%. There is much local discontent within the fishing industry of this coastal district about the EU’s common fisheries policy.

An Taobh Siar agus Nis, a ward at the northern end of the Isle of Lewis in Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles), also voted Leave, if very narrowly.

And at a smaller geographical level, in Shetland the 567 voters in the combined polling districts of Whalsay and South Unst had an extremely high Leave vote of 81%. The island of Whalsay is a fishing community, where EU rules have been controversial and in 2012 numerous skippers were heavily fined for major breaches of fishing quotas.

London

Ealing and Hounslow are neighbouring multi-ethnic boroughs in the west of London with large Asian populations, where – in contrast to the national picture – non-white ethnicity was associated with voting Leave, particularly in Ealing. Both boroughs shared a varied internal pattern of prosperous largely white areas voting strongly Remain, poorer largely white areas preferring Leave, and the Asian areas tending to be more evenly split.

Ealing voted 60% Remain, with Southfield ward hitting 76%, but in contrast the Southall wards which are over 90% ethnic minority were close to 50-50.

In Hounslow the richer wards in Chiswick in the east of the area voted heavily Remain (73%), but the poorer largely white wards at the opposite western end in Feltham and Bedfont voted Leave (64-66%). Osterley and Spring Grove was also 63% Leave, the highest Leave vote in any individual ward in the UK with a non-white majority for which we have data.

The south London borough of Bromley narrowly voted Remain. Those parts which did not do so by a significant margin were the Cray Valley wards, largely poor white working class areas; and Biggin Hill and Darwin wards, locations to the south which contain more open countryside and lie outside the built-up commuter belt.

In Croydon in south London, places which voted Leave by substantial amounts were New Addington and Fieldway, neighbouring wards with large council estates.

Other areas

Beyond the areas with the strongest backing for Leave and Remain, examining the detailed breakdown of votes in various places gives greater insight into the pattern of support for the two sides – as can be seen from the following examples.

In several places (for example, Birmingham, Bristol, Nottingham, Portsmouth) there was a strong contrast between the Leave-voting populations of large, rundown, predominantly white, housing estates in the urban periphery, versus Remain-voting populations in inner city areas with large numbers of ethnic minorities and sometimes students.

Birmingham had several wards with large Remain votes, although the city as a whole narrowly voted Leave. These pro-Remain wards tended to be the more highly educated, better off localities, or minority ethnic areas which strongly backed Remain despite low levels of educational qualifications. I have written about this before.

In Blackburn with Darwen, Bastwell ward had the highest Remain vote at 65%, compared to only 44% in the area as a whole. This ward has an ethnic minority proportion of over 90%. Other Blackburn wards which voted Remain were also ones with high minority populations.

Bradford voted to Leave (54%), but the area included some starkly contrasting places which went over 60% Remain: the prosperous, genteel, spa town of Ilkley, and strongly ethnic minority wards in the city, such as Manningham and Toller.

Bristol voted strongly Remain on the whole (62%), but there were some striking exceptions, particularly the large, deprived, mainly white estates to the south of the city. Hartcliffe and Withywood backed Leave at 67%. Similar neighbouring wards (Hengrove and Whitchurch Park, Filwood, Bishopsworth and Stockwood) also voted Leave, as did the more industrial area of Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston to the north west of the city.

As a county Cornwall voted to Leave. But one of its six parliamentary constituencies, Truro and Falmouth, voted 53% to Remain, possibly linked to a significant student population.

In Lincoln, which voted 57% to Leave, Carholme ward stands out as very different – it voted 63% to Remain. This ward includes Lincoln University, and 43% of the residents are students

Middlesbrough voted 65% to Leave. As already noted, it had several wards with extremely high leave votes of over 75%. But one ward, Linthorpe, voted very narrowly to Remain – a comparatively well-to-do inner suburb which includes an art college; and another ward, Central, which contains Teesside University, nearly did.

Mole Valley in Surrey exhibited a dramatic contrast between two neighbouring districts with very different demographics and housing. The highest Remain vote was in the very prosperous location of Dorking South, which voted 63% Remain, but the neighbouring ward of Holmwoods, dominated by large estates on the edge of the town of Dorking, voted 57% Leave, the area’s highest Leave vote.

Nottingham voted narrowly to Leave, but the inner city ward of Radford and Park voted 68% Remain. This has both a comparatively high proportion of ethnic minorities and considerable numbers of students from two nearby universities. There was a lot of variation within the area. Bulwell – a market town to the north of the city with many social problems – voted 69% Leave

There was also a high Leave vote in the housing estate locations of the Clifton wards in the south of Nottingham.

Oldham voted to Leave at 61%, but Werneth, the city ward with the highest ethnic minority population, voted Remain (57%). Other wards with high minority populations also voted Remain.

central wards in Oxford had high Remain votes

In Oxford the cluster of polling districts which included Blackbird Leys and other deprived estates on the southern edge of the city voted to Leave at 51%. In contrast the central areas containing colleges, university buildings and student accommodation voted to Remain at over 80%.

Plymouth voted 60% Leave, but Drake ward which includes the university had the city’s highest Remain vote at 56%.

Portsmouth was another place with wide variation. Paulsgrove ward, with its large estate on the edge of the city, had the highest Leave vote at 70%, whereas at the other end of the spectrum Central Southsea, an inner city ward and student area, voted 57% Remain.

Rochdale voted 60% Leave. The place which bucked this trend by voting 59% Remain, Milkstone and Deeplish, was the most predominantly ethnic minority ward. Central Rochdale had the second highest Remain vote and is the other ward that is mainly not white.

Walsall voted strongly Leave (68%). The only ward which voted Remain, Paddock, is both a comparatively prosperous and multi-ethnic locality.

The most local data

A few councils released their data at remarkably localised levels, down even to individual polling districts (ie ballot boxes) in the case of Blackburn with Darwen and Bracknell Forest, or clusters of two/three/four districts, in the case of Amber Valley, Brentwood, Sevenoaks, Shetland, South Oxfordshire, and Tewkesbury.

This provides very local and specific data, in some cases just for neighbourhoods of hundreds of voters.

At its most detailed this reveals that the 110 people who cast their votes in the ballot box at St. Alban’s Primary School in central Blackburn split 56-52 in favour of Remain, with two spoilt papers.

It also discloses stark contrasts in some neighbouring locations. The 953 people who voted at Little Harwood community centre in north Blackburn had a Leave vote of only 31%, while the 336 electors who voted in the neighbouring ballot box at Roe Lee Park primary school produced a Leave percentage over twice as high, at 64%.

Postal votes

The very detailed data we obtained also provides some rare evidence on the views of postal compared to non-postal voters. Campaign strategists have often deliberated on whether the two groups vote differently and should be given separate targeted messages.

Most places mixed boxes of postal and non-postal votes for counting, so generally it’s not possible to draw comparative conclusions. However there were a few exceptions which recorded them separately, or included a very small number of non-postal votes with the postals.

These figures indicate that postal voters were narrowly less likely to back Leave than voters in polling stations. Data covering five counting areas with about 260,000 votes shows that in these places the roughly one in five electors who voted by post backed Leave at 55.4%, one percentage point lower than the local non-postal support for Leave of 56.4%.

The counting areas involved are Amber Valley, East Cambridgeshire, Gwynedd, Hyndburn and North Warwickshire.

The data

Since the referendum the BBC has been trying to get the most detailed, localised voting data we could from each of the counting areas. This was a major data collection exercise carried out by my colleague George Greenwood.

We managed to obtain voting figures broken down into smaller geographical units for 178 of the 399 referendum counting areas (380 councils in England, Wales and Scotland, with a separate tally in Gibraltar, while in Northern Irelandresults were issued for the 18 constituencies).

This varied between data for individual local government wards, wards grouped into clusters, and constituency level data. In a few cases the results supplied were even more localised than ward level. Overall the extra data covers a wide range of different areas and kinds of councils across the UK.

Electoral returning officers are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, so releasing the information was up to the discretion of councils. While some were very willing, in other cases it required a lot of persistence and persuasion.

Some councils could not supply any detailed data because they mixed all ballot boxes prior to counting; some did possess more local figures but simply refused to disclose them to us. Others did provide data, but the combinations in which ballot boxes were mixed before counting were too complex to fit ward boundaries neatly.

A few places such as Birmingham released their ward by ward data following the referendum on their own initiative, but in most cases the information had to be obtained by us requesting it directly, and sometimes repeatedly, from the authority.

(Here is the link to the original >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034)

BBC’s Diversity “drive” – Freedom of Information Act Requests


Re: BBC’s “Positive” discrimination proposals


When I read about these I wrote a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act to the BBC and here is the text of my letter:-

Dear Sirs

Re: BBC’s Diversity “drive” – Freedom of Information Act Requests

I read the Daily Telegraph’s article on Saturday, 23rd April talking about the BBC’s sweeping new “Diversity” targets incorporated into a new “Diversity Strategy”, which appears to show that the BBC, in its drive to be politically correct, has abandoned all sense of both equality and of common sense.

It appears, for instance, that, in News Programmes, you propose that 50% of all commentators, experts and others brought onto the programme should be women regardless of whether they actually represent a genuine diversity of opinion, rather than represent a mere proportion of the population in the neo Soviet sense.

I also read that there are proposed targets across the BBC’s screen and back room staff which are to mirror the national population.

Since 60.4% of the population of England, according to the 2011 Census, identified themselves as being of “English-only” national identity, I ask, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, whether you propose to ensure that 60.4% of the staff, both on screen and in the back room shall be of English national identity? If you propose any other proportion then I request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the scientific basis on which you propose a different figure. If you do not propose to specify the proportion of people who are English then I request, under the Freedom of Information Act, your justification in failing to properly represent the population.

I note that you have set targets of 8% of on air roles of “LGBGT” people. I therefore formally request, under the Freedom of Information Act, how you arrived at 8%, given that the proportion of the population who are “LGBGT” is significantly smaller than that. Please also, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, confirm that you will reduce the numbers of “LGBGT” people down to 8% and ensure that they have no greater number than their proportion of the population, otherwise you will clearly be failing to properly represent the “non-LGBGT” proportion of the population. I again request your justification for such findings.

Since you propose that 15% of all “lead roles” as well as on “air positions” will have to be taken by “ethnic minorities”, please can you specify exactly which “ethnic minority” takes up which proportion of that 15% and how that figure is calculated, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Please also provide the information which relates to how that 15% is calculated, given that 15% appears to be a larger proportion of the population than is demonstrated in the 2011 Census results. It would appear, prima facie, that you are seeking to have a larger proportion of “ethnic minority” people than the proportion in the population. How are you therefore properly representing the proportions of the population if you choose to have more than 15%? I again request your justification for such findings.

Please also let me have a list of those groups that you are including in your definition of “minority ethnic groups” that will be given this representation and please also specify where this definition has been taken from and why you have excluded other groups from the list.

Please note that in view of the simplicity of the information requested in this Freedom of Information Act request, I am presuming that there will be no charge for making the request. If there is to be a charge please notify me within the next 7 days from the date of this letter.

Further please note that if a deadline of 21 days for producing the information, which I hereby give, is insufficient, then I do require you to notify me within 7 days of the date of this letter.

If the information requested is in a document then I ask for all the information in the document including its formatting data, but would confirm that the provision of a copy of the document will be a sufficient discharge of this data request.

In the absence of such notifications and should I not receive the information requested, I shall forthwith make an Application to the Information Commissioner for an Order against you to order the disclosure of the requested information.

Yours faithfully

Here is the BBC’s response:-

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Freedom of Information Request – RF120160951

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) received on 5th May 2016, seeking the following information:
 
1. Since 60.4% of the population of England, according to the 2011 Census, identified themselves as being of “English-only” national identity, I ask, whether you propose to ensure that 60.4% of the staff, both on screen and in the back room shall be of English national identity?
 
2. If you propose any other proportion then I request the scientific basis on which you propose a different figure.
 
3. If you do not propose to specify the proportion of people who are English then I request justification in failing to properly represent the population.
 
4. I note that you have set targets of 8% of on air roles of “LGBGT” people. I therefore formally request how you arrived at 8%, given that the proportion of the population who are “LGBGT” is significantly smaller than that.

5. Please also confirm that you will reduce the numbers of “LGBGT” people down to 8% and ensure that they have no greater number than their proportion of the population, otherwise you will clearly be failing to properly represent the “non-LGBGT” proportion of the population. I again request your justification for such findings.

6. Since you propose that 15% of all “lead roles” as well as on “air positions” will have to be taken by “ethnic minorities”, please can you specify exactly which “ethnic minority” takes up which proportion of that 15% and how that figure is calculated.
 
7. Please also provide the information which relates to how that 15% is calculated, given that 15% appears to be a larger proportion of the population than is demonstrated in the 2011 Census results. It would appear, prima facie, that you are seeking to have a larger proportion of “ethnic minority” people than the proportion in the population.

8. How are you therefore properly representing the proportions of the population if you choose to have more than 15%? I again request your justification for such findings.
 
9.  Please also let me have a list of those groups that you are including in your definition of “minority ethnic groups” that will be given this representation and please also specify where this definition has been taken from and why you have excluded other groups from the list.

In response to 1, 2 and 3, the BBC does not currently ask staff to declare national identity. For more detail on what metrics the BBC aims to measure across the workforce see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_use/diversity_equality.html

In response to 4 and 5, we have based our targets on a combination of governmental statistics alongside intelligence and estimates.

In response to 6 and 7, the BBC currently publishes general figures relating to the ethnicity of its staff as an annual reporting requirement under the BBC Charter and Agreement and in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. We reflect the ethnicity of our staff under three broad headings: Ethnic Majority staff (White British/English/Scottish/Welsh) Black and Minority Ethnic staff (Black, Mixed, Asian, Chinese, Middle/Near Eastern) and staff from Other White Backgrounds (Irish, Central & Eastern European, Gypsy/Traveller & white staff from other backgrounds). You can see more about this on the BBC Trust’s website:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_we_use/diversity_equality.html

It is not mandatory for staff to inform the BBC of their diversity information. Therefore the figures only relate to records, where the ethnicity is known (currently 98% of the workforce). The figures also excludes local recruits – staff who are recruited and work locally, outside the UK.

The BBC’s Equality Information Report for 2014/2015 can be found at the following address:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/strategy/equalityreport2015

In response to 8 and 9, we have based our targets on a combination of governmental statistics alongside internal intelligence, estimates and projections.

Please note that, as set out in section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the FOI Act, our subsidies (including BBC Studio & Post Production Ltd, UKTV, BBC Global News Ltd and BBC Worldwide Ltd), as well as the charities BBC Media Action and BBC Children in Need, are not subject to the Act, therefore information for their personnel is not included in the figures quoted above.

I hope this response satisfies your request.

Appeal Rights

If you are not satisfied that we have complied with the Act in responding to your request, you have the right to an internal review by a BBC senior manager or legal advisor. Please contact us at the address above, explaining what you would like us to review and including your reference number. If you are not satisfied with the internal review, you can appeal to the Information Commission. The contact details are:- Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, Tel: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 (national rate) or see http://ico.gov.uk/.

Yours sincerely

BBC People

And here is my response:-

Dear Sir

Re: Freedom of Information Request – RF120160951

Thank you for your unsigned letter of the 2nd June 2016 from which it would appear that you have next to no actual data which would enable you to justify a basic breach of principles of equal and fair recruiting, contrary, inter alia, to the Equality Act 2010.

For your information the categories which you describe in which you “reflect the ethnicity” of your staff are not “ethnicities” as recognised by Law. “Ethnicity” is a subset of another group such as the House of Lords found Sikhs were of the wider racial group of the Northern Indians.

Since one of the leading cases on the English as a Racial Group is a case against the BBC, one would, with respect, have thought that the BBC was capable of learning from its previous mistakes and, before undertaking the kind of egregious social engineering project as proposed, would have gone to the trouble of acquiring the requisite data.

For your information ‘White British’ is a legal oxymoron, given that British is anybody who has a British passport. English, Scottish and Welsh are separate National Origin and Racial Origin groups. The idea that “Black, Mixed, Asian, Chinese, Middle/Near Eastern” all represents a single “Ethnic” Group is bizarre. Obviously your “Other White Backgrounds” is equally a miss mash of different peoples. The fact that you quote these would seem to demonstrate that you actually have not done the required groundwork to depart from basic equality law principles in recruitment.

We invite you to correct us if there is any information which supports your proposed course of action?

Yours faithfully

What do you think?

Jo Coburn’s interview of me on the BBC 2 Daily Politics


On Thursday I was invited up to do our very limited entitlement to coverage on BBC News 24 and the Daily Politics Show because of our Conference coming up and, as usual, the BBC did its best to paint us as: “sad, bad and mad”, its generously taxpayer funded fashion!

Here is a link to Jo Coburn’s interview of me on the Daily Politics on Iplayer >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06chkm8/daily-politics-17092015 My bit starts at 24:30. 

And here it is on Youtube >>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzD3ir9HMSo&feature=youtu.be
 


You can see we have now got into a situation where the BBC is using our People’s money and resources to advocate opening the flood gates to the no doubt tens of millions of refugees and economic migrants that would wish to come here if given the chance!

England is already the most densely populated country in Europe and probably the third most densely populated country in the world, after Bangladesh and South Korea! We simply haven’t got the space and resources to sustainably be taking on still more vast numbers of migrants for whatever reason they have come here.

Last year alone the Government’s statistics (which are no doubt vastly under-played), claim that we had over 330,000 come here. That is more than a new Doncaster or Newcastle Upon Tyne that will have to now be built to house just last year’s intake alone. So yet more of England’s green and pleasant land will be concreted over. We are already having to build the equivalent of a new London to house the over 8 million immigrants that have already come here.

The one issue this really raises is where does this end? If the answer, which would be the English Democrats answer, is that we need to vigorously defend our borders, is the right answer then the next question is what are we prepared to do in order to police those borders?

Steve Uncles, our Police Commissioner candidate for Kent, made a facetious comment on the not at all serious “social medium” of Facebook and wrote about using a machine gun.

That is not of course English Democrats’ policy, nor would I approve of that happening gratuitously. However where you have large numbers of fit young men of military age trying to break down our border barriers by force and throwing stones at police and injuring them, as we had at Calais and the Hungarians are now putting up with, where is the line to be drawn? Are we really prepared to see our soldiers and policemen injured by illegal immigrants determined to force their way into our country?

I wouldn’t however have said or written Steve’s posting myself, even in jest on Facebook, but the fact of the matter is that the media do not generally report anything that we say that is serious and sensible. They are only looking for something that they think that they can attack us over. Once faced with a media attack there are only two options:- fight or flight. In my opinion in politics and in life generally, flight is usually the worse option.

I support the solution of Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, in vigorously enforcing borders. If necessary that must include the option of our border guards, who ought to be armed (like almost all the others across the world). They should have orders that permit them to fire whenever they think it is necessary to maintain law and order and defend themselves at our border controls.

I do think it is an interesting example of how hypocritical the members of our British Political elite are that they are more than happy to have police armed with machine guns guarding them, no doubt against us, but they are not prepared to stand up to nasty remarks about them made by the unrepresentative and undemocratic mass media or to properly protect and enforce our border controls.

So far as the behaviour of the mass media is concerned and, in particular, the BBC, I think that nobody can do any better than to listen to this YouTube clip illustrating the extent of blatant bias in the BBC. Also, if you listen carefully to the last caller, in order to get on the air at all the BBC are cunningly censoring who does get on. The caller had to pretend that he was a supporter of refugees crossing in to Hungary. Here is the clip>>>

 
What do you think?