Tag Archives: Political Correctness

POLICE NUMBERS AND FUNDING

POLICE NUMBERS AND FUNDING

These days we hear lots of complaints in the media about the funding of the police and many calls that we should have more police. 

Actually the real issue isn’t the numbers of the police.   
It is worth bearing in mind that in 1960, when the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales was generally an amazingly law abiding place, with many of our traditional English communities still vibrant, there was just one police officer for every 643 members of the population of England and Wales!

Since then we have had an avalanche of legislative verbal diarrhoea from the British State, which has created many thousands of new offences.  The British State is also seeking to interfere in many aspects of English life which in 1960 would have been considered to be no business of the State to interfere in. 

There has also been extensive political interference by politically correct British politicians in the way that the English police are allowed to operate.  This has dramatically reduced police effectiveness. 

The English criminal courts have also been massively interfered with.  There has been a long period of so called “reform” being imposed by the British Political Establishment at such a rate that new reforms have frequently been imposed before the previous set of reforms have even been properly implemented! 

Is it any wonder that now, even though there is now one police officer for every 477 members of the population of England and Wales, that nevertheless their effectiveness in preventing crime is vastly inferior to what it was in 1960?

There is of course also to consider the huge demographic changes that has been engineered in the population of England and Wales since 1960. These have imported forms of criminality from many of the lawless parts of the world.  In 1960 these were unknown in England and Wales. 

All in all the statistics about police numbers are a vivid reminder, if any were needed, just how poorly the British Political Establishment has governed our once peaceful and once largely law abiding England over the last 60 years!

Time for a change anyone?


Article called “Pale, Male and Stale?” reported to the Police as a Racist, Sexist and Ageist "Hate Crime".

Article called “Pale, Male and Stale?” reported to the Police as a Hate Crime.
I have been calling on people from our side to be more active in using the weapons of Political Correctness against its advocates. I recently came across another opportunity to set an example of what can easily be done.
I am therefore setting out below my correspondence with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) over a blog item entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” by Lisa Hornung.  
Having got no satisfaction I then reported both the Organisation and the author to the police.
Here is the correspondence with the NCVO and the police:-
4thMay 2018
NCVO
Society Building
8 All Saints Street
London
N1 9RL
                                               
Dear Sir
Re:  Your Blog article Entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” – complaint
I refer to the blog article appearing on the NCVO’s website found here >>> https://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2018/04/23/pale-male-and-stale-three-things-i-learned-doing-research-on-diversity-and-volunteering/?_cldee=ZWFo
entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?” 
This is an expression which is both sexist, racist and ageist and insulting, abusive and grossly offensive against older white men.  Lisa Hornung also makes the fundamental error of stating that charities should be run to make “diversity a top priority”.
Anyone involved in running a charity ought to know that “Diversity” is not the primary objective.  The primary objective of a charity is to be run to achieve its charitable purposes.  “Diversity” if it is to be considered to be an objective at all, is certainly no more than a second or third order objective.  Of course what Liza
Hornung means by this comment, which is contrary to the fundamental Laws of Charity here in England, is that charities should, in her Leftist, Internationalist political world view be run in such a way as to conform with her view rather than in accordance with English Law and practice. 
Taken together this article and the relevant tweet on the NCVO’s twitter account which reads as below are anti-White, anti-male, anti-older comments which are grossly offensive, abusive and insulting both within the meaning of Section’s 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and contrary to within the meaning of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
“NCVO
Our researcher @ncvolisa looks at the lack of diversity in volunteering, and how we can address it: blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2018/04/23/pal
Pale, male and stale?
1.25am – 30 Apr 2018”
I am hereby making a formal complaint against your organisation generally and Ms Hornung in particular.  I shall consider your response and in the light of that make a decision as to whether to report this matter to the police as a “Hate Speech” Crime.
Yours faithfully
Robin Tilbrook
Director
Letter received from National Council for Voluntary Organisations dated Friday, 11th May 2018
Dear Mr Tilbrook
Re:  Complaint reference 4/05/18/1
Your letter of 4 May was referred to me in line with our complaints policy and I have reviewed your concerned.
The phrase you refer to is used as a shorthand for the issue under discussion, as befits the headline of an article.  It is not used in an abusive or insulting manner.  Indeed, the blog post title is deliberately phrased as a question, and the answer that the blog post sets out is that this ‘civic core’ contribute greatly through their volunteering.
You object to the recommendation in the blog post that organisations wishing to address a lack of diversity may wish to make doing so a top priority.  It is NCVO’s firm and long-held view that organisations are made stronger by involving people of all ages and backgrounds and that seeking to enhance the diversity of volunteers is a positive move for any charity.
You may like to note that the Charity Commission is of a similar view:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charities-must-do-more-to-promote-diversity-on-their-boards-new-research-shows
In conclusion, I am content that NCVO and our staff have acted entirely appropriately and that the blog post raises no credible grounds for complaint.
If you are not satisfied with this response, our complaints policy gives you the opportunity to have it reviewed.  Should you wish to do so, please contact the complaints coordinator, Tracy Kiernan, at this address.
Regards
Aidan Warner
External Relations Manager
NCVO
And my reply: dated 29th May 2018
Mr Aiden Warner
External Relations Manager
NCVO
Society Building
8 All Saints Street
London  N1 9RL
Dear Sir
Re:  Complaint Reference 4/05/18/1
Thank you for your letter of the 11th May. 
We do not agree with your characterisation of what is clearly a racist, ageist and sexist “Hate Speech” Crime.  In the circumstances we shall be reporting your organisation and Ms Hornung to the police with a view to prosecution. 
On the subject of diversity; what you and the Charity Commission have said is merely a subjective political assertion, as would be the counter assertion that homogeneity gives organisational coherence and strength. 
These are matters of political and philosophical debate and do not negate the laws against “Hate Speech”.
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook
Director
From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 30 May 2018 16:10
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident
Dear Sir
Re:  Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident
I wish to report both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and also Ms Lisa Hornung, the author, for her blog item on the NCVO’s website found here >>>  >>>  https://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2018/04/23/pale-male-and-stale-three-things-i-learned-doing-research-on-diversity-and-volunteering/?_cldee=ZWFo entitled “Pale, Male and Stale?”  Such a remark is anti-white, racist, anti-man, sexist, anti-older people and ageist.  It was also put out on their Facebook and Twitter accounts.
We have made a complaint to NCVO and set out below the contents of our letter which explains my reasoning.  This offending article and the supporting Facebook and Twitter postings were publicised, inter alia, in Essex.
Yours sincerely
R C W Tilbrook
Director
English Lobby
“Protecting English Culture and Values”
A not for profit lobbying organization

From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:23
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident 
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email, if you wish to report a hate incident then I’m afraid that you will either need to call into Essex Police on 101 and press the option to report a crime please be aware our phone lines are very busy and there is usually a wait or if you have access to the internet please report it on line on the below link.
https://report.police.uk/
Kind Regards
Essex Police
Crime Bureau

From: Robin Tilbrook
To: Crime.bureau
Sent: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:47
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate” Crime/“Hate” incident 
Dear Sir
RE:  Report of “Hate Crime” incident
Thank you for your email. 
I have reported Hate Crimes to you via email before.  What is different about this one?
Yours faithfully
Robin Tilbrook
Director 
English Lobby
“Protecting English Culture and Values”
A not for profit lobbying organization
MR ROBIN TILBROOK                                                   Date: 01/06/2018
Quires Green, Walls Green                                    Crime Ref: 42/76534/18
Ongar
Essex
CM5 0QP
Dear Mr Tilbrook,
I am writing about the crime you reported to us on 30/05/2018.
The details of this offence have been recorded and allocated Crime Reference Number: 42/76534/18.
Crime can be both emotionally and physically traumatic for victims, resulting in a considerable amount of street.  If you feel the need for confidential support or assistance, please contact Victim Support on 0808 1689111.
We are carrying out further investigations and we may be in contact with you if we need to obtain any additional information.
Should you require any further advice or have any additional information regarding this investigation please telephone the police non-emergency number 101.  Please quote your crime reference number in all correspondence.
Yours sincerely
PSE 76567 James Swatton
Essex Police

Code of Practice for Victims of Crime
The code of Practice for Victims of Crime sets out the services to be provided to victims of criminal conduct by criminal justice organisations in England and Wales.
Enhanced entitlements are provided to victims of the most serious crime, persistently targeted victims and vulnerable or intimidated victims.
You can find out more about the Victims code of Practice at:
  • Read the full Victims Code of Practice
www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-code-of-practice-for-victims-of-crime
  • Download the leaflet for ‘Information for Victims of Crime’
www.gov.uk/government/publications/leaflet-for-victims-reporting-a-crime-resource-for-police-forces
  • Making a Victim Personal Statement
www.gov.uk/government/publications/victim-personal-statement
  • More Information on Crime, Justice & the Law
www.gov.uk/browse/justice
www.gov.uk/your-rights-after-crime
  • Get support as a Victim of Crime
www.gov.uk/get-support-as-a-victim-of-crime

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED

The Law Society Gazette is the in-house magazine for the Society of England and Wales,which is the professional body for all Solicitors in the English and Welsh jurisdiction. Like all such organisations there is a creeping move towards political correctness and “positive action”towards “diversity”; “multi-culturalism and globalisation”. An example of this appeared recently in the 8thJanuary issue of the Gazette. It was entitled“Racial Disparity in exams by Max Walters”. Here is his article :-

Minority ethnic students lagging behind in LPC success

By Max Walters

White students are more likely to pass their legal exams and law conversion courses than people from an ethnic minority background, data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority has revealed.

According to an SRA report, almost 80% of white students successfully completed their LPC, compared with only 40% of black students and 53% of Asian/Asian British students.

The figures, which cover September 2015 to August 2016, were published on the SRA website at the end of last year.

They appear in the annual ‘Authorisation and Monitoring Report’ which focuses on the success rates for two qualifications – the legal practice course (LPC)and the common professional examination (CPE) – a conversion course for non-law graduates.

It will come as another blow for the profession’s reputation for diversity after barristers’ regulator the Bar Standards Board revealed at the end of last year that black and minority ethnic (BME) students were half as likely as their white counterparts to achieve pupillage.

The figures for CPE candidates were similar to those taking the LPC. Among white students, 74% successfully completed the course, compared with 33% of black students and 46% of Asian students.

The report also reveals a stark gap between success at training institutions.

For the LPC, one provider achieved a pass rate of 100%, compared with 30% at another. CPE completion rates were similar and varied from less than 45% to100%. ?The providers have not been named.

The report also reveals that the University of Hertfordshire has opted to reinstate the LPC this year. The university suspended the course in 2016 in light of forthcoming changes to qualification. The Gazette has contacted the university for comment.

Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/minority-ethnic-students-lagging-behind-in-lpc-success/5064169.article

Here is my letter to the Editor in reply:-

Dear Sir

Your article in the 8th January issue of the Law Society Gazette:-“Racial disparity in exam results” by Max Walters


The statistics which Mr Walters quotes of “disparity” between “Black” and “Asian”Students and “White” Students may not actually “constitute a fresh blow to the profession’s reputation for inclusion”. For that inference to be properly drawn we would have to know whether the LPC “providers” were requiring the same levels of prior academic achievement from prospective students from each of these respective racial groups.

Anecdotally it would appear that the providers are actually not requiring the same level of academic achievement from each of the racial groups. Instead the providers appear to be offering course places at least partly on the basis of politically correct “positive discrimination”.

In other reports it also appears that “Asian” were 22% and “Black” were 9% of the total candidates. This is well over the percentage of these racial groups compared with their percentages of the population as per the 2011 Census. These percentages mean that even given their lower pass rates more Asian and Black candidates are becoming solicitors than these racial groups proportion of the population of England. It is actually English candidates who are underrepresented (so much for “White Privilege”?).

This supports the idea that “positive discrimination” is occurring which confirms that the “providers” are probably giving places to “Asian” and “Black” students who have not previously done as well academically as the “White”students. It may therefore be the reported results are hardly surprising. Law exams are testing knowledge of what is objectivity true. Hence, it was always improbable that racial discrimination came into the picture.

The disturbing implication of Mr Walters’ article is that he may be implying the academic standards for the LPC should be lowered. If this is his intention then the impact on the basic purpose of open examinations and of Professional regulation (which is to create a profession able to maintain and guarantee high professional standards of service to the public) would be sacrificed on the altar of politically correct “diversity” targets!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Solicitor& Chairman of the English Democrats

What do you think?

Report every conceivably relevant instance as an Anti-English “Hate incident” or “Hate Crime”!

I am encouraging people to report every conceivably relevant instance as an Anti-English “Hate incident” or “Hate Crime” in order to flood the Hate Crime statistics and thus make the Police’s statistical results come out contrary to their intended PC narrative!
 

Here is the link to the College of Policing Guidance on the recording “Hate Crime” >>> http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf. 

I was directed to this document by the Telegraph article, whose link you can find here entitled:- Hate crime levels spike in the wake of terror attacks as police record more victims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/hate-crime-levels-spike-wake-terror-attacks-police-record-victims/, which I think shows that this Guidance is of the utmost importance.

In particular what is clear from it is that if any of us state that we think we have been subjected to, or just that there has been (it doesn’t have to be against us as individuals), a “Hate Crime” or a “Hate Incident” against English nationalists, or against the English People or against Englishness etc., then the police now have to record it as such. If we can show that the incident is a crime then again they have to record it as a “Hate Crime”. In any case at the least it must be recorded as a “Hate Incident”.

The days of the police being able to say that they have any discretion not to record it are over.

I would suggest that therefore what we should quote the guidance to them and say is that we take the view that this is a hate incident then pursuant to the College of Policing’s “Hate Crime Operational Guidance”.

You can then say that the officer has no discretion and must record this as either a “Hate Incident” or a “Hate Crime”. Then say:- ‘If you do not do so then I will take this matter up as a complaint against you personally.’ 

Then ask for the officer’s badge number if they will not do it and complain to his superior and, if necessary continue with the complaint until fully satisfied!
 
Here is the rule to quote.
 

Section number 1.2.3. Perception-based recording of hate crime


For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person (see 1.2.4 Other person), is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident.

Crimes and incidents must be correctly recorded if the police are to meet the objective of reducing under-reporting and improve understanding of the nature of hate crime. The alleged actions of the perpetrator must amount to a crime under normal crime recording rules. If this is the case, the perception of the victim, or any other person, will decide whether the crime is recorded as a hate crime. If the facts do not identify any recordable crime but the victim perceived it to be a hate crime, the circumstances should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident and not a hate crime.

REMAINERS ARE TRAPPED BY THE RESULT OF THE GINA MILLER CASE

REMAINERS ARE TRAPPED BY THE RESULT OF THE GINA MILLER CASE
One thing that is all too obvious when trying to deal with any part of Government these days is the striking degree of incompetence.  This may well be the result of the selection for jobs by multi-culturist, PC tokenistic, tick-boxing rather than by trying to select the best people for the job?
There is also, of course, the vast and casual waste of taxpayers’ money! 
One of the less remarked upon things is the huge volume of unnecessary, overly prescriptive, complicated and downright ineffective legislation that Parliament passes.  It seems to be all too prevalent that the qualification for being in our legislature is to be utterly incompetent in dealing with any matter relating to the Law!
I remember a few years Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the Lib Dem Peer who had been a high quality solicitor in private practice, retired from the Lords saying that he thought the whole thing was pointless when our State is now passing over 10,000 pages of legislation every single year?
The result of this deluge of legislative verbal diarrhoea is that it is no longer possible for anyone to know the law, let alone for any citizen to know where they stand as against the State.  The whole legal system has been swamped and is a muddle. 
In a way nothing is better as an example than the latest twittering amongst the twitterati about whether Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty could be revoked and thus keep the UK within the EU and block the EU referendum.
This is a typical example of our political class’ incompetence. There are of course two bodies that have jurisdiction on deciding this. One is Parliament.  All the commentators who are Remainers were gleeful about Gina Miller’s case being taken up to the Supreme Court where there was a ruling that Parliament had to legislate in order for the Government to be legally able to serve the Article 50 notice (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf .  Bizarrely they are now claiming that Parliament by mere resolution could overrule the effect of that Statute! This is a basic error, not only of law, but of the constitution, since it is elementary that no Parliamentary resolution can override a statute.
In the circumstances the only way in which Parliament could overturn the Article 50 notice Act (European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017)  would be by a further Act of Parliament. 
So we have the amusing and delightful situation where Remainer MPs are trapped by the Miller case, whereby they cannot undo the Article 50 Notice at this end of the process without a further Act of Parliament.
Realistically this is politically impossible and would probably be ineffective in any case for reasons which I will explain below. 
The other jurisdiction and body which would determine whether a revocation of the Article 50 Notice was valid is the European Court of Justice.  Whatever the EU Commissioner might think, or the Council of European Union Governments or the EU Parliament think, the final word would be with the European Court of Justice.  That decision would probably take 5 years during which the situation of the UK would be in a permanent state of uncertainty. 
This Twitter stream has all been brought on by the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, confirming what was logically obvious, which is that the default position on whether there is a deal is that there is no deal. 
Given that the EU has set itself up to be as difficult as possible in this negotiating process, they always made it very likely that there would be no deal, but the Remainers seemed to think that they were going to have some opportunity to decide whether or not whatever was offered was going to be sufficient.  David Davies confirmed that in the event that Parliament rejected whatever deal was offered, then the effect would be that there was no deal.
Since David Davis is likely not to be bringing back very much in the way of a deal anyway we now have massive inertia tending towards no deal from both the EU side and from the UK side.
Fortunately the effect of no deal isn’t at all what the Remainers are saying.  It is simply that we go into the normal world trade on free trading terms and on a WTO basis, just like most of the other countries that trade perfectly successfully with the EU. 
The EU for their part also go onto the same WTO terms with us.  Since the balance of trade for the last 30 years has been more or less constant in their favour it is right to say that the EU will lose more than we will.  Our Government receipts from their payment of tariffs is likely to be much greater than the EU’s receipts from our tariffs.  Our profligate and wasteful Government might even be able to pay its way with a balanced budget, at least for a little while, based upon these extra receipts!

“THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!”

“THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!”


The Bible is not only, of course, the holy scripture of Christianity for Christians and the Old Testament for Jews, but it also contains a huge number of deep insights into human nature and the recurring themes of the strengths and weaknesses in our nature, as well as much history. The quotation in my title “there is none so blind as those who will not see” has its roots in the Bible, Book of Jeremiah, chapter 5, verse 21 “Hear now this, oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not.”

The actual formulation that I have used in the heading appears in Jonathan Swift’s “Polite Conversation”. It has the same common-sense connotations about the difficulties of getting people to do or think things that they stubbornly and wilfully refuse to do, as the old English proverb “you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”.

This article arises as a result of a conversation that I recently had with a teenager, who, like most teenagers in our country, has been subjected to a programme of politically correct “socialisation”, an important purpose of which is social engineering (Aka the National Curriculum!).

I always think it is worth bearing in mind when considering compulsory primary and secondary education that the first State to introduce it was the most militaristic of all historic European states, which was Prussia. The Prussian State introduced compulsory primary and secondary education for all boys to socialise them and to prepare them mentally and physically to become soldiers in the Prussian Army. In short compulsory education is much about a modern state’s socialisation agenda as it is at all about preparing children with the skills needed for work.

In England in many ways the education system has following the introduction of the “National Curriculum” become less effective in preparing children for work while it has become more effective at socialising children in the modern British States’ agenda of multi-culturalism and diversity.

Coming back to my conversation with the teenager, I had the temerity to ask about the background of somebody that the teenager was talking about and, in particular, what country his family had come from.

For all who have asked such a similar question, I am sure you can guess the kind of “stream of consciousness” response that I got!

But I persisted and pointed out that you cannot understand another human-being or sensibly begin to try to understand them unless you take into account politically incorrect questions about their culture, religion and hereditary. We are all, as human-beings, framed by these factors. 

 I would say to try to do so would be a bit like trying to sort out a dietary plan for someone without taking any account of the fact that the person in question is an orthodox Jew! 

In fact, our individual character, particularly when young, operates mostly within these frameworks, rather than being something that is completely separate.

I later had another conversation with a teacher who was saying that what is taught in a multi-ethnic modern school in England is to ignore all such framework questions as culture and religion and hereditary and to be “free from all such prejudices”. My response was to point out that it is itself a sort of prejudice to wilfully close your eyes to the most important parts of any human-beings character. I went on that “political correctness” was not a “freedom” or something that frees people up from things, but on the contrary it is a programme for the encouragement of wilful blindness.

All of which brings me neatly back to my proverb “there are none so blind as those who will not see” which I note in Wiktionary is translated as “understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant”.


How true, I would reply, especially when that choice is guided by “political correctness”. Also how contrary that type of thinking is to traditional English Further Education which tried to lead young people out of their framework thinking and to encourage them to have “open and enquiring minds”.


To an alarming extent that ideal has now been replaced with all the political correctness and safe spaces of the UK’s multi-culturalist diversity agenda!

Judical Appointments to fast-track Tick Box "DIVERSITY"!

I wrote a letter recently to the Law Society Gazette, which is the in-house magazine of the Solicitor’s profession. 

It was published under the heading of:- 

“Ticking Boxes”. 

Here is my letter:-

Dear Sir

Re: Judical 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” former 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.

Yours faithfully
etc

What do you think?

Rumours of Far-right groups being “proscribed” by the Home Secretary

Rumours of Far-right groups being “proscribed” by the Home Secretary


For the last few weeks there had been rumours circulating that the current Home Secretary intends to ban a small neo-Nazi group called “National Action”. This is the same repellent Amber Rudd of the spiteful personal attacks on Boris Johnson (when she was losing in the EU referendum debates).

Ms Rudd is said to be particularly anxious to ban a “Far-right” group or party, probably mainly out of the multi-culturalist, tokenist urge not to “profile” Islamists, but instead to balance proscriptions against their organisations with a diversity of political opinion and racial stereo-types!

Here is the Home Office Press announcement:-

National Action has today become the first extreme right-wing group to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

An order laid in Parliament on Monday (12 December) to proscribe National Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 has now come into effect following debates in the Houses of Parliament. As a result, being a member – or inviting support for – the organisation will be a criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

National Action is a neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013 and has branches across the UK. It has been proscribed following an assessment that it is ‘concerned in terrorism’. The group’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. National Action also promoted and encouraged acts of terrorism after Jo Cox’s murder.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said:

As Home Secretary, I am clear that the safety and security of our families, communities and country comes first.

National Action is a racist, antisemitic and homophobic organisation which stirs up hatred, glorifies violence and promotes a vile ideology. It has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone.

Proscribing it will prevent its membership from growing, stop the spread of poisonous propaganda and protect vulnerable young people at risk of radicalisation from its toxic views.

Decisions about whether to proscribe a particular organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information. 

The Home Secretary took the decision to proscribe National Action prior to the trial of Thomas Mair, who was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Jo Cox MP. 

National Action becomes the 71st organisation to be proscribed, alongside 14 organisations connected to Northern Ireland. 
(All the rest of the proscribed groups look as if they are Islamists).

Here is a link 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-action-becomes-first-extreme-right-wing-group-to-be-banned-in-uk

Now that such a ban has been ordered against “National Action”, the question might be what from a lawyer’s perspective could they do about it?

The ironic thing is that probably the main thing that they could do about it is take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. This is the Court which deals with the European Convention of Human Rights (and is not the EU Court, which is the European Court of Justice).

However the start point for any lawyer is of course the legislation which applies to the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. The relevant legislation would appear to be the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended).

Bearing in mind that terrorism was robustly and successfully dealt with relating to the IRA you might have thought (and be right) that there were more than sufficient crimes on the statute book to enable Islamist terrorists to be dealt with.

That of course is not the thought process of the current British Political Establishment which is often very much more concerned with appearance than the substance. So there has been constant tinkering with often trifling amendments to the legislation and Home Secretaries regularly conceal total failure to do anything useful by introducing a new bit of legislation, in the probably successful hope that that will enable them to bamboozle their Party colleagues and ill-informed journalists that something is being done!

In this case the Terrorism Act, even though only on the statute book in 2000, has already been tinkered with. But the current version of the relevant clauses are as follows:-

Terrorism Act 2000

2000 c. 11Part II Procedure Section 3


Proscription.

(1)For the purposes of this Act an organisation is proscribed if—

(a)it is listed in Schedule 2, or

(b)it operates under the same name as an organisation listed in that Schedule.

(2)Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to an organisation listed in Schedule 2 if its entry is the subject of a note in that Schedule.

(3)The Secretary of State may by order—

(a)add an organisation to Schedule 2;

(b)remove an organisation from that Schedule;

(c)amend that Schedule in some other way.

(4)The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.

(5)For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—

(a)commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b)prepares for terrorism,

(c)promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d)is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

[F1(5A)The cases in which an organisation promotes or encourages terrorism for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) include any case in which activities of the organisation—

(a)include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or

(b)are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such glorification.

(5B)The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified, is being glorified as—

(a)conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances, or

(b)conduct that is illustrative of a type of conduct that should be so emulated.

(5C)In this section—
“glorification” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly;
“statement” includes a communication without words consisting of sounds or images or both.]

[F2(6)Where the Secretary of State believes—

(a)that an organisation listed in Schedule 2 is operating wholly or partly under a name that is not specified in that Schedule (whether as well as or instead of under the specified name), or

(b)that an organisation that is operating under a name that is not so specified is otherwise for all practical purposes the same as an organisation so listed,

he may, by order, provide that the name that is not specified in that Schedule is to be treated as another name for the listed organisation.

(7)Where an order under subsection (6) provides for a name to be treated as another name for an organisation, this Act shall have effect in relation to acts occurring while—

(a)the order is in force, and

(b)the organisation continues to be listed in Schedule 2,

as if the organisation were listed in that Schedule under the other name, as well as under the name specified in the Schedule.

(8)The Secretary of State may at any time by order revoke an order under subsection (6) or otherwise provide for a name specified in such an order to cease to be treated as a name for a particular organisation.

(9)Nothing in subsections (6) to (8) prevents any liability from being established in any proceedings by proof that an organisation is the same as an organisation listed in Schedule 2, even though it is or was operating under a name specified neither in Schedule 2 nor in an order under subsection (6).]

(Click here for the original >>> 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/3)

This wording is worth studying. As is in particular this section:-

“(a)commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b)prepares for terrorism,

(c)promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d)is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

[F1(5A)The cases in which an organisation promotes or encourages terrorism for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) include any case in which activities of the organisation—

(a)include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or

(b)are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such glorification.

(5B)The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified, is being glorified as—

(a)conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances, or

(b)conduct that is illustrative of a type of conduct that should be so emulated”

These words show that the behaviour of the group that Ms Rudd has proscribed would have to have fallen into these categories. If the group has not behaved in that way then she will not have the legal power even in English Law to ban the group and the group I would say should apply to the High Court for Permission to Judicially Review.

The Permission stage of Judicial Review is relatively cheap but they should use a member of their group as the spearhead of the Judicial Review who has no assets or income, save for Welfare Benefits, so that if there is a Costs Order it cannot be enforced. Such person should first be given a prominent sounding office within the organisation.

If the challenge is being mounted, as I said on the basis that the group’s behaviour does not properly qualify for a ban to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act, then it will be worth raising the European Convention of Human Rights position which is directly applicable to English Law through the Human Rights Act 1998. In any case it might also be worth making a direct application straightaway to the European Court of Humans Rights for breach of the group’s human rights as set out in the Convention. This should be done anyway if the Judicial Review Application is rejected because even if the proscription is legal under the Act that will not necessarily make it so under the Convention.

Let us therefore turn to the relevant articles of the European Convention of Human Rights whose full title is:-

The European Convention on Human Rights 

(signed in ROME on 4 November 1950)


The relevant Articles are:-

“ARTICLE 9

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

“ARTICLE 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

“ARTICLE 11

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
(Here is a link to a source setting out the full Convention >>> http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html)

The way that Convention rights under the European Convention are interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights is that the general right at the beginning of each Article is subject only to the limited number of specified exceptions, as set out in the second part of the Article. 

So if Ms Rudd cannot bring the reason for her proscription within those exceptions then her action must be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and so illegal.

As you can see from the text that is likely to be difficult for her unless the “National Action” group has actually done something that would amount in common sense terms to terrorism, rather than the overly openly sweeping authoritarian and all-embracing provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended)!

All in all and speaking not only as somebody who is interested in politics, but also as a lawyer with direct experience of Human Rights cases, I would say that the prospects of a successful challenge to any proscription of any group that has not really been terrorist would be very good. There is also no reason why bringing the challenge should be expensive for any such group.

If on the other hand the group in question has been involved in actions which are within the normal meaning of the words terrorist, then of course the chances of a successful case against the Home Secretary would be minimal, provided she has followed the correct procedure as laid down in the legislation.

Muslim protester found guilty of racist abuse crime!

This intriguing item appeared on the BBC website on Friday, 28th October.

Race relations worker guilty of racist abuse at refugee rally


Here is what it said:-

“A race relations worker has been convicted of racially abusing a group of Scots at a rally to welcome Syrian refugees to Scotland.

Shafiq Mohammed, 50, was also found guilty of resisting arrest at a demonstration in Monkton, South Ayrshire, on 15 November 2015.

The former Scottish Refugee Council worker broke through a police cordon to verbally abuse a woman and three men.

The rally took place hours after the Paris terrorist attacks.

Ayr Sheriff Court heard how tempers flared among members of the Scottish Defence League and pro-refugee demonstrators.

It followed 150 refugees being granted emergency accommodation at the Ayrshire town’s Adamton Country House Hotel.

Mohammed denied behaving in a racially aggravated manner which was intended to cause alarm and distress.

He claimed the four witnesses had conspired to make up the allegations against him.

Sheriff Robert Weir QC found him guilty on both charges and sentence was deferred.

The court heard Mohammed had previously worked for property firm Orchard & Shipman, which has been paid more than £60m to house refugees in Scotland.

He is currently involved in the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project – an organisation campaigning on asylum seeker housing issues in the west of Scotland.”
Here is the link to the original >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37803531

So it sounds like we should congratulate the Scottish Police and the Scottish Prosecution service for doing their duty in arresting and in prosecuting this man. If only the police and CPS in England could be relied upon to similarly do their duty when aggressive anti-English racists are active here in England!

The law is quite clear that anti-Englishness (or anti-Scottishness) is just as illegal as any other so call “hate crime”. The difference in treatment is simply a political matter not a legal one.

Here is the section 4A of the Public Order Act which is what “Shafiq” appears to have been convicted of.

“4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.”

Click here for the original>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

So what sort of sentence has the Judge deferred the sentencing process in order to consider social workers’ reports? Such deferral means that the Judge is considering imprisonment. Here is the relevant section of the CPS sentencing guidelines:-

“Sentencing

Prosecutors have a duty to present all relevant material to allow the court to pass sentence in accordance with the law. Racial or religious aggravation makes an offence more serious and the court has a duty to take this into account when it sentences a defendant.

Prosecutors must neither minimise nor omit relevant and admissible evidence of racial or religious aggravation.

Prosecutors should also make sure that they are aware of the guideline cases to assist the court in sentencing, in particular R v Kelly & Donnelly [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 73 CA which adopted the majority of recommendations made to the Court of Appeal by the Sentencing Advisory Panel Advice No 4.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the following approach:

the court should first decide on the appropriate sentence without the element of racial or religious aggravation, but including any other aggravating or mitigating features;

the sentence should then be enhanced to take account of the racial or religious aggravation;

if the offence itself merits custody, that sentence should be enhanced by an appropriate amount to reflect the degree of racial or religious aggravation;

the judge should say publicly what the appropriate sentence would have been without the racial or religious aggravation.

Although the original guidance applies to offences charged as specific racially aggravated offences and to all other offences where section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies, it should also be taken as applying to religiously aggravated offences, following the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

Click here for original >>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

What all this shows is that it is possible to get Leftist agitators arrested, charged and convicted but much more effort by English Nationalists is required in making the police arrest and charge those guilty of any illegal anti-English behaviour here in England.

Then we might have our multiculturalist opponents writing many more items like this one:-

Support Shafiq Fundraiser – THIS SUNDAY


“The Glad Cafe and Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees

Support Shafiq Fundraiser – Sunday 22nd May 2016

An evening of music with Robin Adams, Kathryn Joseph, Alasdair Roberts, DJ Kwaby and others,

Featuring previews from the new album REFUGEE 

Alasdair Roberts + Kathryn Joseph + Robin Adams + DJ Kwaby + more

Sunday 22 May 19:30 £5.00 minimum donation

Entry Requirements: Over 18s only

Line up • Alasdair Roberts • Kathryn Joseph • Robin Adams • DJ Kwaby • more

Shafiq needs your support – legal, moral, financial and physical!

On 15th November 2015, Shafiq Mohammed was arrested at an anti-racist demonstration in support of refugees. He is awaiting trial, charged with Racially Aggravated Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest (details below).

Here is how you can help

Witnesses — URGENTLY NEEDED. His lawyer is seeking witnesses. If you saw Shafiq at any point during the demonstration, please get in touch. Contact the lawyer, John Harper of McClure Collins.

Email: john@mcclurecollins.com

Telephone: 0141 423 7181

Several people were filming and taking photos. These could be valuable evidence. Please use your networks to find anyone who might be able to help.

Messages — In circumstances like these, messages of support, from individuals and/ or organisations can make a big difference to an individual’s morale. Please send messages of support to: contact@supportshafiq.scot

Financial — His campaign will need financial support. In particular, legal support is not cheap and will need to be paid for. Please use the Paypal button below to send any donations.

Send cheques to GCtWR, C/o FBU, 52 St Enoch Square, Glasgow G1 4AA

At the courtroom — He will need support on the day of his trial, both inside and outside the courtroom. Given SDL members will be witnesses against him, they are likely to organise some sort of presence. We need to outnumber them substantially. The trial date has been re-set for Tuesday 9 June 2016. We will let you know the time when we have it.

Support Shafiq Mohammed

On Sunday November 15, at the demonstration in Monkton to support the refugees being housed in Adamton Country House Hotel and against the Scottish Defence League (SDL) who had declared their intention to demonstrate in the village, one of the anti-racist demonstrators was arrested. He was Shafiq Mohammed, one of the few black faces there. He was kept overnight in police cells in Kilmarnock and then appeared on the Monday afternoon at Ayr Sheriff Court. Shafiq has been charged with racially aggravated breach of the peace and resisting arrest. Apparently one of the SDL women accused him of calling her child a “white bastard” and the police chose to act on it. He has pled not guilty and John Harper of McClure Collins is representing him.

Due to the rough treatment he received when being arrested, he suffered a burst blood vessel in his eye and permanent facial injuries. The handcuffs caused severe cuts and grazing encircling his wrists. In custody, as a result of indicating his dietary requirement for halal food, he was given 4 cereal bars to eat in 24 hours.

Shafiq is a respected professional advocate and consultant in the area of race relations. He has worked for Orchard & Shipman, Ypeople, Migrant Help and the Scottish Refugee Council. He currently gives advice to and is a crucial part of the Asylum Seeker Housing (ASH) Project, an organisation which campaigns on asylum seeker housing issues in the West of Scotland. He has no previous history with the police and indeed this was the first ant-racist, pro-refugee demonstration he had ever attended, having previously been concerned his attendance at such events would compromise his professional standing.

He is understandably deeply distressed. Bad enough being put through this but more so, having suffered racist abuse all his life, to be attending a demonstration against racism and to be accused by the racists of racism and have the police act upon it, is beyond irony. In his case it is unbearable. Further a conviction for racially aggravated breach of the peace could have a particularly detrimental effect on his career.

We cannot allow the SDL to get away with this tactic of picking out individuals from counter demonstrations and making false accusations against them, even more so, if they are black. Support Shafiq Mohammed.

Jock Morris
Chairperson
Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees”


Click here for original article>>> http://www.supportshafiq.scot/

 
We English nationalists need to take note that the reason that the Scottish Police, Prosecution Service and Courts are taking a more even handed approach to anti-Scottishness is political. Their police authority and those that are appointed to head the prosecution service and in charge of the appointments and promotion systems for the judiciary are all dominated by the Scottish National Party.

So another lesson for English nationalists is that we also need to get people elected to the one similar position that is feasible here in England – Police and Crime Commissioners! Then we too could order the police to be far more robust with the Shafiq’s and Jock Morris’s in their relevant police force areas!

Immigration  and the price of a liberal conscience

Robert Henderson

The  British media has been  excitedly  pointing what they describe  as the great generosity of the British public  or variations on that theme,  in offering to take  immigrants into their homes. The reality is rather different  for the  number of  people living in Britain who have offered a home to  immigrants is meagre,  a few thousand out of a British population  of approximately 64 million. Even this small number  is highly suspect  because  these are merely people who have offered to take refugees into their homes  without being tested  by the reality of having people in their home.   Moreover, many of those who have offered have not done so in an open ended fashion. Instead they have put their hands up for a few weeks or months or perhaps even a year, although the reality of assessing asylum claims is several years and conceivably much longer. Longer term

Much  of the enthusiasm for taking in immigrants has been  expressed not by  offering to lodge them in private homes but in lobbying councils to find accommodation for immigrants.  This is unlikely to cost those lobbying anything because such people will probably not be in need of  social housing or live in an area which will be flooded with immigrants.  Nor are they likely to  be sending their children to schools which boast “there are 93 languages spoken here” or be on the lists of GPs who  suddenly  have huge numbers of immigrants on their lists. It is also pretty unlikely that they or their children will lose their chance of a decent job to an immigrant or have their pay reduced because immigrants are willing to work for less.

The people who will  lose out are the poorer members of society.  They will find themselves competing with immigrants for housing, jobs, schools and NHS care.  The reality is those who advocate taking in immigrants, most of them from the Third and Second worlds, are stealing from the poorer of their own people.  Let me list what they steal:

  1. Employment, both by taking jobs and by reducing wages .
  2. Housing, both by  taking housing (including large amounts of social housing)  and by forcing up  house prices and private  rents.
  3. School opportunities by taking places and  by reducing the quality of the schooling  available to the British children through larger classes and   the  extra time and money   devoted to dealing with so many children who speak inadequate English.
  4. University opportunities, both by immigrants taking places (especially in subjects such as medicine) and by the reduction in the quality of the education offered through  immigrants having poor English and from inadequate students from  outside the EU being admitted simply because they are  cash cows for universities as they pay the full cost of their courses.  Students who cannot speak fluent English or who are simply intellectually inadequate  diminish the quality of the education for the British students.
  5. Healthcare. GPs surgeries are being swamped in many areas because of immigration and anyone who has visited a NHS hospital recently in places such as  London will have been astonished at the number of foreign patients there are  (I speak from personal experience).

More generally, when  immigrants arise in large numbers they invariably form ghettoes.  This means that Britons who live in areas anywhere such ghettoes formed rapidly find that the place with which they are familiar becomes somewhere alien .

If those who advocated mass immigration had to pay a price for their parading  of their conscience you may rest assured that their enthusiasm would vanish as quickly as the morning dew.  What should be the price?  Here are a couple of scenarios:

  1. If someone advocates taking in more immigrants they should have to take responsibility for that person permanently. By that I mean not only house them but meet all their reasonable needs such as food, clothing medical and educational costs.   They should have no choice about who they are allocated so there will be no choosing a westernised well educated  immigrant or two who speak good English.
  2. Another scenario could be the immigration advocate and their immediate family having their family home requisitioned and the advocate and his or her family moved to basic  accommodation in an area absolutely brimming over with the diversity such people always extol as being so desirable.  The income of the  adults involved would be reduced to the bare  minimum which the British state says is needed to live. Where there are children of school age , these would be sent to state funded schools which boast “93 languages spoken here”.

Would it be unfair to include the immediate family including children in the penalty? Well, consider this, all of the disadvantages which I suggest putting onto those who advocate Britain takes in huge numbers of immigrants have never had the slightest qualms in condemning the poor of their own nation to experience such conditions.  They would simply be experiencing that which they have not only placed on the white working class but that which they have claimed is positively beneficial to those unfortunate to experience the joy of diversity in its most invasive condition.

That should be the price of a liberal conscience. Sadly, at present the price is paid not by the eager propagandists for mass immigration but the poorer members of our society.