Category Archives: robin tilbrook

BBC falls ‘hook, line and sinker’ for Islamist fishy tale!

BBC falls ‘hook, line and sinker’ for Islamist fishy tale!

Having heard the BBC Radio 4 news coverage on Friday, 27th December which repeatedly claims that there has been an alleged rise in “hate crime” against Muslims.  I have just made this complaint to the BBC:-

Dear BBC

I wonder why the Radio 4 News (on Friday, 27th December) was uncritically reporting the alleged rise in “Hate Crime” against Muslims claimed yet again by (the) discredited source (“Tell Mama” and its Director, Mr Fiyaz Mujhal?). Do your researchers do ANY research or do they just slavishly follow the Leftist/Islamist Mehdi Hasan on Huffington Post?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook,
Chairman,
The English Democrats

If you feel like complaining too:-
Post your complaint to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington, DL3 0UR; or Telephone the BBC to complain on 03700 100 222; or
Email the BBC via their complaint form using this link>>>BBC – Complaints – Complain Online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/
Please do mention the English Democrats!

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK)

Vladimir Putin: ‘Stalin no worse than Oliver Cromwell’!!

It was interesting to hear  that the Russian President, Vladamir Putin, has recently sought to compare Joseph Stalin with Oliver Cromwell.

(Here is a link to an article about this >>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-soviet-leader-joseph-stalin-was-no-worse-than-oliver-cromwell-9016836.html).

At one level it goes to show how little Mr Putin knows about history, but on another, there is a serious point that after the chaos of every revolution in history and the usual accompanying wild hopes for a better world, there has typically emerged a nasty dictator.

The striking differences between Oliver Cromwell and Joe Stalin (let alone the other Socialists like Lenin and Mao Tse Tung), is the fact that our devout evangelical Christian, Oliver Cromwell, not only refused the Crown of England which he was repeatedly offered, but also did not carry out mass murders and terror tactics unlike the 20th Century’s genocidal, Communist mass murderers.

Cromwell on the other hand sought to modernise the English government and had an important role in building the foundations of the very first modern nation state that is:- England.

Cromwell’s reforms set England and the English nation on the path, not only to the first industrial revolution, but world mercantile trade and indeed the largest empire the word has ever known.

Stalin on the other hand is directly implicated in the murder of up to 55 million people who were alleged to be class enemies (e.g. petit bourgeois) or who held heretical communist beliefs or who were ethnically inexpedient.  In contrast however to the total physical cowardice displayed by Mao Tse Tung, Stalin did show personal courage and resolve as the German Army reached Moscow.

Also Stalin had two strokes of luck back in the Second World War.  Churchill’s willingness to help him and Hitler’s greedy blunder in encouraging the Japanese to attack South rather than up into Siberia.  Personally nevertheless I would suggest that Stalin is better compared with Genghis Khan!

So much for the comparison between Cromwell and Stalin! Happy New Year!

SPECIAL RIGHTS for Muslims?

I have sometimes been asked if Muslims have actually asked for special legal treatment.  The Article below is an example of an influential Muslim doing so but it is quite subtle.
 
The article is from the “Huffington Post” an online news agency well known in America for its Left/Liberal bias but in the ‘UK’ its political editor is the BBC’s favourite Leftist/Islamist, Mehdi Hasan, who seems here to be giving his views on us infidels.  Click here >>> Mehdi Hasan – Non Muslims live like animals – YouTube and here he is talking about the Shiite Islamic equivalent of Judas in which he seems to demonise gays >>> ?MehdiHasanYazidHomoKaffir – YouTube.  If the “hate crime” law was equally applied I would have expected Mr Hasan to have been at least considered for prosecution over these comments, wouldn’t you?

It should therefore not be surprising that this Leftist online news outlet edited by an Islamist is vocal in its support of the ‘UK’s’ “Islamic Community”(sic!).

As journalists often do, Mehdi weaves into his story a source that he approves of  “Tell Mama” but which has been exposed as being just as unreliable a source as he is himself! For revelations about “Tell Mama” and its leader who is quoted so approvingly by Mehdi Hassan, click here >>>The truth about the ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder – Telegraph

The thrust of Mehdi’s article is that “Hate Crime” against Muslims should be punished with especially severe criminal sanctions.

Actually such “hate crime” already is treated more severely than anyone applying ordinary common sense, or indeed ordinary legal principles, would think appropriate if, but only if, it is committed by English people against any other ethnic minority group or individual.  Also consider the BBC’s reaction to criticism over a more significant, deliberate and calculated blasphemy against Jesus Christ >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm.

It should also be borne in mind that “hate crime” can often mean merely a rude remark rather than any sort of violent attack.

In my view the old playground adage of “sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me!” should be the start point for any contemplated prosecution (or conviction) for, often trivial, rudeness.

However, if that rudeness spills over into physical aggression or threats of violence, then of course I would support punishment but focussed only on what has actually happened not as a result of a sort of witch trial, otherwise it is the State itself which becomes the instrument of victimisation!  (No doubt to the pleasure of people like Mehdi Hasan)!

What do you think? (Note the startling, but no doubt deliberate, confusion of a building with people and the extent of the group allegedly “targeted” in “When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”)

Here is the “Huffington Post” Article:-

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby

Hate crimes against Muslims have soared in 2013, new figures have shown. Hundreds of anti-Muslim offences have been carried out across the country in 2013, with Britain’s biggest force, the Metropolitan police, recording 500 Islamophobic crimes alone.

Many forces reported a surge in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby by two Islamic extremists in Woolwich, south-east London. And it is feared the figures could be much higher after nearly half of the 43 forces in England and Wales did not reveal how many hate crimes had targeted Muslims – with some forces admitting they do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.

Freedom of Information requests were sent by the Press Association to every police force in England and Wales. Of the 43 forces, 24 provided figures on the number of anti-Muslim crimes and incidents recorded. Tell Mama, a group which monitors anti-Muslim incidents, said it had dealt with some 840 cases since April – with the number expected to rise to more than 1,000 by the end of March.

This compared with 582 anti-Muslim cases it dealt with from March 2012 to March 2013. Fiyaz Mujhal, director of Faith Matters, which runs the Tell Mama project, said reaction to the murder of Fusilier Rigby had caused the number of Islamophobic crimes to “significantly jump”. He added: “The far right groups, particularly the EDL (English Defence League) perniciously use the internet and social media to promote vast amounts of online hate.”

Mujhal said tougher sentencing was needed to tackle Islamophobic crime and branded guidelines by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to monitor social media as “not fit for purpose”. He said: “They raised the bar of prosecution significantly. Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality.

“We also need more robust sentencing. In one case, a pig’s head was left outside a mosque and the perpetrator came away with a community sentence. When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”

Tell Mama has called for police forces to introduce a system which improves monitoring of Islamophobic crimes, after some forces admitted officers do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.
“There are three problems we come across,” Mujhal said. “Firstly, there is a lack of understanding of the language of Islamophobia thrown at victims in any incidents. Secondly, there is very little training on how to ask relevant questions to pull out anti-Muslim cases. Thirdly, recording processes are not in line with each other. One force will allow an officer to flag an incident as anti-Muslim, another force will flag it as religious hate crime. There is no uniformity. There must be guidelines for all forces so we can know the level of the problem.”

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has previously said 71 incidents were reported to its national community tension team (NCTT) over five days after Fusilier Rigby was murdered on May 22. Superintendent Paul Giannasi, Acpo’s spokesman on hate crime, said: “The police service is committed to reducing the harm caused by hate crime and it is vital that we encourage more victims who suffer crimes to report them to the police or through third party reporting facilities such as Tell Mama.

“Acpo has played a key role in improving reporting mechanisms, including through the development of our True Vision website (www.report-it.org.uk). This provides information to victims and allows people to report online. We would obviously want overall crime levels to reduce and to see fewer victims, but we welcome increases in reported hate crime, as long as they are a sign of increased confidence of victims to report. We are working with local police forces, to help improve the way we respond to hate crime and to provide robust and transparent hate crime data.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “These are despicable crimes that devastate lives and communities. The courts already hand out tougher punishments where race or religion are found to be aggravating factors. The number of people receiving a custodial sentence for these appalling crimes is higher than ever before.”

A CPS spokeswoman said: “Online communication can be offensive, shocking or in bad taste. However, as set out in CPS guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media, content has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. In order to preserve the right to free speech the threshold for prosecution must be high and only communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false are prohibited by the legislation.”

(Here is the link to the original article >>>Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby)

A slightly late Christmas present from Wales?

Here is a small but slightly late Christmas present from Wales for all those who have been campaigning for the English nation to be treated equally to the more favoured nations of the ‘UK’ like the Scottish and the Welsh. We therefore have long been ignored and derided by the British Establishment which denies our right to a Parliament, First Minister and Government for England with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones.

Here however we have a report in the Independent about an interview and a thoughtful speech by Carwyn Jones, the Labourite First Minister of Wales and therefore the leading Welsh political figure. In the interview and speech he acknowledged two things of great importance to any English patriot:-

1) There is virtually no popular demand nor popular support for breaking up England into “Regions”; and

2) the only realistic constitutional option for representing England within a federal ‘UK’ would be an English Parliament with an English First Minister and Government.

The thrust of Carwyn Jones’ speech is also that the UK itself must be drastically reformed with a much diminished role for Westminster and Whitehall.

I would agree with these arguments if I was a Welshman and thus benefitted from the Barnett Formula and therefore it is my countrymen that were getting more taxpayers’ money spent on them than an equivalent Englishman with equal needs.

However as I am an Englishman I can’t help but notice that this extra money comes from English taxpayers and is being spent unfairly in a way that is against the interests of ordinary English people and also of the English nation.

The simplest way out of the constitutional conundrum that Carwyn Jones is addressing is Independence and the liquidation of the Bankrupt ‘UK’. That way each nation will have to live with its own means and we English will be free to spend our nation’s money on ourselves. We will also be a newly reborn nation state and therefore not a signatory to the EU treaties and so will be automatically out of the EU. This is a result which would please the vast majority of English patriots – but not Mr Carwyn Jones!

What do you think?

Here is the article about Carwyn Jones’ speech:-

Carwyn Jones: ‘The UK must continue down the road to becoming a federal nation’

Britain should permanently grant major new powers to the devolved governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, bringing an end to Parliamentary sovereignty in Westminster no matter what the result of the Scottish independence referendum, the First Minister of Wales has said.

Carwyn Jones said the current constitutional arrangements were no longer functioning and the UK must continue down the road to becoming a federal nation in 2014.

In an interview with The Independent, the former barrister, who has led the Welsh Labour government since 2009, said: “Whatever happens after the referendum in Scotland there will need to be change because the UK’s constitution has come to the end of its ability to deal with devolution, to imbed devolution and clarify what each level of Government does.”

He added: “I think it’s simply a question of putting in place a constitution where it is understood what the different levels of government do. Does that mean the end of Parliamentary sovereignty? Well I’m afraid it does.”

Mr Jones, who opposes Scottish independence, said that a yes vote would also lead to problems for the remaining parts of the UK. He cautioned that if Alex Salmond’s SNP party wins the argument for independence in September’s referendum, the rest of Britain faces being overshadowed even more by a too-powerful England.

“The UK could not carry on as it is with England, Wales and Northern Ireland,” he said. “There would have to be a fundamental rethink of the balance of the constitution. You have three nations, one of which had 92 per cent of the population. That would need to be addressed.”

Speaking in the Senedd, which is home to the 60 members of the Welsh Assembly, Mr Jones said that Wales could not be treated as “second class” compared to Scotland – an argument that seems compelling when heard in view of the economic revival that has come to the Welsh capital.

Should Scotland choose independence, however, the outlook for Wales is uncertain. “We lose an ally and a friend in terms of the balance of the UK and being able to work together on a common path way when we need to.”

Mr Jones has found himself pressed into service for the campaign in Scotland to reject independence – or Project Fear as it has been dubbed by nationalists. He has also enraged Mr Salmond by threatening to veto his hopes of keeping the pound should the countries go their separate ways in September.

On the prospect of an independent Scotland remaining in a currency union, Mr Jones said: “It is bound to affect Wales when we have a situation when in order to take action in terms of monetary policy it has to be an agreement between at least two governments. That is just a recipe for dithering as far as I can see and that’s going to affect people in Wales.”

However, a spokesman for the “yes” campaign in Scotland claimed tonight that a yes vote would help Wales.

“A Yes vote next year will complete Scotland’s home-rule journey, but it will also benefit the rest of the UK – including Wales – by helping to redress the huge economic imbalances currently in favour of London and the South-east of England.

“Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, which currently lose out because of this over-concentration in one part of the UK, can therefore share in the benefits of a Yes vote for Scotland next year.”

Mr Jones’s opposition to Scottish independence has created an unlikely alliance between Welsh Labour and the Coalition – but he hinted that the vote to keep the union could be put in jeopardy by politicians “coming from London to tell the people of Scotland what to do”.

He said as a Welshman he had a unique contribution to make to the debate. “It was important to introduce a fellow Celtic perspective in that regard. This is not simply about Scotland versus England, this is about the effect on other constituent nations of the UK as well,” he said.

Unlike Scotland, Wales enjoys only conferred powers – “graciously given” by Westminster, Mr Jones said. This has to change, he added. “We need certainly the understanding that the fact in law that Westminster could abolish the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly without even a referendum has to go. It’s a theoretical possibility, I know that. That can’t possibly be right, the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales has the right to veto Assembly bills is not the sign of a mature relationship in the 21st century. That has to go,” he said.

Mr Jones also rejected the Coalition’s offer to vary income tax in Wales until the country’s £300m shortfall in Westminster funding through the Barnett formula is addressed.

He said that a future Cardiff government with greater powers could, however, tax resource and energy companies such as those engaged in fracking or coal-bed methane extraction.

“There is a fundamental emotional issue here for us and that is we need to have proper control over our resources to create jobs in Wales. We don’t have that at the moment,” he said – hinting that while he does not want Wales to itself become independent, more devolved economic powers are needed.

Although he said he did not detect support for English regional assemblies, Mr Jones believes the prospect of an English parliament remained the “elephant in the room” in the constitutional debate.

While the the Welsh economy is growing faster than anywhere else except the South-east and North-west of England, Mr Jones has faced a battering from opponents over the state of public services.

Wales has eschewed free schools, academies and league tables but recent international comparisons revealed the country had fallen behind the rest of the UK in educational achievement, and its teenagers appear to be slipping down the table against other developed countries. In addition, patients in Wales must wait longer than fellow citizens of the UK to be transferred from an ambulance to an A&E department.

Support for devolution in Wales is now higher than it was at the time of the 1997 referendum, when barely half the population voted in favour. Now only 12 per cent want to abolish it, although apathy seems to prevail, with fewer than four in 10 voters turning out for a 2011 referendum on more law-making powers for the Welsh Assembly.

Meanwhile the fight to win the argument over Scottish independence will continue with Carwyn Jones likely to take an increasingly high-profile role.

(Here is the original article>>>Carwyn Jones: ‘The UK must continue down the road to becoming a federal nation’ – UK Politics – UK – The Independent)

ROYAL PARDON FOR MARINE A?

I support the calls for Marine A to receive a Royal Pardon.

As I understand it the facts in this case came to light several years after the event when his comrade who had recorded the whole incident on a helmet video cam-recorder was being investigated for something else and the police looked through his computer and found that he had downloaded and kept the clip of the incident.

Marine A’s response to this seems to have been to lie about it and try to say that he thought the wounded Taliban was already dead. This dishonest response coupled with his comment at the time to his comrades that the incident should “go no further” and that he had breached the “Geneva Convention” showed that Marine A was well aware that he had not only disobeyed orders but also had broken the law. The question however does remain what is the appropriate punishment for this incident?

In my view British Forces should not be in Afghanistan anyway and certainly should not be there in the current political situation where we are in effect propping up a corrupt government and thereby facilitating a vast upsurge in opium production. The direction of travel in the Afghan government in any case is to become ever more Islamist and no doubt as soon as Western troops are removed the Taliban will take-over again. Probably the whole net outcome of the intervention in Afghanistan will be that the Afghan state is far worse than what was happening before so far as our Nation’s interests are concerned. The whole intervention has cost literally billions and the lives of hundreds of our soldiers and the health of thousands of badly wounded or battled traumatised men. The Taliban have been increasingly vicious to captured soldiers and I understand before this incident occurred, not only were the limbs of captured soldiers being displayed on trees, but also at least one had been skinned alive.

In the circumstances it is not surprising that our soldiers start to feel extremely unwilling to take prisoners.

The Geneva Convention does not in fact require soldiers to take prisoners, but once they have been taken then they have to be looked after, so there may have been a legitimate issue as to whether this individual had in fact been taken prisoner. I don’t know whether this was properly argued before the Court Martial.

In any case, even if we assume that he had been taken prisoner and it was a deliberate act of murder, the fact is that the British State has put Marine A into this situation means that it owes him a duty to not treat him like any other ordinary criminal. In particular, not to put him into the civilian prison environment where he is bound to be endangered by the hundreds of Islamist gangs that now infest our prisons.

On this point it is worth noting that when “Tommy Robinson” was sent to prison he had to be kept in solitary confinement in order to protect him from these Islamist gangs! Is the British Political and Establishment really saying that Marine A should be kept in solitary confinement for 10 years for this offence?

It is however the case that Marine A has disobeyed orders and in a military context having soldiers disobey orders and try to cover up their disobedience does require some disciplinary reaction. I would have thought in this case being dismissed from the service with disgrace was sufficient acknowledgement of Marine A’s wrongdoing.

It should also be borne in mind that probably the relevant Taliban individual had been sufficiently badly wounded that he was in fact going to die anyway.

It is also difficult to see what the point of spending considerable expense and medical resources on the Taliban individual would be when even if it was possible to save him, as soon as he became healthy again he would revert to being a serious risk to our soldiers!

As Winston Churchill makes clear in his first book ‘The Malakand Field Force’, he himself and the British Army in the North West Frontier generally did not take prisoners. When they had tried to take prisoners, the then equivalent of the Taliban suicide bombers, the Ghazis would try to kill them! It therefore appears that Churchill and his comrades decided to shortcut the process and give the Ghazis the benefit of immediate martyrdom!

Had the prosecuting decision been mine, I would not have sought to convict Marine A of murder but now that he has been convicted of murder, the honourable way for the State to deal with the situation would be the very traditional one of a Royal Pardon. This would release Marine A from prison immediately but does leave him with a recognition of the fact that there has been a breach of military discipline. What the Government has said about this is no doubt deliberately deceptive. They claimed that:- “It would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in this independent judicial process.” A Royal Pardon is a perfectly proper and long standing way in which the English state has been able to keep legal decisions in tune with public opinion. This case is one where it could be used to correct an injustice.

What do you think?

WHAT ABOUT ENGLAND?

It is interesting to note that, in all the recent outpouring of angst from the self-proclaimed “PROGRESSIVE” side of politics, there is increasing recognition that the English are awakening and also their ‘weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth’ is over the fact that there is no Leftist English nationalist party. 

A good example of this type of view is in the article set out below. The article is by Anthony Barnett who is a former member of the editorial committee of New Left Review, and writes for the New Statesman and the Guardian. 

I would have thought the reason for this “lack” of a Leftist English nationalist party is obvious from the Left’s own research. In the Labourite IPPR report ‘England and Her Two Unions’, it is clear that English Nationalism has certain defined characteristics which can be proven from the various opinion polls that the IPPR have done. 

They are as follows:- 
* low and decreasing support for the status quo 
* very low support for English regionalism 
* strong support for a form of governance that treats England as a distinct political unit 
*continuing lack of consensus about which English option is appropriate
*The status quo is consistently less favoured than alternatives which would give some form of institutional recognition to England as a whole. 
* English nationalism seeks no cross border subsidies and, in particular, Scotland to pay its own way. *English Nationalism seeks an end to mass immigration
*English Nationalism seeks a celebration of St George’s Day and other English festivals. It even seeks an English passport! (40%!) 
* English nationalism demands to get England out of the EU. This is an aspiration which seems to be contrary to the majority feeling in Scotland and Wales. 

It seems true there might yet be some argument between the English people to be had over the form of Constitutional response for England but there can be no doubt of its requirement to be for the whole of England and that Regionalisation has been definitively rejected. 

The problem for the Left is, of course, that all these English demands they have themselves decided to characterise as being “Right-wing”. It follows that any party that has any interest in representing the views of those that regard themselves as being “English” is going to be characterised by the Left as being “Right-wing”. 

This wouldn’t necessarily have to be so. If one took, as an example, opposition to immigration . At one time opposition to mass immigration was very much seen as a Left-wing position. Indeed one of the heroes of the foundation of the Labour Party, Keir Hardie, made his name opposing unrestricted Irish immigrant labour into his home area of Scotland! 

In my view, in effect the Left have self-defined themselves out of the running to be the voice of the English people and particularly of English nationalism. What do you think? 

Here is the article:- 

Scotland step by step but what about England?  

 Anthony Barnett 29 November 2013 

The Scottish Government has outlined its vision for independence from Westminster. But what the British elite is most afraid of is that the English start to demand independence from them too… The publication of the Scottish government’s White Paper on its program for independence is proof of a truism. 

One that the London media, which hates truth generated by others perhaps more than anything, will ignore, repress, distort or deny (you can take your choice). For it is neither a ‘historic document’, nor a doomed message of reassurance, nor a suicide note or even a “fairy tale”. It is instead proof that independence is a process not an event. 

That this observation is becoming a cliché does not erode its veracity. There are some echoes of it, of course. Steve Richards, in his column in the Independent, for example, a paper which otherwise pilloried rather than reported Alex Salmond’s announcement of the White Paper, wrote, “Scotland is already going its own way and will continue to in the coming years. The referendum is something of a red herring.” But this is absurd, for if the White Paper consolidates an irreversible direction of travel it is hardly a diversion. 

What might seem fishy is a characteristic that misled the same London media in 1999 when the referendum on establishing a Scottish parliament within the UK took place. Journalists sent from London reported with disappointment that there were no barricades or smell of cordite in the streets as the country said ‘Yes’. Where was the revolution, they asked, as people voted and then went shopping. But Scotland is becoming normal by becoming more self-governing (an attribute it shares with the 1989 revolutions I have argued). 

This is Salmond’s calling card and it is not a deceitful reassurance. When he waves the huge white tome and says, in effect, ‘It will all be fine we are not trying to leave the planet’ it is not spin. A parallel argument that independence is a better form of living with interdependence is set out by Tom Nairn in his Edinburgh lecture on Globalisation and Nationalism. 

The real revolution is the international reshaping of production and the world economy in which “dwarves” like Scotland have a better chance on their own than being part of lumbering middle-states like the UK.The real difference then is human not material. It is the spirit that matters – the spirit of self-government – more than any ‘case’ for independence. Simon Jenkins, at least, understands this. 

It is about freedom. And it is this that the ‘Great British’ political class will try to isolate and asphyxiate, to prevent the spirit of independence from spreading across Britain. Underlying every assault on the call for Scottish independence by Darling and his cohorts is a pre-emptive attack on the English to ensure that English voters do not lose their fatalism and submissiveness, that the rule of Westminster and Whitehall now depends upon. For the declaration of independence the UK’s political class fears most of all is getting the finger from the English. Scottish contagion not Scottish independence is their main concern as “more and more English people are thinking, what the hell: if the Scots want to walk out, why don’t we just let them?” to quote from this week’s Boris Johnson column in the Telegraph that makes my case for me. 

Unlike ‘constitutional reform’ in England, which remains the preserve of an elite that trades on the unique advantage given it by the absence of codification, the Scottish process is a rooted in the sovereignty of the people. When the Irish exercised theirs, the Protestant ascendency in the North created a popular Unionist barrier between the force of Irish republicanism and the main British island (creating a peculiar, religiously branded politics of a mobilized minority democracy). But this time, as the Scottish people exercise their sovereignty, it will be much harder to isolate their claim of right to do so from the rest of us. 

The positive formulation that lies behind Boris Johnson’s lampoon is far more threatening, “If they can decide whether or not to be ruled by Westminster, why can’t we?” The sadness is that there is no English party or movement capable of making this challenge in a positive fashion. For the energy and spirit of Scotland’s example could lead to the emancipation of us all with the declaration of self-government by England and the emergence of an English parliament. 

This would be able to co-create a federal Britain with its Scottish and Welsh sisters that could command the lasting, positive assent of the Scottish people, as Carwyn Jones has said as the First Minister of Wales. The case for this currently improbable scenario is something I allude to in a short contribution to Gerry Hassan and James Mitchell’s After Independence just published by Luath Press. It would not mean the failure of the White Paper for it would be an expansion of the process of independence not its frustration. 

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/scotland-step-by-step-but-what-about-england

Scottish Independence: The future of the Union Flag

The Flag Institute (whose website is here >>> http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/) has published this survey:-

Scottish Independence: The future of the Union Flag

The Scottish Government intends to hold a referendum of the Scottish electorate, on the issue of independence from the United Kingdom, on Thursday 18 September 2014. The question asked in the referendum will be “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The Flag Institute is the UK’s National Flag Charity.  We’re interested in your views on how you think a successful independence vote could (and should) affect the flag of the United Kingdom.
1. If Scotland becomes independent, do you think the Union Flag will or will not change?
2. If Scotland becomes independent, do you think the Union Flag should or should not change?
3. What arguments are there for changing the Union Flag following independence? (even if these are not arguments you support)
4. What arguments are there against changing the Union Flag following independence? (even if these are not arguments you support)
5. Not including the existing Union Flag pattern, what new designs do you feel might be worthy of consideration for a post Scottish-independence UK?
6. The current Union Flag is made up of the crosses of St George (England), St Andrew (Scotland), and St Patrick (Northern Ireland). Wales is not independently recognised in the current design of the flag.
If the Union Flag did change as a result of Scottish independence, should the new design include an element which represents Wales? Please explain your choice.
7. Who should decide IF the flag of the United Kingdom should change following Scottish independence.
The UK Government
The Royal Household
The UK Government and the Royal Household together
Citizens of the United Kingdom in a referendum
Other
8. If the decision was made to change the flag of the United Kingdom following Scottish independence, what combination of organisations and methods should be used to best choose the new design? Please choose as many or as few as you wish, or add your own suggestion.
The UK Government
The Royal Household, via the College of Arms
The Flag Institute, operating a public design competition
The Welsh Government
Governments of Commonwealth nations whose flags still include the current Union Flag design
Religious organisations
Other

I have written this to them. What do you think?

Dear Sir,

RE:- Survey : Questions
Scottish Independence: The future of the Union Flag

I was interested to see your above survey but it is unfortunate that you seem to be confused over the legal basis of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain – which, with the greatest of respect to your organisation, shows that you may have been badly briefed by someone who must be ignorant of the relevant basic constitutional legal concepts.

No sensible lawyer would agree that, if Scotland leaves the UK, the “rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain” is thereafter a concept which continues to have any legal meaning. The words of the Act of Union 1707 are too clear to admit of that interpretation.
 
Here are the words of the Act of Union:-

“ARTICLE 1
THAT THE TWO Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain;

ARTICLE III
That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled, The Parliament of Great Britain.”

It follows that there will be no automatic UK flag and that if there isn’t fundamental constitutional legislation to preserve some aspects of the Union that the flags will be those of the constituent nations of the UK eg England with the Cross of St George!

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman
The English Democrats

English Shipbuilding Jobs sacrificed to buy Scottish votes to sink their Independence Referendum!

This is our press release at today’s sad news for Portsmouth and for England’s 1,000 years of Naval history. What do you think?

English Shipbuilding Jobs sacrificed to buy Scottish votes to sink their Independence Referendum!
Today’s story of MoD shipbuilding jobs in Portsmouth being lost and their capacity being transferred to the Clyde is a nakedly political story of chicanery and deceit at the heart of Government, the MoD and at the peril of English defence capability. http://news.sky.com/story/1164634/bae-announces-1775-shipyard-job-losses
It was becoming obvious that the huge English taxpayer subsidy to Scotland under the Barnett formula (which the House of Lords reported in 2009 was £32 Billion a year) was no longer sufficient to guarantee a NO vote so the motive for this cut is to bribe Scottish Voters in the heartland of Scotland’s central belt which has already been ear-marked as the crucial swing battle-zone in next year’s Independence referendum.

This is being done by a government headed by a man who has already declared that his National Identity is not loyal to English Interests when he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr that: I am a passionate Unionist, … and I’m a Cameron, there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “Not only have the MoD been dishonest about their motives in cutting well over 1,000 English jobs but also what happens to England’s ability to defend herself if Scotland votes for Independence anyway. This is an extraordinarily foolish and incompetent decision made for the worst of motives which is reckless as to English National Interests!”

Further information from:

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman, The English Democrats,

Notes to Editors:
The recently published 2011 Census showed that England has over 32 million (32,007,983) people (or 60.4%) who have stated they have only English National Identity. A further 4.8 million (4,820,181) people (or 9.1%) stated that their National Identity is ‘English and British’.

In sharp contrast with this nearly 70% being English there were only a mere 10 million (10,171,834) people (or 19.2%) who claimed to be ‘British Only’. A substantial proportion of these ‘British Only’ appear, from cross referencing with the results of the Census’ ethnicity question, to be of non English ethnicity (ie Scottish, Welsh or Irish).

The Office for National Statistics nationality statistics can be found here)>>>http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286262. The Nationality results are at: 2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, local authorities in England and Wales.

Demand for English Independence is increasing rapidly in England and although reactive to the movement for Scottish Independence it is not dependent on it. The June 2011 ComRes survey done for the BBC showed that then there was 36% support for England to be a fully Independent Country irrespective of the result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.

Key facts about the English Democrats:

The English Democrats launched in 2002. The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party which campaigns for a Parliament for England, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; for a Referendum 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.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.

The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).

Bus passenger told to take the high road as Scottish banknote gets rebuffed on Arriva service

Northfleet bus passenger told to take the high road as Scottish banknote gets rebuffed on Arriva service to Stone

Yesterday’s Gravesend Messenger Newspaper had this story which I thought had an amusing twist especially as only the Bus Driver it seems had an understanding of English Law!

Actually, according to the Bank of England, Scottish banknotes are NOT legal tender in England. English banknotes issued by the Bank Of England are the ONLY legal tender in England and Wales.

Here is what the Bank Of England website has to say:-

Are Scottish & Northern Ireland notes “legal tender”?
In short ‘No’ these notes are not “legal tender”; furthermore, Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. Legal tender has, however, a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he/she owes under the terms of a contract (and in accordance with its terms), or pays this amount into court, he/she has good defence in law if he/she is sued for non-payment of the debt.

In ordinary everyday transactions, the term “legal tender” in its purest sense need not govern a note’s acceptability in transactions. The acceptability of a Scottish or Northern Ireland note as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. If both parties are in agreement, Scottish and Northern Ireland notes can be used in England and Wales. Holders of genuine Scottish and Northern Ireland notes are provided with a level of protection similar to that provided to holders of Bank of England notes. This is because the issuing banks must back their note issue using a combination of Bank of England notes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England. More information on these arrangements can be found at
Here is the link to this item on the Bank of England website >>> http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/faqs.aspx#16
 
Now here is that report from Kent:-

Northfleet bus passenger told to take the high road as Scottish banknote gets rebuffed on Arriva service to Stone 

Heard the one about the Englishman, the Welsh pub and a Scottish fiver?

Well, it was no joke for Graham Sales when his note was rejected by a bus driver as he tried to board outside the Welsh Tavern in Stone.

The taxi driver was attempting to get home to Northfleet after dropping his car off for repairs at St Johns Road Garage.


Taxi driver Graham Sales with his Scottish £5 note

He hopped aboard and handed over the £5 Scottish note, only to be told by the driver she would not accept it.

The 47-year-old said: “The bus driver said she knew it was legal tender, but couldn’t accept it.

“She said ‘I’m not moving’ and I said ‘well, I’m not going anywhere’.”

The father-of-two said the driver turned the engine off and phoned the depot.

Bosses agreed to her issuing a ticket for £2 rather than the fare of about £3.50 as that was all he had in change.
“I felt disgusted and embarrassed. If I hadn’t had any change on me, it would have been a five-mile walk and taken me hours…” – bus passenger Graham Sales

He said: “I felt disgusted and embarrassed. If I hadn’t had any change on me, it would have been a five-mile walk and taken me hours.

“I showed I was willing to pay and she took all my remaining change. It was all the money I had on me.

“It is legal tender and I am a taxi driver and I have to take it.”

Once Mr Sales got off the bus, he spoke to a senior member of staff at the depot who confirmed the ticket machine did not have the facilities to recognise the currency – but agreed the bus driver should have accepted it.

Mr Sales now plans to make the bus journey back to Stone to collect his car and will be using the £5 note as a point of principle.

Arriva spokesman Linsey Frostick apologised, saying: “We do accept Scottish banknotes and on this occasion the driver was mistaken.

“The details have been passed to the depot manager so the driver can be made aware of their mistake.” 
Here is the link to the story >>> http://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend_messenger/news/passenger-told-to-take-the-8157/
 
As Wikipedia reminds us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva) Arriva is a multinational public transport company headquartered in Sunderland, and (is) a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn. The latter is Deutsche Bahn AG is the German railway company, a private joint-stock company (AG) with the Federal Republic of Germany being its majority shareholder with its headquarters in Berlin. It came into existence in 1994 as the successor to the former state railways of Germany, the Deutsche Bundesbahn of West Germany and the Deutsche Reichsbahn of East Germany.

Is it any wonder that England is in a mess when even our bus companies are indirectly owned by foreign states?