Category Archives: labour dirty tricks

"GAMMON" INSULT LOGGED WITH POLICE AS ANTI-ENGLISH RACE ‘HATE’ CRIME

CALLING THE BREXIT SUPPORTING ENGLISH “GAMMON” HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY LOGGED WITH THE POLICE AS A HATE INCIDENT
I am setting out below my correspondence with Essex Police over reporting Matt Zorb- Cousins’ slur against those who have supported Brexit, the majority of whom identify themselves as English.  He has deliberately insulted them as “Gammon”.  On reflection it was clear that these are also racial stereotypes in what he says such people look like. 
People who read my blog regularly will know that I have been urging people to use the Left’s “Hate Crime” agenda against them.  So I followed my own advice!
Initially in this case Essex Police were not keen to log the case as a “Hate Crime” and I therefore had to again follow my own advice as to how to make them log it.
I thought that the resulting correspondence is a good read and also a good lesson in how to make sure that “Hate Crime” cases are logged against Left-wing figures.
Here is the correspondence:-
From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 18 May 2018 11:46
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate Crime ” /“Hate incident” “Gammon”
Dear Sir
Re:  Report of “Hate Crime  “  /“Hate incident” – “Gammon”
I wish to report Matt Zarb-Cousin for publically making insulting and offensive remarks against the majority of English who voted for Brexit in a manner which was illegally discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act in that he was discriminating against the Nationality, National Identity, National Origin and Ethnicity of the English.
He wrote his “Gammon” article in February in “Huck” which can be found here >>> http://www.huckmagazine.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/defence-calling-people-gammon/  
Mr Zarb-Cousin was also on the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2 to talk about this at 12.30 on 14th May 2018.  
Taken together his article and tweets and Facebook comments on his accounts are anti-White and anti-English (racist), anti-male (sexist), anti-older (ageist).  His comments are grossly offensive, abusive and insulting both within the meaning of Section’s 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and within the meaning of Section 127 of the Communications Act.
   
In the circumstances please confirm that you have logged my report and let me have the crime reference number.  Please confirm what you intend to do to investigate this anti-English “Hate Speech” Crime.
Yours faithfully
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: ‘Robin Tilbrook’  
CC: Crime Bureau Essex
Sent: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:51
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate Crime ” /“Hate incident” “Gammon”
Good afternoon Mr Tilbrook,
Thank you for your email.
In relation to the article on the magazine website, it would be advised if you are offended by this article to complain directly to the magazine as they would have control over the editing and publishing of the article from the writer. The magazine Huck is published and run by the London publishing company TCO London.
Again with the Jeremy Vine show, it would be advised to make a complaint directly to the BBC or to Ofcom in relation to their programming.
Following any complaints, should the publishing houses/companies deem this breaches any criminal offences they should in fact remove the offending articles.
At this time it would not fall within Essex Police to take a report of crime. This has been checked against the home office counting rules and national crime recording standards. If there is a crime that requires recording this would fall to the police force area in which it was published.
Kind regards,
S B
Crime Bureau
Operational Policing Command
Essex Police Headquarters
Ext 488888
Non-Emergency Telephone: 101 (Calling from within Essex) Non-Emergency Telephone: 03003334444 (Calling from outside Essex). When through to an operator, request to be put through to the Crime Bureau.
Email: crime.bureau@essex.pnn.police.uk
Website: www.essex.police.uk
Keep in touch with what is happening in your neighbourhood with Essex Community Messaging. Further details at www.essexcommunitymessaging.org.
From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 18 May 2018 13:58
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate Crime ” /“Hate incident” “Gammon”
Dear Ms Barnes
Thank you for your email.   I wish to make a complaint of these matters as Hate Crimes.  The offending publications did not originate in Essex but were published into Essex and as such are within your jurisdiction. 
Also I would remind you of College of Policing Guidance on the recording “Hate Crime” >>>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf .

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. 

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: ‘Robin Tilbrook’
CC: Crime Bureau Essex
Sent: Sat, 19 May 2018 14:41
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate Crime ” /“Hate incident” “Gammon” 

Mr Tilbrook,
Thank you for your link to the college of policing website, although we do have access to this ourselves.
Under the home office counting rules the location of any offences would in fact fall to where the article was published from and in the case of the radio show where this would have been broadcast from, which is the BBC’s broadcasting house in London.
However, as you have stated you perceive these articles to be offensive and live within Essex, a hate incident has been created on our system and the reference number is EP-20180519-0726. This will be assessed by a hate crime officer for any further action they deem necessary.
Kind regards,
S B
Crime Bureau
Operational Policing Command
Essex Police Headquarters
Ext 488888
Non-Emergency Telephone: 101 (Calling from within Essex) Non-Emergency Telephone: 03003334444 (Calling from outside Essex). When through to an operator, request to be put through to the Crime Bureau.
Email: crime.bureau@essex.pnn.police.uk
Website: www.essex.police.uk
I hope that the above correspondence will encourage everyone else who is annoyed at the “Gammon” slur to complain also to Essex Police and quote the response. 
If you are minded to do so you can email them on Crime.bureau@Essex.pnn.police.uk and quote the police crime reference number EP-20180519-0726, saying that you find what was said to be a “racist, anti-English” and “grossly offensive” remark and that you want to be added as a complainant in the case as you were also offended.  Also ask for Essex Police to keep you informed as to the progress of their investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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


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

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

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

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

IS THE UK’S POLITICAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT NOW A CLASSIC “CARTEL DEMOCRACY”?

IS THE UK’S POLITICAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT NOW A CLASSIC “CARTEL DEMOCRACY”?

A few weeks ago I was reading an article by the Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan’s, in the Sunday Telegraph called in the print edition “Coalition politics has turned European democracy into a beige dictatorship”.  Here is a link to the original article >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/21/coalition-politics-has-turned-european-democracy-beige-dictatorship/
In that article he says:-
“Several Western European countries have had German-style traditions of permanent coalition. In some of them, favoured parties were more or less permanently in office. These became known as the “cartel democracies”, because the ruling parties used legal and financial barriers to prevent newcomers from breaking through. Austria, Belgium and Italy were textbook cartel democracies for most of the post-war era.”…
You can always spot the symptoms. The public sector grows as the various coalition partners scrabble to find sinecures for their supporters. In Austria during the Christian Democrat/Social Democrat duopoly, every position, from the headmaster of a village school to the director of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, might be allocated according to party membership card. These membership cards, by the way, were actual physical things: the Italian versions, beribboned and bemedalled, were especially magnificent, signifying, as they did, a precious IOU.
Cartel politicians, being unchallenged, could award themselves handsome perks, such as legal immunities and high salaries. When I was first elected to the European Parliament, MEPs were paid at the same rate as a national parliamentarian in their home country. The Austrians, Italians and Germans earned twice as much as anyone else. The cartel parties were quite flagrant in their attempts to stop newcomers from posing a challenge. In Belgium, for example, restrictions on private donations made parties dependent on state funding – which was then withdrawn from the Flemish separatists following a parliamentary vote by their rivals.
Secure in office, the old parties were able to ignore public demands for tax cuts, immigration controls, powers back from Brussels or anything else they could fastidiously dismiss as “populist”. Because leaders from a previous generation generally decided who could stand on their party lists, politics remained stuck in a Fifties corporatist consensus.
Only in the Nineties did the system start to break down. Fed up with the complacency and sleaze of their semi-permanent rulers, voters began to grope around for battering rams to smash open the old system. In Italy, they found  a Trumpian avant la lettre – Silvio Berlusconi, who made a point of issuing no party membership cards. In Austria, they turned to Jörg Haider’s anti-immigration Freedom Party. In Belgium, they elected the Flemish nationalists. Only in Germany has the old partitocracy remained intact – at least until now.
Last year, Germany’s Christian Democrats suffered their worst result since 1949. The Social Democrats suffered their worst result since 1933. How will it look if the two losers get together to form a government based on all the things that had characterised the old racket – more immigration, deeper European integration, little economic reform, and the dismissal of all opposition as unconscionable populism?”
These comments chimed strongly with my experiences of the way in which Labour and the Conservatives have embedded themselves within the State, in such a way that for years now it has seemed to matter little which party was technically in power.  The classic “LibLabCon” even when the other party is in power many of the key people within what is supposed to be its rival still have plum political patronage jobs. 
So I looked further and found the BBC’s Home Editor, Mark Easton, had written an article which was published on the 12th June 2017.  Which asked:- “Has British democracy let its people down?”
Mark Easton’s reply is:-
 “Parliamentary democracy is one of the British values that English schools are now required, by statute, to promote during lessons – not debate, not discuss, promote.
If some teachers interpret their new role as propagandists for this kingdom’s existing system of governance, that would be a shame, because right now there are questions about how well our form of democracy is serving the UK.
Far from providing the stability and legitimacy it promises, one could argue that our democratic system has served to expose and deepen social divides.
Some would say it has even contrived to leave our country vulnerable at a critical moment in its history.
Rather than seeking to close down critical challenge of our form of democracy, do we need a serious and urgent conversation about how we can improve matters?…
Our two main political parties were founded and evolved to deal with the social and economic challenges of the industrial revolution.
Conservative and Labour, Left and Right, capitalism and socialism – these ideological movements were a response to the economic and cultural challenges of power moving from the field to the factory.
But power is moving again, from the national to the multinational.
How citizens think we should respond to that shift is the new divide in our politics.
It is less about left v right and more about nationalism v globalism….
…Old-fashioned political tribalism is actually on the wane…
And the diminution of local government in England, the weakening of the trade union movement, the impotence of political protest movements, the increasing centralisation of overarching authority to one house in Downing Street – these add to the sense that the “demos” (people) are increasingly excluded from the “kratos” (power).”
Here is the link to Mark Easton’s original article>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40245805
I think that much of what Mark Easton had to say here is right, particularly in his analysis of what the division now is; not left and right, rather globalist/ internationalist as against nationalist/patriotic.
It was said by many of the more astute commentators, including Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University, that the appeal of Euroscepticism and of Brexit to English nationalists anxious to “get our country back” and to “take back control” was, when focussed solely on the EU, somewhat misconceived. 
Professor Goodwin in particular was saying that for people who identified themselves as being English, that their desire to get back control was a confused response because the problem wasn’t the EU, it was the British Political Establishment which is seeking to break England up and to change English society and English communities in ways that English people don’t want.
Its support of the EU was a system of this attitude so the real struggle ought to be focussed on England and on the English taking back control.  The British State and British Political Establishment not only no longer cares about them or about what they think about things, but also actively works against English interests.  Its default position is internationalist or globalist. 
I thought therefore I ought to look at what academics have written about “Cartel Parties” and see whether that is a concept which helps to explain the problems of power that we have currently got in England.  So a quick search of the internet showed me the article you find here>>> https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/77c01c49-8fe0-4c5f-a83e-c64362debb30.pdf
This article actually found that the UK was not a Cartel democracy but that is because the article was written in 2001 and not in 2018!  For the last 20 years we have lived in the sort of political environment which is all too clearly explained in this paper.  The key points of the article are here:-
“Cartel parties in Western Europe?
Changes in organizational structures, political functions and competitive behaviour among the major parties in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
By Klaus Detterbeck
University of Göttingen
Introduction
Among the various attempts to pinpoint the changes in West European political parties which have been going on over the last decades, the cartel party model (Katz & Mair 1995) has been one of the most provocative of…   In their article Katz & Mair (1995) are constructing an evolution of party types from the late 19th century onwards to show how parties have changed from being party of society (mass parties) to being part of the state apparatus. The provocation, the cartel party model entails, lies in its claim that the established parties in Western Europe have adapted themselves to declining levels of participation and involvement in party activities by not only turning to resources provided by the state but by doing so in a collusive manner. The inter-penetration of party and state, so the argument goes, has been achieved through co-operation between the major parties – most obviously by unanimously introducing and expanding public subsidies to themselves. The former opponents now run a party cartel which excludes new and smaller parties. These changes on the level of party competition are associated with decisive changes in the internal balance of power among the individual cartel parties, their relationship to society and the quality of the democratic process in Western democracies per se. Thus, Katz & Mair (1995) are depicting a fundamental change of party democracy in Western Europe since the 1970s. Precisely because the consequences of the alleged cartellization would be so dramatic – a self-referential political class unremovable from power dominating politics and determining their own infrastructure- it is necessary to empirically review the central hypotheses of the cartel party model.
Three dimensions of party change
Analytically there are three dimensions on which Katz & Mair (1995) are describing party change since the 1960s and on which they are conceptualizing the cartel type. I will look at them in turn:
·        Political role: representative vs. governmental functions
·        Party competition: cartellization and exclusion
·        Organizational structures: parlamentarization and stratarchy
The political role of parties concerns their position between the sphere of society and the sphere of the state. The cartel party model postulates that West European parties have increasingly lost their capacity and their eagerness to fulfil their representative functions for society (interest articulation and -aggregation, goal formulation, political mobilisation), whereas they became more strongly involved in executing governmental functions (elite recruitment, government formation, policy making). The professional party leaders thus became more concerned with the demands of the parliamentary arena than with interpreting party manifestos or discussing politics on party congresses. The near exclusive dominance of parliaments and governments enabled parties to rely on a new source for financing and staffing their organizations which made them relatively independent from party members or donors. Cartel party are therefore characterized by a weak involvement of party members and historically related interest groups (classe gardée) in party activities on the one hand, and by an emphasis on governmental functions and state resources on the other hand.
Turning to the level of party competition, the mutually shared need for securing the flow of state resources has changed the relationships of the political opponents towards each other. In a process of social learning – facilitated through the daily interaction of professional politicians from different parties in parliament – the party actors realized that there are common interests among the „political class“ which laid the basis for collective action (von Beyme 1996; Borchert 2001). The process of cartel formation has two facets: cartellization aims at reducing the consequences of electoral competition, basically through granting the losers, the established opposition a certain share of state subventions or patronage appointments. Exclusion aims at securing the position of the established parties against newly mobilized challengers. This can be achieved through setting up certain barriers for newcomers in the electoral competition (e.g. thresholds), excluding them from access to public subventions or media campaigns, or excluding them from access to executive office by declaring them unacceptable coalition partners („pariahs“). However, a cartel doesn’t have to be closed completely. The co-optation of new parties which are willing to play according to the established rules of the game may strengthen the viability of a party cartel. Katz & Mair (1995) argue that the formation of a party cartel poses a fundamental problem for the West European party democracies as it denies the voters the possibility of choosing a political alternative – “none of the major parties is ever definitively out“ (ebd.: 22) -, and gives munitions to the rhetorics of neo-populist parties on the political right. In the long run, cartellization will widen the gulf between voters and politicians and make it increasingly difficult to legitimize political decisions.
The organisational dimension is concerned with the balance of power inside the parties. The “mechanics” of internal decision-making are determined by the structural and material resources of the various “faces” within the organisation. Cartel party are characterised by a further strengthening of the “party in public office” which can be explained by their direct access to political decisions in parliaments and governments, their access to the mass media as well as by their better access to state resources (e.g. parliamentary staff). The dominance of party executive organs through parliamentarians, the marginalisation of party activists (e.g. through member ballots) or the professionalization of election campaigns are organizational indicators of the cartel type. The second organizational feature of cartel parties consists in the vertical autonomy of different party levels. Whereas the national (parliamentarian) party elite tries to free itself from the demands of regional and local party leaders as far as political and strategic questions on the national level are concerned, the lower strata insist upon their autonomy in their own domains, e.g. the selection of candidates or local politics:  Each side is therefore encouraged to allow the other a free hand. The result is stratarchy“ (ebd.: 21).
Although the causal relationships between these three dimensions are not clearly spelled out by Katz & Mair (1995), it seems to be the logic of the argument that the increase of vulnerability (less party members, more volatile voters) caused party change. Vulnerability brought about a declining capacity of parties to fulfil their representative functions (e.g. interest articulation) which led them
a.) to concentrate on their governmental functions (e.g. selecting leaders, seeking parliamentary majorities, passing laws) and,
b.) to collude with their established opponents in order to secure the required resources for organisational maintenance.
The freedom of manoeuvre which party leaders needed to do both led to internal party reforms which strengthened the “party in public office”. As a result of these changes, the linkages between the professionalized party organisations and the citizenry further eroded, which in turn intensified the trend towards the sphere of the state and towards inter-party collusion (see Young 1998)…
The core element of the cartel party type can be seen in the self-interested co-operation between the major parties which aims at securing organizational resources (public subsidies, patronage) and career stability (income, reelection, alternative political jobs) for the individual politician.

So what do you think?

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?


On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-

Jeremy Corbyn:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“No she resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack or did she resign”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned”.

BBC interviewer:-

“So you did not sack her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“Well she resigned so that is the question.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”


(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame ‘entire community’ for abuse – BBC News).

This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked. 

The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.

The second deception in the interview was to claim:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.

What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.

Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!

Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.

The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is. 

But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that. 

So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?

What do you think?

HOPES FOR A UKIP BREAKTHROUGH ON THE 23RD FEBRUARY ARE UTTERLY DASHED

HOPES FOR A UKIP BREAKTHROUGH ON THE 23RD FEBRUARY ARE UTTERLY DASHED


February 23rd 2017 was, accordingly to Katie Hopkins, “The day that UKIP died”! As you can see from her scorching prose on this link >>> KATIE HOPKINS on the day Britain became a one party state | Daily Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4257106/KATIE-HOPKINS-day-Britain-one-party-state.html#ixzz4ZcY3PVRT

In my view Paul Nuttall started his campaign for the Westminster Parliamentary By-election for Stoke Central (or “Brexit Central” as he unwisely called it), with a positive message about being English and proud of it, but he then did nothing about the English question at all in the election. 

Instead he got totally blown off course with a series of controversies over various inaccurate claims. The result was that his campaign was a defensive one. That is the sort of campaign that you can fight if you are the incumbent. However to stand any chance of success as an “insurgent”, as Nigel Farage rightly pointed out in the UKIP Spring Conference, a campaign has got to be both positive and edgy!

There also seems to have been a failure to fully analyse both UKIP’s and Paul Nuttall’s strengths and weaknesses with regards this campaign. There was also a failure to fully understand the Labour opposition. In particular, there was a total failure to understand the role of Labour’s various Third Party Campaign front groups (such as the appalling and extremist “Hope Not Hate”) and the role that they play, not only in attacking their opponents in a way that doesn’t damage their candidate whilst they are doing it, but also it vastly increases the amount that can legally be spent on the campaign by those supporting Labour.

The outcome on the 23rd, on a dismal turnout from the 62,250 constituents of Stoke Central, was that 7,853 voted Labour (as compared with 12,220 who voted Labour in the General Election 2015).

By contrast UKIP only managed 5,233 as opposed to the 7,041 that voted for UKIP in the General Election. This is UKIP at their high watermark with their party just having achieved both a referendum and a Brexit vote and with Article 50 not having yet been activated. In order to win they only needed to have hung on to all those who voted for them in the General Election and gained a mere 813 extra people, out of the 79% that voted for Brexit in the EU referendum.

Instead of which their actual vote dropped by 1,808 votes. This was when UKIP had put up their Leader. No doubt therefore they have also put their organisational and financial best efforts in trying to win the seat. No doubt also UKIP spent the full £100,000 on the campaign that is allowed under electoral law.

On that same day of the result in Stoke, in Copeland, there was a still more dismal result for UKIP in which their vote in the General Election of 6,148 dropped to 2,025, below even the Liberal Democrats!

By contrast Theresa May and the Conservative strategy for these by-elections was completely successful. They have got an extra sensible sounding MP and humiliated Labour in Copeland, further undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s standing with the Parliamentary Labour Party.

They have a new Labour MP for Stoke who will be nothing but trouble for Jeremy Corbyn once he is in Parliament, but the result allows Corbyn a life-line so that he continues as Labour’s Leader.

The icing on the cake must however be to have lured Paul Nuttall and UKIP onto the rocks. I noticed that Esther McVey was rolled out, when Paul Nuttall was considering whether to stand, to say that she thought that if he stood he would get elected and various other Conservative figures said similar things, thus no doubt encouraging him to follow the rash course of standing.

In doing so Paul had, I think, taken insufficient notice of the fact that the Conservative leadership were aware at least six weeks before of Tristram Hunt’s intention to step down. This is because both the Culture Secretary and Theresa May herself were involved in signing off on him being able to take the job at the Victoria and Albert Museum. That six weeks was reportedly used by the Conservatives to leaflet and canvass the constituency unrestrained by any limitation on electoral spending.

No doubt this was done with the clear objective of ensuring that the Conservative vote held up enough to wreck UKIP’s chances of winning the seat by taking votes off the Conservatives.

The Conservative leadership has thus achieved the double success, that of seriously damaging both Labour and UKIP and of leaving both of their leaders badly damaged but attempting to struggle on.

A footnote to the campaign in Stoke is that the BNP, which used to have councillors in Stoke and was in contention to win the Elected Mayoralty, only managed 124 votes!

Labour’s soap starlet “no-platforms” all other candidates in Parliamentary By-election


Below is my recent press release regarding the Batley & Spen By-election

Labour’s soap starlet “no-platforms” all other candidates in By-election.


Tracy Brabin’s campaign team have refused to take part in the only independently organised hustings during the Batley & Spen By-election. The hustings was being organised by the Workers of England Union. Tracy Brabin’s team responded to the Union that they were refusing to allow their candidate to appear on the same “platform” as any other candidate in the By-election. The Workers of England Union report this on their website>>> Batley and Spen: Labour shows contempt for Democracy | Workers of England Union

https://workersofenglandunion.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/batley-and-spen-labour-shows-contempt-for-democracy/

The English Democrats’ view is that not only is this appallingly arrogant and all too typical of Labour apparatchiks sense of entitlement and ownership of areas unfortunate enough to be Labour One Party State Areas, but it is also deeply disrespectful and contemptuous of their electorate.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “Labour’s lightweight London based EastEnders soap opera starlet candidate for the Batley & Spen By-election and Remainer has been adding to Labour’s reputation as a Party unwilling to engage in democratic debate and mired in a smug sense of its own entitlement.

Remainers like Tracy Brabin have been caught making outrageous slurs on the over 118,000 electors in Kirklees and more than 50% across England who voted for Brexit. They claim as Labour’s new Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, apparently said at their recent Party Conference that Brexit voters are “stupid and racist”. Tracy Brabin and her election team have now demonstrated not only contempt for anyone with a different opinion to theirs, but also their unwillingness to engage in proper debate in their eagerness to behave like Left-wing Student Union activists in “no-platforming” their opponents.”

Robin Tilbrook added:- “The sooner Labour is driven out of England just as it is being driven out of Scotland the better!” Labour is morally and ideologically bankrupt and bitterly opposed to the interests of the English Nation”.

Labour Councillor attacks the English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

This is our press release following our successful day of action in Batley on Saturday during which we were attacked by the Labour Councillor for Batley East, who bizarrely admitted on camera that she supported Corbyn’s anti-Semitic policy – Repeatedly!

Here is our press release:-

Labour Councillor attacks the English Democrats’ campaign stall in Batley

On Saturday the 8th October the English Democrats had a stall with banners and leaflets and a public address system set up in the Market Place, Batley. We were getting a good reception from the public and were being filmed by TV reporters for Channel 4 when we were attacked by Councillor Amanda Stubley of Batley East Ward, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.

The Councillor used threatening, abusive and insulting language against the English Democrats, telling us that we are “racists” for campaigning for England and to Leave the EU. She said we should get out of her town and that as a Labour Councillor she was entitled to her seat in the Council for life. She proceeded to try to break up our stall and pop our balloons. Ms Stubley was hysterical with rage that the English Democrats would dare to challenge her entitlement and Labour’s ownership of Batley.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said:- “I have made a statement to the police and pressed charges. We will now have to wait and see if the Crown Prosecution Service charge Councillor Stubley with offences. I would expect these to be under the Public Order Act, Electoral offences, criminal damage and Breach of the Peace. It is always amazing to see how much Labour apparatchiks think that they own politics in Labour One Party State areas like Kirklees, even though the Berlin Wall came down decades ago now!”

Robin continued:- “I have confirmed to the police that I will attend court to give evidence in any prosecution brought against Councillor Stubley. Labour activists need to be taught that they cannot act in such a disgraceful and aggressive manner without facing justice.” 






I might add that Ms Stubley also went off at one point to go into a nearby shop saying that she was going to call “12 taxis” to get us driven off. Shortly afterwards there arrived various taxis driven by what looked like aggressive muslim/pakistani men – shades of Labour in Rotherham?

Will a SNP/Labour coalition A.E.C. aka “ice” the UK?

Will a SNP/Labour coalition A.E.C. aka “ice” the UK?


There is much talk and speculation in the media about an SNP and Labour minority coalition after the General Election.

This is particularly after Nicola Sturgeons’ ground breaking announcement that the Scottish National Party after the General Election will vote for English-only issues.

What she and the SNP seem to be looking to achieve is a coalition in Government with a minority Labour Party. There has also been talk of including the Greens, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein.

So for example we may have a House of Commons composed of Labour with 275 MPs, the Conservatives with 300 MPs and the SNP, on the latest opinion polls, with 54 MPs.

In that scenario the SNP and Labour together would then have overall a majority in the House of Commons and be able to form an effective coalition. This would be a Government under which the interests of England, would not merely be ignored and over-ruled but utterly trampled upon! Indeed it could be described as a Government of anti-English Conspiracy or an Anti-English Coalition i.e. A.E.C. (pronounced “ice”). 

So my question to you, dear reader, is how much in favour of English independence do you think the English will be after 5 years of being A.E.C.ed (aka “iced”)?

As you may have guessed I have been searching for a suitable expression with an element of menace to it.

I wonder if you think that the idea of the UK being “A.E.D.ed or “iced” has legs? Here is a definition of the meaning of “iced”from the OnlineSlangDictionary.com “to kill” as in “I’m gonna ice that punk”.

What do you think? Another alternative that I considered was to talk about a Government of Anti-English Conspiracy.

Ever imagined that the courts are unbiased? If so, here is your medicine. Read and be cured!

Kirk here – beam me up Scotty!

Here is an excellent and all too true explanation of the institutional bias at the heart of the new style British judiciary. New Labour gerrymandered so many other things so why would anyone imagine they didn’t do so also to the courts?

Ever wondered why our courts have a Leftist bias?

 By Daniel Hannan

Why do we need a quango for barristers?

Judicial activism is a problem in almost every country. Judges have a lamentable, if inevitable, tendency to rule on the basis of what they think the law ought to say rather than what it actually says.

But here’s a puzzle. Why do they always seem to be biased in the same direction? Courts are forever striking down deportation orders, but did you ever hear of them stepping in to order the repatriation of an illegal immigrant whom the Home Office had allowed to stay? The imposition by Parliament of minimum prison tariffs for certain offences was howled down as an assault on judicial independence. But maximum tariffs? No problem there. It’s common for warrants to be served against Augusto Pinochet or Ariel Sharon or George Bush; never against Fidel Castro or Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-un. A minister rules that a murderer should’t be released? Outrageous! A minister rules (in Northern Ireland) that murderers should be released? Quite right.

The US judge Robert Bork wrote a book called Coercing Virtue, which argued that judges were consciously seeking to advance an agenda that had been rejected at the ballot-box. It amounted, Bork averred, to “a coup d’état – slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d’état nonetheless”.

Judges are often open, when speaking extra-judicially, about what they see as their obligation strike down (in Lord Woolf’s phrase) “bad laws”. In one sense, judicial activism is inescapable. Someone, after all, has to be the final arbiter. As Bishop Hoadley of Winchester remarked three centuries ago, “whoever interprets a law may justly be considered the lawgiver, not he who first wrote or spake it”.

Still, why does the judiciary lean Left? Half a century ago, the popular stereotype of a judge was of a stern disciplinarian committed to the absolute defence of property rights. What changed?

Part of the problem is surely the appointments system. Judges used to be chosen by the Lord Chancellor – a system which on paper seemed open to abuse and which, for that very reason, was in practice almost never abused. Successive Lord Chancellors, conscious of their responsibility, would carefully avoid any suspicion of partiality. Then, in 2005, Labour created a Judicial Appointments Commission, which was charged with promoting candidates on the basis, inter alia, of “the need to encourage diversity”. While diversity is certainly desirable (diversity in the fullest sense – of opinion and outlook as well as sex and race), the vagueness of the criterion opened the door to favouritism and partisanship.

Indeed, the prejudice starts further upstream. It’s not easy to be a judge unless you’ve been a QC. The Bar used to be self-regulating, but New Labour changed that, too, creating a quango called QC Appointments. Here, too, one of the criteria is commitment to diversity.

It is vital to stress that this doesn’t mean having more diverse QCs – for which a good case can be made. It means promoting barristers who have a political commitment to “diversity” in the Leftie, public-sector sense of he word. The QCA’s general report, explains that “diversity competence” includes both awareness and action… being aware is not enough: there must be evidence of support for the principle and practice of diversity, or personal action.

For the avoidance of doubt the QCA’s “Approach to the Competencies” report explains:

The Panel sought evidence of a pro-active approach to diversity issues which in outstanding candidates ran like a consistent ‘thread’ through their language and behaviours.

You don’t need to be Richard Littlejohn to see that this is a political test. In the name of diversity, a less diverse cohort of QCs is being created, one whose members are expected to endorse the Left-liberal orthodoxy. Thus can a party that loses office retain power.

It’s worth remembering that the Conservatives were elected on a promise to abolish unelected agencies. Here is an especially superfluous example. Why, after all, should the state have any role in privileging some barristers over others? Couldn’t this be left to the profession itself?
Ministers have scrapped one QCA – the hopeless quango that was supposed to regulate exam boards. Why is the other still hanging around?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100263531/heres-why-the-courts-tend-to-lean-left/