Category Archives: anti-english

ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING – CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

ENGLAND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON SPENDING – CONFIRMED YET AGAIN BY HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

The House of Commons Library published a paper in November last year which was brought to my attention recently.  The report has the figures for the financial year 2016/17 of the Barnett Formula.  The Barnett Formula determines that differential spending on UK citizens depending on which of the UK countries those citizens live in. 

The summary of the House of Commons research paper shows that England has the lowest national average spent on every man, woman and child.  This was £8,898 in 2016/17.  In Northern Ireland by contrast, it was £11,042. 

If you live in the English “Regions” of the South East, East of England, East Midlands, South West or West Midlands you get less spent on you than even the average of England.  It is only in London that British Government spending is more than even one of the other Nations of the UK.  It is slightly more than Wales.  London has £10,192 for every man, woman and child, instead of the Welsh average of £10,076!

This Barnett Formula spread in payments, which advantages Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is only for so-called “identifiable expenditure”, which is about 88% of the total public spending of the UK.  So the costs of the Foreign Office and of membership of the EU, and of Foreign Aid and Defence parts of the 12% of total public spending are not covered by the Barnett Formula. So also no allowance is made for the policies under which the British Government has headquartered British State agencies in Scotland and Wales, as for instance the DVLA and HMRC.  This is of course a yet further method of increasing the British State subsidy to those nations. 

It is worth pointing out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get yet a further method of subsidy at the moment through the EU.  The contributions to the EU which come out of English Taxpayers’ pockets (as that is the only part of the UK for which there is a net tax revenue) are funnelled back to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as EU payments, under the so-called “Conduit Effect”.

Some of the additional subsidy to London is not part of the Barnett Formula but is explained by the British State spending money on the security of its political class with its large expenditure on armed police to guard the State’s buildings, the provision of diversity barriers and all the other paraphernalia of running the British State. 

The other aspect of this of course is that London is now in John Cleese’s words “no longer an English city”.  The subsidy coming into London is from the predominantly English Regions to the predominantly non-English communities within London.  This is the fiscal background to the anti-English, metropolitan, inter-nationalist, multi-culturalism of the Labour Party’s predominance in London. 

Here is the House of Commons summary and also there is the link to the report itself which you can download>>>http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scot;lands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

In the last few days The Scottish Conservative Party under their multiculturalist Leader, Ruth Davidson, have been gloating again about Scotland’s “Union Dividend”.

Here is a quotation of part of their press release:-

“Scotland now raises eight per cent of UK total revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Total spending per person in Scotland for 2017/18 was £1576 per head higher than the rest of the UK, compared to £1448 per head the previous year.

Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary Murdo Fraser said:

“If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear.

“By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average. For a family of four, that’s more than £6000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

Here is the link to the original on the Scottish Conservatives’ Website>>> http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2018/08/separate-scotlands-13bn-black-hole-revealed/

As a demonstration of how “Fake News” looks here is the text of the Telegraph’s article about this with its minor editing of the Scottish Conservatives’ Press Release:-

SNP urged to ditch plans for indyref2 as figures reveal Scotland’s £13 billion deficit is four times the size of the UK’s

22 AUGUST 2018 • 

Nicola Sturgeon has been urged to abandon  her threat of a second independence referendum after official figures revealed that  Scotland ran up a £13 billion deficit last year that was four times the size of the UK’s.

Official figures on the state of the country’s finances also disclosed a record “Union dividend” of nearly  £1,900 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

That figure is made up of public spending that was £1,576 higher per person north of the border in 2017/18, while Scotland’s public sector tax contributions were £306 less per head.

The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (Gers) figures – the difference between what the country raised in taxes and what it spent – revealed a total deficit of £13.4 billion, or 7.9 per cent of GDP -down from 8.9 per cent in 2016/17. The UK’s spending deficit was just 1.9 per cent of GDP, down from 2.3 per cent.

Overall, Scotland’s public finances showed a slight improvement, thanks to North Sea revenue rising by more than £1 billion.

The First Minister claimed the figures proved Scotland was “on the right trajectory”, when considered alongside recent positive labour market statistics.

She added: “With the limited economic powers currently at our disposal, the actions we are taking to promote sustainable economic development are helping to ensure that the key economic indicators are moving in the right direction.”

However, the Scottish Conservatives said the finances of the rest of the UK were improving faster and the gap between the two was widening, with Scotland now raising eight per cent of total UK revenue, while receiving 9.3 per cent of spending.

Murdo Fraser, Tory finance spokesman, said Ms Sturgeon needed to ditch plans for a new bid to break-up Britain or explain how she would find the billions required to file Scotland’s economic black hole in the event of independence.

He added: “If Nicola Sturgeon wants to continue her threat of second referendum, she has to come out and explain where she would find £13 billion to fill this deficit.

“Assuming that can’t be done, the prospect of another divisive and unwelcome vote must be removed for good so Scotland can focus on what really matters.

These figures confirm that being part of a strong United Kingdom is worth nearly £1,900 for every single person in ScotlandDavid Mundell

“Yet again, the union dividend has been made clear. By being part of the UK, Scotland received an extra £1,576 for every man, woman and child last year above the UK average.  For a family of four, that’s more than £6,000 in additional public spending.

“If Scotland was to be ripped out the UK, this spending would be slashed drastically, meaning schools, hospitals and infrastructure would be hit.

“Any Scottish Government would also have to massively increase taxes and borrowing to help make up the difference, something the hardworking public simply wouldn’t accept.

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

FORMER LABOUR CABINET MINISTER CALLS FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
John Denham, the former Labour Cabinet Minister, who since leaving Parliament has become a Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University and who has been leading a campaign for Labour to take England and the English nation much more seriously instead of dismissing both as symptoms of racism, has recently given a speech setting out where he now is on the issue of English nationalism.  Here is the link to his speech >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zun7oTXMNPg&feature=youtu.be
You will see he does now call for an English Parliament although he hasn’t as yet got a separate electoral system for it.  He is thinking that this can develop as a process of reform, rather than move straightaway to a full separate English Parliament. 
I don’t think that this halfway separate parliament is a constitutionally viable proposal. I also understand that the Constitution Unit of University College London also don’t think that that is a viable option.  It is nevertheless an important step in the right direction for such a senior Labour figure to call for an English Parliament. 
John Denham has of course been lambasted by the Left and by various others supposedly on the Right, who in fact turn out to be anti any element of Englishness (often because of their own ethnic origins).
The other key point which John Denham makes that is worth considering is that he thinks that the failure to allow a proper voice for the English Nation has led to people who are basically English nationalists but perhaps in many cases haven’t fully realised it, to have, in psychological terms, “transferred” the object of their frustrations from the real cause which is the British Political Establishment, on instead to the EU.  He suggests that this “transfer” has therefore led to the Brexit vote.

Mr Denham then goes on to suggest that those Unionists who were most involved blocking any proper expression of Englishness are to a large extent responsible for the Brexit vote.  That is an interesting ironic thought!

"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.

SENTENCING COUNCIL WANTS TOUGHER SENTENCES AGAINST OPPONENTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

SENTENCING COUNCIL WANTS TOUGHER SENTENCES AGAINST OPPONENTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
I recently spotted that the anonymous Establishment entity calling themselves the “Sentencing Council” was proposing to dramatically increase the sentencing for those who infringe against the British State’s clamp down on free speech.  Here is the English Democrats’ submission on this matter:-
Dear Sir
The English Democrats submission to your consultation is firstly to observe that your Sentencing Council document fails to disclose details of the participating membership of the Council or their relevant interests, such as religion, ethnicity, national identity, racial group, sexuality, etc.  This cannot be right if there is be any transparency or openness in your “consultation”.  You also do not make clear how the members of the Council were appointed and whether there is any transparency in the appointments system.  Again this is another inappropriate lacuna in your document. 
Your consultation starts off with a series of dubious and unsupported assertions about the growth of “Hate Crime”.  So far as we are aware there are in fact no objective figures for the extent of the actual commission of “Hate Crimes”.  Instead what you report is merely the produce of encouraging the reporting of “Hate Crime” and recording all such reports however bogus they may actually be.
What is however known is that the politicisation of policing by the British Political Establishment continues apace in England, which of course is the only part of the “United Kingdom”, which instead of being self-governing, is directly ruled by the British Government.  This establishment is self-interestedly seeking to clamp down on the rising sense of English National Identity.  The results of the 2011 Census showed that 60.4% of the people of England regard their National Identity as “English only” and not “British”.  This was an unwelcome development for the British Political Establishment which has been increasingly directing police resources to clamp down on English free speech.  This is in sharp distinction to the traditional English liberty whose traditional attitude can be encapsulated in playground expression “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me!” 
The already somewhat un-English and authoritarian legal restrictions on free speech are rendered not only logically incoherent but also nakedly political by the Aggravated Offence Provisions.
In the circumstances, whilst we have nothing to say about the more serious offences involving violence or the threat of violence, we strongly object to your unaccountable body seeking to impose stiffer sentences on those whose exercise of free speech is only treated as a crime if what is said offends Left/Liberal Internationalist/Globalist anti-nationalist/multi-culturalist, anti-English, politically correct opinion.  Conversely when patriots and nationalists are viciously smeared we are told that this must be accepted as legitimate expressions of Free Speech.  The lack of balance and equivalence between these approaches demonstrates that you are seeking to do nothing more than to further politicise the criminal justice system in support of the British Political Establishment rather than on the basis of rationality or dispassionate objectivity. 
Yours sincerely
(Here is a link to the entire document >>>  https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/6.4328_Public_Order_Offences_Guideleines_Consultation_web.pdf 
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/6.4328_Public_Order_Offences_Guideleines_Consultation_web.pdf

What do you think?  Do put in your own submissions because the more people that object the more likely the Establishment is to drop the idea!  Here is their email address to complain to:- info@SentencingCouncil.gov.uk

Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests

 Former Labour Cabinet Minister calls for proper recognition of English interests

John Denham, the former Labour MP and a former Labour Cabinet Minister, who is now the Professor of English Identity and Politics at Winchester University has called for recognition within Labour of the English nationalist movement.  In doing so of course he admits that at present the Labour Party doesn’t properly recognise England at all, and is reluctant to mention the ‘E’ word, let alone give us our rights as English people. 
His article is a good one, and I put it below, but one area of course that is not mentioned at all is the idea of the English Nation. 
Labour are willing to discuss the idea of the Scottish Nation and the Welsh Nation, but they are not prepared to recognise the ideas that England has its own Nation – let alone the English Nation has its own country, namely England!
It has been interesting also to see that John Denham has encountered flak from Far-Leftists within the Labour Party who do not like him raising the ‘E’ word!
His intervention is therefore welcome for the health and progress of the English movement – even if he feels he can’t fully come out as an English nationalist yet!
Below is the article.  What do you think?

DevolutionEnglandEnglish Votes for English LawsJohn DenhamNational Education ServiceScotland Bill

20 years ago, Parliament was debating the Scotland Bill. Within months, both Wales and Scotland were well on the way to their own elected governments. From then onwards, England’s education, health, social care, bus, environment and agriculture policy was distinct from that of its neighbours.
Reading Labour’s recently published 2018 policy consultation, you would never know devolution had even happened. Of eight papers, only one – on health – can even bring itself to use the word ‘England’. The policy consultation is a constitutional dog’s breakfast that ignores the challenges of making policy within a devolved UK. Most documents seem to refer to England, but don’t say so. Others wander blindly across UK, devolved and unresolved policy areas without asking party members how to manage the complications that will inevitably arise.
Education policy is devolved, so presumably the ‘National Education Service’ is only for England, but we are not told that. No one could imagine Welsh or Scottish Labour writing policies that don’t mention Wales or Scotland, so why can’t our Labour Party talk about England? The consultation on housing, local government and transport – all devolved matters – is subtitled ‘giving people the power’. It talks about local devolution. Is this devolution within England, or devolution in every part of the UK? We can assume that it is about England, but why not say so?
‘Greening Britain’ (sic) covers energy policy (not devolved) and air quality (devolved). It covers agriculture, which will become hugely contentious – in theory, it is devolved, but effectively most policy is made in Brussels. With Brexit, the powers will be returned to us: should they go straight to the devolved administrations? Cardiff and Edinburgh say ‘yes’, but many in England would want to maintain a single UK market for farm produce. It’s an ideal question for policy consultation, but the document doesn’t even mention the issue.
The policy paper on poverty and inequality is mainly about UK-wide policy, though it covers some devolved issues. ‘Protecting our communities’ ranges across English, Welsh and UK responsibilities, without making the distinctions clear.
Labour will pay a price for this confused lack of clarity. We cannot change Britain, or any part of it, without an understanding of where power lies now and a clear view of where it should lie in the future.
The 1997 Labour government did not make a serious attempt – despite John Prescott’s best efforts – to shift power and resources out of London. England saw no constitutional change (except, ironically, in London). England needs devolution today because the last Labour government, of which I was a part, failed. Labour members should be asked about the governance of England as a whole: how power and resources will be devolved, how laws for England are made, and about England’s relationship with the rest of the UK.
The party must stop talking as though England and Britain are the same thing. This lazy confusion feeds nationalist propaganda in Scotland, discourages party members from thinking about England’s needs and makes us sound out of touch with millions of voters.
The confused policy documents obscure the reality that England is the only part of Britain permanently ruled by the UK government. It’s a constitutional arrangement that allows a Conservative government to bribe the DUP while taking free school meals from English kids. We should at least be asked whether we want this to continue, but the papers avoid any discussion of how England’s laws are made (including the thorny issue of English votes on English laws).
The idea of a federal UK raised in the 2017 manifesto has disappeared.
Wales and Scotland have radical traditions. England has its own. ‘’For the many not few’ echoes popular English campaigns for land and homes, for protection from exploitation, for justice and rights, using self-organisation and co-operation. Labour could draw on such stories that are embedded in communities across the nation, but only if we can call the country, England, by its name.
While not all voters are bothered whether we mention England by name, plenty do care. They know where they live, they are proud to be English and they want to know what a Labour government will do for England.
In narrow electoral terms, Labour hasn’t won the popular vote in England since 2001. By the time of the next election, we will have been behind the Tories for 21 years. We are 60 seats behind the Conservatives and we won’t be in government unless we win more English votes. In 2015, we were badly damaged by claims that Labour policy for England would be dictated by the SNP.
At the next election, we need an English manifesto that sets out exactly what Labour will do in England; the policy consultation should be the starting point for that manifesto. Labour has gained a narrow lead on ‘best party to represent England’ but that support is dwarfed by those who can’t identify any party that stands for England. Making it clear that we know what country we are talking about and not being afraid of mentioning its name won’t guarantee victory, but it would be a good start.

Here is a link to the original >>>https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

Labour’s new Leader in Scotland confesses anti-Englishness!

Labour’s new Leader in Scotland talks about anti-Englishness in Scotland
The article below caught my interest.  This was not only because it confesses to what I think is quite well known that there is a deep vein of Anglophobia in Scotland.  If you are a patriotic Scot this is not entirely surprising, not because of history in which the Scots have done rather well out of England, or because of the Barnett Formula where they continue to do extremely well out of England, but because of the over 800,000 English immigrants into Scotland of which such a large proportion voted to remain within the UK that it swung the result of the Scottish Independence Referendum in favour of the remain option.  Whereas if it had been left to just ethnic Scots to vote, Scotland would now be well on its way to being an independent country because a majority of them voted for Independence.
Another thing that is interesting about this Times article is it is clear that the privately educated Mr Leonard thinks that it his job is to “stand up for the interests of working people”, rather than for standing up for Scotland.  He comments that he has got an overriding objective to “win the battle of ideas with nationalism”. 
So there we have it, the new Leader of Labour in Scotland wants Scottish politics to revert to old fashioned Unionist class war rather than nationalism. 
It is certainly going to be interesting to see how the attempt to get the Labour Party in Scotland to be seen as focussing on Scottish working class interests!  That is whilst Labour in Westminster is almost entirely focussed on the obsessions of middle-class, internationalist, multi-culturalist, Leftists.
This attempt is being made at a time where elsewhere Labour is following in the footsteps of almost all Western European social democrat parties in losing its connections with their country’s working class, instead predominantly voting for nationalist parties, such as the Front Nationale and the Austrian Freedom Party.  Of course in Scotland Mr Leonard is up against a so-called nationalist party, which in fact seems to prefer multi-culturalism, diversity and is actually more EUish than Scottish!
Here is the article:-
“My Englishness is a barrier, confesses Labour’s Richard Leonard
The English-born leader of the Scottish Labour Party says he accepts some Scots will not vote for him because he is from south of the border.
Richard Leonard, who was elected Scottish Labour leader last November, was born in Yorkshire but has lived in Scotland since studying at the University of Stirling in the early 1980s.
Asked in an interview with The Times if he thought his Englishness would be a barrier to people voting for him, Mr Leonard said: “There is a small group of people for whom that will be an issue.”
The MSP, 56, said the reality of anti-Englishness in Scotland became clear to him during the 2014 independence referendum. “I wrote a blog on the case against an independent state and somebody put a comment on it which was, ‘In truth you would not be welcome in an independent Scotland’.
“And I thought that was really chilling — not an overt attack in some senses, but on the other hand really quite a dawn-knock-at-the-door. So there are those elements that exist and I am conscious of that.” But Mr Leonard stressed these people were a small minority. He said it was now “a sign of the stage Scotland has reached” that Scots “will vote for an English Scottish Labour leader to be the next first minister of Scotland”.
He denied he was at a disadvantage when voters asked themselves who would best stand up for Scotland. “No, I don’t think I am,” he said. “What people are looking for is someone who will stand up for the interests of working people, predominantly.
“I accept there is an extent to which Scottish politics has become about geography, but I think it should be more about principle. I think we need to break out of this confinement that it’s about where you’re from and ‘you’re not from around here’, which I think is quite a corrosive part of our politics, and get back to ‘these are the ideas’.
“The overriding object I’ve got is to win the battle of ideas with nationalism. Most people say to me it’s not where you come from, it’s where you’re going to. It’s about your principles and what you stand for rather than where you were born.”
Shortly after his election as leader Mr Leonard was asked which team he supports when Scotland play England at football or rugby. “If it’s England v Scotland, I do support England,” he replied.”
What do you think?

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER
In the best Blairite traditions, the EU Remainiac, Dan Jarvis, who ironically is the MP for the strongly Leave constituency, Barnsley Central, got his debate on Yorkshire devolution last Wednesday afternoon in the Westminster Hall annex to Parliament.  Here is a link to the record of that debate from Hansard >>>
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-09/debates/A258E72B-52AF-4DC3-9513-3AE8AF89AF03/YorkshireDevolution
It is lucky for Dan Jarvis that the debate took place in Westminster Hall rather than on the floor of the House of Commons, as then he might be in trouble for misleading the House of Commons. 
In the debate he said:-
“Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us”
“My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.”
“Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?”
“They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored”
“I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire.”
Mr Jarvis is referring not to a “democratic” vote, like a referendum or an election, but to what would normally be called a consultation.  (Here is a link to a report on this >>>http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-12-21/barnsley-and-doncaster-voters-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-one-yorkshire-devolution-plan/).  This consultation only offered two options, neither of which were very attractive to any patriots.  The options were a South Yorkshire Region, based around Sheffield, or alternatively a “One Yorkshire” Region.
Since the last thing that Barnsley and Doncaster people want is to be dominated politically by Sheffield it is not surprising that many of them voted for their county to be the devolved body. 
Even so out of a total electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber region of 3,835.075 only 41,952 “votes” have now been made for “One Yorkshire” devolution. 
In Barnsley, 40,280 residents took part in the “community poll” – that’s 22.4% of the electorate. Of those, 34,015 (84.9%) chose “One Yorkshire”, while 6,064 (15.1%) opted for Sheffield City Region.
Meanwhile in Doncaster, 45,470 residents voted – a turnout of 20.1%. Of those, 38,551 (84.7%) came out in favour of “One Yorkshire”, with only 6,685 (14.7%) preferring “Sheffield City Region”.
For Mr Jarvis to talk about 85% as if that was of the whole electorate and to make remarks about democracy, can only be sensibly described as disingenuous and deceitful.  The total number of people who participated in the consultation was only 85,750, the total number people who voted for “One Yorkshire” devolution was 72,566.  That is not only less than 85% of the consultations but also is just over 1% of the electorate of Yorkshire and Humberside!
It is also interesting, when considering Dan Jarvis’ deviousness and disingenuousness, to pick up the way he jumps from talking about the county of Yorkshire, which even so is not all the historic county of Yorkshire to “Yorkshire and the Humber”.  Yorkshire and the Humber is of course the name of the EU “Region” which includes North Lincolnshire, but does not include, for example, Middlesbrough. 
In doing this he, of course, gives his game away.  He as discussed in the previous article on this blog, is not a patriot or even a Yorkshire nationalist but is a “Europeanist” or Europhile who is looking at ways to try to break up the integrity of not only the UK, but also England, in continuing to push for Regionalisation, as per the EU’s Regionalisation project. 
Mr Jarvis not only has no care for our Nation in pursuing this project, but also he would appear not to even care for his own constituents in Barnsley Central, since if England was in fact effectively Regionalised there would be every chance that the politicians of each “Region” would be wanting to hang onto all the tax take of their “Region” and this would be very likely to mean that there would be a dramatic reduction in the Government subsidy to people in Yorkshire. 
Again Mr Jarvis is deceitful in his use of the statistics as to what way Yorkshire stands on the level of subsidy, since he quotes a comparison to UK subsidies and thus the vastly inflated subsidies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett Formula rather than looking at the average level of Government spending across England only.
The other thing about Mr Jarvis’ focus on devolution for Yorkshire and Humber is that he and his other “Europeanists” do not seem to have learnt from the fiasco of their attempt to try and entrench Regional Assemblies in “Yorkshire” and in the “North East”.  It was the very fact that the proposed regionalisation for Yorkshire was not the traditional county but instead the EU Region of Yorkshire and the Humber which led to the proposal for Yorkshire and the Humber being so unpopular that John Prescott did not even try to have a referendum there, but instead went for the only “Region” where he thought he had any chance, which was the “North East”.  Even then his proposal utterly flopped at the ballot box – getting only 29% support!
As it says in Proverbs, Chapter 26, Verse 11:- “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly”.  So can we say to devious Dan “Ay up lad! Sup up!?”
Here are all the comments which Mr Jarvis said in the debate which I found to be “interesting”. 
What do you think? 
Here they are the extracts from his comments:-  “All of us here have a responsibility to work co-operatively together to best serve the interests of our region. 
A constructive way forward for a future devolved settlement for Yorkshire
people of Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us.
The status quo is not delivering. People are disillusioned, and they have a right to feel that way.
Not only do the people of Yorkshire receive an income that is 80% of the national average, but they also receive £300 per head less in terms of public spending, 
Secretary of the State to send the strongest signal of intent to the north of England that they are listening to what people are saying, and are prepared to make decisions that best serve those people’s interests.
This Friday in York, the coalition of the willing—leaders from across our area—will meet to reaffirm their support for the wider Yorkshire proposal.
I do understand why people in our region are disillusioned and angry.
We need a new economic and political settlement that involves genuine devolution of political and economic power that will spread prosperity and opportunity to towns and counties of all regions.
The solution must be as ambitious as the challenge is profound. That is why I believe that a wider Yorkshire deal is the way forward. By working together across the whole of our county and, like in the west midlands, not being confined to just one city, we would have the collective clout and the brand reputation to co-operate and compete not only with other parts of the UK, but with other parts of the world.
My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.
Could not have agreed more. Both nationally and internationally, a single Mayor would provide the single voice required to unlock the much-needed new investment. That is critically required in areas such as our transport system.
A wider Yorkshire combined authority directing investment decisions and using its purchasing power to negotiate
Devolution is about more than just transport infrastructure. It is about accessing funding for skills and training, building affordable homes, and preserving our unique culture, countryside and heritage by working together, harnessing our talents, combining our energies and maximising our influence, all of which is in reach.
The sense of place, community and belonging that comes from identifying with Yorkshire is, in many ways, our greatest asset. 
That will take more time, so first we need an interim solution not only to preserve the goal of a wider Yorkshire deal,
Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?
They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored, not least because the Secretary of State was right when he told the Local Government Association that the driving force behind devolution is the desire to bring decision making to a more local level. 
This is not a political argument, in the sense that there is cross-party support.
As part of the coalition of the willing, some people have said to me that we should press for a wider Yorkshire settlement earlier than 2020,
I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire. It means something to them, and it means something to us. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place an arrangement that could be really meaningful for the people we represent, and I very much hope that we will not miss out.
Where there is political will to make changes, it should be entirely possible to do so”.

ANTI-ENGLISHNESS IN THE JEWISH LOBBY?

ANTI-ENGLISHNESS IN THE JEWISH LOBBY?
Earlier this year one of our activists, who was thinking of standing in the General Election in the Bradford area, and who not unreasonably thought that West Yorkshire’s Jews might feel particularly beleaguered in Bradford, approached the Jewish community leaders to see whether there might be common ground.  The story is best told in her own words:-
  1. I met on Sunday 4th June at Starbuck’s in Bradford Centenary Square, with Laurence Saffer, (pictured above) President of Leeds Jewish Representative Council (part of the Board of Deputies of British Jews), Rabbi Rudi Levi, Chairman of the Bradford Synagogue, and a lady whose name I cannot recollect.
  1. I was surprised to find that three people had come to meet me as I thought I was just meeting Laurence Saffer believing him to be the Rabbi of the Bradford Synagogue.
  1. We began by introducing ourselves and I explained my background and why I was keen to hopefully establish links between our organisations.
  1. Laurence Saffer explained that they have a policy of not working with extremist groups such as the BNP and National Front, but that they do invite guests from other political parties to speak at various conferences and events; and provide support for candidates standing in elections.
  1. I found this reassuring and then was completely taken aback when the tone of the conversation began to change. Laurence Saffer drew a copy of our manifesto from his briefcase, slapping it down on the table, and stated that he could not possibly sell me or my party to the Board of Deputy of British Jews, based on what he had read, as he felt that I was a racist and I belonged to a racist party. (This section of the manifesto is intended to make clear the rights of the English Nation to our historic culture in our country by giving primacy to our indigenous English culture in England as opposed to the multi-culturalist idea that English culture and our Society’s integrity must give way to the interests of a “diversity” non-English communities).
  1. Obviously, I responded with a firm rebuttal of his claims and Rabbi Rudi Levi was a little more conciliatory – he was an elderly gentleman who seemed to be more approachable.
  1. He asked our views on shechita slaughter and labelling of foods where I mentioned the findings of the FAWC Report several years ago, and that I felt there was a need to debate the issue of pre-stunning of animals before slaughter and the need for more transparent labelling. I also mentioned the fact that some Muslims in Australia and in parts of Europe had developed a form of pre-stunning which complied with their religious beliefs and that perhaps this was something both the Muslim and Jewish communities could think of adopting.
  1. We all agreed that a person’s motivation for questioning these religious practices was important and I stressed that, for my part at least, it came purely from an ethical perspective regarding animal welfare.
  1. I was asked further about our position regarding circumcision and other Jewish religious beliefs and assured them that there was no problem regarding these matters and that they had nothing to fear from us.
  1. Laurence Saffer, however, became increasingly condescending and belligerent pointing repeatedly at several clauses in the party manifesto which he claimed he had real issues over and had highlighted with asterisks.
  1. He physically pointed to clause 3.15.13.2 and other clauses he had marked with an asterisk regarding radical Islam which it mentioned the figures about the minuscule number of mosques which identified as moderate.
  1. I admitted that I couldn’t recall this specific clause, that it would have been adopted before Veritas merged with the English Democrats but that it seemed to have a credible source and was therefore a reasonable position to take.
  1. Sadly, this gave him more reason to be belligerent, exhorting that I, as Deputy Chairman should know precisely what was in our manifesto and that my reply simply wasn’t good enough.
  1. Laurence Saffer also criticised our policy on asylum seekers and refugees and highlighted, for particular criticism, our position on withdrawing from the 1951 UN Convention of Human Rights, contrasting this to the Kindertransport programme during WW2.
  1. Rabbi Rudi Levi was interested to know why this was our policy and was subsequently more understanding of the explanation I provided. Laurence Saffer, however, sadly remained rather infuriated regardless and not open to debate on these issues. (Given what I know now that he is an Immigration and Asylum judge in Leeds, it is not surprising).
  1. There were several further clauses, one which was rather badly drafted, 3.15.12.3 – 2 and 3.15.12.3 – 3, II referring to the admission and deportation of those we believed did not conform to English values and to our policy regarding establishing a programme of education for Islamic community leaders and Imams which might extend to other religions causing concern, to which Laurence Saffer again took issue.
  1. The latter policy where it states ‘…and extend this to other religions causing concern’ was a serious point of contention as I had to concede after some persuasion, that it could also apply to the Jewish community – although I was keen to point out that that would not have been the intent.
  1. We had a brief discussion on the work that the Jewish community does in Leeds and surrounding area promoting community cohesion and inter-faith dialogue, especially with the Muslim community. I told him that when I used to teach RE in Bradford I had encouraged this kind of work and dialogue and thought that we had found some common ground at last.
  1. At some point in the conversation Laurence Saffer asked how large I thought the Muslim and Jewish populations were in Bradford and appeared to argue that it was vital that they worked with the Muslim community for their survival, as the Muslim population already outnumbered the Jewish community in the Bradford area by 50-1.
  1. Then the conversation moved to the Labour MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, who was apparently saved from being expelled from the Labour party for her alleged anti-Semitism due to their intervention – and tuition. To my surprise, Mr Saffer was keen to point out that they were supporting her candidature in the general election. I found this very disconcerting as I couldn’t believe just how naïve and foolish they were being given her clear anti-Semitic views.
  1. Laurence Saffer then decided that they had to go, put the copy of our manifesto back in his briefcase, got up from the table and walked away without shaking my hand. His two colleagues were polite and shook hands. I assured them that they were mistaken about who I was and what I stood for and we left things open for me to contact Laurence Saffer should I wish to do so.
  1. I came away feeling completely humiliated and belittled and betrayed as I have spent my life fighting anti-Semitism and injustice and felt I had something to offer in support of the Jewish community.
I didn’t think that something so outrageous should be left unchallenged and therefore wrote the following letter to the British Board of Jewish Deputies:-
Dear Sirs
Re:  Complaint against Laurence Saffer
We act for Mrs H.  We write to make a complaint against Laurence Saffer arising out of an incident on the 4th June 2017. 
Mrs H. has set out what happened in some detail in her Witness Statement, a copy of which we enclose for your information.  I hope you will agree that the behaviour complained of is unacceptable and should be sanctioned.  Please confirm receipt. 
We await hearing from you on the steps you propose to take to deal with the complaint.
Yours faithfully
The response I got was this email:-
In a message dated 11/12/2017 17:50:54 GMT Standard Time, tony@tonyleifer.com writes:
Dear Mr Tilbrook, 

I refer to your letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews dated 27 November and to our telephone conversation today.  I write in my capacity as the chairman of the Board’s constitution committee, which is responsible for its code of conduct and dealing with breaches of that code.

Your client, Mrs H., in her statement, describes an incident involving Laurence Saffer which she says took place on 4 June, I assume this year. On her behalf you ask the Board to sanction Mr Saffer’s behaviour.

 Mr Saffer  was the Deputy for Leeds Jewish Representative Council until he resigned in January 2017, a date prior to the alleged incident, and as such the Board has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.

Kind regards

Tony Leifer
(Notice no apology or even an expression of regret!)
My reply was :-
From:RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 15 December 2017 13:42
To: Tony Leifer
Subject: Re: Complaint against Laurence Saffer
Dear Mr Leifer 
Re:  Mrs H.
Thank you for your email of the 11th and for responding to my letter dated the 27th November.  It is correct that the incident was on the 4th June this year. 
However as of the 30th May 2017 Mr Saffer was using the email address PresidentLJRC@mail.com and the Leeds Jewish Representative Council has him on their website as President.  Here is a link to that website >>> http://ljrc.org/about-us-2/meet-the-ljrc-team/
Please could you therefore review your stance?
Yours sincerely
R C W Tilbrook
To which the reply was:-
Dear Mr Tilbrook,

The relevant dates are those when Mr Saffer was a Deputy of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, as set out in my earlier email.  The email address he was using is not what matters.

Regards

Tony Leifer
My further reply:-
From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com [mailto:RobinTilbrook@aol.com]
Sent: 15 December 2017 19:55
To: Tony Leifer
Subject: Re: Complaint against Laurence Saffer
Or his appearance on the Leed’s website?
Mr Leifer’s further response:-
Subj: RE: Complaint against Laurence Saffer 
It is only to members of the Board of Deputies, and not of other entities, to which the code of conduct applies.
So that seems the end of the road for the complaint and no attempt to distance the Board of Deputies from what Mr Saffer said.
This is what the Jewish Leadership Council website says about Laurence Saffer:-

 

Laurence Saffer has lived in Leeds all his life and has been involved in a number of communal groups over the years, including Habonim Dror.

As LJRC president, Laurence aims to ensure that the voice of all parts of the Leeds Jewish community and surrounding areas is heard and acted upon by all local decision makers, and that the Jewish community continues to be loud and proud. Laurence is also a judge who sits in Bradford and London.

The Habonim Dror claims to be:-

A Socialist Zionist Culturally Jewish youth movement. Through a progressive lens we create a culture and educate based on our worldly values of equality.

Habonim Dror has been pioneering the future of the Jewish people for over 85 years internationally and is continuing to do so in a fun and engaging way. We do this through weekly activities, residential weekends, Day-Schemes, Israel programs and Summer Camp.

Labour conspiring to break-up England at Cardiff meeting on 29th March 2017

Anti-English conspirator?


Even long-term Labour Party stalwarts now realise that Labour is set on conspiring to break-up England!

Here is what a former MP and minister, who is now a Director of the Centre of English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester, Prof John Denham wrote on the 30th March 2017:-

“There can be no Labour recovery unless Labour wins England. Labour’s wipe out in Scotland and it’s current third place in the polls there leaves the party in an even weaker position than in England. It will actually be easier to win an English majority than in Britain as a whole.

What Labour says and does about England is critical. Which is why yesterday’s devolution summit looks like such a bad move. The plan is clear. A federal Union of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the regions. These regions – that virtually no one in England wants or recognises – will not have the same powers as Scotland or Wales, but some limited devolution from the UK federal government. I’m in favour of a federal UK based on the four nations. I’m in favour of devolution within England. But it should be the English people who decide how this is to be done.

I must admit that I’m unclear how official this taskforce is, though the presence of Jon Trickett and Jim McMahon give it front bench endorsement. But it is a curious body to decide on the carve up of a nation.

The leaders of Welsh and Scottish Labour are there. As are three English male mayoral candidates who have yet to be elected. The women mayoral candidates were not present. One man represents all of English local government. No one present has an unambiguous brief to represent the interests of England as a whole. And little has been said about consultation within the party, let alone the promised, wider, constitutional convention.

Those involved have been studiously vague about the details of their plans for England, but we can glean quite a lot from Gordon Brown’s recent speech, Jeremy Corbyn’s interviews and other policy statements.

I hope I’m wrong but this seems to be how Labour’s 2020 manifesto for England is shaping up:

England will be divided into regions that few support and were rejected in the North East in 2004
These regions will be under the rule of the UK government (made up of MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England) and will only get limited powers devolved from it.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get new powers as of right. England will get no new powers.
The English regions will not get the same legislative powers as Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland currently enjoy.
No elected body will speak for England as a whole
Laws affecting England will continue to be made by MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. English Votes for English Laws will be repealed.
There will be no executive dedicated to implementing policy for England as a whole.
English regions will be denied control of their own resources.
England will still pay for the Barnett formula and and the use of English resources will be determined by the UK federal government
Scotland will gain new fiscal powers but England will still underwrite the UK’s social security bill.
Scotland will be able to sign international treaties; England will have international treaties signed for it by the UK federal government. 
The dynamic leadership being shown by Labour English councils will be marginalised in favour of new regional assemblies.
English local authorities will not gain any additional powers as of right

It’s clear how this works for Scotland. Much less clear who in England would vote for it. And that is where, in the immediate future, Labour’s recovery must come…. Instead we seem to be drifting towards the dismemberment of England and the undermining of its legitimate interests.”

Here is Labour’s own report on that meeting (or should I say anti-English conspiracy?):-

“Labour say constitution “no longer fit for purpose” as devolution taskforce meets


Labour has said the UK’s constitution is “no longer fit for purpose” as the party’s devolution taskforce meets in Cardiff today (29th March 2017)

The taskforce which will look at how to redistribute powers and resources across all nations and regions after Brexit.

“As leading Labour figures from across the UK, we reject this Whitehall power grab – and call on the UK Government as part of the Brexit negotiations to agree to the transfer of powers over agriculture, fisheries, regional policy and environmental protection to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.”

The proposals developed through the taskforce with form the basis of a Labour-led Constitutional Convention, which will look at a federal framework of nations and regions.

The taskforce includes former prime minister Gordon Brown, Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Jon Trickett, Labour’s Cabinet Office Spokesperson will be involved in helping draft the plans.

Shadow Welsh Secretary Christina Rees, shadow local government and devolution minister Jim McMahon are also members. As are Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram and Siôn Simon – the party’s mayoral candidates for Greater Manchester, the Liverpool City Region and the West Midlands.

The ideas that come out of the taskforce will be shared in a nationwide constitutional convention.”

Take note of the role of Andy Burnham, that long-term enemy of England, of Englishness and of English patriotism! Burnham is standing as Labour’s candidate for Mayor of Greater Manchester (against our Stephen Morris).

Here is what he said in a recorded, televised interview of Andy Burnham, uploaded to YouTube on the 21st August 2010 entitled:-

“Andy Burnham not in favour of an ‘English’ Parliament”

This is a verbatim transcript of the whole of that uploaded interview with Andy Burnham. The Interviewer asked Andy Burnham:-

“A recent survey returned 68% of English People in favour of an English Parliament. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are all benefiting from their own Parliament and Assemblies working in their interests. Isn’t it time the people of England were consulted on an English Parliament working in the interests of the People of England?”

Andy Burnham replied:-

“What I see around Europe is a trend towards nationalist or even regional based politics and politics based on geography and I must say I don’t like it. It doesn’t speak to me. It’s happening in Belgium, the Belgium’s are becoming very fractured along regional lines. It is happening in the Netherlands. It has obviously happened in Wales and Scotland with the both nationalist parties in those places gaining support and I don’t have that view on politics.”

“Politics for me is about values, not about geography, it is not about defending territory. It is about what kind of person you are and what kind of society you are going to build and what message do you send out about yourself. Are you open to working with other people, other places and not having a narrow nationalist view of politics and no I don’t tend towards an English Parliament.”

“I do want to see more power vested in the English “Regions” and I campaigned for Regional Assemblies to give more democratic power to the “Regions”. I would have a democratically constituted House of Lords, elected House of Lords, where the “Regions” would have their voice drawn from regionalists.”

“The Lords should be a true voice of the “Regions” rather than London. It is a London dominated House of Lords at the moment and I would change it in that way, but no I wouldn’t have an English Parliament. I am born in Liverpool, of Irish ancestry, of Scottish links in the past and close to Wales. I consider myself British and I as Culture Secretary campaigned for a British football team at the Olympics because I consider myself to be British first and foremost. I am proud to be British and I don’t like this trend towards the break-up of the United Kingdom.”

The link to the original uploaded interview can be found here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTjgz6Dr8Ns

So there we have it. Now we know why Andy Burnham is one of Labour’s conspirators trying to break up England in collusion with Leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

In Burnham’s own words:-

“I wouldn’t have an English Parliament.” “I am born in Liverpool, of Irish ancestry, of Scottish links in the past and close to Wales. I consider myself British”!

Cambridge Professor Nicholas Boyle has been reported to the police for a “Hate Incident”. He called the English “the lager louts of Europe”.

Cambridge Professor Nicholas Boyle has been reported to the police for a “Hate Incident”. He called the English “the lager louts of Europe”.


The English Democrats’ Chairman, Robin Tilbrook has reported Professor Nicholas Boyle of Magdalene College, Cambridge to Essex police for making various insulting and offensive remarks about the English in his article published in the “New European” called “Leave voters are “larger louts of Europe”. 

The problem with the English: England doesn’t want to be just another member of a team – Top Stories – The New European

In the article Professor Boyle wrote:- 

“The referendum vote does not deserve to be respected because, as an outgrowth of English narcissism it is itself disrespectful of others, of our allies, partners and neighbours, friends, and in many cases, even relatives. Less resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, 17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.”

He also wrote:-

“Those who voted Leave were being asked to express an emotion about membership, and the English, but not the Irish or Scots, felt so urgent a need to express it that they threw reason and practicality to the winds”

Professor Boyle also compared the English to Putin’s Russian which “suffers from the same trauma of imperial amputation”.

 
Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, said:- “When I read what this Professor had written I realised that he had deliberately, publically insulted the English generally. There is no doubt that he was meaning to be both insulting and offensive to the English nation.

Professor Boyle has therefore been logged by Essex Police as a “suspect” in a “Hate Incident” logged under Hate Crime reference number 42/17384/17.

Robin continued:- “Naturally as an Englishman I am offended by such a tirade by a person who is supposed to be and is paid to be a role model for students. I have therefore reported this to the police as a “Hate Incident”. 

Attacking the English is just as much “Racist” as attacking other racial, ethnic and national groups. 

We English should not put up with such anti-English racist insults and attacks without taking action against the perpetrators”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats