Category Archives: Politics

Wages and benefits are not comparable

Robert Henderson

The Coalition’s line on benefits will not hold water.   The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith claims it is unreasonable for benefits to rise in line with inflation when wages are not doing so (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9787094/Iain-Duncan-Smith-raising-benefits-with-inflation-would-be-absurd.html). This ignores two things: what it costs to live even at a subsistence level and the effects of those in work drawing benefits, especially working tax credits.

To compare benefits with wages is nonsensical. Wages may be at any level from the plutocratic to that which is insufficient to fund  even a basic standard of living.  Benefits are fixed and are far from generous.  The real question to ask when considering the uprating of benefits is not whether they are too generous but whether they are sufficient to allow someone to live at the subsistence level.  To do this the distribution of expenditure at  different levels of income must be taken into account. The poorer a person is the more of their money will go on essential such as housing, food, clothing travel and energy.  These are items which apart from clothing have been rising rapidly over the past year or two. It could reasonably be argued that those on benefits (whether in work or not) require an increase much larger than the average wage rise.

The idea that people can live the life of Riley on benefits  does not hold water. For those who have signed on as unemployed the Jobseekers Allowance is £56.25 (single person under 25), £71 (single person over 25)  and £111.45   (couple both aged over 18),    £71  (Lone parent 18 or over) £56.25  (Lone parent under 18) https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/what-youll-get .  If you are single without children or a childless couple,   living on benefits is self-evidently not going to be a great deal of fun. (The figures and qualifications for benefits I shall give are those under the  present circumstances. These will change when the Universal Benefit goes live in April this year).

What pushes benefits payments up to the high figures often cited by the media are child related benefits and above all housing-related benefits to pay   mortgage interest or  rent and Council Tax. But to bring in the money for  children you need quite a few.    Child Benefit is £20 for the first child and £13.40 for each subsequent child.  If a family has ten children this would mean they received £140.60. Useful, but not a vast amount when applied to the costs of raising ten children.  The benefit goes in full  to anyone with children whether working or not, provided their income does not reach £50,000 and in part for anyone earning between £50,000 and  £60,000.  (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/payments-entitlements/payments/rates.htm#1).  In addition, both the unemployed and employed can draw Child Tax Credit for dependent children (under the age of 18) , which can be up to £2,690 for an able bodied child and up to  £4,140 for the most disabled children (https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit).   Those figures are of course dependent on the family’s total earned income where the claimants are in work and the amount of savings whether in work or unemployed.  Someone claiming Job Seekers Allowance or Income Support  and not breaching the maximum savings  before benefit starts to be withdrawn  (currently £6,000),  the parent (or other responsible adult) will receive  £64.99 per week for each child (http://tinyurl.com/anpea3u). The notional family with ten children would get £650 a week in addition to the £140 child benefit, but of course  such a family  would be very much the exception.  The average family with two children wholly dependent on benefits would (excluding mortgage interest or rent and council tax benefit) have £274.85 (£111.45 for the couple; 2 x £64.99 for the JSA/Income support payments for the children  and £33.40 child benefit).

The real poison in the benefits system is the cost of Housing Benefit.   Those who are unemployed or on low incomes are likely to be living in rented accommodation. Rents have gone through the roof in the past few years as mortgages become hard to get and new build housing has slowed to a trickle. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/families-facing-squeeze-as-rents-rise-fastest-in-the-suburbs-8442313.html). To get private rented accommodation in London suitable for a family of four  ( a minimum of a three bedroom flat) would cost between £1-2,000 per month even in the cheaper areas.  A rental of £1,500 per month is £18,000 per year which takes around 70% of the new proposed cap of £26,000 for total benefits paid to any family.  Outside of London rents are not so high,  but in many places , especially the South East, they have risen substantially.  Here is an example from Croydon in Surrey:

“Henrietta Bergman-Janes lives with her husband Michael and their daughter Adelaide, three, in a privately rented two-bedroom flat in south Croydon.

The family survives on an income of about £19,000 from his job in a bank and £400-a-month housing benefit. The rent of £825 a month leaves just enough to live on — but nothing more. They hardly ever go out, cannot afford holidays and saving for a deposit is out of the question.

Mrs Bergman-Janes, 24, said: “We would love to buy our own place and stop being at the mercy of the whims of a landlord, but we can’t even stay out of our overdrafts or pay off our credit cards, how are we supposed to magic up a £25,000 deposit?”

She said rents in Croydon were rising steadily. When the couple were first looking in 2008 small flats were about £600 to £650 a month. “But before we moved into this place we were going to estate agents and said £800 was the most we could afford. They just started laughing at us saying ‘you can’t get anything for that price’.” (Ibid)

An added complication is that millions of those who work also draw various working tax credits or income support (paid to those working less than 16 hours a week – https://www.gov.uk/income-support/overview) which raise incomes to subsistence level. In addition, many of the employed also draw housing  (vide the £400 per month claimed in the example above) and council tax benefit.  If all benefits are claimed, no individual or couple without children  should  probably be no worse off than those under state retirement age who are unemployed because in work benefits are on a sliding scale. A  family with children  or a single parent could be worse off  if they have to pay a professional child minder, although even there the state provides subsidy through Childcare tax credits  with up to 70% of the costs up to a maximum of  £175 per week for a single child and £300 for two or more children. (https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/childcare-tax-credits) .  However, those in work will often be no better off than someone  who is unemployed.

The Working Tax Credits for the low paid are substantial.  For example, a couple with three children  with an annual income of £10,000 would qualify for tax credits of £11,815 (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-no-childcosts.htm ). Working Tax Credit can be paid if a claimant is off sick (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/keep-up-to-date/changes-affect/work-changes/no-work-illness.htm).

There is the intriguing possibility  that a single parent in work  or a  couple  in work on a low income  with  two or more children might  receive more in overall benefits through Childcare  Tax Credit, Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit than the £26,000 cap for the unemployed coming in with the proposed Universal Benefit in  April 2013.

There are pernicious effects of working tax credits.  These have the effect of a very substantial subsidy to employers who can keep their wages below subsistence level in the knowledge that the taxpayer will make up the difference between what they pay and what is needed to live.  Even if a worker is in full time employment,  this is highly unsatisfactory because it distorts the labour market and places an ever growing burden on the taxpayer.  It also provides encouragement to the immigrant  to work in Britain over and above the great incentive of earning even the minimum wage in the UK which allows them to save a few thousand a year, savings which are worth multiples in terms of purchasing power in their homelands of their purchasing power in this country.

But working tax credit are not restricted to full-time workers. At present the  rules for those under 60 who are able bodied are:

What hours do you need to work?

You don’t have children

If you’re not responsible for children, you need to work the following hours to get Working Tax Credit:

if you’re aged 25 or over, you need to do paid work of at least 30 hours a week

if you have a disability and are aged 16 or over, you need to do paid work of at least 16 hours a week

if you’re aged 60 or over, you need to do paid work of at least 16 hours a week

How to work out usual working hours for your tax credits claim

You have children

If you’re responsible for children you need to be aged at least 16, and work the following hours to get Working Tax Credit:

if you’re single, you need to do paid work of at least 16 hours a week

if you’re in a couple, your joint paid working hours need to be at least 24 a week, with one of you working at least 16 hours a week

So if you’re a couple and only one of you is working, that person will need to work at least 24 hours a week.( http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start/who-qualifies/workingtaxcredit/work.htm#1)

These rules provide strong incentives for people to do just the minimum hours needed to qualify for the tax credit.  Imagine the temptation for a single parent who only needed to work for 16 hours a week  or a couple with one working who was only required to work  24 hours a week to prefer to do only the hours needed rather than a full week’s work.  If it is a mundane low paid job,   which almost certainly it will be,  in either case the pay for the hours worked plus working tax credit would probably be the same as if the person worked a 40-hour  week.

The rules also  provides an incentive to employers to offer  minimum wage part-time jobs with the minimum qualifying hours, which should also allow the employer to avoid both the employers’ and employees’  national insurance (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/rates-thresholds.htm#1).

The reality is that no firm line can be drawn between the working and the unemployed. The attempt at resurrecting  the Victorian idea of the deserving and undeserving poor, a part from being obnoxious,  is a non-starter when so many want a job or are forced  to work part-time or take jobs which do not pay a living wage.

Britain’s low wage economy

The problem is really Britain’s low wage economy.  This is a consequence of mass immigration , which has risen to alarming heights in the past ten years  and has resulted in both a reduction in wage levels and increased competitions for jobs,  the offshoring of huge numbers of jobs, the contraction of  public sector employment since the crash following Lehmann Bros failure in 2008 and the reckless inflation of the cost of housing, both purchased and rented, resulting from massive immigration, the loose monetary policy of the Blair and Brown governments and the failure of all governments since Thatcher to build sufficient social housing.

To remedy these ills Britain must regain control over its borders by leaving the EU and repudiating any other treaties which give foreigners the right to settle here; engage in a programme of social housing building on the scale of the 1950s;  reserve social housing for those born British citizens;  penalise private developers who  hoard land by placing a tax on the land while it remains unbuilt on ; subsidise public transport more heavily and engage in judicious protectionism to preserve necessary commerce and  industry.

The  new social housing and  further subsidy for public transport can be easily funded by reducing current public spending massively by  ending foreign  Aid (saves £11 billion); reducing the per capita Treasury payment to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by reducing it to the English figure   (saves £16 billion)  and leaving the EU (saves £11 billion  on the difference between what the UK pays in and what it gets out  http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/336667/Now-our-payments-to-the-EU-hit-53m-each-day) . That releases  £38 billion for the Government to spend.

These steps will have the effect of reducing the price of housing and raising pay both in real terms and because much less of a wage or salary will have to be spent on housing and travel costs.  That will gradually reduce the dependence on Working Tax Credits which ideally should be abolished because of their pernicious effects.  Higher wages  and reduced housing and travel costs will also mean  less pressure for women to go out to work when they have pre-school age children. That will reduce the need for highly paid childcare.   The long-term aim should be to reach a situation where it is  the norm for  a single wage to be  enough on which to raise a family.

What has happened to Emma West?

Robert Henderson

It is now 14 months since Emma West was charged with racially aggravated public order offences after she got into an argument on a tram which led her to make loud complaint about the effects of mass immigration. This was captured by a passenger on a mobile phone and uploaded to YouTube. The details of her arrest and treatment plus a link to the incident on YouTube can be found at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state/.

Three times her trial  has been delayed, on the  third occasion in early September last year (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/emma-west-trial-delayed-for-the-third-time/).  No further trial date was set then and to the best of my knowledge none has been set since her last appearance in court. (If anyone has more up to date information please let me know).  On each occasion the delay was ascribed to the need to complete psychiatric reports on Miss West.  It stretches credulity way beyond breaking to believe such reports could not have been completed long ago.

Why has there been this inexcusable and increasingly absurd delay? Despite being put into a high security prison for more than a month (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state-part-2/)  and having the risk that her son be taken into care, Miss West has made it clear throughout that she wishes to plead Not Guilty.    The reason for the delay  probably lies in that plea. The liberal elite rely on people charged with such offences being intimidated into pleading Guilty.  A full blown trial would mean public discussion of the consequences of mass immigration and the ruthless measures which the liberal elite use to suppress such debate.  They  greatly fear that because it would risk the politically correct emperor being shown to have no clothes. .

The facts of the case speak for themselves: the behaviour of the authorities is not compatible with a free society.

—————————————————————————————————

UPDATE 9/1/2013

Miss West was scheduled to come to trial on 2 January,  but the case was adjourned for the fourth time because an unspecified expert was not available.  A new trial date has not been set  ( http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Trial-alleged-tram-racist-Emma-West-adjourned/story-17782550-detail/story.html).

The continuing and ever more absurd delay suggests that the powers-that-be are in a quandary about what to do. It is unlikely Miss West  will change her plea to Guilty after this length of time and the awful prospect for the authorities of a trial in which the official  omerta against speaking honestly about race and immigration will be broken looms ever larger. On the other hand,  if the case is dropped it will be a signal to the public that the liberal elite are afraid of any public challenge to their creed.

Miss West has also been charged with assaults against the police:

“West was also due to appear at Croydon Magistrates’ Court on Monday charged with assaulting two police officers at her home on March 3, 2012.
She denies both charges and the trial has been rescheduled to occur on March 4.” (Ibid)

To the best of my knowledge  this is the first time these charges have appeared in the media.  If the assaults took place  ten  months ago it is a little difficult to understand why the  case has not already been tried as it is magistrate court case or why the case did not proceed on its original January date , which I take to have been 7 January.  It will be interesting to see if it does take place on 4 March. If it does not,  and the Crown Court case on the race-related charges has not been heard by then, it will be a strong indication that the CPS  want the racial abuse case out of the way before she is tried for the alleged  assault.  It could be that it has been kicked down the road simply  to give the  authorities two months to think about whether the Crown Court case should proceed.

Sixty years ago – we were naturally greener then

Robert Henderson

The world of sixty years ago

I was born in  England in 1947 into a world  where the national watchwords were  “make do and mend” and “waste-not-want-not“.   That was in part attributable  to  post-war austerity ,  but mostly  it was simply a continuation of what had always  been the case.

Packaging was still in its infancy.  Most  things which are now ready-wrapped , especially food, were  sold  loose.  People  routinely took their purchases away  from shops and market stalls in their own bags.  Where stores provided bags they were made of paper  which decomposed rapidly and naturally. .

Many glass bottles were could be  returned  to retailers for which the person returning them was paid a penny or two a bottle. The retailer then sent them back to the manufacturers for re-use. If not returned for re-use bottles , together with jam-jars were, commandeered to store home pickled fruit and vegetables ,  conserves such as chutney, jam and marmalade and  home brewed drinks like  elderberry wine.  Milk was  almost always supplied in  glass bottles which were commonly  collected by the milkman and  re-used more than once

Paper was commonly re-pulped.  As with bottles,  paper  could  be collected by private individuals and  sold  either to those collecting it for re-pulping or  to businesses which used paper as packaging.  Where it was not  sold it was frequently used around the home in functions as diverse as insulation, the lighting of fires and the preservation of food  (fruit  such as apples could be made to  keep throughout the winter by  wrapping  each individual fruit in paper which  cut off the supply of oxygen.)

Clothes and  footwear  were not considered things  which should be thrown  away at the first sign of wear. Instead, they  were repaired, normally in the home,  when torn. As they became worn clothes  and shoes  would be relegated from best to workaday to suitable for rough work involving  manual labour .. Or they might be given away or sold  to second hand dealers.  Even the rich were not as profligate  as they are now ,for they frequently passed their clothes down to their servants or  donated them to the poor.  Material which was beyond further use  as clothes or  household items such as sheets  was pulped to make cheap paper  re-worked into fresh cloth.

What applied to soft goods   was generally the order of the day . Hard durable  household goods, from crockery to  electrical  items were used for as long as possible. If they broke down,  became damaged or worn through use they were repaired.

The Rag and Bone man was a familiar sight, a breed of men  who  hoovered up  all manner of things now sent to landfill and incinerators., sorted them and sold them on  to anyone from the general  public to dealers in anything from clothes to scrap metal.

There was  a strong second-hand trade in virtually all  durable manufactured products. Today  the second hand trade in everything apart from motor vehicles and furniture  is a pale imitation of what it was 60 years ago, being largely confined to charity shops and  car-boot sales.

There were far fewer machines, both in the home and the workplace. In 1948 even a middleclass home would  be unlikely to have  more than  a refrigerator,  boiler for the water, a  radio, a cooker, a telephone, an electric fire  and  a washing machine and many would not have as many machines as that.  In a working-class home  a radio, cooker and fire would be the most which would be found and a  minority  would have no machines at all, gaining their power from the burning of wood, coal, paraffin  or coke.

Britain manufactured  most of  what it consumed . Where the country was not entirely self-sufficient   it  had a manufacturing capability  for  every  widely used manufactured product and all of the essential ones.   Unlike now,  Britain built its own ships, aircraft, trains  and road vehicles using British-owned and controlled  enterprises.   Our manufacturing base  was so comprehensive  we could   supply our  armed forces with virtually everything  they  needed.  Of course, a  larger manufacturing base meant  more raw materials were imported  than now,  but that entry on the debit side of the green ledger  was dwarfed by  the savings  on the  import of  manufactured goods,  even when the greater export of  manufactured goods  then than  now is added into the balance.

Most of the food consumed was grown in Britain and much of  it was consumed locally. It was rarely wasted because it  took  a larger proportion of the average family income than now  and  refrigerators and convenience foods were  not the norm.  The lack of refrigerators  meant food was brought  as it was definitely required  not  in anticipation of when it  might be  required, while the fact that  most  meals had to be prepared from scratch provided a natural check on preparing more than would be eaten because of the time and effort involved. .    What was not eaten ended up re-appearing on the diner table on another day or was re-constituted into another dish.  People, even  those in towns and cities, often grew  some of their own vegetables and fruit  with urban allotments and gardens being an important source of  many a family’s food.

Cars were  still  comparatively few in number and, consequently , for most  public transport was the order of the day. People tended to  work within easy travelling distance of  where they lived, frequently  walking to work.  When people went on  holiday it was  normally in Britain  and often not that far from home. International travel was still very much  the province of the better-off.

Public transport  even outside the  larger urban areas was adequate  and  much   goods traffic went by rail in the pre-Beeching days when the  railway network was truly national. and there were no motorways  to promote the use of gigantic  HGVs.

Oil consumption was low compared with  today because  of the small  number of private vehicles,  the widespread use of  coal. and the relatively primitive state of the chemical industry  –  plastics were in their infancy – which  meant oil derived products other than  petrol diesel  and paraffin  were few.

The widespread use of coal meant more carbon dioxide going into the air, but against that  most of the coal was produced from British mines  which greatly reduced  the need to transport  the raw materials of  energy  to and within Britain.  Industrial pollution was less  tightly controlled than today  with  much dumping of waste into  rivers.  However, that is balanced by  the fact that farming was much less reliant on chemicals   which today are  a major cause of environmental contamination.

The general mentality of the population was  to get  full value  from whatever they owned.  There was no widespread  desire  to  replace things with the latest  model simply because the thing  a person had was out of date.  Of course, people wanted new devices such as televisions  and washing machines, but once they had one they expected it to last for a long time.

People   paid cash for almost everything and  if they wanted something  saved for it. Sixty years ago credit was difficult to get. There were no credit cards, mortgages were given out very grudgingly after an extended  period of saving with a building society   and a bank loan  was something  only  readily  available  to the  middleclass, the majority of working people not having bank accounts.    Even hire purchase was  far from easy to obtain if you  were not in an employment which you had occupied for  at least  a year or two.

There was a general horror of debt.  Bankruptcy was seen as little better than theft.. Most people lived  from payday to payday. The welfare state was  in its infancy and  provided far less than  it does today. All of this meant that people had  to take responsibility for their own lives.

Advertising  was  far less potent in 1948. It  had been  growing in strength since  the rise of the popular press in the latter part of Victoria’s reign, but  sixty years ago it was still an infant  compared with what it is today.  Not only was there no Internet, there was no commercial radio or television  and  newspapers and most magazines were thin and drab. Full colour, high quality printing  for general consumption was  a long way in the future.  Cinemas were more important than today as advertising conduits, but  these were places people went to perhaps once a week and the advertising was fleeting and hidden amongst a host of trailers, shorts,  government sponsored propaganda films such as “This is life”  and  the normal double bill of two full length features.  The opportunities  for companies to  create a “must have  more and must  it now” mentality were very limited.

The world today  – how we got from A to B

Today we have a society whose watchword is throw it away if it is not brand new and buy something else.  Manufactured goods are   discarded  not because they are worn out but because people are tired of them; items which could be repaired are not repaired because it  is cheaper to buy a new  and “improved” model;  large amounts of food are  thrown away;  most things come in packaging  derived from petroleum products which do not naturally degrade; debt is taken on in astonishing  fashion without a  visible qualm and bankruptcy is commonly seen as nothing more than a shame-free  and legitimate means  to avoid paying your debts;  our industrial base  has withered, we import nearly half our food  and  most people appear to  have no sense of   wanting to get  full value from what they buy   by using  what they  own to its fullest extent.

Why have things changed so much in sixty  years?  It was not a rapid  reformation for the  make-do-and-mend, waste-not-want-not   mentality  took a long time dying.  Even today   older people  find wasting food and discarding things  which still have wear in them  unsettling  – I  do  myself.

The rot really began to set in during the Thatcher years  in the 1980s as the post-war British political  consensus  dissolved  and  Thatcher began the process of   deliberately dismantling private British industry  through the removal of protectionist  barriers, most notably  by her agreement to the Single European Act. At  the same time  Thatcher ruthlessly diminished  directly provided public services  by  means ranging from the wholesale privatisation  of  the  nationalised utilities to  piecemeal  disengagement  by allowing  private firms to take on vast swathes of work previously done in-house by the British state. Some of the newly privatised industries  such as ship building and mining , which other states still protected , were,  unsurprisingly rapidly destroyed by the  removal of state protection.   The Thatcherite mantra  was continuously repeated: Private enterprise good,  public provision bad. The work of Thatcher has been  religiously continued  by Major, Blair and Brown.

The consequence of  a quarter of a century of Thatcherite economics allied to liberal internationalist politics has been the wholesale   export of jobs to the Third and Second  Worlds., most notably to China.  Manufacturing  has suffered most,  but increasingly  service jobs have been  lost.  In the past ten years the middle-class have discovered that  their jobs are at risk as well as those of the working-class.

Job availability and security has also been attacked  from within. Immigration has run riot since  Labour came to power in 1997,  especially since  new countries such as Poland joined the EU and were allowed free access to  Britain to live and work. This recent  immigration has put intense pressure on scarce resources such as housing and healthcare and undercut the wages of  many  Britons, especially  those in manual trades and unskilled and semi-skilled jobs.  Often Britons have not merely been undercut  but have found themselves wilfully  excluded from jobs because employers prefer to employ  immigrants because they are easier to control.

The transfer of much of our manufacturing capacity  by both off-shoring  British operations and the simple substitution of  home-produced goods with imports has produced   very cheap consumer goods  in certain areas, most notably  clothing and electronics. This has certainly been the main cause of the constriction of  the second hand  trades  and  one of the  prime drivers prompting  people to change goods more regularly.

These policies  have  created  of a large  reserve army of indigenous  labour, mostly   from within the working class,  whose natural employments  had been destroyed wholesale, and  a general   feeling  that nothing is permanent any more. This sense  of   insecurity has been religiously fed  by  the political elite. For a quarter of a century British Governments  have  routinely spoken  of  “being in a global economy” and   that “there is no such thing as a job for life now”  and how  “people must retrain several times within their lifetime”. In the past 15 years the elite  generally have taken up the  cry.   Most morally damagingly perhaps,  the British  have been  constantly told  by those in positions of power and  influence, directly and by implication,  that  to be rich  is  the ultimate  end of life, that the pursuit of  wealth  is morally  desirable without regard to its consequences, a mentality summed up graphically by Gordon Gecko in the film Wall Street with the line “Greed is good“.  Life, the neo-liberals  imply,  is   no more than a  web of economic  relations.

The sense of powerlessness  felt by the  ordinary person  has been  enhanced by the growing power of the EU over British affairs and  the persistent denigration of the nation  state by those with access to the mainstream media, a denigration which was  couched by the political elite in terms of how the nation state was a thing of the past  at best and   a positive evil at worst.

Most damaging in the long term  is mass immigration. This  both introduced a fracture into British society  which had never existed before and  provided the  liberal  elite  with the means to  suppress native  disquiet   about  the immigration  and promote the internationalist creed under its new title of multiculturalism. The message of multiculturalism was stark and simple: all people from wherever they come and whatever their  culture and  loyalties have equal rights and  the indigenous population of  Britain has no special place or rights within their ancestral land.  Those who opposed the new creed  – and the vast majority instinctively did – were censored,  threatened with the criminal law, lived in fear of the loss of their employment and were subjected to a totalitarian tide of  “anti-racist” propaganda.   Unsurprisingly, overt  public opposition of any sort  was rare  and those amongst the elite who were disturbed by what was happening  remained entirely mute.  The natural  emotional mooring posts of a society  were cut down and the individual left to drift in a  soulless materialist world..

At the same time as their  world was made impermanent and  feelings of insecurity grew and they  were denied the comfort of  both feeling part of a nation and of expressing their sense of belonging, , the majority became steadily  richer, despite the high inflation of the late eighties and early nineties and the housing slump of the early nineties.  The average wage increased  remorselessly in real terms  until recent years,  and those who managed to get on the housing ladder before, say,   2000  saw their  equity  in the property shoot up  dramatically , a most significant fact because  around  70% of the adult population now live in properties in which they  have  some equity, in most cases substantial equity. A  significant part of  that equity has been  released. through the taking out of second mortgages or other  borrowing against the property.  The consequence of rising wages and equity release  was an immense amount  of money swilling around in the economy.  To that must be added the vast  growth in  other credit .

The home ownership boom was driven by  two main developments. In the twenty years after 1979 mortgages  became  virtually granted on demand  as  lenders relaxed the rules and made ever laxer checks on the information given by applicants.  The multiplier of a person’s  income  rose from the traditionally cautious  two times  salary to three or four times by the late nineties.   Deposits were reduced until  100% mortgages were common. Eventually, a healthy market even developed in mortgages for more than the value of the property as lenders gambled on the  seemingly ever rising house prices rapidly covering the difference.  The second  driver was  the introduction of the Right-To-Buy  law which  transferred  large amounts of public housing  to private ownership by giving those in public housing large discounts on the market price of their dwellings.

Similar irresponsible  behaviour was seen in  the other credit markets. Private individuals  were bombarded by  offers of credit cards, bank loans  and store cards . Even more than in the case of mortgages  the lenders were lax  in  checking  the veracity of the information given and people frequently managed to obtain  a dozen or more credit lines, the repayment of which were utterly beyond their resources.

Add together  the growing sense of  uncontrollable impermanence, the suppression of  national expression, the incessant pro-laissez faire propaganda   and  the rising disposable wealth  and  it is not surprising   that rampant consumerism  took  hold.

Can the mentality  change?

Will we go on  in this fashion or  is there a possibility that we might return if not exactly to make-do-and-mend  to a  less economically  hectic way of living?  There are good reasons why we might. Governments  including our own are starting to acknowledge the dangers of being dependent on foreigners for   fundamental things such as  energy and food  and the frighteningly large recent immigration  has at last forced  some honest public discussion of the  ill-effects of   massive numbers of foreigners having free  entry to our  country.

To this may be added  the uncertain state of  both the British and the World economy. Due to an abdication of  responsibility for controlling credit  by  governments  throughout the advanced world, and nowhere  has been  more culpable than Britain,  there is now a general contraction of  credit.  In Britain we have the frightening spectacle of a  bank created out  of a converted building society , Northern Rock, being   actively  financed  by the taxpayer  via the Bank of England  to the tune of some £25-30 billion as  I write (December 2007)  with a further £25 billion or so of  the Bank’s deposits  being underwritten by the  taxpayer through Treasury guarantees.  To  put this in context  total UK Government spending  for the financial year 2007/8  is estimated in the  Red Book as £586 billion. (The Red Book is the Treasury publication which contains the budget details and the  estimates for government spending and revenue  in the financial year to which the  budget refers).

The fact that a single bank has produced a government commitment of  8-10% of total  Government spending  should put the fear of God into the Government and cause them to keep credit tight. (If they do that it  will probably be by keeping Bank Rate high rather than  targeted credit controls such as restrictions on the multiplier of  income  which mortgage providers  may offer). However, do  not bet on it because  modern Governments have made a God of growth and higher rates mean lower growth. The fact that  the supposedly independent Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee reduced Bank Rate  in December 2007 despite rising inflation suggests that  this Government may continue to behave irresponsibly.

But even if the Government does not  act to tighten credit the market  may  do the job sufficiently to make things unpleasant enough to  change  the public mentality. In fact, it already  has, with restrictions on the granting of   credit  to private individuals ,  both by a  higher level of outright refusal and by  less attractive terms for  mortgages and personal loans  for those  who can obtain credit. At  the corporate level,  credit is becoming more difficult  to obtain and  expensive  where it can be obtained. Small businesses  are  finding it particularly  hard going.. Even  clearing banks  such as Barclays have struggled to obtain enough credit  as they  reduce the amount of  inter-bank loans.  It is also interesting that the  Bank Rate cut in  December 2007  did not  produce an equivalent drop in the short-term lending rate  between the banks which is what is causing the immediate problem. It is a moot point whether  the central Bank’s prime rate is still  an effective credit control instrument.

Unless  the credit crisis  is  quickly overcome it could well drive the world into a serious recession or even a full blown depression.  Even if it turns  out to be  a temporary phenomenon , there are still plenty of other reasons why  the  British economy could be in trouble.  The countries which have been producing   manufactured goods   at absurdly low prices  are rapidly getting richer. This has the effect of both raising their prices  to meet higher wages and  of creating  an ever greater international competition for raw materials  and skills  In Britain  today only one of the four  material essentials of life –   shelter, food,  energy and clothing  –   is  still cheap and even that  one (clothing)  is starting to  rise.  People are  starting to get poorer. They may  be rich in trifles such as  an array of cheap electronics  undreamt of by earlier generations,  but  in the things that really matter, especially  housing, they are poor.

There may be a another  reason why thing may change.   For a quarter of a century the people have been fed on bread and circuses through the concentration on trivial materialism,  but that is a diet  which has little nourishment in it   Perhaps most  are becoming sated with  choice, especially when that choice concerns non-essentials, many of which are either a burden to many  because of the learning process needed to operate them, for example, mobile phones,  or of passing interest and soon discarded. Perhaps people would prefer  a government which defended their  jobs even if this was at the cost of higher  prices.  Perhaps they would prefer to be more secure and a little poorer   On a moral level does it matter that we now live in  a society  where most seem to have  little sense of valuing  what they own , of being  obsessed with things which are essentially trivial such as having the  newest mobile phone?   I think it does because  people have substituted  to a  significant degree    the  worship of  the trivial gods  of material possessions  and  the immediate gratification of   wants  (note wants not needs) for the fundamental  gods of  the family, the local community and  the nation .

The test  by which such questions should be judged  is simple: has the change in mentality  produced a more settled, coherent  and happier society than what went before?    It is difficult to see how it has. The birth rate has dropped below  replacement level  and people are more insecure than they were sixty years ago . Most noticeably, the native population  now live in an atmosphere of fear generated by the successful enforcement of political correctness by the British elite. Sixty years ago there simply was no fear of  losing your job or being prosecuted simply for expressing an  opinion about politics and society.

The indigenous British generation  which is now reaching adulthood  have a  bleak future before them  if things do not radically change:  home ownership becoming an impossible dream for most,  the chances of a secure job paying enough to live a normal life becoming less by the day, public provision being  cut back  ever more ruthlessly and   the control of their ancestral land  being steadily handed to  foreigners by  a Quisling elite.

 

 

 

 

 

SNP 2012 XMAS Novelties

Independence Balloon

When filled with hot air the balloon floats away leaving its owner with nothing to hold onto

Comes in your clan tartan or decorated with Saltires

Hours of  innocent fun

Has a use-by date of  31 December 2013.

IndependenceWorld  

A video game which allows the player to build a fantasy world based on the SNP’s claims about Scottish independence.  Proficient players will be able to create a vibrant make-believe land in which Scotland

–          Keeps  the Pound

–          Has the Bank of England as the lender of last resort

–          Retains   the Queen as head of state

–           Lets its citizens call themselves British

–          Has automatic membership of the EU

–          Keeps UK defence contracts

–          Has citizens with free access to England to work

–          Keeps all the UK  oil and gas tax revenue

–          Does not suffer a stampede of private companies from  Scotland to England

These and many more incredible ideas can be found  in the amazing IndependenceWorld

Best suited to players with a very weak grasp of reality

Barnett Formula One  

There are four players

They draw lots to decide who shall be England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

The player drawing England has to pay for the others

The winner is the person able to put their hands deepest into English taxpayer pockets.

Magic  Independence  Sporran 

Traditional sporran but with an LED display on which a year is set

Watch the huge amounts of  English money disappear  into the sporran before your very eyes as the date setting  is turned to 2013.

When the date is changed to 2014,  the English money magically reappears leaving the sporran empty.

Educational toy of very high quality

Independence JOCK-IN-THE-BOX

Open the box and up pops a figure modelled on Alex Salmond

For many years our best selling item

The 2012 model is updated and instead of saying with the characteristic whine of the toy  DEVOMAXXXXXX or INDEPENDENNNCE  randomly as the box is opened,  the phrases BANNOCKBUUUURN 1314 or  INDEPENDENNNCE  2014  are emitted.

Warning: the repeated whining may not be to everyone’s taste.

EX-PATRIOT-JOCK-IN-A-BOX

Normally kept outside Scotland

Pops up every now and then to declare undying love of Scotland

OIL FANTASY VIDEO GAME

Players attempt to extend Scotland’s territorial waters to cover every offshore oilfield in the world

See how much of other nations’ oil you can claim

Celtic Tiger

Hilariously unrealistic soft toy  but young children will love it.

Warning: must  be kept well away from reality or it will fall apart

Independence Outer Islands Invasion Board Game  

Scenario:  it is 2014. Scotland has voted for Independence .  The Shetlands and the Orkneys have declared their  wish to remain in the UK and  laid  claim to the oil and gas fields within their waters.

The object of the game is for Scotland to invade the islands from the Scottish mainland  and hold them by force.

The game progresses by players throwing dice to move around the board.  This allows players to gather the means to invade.  But squares on the board which aid the invasion are intermingled with squares which contain instructions such as ENGLISH SUBSIDY ENDED – GO BACK TO START; ALL MILITARY EQUIPMENT REMOVED TO ENGLAND – GO BACK TO QUARTERMASTER’S STORES; ROYAL NAVY BLOCKADES SCOTLAND – GO BACK TO START.

Extremely demanding game. No one has managed to invade the Shetlands and Orkneys  during marketing exhibitions of Independence Outer Islands Invasion

Liar! Liar! Video game

The game consists of SNP politicians making statements such as “We have obtained  legal opinion which says an independent Scotland will automatically be part of the EU” and “Scotland pays  more into the UK tax pot than it takes out”.

Players have to guess which are lies and shout LIAR when they believe a lie has been told.

Warning: Players may find the game a little one-dimensional if they simply assume that if an SNP politician has his or her lips moving he or she is  lying.

Independent  Scotland Armed Forces set

Superbly crafted plastic models of the armed forces Scotland will have after independence. These consist of

–          A platoon of soldiers equipped with the latest dirks and claymores

–          A squadron of hang-gliders

–          3 trawlers and five rowing boats

Frighteningly realistic

HURRY,  HURRY, HURRY

BEFORE THE INDEPENDENCE  VOTE COLLAPSES

The Archers – An everyday story of underclass folk

Robert Henderson

Always a programme to capture the politically correct Zeitgeist, the latest evidence of this is in the extended  space given in both the regular Archers and Archers extra programmes to the underclass, the politically correct version of the old idea of the undeserving or hopeless poor.

The underclass are represented by the  Horrobin family. This being the Archers  the Horrobins are  white (natch) and English (natch). The family members have stereotypical underclass names such as Garry, Tracey and  Donna.  One of the men,  Clive,  is a violent career criminal. Another, Keith, has just been jailed for four years for arson committed on  David Archer’s farm.  Bert ,the patriarch of the family,  is a hopeless inadequate unable to look after himself. He and his son Garry live on benefits.  Donna, the wife of Keith,  also incompetent in the basic management of life falls into the coils of a local loan shark who is violently warned off by her brother-in-law Clive who also robs him.  They are a white liberal’s dream: a family who are white and English and begging for politically correct state interference in their lives.

But it is not only the white English underclass  who are in trouble in Ambridge. Above the underclass storyline in the social pecking order, there is  Ed Grundy is running into ever deeper trouble with his premium milk business. Ed is, guess what, white and English.  He is shown as bizarrely incompetent .  His father Eddie is dropping ever heavier hints that he is finding work  becoming ever scarcer.

Then there is Matt Crawford who is (sigh), white and English. Crawford is a property developer of working-class origins who is regarded by his partner Lilian Bellamy  (white and English) as having driven a tenant from one of his properties to his death by Rackmanesque methods of harassment consisting of widely disruptive and unnecessary repair work in an attempt to get the tenant Arthur and his wife Joyce out of the property.  Arthur obligingly dies.  Lilian blames Crawford and starts an affair with Crawford’s half brother Paul (white and English), and the two engage in all too graphic geriatric sex.

Finally there is Lillian’s son James (white and English),  who has spent the past few months living with his mother and Crawford  after breaking his leg attended by his previously estranged girlfriend Leonie (white and English). James is a 40-year-old mother’s boy forever behaving with all the psychological insight of a five-year-old; Leonie is as a caricature of pretentiousness.

Compare the way in which English characters are depicted with the treatment of the ever expanding numbers of ethnic minorities in the soap opera.  Blacks and Asians are generally represented in what the politically correct imagine is a positive manner. They are always good looking and without exception middleclass.  There is Usha the Hindu solicitor married to the local vicar (I am not making this up). The vicar was previously married to a black Jamaican who died. His “dual heritage” daughter Amy is a midwife with a degree. Amy’s erstwhile black lover was in IT. Brian Aldridge’s daughter Kate is married to a black South African journalist. The latest ethnic character Iftikar Shah is a maths teacher and cricket coach.

All the black and Asian characters are either wooden (for example, Amy) or unwitting stereotypes (for example, Amy’s Jamaican grandmother and Usha’s Hindu aunt) . This is because the white liberals who create the Archers have, being white liberals, next to no experience of blacks and Asians other than the Westernised middleclass ones they encounter. Moreover what contact they do have will probably be in the course of their work not in social settings, because these self-proclaimed disciples of the joy of diversity have a strange habit of ling in very white, very English worlds.  It is always worthwhile  running the Chiles Test over them (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/the-chiles-test-for-white-liberal-racial-hypocrisy/) .  The result is  black and Asian characters speaking in stilted or caricature fashion with the white characters studiously avoiding reference to their racial origins and desperately trying to  ingratiate themselves with the black or Asian character. Dearie me, it is just like the social interaction between white liberals and blacks and Asians in real life.

The depiction of the white working-class including the underclass is equally unreal and for the same reason: the white middleclass liberals in charge of the Archers have no experience of the white working-class.   But instead of the crawling masochistic subordination shown to ethnic minorities,  the white liberal has a mixture of hatred and fear for the white working class: hatred because they do not tow the politically correct line; fear because the white liberal knows the white working-class  were betrayed by the left political class through the engine of  mass immigration and  now stands as a permanent rebuke to the white liberal  for his betrayal.  If the white working-class were realistically depicted they would be,  by the definitions used by white liberals, characters which were racist, homophobic and chauvinist.  None of that appears in the white working-class characters in the Archers, not even in the world of the Horrobins.

The white immigrant characters, the numerous seasonal workers employed on the Aldridge farm and Elona,  the Albanian careworker  cannot aspire to the same status as the black and Asian characters, heaven forfend that they should be seen as the equal of the  Asian  and black minorities, but  they are of course hardworking and in the case of Elona putting forward a case for sainthood at some future time.  (Her husband is Darrell has a criminal record and is (sigh) white and English). One of the seasonal workers obligingly turns out to  be gay and has a fling with Brian Aldridge’s  gay stepson Adam Macey, thus pushing  another part of the Archers’ political correct agenda.

So there you have it, the rules of the Archers’ character game.  Characters who are white and English may  be routinely depicted as incompetent, criminal, unpleasant with at least a proportion of them  at or towards  the bottom of the social pile; white immigrants must be shown as honest workers at worst and saint like at best ; blacks and Asians must always be middleclass and generally admirable.

The “wrong” sort of indoctrination (for the Left)

Robert Henderson

An unnamed (because they did not want the children identified) Rotherham couple experienced in fostering  have had three of their charges peremptorily  removed by Rotherham social services (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html). The reason? The couple are members of  the United Kingdom Independence Party  (UKIP) which opposes  further wholesale immigration including that from the EU and multiculturalism.  These policies were  deemed racist by Rotherham social services:

‘They [the fosterers] were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.

The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, ‘What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’

“Then one of them said, ‘Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.’

The fact of UKIP membership was enough to damn the foster parents as unsuitable to raise three East European origin children because according to  Joyce Thacker, the council’s Director of Children and Young People’s Services, the UKIP couple could not meet the children’s  ”cultural and ethnic needs”.  Despite the fact that the UKIP couple had been exemplary foster parents  for a number of years. After being removed from the UKIP foster parents the children were split even though they are siblings (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9704964/Ukip-fostering-row-children-were-split-up-when-removed.html). The claim  of meeting the children’s “cultural and ethnic needs”  is made even more absurd by the fact that the UKIP couple were foster parents trusted to take in children in an emergency,  a fostering status which often resulted in the  foster periods being short.

Since the story about the Rotherham foster parents broke a UKIP candidate has come forward to say that she was not allowed to be a volunteer with the children’s charity Barnardos because of her UKIP connections:

A row over two UKIP members having their foster children removed took a new twist last night when another woman claimed she had been barred from looking after children because she was a party candidate.

Nigel Farage, UKIP leader, condemned ‘another appalling case of discrimination’ after former district nurse Anne Murgatroyd said she had been prevented from volunteering as a mentor for young adults by leading children’s charity Barnardo’s….

Responding to a Mail on Sunday reporter, she wrote: ‘I’d almost gone through their process and been accepted when I told them I’d be standing for UKIP in locals . . . They checked with managers, discussed it, couldn’t accept me due to issue of multi-culturalism.

‘Their rationale was that because UKIP opposes multi-culturalism it would not be appropriate for me to mentor young people coming out of the care system. My argument was that, yes, I do oppose forced marriage and female genital mutilation and family killings but that does not make me unsuitable to befriend young people.’ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238037/UKIP-leader-fury-member-banned-Barnardos-caring-children.html#ixzz2DDOYxVs1).

These two cases suggest that within the social work world, whether state funded or charitable, UKIP have been placed on some sort of black list. This is positively sinister because once agents of the state, whether directly employed or subcontracted labour in organisations such as charities, are allowed to make political judgements in their work anything potentially goes,  including the imposition of blanket bans on those belonging to parties deemed not to be within the ideological Pale of the public servant or organisation.

What Rotherham Social Services and Barnardos are both saying  in effect is that only those signing up to an uncritical political correctness can be considered for participation in childcare socialwork.  However, that is not entirely correct because,   as we shall see,   UKIP’s policies on immigration and multiculturalism are not radically different from those of  the Conservative  Party; neither are they  a million miles from those of Labour.  To the best of my knowledge there is no example of a member of the Conservative or Labour Parties  being denied participation because of their attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism.  The implication of this is that UKIP is seen as a fringe party with limited power which  can be excluded with few consequences , while the power, influence and money at the disposal of the major  parties makes them too hot to challenge – it is also worth remembering that the funding for social services and much of the funding for major charities comes from the taxpayer so those in socialwork have a vested interest in keeping mum about the parties which do or potentially will allocate the taxpayers’ money.

The double standards are further seen in the complaint of the politically correct that UKIP members would indoctrinate the children with UKIP beliefs. But these people are more than happy to tolerate the indoctrination of children with their own views. There are no calls to  prevent the politically correct, purveyors of multiculturalism, Marxists and  Internationalists from adopting and fostering.  The politically correct deem these to be the “right” kind of indoctrination.

What UKIP, the Conservatives, Labour and the BNP say about immigration and multiculturalism

This is UKIP’s immigration policy including its position on multiculturalism:

• End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.

• Regain control of UK borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union. Entry for work will be on a time-limited work permit only. Entry for non-work related purposes (e.g. holiday or study) will be on a temporary visa. Overstaying will be a criminal offence

• Ensure all EU citizens who came to Britain after 1 January 2004 are treated in the same way as citizens from other countries (unless entitled to ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’). Non- UK citizens travelling to or from the UK will have their entry and exit recorded. To enforce this, the number of UK Borders Agency staff engaged in controlling immigration will be tripled to 30,000

• Ensure that after the five-year freeze, any future immigration for permanent settlement will be on a strictly controlled, points-based system similar to Australia, Canada and New Zealand

• Return people found to be living illegally in the UK to their country of origin. There can be no question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Such amnesties merely encourage further illegal immigration

• Require those living in the UK under ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’ to abide by a legally binding ‘Undertaking of Residence’ ensuring they respect our laws or face deportation. Such citizens will not be eligible for benefits. People applying for British citizenship will have to have completed a period of not less then five years as a resident on ‘Permanent Leave to Remain’. New citizens should pass a citizenship test and sign a ‘Declaration of British Citizenship’ promising to uphold Britain’s democratic and tolerant way of life

• Enforce the existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees until Britain replaces it with an Asylum Act. To avoid disappearances, asylum seekers will be held in secure and

humane centres until applications are processed, with limited right to appeal. Those seeking asylum must do so in the first ‘designated safe country’ they enter. Existing asylum seekers who have had their application refused will be required to leave the country, along with any dependants. We oppose any amnesties for failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

• Require all travellers to the UK to obtain a visa from a British Embassy or High Commission, except where visa waivers have been agreed with other countries. All non-work permit visa entrants to the UK will be required to take out adequate health insurance (except where reciprocal arrangements exist). Those without insurance will be refused entry. Certain visas, such as student visas, will require face-to-face interviews, and UKIP will crack down on bogus educational establishments

• Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In future British courts will not be allowed to appeal to any international treaty or convention that overrides or sets aside the provisions of any statue passed by the UK Parliament

• Reintroduce The ‘Primary Purpose Rule’  (abolished by the Labour Government),  whereby those marrying or seeking to marry a British citizen will have to convince the admitting officer that marriage, not residence, is their primary purpose in seeking to enter the UK

• End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies

• Ensure British benefits are only available to UK citizens or those who have lived here for at least five years. Currently, British benefits can be claimed by EU citizens in their arrival year (http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1499-immigration-ukip-policy).

Most of those policies are either formal Conservative policy or have considerable traction within the Parliamentary party.  In the case of multiculturalism David Cameron since becoming Prime Minister has repudiated it for its fracturing effect on society(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994 State multiculturalism has failed).  Here is the official  Conservative Party policy on immigration:

 IMMIGRATION

We are restoring order to our immigration system to bring annual net migration down to the tens of thousands – rather than the hundreds of thousands we saw under Labour – by the end of this Parliament. We have capped economic migration, reformed the student visa system, and we’re changing the family visa rules. We have made reforms at our borders, to ensure they are safe and secure.

The bigger picture

• Our annual limit on non-EU economic migration will not only help reduce immigration to sustainable levels but will protect those businesses and institutions that are vital to our economy. The new system was designed in consultation with business. Employers should look first to people who are out of work and who are already in this country.

• A properly controlled and regulated student visa system is a crucial component of our policy to reduce and control net migration. That is why we have radically reformed student visas to weed out abuse and tackle bogus colleges. And our reforms are starting to take effect: in the year to June 2012, there was a thirty per cent decrease in the number of student visas issued compared to the year to June 2011.

• We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard and make a contribution but a family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense. To play a full part in British life, family migrants must be able to integrate – that means they must speak our language and pay their way. This is fair to applicants, but also fair to the public.

• The Government’s priority is the security of the UK border. The right checks need to be carried out to control immigration, protect against terrorism and tackle crime. We are maintaining thorough border checks. And despite those robust checks, the vast majority of passengers pass through immigration control quickly. http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Immigration.aspx

The Labour Party do not have an up to date  immigration policy on their website  but their 2010 manifesto stated:

5.2 • Control immigration through our Australian-style points-based system, ensuring that as growth returns we see rising levels of employment and wages, not rising immigration, and requiring newcomers to earn citizenship and the entitlements it brings. http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf

The Labour leader Ed Miliband said this in April 2011 to explain why Labour lost the 2010 election:

“I think the problem is that we lost trust and we lost touch particularly in the south of England.

“I think living standards is a big part of it; immigration is a big part of it. I think maybe a combination of those two issues.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8462411/Ed-Miliband-immigration-lost-Labour-votes.html

Even if the three parties’ policies are not exactly the same there is much overlapping. Moreover the objections of Rotherham Social Services and Barnardos were  on the general grounds of finding  opposition to immigration and multiculturalism objectionable, so the exact detail of the objections is irrelevant.

UKIP may not be at the top of the politically correct pantheon of  secular devils, but the British National Party indubitably is. The BNP’s current policy on immigration is:

– Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

 – Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

 – Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

 – Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

 – Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

 – Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain. (http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/immigration)

That goes  substantially further than UKIP, the Conservatives and Labour.  Nonetheless,  if  Conservative  and Labour party spokesmen were asked to comment on what should happen to illegal immigrants, foreigners who commit crimes or whether citizenship should be removed from those with dual nationality who commit serious crimes,  I doubt whether any would say illegal immigrants  should be allowed to stay, foreigners who commit serious crimes should not be deported or British citizenship should not be taken from foreigners who have gained it and gone on to plot  terrorist attacks on this country.

As for the rejection of  asylum seekers who have passed through safe countries,  Britain has a legal right to do this under the various treaties which cover asylum.  Nor could there be any objection in principle to the use of payments to voluntarily repatriate people because the government has been happy enough to pay failed asylum seekers to leave Britain in the recent  past (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572669/Row-over-payments-to-failed-asylum-seekers.html) and http://www.irr.org.uk/news/the-politics-of-voluntary-returns/.

It would be difficult to make a case for the BNP policy on immigration being so utterly different from that of the Conservative and Labour parties that the party  deserved to be  treated differently. As for the BNP’s rejection of multiculturalism, that is no different in principle from that of the Conservatives and UKIP.  Multiculturalism is something you either  support or oppose.  It is a general policy not one of specific detail being simply a belief that different ethnic/racial groups should be able to follow their own ancestral cultural norms.  Beyond that It does not stipulate what the relationship between the groups  should be.

The broader question

The broader  question raised by the Rotherham  case is why it is thought an unquestioned good that children brought up in this country should be raised in a way which will make them see themselves as separate from the native population.   If a child is to grow up, live and work as an adult in a country , which is probably what the children involved in the Rotherham case will do,  the  security and life chances of the child will be best secured by assimilating as completely as possible not by remaining separate from the native population.  To deliberately set a child apart from the native population by insisting that they are brought up by those deemed culturally compatible  (which is often social worker code for being of the same race) is to generate suspicion on the part of the native population of the  outsider and paranoia on the part of the outsider that he or she is always under  threat from the majority.  That is healthy for no one.  It is a recipe for racial and ethnic conflict./

Where does the extreme political correctness in public bodies come from?

The political correctness of public bodies is not accidental.   Legislation such as the Race Relations (Amendment) Act  2000 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34/section/1)which lays a duty on public bodies to not only be non-discriminatory but to prove they are being so, have institutionalised political correctness with  arguably the rightness of multiculturalism as its core belief.   Such laws should be repealed because they entrench a political creed in law.

Another buttress of institutionalised political correctness is the   use of organisations such as Common Purpose (CP).  ( It is interesting that  Joyce Thacker,  Rotherham council’s Director of Children and Young People’s Service  is  reported to be a Common Purpose  graduate  – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100191270/rotherham-hislop-common-purpose/).  CP represents itself as a leadership training organisation which is something of an oddity in itself.  It is very successful in persuading public bodies to send staff for this “leadership training”  for which COP is paid millions a year.  Courses  are offered for people aiming to become leaders to those who are already well up the ladder of their career path.

 Here are a few passages from the COP website which positively shout the message of political correctness:

“Leadership resources

Common Purpose is interested in all aspects of leadership – when, what and how people choose to lead, and how they become better at it. We are also interested in all leaders, from all backgrounds; people at the beginning of their careers keen to develop their leadership potential to those looking to use their leadership skills in retirement.”  (http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/resources).

“We value diversity and constantly strive to provide equality of opportunity as an employer and in the provision and delivery of all our activities. We positively encourage applications from all sections of the community and are working hard to ensure that our courses and services meet the requirements of people with disabilities.

Why do we do it?

What underpins all Common Purpose courses is a belief that society benefits from people of all ages, backgrounds and cultures working together to help guide and shape the future of their organisations and communities. This is best achieved when leaders are able to realise their full potential, through broadening their horizons and establishing firm roots in their communities.” (http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/what-we-do)

No one opposed to political correctness, either wholly or in part, could take part in such a course honestly or willingly. ( For an extensive list of CP “graduates” and the positions held by them go to http://cpexposed.com/graduates).  The  aims of CP  and the courses  offered bear a strong resemblance  cadre training in the Marxist-Leninist mould.  It is probable that the ever growing political correctness in public service is to a significant degree engineered by the CP graduates who may act as a kind of freemasonary as well as promoting the idea as individuals.  There is consequently  a very strong case for banning any public servant from attending its courses.

What else can be done?

David Cameron may have spoken against multiculturalism and promised to legislate against the practice of social workers of placing children for  adoption  (and fostering) based on racial and cultural compatibility.  But he has not done this after several years in office.  Until this is done social workers  and their ilk in not-for-profit  bodies such as charities will continue to promote the politically correct and multicultural and nothing-else- will- be permitted message through their control of who is allowed to participate in their work.  There needs to be a specific legal bar to taking the political views of would be adopters, foster parents, volunteers and, indeed,  social workers themselves into account when deciding on adoption or fostering, recruiting volunteers  or employing people to engage in childcare social work.

That does not mean that  individuals should never be disbarred from such positions because of their views, but the views for which they are deemed unsuitable should be their own and not those  attributed to the person simply because  they show sympathy for  a political party, ideology or movement.   Nor should views be a disqualification unless they are directly relevant to the position sought, for example, someone espousing the view that the age of consent should be abolished who was seeking to become a foster parent might reasonably be considered unsuitable to look after children.    Opposition to immigration or multiculturalism should  not be grounds  for the thumbs down; nor should a belief in an open door immigration policy and multiculturalism result in rejection.  Finally, it should always be remembered that the behaviour of people is often at odds with their political and moral views.   Behaviour is a surer guide to the character of a person than what they say.

That those in the childcare department of Rotherham Council knew that what they were doing was dubious at best and illegal at worst is shown by their attempts to silence the couple involved; their failure  to confirm in writing the reasons for the children’s removal despite repeated requests from the couple and their refusal to publish the results of their internal inquiry into the matter. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9706739/Ukip-fostering-row-mafia-council-told-us-to-keep-quiet-say-parents.html).

The attitude of the local Rotherham politicians is illustrated by Josephine Burton, a cabinet member at Labour-run Rotherham metropolitan borough council. She told a member of the public  “It may be advisable to wait until you have a better understanding of fostering and the current legislation that surrounds it, before wading in to pass judgement.” (Ibid).  No apology by the council has been offered to the couple involved.

Elite Mischief – Gordon Brown and The Francis Crick Institute

I was recently contacted by Bloomberg News and asked to comment on the  Francis Crick Institute, a massive research laboratory which is being built in central London  on land immediately behind the British library and a road’s width  from the Eurostar terminal.  The laboratory will be handling dangerous toxins and consequently the site is deeply unsuitable both  because of the risk of an accidental escape of toxins  or terrorism.

In addition to the security dangers, the land was sold improperly by the Department of Culture Media and Sport.  The bid was by public tender withe DCMS secretary of state making a decision on strict criteria. The sale was improper because Gordon Brown when Prime Minister intervened consistently to ensure it went to the consortium backing the Francis Crick Institute.

I met with Mrs Gerlin on 8 November. Whether she will use the story remains to be seen.

The full details can be found by following links given in my Briefing Note  to Mrs Gerlin dated 9 November.

——————————————————————————————————–

Mr Robert Henderson

October 25, 2012

Dear Mr Henderson,

I am a healthcare reporter for Bloomberg News in London. I am working on a story about the Crick Institute, which is to be located near your home. I have read some of your objections to it on your blog and have tried reaching you by email with no success.

I would be interested in speaking to you and would like to arrange to meet you near the site. Are you able to meet with me the week of Nov. 6-8? I will be away from London until then, but if you think you have the time, please call my office  (020 7673 2907) and leave a message or send me an email at agerlin@bloomberg.net.

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards

Andrea Gerlin

Reporter

——————————————————————————————————–

Andrea Gerlin

BLOOMBERG NEWSROOM

City Gate House

39-45 Finsbury Square

London EC2A 1PO

Tel: 0207 330 7500

9 November 2012
Dear Andrea,

Let me summarise our meeting today.  The stories for you in the Francis Crick Institute project are these:

1. Gordon Brown’s interference with the DCMS bidding process.   The bids were meant to be assessed only by the DCMS ministers.  The documents which you saw today showed that Brown was interfering as early as 1 August 2007, the day before the expressions of interest closed, and che ontinued to be involved right up to the announcement he made in the Commons in November 2007.  These documents show unambiguously that  the bidding  for the land was a sham with the Consortium bid behind what is now the Francis Crick Institute actively supported by Brown from the beginning. See http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/gordon-browns-involvement-in-the-sale-of-the-land-to-ukcrmi/

2. The failure of the unsuccessful bidders to take action when I  sent them the details of Brown’s  interference with the bidding process which meant they had expended  their time and money for nothing. This is almost certainly due to the fact that the serious  bidders  rely heavily on public contracts and did not want to put future contracts in jeopardy by making a fuss about this bogus contract bidding. See http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-failed-bidders-notified-that-the-bidding-process-was-a-sham/     and http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/notification-of-the-contamination-of-the-bidding-process-to-the-lead-contractor/

3. The failure of the officers of Camden Counci l who prepared  the brief for the planning committee  to include the details of Brown’s interference with the bidding process in the brief. See http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/challenge-to-the-granting-of-planning-permision/ and http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/camdens-response-to-my-notification-of-planning-permission-irregularities/

4. The failure of  the Mayor of London to take up the question of Gordon Brown’s interference with the bidding process  after I had sent him the details. See http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/notification-of-planning-irregularities-to-boris-johnson/ and http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/boris-johnson-gives-the-go-ahead-to-ukcmri-laboratory/

5. The new leader of the Green Party in Britain, Natalie Bennett,  took a leading role in the opposition to the laboratory, including giving evidence before the Science and Technology select committee.  Despite having ready access to the media as she was then a Guardian online editor , Natalie refused to use the evidence of Brown’s interference with the bidding process.   Try as  I might I never got a meaningful explanation for why she would not use the material . At the least there is a considerable disjunction between her public promotion of herself as a Green campaigner  and her failure to use information which, apart from being a potent weapon in the fight against the siting of the laboratory , was a first rate political story in its own right. As her politics are well to the left (see http://www.nataliebennett.co.uk/) , a plausible motive for her failure to use the  information would be her unwillingness to damage a prime minister and a party with which she had much sympathy. See http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-new-leader-of-the-greens-knows-how-to-keep-mum/

6. The biohazard and terrorist dangers. These include the use by the Consortium of a non-existent classification of biohazard level 3+. They have been persistently challenged on this and never given a straight answer.  The section on security in this post covers the issue – http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/objection-to-ukcmri-planning-application-for-a-research-centre-in-brill-place-london-nw1/

These issues are serendipitous as news stories because there is a cataract of elite misbehaviour still hitting the public, a substantial part of which involves the ill consequences of privatisation through the putting of public work out to private contract. I send by separate email a selection of recent media stories about privatisation, both wholesale and piecemeal, which will give you an idea of how disorderly public contract awarding has become and how prone to corrupt practices.

To make  the subject as accessible as I can for you I have placed below links to every post made on the UKCRMI blog (I managed to sort out the lost posts after you went). If you click on them they should take you to each post directly. The titles of the links are self-explanatory. 

I am willing to make available to you any of my documentation which is not already on the UKCRMI blog; to give Bloomberg an interview to be broadcast or appear in written form and write an article for Bloomberg.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

——————————————————————————

Links to UKCRMI blog posts
——————————————————————————

Re:Francis Crick Institute – Briefing noteTuesday, 13 November, 2012 9:15

From:
“Andrea Gerlin (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)” <agerlin@bloomberg.net>

View contact details

To:
anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk
Robert,
Thank you for talking with me and for sending me further details. I
will take a look at this material and let you know if I have any
questions.
Regards,
Andrea Gerlin
Bloomberg News, London

Do you want this potential terrorist target in London?

The United Kingdom Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI) was granted planning permission for a research labratory on 16 December. This is a consortium comprised of the Medical Research Council (a taxpayers funded body) , Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and University College London which is part of London University.

If built the research centre will be handling dangerous viruses which are permitted under a level 3 biohazard licence, viz:

“Biohazard Level 3: Bacteria and viruses that can cause severe to fatal disease in humans, but for which vaccines or other treatments exist, such as anthrax, West Nile virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, SARS virus, variola virus (smallpox), tuberculosis, typhus, Rift Valley fever, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, yellow fever, and malaria. Among parasites Plasmodium falciparum, which causes Malaria, and Trypanosoma cruzi, which causes trypanosomiasis, also come under this level.”

The Medical Research Council currently handles even more toxic viruses n their Mill Hill site, namely, those which are permitted under a level 4 biohazard licence, viz.:

“Biohazard Level 4: Viruses and bacteria that cause severe to fatal disease in humans, and for which vaccines or other treatments are not available, such as Bolivian and Argentine hemorrhagic fevers, H5N1(bird flu), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, Marburg virus, Ebola virus, hantaviruses, Lassa fever, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, and other hemorrhagic diseases.”

To place such research on the site would be criminally irresponsible under any circumstances even if both the physical security and biohazard hygiene were first rate because of the risks of a terrorist attack. However, there can be no rational public confidence that will be the case because UKCMRI have persistently refused to give any details about how their security arrangements will be handled, even in terms which would not compromise their security, such as saying whether armed guards will be used or even whether the security will be directly employed by the consortium or sub-contracted out. There will also be groups working within the centre who are not directly working for the consortium and the public will have access to some areas. To undertake the building of the centre under these circumstances would not be merely criminally reckless but touch the confines of lunacy.

There are also issues with the disruption caused by building and the contamination of the bidding process for the site by Gordon Brown, who interfered with the process even before the formal bidding period was ended. Details of these issues can be found in my objection to the planning application which forms the first posts in the blog, as well as the detailed objections on security grounds. All the objections to the planning application which require proof are supported by documents.

Write to your MP and complain. Raise a stink wherever you can.

Further details of what is happening can be found at

http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/

Being arrested in England is no small matter anymore

Robert Henderson

There was a time when being arrested in England  did not matter very much.  Before digital technology  came of age your fingerprints  and mug shot might be taken,  but if  no charges were laid or, if you were brought to trial,  a conviction was not obtained  for the alleged offence which had caused your arrest, the chances of the ordinary law abiding person being inconvenienced in the future by the fact that those details were held by the police  were small. There was no Police National Computer (PNC)  until 1974 – which was a very rudimentary system  in the beginning and for a long period of time afterwards laughably underpowered with what we have now  –  and the widespread use of personal computers  was almost two decades after that.   DNA identification did not come into play until the 1980s and was very cumbersome procedure for years afterwards. Before computers arrived police had to rely on their  knowledge of the “usual suspects”, modus operandi and informers to hunt down the guilty. They would look at the records of those suggested by such avenues of inquiry,  but had no ready way of searching large numbers of records  on spec or of moving their search to the records of other police forces.  On spec  searches of criminal  records for the entire country were out of the question.

Today not only are fingerprints and mug shots taken but DNA samples as well if some is arrested on suspicion of committing a recordable offence (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1139/contents/made).  Prior to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/section/82) fingerprints and DNA samples would be destroyed if someone was not found guilty.  After the 2001 Act samples   could be taken without the permission of the suspect at the time of charge. The Criminal Justice Act 2003  (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44) allowed samples to be taken on arrest for a recordable offence.  Presently, all records are held indefinitely  on the PNC, a database  which holds records for the entire country and  can be accessed by any police force in the country. Currently, the data is held indefinitely regardless of whether  an arrested person is convicted,  tried and found not guilty or released without charge. There is the Protection of Freedoms Bill which is still going through Parliament which places some restrictions on the holding of data of those not convicted of a crime,  but even if these become law –and  they could be amended before the Bill is passed – these still allow considerable opportunity for the storage of fingerprints, DNA and mug shots of the unconvicted, viz:

Protection of Freedoms Bill proposals

The following details relate to the Protection of Freedoms Bill, introduced on the 7 February 2011. As this has not yet been agreed by Parliament, these proposals are subject to change.

What if I am arrested for a minor offence, but not charged or convicted?

The provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that in the future these will not be retained at all.

What if I am arrested for, but not charged with a serious offence?

The provisions of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that the police will only be permitted to retain DNA and fingerprints in very tightly controlled circumstances. We will be establishing an independent commissioner to oversee DNA retention and they will make a decision whether retention is necessary, taking into account the age and vulnerability of victim of the alleged offence and their relation to the person arrested.

What if I am arrested for and charged with a serious offence, but not convicted?

The provisions of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that in these cases we propose to retain the DNA and fingerprints for three years, with the option of a single two-year extension by a court.

What if I am convicted of an offence?

The provisions of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that all adults convicted of any recordable offence will have their DNA and fingerprints retained indefinitely.

We are proposing a separate retention regime for those under 18 years of age who are convicted of an offence. Those convicted of a serious offence will have their DNA and fingerprints retained indefinitely. For those under 18 who are convicted of a minor offence their DNA will be retained for five years on a first conviction (plus the length of any custodial sentence) and then indefinitely following a second conviction. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/dna-and-fingerprints/)

DNA is especially important, because  unlike fingerprints  it can be readily deposited by someone else at the scene of a crime or inadvertently  picked up by  someone committing a crime or by the victim of a crime. In principle this could also happen with  fingerprints if someone deliberately or inadvertently  picks up something with someone’s  fingerprints on it and leaves it at the scene of a crime or a victim does so inadvertently. But the scope for framing someone in that fashion is  much less than it would be for DNA  because of the difficulty in both obtaining and retaining  a clear print inadvertently  or leaving  something with a clear print on it which could be plausibly seen by the police as being left inadvertently.

Fingerprints obtained in the messy real world  encountered by the  police are generally  a far from certain identifier  because of their incompleteness . Even where a clear whole print is available, the identification is not absolutely watertight, not least because the scientific basis of the system has been questioned successfully enough to prevent fingerprint evidence being used in trials in the USA, viz:  “U.S. District Court Judge Louis H. Pollak last week ruled that such evidence does not meet standards of scientific scrutiny established by the U.S. Supreme Court, and said fingerprint examiners cannot testify at trial that a suspect’s fingerprints “match” those found at a crime scene. “ (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91996&page=1#.UHVvghVZWSo).

It is worth adding that  justice systems around the world  accept different numbers of “points of similarity” in fingerprint evidence as indicative of a positive match.  It is all very messy and unavoidably subjective to a significant degree.

DNA is a different matter, or at least is thought to be a different matter. DNA  identification is based not on the subjective judgement of visible differences by humans,  but the machine matching of strings of DNA code.  This gives them an appearance of scientific rigour.  However DNA may be degraded or  mixed with someone else’s DNA which can make identification far from certain. Identification is also debatable with the controversial “low copy number” DNA testing  which deals with minute samples of DNA (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id190.html)  Moreover, there will always be false positives.  The likelihood of  those is strong when a database holds millions of individual DNA samples.  The numbers would be small but for those involved the results would be traumatic even if no conviction results. The worst case would be a  false conviction for a serious crime.

Apart from false positives, there are three ways an innocent man or woman could fall victim to an police investigation based on the DNA.   The first is it could have been planted deliberately by someone.  This could have  been done to either  harm the person whose DNA was planted or it might  have been an attempt to mislead the police by someone committing a crime. In the latter case the person whose DNA was planted need not have been known to the person doing the planting. They simply pick up something like a cigarette butt or a used tissue which they have either seen someone leave or they simply find after the person has deposited the item and gone.

The second circumstance would be if someone is the victim of a crime and they inadvertently  pick up something carrying DNA , for example a lost hair or  blood left by someone.  A truly disturbing and astonishing example of what can  happen involved  Mark Minick.  Minick was arrested on suspicion of rape. He had a criminal record  for robbery and his DNA matched that taken from a hair found on the victim.  The problem was that  Minick is white and small (5’6”) and the victim identified her attacker as black and large.   Notwithstanding this, the CPS proceeded with the case which was only dropped at the first court hearing where the prosecution offered no evidence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512980/DNA-farce-My-nightmare-white-man-charged-hunt-black-rapist.html#ixzz28ooimkcD). How did the victim have a hair of Minick’s?  He was working as a porter at the hospital at which the girl was  treated. Most probably she picked up the hair there.   Minick’s case shows emphatically how powerful a grip DNA evidence has on the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): they were both willing to ignore the fact that the victim had identified her attacker as large and black while Minick was small and white because they had a DNA match from a source which could have come innocently and inadvertently into the victim’s possession.

The third opportunity for gratuitous involvement in a police investigation would be the use of near DNA matches as a pointer to who might be involved in a crime.  Suppose someone, most probably a near relative, has their DNA on the PNC.  The police may investigate the close relatives of that person in connection with a crime,  regardless of whether the relatives  have a criminal record or there is any evidence that they might be guilty. (section 5 http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/NationalDNADatabase.pdf).  Even if nothing happens beyond an investigation this is a considerable intrusion into their lives. Moreover,  even if completely,  innocent human nature being what it is, others who know of the police involvement may conclude there is no smoke without fire. Nor, as the Minick case showed, can there be any rational belief that the police and CPS will not allow DNA evidence to drive investigations and prosecutions where there is no other strong evidence of guilt.

The fact that even under the reforms proposed in the Protection of Freedoms Bill considerable numbers of people who have never been convicted of or even charged with a criminal offence will remain for years on the PNC means that tens of thousands of people at least  will potentially become suspects in future investigations for anything up to five years  despite having a clean bill of legal health.   If the Protection of Freedom Act  is not retrospective when it is passed , that is, it only applies to new arrests, then the numbers the innocent people involved could be millions.  To penalise the innocent  is unjust and immoral because it is based on the unethical  idea that the  greater good of the greater number is reason enough to mistreat individuals. If only the DNA and fingerprints of the convicted were held the risks of gratuitous police investigations of the innocent would be greatly reduced.

Nor is the injustice restricted to those with a clean criminal record. The DNA and Fingerprints of anyone convicted of a recordable crime will be held indefinitely.  That means people who have committed minor offences such as common assault  or driving without due care and attention without causing an accident (often only once in their lives) will be subject to the same risk of further gratuitous investigation based on false positives and so on  as those with no convictions who remain on the PNC.  This is disproportionate.

Here is a question which I have never seen publicly posed: why are fingerprints and DNA taken from every  person arrested regardless of the suspected crime?  It is easy to see that they might be useful in the case of criminals such as murderers, burglars and rapists, but what purpose does it serve for people such as fraudsters and those convicted of dangerous driving?  It is very improbable that fingerprints or DNA  records will be useful in solving future  crimes by people who are convicted of   fraud or driving offences if they commit similar offences.  It is also a fact that  most people, including career criminals, tend to commit the same type of crime if they commit more than one. There is a strong civil liberties case for saying fingerprints and DNA ( or any other future biometrics identifier) should only be taken where they are likely to help solve a crime or series of crimes.  If that practice was followed it would also greatly reduce the likelihood of people being harassed unnecessarily by the police.

There is also a broader question of the keeping of data other than fingerprints and DNA, for example,  notes of unsubstantiated complaints of crime or even reports of behaviour which might be considered suspicious.  These can have profound effects on lives because Criminal Records Bureau  (CRB) checks  are now required by huge numbers of adults  for the purpose of gaining employment or taking part in voluntary activities – the requirements have even been ludicrously extended to parents watching their children take part in school sports or Nativity plays (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210724/Parents-criminal-record-checks-banned-watching-kids-play-school-sport.html).

CRB checks are of two kinds :

•standard CRB check – for certain specified jobs, licences and entry into certain professions

•enhanced CRB check – for those carrying out certain activities or working in regulated activity with children or adults; applicants for gaming and lottery licences; and judicial appointments…

What you’ll find on a criminal record check

Standard CRB checks will contain details of all spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings from the Police National Computer (PNC).

The enhanced CRB check will include any information from the PNC and may also search:

•information held by local police forces

•lists of people barred from working with children and adults which are kept by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Startinganewjob/DG_195809)

Millions of innocent people could find themselves barred from employment or voluntary activities through no fault of their own. Not only that,  where a CRB check is failed, unsubstantiated or simply wrong highly damaging information held by the police will be in the hands of people who know the person who has failed the check  and knowledge of a failure to pass a check,  even if the details of the failure are not known,  will cast doubt over the integrity of the person who has failed the check.

Police records are just part of an ever expanding portfolio of state and private enterprise databases which can affect lives, frequently without the individual even knowing. But police records and the ever swelling reach of the CRB check are by far the most intrusive and controlling of the surveillance apparatus  which exists at present in England. They need to be severely controlled.

As a bare minimum we should return to position that no person’s DNA and Fingerprints should be retained if they remain unconvicted and there should be no record kept of their arrests, charges or trials  on the national database.   The removal of all records of investigations from the national computer is necessary because otherwise innocent people may still be unreasonably investigated simply because they have been arrested, charged or tried but found innocent  for a similar crime before.

More broadly, it is pernicious to have information which the police have received which may not even have led to an arrest or any, indeed, contact with the police being disclosed on CRB checks.  They should reveal only convictions and arguably only convictions relevant to job for which the check is made.  If someone has, for example, if someone has been convicted of driving without due care and attention when they were 17 and is applying for a teaching job when they are 35 the conviction is scarcely relevant.    In fact, there is a good case for doing away with CRB checks,  because there is no evidence they have reduced the type of offences they are meant to reduce, most particularly child abuse of one form or another. Their main effects have  been to dissuade many people from engaging in voluntary work, increased costs for organisations (especially schools)  and creating a general and unhealthy climate of suspicion in Britain.

These authoritarian policies  will become ever harder to remove the longer  they remain in place and technology improvements make the temptation to expand the surveillance through an ever expanding menu of biometrics irresistible to those with power. We need to act now.

Political speech and action in Britain: What is legally permitted ?

Robert Henderson

Free speech is a very simple concept: you either have it or a range of permitted opinion, the  scope of  which can be altered at any time (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/free-expression-or-permitted-opinion-that-is-the-choice/).  Sadly and dangerously, not only is free expression in Britain unavailable,  but  the range of permitted opinion is becoming ever narrower . This is a consequence of the  totalitarian ideology that is political correctness becoming   embedded ever deeper into the British power  structure through laws both criminal and civil and the  control of the mass media  by the politically correct. Great swathes of political opinion are deemed criminal or at least grounds for excluding their holder from not only mainstream politics but public debate.     It is no longer possible to engage in political activity without fear of prosecution, loss of employment (especially in publicly funded jobs) or  of being the subject of a media hate campaign.

British political parties can no longer be what they want to be

The most fundamental  denial  of democratic political action in a Parliamentary system  such as that of Britain  is to refuse a  party the right to recruit as it chooses.  It is the most fundamental  breach because,  if a party cannot recruit freely and stand whatever candidates it chooses in elections ,  it is barred from any chance of taking part in a government or having a significant voice in opposition  on its own terms.    By controlling party membership the policies of a  party are determined.  This is the position in modern Britain.

It is no longer possible for a party wishing to stand candidates in British elections to choose who shall be its members and candidates or determine what are  its fundamental beliefs. This was made clear by a court ruling of  Judge Paul Collins in  March 2010:

“The British National party was plunged into chaos yesterday, weeks before the general election, when a court ordered it to remove central beliefs and policies about race from its constitution.

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP’s membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

The party also remains banned from signing up new recruits until it satisfies Collins it has changed the constitution, although it said last night that applications to join were being processed again.

In a further blow to the party’s election hopes, it was ordered to pay an estimated £60,000 in legal costs. The bill could rise to £100,000 when its own legal fees are included.

While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.

This is a requirement for members to believe in the “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race and action towards “stemming and reversing” migration.

The BNP last month voted to remove a direct bar on non-white members after a legal challenge from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The government equalities watchdog then challenged the revised constitution on the grounds that ethnic minority Britons could still not subscribe to the party’s beliefs without “denying themselves”.

Collins ruled in favour of the commission, ordering the BNP to remove the offending clauses by Monday afternoon or face potential legal penalties.

The EHRC head of legal enforcement, Susie Uppal, said: “Political parties, like any organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people who wish to become members.”

The BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, said the decision “opens a very dangerous door. It’s a huge change to the unwritten constitution of Britain. The judgment has given a government-appointed, taxpayer-funded quango the rights to change the aims and objectives of political parties.” The costs award would “have some effect” on the BNP’s election campaigning, but it would not be significant, he added.

Griffin said he had already amended the constitution so the clauses were removed from membership criteria. He insisted, however, that the beliefs about immigration and race would remain, even if members did not have to officially sign up to them. “It won’t make any practical difference to us. But it’s hugely symbolic,” he said. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/12/bnp-racist-membership-rules-outlawed).

The judge’s ruling means that the BNP cannot in principle prevent those from ethnic minorities or the white “antiracist” political left  from joining the party with an intent to sabotage it. In addition, the policy of the party has been changed in the sense that its ostensible core values are no longer core values because their acceptance is no longer  required  of members.  Nor is it clear whether the BNP could legally refuse membership to anyone  because,  if it cannot insist that members must  support the  ‘”continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race and action towards “stemming and reversing” migration’,  prospective members could believe and advocate  anything with regard to race and immigration,  including demands for Sharia law and the abolition of immigration controls. Such a person  out to sabotage the  BNP could accept the rest of the party’s political platform , much of which is, ironically,  shared by the mainstream parties, to prevent membership being denied on any other  ideological ground.   More banally, the BNP could be forced to take people who would deliberately try to disrupt its administration.  There would also be greater opportunity for leftist agent provocateurs to join the party to engage in violence or crude racist language to reinforce the liberal elite’s portrayal of  the BNP as no more than a group of hooligans always on the verge of  criminality.

In the present political climate it is also probable  that any person  refused BNP membership who belonged to an ethnic minority or was native white Briton and came from an “antiracist” background,  would find the courts likely to support  any action they brought for damages against the BNP on the grounds that they had been discriminated against  because of their race, ethnicity or a refusal to accept the BNP “core beliefs”.  It is not inconceivable that if such suits were brought,  the EHCR (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/) might climb on the  “anti-discrimination” bandwagon again and obtain  a further court order banning further recruitment or even making the collection of subscriptions from existing members illegal until  the refused applicants for membership  were accepted.  The reduction ad absurdum of Judge Collins’ ruling would be a court ordering the BNP to accept someone as a member who was patently not suitable to be a member.

The danger for any party which cannot decide its own membership by requiring members to adhere to the fundamental principles for which its stands  is that it could,, and most probably would,  quickly become a meaningless political shell.  In the case of the BNP suppose   numbers of  the political left and ethnic minorities large enough to swamp the existing BNP membership applied for membership.  If the BNP had no way of refusing them membership,  the party could soon be  captured over by the incomers who could overthrow the leadership and change the party’ policies utterly.

That is the way only the BNP is being treated at present , but any party could find themselves in the same predicament if their policies do not meet with the approval of those in power. At present the powerful  are disciples of political correctness,  but   politics can move very rapidly and no one can be certain that their politics will not become the target for criminalisation and marginalisation.  Moreover,  where an ideology is involved, the ideology can alter  so that what was acceptable within it  to a follower may well become unacceptable when it changes. A good example comes from modern liberalism.  Until around 1980 the liberal left approach to the consequences of  mass immigration to Britain was assimilation; in a year or two it switched to multiculturalism, a very different thing which has strong similarities, at least at the conceptual level,   to the idea of separate development in Apartheid South Africa.

The Electoral Commission

Successful court challenges by the ECHR are not the only legal obstacle to political parties deciding their own policies. There is the Electoral Commission to contend with.   A political  party which wishes to put up candidates in a  UK election has to register with the Commission.  That registration is not automatic and can be refused if the name or emblem is deemed  “obscene or offensive “ . (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107694/to-names-rp.pdf).  It is all too easy to see anything non-pc being refused by the Commission who would inevitably point to the many legal restrictions which already exists  on what may be said legally and use those as the basis for a refusal to register.

There are also some prohibited words in the Electoral Commission’s lexicon which could not be used at all or in certain formats which could curtail political expression  in the registration of parties, for example, English Party is forbidden under category 2 words (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/107701/doc-prohibited-rp.pdf) .

The Returning Officer  (who supervises the administration of an election) can also refuse  a party label on a ballot paper if they deem it inappropriate.

In view of the political dominance of  the political correct and the expressed attitude of official bodies such as the ECHR  and the courts towards party membership and the values of a party which challenges political correctness, it is reasonable to assume  that any party which transgresses the politically correct limits would fail to be registered by the Electoral Commission  or pass the scrutiny of the Returning Officer, for example, parties called England for the English or the Anti-Immigration League.   It might even prove impossible for parties in the Celtic Fringe to run under banners such as The English in Scotland or Protect the English in Wales

Independent candidates

Independent candidates do not need to register with the Electoral Commission. However, this has the disadvantage for candidates of not being able to described themselves as anything other than Independent  on the ballot paper (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0009/83169/UKPGE-Nomination-Forms-Final.pdf ).   To use any other label candidates  have to pretend to be a party and  register themselves as such with the Electoral Commission  with all that entails  in time, money (there is a £150 registration fee) and organisation .  It also leaves  them open to the same pc objections to labels as genuine parties. Indeed,  the censorship  of candidate descriptions  is likely to be  even more wide ranging than for individuals pretending to be a party than for  genuine parties , because the banning of an individual candidate would be far less likely to attract media attention or  result in  court action to challenge any ban because the refused candidate would be unlikely to have the wherewithal to challenge the refusal. .

The Electoral Commission also control what are known as third party campaigners . These are individual or corporate bodies (including registered political parties)  who can be campaigners in support of parties, individuals or policies without being candidates in an election.  (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/105936/intro-campaigner-npc.pdf)

There are a considerable and growing number  of elections in the UK  – Westminster, local government, devolved assemblies, elected Mayors and  police commissioners .  Consequently, the Electoral Commission  has  the potential to exercise a very powerful influence on British politics through determining what parties are called.

Laws to silence opinion

In addition to the restrictions imposed on  candidates,  political speech, writing  and action (for anyone) is  heavily circumscribed by a depressingly large number  of laws which,  whether originally  intended to suppress  political views or not , are being used to censor views deemed to be non-political  with ever increasing frequency.   he  most likely to be applied  is  the 1986 Public Order Act sections 4 and 5 and the Communications Act 2003 section 127.

“Public Order Act 1986

Section 4 Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

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

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

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

(3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

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

4 A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

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

5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

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

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

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

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

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

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

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

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F2a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4

The  Communications Act 2003

Section 127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

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

In addition these Acts  may be deployed :

Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/content  as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/contents

Postal Services Act 2000 section 85 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/contents).

There may be other laws which are used to specifically hamper free expression which is deemed politically incorrect, ,  but those I have cited give the flavour of the current powers available to those with power in Britain to intimidate the public and  control public debate.  They all have one very dangerous thing in common:  the Acts  are so broadly drawn that they are an open invitation to those with power  to shut down dissent.  The idea that people can assign an objective value to words  such as menacing, threatening, abusive or insulting  is simply wrong. Even more to the point, if words or images may be deemed criminal because they are merely abusive or threatening,  anything contentious to the mind of another could be held to be criminal.

In addition to the considerable restrictions on free expression  already described,   there are  civil  laws  allowing actions for libel and slander,  court orders prohibiting the publication or public discussion of specific subjects (breach of which risks imprisonment for contempt of court), restrictions placed by the Official Secrets Act  (which applies whether or not a person has signed the Act) and criminal offences relating to  obscenity,  blasphemy and  libel (the last three are so rarely used they are practically obsolete,   but  they are live laws which could be utilised if no other law would do).

Nothing non-pc is safe

Where does all this leave us?   The problem is that no one can be sure what would be treated as criminal by the police and the prosecuting authority the Crown Prosecution Service.   A person could look at non-pc speech and writing which has not resulted in prosecution and words which  has been resulted in criminal charges and try to analyse what will be deemed officially beyond the Pale  but be none the wiser.  That is for two reasons: first, the boundaries of  what is deemed  criminal are constantly expanding especially with reference to “hate speech”  and, second,  there is no consistency  in the investigation and prosecution of similar statements.

A  few examples to demonstrate the difficulty in knowing what is likely to result in police action.    Negro was the polite word for a black person  for two centuries .  Gradually over the past half century it was superseded by black, African-American, Afro-Caribbean or even African as blacks asserted their identity. But negro continued to be used.  It was not  considered a racist term, although a bit old fashioned in much the same way that homosexual rather than gay now seems slightly anachronistic. In 2011 the Liverpool FC forward Luis Suarez   (white) repeatedly referred to the Man U fullback Patrice Evra (black) as a negro, (actually its Spanish equivalent negre). This resulted not in criminal charges but disciplinary action by the Football Association who fined and banned him for eight matches for racial abuse (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8969738/Liverpools-Luis-Suarez-guilty-of-racially-abusing-Patrice-Evra-live.html).  Although there was no police action, the message the Suarez case sent to the public was negro is now a term of racial abuse which could result in action being taken against its user.  If another case comes to public notice I would be most surprised if at the least a  police investigation is not begun even if  no criminal charges are brought. That would be par for the course in these cases.  A  word is mysteriously deemed unacceptable, there is liberal media outrage and a little down the line the police act against someone who has used it. Frequently the police investigation does not result in charges but the publicity of the police involvement serves to intimidate the public.

The next word describing the race of a person which is likely to be ratcheted  up from polite term to criminal will probably be coloured. This is even more ludicrous than the outlawing of negro as a racial epithet. It is simply a description as innocuous as white.  That it was not considered anything more until recently  can be seen from the title of the American organisation for promoting black interests  the  National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.  Despite this history  the Scottish football pundit Alan Hansen  ran into trouble after  using it in 2011 and was forced to offer an abject apology to save his job. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/22/alan-hansen-black-footballers-coloured)

Now let us move forward to a recent case which did result in criminal charges.  BNP member Michael Coleman has just been give an eight month suspended sentence with 240 hours of community service (unpaid work) for publishing racist articles on his blog:

“ The 46-year-old was reported to police after two blogs he wrote in response to last summer’s London riots appeared online.

In them, he said the riots were a perfect example of ‘the difference in personality, perceptions and values of people of the darker races and ourselves’.

And he accused Stoke-on-Trent City Council of ‘flooding this city with Muslims and blacks, a complete population replacement programme. Darkies in, whites out’.

Police were called by Labour city councillor Joy Garner, below, who had been asked to read the blogs by a member of the public. (http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Stoke-Trent-BNP-leader-Michael-Coleman-guilty/story-16839343-detail/story.html).

Leave aside the word “darkies”  for the moment. Coleman’s message is a straightforward political protest against  the most profound act of treason which is the permitting of mass immigration. If he was convicted for that protest it is unambiguous censorship for political purposes.  The prosecution is sending the message to the public that complaints about  immigration and its consequences  is being criminalised.

If it is solely “darkies”  which has led to the conviction,  and the report does not suggest that it is,  then the-powers-that-be through the courts and prosecution authorities are controlling language in a manner reminiscent of the Soviet Union or Red China.  “Darkies” may again be an anachronistic term , but it was never considered racist as such when it was widely used. Often it was bestowed on someone black in the same way that a man called white would end up being called “Chalky”.

Even liberals are beginning to get uneasy about the way that day after day new cases as  threats of prosecution or actual prosecutions are applied to people in situations which appear ever more extreme. Take  Brendan  O’Neill of  the Daily Telegraph on Coleman.  He pays ritual pc obeisance to  the “horror” of Coleman’s views and the use of “darkies”, calls him a moron, but then writes

“The councillor who kick-started the legal action against Coleman said something very interesting – he said the reason Coleman had to be punished and turned into a criminal for writing those blog posts is because the views they expressed are “not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of local people”. That is true; the vast majority of Britons find racist ideas and language disgusting. But are we really going to start threatening with imprisonment people who express opinions that the “overwhelming majority” consider to be unacceptable? Will that include radical political views, edgy social arguments, harebrained religious beliefs? The fact that in Britain in 2012 a man has been given a suspended jail sentence and 240 hours’ community service for saying something that is offensive to the “overwhelming majority” should give us all serious pause for thought, and make us ask what gives us the right to slam Putin’s Russia for likewise banging up punkish singers who, according to polls, also offended an “overwhelming majority” of Russians.” (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100183130/darkies-is-a-disgusting-word-but-people-shouldnt-be-given-suspended-jail-sentences-for-saying-it/).

Of course, the “vast majority of Britons” do not find what liberals now call racist ideas and language disgusting (effectively any preference for one racial, national or ethnic group over another) . Many might not feel comfortable with the word “darkies”, but the “vast majority of Britons ” will have varying degrees of sympathy with the idea that mass immigration has changed the country for the worse and is a form of colonisation.   But such expressed thoughts would now appear to be illegal. The case of Emma West  falls into this category.  Miss West was recorded on a camera phone  during a tram ride complaining  to a racially mixed group of passengers about the effects of mass immigration. There was a bit of effing and blinding but there was no gross racist abuse , just a complaint that her country had been utterly changed through mass immigration (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state).   She was arrested after the video was placed on YouTube, held against her will in a top security prison (the authorities claimed it was for her own protection even though Miss West  said she did not want to be protected) and is being subjected to an unconscionable delay before she is brought to trial – it is already 11 months since she was charged, the case has been adjourned three times and no new trial date set (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/emma-west-trial-delayed-for-the-third-time/).

One last case. The England and Chelsea footballer John Terry was charged with racially aggravated public order offences when he was alleged to have  called the black QPR defender Anton Ferdinand “a f**king black c**t” during a Premiership match between Chelsea and QPR in 2011.  Terry’s defence was that he had not called Ferdinand that but thought Ferdinand had accused him  of using the words and said  to him “I didn’t call you a  f**king black c**t”.

A court accepted this version and found him not guilty in July this year, but that was not the end of the matter. Once again the Football Association (FA) acted and effectively tried Terry on the same charges, found him guilty and  fined him heavily and banned him for four matches. ).  That of course is simply a sporting body  and not a court making the judgement, but it at best creates a public mood of fear of saying anything contentious which could possibly be construed as racist. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9568184/John-Terry-found-guilty-of-racially-abusing-QPRs-Anton-Ferdinand-in-FA-hearing-and-handed-four-match-ban.html). Moreover, it  was  a very sinister development because Terry was adjudged guilty by the FA regardless of the context of the words he uttered. The FA found that the uttering of words to deny having said them  with an intent to abuse  is an offence if the words are deemed racist.  Most dangerous. It could in principle mean that a writer of fiction could be held to be racist because he creates a racist character.  Improbable? Well, as luck would have it the author of the Harry Potter books, JK Rowling, has just run into trouble for doing precisely that.  In her first adult novel  The  casual vacancy  she has  a Sikh woman portrayed in unflattering fashion by a character  who is a racist. Sikhs in Britain are up in arms threatening to stop it being sold in India and possibly banned in Britain because it portrays a Sikh unfavourably (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9580177/First-Middle-England-now-Rowlings-novel-upsets-Sikhs-as-well.html).

There is a further problem with the increasing numbers of prosecutions being undertaken for alleged racially-aggravated offences. The prosecuting authorities and the courts do not operate an even-handed approach. The most outrageous example I have come across is the treatment by four Somali girls of a white woman Rhea Page. The Somalis viciously attacked Miss Page  -a video of  the attack can be found here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p. Despite the fact that Somalis were screaming “white slag” and other racist terms at her,  the judge found the attack was not racially motivated and, amazingly, did not impose  prison sentences on the Somalis.

Despite the uncertainty and double standards , it is reasonable to think that the following would leave a party or individual open to criminal prosecution :

1. Any statement which claimed  that mass immigration was an unalloyed ill.

2. Any statement which claimed that the permitting of mass immigration is the most fundamental form of treason.

3. Any statement which claimed that mass immigration is a form of conquest by means other than force of arms.

4. Any statement which advocated the forced expulsion of immigrants.

5. Any statement which claimed that an ethnic or racial minority has cultural values and practices which are incompatible with British society.

6. Any statement which claimed that a racial or social minority commits more crime than the native British population.

7 . Any statement which claimed that a religion favoured by an ethnic minority  is  antipathetic to British society.

8. The use of the words black, brown or yellow  as an adjective where it is attached to a statement which is critical of a person.

9. Any statement claiming or suggesting that there are biological differences between races which mean that different races have innately different capacities.

Race is undoubtedly the prime driver of prosecutions for simply expressing opinions,  but  increasing  police attention is being given to statements about homosexuals (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206108/Daniel-Thomas-Footballer-posted-homophobic-Tweet-Tom-Daley-charged.html)) and recently there have been swelling attempts to bring abuse of the disabled into the police investigation net.  Words judged to be insulting to women are, as far as I can discover,  as yet not the subject of police action, but give it time and surely they will be because any person with a public voice who makes comments which deviate from the pc line that women are just like men is likely to be shouted down by the liberal media and its cronies.

But it is not only overtly politically incorrect statements which have attracted the attention of the police and the courts. Once it is allowed that words deemed insulting or upsetting can be criminalised, nothing but nothing is beyond the reach of the law. In the political sphere this can stop criticism of a politician. Recently it was revealed that two MPs and two peers reported twitter abuse to the police (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9558464/Two-MPs-and-two-peers-go-to-police-over-Twitter-abuse.html).  The revelation of these attempts by politicians  to have members of the public investigated by the police resulted in this  statement by Jeremy Browne, the junior Home Office minister: “The Government are not seeking to criminalise bad manners, unkind comments, or idiotic views.”

But he went on: “The Government are reforming measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, regardless of whether it occurs offline or online.

“To continue to support professionals to help and protect victims, we are introducing simpler and more effective powers that, where appropriate, agencies can use flexibly to deal with antisocial individuals who cause misery and distress to others.”

The Crown Prosecution Service is drawing up the first guidelines on social media abuse, following concerns that too many people were being prosecuted for making one-off offensive comments that were intended to be funny and not directed at specific individuals.

I think we can all see where that is goings, straight down the path to censorship of political complaint.  The  present  reality is any statement whether  spoken, written or  broadcast which is not anodyne and written in cautiously polite language  potentially puts its creator at risk of prosecution.

All of  these assaults on free expression are taking place when the politically correct have a stranglehold on British society through their control of  the state and the mass media. No political party which radically challenges the pc creed has any chance of being in government or any likelihood of gaining  a seat in the Commons.  Yet the strangling of contrary opinion is becoming ever fiercer.  Imagine what they would do if a political force which did unambiguously  oppose political correctness looked as though it might gain seats in the Commons.

No free expression, no democracy

In a true democracy there can be no restriction on speech because the full range of political opinions and policies must be available to be debated and implemented.   Equally importantly if is the ultimate guarantor of freedom. Authoritarian states can only survive if  free expression is crushed.  Make free expression an absolute  legal right and no dictatorship could be  established; bring free expression into a dictatorship   and it will dissolve the dictatorship.

John Milton famously and eloquently  identified the power of free debate  three and a half centuries ago: ‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].

Anybody putting forward a case for censorship needs to explain why  they cannot let “truth and falsehood” contend .  I have never met anyone who could provide a meaningful reason.  Their arguments are always once removed from the issue of free expression: its denial is always justified in terms of the imagined hurt, whether to feelings or violence,  the disapproved of words will cause not on the grounds that the words are true or false.

The Leveller leader John Lilburne never ceased urging people  in his struggles with the Parliamentary leaders in the English civil war to resist tyranny with the words  “What they do to me today they may do to you tomorrow”. That is a maxim for all people of  any time who wish to remain free.

 

 

 

http://ics-www.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=ks&folder=13&paper=130

——————————————————————————————————————————

BNP ‘whites-only’ membership rules outlawed

 

Judge agrees with human rights watchdog that British National party’s rewritten criteria for joining are still racist

Peter Walker

The Guardian, Saturday 13 March 2010

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

The British National party was plunged into chaos yesterday, weeks before the general election, when a court ordered it to remove central beliefs and policies about race from its constitution.

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP’s membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

The party also remains banned from signing up new recruits until it satisfies Collins it has changed the constitution, although it said last night that applications to join were being processed again.

In a further blow to the party’s election hopes, it was ordered to pay an estimated £60,000 in legal costs. The bill could rise to £100,000 when its own legal fees are included.

While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.

This is a requirement for members to believe in the “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race and action towards “stemming and reversing” migration.

The BNP last month voted to remove a direct bar on non-white members after a legal challenge from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The government equalities watchdog then challenged the revised constitution on the grounds that ethnic minority Britons could still not subscribe to the party’s beliefs without “denying themselves”.

Collins ruled in favour of the commission, ordering the BNP to remove the offending clauses by Monday afternoon or face potential legal penalties.

The EHRC head of legal enforcement, Susie Uppal, said: “Political parties, like any organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people who wish to become members.”

The BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, said the decision “opens a very dangerous door. It’s a huge change to the unwritten constitution of Britain. The judgment has given a government-appointed, taxpayer-funded quango the rights to change the aims and objectives of political parties.” The costs award would “have some effect” on the BNP’s election campaigning, but it would not be significant, he added.

Griffin said he had already amended the constitution so the clauses were removed from membership criteria. He insisted, however, that the beliefs about immigration and race would remain, even if members did not have to officially sign up to them. “It won’t make any practical difference to us. But it’s hugely symbolic,” he said.

A spokesman for the anti-fascist campaign group Searchlight said: “This judgment is a personal humiliation for Nick Griffin. The BNP has been proven in court to be as racist and extremist as ever.”

The millionaire Asian businessman Mo Chaudry, who had said he would apply to join the party to “fight them from the inside”, welcomed the ruling. He said: “This was the only decision that could have been made today. There was no alternative.”

The decision follows weeks of wrangling over the legality of the far-right party’s membership criteria. After the EHRC challenge last year, BNP members voted at an extraordinary general meeting a month ago to scrap the whites-only clause. BNP critics argue the party has no genuine interest in recruiting non-white members and is doing the minimum to avoid legal action and court costs.

An internal BNP memo seen by the Guardian this week told members that the party had not “gone soft”. It continued: “We don’t expect any more than a handful of people of ethnic minority origin to apply to join the party nationally, and we will not let this deflect us from our political objectives of saving Britain and restoring the primacy of the indigenous British people.”