Category Archives: anti-english conspiracy

LEADING REMAINER ADMITS SYSTEMATIC LYING TO THE PUBLIC

LEADING REMAINER ADMITS SYSTEMATIC LYING TO THE PUBLIC 

LEADING “LIBERAL” TORY CONFIRMS HIS ELECTIONS BASED UPON SYSTEMATIC LYING TO THE PUBLIC

Matthew Parris, the former Conservative MP who has made many bigoted remarks about Leave voters, has just published the article below, in which he admits systematically lying to the public throughout his political career in order to get himself elected and also he admits deliberately acting in such a way to undermine popular democracy. 

In reading his damning confession it is worth remembering that, not only are there others in the Conservative Party, such as Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve and indeed Theresa May, by whom I suspect very similar confessions could also have been made, but also there are many within the Labour Party whose conduct I suspect is exactly the same. 

This kind of behaviour is wholly par for the course amongst elitist Westminster British Establishment supporters of “Liberal Democracy”!

Here is the article:-

Why I don’t, never have, and never will trust the people – by Matthew Parris (former Conservative MP)

It was late, and a friend and I were left to talk Brexit. He’s a keen and convinced Tory Brexiteer MP but to stay friends we have tended to steer off the topic. This, however, felt like a moment to talk.

The conversation taught me nothing about Brexit, something about him, and a lot about myself and the strain of Conservatism I now realise I’m part of — and which is part of me. Oddly, then, this column is not really about Brexit, but about trusting the people. I don’t. Never have and never will. Our conversation forced me to confront the fact.

My friend knows well enough why I’m a Remainer, but guessed correctly that I’ve puzzled about why he isn’t. I had not quite expected what I heard. He understands business and finance and is good at facts and figures, so I’d supposed his wish for a ‘clean’ Brexit would be all about the economic advantages. He’s a firm believer in individual choice, too, so I had supposed he would dwell on the need to ‘take back control’.

No doubt he holds to these strands of the Leave argument — but talking to me he hardly mentioned the practical benefits of Brexit. No, there was something else that seemed to drive his anxiety that we leave the EU. Otherwise, he said: ‘I just worry about our democracy, respect for our constitution and the effect that a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result would have on the people who voted for me and our party last year.’

He returned to this repeatedly, and I saw that he was sincere. As a democrat, and a Conservative who owed his position in Parliament to a little piece of England that he came from, that he knew, that knew him, and whose electors’ minds and feelings he had come to understand over the years, my friend felt with a quiet passion that he must not break his word to them, must not slither away from undertakings that had been given.

He felt the same about the electorate nationally, the British people’s trust in the Conservative party, and their confidence in politics itself. He felt, in short, conscious of an unseen bond between parliament and people, and fearful of the wider consequences should it be broken.

I did not say much, because I could see he meant it; and what he meant was not really the kind of assertion one can confound with counter-argument or counter-assertion. It was about weighing things and, the scales being within his own breast, the way the scales tipped was for him just a fact, and undeniable.

But for me they tip differently; and for me too that is a fact, and undeniable. I lay in bed that night thinking about this; and my conclusions follow. As I’m not running for office I shall not pull punches.

Tories like me, and I think we used to be in the majority, see good governance as an effort to live with democracy rather than to an effort to live by democracy. It is why we were so chary about referendums in the first place. We are wary of the populace and instinctively hostile to the instincts of the mob. We see the popular will as a sometimes dangerous thing, to be handled, guided, and on key occasions (and subtly) thwarted.

We know, however, that the people’s will cannot be overlooked. We see it as a corrective to the over-mighty and a warning to those who govern not to lose touch with popular feeling. But at the idea that the people should dictate the policies of government on a daily basis, we shudder.

Our kind of Conservatism is either in temporary abeyance, or going permanently out of fashion — I do not know which. Its decline since the middle of the 20th century has been so gradual as to mask its extent over time. At the beginning of that century it was possible for Arthur Balfour to remark: ‘I have the greatest respect for the Conservative party conference, but I would no more consult it on a matter of high policy than I would my valet’ without this being thought anything but wit; today its utterance would end a political career.

When I first went into politics, initially as a researcher, in 1977, it was commonplace among us Tories to see and describe ‘the will of the people’ not as our mentor but as a rock to be navigated. Capital punishment and judicial flogging were very popular with the public. The hanging debate at party conferences was an annual nightmare for our leading spokesmen, but I never heard it suggested, even by colleagues who supported the return of these punishments, that we should bring them back because the people wanted it.

As for colleagues opposed to both, our challenge was to find ways of ducking the issue. Once I became an MP, I did so by voting for the principle and against the practice. This subversion of democracy (in Theresa May’s phrase) caused me embarrassment, but not a second’s guilt. Sod democracy: hanging was wrong.

In the late 1970s, we Tories were painfully aware that popular feeling opposed any confrontation with the trade unions, but we believed this would prove necessary. Our response was, so far as possible, to tiptoe round the issue during the 1979 general election. We succeeded. Among ourselves we talked cheerfully about subterfuge. The Britain of 1979 and 1983 most emphatically did not vote for a massive confrontation with the coal miners. We made sure the electorate was never asked.

Even today, of course, politicians can and sometimes must dodge the popular will, and they know it. But who now dares say these things? And what today we do but no longer dare say we do, tomorrow we may not dare do. Tory paternalism is in long, slow retreat. People like me will stay where we are, increasingly exposed as our friends melt back. But what the heck.

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/why-i-dont-never-have-and-never-will-trust-the-people/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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


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

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

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

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

REMOANERS/REMAINIACS MAY HAVE "NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER"!

REMOANERS/REMAINIACS MAY HAVE “NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER”!
The article below caught my eye recently.  I thought the author’s take, on the self-serving and somewhat callous and socially abusive attitudes of the British Political and Managerial Establishment, as well as that of globalists and internationalists, is rather well explained in the article.  Although the author has fallen into the regrettable jargonistic approach of all too many academics in British universities who seem to take a somewhat snobbish view about explaining things in language that could be easily understood by lay people. 
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but when I was at university I was interested in psychology and did do a course on it before deciding that I didn’t think that Freud and Jung etc., really offered both useful insights into human nature.  Also I realised that their theories came with deeply demoralising, not to say amoral, philosophical core.   Even so it is interesting to see the theory of “Narcissism” being applied rather effectively to criticise management and politics.
The thought provoking article also prompted me to wonder whether the same theorising could be applied to the petulant, spiteful and socially abusive behaviour of Remainers, who are exactly the sort of people to whom this theory of Narcissism should be applied.  This behaviour is exactly the sort of behaviour that the theory of Narcissism would predict that a self-serving elite would react in this way when they didn’t get their way and when they felt deprived of their sense of entitlement, both in the case of the vote for Brexit in the UK’s EU Referendum and also in America as a result of the election of Donald Trump!
Consider this:- 
“Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which there is a long-term pattern of abnormal behaviour characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others’ feelings.  People affected by it often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or about their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them.”
Sound familiar?
Then consider this:-

Signs and symptoms

“Persons with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are characterized by their persistent grandiosity, excessive need for admiration, and a personal disdain for, and lack of empathy for other people. As such, the person with NPD usually displays the behaviours of arrogance, a sense of superiority, and actively seeks to establish abusive power and control over other people. Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition different from self-confidence (a strong sense of self); people with NPD typically value themselves over other persons to the extent that they openly disregard the feelings and wishes of others, and expect to be treated as superior, regardless of their actual status or achievements. Moreover, the person with narcissistic personality disorder usually exhibits a fragile ego (Self-concept), an inability to tolerate criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in order to validate their own superiority.
The DSM-5 indicates that persons with NPD usually display some or all of the following symptoms, typically without the commensurate qualities or accomplishments:

  1. Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from other people
  2. Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
  3. Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions
  4. Needing continual admiration from others
  5. Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
  6. Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
  7. Unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people
  8. Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them
  9. Pompous and arrogant demeanour
What do you think? 
Here is the full text of the article:-
“Narcissism is increasingly being observed among management and political elites. Recognising how it underpins policy making and how it becomes increasingly prevalent in socially destructive ways is key to re-engaging citizens with the political process, writes Marianna Fotaki.
Derived from the ancient Greek myth of a beautiful youth Narcissus, who died through falling in love with his own image, the term narcissism – coined by Sigmund Freud – has travelled widely in the past one hundred years, shaping popular culture, business and public policy.
Psychoanalytic ideas present an important framework for understanding the rise of the culture of narcissism in work, management and organisational settings. Narcissism, is applied to individuals who are incapable of empathy, unable to relate to and totally unaware of other people’s needs, or even their existence. Under growing uncertainty and the ruthless striving for innovation that characterises late capitalism, it is increasingly observed in business leadership. In 2000 Michael Maccoby argued narcissists are good news for companies, because they have passion and dare to break new ground.
But even productive narcissists are often dangerous as they are divorced from the consequences of their judgements and actions, whenever these do not affect them directly. They will strive at any cost to avoid painful realisations of failure that could tarnish their own image and will only listen to information they seek to hear, failing to learn from others. Popular portrayals of corporate figures as ‘psychopaths’ who unscrupulously and skilfully manoeuvre their way to the highest rungs of the social ladder are presented as fundamentally different from the rest of humanity. However, this is a misconception obscuring the pervasiveness of narcissism and mechanisms that enable it.
Susan Long has persuasively argued that whole societies may be caught in a state of pathological perversion whenever instrumentality overrides relationality – that is, whenever narcissism becomes dominant, other people (or the whole groups of other people) are seen not as others, like oneself, but as objects to be used. For instance, when markets are seen as anonymous ‘virtual’ structures, employees may be seen and treated as exploitable commodities. Such behaviours are pathologically perverse in that people disavow their knowledge of the situations they create through narcissistic processes.
Public policies have been subject to these pathological perversions. Separating risk from responsibility in the financial sector was not merely about creating perverse incentives enabling people to engage in greed through financial bubbles that were bound to burst, but about disengaging policy makers from the all too predictable consequences of such policies.
Another example is the dramatic shift in public policy that has occurred in Europe where instead of ensuring liveable wages, access to affordable health care, public education and a clean environment, there is an increasing preoccupation with how to unleash the alleged desire of citizens to enact their preferences of how public services should be provided. The justification is that citizens want to choose between different providers to ensure that they get the best quality. However, at least in health care services, this is not borne out by the evidence. In reality, the logic of consumerist choice valorises individualism and narcissistic self-gratification by undermining the institutions created to promote public interest. The re-modelling of the public organisations as ‘efficient’ (read flexible and dispensable) business units, the widespread privatisation of the Commons and the diminution of the value of the public good are just a few of the means by which this have been achieved.
We see the effects of these changes in the NHS: imposing a market ethos on health care staff, and a focus on indicators and targets, has led to the distortion of care. Studies have shown the long term reality of the suffering, dependence and vulnerability of mentally ill patients is disavowed, and the complexities of managing those in psychological distress are systematically evaded. It is replaced by work intensification and demands on the overworked front line staff to show more compassion. Equally, the needs of patients for relational aspects of care are ignored as they do not fit with the conveyer-belt model of services provided in 10-minute slots by GPs in England.
The institutionalisation and systemic sanctioning of such practices involving instrumentality, disregard for sociality and relational ties, and pathological splitting from one’s own actions – all originating in individual narcissistic processes – constitute a state of pathological perversion on a societal level. The increasing narcissism among management and political elites is also enabled by the public at large, who may be projecting on to them their own desire for power while splitting off ambivalent feelings emerging from this desire. The progressive marketisation of public services illustrates both the insensitivity of policy makers to the impact of their policies on those who are less able to benefit from them (i.e. the less affluent and less-well educated citizens) but also in appealing to the narcissism of voters. Thus the issue of how much choice is possible and what are the inevitable trade-offs involved (between choice and equity or quality and efficiency in public health systems) is sidestepped by politicians and their constituencies.
A narcissistic denial of reality deflects the citizens’ attention from a much needed social critique. Understanding how narcissism underpins policy making, and how it becomes increasingly prevalent in socially destructive ways of managing employees and manipulating the public, is therefore a necessary first step towards re-engaging with the political process.”

(Here is a link to the original article >>> Narcissistic elites are undermining the institutions created to promote public interest

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/narcissism-and-perversion-in-public-policy/)

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK (& England!)
 
Many thanks to the Campaign for an English Parliament for this intel:-

“Many initial responses to hearing that there is a Yorkshire independence movement and a Yorkshire Party is to pour scorn on the idea as being fiscally irresponsible or plainly unworkable. This is because it is obvious that without the British government’s subsidies Yorkshire Services wouldn’t function properly.

However, to simply dismiss these two organisations that have the same Liberal Democrat leadership is to underestimate the manipulation and the devious actions of the EU in supporting a new sounding name for the old EU Regionalisation project for Britain and for England. http://www.e-f-a.org/about-us/

First it is important for any patriots to realise that the EU is supporting the Yorkshire Party as it belongs to an EU umbrella organisation, called the European Free Alliance (EFA). That EU organisation gathers together 45 “Progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomist” parties throughout Europe. This grouping can only be conceived as an EU attempt to break-up and digest those nations that the regionalist organisations work within. This is because the EU supports the Regionalisation agenda because it makes resistance to their EU federalism agenda difficult if the nation state is fighting on two fronts. (the EU commission and EU supporting regionalist voices within).

The structure in Catalonia and Spain is a good example showing how devious the EU truly is:- The EU has openly distanced itself from those Catalonian parties that have called for full independence but it fails to mention that some of these parties are also included in their EU, European Free Alliance organisation. In effect, they are funded encouraging Regionalisation behind the scenes but are publicly slapping down independence. That is because the regionalist within the nation state is an EU regionalist patsy!

Once you accept that Regionalisation is all about pushing the EU Federalist agenda then you realise that The Yorkshire Party is not about benefiting the people of Yorkshire but about promoting EU federalism. This makes the Yorkshire party dangerous because it is about creating internal divisions and arguments within England and the UK whilst the British Government are engaged in full Brexit negotiations.

The British Government is weakened by the Regionalist pro-EU parties of the SNP and Plaid Cymru but now the EUs promoting a Regionalist political party within England that is for continuing to stay in the EU.
http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/europe, http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/sign_our_petition_support_the_rights_of_eu_citizens_in_yorkshire

This is not new and any person should be able to see the 4 EU stages that have and are being attempted to create destabilise the UK:-

(1) Under the Blair Labour government the EU promoted regionalisation of the UK and of England but the idea failed to gain any momentum in England and they lost at the ballot box in the North East of England. (You only need to look at the EU zealot, Tony Blair’s current EU stance to realise what his regionalist agenda was not about better governance. It was about destabilising the UK for EU advantage by creating a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament, and a Northern Irish Assembly and English Regional Assembly*). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance#Full_members

(2) Thus with Tony Blair’s help the EU had been successful in creating an unbalanced constitutional situation. Having created Regional Parliaments that could challenge the British government, the EU began to focus more on England. They started to support the term ‘Localism’ which really meant Regionalisation of England. If you break England up into EU Regions then you really have created an internal political and constitutional crisis for the UK.

Initially, it was Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists getting far more pro-EU media exposure than the actual support for their party would have commanded and now it’s the turn of the Yorkshire Party to be promoted. http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15787239.Councillors_vote_to_back_devolution_move/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-leeds-42427906 ;

(3) Now we need to look forward to 2018, having helped establish the idea that Yorkshire can stand alone as a Region within the EU, they could allow the Yorkshire party to push for their own parliament with more fiscal autonomy and claim that Yorkshire doesn’t have any connection with the south of England and that the British Government has no more right to speak for them than for Scotland. http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk

(4) Then Yorkshire Party will demand the same powers as Scotland and it’s own independence referendum which states it wants to remain in the EU!
https://en-gb.facebook.com/voteyorkshire/

To fully corroborate the Regionalist agenda it is worth noting that the Leader of the Yorkshire Party, Stewart Arnold, was previously a liberal Democrat Councillor and Parliamentary candidate and he also worked as a Policy and Communications Director for the European Parliament between 2001 -2012. Mr Arnold was involved in establishing the “Yorkshire Independence Movement” and is its Vice Chairman as well as becoming the Yorkshire Party’s as its leader. Also added to this is Nigel Sollitt’s comments as, The Yorkshire Independence Movement’s Chairman, states that their aim is:- ‘a Yorkshire empowered to make her own decisions and determine her own destiny’. https://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/current-executive-committee.html

In conclusion, by not discouraging Regionalism, the British government is sleepwalking into the same problems that Spain now has with Catalonia but with the major difference being that the British government is about to start negotiations to leave the EU, Spain isn’t. The Spanish Government must therefore seem as an enemy of the EU whereas the British Government is.

Regionalisation is a process that the EU uses to promote its Federalist policy, if English Regionalism is encouraged then “dissolution” of the UK will occur. This puts the EU Regionalist party, Yorkshire party in direct opposition to the British government and the British State itself as well as in opposition to the continuance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!”


*

 United Kingdom Mebyon Kernow  Cornwall 2003
 United Kingdom Plaid Cymru  Wales 1983
 United Kingdom Scottish National Party  Scotland 1989
 United Kingdom Yorkshire Party[28]  Yorkshire 2015/2016

HOW MUCH ENGLISH MONEY WILL BE USED TO BUY DEMOCRATIC UNIONISTS’ SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS?

HOW MUCH ENGLISH MONEY WILL BE USED TO BUY DEMOCRATIC UNIONISTS’ SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS?
The current level of Barnet Formula style annual block grant from the English taxpayer to Northern Ireland is standing at £10.4 billion per year.  That is somewhat more than the total net subscription/subsidy to the European Union that so much of the argument during the European Referendum campaign was about! 
That adds up to a subsidy to every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland of £5,437 more public money than they will averagely have paid in taxes being paid to the population of Northern Ireland which is as per the 2011 Census, £1,810,863 (£1.8m).   This means that, as set out in the House of Commons Briefing Paper number 04033, published on the 8th March 2015, whereas the average Government spend per head in England was £8,638 in Northern Ireland it was £11,106. 
Dominic Lawson, the son of Mrs Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, and who is a former Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, wrote in the Sunday Times on June 18th (see below) that “there are no more successful shakers of the magic money tree than Northern Ireland’s politicians”.  The question is how successful will the DUP be in shaking the English magic money tree? (or as I would rather put it picking English pockets!).
I seen reported rumours of an extra 1.4 Billion or an extra £2.5 billion and have even heard a rumour, which like all such rumours of course is un-attributable and unverifiable, that the demand may even be an extra billion for every one of the ten DUP votes in the House of Commons.  If the latter is true, that would of course then lead to a doubling of the figures which I gave above, with over £10,000 of English Taxpayers’ money being spent on average for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland!
In the past we in the English nationalist Cause have tended to compare our country’s treatment with that of Scotland.  This is partly because of the success of the SNP in highlighting the independence issue for Scotland and thereby successfully blackmailing the British Political Establishment to try to buy Scottish votes for the Union.  This latest development will of course not be generally about buying Northern Irish votes for the Union, but specifically buying the votes of the 10 DUP MPs in the House of Commons.
It will be interesting to see whether English People do begin to realise that they are being taken for fools with perhaps by as much as £20 billion of cuts on English hospitals, schools, roads, students etc., because of the fact that that money has been spent in Northern Ireland.
As mentioned above Dominic Lawson wrote in an article on June 18 2017, 12:01am, in The Sunday Times
“We are all being DUPed into a merry splurge”
In the article he writes:- “The DUP is socially conservative — reflecting the communities it represents — but in other respects it is to the left of the party May leads. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is populist. Its manifesto opposed the Conservative policy of removing the pensions triple lock and introducing means-testing for the winter fuel allowance. At the same time it advocated that the province be exempted from the BBC licence fee and air passenger duty. Its determination on this last point is apparently what’s holding up the deal: the chancellor, Philip Hammond, is understandably reluctant.
You get the picture. There are no more successful shakers of the magic money tree than Northern Ireland’s politicians. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics last month showed that while Scotland consumed £2,824 more in public expenditure per capita than it raised in taxes — a source of irritation to the English — the average inhabitant of Northern Ireland consumed £5,437 more public money than they paid in taxes. There has been a payment from London to Ulster of about £10bn in each of the past three years, slightly more than the UK as a whole has been paying — net — to the EU.
Obviously, the latter is to foreign countries, while the colossal transfers across the Irish Sea are to poorer fellow countrymen and women, with all the demands of solidarity that status entails. But it is quite a racket. To give just one example: if a legal chambers in London gets a call from Northern Ireland, the clerk will take it with a song in his heart. While legal aid in England has suffered drastic changes in allowable charges, in Ulster legal aid is, as one practitioner put it to me cheerfully, “still the same old gravy train”.
In England legal aid was one of the non-ring-fenced areas of spending that most felt the effects of what David Cameron and George Osborne offered as the solution to a national credit card maxed out by Gordon Brown: “austerity”, they called it, and the word stuck.”


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

Anti-English conspirator?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Burnham replied:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Burnham’s own words:-

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