1994 -Official Website-AUG-PT 4-2018 )--

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018 -  AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018        AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018          AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

*
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

SEP-19

OCT-19
 

 

 

(LIBERTY-FREEDOM)

 

'By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.'

Lord Acton

1844-1902

 

 

*  *  *

 

BREXIT:

NIGEL FARAGE

 

Nigel Farage to go 'on the road' with

 

LEAVE GROUP

 

Media caption Nigel Farage: "Brexit plan a complete betrayal"

Nigel Farage has said he is going "back on the road" to campaign against the prime minister's Brexit plan.

In the Daily Telegraph, the UKIP MEP said Theresa May's Chequers agreement was a "sell-out" as it included regulatory alignment with the EU.

He wrote he would join pro-Brexit group

Leave Means Leave

at UK public events.

Meanwhile, ex-civil service head Lord Kerslake has said consequences of a no-deal Brexit would be so serious, MPs would have to reconsider it.

The announcement by former UKIP leader Mr Farage comes after a string of resignations last month over the prime minister's Brexit strategy - including those of David Davis and Boris Johnson.

Mr Davis quit as Brexit secretary saying he did not agree with Mrs May's proposals, while former foreign secretary Mr Johnson accused the prime minister of pursuing a "semi-Brexit".

Mr Farage said "scores of people" had stopped him in the street to ask when he was "coming back".

He added: "Well now you have your answer: I'm back."

The 54-year-old said a "battlebus" had already been hired.

He later told the BBC that Mrs May's proposal was "a complete betrayal of what people voted for".

His comments also come amid calls for a second referendum on the final Brexit deal.

Campaign group People's Vote has also criticised the government's handling of negotiations with the European Union.

People's Vote argues the public should be allowed a say on the final deal agreed with the EU.

Lord Kerslake told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that, if the government was unable to strike a deal with Brussels, there would have to be a "pause" in the Article 50 process. under which the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019.

The crossbench peer said in those circumstances, the European Commission would likely insist on some "re-examination" of the 2016 referendum decision to leave.

"The consequences of a no deal would be so serious as I think Parliament would have to seriously consider whether it could contemplate this," he said.

"The question people need ask themselves is: is this a risk that they think we should be taking?

"If the government can negotiate a good deal, then so be it.

"But if they can't and we end up in this position, then we have to reopen the question of whether we go forward with Brexit at all. It is not too late to do that."

The government is due to publish a series of technical notes on preparations for a no-deal Brexit on areas including farming and financial services. But Lord Kerslake said this was "too little, too late".

On Friday, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt insisted Britain would "survive and prosper" if it left the EU without a trade deal - but added it would be a "big mistake for Europe".

 

[A MATTER OF CONCERN!]

comment image

See: 80 Comments

[WE were surprised a matter of some months ago when we saw the close warm greeting between Mrs May and Angela Merkel when they met to discuss BREXIT. WE expected that they would have kept at arms length ,at the time, that  a distance between them would have given more confidence to Brexiteers that the negotiations would not be a 'SELL OUT' which in some areas such as our Fishing Fields and the sovereignty of our sea lanes... we now have our suspicions. ]

APRIL 9,2018

As the picture above clearly shows it has been decades of association between Theresa May and  Frau Merkel who was a civil servant under the  Communist East German Government.  May's treasonous Cabinet plan appears to have all the hallmarks of the mindset of the German Chancellor.  May has admitted that she is in close contact with her once teen age friend so we should'nt be surprised if more bad news follows?

AUGUST 7,2018

H.F.1525/1

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 23 9-2014

 

H F 1670

*  *  *
 

Tory Brexiteers ramp up pressure on PM with 'positive' rival blueprint for leaving the EU without trade deal

  • Theresa May facing fresh challenge over her Chequers
  • plan
  • for leaving the
  • EU
  • Brexiteers are preparing a rival proposal for a hard
  • departure from the bloc
  • The document could be published next month and heap
  • pressure on the
  • [EUROPHILE]
  • PM 

 

By James Tapsfield, Political Editor For Mailonline

 August 14, 2018

2k

View
comments

 

Tory Brexiteers are plotting to ramp up the pressure on Theresa May by producing their own 'positive' plan for a hard departure from the EU.

The rival blueprint to the PM's Chequers plan, expected to be published next month, will set out the advantages of quitting the bloc on basic World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms.

It is likely to leave open the possibility of a Canada-style agreement, but only if Brussels backs down on demands for Northern Ireland to be effectively split off from the rest of the UK.

The paper, which could be endorsed by up to 80 Tory MPs, will heap difficulties on Mrs May as she struggles to hold the Conservatives together.

 

The paper, which could be endorsed by up to 80 Tory MPs, will heap difficulties on Theresa May (pictured at a commemoration in Amiens last week) as she struggles to hold the Conservatives together

 
 
 

Boris Johnson (pictured left this week) has already quit over the Chequers plan. Jacob Rees-Mogg is said to be putting together the rival blueprint

Her controversial Chequers plan, which would mean accepting EU rules for goods and collecting some tariffs on behalf of the bloc, has already triggered resignations from Cabinet - including that of Boris Johnson.

The Brexiteer plan is being put together by Jacob Rees-Mogg, chairman of the European Research Group of Conservative MPs, according to The Times.

He is said to be cooperating with former Brexit minister Steve Baker to assemble the 'alternative view' to the government's white paper.

The document could be presented as a 'common position' by Conservative members of the ERG, posing a serious threat to the government's official position.

Downing Street will fear that the intervention could turn Brussels off engaging seriously with Mrs May's proposals, because they might not make it through Parliament.

However, there are questions over whether the ERG will be able to thrash out its own collective position.

One MP told The Times: 'We have made it very clear that we do not accept the Chequers proposals, but there is an acknowledgement that we need to make the case for an alternative.

'The tricky bit is coming to a common position that everyone can sign up to, but I'm confident that we should be able to achieve that.' 

Conservative former cabinet minister Lord Lilley, an ERG member, wrote in the newspaper that while a Canadian-style trade deal would be 'the best outcome', no deal 'would be a good second best'.

'The Chequers plan is moribund and the agreement offered by the EU in March is unacceptable because the 'Irish backstop' means splitting the UK,' he wrote. 

'No deal is likely and would be a good second best, making a better deal possible later.'

 

Brexiteers believe Mrs May's plan will be rejected by Brussels. She is pictured with Jean-Claude Juncker agreeing the divorce deal in December 

 

 

Tory Brexiteers ramp up pressure on PM with 'positive' rival blueprint

Tory Brexiteers ramp up pressure on PM with 'positive' rival blueprint for leaving the EU without trade deal

 August 14, 2018

*  *  *

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H.F.1660

 

 

 

 

 

 

*  *  *

    News for eu news germany

     


     Express.co.uk
    Merkel's nightmare: Now GERMANS question

    Chancellor's dreams of European Union super-state

     

    Express.co.uk - 17 hours ago

    THE most Europhile country in the entire European Union is feeling its first
    rumblings of anti-establishment anger as Germans begin to question ...

    What the EU Court ruling on headscarf bans

     

    means for Germany ...

    14 March 2017.

    Mrs May has said she will not ban headscarves at work but an

    Islamic cleric has stated that it is not compulsory for a Muslim

    to wear such head dress or a Burka. It is a means to push an

    Islamic agenda even if others prefer a neutral atmosphere at

    work and or many also in the general community. It is

    particularly so when particular leftist broadcasters tend to

    pursue their own  disc

    redited multicultural dogma and encourage

    an over-the-top presentation as we witnessed which was more

     

    like an Islamic warrior going into battle instead of an

     

    interviewer in a British broadcasting studio.

    It is this senseless and brainless attitude of those who cannot understand that it will be because of their blindness to the dangers of the NON-INTEGRATION of at  least 600,000 (60 %) of MUSLIMS in ENGLAND and with a birth-rate of 4-1 that in a generation or two there will be most likely an ISLAMIC STATE with FULL SHARIA LAW in parts or even throughout our country because of those politicians and others who cannot see further than their own faces that THEY ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL CARRY THE BLAME when the BATTLE to RETAIN OUR CHRISTIAN  HERITAGE AND CULTURE will BEGIN!

    WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THAT IT WAS A EU COURT THAT MADE THIS RULING THEY MUST HAVE CONSIDERED  THE DANGERS AHEAD IF THEY HAD DELAYED THEIR VITAL DECISION ANY LONGER.

    Mrs May has stated that she will not bring in a BAN . Well! that is a matter for the HOUSE of COMMONS and unless she has a change of heart then she will be primary responsible for what develops over the next decade or so. WE have already proof that many strong measures previously brought into place are being abandoned.  We can understand that she has a great deal on her plate at the moment but deciding to

    PROTECT OUR CHRISTIAN HERITAGE  AND CULTURE

    must surely always be in her

     

    MIND!

    MARCH 14-2017
 

H.F.1146 FREEDOM NOW

 

*  *  *

 DAILY MAIL

 

 

[  GRIM REALITY! NOT A SOAP!]

 

Smug, craven politicians in thrall to notions of diversity, sowed the seeds of the terror we're now reaping, writes

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

 

THE glowing tributes paid to protection officer PC Keith Palmer were thoroughly deserved. He was the best of British, a man with a selfless sense of duty who served in the Royal Artillery before joining the police.

Constable Palmer who was unarmed, was stabbed to death fending off a crazed jihadist attacker attempting to enter the Houses of Parliament, MPs queued up to honour his bravery and sacrifice. Politicians love to associate themselves with courage of our men and women in uniform.

But, at risk of being accused of cynicism, I couldn't help wondering about the reaction had PC Palmer been a firearms officer who shot dead a knifeman on the streets of London. On past form he'd have been lucky not to end up in the dock at the Old Bailey charged with

MURDER.

Worse, if during his Army days he'd been falsely accused by some crooked solicitor such as Phil Shyster of committing

WAR CRIMES

in Afghanistan, Iraq or Northern Ireland.

his life would have been turned upside down by the historic investigations team and he could now be

ROTTING IN A MILITARY JAIL.

IN either event, the same politicians singing his posthumous praises this week would have washed their hands of

HIM.

Sorry if all this sounds a tad sour, but I found some of the self-congratulatory posturing in the Commons yesterday faintly nauseating. While paying lip service to the

EMERGENCY SERVICES

and their

PARLIAMENTARY STAFF,

It  struck me that what many MPs- with a few honourable exceptions-

WERE REALLY CELEBRATING WAS THEIR OWN PERCEIVED HEROISM.

The real heroes

were on

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE

and in

NEW PALACE YARD

TRYING TO SAVE LIVES.

They weren't cowering in the secure confines of the

COMMONS CHAMBER

Tweeting.

Although this attack has been pained, with justification, as an assault on the

MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS,

their was never any danger to a single MP inside its walls.

PC Palmer and the plain clothes officer who shot dead the attacker

MADE SURE OF THAT.

Just to be on the safe side, though, the first thing the parliamentary  authorities did yesterday was to order another lorry load of concrete barriers to add to the already formidable security measures surrounding the Palace of Westminster

Not that they'd have been any good to those

INNOCENTS

who were

MURDERED

or catastrophically injured on the

BRIDGE

But at least

 DEMOCRACY will be SAFE

Every time there is  a terrorist atrocity, either here or abroad, the politicians go through the same old motions, mouthing platitudes about never surrendering to evil.

 BUT  BY THEIR ACTIONS

they

BETRAY

their

HOLLOW RHETORIC

and the

REST OF US HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES

It is the political class who have fostered the conditions which allow

ISLAMIST FUNDAMENTALISM TO FLOURISH IN BRITAIN

They encouraged the pernicious doctrine of

'MULTICULTURALISM'

-which is just a fancy word for

APARTHEID

and has created vast, monocultural Muslim

GHETTOES

in

OUR GREAT CITIES...

 

She was killed by a deranged Right-wing fantasist, acting alone. The difference is that he set out specifically to murder Miss Cox. Islamist jihadis want to randomly kill anyone. As many as possible. Believers or non-believers. They’re not fussy.

The Westminster killer may have been flying solo, but he is part of a global terror movement which aims to destroy the West and anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their particular strain of Islam.

You may have noticed I haven’t wasted too much ink thus far on the murderer himself. That’s because I don’t want to glorify him. He was born in Britain, lived in Birmingham and was aged 52.

So that gives the lie to the ‘impressionable young man radicalised over the internet’ myth.

Almost inevitably, he had been on the radar, according to the Prime Minister. He had a long criminal record, had been investigated ‘historically’ but was now considered to be on the ‘periphery’.

Maybe if the Old Bill had spent less time chasing ‘historic’ sex offenders, they might have been able to discover that he wasn’t that peripheral after all.

Not that I blame the anti-terror services. They’re overstretched, trying to clean up the mess created by politicians. They’re doing a fantastic job in the circumstances and have foiled an impressive number of plots.

Just as well. Given that the latest perpetrator was well into his sixth decade, it suggests we are now looking at two, maybe even three, generations of home-grown jihadis.

Before the internet took off, terrorists were recruited through mosques. Scotland Yard even closed roads around Finsbury Park mosque so that Captain Hook could peddle his poison.

In the Nineties, the political class took the view that provided the Islamists didn’t commit any acts of terror on British soil, they were welcome to operate with impunity. All that achieved was to allow the merchants of death to establish deep roots here, with utterly predictable consequences.

Smug, craven politicians, in thrall to notions of ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism, sowed the seeds of the terrorism we are now reaping.

This week, innocent bystanders and tourists on Westminster Bridge, along with brave PC Keith Palmer, paid the ultimate price, while heavily protected MPs — fresh from their glowing tributes to another evil terrorist, Martin McGuinness — congratulated themselves on their own bravery and resolve.

Makes you proud to be British.

 

Much more in

Full Article

* * *

[A most excellent article which covers so many twists and turns to reveal the incompetence and flawed policies of politicians over the past decades which has brought amongst us those of an opposing culture many of whom still consider our settled population as 'infidels'. Our countries foreign policy in the Middle EAST over the past decades with illegal wars-BLAIR and BUSH for the purposes of controlling the oil supplies. Over the past 100 years , the securing oil supplies by Britain -France-Holland and American companies- SAUDI-ARABIA... and the wealth obtained by the oil companies and countries involved but particularly SAUDI ARABIA has enabled the hardened feature of fanatical ISLAM to spread around the world but particularly in Europe and throughout the Middle East and Africa. The bribe offered Britain and USA particularly was investment in LONDON and NEW YORK ans ARMS CONTRACTS. There is no longer a safe region of the world -where there are  fanatical supporters of ISLAM. Of course there are many moderate Muslims but even they ( DM.60% ?) who in the main would support their fellow adherents because it would be their life's cause to live in  an ISLAMIC STATE with FULL SHARIA LAW.  This is WHY! knowing the difficulties ,only a small number of MUSLIMS should have been permitted to immigrate to the UK on the condition that they could not be full citizens unless they fully integrated into SOCIETY. With such a large Muslim population of approximately 3,000,000 and with a birth-rate advantage of 4-1 it is probably now an almost unsolvable conundrum . But it must be faced down, or even greater dangers will follow in the years ahead. Therefore, as Mr Richard Littlejohn's article so clearly demonstrates, our politicians past and present by their laxity and political correctness and naivety are responsible for the present dangerous situation in our once -more spacious and less crowded and settled land.]

*

 

 

'MULTICULTURALISM'

 

 

OUR GREAT CITIES...

 

 

*

[A most excellent article which covers so many twists and turns to reveal the incompetence and flawed policies of politicians over the past decades which has brought amongst us those of an opposing culture many of whom still consider our settled population as 'infidels'. Our countries foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 100 years securing oil supplies and the wealth obtained by the oil companies and countries involved but particularly SAUDI ARABIA has enabled the hardened feature of fanatical ISLAM to spread around the world but particularly in Europe and throughout the Middle East and Africa. There is no longer a safe region of the world -where there are  fanatical supporters of ISLAM. Of course there are many moderate Muslims but even they in the main would support their fellow adherents because it would be their life's cause to live in  an ISLAMIC STATE with FULL SHARIA LAW.  This is WHY! knowing the difficulties ,only a small number of MUSLIMS should have been permitted to immigrate to the UK on the condition that they could not be full citizens unless they fully integrated into SOCIETY. With such a large Muslim population of approximately 3,000,000 and with a birth-rate advantage of 4-1 it is probably now an unsolvable conundrum  but it must be faced down or even greater dangers will follow in the years ahead. Therefore, as Mr Richard Littlejohn's article so clearly demonstrates our politicians have been responsible for the present dangerous situation in our once more spacious and settled land.]

*

TOLERATION

'Toleration is a good thing in its place; but you cannot tolerate what will not tolerate you, and is trying to cut your throat.'- Froude

*

'Religious  liberty, according to both Locke and Montesquieu, may and does require intolerance of an intolerant religion; and the very spirit of peace and gentleness may require war be waged by the state against an aggressive religion.'- Connelly.

[The British Government won't clean up its own backyard let alone decide FOREIGN POLICY in order to PROTECT those of the CHRISTIAN FAITH in the world at large. What could be a better message at this time of the year to send out than that we will not tolerate the slaughter of CHRISTIANS or others of other FAITHS who's message is GOODNESS-PEACE and HARMONY for ALL MANKIND.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

DECEMBER 10-2016

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

MARCH 24 -2017

H.F.1156 FREEDOM NOW

 

*  *  *
AFTER 46 YEARS WITHIN THE CONTROL OFTHE

BEAST!

IN

BRUSSELS AND BERLIN .

OUR HISTORIC  ENGLISH SEA HIGHWAYS GIVEN AWAY BY THE TRAITOROUS EDWARD HEATH WILL BE RETURNED IN MARCH 2019.

'Ye mariners of England/that guard our native seas/Whose flag has braved a thousand years/The battle and the breeze'.

Thomas Campbell.(1777-1844) Ye Mariners of England

*

ENGLAND'S

GREAT ESCAPE

 FROM

HITLER'S  FOURTH REICH

See also: eutruth.org.uk-Why we are leaving!-if you need a reminder?

*

IN MARCH 2018 WE HEAR THAT   ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER IS GOING TO SELL OUT OUR FISHING RIGHTS AND  ISLAND FISHING FIELDS.

 THERE MUST BE NO SURRENDER OF ENGLISH

AND OTHER  ISLAND NATIONS SOVEREIGNTY OF THEIR HISTORIC WATERS.

This has been brought about because as we  suspected  to expect a

 REMAIN Prime Minister

 to put her country FIRST! was a an impossible dream.

ENGLAND IS NOT ENGLAND WITHOUT FULL CONTROL OF HER HISTORIC WATERS.

BETRAYAL!

Now foreign firms to keep fishing in UK waters after

BREXIT
ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

293

In 1962,

Field Marshall Montgomery

 found Sir Winston Churchill sitting up in bed smoking a cigar. Churchill shouted for more brandy and protested against Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market which as we soon found out was in reality  HITLER'S plan for Europe under GERMAN Control.

 

    Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said - Google Books Result
     

    Britain's attitude, Churchill explained, resembles that which we adopt about the
    European Army. We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged
    with and do not forfeit our     insular or commonwealth character. Our first object is
    the unity and consolidation of the British Commonwealth. Our second, “the
    fraternal ...

SCOTLAND AND WALES HAVE THEIR PARLIAMENT

 - HOW LONG MUST

 ENGLAND

WAIT FOR HER'S?

 Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH.

*

 

*  *  *

 

 

A WARNING

AGAIN IN AUGUST 2018]

 

 

 

Why NO Treaty LIMITING EU powers CAN EVER be RELIED ON.

 

On the 50th anniversary of the treaty of Rome a leading barrister describes the role of the European Court of Justice in expanding the powers of the EU

 

by

Martin Howe QC

 

[Eurofacts 6th April, 2007]

Vol 12 No 13

 

What is the key feature that makes the Treaty of Rome different in kind from every other international Treat to which this country belongs, and quite possibly makes it unique in the world?

To this question, a lawyer can give only one answer:

the key feature is Community Law -a system of law that penetrates inside the member states and takes precedence over national laws in the domestic courts of member states.

Many treaties bind states with rules at the international or external level - but it is this internal penetration which marks out the

TREATY OF ROME

-as different from other treaties.

In fact this internal penetration is a classic characteristic, not of international treaties, but of the internal constitutional arrangements of

FEDERAL STATES.

And like a federal state, the

EUROPEAN UNION

-has its own

SUPREME COURT

the

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

-which has the

ULTIMATE POWER

-of decision over both

CONTENT and the SCOPE of COMMUNITY LAW.

 

Profound Changes

This court is not neutral or impartial interpreter of the rules.

The perspective of looking back over 50 years allows us to see clearly how profoundly the

TREATY of ROME

-has been changed from what it was in 1957.

I am not speaking here of the many changes of text which have been made by successive amending treaties such as the

Single European Act

Maastricht

or

Nice.

I am talking of the profound changes in the effective content of the Treaty which have occurred as a result of a process of so-called

"INTERPRETATION"

-of the

Treaty by the Court.

The key point that Treaty articles have direct effect inside the member states is nowhere stated in the

TREATY

-but was decided by the

EUROPEAN COURT

in the

Van Gend en Loos case in 1963.

It said:

"The treaty is more than an agreement which merely creates mutual obligations between the contracting states. This view is confirmed by the preamble to the Treaty which refers not only to governments but to peoples....the Community constitutes a new legal order in international law for whose benefit the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the Member States but also their nationals".

 

Sovereign Rights

 

Shortly afterwards in 1964 in the Costa v. ENEL case, the Court ruled that

COMMUNITY LAW

-over-rides conflicting national laws:

 

" The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community system of rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights..."

[So since 1963 politicians who later claimed that there would be

NO LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY

-were lying and are still lying to the

BRITISH PEOPLE

We have only days ago put on our bulletin board some comments from Lord Carrington about the interference of the European Union in matters which should be none of their concern.

From the early days of the Treaty of Rome thousands of politicians have lied -From Macmillan-Edward Heath-Kenneth Clarke and every prime minister and government -with the only objections raised by Margaret Thatcher who only later realised the danger which she disregarded decades before and even Conservative MEPs today in 2007 still hold onto the hope that they can change the EU when the only thing worth having was given up over 40 years ago.

A dagger was derisively thrust into the heart of nation -state sovereign power by the European Court  in 1963/1964 and Britain alone of all States with its long history of over a thousand years of freedom should have kept faith with those who won that freedom so long ago.]

 

By 1970, in Internationale Handelgesellschaft, the European Court had declared its view that Community LAW should take precedence even over the constitutional laws of Member States -including basic entrenched laws guaranteeing

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

In the  1987 Foto-Frost case, the European Court ruled that national courts had no power to question the validity of Community measures and reserved that power exclusively to

ITSELF

-even though there is nothing in the Treaty or in general principles of

INTERNATIONAL LAW

-which would require

 STATES

-to recognise the

VALIDITY OF ACTS

-which are

OUTSIDE THE POWERS

conferred by the

TREATY

*

During the early period of the [so-called] Common Market, free market economists would have approved of the Court's activism in the field of free movement of goods.

BUT

-this activism became a

Poisoned Chalice

-since the Court made clear that it regarded a

 

EUROPEAN FREE MARKET

-not as an END in ITSELF , but simply a MEANS to a GREATER END.

Concrete Progress

The Court spelled out its thinking in 1992 in the

European Economic Area Agreement Case:

" An international treaty is to be interpreted not only on the basis of its wording, but in the light of its objectives. ...The Rome Treaty aims to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union.

Article 1 of the Single European Act makes it clear that the objective of all the Community treaties is to contribute together to making concrete progresss towards European unity.

It follows from the foregoing that the provisions of the Rome treaty on free movement and competition, far from being an END in THEMSELVES, are only means for obtaining those objectives.

... As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the COMMUNITY TREATIES ESTABLISHED A NEW LEGAL ORDER for the benefit of which the States have limited their

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS

-in ever wider fields,

-and the subjects of which comprise not only the member States but also their nationals. [emphasis added]".

In the last sentence, the important change in wording from 1963 Van Gend case - should be noted. By 1992,

"limited fields"

 become

"ever wider fields"

-reflecting the Court's endorsement of the doctrine that there can only ever be a one-way transfer of powers from member states to the centre.

[Do you now understand Mr Nice Guy Dave and many of your MEPs who are always harping about retrieving

 POWER back from BRUSSELS]

The Court has also expanded powers of the Community over the external relations of the member states. It developed a doctrine of implied external competence - that the Community has power to make external agreements relating to fields over which it has acquired internal competence. Furthermore, under this doctrine, the member states lose their own powers to conclude international agreements relating to areas of policy over which the

COMMUNITY

-has attained an internal competence.

Under this doctrine, in 2002 the Bermuda Agreement between the UK and the US relating to trans-Atlantic air transport was struck down. British Airways at the time welcomed the fact that such arrangements would in future be negotiated by the EU rather than bilaterally. I must confess to a slight sensation of schadenfreude at British Airways' present reaction to what the EU has apparently succeeded in negotiating on our behalf.

Whilst the Court has liberalised the internal market, it has often used its growing powers over the external trade of member states in a way which inhibits the liberalisation across the external borders of the EU.

In the 1998 Silhouette case, it interpreted the

Trade Marks Directive

-as requiring member states to prohibit so-called

"parallel imports"

-of genuine trade marked goods from non-member states when the proprietor of the mark has not consented to the marketing of his goods into the Community. This enables trade mark proprietors to prevent the importation of their own genuine goods into the EC from other countries where they have placed them on the market (e.g. the USA), so enabling them to charge consumers within the EC a higher price than in other markets.

Similarly, in the field of regulations and technical standards, the Court has ruled in the 1999 Agrochemicals case that the UK is prohibited by Community Law from licensing

"parallel imports"

-from non-EC countries, even though the products are identical to agrochemicals licensed inside the EC and made by the same manufacture.

The economic rationale of this

"fortress Europe"

-mentally is baffling, and it cuts against

OUR

-global trade obligations under the

World Trade Organisation

on

Technical Barriers to Trade.

*

Onward Progress

Where the onward progress of European integration has been blocked by national vetoes, the Court has been willing to reinterpret the Treaty to make up for the lack of progress on the legislative front.

In a whole series of recent tax cases, the Court has invoked the general clauses of the treaty on non-discrimination to strike down national tax legislation. An important example is the 2002 Lankhorst-Hohorst case on tax credits on payments by a subsidiary to its parent in another member state. What is significant is that the Court departed from its earlier cases which had decided that such arrangements were compatible with the Treaty.

The Treaty had not been changed, but its meaning, according to the Court, had. Thus , the effective harmonisation of direct taxes proceeds step by step at the hands of the Court despite the UK's theoretical veto on this area under the Treaty.

More recently in the 2005 environmental protection case, the Court decided that the EC can, under its first-pillar supranational law-making powers, specify and impose criminal offences and penalties in the very wide fields where the EC has an existing competence. The remarkable thing about this decision is that, if it is right, the EEC had these powers over criminal law from the day the

TREATY of ROME

-was signed on 25th March 1957.

Yet if this had been suggested to those who signed the Treaty in 1957, or to those who signed Britain's

 Accession Treaty

-in 1972, they would have laughed

 

We see, with the perspective of 50 years, how powerful has been the effect of the rolling process of reinterpretation of the

TREATY of ROME

-carried out by the Court over that period.

WHAT CONCLUSION SHOULD WE DRAW FROM THIS?

If we believe that it is right to halt or reverse the ongoing process of the transfer of powers from the UK to the European institutions, then we should recognise a simple point.

We saw how the so-called Social chapter opt-out negotiated at Maastricht was rapidly undermined by the abuse of

HEALTH and SAFETY POWERS

-under the treaty to by-pass the UK's veto on the

Working Time Directive.

 

THIS ABUSE OF THE TREATY WAS OF COURSE SANCTIONED BY THE

 

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE.

 

If we remain subject to Community law, and to the European Court's interpretation of the Treaties, no agreement or treaty defining or limiting the powers of Europe can be relied upon -simply because it will be reinterpreted by the Court, over time, to expand those powers again.

[Conservative MPs and MEPs please note the above and adjust your records accordingly and remember that the ECoJ has you all by the nose -though many of you are still unaware of how little you can do as you put it- with your supposed influence inside the EU.

As to the excuses of the Pro-EU Conservative MP' and MEPs that they were misled from the beginning we know that this was a lie  as shown from publication of details of that era. and the following view of:

 Jean Monnet document on the European Coal and Steel Community, June 1950, quoted in Memoirs, 1978 confirms that statement.

"The withdrawal of a State which has committed itself to the Community should be possible only if all the others agree to such withdrawal and to the conditions in which it takes place. The rule in itself sums up the fundamental transformation which the French proposal seek to achieve. Over and above coal and steel it is laying the foundations of a European federation. In a federation no Stat can secede by its own unilateral decision. Similarly, there can be no Community except among nations which commit themselves to it with no limit and no looking back'

*

www.eutruth.org.uk

[' A MATTER OF FACT!

 A REMINDER TO REMAINERS WHO IN THEIR MILLIONS REFUSED TO PUT FREEDOM AND COUNTRY-CULTURE AND CONSTITUTION

FIRST!]

H.F.1424

H.F.1651

*  *  *
[BROUGHT FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER 2005]

Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

 

*

 

A further article from the ONLY sole INDEPENDENT world-wide respected International Currency Review under the heading:

 

*

 

*

CAN BRITAIN WITHHOLD ITS EC CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

PERTINENT LEGAL ADVICE BY LEOLIN PRICE, QUEEN’S COUNCEL

 

The following Legal Opinion was provided by the distinguished veteran constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, in response to a request to consider the following questions:

1. )  Can ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of UK taxpayers’ money (i.e., of UK Government funds) by the European Commission and/or European Union; and

2. ) Can Britain withhold its contributions to the EC budget on the ground that UK taxpayers’ funds are being misused (embezzled, defrauded, misappropriated, misallocated, misrepresented, etc)? But in reality, these questions are themselves superfluous since, as exposed in this issue [of International Currency Review-Vol 30,4 dated October 10-2005, cstory@worldreports.org

 

  Britain’s EU membership was procured fraudulently, so that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Britain has every right to leave the EU unilaterally and to cease payment.

 

1.    I preface this Opinion by acknowledging that I am not aware of any precedent for the sort of proceedings in court against Ministers of the Crown, whether civil or criminal, which I am asked to consider.

2.                  But there are two relevant principles of English law to be borne firmly in mind: first, that the King (or Queen) can do no wrong [We must make it clear at the outset that this does not include King Tony-whatever he may think]; secondly, that every subject of the Queen is subject to the RULE OF LAW and equal before the law.  There is no special privilege or status for Ministers or other officers of the Crown.

 

They are vulnerable and ought to be answerable in our courts if something which they have done is not properly authorised by law, infringes the rights of individuals and causes damage.

3.There is also learning about when an officer of the Crown can plead, as a defence to a claim by someone who has suffered from some act of that officer, that what was done was an ‘Act of State’.  A British subject cannot sue the Queen (because the ‘Queen can do no wrong’); and if an act, of which a British subject complains of, is in civil law, a tort, the officer cannot assert that the act complained of was an act, which had been authorised by the Crown (in reality the Government).

 

The Act of State is not available to the officer in that situation.  He must, if he can, show that what was done was a lawful exercise of some power lawfully conferred by

Act of Parliament

Or

Otherwise:

 

See, for example, Johnson v Peglar [1921] 2AC 262.

 

4.)             But a somewhat different line of modern authority R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Smedley [1985] AC657 recognises that a person – in ex p Smedley, a British taxpayer and elector – may have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring judicial review proceedings against Government authorities and Ministers.

 

·    Can Ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of taxpayers’ money (i.e. of UK Government funds) by the European union?

5.)             This is the first – and primary – question on which I am asked to advise [Leolin Price, Queen’s Counsel]

6.)             My answer is that our Courts will not recognise that any direct responsibility is imposed by Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the subsequent application, by the Commission of the European Communities Act or the EU, of our taxpayers’ money which is paid over in accordance with the established legal procedures for making our contributions to the European Union.

7.)             But the history and circumstances of fraud, at the centre of the European Union and in ‘Member States’, and the conspicuous failure of the Commission or the European Union to establish any proper (and obviously necessary) accountancy controls over what happens to the money which is provided by ‘Member States’, has produced a situation in which the British elector and taxpayer may reasonably consider that it is a failure of duty for the Government, Chancellor of the Chequer and treasury to go on handing over our money to what he may reasonably consider is an organisation which is incapable of doing and unwilling to do, anything effective about the corrupt and fraudulent diversion of EU funds.  The history of incapacity and unwillingness includes the following:

(1)    The resignation of the whole Commission upon its acknowledgement of collective responsibility for corruption and fraud.

(2)    In spite of that admission of collective responsibility, the continuation in office of all but one of the resigned Commissioners.

(3)    A continuing failure to establish a minimum of accounting controls over the Commission’s expenditure of money at the centre or within ‘Member States’

(4)    Failure by the Commission, in response to acknowledged and massive misuse of EU money, to establish any regime with a minimum of efficiency and designed in accordance with modern accountancy standards to monitor the expenditure of EU money and to minimise its misuse.

(5)    The apparent inability of the Commission to prevent, or reasonably to combat and control, the corrupt and fraudulent misuse of EU money, including contributions from the United Kingdom.

 

8.           Faced with that history, a UK elector and taxpayer could reasonably expect his Government to suspend, wholly or partly, the further contribution of money from the United Kingdom to the European Union in the continuing absence of proper EU accountancy and controls to combat and contain fraud and corruption and other misuse of EU money; and could reasonably expect English Courts to support his claim for such suspension.

9.           In the circumstances, and before the next instalment of the UK contribution to the EU is to be paid, a UK taxpayer could apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the making of the payment on the ground that no responsible Minister of Department of OUR Government could regard it as appropriate to pay over money without any reasonable expectation or even hope that the recipient EU institutions have made any reasonable arrangements to avoid its being, with other EU money, misused.  Experience, especially experience since the collective resignation of the Commission [in 1999], indicates that the money so contributed will be at serious risk of not being used for the purposes for which our Treaty obligations and our law require it to be contributed [sic].

10.  Will such judicial review proceed -ings be successful? The practical and realistic answer is that the [English] Courts will be reluctant to permit the review; but there is a presentable argument, and although there is no previous reported case which provides a precise precedent, it represents a logical development of what has been recognised in reported cases; and the continuing scandal about misuse of EU money provides ground for seriously contending that judicial review ought to be, and is, available to stop exposing UK money to the obvious risk of EU failure to avoid misuse.

11.      The withholding of Treaty-required contributions, which are at serious risk of not being properly used for Treaty purposes, is not-or arguably, is not- a breach of Treaty obligations. [Editor; However as is shown in this issue – of International Currency Review Vol 30,4 the treaty obligations themselves are not applicable,

since the

British Accession Treaty, and collective treaties, were signed for corrupt reward by agents of a Foreign Power.]

12.  The argument will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Crown servant, is a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it is a breach of the duties involved in that guardianship to pay over money which, in the hands of the recipient Commission and the EU, will be at such serious risk of misuse.  The First defence will be that the payment is required by our Treaty obligations and by Acts of Parliament; but the answer to that is that the Treaty obligations and Parliament provide authority for payment to support Treaty purposes and NOT to expose the money to established and substantial risk of misuse.

13.   An alternative form of proceedings might be criminal proceedings against the Chancellor for misuse of public money under his control.  The argument for this is that the payment is a serious breach of public duty:  it condones and encourages and facilitates the misuse, and the misuse is foreseeable.  Those instructing me may consider it worthwhile attempting such a criminal case; and it may be that the launching of such a criminal case will achieve judicial discussion of the public duty and its breach.  It is, nevertheless, my opinion that such criminal proceedings will not be successful.

14.      , The better choice of proceedings is judicial review.

 

19th October 2004.

Leolin Price CBE QC,

10 Old Square,

Lincoln’s Inn,

London.

 

 

[Font altered-bolding & underling used-comments in brackets]

 

*         *          *

NOV/05

 

 

H.F.1651

*  *  *

 

[BROUGHT FORWARD FROM NOVEMBER 2005]

Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

 

*

 

A further article from the ONLY sole INDEPENDENT world-wide respected International Currency Review under the heading:

 

*

 

*

CAN BRITAIN WITHHOLD ITS EC CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

PERTINENT LEGAL ADVICE BY LEOLIN PRICE, QUEEN’S COUNCEL

 

The following Legal Opinion was provided by the distinguished veteran constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, in response to a request to consider the following questions:

1. )  Can ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of UK taxpayers’ money (i.e., of UK Government funds) by the European Commission and/or European Union; and

2. ) Can Britain withhold its contributions to the EC budget on the ground that UK taxpayers’ funds are being misused (embezzled, defrauded, misappropriated, misallocated, misrepresented, etc)? But in reality, these questions are themselves superfluous since, as exposed in this issue [of International Currency Review-Vol 30,4 dated October 10-2005, cstory@worldreports.org

 

  Britain’s EU membership was procured fraudulently, so that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Britain has every right to leave the EU unilaterally and to cease payment.

 

1.    I preface this Opinion by acknowledging that I am not aware of any precedent for the sort of proceedings in court against Ministers of the Crown, whether civil or criminal, which I am asked to consider.

2.                  But there are two relevant principles of English law to be borne firmly in mind: first, that the King (or Queen) can do no wrong [We must make it clear at the outset that this does not include King Tony-whatever he may think]; secondly, that every subject of the Queen is subject to the RULE OF LAW and equal before the law.  There is no special privilege or status for Ministers or other officers of the Crown.

 

They are vulnerable and ought to be answerable in our courts if something which they have done is not properly authorised by law, infringes the rights of individuals and causes damage.

3.There is also learning about when an officer of the Crown can plead, as a defence to a claim by someone who has suffered from some act of that officer, that what was done was an ‘Act of State’.  A British subject cannot sue the Queen (because the ‘Queen can do no wrong’); and if an act, of which a British subject complains of, is in civil law, a tort, the officer cannot assert that the act complained of was an act, which had been authorised by the Crown (in reality the Government).

 

The Act of State is not available to the officer in that situation.  He must, if he can, show that what was done was a lawful exercise of some power lawfully conferred by

Act of Parliament

Or

Otherwise:

 

See, for example, Johnson v Peglar [1921] 2AC 262.

 

4.)             But a somewhat different line of modern authority R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Smedley [1985] AC657 recognises that a person – in ex p Smedley, a British taxpayer and elector – may have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring judicial review proceedings against Government authorities and Ministers.

 

·    Can Ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of taxpayers’ money (i.e. of UK Government funds) by the European union?

5.)             This is the first – and primary – question on which I am asked to advise [Leolin Price, Queen’s Counsel]

6.)             My answer is that our Courts will not recognise that any direct responsibility is imposed by Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the subsequent application, by the Commission of the European Communities Act or the EU, of our taxpayers’ money which is paid over in accordance with the established legal procedures for making our contributions to the European Union.

7.)             But the history and circumstances of fraud, at the centre of the European Union and in ‘Member States’, and the conspicuous failure of the Commission or the European Union to establish any proper (and obviously necessary) accountancy controls over what happens to the money which is provided by ‘Member States’, has produced a situation in which the British elector and taxpayer may reasonably consider that it is a failure of duty for the Government, Chancellor of the Chequer and treasury to go on handing over our money to what he may reasonably consider is an organisation which is incapable of doing and unwilling to do, anything effective about the corrupt and fraudulent diversion of EU funds.  The history of incapacity and unwillingness includes the following:

(1)    The resignation of the whole Commission upon its acknowledgement of collective responsibility for corruption and fraud.

(2)    In spite of that admission of collective responsibility, the continuation in office of all but one of the resigned Commissioners.

(3)    A continuing failure to establish a minimum of accounting controls over the Commission’s expenditure of money at the centre or within ‘Member States’

(4)    Failure by the Commission, in response to acknowledged and massive misuse of EU money, to establish any regime with a minimum of efficiency and designed in accordance with modern accountancy standards to monitor the expenditure of EU money and to minimise its misuse.

(5)    The apparent inability of the Commission to prevent, or reasonably to combat and control, the corrupt and fraudulent misuse of EU money, including contributions from the United Kingdom.

 

8.           Faced with that history, a UK elector and taxpayer could reasonably expect his Government to suspend, wholly or partly, the further contribution of money from the United Kingdom to the European Union in the continuing absence of proper EU accountancy and controls to combat and contain fraud and corruption and other misuse of EU money; and could reasonably expect English Courts to support his claim for such suspension.

9.           In the circumstances, and before the next instalment of the UK contribution to the EU is to be paid, a UK taxpayer could apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the making of the payment on the ground that no responsible Minister of Department of OUR Government could regard it as appropriate to pay over money without any reasonable expectation or even hope that the recipient EU institutions have made any reasonable arrangements to avoid its being, with other EU money, misused.  Experience, especially experience since the collective resignation of the Commission [in 1999], indicates that the money so contributed will be at serious risk of not being used for the purposes for which our Treaty obligations and our law require it to be contributed [sic].

10.  Will such judicial review proceed -ings be successful? The practical and realistic answer is that the [English] Courts will be reluctant to permit the review; but there is a presentable argument, and although there is no previous reported case which provides a precise precedent, it represents a logical development of what has been recognised in reported cases; and the continuing scandal about misuse of EU money provides ground for seriously contending that judicial review ought to be, and is, available to stop exposing UK money to the obvious risk of EU failure to avoid misuse.

11.      The withholding of Treaty-required contributions, which are at serious risk of not being properly used for Treaty purposes, is not-or arguably, is not- a breach of Treaty obligations. [Editor; However as is shown in this issue – of International Currency Review Vol 30,4 the treaty obligations themselves are not applicable,

since the

British Accession Treaty, and collective treaties, were signed for corrupt reward by agents of a Foreign Power.]

12.  The argument will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Crown servant, is a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it is a breach of the duties involved in that guardianship to pay over money which, in the hands of the recipient Commission and the EU, will be at such serious risk of misuse.  The First defence will be that the payment is required by our Treaty obligations and by Acts of Parliament; but the answer to that is that the Treaty obligations and Parliament provide authority for payment to support Treaty purposes and NOT to expose the money to established and substantial risk of misuse.

13.   An alternative form of proceedings might be criminal proceedings against the Chancellor for misuse of public money under his control.  The argument for this is that the payment is a serious breach of public duty:  it condones and encourages and facilitates the misuse, and the misuse is foreseeable.  Those instructing me may consider it worthwhile attempting such a criminal case; and it may be that the launching of such a criminal case will achieve judicial discussion of the public duty and its breach.  It is, nevertheless, my opinion that such criminal proceedings will not be successful.

14.      , The better choice of proceedings is judicial review.

 

19th October 2004.

Leolin Price CBE QC,

10 Old Square,

Lincoln’s Inn,

London.

 

  [Font altered-bolding & underling used-comments in brackets]

 

*         *          *

NOV/05

 

 

H.F.1653

*  *  *

 
 

RUTH DUDLEY EDWARDS: Angry at Boris? I just feel rage for the women forced to hide away behind the burka

By Ruth Dudley Edwards For The Daily Mail

 
 
 
 

Thursday, Aug 9th 2018 5-Day Forecast

 

103

View
comments

 

Boris Johnson’s joke about burka-wearing women looking like ‘letter boxes’ made me wince – not least because I know there are so many women forced to dress that way at the behest of their menfolk and who hate how it makes them look.

There are many worse things than giving offence, and one of them is to cordon off contentious topics and designate them no-go areas, while demanding punitive attitudes to people who make inappropriate jokes.

So full marks to the former Foreign Secretary for getting this desperately needed public debate going.

 

'Full marks to the former Foreign Secretary for getting this desperately needed public debate going,' writes Ruth Dudley Edwards

If he’d tackled the subject by writing something that wouldn’t upset even the most sensitive imam, then we might not now be having frank discussions in pubs, on phone-in programmes and on social media about two issues we need to speak truthfully about.

First, are we entitled to outlaw cultural practices that come from abroad that, for whatever reason, a majority of people feel uncomfortable with?

And secondly, in the interests of showing sensitivity towards those who feel slighted, should we curtail free speech?

Taking the first point, I agree with Boris that the burka shouldn’t be banned as it has been in France, Belgium, Chad, Cameroon and Denmark.

 

'So many women forced to dress that way at the behest of their menfolk and who hate how it makes them look,' writes Ruth Dudley Edwards 

Stopping people wearing what they like is an interference with the individual liberty we prize in this country, so we shouldn’t do it.

Yes, the language he used gave offence to the kind of people who like to take offence, particularly extreme liberal cheerleaders who think it unforgiveable ever to criticise minorities.

He has also, of course, given the Left a golden opportunity to distract attention from the anti-Semitism that is poisoning the once great Labour Party by alleging that the Conservative party is Islamophobic.

But it cannot be denied that many of us talk in private about how we are troubled by the burka and the niqab, though few of us will say so in public for fear of being accused of being Islamophobic or racist.

I come to the subject as someone who has studied Islam. When Islamist acts of terror emerged as a potential threat here, I wanted to learn more about the dangers posed by extreme Islam and began reading extensively, writing and debating about it.

The climate for debate, however, has deteriorated because of restrictive laws about so-called hate-speech passed by a pusillanimous liberal elite, officiously policed, and supported by teachers and academics who tell their students they can’t challenge liberal pieties until they end up too terrified to question anything.

Added to that are sanctimonious media and Twitter mobs that can destroy people’s careers with screeching accusations of racism or sexism over a clumsy word. As a result, free speech is becoming gradually stifled.

This in turn spreads resentment and can fuel the far-Right, as we are seeing in Britain. So I feel that those of us who are battle-hardened should tell the truth bluntly, even if it’s impossible to open your mouth without offending somebody. 

 

Maajid Nawaz (pictured) says the burka is 'the uniform of medieval patriarchal tyranny'

Personally, I feel that wearing the burka and the niqab implies a rejection of our society, yet I have no doubt that some women are permitted no choice but to cover up by fathers, husbands or brothers.

I also believe strongly that we should stand up to self-appointed spokespeople like Baroness Warsi (she has accused Boris Johnson of encouraging hate crime), and Lord Sheikh (he wants him thrown out of the Tory party) who try to shame us out of being frank.

I have read the Koran twice, and know there is no requirement in it for women to cover their faces or even their hair. So any time you hear anyone claiming otherwise, know they are either ignorant or lying, and feel free to tell them it’s an Arab cultural practice that is out of place in the West.

My position was neatly summed up on Twitter by Maajid Nawaz, a one-time Islamist who co-founded Quilliam, the think tank which challenges extremism. Through his LBC radio show he debates with everyone and is cheered on by many Muslim listeners who hate what is being said in their name by fundamentalists.

The burka ‘is the uniform of medieval patriarchal tyranny,’ he wrote. ‘It victim-blames women for their beauty. Where this is enforced it symbolises violent misogyny. I’m not advocating banning this monstrosity but I refuse to defend it. It deserves to be ridiculed. Not the women inside it.’

Neither the law nor misguided sensitivity should prevent women being required to show their faces at passport control or to police or security personnel at the point of entrance to any building, public or private.

Shops should have the right to refuse service to anyone with a covered face. No child should have a schoolteacher nor any patient a nurse whose face they can’t see, and any judge and jury are entitled to watch the expressions on the faces of participants in a court case.

Much as I dislike the veil, though, I do sometimes smile at someone wearing one if we are in close proximity, not least because it’s all too possible they are unwilling victims of a tyrannical relative, and I want to reassure them that they are not in a hostile world.

I have nothing but contempt, however, for non-Muslims who defend a uniform that isolates women from normal life and makes it almost impossible to make cross-community friendships.

I hope the hysteria over what was a perfectly rational and liberal article – with just one or two elements that might have been better expressed – will encourage us all to stand up for our right to say what we think, however unfashionable.

 

Aug 9th 2018

 

H.F.1650

 

*  *  *

 

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

H.F. 1325.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

A.N. WILSON on the new dark age of intolerance: You must believe in gay marriage, you can't question abortion and as for transgender rights...

By A.n. Wilson For The Daily Mail

 September 30- 2017

The great French writer Voltaire famously said: 'I disapprove of what you say and would defend to the death your right to say it'. In this way, he encapsulated what it meant to be an enlightened human being — someone prepared to consider all points of view.

But in recent years the principle of freedom of speech, sacred since Voltaire's 18th century, has been lost, and this is surely one of the most sinister features of our times. It is as if we are entering a new Dark Age of Intolerance.

The irony is that this intolerance has come about as a result of what were initially good intentions. One of the things which makes me happy as I grow older is the thought that during my lifetime we have all tried to become a kinder society.

When I was a boy and a young man, for example, racist jokes were the norm on radio and TV. Now they would be unthinkable. Mockery of homosexuals, and the equation of being gay with being limp-wristed and camp, were absolute norms of comedy when I was growing up. Now no longer.

Such jokes have gone the way of boarding-houses which used to put 'NO BLACKS. NO DOGS. NO IRISH in the window'. Obviously, all civilised people feel pleased by this.

But somehow those initial good intentions — to be kinder to and more tolerant of others — have morphed into a political correctness that has had the very opposite effect.

Two notorious recent examples of this concerned the treatment of a Christian baker in Northern Ireland, and some Christian bed and breakfast owners in Berkshire. The baker had not wanted to make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The B&B owners had refused to let a gay couple share the same room in their establishment. In each case they were successfully sued for unlawful discrimination.

Now, a gay activist would no doubt say this was a good thing, arguing that the baker and bed and breakfast owners' behaviour was comparable to the racism of the past. Yet this is surely getting things wholly out of proportion.

The baker was not persecuting homosexuals, as Hitler did. He was not saying they should be put in prison, as all Home Secretaries in Britain did until the Sixties. He was merely saying that, as a Christian, he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that two chaps tying the knot were doing something rather different, which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching.

Whatever you think about this matter, the Northern Irish baker and the B&B couple were merely holding on to Christian beliefs.

I don't happen to share their views myself, and think that if two people are rash enough to promise to live together for the rest of their lives, good luck to them, whether they are gay, straight, trans or anything else. But surely you can understand both sides of this dilemma, can't you?

Well, the answer, more and more in our intolerant society, is 'No'. My concern here is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, transgender rights, our colonial history, or any of the other emotive issues that are subject to endless debate in the modern age.

It is about freedom of thought and speech; freedom to disagree in a liberal society; freedom to have thoughts which are different from the current orthodoxy.

What began as our very decent desire not to be nasty to those of a different ethnicity, or sexual proclivity, from ourselves, has turned into a world as intolerant as monkish Christianity in the days of the Dark Ages, when any freedom of thought is questioned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems during the General Election, was asked repeatedly about his views on gay marriage. As a fairly old-fashioned Christian, he did not believe it was possible — marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As the leader of a modern political party, he knew that it would be political death to admit this. He was finally forced to resign.

This was a signal to the world that if you want to succeed in modern politics, it is simply not allowed to hold views which, until a very short time ago, were the consensus among the great majority of people in the Western world.

I use the words 'not allowed' advisedly. What is sinister about living in the new Dark Ages, however, is that it is by no means clear who is doing the allowing and not allowing. In Mao's China, it was obvious: thought crimes were ideas which contradicted the supreme leader.

In Britain today, however, it seems an army of self-appointed censors — from internet trolls to angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials, craven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures, as well as a host of other sanctimonious and often bilious busy-bodies — have taken it upon themselves to police what we can and cannot think or say.

Not believing in abortion, like not believing in gay marriage, is now, unquestionably, a thought crime. It was hardly surprising that the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said he did not believe in abortion, because he is a man of conviction as well as a Roman Catholic, and this is the teaching of his Church. Yet his view was treated with incredulity and disdain by everyone from trolls and women's groups to the higher echelons of the political Establishment.

As in the case of abortion, debate is no longer allowed on transgender issues. There was a BBC2 Horizon Programme last Tuesday night called Being Transgender. The close-up shots of transgender surgery in a Californian hospital will not easily leave the mind.

We met a number of nice people who had decided for one reason or another that they were not the gender which they had once supposed. They were all undergoing some form of transformative medical treatment, either taking hormones or having surgery.

What made the programme strange as a piece of journalism was the fact that it did not contain one dissenting voice. Not one psychiatrist or doctor who said they doubted the wisdom of some of these procedures, especially in the very young.

Still less was there anyone like the redoubtable feminist and academic Dr Germaine Greer who once expressed her view that a man did not become a woman just because he had undergone transgender surgery — and was, as a result, decried from the rooftops with everything from petitions launched to stop her from speaking at university campuses to death threats.

Dr Greer had also been bold enough to say 'a great many women' shared her view, which is obviously true — a great many women do not think that transgender people have really changed sex. What has changed is that it is no longer permitted to say so.

A friend of mine who likes bathing in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath in London says that at least one person now uses the female changing rooms who is obviously in a stage of transition from man to woman, and is simply a hairy man wearing lipstick.

However uncomfortable this makes the women feel, they know that they cannot say anything.

There was an ugly incident lately at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, which used to be the place where anyone could go and stand on a soap-box and hold any opinion they liked.

Speakers' Corner was a symbol of British Freedom of Speech. As a schoolboy, I had a Jewish friend whose grandfather used to take us there to listen to people proclaiming that the earth was flat, preachers praising Hitler, Stalin, and others saying whatever they liked. It was the freedom to do so, said the old man who had escaped Hitler's Germany, which made the very air of Britain so refreshing to him.

What would he have thought had he witnessed the scene earlier this month at Speakers' Corner when a 60-year-old woman called Maria was smacked in the face, allegedly by a transgender fanatic, while listening to a talk on planned reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Reforms which would allow men to 'self-identify' as female, and enter women's changing rooms or refuges unchallenged.

For Maria, as for the intimidated women of Hampstead swimming pool, and for Germaine Greer, it is by no means clear that transgender people have changed their sex.

Transgender activists have labelled women like Maria TERFS — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. When news of the assault on her reached the internet — ie instantaneously — the trolls began baying, like the bloodthirsty mob during the guillotine-executions of the French Revolution. 'Burn in a fire, TERF'. 'I want to f*** some TERFS up, they are no better than fascists'.

The use of the word 'fascist' is commonplace in our new Dark Age for anyone with whom you happen to disagree. You hear it all the time in the Brexit arguments which rage all around us and which I dread. As it happens, I voted Remain. But I do not regard Brexiteers as 'fascists', and many of their arguments — wanting to reclaim the power to make our own laws and control our own borders — are evidently sensible.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Remainers say that Brexiteers are fascists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the keenest supporters of a united European superstate were actual fascists.

The only British politician who campaigned on the ticket of Europe A Nation during the Fifties was Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of the British Union of Fascists. But then, today's PC censors don't let facts get in their way of bigotry.

Branding anyone you disagree with a fascist; hitting people in the face; tweeting and blogging abuse behind the cowardly anonymity of the internet — these are the ugly weapons used to stifle any sort of debate. And it is often in the very places where ideas should be exchanged and examined that the bigotry is at its worst: our universities.

This week on the Radio 4's Today programme, we heard James Caspian, a quietly-spoken, kindly psychotherapist, describing what has become a cause celebre at Bath Spa University.

He has been working for some years with people who for one reason or another have begun the process of gender-transition, and then come to regret it.

Caspian is evidently not a judgmental man. He wanted to write a thesis on this subject from a sympathetic and dispassionate point of view.

What makes people feel so uncomfortable with their own apparent gender that they wish to undergo painful and invasive surgery to change it? What makes people then come to reassess their first idea? These are surely legitimate questions about a subject many of us can't quite comprehend.

I have two friends who started out as men, and decided in mid-life that they were really women, or wanted to become women, which is what they have done. I do not really understand what has happened to them, even though they have tried to explain it to me.

Surely a man like James Caspian, who has worked with transgender men and women, should be encouraged by a university to explain this area of medicine or psychology?

But no. The university, having initially approved of his idea for a thesis, then turned down his application. 'The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media, and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university,' he told Radio 4 listeners. 'They also added it's better not to offend people.'

This is all of a piece with students at Oxford wanting to pull down the statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes from his old college, Oriel, on the grounds that he was racist.

Rather than having a reasoned debate weighing the evils of racist colonialism against Rhodes's benevolence, the student at the forefront of the movement — who had actually accepted a £40,000 Rhodes scholarship funded by the fortune the colonialist gave to Oxford — wanted to pull down the statue.

This is the same attitude of mind as that which led monks in the Dark Ages to destroy the statues of pagan gods and goddesses, or the Taliban to do the same to age-old Buddhist artefacts.

Reason, debate, seeing more than one side to an argument, surely these are the foundations of all that has fashioned the great values of the West since the Enlightenment started in the 18th century with an explosion of new ideas in science, philosophy, literature, and modern rational thought that ushered in the Age of Reason.

Realising that human actions and ideas are often mixtures of good and bad — isn't this what it means to have a grown-up mind? Surely we should be allowed to discuss matters without being accused of thought crime?

In universities, as at Speakers' Corner and in the public at large, there used to be the robust sense that sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us. Now, the 'hurt-feelings' card is regularly played to stifle any debate.

Little by little, we are allowing the Dark Ages of intolerance to come again. We should not be letting this happen.

We should be able to say: 'We disapprove of your views — on Europe, on Transgender Issues, on Islam, on absolutely anything, but we defend to the death your right to express them'.


 

Full article

 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4935418/A-N-WILSON-new-dark-age-intolerance.html#ixzz4uAFieZ6T
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

 

 

*  *  *

 

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

*  *  *

 

VANDALISM!

 
 

The Lake District's

greatest champion says plans to cross this glorious valley with zip wires are

AN ABOMINATION

By Melvyn Bragg

Plans to criss-cross reservoir with wires abomination | Daily Mail .

says plans to
criss-cross this glorious valley with zip wires is an abomination .... From that
feeling grew an understanding which spread around the world, that we could
feed off nature not only for our daily bread, but for other inner riches.
 

Vandalism! The Lake District's greatest champion MELVYN BRAGG says plans to criss-cross this glorious valley with zip wires is an abomination

By Melvyn Bragg For The Daily Mail

 January 18, 2018

Short of striding over the fells yourself, the best way to experience and understand the joy of the Lake District is through the writing of Alfred Wainwright, a man who knew the area better than anybody.

In his final book before his death in 1991, he wrote about the redevelopment of Thirlmere reservoir 130 years ago: ‘Manchester Corporation and the Forestry Commission have been the greatest predators in Lakeland over the past century.

‘They were not welcome intruders, both being strongly opposed by conservationists and lovers of the district. They have done much to destroy the original character of the scenery, and done little to enhance its natural charm.

 

Short of striding over the fells yourself, the best way to experience and understand the joy of the Lake District is through the writing of Alfred Wainwright, a man who knew the area better than anybody 

‘Enough has been more than enough. But it must be conceded that a hundred years of maturity have added a new attractiveness to the Thirlmere valley, best appreciated when viewed from a distance. In the case of Thirlmere, all is forgiven.’

In this characteristically blunt assessment, Wainwright is conveying two things: first, that as it stands the Thirlmere reservoir is just about perfect; and second, that he was profoundly suspicious of those who sought to ‘improve’ his beloved Lakes by importing new ideas into an ancient landscape.

 

What on earth, then, would he make of the latest proposals to criss-cross Thirlmere reservoir with eight zip wire rides? 

What on earth, then, would he make of the latest proposals to criss-cross the lake with eight zip wire rides? I’d wager he wouldn’t be at the front of the queue to have the first aerial ride across.

My view is that the developers behind the plan must be stopped from turning this idyllic corner of England into a funfair. Whatever next, a merry-go-round on the top of Helvellyn, dodgems between Buttermere and Crummock Water, and a coconut shy on top of the highest mountain in England?

If they manage to force on us the idea that the Lake District is in need of flashy ‘attractions’, then we will lose the area as it has been treasured, nurtured and used for over two centuries.

The biggest threat comes from Treetop Trek. This is the outdoors adventure company behind efforts to build eight of the longest zip wire rides in the UK right across the majestic Thirlmere reservoir. Thankfully, a last-minute objection lodged by Natural England citing the ‘significant adverse effect’ on the area may yet save us from this monstrosity.

We can only hope something similar happens at Honister Slate Mine. There, the owners have lodged a third bid to build a zip wire after being rejected by the Lake District National Park Authority in 2011 and 2013.
 

My view is that the developers behind the plan must be stopped from turning this idyllic corner of England into a funfair (above, Thirlmere reservoir) 

Why this obsession with trying to enhance the appeal of the Lake District? It is already the second greatest visitor attraction in England. It is garlanded with international awards for its beauty and its natural values. Above all, it is a place where tranquillity of mind and body can be sought and found.

Equally for young people, rock-climbing, kayaking and other sports have been, and continue to be, a magnetic attraction without benefit of any funfair intrusions.

It is not too strong to say that the Lake District is facing an act of vandalism. We have been quite good at vandalism in this country. 

Henry VIII vandalised what were thought of as some of the most beautiful and extraordinary monasteries in Europe. 
 

Whatever next, a merry-go-round on the top of Helvellyn, dodgems between Buttermere and Crummock Water, and a coconut shy on top of the highest mountain in England?

 

We can only hope something similar happens at Honister Slate Mine (above). There, the owners have lodged a third bid to build a zip wire after being rejected by the Lake District National Park Authority in 2011 and 2013 

Councillors in the 20th century vandalised town and city centres — such as Newcastle, hugely praised by John Betjeman — which showed the magnificence of Victorian civic architecture and if left alone would themselves have become world attractions by now.

If you take all that matters out of the Lake District, then it ceases to be the quietly spectacular place which gives it such lustre and satisfaction to so many people of all ages. We do not need to be teased into the Lake District by methods more suitable to seaside resorts. I loved going to the seaside as a child, especially to Blackpool and Morecambe just down the road from the Lakes.
It is not too strong to say that the Lake District is facing an act of vandalism 

But there’s a sort of madness in saying that the Lake District has to take on their nature. It has its own nature.

Tranquillity is more valued now than ever. Millions of us over the years have found deep and resonating satisfaction among the 300 fells (or hills); the majesty of Derwentwater, Windermere and Ullswater; the countless meres and tarns; the stunning waterfalls, just one of the Lake District’s endless geological marvels.

As Coleridge said over 200 years ago, to walk up any fell is to see a new prospect every few yards.
 
 

If you take all that matters out of the Lake District, then it ceases to be the quietly spectacular place which gives it such lustre and satisfaction to so many people of all ages

It is here that we see the work of farmers over centuries with their great network of stone walls. They, together with generous landowners, have put a human shape on what was thought 300 years ago to be a savage wilderness.

And yet it is not by any means the bustling Toytown these developers want to make it. I have been on walks on bank holidays and met no more than two or three other ramblers.

I can look over valleys which stretch towards the sea and seem empty, save for a few cottages and perhaps a church which indicate the life which has so long sustained this place.

Over 200 years ago, thanks largely to Wordsworth, it came into the drawing rooms of Bath and London, and into the imagination of poets in other parts of Europe as a place which stood for a new idea, a radical fresh understanding of who we were.

It was in the Lake District —alongside one or two other places in Europe — that the idea was developed that nature was not an enemy to be fought or something like a slave to be worked to death, but a force that we could feel if we listened closely enough.

From that feeling grew an understanding which spread around the world, that we could feed off nature not only for our daily bread, but for other inner riches.

In four short lines, Wordsworth put forward this new philosophy:

One impulse from a vernal wood

May teach you more of man

Of moral evil and of good

Than all the sages can.

In short, to be in accord with nature was a way towards a better, finer life.

And when I’m up there roaming around, I see kids clambering over rocks or chattering their way down the streets of little villages, or rowing across lakes.

Zip wires and all the fun of the fair might bring to some a bit of temporary excitement, but it would absolutely destroy for most of us the unique peacefulness of this place.

It is full of infinite small charms, pathways, scarcely trodden valleys. And it also has an undoubted magnificence which anyone with a heart thrills to.

I remember cycling to the Lake District from nearby Wigton, where I grew up, with a couple of pals when I was about 14, and being taken with it immediately. We swam in the freezing Bassenthwaite Lake and tried to make a fire with damp sticks.
 

I can look over valleys which stretch towards the sea and seem empty, save for a few cottages and perhaps a church which indicate the life which has so long sustained this place

We were unaware that three poets laureate had been guests in a modest house in the woods beside that lake. We had no idea the vikings had come here and that there had been the cell of a miracle-making hermit called Bega, whose presence long ago is marked by a small Church.

We did not know that once that lake had been linked with Derwentwater a few miles down the valley to make one vast lakeland holding. And that nearby the idea of rambling for pleasure had developed among factory workers, intellectuals and poets who saw it as an inspiration and a sanctuary.
Why on earth should we let commercial wreckers spoil it? 

Soon afterwards, we started going round the youth hostels, tried to climb in the spot where the sport of mountaineering was invented and got to know this English masterpiece of freedom.

It had its own language once. I have a dictionary of Cumbrian words which is full and fat. Many of them have drifted into disuse, but still you can hear the dialect in the core of the Lake District

One more thing. Wherever you walk in the Lakes people say ‘Hello’. They are pleased to be there. They are pleased that other people are there. They feel it is theirs to go through at the natural pace of human kind — on foot.

Above all, they feel safe in the undisturbed peace of it all. A sense of quietness and dignity which reaches back tens of thousands of years. They come in their millions and love the Lake District as it is.

Why on earth should we let commercial wreckers spoil it?

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5282113/Pans-criss-cross-reservoir-wires-abomination.html#ixzz55DmEcBJi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

'Not rural sights alone, but rural sounds, exhilarate the spirit, and restore the tone of languid nature.'-

Cowper

'God  made the country, and man made the town.- What wonder, then, that health and virtue should most abound, and least be threatened in the fields and groves.'-

Cowper

In those vernal seasons of the year when the air is calm and pleasant, it were an injury and sullenness against nature not to go out and see her riches, and partake in her rejoicing with heaven and earth.-

MILTON

*  *  *

 January 18, 2018

 

H.F.1455

*  *  *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

*  *  *

NEW  BREXIT MINISTER

BACKS

NO DEAL

[RATHER THAN KOW-TOW

TO

BRUSSELS AND BERLIN]

Brexit minister who backs no deal: Meteoric rise of leading Eurosceptic after she is given junior position in the department after only becoming an MP in 2015

  • Suella Fernandes was promoted to be a new junior minister in Brexit Department
  • The 37-year-old was elected to Parliament in 2015 and said no deal will be 'great'
  • She is now in the Department for Exiting the European Union, led by David Davis

By Jack Doyle, Executive Political Editor For The Daily Mail

 January 10,2018

 
 

Suella Fernandes (pictured) said leaving the EU without a deal would be 'great' for the UK

The Brexit Department has been beefed up with the appointment of a leading Eurosceptic who says leaving the EU without a deal would be 'great' for Britain.

Fareham MP Suella Fernandes, a former barrister, is chairman of the influential European Research Group of pro-Brexit backbench Tories.

Her promotion to a junior ministerial post marks a meteoric rise for the 37-year-old, who was elected to Parliament in 2015.

A daughter of immigrants from Kenya and Mauritius, she has previously declared her determination to make Britain a 'fully sovereign trading nation' once again after Brexit.

She grew up in Wembley, North London. Her mother was a nurse who worked in the NHS for 45 years and her father worked for a housing association.

She won a scholarship to an independent school and studied law at Cambridge where she was chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association.

Miss Fernandes says that in 15 years, Brexit 'will be seen as the best thing that has happened to our country'.

She added: 'In the event of no deal, that's great as well for us.

'The ideal is a free trade agreement but in the event of that not working, no deal is something we will capitalise on using our strengths and the opportunities that brings.'

In her maiden speech to the House of Commons, Miss Fernandes said it was 'a stroke of luck to be born British, and my indebtedness goes to the heart of why I am a Conservative'.
 

Ms Fernandes has joined the Department for Exiting the European Union, which is led by David Davis (pictured) 

She added: 'Our party rewards endeavour, enables compassion and liberates people from the shackles of the State. Our party says, 'It doesn't matter where you start. You can make your life and that of others better by taking responsibility and through self-empowerment and generosity'.'

The Department for Exiting the European Union – known as DExEU – which is led by David Davis, now has three junior ministers in the Commons – Miss Fernandes, Robin Walker and Steve Baker.

At the end of her reshuffle, Theresa May had carefully preserved the balance within Cabinet of Leavers and Remainers. The new Work and Pensions Secretary, Esther McVey, backed Brexit.

Two pro-Remain MPs, Claire Perry and Caroline Nokes, will also attend Cabinet.

The most eye-catching promotion on Monday was of David Liddington, a former Europe minister and Remainer, who takes Damian Green's Cabinet Office job, but without the First Secretary of State title. He is seen as a like-for-like replacement. However, there was no job for Jacob Rees-Mogg, a prominent Eurosceptic.
[Obviously, his quiet sensible straight forward utterings on Brexit and many other matters are an embarrassment to certain members of the Government.]

Theresa May carefully preserved the balance within Cabinet of Leavers and Remainers.

[The seriousness of obtaining a Brexit dominance in the Cabinet appears to be downplayed in order to appear even-handed, but in reality, this should not be so , as a majority of voters demanded to LEAVE THE EU and a Brexit majority in the Cabinet should reflect their decision.  IN time of war, as in 1939/1940, the Cabinet was of two frames of mind how to pursue the war  and the predominant view was with vigour and tenacity. In that day,-it was first Neville Chamberlain followed in 1940 by a man of action and leadership Winston Churchill.  In our day we have our Neville Chamberlain and we have yet to have our Winston Churchill, but a Jacob Rees-Mog certainly fitts the picture.]

Contrary to one report, there was no evidence of the appointment of a 'minister for no deal'. On Monday it was suggested the reshuffle would involve a Cabinet-level appointment of a 'no deal' minister to deal with preparations for the collapse of talks. As well as attending Cabinet the minister would 'control a significant budget', the Daily Telegraph reported.

In June, Miss Fernandes succeeded Mr Baker as chairman of the ERG, the main Eurosceptic group of Tory MPs. At the time, she said: 'The next two years will be crucial in the transition of the UK into a fully sovereign trading nation. I don't believe in a 'hard' Brexit or a 'soft' Brexit; I am passionate about a pro-business and jobs-led Brexit which will increase our country's prosperity.'

The group has played a key role in organising Eurosceptic MPs to get behind the Government.

  • Jeremy Corbyn has infuriated Remainers in his party by reminding them that Britain voted to quit the single market.

Leading Europhile MP Chuka Umunna walked out of a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party in disgust as the Labour leader unveiled his vision.

Mr Corbyn told pro-EU Labour MPs at the meeting on Monday night that he would not support their bid to keep Britain in the single market because that was not what voters wanted.

It is the latest clash between the hard-Left Labour leadership, which is known to be lukewarm towards the EU, and most of the party's MPs and members who want continued close co-operation.

One MP told Sky News: 'Jeremy said that when people voted to leave the EU, they voted to leave the single market. Single market membership requires us to be members of the EU...'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5252679/Minister-backs-no-deal-Meteoric-rise-Eurosceptic.html#ixzz53saOgMVO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

JANUARY 10-2018

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1433

 

*  *  *

Brexit and Jewish Oligarchy

By Gilad Atzmon on June 26, 2016

Goldman Sachs, George Soros are not part of the Brussels Government

 
 

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday Britain voted to leave the EU. The causes of this result have been known for a while. More than half of the Brits are dismayed by the level of immigration, multiculturalism, lack of job opportunities, global capitalism, evaporation of manufacturing and a housing bubble that leaves most young Brits without the prospect of a decent future.

The Brexit was an outlet for these legitimate frustrations. Yet the problematic symptoms listed above have little to do with the EU or Brussels. Their root cause lies elsewhere.

Immigration and multiculturalism (that is; the ideology designed to suppress expression of chauvinism) are integral to cultural Marxist ideology. Britain, like the rest of the West, has been subject to an invasive and brutal paradigm designed to vitiate the working class.

Flooding Britain with immigration was a conscious political act pushed by the Jewish left and the Jewish lobby. This is explainable. Jews have good reason to be fearful of the working classes. Historically, it has been the working classes that turned against the Jews. Breaking society into fragmented and diverse segments is transparently a Jewish left interest. When a society is broken into a manifold of tribes and identities, the Jews become merely one tribe amongst many.

I am an immigrant myself and not an anti immigration campaigner. However, at a certain stage in the early 2000s my eight piece Orient House Ensemble consisted of seven immigrants and one native Brit. We were Israelis, a Palestinian, a Romanian and a Moldovan. At the time our ensemble won every British musical award. We were a favourite of the BBC and the Guardian’s album of the year. We were heroes of multiculturalism and the symbol of a new ‘tolerant’ British society. The British Council sent us around the globe to promote those ideals. This didn’t last long. I quickly grasped the underlying agenda. As those who know me may expect, I didn’t keep my mouth shut.

Yesterday the Brits voted against immigration. But leaving the EU may not be the answer for their plight. Looking into the elements and ideologies that planted pro-immigration policies and multiculturalism may be the ultimate way forward.

brexit

 

The demography of the referendum suggests that it is primarily the British working people who want to leave the EU. In the last four decades they have watched manufacturing dying out. They saw an economic bubble that left many of them impoverished and off the property ladder. But it wasn’t really the EU that caused all of it and leaving the EU may not improve things. Milton Friedman, who taught ‘free market’ philosophy to Margaret Thatcher, never lived in Brussels. Friedman believed in the service economy. He also believed that capitalism wasn’t just a great idea, it was also

very good for the Jews.  Goldman Sachs, George Soros and others who fecklessly destroy one country after another are also not part of the Brussels Government. The British vote was actually a vote against Goldman Sachs, Soros, Friedman and cultural Marxism, but most of them do not know it yet.

Yesterday the Brits proved, once again, that they are a brave people. They made a decision that they understood could inflict some serious difficulties on their society. Knowing that, they marched into the Brexit with pride and I admire their courage.  The Brits voted against immigration, banksters, the global economy, the City and the two parties that have facilitated this disaster for decades.  However, the Brits failed to attack the root cause of the problem.  Leaving the EU is not going to emancipate them. For Jewish oligarchy, the Brexit is a red alert. ‘Hands off’ would be the most clever strategy. Can they follow this humble advice? I doubt it.

Most British Jews have little to do with it. Liam Fox and Michael Gove who were amongst the leaders of the call to leave, are notorious for being dedicated servants of the Jewish lobbies. The Jewish press was pretty quiet on the Brexit.

And

crucially, if British Jews had identified that the call to leave the EU was somehow related to Jewish power, Jewish Banking or Jewish Left pro immigration we would have seen the rapid formation of a

“Jews for Brexit campaign.”

This is what Jews do when they detect dissent to their political power, they immediately form the bodies that control the opposition.

 

#Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

 

Related Posts:

*

[HIGHLIGHTING-CAPS ETC- ARE OURS]

JULY 23-2016

 

H.F.932 FREEDOM NOW

 

*  *  *

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM OCTOBER 16-2006

Daily Mail

Monday, October 16,2006

 

SUDDENLY, Britain seems to be developing into a cultural and religious battleground. Hard on the heels of Jack Straw’s criticism of the Muslim full-face veil, local government minister Phil Woolas has said that Aishah Azmi the Dewsbury teaching assistant who insists on wearing a veil in her primary school class-room, should be sacked.

Not to be outdone, the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, has accused Muslims of promoting a kind of ‘voluntary apartheid’

-by shutting themselves away in closed societies and demanding immunity from criticism, corroding the very foundations of

BRITISH [ENGLISH]] CULTURE

Meanwhile, British Airways is being sued for religious discrimination after it required a Christian women employee to conceal her cross while permitting other faiths to wear turbans, hijabs or Hindu bangles.

*

[This is classic political-correctness, which identifies with any faith or mantra provided it is

NOT CHRISTIAN.

The home culture is to be suppressed to show how tolerant and noble we are in our diversity agenda even if it places in peril the very identification of a land and people of over 1400 years as the home of

CHRISTIANITY. ]

To return:

This echoed the controversy earlier this month when the BBC agonized over whether newsreader Fiona Bruce should wear a small cross on a chain in case it might cause offence.

[In a Christian country whose people in a recent poll  - with 70 per cent who acknowledged their faith whether practiced or not.]

How can Britain have arrived at a situation where it is seriously argued that a class of children who don’t speak English as their first language should be taught by a shrouded women whose expression they can’t see and whose voice they can’t hear properly – while the BBC thinks that wearing the symbol of Britain’s established religion might be offensive?

Extreme

 The source of this confusion is a profound loss of:

NATIONAL

CULTURAL

AND

RELIGIOUS NERVE.

 The Christian values that once defined NATIONAL IDENTITY

have simply collapsed, creating a cultural vacuum which

ISLAM –

Britain’s fastest –growing and most assertive religion –

is busily filling.

Those who defend the Muslim veil are grossly misreading the situation.  It is not some picturesque religious garment equivalent to the often-curious attire  worn by members of other religions.  It is associated instead with the most extreme version of

ISLAM

-which holds that Islamic values must take precedence over the secular state. Only a small minority of British Muslim women chooses to wear this veil.

BUT unlike other religious attire, it is thus inherently separatist and perceived by some as intimidatory.

 

That is WHY it is UNACCEPTABLE.

, there seems to be a dawning recognition in Government of the extreme danger into which British [English] society has been placed by the doctrine of MULTICULTURALISM

-which holds that upholding majority values is somehow illegitimate, and by the official policy of appeasing Islamic extremism.

[We have over the past few days seen a fight back by the

Roman Catholic Church

to maintain

CHRISTIANITY

In Britain by gathering their flock to protect their religion brought to the islands those many tens of hundreds of years ago. 

The Anglican Church has been too accommodating with politicians for many decades and with a few exceptions particularly the recent appointment Archbishop of York  - Dr John Sentamu there has been silence and collusion with the secular State supported by Prince Charles

 ‘the man of many faiths and true supporter of none’

 

as he does not wish to offend anyone.

 

The CHRISTIAN religion is ENGLAND  and ENGLAND is the CHRISTIAN religion

and if Prince Charles cannot accept this covenant made over with the blood and soil and  stone of our land he should NEVER ascend the

CHRISTIAN THRONE OF ENGLAND.

The throne of England is not heredity it is for the Commons of England and the People to decide who they wish to defend their Christian Faith and Values.

 *

To return:

Hence Mr. Woolas’s remarks, the show of ministerial support for Jack Straw, and the threat last week by Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly to withstand funding from Muslim institutions that do not combat extremism.

Although hundreds of thousands of British Muslims have no truck with extremism, opinion polls reveal that between 40 to 60 per cent of British Muslims want to live under

SHARIA LAW

-and parts of our inner cities are fast becoming unofficial sharia enclaves.

 [MUCH INCREASED BY JUNE 2017]

This has led to desperate suggestions to combat such a threat to social cohesion. Lord Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the Local Government Association, says schools should have racial quotas, while the Government is proposing to force faith schools to open a quarter of their intake to other faiths.

Both approaches are badly misguided. Faith schools would be forced to turn away children of their own religion in favour of others who would significantly dilute the cultural and religious identity of the school.

[This is typical New Labour they create the problem and then ask the innocent to pay the price

 

We now learn the Government has been forced on the back foot by the acquired lesson learnt by the Roman Catholic hierarchy that Blairites only react to strength as has been the case of the so-called minorities in our midst over the past nine years who have learnt that they only need to plead racial discrimination to obtain preferential treatment in disregard of the needs of the majority.]

*

And can anyone really see non-Muslim parents being forced to send their children to Muslim schools where-

 As one Muslim headmaster has already declared –non-Muslim girls would have to wear the hijab?

But the problem lies deeper still. It is not so much separation as a desire in some quarters to Islamise Britain.

 *

[This difficulty of integration by followers of the Muslim faith has been known for decades but successive governments continually allowed uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries instead of only allowing only a moderate number of immigrants into the country and placed higher quotas to those who have proved their willingness to integrate.

As we have said on a number of occasions it is successive British governments who are responsible for the hundreds of Ghettos and No-Go areas growing in our cities containing up to a million possibly higher numbers who have declared openly their desire not to integrate but to change the cultural Christian religious structure  to one of ISLAM and SHARIA LAW.]

*

To return:

Mohammed Abdul Bari, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain has said explicitly that he wants to encourage Britain to adopt Islamic traditions, including arranged marriages, and can’t see any reason why anyone should object. Unsurprisingly the MCB is now accusing MINISTERS of being ISLAMOPHOBIC.

[As we have already indicted above it is the successive governments who are to blame in allowing settlement in the first place knowing that millions of Muslims would naturally wish to make

 ENGLAND a MUSLIM COUNTRY.

 

ON THIS ISSUE

NOT ONE MUSLIM IS AT FAULT. 

 OUR GOVERNMENT –OUR CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LET UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION HAPPEN WITHOUT PROTEST ARE THE GUILTY PARTIES.

 

We now have amongst us millions of new comers who have no loyalty to our country and who long for the day when their ISLAM is the official religion of their adopted country.  As each day of each week and each month of the coming years there will be no way to stop the takeover of OUR COUNTRY as many cities now show..  And all they need to do to keep their silent conquest proceeding smoothly is to continuingly condemn the racist population on every opportunity and Tony Blair has given them enough reason for HATE to last for decades to come.

Our ONLY HOPE is that there will be a number of Muslim leaders who realize that COMPROMISE is in ORDER a confrontation must not take place and encourage their followers to integrate and understand the tolerant cultural and religious heritage of

ENGLAND

So that the strengths of both communities will become one to each mutual benefit.

 ANY OTHER WAY WILL LEAD TO TRAGEDY FOR ALL IN OUR SMALL ISLAND WHICH APART FROM AN INCIDENT OVER 700 YEARS AGO BUT RECTIFIED IN THE 19th CENTURY

WE HAVE NEVER REFUSED NEWCOMERS BUT ASKED FOR ALL TO BECOME ONE]

 *

To return:

Certainly , it is vital to prevent the demonisation of all Muslims. But the fact is that the persistent failure to tackle extremism is providing fertile territory for white racists to exploit.

*

[BUT it is a fact that had successive governments controlled immigration by quotas and only permitted the bulk of that immigration to those who were able to integrate.  By controlling immigration it would have allowed for more housing to be provided and sufficient support services for those who would integrate.

What ever the Far Right have been accused of - the means for their support was provided by the silence of governments of the day.]

*

The recent disturbances in Windsor sounded an urgent alarm. The Muslim owner of a dairy in the town applied for planning permission to turn it into a MOSQUE and ISLAMIC CENTRE.

Although the Council turned down the application, locals say the owner ignored this and extremist worshippers regularly turned up in the dairy to pray.

*

[This incident is not unusual as after nine years of Tony Blair and his politically correct cronies and in the main the sheepish and defeatist attitude of Councils all over the country to any resentment by Muslims of rejections of planning consent for Mosques it would be most surprising if the Muslim did not dig in his heals knowing from what has happened in the past that the Council will give in rather than be accused of being racist.]

 *

Trouble flared when a 15-year-old non-Muslim boy was attacked outside the ‘mosque’. When the boy’s mother and 18-year –old-sister arrived to remonstrate they were apparently set upon by people, allegedly, wielding iron bars and pitchforks.

 They set in train four nights of disturbances when, according to the police, both white racists and Muslim extremists muscled in and the dairy was firebombed.

In a further unrelated but disturbing development in the town, four British soldiers returning from Afghanistan were forced to abandon a house they were planning to rent after threats and intimidation by Muslims. And all this in the heart of the Home Counties.

 

Such Islamic aggression is gaining ground because of the collapse of British majority values. In remarks in his controversial interviews that have been largely ignored, the head of the Army General Sir Richard Dannatt , observed that Britain’s Christian anchor had been pulled up, leaving the country’s ‘

moral compass spinning.’

As a result, its values were being threatened by a ‘considerable body of opinion that would like to challenge the nature of society.

*

[We have the reoccurring comment from

 Prince Charles

that he wishes to be

‘Defender of the Faiths’

NOT as before and since Alfred the King of the English over a thousand years ago.

‘DEFENDER OF THE FAITH’

 

And to remind Prince Charles that the FAITH the majority of people in this country have in mind is

CHRISTIAN FAITH.

 

Fortunately with King Alfred as an great  king who came to the throne by the wish of the witan and not as a hereditary king. We leave it to the

COMMONS of ENGLAND

And the PEOPLE

To decide who should be trusted with the protection of the Christian religion and values so ingrained over the centuries in the life and culture of our country.] 

 

Offensive

 

On this issue, the General was absolutely right.  Christianity is being written out of the national script.  Local councils have abolished Christmas as offensive.  Christian voluntary groups are denied funding on the grounds that they are not committed to ‘diversity’. And despite Ruth Kelly’s recent strictures, the Church of England is dismayed that her Commission for Cohesion and integration contains –

Astoundingly –

NO CHRISTIAN REPRESENTATIVE

[For the 70 per cent of people in a recent poll who professed the Christian faith –practiced or not.]

Within the Church itself, there are faint stirrings of a challenge to its hitherto supine surrender to cultural collapse. An unpublished paper written by the inter faith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury has been sidelined by’ preferential’ treatment afforded to the Muslim community, including using public funds to fly Muslim scholars to Britain, shelving legislation on forced marriage and encouraging national financial arrangements to comply with Islamic requirements.

The most grotesque example of all however, is surely the proposal to build the largest m0sque in Europe on the site of the Olympic village in East London.

 [No doubt to be opened by Prince Charles with his banner to all the faiths unfurled –he should hang his head in shame for his not so much an act of toleration but the rejection of the identity and cultural heritage of the ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN FAITH in our island HOME.]

*

To return:

[The mosque to occupy] the most prominent landmark on the Olympic site, West Ham –London it is intended to symbolize

ISLAMIC POWER

In

[ENGLAND]

BRITAIN.

[As there will soon be no such country as Britain with the independence of Scotland in the very near future it is time that commentators no longer use a term, which has virtually no significance.  Politicians have done great damage by hiding their destructive policies under a British label for too long.  It will be ENGLAND

to which will be identified the home of the largest mosque outside Europe –

NOT BRITAIN. ]

 

Worse still, it is being funded by the Tablighi Jamaat

Said by French intelligence and the FBI to be the most significant recruiters for al Qaeda in Europe.

 

And to cap it all, within a mile of the site, the largest

CHRISTIAN CHURCH

-the Kingsway International Christian Centre –

 has been  compulsorily purchased  and is about to come down.

 

 

What GREATER SYMBOL CAN THERE BE OF THE RETREAT OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS REPLACEMENT MILITANT ISLAM?

 

THIS IS WHY THE ARGUMENT OVER THE PLACE OF THE VEIL AND THE CROSS IN PUBLIC LIFE IS SO SIGNIFICANT.

 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PREJUDICE

OR
DISCRIMINATION

 

IT IS ABOUT CULTURAL SURVIVAL

 

*          *          *

[OF OUR OWN HERITAGE

 

[Font altered- bolding & underling used –comments in brackets]

 

[We now hear on Sunday 29th October 2006 that we have an Ambassador in the form of

Prince Charles

 on his way to a Muslim country.

 

Unfortunately we have the same apprehension when our Foreign secretary is out of our country that the FO seems to delight in apologising for some past event from our history and at the same time place at a disadvantage our citizens wherever they are in the world –some incarcerated.

We now have Prince Charles on another of his ‘All Faiths Crusade’ to right Justice and we know that there will be a penalty incurred for our CHrISTIAN people in his misjudged concessions have already shown themselves in the weakness of THE ANGLICAN Church –the Archbishop of York Dr John SEntamu excluded  -to defend the tenets of Christianity now for some years undermined by a Prince of the realm’s unconstitutional breach of the Coronation Oath which all past princE’s of the realm have held sacrOsAnt.

 

ONLY a Prince of the realm –a firm defender of the christian Faith  -will be respected by the World leaders of the World’s Faiths.

 

As over 800 years ago King Richard the Lionheart of England

and Saladin fought each other nobly and held each other worthy antagonists.

 

THE GREATER THE RANK THE GREATER THE RESPONSIBILITY

IN OCTOBER 2006 we send to a muslim country a prince of the realm who deserted his wife on the eve of his wedding and betrayed his wife and family and has betrayed his faith and country and still holds his illustrious RANK, WHICH should have been removed on his remarriage TO A DIVORCED WOMAN and destroyer of the marriage.

  

He is no FIRM friend of the Christian Faith

 

HE IS NO FIRM FRIEND of the ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

 

HE IS NO FIRM FRIEND OF TRUE ENGLISH VALUES AND WAY-of-life.

 

HE IS NO FIRM FRIEND OF HIS COUNTRY.

 

HE IS A FIRM FRIEND OF ISLAM

BUT

WILL NOT DEFEND

HIS ONCE INHERITANCE

 

‘DEFENDER OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH’

 

CO-JOINED WITH THE ANCIENT THRONE

 OF

 ENGLAND

ALFRED-CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH 

 

*          *          *

[FoNT altered-bolding & underlining used –comments in brackets.]

OCTOBER/06

 

 

H.F.1218

*  *  *

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

Daily Mail

Saturday, August 27, 2005

James Slack-Home Affairs Correspondent

 

 

PUTTING extra police on the beat, cuts violent crime, robbery and burglary, figures showed yesterday.

 

The areas of London flooded with officers after the July terror attacks recorded a drop in such offences.

 

Experts said the data proved that increasing Bobbies on the beat deters criminals.

 

In the wake of the attacks, the Metropolitan Police put up to 4,000 officers on the streets of Central London at one time, including 3,000 who are armed.

 

Dramatic cuts in street crime and burglary were logged for these areas in July, compared to the same month last year.

 

In Camden, robbery was cut by 12.2 % and burglary by 8.2%.

 

Westminster recorded a 30.2% cut in burglary and a 6.9% drop in robbery.

 

This compared with increases in the London area as a whole, where violence was up 4.1 %, robbery up 22.8% and burglary 4.7%.

 

Crime expert David Green director of the Civitas think-tank, said the police response to the terror attacks had provided an ‘accidental experiment.’

 

He added: 

 

‘It reinforces the case for a proper policing policy’

 

Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, said:

 

‘The problem is that the numbers put on the streets following July7 are simply not sustainable. What we need now is a huge increase in police’ [Bobbies on the Beat]

 

Mr Brennan added that slashing police paperwork could also boost numbers on the beat.

 

Government statistics show police are spending 53% of their time on frontline duties.  The rest is spent stuck behind desks or attending court.

 

Mr Green added that the figures showed officers could not be concentrated in one area. Six outlying London boroughs had a 50 % jump in muggings in July compared with last year.

 

In Waltham Forest street robberies were up 92.7%.

 

[The above figures prove what we have been saying for many years that there is a need for the local bobbie to be returned to the beat where he CAN become familiar with his patch and prevent crime, which some Chief Constables say, is NOT possible.  But the events in London since 7/7 show a different picture.]

 

To continue:

 

-       Officers were shifted from those areas to boost police numbers in Central London.  [No Police –Greater Crime]

 

Commander Simon Foy, the Met’s head of performance, said:

 

‘After the 7 July and 21 July attacks we had a responsibility to have a huge police presence in Central London.’

 

[We ask the WHY the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said after the bombings that the 3000 officers sent to Edinburgh to protect the most protected man in the world had NOT been a problem for London at the time.]

 

To continue:

 

[Commander Foy said:]

 

‘We never abandoned the suburbs and we have been determined to get the ground back’.

 

[This statement contradicts itself-if the Suburbs were NOT abandoned WHY is there NOW a DETERMINATION to GET THE GROUND BACK]

 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission announced an Independent Inquiry last night into the leaks from the Jean Charles de Menezes investigation.

 

Bill Taylor, formally Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, will look into how documents from the Commission’s inquiry found their way into the media.

 

It follows the publication of letters to the Home Secretary from the Police Federation calling for an inquiry into the leaks.

 

[What we are sure is far more interesting to receive will be the Report on the run-up to and aftermath of July 7 in respect of the actions or otherwise of the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair and others under his command.]

 

*         *        

 

Crime On My Doorstep

 

A correspondent to the Letters COLUMN Of the

 Daily Mail on September 6, 2005  from a concerned citizen in Essex.

IN HIS first statement on arriving in Office in July, our new Police Chief told criminals visiting Essex to

 

‘Bring their toothbrushes because they won’t be going home’ (Mail).

 

He ordered his officers to arrest at least 600 criminals in his first week in charge.

[JULY]

 

On Thursday, August 4, after 11pm, a young man was stabbed as he walked home.  Fleeing from his attackers, he arrived at our front door, cornered by a gang of youths. 

 

My husband managed to get him inside as his assailants kicked at our front door shattering the glass with a heavy plant top.

 

My husband was threatened through the broken window, but managed to hold the door shut.

 

Meanwhile, I relayed all this to the 999 operator, explaining that we had two young children in the house.

 

The victim was bleeding profusely from a stab wound and my husband had no doubt that had he not opened the door that night, this 17-year old boy would have been seriously injured or killed by the gang, who ran off once they realised the police had been called.

Half an hour after the incident, we had a phone call from police to say there had been a sweep of the area but no one was found.

TWENTY MINUTES later another phone call said there was ‘concern for welfare’ in Benfleet and we would have to wait longer.

A police car eventually arrived two hours after the Attack

 

By which time my husband had taken the young man to Accident & Emergency.  The two officers spoke to me briefly of ABH, GBH, even attempted murder, I pointed out possible evidence on the front door.

 

I wasn’t expecting Helen Mirren and her swarm of forensic experts

 

But I thought at least I’d hear something.

 

Weeks later no one contacted my husband and no one had been to see if there is any evidence on our front door.

*

[Sounds familiar in Blairdom –where talk and spin are the order of the day and the concern for the victim is the last think that concerns them.

 

With the LAW & ORDER in a shambles possibly the only way to improve things is to have an elected Sheriff to toughen-up Law Enforcement]

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-bolding and underlining used –comments in brackets]

SEP/05

*  *  *

 

Brought forward from September,2005

WITH BILLIONS WASTED ON ILLEGAL WARS- AND THROW AWAY FOREIGN AID AND MP'S ENJOYING THEIR  SPLENDID EXPENSES AND SALARIES - COST OF BENEFITS -NHS-HOUSING...FOR MILLIONS OF REFUGEES AND ILLEGAL MIGRANTS .     WITH A POPULATION OF OVER  51 MILLION IN ENGLAND WE NOW HEAR THAT OUR GREEN BELT WILL NOW BE BUILT ON.    LOOKING AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST DECADES IT COULD BE BETTER IF ONE JUST CHOSE ANY 600 PEOPLE (AFTER BOUNDARIES CHANGE) OFF THE STREETS TO LOOK AFTER THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS IN OUR HOUSE OF COMMONS. THEY COULD HARDLY DO ANY WORSE THAN THE SHOWER WE HAVE HAD IN PARLIAMENT-WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS. THEY STAYED TOO! LONG! A ONE TERM SERVICE BY MORE CONCERNED CITIZENS, THEY WOULD BE CHOSEN FOR THEIR PATRIOTISM AND COMMON SENSE THEY WOULD GIVE 5 YEARS SERVICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND THEN RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE SO THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE  OF AN INDEPENDENT MIND THAN WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THESE PAST YEARS AND MORE DEMOCRATIC FOR A COUNTRY OF ENGLAND WITH ITS DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS GIVEN AWAY IN 1972 BY LIES AND DECEIT LEAVING OUR COUNTRY IN THE WILDERNESS OF A DEMONIC CREATION PLANNED BY HITLER IN 1943 IN ORDER FOR GERMAN DOMINATION OF EUROPE. OUR ENEMY OF TWO WORLD WARS WITH A HISTORY OF CONFLICT AND CARNAGE THROUGHOUT THE AGES!-

GERMANY

OCTOBER 17-2017

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

H.F.1345

*  *  *

THE VEIL –

THE CROSS – A VITAL DEBATE over the HEART and SOUL of OUR NATION.

 *

THE

Melanie

Phillips

COLUMN

 *

Daily Mail

Monday, October 16,2006

SUDDENLY, Britain seems to be developing into a cultural and religious battleground. Hard on the heels of Jack Straw’s criticism of the Muslim full-face veil, local government minister Phil Woolas has said that Aishah Azmi the Dewsbury teaching assistant who insists on wearing a veil in her primary school class-room, should be sacked.

Not to be outdone, the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, has accused Muslims of promoting a kind of ‘voluntary apartheid’

-by shutting themselves away in closed societies and demanding immunity from criticism, corroding the very foundations of

BRITISH [ENGLISH] CULTURE

Meanwhile, British Airways is being sued for religious discrimination after it required a Christian women employee to conceal her cross while permitting other faiths to wear turbans, hijabs or Hindu bangles.

*

[This is classic political-correctness, which identifies with any faith or mantra provided it is

NOT CHRISTIAN.

The home culture is to be suppressed to show how tolerant and noble we are in our diversity agenda even if it places in peril the very identification of a land and people of over 1400 years as the home of

CHRISTIANITY. ]

To return:

This echoed the controversy earlier this month when the BBC agonized over whether newsreader Fiona Bruce should wear a small cross on a chain in case it might cause offence.

[In a Christian country whose people in a recent poll  - with 70 per cent who acknowledged their faith whether practiced or not.]

How can Britain have arrived at a situation where it is seriously argued that a class of children who don’t speak English as their first language should be taught by a shrouded women whose expression they can’t see and whose voice they can’t hear properly – while the BBC thinks that wearing the symbol of Britain’s established religion might be offensive?

Extreme

The source of this confusion is a profound loss of:

NATIONAL

CULTURAL

AND

RELIGIOUS NERVE.

The Christian values that once defined

NATIONAL IDENTITY

have simply collapsed, creating a cultural vacuum which

ISLAM –

Britain’s fastest –growing and most assertive religion –

is busily filling.

Those who defend the Muslim veil are grossly misreading the situation.  It is not some picturesque religious garment equivalent to the often-curious attire  worn by members of other religions.  It is associated instead with the most extreme version of

ISLAM

-which holds that Islamic values must take precedence over the secular state. Only a small minority of British Muslim women chooses to wear this veil.

[There is no mention in the Koran of the necessity of Muslims wearing either the veil or other controversial clothing claim Muslim clerics in Oxford and elsewhere.-added October 21,2017]

BUT unlike other religious attire, it is thus inherently separatist and perceived by some as intimidatory.

 That is WHY it is UNACCEPTABLE.

 

, there seems to be a dawning recognition in Government of the extreme danger into which British [English] society has been placed by the doctrine of MULTICULTURALISM

-which holds that upholding majority values is somehow illegitimate, and by the official policy of appeasing Islamic extremism.

[We have over the past few days seen a fight back by the

Roman Catholic Church

to maintain

CHRISTIANITY

In Britain by gathering their flock to protect their religion brought to the islands those many tens of hundreds of years ago. 

The Anglican Church has been too accommodating with politicians for many decades and with a few exceptions particularly the recent appointment Archbishop of York  - Dr John Sentamu there has been silence and collusion with the secular State supported by Prince Charles

 ‘the man of many faiths and true supporter of none’

 

as he does not wish to offend anyone.

 

The CHRISTIAN religion is ENGLAND  and ENGLAND is the CHRISTIAN religion

and if Prince Charles cannot accept this covenant made over with the blood and soil and  stone of our land he should NEVER ascend the

CHRISTIAN THRONE OF ENGLAND.

The throne of England is not heredity it is for the Commons of England and the People to decide who they wish to defend their Christian Faith and Values.

 

To return:

Hence Mr. Woolas’s remarks, the show of ministerial support for Jack Straw, and the threat last week by Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly to withstand funding from Muslim institutions that do not combat extremism.

Although hundreds of thousands of British Muslims have no truck with extremism, opinion polls reveal that between 40 to 60 per cent of British Muslims want to live under

SHARIA LAW

-and parts of our inner cities are fast becoming unofficial Sharia enclaves.

This has led to desperate suggestions to combat such a threat to social cohesion. Lord Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the Local Government Association, says schools should have racial quotas, while the Government is proposing to force faith schools to open a quarter of their intake to other faiths.

Both approaches are badly misguided. Faith schools would be forced to turn away children of their own religion in favour of others who would significantly dilute the cultural and religious identity of the school.

*

[This is typical New Labour they create the problem and then ask the innocent to pay the price

We now learn the Government has been forced on the back foot by the acquired lesson learnt by the Roman Catholic hierarchy that Blairites only react to strength as has been the case of the so-called minorities in our midst over the past nine years who have learnt that they only need to plead racial discrimination to obtain preferential treatment in disregard of the needs of the majority.]

*

And can anyone really see non-Muslim parents being forced to send their children to Muslim schools where-

 As one Muslim headmaster has already declared –non-Muslim girls would have to wear the hijab?

But the problem lies deeper still. It is not so much separation as a desire in some quarters to Islamise Britain.

 

[This difficulty of integration by followers of the Muslim faith has been known for decades but successive governments continually allowed uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries instead of only allowing only a moderate number of immigrants into the country and placed higher quotas to those who have proved their willingness to integrate.

As we have said on a number of occasions it is successive British governments who are responsible for the hundreds of Ghettos and No-Go areas growing in our cities containing up to a million possibly higher numbers who have declared openly their desire not to integrate but to change the cultural Christian religious structure  to one of ISLAM and SHARIA LAW.]

*

To return:

Mohammed Abdul Bari, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain has said explicitly that he wants to encourage Britain to adopt Islamic traditions, including arranged marriages, and can’t see any reason why anyone should object. Unsurprisingly the MCB is now accusing MINISTERS of being ISLAM PHOBIC.

[As we have already indicted above it is the successive governments who are to blame in allowing settlement in the first place knowing that millions of Muslims would naturally wish to make

ENGLAND

a

 MUSLIM COUNTRY.

 

ON THIS ISSUE

 

NOT ONE MUSLIM IS AT FAULT. 

 

 

OUR GOVERNMENT –OUR CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LET UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION HAPPEN WITHOUT PROTEST ARE THE GUILTY PARTIES.

 

We now have amongst us millions of new comers who have no loyalty to our country and who long for the day when their ISLAM is the official religion of their adopted country.  As each day of each week and each month of the coming years there will be no way to stop the takeover of OUR COUNTRY as many cities now show..  And all they need to do to keep their silent conquest proceeding smoothly is to continuingly condemn the racist population on every opportunity and Tony Blair has given them enough reason for HATE to last for decades to come.

Our ONLY HOPE is that there will be a number of Muslim leaders who realize that COMPROMISE is in ORDER a confrontation must not take place and encourage their followers to integrate and understand the tolerant cultural and religious heritage of

ENGLAND

So that the strengths of both communities will become one to each mutual benefit.

ANY OTHER WAY WILL LEAD TO TRAGEDY FOR ALL IN OUR SMALL ISLAND WHICH APART FROM AN INCIDENT OVER 700 YEARS AGO BUT RECTIFIED IN THE 19th CENTURY

WE HAVE NEVER REFUSED NEWCOMERS BUT ASKED FOR ALL TO BECOME ONE]

 

To return:

Certainly , it is vital to prevent the demonisation of all Muslims. But the fact is that the persistent failure to tackle extremism is providing fertile territory for white racists to exploit.

 *

[BUT it is a fact that had successive governments controlled immigration by quotas and only permitted the bulk of that immigration to those who were able to integrate.  By controlling immigration it would have allowed for more housing to be provided and sufficient support services for those who would integrate.

What ever the Far Right have been accused of - the means for their support was provided by the silence of governments of the day.]

*

The recent disturbances in Windsor sounded an urgent alarm. The Muslim owner of a dairy in the town applied for planning permission to turn it into a

MOSQUE and ISLAMIC CENTRE.

Although the Council turned down the application, locals say the owner ignored this and extremist worshippers regularly turned up in the dairy to pray.

*

[This incident is not unusual as after nine years of Tony Blair and his politically correct cronies and in the main the sheepish and defeatist attitude of Councils all over the country to any resentment by Muslims of rejections of planning consent for Mosques it would be most surprising if the Muslim did not dig in his heals knowing from what has happened in the past that the Council will give in rather than be accused of being racist.]

*

Trouble flared when a 15-year-old non-Muslim boy was attacked outside the ‘mosque’. When the boy’s mother and 18-year –old-sister arrived to remonstrate they were apparently set upon by people, allegedly, wielding iron bars and pitchforks.

They set in train four nights of disturbances when, according to the police, both white racists and Muslim extremists muscled in and the dairy was firebombed.

In a further unrelated but disturbing development in the town, four British soldiers returning from Afghanistan were forced to abandon a house they were planning to rent after threats and intimidation by Muslims. And all this in the heart of the Home Counties.

 

Such Islamic aggression is gaining ground because of the collapse of British majority values. In remarks in his controversial interviews that have been largely ignored, the head of the Army General Sir Richard Dannatt , observed that Britain’s Christian anchor had been pulled up, leaving the country’s ‘

moral compass spinning.’

As a result, its values were being threatened by a ‘considerable body of opinion that would like to challenge the nature of society.

*

[We have the reoccurring comment from Prince Charles

that he wishes to be

‘Defender of the Faiths’

NOT as before and since Alfred the Christian King of the English over a thousand years ago.

 

‘DEFENDER OF THE FAITH’

 

And to remind Prince Charles that the FAITH the majority of people in this country have in mind is

CHRISTIAN FAITH.

Fortunately, with King Alfred as an great  king who came to the throne by the wish of the witan and not as a hereditary king. We leave it to the

COMMONS of ENGLAND

And the PEOPLE

To decide who should be trusted with the protection of the Christian religion and values so ingrained over the centuries in the life and culture of our country.] 

Offensive

On this issue, the General was absolutely right.  Christianity is being written out of the national script.  Local councils have abolished Christmas as offensive.  Christian voluntary groups are denied funding on the grounds that they are not committed to ‘diversity’. And despite Ruth Kelly’s recent strictures, the Church of England is dismayed that her Commission for Cohesion and integration contains –

Astoundingly –

NO CHRISTIAN REPRESENTATIVE

[For the 70 per cent of people in a recent poll who professed the Christian faith –practiced or not.]

Within the Church itself, there are faint stirrings of a challenge to its hitherto supine surrender to cultural collapse. An unpublished paper written by the inter faith adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury has been sidelined by’ preferential’ treatment afforded to the Muslim community, including using public funds to fly Muslim scholars to Britain, shelving legislation on forced marriage and encouraging national financial arrangements to comply with Islamic requirements.

The most grotesque example of all however, is surely the proposal to build the largest m0sque in Europe on the site of the Olympic village in East London.

 [No doubt to be opened by Prince Charles with his banner to all the faiths unfurled –he should hang his head in shame for his not so much an act of toleration but the rejection of the identity and cultural heritage of the ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN FAITH in our island HOME.]

 *

To return:

 [The mosque to occupy] the most prominent landmark on the Olympic site, West Ham –London it is intended to symbolize

ISLAMIC POWER

In

[ENGLAND]

BRITAIN.

[As there will soon be no such country as Britain with the independence of Scotland in the very near future it is time that commentators no longer use a term, which has virtually no significance.  Politicians have done great damage by hiding their destructive policies under a British label for too long.  It will be

 ENGLAND

to which will be identified the home of the largest mosque outside Europe –

NOT BRITAIN. ]

Worse still, it is being funded by the Tablighi Jamaat

Said by French intelligence and the FBI to be the most significant recruiters for al Qaeda in Europe.

And to cap it all, within a mile of the site, the largest

CHRISTIAN CHURCH

-the Kingsway International Christian Centre –

 has been  compulsorily purchased  and is about to come down.

 

 What GREATER SYMBOL CAN THERE BE OF THE RETREAT OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS REPLACEMENT MILITANT ISLAM?

THIS IS WHY THE ARGUMENT OVER THE PLACE OF THE VEIL AND THE CROSS IN PUBLIC LIFE IS SO SIGNIFICANT.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PREJUDICE

OR

DISCRIMINATION

 IT IS ABOUT CULTURAL SURVIVAL

 

*          *          *

 

*

[OF OUR OWN HERITAGE]

 

[Font altered- bolding & underling used –comments in brackets]

 

*  *  *

 

[We now hear on Sunday 29th October 2006 that we have an Ambassador in the form of

Prince Charles

 on his way to a Muslim country.

 

Unfortunately ,we have the same apprehension when our Foreign secretary is out of our country that the FO seems to delight in apologising for some past event from our history and at the same time place at a disadvantage our citizens wherever they are in the world –some incarcerated.

 

We now have Prince Charles on another of his ‘All Faiths Crusade’ to right Justice and we know that there will be a penalty incurred for our Christian  people in his misjudged concessions have already shown themselves in the weakness of THE ANGLICAN Church –the Archbishop of York Dr John SEntamu excluded  -to defend the tenets of Christianity now for some years undermined by a Prince of the realm’s unconstitutional breach of the Coronation Oath which all past prince's of the realm have held sacrosanct.

 

ONLY a Prince of the realm –a firm defender of the Christian Faith  -will be respected by the World leaders of the World’s Faiths.

 As over 800 years ago King Richard the Lionheart of England

and Saladin fought each other

 nobly and held each other worthy antagonists.

THE GREATER THE RANK THE GREATER THE RESPONSIBILITY

IN OCTOBER 2006 we send to a

 muslim country

 a prince of the realm who deserted his wife on the eve of his wedding and betrayed his wife and family and has betrayed his faith and country and still holds his illustrious RANK, WHICH should have been removed on his remarriage TO A DEVOICED WOMAN and destroyer of the marriage.

 

He is no FIRM friend of the

Christian Faith

 

HE IS NO FIRM FRIEND of the

 ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

 

HE IS NO FIRM FRIEND OF

TRUE ENGLISH VALUES AND WAY-of-life.

 

HE IS NO FIRM FRIEND OF

ENGLAND

 HIS COUNTRY.

 

HE IS A FIRM FRIEND OF ISLAM

BUT

WILL NOT DEFEND

HIS ONCE INHERITANCE

‘DEFENDER OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH’

 CO-JOINED WITH THE ANCIENT THRONE

 OF

 ENGLAND

 

*          *          *

[FoNT altered-bolding & underlining used –comments in brackets.]

OCTOBER/06

*

 Alfred the Christian King of the English

 

H.F.1347-BROUGHT FORWARD FROM OCTOBER-2006-SOME CHANGE OF FONT ETC. ON OCTOBER 23-2017]

 

*  *  *

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM APRIL 2008

New Mosques should not be built in this country while Islamic States persecuted Christians.

*

No more mosques says Synod member

by

Jonathan Petre

Religious Correspondent

[Daily Telegraph-April 2-2008]

" You build a mosque and then what happens? You have Muslim people moving into that area, all the shops will become Islamic, all the housing will then become Islamic and as the Bishop of Rochester has so wisely pointed out that will be a no-go area for anyone else'...

. .  .According to premier Radio, there are 47,000 Christian Churches in the UK and about 1,600 mosques. . .

[The reality is that large numbers of those of the Muslim faith should never have been allowed to settle in the country in the first place because as we have always suspected the majority do not wish to integrate into our community. The premier fault is with the GOVERNMENT which still today allows 50,000 dependents a year to increase the number of Muslims and consequently the number of MOSQUES.] 

A SENIOR lay member of the Church of England's "Parliament" has called for  a ban on the building of more mosques in Britain.

Alisopn Ruoff, a long-standing member of the General Synod, said that new mosques should not be built in this country while Islamic states continued to persecute Christians.

The former magistrate, who was one of the strongest  critics of the

ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY'S

SPEECH on ISLAMIC LAW

earlier this year, added that

SHARIA LAW

would be introduced into

BRITAIN

" If we don't watch out"

[Well! as far as we are aware it is already here with the full support of the

GOVERNMENT.]

Apart from being a Synod member, Mrs Ruoff, a

CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL

also sits on the

BISHOPS COUNCIL

which advises the

BISHOP of LONDON

the Rt Rev Richard Chartres.

 

*

 

[Each word underlined has a separate bulletin]

JUNE-2008

HOME

*  *  *

Tony Blair’s legacy-the Ghettosization of England

 

[We have deviated from the undermentioned title in replacing Britain for England as the figures will show that apart from one location in Scotland and two in Wales the rest are in England.]

 

*

Asylum Map of Britain

 

by

 

Steve Doughty and Becky Barrow

 

Dispersal policy

that fostered

A nation

Of ‘ghettos’

 

HUNDREDS of thousands of

 

ASYLUM SEEKERS

 

-have been dispersed around Britain and clustered according to what languages they speak, it was

revealed yesterday.

 

*

 

[The following disclosure was anticipated nine years ago when the original Mr Nice-Guy Tony Blair told everyone he was the people’s slave but in reality he was determined to change the face of England beyond recognition as soon as he could.

 

His fanatical EU policy could only be implemented if he was able to demolish any real identity of the English people which as we know was a walkover because of the national characteristic not to get too excited about what is going on around us and that is WHY Tony Bliar signed the Treaty of Rome last year above the heads of the people of England.

 

The newcomers were looked on as compliant New Labour voters and as a consequence they were in many cases treated far more favourably than the indigenous population even of those who had already settled in the country from many parts of the world many decades ago. ]

 

To continue:

 

The Home Office policy throws together large groups of migrants from the same country or the same region of the world.

 

The system of grouping asylum seekers in towns and cities by their language was meant to protect them from ‘isolation’, officials said.

 

BUT critics voiced astonishment that the Government has been supporting policy that appears to

ENCOURAGE SOCIAL DIVISION AND SEGREGATION

 

RATHER THAN

INTEGRATION.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said the dispersal by language system was ‘very odd’.

 

It was begun in 2000 by Home Secretary Jack Straw. The National Asylum Support Service began to bus asylum seekers to regional towns and cities away from London and the South East, the destination preferred by the great majority.

 

Those who chose to go to London anyway, or to move from their appointed regional town, were denied free housing by the ASYLUM SUPPORT SERVICE.

 

The language system for dispersal was abandoned in April this year [2006], the Home Office insisted yesterday.

 

A spokesman said: ‘The idea was to ensure that people were not left isolated where they settled, and that they would have access to the appropriate support services.

 

‘The list is no longer in use by the Home Office, and the dispersal system is now kept under constant review.

 

The system operated under three Home Secretaries. Mr Straw, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke, and was used to choose where up to 50,000 asylum seekers a years were settled.

 

Officials called the towns and cities asylum seekers were sent ‘cluster areas’

 

But residents of the chosen towns were not told that asylum seekers directed to their districts were all from similar ethnic and cultural groups, and could therefore be expected to form separate communities.

 

The LANGUAGE MAP - revealed in leaked documents this weekend - appears to show that some groups of asylum seekers were sent to areas where there is already a community with a similar ethnic and cultural background.

 

Asylum Seekers from the Indian sub-continent were often directed to places such as Leeds, Oldham and Blackburn, which already have large Indian and Pakistani populations.

 

For other towns and cities, the language mix appears to have no guiding reasoning. Asylum support service officials do, however, give careful instructions that groups with a potential for conflict should be kept apart.

 

Serbians and Croatians, whose long enmity was deepened by the wars following the break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s [Germany recognised the independence of Croatia] were not sent to the same places.

 

Among Albanian speakers, ethnic Kosovans were separated from pothers.

 

The language system was ended this year shortly after Commission for Racial Equality chief Trevor Phillips gave his warning that British [predominantly English towns and cities] were

 

‘Sleepwalking to segregation’

 

Shadow Home Secretary Mr David Davis said:

 

‘I thought everybody appreciated that the key to good community relations is a proper level of integration.

 

‘This policy would appear to have exactly the opposite effect because it amounts to segregation. It is very odd.’

 

[Mr David Davis seems to find it ALL ‘ very odd’. With the dictionary meaning of ‘strange; queer; casual; out of the way, standing apart we would have thought much stronger language was in order but as Mr Nice-Guy-Dave has said-we mustn’t be too strong with our views of the Government.

 

’We need to remind him that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Opposition to OPPOSE and had it been doing its job over the past nine years by probing vigorously Government policy on Immigration and Asylum Seekers and Foreign prisoners and the REAL reasons for the war in Iraq and much of what we now hear about might have been nipped in the bud. There is after all the

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

 

-which Tony Blair so kindly introduced -but he had no fear that the Tories would rock the boat with diving too deep into Government’s deeply fathomed secrets.]

 

Former Home Office immigration official Steve Moxon -who lost his job after revealing how the Home Office was breaking its own rules by rubberstamping thousands of visa applications from Eastern Europe, even if the papers were not in order -said the system was bound to deepen

 

SEGREGATION.

 

‘Migrant enclaves are all too easy to allow to grow and grow; and the larger and faster they grow, the less reason there is for individuals within them to integrate into the wider society.’ He said.

 

‘This policy only serves to create migrant ghettos.’

 

*

[A list follows of where individuals of different nationalities were sent until April 2006 which encouraged the Ghettosization of ENGLAND]

1.                      Derby: Punjabi, Hindi, Albanian, Polish, Vietnamese, English.

2.                      Leicester: Gujerati, Polish, Latvian, Ukrainian, Kishwahwahli, Swahili, Serbo Croat (Serbian only) Hindi, Mandarin, Turkish, Romanian, French, Somali, Arabic, Pushtu, Farsi, Czech, Dari, English.

3.                      Lincoln: Arabia, Bengali, Cantonese, Farsi, Urdu, Kurdish, English.

4.                      Nottingham: Gujerati, Hindi, Bengali, Albanian, Arabic, Cantonese, German, Greek, Italian, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Russian. Spanish, Turkish, Urdu, Vietnamese, Farsi, French, Amharic, Kurdish, Lingala, Somali, Swahili, Tigrean, Romanian, English.

5.                      Cambridge: Bengali, Singhalese, Romanian, English.

6.                      Great Yarmouth: Dari, Hindi, Farsi, Kurdish, Punjabi, English.

7.                      Ipswich: Cantonese, Bengali, Hindi, French, Spanish, Albanian, Farsi, Pushtu, Dari, English.

8.                      Norwich: Mandarin, Tamil, Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, French, Gujerati, English, Somali, Swahili, Sorani.

9.                      Peterborough: Serbo-Croat, Pushtu, Arabic, Bulgarian, Turkish, Urdu, Somali, English.

10.             Darlington: Arabic, Farsi, Turkic, French, Punjabi, Kurdish, Lingala, Bengali, Gujerati, Somali, Swahili, Sorani, English.

11.             Gateshead: Farsi, French, Portuguese, Russian, Serbo-Croat, (not Serbian), Spanish, Turkic, Kurdish, Dari, English, Tigrean, Arabic, Swahili, Somali, Lingala, Amharic.

12.             Hartlepool: Lithuanian, Polish, Serbo-Croat, Russian, English, Arabic, Albanian, Hindi, Urdu, Farsi.

13.             Middlesborough: Albanian (Kosovo only), Tamil, Urdu, Bengali, Farsi, Kurdish, Swahili, English, French, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dari, Arabic, Farsi, Hindi, Turkish.

14.             North Tyneside: Russian, Albanian, Czech, Farsi, Portuguese, English, Spanish, Belarussian, Dari.

15.             South Tyneside: Farsi, French, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Kurdish, Latvian, Lingala, Polish, Tigrean, Tamil, Arabic, Turkish, English.

16.             Newcastle: Farsi, French, Portuguese, Russian, Tamil, Spanish, Turkish, Amharic, Lingala, Arabic, English, Kurdish, Somali, Swahili, Sorani, Tigrean, Albanian, Mandarin, Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujerayti, Dari, Pushtu.

17.             Sunderland: Farsi, French, Gujerati, Portuguese, Russian, Serbo-Croat (not Serbian), Singhalese, Spanish, Czech, Albanian, Amharic, Lingala, Arabic, Belarussian, Bengali, Dari, Hindi, Kurdish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Punjabi, Pushtu, Romanian, Tamil, Tigrean, Urdu, Turkic, Turkish, Swahili.

18.             Stockton on Tees: Punjabi, Urdu, Farsi, Arabic, English, Dari, French, Kurdish.

19.             Blackburn: Urdu, Gujerati, Punjabi, Polish, Bangla, Albanian (Kosovo only), Farsi, Arabic, Mandarin, Pushtu, Czech, Romanian, Lingala, Portuguese, Kurdish, English, Amharic, Tigrean.

20.             Bolton: Arabic, Russian, Turkish, French, Kurdish, Romanian, Pushtu, Farsi, Lingala, Amharic, Tigrean, Dari, Urdu, Polish, Somali, Swahili, French (North African), English.

21.             Burnley: Punjabi, Gujerati, Urdu, Hindi, Romanian, Mandarin, Czech, Bengali, English.

22.             Bury: Urdu, Punjabi, Polish, Cantonese, Mandarin, Arabic, Albanian (Kosovo only), Turkish, French, Farsi, Somali, Pushtu, Dari, Swahili, Farsi, English.

23.             Oldham: Urdu, Gujerati, Bangla, Pushtu, Arabic, Kurdish, Farsi, Dari, French, Swahili, English, Amharic, Tigrean.

24.             Rochdale: Urdu, Gujerati, Punjabi, Bangla, Bengali, Hindi, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Pushtu, Arabic, Kurdish, Kirundi, Dari, Swahili, Farsi, English.

25.             Liverpool: Bulgarian, Mandarin, Czech, French, Latvian, Lithuanian, Portuguese, Romanian, Somali, Spanish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Georgian, Armenian, Tamil, English.

26.             Manchester: Tigrean, Urdu, Gujerati, Punjabi, Cantonese, Mandarin, Bangla, Bengali, Arabic, Hindi, Somali, Pushtu, Farsi, Kurdish, Lingala, Amharic, Dari, French, Mongolian, polish, Russian, Swahili, Tamil, English.

27.             Salford: Arabic, Albanian (Kosovo only), Czech, Tamil, Somali, Ukrainian, Kurdish, Farsi, Lingala, Tigrean, Dari, French, Swahili, English.

28.             Wigan: Albanian (Kosovo only), Russian, Turkish, Arabic, Farsi, Dari, French, English.

29.             Glasgow: Pushtu, Dari, Albanian, Mandarin, Farsi, Arabic, Kurdish, Estonian, Russian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Punjabi, Urdu, Somali, French, Singhalese, Tamil, Turkish, Serbo-Croat (not Serbian), English, Swahili.

30.             Brighton: Mandarin, Hindi, Arabic, French, Somali, Swahili.

31.             Hastings and St Leonard’s: Hindi, Mandarin, Turkish, Russian, French, Portuguese, Albanian, Spanish, Romanian, German, English, Farsi, Sorani, Dari, Tigrean, Pushtu, Arabic, Fula, Aramaic, Somali.

32.             Portsmouth: Mandarin, Bengali, Hindi, French, Portuguese, Arabic, Albanian, Polish, Romanian, English.

33.             Southampton: Pushtu, Dari, Tamil, Punjabi, Urdu, Czech, Somali, Arabic, Farsi, Turkic, Kurdish, Russian, Turkish, English.

34.             Bristol: Kishwali, Somali, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Pushtu, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Czech, Bulgarian, Arabic, Kurdish, Badnani, Sorani, Farsi, Turkish, French, French (North African), Albanian, English.

35.             Exeter: Farsi, Dari, Pushtu, English.

36.             Gloucester: Mandarin, Hindi, French, Swahili, Serbo-Croat (not Serbian), Arabic, Dari, Pushtu, Czech, Russian, Albanian, Gujerati, Urdu, English.

37.             Plymouth: Arabic, Hindi, mandarin, Hakka, Cantonese, Portuguese, French, Albanian (Kosovo only), Serbo-Croat (Bosnia only), Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Czech, Polish, Thai, Farsi, Somali, Spanish, Russian, English.

38.             Cardiff: Somali, Arabic, French, Farsi, Urdu, Bengali, mandarin, Cantonese, Kurdish, English.

39.             Swansea: Bengali, Punjabi, Arabic, Cantonese, Urdu, Farsi, Albanian, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Turkish, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Kurdish, Sorani, Russian, Somali, English.

40.             Birmingham: Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Farsi, Swahili, French, Tamil, Hindi, Kurdish, Pushtu, Russian, Turkic, Urdu, Vietnamese, Serbo-Croat (not Serbian), Somali, Spanish, Portuguese, Dari, Punjabi, English.

41.             Coventry: Albanian, Romanian, Arabic, Farsi, Swahili, French, Tamil, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Gujerati, Bengali, Czech, Kurdish, Lingala, Polish, Portuguese, Somali, Dari, German, Pushtu, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, Serbo-Croat (not Serbian), English.

42.                   Stoke: Urdu, Turkish, Russian, Polish, Tigrean, Amharic, Arabic, Kurdish, Sorani, French, English.

43.                   Solihull: Kurdish, Arabi, Farsi, French, Lingala, Albanian, Pushtu.

44.              Wolverhampton: Farsi, Pushtu, Dari, Albanian, Hindi, Urdu, Kurdish, Arabic, Bengali, Estonian, Portuguese, Russian, Somali, Greek, French, Spanish, Serbo-Croat (not Serbian), Turkish, Pashai, German, Gujerati, Tamil, Latvian, Punjabi, Polish, Swahili, English.

45.              Barnsley: Albanian, Russian, Romanian, Czech, Farsi, Macedonian, Italian, Serbo-Croat (Bosnia only), Kurundi, Kinyarwanda, Shona, Ndebele, Spanish Azeri, English.

46.              Bradford: Bengali, German, Hindi, Italian, Pushtu, Polish, Punjabi, Russian, Serb-Croat, Urdu, Farsi, Kurdish, French, Czech, Dari, Ukrainian, Arabic, Slovak, Swahili, English.

47.              Kirklees: Bengali, Hakka, Farsi, Hindi, Kurdish, Cantonese, Mandarin, Pujabi, Urdu, Serbo-Croat (Bosnia only) Swahili, French, English.

48.              Doncaster: Albanian, Urdu, Punjabi, Farsi, Turkish, Cantonese, Mandarin, English.

49.              Grimsby: Albanian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Polish, English.

50.              Hull: Albanian, Kurdish, Pushtu, Farsi, Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Hakka, English.

51.              Leeds: Arabic, Bengali, Mandarin, Hindi, Polish, Albanian, Farsi, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Punjabi, Somali, Urdu, Spanish, Shona, Ndebele, Swahili, Tigrean,

52.              Rotherham: Punjabi, Urdu, Arabic, Albanian, Farsi, Portuguese, French, English.

53.              Sheffield: Somali, Arabic, Dutch, Farsi, Bengali, Mandarin, Hakka, Cantonese, French, Urdu, Pushtu, Punjabi, Swahili, Portuguese, Spanish, Albanian, Kurdish, English.

54.              Wakefield: Albanian, Farsi, Kurdish, Sorani, Kurmanji, polish, Romanian, Urdu, Punjabi, French, English.

 

 

* * *

[Well at least Tony Blair can obtain a translator

should he need one when he is embarking on another illegal war in some other part of the Globe.]

 

* * *

JUNE/06

 

 

H.F.1344

*  *  *

 

 

September 2015.

Thousands of Syrian migrants crossing the Balkan route were heading toward Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel was on the phone with Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, talking about a number of measures to protect the borders, where thousands of policemen were secretly located along with buses and helicopters. De Maizière turned for advice to Dieter Romann, then head of the police. "Can we live with the images that will come out?" de Mazière asked. "What happens if 500 refugees with children in their arms run toward the border guards?"

De Maiziére was told that the appropriate use of the measures to be taken would have be decided by the police on the field. When de Maizière relayed Romann's response to the Chancellor, Merkel reversed her original commitment. And the borders were opened for 180 days.

"For historical reasons, the Chancellor feared images of armed German police confronting civilians on our borders," writes Robin Alexander, Die Welt's leading journalist, who revealed these details in a new book, Die Getriebenen ("The Driven Ones"). Alexander reveals the real reason that pushed Merkel to open the door to a million and a half migrants in a few weeks: "In the end, Merkel refused to take responsibility, governing through the polls." This is how the famous Merkel's motto "Wir schaffen das" was born:

"We can do it."

According to Die Zeit:

"Merkel and her people are convinced that the marchers could only be stopped with the help of violence: with water cannons, truncheons and pepper spray. It would be chaotic and the images would be horrific. Merkel is extremely wary of such images and of their political impact, and she is convinced that Germany wouldn't tolerate them. Merkel once said that Germany wouldn't be able to stand the images from the dismal conditions in the refugee camp at Calais for more than three days. But how much more devastating would images be of refugees being beaten as they try to get to Austria or Germany?"

Merkel's refugee policy was not a masterpiece of humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television images spread all over the world. In so many key moments, it is the photograph that dictates our behavior: the image that dishonors us, that makes us cringe in horror.

Now, the main German sentiment that seems to be driving public opinion and politics is a dramatic sense of guilt. It is a "secular sin", according to a new book by German sociologist Rolf Peter Sieferle that is topping the German bestseller list, "Finis Germania".

The behavior of Germans during the current migrant crisis, however, is symbolic of a more general Western condition. On April 30, 1975, the fall of Saigon was part of a war fought and lost by the United States as much on television as in the Vietnamese forests and rice paddies. It ended with the the escape of helicopters from the rooftop of the US embassy.

In 1991, the imagery of the "highway of death" of Saddam Hussein's bombed army of thugs fleeing a plundered Kuwait also shocked the public in the West, and led to calls for an immediate cessation of the fighting in Iraq and Kuwait. The result was that Saddam Hussein's air force and Republican Guard divisions were spared; during the "peace" that followed, it was these troops who butchered Kurds and Shiites.

The photograph of a dead American soldier dragged through the streets of Mogadishu after the "Black Hawk Down" incident pushed President Bill Clinton to order a shameful retreat from Somalia. That photograph also led the US Administration to rethink and cancel plans to use US troops for United Nations peace operations in Bosnia, Haiti and other strategic points. General David Petraeus would describe America's engagement in Afghanistan as a "war of perception".

Even the suffering of our enemies disturbs us, in the humanitarian culture of the West. We are therefore increasingly amenable to policies of appeasement, censorship and retreat, in order not to have to face the possibility of such horribleness and actually having to fight it.

That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We have paralysed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic photos of the terrorists' victims and even the faces and names of the jihadists. The Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, are not publicity-seekers; they are soldiers ready to die and kill in the name of what they care about.

This week, the German media was shocked by the revelation that the German air force will probably come under fire during its Syrian mission. "Endangering German soldiers!" -- with an exclamation point -- wrote Bild, the largest-selling newspaper in Germany. The statement exposed the anxiety of what John Vinocur of the Wall Street Journal called a "country where the army and air force basically do not fight". A pacifist Germany is now a source of trouble also for its own neighbors, such as Poland. "For centuries, our main worry in Poland was a very strong German army", said former Polish Defense Minister Janusz Onyszkiewicz. "Today, we're seriously worried about German armed forces that are too weak."

The Western establishment censors images of our enemies' crimes while giving prominence to our "guilt". The French government censored the "gruesome torture" of the victims at the Bataclan Theater, who were castrated, disemboweled and had their eyes gouged out by the Islamist terrorists. It was a mistake: it was in the public interest to know exactly what enemy we are facing.

The FBI and Department of Justice released a transcript of the Orlando jihadist's 911 call, but omitted all reference to the terror group ISIS and to Islam. These authorities did not want the public to know that Omar Mateen identified himself as an "Islamic soldier".

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance then told the British press it should not report when terrorists are Muslim.

The CEO of Twitter, Dick Costolo, suspended accounts that showed photographs of the beheading of John Foley, along with other Islamist beheadings and savagery. But Twitter did not mind being flooded by images of a little dead boy, Alan (Aylan) Kurdi on a beach.

The mainstream media in the US fought hard to lift the photo ban on military coffins during the war in Iraq. Its goal, apparently, was to humiliate and intimidate the public, to lower the support for the war.

Images, as in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, are published only if they amplify the West's sense of guilt and turn the "war on terror" into something more even more dangerous than the jihad causing the war.

Amnesty International's Secretary General, Irene Khan -- referring to concentration camps in the Soviet Union, where millions of people perished -- infamously called Guantanamo "the Gulag of our time". The result is to erase our enemy from our imagination. This is how the "war on terror" has become synonymous with lawlessness throughout the West.

Ten years ago, after the brave surge in Iraq, US soldiers discovered Al Qaeda's torture chambers. No one -- not ABC, not CBS, not the New York Times -- published one photo of them; they just filled our eyes with naked bodies at Abu Ghraib.

We are utopian technophiles and, contrary to the traditional Western view that we are flawed human beings in a tragic world. We now believe in Mark Zuckerberg's brave new world where no one should ever suffer and everyone should be happy and peaceful all the time. That is an exorbitant dream. For a short time we can afford it, as with Angela Merkel and Europe's migrant crisis. Unfortunately, that fantasy will not last. The conflicts at our gates, together with our aversion to making hard choices, will exact a far higher price.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

*

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying the West into Paralysis?

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10603/radical-islam-west
    5 days ago ... That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We
    have paralyzed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic ...
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying The West Into Paralysis? | Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com/.../radical-islam-horrifying-west-paralysis
    ‎
    3 days ago ... That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We
    have paralyzed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic ...
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying The West Into Paralysis? | Net News

    world.news.sorozatwiki.hu/.../is-radical-islam-horrifying-the-west-into-paralysis
    ‎
    2 days ago ... Authored by Giulio Meottie via The Gatestone Institute,German Chancellor
    Angela Merkel's refugee policy was not a masterpiece of ...
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying The West Into Paralysis? | Latest News ...

    todaynewsheadlines.444.hu/.../is-radical-islam-horrifying-the-west-into-paralysis
    ‎
    2 days ago ... Authored by Giulio Meottie via The Gatestone Institute,German Chancellor
    Angela Merkel's refugee policy was not a masterpiece of ...
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying the West into Paralysis? | Elite Trader

    https://www.elitetrader.com/.../is-radical-islam-horrifying-the-west-into-paralysis.311003/
    ‎
    1 day ago ... https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10603/radical-islam-west.
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying The West Into Paralysis? - Long Room

    https://www.longroom.com/.../is-radical-islam-horrifying-the-west-into-paralysis
    ‎
    3 days ago ... That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We
    have paralyzed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic ...
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying the West into Paralysis? - Sharia Watch UK

    www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q.../radical-islam-horrifying-west-paralysis
    ‎
    4 days ago ... German Chancellor Angela Merkel's refugee policy was not a masterpiece of
    humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television ...
     

    Richard Falknor on Twitter: ""Is Radical Islam Horrifying the West ...

    https://twitter.com/i/web/status/884146467518246913
    ‎
    13 hours ago ... "Is Radical Islam Horrifying the West into Paralysis?" Lost Our Will To Survive?
    http://tinyurl.com/ya3hatga We can't even fight the corrupt ...
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying The West Into Paralysis? | State of Globe

    stateofglobe.com/.../is-radical-islam-horrifying-the-west-into-paralysis/
    ‎
    3 days ago ... Source: Zero Hedge Authored by Giulio Meottie via The Gatestone Institute,
    German Chancellor Angela Merkel's refugee policy was not a ...
     

    Is Radical Islam Horrifying The West Into Paralysis? | NewZSentinel

    newzsentinel.com/is-radical-islam-horrifying-the-west-into-paralysis/
    ‎
    3 days ago ... That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We
    have paralyzed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic ...
     

  1. What Is Radicalisation? - Childline Is Here To Help

    Ad                   www.childline.org.uk/‎

*  *  *

FOREIGN  AID

[IF ALL THE RESOURCES OF FOREIGN AID FROM GERMANY-BRITAIN-USA AND FROM OTHER COUNTRIES HAD BEEN UTILIZED EARLY TO DEAL WITH POSSIBLE ONE OF THE WORST EXAMPLES OF THE  AFFECTS OF GREED ON THE POLICIES OF WHAT ARE CONSIDERED MORAL NATIONS AT THE OUTSET OF THIS DEMOGRAPHIC DISASTER WE WOULD NOT BE IN THE DISASTROUS SITUATION THAT THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE AND BRITAIN [ENGLAND] NOW FIND THEMSELVES.

WE ARE NOW INFORMED THAT 7 OUT OF 10 OF THOSE SEEKING A HOME IN EUROPE ARE NOT REFUGEES - BUT ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. WHICH CONFIRMS THAT AN EARLY RECOGNITION OF THIS FACT WOULD SHOW IN WHICH DIRECTION THE WEST'S OBJECTIVE SHOULD PROCEEED. 

THE FAULT FOR THIS MASSIVE EXODUS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST RESTS WITH THE POLITICIANS OF THE USA AND BRITAIN AND OTHER HISTORICAL OIL DISTRIBUTION NATIONS MANY STILL CAPTIVE WHO ARE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE UK WITH BREXIT TO HAND ARE BUT REGIONS WITHIN A NAZI-PLANNED EUROPEAN UNION WHICH NOW FINDS ITSELF THE VICTIM OF ITS OWN MAKING.  INDIVIDUAL NATION STATES WOULD HAVE SEEN CLEARLY THE RISKS BUT AS SHOWN BY THE ARTICLE ABOVE THEY DID NOT SEE THE DEMOGRAPHIC DISASTER UNTIL IT WAS UPON THEM.]

*

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

JULY 10-2017

H F 1250BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER.

*  *  *
 

The number of Muslims in Europe reaches

44 MILLION

 
 

[MUSLIM POPULATION

 WITHIN EACH PARTICULAR

ONCE FREE NATION STATE

 WITHIN THE EU]

 
WHERE THEY LIVE
 

 Germany---       4,760,000--------------5.8per cent

 France--------     4,710,000-------------7.5 per cent

 Britain--------      2,960,000-------------4.6per cent

Italy--------------2,220,000-------------7per cent   

 Bulgaria-----------1,020,000-----------13.7per cent

 Netherlands------1,000,000-------------6.0percent

 Spain--------------980,000--------------2.3percent

 Belgium-----------630,000-------------5.9 percent

 Greece-------------610,000--------------5.3percent

 Austria------------450,000--------------5.4percent

by

Ian Drury- 

Daily Mail

Home Affairs Correspondent

*  *  *

 

   [ The above figures are no doubt an estimate of each nation 's Muslim population therefore there could be millions more at any one time. Our own government has admitted it does not know the full number, as  those who should have left the country are still here, and others over the years have melted into the population. We also know from experience over the years from those at No 10 are not very good at simple Arithmetic!- when it suits them!]

[WITH THE BIRTH-RATE OF 4-1 THE MUSLIM POPULATION IN ENGLAND WILL GROW TO SURPASS THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION IN A MATTER OF A FEW GENERATIONS AND THEN THEY WILL HAVE THEIR ISLAMIC STATE WITH ITS STRICT SHARIA LAW AND SEEING HOW THE MAJORITY OF THE MUSLIMS IN OUR COUNTRY HAVE REACTED TO THE MASSACRE IN FRANCE THERE WILL BE NO TOLERANCE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHICH WE HAVE GIVEN THEM. OF COURSE THERE ARE MANY MUSLIMS WHO DECRY THE SILENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS BUT UNTIL THE GREATER MAJORITY BECOME THE NORM THERE WILL BE NO LIKELIHOOD OF THEIR INTEGRATION INTO OUR SOCIETY.

THE MAJOR FAULT FOR THE SITUATION WE SEE BEFORE US IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS BECAUSE OF THE WEST'S-[USA-UK-FRANCE] HISTORY OF EXPLOITATION IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES IN REGARD TO OIL SUPPLIES OVER THE PAST 97 YEARS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE AFFAIRS OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHICH HAS BROUGHT MANY ILLEGAL WARS WITH GREAT SLAUGHTER AND DEVASTATION TO THEIR POPULATIONS.

THE IRISH QUESTION IS A YARD STICK TO SEE HOW LONG INJUSTICE TO A PEOPLE CAN HAVE DIRE CONSEQUENCES EVEN TODAY IN NOVEMBER 2015. IRONICALLY IT WAS THE WAR MONGER TONY BLAIR WHO FOUND THE SOLUTION WHICH BROUGHT PEACE HOWEVER FRAGILE.  BUT HE FAILED TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ABOUT THE INTERFERENCE IN THE MATTERS OF OTHER NATION STATES -PARTICULARLY MUSLIM-A PEOPLE DEDICATED TO THEIR RELIGION ISLAM-THOUGH THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SECTS OF FOLLOWERS ,WHO HAVE YEARNED TO BE THEMSELVES!

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWER TO THE FLOOD OF REFUGEES  FROM ITS OUTSET SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO KEEP THE REFUGEES IN THE MIDDLE EAST -SAUDI ARABIA-HAS TENTED AREA TO ACCEPT 3,000,000 -EGYPT-JORDON...WITH MASSIVE FINANCIAL  HELP AND SHELTER ETC OFFERED TO THOSE COUNTRIES UNSTINTINGLY BUT ALLOW A CONTROLLED FLOW OF WAR REFUGEES TO THOSE COUNTRIES WILLING TO TAKE THEM-_BUT NO COMPULSION SHOULD BE MADE. IN THIS WAY THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED THE CATASTROPHE WE SEE BEFORE US IN EUROPE.

 

*

 

  1. The number of Muslims in Europe reaches

     

    44million -

     

     

    Daily Mail

     

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../

     

    The-Paris-attacks-drawn-renewed-attention-Europe-s-

    growing-Muslim-population.html

    13 hours ago ... The number of Muslims in Europe reaches 44m: Serious concerns raised about
    the ... By Ian Drury Home Affairs Correspondent For The Daily Mail ... By contrast,
    the UK has about 2.9million Muslims – the third largest number.
     

     

     
          

     

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS.]

NOVEMBER 16-2015

 

 

H F 550

 

*  *  *
 
 
 

 

 

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-July-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-July-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

BREXIT

BUT NOT OUT OF THE EU FOR 2/3 YEARS. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. ALL EU TREATIES WERE OBTAINED BY BRIBERY AND TREASON  AND FRAUD WHICH

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW PART 1-2016SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW-2016

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW
 

PLEASE  NOTE: WE HAVE IN ADVANCE GIVEN BELOW THE BULLETIN FOR EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS WHICH YOU CAN ENTER-IT WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER MONTHS FROM THE PAST AND THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME.  WE ARE MAKING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN EXIT DATE FROM THE EU. AS YOU ARE AWARE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE IN OCTOBER 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BRING THE EXIT FROM THE EU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOW THAT BREXIT IS SOON TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT THE DAY OF OUR DELIVERANCE WILL SOON BE AT HAND AND THE RETURN OF OUR INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND TOGETHER WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES OF WALES-SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN ISLAND.

MAY GOD GRANT US A SPEEDY EXIT FROM THE SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -MAMMOTH MONSTROSITY OF THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18 APL-18 MAY-18 JUN-18 JUL-18 AUG-18 SEP-18 OCT-18
NOV-18 DEC-18 JAN-19 FEB-19 MAR-19 APL-19 MAY-19 JUN-19 JUL-19 AUG-19

 

 
 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

      9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA
LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND
SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND
100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

 THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

MOST EVERYTHING WHICH IS PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT NATION STATES

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

A NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

ON the momentous day Theresa May said Britain WILL quit the single market, she put Cameron's feeble negotiations to shame with an ultimatum to Brussels that the UK will 'walk away from a bad deal-and make the EU pay' 
  • STEEL OF THE NEW
  • IRON LADY
    •
  • The PM is hopeful of an EU-UK trade deal because of mutual economic interests 
  • She said Europe not making a deal with BRITAIN would be 'calamitous self-harm'
  • It was confirmed that we will be leaving the single market and customs union
  • But the EU's chief negotiator called her show of defiance counter-productive
  • Her speech was criticised by the Lib Dems as Labour fought on how to respond 
  • Sterling rose 2.8 per cent against the Dollar and 1.8 per cent against the Euro

By James Slack Political Editor For The Daily Mail



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130034/Theresa-s-Brexit-speech-puts-Cameron-shame.html#ixzz4W7pxZPm9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*

Brexit will let us rediscover role as trading power | Daily Mail Online

Theresa May's Brexit speech puts Cameron to shame | Daily Mail ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Commons and Lords get ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Full reports and analysis

 

A great nation is reborn: Quitting will let us rediscover our role as a ...

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Europe split over May's ...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170118/281625305003771
Europe split over May's vision – but even Tusk calls it 'realistic'. Daily ... News -
From Mario Ledwith in Brussels and John Stevens in London.
 

*

POINT BY POINT, HER BLUEPRINT TO FREE BRITAIN FROM BRUSSELS
THERESA May delighted Eurosceptics yesterday with an ambitious road map for BREXIT. The PM extended the hand of friendship to the EU but threatened to walk away if BRUSSELS tried to impose a punitive deal. Jack DOYLE sets out her 12 objectives and analyses her chances of success.

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will provide certainty where we can. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after BREXIT, as they did before. And the Government will put the final deal to a vote in both houses of Parliament.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By keeping in place-at least initially-all EU laws, Mrs May will provide a degree of continuity and confidence for business. However, as she freely admits she cannot control the outcome of the negotiations. Parliament is highly likely to approve any deal because the alternative will be a chaotic BREXIT.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

  WHAT SHE SAID

We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Because we will not truly left the EU if we are not in control of our own laws

CAN SHE DELIVER

 Adopting the 'take back control' slogan of the Leave campaign, Mrs May repeated her promise to end rule by EU rule and judges in Luxembourg and restore power to Parliament and domestic courts. Without this there is no Brexit. A firm red line

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

  WHAT SHE SAID

A stronger Britain demands that we strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the UK.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By consulting devolved administrations, Mrs May is seeking to reassure voters in the nations of the UK which didn't vote for Brexit that she is listening to their concerns, and avoid Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second independence vote.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

  WHAT SHE SAID

WE will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration system.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Both countries want to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without opening a back door into Britain. Likely to mean UK border checks at Irish ports and airports.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: BREXIT must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver

CAN SHE DELIVER

Ending free movement is a  RED LINE, but Mrs May left open when it will end, what system will replace it and details of any transition deal. The PM wants highly skilled EU migrants, doctors and nurses, but will she compromise on unskilled migrants to get a better trade deal

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

  

WHAT SHE SAID

We  want to guarantee the right of EU citizens who are already living here in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Likely to agreed early on, as long as the EU doesn't want to haggle. Last year Mrs May offered to settle on the rights of three million EU nationals in the UK, and 1.2million Brits on the continent in advance of formals talks- but Angela Merkel refused.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

 *		 7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

Not only will the government protect the rights of workers' set out in European legislation, we will build on them.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May is determined to at least preserve protections for workers on low and middle incomes-many of whom voted for BREXIT. Could come under threat if there is no deal., and Britain slashes taxes and regulation to attract business.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. This should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. But I want to make it clear. It cannot mean membership of the single market

CAN SHE DELIVER

The crux of the negotiation. Britain will leave the single market, and with it EU laws and free movement. Instead Mrs May wants a tariff-free trade and customs agreement to stop goods being held up at ports. She ruled out ' vast contributions' to the EU budget, and the only money going to Brussels will be for particular programmes and agencies like Europol. Her huge gamble is to threaten to walk away if the EU attempts to punish Britain

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries outside the EU too. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants deals with non-EU countries including the US. That would be impossible from inside the customs union, which imposes a uniform tariff on all non-EU countries. It would also make trade Secretary Liam Fox's job redundant.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting -edge research and innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Unlikely to be an obstacle to any deal. Much collaboration between academics takes place outside formal EU structures and will continue unimpeded.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

  WHAT SHE SAID

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states.  All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Security and intelligence cooperation and defence cooperation cannot be a formal bargaining chip, but without making it one, Mrs May reminds EU allies of Britain's importance as an ally in fighting terrorism and important status as a military power.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

  WHAT SHE SAID

It is in no one's interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the European Union.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants tranitional arrangements to smooth the process of leaving the EU with specific deals on budget contributions, immigration, trade and customs lasting different periods of time. Securing this as well as securing a final deal within two years is a huge task.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

[THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT OTHER EU MEMBER STATES WILL BE GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY BREXIT TO LEAVE THAT SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHICH SHOULD MAKE A NUMBER OF EU STATES TO CO-OPERATE FULLY WITH THE UK OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE AT A LATER DATE.

AS THE GREAT PRIME MINISTER - WILLIAM PITT -  (1759-1806) ANNOUNCED IN NOVEMBER 9-1805 SHORTLY AFTER THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

The blueprint of a Free and Prosperous United Kingdom should be the blueprint of a future Free Europe and the world at large. Our past still lives in the hearts of FREE PEOPLES everywhere and soon we will rejoin that sacred past which we left over 43 years ago because of traitorous politicians and others who couldn't see the dangers ,for the gross lies and deceit in their path.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW
Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCES.]

Faced with the possible imposition (illegally) of a E. U. Constitution this  article contemplating our own U.K. Constitution (English Constitution), is especially topical.

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to the people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused.

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that,

THE LAW IS SUPREME

The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral with this, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

[In 2016 one can see how successive governments have by gradualism watered down these rights with even attempts to replace jury trial by trial by judge only on the grounds of speed and saving resources. The people in the main have been, amiss in not being vigilant to the protection of THEIR CONSTITUTION. In just a few weeks on the 23 June,2016 they have a choice whether to vote to leave the EU and regain THEIR LAW-THEIR CONSTITUTION-THEIR FREE COUNTRY. or REMAIN in an ALIEN COLLECTIVIST AND CORRUPT UNDEMOCRATIC EU with NO PROTECTION of MAGNA CARTA of 1215 and BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688 and NO ENGLISHMAN'S ' RIGHTS and LIBERTIES' to be passed on to FUTURE GENERATIONS.]

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 which declares that  the oath is taken for the purpose of

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the CROWN, and the CROWN in both GOVERNMENT and PARLIAMENT.

This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the STATUTE, COMMON LAW, and the CUSTOM and to 'CAUSE LAW and JUSTICE with MERCY to be used in all JUDGEMENTS'.

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for ROYAL ASSENT.

A BILL is not ENACTED until it has been authorised by the SOVEREIGN POWER.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted ONLY TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance  [such as Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's NEW LABOUR and since DAVE'S PARTY]

 It was used  to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs.  The OATH ascertains the SUPREMACY of the LAW, not the supremacy of CROWN or of PARLIAMENT.

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the Crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The PEOPLE give ALLEGIANCE to the CROWN.

Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence.

The MAGNA CARTA

made provision for the PEOPLE to use ANY MEANS including FORCE if the CROWN is found to be in BREACH.

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power.  The Monarch may do no wrong, but should she refuse by her negative power( the right to withhold assent) to

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

[Millions of patriots have been waiting over four decades for:-

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 
 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 
THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 
 

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

H.F. 1325.
 
 A GIANT PONZI SCHEME THAT DESERVED TO GO TO THE WALL

...even though Carillions collapse

 shames CAPITALISM

and puts the wind in Labour's sails says ALEX BRUMMER
 

News for DAILY MAIL-A GIANT PONZI SCHEME THAT DESERVED TO GO TO THE WALL by ALEX BRUMMER

 

ALEX BRUMMER: A giant Ponzi scheme that deserved to go to the wall... even though Carillion's collapse shames capitalism and puts the wind in Labour's sails

By Alex Brummer for the Daily Mail

January 16, 2018



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5273135/ALEX-BRUMMER-Carillion-deserved-wall.html#ixzz54RK5sa9n
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

January 16, 2018

The collapse of the Wolverhampton -based construction group Carillion is catastrophic for its 43,000 employees at home and overseas, for the Government and for members of the stricken pension fund.

It represents a nadir for the private sector outsourcing companies which, since the era of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, have been relied upon to deliver all manner of public services, from building hospitals and schools to modernising the NHS and even providing school meals.

In the fierce scramble for business among these behemoths, Carillion was so desperate for contracts that it consistently overpromised on the work it could do for an agreed cost. When it failed to deliver on time and on price, as was the case with the new 646-bed Royal Liverpool hospital, the group went on a borrowing spree.

 

More than 20,000 jobs in the UK, and more overseas, are at risk after Carillion ran out of time to find a way to restructure its £1.5bn debt burden. Pictured: A staff member outside an office in London

Its debts grew to £900 million, an impossibly large sum to manage when its share price was going into freefall during the course of last year.

Plunge

In effect Carillion, chaired by former water company boss Philip Green, had become a mammoth Ponzi scheme in which the cash promised or received for newer contracts was effectively being used to cover up the black holes on the older contracts.

Why Carillion has careered into crisis 

The Wolverhampton-based firm, the backbone behind a raft of public infrastructure projects, is teetering over a precipice.

The company is the second largest construction firm in the UK but has debts of about £1.5billion and a pension fund shortfall of almost £600million. 

So how has it got into this mess? Most analysts agree that the answer is simple. It has over-reached itself.

Carillion they argue has its fingers in too many pies at homes and abroad from the Battersea Power station redevelopment in the UK to operations in Canada, the Middle East and the Caribbean.

The company's incessant desire to expand has resulted in it pursuing too many risky contracts - some accompanied by questionable accounting practices - that have become increasingly unprofitable. 

It has furthermore faced delays in payments in the Middle East.

The firm in recent months has found  it much harder to manage its mountainous debt pile and pension deficit.

In December Carillion managed to persuade lenders to give it more time to repay them. But the company's banks are now understood to be unwilling to lend it any more cash.

What is unconscionable in all this is that over the past two decades, before its troubles emerged, Carillion paid out vast sums in dividends to shareholders (seeking to keep them sweet) and bonuses to fat-cat directors — including former chief executive Richard Howson, dismissed last July — yet allowed the pension fund deficit to balloon to an officially estimated £900 million.

The burden of sorting this out will now fall squarely on bail-out body the Pension Protection Fund, which is financed by raising a levy on the functioning pension schemes into which millions of us contribute.

Among the more astonishing aspects of the scandal is that even as Carillion’s share price plunged in the second half of last year, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, as well as other ministers and civil servants, still felt it was safe to gift the firm new contracts. City investors and hedge funders had already recognised that the company was struggling for survival and could no longer pay its thousands of suppliers in good time. If ever there was a case of the Government throwing good money after bad, this was it.

The business-friendly Tory Government, deliberately or naively, awarded Carillion three new contracts within days of the company admitting several major projects had gone wrong to the tune of £800 million — an announcement that provoked a 30 per cent plunge in the group’s shares last July.

A week after that first public warning that it was all going to hell in a handcart, Grayling’s department revealed that Carillion would partner another construction group on a £1.4 billion contract to work on the flagship £56 billion HS2 railway project.

Days later, Carillion was told by the Ministry of Defence it had been chosen to provide ‘catering, retail and leisure’ services for 233 military facilities. These contracts provided some temporary relief for the firm’s books.

But confidence in Carillon’s ability to manage the crisis, in spite of the new contracts, was fading fast, and in September it warned again that profits would fall short of expectations.

Yet the Government still gambled that it was a good bet, and awarded it a key infrastructure project to electrify the railway connecting Corby in Northamptonshire with London.

Ironically, the contracts for these large-scale, taxpayer-funded projects were given out at a time when Carillion’s chief executive and finance director were departing, and the share price was tanking. Yet Whitehall, in their naivety, sailed serenely on.

The collapse of Carillion comes hard on the heels of the decision by Virgin Trains and its partner Stagecoach to hand back the East Coast railway service to the Government, at a potential taxpayer cost of £2 billion. These two disasters have not only left the Government looking very silly, but also given a fillip to those supporters of Jeremy Corbyn on the Left who are convinced capitalism is wicked, and that only re-nationalisation of public services is the answer.
 

Carillion workers lined up outside a staff office to check on the status of their jobs in London yesterday morning

Sure enough, Shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett has been quick to exploit the misfortunes of Carillion’s workforce and pensioners, asking what ‘due diligence measures were undertaken before awarding contracts worth billions of taxpayer money’.

Failure

What he failed to acknowledge is that the most enthusiastic embrace of private outsourcing companies came during the last Labour government, which used firms such as Carillion to replace Britain’s Victorian hospitals, to build modern schools, expand universities and begin the process of updating the nation’s railways and roads.

Much went wrong at Carillion, including the failure of highly paid auditors KPMG to lay bare the company’s parlous financial state.

But then independent directors and major investors failed to question a record dividend payout to investors of nearly £80 million in 2016, even as the company headed for the rocks and the huge shortfall in the pension fund grew ever larger. (Labour MP Frank Field, who chairs the Pensions Select Committee, castigated Carillion for taking on ‘mega borrowings while its pension deficit ballooned’.)

None of these attacks can be very comfortable for Baroness (Sally) Morgan, former political secretary to Tony Blair, who joined the Carillion board as an independent director in June 2017, shortly before the fateful disclosure to the stock market that the company was in deep trouble.

The collapse of Carillion also shines a light on the wider outsourcing industry, and the ability of huge private firms to be responsible capitalists when they are given hundreds of millions in public money.

Other companies including Serco, Mitie, Balfour Beatty and G4S have all experienced difficulties with Government contracts: there has been a tendency for them to take on too much and become financially over-stretched.

Stupidity

With the help of experts in company turnarounds, some have managed to clean up the contracts under their management and bounce back.

But it’s too late for Carillion, which ran its affairs in a helter-skelter, irresponsible manner, yet still managed to keep the Government on side until the very end. Some have questioned why the Tories chose not to bail the firm out in the way it seems to have done with the train companies running the East Coast line.

But that surely would have sparked public fury — after all, if capitalism is to survive and thrive as Britain’s chosen economic model then weakness or stupidity must not be allowed to flourish.

Of course, Carillion’s collapse is a dreadful blow, and even now it will prove expensive for taxpayers, who will have to fund the company’s most vital operations until the insolvency practitioners can sell on the contracts.

But it would be a serious misjudgment if this debacle were used as an excuse for bringing an end to the role of private enterprise in building more efficient public services.

Enterprise and ambition in business have been the lifeblood of Britain for centuries. What a shame that it took the collapse of Carillion to remind us how it should not be done.

 

 

 

 

 

H.F.1439
 
 
 
 
A MEETING PLACE  - THERE ARE HUNDREDS  OF ALTERNATIVE WEBSITES ON OUR wEBSITE- SINCE 2003CLICK HERE
realzionistnews. TruetorahJews CONSPIRACYPLANET

.COM/
Fagan-Sounded-Alarm-of -the ILLUMINATI-in-1967  DAVID ICKE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP

 

 YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH
BENJAMIN FULFORD.NET

 

 THE WORLD OF TRUTH NEWWORLDORDER

INFO.COM

 

 SITSSHOW.BLOGSPOT.COM
(Jeff )RENCE.COM  TRUTHCONTROL.COM/  

WHATDOESIT MEAN.COM

 

 

 HUMANS ARE FREE

CLIMATE CHANGE A HOAX-TRUMP KNOWS IT-NOW YOU KNOW IT!
LANDDESTROYER.

BLOGSPOT

.COM

 HENRY MAKOW  CORBETTREPORT) LIFE IN THE MIX 2

 
UK COLUMN.ORG. JEW WATCH

ACTIVISTPOST.

COM

TARPLEY.NET

 
 
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

 

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018 -  AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018          AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018

AUGUST-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012