The European Union has set out conditions for approving its agreement to the UK’s withdrawal from the bloc.

The leaders of four political groups and the Constitutional Affairs Committee drew up the document which has now been endorsed by the Conference of Presidents and will be the basis for the negotiations between the EU and the UK for our exit from the community.   The document will go before the European Parliament next Wednesday to be debated.

It opens with the statement:

The motion attaches great importance to fair treatment of EU-27 citizens and stresses the need for reciprocity and non-discrimination between UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.

The first item on the agreement to be debated is entitled ‘Continued obligations’ and reads:

The UK must continue to both enjoy all its rights and respect all its obligations under the EU Treaty until it leaves, including financial commitments under the current EU long-term budget, even if those go beyond the withdrawal date. This also means that the UK must continue to accept the four freedoms, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, general budgetary contributions and adherence to the EU’s common trade policy until it leaves. MEPs insist on the importance of addressing the issue of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

On this matter, Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament, commented: “An orderly exit is an absolute requirement and a precondition for any potential future EU-UK partnership. This is not negotiable. The privilege of Union membership comes with responsibilities and these responsibilities mean guaranteeing the four freedoms. The four freedoms are the glue that binds it together and are indivisible.”

Next the document turns to what it quotes as ‘Sincere cooperation’.

The groups and the Constitutional Affairs Committee note that it would be against EU law for the UK to begin negotiations on possible trade agreements with third countries before it has left the EU and they also expect sincere cooperation from the UK in negotiations on EU legislation in other policy areas until it leaves. They warn that bilateral agreements between the UK and one or more remaining EU countries, for instance in respect of UK-based financial institutions, would be in breach of the EU Treaties.

Whether or not the UK government has already started trade negotiations is a moot point.  There is no doubt that to sign trade agreements with ‘third party’ countries is against EU treaties but I believe the Constitutional Affairs Committee has got this one wrong.

In addition, although the EU demands the UK doesn’t talk to other EU countries about such things as financial institutions, Juncker has already tried to move the City of London so that it is run from Brussels or Frankfurt.

The Labour Party has announced in its manifesto that it will unilaterally protect the status of EU citizens living in the UK and we know that the Prime Minister wants to do the same but considers this a negotiating point.
However the EU’s Coordinator on Brexit for the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt stressed: “For us, it is an absolute priority to settle citizens’ rights as soon as possible. It needs to be the first issue to be tackled in the negotiations. Citizens should not become bargaining chips.”  If both sides want the same thing, there should be no problem.

Then comes the crux of the matter.  The next heading is: ‘No better status outside the EU than inside’, and goes on to say:

MEPs are adamant that the benefits of being a member of the EU cannot be the same for a country which leaves the EU. The future relationship between the EU and the UK could, however, be an association agreement, says the motion, drawn up by Manfred Weber of the EPP, Gianni Pittella of the S&D, Guy Verhofstadt of the ALDE and Philippe Lamberts and Ska Keller of the Greens/EFA) as well as Constitutional Affairs Committee chair Danuta Hübner. Such an agreement would require continued respect by the UK of EU standards in the fields of the environment, climate change, fighting tax evasion and avoidance, fair competition, trade and social policy.

‘Continued respect of the EU’s policies on environment, climate change, fighting tax evasion and avoidance, fair competition, trade and social policy’ means a continuation of EU laws on all these areas.  Sounds reasonable but that means we cannot make any of our own laws on these matters and have to obey the EU.

The last heading ‘Transitional arrangements’, says:

MEPs agree that talks can start on possible transitional arrangements based on plans for the future relationship between the EU and the UK, but only if and when good progress has been made towards the withdrawal agreement. A future relationship agreement can only be concluded once the UK has actually left the EU and a transitional arrangement may not last longer than three years.

This means that talks about such arrangement can only start if the EU itself thinks that progress has been made on the withdrawal agreement – and you’ll remember that the withdrawal agreement includes a payment of 50 billion euros. It seems that only when we have agreed to pay this money will the bloc even start to consider possible transitional arrangements, and then only when we have left can we finish negotiating such a deal.

It seems the EU thinks it holds all the cards, but the UK has an ace up its sleeve in the form of the European Community Act 1972.  If that is repealed we are free to trade under WTO rules.  Then what will the EU do?  Raise trade tariffs against us – two can play at that game!

I think we’ve been brilliantly outmaneuvered since the BREXIT referendum. Theresa May was gerrymandered into position, almost immediately afterwards, she took some nine months to initiate Article 50 and this has given her plenty of time to plot and scheme against us.

In a few weeks, there will be a general election, many of us in UKIP are terrified to vote for our own party because we feel we need to the Conservatives to stay in power to see through Brexit. Theresa May has told us: you must vote Conservative if you wish there to be a successful BREXIT: she’s almost persuaded even us UKIPpers to vote for her party. Political Spin, gerrymandering and subterfuge at its finest and we’ve seen these scare tactics before at the last election: we shouldn’t be fooled like this again.

The Conservatives are going to win the coming election, whether we vote for them or not. This is a worry, they have no real opposition, they will become increasingly dictatorial. My theory, is that Jeremy Corbyn was gerrymandered into Labour’s leadership position to discredit the Labour party How and why else would such a clown gain such an appointment. In five or even ten years, we’ll have become accustomed to an unopposed, dictatorial party being in power It is a possibility that we’ll never see a true opposition again, our democratic nation will be just as much over as much as if we’d stayed in the European Union and we’re not out yet.

I’m not surprised by all the above. When I think about how our democracy has been under constant surreptitious and insidious assault for decades, I’m amazed that it has lasted this long. I and I think that goes for most of us, certainly wouldn’t trust May or the Conservatives with BREXIT, they just didn’t plan to lose the referendum. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Eurocrats, through the use of a smoke and mirrors campaign, that is unfortunately brilliant, are well under way to undermining our democratic decision and the British must wake up to this.

With the huge majority that the Conservatives are predicted to win in the election, there won’t be much that we can do to stop them, whatever stitch up they try and impose on us over BREXIT. We’re already being told that we’ll likely be tied to the European Court of Human Rights for a number of years after Brexit. Uncontrolled immigration is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

It is in the Conservatives’ interest to allow immigration to continue, it will further disenfranchise us native British and UKIP will be finished as anything of any significance, before the next election in 2022/3 and certainly by the one after that.

This coming election is the last chance for us indigenous British to have any significant representation in our own political system. What is to be done?

Many years ago, I was sitting in my garden with strawberries, cream and a bottle of Champagne, watching Wimbledon on TV. There was a very tense final, I can’t even remember who the players were, but I learnt an important lesson. The favourite had lost two sets and badly, it was down to match point in the third set. Amazingly, instead of cracking up, the favourite, returned serve and went on to win the game, followed by the set, the further two sets and then the match.

This is the mark of a champion! This was one of the most important lessons I have ever learnt in my life: champions don’t ever give up or quit, it is what distinguishes a brilliant tennis player, sportsman, businessman or politician from a true champion.

This is where we native British are today, we are at match point, we’ve been brilliantly outmaneuvered, but we mustn’t give up. It has been expressed here that there is some dissatisfaction with the UKIP leadership. We must succeed in-spite of them, not give up because of them: in truth, it’s not about UKIP it’s about our country and putting the Great back into Britain.

We British, must make sure that our wishes are represented in our government. We won’t win the coming election, but we can gain representation and a voice; without it were lost, it’s our last chance. Without a voice in parliament, the years of struggle to get and win the Brexit referendum will have been in vain.

We must wake up the leadership of UKIP, they should be making a lot more noise than they are. Perhaps we should also remember the ancient proverb:

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend’

I’m going to tentatively suggest that maybe, given the gravity of the situation, that UKIP should talk to some of the other political parties with similar objectives to our own. As I’ve said, this is about our country not about UKIP, we need as much help as we can to get the message out there in a very short space of time. Failure at this point means that we will lose our beloved country unless we are to resort to many years of chaos and violence.

There’s another saying that perhaps we should remember:

“adversity makes for strange bedfellows”

When I am an old man, I want to be in my garden, with my strawberries, cream and Champagne, watching Wimbledon: not on my knees praying to Allah.

If you want to give yourself a reason to re-focus, treat yourself to a look at “The Wright Stuff” on Channel 5. I just have and it didn’t take me more than five minutes into the programme to start wanting to throw things at the screen; what was going on would more “wrightly” have been called  “Wrightly Stuff and Nonsense”, portrayed in the characteristic malicious and clever-clever arch manner he reserves for us semi-intelligent morons whom he assumes hang on his every dripping word.

I know this particular item was about a newspaper report that some parents were refusing to let their children be taught about Islam, on which he launched a tirade about the “infinitesimal few” extremists within that august and venerated Islamic faith present in this country – no mention of our present policy for the removal of Sharia Law and with it the wholesale control and abuse of many Muslim women, not only through the formality of Sharia Law, but the adherence to the brainwashing effect of that religion.

In fact, I would not just single out “that religion”, but any religion. I would draw the attention of readers to a book which I chanced upon: “Slaves of the Gods” written in 1929 by Katherine Mayo. I won’t go into detail, but it is a short collection of factual stories regarding Indian women of the  Hindu faith, child marriages, Sutti and their confinement behind closed doors and walls. All these were disallowed by British inspired laws, but still persisted through adherence to their religion caused by, as I call it. “brainwashing” (slavish adherence to religion even in the face of obvious  physical and mental abuse which into the bargain is illegal in the host country).

Anyway, that`s all by the by, but it did provoke the thought that many of us and a substantial portion of our population had forgotten why we originally wanted and voted to leave the EU, many of us through long or late conviction, but flying in the face of a torrid Government inspired “Fear” campaign. I know that many of the fears have been largely discovered to be unfounded, and yet there are those who still seek to muddy our minds and certainly the political waters in order to reverse the verdict. (Another form of brain-washing?).

For each of us this is essentially a personal issue, but I think reflection is a necessary task prior to re-focusing and in some cases re-setting some policies. I am not going to enumerate exactly what must be reset, but I hope that by writing down here the way “I saw it” it might help to clarify mine and other’s fading memory, and with it re-firm and affirm our determination to see Brexit through to a total/hard/complete or whatever way you call its successful conclusion, where we are finally shut of every vestige of EU slavery, i.e. we regain our full Sovereignty in every respect!

As I said, it is personal.

My wife and I met in 1961, when I was a Purser in the Merchant Navy, we wrote to each other regularly she was full of questions one of which was “what do you think of this Common Market business” I thought the World Government plans were interesting, but only in the context of a 200 year implementation period, but we were both in agreement that what was proposed for the Commonwealth was the critical factor and we therefore were anti the whole plan.

We wed in 1966, UK joined the Common Market in 1972 and we voted in the 1975 referendum, my wife against, but me daft enough to be hoodwinked that it was “only a common market – no loss of sovereignty and all that etc”. I’m not sure of the dates, but my wife cried the day Maggie Thatcher signed the Single Market Act; she could see the way things were going, and around that time I spoiled my GE ballot paper by scrawling across it “NO NO NO to EU”

From then on we both started to vote UKIP and we were much helped in our thoughts by a certain Kilroy in his BBC morning programme.

Finally in November 2009 we joined UKIP as the “Last Hope” or the “Only Hope”, this was before Gordon Brown had signed the Lisbon Treaty. The day he did UKIP ceased to be just a “Protest” collection of fruitcakes and closet racists, although that soubriquet didn`t finally disappear until those seminal events in Bradford when it became apparent we were sane, and what’s more had been telling the truth all along. This was the Party’s watershed moment – we came of age as a genuine political party and, what’s more, entitled to be armed with the clout of speaking for and having the grassroot population behind us.

Now I am back to “remembering why we left the EU”, because it was those grassroots people we inspired to vote LEAVE and who we must rely on to take the next step and take full advantage of the freedom we have won from this awful EU, by helping us at local (grassroots) cross party level to help us get the EU out of our system: the EU “Think”, the brainwashing, the lies,the disinterest of our elected parliamentary central government whose only real connection with us is as voting fodder tied to their narrow vision and agenda of governance by an elite junta on a global basis. It must be seen that UKIP can only provide the basis for this bottom up platform as the only previously untainted coterie of failed legacy politicians and their EU masters.

So then, why did we want to leave the EU?

a) We wanted our full Sovereignty back.

b) We wanted to be able to control our borders and the number of immigrants from all sources; our nation is “full up” in such manner that it is unable (or unwilling) to provide services all people – incomers or native – are entitled to without strain: schools, hospitals, GP surgeries etc.

c)We want sole control of our water boundaries, in that our fishing industry can re-establish itself without  the incursions of illegal foreign vessels.

(To be continued with more points in Part II – don’t miss it!)

Introduction

Immigration will be a key consideration for many in the coming election. It is interesting to compare the approach of the UK government with that which we native Brits might face elsewhere.

I have worked on and off in Bangkok for much of the last twenty years. There are significant differences in immigration law between Thailand and the UK. The differences might provide a pointer to the necessary changes in UK immigration law and give some confidence that, with the will, they are possible. The Immigration Department here is part of the police and is well staffed.

Working in Thailand

No foreigner from other than a neighbouring country, where there are some concessions, is allowed to work without a work permit. A work permit is not obtained easily and requires proof of the need for employment and of qualifications and experience which are not available locally. All manual work and low skilled work is specifically excluded. In fact, if taken literally, those exclusions would cover more or less anything. The above concessions relate mainly to low skilled manual workers from adjacent countries necessary to supplement available local labour. (Unemployment is low, currently 1.3%). Work permits must be renewed annually and are cancelled with 7 days notice on termination of employment along with the accompanying visa. They cannot be transferred to a new employer, so unless the employee has the means to obtain a different visa he must leave the country within that 7 days.

Exceptions are permitted for setting up a business but that business must employ a minimum of 4 Thai workers for every foreigner and satisfy requirements a minimum investment of 10 million Thai Baht (around £230,000 at the current exchange rate) in the business or property along with other complex rules.. There is a short term (normally 2 weeks renewable for a further 2 weeks) arrangement whereby a foreigner may work for a company that can justify the need but this seems to happen rarely.

Staying without Working

Tourism

Tourists from most countries are normally allowed entry for a period of 30 days without a visa. They are required to have a return ticket although that was not always checked on entry (it might be different now). It is possible more recently to obtain a multiple entry tourist visa with a validity of 6 months, but that must be obtained in the home country, requires proof of residence, proof of £5000 in the bank for the previous 6 months and proof of employment among other details. How an employed person can manage that whilst taking so much time off is beyond me.

In the past some managed to stay using regular “visa runs” into a neighbouring country to get a new 30 day visa on re-entry although in some circumstance that would have been limited to 15 days at a land border. Now those visa runs are frowned upon but some still try.  Failure to comply with the requirements will result in expulsion, no appeals or ECHR rules to be abused here.

Marriage

It is possible to get an annual visa on the basis of being married to a Thai national or being a parent of a Thai. Obviously that does require being married and able to prove so to the satisfaction of the immigration officer including interviewing the spouse. The foreigner must also prove that he either has sufficient income or the equivalent in savings in a Thai bank.  The income or savings of the Thai spouse will not be taken into account. The same process has to be repeated annually.

Retirement

Similarly it is possible to get a visa for retirement once one has reached the age of 50. In that case the income requirement is twice that required for marriage. Again the process has to be repeated annually and proof of income provided.

Other Requirements

All classes of visa other than a short term tourist visa require that the holder reports his current address to immigration every 90 days. For a time that could, if one were lucky, be done on line. Otherwise it can be done by post or attendance in person (or via an agent) at an immigration office. Owners of hotels and rented accommodation are also required to notify the arrival of a foreigner with 24 hours. Failure to notify will result in a fine and, in the case of the 90 day notification or failure to renew a visa,  possible exclusion from the country for period dependent upon the length of the period of overstay.

Visa applications may be submitted in English but most supporting documentation will have to be translated into Thai and the translation verified by the Ministry Foreign Affairs. There are no free translations here for such documents although the common application forms are available in English. Foreigners are expected to carry their passports or a decent copy of the main and visa pages at all times.

Gaining Thai Nationality

In theory it is possible to gain Thai nationality by working in Thailand for a minimum of 5 years and being married to a Thai for that period along with many other requirements.

The time required and financial requirements mean that people taking this route are small in number and are further restricted by quota.

The Comparison

Legal Immigrants

Aside from a temporary student visa or visitor visa, gaining the right to live and work in the UK is a lengthy and expensive process requiring:

• Sponsorship by a spouse or parent
• Minimum income level for sponsor or savings (only above £16,000 counts)
• English language test for applicant
• Freedom from tuberculosis where prevalent in the home country
• Interview in home country

Gaining ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) requires the passing of further English tests and a minimum qualification period along with more costs. Up until that point they may still be deported for any transgression of the rules.

Obtaining nationality requires more of the same and passing a “Life in the UK” test, which would tax most UK nationals without studying for it, followed by taking an oath of allegiance. The rules are complex and restrictions on time out of the country apply.

Illegal Immigrants (aka “asylum seekers” or “refugees”)

Contrast the above with the lax or non-existent rules applied to these people, i.e. none. Furthermore they receive all kinds of benefits which would be hard to obtain for a native Brit and impossible to obtain for a legal immigrant. So we already have TB back in our country after having been all but eliminated and a mass of unemployable people to support.

Worse still is the clear majority of young fit males and the obvious issues such as the Rotherham Rapes which they bring with them. Less obvious is the growth of a potential army of the Soldiers of Islam, no doubt armed in their un-policed ghettos. Shouldn’t these people be defending their country rather than running away?

Even for those wishing to work the minimum wage is an attraction to those who don’t understand the cost of living difference. (e.g. Thailand around £7 per day).

They seem to a have very easy time in the UK by comparison.

Which government has the right policies?

Conclusion

Muslim immigrants have already achieved critical mass, i.e. their numbers combined with differential reproduction rates means that they will form a large enough proportion of our population to effectively take over government and transform the UK into an Islamic state. They do not need a majority to do that since many of our own take no interest in the matter and too many on the left of reality actually support them in the false belief that they will integrate. One only needs to look at other countries with a significant Muslim presence to understand that their integration is an impossible dream.

We can only preserve the inheritance of those who will come after us by:

1. A rigorous policy on immigration
2. Restrictions on the right of those already here to hold public office or vote
3. Closing of Islamic education facilities
4. An absolute ban on new mosques and closing down of those that preach extremism
5. A policy for repatriation starting with mandatory deportation of the troublemakers.

Can UKIP rise to the challenge or will we have to take up arms to save our country?

He’s got a cheek, hasn’t he, that Barmy Barnier?  Standing up there in his perfectly tailored suit, the suave, silver-tongued exemple parfait of a Eurocrat, casually announcing that Britain’s so-called ‘Brexit Debt’ had just been doubled to £100 bn in his perfect Parisian French (although he’s actually from near Grenoble), dropping now and now into English because, you know, Les Anglais, Les Rosbifs, they’re just so… monolingual, n’est pas…?  

All around the UK, I imagined retired military types, walrus moustaches quivering with rage, setting aside their whisky and sodas and seizing a pen to send off what JK Rowling would call a Howler, to the Times.  And  then later, that nice Mrs May, outside Nr 10, Downing Street, calling the Brussels clique out and accusing them of timing their oily pronouncements to interfere in our, I repeat, our, Election process.  And she’s right.  And they have.  But not quite in the way they intended,  Because we’re British.  We don’t take kindly to Johnny Foreigner talking down to us and telling us what to do and I imagine thousands of Brits of whatever political persuasion, (well perhaps not the spineless, country-hating Lib-Dems or the more radical nutcases of the SNP) decided yesterday that they’d be getting behind our Prime Minister on June 8^th.  And that they wouldn’t be taking any more of what the Welsh call ‘cachu’ from the likes of M’sieur Barnier.

I mean. Who do these people think they are?  We’re the country that under Alfred threw off the Danish yoke eleven hundred years ago.  We’re the country that fought a vicious civil war to establish our rights of Parliamentary democracy versus autocratic rule and in the same space of time reached an accord between our largely French-descended aristocracy and the hoi-polloi without La Terreur and the lopping off of hundreds if not thousands of heads.  We’re the one country in Europe that has not been invaded by another for nearly a thousand years.  The country whose flag once flew over three-quarters of the globe.  The country whose vastly outnumbered soldiery defeated the French at both Crecy and Agincourt.  Who stood alone against Hitler even when our capital city had all but but been blitzed to the ground by his Luftwaffe.  We’re the country that nearly ruined ourselves defending our then allies over the Channel, not once, but twice in the last hundred years.  And this is their thanks?  We havn’t allowed the Europeans to push us around for a very long time!  And we’re not going to start now!!!

Of course we have our detractors such as Squeaky Tim Farron (aged 13¾) and his Libtard rag-tag army of, well let me be blunt, patronising gits but this is nothing new  When another Frenchman, Napoleon Bonaparte had subjugated all of Europe from Moscow to the Portugese frontier, who do you think were busy rubbishing the achievements of a then not so well-known British General and calling for an entente cordiale with the Corsican Tyrant. Yes, it was our old friends, the Whigs, the ancestors of the Tim Farrons and Nick Cleggs of today, busy talking down their country even then,  The General, by the way was none other than Sir Arthur Wellesley – 1st Duke of Wellington.

Since Spivvy Dave’s laughable and embarrassing ‘great negotiation’ with the Europeans, things have not gone the way the Eurocrat Globalists, including the ones living here, have wanted or expected.  The gloves are coming off and we’re able to see clearly the faces behind the smug masks.  Sir Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, those shrewd observers of British and Brussels bureaucracy had it right thirty years ago in their famous sitcom,  Yes Minister.  Anyone wanting an astute summing up of our so-called European friends and their motives, and the way our Civil Service once thought, before they were got at by the EU, need only to watch the first part of ‘The Devil You Know’.  Paraphrasing quite a bit:

Sir Humphrey:  That is the penalty we have to pay for trying to pretend we are Europeans.  Believe me I fully understand your hostility to Europe.

James Hacker:  I’m pro Europe, just anti Brussels

Sir Humphrey:  It could be argued that given the absurdity of the whole European idea that Brussels is doing it’s best to defend the indefensible and to make the unworkable work.

James Hacker:  The European idea is our best hope of avoiding narrow national self-interest.  Europe is a community of nations directed towards one goal.

Sir Humphrey.  Minister – It is a game played for national interest and always has been. We went into it to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.  The French went into it to protect their inefficient farmers.  The Germans – to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for re-admission to the human race.  Luxembourg – for the perks.  With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg it’s like having the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering.

That episode  rings as true today as when it was first broadcast back in 1981.  To steal and amend a line from another great British sitcom – as Corporal Jones might have said – ‘Those Foreigners – They don’t like it up ’em!’

No, they don’t but if they continue to ‘negotiate’ in this high-handed and arrogant way then that’s exactly what they should get.  It Up ‘Em!  UKIP got the message right in the 2015 General Election, a message to which I will add just one word.  It’s time to stand up for our country.  It’s time to ignore the doom-mongering Liberals, the wavery Labouries and the Gina Miller type opportunists.  It’s time to realise that we, not Brussels, have the stronger hand in every way you can think of and that it’s time to play it.  It’s time to

BELIEVE IN GREAT BRITAIN!

This written offering is not about immigrants. It’s about Immigration. A simple word which engenders an increasingly emotional response when mentioned in a political or social context. The process of immigration when broached in conversation can attract accusations of racism, xenophobia, extremism and other stigmatising terms to those who wish to talk. These accusations come from those who find it uncomfortable or inconvenient to talk about immigration and these accusations have been encouraged by a political class. Thus, immigration is a subject that has become ‘toxic’, one which could result in social rejection and personal or professional ramifications if discussed in the ‘wrong’ company. We recognise this as ‘Political Correctness’.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition:

Immigration – noun – The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.

A relatively easily understandable term. The term ‘gross immigration’ refers to the number of people who come to live in the UK in a given time period.  The term ‘nett immigration’ refers to the number of people who come to live in the UK, less the number of people who move permanently from the UK to another country, in a given time period, usually expressed in the units persons/year.

Immigration is a word that defines a process. A process which describes the relocation of one or more human beings from one country to another. It is toxic, because it has been made toxic for political reasons. It has been and is made so by conflating discussions about immigration (a process), with discussions about immigrants (a disparate variety of human beings). Intelligent discourse is replaced by emotional response. It is made so in our schools, on the television and in the media. It is made so by a political class which choses to use race, ethnicity, religion, colour, sexuality, age, health and wealth as tools to, put quite simply, attain power. If the subject of immigration were to be discussed, as it should be, in a rational, scientific and academic manner, the importance of the subject in relation to our political decision making may be somewhat different.

Immigration is a subject which lies at the heart of the forthcoming election, but one which is still avoided and toxified by the usual culprits in the mainstream media. The former leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband MP, commented on the subject of ‘talking about immigration’ as the Telegraph Newspaper reported at the time (18th April 2015):

“…Admitting that Tony Blair’s government had made serious errors in 2004, when people from across Eastern Europe were given free entry to the UK, he [Ed Miliband] said “working people” had been left facing “dramatic changes in their communities that were not planned or properly prepared for.”   “Let me be clear. It is not prejudiced to be concerned about immigration,” he added…..”

Permission from Ed Miliband was granted, but politicians don’t talk too much about immigration. Politicians talk about ‘talking about immigration’ and fail to get round to actually doing it.

Planning

“…by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail…”  Benjamin Franklyn

Some numbers are helpful to give one a sense of the scale of immigration rates. Planners need statistics and numbers, to enable them to plan. Numbers are published by a variety of parties including the Office of National Statistics. Other organisations such as Migrationwatch have data from alternative sources. Since 2012 however, the numbers have increased:

“…Net migration into the UK in the year ending September 2014 was 298,000,” according to Office for National Statistics figures.

The data showed 624,000 people immigrated to the UK that year, viewed as a “statistically significant” increase on the 530,000 in the previous 12 months. An estimated 327,000 people emigrated from the UK….” The Guardian Newspaper 18th April 2015.

Older readers will recall from their Geography lessons, learning about demographics. The study of birth and death rates, infant mortality rates, population changes and associated measurements. These topics were introduced to us as they are important measures which assist society’s institutions in their responsibility to plan – and when some kids leave school they may mature to be adults who become planners. Over recent decades, especially over the last twenty years (as can be seen in the above graph), immigration rates have increased to historically unprecedented levels and the process of immigration is a significant factor in the population increase over and above natural population growth through birth/death/mortality rates.

So why does this population increase matter? Well, for one, the ability to plan. Without accurate numbers and the ability to predict what future numbers are likely to approximate to, the ability to plan, no matter how much of a genius the planner may be, is impaired.

Whilst not herein the subject, the societal and the social aspects of immigration are not to be dismissed and their importance to the peacefulness and wellbeing of our society should not be underestimated, or worse, ignored.

The Conservative Party were elected on the promise that they would reduce nett immigration to the tens of thousands. This promise has been broken. It was a promise that the Conservative Party knew it was not empowered to keep. As members of the EU, and we remain members, the UK Government cannot control the gross immigration rate. This is no longer a matter of dispute (the science on this is ‘settled’).  In Part 2 of this series  the impact of uncontrolled immigration on social services provision will be discussed.

[Ed: James asked for assistance with campaign funds. He has an (edgy) gmail for the campaign: barnsleyfirst@gmail.com or this email address jamesdaltonukip@gmail.com is also OK.]

In Part 1, the term immigration was defined, and official government statistics relating to nett immigration rates were introduced. The assertion was put that immigration must be controlled to enable planners to undertake their function, such that peacefulness and wellbeing in our society can be sustained.

The immigration figures for 2015 were reported on by the BBC on 26th May 2016 and the graph released (see below) indicates the nett immigration rate at approximately 330,000 persons per year, not the tens of thousands which the Conservative Party had been given a mandate to achieve, and upon which David Cameron, the then Prime Minister,  made a ‘cast iron’ promise.

“…There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics…” Benjamin Disraeli, allegedly.

It should be noted that the nett immigration figures published to 2012 [See Part 1] have been adjusted (upwards) in the subsequently published figures [see above]. It may be sensible to accept the government, or more accurately, the Office of National Statistics figures as a lower bound figure for population increase due to immigration. As recent reports on food consumption levels and National Insurance Numbers issued, the accuracy of the estimated immigration as given by the ONS needs to be treated with scepticism.

The accounting of the numbers is a subject in its own right but the trend is clear: unprecedented levels of nett immigration not less than 0.4% of the UK population, vastly in excess of the range which the Government has publicly stated as a target. This margin of error, this unknown unknown, is devastating for the work of planners. More significantly, it is pertinent to the condition and ability of current service provision (as planned for many years ago), which was designed for a population level below that which we currently have. Is that why Barnsley Hospital is facing £90m cuts and department closures? The Barnsley people still need the services, but where will they now find them?

A 4 YEAR FORWARD PROJECTION OF SCHOOL PLACE SHORTAGES FROM 2012 TO 2013. WHAT CHANCE THE REAL PICTURE IS WORSE?

Currently, immigration from the EU member states is effectively determined by the aggregate of the individual actions of those foreign nationals who chose to move to the UK. This free choice is made without recourse to the rights of UK nationals to choose not to allow any number or all of these foreign nationals to enter the country. There is much discourse regarding the reasons why these individuals are making these choices – disparity in wage levels; high paid long stay working holidays with a bunch of mates; the ‘free’ health care and other welfare payments; lack of employment prospects at home; perceived prospects for a more prosperous future – the reasons are varied and countless. Whilst the ‘whys’ are relevant to certain planners, the ‘how many’ is of primary relevance to most. ‘How many’ is a key statistic.

WHERE WILL THE UNEMPLOYED OF SPAIN, GREECE, ITALY AND PORTUGAL SEEK EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE?

I’m a planner. What do I do?

This is an exercise that anyone can play to understand why immigration control is essential.

Hypothetical example 1:

Planner A works in the Department of Energy. His job is to ensure that the electrical energy needs of the peoples of the UK are secure, indefinitely. Amongst other factors, he wants to know, as accurately as possible, what the population will be in 5, 10, 15 and 20 years’ time as domestic demand is approximately proportional to population. Question – How many new power stations need to be constructed over the coming two decades?

Hypothetical example 2:

Planner B works for the NHS. His job is to ensure that the general practices, hospitals and other medical centres are adequately resourced in fully-trained doctors. He understands that these practitioners are moulded, formed, chiselled and finished over a period of many years, perhaps a couple of decades. He understands the importance of ensuring that the universities take on the necessary numbers of undergraduates today to provide the necessary numbers of skilled practitioners 20 years hence.  Question – How many undergraduates need to be commencing their courses in medicine this year?

In the two examples above the inability to determine what the population will be at a future date has material impact on the likelihood that the future needs of the people of the UK will be met in terms of electricity production and of medical skills. It should be noted that we have a moral duty to train sufficient medical professionals and not import them as a ‘back up policy’. If we import a trained doctor from Mali, Hungary or Brazil, that is just one fewer doctor serving the needs of their home countries – so we shift our problem onto others.

As we have discussed, the two causes of population change are (i) birth/death rates amongst UK permanent residents and (ii) nett immigration. Inaccuracies in estimating population change through natural birth and death rates need to be accepted on ethical grounds. Immigration can be controlled but the Labour, Conservative and LibDem parties choose not to, whereas UKIP proposes to.  As a member of ‘The Single Market’ our government agrees with foreign parties not to control immigration. This is a dereliction of duty.  

Our elected representatives need to be arbiters of what immigration levels are appropriate and held accountable for their actions through an honest and verifiably uncorrupted electoral system. The people, through the ballot box, need to hold the politicians to account for their manifesto commitments and the consequences of their actions – and the politicians need the power, and will, to treat immigration policy and immigration control with the seriousness and openness that the subject deserves.

James Dalton is the UKIP candidate for BARNSLEY East in the coming General Election.  

[Ed: James asked for assistance with campaign funds. He has a gmail for the campaign: barnsleyfirst@gmail.com or jamesdaltonukip@gmail.com is also OK.]

Mrs May said, when Home Secretary, in June 2012, in reply to a Parliamentary Question from D. Raab MP, that…

of course …

she would be willing to invite

special intervention units from our EU allies onto British soil … if needed

This means the lethally armed, paramilitary, European Gendarmerie Force. A brutal notion of ‘policing’ that is quite alien to our British tradition of unarmed ‘policing by consent’, as founded by Sir Robert Peel.

There are six nations at present contributing their police forces to the EGF – France, Holland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Romania. They are being drilled and welded into one pan-European force, see pictures, from their own website.

Once invited into the country, they would not leave if asked by a purely British authority, for their allegiance is only to Brussels.

Our ‘secession’ could thus be declared ‘illegal’ by the ECJ, and its decision enforced by brute force.

She has never been debated on this, let alone challenged.

But it gets worse…

Amber Rudd, now Home Secretary under Mrs May, stated to the Commons on March 6th last:

I certainly agree with the principle that the European Arrest Warrant is an effective tool and is absolutely essential to delivering effective judgement to the murderers, rapists and paedophiles that we have managed to seek judgement on,” the minister said.

It is a priority to ensure that we do remain part of it and I can also reassure Honourable colleagues throughout the House that this is something European partners want to achieve as well.

The Home Office Minister Brandon Lewis MP had already said we also wish to remain members of Europol – the EU’s embryo FBI.

This is official Tory policy. Not just LibDem or Labour policy, but TORY policy as well.

Unlike UK arrest warrants, EAWs are issued with no requirement for any prima evidence, on the mere say-so of any – however dodgy – continental judicial ‘authority’ (including mere prosecutors).

No British court is allowed to ask to see any evidence before surrendering a prisoner to the foreign authority, let alone decide it is insufficient. They can only do this – still – with British arrest warrants.

This rides a coach and horses through Article 38 of Magna Carta: ‘No legal officer shall initiate legal proceedings against anyone on his own mere say-so, without reliable witnesses that have already been brought for the purpose.’

This is the basis for our Habeas Corpus safeguard, which is not, and never has been, recognised by any of the Napoleonic-inquisitorial systems used in continental Europe. There is therefore no right to a swift (hours or days, not weeks or months) public hearing after arrest. Prisoners in the continental systems can wait for long months (Andrew Symeou – 11 months in horrendous conditions) while the prosecutors try to collect evidence against them, before appearing in open court, where they can be freed since it is seen that there is no case to answer.

Brussels is setting up a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will have the power to issue EAWs against people in Britain, overriding our ostensible opt-out from his jurisdiction, as certified by the Counsel’s Opinion of a noted QC.

Can a free people, like the British, tolerate this state of servitude to alien systems?

The heart of State power is the right to use violence – legally – on the bodies of the citizens.

Why is Mrs May leaving this power in the hands of Brussels???

Does this perverse intention not indicate that her ‘Brexiteering rhetoric’ is, indeed, only that?

How can we be sure that after June 8th, with a greater majority in Parliament, and having ostensibly stolen all of UKIP’s policies and thereby pulverised our electoral base, with a clear run till 2022, she will not then hoist different colours and proceed to deliver a deal which leaves us at the mercy of Brussels? Open, vulnerable and exposed, having handed over to those who clearly do not love us the safeguards of our freedom that our forefathers over the centuries fought and laid down their lives to preserve and hand down to us??

And if there is no voice in Parliament to TELL THE PEOPLE, all this may come to pass in …. silence.

In Part 1, the term immigration was defined, and official government statistics relating to nett immigration rates were introduced. The assertion was put, that immigration must be controlled to enable planners to undertake their function, such that peacefulness and well-being in our society can be sustained.

In Part 2, the readers were asked to put themselves in the shoes of the planner, to understand how controlling immigration is necessary, both practically and morally, to improve the potential future well-being and sustainability of society’s institutions and public service providers, to service the interests of UK residents.

Part 3 – Housing – A basic human need

When a person comes to Britain from overseas he or she requires accommodation. The practical necessities of life: food, shelter and warmth. The British people have always been welcoming. Forthright and stubborn, yes, but welcoming. But this has historically always been determined and controlled by elected representatives of the people of the UK. But recent years have presented predictable and predicted problems – a housing shortage.

The demand on housing can be determined by assessing average occupancy rates alongside residential property numbers and population totals. What the demand may be in the future is not simply a function of nett immigration. Average human lifespan is a factor – an amplifying factor. So are average occupancy rates, currently approximately 2.1 persons per household.

As the ONS confirms in its “Housing and Home Ownership in the UK Report” Jan 2015, occupancy rates are falling, primarily due to the increase in single occupancy residencies. This trend also amplifies the rate of increase in housing demand:

“….The number of households in the UK, and therefore demand for housing, has increased, partly as a result of increasing population together with decreasing average household size. There were 26.4 million households in the UK in 2013. Of these, 3 in 10 consisted of only one person; in 1981, 2 in 10 of the 20.2 million households were single occupancy.”

The nett immigration rates post war, up until 1997, fluctuated yet were both manageable and controllable. After 1997 the immigration rate increased to new, much higher levels. Should current nett immigration rates of over 300,000 persons per year continue, the demand for residences could approximate to 143,000 per year. And these residences are not being built. Questions: How can we give a hand-up to those amongst us who have fallen on hard times? How can we assist our homeless? How can we eradicate increases in homelessness and work to reduce them?

“…The best way to predict your future, is to create it…” Abraham Lincoln.

Sustainability and Localism

Think Globally, Act Locally. Questions – How can local needs, local knowledge and local actions be successfully achieved if the power to implement local actions is removed and handed to a remote bureaucracy, i.e. The EU?  How can we protect our environment for our children and theirs to come? How can we think globally, yes, and act locally? Only by leaving the EU and taking control of immigration rates can the UK move in the right direction in the interests of future generations.

“…..They took all the trees

And put them in a tree museum

Then they charged the people

A dollar and a half just to see ’em

Don’t it always seem to go,

That you don’t know what you’ve got

‘Til it’s gone

They paved paradise

And put up a parking lot…” Joni Mitchell

I confess I have a soft spot for the voice of Joni Mitchell. Don’t allow our paradise to be paved. Give a hand-up to those who have fallen on hard times. To give hope and prospects to our children and those to come, it is essential to Leave the EU and for our government to control immigration.

The future may not be precisely predictable, but inevitable consequences of courses of action can be predictable through the use of the tools of logic, reason, induction and deduction. You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone? With a bit of thought, you can have a damn good guess! The economic ‘pulls’ to the UK are real and undeniable – minimum wage rates, welfare and work opportunity statistics, as well as recent historical numerical data, all confirm this.

The circumstances for the inappropriate direction of human and material resources to create a physical society ill-suited to the needs of tomorrow are created by uncontrolled immigration. There will be an increase in the numbers of UK residents who will find difficulty in availing themselves of power, health care, accommodation, well paid work, school places and convenient transportation. By not controlling immigration, we are creating our future – a future of decreased prosperity and reduced well-being (except for an elite who are enriched and remote from these predictable general social outcomes).

For a country that throughout its history has controlled and secured its borders, we are a country that has soon forgotten. For many, it appears to have been forgotten that one of the prime responsibilities of a government of the people is to secure its borders and to only allow free passage to foreign nationals under given conditions agreed by the representatives of the people. It has been forgotten, by many, that the government is there to serve the people and that the people are not there to serve the government.

We all have a duty, to those who will live free and prosperous lives in this wonderful land, to take control, to vote for candidates in the upcoming general election that will ensure that we leave the EU (full, complete, extreme ‘Brexit’) and who will return servitude to our governance.

In the final part of this series “…Immigration and Why its Control is Essential…” we will summarise the current legal realities relating to the EU ‘s imposition of ‘Freedom of Movement of Labour’ and why it is incompatible with the UK Government undertaking its duty to the people, and with sustaining a peaceable and prosperous society.

James Dalton is the UKIP candidate for BARNSLEY East in the coming General Election

[Ed: James asked for assistance with campaign funds. He has a gmail for the campaign: barnsleyfirst@gmail.com or jamesdaltonukip@gmail.com is also OK.]

Ed: In her latest video, Anne Marie Waters talks about the need for an open, nuanced debate about the merits of Islam. We are happy to publish her video, with her permission, because this is a debate we cannot shirk.

At the same time, Anne Marie Waters has opened her campaign, “For Britain”.

This video is an appeal to all of us to make ourselves knowledgeable and not get frightened by the usual labels the MSM and the establishment use to stifle that debate.

Ed: Next to ensuing that we do get the proper Brexit and not a soft-soap EU version, immigration is one of the key issues in the forthcoming General Election. In the absence of a Manifesto, members need to know how to argue the points on immigration so as to counter the usual arguments brought forward by the establishment. It is not sufficient for us simply to fixate on numbers, on ‘in-and-out’ statistics. Following the article series by James Dalton on immigration (see Part 3 with links to the earlier Parts), here is another two-part series, providing even more arguments:

UKIP has embraced a nil net immigration policy based on a one in one out to leave the population unchanged by immigration. In the year ending Sept 2016, 596,000 people came to the UK and 323,000 left, giving a net migration figure of 273,000 more coming than going. That is the number of  people who were not British citizens and who would have been refused residence under the scheme proposed by UKIP.

The Internationalists tell us that the woes of the world will come upon us should we radically curtail immigration, although, like Lear threatening retribution,

“I will do such things–What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be the terrors of the earth.”

they are unable to say exactly what the woes will be. In fact, I cannot recall ever having seen an article in the British media which goes beyond lazy generalisation about “competing in a global market” or  “driving private enterprise abroad”. The reality is rather different.

The effects on the British labour market of a radical reduction of immigrants

There would be greatly improved employment opportunities for the British. The labour market would tighten and wages would rise. That would place extra costs on employers but they could be offset by a reduction in taxation due to millions of people being employed who are currently unemployed or underemployed and receiving in-work benefits. Nor would  wages rise uniformly. Labour would move into those occupations which  are essential and which cannot be provided at a distance, for example healthcare and education.

We would discover how occupations rank in terms of utility. Wages would rise in those occupations which had most utility to attract staff from elsewhere. This could have surprising results. We might find that vital jobs considered menial now would pay much more once cheap labour could no longer be brought in. This would be justice for the many who have seen their jobs undervalued because of the ability of employers to use cheap immigrant labour.

Employers  would respond to labour tightening by using labour more efficiently. Automation would increase and employers would change their attitude to the employment of the long-term unemployed, older people  and the disabled. Both employers and government would take vocational   training more seriously. Government would provide incentives to employers to train their staff and increase the training of public service   professionals such as doctors and dentists.

Employers who could not find the labour to run their business in  this country would have to accept they could not do so. No one has a right to engage in an enterprise regardless of the effects on the welfare of the community as a whole, which is effectively the present position. Capital which cannot be used in this country can be invested abroad and the profits from that brought to the UK. The UK balance of payments would be improved by a reduction in the money being remitted abroad by immigrants.

The increase in employment of Britons would be an immense social good beyond reducing the cost to the Exchequer of the unemployed, for people are generally happier and more responsible when employed.

The pressure on public services, transport and housing would be lessened, making access to them easier for Britons. An ending of mass immigration would also curtail the substantial cost of providing the benefits of the welfare state to immigrants as soon as they gain the right to legal long term residence in Britain.

Fewer legal immigrants would allow much greater supervision of visitors to Britain – a significant minority of whom are health tourists or who are here for criminal purposes – and a proper control and investigation of illegal immigrants. No more sending suspected illegals to the Croydon reception office under their own speed or leaving ports and airfields with an inadequate or completely absent Borders Agency presence. We could then not only refuse new immigrants but start removing the illegal immigrants who are already here.

To be continued in Part 2 tomorrow.

This is the second part of a two part article by Robert Hnderson. Part I can be found here.

Would there be an unmanageable labour shortage?

The  idea that Britain is short of  labour  for  most  purposes  is   absurd.   The official figure for those of working  age (16-64) who are economically inactive in the UK is just under 9 million, or nearly a quarter of the age group. Clearly not all of those would be able or willing to work, but equally clearly a large proportion would be able and willing to work if the conditions were right, for example, wages rose, employers became more accommodating and the benefits system was tightened as the number  of opportunities for work rose.

The claim that the indigenous population will not do the jobs immigrants take is demonstrably false for in areas of the country with few immigrants  native Britons do them willingly. In addition, vast swathes of work have been effectively denied to the native population by collusion between employers and those who supply labour. This happens both within the indigenous ethnic minorities who only employ from their own ethnic group and within immigrant labour which commonly works through gangmasters who are immigrants themselves. This does not just occur in areas such as fruit picking and factory assembly work but in areas such as the NHS where we have the absurdity of doctors and nurses trained in Britain having to go abroad to find jobs because immigrants are employed here.

It is also important to understand that the menial jobs immigrants take are worth far more to them than a native Briton because wages are so much higher in the UK than they are in the country from which the immigrant hails. Take the example of an immigrant whose earnings are taxed properly and who earns the minimum UK wage. Even if they earn the UK minimum wage of £7.20 ph for those over 24 years of age that is an annual wage for a 40 hour week of £14,976. The minimum wage in, for example, Poland is worth around £400 pm (£5,000 pa), despite the fact that Poland is one of the larger and better developed economies of the Eastern European countries which supply so many of the immigrants to the UK. Immigrants coming from less developed countries will find the differential between wages here and their country of origin much larger, for example.

Many immigrants live in accommodation either supplied and subsidised   by an employer or in crowded accommodation which works out at a very small rent per head. Substantial numbers work in the black market and pay no income tax or national insurance. Quite a few draw in work benefits such as Child Benefit even if their children are not in this country.  In these circumstances migrants from the poorer member states should be able  to save a few thousand pounds a year from their wages. If the money is remitted back to the immigrant’s home country or the immigrant returns home, a few thousand sterling will be worth in purchasing power in the home country multiples of what it is worth in the UK.

As for skilled workers, most jobs are as they have always been unskilled or low skilled. For those occupations which are skilled but non-essential , the work can be done by people working abroad, for example, most IT work falls into that category. The skilled occupations with indispensable skills which could not be sourced from our own people if training was provided, are for example, doctors and nurses. There are presently far more applicants for medical training places than are currently filled.

Do Britons want an end to mass immigration?

Concern about immigration has been at the top of issues concerning the British for years; this despite the fact that every mainstream British political party has with the willing collusion of the British media, doing   everything they can to suppress unfettered public debate about the issue.

In 2014 the think-tank ‘British Future’ published their report How to talk about immigration, based on research conducted by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. One finding is truly startling. Faced with the question “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally”, the result was: Agree 25%, disagree 52% and neither 23%. (P17 of the report). In addition, many of those who said no to forced repatriation were also firm supporters of strong border controls and restrictive immigration policies.

The fact that 25% of the population have overcome their fear of falling foul of the Political Correctness Police and say that they do not merely want immigration stopped but sent into reverse is stunning. Moreover, because Political Correctness has taken such an intimidating place in British society it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those who said they disagreed did so simply out of fear of being accused of racism.

The obverse of the immigration coin was shown by the question: “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls” (P16 of the report). The results were 14% agree, 67% disagree and 19% don’t know.

Anyone who believes that the British people welcomed the post-war immigration and want more of it is self-deluding to the point of imbecility.

I have previously written about the need to review the relationship between the State and the individual, in particular about placing back on the shoulders of people the responsibility for maximising their own opportunities and not expecting the State, ie the general body of taxpayers, to bail them out. The exception of course, is where mental and physical incapacity requires a caring State to look after the welfare of such individuals alongside their families’ efforts. The aim would be to replace an overarching sense of rights with one of personal responsibility so as to earn rights. It is also a critical factor in rebalancing taxation and government spend.

That has set me thinking about other aspects of the current direction and tone of our Society. I find that four trends have significantly and, in my view negatively, affected the climate in which we live, taking it in an adverse direction.

Firstly, we seem to live in an environment where ‘outrage’ is the encouraged reaction to every piece of bad news or problem. You only have to listen to Radio 4 in the morning to hear the tone and manner in which such items our covered. ‘Woman’s Hour’  also is guilty of this. On so many occasions the interviewer puts words into the mouth of the interviewee or makes observations that ratchet up the emotion of the discussion. The latest hot topic is mental health. Yes it is sad that some people suffer. Yes it is necessary that help is provided – but the tone is always that somehow it is all the fault of our society, the responsibility of government and therefore limitless amounts of taxpayers money need to be spent and it is so outrageous that this is not done. Organisations, most of which seem to be charities and so called ‘think tanks’, manage to be invited to use Radio 4 as a mouthpiece for lobbying, political agenda grabbing and general criticism of society and the government. These are not, in my view, level headed studious discussions but emotive pieces of blame game journalism.

Another example of the ‘outrage’ agenda is the way in which accusations of racism are the ‘go to’ way of damning somebody when actually there should be no real case to answer. UKIP of course has been a huge victim. However, consider the case of Kelvin Mackenzie who apparently likened a footballer’s eyes to a gorilla. I do not know all the detail and whilst this may not have been a particularly nice thing to stay it appears Mr Mackenzie was totally ignorant (as were many other people) of this particular footballer’s partial black ancestry. At worst therefore his remark was unfortunate in the circumstances but to insist it is racist is to assert that Mackenzie intended to criticise him as of black origin in a demeaning way. In effect this allows an accusation of racism to be made on spurious grounds, supercharged by emotion, and to have it accepted with great or even irreparable damage to the accused person. The consequence is that proper debate such as on immigration can be stifled on the basis of false logic.

That brings me to charities as my second concern. It seems to be received wisdom that any organisation that can become a charity should have a right to get government help in the form of tax refunds. That is the current regime. However, I would argue that there is no doubt that many charities are engaged in political activity, although I accept it is a somewhat grey area of what that means. However, what is very clear is that the charitable sector benefits enormously from tax recovered on donations made so they are heavy beneficiaries of taxpayer money. Whilst individuals decide they wish to give to charity, there is no reason why the rest of the taxpayer population should have to pay higher taxes to make up for what is paid back to charities because some taxpayers decide to give them money. Any special status on business rates etc should also be eliminated.

Charities are in an incredibly beneficial financial regime compared to any other business. The fact they are ‘not for profit’ does not entitle them, in my view, not to be regarded as a business like any other. Is it time to ban political lobbying? That would not preclude useful communication channels being open for charities to bring their experiences to the attention of government policy makers or departments with relevant responsibilities. Charities who provide services in the UK that directly relieve strains on the NHS or similar directly related government health services could be given increased grants out of the taxes saved. Examples would be hospices and children’s orphanages and I am sure there are others. No doubt there will be gasps of horror at this suggestion but if you can suspend that reaction and give it some dispassionate thought, I believe you may also conclude this makes some sense.

Thirdly, Health and Safety. It is difficult to know where these grey faced bureaucrats are based but they seem to be everywhere, are multiplying and are intent on ensuring that individuals must be saved from the responsibility of applying common sense to their own actions and so must either be prevented from doing anything or otherwise the responsibility for anything that goes wrong is somebody else’s failure and therefore unlimited liabilities are thrust upon them. The result is that our lives are poorer for activities prohibited. Any sense of adventure is squashed.

Surely the answer is that every participating individual must take responsibility for applying common sense and if it goes wrong then it is their misjudgment! I am reminded of a Doctor friend who received a health and safety visit in her practice where one of the outcomes was the requirement to put a notice on the radiator to the effect that ‘ This radiator might be hot’. I hope you groan as I did.

Only if there is clear negligence by someone else that could not be foreseen by the participant and that has directly caused the problem should liability arise for them. We are creating an ‘anaemic’ society void of the iron of experiences that so benefits the self esteem, confidence and sense of adventure from which each of us should derive so much benefit. I would also argue that our competitive position would benefit from the reduction in regulation and costs of  doing business.

Fourthly, the blame game. There seems to be a growing sense that accidents should never happen and no bad news is acceptable. If these occur then somebody has to be blamed, pilloried and sued for it. These days it is a pretty unattractive proposition for anyone to take responsibility for anything. There is every incentive therefore to pass the buck, protect your own backside, avoiding decisions and generally keep your head down. None of this creates a dynamic, imaginative, creative society that is intent on pushing boundaries forward and taking on new challenges. I suspect that this is also a consequence of the ambulance chasing legal system we now have, of success fees and third party funded litigation. It is time to end this lawyers’ gravy train from which they earn a lot but the victim gets rather less. Probably time to end lawyers lobbying Parliament in their own business interests too!

I see the problem that these forces give rise to: debate is warped and subjects become no-go areas. We live in a society that increasingly moves away from the ability to address what are very proper concerns of ordinary people.

Are these thoughts which also resonate widely with others? Are these matters on whIch UKIP should take a stand? Let me know.

Those local election results

 Let’s be honest.  On the face of it, we in UKIP don’t have a lot to celebrate after a more-or-less wipe-out on May 4th.  But let me first of all thank all our candidates and activists who fought the good fight even as the tide turned against them.  And let’s also take pride at what we’ve achieved.  As I Tweeted the next day, “Without UKIP, we wouldn’t have had a referendum; we wouldn’t have won the referendum; and the Tory Party would never have backed Brexit”.  The Tweet seems to have touched a nerve: last time I checked, it had achieved 110,000 impressions on 791 re-Tweets.

In fact, apart from the Conservatives, no political party covered itself in glory in these elections.  And why did the Tories do so well?  Because they had taken over a huge raft of UKIP policies.  The EU and Brexit.  Immigration.  Even grammar schools and (to an extent) a reduction of green subsidies.

The future of UKIP (and I was pleased to hear Nigel express this point of view after I had expressed it on BBC Look North Leeds — about 44 minutes in) depends very much on how the government handles Brexit.  If Theresa May, on the back of the new majority she will probably get in June, actually delivers a quick, clean Brexit, then we’ll have a struggle on our hands.

But will she do that?  She’s already back-tracking in the ECHR – so we’ll be unable to deport foreign terrorists and rapists.  She’s appointing remainers as candidates in winnable seats for the General Election in June.  She’s talking in terms of a “transition period”, which suggests a very soft Brexit indeed.  And we know what weight to give to her promises on immigration, after her time as Home Secretary.  Watch this space.

Commission’s lawyers: “The Brexit bill is unenforceable”

 It is reported that the European Commission’s own lawyers advised them some time ago that the demands for a Brexit Bill of €50bn (or €60bn or €100bn) is simply unenforceable.  Of course a House of Lords Committee had also reached thesame conclusion.  But it’s a turn-up for the book when the Commission’s own lawyers take the same view.  It utterly undermines the Juncker/Barnier/Tusk negotiating position.

There’s more.  The reports say that if the EU does what it wants to do – which is to identify obligations on Britain while ignoring obligations on the EU (such as the return of our share of EU assets), then this would justify the UK in simply walking away, on the grounds that the EU was not abiding by its own rules.  This suggests two things.  First, Brussels takes seriously the possibility of our walking away.  And second, they’re scared witless that we might.  If we do, there’ll be a huge black hole in their accounts.  And they’ll have ruined relations with their largest export customer.  Theresa May has an extraordinarily strong hand, if only she has the guts to use it.

One more Tweet from the last few days: “Memo to Juncker & Barnier: Understand that the UK has chosen to be an independent country. We will not be treated as a renegade province”.  It got less mileage than the first Tweet I mentioned, but it’s still at over 19,000 impressions.

May goes to war with Brussels

 “May goes to war with Brussels” screams the Guardian on May 4th – following the Prime Minister’s robust speech the previous day.  But it would be fairer to say that Brussels has gone to war with Theresa May – and with the UK as a whole.  It was clearly Juncker (or those close to him) who initiated the damaging leaks about the Downing Street dinner.  And again the objective was clear.  Brussels has repeatedly insisted that the size of May’s parliamentary majority is not a factor in the negotiations, yet their actions tell a different story.  They are rattled.  And they clearly believe that by undermining May in the current General Election Campaign, they will weaken her – and so weaken Britain in the forthcoming negotiations.

We in the West were alarmed when the story spread that the Russians had interfered in the US Presidential election.  We seemed much less alarmed when President Obama openly interfered in the British Brexit referendum – though some saw it as a massive breach of diplomatic protocol.  But Brussels, abandoning its own principles, is interfering in the democratic processes of member states on an industrial scale.

They have contrived to remove elected Prime Ministers in Italy and Greece, replacing them with safe Brussels placemen. They have quite openly engaged in the French Presidential election, backing their man Macron and vilifying Le Pen (note to the BBC: you call Le Pen “far right”, but her brand of dirigisme, protectionism and corporatism looks to me more like far-left).  And now they are trying to undermine a popular Prime Minister at a critical time in the UK.  They seem to understand nothing about the British temperament.  Their actions are counter­productive, and will simply strengthen May’s campaign.

 Signs of panic

 The tactic is to make extravagant demands, to create the impression that Brussels has the whip hand.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In a rare moment of candour Michel Barnier admitted that the EU could face “explosive” problems without the vast sums demanded of Britain.

 In fact I see a split emerging between the bureaucrats, Juncker/Barnier/Verhofstadt, who are terrified of losing Britain’s contributions and are stridently demanding we keep paying, and on the other hand national/regional politicians and industrialists fearful of the potential damage to trade and jobs unless a free trade deal is reached fast.  Angela Merkel is talking tough ahead of the German elections.  We can expect a new attitude afterwards.

We must be prepared to walk away

Cameron’s so-called “renegotiation” failed because Brussels knew he had no fall-back position (they thought they’d handled the issue very successfully until they saw the referendum result).  A good Brexit deal for the UK depends fundamentally on having a genuine and credible fall-back position.  Fortunately we have one.  It’s called WTO terms.  Less good than a free trade deal, perhaps, but still perfectly workable, as a new study from Civitas confirms.  Entitled “It’s quite OK to walk away“, its detailed analysis shows that the vaunted benefits of the “Single Market” are less than we’d hoped, while the opportunities under WTO terms are considerable.

Of course the obvious fall-back position is the WTO option, which has received a bad press.  It’s widely described as “crashing out” or “a cliff-edge”.  It’s no such thing.  As Roger Bootle writes in the Telegraph, it’s the basis on which we trade with the USA and many other countries.  Maybe we should stop referring to “the WTO option”, and speak instead of “the American option”.  Much less scary.

Theresa May should let it be known that her government is actively planning for the American option.  That will give Juncker and Barnier food for thought.  And a few sleepless nights.

We are not at war with islam..

That’s what our Leaders keep telling us, and that’s what many members say. They are right: “we” are indeed not “at war” – yet. But – what if the other side is already at war with us?

It is getting more and more difficult to piece together incidents, stories and events to get at the whole picture because, from rape to murder, these are  simply not reported in our MSM. Therefore, they cannot have happened. The standard reply is “I never heard of this”, implying that it’s got to be a lie. Sometimes, like seeing an iceberg in the distance, one gets a glimpse. We do know that icebergs are to 90% underwater. That makes them so dangerous. We should assume therefore that the bits of stories which do make it into the media are indeed the tip of that huge iceberg that is the islamification of our country.

Let’s take another look at that anodyne statement that ‘we are not at war with islam’: true, at the moment there are no shootings or bombings here, there is no blood in the streets, all is peaceful. The wars fought in the Middle East – they are far, far away. Nothing to do with us. We are peaceful. We don’t provoke. We don’t go into areas which have become self-declared ‘muslim caliphates’. Hands up: when was the last time you visited Bradford, or Tower Hamlets? No, me neither …

If you think this is just a quaint British problem, caused by us being horrible racist islamophobes; that paying muslims more benefits – which they regard as their due, called ‘jizyah’ -, or that appeasing them by professing that islam is the ‘religion of peace’ will make it all go away, and will make them become ‘British’, think again!

This islamification is a world-wide problem, and it follows the exact pattern everywhere. Just google ‘images for “no democracy, we want islam” …’

Incidences of so-called ‘lone wolf attacks’ overseas aren’t even reported in the ‘mixed news from across the world’. The latest was a priest stabbed at the altar by a muslim – in Mexico. One has to go to certain specialist websites where news only mentioned in local media are translated for the rest of us. Breitbart London usually reports a handful of stories every day, from across the UK and Europe. But like toddlers who put their hands over their eyes our leaders seem to think that if they can’t see it, it didn’t happen. This is a widespread attitude, especially amongst the metro-elites and the MSM: if it’s not on the BBC or in the NYT, it simply did not occur.

So for our leaders, for our metro-elites, all is peaceful – and no pertinent questions ever get asked, such as “how come there are suddenly so many stabbings and killings by ‘lone wolves’ who, the authorities say, have ‘mental problems’, diagnosed immediately not by professionals but by the police and the reporters”?

Our NHS obviously doesn’t have enough resources to treat all those poor souls! Give more money to the NHS! I’ve not yet heard of a medical cure against islam … 

But the NHS really do need lots more money. There’s a ‘new epidemic’, as this report describes: 1 in 5 Child Deaths in London Borough Caused by Parents Being ‘Close Relatives. One would have thought that this would have been worth a national outcry: how can this be allowed to happen?

Well – ‘it’s their culture, innit, and who are we to judge’, so don’t mention it, just as we couldn’t be informed of the grooming and gang rape ‘culture’ which destroyed the lives of so many of our white, underage girls in so many of our towns and cities, for fear of a “backlash”. However – all is not lost! When enough time has passed, say nearly two decades, the BBC can make a nice, ‘edgy’ docu-drama (see this e.g. review, the comments are very interesting!, and especially this one) which will garner them some BAFTAs. That’ll help these girls, won’t it!

Just as the BBC docudrama doesn’t mention the religion of the criminals, so do the authorities not name the reason which leads to the death of those children: inbreeding because of consanguinity, a.k.a. ‘cousin marriages’, imported into our country from places where this is the norm because of – religion. Instead they counsel to teach more genetics in schools! As if a muslim girl would be able to tell her parents she won’t marry her cousin because of genetics, and they would listen to her!

Let’s play my favourite media-game, the “substitution game”. This “game” always helps to focus on why events are reported the way they are. So – what, do you think, would the government do, what would our leaders say if all of these lone-wolf attacks, those grooming-and-rape crimes, those child deaths due to inbreeding had been perpetrated by white men?

The whole of the Westminster Establishment and their MSM would be in perpetual uproar. We’d have new prisons built, perhaps even the death penalty re-instituted. The feminists would be screaming so loudly we wouldn’t be able to hear ourselves think. While they screech about ‘rape culture’ where even a look is potential rape when done by a white man, they welcome the culture of institutionalised rape brought here by the acolytes of the RoP.

But since ‘we are not at war with islam’, nobody in Westminster Village dares to connect the dots or raise their heads above the parapet. Nobody dares to say that yes, there is one single attribute which these criminals have in common: they are all muslims. Our leaders are even too scared to point out that islam is not a race and that naming the one thing these perps have in common is therefore not racist.

No – they demand that we all keep our heads firmly in the sand and don’t mention you-know-what. 77 years ago, that attitude would have meant that we’d all be speaking German now!

Pretending an enemy attacking us does not exist – that is treason, ultimately leading to surrender. We know that ‘islam’ means ‘submission’. Tell me – does one ‘submit’ to someone who is at peace with us? Doesn’t submission require giving in to someone hostile, to an enemy who conceivably might be ‘at war’ with us? But we are not at war … or are we?

For an example of the Conservative Government’s blatant lies, confusion and incompetence HS2 would take some beating.

HS2 was originally heralded as a means of travelling from the north, and potentially from Scotland, straight through to the continent, via HS1 and the Chunnel with a projected return of £2 for every £1 spent.

Its claimed reduced journey times were shouted from the roof tops and adding a further 7 minutes was the reason connections to Heathrow and HS1 were dropped following ex-Conservative Transport Secretary of State Lord Mawhinney‘s review.   When both the claimed 49 minutes London to Birmingham journey time, and time savings (incredulously calculated by comparing the slow 84 minutes service rather than the non-stop 70 minutes time) were found to be bogus, suddenly HS2 was all about meeting a capacity need.

In October 2016, Andrew Jones MP, a transport minister, suggested renaming HS2 as the ‘Grand Union Railway’, because, in seeming contradiction to the conclusions of the Lord Mawhinney review, he considered HS2 is not about speed but more about connectivity.

In April 2017, it was suggested passenger seats should be widened – which in the context of outline train, station platforms and tunnel dimensions already having been decided could reduce capacity by between 10 and 20% further worsening the so-called Business case which prior to this idea projected a Benefit Cost Ratio of a mere 50p per taxpayer’s £1 – way below the 1.0 level usually required for rail schemes; and thus on the Department for Transport’s own criteria is “poor value for money”.  Indeed current Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, when Secretary of State for Transport, said to the Transport Select Committee oral hearing on 13 September 2011 “If it were to fall much below 1.5, I would certainly be putting it under some very close scrutiny.”  So much for his scrutiny when in May his estimated cost of HS2 was £20 Billion lower than even the Government’s own optimistic figure, never mind the Taxpayers’ Alliance more realistic £100+ Billion estimate.

Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party won the 2015 General Election with a 12 seat majority.  So, had just 6 of the 16 most HS2-blighted constituencies voted UKIP, or 6 of these constituencies’ MPs had had the courage to hold the government to ransom by refusing to support other legislation, HS2 might have been already scrapped by now.  But alas, shamefully, they have not been prepared to put even their constituents’ concerns, never mind the best interest of the nation ahead of their own personal political careers.

Since 2015, HS2-enabling legislation was been passed by a cross party majority of 90%, and HS2 has now reached the stage of inviting tenders for contracts which will lead to successful bidders being given a year to produce detailed designs of their sections with construction of the actual railway line set to commence in July 2018.

Although compounds, such as at the mouth of the Chilterns Tunnel in Denham have already commenced, historical precedent shows that it is still not too late for people to vote to stop HS2, as happened with the Chunnel in January 1975.

Following joint working since the 1960’s, the UK and France formally agreed to build a tunnel in 1973.  Construction work of this government-funded project to create two tunnels designed to accommodate car shuttle wagons on either side of a service tunnel started on both sides of the Channel in 1974.  On 20 January 1975, to the dismay of their French partners, the now-governing Labour Party in Britain cancelled the project due to uncertainty about EU (then EEC) membership, doubling cost estimates and the general economic crisis at the time.  The Ministry of Transport had already done a successful experimental drive of the first 300m (nearly 1/5^th of a mile) of the tunnel with the British tunnel boring machine.  This short tunnel was reused as the starting and access point for tunnelling operations from the British side.

So, if HS2 were to be cancelled now, all of the currently committed to HS2 engineering expertise could be transferred to improving the existing rail and highways infrastructure.

Any loss of best value from having to transfer existing contractual expenditure commitments to other infrastructure projects of similar worth without the usual tendering processes would nonetheless be far less than the disruption and total waste of £100+ Billion by carrying on with HS2.

So, it is not too late to stop HS2.

As you wake up this morning to the realisation that the UK has suffered a major terrorist attack, possibly the only surprise you’ll have is that it’s taken so long. Many of you here have been increasingly hostile to islam or at least radical Islam. While agreeing that it’s an incompatible culture, I prefer to focus my thoughts and efforts on the politicians that brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

Nearly ten years ago, I remember sitting in a pub in Melbourne and having a drink with a Muslim, a very educated engineer who worked for one of the big oil companies. I know it’s a strange place to find a Muslim, but he wasn’t drinking alcohol. He was quite westernised though. We inevitably got around talking about the last Gulf war. He was telling me how he was visiting Australia because his son was starting university in Melbourne, but he would so much like to live is such a peaceful place.

I’ve been haunted by some pictures I’d seen of a bombed-out church or mosque (am now not sure which) in Baghdad, where hundreds of women and children had been killed. This was called collateral damage. I could see the pain in this man’s eyes. Like so many other Muslims he just wanted to escape and good luck to him.

Unfortunately though, we can’t take everybody in, we have to defend our borders. As a small island we can’t absorb the entire Middle East, let alone millions of economic migrants from the Third World. Muslims have been easily radicalised by our actions in the Middle East, they may want refuge here, but they won’t forgive us for the deaths of possibly friends relatives and children. As we all know, many from the Islamic world have a totally incompatible culture with our own. The combination of an incompatible culture and many thousands of radicalised Jihadis entering our country is an ongoing disaster that anybody with any sense can see, but apparently not our so wise politicians.

Tony Blair was instrumental in starting the second Gulf War through lies and deceit. He was prepared to murder thousands of innocent people for the benefit of his globalist colleagues. Blair was the first Prime-Minister of Britain to drop all nationalistic pretences and to step starry eyed onto the world stage. An arrogant evil little man, Blair was going to do anything he had to do to please his globalist masters, an endeavour for which he has since been very well rewarded.

Since Blair, we’ve had a succession of globalist politicians and Prime-Ministers, equally as determined to follow in his footsteps and as time goes on, the bombs keep falling in the Middle East, and now again here in our country. It doesn’t matter which mainstream political party these people belong to, they’re all different sides of the same pyramid. Anybody that thinks globalism is altruism is very much mistaken.

And now we’ve got Theresa May and we’re going to have to put up with this smiling gargoyle as she offers her condolences. She’ll say all the usual right words. Theresa May is a known and self-confessed globalist. The people that died in Manchester are, to our government, collateral damage – just as much as those women and children who died in the church (or mosque) in Baghdad, all those deaths incurred in the pursuit of globalist ambitions.

How else could you explain a government that allows the brutal rape of hundreds of women like Chelsey Wright and the sexual grooming of our children, while letting the perpetrators off with a light slap on the wrist. These are the citizens they’re supposed to defend! Theresa May has stalled on Brexit, it is becoming clearer by the day that she will backslide and has no intention of controlling our borders.

The rape of women like Chelsey Wright, the deaths of terrorist victims so far, now those in Manchester last night and those that are still to come, the responsibility can be laid firmly at the feet of Theresa May and her colleagues. Yet still millions of British people will go and vote for the Conservatives in June, this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

I can’t remember which senior Al Qaeda operative said this. He said, when asked why they kill innocent civilians: “these people vote for their politicians and pay taxes to support them and their policies.”

He does have a point, we are responsible for the politicians that we vote for and they are out of control. We desperately need a representative government: this is our right. I’m sure none of us would have supported Blair’s evil war if we had known the truth! These politicians are very good at spinning such ‘noble’ causes to support their actions.

In a few weeks time, we have an election. By 2022, the time of the next election, Britain will probably be changed beyond recognition and irreversibly, by May’s government if we let her get away with it. UKIP is still the only hope we have for any meaningful representation in the coming government. We can’t afford to let it slip into obscurity.

When you go out to vote in a few weeks time, it’s worth remembering that you have a responsibility to your family, your children’s future, and the rest of the world too. You may want to think long and hard about who you vote for. We’ve had enough collateral damage!

Yesterday, I could barely restrain my fury and rage. Today is the time for an icy-cold look at what happened. Yesterday, Anne Marie Waters said it all in her tweet:

Today, I say: we mustn’t stop talking.

How many times have we warned about a mass terrorist attack here in our country? How many times have we said that, yes, islam is to blame? How many more times do our government, media and Chief Constables think they can get away with their mantra of ‘lone wolf – mentally ill – nothing to do with islam’? How big must that elephant in the room become before they accept the truth: it is everything to do with islam?

I won’t rehash the rolling reports in Tuesday’s papers (see this one, for example), nor will I report, even with gritted teeth, what our PM and Party leaders had to say. It was all too predictable. We could have written the scripts for their speeches ourselves.

Our dear politicians of all stripes – yes, our UKIP leaders as well  – announced a moratorium from campaigning on Tuesday morning. What now can we expect for the rest of the campaign?

The MSM will forthwith condemn any candidate who dares mention the connection between that attack and islam as ‘trying to score political points on the backs of terrorist victims, how disgusting’, saying that it is shameless to talk about this on social media. So it remains again for us ordinary voters to ask the inconvenient questions of politicians and MSM alike wherever we can.

Some observations on Monday’s terrorist attack and the aftermath are certainly in order:

The Security services occasionally tell the MSM how many putative terrorist plots they have prevented. I am sure they have – but as a Hamas ‘representative’ once said in regard to rocket attacks on Israel: ‘they have to get lucky all the time, we only have to get lucky once’. Monday evening, they got lucky and our kids died. One girl they killed was eight years old.

Last year in Germany, there was an attempt by a ‘refugee’ to do exactly the same thing. He went to an open-air pop concert, with a bomb in his rucksack. He was caught, he was shot. Might we ask: Did our security forces know this? If not – why not? Was it impossible to prevent such attack? Or are there now too many potential terrorists to be observed by the security forces? One wonders how that came about …

I will mention this report: the terrorist “may have been” known to the police, and they are now looking for accomplices. So, not really a ‘lone wolf’ then, as our government keeps telling us. Will they now accept that there are no ‘lone wolves’?

There was another report yesterday indicating that this attack happened ‘outside the security zone’. There are other speculations, such as that there were tweets warning of this attack four hours before the event. Others pointed out that ambulances and police were at the scene very quickly and in large numbers, asking if they might have had an inkling …

But these are speculations. The actual facts are well known by now. Only, we are not supposed to ask, we’re not supposed to talk about them. We’re supposed to believe what government tells us, namely that nothing can be done against lone, mentally ill wolves; that anyway, such things are ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’ and that this has of course nothing to do with islam.
Let me be blunt. This and previous governments have abdicated their duty to protect us, the citizens they have sworn to protect. That’s the stark truth. They have let and are still letting potential terrorists into our country (see this report) because not doing so would be xenophobic. We citizens, we voters, are of no account. We don’t need no protection. We’re just islamophobic.

There are however two personalities whose public reaction in the MSM yesterday do need to be mentioned:

Andy Burnham, Mayor of Manchester, said early yesterday that we must try and keep ‘business as usual’, if possible. ‘Business as usual’ while the bodies were still being counted after that terrorist attack: yes, that will console the families of the 22 dead kids! But wait – he called for a candle-lit vigil on Tuesday evening. Tealights and teddy bears: that’s how we combat islamic terrorism!

The Bishop of Manchester also had to say something – and wouldn’t you know, he told us that it’s the muslims who are the real victims … That is what the families of the dead and injured young people really needed to hear from their Bishop!

We ordinary people whose children were targeted, we ordinary people whose relatives were mown down by a vehicle in London: we have no right at all to be afraid of muslim attacks! We’re only bigoted racists. We’re only stupid islamophobes. Muslims however – they have a right to fear for their lives, because of a ‘backlash’. How many backlashes do you recall? Were there any?

“A society that cannot defend its children has no future”, said the man most hated and vilified in the West, Vladimir Putin. How true!

Our children haven’t been defended for decades, they’ve been sacrificed on the altar of ‘diversity’ and ‘community cohesion’. That’s why Rotherham is everywhere. And if they cannot groom and rape our children, they kill them, as on Monday in Manchester.

Meanwhile, here’s the latest government ‘mantra’, from Amber Rudd, Home Secretary: “This will not divide us”. Oh really? Katie Hopkins tweeted:

I can’t begin to tell you how much ”Je suis sick of this shit”! Not just of the terrorism, but also of the vapid, stupid, irresponsible utterings by our political “elite”.

I leave you with this statement by our UKIP Daily author and PPC for Barnsley East, James Dalton:

Ah well – Ramadan starts this Friday … they won’t bomb us during their holy month, will they?

… as is the determined deployment of candles, flowers and messages of hope.  Operations involving vigils, mass hand-holding and repetition of platitudes have been proven to be ineffective now.

And yet our temporal, pastoral and thought leaders still come out with the same old stuff. Amber Rudd’s statement on Tuesday morning was pure milk and honey, distilled from a potent mix of platitudes. The Archbishop stood on his pulpit telling us to love not hate. The lefty journalists of the Mainstream media still pumped the same old PC-trash.

And the most wondrous of all was Hazel Blears on Wednesday morning on Radio 4, the former Labour Minister who introduced the patently ineffective “Prevent” strategy aimed at de-radicalizing those likely to become radical. It pains me too much to find a recording of it and hear her words verbatim so I can faithfully record them, but I recall the gist well enough about “this evil ideology” that promotes the idea of people of “dying for their cause in order to reach Paradise.” She meant the ideology of the radicals in seeking that goal of paradise in the way that they do, murdering our defenceless children. What she ignorantly missed was the written text of this desire: to die in jihad and go to paradise is written in plain words in the Quran so anyone can read it. Do I need to spell it out what the “evil ideology” is?

And, so, in 1939 when an enemy threatened the very being of this nation, our culture, heritage, language, laws, our birth-right, the British began to get angry. And when that anger was stoked by the outrages of Luftwaffe bombings and our humiliating defeat in defending our friends on the continent, it led to HATE.

Oh dear, send plod round to lock me up, I have written the word “hate”. By law, I am no longer allowed to express my hate of someone. It seems to be a crime now on a par with blowing up people with home-made bombs. But I do hate, although I am careful who I hate as I do not want to hate whole communities. But I do hate those who murder in the name of their god, those who encourage them to do so, even those who protect them from the law, but most of all I hate the politicians and authorities who seem to give them the safe cover they need to operate, who do not apply the full force of the existing laws to control their behaviour, but do deploy considerable resources to detect what is euphemistically called “hate speech”.

I feel that at this moment of time, I do detect a rise in the feelings of my fellow citizens to at least anger, if not hate, and I am reminded of the pertinence of one of Rudyard Kipling’s excellent writings:

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.

Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud, 
When the English began to hate. 

It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date 
That the English began to hate. 

And not forgetting the Scottish, Welsh and Irish too. And the group we must first turn our hatred towards are our politicians, the liberal elites who either do not understand the root problem, or do not want to. They must feel our hate, much as Patrick O’Flynn with his UKIP Daily article on Wednesday has received it from our commenters, but LibLabCon deserve it more.

And I also recall in my living memory the anger and then hate our nation felt towards the terrorists from Ireland who started to blow up innocent British victims on our streets some 45 years ago. Then our politicians did take effective measures: they sent in the Army, they militarised the Northern Ireland police and crucially pointed them at the right target and … they introduced internment camps for known terrorists, just as the Americans did in 1941 for every single person of Japanese descent living in their country and indeed we did with every German citizen in 1939.

When will it come to that?

So politics are to re-commence on Friday of this week.

I do hope our politicians and the sycophantic MSM will realise it will not be acceptable to return to the same subjects, where we left off on Monday. If I recall correctly, Mrs. May being crucified for some form of chicanery with a disappearing piece of head gear having made a miraculous re-appearance on some poor pensioners pension arrangements.

And

Mr. Corbyn`s elaborate pick and mix cornucopia of tax and spend excesses which apparently will leave a £58 billion black hole in our borrowing requirement. Plus a return to the good old days of Socialism, Nationalisation and strikes the moment these strategic utilities are back within his treacherous paws.

As the heading implies, events have caused the agenda to change. In effect the General Election has been hijacked; Manchester and its ramifications have put paid to the silly arguments and name calling which has characterised the election discussions so far. Actually, what has been happening until now has been two or three weeks of deciding who loves and can do most for the under-privileged and “Just about Managings”. Even the benefits of Brexit have been sacrificed in each party`s efforts to blacken the escutcheons of the other.

Of course it matters that there are low wages, the march of robots, food banks and circumstances and debt that it is hopeless to escape fro. And it matters equally that we have a health service and community aid service which is understaffed, underfunded and generally staggering under shear pressure of bodies, many living longer and healthier than previously anticipated. I do have a couple of questions for Mrs. May in respect of her plans for pensions. She is actually making a brave attempt to square an impossible circle for which Frank Field was bid to “think the impossible” and having done so was ignored. Whatever is suggested for pensions, it will never be fair to all. But please, Mrs. May, that £100k prize awarded to luck inheritors, what happens 10 years down the line when its value will have depleted by at least 20%  (assuming 2% inflation), will it be raised to compensate regularly? (If I know chancellors – fat chance – that is in effect “confiscation”:  an EU modus operandi when dealing with Greece and Cyprus) and also who will decide the “rates” charged for services to be deducted from the eventual property realisation? (Looks to me as though they are wide open to economic “engineering – another method of confiscation?)

Anyway, back to the Elephant in the room. The earthquake “event” that has so thrown the General Election off course, yes it`s obvious really, it is an event governing national security, the safety of the population and indeed the whole stability of  our nation. Events in Manchester now demand our Government meet head on the threat that international terrorism, mainly from external Muslim inspired sources have on our Muslim Diaspora, such as to foster  outrageous thought and acts of terrorism from within their own progeny.

In posing questions that must be asked of the Government and Islamic community in this respect, I have ringing in my ears the “howl” (scream indeed) from a gentleman who I understood to be a leader from a local Manchester Mosque. He said that of course “they absolutely condemn violence” but “cannot accept that this grotesque and perverted version of Islam has any grounding in their oh so perfect peaceful religious life of devotion they adhere to”. (Not the actual words, but I hope I conveyed the sense appropriately).

Plenty has been written on this site pointing out that the “polluted” version of Islam is promoted as the basis of the establishment of a world Caliphate. Whereby Muslims in all countries will occupy supreme power and the Muslim placemen and Diaspora will by means of superior birth statistics and the establishment of Sharia Law usurp in our case our own common law handed down from Magna Carta. And into the bargain rendering all women inferior to man, subject to FGM, concubinage, forced under age marriage and even death – oh and there`s the problem of non-stunned to death Halal meat, too.

From this day on, not only must UKIP ask these questions of the government, but all parties must join together in supporting our government in this one overriding cause.

Islam must be brought to its senses. For want of a better word,  “peaceful” Muslims must not only pay lip service to government blandishments, but must cast out  ALL among them who are unprepared  to live by our laws. They must abandon customs which are inimical to their host country , and they must  give up their antagonism  towards  British women, their clothing, their drinking and their entertainments.

It can be seen that we have arrived at a salient event – dear boy,

Have our politicians and government the nous and guts to drive out the Islam problem and at the same time sufficiently protect our borders from further infection, by adopting a selective immigration process?

Come on Mrs. May, you have no hope of appearing “Strong and Stable” if you don`t get to grips with these mad men and their fellow travelers and the “silent” ones, who appear to keep their heads down.

They have to demonstrate collectively en masse that they are “not the enemy within”.

Oh! One final thought: “no go areas” are not acceptable under any circumstances.