UK, Coronavirus Lockdown Good for the Heart, Rest, Exercise

The lockdown is good for the heart.

In the UK there’s been a reduction of hospital admissions for cardiovascular problems, and not because of fear of coronavirus contagion. If someone has serious heart trouble, he is unlikely not to report it and to bypass hospital referral.

Staying at home, not worrying about going to work the next day, sleeping well are relaxing and therefore beneficial for cardiac activity.

It has a similar effect as having a holiday.

People working from home are more likely to take breaks and not sit for long hours without interruption.

In addition, more people, if for no other reason than just to have an excuse to go out, are taking more regular exercise, walking and cycling, and entire families do it together.

 

Patriotism Means Uncovering the Truth

Unfortunately I'll have to skip tomorrow's London Forum meeting.

But I wish to write about the topic of one of the announced speeches, by Richard Edmonds: "Bad Nenndorf – a Nuremberg Trial for Allied War Criminals". The subject is described as "the tragedy of Bad Nenndorf where in the aftermath of WWII British torturers, many of them later emigrating to Israel, killed dozens of National Socialist sympathisers including girls belonging to the BDSM."

Richard Edmonds is a British nationalist who is capable of criticising his country when necessary, who rightly doesn't believe that patriotism means defending the indefensible.

I'd never heard of this Allied interrogation centre, a secret prison established after the British occupation of north-west Germany in 1945, so I did some research and here's what I've found.

This is Wikipedia's brief introduction to it:

The Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre was a British Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre in the town of Bad Nenndorf, Germany, which operated from June 1945 to July 1947. Allegations of mistreatment of detainees by British troops resulted in a police investigation, a public controversy in both Britain and Germany and the camp's eventual closure. Four of the camp's officers were brought before courts-martial in 1948 and one of the four was convicted on charges of neglect.

Hundreds of mostly German prisoners after the end of WWII were held in a camp converted from a mud bath complex - with the former bathing chambers becoming prison cells - in Bad Nenndorf, a spa town near Hanover.

Although British authorities tried to keep this centre hidden from public scrutiny, in December 2005 investigative reporter Ian Cobain wrote an article published in The Guardian, based on information he had obtained from a Freedom of Information Request to the Foreign Office. He described Bad Nenndorf in powerful terms:

Britain's secret torture centre. The interrogation camp that turned prisoners into living skeletons.

German spa became a forbidden village where Gestapo-like techniques were used...

CSDIC [Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre], a division of the War Office, operated interrogation centres around the world, including one known as the London Cage, located in one of London's most exclusive neighbourhoods. Official documents discovered last month at the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, show that the London Cage was a secret torture centre where German prisoners who had been concealed from the Red Cross were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with execution or with unnecessary surgery.

As horrific as conditions were at the London Cage, Bad Nenndorf was far worse. Last week, Foreign Office files which have remained closed for almost 60 years were opened after a request by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act. These papers, and others declassified earlier, lay bare the appalling suffering of many of the 372 men and 44 women who passed through the centre during the 22 months it operated before its closure in July 1947.

They detail the investigation carried out by a Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Tom Hayward, following the complaints of Major Morgan-Jones and Dr Jordan. Despite the precise and formal prose of the detective's report to the military government, anger and revulsion leap from every page as he turns his spotlight on a place where prisoners were systematically beaten and exposed to extreme cold, where some were starved to death and, allegedly, tortured with instruments that his fellow countrymen had recovered from a Gestapo prison in Hamburg. Even today, the Foreign Office is refusing to release photographs taken of some of the "living skeletons" on their release.

Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi party members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to thwart any Nazi insurgency. A significant number, however, were industrialists, tobacco importers, oil company bosses or forestry owners who had flourished under Hitler.

By late 1946, the papers show, an increasing number were suspected Soviet agents. Some were NKVD officers - Russians, Czechs and Hungarians - but many were simply German leftists. Others were Germans living in the Russian zone who had crossed the line, offered to spy on the Russians, and were tortured to establish whether they were genuine defectors.

Of many of these men Scotland Yard detective Hayward said that there were not charged with any crime but on the contrary were willing to help, were detained for no reason at all, and died of malnutrition and lack of medical care. Inspector Hayward reported: "There are a number against whom no offence has been alleged, and the only authority for their detention would appear to be that they are citizens of a country still nominally at war with us." Cobain goes on to explain an important part of the problem:

Of the 20 interrogators ordered to break the inmates of Bad Nenndorf, 12 were British, a combination of officers from the three services and civilian linguists. The remaining eight included a Pole and a Dutchman, but were mostly German Jewish refugees who had enlisted on the outbreak of war, and who, Inspector Hayward suggested, "might not be expected to be wholly impartial".

Cobain has penned other articles on the subject for The Guardian and written a book on the history of torture perpetrated by British officials during and after the Second World War, entitled Cruel Britannia (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) . The book was published in autumn 2012, when one of his essays appeared in the Daily Mail with this headline, upsetting but truthful:

How Britain tortured Nazi PoWs: The horrifying interrogation methods that belie our proud boast that we fought a clean war.

James Heartfield, in the book Unpatriotic History of the Second World War (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , writes:

Internal investigations revealed that torture was rife at Bad Nenndorf, and that many had died of injuries or of starvation.

Why, then, were there so few convictions?

After, in 1946 and 1947, several Bad Nenndorf inmates were taken to nearby hospitals and some died there, the doctors reported these cases. A court of inquiry was appointed, followed by a full enquiry by a Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Tom Hayward. By June 1947 Hayward had amassed an enormous amount of evidence in support of the allegations of ill-treatment and use of methods which were extreme even for a harsh military prison holding suspected Nazi war criminals.

His report led to the camp's closure the following month, and to the courts-martial of the camp Commandant Lt Col Robin Stephens, the medical officer and two interrogators in 1948.

Hayward had found that interrogators and guards were not likely to be impartial towards the prisoners because of the criteria used in their selection, among which knowledge of German language and hatred for Germans were predominant. The most likely new recruits, as a consequence, were Austrian and German Jewish refugees. One such recruit was Lt Richard Oliver Langham, one of the interrogators to be court-martialled.

News of the courts-martial reached the papers, in particular The Times and The Daily Express.

The book Liberal Democracies at War: Conflict and Representation (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , edited by Andrew Knapp and Hilary Footitt, gives some idea of why these men were acquitted or convicted on minor charges, like neglect rather than manslaughter.

The Times's coverage of the courts-martial well reflected the spirit of the time and its little appetite for getting to the truth and giving a just punishment which was unpalatable for so many reasons, not least as an admission of guilt involving the war effort itself. That spirit was probably behind the excessive leniency of the court.

This latter topic is too long for the present article, and may be worth covering in a separate one.

Question Time Shows Equality's True Meaning

When people say that they want equality, what they often actually mean is that they want to be more equal than others.

This can be seen in the case of the extortionist rob-the-rich taxes that people of the Left advocate as a means to wealth equality. In this case they want to be more equal by arrogating for themselves – or for the state acting on their behalf – the power to steal from the rich without being prosecuted, which puts them above the law against theft that applies to everyone else.

In last night's Question Time in Cardiff, this was brought home rather nicely when the leader of Plaid Cymru Leanne Wood, supporting a request from a member of the audience, called for Wales to be treated with parity with Scotland in relation to England. She went on to ask for Wales to be given more money, specifically an additional £1.2 billion a year. In response, another panellist in the debate, Labour's First Minister of Wales Carwyn Jones, uttered his only sensible sentence of the entire evening, when he pointed out the paradox of Wood‘s wanting at the same time more money from London and more independence from it.

She retorted that she does want independence for Wales but not before the playing field has been levelled up. At that point the moderator David Dimbleby gave everybody some sobering figures: Scotland gets per head over £10,000, Wales almost £10,000, Northern Ireland £10,800 and England £8,500.

Now, that's what the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish call equality.

But not the English.

How to Make Immigration Look Good

They've done it again. Here's the umpteenth attempt to portray immigration as economically useful for Britain, if undertaken by selecting only a particular group of immigrants for a carefully chosen period of time.

The media report that a new study by University College London (UCL) claims that immigrants to the UK from the 10 newest EU countries (those that joined the EU in 2004) have benefited the British economy. In the years to 2011, it says, they added £4.96 billion more in taxes than they took out in public services.

It turns out that this is not so much a new study as a revision of a previous one whose faults had been rightly criticised.

The original University College London’s study (conducted by Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, CReAM for short), published in November 2013, was the most far-reaching study ever carried out on the impact of migration on taxpayers, covering 16 years from 1995 to 2011, based on official and government figures.

It concluded that immigrants from the EEA (European Economic Area) contribute 4% more in taxes than they take out in benefits. Non-Europeans immigrants, on the other hand, are a financial burden: they take in benefits and services £100 billion (or 14%) more than they put back.

CReAM also found that British-born people pay into the Exchequer 7% less than they receive from the state.

So, because that study includes both European and non-European immigrations, it calculated an overall net benefit of £25 billion to the UK from recent migrants, which it described as "a very sizeable fiscal contribution".

But, if you analyse further, you see that, as explained above, non-European immigration, far from contributing positively, is a huge economic burden for Britain. So there is no rational motive to support that type of immigration on financial grounds.

But there’s more. A more in-depth assessment of the fiscal effects of immigration to the UK published in March 2014 analyses the CReAM research. This study, by Migration Watch UK, found some serious faults in the CReAM paper.

Migration Watch experts found, for example, that its authors themselves, even using their over-optimistic calculations, had found a cost to the UK from migrants of £95 billion between 1995 and 2011, but they had buried the figure, which could only be found at the end of their paper but was not mentioned in their text.

Migration Watch also makes clear that the the CReAM study's authors, Dustmann and Frattini, have overstated revenues and understated expenditures for the migrants arriving after 2000. Among the extremely unrealistic assumptions made by CReAM is that even the most recent arrivals contribute as much as long-term migrants and the UK-born, whereas both their younger age and lower incomes make this highly unlikely.

When these over- and under-estimations are adjusted, the result is – assuming that Dustmann and Frattini were otherwise correct - an overall fiscal cost of migration to the UK of £148 billion (more than £22 million a day) during the 1995-2011 period.

Interestingly, the two academics did not reply to these criticisms but only made vague remarks about "derogatory language seemingly attempting to undermine our reputation".

This was the preamble, the story so far.

Now CReAM has published a revised version of its November 2013 original study discussed above. The authors claim they have made "robustness checks", taking into account some points raised by Migration Watch.

This new paper only concerns itself with immigrants from the so-called A10 (Accession Ten) countries, namely those that joined the EU in 2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. They have been making a postive contribution of almost £5 billion between 1995 and 2011.

The problem, according to Migration Watch chairman Sir Andrew Green, is cherry-picking. The overall effect of immigration resulting from this study – although not publicised in headlines - is now a fiscal cost of £114 billion as a best-case scenario and £159 billion at worst, therefore higher than the previous CReAM paper's calculation of £95 billion.

He said to the BBC:

If you take all EU migration including those who arrived before 2001 what you find is this - you find by the end of the period they are making a negative contribution and increasingly so.

And the reason is that if you take a group of people while they're young, fit and healthy they're not going to be very expensive, but if you take them over a longer period they will be.

Anthony Reuben, head of statistics for BBC News, added:

If we are only interested in tax and benefits, the perfect person for the economy would arrive the day after they finish education, work for 40 years, not have children and then leave the day after they retire.

It is no surprise, then, that the relatively young, already educated migrants from EU accession countries are closer to that model than people who have arrived in Britain longer ago, or indeed the population in general.

The big question that this research does not address is what happens to those migrants in the future; in particular, will they stay in the country after they retire?

And also, what effect if any have they had on the amount of in-work benefits and out-of-work benefits paid to the rest of the population?

Sir Andrew Green also said:

This report confirms that immigration as a whole has cost up to £150 billion in the last 17 years. As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures - which we dispute - their contribution to the exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of our population.

And, if even the BBC admits that "over the longer term, immigrants to the UK had been a burden on the state", it must mean that as far as immigration is concerned we'got to the end of the road.

Labour's Immigration Plan Is Unravelling

This article is by our guest writer Cassandra.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you notice the shift in British 'Left-wing' orthodoxy? You might have missed it if you weren't paying attention since our 'progressive' overlords changed tact without acknowledging what they had tried to do, and what they had in fact succeeded in doing, to British society since circa 1997.

It is now apparently acceptable to criticise the open-door policy to immigration that this country has had over the last decade and more. A policy which, for the most part, it still has today. Even the leadership of the Labour party has come out of the 'bigot' closet to admit that perhaps, just maybe, the level of immigration into Britain has been a tad high. They've even gone as far as to admit responsibility for the dramatic demographic changes that many cities have undergone and, what's more, to reluctantly admit that the 'pace' of immigration has been a little too fast for some people's liking.

What the intelligentsia more broadly (not just the Labour party and their clique) has not admitted responsibility for, however, is its attempt to indoctrinate and cower people into allowing it to continue its grand project unopposed by condemning those who opposed it as 'racists', 'bigots', 'xenophobes' etc. What project is that, you ask? Why, the project, as revealed by Labour speech-writer Andrew Neather, of opening up 'the UK to mass immigration' thereby transforming the make-up of British society in order to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'. Opposition to that project was quelled through the dogma that opposing it automatically made one a 'racist', a 'bigot' and a 'xenophobe' – all very bad things. So bad, in fact, that there was nothing worse than to be labelled as such.

That dogma was not something that the party attempted to impose by itself. Its law-making power and control of the education system was not enough. The media were roped in to help to impose a fog of fear and silence upon society. Comedians were used to poke fun at anyone who dared to step out of line.

These tools worked together so effectively that average people came to police themselves. They came to learn, by indoctrination, what the right things to think and say about immigration were. Moreover, they imbibed all the buzz words ('racist', 'bigot' etc.) to be used against those who did not conform in order to pressure them into conforming. It didn't matter that, if pressed, most of the people using those words couldn't actually provide a clear and precise definition of their meaning, as long as they understood when to apply them - i.e. when somebody is critical of immigration -, and understood that, in applying them, they proved to themselves and their overlords that they belonged to the 'right' group. They learnt from our 'progressive' rulers that language is a weapon to be used with extreme prejudice against the enemy in order to inoculate yourself from the very same treatment that you yourself give others - thereby perpetuating the system.

So what happened? Why the change? What made the 'progressives' who sought to bully an entire society into conforming to their ideology abandon their dogma to such an extent that they now talk in the same vein as the very 'racists' and 'bigots' they once condemned?

Part of the truth is that their success, such as it has been, has been a superficial one. It was never really more than skin-deep. Of course they succeeded in creating an atmosphere wherein people felt that they had to keep their true feelings about immigration unvoiced, but they did not succeed in actually forcing people to abandon those views. There remained a silent majority who was waiting for its opportunity to express its true feelings, and that opportunity came in the form of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

That party refused to be cowered although it was demonised (and continues to be demonised) for criticising immigration. Seeing this, the silent majority used UKIP to express its own views through the ballot box, so that the party came to speak for that silent majority. The people came to see the demonisation of themselves and their views in the demonisation of the party, and reacted accordingly by supporting it.

It is the success that UKIP has had most notably during the 2014 European elections, and more recently at the Clacton by-election, that has caused the Labour Party to begin to scurry around trying to find some way to show that it 'understands people's feelings' about immigration. It has made Labour aware not only of the failure of its grand project, but also the flimsiness of the tools with which it, and the intelligentsia that it represents, used (and continue to use) to impose its orthodoxy upon British society.

What happens when the threat of being condemned as a 'racist' and a 'bigot' is no longer an effective means of scaring people into conformity and into voting the way that you want them to? What happens when pillorying them as uncouth and absurd no longer works to turn them into passive, malleable group-thinkers? What happens is that our 'liberal' rulers get an inkling into their own weakness. They are floating in dinghy upon a sea of opinion that is diametrically opposed to their own. They are trying to keep the waves from swallowing them up, and they realise that their only weapon is flimsy. Their only weapon is words.

What happens when 'sexist' and 'homophobe' no longer calm the waves? What happens when 'islamophobe' falls on deaf ears? You may soon find out, comrades!

Libyan Soldiers Bring Mayhem to Cambridgeshire

Great and greatly funny article by my friend, the brilliant author Alexander Boot. Below is part of it.

An update. Now 300 soldiers are guarding out 240 Libyan cadets. Cameron insists we won't grant them asylum.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But God forbid our leaders utter a single word suggesting they realise that the West and Islam are irreconcilable – that even in its present debauched state our civilisation simply can’t accommodate Islam as a dynamic force within our borders.

Yet our electorate has been corrupted to such an extent that, for any ‘statesman’ to be politically successful, he has to be politically correct. Hence the respect, both preached and practised, for any religion or civilisation, provided it isn’t Christian.

Hence also the criminal stupidity of our leaders who destroyed the demonstrably un-Western but still workable power balance in the Middle East to plunge the region into a blood-filled abyss of violence and unrest.

Now that the violence looks as if it’s about to spill over way beyond Iraq, Syria and Libya, our governments are reviewing their options.

One of them is yet another direct military intervention, and we all know how hugely successful this has proved so far.

Another is to intervene by proxy, using Iran (what with the Nato member Turkey refusing to play) to do the fighting for us. Ancient Rome had that kind of arrangement with the Vandals, remember how that turned out?

We may suffer the same way, since the inevitable price for Iran’s involvement will be the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons, and you aren’t getting three guesses to figure out how they’ll be used.

The third option is related to the second: arming and training those local groups we perceive as our friends. ‘Perceive’ is the operative word: there are no groups in the Islamic world that are genuinely friendly to the West.

Some, however, are ready to fake amiability for tactical reasons, something we accept as the real thing. Both sides are perfectly aware of the ad hoc nature of any such alliance, invariably underpinned as it always is by background hostility.

They pretend to be our friends, we pretend to believe them. However, the two sides still diverge in one important area. They have a long-term strategy, we can’t think beyond the next election.

That’s why we refuse to recall that every time we trained and armed Muslim soldiers in the past they eventually turned their weapons against us. Who do you think armed the Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Saddam? Gaddafi? Isis?

Training thousands of Libyan soldiers at our Cambridgeshire base is a sign that we’re as ever prepared to equip our future enemies while pretending they’re our present friends.

We simply refuse to admit that our quarrel isn’t with this or that Islamic faction but with Islam as such. Well, if we still haven’t realised that there’s a clash of civilisations under way, we ought to be thankful to the Libyan soldiers for clarifying the point.

Since arriving in June they’ve succeeded in turning their corner of sleepy Cambridgeshire into a scaled-down version of Tripoli’s outskirts.

The Libyans went on an alcohol-fuelled rampage and there I was, thinking Muslims were supposed to be teetotal. A few of them spent £1,000 on booze in a single visit to a supermarket, an amount that buys a lot of mayhem.

Two of the soldiers have now been charged with raping a man, who presumably was wearing a provocative business suit. Not to discriminate, three others are being held on remand for several counts of sexual assault against women.

These peccadilloes were augmented by attendant charges of theft and threatening behaviour towards a police officer, which is legalese for head-butting. (Since no one has suggested that ‘Glasgow kiss’ be renamed ‘Tripoli kiss’, I’m hereby putting this initiative forth as my own.)

Anyway, this is where our MoD officials unveiled their comedy routine, and I thank them for making my morning so much more upbeat for it.

In a nutshell, the training programme, originally supposed to last until the end of the month, is being terminated effective immediately, and no future training will be done in Britain, what with the UK’s surfeit of tasty men and women roaming the countryside freely.

Instead of describing this simple development in this kind of language or, as would be my preference, more colloquially, the MoD spokesman delivered his first knee-slapping line:

“We have agreed with the Libyan government that it is best for all involved to bring forward the training completion date”. (“We can’t have too many raping and thieving Muzzie soldiers about…”)
Encouraged by the outburst of laughter, he continued in the same vein: “There have been disciplinary issues.”

I suppose homosexual rape, sexual assault on women, theft and head-butting a cop could be described that way for comic effect, but, playing it straight, I’d have settled for ‘crimes’ instead.

And then came the kicker, having punters rolling in the aisles: “As part of our support for the Libyan government, we will review how best to train Libyan security forces – including whether training further tranches of recruits in the UK is the best way forward.” (“…and neither do we want them to darken our doorstep ever again.”)

To add a few delicious touches to the stand-up gig, several Libyan soldiers, presumably not the defendants, have requested political asylum in Britain. And their government has so far failed to pay for the programme, while not offering much hope it’ll do so in the future.

Oh well, we’ve made our bed of nails, so we must lie in it – and it’s no laughing matter.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Give Asylum to Iraqi Christians

Is the West waking up, or is it hoping too much? And is it too late anyway, when the genocide is accomplished?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Rev Justin Welby, has called on the UK government to offer asylum to thousands of Iraqi Christians driven from their homes by jihadists. He backed similar calls by several bishops.

The vicar of Baghdad's Anglican church, Canon Andrew White, said the believers' flight is bringing "the end of Christianity very near" in Iraq.

France has already done what the Archbishop proposes. Last week the country declared itself ready to give asylum to any persecuted Christian in Iraq.

On July 26, in the French city of Lyon, over five hundred people held a demonstration about the tragic plight of Iraqi Christians, organised by the Assyro-Chaldean community of Lyon and by the Christians of Lyon. Several religious dignitaries were present, including Philippe Barbarin, archbishop of Lyon.

During the march a letter dated July 24 from His Beatitude Louis Raphaël 1st Sako, Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church, to His Eminence The Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, archbishop of Lyon and primate of the Gauls, was made ​​public. Its last sentence: "Forget us not!"

O July 29 Cardinal Philip Barbarin travelled to north Iraq to meet with Christian refugees expelled from Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. On his return to France he held a press conference to deliver fresh information on the situation of the Iraqi Christian community.

The Islamic State ethnically cleansed Mosul of almost all its Christians and imposed Sharia law. Christians who fled Mosul by the thousands in the last few days lost absolutely everything.

On the same day as the march in Lyon, a rally was held in Paris to show support for the persecuted Iraqi Christians.

Iraq is at the end of a process of ethnic cleansing of its Christians, once 10% of the population. Ah, but those were the bad old days of Saddam Hussein. Now, with the advent of democracy, all is better. Isn't it? Well, it is better if you are a jihadist.

Here in the UK, my party Liberty GB is planning to organise a Rally for Persecuted Christians in Iraq in London, in front of the Houses of Parliament.

Tower Hamlets Supports Palestinians: What a Surprise

Has the London borough of Tower Hamlets become a little Muslim enclave in Britain's capital city?

Lutfur Rahman, the directly-elected mayor of Tower Hamlets, in East London, today ordered the Palestinian flag to be flown from the town hall as a "gesture of humanitarian solidarity" with the victims of the fighting in Gaza.

Who is he to make such decision? What about people living in his council or in London who want to express solidarity with the Israelis killed by Hamas rockets?

Rahman also said that he was supporting a collection by the Tower Hamlets branch of Unison - Britain's biggest trade union - for the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians.

Muslim charities - or organisations giving money to Muslims - have to be treated with great suspicion until they have been subjected to thorough investigation as has been done in the USA, where the largest Islamic charities were shut down and prosecuted for financing terrorism. Britain's Charity Commission must do the same here. Islam's doctrine of zakat prescribes that one eighth of all obligatory Muslim charity must fund jihad, the holy war in the name of Allah.

Interestingly, it has come to light that the Palestinian Authority refused millions of dollars worth of medical aid from Israel twice in the last week.

The area of Tower Hamlets, which has been at the centre of electoral frauds and intimidations, has for years been colonised by Muslims who in local elections tend to vote for candidates of their "faith". Under Lutfur Rahman, Tower Hamlets Council has been trying to enforce Islamic law.

Empty Pews, Bursting Mosques

Not many words are needed.

Just compare the two pictures from the Mail Online, both taken at the end of last month, few hundred yards of each other in the East End of London.

The top photo shows a Sunday morning service in the churche of St George-in-the-East on Cannon Street Road. Only 12 people attended the service.

The photo at the bottom shows worshippers gathered for Friday midday prayers outside the mosque on the Brune Street Estate in Spitalfields. Since the mosque holds "only" 100 people - an enviable number for many churches -, the Muslim believers overflowed in the nearby streets.

As a terrible coincidence, adding insult to injury, Canon Michael Ainsworth of St George’s, that the Mail describes as "putting on a brave face", was beaten up in 2008 in his churchyard by three "Asian" (read "Muslim") youths, in an incident which police treated as a "faith-hate" attack.

The chairman of my party Liberty GB, Paul Weston, wrote about it at the time, and so did I a few years later.

Is this the country we want to live in? A country where decent, altruistic, peaceful and loving people are replaced by their exact opposites?

Students Tired of Studying Support Palestinians

"British students stand with Gaza against Israel’s assault" is the title of an article on the Stop the War Coalition website.

Today, the student movement issued a statement "in solidarity with the people of Palestine", signed by National Union of Students Officers - representing millions of British students - and over 100 pro-Palestine student leaders.

If all these luminaries concentrated on what they are supposed to do - educating themselves - instead of taking up fashionable causes about which they know next to nothing, maybe they could have learned that the correct spelling of the word for writing and other office materials is "stationery":

The Palestinians’ right to education has been particularly hard hit by the siege. Basic educational equipment including books, paper, computers, stationary and desks are all in limited supply and Israel routinely cuts off Gaza’s electricity supply.

Shame that these students don't even have that excuse for their lack of education.

Protect UK Lorry Drivers from Illegals

My party Liberty GB has just launched a campaign to defend British lorry drivers who are threatened and attacked in ports of continental Europe by illegal immigrants.

Protect Our Borders from Syria and Iraq Jihadists

Why should people who take a bus or Tube train in London be in fear for their lives from a bomb attack? Is it right that air passengers should be afraid of terror threats when they board a plane and also be subjected to continuous disruptions for the same reason?

Every day we hear news of more young Muslims – often born and bread in the UK but not “British” in any true sense of the word – travelling to Iraq and Syria to join groups fighting in a jihad (Islamic holy war) to establish an Islamic state over there. These Muslims also promise to come back to Britain and create a climate of terror over here.

Their threats have to be taken with the utmost seriousness: we have seen from media reports and internet videos how ruthless these fighters are with the lives of others and how determined they are to ethnically cleanse the Middle East of Christians.

Despite Prime Minister David Cameron’s empty reassurances that Britain will not ignore this security threat, former MI6 director of global counter-terrorism Richard Barrett has said the numbers are too high and the security services won’t be able to monitor all the jihadists returning to the UK. It is "out of the question", he added.

Top counter-terrorism expert Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police's assistant commissioner and head of specialist operations, has warned that Britain will live with the consequences of Syria and the rise of Islamic extremism within its own borders “for many, many years to come”.

The jihadists returning from Syria, due to its relative vicinity to Europe, are considered “the biggest threat to Britain's security” and a “greater threat than al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan”. The British Home Office identifies Syria as “the most significant development in global terrorism.”

Charles Farr - the Home Office’s terror chief - and others warned that the Syrian war is stoking the biggest terror threat to the West since September 11, and this problem is predicted to persist for as long as the hostilities will continue.

It is simply foolish to believe that the threat is minimal or behind us. So far we’ve just been lucky

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee - which oversees the UK’s intelligence agencies -, wrote that new measures increasing security checks at airports are “unavoidable” because jihadists are deploying "devilish technical skill" to create ever more sophisticated devices to evade existing security measures.

He wrote that he had encountered a level of complacency among some elements of the public which he found "seriously disturbing", adding:

It is simply foolish to believe that the threat is either minimal or now behind us. We have, indeed, been fortunate but, sadly, this has not been because the terrorists have, since 2005, given up trying to do us harm. As Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, has made clear, each year there have been serious plots which if they had not been identified and disrupted would have led to the deaths and mutilation of many British citizens.

The police and the security services have been very successful but we must not underestimate the devilish technical skill of those terrorists who design ever more sophisticated means of concealing explosives in mobile devices, in clothing and in otherwise innocent objects. They have been hard at work over the last year.

Only last week Britain's airports were put on a new terror alert following intelligence warnings that al Qaeda's chief bomb maker - Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, who is now said to have sworn allegiance to ISIS - had linked up with jihadists in Syria to pass on his skills.

It couldn’t be clearer that these people mean business. Some “British” Syria fighters have admitted preparing to carry out terrorist acts.

Possible links have also been found between three Muslims based in Cardiff, Wales - Isis militants who were present in a propaganda video filmed by the group - and two other men from the same part of the city, who are in prison for having planned to blow up London's Stock Exchange.

Black flag of Islam over Downing Street

A “British” jihadist has warned of the “black flag of Islam” flying over Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the “Caliph” of the Islamic State spreading between Iraq and Syria, has promised support to “oppressed” Muslims everywhere and told his soldiers: “You will conquer Rome and own the world”. Islam supporters hacked a Facebook page dedicated to Pope Francis and filled it with vulgar and offensive words and images: just a warning about things to come.

There is no doubt that militant Islam is on the rise in the world, and we’ll ignore it at our own peril.

We must protect our borders from these would-be terrorists

We must protect our own borders. It’s suicidal to allow would-be terrorists who have already shown their allegiance to violent jihad and acted on it to return to Britain, when top intelligent and security experts have made it clear that we cannot accurately monitor this threat once inside the country.

The party Liberty GB has among its party policies the only measure that would guarantee a greater safety for British people:

“Stop from returning to the UK anyone, including British citizens, who has left the country to fight alongside or support Muslim militias or jihadist groups abroad.”

Iraq Jihadists in the UK

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


It's always been obvious that the problem of "British" jihadists coming back from Syria - and now Iraq too - to become terrorists here is not going to go away. The UK government, with its phobia of "Islamophobia", cannot possibly solve it.

From "Iraq crisis: ISIS militants threaten UK, says Cameron":

David Cameron has warned of the threat to the UK if an "extreme Islamist regime" is created in central Iraq.

He said Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) fighters threatening the government in Baghdad were also plotting terror attacks on the UK.

And Britain could not ignore the security threat the UK now faced from jihadists in Iraq and Syria.

Britain may not ignore it, but it's not going to do very much about it.

A BBC reporter said Monday on the TV that this problem is the same all over the world. He should have added - but didn't - "wherever there are Muslims". Muslim-free countries don't experience this problem at all.

The BBC report was about what the government can and cannot do in order to protect British people from this threat, and in general to avoid the "radicalisation" of UK Muslims.

Despite the fact that 9 years have passed without another 7/7, the government measures to fight Muslim radicalisation in this country have been a failure, the journalist went on to say.

What a surprise! The only reason why there are not more terrorist attacks in the UK, I would say, is the constant surveillance of the "Muslim community" by police and intelligence services - with huge expenses for a gravely cash-strapped Britain -, which is now necessary to increase.

Nevertheless, former MI6 director Richard Barrett explained that the security services will not be able to monitor all the "British" jihadists who return to the UK after fighting in Syria.

The implications for UK security of the Iraq and Syrian conflicts due to the "Britons" fighting there is a topic dominating the national newspapers.

"Terror fallout from British jihadists fighting in Syria will be felt for years to come in Britain", headlines The Daily Mail.

This warning came from the top counter-terrorism expert Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police's assistant commissioner and head of specialist operations, who said that Britain will feel the repercussions of Syria and the rise of Islamic extremism within its own borders for "for many, many, many years to come".

She added that young "British" Muslims who have gone to fight in Syria might commit violence and terrorist acts when they return.

Possible links have been found between three Muslims based in Cardiff, Wales, Isis militants who were present in a propaganda video filmed by the group, and two other men from the same part of the city, who are in prison for having planned to blow up London's Stock Exchange.

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan warned that radicalisation in prisons was a big problem. Indeed, this corresponds to the dire predictions of Dr. Peter Hammond in his book Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat (Amazon USA) , (Amazon UK) .

The book says that, when the Muslim population reaches 2% to 5% of a country, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from jails and among street gangs.

According to the the United Kingdom Census 2011, in that year Muslims were 2.7 million, 4.8% of the country's total population.

Hammond's book, which was first published in 2005 and then in a second edition in 2009, says that, when Muslims are above 5%, they exercise an influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims, and will increase pressure on supermarket chains to sell halal, with threats for failure to comply. They will also try to get the government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia law within their ghettos.

Rings a bell? This is the stage which Britain has already reached. The only prediction that hasn't materialised are Muslim threats to supermarkets, only because they are redundant as those companies are all too eager to oblige.

And now look at the next stage: when Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of protest, example of which are the car-burnings in Paris (and we can now add Sweden), and uprisings and threats for any action which offends Islam, namely any non-Muslim action. The greater the proportion of Muslim population the more frequent these tensions will be, until they become daily occurrences.

How can British people not have noticed that, over the years, their country's Muslims - whose number has steadily increased - have indeed become more vociferous, oppressive, demanding, aggressive and dangerous?

Richborough Roman Port and Global Warming

I'm honoured that one of my websites has been quoted and linked to in a comment to an article in the famous website Watts Up With That?, considered the world's number one scientific site taking a critical approach to global warming and climate change.

The article in question is "Sea Levels are Never Still", and it explains something of which people, used to the alarmistic noise about rising sea levels due to "climate change", may not be aware:

Sea levels have been rising and falling without any help from humans for as long as Earth’s oceans have existed.

The fastest and most alarming sea changes to affect mankind occurred at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age. Seas rose about 130m about 12,000 years ago, at times rising at five metres per century. Sea levels then fell as ice sheet and glaciers grew in the recent Little Ice Age – some Roman ports used during the Roman Warm Era are now far from the sea even though sea levels have recovered somewhat during the Modern Warm Era.

One such case of a Roman port now disappeared is that of Richborough, in Kent, which was the main port of Roman Britain, linking the British province to the rest of the Roman empire. My travel website Britain Gallery describes it in the article "Sandwich, Deal, Walmer, Richborough", and a comment to the Watts Up With That? post quotes from it:

Not far from Walmer are the remains of the Richborough Roman Fort and Amphitheatre, considered by English Heritage possibly the most symbolically important Roman site in Britain, “witnessing both the beginning and almost the end of Roman rule here”. Although it is now 2 miles from the sea because silted up, Richborough was in Roman times a major natural harbour providing a safe route from Europe to the Thames estuary.

Going back to the scaremongering tactics of the warmists, it's to be observed that from 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago sea level rose about 14mm a year, whereas it is currently rising at about 1mm a year, and this rate has not changed much with the great industrialisation since 1945.

There are many factors changing the sea level - melting of glaciers; warming and expansion in volume of the seas; extraction of groundwater ending up in the sea; sediments and debris washed into the sea by rivers, storms and glaciers; even tectonic forces -, and human emission of CO2 has hardly a role in them.

Figure by Robert A. Rohde made available under an Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

What’s Next for Britain?

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


After an earthquake, we gather the pieces hurled and scattered all over the place by the magnitude of the event, we put them together and reconstruct.

The big question in British politics is who is going to win the 2015 General Elections for the British Parliament, which will produce the majority to form the new government.

The local and European elections have been much anticipated before and analysed at length afterwards because they are supposed to give an idea of the next occupant of 10 Downing Street, the British Prime Minister’s residence.

But the new four-main-party-system that UKIP has introduced by storm makes these predictions much more complicated. UKIP has been the nightmare of pollsters and number crunchers, who admit defeat in appraising the current and, more importantly, future situation.

Without UKIP, it would be relatively easy to forecast next year’s results. If, as it’s often the case, on May 22 the incumbent party in government had fared badly and the opposition well, it would be seen as a sign that it’s time for the usual reversal of roles between them.

But now the Labour Party in opposition, although electorally performing better than the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the government coalition, has also haemorrhaged a stream of votes to UKIP. Therefore its percentage in the polls is not as much higher than the Tories as it should be for a safe victory prediction in 2015.

On the other hand, most votes for UKIP have come from the Conservatives (Prime Minister David Cameron’s party). This means that these two parties of the Right will be forced to share votes at the General Elections too, thus reducing the Tories’ chances to win. But by how much we don’t know, because a certain numbers of people who vote for UKIP at the European Elections won’t do so when it comes to electing the UK Parliament and deciding the next Prime Minister.

It may seem appropriate to choose UKIP, a party which is largely one-issue (leaving the European Union), at the Euro polls, but from the national government many voters, albeit sympathetic to Farage’s views, want something more. They require a wide range of policies that will affect their lives, on the economy, education, health, crime, welfare, housing, employment, and so on. It’s difficult to know how many will desert UKIP for the Tories next year.

The three main parties, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats - often placed in the same bracket and derisively called “LibLabCon” to indicate that what they have in common is much more significant than their differences, giving the electorate no real choice –, inevitably did not understand or take on board the message of the vote.

In order to do so they would have to change what they are to become something completely different. All their existence, aims and policies are predicated on carrying on as usual, offering the country more of the same, the only difference being in degree. Yesterday it was recognition of same-sex civil unions, today the law on same-sex marriage. Today it’s racist to quote Churchill’s anti-Islam words, tomorrow it will be racist describing a pet as “a black cat with a bit of white”.

Incidentally, many votes were lost by the Conservatives to UKIP because of the Tory Prime Minister’s David Cameron insistence on making homosexual marriage legal.

All the three main parties are egalitarian and strict followers of political correctness. They give the public what they want, not what people ask. They vilify people for asking it, explicitly or implicitly calling them names. They never stop to wonder whether people might be right; at most they express sympathy, understanding and “concern” for how people feel, not so subtly implying that those feelings are irrational and based on false perceptions, whereas reality is what the business of politics is all about so those feelings should be disregarded.

This sums up the reasons why many voted UKIP:

Despite all of this, I will vote UKIP at the Euro-elections, and there are two main reasons for this: first, that I wish to carry the message, very strongly, to the LibLabCon alliance that they do not have a right to be in government, they do not have a right to power—something that Labour and Conservatives have, I think, utterly forgotten (leading inexorably to a corruption almost as total as the Republicans and Democrats in Washington).

Some pundits informed us that UKIP’s voters are mostly men, over 50, blue collar. Implicit in this announcement is the view that such demographics should say a lot about UKIP, specifically how bad it must be if it attracts predominantly people of this despicable sort.

It’s reminiscent of the media in the US and elsewhere, which at the time of the presidential elections were highlighting how Mitt Romney was disproportionately preferred by men, with the same ominous implications of backwardness and “uncoolness”.

Similarly, a frequent attack against counterjihad websites is that their readers are mainly males.

I know that, despite being a female, I’ll be accused of sexism and misogyny for saying this. Does everybody ignore or pretend to ignore that the overwhelming majority of philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, musicians, authors, historians, industrialists – in short all those who have pushed the human machine forward, the makers of human progress – have been men? If it had been left only to women, we don’t know how far from cave dwelling we would be today.

For whatever reason, this is simply the historical reality. Socialists, feminists and their useful idiots may think whatever they like about the causes of this 100-percent-true fact, but they shouldn’t be allowed to be so disingenuous as to pretend that women are the only force for improvement and progress in human affairs.

That London is not part of the UK any more, due to its strong immigrant and Muslim presence, and is becoming increasingly so, was confirmed once again by the last vote pattern.

London is the only region where UKIP is still struggling, whereas Labour is doing fine. Immigrants in general and Muslims in particular tend to vote for the Labour Party, which has opened wide the doors of the country to them when in government, is overgenerous in its welfare policies for everyone –natives, foreigners legally or illegally here – and is Islamophile to the point of destruction, sorry, distraction.

This is only one of several cases in which the Muslim vote has shaped European politics in recent times. In some cases it’s proved decisive: the analysis of the various groups’ votes showed that, without Muslims in France, Sarkozy would have won, so the election of socialist Francois Hollande as President was determined by the followers of Islam.

What’s in the future for UKIP and for Britain?

The UKIP will try to get its first Member of the British House of Commons elected on this 5 June, at the Newark, Nottinghamshire, by-election, caused by the suspension from Parliament and subsequent resignation as MP of Patrick Mercer.

European UKIP representatives, including Farage, have said that at the General Elections of 2015 they'll target and concentrate their efforts particularly on those constituencies where they already have councillors or have done well in the local elections. They say that this has been the successful strategy of the Lib Dems, who have been in a similar position of outsiders in the past.

In the long term, Farage aims to repeat the destruction of Canada’s Conservative Party two decades ago, when the rebel Right-wing Reform Party, that many compare to UKIP itself, caused another political earthquake.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Farage said that a Canadian-style Tory meltdown “could happen” in Britain. Canada’s century-old ruling Conservative Party was destroyed overnight in the country’s 1993 election by the populist, low-tax Reform Party, which had been called “racist, sexist and homophobic”, some of the epithets thrown at UKIP, along with the “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” that PM Cameron used for UKIP supporters.

The split in Canada’s Centre Right enabled the Liberals, Canada’s equivalent of our Labour Party, to take power.

But after ten years of infighting, the Reform revolution succeeded. The Canadian Alliance, a merger of Reform with the ruins of Canada’s old-style Tories, led to former Reform official Stephen Harper becoming Prime Minister in 2006.

Farage compared attacks on himself to those on Reform Party leader:

‘They called him a Right-wing extremist, a nutter, away with the fairies, he’ll never get anywhere and what happens? They won one by-election, a schoolmistress way out West, who resisted every bribe and temptation to rejoin the Conservative Party.

‘Now you have a Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who was first elected on a Reform ticket, as were half the Cabinet.

‘Don’t think this can’t happen here. The public want something different. We are catalysing a big change in British politics on fundamental issues that have been brushed under the carpet and ignored by a completely out-of-touch career political class for too long.’

In all this euphoria, we mustn’t forget UKIP’s limitation, first of all that the party’s not opposed to Islam. In fact, it even has British parliamentary candidates who openly advocate Sharia law, like Dean Perks:

"Sharia law, in my opinion, works as a prevention. And prevention is better than cure. If you think you're going to get your hands chopped off for pinching something, you won't pinch it."

A UKIP council candidate who tweeted that Islam is "evil" was suspended from the party. Farage distanced himself from his own immigration spokesman, Gerard Batten, who had proposed a special code of conduct in the form of a charter calling on Muslims to accept equality, reject violence and accept the need to modify the Quran, which Muslims had to sign. And in public speeches UKIP leader is careful to limit his comments on Islam to politically correct ones.

Even more tellingly, membership of UKIP is forbidden to current or even previous members of the English Defence League and other groups who are outspoken on the Islamisation of Britain and dare hinder it.

"Earthquake" in the UK

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


"An earthquake" is how the United Kingdom Indepence Party (UKIP) called what happened Thursday 22 May, when all Britain voted to elect its share of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and various parts of the country voted to elect local councils.

While the results of the Euro Elections were not announced until Sunday to wait for the results of the whole European Union, where some countries voted later, the local elections results were known immediately, and were pretty much as Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, described them: an earthquake.

In a country with a three-main-party system (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats), the UKIP became firmly established as the fourth party. It didn't gain overall control of any local council, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

Labour won 338 more councillors than it previously had, the Conservatives were down 231 councillors, the Liberal Democrats took a bashing losing 307, as many as 40 percent, of their councillors, and UKIP went from 2 to an astonishing 163 councillors, turning from a fringe, tiny party into a serious contender for government.

But it was tonight, at the European Elections, that UKIP got a real triumph. Not only it topped the polls with more votes than all other parties for the first time in its history, but also its victory marked the first time in which a nationally-held election has not been won by either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party since 1906.

This historical event upsets all the current paradigms of British politics. For a start, it makes it much more difficult to predict future election results, first of all the 2015 general elections for the British Parliament, the "real" polls that will decide who's going to govern the UK.

A three-party system is easier to understand and forecast than a four-party one. Without UKIP, Labour might have been cast as the next British goverment, benefiting from the dissatisfaction from the supposed "cuts" and "austerity" measures that the present coalition of Tories and LibDems in goverment had to enforce to heal at least in part the ruinously irresponsible economy and welfare policies of the past Labour administration.

Something similar happened in other parts of Europe, hence the BBC's headline "Eurosceptic 'earthquake' rocks EU elections", in reference to the parallel result of Marine Le Pen's Front National which won a record victory in France.

Back in the UK, the Liberal Democrats were almost wiped out from the European Parliament, being left with just one MEP of the 11 they previously had. This is Catherine Zena Bearder, standing in the South East, the largest region in the UK, where my party, one-year-old Liberty GB, got 2494 votes.

These results show a clear shift in public opinion towards a decidedly anti-immigration, anti-European-Union stance.

The reaction of the (previously) three main parties and of the liberal media is interesting because it shows that they simply didn't get it.

They cling to justifications, rationalisations, excuses, pedantic nitpicking, like "it hasn't been an earthquake because UKIP has no control of a single council", or "it's just a temporary protest vote, they'll come back to us".

The Lib Dems project onto the UKIP's future what happened to them. They, never genuinely contemplating the possibility of being in government, were ruined by their experience in power, where they didn't keep their utopian promises to the electorate, and in an act of wishful thinking predict that the same will happen to UKIP.

My favourite is the reaction of Labour. Faithful to their Marxist heritage, they explain everything away with the economy. People on the doorstep tell us that they are not concerned about immigration per se, they say, but only about its economic consequences for jobs, wages, housing and so on.

We'll sort these things out, they continue, the usual Labour way, by wasting more of public money and increasing taxes.

They don't realise that no people "on the doorstep" will tell any Labour representative that they don't want immigration for reasons of culture and identity, not just economics, lest they'll be considered racist by the aforementioned Labour person.

And UKIP took votes from all parties, including Labour, whose traditional base of working-class voters got progressively dissatisfied with it.

People who until now voted for the mainstream, Establishment parties - and people who didn't vote at all - have decided to stop being silent and taken action by choosing a party that says many of the things they think but cannot express.

We all take great hope and encouragement from this trend.

It took UKIP 20 years from its foundation to get to this point, and it struggled for recognition for a very long time.

There was a time when a vote for UKIP was considered wasted, but it turned out to be instrumental in putting pressure on the Tories on the issue of leaving the European Union. There will be a time when voting for Liberty GB will put pressure on UKIP on the issue of addressing the threat of Britain's Islamisation, on which Farage's party has so far been persistently silent.

Please Leave Comments on Online Mainstream Media to Make People Vote for Liberty GB Tomorrow

This is the last day before the vote to elect Members of the European Parliament for Britain, and I cannot resist the impulse to urge you all to do what you can to get my great party Liberty GB elected.

We have three candidates, of which I am one.

Liberty GB's great supporter Linda Rivera has asked for indications of online articles where she – and many other supporters like her – can leave comments that will invite people to vote Liberty GB on Thursday.

She also asked for a suitable leaflet she can upload or type in the comments.

This is a last-ditch effort on our behalf for the elections, for which we thank her.

This is the image of our 10-point-plan leaflet.

And here are some relevant Daily Mail and Spectator articles that are accepting comments. Please comment away as much as you can!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634198/Hamza-We-mistake-treating-jailed-hate-cleric-ranter-real-threat-admits-former-chief-prosecutor.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634590/That-took-America-jail-Hamza-damns-politicians-police-MI5.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633074/American-rushes-Sudan-prevent-pregnant-wife-hanged.html

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2014/05/abu-hamza-embodies-britains-self-destructive-madness/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2014/05/exclusive-leading-tory-eurosceptic-calls-for-cameron-to-ditch-net-migration-target/

Great Support for Liberty GB’s Anti-Halal Boycott Subway Day in Woking

The Subway sandwich chain is the target of many international boycotts for a variety of good reasons.

In 2011 in the USA the company gave the Subway Sportsman of the Year Award to the American footballer Michael Vick, a convicted felon who was incarcerated for 18 months (and could have been longer) for spending years torturing and killing animals.

When police raided his house, they found 65 dogs, a dog-fighting pit, blood-stained carpets, and various equipment commonly used in dog fighting, including a ‘rape stand’ in which female dogs are strapped into and restrained, to allow male dogs to breed with them.

According to the federal indictment, when Vick’s dogs lost a fight or didn’t perform well, they were routinely killed by methods like electrocution, hanging, drowning and “slamming” the dog’s body onto the concrete floor. Many dogs were butchered in these ways and Vick took part in the executions.

The company's support for an animal torturer sparked an ongoing boycott of Subway promoted by Facebook pages “liked” by tens of thousands.

As if this weren’t enough, Subway is now showing even more signs of its lack of concern for animal cruelty.

Nearly 200 Subway branches in Britain have decided to serve exclusively halal meat.

Halal meat, derived from animals barbarically slaughtered by having their throats slit without previous stunning and then let bleed to death (which can take several minutes), is allowed as a loophole by British law, which normally requires animals to be rendered unconscious before slaughter.

This exception is permitted in the name of “religious freedom”, but in reality not only there is no moral justification but even no need for such atrocity.

Islam specifically exempts its faithful from the obligation to eat halal food if none is available:

He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. Quran (002:173)

In addition to the issue of cruelty to animals, the selling and serving of halal meat to a wide, non-Muslim public goes against the spirit of the legislation consenting to such exceptions to humane slaughter in an animal-loving country like Britain, exceptions which were meant only for the followers of a specific religion.

In particular, for Christians – believers of the faith which is constitutionally and historically the religion of Britain - eating food sacrificed to Allah is idolatry: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols” (Acts 15:29) Also Acts 21:25.

Other religious groups, like Sikhs, are expressly forbidden by their religion from eating meat “killed the Muslim way”.

Last but by no means least, according to Islamic law 2.5% of the money Muslims earn must go to zakat (charity). Of this, 1/8 must finance jihad (holy war), which includes atrocities committed in Muslim-majority countries - like Syria - and terrorism. It wouldn’t be halal (“permitted”) for halal-certification companies not to pay their dues to jihad.

Halal is very topical these days, for the many voices, petitions, organisations, Facebook pages, commentators, quite a lot of MPs, yet more MPs, religious leaders, and the new head of the British Veterinary Association John Blackwell calling for its ban in Britain (following other countries including Switzerland and Denmark) and for a clearer labelling so that people are enabled to make informed choices.

Downing Street said that halal labels will be reviewed. Ministers said that they will consider compulsory labelling for halal meat if there is 'widespread demand' and it is done across Europe.

Against this background, the Liberty GB party - which is contesting the 22 May European Elections in the South East - has joined the boycott of Subway. Saturday 10 May a group of us held a peaceful protest outside one of the 200 Subway restaurants in Britain serving exclusively halal meat - the one in 9 Chertsey Road, Woking, Surrey – and surrounding areas.

We handed out leaflets, displayed placards and discussed with interested members of the public. Talking to people we found that, as always, the halal issue is one over which almost all non-Muslims agree: cruelty to animals should not be tolerated for any reason, and Islamic law, sharia, should not be forced down anyone’s throat, literally or metaphorically.

Enza Ferreri: No More Immigration and Islamisation, Vote Liberty GB



Transcript

Liberty GB, for which I am a candidate, is a new patriotic, conservative party contesting the 2014 European Parliament Elections in the South-East constituency on the 22nd of May.

People sometimes ask us why they should vote for us and not UKIP, adding that a vote for Liberty GB will be a wasted vote.

Let me answer those questions.

I want to start with the BBC’s Question Time programme in Barking of the 6th of March. People’s worries about the alien invasion that part of East London has been subjected to were motivated by “personal perceptions” not corresponding to reality, said Leftist journalist David Aaronovitch.

These days the objective “reality” can only be established by costly studies commissioned by the government or a Leftist university institute. When people hear the words “study”, “report” or “research” they automatically assume that it’s conducted according to scientific principles of investigation.

That unfortunately is not necessarily the case. Many studies are flawed in various ways, especially when they try to arrive at a conclusion which suits the researcher’s ideology or that of the provider of his funds. Take the research done to establish whether immigration affects British housing and employment. These are problems deeply felt in the South East. The question can be answered with a simple arithmetic calculation coupled with a basic knowledge of how the market law of supply and demand works.

Researchers should answer this question instead: how is it possible that huge numbers of new additions to a population in a short time can NOT affect things like housing and employment?

It’s as simple as 2 plus 2 equals to 4. You have, say, an area with accommodation for 1,000 households. In this area live 950 families. Relatively suddenly there’s an influx of other 200 families. Now there are 1,150 households but still 1,000 homes. Demand will far exceed supply, which in turn will drive up prices and increase homelessness.

The only research that is needed is finding out the size of population and the available housing: the rest is deductive logic. Certain consequences are inevitable.

This is so true that even pro-immigration people keep calling for the building of new houses, therefore implicitly admitting that immigration does have an impact on lack of accommodation.

Similar scenario for employment. If, as a simple example, there are on average 100 job seekers for 1 vacancy, the outcome for job seekers will be greatly different than if there are 200. More people competing for the same jobs - same demand for labour force and more supply - means more unemployment and lower wages.

And again, the easy confirmation of this comes from the fact that employers are among the most ardent supporters of immigration, which provides them with ample – and therefore cheaper - workforce.

Of course things tend to be always a bit more complicated, but in this case the complications are small details in a very clear fundamental, overall picture.

During the same Question Time programme, David Aaronovitch called a man we at Liberty GB have christened “the homeless patriot” racist without using the actual word, when he asked him how seeing black faces in the street makes them not your streets any more. Incidentally, the homeless patriot had never uttered the word “black”.

What would Aaronovitch say about the fact that you can walk and use public transport anywhere in London for hours and hardly ever hear a voice speaking English? Does that qualify for those no longer being your streets? I get annoyed by that and I’m not even English-born, I’m Italian – although I’ve lived in London 30 years -, I can imagine what it must feel for English people.

In addition to the number, we have the question of the kind of immigrants. Many of them are Muslim. Most Westerners don’t really know what Islam is and, hearing that it’s a religion, make the natural assumption that it’s something similar to our own experience of a religion: Christianity. They think it’s basically the same thing, just replacing the Bible with the Quran, God with Allah, Jesus with Muhammad.

The reality is very different. Islam is not so much a religion as a political doctrine and system of law and government. Islamic law, sharia, doesn’t constitute just moral commandments as in Christianity but laws of the state.

Divine laws, according to Islam, should replace human, imperfect laws. Everywhere. All over the world. How? By Muslims’ assuming power and domination over the various countries and peoples of the earth. Peacefully if possible, but using force and violence if necessary.

When Muslim leaders and representatives say that Islam is a religion of peace, what they actually mean is that, once all the world is united under Muslim rule, there will be peace. They equivocate, knowing that Western people ignore that.

It doesn’t take much to understand that there is a big difference between self-described followers of a religion – Christianity - committing acts of violence that go against the core precepts of that religion and self-described followers of another religion – Islam - committing acts of violence that they are ordered to perpetrate by that religion.

Britain, when Muslims reach a certain number, will follow the same fate as all other places where they try to impose sharia. And we already see the first signs now.

This takes us back to the original question. What’s wrong with UKIP? UKIP understands the problems of immigration, but doesn’t deal with them effectively. Freezing it for 5 years is not enough.

What about the immigrants already here and their successive generations? UKIP has no answer to that. Liberty GB will deport illegal immigrants, expel foreigners found guilty of imprisonable offences, examine the case of legal immigrants living in Britain since 1997, expel foreign imams and home-grown hate preachers, help repatriations, demand that immigrants assimilate into British life.

UKIP’s website has hardly any mention of Islam, and the party is hesitant in recognising that the problem of the Islamisation of Britain exists. Liberty GB clearly declares in its manifesto that Islam is incompatible with our democratic system, and has many policies dealing with its threat.

On same-sex marriage too, UKIP hasn’t been firm and uncompromising in its opposition as Liberty GB is.

In the past, voting for UKIP was also considered a wasted vote, but it turned out to put pressure on the Tories about leaving the EU. Now, voting for Liberty GB may put pressure on UKIP about immigration and Islam, making its positions more straightforward.

To know more about our policies, visit libertygb.org.uk.

Please support, join, donate to, and most importantly vote Liberty GB. My name is Enza Ferreri. Thank you.

Fox News: In the UK a Radical Imam Has More Respect than a Man Who Saved the Western World



“The Five” political talk show on the American TV channel Fox News discussed the Paul Weston case.

A headline was: “Free speech? British pol arrested for quoting Churchill passage critical of Muslims.”

The panel pointed out that in the US the First Amendment – which guarantees freedom of speech – would have prevented this from happening, whereas in Britain free speech is curtailed to the point that two people could be arrested if someone overhears their private conversation in a pub which he considers of a racist nature and calls the police.

Panellist Greg Gutfeld, remarking on the lack of respect for the British wartime leader in his home country, said: “Now Churchill is seen as another dead white male, and probably racist”. He added that the danger in limiting speech is that you decrease options for outrage, which in turn increases likelihood of violence.

During the programme a clip of an interview on the Canadian channel Sun TV was shown, in which Paul Weston said: “They go out of their way not to arrest anybody from the Islamic community, no matter what awfully dreadful things they get up to, but they will immediately arrest anybody from the non-Muslim side of it who dares to raise his voice in protest about what’s going on. And the reason why they do this is because, if they have to admit that there is a serious problem with Islam, then they will have to do something about it”.

Kimberly Guilfoyle agreed with that sentiment. She said that the UK faces a serious threat of Islamic terrorism – and America is heading that way too – but, as Weston is asserting, the authorities don’t want to deal with the problem.

Juan Williams remarked that, in a multicultural, multi-religious society like Britain, public discussion of the history of Islam should not be forbidden, including its negative aspects, in the same way as it is allowed to criticise in public his own faith: Christianity.