-(1994 - EDP.ORG.UK Official Website - JUNE - PART 3 - 2022 )-

BULLETINS --JUNE-2021 -HOME - PART  1  - PART 1-PAGE 2  - PART 2 - PART 3 - PART 4 - PART 5 - PART 6

Policies-Elections- General Election 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links -

IMMIGRATION FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

IMMIGRATION-BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE
 

ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

FOR THE RETURN

OF THE

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

AT

WESTMINSTER

AND

 [A NEW BRITISH PARLIAMENT EQUIDISTANT FROM WALES AND SCOTLAND-YORK?]

 

*

 

 

November 1,2021

 

20 Slave “leaders” pose for photos while

their masters struggle to survive

By  Weekly Reports  1,146 Comments

A group of slaves known as the “leaders” of the G20 group of nations have been gathering in Rome and next Scotland to pose for pictures and pretend they run the planet. However, the so-called $150 trillion COP26 plan they have been gathering for is dead in the water. The masters who ordered them to follow this plan are being hunted down and will soon lose power, CIA, Mossad, MI6 and Asian secret society sources agree.

“The G-20 becomes the showpiece for a dysfunctional global order,” is even how the establishment mouthpiece, the Washington Post, describes the situation.

https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/The-G-20-becomes-the-showpiece-for-a-16573910.php

The fact is the families that own the so-called “global” architecture such as the UN, the BIS, the World Bank, the IMF, the Chinese Communist Party, the United States Corporation etc. are bankrupt.

A group of Venetian nobility and Asian Royal Families have come to an agreement that these families need to be removed from power and control of so-called global institutions. Instead, the people of the planet will be given control, and so, as was long prophesied “the meek shall inherit the earth.”

A visible sign of this is that Queen Elizabeth, the head of the committee of 300 (often called the secret government of the West) is not attending COP26.

“The secret service, the police and the courts are saying enough is enough,” says an Ambassador for Venetian and Asian nobility. “Essentially the Queen is gone. She is under a two-week house arrest [OK palace arrest], and banned from Cop 26,” the Ambassador says. “The act of succession will remove Charles because of the murder of Diana,” he says. “Charles must never be king that is a widely accepted norm,” he adds. Furthermore, Prince William will not be King because he is “an obsequious little creep and we do not like him at all.” Instead, the source says, “The act of installation goes to King George VII or William’s son.”

https://www.royal.uk/prince-george

“We removed the king of Spain because he was essentially the worlds’ biggest drug dealer,” he added.

Another sign is that US Corporate Presidential Spoketrans Jens Psaki (almost certainly a cross-dressing David Rockefeller grandson Mark Zuckerberg) has “contracted Covid 19” despite being vaccinated and has been put under quarantine for 10 days and possibly forever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74FN8zsg9pY

CIA sources say Mark Rockefeller Zuckerberg has also been removed from control of Facebook, which is why it has been renamed Meta which, by no coincidence, means “dead” in Hebrew.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/facebooks-new-meta-handle-means-dead-in-hebrew/

The fact that Kamala Harris is “desperately trying to get out before she and her husband are outed and sink with the ship,” underlines the ongoing collapse of the fake Biden regime, CIA sources note.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/harris-shunning-public-events-with-the-big-guy-biden-after-receiving-no-fun-jobs-the-five

More Clinton (Rockefeller/Hanover) puppets are being rounded up slowly but surely, the CIA says. “They will all sing like canaries for a reduced sentence,” they add. 

https://resistthemainstream.org/former-clinton-operative-charged-arrest-warrant-issued/?utm_source=telegram

Another big event coming soon will be the public announcement of the death of

The remainder of this article or audio is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net holding the respective level of subscription
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

NOVEMBER  1, 2021

H.F.1806/G/3
 

 

Brought forward from:

MAY/07

Empires have gone and most people in the world now live in Nation-States said Lord Shore

 

*

 

Separate Ways   

 

by    

 

Peter Shore -

 

PART 1

 

Duckworth. Price £18.99

www.junepress.com

 

The following is an extract from the above publication written by Lord Shore who was a Labour Member of Parliament from 1964 to 1997, when he became a Life Peer until his death in 2001. He served as Secretary of State for Economic Affairs 1967 – 69 and then fir Trade 1974-79. He has also published Entitled to Know and Leading the Left.

 

*          *

Alternative futures

 

There is no inevitability about British membership of the euro and ever-closer union though it is certainly an effective argument put about by Europhiles. Polls show that nevertheless a growing majority of the British people is hostile to abandoning the pound sterling, even though at the same time it believes that we are bound to join (2001).

 

This defeatism needs to be challenged by beginning with the assumptions that underlie the reasons advanced for European Union. The most important of these is the prevention of wars that have ravaged the Continent in the first half of the twentieth century. But German military power, together with that of most European states, has been absorbed in the American-led NATO alliance, which is what has really ensured the peace. It is alliances put together in this way that have traditionally been the means of co-operation between states, not supernational commitments of the kind involved in European Union.

 

These have not delivered since 1973 the economic growth, which formed the argument for membership at the time. The abusive assertions of isolationism and xenophobia that have since appeared just cannot be taken seriously.

 

There is also the deeper issue of globalisation that is now advanced as the case for integration. World trade has increased immensely; capital is free to move all over the globe in the service of giant, multinational corporations, while the Internet is a free zone for the exchange of information. It is said that in the face of this assault on everything traditional about National Government there is simply no point in trying to retain a national economic policy.

 

Of course things have changed enormously, including the power of governments to control exchange rates but the argument is much overstated. The basic need in this field is to have floating rates and these are open to the influence of nation-state governments, which can continue to navigate their own macro-economic policies.

 

In some quarters there has also been a deep emotional hostility to the very idea of the nation-state, buttressed in the past by the attraction of Marxist doctrines that advocate the repudiation of capitalism. Within the present government the hostility has survived the complete abandonment of the doctrines. It is paradoxical for this to have occurred at the time when the creation of nation-states is a striking and welcome development, one for which there is evidently an imperative demand.

 

Empires have gone and most people in the world now live in nation-states and show no inclination, outside Western Europe, to give them up. Self –government has an unequalled legitimacy and it is helping to bring about the growth of democracy within states, which in turn is helping to reduce the risk of war.

 

 At the same time agreements and treaties between states are endlessly negotiated, the great majority of them concerned with forging trade links, certainly not with building embryo states. It is necessary only to look at North America, Latin America, Asia or Africa to see this.

 

The continuing impetus to ram together the separate nations and states of Europe springs from the long struggle between France and Germany and the memory of their wars. It does not have the same force for other countries and the Europhile argument that the United Kingdom is a weak and exhausted nation that has no choice but to associate itself with this movement is patently false and absurd.

 

End of PART 1

 Click Here for PART 2

 

*          *          *

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

 

MAY/07

 

H.F.2154/A/7
 
 

ENGLAND

THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****    ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY / ****    ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/****    EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL

H.F.1424
 

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

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

By A.n. Wilson For The Daily Mail

 September 30- 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Full article

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

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

 
 

Multicultural policies have effectively divided the population  into ethnic and faith 'communities'.

*

DON'T TALK ABOUT DIFFERENCES-TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY.

by

Munira Mirza

(writer and researcher)

Daily Mail- Monday, January 29 ,2007.

 

WHEN my colleagues and I began researching the attitudes of young British Muslims, we already suspected that some had become more religiously and politically committed over the past decade.

BUT our findings surprised us. While most Muslims feel a sense of belonging to Britain and are reasonably well integrated, there is a definite shift away from the mainstream among a growing number of younger Muslims.

[ At this point we would draw a parallel with many English children and others of other ages in our schools who complain that everyone else has a country whether from Poland or India or China or from any number of the 190 plus countries in the world today. Identity is important to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty to one's home whether adopted or not. Britishness an over used term introduced by newspaper proprietors  to replace the word ENGLAND which was in vogue for much of our past but particularly after the Second World War it did not fit in with those who decided British was Best!. This was strange as the term British is a geographical expression and NOT political -of course over 1500 years ago it was political but the English and their neighbours changed THAT!. It has been and still is a travesty that the word ENGLISH has been in decline for decades whereas the individual nation state whether Wales or Scotland in our island home has become the norm.]

They are more likely to prioritise allegiance to their religious community and be assertive about expressing their cultural difference. An increasing number express support for faith schools; say they would prefer to live under Muslim law, known as Sharia, and have become less tolerant about women's rights and homosexuality.

WHY? Are Muslims simply unable to adjust  to life in the West?

The answer to that is a firm No. After all, the first generation of Muslim immigrants largely adapted their religion and culture to suit life in Britain.

It is their children and grandchildren who are more strident about criticising British society and asserting their religious identity.  Many younger girls in Muslim communities will now wear the headscarf -the hijab-although many of their mothers do not. Slowly but surely, sections of the Muslim community are separating from the rest of Britain.

Instead of looking abroad to the influence of the Muslim world or the conflicts in the Middle East for an explanation, our research suggests that it lies closer to home. In particular, the

RISE OF MULTICULTURALISM.

Over the past two decades, with its stress on 'difference' and downgrading of Britishness has led many young Muslims to see themselves as separate from society.

Multicultural policies have effectively divided the population into ethnic and faith 'communities', each demanding its own identity as well as separate funding and resources.

This divisive approach has encouraged a kind of tribal thinking, where each group is encouraged to look after 'their own' In such a climate, younger have grown up believing that they have more in common with other Muslims than the wider population.

The weakening of collective identities through attacks on British traditions and history and the decline in old-style working class politics has led to a vacuum in which many young Muslims have turned to religion to seek a sense of belonging.

This emphasis on difference has also cultivated a powerful sense of victim hood. Instead of demanding equality anti-racist groups since the 1980's have been demanding the right to be different and 'respect' for cultural identities.

Muslim lobby groups have been particularly successful at claiming that Muslims need special protection by exaggerating the problem of Islamophobia and demanding curbs on free speech.

 

But instead of making Muslims safer and more included, these demands have only made younger Muslims feel more alienated.

Paradoxically telling Muslims that they are vulnerable and need to be listened to has only made them feel more like outsiders who cannot be expected to handle criticism like everyone else. Although younger Muslims are far less likely than their parents to be victims of racist abuse, they are more sensitive about the slightest criticism or attack.

 

EVEN WORSE, by trying to engage with Muslims through 'community leaders' (who are considered by most Muslims to be largely unrepresentative), the Government is sending the message:

'You lot are so different, we just do not know how to talk to you ourselves.'

This has meant that many younger Muslims who feel unrepresented by their community leaders feel even more ignored and excluded, because the Government is listening to them in the WRONG WAY.

The Government must stop emphasising difference and engage Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity. The 'Muslim community' is not homogeneous. People should be entitled to equal treatment as citizens in the public realm, with the freedom to enjoy their religious identities in the private sphere

THE negative effects of MULTICULTURALISM are also experienced by many other groups, including white people who have been encouraged to feel ashamed of

THEIR COUNTRY.

We need to revive a sense of shared purpose and confidence in British society. Islamism is only one expression of a wider cultural problem of self-loathing and confusion in the West. There are signs that people in general feel alienated and are increasingly retreating to their cultural or ethnic backgrounds. This is the driving force behind a rising interest in regional identities among the Scottish, Welsh and English.

We need to bring to an end to the institutional attacks on NATIONAL IDENTITY

-the cancellation of Christian festivities, the bans on displays of national symbols and the sometimes crude anti-western bias of history lessons -which can create feelings of defensiveness and resentment.

 

We should allow people to express their identity freely in a climate of genuine toleration. Society needs to work together to assert our shared British identity and Western values in a way that will inspire the younger generation -from all backgrounds.

[Shortly before the 1997 General Election a BBC reporter arrived to question us and the first question was what did we think of MULTICULTURALISM.  Our reply was that we believed in each individual from wherever they came form and that when people arrived in England their first breath of English air was of FREEDOM which was a statement made by the Chief Justice of England to the case of a captured slave in a ship in English waters.  So it is that when anyone arrives in our country they have FULL RIGHTS secured by the Rights and Liberties which have been fought for in England for over 1500 years. The curse of multiculturalism was known as a community wreaking policy years ago but was a useful instrument of many politicians to ingratiate themselves with newcomers to secure their votes- need we say more. ]

Except:

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it.'

John Stuart Mill

(1806-73)

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-Bolding & Underlining Used -Comments in brackets]

JANUARY/07

*

 
 

ENGLAND

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAMED-  PARTS 1-5****AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****"THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

H F 2154/B-A 61

You Can’t Separate Politics and Morals.

 *

 Daily Mail

Thursday, May 11-2006.

 by

 Stephen Glover

TONY BLAIR’S Cabinet reshuffle is predictably already running into difficulties. Ruth Kelly, who has taken over John Prescott’s several ministerial responsibilities, is being attacked on two fronts.

 On the one hand, it is pointed out that her criticism of middle-class families who resist government plans to build new homes sits unhappily with her opposition to a string of new housing developments in her own constituency. As Local Government Minister, Ms Kelly is now in charge of planning regulations.

 At the same time, she is attracting even greater flak from the gay lobby. For reasons difficult to fathom, in addition to her local government portfolio she is also described as Equality Minister. This means that she is supposed to ensure that we all have equal rights.

Because she is a member of Opus Dei, a Roman Catholic movement that has explicitly criticised homosexual liaisons, it is suggested that she is unlikely to give homosexuals a fair crack of the whip.

 There is little doubt that Ms Kelly accepts the opus Dei line on homosexuality. When asked whether it is a sin, she has refused to give a straight answer. In the Commons, she has missed a total of 12 votes on homosexuality since 1997.

In May 2002, she voted for an amendment to a Bill that would have allowed unmarried heterosexuals couples to adopt while excluding same-sex couples.

 Millions of people will be secretly, or not so secretly in agreement with Ms Kelly’s views. Until 40 or 50 years ago, they would have been held by the vast majority. The Gay lobby is too eager to paint her as an antediluvian nutter.

 BUT what concerns me are not the rights or wrongs of her views BUT her defence of them. On Radio Five Live two days ago, she again refused to say whether she considered homosexuality a sin. This is what she said:

 ‘I don’t think its right for politicians to start making moral judgments about people…What I think the question is, is what are my political views…As a politician I think everyone should be free from discrimination.

 IN OTHER WORDS, Ms Kelly is specifically separating politics from morals. She has her moral views, and she has her political ones. Morally, it is pretty clear she is opposed to homosexuality. She could hardly not be, given the position of Opus Dei, indeed of current Roman Catholic Church teaching. According to Jack Valero, a spokesman for Opus Dei in Britain:

 ‘Homosexuality is a condition that people can’t help, but the homosexual act is sinful.’

 YET while holding this moral view Ms Kelly also says that she believes homosexuals should enjoy equal rights.

 Why does she think this?

The likely answer is because it is a political necessity for her to do so if she is to retain HIGH OFFICE.

 She believes one thing; she then acts in a way at odds with that belief.

 Many of us have conflicting views in our minds at the same time, or behave in a manner that is at variance with our beliefs. It is certainly common for people who have moral misgivings about homosexuality to treat individual homosexuals on an equal footing with heterosexuals.

 This is partly a question of politeness and partly a matter of social survival. We could hardly get by in life if we were to get on our moral high horse every time we encountered people of whose behaviour we might privately disapprove.

But what might be forgivable, or at least understandable, in our own relations with others cannot be so easily excused in a high politician who wields great power.

 A minister who believes that morality and politics are separate and mutually exclusive activities is liable to act in a bad and possibly dangerous way. At its most extreme, this sort of dislocation enabled a man like Albert Speer, who certainly had a moral sense, to condone or ignore the barbarities of the Nazi regime in which he was a senior minister.

 In an admittedly far less dramatic way, isn’t this divorce of the moral from the political one of the defining features of New Labour?

 Tony Blair presents himself as a highly moral, Christian person whose well-thumbed copy of the New Testament [let alone the Koran] is never far from his side. YET he displays a love of wealth that is hardly a central tenet of Christian belief; and, as this country has learnt to its cost over Iraq, he has a very contingent attitude to TRUTH.

 MORALITY, for Blair and Ruth Kelly, is conveniently a private affair. In the harsh light of political reality, both of them are ready to disregard their moral precepts or, most spectacularly in the case of Mr Blair, to act counter to them while still - preposterously- claiming the MORAL HIGH GROUND.

 OF COURSE, I do not say that politics is only a matter of MORALITY, only that the two should not be treated as though they have nothing to do with each other.

 There are many humdrum political issues, which seem far removed from moral concerns:

Ms Kelly’s belief that we should build more houses in the [already] overcrowded South East cannot be said to be more or less moral than the opposing view.

 Other issues more obviously engage our moral values.

 Should there be a Death Penalty?

 Should we alter the Abortion Laws?

 Is the re-distribution of Wealth desirable?

When is War justified?

In all these cases there is scope for equally moral people to disagree, or even to arrive at opposite conclusions. What we can ask of OUR politicians, though, is that when they confront these issues they should do so in a way that is consistent with THEIR sense of MORALITY.

 If Me Blair had done this, he would NOT have taken us to WAR over IRAQ on a massive LIE, or worshipped at the shrine of the appalling Silvio Berlusconi.

And it is surely an indication of some sort of MORAL lapse in Ms Kelly for her to propose a policy, namely the relaxation of building controls and the building of more houses, after objecting to similar developments near her own home on many previous occasions, the last as recently as April 2004.

We are entitled to change our minds, but when a minister so suddenly revokes her previous approach, we are bound to suspect her of acting out of low political motives.

Whether she is right or wrong about homosexuality is not the issue.

Ms Kelly believes that homosexual acts are wrong. She therefore presumably believes that homosexuals CANNOT enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. And YET she is required in her new office to ensure THAT THEY DO SO.

*This suggests to me either that Ruth Kelly is rather stupid, which in view of her high intellectual attainments may seem an unlikely theory. OR, more plausible, she is potentially dangerous, and characteristically Blairite, sort of hypocrite, holding to one set of beliefs while she gaily - no pun intended- contradicts them in the pursuit of power.

 

* * *

 

[Over 100 years ago a Prime Minister of England - William Ewart Gladstone was acclaimed for his

Moral stance, which were ingrained into his character. The following words are from John Morley’s Life of Gladstone.

He was one of the three statesmen in the House of Commons of his generation who had a gift of large and spacious conception of the place and power of England in the world, and of the policies by which she could maintain it. Cobden and Disraeli were the other two’.

 On his day after his death, in each of the two Houses the leader made the motion, identical in language in both cases save the final words about the financial provision in the resolution of the Commons: -

 That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the remains of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone be interred at the public charge, and that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster, with an inscription expressive of the public admiration and attachment and of the high sense entertained of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in parliament and in great offices of state, and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

*

The language of the movers was worthy of the British parliament at its best, worthy of the station of those who used it, and worthy of the figure commemorated. Lord Salisbury was thought by most to go nearest to the core of solemnity: -

What is the cause of this unanimous feel? Of course, he had qualities that distinguished him from other men; and you may say that it was his transcendent intellect, his astonishing power of attaching men to him, and the great influence he was able to exert upon the thought and convictions of his contemporaries

 But these things, which explain the attachment, the adoration of those whose ideas he represented, would not explain why it is that sentiments almost fervent are felt and expressed by those whose ideas were not carried by his policy.

 My Lords, I do not see the reason is to be found in anything so far removed from the common feelings of mankind as the abstruse and controversial questions of the policy of the day. They had nothing to do with it.

 Whether he was right or whether he was wrong, in all measures, or in most of the measures which he proposed - those are matters of which the discussion has passed by, and would certainly be singularly inappropriate here; they are really remitted to the judgment of future generations, who will securely judge from experience what we can only decide by forecast.

 It was on account of considerations more common to the masses of human beings, to the general working of the human mind, than any controversial questions of policy that men recognised in him a man guided - whether under mistaken impressions or not, it matters not - but guided in all the steps he took, in all the efforts that he made, by a high moral ideal.

What he sought were the attainments of great ideals, and whether they were based on sound convictions or not, they could have issued from nothing but the greatest and the purest moral aspirations; and he is honoured by his countrymen, because through so many years, across so many vicissitudes and conflicts, they had recognised this one characteristic of his action, which never ceased to be felt.

 He will leave behind him, especially to those who have followed with deep interest the history of the later years - I might almost say the later months of his life -he will leave behind him the memory of a great Christian statesman.

Set up necessarily on high - the sight of his character, his motives, and his intentions would strike the entire world. They will have left a deep and most salutary influence on the political thought and the social thought of the generation in which he lived, and he will be remembered not so much for causes in which he was engaged or the political projects which he favoured, but as a great example, to which history hardly furnishes a parallel, of a great Christian man.]

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE

 Feb 18 -1897- Returns to London from Cannes

Feb 22- Goes to Bournemouth

March 22- Death of Mr Gladstone

 March 26, 27- Lying in State in Westminster Hall

 March 28 -Burial in Westminster Abbey.

 * * *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets...ARE OURS!]

MAY/2006

H.F.2154/F
 

A FAILURE OF GOVERNMENTS FOR DECADES - WHEN WILL THEY LISTEN?

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

Daily Mail

Saturday, August 27, 2005

 

James Slack-Home Affairs Correspondent

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

He added: 

 

‘It reinforces the case for a proper policing policy’

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In Waltham Forest street robberies were up 92.7%.

 

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

 

To continue:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

To continue:

 

[Commander Foy said:]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

*         *        

 

Crime On My Doorstep

 

A correspondent to the Letters COLUMN Of the

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

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

 

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

 

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

[JULY]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

A police car eventually arrived two hours after the Attack

 

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

 

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

 

But I thought at least I’d hear something.

 

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

*

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

 

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

 

*          *          *

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

SEP/05

*  *  *

 

Brought forward from September,2005

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

GERMANY

OCTOBER 17-2017

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

H.F.1345
 

 

Cost of asylum system soars 42% to £1.4bn as officials battle backlog of 115,000 cases that are still pending …

Home Office data shows the overall cost of processing and supporting asylum seekers soared from …
Daily Mail · 9d

...Alp Mehmet,chairman of Migration Watch UK which campaigns for tougher  border controls [for over 20

years] said:

,As illegal crossings of the Channel shoot up, so will the cost of asylum system and burden on the TAXPAYER-ALREADY AT STAGGERING

LEVELS.

'The only way to check this uncontrolled trend is to RETURN substantial numbers of irregular  arrivals and failed asylum seekers. Alas, this

 

appears to be BEYOND THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPETENCE.

 

Since last year, a greater proportion of asylum seekers have been coming to Britain

 

[IN FACT THEY LAND IN ENGLAND.

 

 

AND

 

 

 ENGLISH TAXPAYER'S PAY THE BILL!]

 

 

in small boats across the CHANNEL.

 

 

So far this year, more than

 

 

12,400

 

 

have made the perilous journey across the busy shipping lane compared to

 

 

8,410

 

 

in the whole of 2020...

 

 

See [FULL ARTICLE] and more news about Daily Mail-David Barrett-Cost Of Asylum

 

System

 

 

Soars To 42% To £1.4bn

 

 

 

[ADDITIONS AND COMMENTS ...BY THE EDP.ORG.UK IN BRACKETS]

 

AUGUST 31-2021

 

 

 

H.F.2154/A/3
 

Letting in migrants to work is self-defeating
- says Migrationwatch.

 

Daily Mail

Monday, 2rd May, 2005

Home Affairs Correspondent

Matthew Hickley

 

PLANS by the Government to fill hundreds of thousands of UK jobs through mass immigration are doomed to failure, a report warns.

 

Economic migration into Britain has soared to record levels in recent years, and Labour claims in its election manifesto that the foreign workers are needed to fill 600,000 vacancies in the job market.

 

But the latest study by the Independent think-tank Migrationwatch claims the influx from abroad will simply prove ‘self-defeating.

 

Raising the population simply adds to demand for more services and more labour and in the end creates an ‘insatiable demand for immigration’, it says.

 

Migrationwatch’s chairman former British ambassador Sir Andrew Green, called on ministers to curb immigration levels to compensate foe the millions of eastern Europeans who are free to settle and work in Britain following the EU’s expansion a year ago. Between 2001 and 2004, he said, almost 500,000 immigrants came to the UK - and yet the number of job vacancies actually increased.

 

‘This confirms the view that, in an economy operating close to capacity, there will always be some labour shortages.

‘They will not be ‘filled’ by East Europeans, as the new immigrants will also add to demand.’

 

The influx of cheap foreign labour also discourages employers from investing in Britain’s own workforce-at a time when there are seven million economically inactive people in the UK, 1.5 million of whom want work.

 

Sir Andrew said:

‘Employers are laughing all the way to the bank, but it is the taxpayer who foots the bill for the additional infrastructure required for the extra population as large scale immigration has a substantial impact of population growth and congestion.’

 

Within eight months of the new eastern European states joining the EU last May 2004 around 130,000 foreign workers had registered to work in Britain- ten times the figure the Home Office expected in the first year.

 

Coupled with a record 181,000 work permits granted to immigrants last year, that means

more than 300,000

foreign workers

were allowed into Britain in 2004.

 

Ministers have claimed that younger migrants will help rejuvenate Britain, correcting the growing imbalance between the young and old and helping to pay the growing pensions bill.

 

Population experts have dismissed the argument as flawed, because immigrants will eventually grow older and add to the problem rather than solving it.

 

Sir Andrew said Conservative policies- to set an annual quota for immigration -are tough but carefully considered.’

 

He added:

 

‘Poll after poll shows that a large majority believe that immigration should be reduced - but so far their views have been ignored.’

 

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

 

* * *

MAY/05

[IN SEPTEMBER 2021 WE CAN SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED-ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

*

H.F.1424/B227
 
 

A RETURN OF A MUSLIM EXODUS TO  EUROPE AND BEYOND-A FAITH VOID IN THE

WESTERN WORLD IS NOW BEING FILLED BY MECCA, AND THAT POWER COULD RULE THE EARTH?]

 

 
 

 

Muslim population in parts of Europe could TRIPLE by 2050:

 New study predicts migration and birth rates will lead to

dramatic rise in numbers across continent
  • Muslims making up total population of Britain could rise from 6.3 to 17.2 per cent
  • As of 2016, the UK's share of Muslims was recorded at 6.3 per cent of the country
  • Muslims average 13 years younger than other Europeans and have high birth rate

By Alexander Robertson For Mailonline

November 29, 2017

THE Muslim population in parts of Europe - including Britain - could triple by 2050, researchers say.

Figures in a new report suggest a stark east-west divide, with the Muslim share of the UK's population rising from 6.3 per cent in 2016 to 16.7 per cent in one scenario.

The study by the Pew Research Centre concludes that Europe's Muslim population would continue to grow over the next several decades even if immigration to the continent were halted.

Under the 'zero migration' scenario, Muslims would make up 7.4 per cent of Europe's population by 2050 compared to the 4.9 per cent they comprised last year. 

Researchers say that's mostly because the birthrate for Muslims is generally higher than for other Europeans. 

Countries including Belgium, France and Italy will see the biggest change in the 'zero migration' scenario because they have young Muslim populations. 

As of 2016, the UK's share of Muslims was recorded as 6.3 per cent, around 4.1 million people. In Europe, the total was 4.9 per cent, around 24.9 million.

In the medium migration scenario - perhaps the most likely - the UK's Muslim population would rise from 6.3 per cent to 16.7 per cent - around 13 million. 
 

The Muslim population could triple in some European countries by 2050, with the UK projected to see one of the most rapid rises throughout the continent

 

Under the 'zero migration' scenario, an estimated 30 million Muslims would make up 7.4 per cent of Europe's population by 2050 

The lowest estimate has the share rising to 9.7 per cent, and the highest 17.2 per cent. 

Experts at Pew Research Centre, in Washington, USA, modeled three scenarios for estimating the number of Muslims who would be living in Europe by 2050.

All three used a mid-2016 estimate of 25.8 million as a baseline, but assumed different future migration rates.

Under the 'zero migration' scenario, an estimated 30 million Muslims would make up 7.4 per cent of Europe's population by 2050 compared to the 4.9 percent they comprised last year.

The researchers said that is mostly because Muslims are on average 13 years younger than other Europeans and also have a higher birthrate.

The study estimates 58.8 million Muslims would account for 11.2 per cent of the population in a 'medium migration' scenario that has migration maintaining a 'regular speed'.

In the 'high migration' scenario, the study projects that the record flow of migrants who came to Europe between 2015 and 2016 would continue indefinitely, resulting in 75 million Muslims in Europe, a 14 per cent increase, by the middle of the century.
 

Muslims are seen offering Eid al-Adha prayers in a convention centre in Marseille, southern France

 

Demonstrators display signs with crossed mosques during a protest in front of a mosque in Berlin, Germany

EU pledges £39bn to limit mass migration from Africa to Europe 
 

Jean-Claude Juncker (pictured), the European Commission president

The European Union has pledged £39billion to Africa by 2022 amid reports of slave trading in Libya.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, said the best way to tackle mass migration out of Africa was to rebuild the continent's economy. 

Libya agreed with key EU and African leaders to allow up to 20,000 migrants facing abuse in detention camps to be evacuated within days or weeks.

The decision was taken after Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara called for 'all urgent measures' to end slave trading and other migrant abuses in Libya at an EU-Africa summit in Abidjan, the capital city of the Ivory Coast. 

The summit comes just two weeks after US network CNN aired footage of black Africans sold as slaves in Libya, sparking outrage from political leaders and street protests in African and European capitals. 

African Union, European Union and United Nations officials at the meeting offered increased support for the International Organisation of Migration 'to help with the return of the Africans who want it to their home countries'.

Even with the most immigration, Muslims would 'still be considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe,' the researchers concluded.

Muslim immigrants have been a politically sensitive topic in Europe following the influx of newcomers in 2015 and 2016.

Some countries have seen backlashes that have included populist parties campaigning on anti-Islam messages.

The study was based on census and survey data, population registers, immigration data and other sources.

The 30 countries it covered include the 28 European Union members, plus Norway and Switzerland.

Not all countries would be affected evenly by future immigration, according to the Pew report.

In the high migration scenario, Germany and Sweden would have the biggest increases because both countries took in the most asylum-seekers during the height of the refugee crisis two years ago.

While Muslims made up six per cent of Germany's population last year, their proportion would go up to 20 percent by 2050.

Sweden's Muslims, who were at eight per cent in 2016, would account for 31 per cent of the population in that same scenario.

Meanwhile, some countries that had comparatively few Muslim residents in 2016 would continue to have few by 2050 in all three scenarios.
 

Muslims pray in the street for Friday prayer in Paris. Thousands of faithful pray each Friday in the Paris streets due to the lack of mosques


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5130617/Study-Europes-Muslim-population-grow-migration-not.html#ixzz50O5eWcEO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

November 29, 2017

 

 

H.F.1403
 
 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 2

AUGUST 2005

THE FOUNDING OF ISLAM

 

Islam as founded in the seventh century AD by Abdul-Kasim Mohammed ibn Abd Allah. Mohammed was born in  Mecca in Arabia in 570 AD and was a member of the Quraish tribe, who worshipped the moon-god, 'Al-ilah', and a variety of other pagan deities. Orphaned at an early age, he was brought up by his uncle. Abu Talib.  He married his first wife, Khadija, when he was 25 and she 40. She was the widow of a rich merchant in whose caravan Mohammed was travelling and the pair became devoted to each other. With his wealth and travelling lifestyle, he acquired some knowledge of both Judaism and Christianity.  In 610 AD, Mohammed claimed to have had a vision of what he believed was the angel Gabriel. Mohammed was an intelligent man but he could not read or write, so he had scribes write down that and further visions.  In time these became the Quran, in which was developed the monotheistic concept of Allah as an omnipotent creator who alone was to be worshipped.

Not surprisingly, Mohammed's insistence, in the words of the Quran that "No god is there but the one Allah" (Sura 38:65), set he and his small band of followers against the majority in Mecca.  The pagan Ka'aba shrine in Mecca was an important focus for pilgrimage. the tourism industry was important even then and vital to Mecca.  The incident of the 'Satanic Verses' which established the principle of 'Naskh' (qv) made life even more uncomfortable for Mohammed.

In 620 AD, following the sudden deaths of both his first wife and his uncle and protector, Mohammed found himself and the Hashemite clan of which he was a member coming under a degree of persecution in Mecca.  He quickly married another widow, Sawda, and shortly afterwards married a girl named Ayesha. her father, Abu Bakr, was devoted to Mohammed and would emerge as first caliph,(successor to Mohammed). Mohammed further married Hafsah, daughter of Umar, second caliph, Mohammed's daughter or step-daughter Umm Kulthum married third caliph Uthman, and Mohammed's certain daughter Fatima by his first wife Khadijah was married to his cousin Ali, the fourth caliph.  (Shi-ite Muslims believe only Ali was a true caliph.) Mohammed went on to marry another twelve women, but none bore him surviving children. His three sons, two born by Kadijah and one of his concubine Mary the Copt, all died in infancy.

 

 

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

H.F.1711/2

 
 

IMMIGRATION

[THERE ARE A GREAT MANY BULLETINS  ON THIS SUBJECT GOING BACK TO 2004.  WE ARE SHOWING JUST A FEW TO REMIND YOU THAT SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS-THE GANG OF THREE - CREATED THIS NATION DESTROYING AGENDA UNDER THE COVER OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS MONSTROUS TYRANNY ON

 MAY 7-2015]

THE VEIL-THE CROSS-A VITAL DEBATE over the HEART and SOUL of our NATION***

THE MAKING OF LONDONISTAN***

 

MULTICULTURALISM is. NO LONGER RIGHT for [ENGLAND]

ENGLAND is SECOND to HOLLAND as the MOST CROWDED country in EUROPE***

 

ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN PC BLAIRDOM

 

RACE RELATIONS CHIEF RECONFIRMS DISASTER OF MULTICULTURALISM AND OTHER RACE DOGMAS

 

IMMIGRATION WATCH uncovers CHAOS in IMMIGRATION and ASYLUM POLICY**

ZEALOTS  in our Midst***

 

MULTICULTURALISM, NOT ONLY A FRAUD-BUT ALSO DANGEROUS***

 

How could a MULTICULTURAL [ENGLAND] BRITAIN WORK***

 

1.2 MILLION

IMMIGRANTS LET IN BY NEW LABOUR SINCE 1998 [2005] 3.5 MILLION +at least- the latest information***

 

MULTICULTURAL POLICES HAVE EFFECTIVELY DIVIDED THE POPULATION INTO ETHNIC AND FAITH COMMUNITIES***

 

MULTICULTURALISM, NOT ONLY A FRAUD-BUT ALSO DANGEROUS***

 

IMMIGRATION-The BETRAYAL of BRICK LANE by MULTICULTURALISM instead of INTEGRATION***

 

80% of MIGRANTS ARE a NET DRAIN on our ECONOMY***

 

QUIT [ENGLAND] BRITAIN IF YOU WANT SHARIA LAW-says TREVOR PHILLIPS***

 

THERE ARE RADICAL ELEMENTS OF ALL KINDS IN OUR SOCIETY AND RADICAL ISLAM IS ONE.***

 

ALLOW TOO MANY PEOPLE IN AND THE JOY OF BEING [ENGLISH] IS LESSONED FOR EVERYONE.***

 

SYSTEMATIC BRAINWASHING OF MUSLIMS BY THEIR LEADERS IS COMMON PLACE***

 

ENGLAND A MONOCULTURE-TOLERANT-NOT MULTICULTURAL***

 

WHY NO QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE AFTER REAL RACISM REVEALED IN MOSQUES?***

 

FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS MUSLIM EXTREMIST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TAUGHT BRITISH MUSLIMS TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE WEST***

 

LETTING IN MIGRANTS TO WORK IS SELF-DEFEATING-SAYS MIGRATIONWATCH***

 

75% OF POLL SAYS TOO MANY MIGRANTS ARE COMING INTO OUR COUNTRY***

 

IMMIGRATION FLOOD 'FUELING MORE HOSTILITY***

 

HOW AN ASIAN IMMIGRANT BECAME [ENGLISH] BRITISH BECAUSE SHE CHOSE TO LIVE WHERE HER FRIENDS WERE WHITE - SO HAD TO LEARN ENGLISH.***'

 

 

A PLEA FOR INTEGRATION-Please Miss we don't like that sort of thing-we're [now] ENGLISH.***

 

 

 

WHY WE MUST BE FIRM WITH MUSLIM EXTREMISTS AND WHY CITIZENSHIP MEANS FULL INTEGRATION.***

 

 

 

MULTICULTURALISM ISN'T WORKING SAYS NOBEL PRIZE WRITER.***

 

IMMIGRATION FILE

*

GIVE THE POLITICALLY - CORRECT GANG OF THREE

THE FRIGHT OF A LIFETIME BY VOTING FOR UKIP TO GET US OUT OF NAZI-INSPIRED EU AND CLOSE THE FLOOD GATES AND ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO REFUSE TO INTEGRATE TO LEAVE.

 

MARCH 21-2015

H.F.730
 

Library books saying it's OK to beat your wife if she refuses sex are among misogynistic material found in Islamic schools across Britain

  • Ofsted has put together a file of the worst examples of discrimination and sexism its inspectors found in schools

  • Among the books they found was one titled 'women who deserve to go hell'

  • One school Ofsted visited encouraged children to read a text that contrasted the 'noble women of the East' with the 'internally torn woman of the West'

  • The findings comes as Muslims girls wearing the hijab in primary schools will be quizzed as to why by inspectors 

By Thomas Burrows for MailOnline

 November 28,2017

 

Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector, has said she wants to ensure that children at religious schools are prepared for 'life in modern Britain'

Library books claiming hell is mostly full of women because they are 'ungrateful to their husbands' have been found in Islamic schools, it has emerged.

Ofsted has put together a file of the worst examples of discrimination and sexism its inspectors found in schools.

Among the library books they found was one titled 'women who deserve to go hell' which claimed it was wrong for wives to show 'ingratitude to their husband' or have 'tall ambitions'. 

And it advises pupils: 'In the beginning of the 20th century, a movement for the freedom of women was launched with the basic objective of driving women towards aberrant ways.'

The book was written by Egyptian preacher Mansoor Abdul Hakim.  

Other books said in a Muslim marriage 'the wife is not allowed to refuse sex to her husband' or 'leave the house where she lives without his permission' while boys and girls were taught the 'man by way of correction can also beat her'. 

One school Ofsted visited encouraged children to read a text that contrasted the 'noble women of the East' with the 'internally torn woman of the West'.

It claimed western women attract men and hang around aimlessly in cinemas and cafés. 

The materials came from state-funded schools as well as private faith schools and those running illegally as under-the-radar madrassas without registering with the government.

Inspectors also claimed teachers said that women had a responsibility 'only to bear children and bring them up as Muslims', The Times reported. 

In a box entitled 'daily life and relationships', a pupil had written that men are 'physically stronger' and women are 'emotionally weaker'.

The worksheet was covered in approving red ticks from the teacher. 

Ofsted insiders said the discovery of the books made for 'uncomfortable reading'.  

There are 177 Muslim schools in England, of which 148 are independent, and the rest state-funded.

The Department for Education has been contacted for comment. 

The findings comes as Muslims girls wearing the hijab in primary schools will be quizzed as to why by inspectors.
 
 

The findings by Ofsted comes as Muslims girls wearing the hijab in primary schools will be quizzed as to why by inspectors (file picture)

Head of Ofsted Amanda Spielman said creating an environment where Muslim children are expected to wear the headscarf 'could be interpreted as sexualisation of young girls'.   

It comes after it was revealed a fifth of 800 primary schools now list the headscarf in their uniform policy.

This is despite the fact a hijab is usually only worn by young women after puberty and in front of men for modesty reasons - not by primary school children.

Campaigners have said it should be 'fiercely resisted' and claimed it could 'sexualise' young children. 

Aisha Ali-Khan, a Muslim feminist campaigner and a teacher for 13 years, told MailOnline: 'The hijab should be banned from primary schools but local authorities are afraid of causing offence to the Muslim community and afraid of being branded as racist.

'A headscarf or hijab, is usually worn by girls who have reached puberty, to prevent unwanted sexual advances from men.

'How can a four or five year old child make an informed choice? It's not allowed in Islam so why is it being allowed in schools? You should only do something if you want to and understand the concept behind it.

'But the local authorities are too scared to go back and our government has allowed this to be part of the school policy and that's wrong. They are allowing decisions to be made by schools and local authorities which is worrying and they are trying to wash their hands of all responsibility.'

Gina Khan, a children's rights campaigner in Birmingham, added: 'Schools are allowing it because they are afraid of being called Islamophobic and they have been told that this is a religious garment - but they need to support Muslim girls to have free choices, not to be set apart from other children.' 

But the Muslim Council of Britain said Ofsted's policy was 'deeply worrying'.

Secretary general Harun Khan said: 'It is deeply worrying that Ofsted has announced it will be specifically targeting and quizzing young Muslim girls who choose to wear the headscarf.

'It sends a clear message to all British women who adopt this that they are second-class citizens, that while they are free to wear the headscarf, the establishment would prefer that they do not.'

He added that many British Muslims who wear the headscarf have done 'extremely well' in education.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5125623/Books-saying-OK-beat-wife-Islamic-schools.html#ixzz500TscQny
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook 

NOVEMBER 28,2016

 

H.F.1398
 
 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 14/1

AUGUST 2005

ORIGINS OF MODERN MUSLIM TERRIORISM

Islamic terrorism in its present form can trace its roots to the foundation of Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 in Egypt.  Previous historical events were Britain's promise of a Arab homeland to T.E Lawrence's Arab army in 1916-17, the way Britain and France were meanwhile dividing up the middle east in the Sykes Picot Agreement of 1916., which meant the promise given to and by Lawrence was worthless, the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by Allenby in 1917, the end of the Ottoman Califate when the modern state of Turkey was established in 1924, the setting up of the Turkish Grand National Assemble or Parliament and British occupation of Egypt.  These all contributed to the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood.  In the 1940's one of its leaders, the Egyptian literary critic Sayd Qutb, spent two years in America, an experience which turned him solidly against the West in general. Before his execution in Egypt in 1966, he wrote a book entitled 'Milestone' which is available on the internet at YoungMuslims Canada.

It was Qutb who developed the modern ideas of Jihad, and writing about Sura 9:111 and Allah's bargain fo the Shahid, he chids those who will not accept it: "The deal fills us with awe. Yet those who are claiming to be Muslims everywhere...are sitting idle, unwilling to strive hard in order to establish the fundamental truth of Allah's Lordship on earth, or to remove the tyranny which usurps the qualities of Lordship over human life on earth [ie non-islamic governments].  They are unwilling to fight, kill and be killed in Allah's cause."Outb reminds jihadists that they should rejoice in the bargain, just as the Quran says the followers of Mohammed did: "Ye did indeed wish for death before ye met him" (Sura 3:143). He asserts that they should hope for death in battle, and encourages modern mujihadeen to seek death in nthe worldwide jihad- or 'struggle' - to impose Islam and eliminate its enemies.

According to the NubaSurvival website, Qurb, the Indo-Pakistani radical Abu al-Ala Al Mawdudi and the Ayatollah Imam Khomeini were the three prime sources of modern militant Islamic theocratic ideology. Mawdudi saw Western morality as barbarian, and argued for the imposition of an Islamic state. Khomeini told a conference of Islamic clerics in 1981: "Quran says kill, imprison. Why are you only clinging to the part that talks of mercy?" He said: Those who know nothing bof Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those {who] say [this] are witless. Islam says: Kill al the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!... Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword."

Quarb saw unrestrained capitalism, individualism, promiscuity, decadence and globalisation as threats to Islam, rather as we might see them as threats to Christianity.  His answer was to revive the old ideas of expansion, and to propose, contrary to Arab nationalists, that the homeland Muslims should fight for not a piece of land but the whole Dar-al-islam. It followed that any part of the world which hampered the spread of Islam or failed to operate Sha'ria was Dar-al-Harb.  Another member of the Muslim Brotherhood was Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian university professor who became the mentor of Osama Bin Laden.  Bin Laden himself is said to be or have been a members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but with so many other connections to the Brotherhood, it hardly matters.

So islamic terrorism is relatively new, but the intellectuals who have developed it have built it on foundations which are solidly in the Quran and Hadith.

 

*  *  *

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

H.F.1711/14/1

 
 

Quit Britain if you want Sharia Law says Trevor Phillips.

 

*

Daily Mail

Monday, February 27, 2006

 

By

 

Steve Doughty

Social Affairs Correspondent

 

 

MUSLIMS WHO WANT TO LIVE UNDER ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS LAW SHOULD LEAVE BRITAIN

 

-the head of the Race Equality Watchdog said yesterday.

 

The country must have one set of laws decided by Parliament and anyone who wants something different should ‘live somewhere else’, Trevor Phillips said.

 

The warning from the Chief of the Commission for Racial Equality followed a survey, which found that four out of ten British Muslims would like to see Shariah Law -Islamic religious law -enforced in districts where they are in a majority.

 

His remarks in an interview on ITV’s Jonathan Dibble programme suggest he believes that large numbers of Muslims are failing to integrate into British society.

 

Mr Phillips has run into controversy recently by rejecting the Left-wing doctrine of

MULTICULTURALISM

 

-and warning that, in some areas, Britain is ‘sleepwalking to segregation’.

 

Yesterday he said everyone who lives here should have a sense of Britishness.

 

He said of the idea of Shariah Law in Muslim-dominated communities:

 

‘I don’t think that conceivable.’

 

‘We have one set of laws.

 

They are decided by one group of people, members of Parliament and that’s the end of the story. If you want to have laws decided in another way, you have to live somewhere else.

 

Mr Phillips also said that ‘some minorities’ should accept that freedom expression meant that people had a right to give offence.

 

He said the right to give offence was ‘absolutely precious’ and added:

 

‘What some minorities have to accept is that there are certain central things we all agree about, which are about the way we treat each other -that we have an attachment to democracy, that we sort things out by voting not by violence and intimidation, that we tolerate things that we don’t like.

 

‘Short of people menacing and threatening each other, we have freedom of expression.

 

We allow people to offend each other.’

 

The same, he said, applied to Muslim preachers who should be free to give offence to gay pressure groups by condemning homosexuality.

 

‘One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is.’

 

[Sir Ian Blair and his ilk we hope are taking in these precious words of wisdom and remain silent in the future in matters that do NOT concern them allowing more police time to catch the burglars -murderers and other violent criminals who have never had it so good when they see the police wasting their time on THOUGHT CRIMES which are no crimes at all]

To continue:

 

Mr Phillips said:

 

‘That’s why I believe that freedom of expression -including Muslim leaders’ right to say they think homosexuality is harmful -is absolutely precious.

 

‘Once we start to limit freedom of expression, the people who suffer most are minorities.’

 

Mr Phillips has managed to offend a number of former allies in the Labour Party and on the Left in recent months with his attack on the

 

MULTICULTURALISM

 

-that has underpinned Government thinking since Tony Blair came to power.

 

The CRE chief has said everyone in the country should speak English and that the development of cultural groups with their own languages and districts threatens to create a segregated society.

 

The Muslim Council of Britain said last night that Mr Phillips was wrong to think many Muslims wanted to see Shariah Law in this country.

 

Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said:

 

‘I don’t believe Muslims are really calling for the implementation of Shariah Law. The findings of the poll highlights, in our opinion, the importance many attach to living by a code of conduct derived from Islamic teachings.’

 

He added:

 

‘British Muslims-like other communities -fully appreciate the value of

 

FREE SPEECH.’

 

* * *

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

MAR/06

 

H.F. 2154/A/1
 
 
     
 
MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN
  
     
     
 

The Muslim cleric who blames British mosques for the 7/7 bombings, says multiculturalism is a disaster and would throw Islamic fanatics out

By

 Richard Pendlebury
 on 30th April 2009

 

You can usually find at least one in any saloon bar, ready to give you the benefit of their peppery views on the parlous state of Britain today.
 

This particular example is a clean shaven, middle-aged man with the de rigueur attire of carefully knotted mustard tie and blue, golf club-style blazer.
 

Brass cuff buttons flash as he pounds an angry fist on to his knee.
 

 

7/7

Terror: The bus destroyed in the 7/7 London bombings

'I will give £5 to anyone in Britain who wants to live under Sharia law,' he declares. 'It will help pay for their ticket to Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, or wherever it is customary to live under Sharia law.

'Please, please go and leave us alone. This is Britain, not 10th century Arabia!'

We are indeed sitting in a bar, on a busy main road in Oxford.
 

But the man before me is no stereotypical Islamophobe.
 

For one, he is sipping a glass of water rather than something more inflammatory.
 

More importantly, though by no means obviously, Dr Taj Hargey is himself an Islamic cleric; perhaps the most controversial imam in Britain today.
 

In an age when the highest-profile Muslim preachers are bearded, anti-Western firebrands such as Abu Hamza or Omar Bakri Dr Hargey seems an anomaly.
 

He does not care much for male facial hair. He believes that women can be both seen and heard, even in a mosque at Friday prayers.
 

And don't even get him started on the sort of fanatics who blow up London buses, or the poisonous teachings that inspired them.
 

After three men were cleared this week on charges of assisting the July 7 bombers, there have been calls for an inquiry into blunders made by the security services.
 

But Dr Hargey has little doubt who, and what, is truly to blame for unleashing such terrorism on our streets.
 

 

'It is the extremist ideology present in many UK mosques which is the cement behind nihilistic plots such as this,' he says. 'They are twisting Islam.'

Muslim

Violence: Dr Taj Hargey deplores fanatics such as the suicide bombers who targeted London

He has little or no time for the Government's 'pussyfooting' policy of encouraging multiculturalism.
 

'That is the biggest disaster to happen to Britain since World War II,' he says. 'It has given the extremist mullahs the green light for radicalism and segregation. We have to, we must, adjust to British society. And we can do so without losing our faith.'
 

Hardly surprisingly, such statements have made him wildly unpopular among those who adhere to the brand of ultra-conservative Saudi-funded Wahhabi Islam which currently makes most noise in Britain and around the world.
 

Certainly, if you Google Dr Hargey's name you will find him vilified as a 'charlatan' on any number of Islamic website forums.
 

In return, he is quite happy to describe his critics as 'fanatics'. Recently, one hostile publication went too far.
 

When we meet, Dr Hargey, 56, is still basking in the glow of his successful libel action against the English-language Muslim Weekly newspaper, which had accused him of being a heretic.
 

Earlier this month it agreed to pay him a five-figure sum and issue a grovelling apology, which was a little more esoteric than most heard in the High Court.
 

It stated: 'Dr Taj Hargey has never subscribed to, belonged to or been affiliated with any sect or minority group, religious or otherwise. On the contrary, Dr Hargey has consistently and openly reiterated his unconditional belief in the absolute finality of prophethood in Islam and Mohammed (peace and blessings upon him) as God's last prophet and final messenger.'
 

Afterwards, the cleric described the case as a 'watershed moment' in the battle between 'progressives' such as himself and what he called the 'Muslim McCarthyists', after the U.S. senator who accused opponents of being communist and 'un-American' with little or no evidence. 

 

Muslim

Headscarves: Dr Hargey says they are not necessary

But despite his victory, or perhaps because of it, when his phone rings now it is still almost as likely to be an anonymous death threat as a request for spiritual guidance.
 

Certainly more people hate him than follow him.
 

'The masses have been brainwashed by the mullahs,' he says.
 

Which begs the question: can this intellectual Oxford imam really succeed with his ambition to lead a 'reformation' of British Islam? Or will medieval orthodoxy triumph in the end?
 

Dr Hargey was born and raised in apartheid- era South Africa. The racist state classified him as 'coloured', a second-class citizen. 

One of eight children, his father was a supermarket packer; his mother illiterate.
 

But Hargey was a natural scholar and destined for a better, if consistently controversial, existence.
 

His first battles were against the Pretoria government, rather than fundamentalists from his own faith. 

'The masses have been brainwashed by the mullahs'

The attention he received from the South African security services prefigured the intimidation and intolerance he says he receives from British extremists today: 'I was an anti-apartheid fighter, against institutionalised racism. 

'For me, Islam was a liberating vehicle for attaining justice on this Earth. I was pursued then by the South African secret police, so why should I fear these people now?'
 

Hargey attained his doctorate in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies from Oxford University. His thesis was on the slave trade in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.
 

Back home, his CV shows that he taught history at the University of Cape Town before relocating to the U.S. in the 1980s to drum up funds for a projected South African-based anti-apartheid newspaper.
 

It is there that his efforts ran into his first experience of widely reported criticism, as allegations were made about his money-raising efforts.
 

'Prophet or Phoney?' was one newspaper headline, which, according to his critics, could equally apply to his current endeavours.
 

Whether these smears had any substance is unclear, although his combative approach has clearly attracted, if not invited, brickbats for the best part of a quarter of a century.
 

Nevertheless, he did hold down a number of academic posts in the United States, not least of which was a spell teaching African studies at the Sarah Lawrence University in New York State, alma mater of Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's White House Chief of Staff.
 

His latest venture is the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford, of which he is founding chairman.
 

Abu

Firebrand cleric: Abu Hamza

 

Dr Hargey also leads the city's Summertown Islamic congregation. 'The most progressive pulpit in the land, from which we do everything in English except prayer,' he states.
 

From a borrowed Masonic hall rather than a dedicated mosque, his enemies sneer.
 

The ideological core of his opposition towards the fashionable Islamic fundamentalists lies in his rejection of the absolute importance of hadith and Sharia law.
 

To explain, the Koran is the teaching of Allah, handed down to the Prophet Mohammed.
 

The hadiths, meanwhile, comprise the sayings and actions of Mohammed, as recorded by others, some time after his death.
 

For many Muslims, the hadiths are a fundamental guide and part of their faith. For Hargey, they are often unreliable and an obstacle to the integration of Islam into contemporary society. He believes the Koran is all.
 

'This is a big fight for the hearts and minds of Islam. There is nothing in the Koran which is incompatible with (living in) British society, unlike what I call "Mullah Islam" and their reliance on hadiths.'
 

And so he explains his position: 'These people say they have a right to stone adulterous women. We say show us where it says that in the Koran.
 

'The Koran must have precedence. It must be sovereign. Everything else is supplementary or subservient. All that stuff about jihad, women's rights, apostasy, all these issues come from the hadiths.
 

'We do not say get rid of the hadiths. But we do say that every hadith must pass two litmus tests.
 

First, it must not conflict with the Koran. Second, it must not conflict with reason or logic.
 

'One of the hadiths, for example, says the majority of people in Hell will be women. But let's do a forensic examination of this. First, let's look at the fact that 88 per cent of crimes are committed by men rather than women.
 

'How then, logically, can there be more women in Hell? Theologically, the Koran says that every human irrespective of gender will be rewarded for what they did and punished for what they did not.'
 

Of Sharia law he is even more dismissive. 'The Koran is clear that blasphemy is dealt with in the next life by God. The Sharia, meanwhile, is a medieval compilation of religious opinion which is not immutable, not eternal.
 

'How can we be dependant on 10th-11th-century jurists and scholars? It makes no sense.'
 

He also wants Muslims to integrate more with mainstream Britain.
 

'The (Muslim) reaction to 9/11 was to withdraw. I think the best way is to go out and belong. 

'I love this country, I follow Spurs and I go to the pub, if only to drink orange juice'

'If you met me walking down the street, for example, would you know I am a Muslim? No.
 

'I know I am a Muslim in my heart and my actions, not in my beard or the niqab face mask. The niqab only comes from a hadith and even that only refers to the Prophet's wives. This is a big fight for the hearts and minds of Islam. There is nothing in the Koran that is incompatible with (living in) British society.'
 

Of the cries of 'heretic' to which he is frequently subjected, he argues: 'Faith is between the person and God. No one can pronounce you a heretic (in Islam) and I think that is a wonderful thing.
 

'But we do need a reformation in Islam. We have to go back to the pristine principles in our faith. We need a British Islam and by that I do not mean a compromise.
 

'Christianity was once an alien faith. We have to integrate in a matter of decades rather than centuries.'
 

But what of the accusations that he is simply a State stooge? This angers him.
 

'I have called for Bush and Blair to be indicted at the international criminal court for their wars. What kind of stooge does that make me? 

'We have a multicultural community of men and women, including converts. We are not fanatics and appeal to a very broad constituency. We do not appeal to those who have been brainwashed by the mullahs.
 

These people refuse to debate with me and instead send their minions to do their dirty work on the internet or via anonymous phone calls. We get death threats, intimidation and blackmail tactics. But it does not dissuade us.
 

'Our group is based on the "Three Es": Enlightenment, Egalitarianism and Erudition.
 

But the Government, with its anti-terrorist strategy, has never contacted us, even though we say violence and suicide bombing are against the faith.
 

'What a mistake. In this city we have the Wahhabi-backed Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies. It preaches the most repressive and egregious theology.
 

'We want to establish an Oxford Centre for British Islam. We will have a mosque and the leader could be either male or female.'
 

So, for example, he has supported a state school which banned the niqab, much to the fury of his Muslim foes.
 

And last October he hosted the appearance in Oxford of Professor Amina Wadud, a female Islamic academic, who gave a sermon at Friday prayers before a mixed-gender congregation, which was anathema to the extremists.
 

Dr Hargey says: 'She is the undisputed authority on women in the Koran. We invited this heavyweight intellectual and the people who made the most protest outside our prayer hall were women dressed in niqabs who had been brainwashed by their menfolk.
 

'It was like the time of Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes agitating for the vote.
 

'Then, many of the women were conditioned to think their behaviour a scandal. Now look at all those women walking past us who have the vote and think nothing of it.'
 

He also frowned on the recent extremist demonstration against the troops parading through Luton.
 

'While we feel it was an illegal war, you cannot punish the average squaddie for what is done in the name of New Labour and that toxic Texan.
 

'Yes, the war was wrong, but you cannot call soldiers murderers, or cowards. My life's work is to make British Muslims integrated.'
 

He is also utterly dismissive of the Muslim Council of Britain, which until the Government's recent reversal of policy, was the state's contact point with British Islam.
 

'They are Indo-Pakistani and sexist,' he says. 'It's a reactionary group, infused with the repressive ideology of the Wahhabis.
 

'If we go along their path we will have a ghetto mentality, segregated and giving our enemies such as the British National Party the opportunity to target us like the Jews in the 1930s. Isolation is our greatest peril.'
 

For the record, he supported BNP leader Nick Griffin's recent appearance at an Oxford Union debate, although he certainly did not endorse his views.
 

'We should not silence him. We should expose him.
 

'I love this country, I follow Spurs and I go to the pub, if only to drink orange juice. I am also a Muslim. But I am not a threat. If people like me are smothered then we will all sleep less safely in our beds.
 

'These people are religious fascists. The view that Islam is incompatible with British society is something that the Muslim Council of Britain and their hangers- on have promulgated.'
 

And with that, he adjusts the knot in his mustard tie, drains the last drop of his (non-alcoholic) drink and leaves the bar.
 

He may be a deeply controversial imam. But he is undoubtedly a brave one.

 

 

Print this article Print this article

*

 [Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining used-Comments in Brackets]

 

APRIL-2009

  
     
 

 
 

A REMINDER FROM JUNE-2007-THE SITUATION IN 2021 WILL BE EVEN MORE DIRE WITH RICHES FOR THE FEW PAID FOR BY THE MANY!

 

 

You've Been QUANGOED!

by

Leo McKinstry

JUNE/07

 

[Daily Mail -Campaign]

*

SET BRITAIN

FREE!

 

Costing billions -unelected and packed with cronies obsessed with enforcing a liberal agenda-QUANGOS define the Blair decade.

 

PUBLIC faith in politics has never been lower than it is today. And ,as the Mail is highlighting in

IT's 'Set Britain FREE'

campaign

-a central reason for this process of disillusion is that we no longer feel we have much control over those who govern us.

Democracy is failing badly because our votes are rapidly becoming an irrelevance. The influence of the ballot box over civic rulers is rapidly diminishing.

The onward march of European integration is a key element in this process, whereby our national sovereignty is being destroyed by the elite of the

EU COMMISSION

But equally important, I believe is the phenomenal growth of the

QUANGO STATE

-which has resulted in large swathes of our public life being taken over by unaccountable - self-selecting bodies.

Across our whole society, whether it be in

EDUCATION

ECONOMY

OR

ENVIRONMENT

-major decisions are not taken by [accountable] politicians but by shadowy commissioners, who owe their positions to

GOVERNMENT PATRONAGE

-rather than popular support

Indeed, there are direct parallels between the rise of the quango-cracy and the increasing power of the

EUROPEAN UNION.

BOTH are unelected. BOTH are obsessed with pursuing an agenda of political correctness. BOTH are destructively wasteful and contemptuous of the needs of the taxpayer.

 

Wallowing in self-satisfaction, both see then selves as [progressive and are inclined to sneer at attitudes of ordinary voters, who are generally regarded as dangerously reactionary, xenophobic and small-minded with their attachments to issues like the

FAMILY and NATIONHOOD

 

Undemocratic

 

So how have QUANGOS been able to spread like bindweed, entangling everything in their path?

In opposition in the 1990's Tony Blair regularly attacked the Tory Government for expanding the influence of QUANGOS, particularly in

SOCIAL HOUSING

SCHOOLS

TRANSPORT

AND THE

NHS

But, as so often with Blair, this turned out to be a hollow rhetoric.

Blair's increase in non-elected officialdom has been on a scale far beyond anything the Conservatives achieved in their 18 years of power. The rise of the ultra-liberal quangocrat has been one of the central features of the

BLAIR DECADE

 

According to the Government's own figures, there are now

882

non-elected central government bodies, an increase of almost

300

during the past ten years.

 

These QUANGOS directly employ 90,000 staff and are spending a phenomenal

£124,000,000,000

-of

STATE FUNDS

[Taxpayers money]

-almost 4 times the amount spent on

DEFENCE

[Now we know why our troops have been needlessly dying many injured some their lives devastated for the rest of their lives because of the lack of essential protective equipment whereas our allies have realised the importance of putting the needs of the Armed Forces uppermost with their own Military Hospitals and later care for the rest of their lives.

And all this in New Labour's  obsessive mantra of

CONTROL

We are now a country divided into two camps - one a parasitic creature which devours the wealth of the nation and the other that is constantly having to make great sacrifices -even the lives and comfort of the sick-the infirm and the elderly because of the excessive waste of resources on patronage.]

Among the many new organisations created by Labour have been the

Learning and Skills Council

-which has a budget of

£8.5 BILLION

(though the major employers complain, vociferously that the workplace skills have never been so poor)

[This is more than the EU REBATE which Tony Blair handed back last year of £7 BILLION and we know what the greater number of the population thought of THAT.]

The Food Standards Agency

which swallows

£143 million

-telling us (not with much success) how to avoid obesity,

The Regional Development Agencies

 

-whose biggest job creation scheme lie within their own sprawling bureaucracies.

But the real number of QUANGOS could be far higher. One recent

INDEPENDENT STUDY

-argued that the real number  of central quangos has actually risen to

2,560

-an increase of

41 per cent

-since

1997

[PATRONAGE GALORE!]

MANY ,OF COURSE ARE POINTLESS TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY.

 

Were you aware, for example that the taxes subsidise the

British Potato Council

-a body which actively promotes the eating of crisps and chips in schools?

OR

How about the

Football Licensing Authority

-whose sole purpose is 'to ensure that all spectators regardless of age, gender, ethnic origin, disability, or the team they support are able to attend sports grounds in

SAFETY

COMFORT

 AND

SECURITY?

And that's even before we address the massive extension of the network of unelected local bodies which now proliferate in modern BRITAIN, such as the plethora of

CRIME REDUCTION PARTNERSHIPS

[We have more CCTV than any other country and the greatest CRIME and the largest PRISON population and our once familiar BOBBIE -On-THE-BEAT on our streets has now become an endangered species.]

To Continue:

[There are ALSO]

HEALTHY ACTION ZONES

EXCELLENCE IN CITIES CLUSTERS

AND

NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL BOARDS

This march of the QUANGO STATE is profoundly undemocratic.  When major bodies are spending money they

SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE

-TO THE PUBLIC

  But no such mechanism exists in  

QUANGOLAND

-where the self -serving officials can carry on regardless of their failure, promoting epic incompetence

No wonder then, that many  QUANGOS

have such a shameful record.

 

THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

-for instance , has become a by-word for mismanagement -worsening the poverty of the very families it is meant to

HELP

 

Similarly, the

ASSETS RECOVERY AGENCY

-which was set up in 2003 to recover the proceeds of criminal activity, spent

£60 million

-while grabbing just

£8 million

[At a loss of

£52 million]

-from  law-breakers.

*

 

Abolished

Perhaps the best way of assessing any official body in Britain is to ask yourself whether, if it was abolished over night, we would be poorer for its absence. Well, if most of the

QUANGOS

-were abolished

TOMORROW

-the public would hardly notice, still less mourn.

The reason? much of the activities are involved in creating work for themselves

RATHER THAN DELIVERING

GENUINE SERVICES

For example, the vast new

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

which starts work in October this year through a merger of bodies like the

COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY

THE

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

AND THE

DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION

-will seek to build an atmosphere of

GRIEVANCE

-in order to justify its own existence, inventing new causes of complaints, hyping up discontent, holding over-blown summits, continually hectoring business and ordinary members of the public.

BUT New Labour loves the

QUANGO STATE

-not least because it lets it off the hook when when it comes to side-stepping public anger over its own institutional failures.

INSTEAD OF TAKING THE BLAME

NEW LABOUR CAN PASS THE BUCK TO THE

QUANGOCRATS

More important, QUANGOS have proved the  perfect vehicle for transforming the social fabric of Britain into a politically correct

NANNY STATE

-while avoiding the need for a

DEMOCRATIC MANDATE FOR CHANGE

 

Burden

This happens in two ways:

FIRST of all, the Labour Government has packed the QUANGOS with its own supporters who can be guaranteed to follow the Blairite line on key issues.

Thus leading labour member Trevor Phillips was appointed the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality;

Sue Woodford Hollick -wife of Labour media tycoon Lord Hollick is chair of the London Arts Council

Chris Smith -the former Cabinet Minister is head of the Advertising Standards Authority

Sir John Harman -ex-Labour Councillor, is boss of the Environmental Agency

 Baroness Joyce Gould the former general Secretary of the Labour Party is head of the Advisory Group on Sexual Health promoting its ultra-liberal views. Quite rightly this has led to accusations of

CRONYISM.

SECONDLY, the QUANGOS ruthlessly impose Labour's ultra-liberal agenda like

SOCIAL INCLUSION

HUMAN RIGHTS

MULTICULTURALISM

HEALTH and SAFETY

AND THE

DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY

EACH UNDERLINED WORD HAS A SEPARATE BULLETIN

*

It Is partly thanks to the

QUANGO STATE

that our modern civic order has become so

OBSESSED

WITH

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

-often at the EXPENSE of any concepts of

COMMUNITY

AND

NATIONHOOD

Take, as one example, this statement from the newly created

 

QUANGO

 

NATURAL ENGLAND

-which was set up this year to look after the

ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE

Among the stated goals of this unloved body are

'To develop and promote a diverse workforce.

-To find new ways in which we can promote

SOCIAL INCLUSION'

-and

'to apply our procurement policies to increase supplier diversity'

THIS NONSENSE

-now prevails throughout

QUANGOLAND

-increasing the cost to the

TAXPAYER

-and the regulatory burden

TO ALL OF US

 

WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH THEM?

None of us voted for the

QUANGOS

-TO TAKE OVER OUR LIVES

-nor did we all vote for the

SOCIAL REVOLUTION

THEY HAVE IMPOSED ON OUR LIVES

Surely it is time to start taking

BACK OUR POWER

 

-before we all drown under the deluge of their

SELF SERVING ACTIVITIES.

 

THE FIGHT

TO

'Set Britain FREE'

 

-SHOULD START AT THE DOOR OF THE QUANGO STATE

*          *          *

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

JUNE/07

 

[In the meantime we list past bulletins on the subject]

 

KINGS and QUEENS of  BLAIR'S QUANGOS

The COSTLIEST 50 QUANGOS -MANY WASTE YOUR MONEY  

How Blair spent £6.5 billion on 111 busybodies (QUANGOS) -NONE OF US VOTED FOR.

 

[The above bulletins are from February-2005 and therefore the situation has got considerably worse as indicted in the above essay.]

*

DISHONEST, EVASIVE, CONTEMPTIBLE

GOVERNMENT’S LATEST PROPAGANDA ON EU

[Not much has changed since we put the above bulletin on our  website in

December 2004]

 

*

 

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

 
 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM APRIL-2007

 

 

WHEN WILL WE LEARN TO STOP APPEASING TERROR

*

COMMENTARY

by

Melanie Phillips

[Daily Mail -April-2007]

 

The ending of the Al Qaeda fertiliser bomb plot trial has posed crucial questions about the competence of

MI5

In particular, the assurances we were given after the 7/7 bombings, that the perpetrators had been unknown to the

SECURITY SERVICE

-have been shown to be utterly false.

 

Disturbingly as that is by itself, the case also raises yet more pressing questions about whether Britain is even now acting effectively enough against the threat to this country from

ISLAMIST TERRORISM.

The fact is that Al Qaeda now sees Britain as both its principal target and its principal recruiting ground. By its own admission, MI5 is monitoring no fewer than 200 terrorist networks, 1,600 identified individual terrorists and 30 known terrorist plots. It says British Muslims are being indoctrinated with horrifying speed, and more terrorists are being recruited every day.

IN TRUTH, as our leading counter-terrorist police officer, Peter Clarke, said last night, this country is facing  a terrorist threat of a nature and scale it has simply

NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

This terrorism is part of a

GLOBAL HOLY WAR

-and the dreadful thing is that it is recruiting British -born boys as its foot-soldiers against their own fellow citizens.

 

When my book

LONDONISTAN

was published a year ago, my claim that we were in a state of denial about the unprecedented emergency we were facing from home-grown terrorism and extremism was dismissed in some quarters as unwarranted alarmism.

SINCE THEN

-public opinion has shifted. Many have realized that what I wrote was if anything, an understatement of the

TRUE POSITION.

BUT

-our official class is still failing to

TAKE ACTION

-that was necessary to

DEFEAT THIS THREAT

to our

WHOLE WAY OF LIFE

Certainly, it is now aware of the enormous scale of the

TERROR THREAT

But it is still fighting with

BOTH HANDS

tied behind its back. In particular, the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-continues to make effective anti-terror policy almost

IMPOSSIBLE.

 

ONLY last week , the Government was prevented from deporting two Libyan terrorist suspects, even though they came here illegally are deemed to pose a serious threat to our lives, because our judges have said no one can be sent anywhere that might not uphold their

HUMAN RIGHTS.

The Government was originally begged by our

SECURITY SERVICES

-not to pass the 1998 Human Rights Act precisely because of the danger it would pose to

NATIONAL SECURITY

-by tying us in such knots. Ministers merely dismissed their concerns.

NOW

-the same

SECURITY SERVICES

-face the nightmare that Islamist terrorists will obtain a nuclear or other dirty bomb to use against

BRITAIN

-with a

HUNAN RIGHTS LAW

-that makes it more difficult to thwart such a terrible

OUTCOME

*

 

[The solution lies with the Government who must repeal the

1998 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

and articles in the British led -

1951 Human Convention of Human Rights

they will of course prevaricate and laud the advantages of the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-until they were under attack for their illegal war in Iraq.

Any articles which a Government wished to retain could be legislated for in Parliament.]

 

Even worse than this, ministers seem to have no idea about the need to attack the ideology driving all this.

It is simply not enough to flush out the terrorist cells, vital though that clearly is. We have to defeat the ideas driving some British Muslims to commit these acts in the first place.

The Government has started paying lip-service to this. It has spoken against extremism of the

Muslim Council of  Britain

-and is encouraging a wider range of truly moderate Muslims to speak up. And a few more extremists are being arrested.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS STILL APPEASING RADICALISM.

*

[It reminds one of the typical duo police investigators of the past where one was the softy and the other the hard man. So long as they achieved their objective it had a purpose. The moderate Muslims of course as their more militant brothers and sisters provided they balance their approach will achieve their aim of a future

MUSLIM STATE RELIGION

in

ENGLAND

And their greatest helper is the Blair Government with their illegal war in Iraq which has allowed the discontented Muslim youth who have enjoyed the benefits of the diversity and human rights agenda to put their faith to the test in combating the invaders of a Muslim State.]

 It has become a cliché to say that  most British Muslims are

MODERATE

-Certainly, most of them undoubtedly would have no truck with terrorism or violence and encouragingly a growing number are speaking out against

ISLAMIST EXTREMISM.

But extremist views are not confined to a few rogue elements. Opinion polls suggest that more than

 100,000

-of our Muslim citizens think the July 2005 attacks in London were justified.

A report by the Policy Exchange think-tank revealed that around one third of British Muslims thought that if Muslims left the FAITH, they should be killed; and 37 per cent of 16-to-24-year olds wanted to live in

BRITAIN

UNDER

SHARIA rather than ENGLISH LAW

[Well as we have explained before the fault is down to those who allowed the immigration in such large numbers from Muslim countries. Were they so naive not to realise that Muslims take their FAITH most seriously and they do not compromise -why should they. They were accepted into Britain and that included their right to worship in their own way.  A knowledge of the history of the Islamic World should have given governments caution about extending citizenship to their peoples in such large numbers. But they are here and we can only hope that a firm but just policy will lead to integration and tolerance of the faiths of all who share our island home. BUT it should be understood that our past and future are coupled with our

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.

THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS MUST FIND THEIR HOME ELSEWHERE. ]

 

*

These numbers subscribing to such extremist views are deeply disturbing. They swell the sea in which terrorism swims.

If this tide is to be held back Islamist extremism in Britain must be stopped and British values reasserted and stoutly upheld. To defeat such extremism, we have to make it abundantly clear that we will not give an inch to those who want to

DESTROY OUR VALUES.

But we appear instead to be doing nothing to stop the spread of radical Islamism. Indeed, in a myriad different ways we are giving out the lethal message that we have nether the will nor the courage to

DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE.

British Muslims are being recruited in large numbers to terror because next to nothing is being done

TO STOP IT

[Well!- an immediate pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan may stem the flow because that is why the recruiting sergeants are so successful but unless this happens immediately then the flow becomes a flood.]

Last January, a Channel Four television Dispatches programme revealed that at certain mosques which were assumed to be more

moderate and which were even prominent in talking to other faiths, material was being preached and disseminated advocating such horrors as the murder of homosexuals, the beating of women and hatred of

CHRISTIANS and JEWS.

Despite the Prime Minister's promise to outlaw the radical group Hizb ut Tahrir (which believes Britain should be an Islamic State), the Government refuses to do so.

YET, Ed Husain, an extremely brave former radical who has recanted, chillingly documents in his new book

THE ISLAMIST

-the enormous influence of this group in telling countless British Muslims its duty to wage holy war, and that Muslims have a corresponding duty

TO BE PREPARED.

-to launch attacks on Britain

FROM WITHIN

 

Not only are we failing to halt the spread of such lethal extremist views, we are also failing to hold the line for

OUR OWN VALUES.

Above all else, we should absolutely refuse to countenance the spread of

SHARIA LAW

-which is not only inimical to our own deepest principles but aims to

SUPPLANT OUR OWN LAWS.

Yet we are turning a blind-eye to the steady Sharia-isation

SHARIA-ISATION

OF

OUR COUNTRY.

We have ignored the development of informal parallel SHARIA jurisdictions, enforced by SHARIA courts, in areas heavily populated by Muslims.

We have turned a blind eye to the polygamous marriages they sanction in Britain but now give extra welfare benefits to husbands settling here with

MULTIPLE WIVES

-even though bigamy is a

CRIME

Despite the fact that thousands of Muslim women are terrorised by the threat of

'Honour killings'

only a few of these horrific cases result in prosecutions - because our police are terrified of being accused of

'racism'

IF THEY PURSUE THEM.

 

Now Gordon Brown has said Britain should become the centre of global Islamic banking. But this is heavily backed by Saudi Arabia which will use it to further its objective of Islamising

THE WEST.

- and may even provide a cover for the financing of further terror.

This craven appeasement of extremism gives Islamists the unmistakable message

THAT BRITAIN IS THEIRS

-for the taking.

Thus truly moderate Muslims

ARE BETRAYED

-and all of us are put in infinitely

GREATER DANGER

-not just from

TERRORISM

-but from a

CULTURE

that still seems to be

SLEEPWALKING TO OBLIVION.

*          *          *

 

[As we have intimated in the past the mistakes were made from the very beginning by our politicians not noting the  different religious  customs which would make full

INTEGRATION IMPOSSIBLE

As a nation which had one of the largest

EMPIRES

-the world has ever seen - with a population of a quarter of the globe under our guidance.

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE

that such ignorance could have been shown to the difficulties in which large scale immigration from certain places would bring us to our present day problems and dangers.

IMMIGRATION

should be controlled with the realisation that certain immigrants are by their inability to

INTEGRATE and comply with our LAWS

-be asked to accept their responsibility of citizenship before being allowed to settle here.

For the people who from all corners of the world who have decided to make our country their home and integrate and obey our laws it is imperative that those who have no intention to comply should be refused citizenship -there can be no exceptions as in our country everyone who ever they are under the same

RULE OF LAW

to have it any other way lies the path to disorder and anarchy.]

*

LONDONISTAN

published by

Gibson Square

£8.99

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

 

*

 

All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

[Daily Mail -April-2007]

 

H.F.1246
 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

Daily Mail

Saturday, August 27, 2005

James Slack-Home Affairs Correspondent

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

He added: 

 

‘It reinforces the case for a proper policing policy’

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In Waltham Forest street robberies were up 92.7%.

 

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

 

To continue:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

To continue:

 

[Commander Foy said:]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

*         *        

 

Crime On My Doorstep

 

A correspondent to the Letters COLUMN Of the

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

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

 

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

 

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

[JULY]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

A police car eventually arrived two hours after the Attack

 

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

 

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

 

But I thought at least I’d hear something.

 

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

*

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

 

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

 

*          *          *

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

SEP/05

*  *  *

 

Brought forward from September,2005

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

GERMANY

OCTOBER 17-2017

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

H.F.1345

 
 
THE ENGLISH -

A

 MATTER OF FACT!

HISTORICAL SURVEY.

CHAPTER 1

1. Britons and Englishmen.

The people who lived in our island fifteen hundred years ago [written in1903]  were not Englishmen, nor did they speak the English Language.  When in our flights of rhetoric or poetry, we declare that we glory in the name of Britons, or sing that Britons never shall be slaves, our intentions are patriotic, but our language is apt to be misleading [Note: Gordon Brown and others of the TARTAN CLAN! ]  

Britons we may  indeed call ourselves. if in doing so we mean nothing more than this, that we are inhabitants of Britain.   But when we speak of ourselves as Britons, or as a British race, let us bear in mind such facts as these:- [Note: again!- Gordon brown]  that we are in the main of  English origin; [But for how long after 2014 is anyone's guess. ] That our English forefathers conquered the Britons, deprived them of their lands, and made many of them slaves; that the English settled in the country belonging to the Britons, and  their descendents have remained here ever since.

Firmly grasping these truths, we may, if we like apply the name Britons to our fellow-countrymen, just as we apply the name of Great britain to our country [Gordon brown-please note!]    nO DANGER OF MISCONCEPTION LURKS IN THE WORD 'britain' AS THE GEOGRAPHICAL NAME OF THE ISLAND, FOR OUR ISLAND REMAINS THE SAME: iT IS THE POPULATION WHICH HAS CHANGED. (alfred s.west,m.a.)

in an island with a land named

 ENGLAND

june-2014

H.F.156
 
DR MAX PEMBERTON

THE MIND DOCTOR

 
 Daily Mail

Monday January 31, 2022

 

TAKE it from me: seeing the same doctor saves lives.

The doctor-patient relationship is just: a relationship. And inherent to any relationship is vulnerability that trust. That's why it takes time to develop and grow. It certainly isn't formed in a one-off ten-minute consultation.

Yet, over the years, we've seen a shift that has meant we've moved away from doctors actually getting to know their patients and understanding and developing a real relationship with them, to patients never seeing the same doctor more than once.

Increasingly seeing a doctor has been reduced to sitting in front of someone who barely looks up from their keyboard before issuing you a prescription.

What a dreadful, diminished experience that is. It completely denies all the evidence that shows the extraordinary value of a trusted doctor-patient relationship.  Sure, it might be OK for an ear infection, but  what about when things are a little more complicated?

 A study was published last week that looked at patients with dementia who were regularly seen by the same doctor - and it discovered something rather surprising.

Those who were seen by a GP who knew them, and had a relationship wuith them were ten per cent less likely to be hospitalised. This wasn't because the doctors were negligent in some way: quite the opposite.

It was because the doctors who really knew their patients could see that something was wrong and treated them before things escalated and they needed a hospital admission. Those GP's were able to act proactively precisely because they knew their patient so well...

 

...Had I not known my patient so well and I had felt unable to stand my ground with her, I dread to think what would have happened.

For me, this is what being a doctor is really about: it's about a relationship with the patient as much as the medicine.

But you cannot develop this relationship when patients are increasingly being dealt with as though they are on a conveyor belt, seeing whichever doctor happens to be free.

MEDICINE ISN'T ABOUT SIGNS - SYMPTOMS AND DIAGNOSIS

 IT'S ABOUT PEOPLEM

We seem to have forgotten this, and in the process, risk losing something incredibly valuable.

.

Full Article

*  *  *

[WE WOULD ADD!-That doctors should always take their patients into their full confidence - rather than changing their medication and treatment without full consultation and agreement.]

 

[  COMMENTS and CHANGES OF FORM- CAPS.. ARE OURS ;.]

H.F.2157
 

 

MAY-16 victory

JUN-16

REFERENDUM

 JUL-16 AUG-16 SEP-16 OCT-16 NOV-16 DEC-16 JAN - 17 FEB-17
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19
SEP 19 OCT-19 NOV-19 DEC-19 JAN-20

FEB-20

MAR-20

APRIL-20

 MAY-20 JUNE-20
JULY-20 AUG-20 SEPT-20 OCT-20 NOV-20  FREE OF THE EU

DEC-20

 AFTER  48 YEARS

JAN-21

A FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE

 THE

WORLD OUR OYSTER

JAN-21

FEB-21

MAR-21

APRIL - 2021

MAY- 2021

JUNE - 2021

 

JULY - 2021

AUG - 2021

SEPT- 2021

  

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 -(1994 - EDP.ORG.UK Official Website - JANUARY- PART 3 - 2022 )-

BULLETIN FILE - OCTOBER-2021  HOME - PART 1  - PART 1 PAGE 1  - PART 2  - PART 3  - PART 4   - PART 5  - PART 6

 

 BULLETIN FILES FOR AUGUST 2021: - HOME- PART 1 - PART 1-PAGE 2 - PART 2 - PART 3 -  PART 4 - PART 5 - PART 6
 

 

NOVEMBER- HOME-

-  PART 2   -  PART 3   -PART  4  - PART 5 -   PART 6  - 

- (1994 -Official Website - MARCH-PT 5- 2019 )-

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019          MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019         MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2019        MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2019

       MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME PAGE 2--2019

 

*

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012