Cliff Dixon

Cliff Dixon has 12 articles published.

DEFLECTION: Weak Sadiq Khan Blames SOARING Violent Gang Crime on Middle Class

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

The wave of violent crime in London has been making plenty of headlines recently, with murders in the Capital outstripping New York earlier this year.

Policing in London is the responsibility of the Mayor and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) who have issued plenty of soundbites so far but no real plan on how to tackle it.

With this in mind, Sadiq Khan’s latest statement on the causes shows just how out of touch with the situation on the ground he has become. Replying to a question on an LBC phone-in show, the Mayor stated that ‘Cocaine use at middle class parties’ is driving the gang related violence on the streets, a position previously endorsed by both Simon Kempton of The Police Federation and Justice Secretary David Gauke when he mentioned it back in May.

In one way, I can see where the comment has come from – much of the violence is drug related and for the drug gangs to thrive, they need customers. However, cocaine use has not suddenly appeared out of thin air over the last couple of years under Khan’s Mayoralty and has been prevalent in London since at least the 1980’s. Indeed, when The City of London started to forge ahead after deregulation in the 80’s, the ‘yuppy’ culture embraced recreational drug use as part of their ‘work hard, play harder’ culture, not to mention the rise of the illegal raves at the turn of the decade where another drug of choice, Ecstasy, was a central part of the party experience.

Working in the mobile phone trade in the 90’s, where large amounts of cash were being made as the sector exploded, drug use was always in evidence at major events and parties that I attended – the amount of times I cursed the lack of a toilet cubicle when desperate to get rid of the last three pints of lager I had drunk was testament to that!

Yet throughout that time, there was no surge in violent knife crime, moped raiders and acid attacks.

So, if we accept the premise that more customers means more crime, then surely drug use now must be at exponentially larger levels than before? The reality is no – indeed, the following was reported by The Home Office CSEW report within the last month –

Around 1 in 11 (9.0%) adults aged 16 to 59 had taken a drug in the last year. This equated to around 3.0 million people, and was similar to the 2016/17 survey (8.5%). The trend in last year drug use among 16 to 59 year olds has been relatively flat since the 2009/10 survey, and the latest estimate was similar to a decade ago (9.4% in 2007/08). However, the 2017/18 prevalence estimate was lower than in 1996 (11.1%), when the time series began.

So drug use is actually down on 20 years ago and has been flat over the last eight years, meaning that Khan’s explanation is not backed up by official figures.

So what is the cause?

In my opinion, there are multiple reasons. Firstly, the arrival of a new criminal class from overseas has triggered a struggle for control of the trade on our streets. Writing in The Evening Standard in July last year, David Cohen interviewed a former gang member who stated that , “In the last 10 years, since the Somalis and Congolese came to London, they taught us a new level of violence. These people had seen family members mutilated so when they said ‘I’m gonna smash you up’ us guys would be shouting ‘yo blud, what you mean?’ and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level of violence for us British born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It became an upward spiral”

This ties in with conversations I have had with rank and file Police Officers in my own area, Hayes. I have been advised that there is a war going on for the trade between the Somalis, Afghans and Eastern European crime gangs which has led to an increase in violence both here and in neighbouring West Drayton.

Secondly, the Police now are hit with barriers they didn’t have before when tackling violent crime. Whilst it is true that funding is an issue, political correctness has manifested itself within the senior levels of the force and has led to reluctance in confronting the fact that both perpetrators and victims come predominantly and disproportionately from minority communities. This has led to the cut back in intelligence led stop and search of gang members because it could be perceived as ‘racist’.

I was once told by a young lady who works for a firm of solicitors in my area that when her clients were arrested, throwing in an accusation of racism against the arresting officer would get them put on limited duties for a while whilst an investigation was carried out, making them think again about carrying out such an arrest next time.

Thirdly, communications channels are now far more widely available and cheaper than they ever were, allowing gangs to organise more quickly and respond to threats to their ‘patch’. Unregistered Pay as You Go mobile phones (known as ‘burners’) are easy to buy for under £20 and can be thrown away and replaced quickly and easily, meaning that the police cannot track or listen in to known high level criminals. Added to the new phenomenon of social media, where gang members taunt each other on line via multiple platforms and ‘drill rap’ videos and it is easy to see how a turf war can be escalated and occur very quickly.

So, what is the answer?

Glasgow had a similar issue with rising crime and has turned itself around via an intelligence led solution where police, youth workers, community leaders and government agencies all worked together to pool resources and tackle the problem at the root, engaging with those vulnerable to getting involved in a life of gangs and crime and turning them away from that path. The Evening Standard have highlighted this during their recent newspaper campaign against the rising death toll in London and deserve credit for doing so – The Mayor could do worse than engage and listen to the people they have spoken with.

There is also a problem where the police no longer have the links to communities that they had back in the seventies and early eighties. Many of the officers I have spoken with locally have been drafted in from other areas and as such need time to get to know what is going on within the communities they are policing. Unfortunately, with the multiple re-arrangements being carried out within the Met, those officers tend to be moved around, as do those in charge of the force in the area. A long term local policing plan where officers are embedded in their areas for a period of years will have the effect of a better understanding on the ground and help to build links with the community.

Finally, both the police and the border agencies need to be given the equipment and the back up to do their job, free of the politically correct dogma we see coming out of both City Hall and Westminster. A criminal is a criminal, irrespective of their race or religion. If the community led campaign fails an individual and they become a hardened gang member and menace to the local community then they need to face the full force of the law upon committing a crime and be removed until they are no longer a threat.

This all takes time, organisation and in some cases, funding. Most of all, it takes the will to want to confront and defeat the root causes of the problem.

By trying to deflect the blame on to ‘middle class drug use at parties’, Sadiq Khan is virtue signalling and ignoring the real reasons behind the crime wave that is hitting our City.

That is a dereliction of his duty to serve and a betrayal of all those affected by violent crime. It is time for him to resign and allow somebody with the guts and drive to replace him to get a grip before more young lives are needlessly lost.

Scaremongering Amazon UK boss claims no-deal Brexit could lead to civil unrest

in Brexit by

Following the Chequers agreement sell out, the remainers in government and their EU and big business allies are smelling blood in the water.

Whilst EU negotiators are playing hardball, the spin machine is launching in to Project Fear 2.0 in an attempt to either force Brexit In Name Only (BRINO) or the EU’s preferred mechanism when a vote doesn’t go their way, a further referendum.

The latest scaremongering from Big Business saw Amazon UK head Doug Gurr stating that there could be ‘civil unrest’ within 2 weeks of a no deal Brexit at a meeting with officials at the government owned country house, Chevening. Does he expect mass hysteria brought on by the inability to order a second hand hoover via his online platform or is there a deeper reason to this statement?

Bearing in mind that Amazon pay virtually no tax in the UK on their huge profits (facilitated by EU tax laws that allow them to offshore their profits to a member state with lower rates) it would suit his corporation to remain in the EU where lobbyists for big business make sure that smaller competitors are legislated out of the equation whilst free movement allows for a cheap workforce propped up by taxpayer funded in-work benefits.

Perhaps the real Armageddon he fears is a small state, entrepreneur friendly, independent UK that will allow competition to thrive – a nightmare scenario for a number of those who are spreading such scare stories about a future UK economy outside of the grip of Brussels.

Airbus had previously issued a warning that they may have to move production from their UK plant overseas as a ‘no deal’ situation could lead to problems with their supply chain. Leaving aside the fact that WTO rules would not allow a punishment regime at the border, the hint that they were looking at China was absurd in the extreme – the EU has no trade deal with China (the excuse they are giving for moving), large amounts of cash would have to be expended to build new production plants and the skilled staff that make the sections of aircraft produced at their facilities here could not be transplanted. When dealing with large sections such as completed wings, the transport costs would also surge due to the increased distance. Could the Airbus headline also be down to the fact that the company receives large subsidies from the EU, subsidies that were recently found in court to illegally breach WTO rules?

As usual, when fantastic stories about the ‘damage’ to Britain from leaving the EU start to surface it is always worth looking deeper and following the money.

Irrespective of a deal or not, the UK can look forward to a bright future as an outward looking, globally trading and independent country once more after March next year – as long as our government have the confidence and the will to make it so. Even the ‘worst case’ scenario of WTO rules would be an improvement on where we are now as eloquently laid out last week by Prof Patrick Minford.

The only fear is fear itself – if the politicians cave in to that fear then we must make them pay at the ballot box and replace them with people who believe in our people, our country and our future.

Anything less would be a dereliction of the instruction received in 2016 from the British electorate.

Royal Assent has been granted, but could Remoaners still derail Brexit?

in Brexit by

The Royal Assent was given to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act earlier this week, meaning that it is confirmed that we are leaving the EU in March next year.

But are we?

The last few weeks have been dominated by manoeuvring, backroom deals and uncertainty.

Theresa May apparently gave ‘assurances’ to Remain-supporting Tory MPs that she would give them a ‘soft’ Brexit, MPs who have since been critical of the vote that stops them having a say on the final deal.

Some media outlets have been reporting that a compromise has been made where speaker Bercow can decide whether the Government needs to go back to the House in the event of a deal that doesn’t match what he wants – why so much influence would be vested in this pompous Popinjay, a Remain supporter as seen by his vehicle stickers, is beyond me.

Labour are all over the place, an opposition that fears taking a stand either way for fear of upsetting their Remain-supporting intelligentsia in the South and their Leave-supporting core base in the North, not to mention their major donor, the Unite Union, who are solidly behind Remain.

The ‘principled’ Jeremy Corbyn, an outspoken critic of the EU when a backbencher, has been a passive Remainer since before the Referendum in an attempt to put party unity before country.

One day they are saying we must leave the Single Market and Customs Union, the next they are not ruling out a further referendum.

This morning we saw Tory minister Greg Clark on Sky’s Sophy Ridge show state that a ‘transition period’ could extend beyond 2021 if the ‘evidence’ changes – a transition period that is merely a way of delaying Brexit until the Remain element can carry on their new version of Project Fear and either keep us in the EU by stealth (BRINO) or reverse the referendum result completely.

This whole farce is further evidence that the establishment in this country do not respect the voice of the British people who voted to leave in 2016, but it is hardly surprising. In his book, ‘The Road to Freedom’ which was published before the Referendum was even a possibility, UKIP leader Gerard Batten MEP predicted just such a response from the ruling class if we went down the road of triggering Article 50 after a successful campaign to get ourselves out of the EU.

Whilst we are officially leaving the EU, the ‘transition period’ is just what the powers that be want to try to get a second bite of the cherry – after all, the Irish were made to vote again after a referendum went against the Lisbon Treaty and the French and Dutch were ignored after votes against the EU constitution. (They just changed the name and whacked it through without a vote).

Any attempt to bring ‘the deal’ back to the House will only weaken our hand in negotiations – after all, if Barnier and the Brussels negotiating team know that offering a bad deal will bring the UK back to the table and delay Brexit then they have no incentive to offer us anything like what we are looking for.

It’s not over yet.

Most Brits believe migration has harmed communities and fear the UK’s culture and traditions are being lost

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

A report has indicated that most Britons believe immigration has been a negative, British values are not being protected and life was better when they were growing up than it is now.

But rather than being based on a poll from papers such as The Daily Mail/Daily Express or thinktanks such as MigrationWatch, this report was delivered by Demos, a left leaning organisation headed up by a former aide to Nick Clegg and much favoured by former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Amongst the key findings, 71% thought that communities where migrants had settled were more divided (rising to 78% polled in areas that had experienced recent mass migration), 44% thought immigration had been negative versus 43% who thought it had been beneficial and 55% said that the Government is not doing enough to protect British values.

When asked whether those British values should be given priority over multiculturalism, 47% said yes versus 36% for no. Tellingly, a whopping 63% said that life was better when they were growing up compared to just 21% who prefer today.

The poll, carried out amongst a sample of Sky subscribers, was not all doom and gloom though – the majority remained optimistic about our country’s future and did not want to turn the clock back, a response in contrast to that of a similar poll carried out amongst French and German citizens who stated they would prefer to revert to the nation of their youth.

Compare that with the perceived wisdom amongst Remain campaigners that the 52% Leave result was only delivered because those voting for Brexit were backward looking and insular, unlike their continental cousins!

That a ‘left leaning’ organisation would deliver results so at odds with what politicians of that persuasion constantly tell us is ‘acceptable thought’ shows how out of touch our establishment is with the real opinions of Britons across the country of all backgrounds – indeed, on British values the political breakdown shows that 43% of Labour voters think that the Government is not doing enough on the subject against the overall figure of 55%, a sizeable chunk of their support base.

When you consider that in London, figures for the GLA elections in 2016 showed that only 1 in 4 of those who voted for Labour were classed as White English then it becomes apparent that the demand for a return to the basic values of our country crosses racial and religious divides.

More to the point, these results back up what many on the ‘political right’ have been saying for years – the way to unite the country is to replace mass, uncontrolled migration with a points based system that treats individuals on merit and controls numbers whilst promoting the British values and rule of law that recognises the rights of the individual irrespective of race, religion or gender/sexuality.

Whether the dogmatic politicians of Labour and the LibDems or the ‘progressives’ amongst the Conservatives will take heed of these results remains to be seen – I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Home Office Concern For Illegal Immigrants’ Privacy HINDERS Deportation

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

Digital Minister Margot James has announced a change to government procedure regarding the sharing of information between the NHS and the Home Office as part of the debate on the Data Protection Bill. Under a Memorandum of Understanding, this information had been shared since 2005.

Previously, the Home Office had used NHS records to track down illegal immigrants in some cases but will now only use them if the subject has committed a serious crime.

MPs, including Conservative Sarah Wollaston who tabled the amendments, said they were concerned about ‘patient confidentiality’.

So, there you have it – MPs are more concerned about the privacy of illegal immigrants than they are about their unauthorised use of our overstretched NHS which, according to official figures, already suffers an estimated £2bn burden through ‘Health Tourism’.

This ‘privacy’ will also hinder the Home Office still further in their attempts to deport the unknown number of illegals residing here within the UK.

Furthermore, this whole ‘Data Protection Bill’ debate is a farce – the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) legislation is being enforced under EU directive on 25th May and the UK must comply irrespective of what is discussed from the Green Benches.

It would appear that the delays in our leaving the European Union are not only contributing to further red tape that costs UK businesses millions in compliance but also hindering Government attempts to protect our sovereign borders and remove lawbreakers.

It is high time that we rejected this legislation and implemented Brexit immediately, with or without a deal.
You also have to wonder about the priorities of MPs such as Ms Wollaston.

Sadiq Khan’s pro-Europeans bias discriminates against Asians and Africans

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

London Mayor Sadiq Khan was interviewed on the Peston Show on Sunday regarding the recent scandal concerning the status of the Windrush Generation and fears that people here legally were facing deportation.

In the interview, Khan brought up the status of the 3.5 million EU citizens currently in the UK, pointing out how they would feel post-Brexit having seen how the children of a previous generation were treated in regards to their rights to stay here.

When Peston stated that Theresa May has talked of ‘preferential’ treatment for those EU citizens above non EU migrants and asked if Khan agreed with that, he simply stated ‘yes’. Peston then pressed and asked if he would support this policy, to which Khan again confirmed that he would approve of such a decision.

I have to say, this made my jaw drop. Sadiq Khan has made much of London being ‘open for business’ and has spoken out many times about the positive effects of immigration – indeed, we all heard multiple times how his father was a bus driver from Pakistan who came here to contribute.

How then can he support a policy that discriminates against people such as his father in favour of open door migration to white Europeans, irrespective of their skills, commitment to the country and desire to integrate?

One of the key benefits of Brexit is that it allows the UK Government to set up a new, ethical points-based migration system that judges people on ability, skillset and as individuals rather than where they come from, their religion and ethnicity.

For Khan to then show support for the current system that discriminates in such a way shows his commitment to the equality he claims to champion is just a sham.

He should be ashamed.

John McDonnell says Labour has not ruled out supporting a second EU referendum

in Brexit by

During the Brexit negotiations, one thing has remained a constant – the confusion surrounding Labour’s stance on where they stand on both membership of the EU and a vision for Britain outside the bloc.

Speaking recently, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP stated that his party has not ruled out giving support for a second referendum. Strangely, Shadow Northern Ireland minister Owen Smith was sacked by the party last month when calling for exactly the same thing!

McDonnell also stated that Labour are ‘walking a tightrope’ when it comes to their position on Brexit, suggesting that they are more concerned with losing votes than they are in putting forward a coherent vision for our country.

With support for Labour now coming from the middle class Islington set after years of ignoring their working class heartlands, it would appear that they are afraid to lay out a position for fear of alienating either the remain supporting London vote or the leave supporting Northern electorate. So much for the ‘Men of integrity’, Corbyn and McDonnell!

Ominously, he also commented that they were prepared to show ‘flexibility’ on free movement of people in order to get a good deal for Financial Services companies and access to the Single Market.

The hypocrisy of his position is amazing – McDonnell is always bashing financial services from his regressive left pulpit whilst claiming to stand up for the working classes who are most affected by free movement.

Indeed, a few years ago McDonnell supported a series of demonstrations by the RMT Union about what they termed ‘Social Dumping’, the undercutting of their members by cheap imported labour – the very labour that McDonnell is now prepared to show ‘flexibility’ over.

What a slap in the face for those Trade Unionists who believed that Labour were standing up for their conditions in the workplace!

It is telling that many senior Labour politicians are wriggling and evading on the Brexit position when their electorates gave them their instruction on June 23rd 2016 – Leave the European Union.

Indeed, John McDonnell’s own constituency (Hayes & Harlington) recorded a 60% Leave vote, the highest of the three Parliamentary constituencies in Hillingdon and a larger mandate than neighbouring Uxbridge where Brexiteer Boris Johnson is the MP.

So, why the constant fudge? In my opinion, it is to keep the money coming from the large pro-EU trade unions such as Unite and an attempt to be all things to all people in order not to split their vote at any upcoming General Election.

That Labour would put narrow party political interests ahead of the future of our country in refusing to lay out their stall on the biggest issue of this generation tells you all you need to know about their organisation. It is also why it is patently unfit to be near the levers of power in a pro-Brexit UK.

Mayor Khan increased bloated marketing budget while Londoners die on the streets

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

The massive increase in violent crime in London under Mayor Sadiq Khan has finally been commented on by the mainstream media, with murder figures in the last few months outstripping New York.

After hiding away for days after the initial headlines (a point brutally exposed on LBC Radio by presenter Tom Swarbrick), Khan has ventured out to apportion much of the blame to ‘Government Cuts’.

Whilst I will not defend Home Secretary Amber Rudd on this (or her predecessor, Theresa May) who have both defenestrated our police force, it is interesting to note where Mayor Khan deploys the budget that he has at his command.

It has been much commented about that he now has 900 officers looking over ‘hate crime’ online, something far less dangerous to life and limb than the knives and guns that have resulted in over 50 deaths on London streets this year and many more cases that have required hospital treatment.

Tonight saw another revelation in the pages of the London Evening Standard about his use of public funds, namely the increase in taxpayers’ cash spent on the GLA ‘self promotion budget’.

Political editor Joe Murphy reported on a freedom of information request that showed a rise in spending on publicity from £1.3million to £2.5 million in the past year, including a £300,000 increase in staffing for the Mayor’s media relations and marketing, taking it to a whopping £1,392,000 spent of YOUR money.

Mayor Khan’s spokesperson pointed out that cash had been ‘switched between different budgets’ in an attempt to defend the increase but the basic truth remains this – when lives are being lost on a daily basis in the Capital, for the Mayor to complain about cuts when spending the money he does have on self promotion is a total disgrace and a betrayal of the Londoners he has pledged to serve.

It is time for Sadiq Khan to put the wellbeing of the people of London before his political ambitions or do the decent thing and resign.

Huge crowds join protest against anti-Semitism, in Westminster

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

The ongoing rumblings about Labour anti-Semitism have exploded into a full blown crisis this week with revelations that Jeremy Corbyn is a member of a number of social media groups that feature anti Jewish tropes and that he questioned the removal of a mural depicting Jews as getting rich at the expense of the workers.

The Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies called a demonstration on Parliament Square earlier today where a letter was put in to the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party scheduled for this evening.

I arrived at the demonstration around 5.30pm to be greeted by the sight of over a thousand protesters waving placards, banners and Israeli flags. Off to the side under the statue of Churchill, a group of around a hundred under pop up banners of the JVL (Jewish Voice for Labour) counter demonstrated in defence of Jeremy Corbyn.

Many on the main demonstration tried to engage the Corbynistas in debate but it appeared futile. To try and gauge the feeling, I myself approached them and found a middle aged man in a leather jacket amenable to discussion. He advised me that Corbyn had fought anti-Semitism all his life and this was just a Tory plot to try and stop the rise of socialism in the UK.

The irony was not lost on me that whilst he was telling me this, principled Labour MP John Mann was on the platform speaking in favour of the demonstration and calling out anti Jewish bigotry.

The gentleman based most of his rhetoric around the ‘apartheid’ state that had displaced the ‘Palestinians’ in 1967 – when I pointed out that over a million Arab-Israelis have full rights and serve at all levels of government, including the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), this was ignored, as was the fact that the West Bank was actually a part of Israel under the original 1947 UN document setting up the state in the first place, occupied by force by invading Arab armies until taken back in the 5 day war.

According to this gentleman, anything pre 1967 was ‘ancient history’ and not relevant (The term Palestinian was actually coined by Yasser Arafat after that war)

We agreed on the peaceful 2 state solution but again any historical context (TransJordan was the part of Palestine given to the Arabs when Israel was created) was ignored – Jeremy is sticking up for the ‘oppressed’ who are confronted with an oppressive regime.

Other points were wheeled out and dismissed – Corbyn’s attendance at the Al Quds Parade in 2012 where he was the main speaker, sharing a platform with the Islamists of Hizb-ut-Tahrir surrounded by Hezbollah battle flags (He was ‘encouraging dialogue’) , the invitation to Azad Ali of MEND to speak in The Commons last November on ‘Islamophobia’ (Ali has been exposed as an extremist as recently as tonight on Channel 4’s Dispatches programme), his closeness to the Iranian Government’s propaganda arm ‘Press TV’ from whom he took cash to appear, all refuted as ‘smear’.

I was told that we need a dialogue on Palestine without any preconceptions – I agreed but questioned how this was possible when I myself had been branded an extremist by his party for raising the question on Israel previously?

When I elaborated, pointing out that I had stood as a UKIP candidate against John McDonnell (who has run BDS marches in my home town) I was informed that the party was ‘full of racists and anti semites’. Pointing out that this was a preconception that was completely untrue, he refused to listen – when I pointed out ex-BNP members who are now Labour councillors (something that can’t happen in UKIP because they are proscribed) I was accused of ‘cherry picking’ individual cases of people who had realised the error of their ways.

When I told him that I myself have a membership of the leading anti extremist thinktank, Quilliam, he told me he had done work with them before and that I was associating with people who have been terrorists – he had obviously not listened to them as Islamism is a doctrine whereas terrorism is the carrying out of that doctrine through lethal force, something that none of the Directors of Quilliam had ever done.

Extricating myself from a conversation that was going nowhere, I was approached by another of his comrades who told me that this event was all part of a ‘Zionist and Tory plot to damage Jeremy’ – I rest my case!

Walking across to the main part of the event, a number of familiar faces soon came in to view. Along with the aforementioned John Mann, I saw David Lammy MP chatting to a film crew – I never thought we would ever agree on something! I was also advised that Labour Ruth Smeeth MP was amongst those opposing anti Semitism although I didn’t see her.

Other Labour MPs to give speeches were Claire Kober (former Haringey council leader, driven out by Momentum), Luciana Berger, Louise Ellman and Wes Streeting, whilst I am certain that I saw Andrew Dismore AM (Labour GLA member) chatting with a film crew.

From the Conservatives, I spoke with Matthew Offord MP who I had first met on the counter demonstration to the Al Quds Parade last year, a very approachable and decent man. Stood with him was Joseph Cohen from the Israel Advocacy Movement, an easily identifiable figure with his striking ginger beard and one of the bravest men I have ever met who will debate anywhere with anyone in a sensible, logical manner.

Other Conservatives in attendance were Zac Goldsmith MP (I shook his hand and thanked him on his continuing campaigning against Heathrow Expansion), Bob Blackman MP and a lovely lady whose name escapes me from the GLA staff. I was advised that Sajjid Javid and Penny Mordaunt were there but I did not see them myself.

Also in attendance was author and commentator Douglas Murray whose forthright views have led to numerous threats against his person.

Notable by their absence were representatives of Hope not Hate and Stand up to Racism (SUTR), both of whom have combating anti Semitism in their mission statements on their websites. Amazingly, they were out in force on Saturday to combat Veterans and football supporters supporting the Justice for the 21 campaign in Birmingham, branding them as ‘racists’ – yet when there are real issues to be confronted, they are nowhere to be seen. Can you remind me who are major donors to both campaigns again?

Anti-semitism is a real and present problem in the Labour Party today. Even Corbyn has admitted to ‘pockets’ of it, something that Shami Chakrabarti failed to confront with her report into the state of the party prior to Corbyn elevating her to the Lords.

For a party that claims to be ‘For the many, not the few’, failing to confront it does them no credit and calls in to question their claim to be an inclusive, forward looking organisation. Some of the banners today ironically mocked that slogan – are they really what they claim to be or are they ‘For the many, not the Jew?’

Protests as TUC hosts a United Ireland conference featuring Gerry Adams as keynote speaker

in Anglophobia / Marxism by

Spring is in the air and along with the daffodils, demonstrations proliferated across the country yesterday.

Birmingham saw thousands march in support of Justice for the 21 and against terrorism, whilst in London an event that seemed to pass under the radar was also treated to a peaceful protest from Veterans and Patriots.

A conference named ‘Towards a United Ireland’ was held from 12pm at the TUC Headquarters on Great Russell Street where the keynote speaker was former Sinn Fein leader and alleged IRA commander, Gerry Adams, with support speakers including current SF leader Michelle O’Neill. What the TUC are doing hosting a meeting discussing sovereignty of a part of the UK baffles me as their remit is to be an umbrella group for trade unions, whose job is to support their members’ rights in the workplace, not interfering in politics.

Adams is also a highly controversial figure given his past associations and as a result, a number of veterans decided to peacefully protest the event, supported by patriots from a number of groups.

I arrived just after 12pm when the attendees had already entered the building – a large presence was outside handing out leaflets about injustice towards our Armed Forces veterans in the province, many of whom are now seeing cases that were investigated and closed in the 1970s re-opened whilst IRA members who killed innocent civilians were pardoned under The Good Friday Agreement.

Prominent were posters with Adams’ image alongside that of Jean McConville, a mother of 10 who was executed by the IRA for being ‘an informer’ – it is alleged that Adams authorised the killing and some of the veterans who were there who had flown in from Northern Ireland told me it was in reality because she had helped a wounded British soldier.

Other posters showed bloodied hands and placards had names of civilians, police officers and military who had been killed by the IRA with times and dates on them.

The gathering obviously had an effect on the speakers as Adams was smuggled in around the back rather than having to walk through the assembled peaceful demonstration at the front – a victory of sorts for those who came from across the UK to make their point.

By 12.30 it was obvious that no more people were coming through, so the protesters retired to various pubs and restaurants for lunch, agreeing to meet back at 4pm to catch the attendees on the way out.

None of the speakers were in evidence when we got back, but a number of conversations were had with people exiting the conference and putting across our point of view. The police presence was quite heavy and I was informed by one of the officers that there had been an issue around 15 minutes before our arrival, but I have no further information on that.

One thing that did strike me was the reaction of one of the event organisers towards us as she was putting equipment in the back of the sound van – “We love you lot”, she said with a sneer. It is a pity she doesn’t love the family of Jean McConville as much, an innocent woman executed by a bullet to the back of the head whose body was missing and therefore unable to be laid to rest for over 20 years by her grieving relatives.

Why the decision to hand UK passport production to French company is flawed

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit by

Much has been made today of the Government’s decision to hand the production of the new post-Brexit blue passports to French company Gemalto ahead of British Company De La Rue.

I have dug in to this a little bit deeper and casting aside any notions of jingoism asked the big question – is the Government doing the best for us irrespective of any political interest?

Unfortunately, my conclusion is that not only are they making fools of us but the British company is not competing on a level playing field and here is the case for why.

Firstly, government contracts are tendered for and awarded on the best value for money. But our government does not base their judgement on the bigger picture which includes jobs for local people (cutting the benefits bill) and the knock on effect in terms of secondary jobs in the local economy based on spending of wages, just the initial cost of the project.

Our European neighbours factor this in to their calculations, meaning that firms in their own countries can put in a higher bid on their own contracts against UK companies and still win because public money is not just supporting the job in hand but additional benefits in the local community.

Secondly, De La Rue is a private company that generates its own funding and has to compete in an open market. But a very quick search online regarding Gemalto finds that they have been in receipt of French Government funding, backed by the EU, for research and development that props up their operations.

This is from their own website –
“Amsterdam, the Netherlands, May 23, 2008 – Gemalto (Euronext NL0000400653 GTO), the world leader in digital security, today announces that the European Commission has authorised the financial grant by the French government to the MaXSSIMM(*) development programme through OSEO. OSEO is a French public Agency which supports innovation and development. The programme, carried out by a Gemalto-led consortium, is intended to facilitate and accelerate the implementation of convenient personalised and secure Internet services for mobile devices. OSEO will contribute to the program through a €35-million subsidy over 3 years.”

So not only are our own government not looking at the bigger picture in terms of local jobs and regeneration, UK firms have to compete against EU competitors who are in receipt of EU authorised subsidies to prop up their operations.

The EU have been very vocal in their opposition to US based ‘protectionism’ by imposition of trade tariffs on subsidised steel (neglecting that their own tariffs in place at present are higher than those proposed by President Trump) – maybe it is time for the UK Government to look at allocating contracts based on the bigger picture and also looking at government subsidies allocated to those from overseas that not only disadvantage our own businesses but distort competitiveness against those who believe in real free trade.

Lib Dems brand older Brexit voters as RACIST

in Brexit by

This week has seen the Spring Conference of the pro EU Liberal Democrats and a speech from their leader, Sir Vince Cable, that shows why his party are becoming an irrelevance on the national stage – they are in denial about the Leave vote in the Referendum and have no idea what drove it.

Sir Vince stated in his keynote speech that older voters were driven by nostalgia and for a world where ‘faces were white’.

I was the co-ordinator for the Leave campaign in Hillingdon during the referendum, a West London Borough with a very diverse community. Funnily enough, those older white faces were in the more affluent North of our Borough which had the smallest leave vote – we had a 57% mandate to leave the EU across the borough but the strongest vote for our exit from the EU was in the Hayes & Harlington constituency, at nearly 60%, a constituency that is a Labour stronghold and where White English people are now in the minority.

Like Sir Vince, local MP John McDonnell dismissed the leave vote on the Sophy Ridge Show on Sky a few weeks later as being driven by ‘fear of the other’ and a ‘lack of information’

I had many memorable conversations on our street stalls in the area during the campaign, one of the most striking being with a black South African who had been involved in the anti-Apartheid campaign in his homeland during the 1980s. He advised me that he was fully behind Brexit as he had fought so hard to get his voice heard during those times – “I can’t believe that anybody would vote to give away their ability to elect those who represent them when I had to fight to get my right to vote.”

Our team also heard many BME Britons talk about embracing the Commonwealth and those who had stood with us during the times when Europe was not such a peaceful place – they felt upset that well qualified friends and family of theirs who wanted to come to the UK and could contribute as engineers and medical staff were discriminated against in favour of white Europeans who were coming to do manual work.

Indeed, a report published last week showed that EU migrants are costing the UK economy £4bn in benefits payments when our NHS is struggling to recruit trained staff from outside of the EU to fill the skills gap that has been exacerbated by the failure of our government to train the staff that we desperately need from our own labour pool.

Sir Vince also stated that the vote had crushed ‘The dreams and aspirations of younger people for years to come’. Maybe he has not consulted the younger people of Italy who see unemployment rates of over 40% and voted overwhelmingly last week for Eurosceptic parties in their national elections, or the unemployment rates amongst the youth of Greece and Spain whose economies have been crushed by the EU and their Euro currency to push their unemployment rates to similar levels?

Is this the future you wish to see for the youth of our country in pursuit of the EU superstate, Sir Vince?

Vince Cable represents the dreams of the 20th century, a protectionist bloc when tariffs were high and the world was a different place. Brexit represents the dreams of the 21st Century – a UK that is outwardly looking, globally trading, independent and prosperous. A 21st century where your personal ability and hard work is the judge of who you are, not your skin colour, age, gender or religion.

His opinions should be left in the past along, with his political party.

Go to Top