The events of the past few days have not come as a surprise to many observers of events around the world. It is absolutely shocking that a serving soldier should be beheaded in the streets of Woolwich, but Christians are being beheaded by Muslims every week in one place or another, and to many Muslims, not well versed in modern comparative religious studies or sociology, everyone living in the West is a Christian. I’d like to be able to add that it is only unrepresentative and extremist Muslims that conduct themselves in such a manner, but it is difficult to do so. Tony Blair described the London bombers as ‘perverted and poisonous’, but in a survey 26% of UK Muslims refused to agree with his description. These may be the same people, 24% of UK Muslims, who also expressed sympathy for the feelings and motives of those carrying out the London terrorist attack.
Of course 25% of any community is strictly speaking a minority. It is true that it is a minority of UK Muslims who either support or are sympathetic to terrorism. It is only a minority of young UK Muslims, just 33%, who believe that anyone who leaves Islam should be killed. But can we be comfortable with such minority views? We are not considering preferences for cat food after all. If there was an advert which truthfully reported – 3 out of 10 Muslims prefer murder to religious freedom – would we think that an acceptable matter for personal choice?
In fact in Pakistan and Egypt 64% of the population hold these views. Therefore when immigrants from these countries are welcomed through the border controls at Heathrow we must estimate that there are a great many among them who hold views which any reasonable British person would find shocking and criminal. Indeed since the proportion of those holding these appalling views is much higher in the countries from which Muslim immigrants are most likely, and in Afghanistan it represents the views of 76% of Muslims, such views are being reinforced in the UK by continuing immigration.
It can hardly be conducive to the public good that immigrants should be allowed to enter the UK who hold views which include the positive support of murder and terrorism. Indeed the Home Secretary has acted in the past to exclude preachers of hatred from the UK on the basis that their presence would not be conducive to the common good. The Indian Muslim preacher, Zakir Naik, who has publically stated that ‘every Muslim should be a terrorist’, was not allowed entry to the UK on these grounds in 2010. We might think that Naik is an extremist who does not understand the peaceful basis of Islam, but in fact the BBC’s Sanjiv Buttoo reports that he is recognised as an authority on Islam, while the TV station which employs him, Peace TV, describes him as ‘a dynamic international orator on Islam and comparative religion…. Dr Naik clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptions about Islam using the Koran’. So it would seem that his views are pretty mainstream in Pakistan.
In the case of Tariq Rehman, who unsuccessfully appealed his deportation in 2010 on the grounds of his presence in the UK not being conducive to the common good, the Law Lords determined that..
..the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the Secretary of State was concerned to assess the extent of future risk and that he was entitled to make a decision to deport on the ground that an individual is a danger to national security, viewing the case against him as a whole, although it cannot be proved to a high degree of probability that he has carried out any individual act which would justify the conclusion that he is a danger.
So the Law Lords were willing to accept that the case against any particular person who might be liable to be deported should be considered as a whole, and not as though they had or were about to commit some particular offence. This is even more the case when a person is seeking to be granted access to the UK. In such cases the justification for refusal to allow entry is described on the Border Agency as including..
The Secretary of State has personally directed that the exclusion of a person from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good.
and
The immigration officer deems the exclusion of the person from the United Kingdom to be conducive to the public good. For example, because the person’s conduct, character, associations, or other reasons, make it undesirable to grant them leave to enter.
It would seem that there is already, therefore, the grounds for considering that particular persons, and particular groups of persons, should be refused entry to the UK, and these grounds legally include the conduct, character and associations of persons, and they also include a general appreciation of the threat which a person might present to the public good. Geert Wilders, for instance, entirely unlikely to engage in any terrorist activity, was refused entry on such grounds, with the justification that his presence would ‘sow division’.
If Geert Wilders can be refused entry, without ever having supported or encouraged acts of violence and hatred, we must reasonably ask whether or not it is time to refuse entry to all those who are associated either directly or by association with those who do support and encourage such acts. The Terrorism Act 2006 makes it a criminal offence to..
Publish a statement which …. intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences…. The statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which … glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.
It would surely be the case that the 100,000 UK Muslims who positively supported the London bombings and were willing to tell those making a survey of Muslim opinions, should be investigated for such glorification of terrorism. If they will tell an anonymous survey taker they supported the bombings, then who else have they spoken to, leading them to reasonably infer that such terrorism is to be emulated? But how many more of those who are still migrating here from countries where Muslims hold these views with even greater determination?
If Zakir Naik is refused entry on the grounds of the common good then why not all those Pakistani Muslims who watch his TV programmes with enjoyment? If it would be a criminal offence to seek to murder a Muslim who has changed their religious beliefs, then how is it not reasonable grounds to refuse entry to the very significant numbers of Muslims who believe that murder is exactly the correct response what others consider religious freedom? The Border Agency already has authority to refuse entry on the grounds of association, and at the present time it seems necessary to focus on the associations that almost all migrating Muslims have with extremist networks, almost unavoidably.
Let’s remind ourselves. In Egypt, among those who want to see Sharia introduced, and that represents those who are devout Muslims, 86% believe that those Muslims who abandom Islam should be murdered. This means that almost all committed Muslims whose origin is in Egypt support the most brutal sanctions against those who leave Islam. The issue is therefore not one of nationalism or racism. But there is very clear evidence that the great majority of Muslims seeking to immigrate to the UK would condone, or even seek to perpetrate, such violence against other UK subjects.
Can we imagine the furore if even one politician seriously proposed that those leaving his party should be murdered? He would immediately be expelled from any party, and properly castigated as a threat to our British society and way of life. Can we imagine the outrage if the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed the view, even in private, that those leaving the Church of England should be savagely beheaded? He would be forced to resign in shame and the Anglican community would be falling over itself to sh0w that his opinions were only his own.
But each year migrants are welcomed to the UK who hold such views, and many others which are just as pernicious and would be considered criminal if any native Briton expressed them. Is it too late to shut the stable door?
There is no reason why action should not be taken. To focus on the adherents of Islam is not to say that others migrating to the UK do not also present a threat to the common good. Drug dealers, sex and people traffickers, benefit tourists, these also cause lasting harm to British society. But these others are hopefully always the focus of vigilance on the part of the relevant agencies. On the contrary there seems to have been no consideration at all that apart from the most vocal and public of Muslim figures, there is a common acceptance of behaviours and opinions which a reasonable person would consider harmful to the common good.
If we take the example of Pakistan. Between 2004-2011 well over 200,000 migrants of Pakistani origin were admitted to the UK. In total that represents 1.8 million admissions. Some will certainly have been the same people making multiple trips. Others will be Pakistanis hoping to settle here. But we can be fairly sure of their views. Just taking the single issue of the treatment of those Muslims leaving Islam, 64% of these admissions, or well over 1 million admissions, will be Pakistanis who believe that a Muslim who ceases to be a Muslim should be brutally murdered. Such views are abhorrent to British society, yet there is presently not even the suggestion of an investigation into whether or not a Pakistani migrant holds such opinions. If we widen the scope, 13% of Pakistanis believe that suicide bombing us justified, that equates to 230,000 admissions of Pakistanis. And about 50% of Pakistani Muslims believe that the so-called ‘honour killing’ of girls who have been found to participate in pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations is justified by Islam. That’s about 900,000 admissions from Pakistan over the last 8 years.
Over the same period 112,000 Pakistanis have been given the right of settlement here in the UK. This means that it is statistically reasonable to conclude that the Government has allowed 71,000 Pakistanis to settle here who do not believe in freedom of religion, 65,000 who believe that girls can be murdered as a matter of some perverted sense of honour and another 14,500 who believe that suicide bombing is justified. That is surely a great deal of potential harm to the common good, if we consider the Wilders case of harm being described as ‘sowing division’. What common ground can be found between the British traditions of law and respect for persons, and these alien opinions which easily resort to violence and murder?
But the stable door can still be bolted as a first step to protecting and restoring the natural unity of the British people and those integrating migrants who live among us and with us. How do we bolt the door? Surely it is reasonable to prohibit all immigration of Muslims until and if some suitable means of determining whether or not views inimicable to the basis of British society are held? There is of course a problem with home grown terrorism, but this is not a reason to fail to deal with the threat posed by those who have no claim to British citizenship or residency.
Theresa May has already said that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. But so is entry to our country. We do not always know the views of those seeking entry, but thanks to detailed surveys of Muslim opinion we do know what Muslims think about many of the aspects of British society, and to a very great extent the views of many Muslims are not compatible. It may not be possible to determine whether or not any particular Muslim holds these abhorrent views, but until it is we must surely exercise the precautionary principle. We will have enough problems dealing with similar views held by those who have been granted residency, citizenship or have been born here. We must not add to the problem.
The stable door is still open, but it could be shut if the Home Secretary wished, or perhaps if a vigilant Border Agency official dared just once to ask the appropriate questions of a Muslim immigrant. Until then the Government is complicit in endangering the British people and is failing to preserve our common and public good. If the door is to be closed then perhaps it is we, the people, the public whose good is threatened, who must speak out.
Peter of Maidstone
Peter, you of all people, should surely turn the other cheek. Hasn’t the suffering of the Christian Copts in Egypt enacted by fanatic muslims, reached your heart? I’m just joking! Perhaps my literary solution of throwing all the muslims over the white cliffs of Dover was extreme, but now I am not playing with semantics. No need to ask questions, no need to bolt doors, just refuse admission to all of them. Good, mainly Christian white folk feeing from Mugabe, after years of hard work in Zimbabwa were almost all denied sanctuary in their ‘Mother Land’. So why bother about a lot of people who we owe nothing to and who are mostly a lot of trouble?
Anne, it is not British and it is not Christian to treat all people in a lump. I have described some of the reasons why it is reasonable to refuse entry to all Muslims, but not all Muslims are the same. Just as not all Jews are Zionists. And not all Catholics are stupid and drunk. But there is a present statistically real threat from Muslims which makes what I have written justified.
Why bother? Because our civilization requires us to be bothered that even when excluding a whole category of people we exercise fairness in the real sense of what that means.
Russell Taylor – In praise of a country worth fighting for.
Excerpts
Read it all:
http://bogpaper.com/2013/05/29/russell-taylor-in-praise-of-a-country-worth-fighting-for/
(h/t James Delingpole @JamesDelingpole “Problem is not that we aren’t spreading our cheeks wide enough, it’s that we bent over in the first place.”
Peter from Maidstone
Read your posting carefully. Please give me time to think, and understand I do not have my laptop and rely on the kindness of my husband.
The Q’ran is a document of unbelievable barbarity … and stupidity. But the book is not the problem – the problem is the idiots who use it as a guide to living and more particularly those who think – nay, UNDERSTAND – that it demands that infidels should be either killed or subjugated. No definition of ‘moderate’ can extend to anyone who bases his life on the creed of Mo or any of his successive deluded propagandists. The insistence, of those that hold positions of power in the UK, that we ‘act with restraint’ and not speak against the religion, when two of its adherents, under the thrall of Imams living on the welfare state of this country, hack the head off a serving soldier outside his own barracks, going about his peaceful business, is even more stupid and wicked that the content of the Q’ran. It also amounts to treason. If somebody has spoken up for ‘reasonable Naziism’ between 1939 and 1945 they would have been lynched. Some squeakie-voiced jobsworth in the uniform of a Superintendent of Police wagged his finger at us today from the vantage point of a heap of rotting flowers in Woolwich; the Dianification of dastardly death and destruction by sickening sentimentality,not to mention the inflation of Interflora shares makes me want to throw up. I’m with Anne Wototna Kaye. Muslims are at worst murderously wicked – at best stupid and deluded. Yet we are ordered by our ruling elite to curtail our ‘language’ and ‘restrain ourselves’ when the barbarians wreak murder and mayhem on the streets of our capital city in a street named after one of our historical heroes, who must surely be spinning in his grave.
Fuck ’em! All of ’em!
Ban the cult and close all the mosques. Forthwith!
Then seize all the copies of the book of the crazy cult and have a giant bonfire in Hyde Park; Cameron could combine it with the ‘bonfire of the quangos’ that he promised 2010., particularly those that exhort us to embrace multiculti madness. And put Boris Johnson on top of it.
Peter from Maidstone
Peter, I’ve thought over what you wrote. As usual, I admire your writing and much of your ethos, but “Anne, it is not British and it is not Christian to treat all people in a lump.” This sentiment is fine in a golden age of decency
Sorry, the words jumped! I will try to continue. A golden age of decency, the finest of England, all in a time before World War I unleashed the dogs of war and madness. We are in a state of war now, a state even more malignant than open warfare, as the leeches we support can behead our soldiers and be given the privilege of civilian trial by our crazy judiciary. Peter, we treated people as a lump in World War II when we shipped Germans and Italians off to the Isle of Man. It was necessary to protect the citizens of Britain, and there was none of this idealistic talk of ‘Good Germans’ (substitute German with Muslim).
Anne, there has never been a golden age of decency. The mark of a civilised people is that they act in a civilised manner even when provoked. To be civilised is not to be a push over, nor to abandon the rule of law and the defence of society and culture, but it is to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner even when dealing with manifest threats and dangers. This has been our way. If we abandon it then there is nothing left to conserve.
Frank P:
I’m glad somebody else is sickened by the putrid garage posies of flowers rotting on the streets where a soldier was brutally killed. All we need are a few teddy bears and the nonsense will be complete. Instead of enriching the flower sellers, perhaps money could be donated to improve the lives of the families of serving military personnel.
Peter from Maidstone
“To be civilised is not to be a push over, nor to abandon the rule of law and the defence of society and culture, but it is to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner even when dealing with manifest threats and dangers. This has been our way. If we abandon it then there is nothing left to conserve.”
Peter, it is a pleasure to debate with you. You will not change my mind, but I can see your point of view and respect you. My reply to your sentences reprinted above is:
What is a reasonable and proportionate manner? When, horrible though it is, a young man is beheaded on the street, how should the appropriate and tempered response take place? I think it is time the big guns were brought out.
Anne, of course there was talk of good Germans and bad Germans. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a good German. Schindler was a good German.
The decision to intern enemy aliens in the First and Second World Wars, especially on the Isle of Man, was a considered response to the presence of possible enemy sympathisers, or those liable to pressure being placed upon them, within the British population in a time of conflict.
The regulations were proportionate, and allowed for an appeal to be made. They were not written in a blanket fashion but were of wide enough scope to cover all those who might be suspected. Regulation 1 said..
If the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe any person to be of hostile origin or associations or to have been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm or in the preparation or instigation of such acts and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him, he may make an order against that person directing that he be detained.
This same option already exists in our time and allows the Home Secretary to act against any person or persons whose presence in the UK might be to the detriment of the public good. It is a reasonable and measured response to the situation which was faced. There was no talk of throwing entire populations of a cliff (their babies as well?!!), or murdering an entire population of people.
At first only 14 people were detained under these regulations. This increased after Quisling gained power in Norway, and led to the detention of members of the far-right such as Mosely. By December 1940 about 1000 were in detention, but these were mostly British Nazi sympathisers.
As far as the parallels go, it is not at all unreasonable to make it a criminal offence to be a member of, or associated with, or in contact with, a list of Muslim organisations and preachers, and to detain all those caught up as members and associates and supporters of such groups and people. This is within the rule of law and is entirely proportionate to the threat. Other restrictions could be implemented and those breaking them could also be detained. This might well include promoting sharia law or being associated with any group wishing to overthrow British democracy.
By the Summer of 1943 only 500 were in detention, and by the end of 1944 only 65, who were naturalised Germans. Mosely himself had been released in 1943.
It would seem therefore that while the Government used the necessary powers to protect the public good it also acted proportionately and reasonably. Indeed it was explicitly stated…
As persons detained in pursuance of Regulation 18B are so detained for custodial purposes only and not for any punitive purpose, the conditions of their confinement will be as little as possible oppressive, due regard being had to the necessity for ensuring safe custody and maintaining order and good behaviour
Of course there were many more aliens and refugees in the UK at this time, and of these some 27,000 German, Austrian, and Italian enemy aliens out of a population of 93,000 were interned in 1940. Clearly it was not considered necessary that ALL members of these populations be interned, but again a degree of proportionality was applied. And even in these cases the numbers being held had reduced to 8,500 in 1941.
I agree entirely with the possibility of internent of classes of people before being dealt with by proper authorities by way of deportation, supervision or release. I do not think that generally speaking the British Goverment has acted beyond what was necessary in the example of interment in World War II. It was reasonable and necessary. Many were rounded up (there were German Jews interned for instance) who perhaps need not have been, but the regime was not intended to be punitive, but to be precautionary.
This is entirely different from some of the suggestions made here and elsewhere about entire populations. We clearly did NOT treat Germans and Italians as a lump otherwise all would have been interned and for all of the war. On the contrary each internee was arrested on the basis of a judgement of risk in that particular case and with particular evidence.
There is no reason why we should not deal robustly with the threat of Islam in the same proportional and legal manner as is the mark of a civilised society.
Anne, I have already said what some of the actions should be.
i. An immediate halt to Islamic immigration.
ii. Revocation of all visas held by Muslims.
iii. Requirement of all Muslims without citizenship to return to their home countries.
iv. Criminalisation of all politically active Islamic organisations.
v. Proscription of all Islamic political parties.
vi. Prohibition on election to government office of Muslims.
vii. Strong action taken against forced marriages, ‘honour’ killings and FGM.
viii. Prohibition on the Burkha being worn in public.
These are all reasonably based on the precautionary principle. If it becomes possible to develop a test for moderate Muslims then this can be applied. If it is not possible then the precautionary principle must hold.
Anne I also enjoy discussing things with you and respect you.
We did not win WWII with sweet reasonableness and ‘civilised behaviour’. We – aided and abetted by our Colonial Allies, the Yanks (eventually) and the Stalinists (sad but necessary) – all dropped shit-loads of bombs all over the countries of the Axis and marshalled our troops into bloody courageous battles all over Europe, large parts of Africa, Asia and the South Pacific; then as a finale we erased two major cities and their inhabitants in Japan with the most diabolical bits of deviltry ever devised and used by man (so far) in the bloody history of homo sapiens. The war was not won by gentlemanly courtesy and civilised behaviour; It was ‘Eisen und Blut’ wot did it; a cruel resolve and persistent hatred of the enemy. “We” knew who “we” were then. who are “we” now?
Islam hates the West and is committed to destroying it by a variety of means: disruption, violence, demographics and taqiyya. It is logical to hate them back and resist their advances by all means necessary.
Woolwich was not only a token, ritual shedding of blood; it was a watershed – a call to arms. Flowers and cloying sentimentality should not be the response. And swallowing the hypocritical cant of so-called ‘moderate’ muslims is despicable.
Cameron thought that hugging a hoodie might solve the hooligan problem. Does he think that hugging a muzzie will repel the jihad?
EC
“Problem is not that we aren’t spreading our cheeks wide enough, it’s that we bent over in the first place.”
Exactly!
Peter from Maidstone
May 29th, 2013 – 23:00
Your eight directions are logical and I cannot find any fault . The only problem is that I cannot see any of the three main political parties accepting and administering them.
Sorry PfM, but trying to approach the Islamic problem in a civilised and humane manner will not, I’m afraid, work.
For a start, there are far too many socialists out there who cannot/will not see and recognise the true face of Islam. They have been brain-washed to believe we are all the same under the skin and they see the world through rose-tinted spectacles except where those that openly oppose their beliefs are concerned. I suspect there are an even bigger number who consider themselves decent, tolerant people who, again, refuse to believe the truth about Islam.
The former group have a firm grip on the media and ensure the second group do not get told the full truth.
And the politicians, of all mainstream parties realise the size of these two groups and act accordingly. Hence none of your sensible steps will come to pass.
Even with daily outrageous violence, the Sweden establishment is still dithering. The UKs politicians simply have no clue how to respond and all because everybody not a Muslim is trying so hard to be tolerant and inclusive and downright civilised! I know Camoron has decided to fight them on the beaches (clearly misunderstanding what Churchill meant!) but why is the odious Griffin the only elected politician to have visited the site of the outrage? Where’s Millipede, Clegg and all the other usual bandwagon-jumpers? Even Farage has gone right down in my estimation.
For many years, I have maintained the UK will not solve the Muslim problem without violence. I left because I did not want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a war zone. I believe something changed last week. I have a horrible feeling this weekends’ demonstrations are going to turn into a bloodbath and I fear the establishment will misread the signs and try to crack down on the far right and not realise until too late that many Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, together with ‘decent’ English folk, will be marching alongside the so-called far right. Ironic really, as the BNP are socialists and the true far-right is the political movement (not religion) that is Islam.
Clear Memories.
“but why is the odious Griffin the only elected politician to have visited the site of the outrage? Where’s Millipede, Clegg and all the other usual bandwagon-jumpers? Even Farage has gone right down in my estimation.
Clegg, Miliband and the rest are staying away because they fear being asked questions, questions that they would not dare to answer truthfully in public.
Tell me why do you fall in line with all of those brain-washed commentators that find it necessary to write the word ‘odious’ before writing the name Griffin?
I would find this much more acceptable if we were to herald all politicians in a similar way, such as the duplicitous Clegg, the incompetent Miliband, the turn-coat Cameron or the lovable inebriate Farage.
I could never vote for the BNP however some of their opinions would sit well with UKIP and many old style conservatives in the shires.
D.O. – I find him odious in the same way I find Millipede, Bliar and Bruin odious – he’s a socialist, just a slightly different type, more left wing, and I find all socialists odious. I suppose at least he’s not a war criminal.
As for your final paragraph, I think if people took the time to find out what the BNP actually stand for, they’d be appalled. Their stance on immigration is about the only thing that separates them from the loony left of the Labour Party. They want renationalisation and isolationism, along with an intolerant legal system, statist Police force and elitist education systems.
Odious…..Hmmm. The most odious creature on the political stage is David Cameron. He pretends to be a tory, but his obsession with homosexual marriages (I refuse to abuse the word ;gay’) and his general stance show him to be an even more dedicated marxist than the Millipede. He belongs in that group which included Blake et al, and is one of the yet unnamed traitors.
Clear Memories May 30th, 2013 – 12:21
“D.O. – I find him odious in the same way I find Millipede, Bliar and Bruin odious – he’s a socialist, just a slightly different type, more left wing, and I find all socialists odious. I suppose at least he’s not a war criminal.”
In this paragraph you make my point, I, like you; find almost all socialists and every single LibDem odious but we and the M.S.M do not preface any of their names with the adjective ‘odious’.
As you clearly state the BNP have some dreadful ideas that most of us find abhorrent but then so do all of those from the left.
Anne Wotana Kaye 1 May 30th, 2013 – 15:24
“Odious…..Hmmm. The most odious creature on the political stage is David Cameron.”
I would agree, I used to think that he was (to use the blessed Margaret’s word) a Tory Wet but I was wrong, he is a pretend Tory but I do think that he will be hung from a noose of his own making in that his actions have resulted in senior cabinet ministers saying that they would vote to leave the EUSSR.
David Ossitt
May 30th, 2013 – 15:53
Hi, David
If you are correct, and you usually are, then out of some evil comes some good. Perhaps I malign DC, and he is really a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel character (or alas, pimp)
Anne Wotana Kaye 1.
Hello Anne for me the best adaptation of The Scarlet Pimpernel was the 1955 ITV series ‘The Adventures of the Scarlet Pimpernel’where that wonderful actor Marius Goring played the part of Sir Percy Blakeney aka The Scarlet Pimpernel.
Clear Memories (01:30)
I comprehensively concur with both the facts and the sentiments of your post. Griffin knows what to say to gull people who are pissed off with our girlie-men politicians, their ‘think-wanks’ and their treasonous policies. But he does not say what he really thinks. The BNP is the latest crop of the fruit of the poisoned tree, the trunk of which was Adolph Hitler and the roots way back in the history of fascist-socialism. He knows how to employ what the muzzies call taqiyya – and I call bullshit. Moseley, Jordan, Tindall, Webster and many other acolytes of the anti-Semite, white supremicist activists are his predecessors. He may have changed his tune to suit the requirements of gulling a desperate electorate who are frustrated with the three main parties, but the underlying rhythm is that that of the tramp,tramp tramp of the high-kicking jackboot. Odious is the right description. Don’t be fooled folks. I crossed swords with the above-named mentors back in the days when they were less discreet. Perverted and odious is what they are. Had you heard what I heard even from their overt speeches in those days, Anne and David, you wouldn’t give them an inch of house-room even in the darkest corners of your mind. What they said in their enclaves, which I overheard when I was engaged in surveillance of the shit-bags, you would have beaten down their doors and shot them. Unfortunately all I could do was pass on the griff to Special Branch, who, as ever, with political subversives, just made notes and kept files. NFA was the byword! We are now reaping the harvest of that stupidity. And the communist cadre of subversion were equally allowed to fester, multiply and infiltrate and have used the BNP and its predecessors to deflect attention from them. They are equally inimical to the England I would like to live in, but which will probably never return. sadly.
Frank P
May 30th, 2013 – 19:53
Frank, it’s bitter the way in which these evil people seem to survive and duplicates of them crop up in each generation. The world is so beautiful, and Man it seems can be not only at the top of creation, but also lower than the snakes.