Taking the Piste: Davos on a Dinner Lady's Wages

“Irresponsible, left-wing and weak”. That is how David Cameron described Ed Miliband at today’s Prime Minister’s Question Time. I would prefer to characterise Miliband the Younger as an ignorant little rich boy, completely out of touch with the living standards of ordinary people. Why do I take this view? Well, how else could one possibly interpret his following retort to David Cameron:

“Unlike the Prime Minister, I’m not gonna demonise the dinner lady, the cleaner, the nurse. People who earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday.”

Jesus! Unless George Osborne is booking last minute no-frills out-of-season deals in Bulgaria when there’s not a flake of snow to be seen, and is cashing in his loyalty card points on some supermarket special offer, cleaners, dinner ladies and nurses must be coining it. I’ve evidently gone into the wrong career and am now contemplating picking up duster, bucket and mop and getting down to work.

Cleaners typically earn the minimum wage of £6.08 per hour, as do dinner ladies. Nurses, naturally, earn rather more. So, assuming a standard 37-hour working week, a cleaner would earn £224.96 before deductions for tax and National Insurance. Dinner ladies tend to work part-time, so let’s be generous and say 25 hours on £6.08 which yields £152 gross. Are we then to assume that George Osborne spends in the region of £150 to £225 for his annual skiing holiday? Now, I’m thrifty, but even I’d be dubious about taking a skiing holiday (if I could ski) costing that amount. So, how much do such holidays actually cost?

Casting around the internet, I came across some good deals, the cheapest being 7 nights self-catering based on four sharing in Andorra. Including the flight from Manchester it came to £199. Another of the cheaper destinations – the Bulgarian resorts of Borovets and Bansko – offered skiing holidays from £342 per person. However, I am not convinced that Osborne would favour Andorra or Bulgaria, and might instead prefer somewhere with a little more snob appeal, such as Val d’Isere. Here, the cheapest deal on offer clocks in at £285, although there are some snags such as the following not being included: flights; food and bed linen. So, if the Chancellor should be tighter than old man Steptoe, be flexible enough to be able to go on holiday at the drop of a hat, and have eaten and imbibed enough to sustain himself for a week without recourse to meat or drink, then he might be able to survive for this period at an Andorran ski resort on a cleaner’s average wages. Even then, he’d have to walk to and from the airports both at home and in Andorra, so Miliband’s claim doesn’t really seem to add up.

Having looked at bargain basement ski deals, let’s take a look at what the Chancellor might actually spend on a week’s skiing holiday in Val d’Isere or Davos. I suggest that he would want at least four-star accommodation which would need to be exclusive enough to avoid the unwanted attentions of the ‘hoi polloi’. As you can see from the following link, he might just be able to get a good deal for £929 in Davos next month, or shell out somewhere in the region of £1,400 or £1,600 if he’s not quite so flexible with his dates.

So there we have it: Miliband claims that “the dinner lady, the cleaner, the nurse. . . . earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday.” Nice work if you can get it: £1,400 a week for cleaning. Count me in! Evidence, if any were needed, that Miliband lives in La La Land, or, more accurately, a £1.6 million home in Dartmouth Park. 'Red Ed?' He ought to be red with embarrassment at today’s gaffe. Does he really have any idea of how much working-class people earn? Incidentally, the Milibands must have a cleaner or two. Does anyone know how much they earn? Watch Miliband make a fool of himself in the House of Commons today below the charming picture of the Davos piste.

Piste in Davos: is that a dinner lady or George Osborne?

Make your Choice: Medicine or Islam?

Any university applicant knows how difficult it is to secure a coveted place at their desired institution studying medicine or dentistry. If you wish to study to become a doctor for example, you could find yourself as one of anywhere between 5 and 60 applicants vying for each available place. Many who gain the requisite grades and who are all-round outstanding applicants fail to gain places on their desired degree courses because of this, and yet it transpires, universities have admitted individuals who possess strongly anti-scientific and irrational views who have been forced on them by misplaced ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ legislation. I am of course referring to individuals who adhere to a doctrinaire interpretation of Islam. The Mail on Sunday reports that:

Muslim students, including trainee doctors on one of Britain's leading medical courses, are walking out of lectures on evolution claiming it conflicts with creationist ideas established in the Koran.

Professors at University College London have expressed concern over the increasing number of biology students boycotting lectures on Darwinist theory, which form an important part of the syllabus, citing their religion.

Similar to the beliefs expressed by fundamentalist Christians, Muslim opponents to Darwinism maintain that Allah created the world, mankind and all known species in a single act.

One reason underpinning the emergence of this phenomenon, other than the rapid growth of the number of Muslims in the UK (England in particular), is the fact that the Labour administration and its Condem successor have promoted faith schooling and allowed anti-rationalism into the curriculum, undercutting the very basis of the scientific method itself. There are now a number of Muslim schools for example which indoctrinate children with Qur’anic literalism, and thus churn out increasing numbers of university applicants inculcated with an anti-Western anti-Enlightenment outlook that despises the host society and its non-Muslim population. They might possess a formal education in terms of the requisite A Level grades, but in reality, they carry within themselves the seeds of a resurgent mediaevalism and thus cannot be regarded as intellectually rounded. They are not fit to enter university, let alone to study medicine or one of the sciences.

Quite clearly therefore, legislation needs to be changed so that schools do not teach anti-science, and that individuals holding an anti-scientific outlook are not admitted to medical and science degrees and associated courses at university. We have thousands of talented young people with the right attitudes and knowledge who would make good doctors and dentists who are unable to secure a place on their desired course, so I would like to see legislation changed to ensure that individuals carrying anti-scientific values are removed from courses in medicine, with these places then being reallocated to those who deserve to study their chosen subject. University College London, and all other universities affected by this phenomenon, should expel these students, but of course, our wretched politically correct legislation prevents them from pursuing this course of action. I for one would not feel at ease being treated by a doctor who subscribed to the Qur’an rather than to the scientific method. This issue must surely be one that the British Freedom Party seeks to address. 

‘A Potential Model for Europe’: Bosnian Islam!

On occasion, I happen upon articles that possess such outlandish content that I have to pinch myself to check that I am not dreaming, and today has afforded me one of those moments of incredulity. Although perhaps not quite as bizarre as David Icke’s belief in a global conspiracy involving interdimensional humanoid lizards, it isn’t that far removed in terms of its sheer counterfactuality. The said article appeared on the Deutsche Welle site, and related to last week’s gathering of international scholars in Stuttgart which addressed the question: ‘What’s the ideal form of Islam for a European context, if there is one?’

The answer that seemed to win most favour was ‘Bosnian Islam’, owing to the manner in which it had previously been institutionalised and headed by a Grand Mufti. Delegates appeared to consider that this made it in some way more acceptable to Europeans, as it thus possessed a structure somewhat analogous to the Church. However, the statement that really took my breath away is reproduced below:

Muslims make up the majority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and they live harmoniously alongside Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Sephardic Jews. This diversity, along with the 130 years during which the country was ruled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, made Bosnian Islam what it is today.

The use of the word “harmoniously” in this context does not strike me as apposite, unless you are happy to construct sentences such as “Bosniak Muslims and mujahideen harmoniously playing football with the heads of murdered Serb civilians”. To hold up the experience of Bosnia as a model for the rest of Europe to emulate sends a chill down my spine. For me, the appropriate form of Islam in Europe is ex-Islam. We should be supporting apostasy, not the propagation of this unbidden supremacist proselytising ideology. For some reason however, the scholars who gathered in Stuttgart appear to have omitted this approach from their deliberations.

Their preferred Model for Europe: The 'harmonious' Face of Bosnian Islam

My preferred Model for Europe: Gordana Tomic (non-Muslim Serb)

The Politics of Climate Science: Energy Security versus Globalism

Our consciousness is bounded by our temporal horizons which, owing to the relatively brief span of an individual’s existence, are not long: circa 80 years for inhabitants of the developed nations. For many therefore, the concerns that preoccupy them are of an exigent nature and leave little time for deep reflection: the demands of work and family, and the need to maintain a healthy social life. These lead to a focus upon the short and medium term measured in days, weeks, months and years.

Few think beyond these parameters, for they are either too busy, or temperamentally disinclined to reflection. Significantly, this observation applies also to the bulk of our politicians, whose actions are predominantly conditioned by their desire to generate positive headlines in the short term, and to secure re-election in accordance with the rhythm of the electoral cycle in the medium term. Anything more than five years hence is thus not considered to be of paramount importance in the mind of the career politician.

Some people, owing to an interest in history, are able to think in somewhat longer timescales, of centuries and, in some cases, millennia. However, these temporal points of reference still constitute little more than the blink of an eye if we look at Earth’s deep history; at its geological record. Looking at the question of time through the eyes of the evolutionary biologist, the geologist and the cosmologist gives us a true understanding of the resilience of life on our planet, and an awareness of the vast fluctuations in average surface temperatures and atmospheric composition that put today’s agonising over hypothesised anthropogenic global warming into perspective. Whether or not the burning of fossil fuels contributed significantly to the small measured increase in global average temperatures during the closing decades of the Twentieth Century is very much a moot point, for climate models have not panned out as expected.

Climate science is the child of meteorology, and although the parent has made clear strides towards greater accuracy in recent decades, forecasting the weather remains highly uncertain beyond four to five days in the future. Climate modelling is thus in its infancy, and having no other analogues of the Earth to observe, modellers have been compelled to fall back upon computer simulations from which to draw their inferences. Elsewhere in the Solar System, the two other terrestrial planets possessed of substantial atmospheres – Venus and Mars – function as poor comparators for the Earth for a host or reasons. Neither possesses a hydrological cycle, and the atmospheres of each are comprised predominantly of carbon dioxide, unlike the Earth, where nitrogen predominates and oxygen makes its vital contribution to sustaining life. Moreover, whereas the atmosphere of Venus is far denser than Earth’s, with its pressure being some 93 times higher at the planetary surface, that of Mars is far more rarefied, being less than one hundredth that of the Earth. Venus alas is not Earth’s tropical twin as hypothesised in the 1950s, but an infernal place with a surface scorched beneath a crushing atmosphere rich in sulphuric acid at temperatures of 467ºC, whereas Mars is a frigid highly oxidising environment beset by seasonal hemispheric dust storms, where the protection of a spacesuit would be required to walk upon its surface because of the low atmospheric pressure.

In the distant past, the Earth’s temperatures have varied widely, with some palaeoclimatologists subscribing to the ‘Snowball Earth’ hypothesis, in which it is claimed that most if not all of the globe was temporarily bound in ice, whereas at other times the poles once having experienced temperatures now associated with the Tropics. The average global temperature is currently 15ºC, yet in the past it has been 8-10°C higher and life survived. We currently live in an interglacial period, and the eccentricity in our planetary orbit and axial tilt means that another ice age will at some point be inevitable, and in geological terms, this should not be a long time in coming. Milanković cycles will ensure that ice one day spreads to lower latitudes and sea levels drop. Having thus set the scene, let us now return to the contemporary furore surrounding ‘climate change’.

'Deniers' versus 'Warmists': Climate Science Controversy

Many people feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and crave immutable truths even where they do not exist; such individuals are predisposed towards ‘faith’ rather than reason. In the debate concerning ‘climate change’ or, more accurately, the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (CAGW), one can discern two broad mutually antagonistic camps, which label their foes in the following derogatory fashion: ‘deniers’, for those who oppose, and ‘warmists’ for those who support the CAGW hypothesis. What doesn’t help the science is the fact that the debate has become intensely politicised, with anti-Western globalists who control the governments of the Western nations backing the ‘warmist’ side of the argument, and the oil industry supporting the ‘deniers’.

Public trust in the scientific community initially received a significant dent with the release of the ‘Climategate’ emails, and this week, further emails have led to what has been dubbed ‘Climategate II’, with James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph publishing a sample of these on his blog. One particularly damning email is reproduced below.

2495; Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.

Evidently, the sentiment expressed in this message cannot be adjudged to have been either neutral or objective in tone, as we would expect from a natural scientist. We may unfortunately have been long accustomed to such overtly politicised attitudes within the misnamed social ‘sciences’, but to see this creeping into the natural sciences is deeply worrying, for it risks undermining public confidence in science in general. When looking at these messages, it must be remembered that they express not any flaw in the scientific method, but a flaw in the characters of individual scientists who have chosen to place their favoured political causes ahead of objectivity.

Given that the coming week witnesses the Durban Climate Change Summit, the timing of ‘Climategate II’ is unlikely to have been coincidental. Just as there are identifiable lobby groups which wish to push forward a global ‘development’ agenda that involves the deindustrialisation of the West and the transfer of wealth to non-Western states, so too are there lobbyists acting on behalf of the oil sector which sees the ‘decarbonisation’ agenda as inimical to its interests. Irrespective of the furore that this public debate may generate in the West, China will continue to plough on with its economic development by increasing its electricity generating capacity, often employing coal-fired power stations. For the West to deindustrialise whilst China, India and others continue their race for growth based upon hydrocarbon fuels is folly, for unless a real alternative to these fuels is found in the UK and other countries now averse to generating carbon dioxide, all this policy will do is hasten the economic decline of those countries that see themselves as pursuing an ‘ethical’ energy policy.

The wisdom of choking off economic growth through ratcheting up the price of non-renewables in the UK is further called into question by revised estimates of projected temperature increases released by the IPCC this week. The BBC reports that:

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7C to 2.6C (3.1F to 4.7F).

That is a much tighter range than the one produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2.0C to 4.5C.

The new analysis also reduces the expected rise in average surface temperatures to just over 2C, from 3C.

Securing national energy Supplies
Even if one accepts the findings of these revised projections, it would make sense for the UK to place energy security at the top of its policy agenda and to reopen many of our abandoned coalmines with a view to achieving this. In the 1980s it was estimated that we possessed circa 300 years worth of coal reserves beneath our feet; moreover, diesel can be synthetically produced from coal if need be, thereby providing an alternative to oil imports; for new coal-burning plants, we could use emergent carbon capture technologies. Ultimately however, we do need to find new power sources, so research must continue apace into nuclear fusion and hydrogen as a fuel.

Revitalising our domestic energy sector would generate tens of thousands of new jobs bringing wealth back to areas of our country that have been blighted since the pit closures, creating spin-off employment in the heavy-machinery supply chain and in other businesses required to support the sector. Prosperity could thereby be restored to areas of long-term unemployment and deprivation, creating a virtuous circle of development. It would also help us to choke off the flow of capital to Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia that use their money to spread Salafist Islam in our country and others. Without oil, these theocratic rentier states would count for next to nothing politically, and their malign global influence would collapse into insignificance.

Piers Corbyn: the Ice Prophet?
Returning to the question of the forecasting of climate and weather, one man who has received considerable approbation amongst CAGW sceptics has been Piers Corbyn, who has appeared in the House of Lords in an effort to persuade peers that the assumptions of mainstream climate science are deeply flawed. His forecasting places great store upon solar and lunar factors and their interaction with other elements of the climate system, and his advocates claim that he is far more reliable in his forecasting than the Met Office. As Corbyn’s full forecasts are only made available to subscribers, and his ‘hits’ are remembered whilst his ‘misses’ are generally forgotten, it is not easy to ascertain if the claims with respect to his ability to accurately forecast months in advance stack up in his favour. However, his presentation to the House of Lords delivered on 26 October 2011, part of which is reproduced in the video below, made some startling claims with respect to this year’s winter weather in Britain. In his winter weather forecast for 2011-2012, he claims that it will be “exceptionally cold” in Britain from 27 November to 28 December, with “huge snowfalls at times” around 2 December and 14-15 December, with the cold being brought in by Arctic or North-easterly winds.

Today is 26 November and there is no sign of Corbyn’s prediction coming to pass. It is still pretty mild for this time of year, and other forecasters are, if anything, forecasting milder rather than colder than average conditions over the coming weeks. Nonetheless, as of 25 November Corbyn remained bullish, stating that although the freezing blast had been “postponed”, it was still coming, and that his latest prognostications would be revealed at midday on 29 November.

Whatever happens this winter or in the years ahead, one thing remains clear: climate and weather are intensely complex systems which we have yet to fully understand. ‘Climate change’, whatever the facts of the matter, is a politically charged term that is being used to achieve political ends which are not necessarily in our best interests. That said, finding alternatives to foreign oil should remain at the forefront of our policy agenda, with a view to securing energy security and prosperity for our people and our country. 

 

Independent covers EDL-British Freedom Party Alliance

Today the Independent ran a story on the recent announcement that the EDL was to back the British Freedom Party. Initially, it ran under the headline of ‘Angry face of far-right protest prepares to storm local elections’, but was later toned down to the rather more sober ‘English Defence League prepares to storm local elections’.

Unsurprisingly, the coverage was not what you would call sympathetic, but at least on this occasion the likes of UAF and Hope Not Hate were not provided a platform from which to spew their language of anti-English hate, employing the mandatory (in their eyes) vitriolic epithets of ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’ and ‘racist’ with respect to their objects of loathing: the EDL and British Freedom. Instead, the Independent drafted in self-styled ‘expert’ on ‘far-right’ politics, Dr Goodwin from the University of Nottingham, to provide a little context on this development for Independent readers who will not generally be aware of what has occurred in nationalist politics over the past twelve months or so. He foresees that there should be scope for significant growth for British Freedom, as he rightly acknowledges that there exists a mainstream political void in this country when it comes to the question of mass immigration and the desire to tackle it.

Websites inimical to nationalism have not been backward in offering their opinions on the recent tie-up between the EDL and British Freedom, the UAF site claiming that this agreement to co-operate was essentially a classic ‘fascist’ arrangement:

The new alliance – by bringing together the electoral BFPand the EDL thugs – gives the fascists their traditional two-pronged attack.

Strangely, they do not seem to apply this warped logic to their own campaigns and organisation, which mobilise considerable numbers of people to take to the streets and violently confront the EDL and members of nationalist parties. UAF is but the street wing of the SWP and the Labour Party, and has been since its inception. It exists to destroy freedom of speech through intimidation and violence, threatening anyone of whatever political persuasion who dares to disagree with their ‘no-platform’ policy. Neither the EDL nor British Freedom believe in the ‘no-platform’ position, and instead support free speech. Which side therefore, would you adjudge to be more ‘fascist’ in its attitude and behaviour? UAF is organised mass thuggery, yet peculiarly the state does not seem to be concerned about its methods and objectives.

More publicity is on the way for British Freedom, as Paul Weston is to be interviewed by the BBC over the coming week. The party has recently been given a boost to both its membership and visibility by its alliance with the EDL; what is required now is to keep the momentum going and to build an effective and disciplined campaigning party machine capable of winning elections. This is perfectly achievable, and if this process is handled correctly and intelligently, electoral success awaits the British Freedom Party, whereas the lies of UAF will be exposed for the hostile fabrications that they are.

British Freedom Party Website vanishes

Good morning readers. By the time you click on the following link - British Freedom Party - matters may have been rectified, but the British Freedom Party's website appears to have vanished. Does anyone know what's going on? Has it been hacked?

Richard Dawkins on Islam

Richard Dawkins is in a fortunate position, for having reached the pinnacle of a long and distinguished academic career, he has nothing to fear from other academics when speaking out over issues that would end the careers of younger postgraduate researchers and colleagues. He has reputation and money enough to deflect such politically correct flak. Whilst commonly portrayed as a scourge of religion in general, in the video interview below he shows himself to be irrevocably opposed to Islam in particular, which he singles out as being a particularly backward and obscurantist belief system.

City Centre Protests hit Leeds

Leeds is but the latest city to witness protests spawned by the ongoing economic crisis. Today, tents could be seen in City Square, flanked by elegant bronze nymphs bearing torches and baring torsos, whilst the august figures of James Watt and Joseph Priestley stared on blindly. Below, a group of mainly young people had chosen to bring their own version of the ‘Occupy’ protests to Leeds. Whereas I understand the frustration that motivates the protestors, the protests themselves I find a little perplexing, given their unfocused nature and lack of clear objectives.

For some reason, instead of protesting against the ideology of globalism and its enabling institutions such as the EU, the protesters instead elect to direct their inchoate sense of rage towards bankers alone, as if they operated in an institutional, political and legal void. This of course is not the case, and only through a popular peaceful participatory nationalism will we be able to successfully change those institutional, political and legal arrangements that currently enable predatory global capitalism to strip entire peoples of their right to self-determination and to prosperity.

A few streets away on Briggate, another group of young protesters with a rather clearer and more focused objective – to draw public attention to the scandal of the tens of thousands of avoidable deaths amongst our elderly each year from cold – unfurled a banner with the slogan ‘High fuel prices kill. Don’t take it lying down.’ Other than the two who clasped the poles of the banner, the protesters lay upon the street as if dead, dressed in winter clothes. A crowd gathered to look and take pictures as other well-heeled shoppers vanished into the neighbouring Harvey Nichols store, paying them but cursory attention. A handful of police stood by and watched, their van parked in the middle of the pedestrianised street.

It is indeed a scandal that several tens of thousands of our old people died during the last winter, solely because they could not afford to heat their homes. I would therefore like to congratulate this group of protesters for highlighting this issue, but would like to invite them, as well as those engaged in the Leeds ‘Occupy’ protest, to consider what lies at the root of this poverty: globalisation and the economic depression wrought by the deindustrialisation of our nation. The mirage of prosperity based upon a service economy should by now be clear for all to see.

How much would it have cost for our Government to have saved the lives of the estimated 25,000 people aged 65 and over who are estimated to have died during each of the past five winters because they could not afford to pay their fuel bills? Although the current administration has not been willing to tackle this issue, it freely volunteered to spend what could be up to £1.75 billion upon its intervention in Libya in the name of saving Libyan lives. Why could this money not instead have been spent upon saving British lives? If we divide this sum by the estimated 125,000 pensioners who have unnecessarily died because of fuel poverty over the past five years, we end up with a sum of £14,000 per head, or £2,800 per capita per year, which greatly exceeds any possible heating bill. Why has money instead been spent upon a conflict in which we had no interest, whilst our own vulnerable citizens have been left to die? 

Whilst the politicians of the globalist parties - Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat - may be happy to prioritise arrangements in such a way, this is something that the British Freedom Party would never allow to happen. Whatever the coming winter brings in terms of weather, we can unfortunately anticipate that many more of our elderly people will meet an early grave because of conscious political decisions based upon the ideology of globalism.   

Nymph in Leeds City Square

EDL slandered by Unions

The Guardian’s publication last Saturday of allegations made by a number of trade unions about the EDL was nothing short of slanderous; a piece of baseless malicious black propaganda; ideologically motivated, and indicative of a fear of the appeal of a genuine grassroots working-class movement that has come of age. As neither the Guardian nor the trade unions wish to acknowledge and confront the ugly reality underpinning the necessary rise of the EDL, they resort not to debate, but to defamation. Thus it was that the paper ran an article using slurs fed to it by Unite, Unison and the TUC, in which it claimed that the EDL was looking to broaden “out their attacks to focus on leftwing organisations” and to seek to target “striking public sector workers” on 30 November.

What evidence have they of this assertion? I see none; I know of none. Who would benefit from the threat of such a deeply stupid action? Not the EDL. The unions? Of course! It gives them a mythical bogeyman to fight; the phantom of a non-existent ‘far-right’ in their parlance; how cosy and warm it makes them feel to be united in their struggle against ‘fascism’. The EDL, ladies and gentlemen of the trades union movement, wishes to draw your attention to Islamisation and its unbidden ‘gifts’ to this country and its people. Will you not open your eyes and your ears to this admittedly highly disagreeable reality? Must you forever let dogma render you incapable of reason?

It is interesting, is it not, that the Guardian and the trades unions should adopt this tack on the day that the EDL announced that it would be collaborating with the British Freedom Party, in pursuit of a popular democratic political solution to the problem of Islamisation? That such a fevered denunciatory text should have been published at this juncture, underscores their fear that the edifice of multiculturalism will come tumbling down. It brings to mind Metternich’s quote concerning the Austrian Empire:  

‘My realm resembles a worm-eaten house. If one part is removed, one can never tell how much will fall.’

The EDL is evolving, and will be acting in a much more focused and intelligent manner in future. In this change of tactics, and its endorsement of British Freedom, there lies hope for a genuine breakthrough, and ultimately, success. When the Independent Labour Party emerged in tandem with the fledgling trades union movement, these two represented the genuine concerns and interests of England’s working class, but today, history points us in a different direction. Now, it is the British Freedom Party in tandem with the English Defence League, which is in tune with and articulates the concerns of the English working class. This is why the trades union movement has stooped so low as to engage in defamation.

Over the past few days, the number of British Freedom’s Facebook followers has increased by more than 700. The English Democrats have failed to gain that number of additional followers over six months. Which of these therefore, would you adjudge to be en route to emerging as our much-needed credible moderate nationalist party? I know where I’m putting my money.

EU Diktat: open your borders to mass Arab Immigration

A report in the Daily Express highlights that moves are afoot to increase and intensify immigration from outside of the EU, with particular reference to North Africa and Asia. The EU peddles the lie that this immigration is essential for “prosperity” and that “migrant-centred” policies must therefore be tailored to “facilitate and organise legal immigration”. This will of course lead to the increased marginalisation of our own people in the labour and housing markets, and rather than leading to prosperity, is more likely to lead to economic and social collapse and a potential Yugoslav-style denouement.

Why are the leaders of the EU so anti-European? Why do they despise native Europeans so much? A deliberate plan exists to effectively replace the European peoples with Afro-Asiatic, particularly Muslim, immigrants. This is no wild-eyed conspiracy theory, for this intention is well-attested to and publicly documented in sources that you can access, and the overarching plan goes by the name of Euromed. Details of this plan, backed by the International Organization for Migration, can be found here.

The political upheaval in the Arab world provides EU policy makers with the pretext that they require to accelerate the Euromed process, and the surge of culturally hostile and resentful immigrants into Europe via Lampedusa that we have witnessed this year, will be as nothing to the human deluge to come. These immigrants are but the precursors of the mass settlement of our countries by the predominantly Muslim peoples of North Africa and the Middle East. 

The video below illustrates the sort of cultural work that Euromed advocates: the promotion of Islam to indigenous Europeans from the cradle to the grave. The sight of innocent German children in a kindergarten being subjected to Islamic propaganda in this video is frankly nauseating. They are being psychologically softened up for cultural and biological disinheritance in their own land. This could be said to be tantamount to child abuse and genocide by stealth. What can be done to stop this? 

Euromed: Arab Spring, European Winter

EDL declares support for British Freedom

A week is a long time in politics, and my recent piece stating that Tommy Robinson was to leave the EDL for British Freedom turned out to be incorrect. In fact, what was announced at today’s gathering of leading members of the EDL in Birmingham proved to be even more interesting than anticipated: the EDL is to lend its support to the British Freedom Party. This modus operandi is in line with what I recommended earlier this year, and should enable EDL supporters to gain an effective political voice. The British Freedom site reports that Robinson will not join the party for now, but may elect to do so in future. Moreover:

this is an opportunity for EDL members to move over to BF and for the first time provide input and promote theviews of the British working class within a British political party. The EDL will utilise their divisional structure to support British Freedom. This is important, because the working class have been betrayed by the Labour Party.

This last point is crucial, for the English working class have until now found themselves without a champion, as the Labour Party abandoned them many years ago in favour of promoting the interests of ethnic minorities and stigmatising many ordinary and rational concerns of working class people as ‘racist’, simply because they wished to protect their jobs and their right to affordable housing. 

The EDL will be refocusing its efforts in the New Year, following a much more tightly targeted and focused political agenda. This new approach is to be welcomed, as it represents a constructive move by the group that is likely to yield dividends.

Tommy Robinson to leave EDL for British Freedom

On Saturday 19 November the EDL Way Forward Meeting will take place in Birmingham, at which it will be announced that Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) is to quit the EDL and instead venture into electoral politics. He has selected a political party which whilst championing the EDL’s anti-Islamisation stance, possesses a full policy platform: British Freedom. Coming as it does within a fortnight of Paul Weston assuming the Chairmanship of British Freedom, this move will undoubtedly boost the profile of a party that has hitherto been invisible to all but a tiny minority of people in the UK.

This move illustrates that Robinson/Lennon has come to the realisation that he had personally taken things as far as he could with the EDL, and that existing mainstream political parties have no interest in tackling the issue of Islamisation. His decision was prefigured by reports in the Daily Star re his possible entry into the political arena, and discussions at the London 'Counterjihad Summit' in September. Earlier this year he momentarily thought that David Cameron intended to tackle the policy disaster of multiculturalism following a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Munich, but as I wrote at the time, Cameron’s rhetoric was crafted to create the impression that he was opposed to multiculturalism and to mask the reality of his vigorous promotion of this ideology and policy. The same applies to Cameron’s rhetoric over mass immigration and membership of the EU, which whilst seemingly chiming with public opposition to both, actually signifies the inverse of what people believe he stands for. After all, mass immigration has reached record levels under Cameron’s premiership, and he has of late been pushing for the UK’s continued involvement in the EU, and for the countries within the Eurozone to pull closer together. His use of the term ‘Eurosceptic’ as a self-appellation is thus a deeply cynical and counterfactual one.

Will this news bring a fillip to British Freedom’s political fortunes? It could, if it manages to steer a rational course that whilst drawing attention to its opposition to Islamisation doesn’t overly fixate on this issue, and instead focuses upon its broad extant policy mix, with its alternative to the failed economic models of free market global capitalism and socialist central planning. Moreover, any party that seeks to promote a particular religion in the UK today will fail amongst our people, and a secular approach is essential that can accommodate the irreligious as well as pagans, Christians, etc. Time will tell. Below is Robinson/Lennon's latest interview with Jeremy Paxman.

Update: As of late Saturday afternoon, it became clear that Robinson was not in fact going to leave the EDL, and would instead remain as a leading member of the protest group whilst endorsing the British Freedom Party. An article summarising the decision taken at the EDL meeting can be accessed here.

The Arab Spring and Euromed

How might these two be linked? The first, an outbreak of mass popular unrest in many countries of the Arab world, in which political Islam plays a significant role; the second, a process initiated by the European Union without the consent of indigenous Europeans for the managed mass ingress of Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. Are there indeed, any links? No sentient member of the adult population in our country can have failed to have heard of the Arab Spring, yet how many of our citizens have heard of Euromed? Euromed is after all, not something that has been widely publicised, for were it to be so, our people would vociferously object to it; not that this objection would necessarily make any difference to policy of course, for the strong opposition of a majority in Britain to mass immigration has not lessened the intent of the globalist parties – Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative – to facilitate this process. 

Euromed – or the Euro-Mediterranean Process to give it its official title – lists the following as its primary aims:

• Create a common area of peace and stability through political dialogue
• Construct a zone of shared prosperity through an economic and financial partnership and the gradual establishment of a free trade zone
• Promote the rapprochement between peoples by encouraging social, cultural, and human exchanges between cultures and civil societies; The partnership has two complementary dimensions:

• The bilateral dimension: the EU carries out substantial co-operation activities bilaterally with each country, the most important being the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements.
• The regional dimension: one of the most innovative aspects of the Partnership, covering the political, economic and cultural areas of regional co-operation.

With respect to the first of these aims, one can have few quibbles, for the citizens of EU member states surely do not wish for conflict with the states of North Africa and the Middle East. However, once we move away from the first of these goals, the implications for the people of Britain and the other member states of the EU become rather more worrying, for after all, was not the EU itself sold to the peoples of Europe as a free trade area rather than a superstate? The second bullet point in effect lays the economic foundations for political union between the EU and the majority Muslim states of North Africa and the Middle East. Indeed, this intent is alluded to in the third major strand promoting the ‘rapprochement between peoples’ which in effect amounts to the colonisation of a demographically ageing Europe by the high fertility peoples from the southern and eastern littoral of the Mediterranean.

The political tumult in the Arab world which became known as the Arab Spring began in Tunisia in December 2010, rapidly spreading to other countries in the region and ultimately leading to the overthrow of governments in Tunisia, Egypt and – with the assistance of foreign intervention – Libya. By the time the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union met for the 3069^th time on 21 February 2011, significant unrest had manifested itself in fifteen Arab states and the EU was readying itself to declare in favour of the anti-establishment forces now flexing their muscles in these countries, irrespective of the nature of the movements involved.

This meeting adopted a number of conclusions, the first of which made the following tenuous claim: “Europe and the Mediterranean region share a common history and cultural heritage.” Well, if we except the history of conflict that has bedevilled the Mediterranean since the arrival of Islam, this region actually shares nothing in terms of a common cultural heritage and history since the demise of the Roman Empire. I would contend that despite the intense efforts of the early Church to eradicate much of Classical philosophy and scholarship, it is the European nations that today owe much to Ancient Greece and Rome, whereas the rational influence of Classical Antiquity is far more attenuated in those states that fell to Islam. In reality therefore, non-Muslim European peoples and Muslims inhabit fundamentally different psychological and cultural universes. Contrary to the assertion of the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU, there is thus no meaningful “common history and cultural heritage”; we belong to two separate civilisations.

On 29 August 2011 the Council of the European Commission issued a press release regarding its establishment of a ‘humanitarian presence’ in Libya. Amongst the measures it enumerated were:

• Assistance to the people fleeing Libya
• Assistance to refugees who cannot go back to their home country and Libyans fleeing Libya

One of the primary partners associated with this activity was the International Organization for Migration (IOM) which was founded in 1951 with the slogan of ‘Migration for the Benefit of All’. As is evident from this slogan, it can hardly be adjudged to be a neutral body with respect to the question of international migration which is attested to by the following statements taken from its website:

IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society.

As the leading international organization for migration, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to:

• Assist in meeting the growing operational challenges of migration management.

• Advance understanding of migration issues.

• Encourage social and economic development through migration.

• Uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants.

Strategic Focus:

1. To provide secure, reliable, flexible and cost-effective services for persons who require international migration assistance.

2. To enhance the humane and orderly management of migration and the effective respect for the human rights of migrants in accordance with international law.

3. To offer expert advice, research, technical cooperation and operational assistance to States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders, in order to build national capacities and facilitate international, regional and bilateral cooperation on migration matters.

The Italian island of Lampedusa has this year been swamped by tens of thousands of immigrants issuing from Tunisia, Libya and sub-Saharan Africa using the turmoil of the Arab Spring as a pretext to claim ‘political asylum’ in the EU, whilst in fact being economic migrants. Many of these have clearly stated that they wish to settle in Britain, in particular, England.

Underpinning the goals of Euromed is the misplaced assumption that people are little more than interchangeable economic units, with the cultural identities that they carry counting for little, and that no culture can be judged to be superior to any other. Thus, think the policy makers of the EU and the advocates of multiculturalism, it matters but little if the imported population differs radically in its mentality and customs from native Europeans. It is the opinion of the author that this supposition is both fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Culture matters greatly.

Now that Qaddhafi is dead and Libya finds itself under a National Transitional Council; that Tunisia has become a democracy, and Egyptians head to the polls for their national elections on 28 November, the formal preconditions for Euromed’s transformation are being laid: the establishment of democratic forms of governance. The ultimate aim of both Euromed and the British foreign policy establishment is the accession of the Arab states of the Mediterranean littoral and Turkey to the EU; a greater Europe in which European values are effectively replaced by Islam, and the European peoples by Afro-Asiatics. In effect, this Euromed hybrid would not constitute so much the rebirth of the Roman Empire, as a renewed Caliphate with universal ambitions.

Cameron, Hague and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are continuing to push exactly the same line with respect to EU enlargement as was pursued under the Blair and Brown administrations. Recognition of this continuity is important, insofar as former Foreign Secretary and failed Labour Leadership candidate David Miliband made clear in a speech delivered on 15 November 2007 that not only should Turkey join the EU, but that the EU should look in the longer term to create a:

version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Maghreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.

Such a move would be suicidal for Britain and the peoples of Europe. It would be far more rational and beneficial for us to orientate ourselves towards a Euro-Siberian geopolitical axis, rather than towards a North-South Euro-Mediterranean one. Alas, our foreign policy establishment and that of the EU is instead intent upon manufacturing a non-existent enemy in the form of Russia.

The precise ideological complexions of the governments that emerge from the unrest of the Arab Spring have yet to fully reveal themselves, but there exists one certainty: Islamism will play a large if not a predominant role in the politics of these countries. Already in Tunisia we see a coalition government led by the Islamist Ennadha Party; in Libya, Islamists play a significant role in the National Transitional Council and fighting has broken out between rival militias; and in Egypt, the prospect of an Islamist victory in this month’s elections looms large. Egyptian secularists and Copts live in fear of the rise of Islamism, and whereas apprehensions on this score have hitherto focused upon the long-established Muslim Brotherhood, another allegedly more ‘radical’ Islamist party – the Nour Party – linked to Saudi Salafists, has emerged and is causing even greater concerns. Its supporters are reported as having torn down election posters for the Muslim Brotherhood, and whereas Nour is Arabic for “light”, any success on the part of this party of light would serve to bring only the darkness of religious obscurantism to Egypt. According to the Financial Times, Saudi finance is believed to underpin its rise.

Why did the UK intervene in the Libyan conflict? This intervention was ostensibly launched in the name of the principle of ‘humanitarian interventionism’, invoking Qaddhafi’s prospective slaughter of Libyan rebels as a casus belli. Although there was a degree of apprehension amongst sections of the press and some politicians with respect to the wisdom of this move, the public mood at the time was manipulated in a sufficiently skilful manner by the ConDem Coalition so as to win majority support for air strikes. Al-Qaeda militants were known to be amongst the rebels, yet our government took the decision to enter the conflict on their side. The reasons for this are undoubtedly complex and beyond the scope of this particular article, but the implications of the creation of façade democracies in a number of North African countries and their recognition by the EU states are significant. Firstly, it bestows legitimacy on the new governments in the eyes of EU policy makers; secondly, it allows the peoples of the region to express their natural political preference for Islamism; and thirdly, it paves the way for these states to move towards political association with, and eventual membership of, the EU, thus sounding the death knell of European civilisation. Is this what you want? Would this make our lives better? I think not.   

The Member States of Euromed

Tommy Robinson assaulted by Sayful Islam

In the following video, Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon drives a reporter around his home town of Luton, taking him through the town’s Islamic enclave. There they encounter local Islamist Sayful Islam who recognises Robinson and approaches the car to repeatedly call Robinson a ‘racist’ before hitting him in the face. It would behove Jeremy Paxman to witness this ugly reality, given his condescending refusal to recognise the genuine problem that exists with Islamisation in England today. Paxman’s BBC colleague John Humphreys visited Luton relatively recently to interview both Robinson and Islam. At the end of his report he seemed to be on the verge of recognising that the EDL might be articulating genuine concerns, but ultimately the report was equivocal. What would he make of this recent encounter between the two men?

Speech by Paul Weston, British Freedom Party Chairman

The following speech by Paul Weston delivered in Amsterdam last autumn in his capacity as a representative of the International Free Press Society, deals with the themes of free speech, Islamisation and the ethnocide of indigenous Europeans. Below the speech I have reproduced the text of today's official press release re Weston’s assumption of the role of Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

British Freedom Party Press Release

Paul Weston has taken over the role of Chairman of the British Freedom Party (British Freedom) with immediate effect from 10th November 2011.

Paul has written a number of articles over the last few years which were published at the Gates of Vienna website. Topics covered included Islam, Multiculturalism, Liberalism and the general betrayal of Great Britain by its political class and mainstream media.

A recent survey suggested a majority of people would vote for a party that speaks out in defence of the country, but does not carry any historical baggage associated with parties such as the BNP.

British Freedom intends to be an all- encompassing political party rather than a single issue vehicle. It will of course speak openly about the threat of Islam, something no mainstream party – including UKIP – is prepared to do.

British Freedom intends to exploit this gap in the current political landscape. We will calmly and rationally discuss the precarious long-term position in which Great Britain finds herself. We have no time for racism or bigotry, and no time for anything other than civilised discourse.

Among other things, British Freedom believes:

• There is little sustainable in Britain, particularly so in England.
• Our elderly have been betrayed.
• The middle classes have been utilised as cash cows to fund a bloated welfare state.
• The working class has been placed in direct competition with immigrants prepared to work for a wage that cannot possibly finance a normal family life.
• The young have been propagandised and brainwashed, while sadly remaining uneducated.
• Our economy has been debauched.
• Crime is out of control and must be seriously tackled.
• Our Sovereignty has been undemocratically stripped from us.

The long term problems are formidable, but they must be faced. Career politicians care little about the Britain of 2050, or even 2025, preferring instead to concentrate on their re-election chances in four years’ time.

British Freedom will address our current problems, with a view to creating a safe, just, decent and peaceful country for our children and grandchildren. We will also take a long- term view rather than a short-term careerist view. We are certain that these positions will resonate with a public that has been increasingly marginalised by the main parties.

British Freedom Party elects new Chairman

Tomorrow witnesses the official announcement of the results of the elections to the Executive Council of the British Freedom Party, including to the post of Party Chairman. When the party was established last autumn, Peter Mullins agreed to assume the role of acting Chairman with a view to functioning as a caretaker during the party’s initial year. That year has now elapsed, and it will be announced tomorrow that Paul Weston has been elected as the new Party Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

Weston is a former UKIP member who stood for the Cities of London and Westminster seat in the 2010 General Election. His primary reason for leaving the party concerned Nigel Farage’s categorical statement that he did not see a problem with Islamisation in the UK (for a concrete example of Farage’s attitude to this phenomenon, see this earlier blogpost on the Sandhurst Mosque). Having discovered the British Freedom Party, Weston found that its policies and general stance towards Islamisation provided a much better ideological fit for his position than UKIP. He is sure that there will be other UKIP members who share his position and who would find a more natural home in the British Freedom Party, as well as supporters of other parties who feel uneasy about this issue and, more importantly, the twin phenomena that make this process possible: multiculturalism and mass immigration. Both must be brought to an end.  

Plans for the coming months will bring surprises, with a high profile public figure planning to join later this month, guaranteeing significant media coverage and providing the party with a substantial opportunity for a relaunch. It would seem that the ‘new’ political party being discussed at the recent meeting of key movements, parties and bloggers concerned with the Islamisation issue turns out to be Weston’s new political home.

It is believed that George Whale will remain a member of British Freedom’s Executive Council, whereas Lee Barnes, Simon Bennett, Peter Mullins and Michael Wood will not. Confirmation and full details will of course follow tomorrow on the British Freedom website.

New British Freedom Party Chairman: Paul Weston

The Shepley Lion: a new Variation on an old Theme?

Yesterday afternoon reports that “a lion and cub” had been sighted on the railway line in Shepley near Huddersfield led to a police hunt that has as yet found nothing. Although the 16:50 train between Retford and Huddersfield stopped at Shepley Station, passengers were only allowed to board and not to alight, such was the strength of apprehension that such beasts may indeed have been abroad. Thus does Shepley join a long list of locations in Britain where alien big cats are said to have prowled, the most famous examples of which are probably the Beast of Bodmin, the Beast of Exmoor and the Surrey Puma.

Despite the media notoriety associated with the three aforementioned cases, no conclusive evidence of their existence has been forthcoming; yet, unlikely as it may seem, large alien felines have indeed on occasion been captured in the British Isles. Imagine the surprise of the Golders Green householder who spotted a lynx lounging on her garden wall one afternoon in May 2001. The creature was later sedated and captured by staff from London Zoo. Another, rather less fortunate lynx, was reported as having been shot in Norfolk in 1991. As for lions though, thankfully no example of their kind has been found roaming the British countryside.

Reputed sightings of alien big cats lend a certain mystique and charm to often unexceptional places such as Shepley, and contribute to the re-enchantment of our matter-of-fact contemporary landscape, both urban and rural. They are being woven into the rich folkloric tapestry of our island, their ‘existence’ appearing in certain respects to resemble an older tradition associated with another creature: the phantom black dog, the legend of which provided the source material for Conan Doyle’s Hound of the Baskervilles. An infernal hellhound of preternatural dimensions and supernatural provenance possessed of flaming eyes and shaggy black coat, going by such names as Skriker, Padfoot and Barghest. Black Shuck, perhaps the most famous of their number, clawing at the church door and bursting in to wreak death upon the parishioners at prayer in both Bungay and Blythburgh during a mighty storm in August 1577. What of the ghost of Sir Francis Drake, rattling across Dartmoor in his carriage accompanied by headless baying yeth hounds? 

Black Shuck

The clocks, recently turned back for winter, have brought darkness to late afternoon, and amidst the gloaming we may glimpse indistinct shapes. Even in a world of neon and the sodium streetlight, shadows may flit through our peripheral vision, igniting our imaginations. How soundly will the people of Shepley sleep tonight? Will they look furtively over their shoulders when walking the streets? Who knows what may lurk there? A lion? A phantom black dog?  In nearby Huddersfield I own to having seen a lion in the broad light of day, and to prove it, the picture below stands testament to the veracity of my statement. What might be its prey? Could it be depicted in the second of the photographs shown?

The Huddersfield Lion

Its Prey?

Comment te dire adieu?

Thus sang chanteuse Françoise Hardy in her 1968 hit of the same title. A similar question, if not the sentiments underpinning the song, must be passing through the minds of many Frenchwomen and men this week following the fire-bombing of the offices of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo: how to bid farewell to France’s Islamic problem? French society – by which I mean that comprised of its autochthonous population – needs a divorce from its unbidden Maghrebian spouse. The forced marriage of Marianne to Mohammed must be brought to an end. This is no rift between lovers as explored in Hardy’s wistful melancholic lyrics, but something more akin to an attempted rape by the Mohammedan interloper.

In 2005 the printing of cartoons of Mohammed by the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten led to death threats being issued against the cartoonists and the paper’s editors, as well as demands from some Muslims that freedom of speech and expression be curtailed so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities. Sensibilities so delicate in fact that the actions of enraged Islamic mobs are said to have claimed the lives of some 50 people worldwide. On this occasion, nobody has as yet admitted responsibility for the petrol bombing of the Charlie Hebdo offices, but it is of course highly likely that the individual or group of people involved were ‘aggrieved’ Muslims. Moreover, on the same day as the firebombing the Charlie Hebdo website was taken out by Islamist hackers based in Turkey, and the paper’s Belgian website host Bluevision took the site offline after its staff received a number of death threats from Muslim malcontents.

 

This Muslim reaction is wearisomely familiar, and yet what is more troubling is that our politicians continue to stick their heads in the sand and their fingers in their ears: “Islam is a religion of peace” and “such actions have nothing to do with Islam,” they say. Likewise, this is the message of the mainstream media. Ah, if only it were so mes amis, but I am afraid that it is patently not the case. Instead, mainstream politicians across Europe continue to open our borders to Muslims in growing numbers. Do the people who advocate this suicidal policy really believe what they say, or do they pursue this line because they and sections of the media have effectively been bought off with Saudi petrodollars? It may of course be a case of simple cowardice in the face of Muslim willingness to employ violence in the cause of Islamisation, or indeed a combination of all of these factors and still more not listed.

Reporting of this assault upon French liberty slotted neatly into the habitual cultural masochistic editorial lines defined by the BBC and the Guardian. In the BBC’s case, its initial report was equivocal, which is to say, cowardly and a de facto sop to the Islamists. In the case of the Guardian, it was not those who destroyed Charlie Hebdo’s office or who issued death threats against staff at its web-hosting company who were judged to be in the wrong, but the satirical magazine itself. Unsurprisingly, the Guardian also used this incident as another opportunity to attack the French claiming that ‘Muslims feel discriminated against and unwelcome’ in their French host society. The French, like the English, Germans, Swiss and many other European peoples, did not wish their countries to be settled by Islamic colonists, and yet we find ourselves burdened with an intensifying clamour for submission to Islam from this rapidly growing population of ingrates. Thus, despite the words of Paris Mosque head Dalil Boubakeur that ‘French Muslims have nothing to do with political Islam’, political Islam, as well as demographic Islamisation, is on the rise across Europe.

It is time to bid our Muslim ‘lovers’ adieu, for they have only entered into this relationship for the sake of obtaining our money and our belongings (land).  I am afraid that no amount of ‘interfaith dialogue’ (which would seem to be the political equivalent of Relate, but one that always seems to side with the abusing party rather than acting as a neutral arbiter) can resolve our differences, for we need to live separate lives. Let our separation be peaceful, and let us put this unhappy experience of forced cohabitation behind us. Adieu!

So as not to end on too gloomy a note, take time to enjoy the songs below, with Brigitte Bardot’s Moi je joue offering a breezy light-hearted contrast to Françoise Hardy’s Comment te dire adieu? Bardot herself is of course a tireless campaigner against the cruelty of halal slaughter and Islamisation who has scandalously found herself successfully prosecuted five times for “inciting racial hatred”. Her stance has, in more than one respect, been admirable. Where would such women be in an Islamised France? Wrapped in cloth and rendered mute. What a drab, ugly and joyless existence Islam gives rise to!