Rotherham By-election Result: good for UKIP, better for Labour

The Labour candidate Sarah champion romped home in first place in Rotherham, increasing the Labour share of the vote by 1.62% since the 2010 General Election, despite the disgrace of the former MP Denis MacShane, the Muslim grooming scandal and most recently the furore surrounding the local social services’ decision to remove three foster children from a couple simply because they were members of UKIP. UKIP nonetheless did manage to provide their best ever performance in an election for a Westminster seat, coming second and securing 21.79% of the vote, up 15.87% since 2010. It thus seems that Nigel Farage’s assertion during the count that UKIP were running “a close second” was the product of a liberal dose of wishful thinking. Still, the fostering scandal does appear to have imparted a significant boost to UKIP in the seat, but this marks their likely high watermark in Rotherham, given that the party represents the Atlanticist Thatcherite wing of the Conservative Party in exile, and Rotherham is most certainly not natural Tory territory.

The Conservatives polled a miserable fifth place, taking only 5.42% of the vote, down from 16.7% in 2010 when they were the second party in the seat. This switch of allegiance appears to underscore the recent fears voiced by a number of Conservative MPs with respect to the potential for a stronger UKIP to dent their vote in many marginal seats and thereby let Labour win, prompting calls for an ‘electoral pact’ involving the promise of an EU referendum that Nigel Farage has declined to entertain.

However, if last night’s result in Rotherham was adjudged to be a bad one for the senior partner in the Coalition Government, it was a catastrophic one for the Liberal Democrats, who were pushed into eighth place in Rotherham, taking only 2.11% of the vote, down from 16% in 2010 when they came third. This meltdown in the party’s support was paralleled in yesterday’s two other by-elections, most notably in Croydon North where they came fourth with 3.5% of the vote compared to the 14% and third place that they secured in 2010, and in Middlesbrough, where although they came third, their share slumped from 19.9% to 9.9%. Just how ‘sorry’ must Nick Clegg be feeling now? Following on from the three dire results in the crop of parliamentary by-elections earlier this month the Liberal Democrats are currently set firmly on course for electoral annihilation at the next General Election. What, if anything, could the Liberal Democrats do to reverse this precipitous decline in their fortunes?

Having noted the electoral failure of the two parties of government in Rotherham, who benefited other than UKIP? Although the BNP took third place with 8.46% of the vote, this was down from 10.4% in 2010, with this respectable placing in the table being to a considerable extent attributable to the visibility and relative popularity of local candidate Marlene Guest. She certainly fared better than fellow BNP political hopeful Peter Foreman who stood in Middlesbrough, who took only 1.9% of the vote, compared to the party’s 5.8% in 2010. The fall in the BNP’s share displayed in Middlesbrough is more typical of the results achieved by the BNP over the past couple of years, which has seen the party in headlong decline. It is not an exaggeration to state that the BNP is on a terminal trajectory, having lost most of its membership as well as the majority of its more competent organisers.

Coming in fourth place behind the BNP was Muslim convert and apparent Stockholm Syndrome sufferer Yvonne Ridley who stood for Respect and took an 8.34% share. This was the first time that the party had stood in Rotherham, and the share of the vote obtained suggests that Respect bagged the Muslim bloc vote in the borough and little else, for it is said that the original Labour candidate mooted for the by-election had been a Muslim, but following the recent Muslim paedophile grooming scandal in the borough, Labour had decided that it would be impolitic to field a Muslim. According to the UK Polling Report blog, Rotherham’s Muslim population stood at 5.4% in 2001, and it has certainly increased since then and would thus easily have been able to furnish Respect with the share of the vote that it obtained. Respect also fielded a reasonably high-profile candidate in Croydon North – Lee Jasper – a former confederate of Ken Livingstone and Director for Policing and Equalities for the GLA in 2004-2008. However, this professional race hustler managed to secure only sixth place with a 2.9% share of the vote, this poor showing most likely being a reflection of the fact that Croydon North is not natural Respect territory (i.e. it does not possess a large Muslim population that can be electorally mobilised) and allegations of cronyism have also previously been levelled against Jasper.

The turnout in Rotherham was low, a mere 33.89% compared to 59% in 2010. Likewise, the turnouts in Middlesbrough and Croydon North were poor: 26% and 26.53% respectively. So, although these by-elections each provided Labour with a secure victory, the imaginations of voters were certainly not set aflame; they do not seem to have kindled any real enthusiasm. Ed Miliband must be hoping that his party can continue to ride the wave not so much of popularity, but of disillusion with the Condem Government, until May 2015. However, it is striking that he and leading Labour light Ed Balls were cabinet members in the last Labour Government, the administration that helped to plunge us so deeply into the economic, social and constitutional mess that we currently find ourselves. Automatic tribal party loyalty evidently played the greatest role in ensuring that Labour won by a large margin in all three seats, and it is this sort of loyalty that has thus far militated against the emergence of any new electorally successful parliamentary parties in England in recent decades. If real political change is to be brought about, this species of party tribalism - particularly of the Labour variety - needs to be challenged and broken down.

UKIP will soar no higher in Rotherham, for its globalist Thatcherite economic policies preclude a wide appeal to the electorate, and this observation applies to the country at large. UKIP did also manage to take second place in Middlesbrough with 11.8% of the vote, up from 3.7% in 2010, and third place in Croydon North with its share increasing from 1.7% in 2010 to 5.7%, but what these results suggest is in line with national opinion polls that have recently seen UKIP vying for the position of third party with the Liberal Democrats. What was witnessed yesterday therefore, may lead Nigel Farage to issue a call akin to David Steel’s infamous “Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government!” but in reality, this will most likely amount to “Go back to your constituencies and prepare to take third or fourth place in a few Westminster seats in the West Country in 2015!” Yes, we do need to leave the EU, but UKIP is a single-issue exiled rump of the Conservative Party, and exiting the EU is not at the top of the average voter’s list of policy priorities. What we require is a new non-globalist party capable of breaking through in seats such as Rotherham, which whilst including departure from the EU as a policy pledge, concentrates instead on the matters of greatest concern to the electorate: the economy, health, education, transport, law and order and immigration.

UKIP's Rotherham Candidate: Jane Collins

UKIP to come close second in Rotherham?

According to a tweet by Guardian journalist Helen Pidd from the Rotherham by-election count, Nigel Farage is claiming that UKIP will come a close second to Labour - "a massive second" - with the Conservatives nowhere to be seen.

UPDATE: The results are in, and although UKIP did come second, it could hardly be described as "a massive second". Click here for results and analysis.

Middlesbrough by-election result: a foregone conclusion?

Middlesbrough is but one of three seats in which parliamentary by-elections are being contested today, the other two being Rotherham and Croydon North, each of them possessing what would seem to be an unassailable Labour majority. Only in Rotherham is anything other than a straightforward Labour triumph anticipated, but even though UKIP are expected to poll very well there, quite possibly displaying their best Westminster result to date, it would be astonishing if they were to seize the seat from Labour. However, Bradford West earlier this year demonstrated that the unexpected could happen.

The Middlesbrough by-election was precipitated by the death of the Labour incumbent Sir Stuart Bell, and one former Labour Party member who would have liked to have stood on the party ticket but was unable to do so was Bradford-based Imdad Hussain who was suspended from the Labour Party in September for his failure to disclose having been banned as a company director. Nonetheless, the latter has decided to run in the by-election under a different flag – that of ‘The Peace Party’! Given his lack of local roots and the fact that he was dismissed from the Labour Party, his prospects do not look healthy.

The Labour candidate this time around is Andy McDonald, who can look forward to the unthinking support of Labour tribalists who’d vote for a mollusc if a Labour rosette could be successfully attached to its body, although it is likely that his primary foe will be voter apathy, as was displayed in the remarkably low turnouts at the most recent crop of by-elections earlier this month. This could, to a certain extent, give a fillip to some of the candidates from the smaller parties, but whereas UKIP is enjoying some of its best ratings in national opinion polls since the height of the parliamentary expenses scandal, it is not likely to do nearly as well as in Rotherham.

In 2010 Labour managed to grab 45.9% of the vote with the Liberal Democrats trailing in second place on a distant 19.9% and the Tories third with 18.8%. If recent trends are repeated here, we should expect to see a significant slump in the Liberal Democrat share of the vote, possibly in the region of 5-10%. As this is not natural Conservative territory and the Government is not currently overly popular, it is likely that the Tory share will also shrink, but probably hold up better than that of their coalition partners.

UKIP managed to take only 3.7% at the last General Election, coming last in sixth place behind the BNP who took 5.8%. However, since than UKIP’s fortunes have waxed to a certain extent, and the BNP has entered a death spiral, haemorrhaging the bulk of its national membership and most of its experienced senior personnel. Taking into account the remaining candidates – an Independent named Mark Heslehurst and John Malcolm running under the banner of Trade Unionist and Socialist – UKIP ought to expect to secure a better performance and position this time around, with it being a near certainty that the party will leapfrog the BNP. However, other than the electors of Middlesborough will many people other than political pundits be paying much attention when the result is announced? All eyes it seems will be turned to Rotherham.

UPDATE: More by-election news can be accessed here. 

Middlesbrough by-election hustings

UK to face 'coldest winter for 100 years'. Really?

For some inexplicable reason, the Daily Mail late last night decided to post a story entitled 'Minus 20C? Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows floods with wind so strong it blows water upwards'. What did it follow this headline with? A few pictures depicting a modest amount of snow on the tops of some of the highest mountains in the Lake District, which is certainly nothing unusual at this time of year, together with the unimpressive announcement that 'Temperatures could fall to as low as minus 3°C (27°f) in some places' tonight. This of course, is nothing other than fairly typical weather for this time of year. Yes, it's a bit chilly, but nothing like the mighty blast of cold air that struck the country in late November 2010 and stayed for an entire month. 

So, upon what basis does it attempt to substantiate its claim that this winter will be even colder than that of 2010-2011? The strange thing is, it didn't bother to provide any supporting evidence; the assertion itself seemed to be deemed sufficient. There was no reference to a long-term forecast, forecasting body or agency. It seems that the Mail hackette had plucked this statement out of her febrile imagination, possibly unconsciously plagiarising a story that ran in the Daily Express around a fortnight ago making an identical claim in line with a 'winter forecast' provided by James Madden, which proved to be exactly the same as the one that he released in the autumn of 2011. However, even The Independent and The Daily Telegraph have got in on the act with the 'coldest winter for 100 years' claim, presumably also drawing upon Madden as their source. Piers Corbyn, for a change, seems to have been relatively quiet of late. 

One thing, if nothing else, seems certain about the coming winter: the meme that it will be the 'coldest winter for 100 years' is currently flourishing. Whether or not it will be by mid February, we shall have to wait and see. Place your bets ladies and gentlemen! I'm not holding my breath.

Real winter weather: Ingleborough (February 2010)

MINUS 20C? Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows floods with wind so strong it blows water upwards

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239556/UK-weather-forecast-Britain-faces-coldest-winter-100-years-Big-Freeze-follows-flood.html#ixzz2DeCiVmgH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

MINUS 20C? Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows floods with wind so strong it blows water upwards

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239556/UK-weather-forecast-Britain-faces-coldest-winter-100-years-Big-Freeze-follows-flood.html#ixzz2DeCiVmgH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

MINUS 20C? Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years as Big Freeze follows floods with wind so strong it blows water upwards

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239556/UK-weather-forecast-Britain-faces-coldest-winter-100-years-Big-Freeze-follows-flood.html#ixzz2DeCiVmgH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wibsey Pensioner falls victim to Vandals

The news, unfortunately, tends to be full of depressing stories, and one that was drawn to my attention earlier this evening was about as depressing as a local news story can get, involving as it did the death of an 84-year-old Wibsey woman named Joyce Moulson following an attack upon her home by vandals last night. The latter threw stones at her front door, breaking one of its glass panes. The stress engendered by this cruel behaviour caused Mrs Moulson to collapse some ten minutes after the incident, and she later died in Bradford Royal Infirmary.

The police stated that they were searching for “three male youths” in connection with the incident on Fair Road, but rather oddly, the descriptions of the suspects provided in the Halifax Courier made reference to one of them as being “white, around 13 years old, of large build with dark, shoulder length curly hair” whilst omitting to mention the racial background of the other two who were simply described as “of similar age and of slimmer build.” Why was this? Were the other two clad from head to toe in all-enveloping clothing that hid any trace of their skin from onlookers? As for the Telegraph and Argus, it didn’t mention any racial characteristics whatsoever, as was the case with the later BBC report which revealed that the West Yorkshire Police had arrested “four boys, two aged 12 and two aged 13,[who] . . . were being questioned on suspicion of manslaughter.”

When police are searching for suspects, surely racial background is held to be a useful identifying characteristic as suggested by the report’s reference to a “white” boy, so why was only the “white” individual singled out? Were the others white, or not? The manner in which the report was written suggests not, so what were they, and why was this information withheld if it was known? To make reference to the racial background of one of the suspects and not to that of the others is peculiar, not to mention a potential hindrance to aiding in their identification.

Nick Boles reveals meaning of Cameron’s ‘war on red tape’: farewell England!

Coming a little over a week after David Cameron delivered a speech to the CBI in which he declared his intent to wage ‘war on red tape’, Planning Minister Nick Boles has fleshed out in a Newsnight interview what this will mean in practical terms for vast swathes of English countryside: farewell! For Boles has declared that he would like to see the percentage of land built upon in England increase from 9% to 12%, some 1,500 square miles lost beneath concrete and tarmac. This, quite plainly, is the ineluctable consequence of our de facto open borders policy, and illustrates in the most stark terms why mass immigration is intensely damaging, not only to the fabric and character of our landscape, but to our flora and fauna.

A ‘war on red tape’ may well be a phrase that plays well to the ears of members of the general public who find complex aspects of Whitehall regulations a bane in many respects, but bundled up within Cameron’s declaration were clear and worrying implications for our countryside. However, a week ago the press largely ignored this aspect of his speech, with for example, the stridently self-declared advocate of environmental issues, The Guardian, becoming irate not about this threat to our countryside, but choosing to focus instead upon Cameron’s pledge to axe ‘equality impact assessments’. For The Guardian, it would matter not one whit if the entirety of England were to be concreted over and transformed into a global megacity, providing that it was of course carbon neutral, thereby being in its opinion genuinely ‘Green’.

What then, in practical terms, can be done to prevent this ‘development’ which in reality would better be described as the destruction of our national natural environment? Will the Campaign to Protect Rural England step in to champion opposition? What of the Woodland Trust? As can be seen from the picture below, it does seem a touch odd that Nick Boles (centre) should choose to have himself pictured with members of the Woodland Trust, when quite clearly he would happily see such woodland uprooted and flattened by the bulldozer, to make way for homes needed because of a population boom that has been almost exclusively fuelled by mass immigration and the higher birth-rates of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

The answer to the housing crisis lies not in covering another 1,500 square miles of English countryside with ‘development’, but rather with a combination of strict controls on immigration, and the redevelopment of genuinely brownfield sites in urban areas. Mass immigration is the root cause of this problem, and ending mass immigration will be its only solution. Migration Watch has drawn public attention to this issue for many years, and will hopefully be able to generate greater public awareness of this problem, as well as support for its position, in light of Boles's statement.

Nick Boles (centre) with members of the Woodland Trust

A Rotherham Riddle: who will benefit in Thursday's By-election

Apparently, a narrative propagandised by the Labour Party and SWP and favoured by Rotherham Borough Council is that the latter’s social services were unable to tackle a Muslim paedophile gang (although they would not choose to describe it in such terms) in the town because of ‘understaffing’ and a lack of funding. However, a story taken up by the Telegraph today suggests that this ‘understaffing’ does not hinder the operations of its social services when it comes to overzealously applying politically correct strictures. In the case in question, a couple who have been foster carers for the past seven years have had three foster children removed from them following a ‘tip-off’ that they were UKIP members, with the insinuation being that they were ‘racists’. This ‘tip-off’ led to a visit from members of ‘the local safeguarding children team’ who decided upon the basis that the couple were UKIP members that they were ‘unsuitable’ to foster ethnic minority children.

This decision is quite astonishing, for it demonstrates that in Rotherham the social services have become so politicised and dominated by far-left precepts relating to race and ethnicity that decent people such as the couple in question – a former Royal Navy reservist who works with the disabled and a nursery nurse – may be demonised and denied the right to foster simply upon the grounds of their belonging to a legitimate political party. Fostering can be a tough job, and it is well known that those children who are fostered rather than left in residential care tend to benefit considerably from the experience, so the decision to remove these three children from carers who were plainly interested in their welfare and providing them with a loving environment can be viewed as nothing other than sinister. Contrary to the deformed dogma that would appear to be embedded within Rotherham’s Labour dominated Council, it is not ‘racist’ to wish to control our borders and to place limits upon immigration. Rotherham Borough Council has a lot of explaining to do in relation to this case.

The Telegraph has done all a service by running this story, but given that the Rotherham by-election will be taking place on Thursday 29 November, the timing of the article is quite interesting and suggests that perhaps the paper may be aiming to give UKIP something of an electoral boost following its decent showing in Corby. If it does well in Rotherham and the Conservative Party continues to be dominated by the Europhile Cameroon tendency, might not the Telegraph consider throwing its weight behind UKIP at some point in the future?

The by-election itself has been precipitated by the departure of former MP Denis MacShane, the latest to fall foul of the parliamentary expenses scandal. With his exit came something of a local row about who would be the next Labour candidate, with some claiming that the party decided not to run with a local Muslim because of the fear that this would go down badly with indigenous voters owing to the recent Muslim paedophile scandal. This seems to have prompted Respect to field a candidate, the well-known former journalist named Yvonne Ridley, who appears to still be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome having converted to Islam following her seizure a number of years ago in Afghanistan. As in Bradford West where George Galloway achieved his landslide earlier this year, Respect has revealed its brazen ethno-confessional bias by issuing a leaflet that includes the following text:

"Dear residents,

On Thursday the 29th November every voter and most importantly every Muslim and Asian family in Rotherham will have the opportunity to send a message to the sickening racism, Islamophobia and corruption of the Labour party here in this town."

Evidently, given the ethno-confessional composition of this seat, Respect will not win, but they could remove the Muslim bloc vote from Labour, which would in itself be noteworthy. The question that begs to be asked therefore is whether a significant protest vote will manifest itself in Rotherham following Denis MacShane’s disgrace, the Muslim paedophile cover-up and now the victimisation of a decent couple because of implied racism. If such a vote does take place, which party stands to benefit? It will not be the Conservatives, given Rotherham’s traditional deep red Labour allegiance, and it will certainly not be the Liberal Democrats. Given that the foster carers featured in the Telegraph story were themselves once longstanding Labour voters, it would not come as a surprise were UKIP to perform very strongly next Thursday. 

Joyce Thacker: embodying the spirit of the Stasi?

John Humphrys on Pakistani Muslim Grooming

"It is patently the case that Pakistani men are implicated in this [paedophile grooming] more than other groups, isn't it?" So spoke John Humphrys this morning on Radio 4's Today Programme. The interviewee, naturally, batted this aside conveniently ignoring the facts. In September 2011 Humphrys once posed the question as to whether the English Defence League ought better to be described as "the Englishness Defence League". As mentioned previously on this blog, it seems that Humphrys enjoys moments of clarity relating to these issues. More later, but now it is time to head to work.

A Wharfedale Oddity: 'Tents will be shifted'

Given that there isn't a great deal in the news that would currently raise a smile, I thought that readers might appreciate this snap that I took the other year whilst out for a stroll in the Yorkshire Dales. The sign affixed to the tree is perhaps the oddest that I have stumbled upon, situated as it is in a place where few campers, presumably, would wish to pitch their tents unless they happened to be adept at aqua camping (although come to think of it, the potential pitch displayed in the picture is little wetter than many campsites must have been during the 'summer' that we recently endured). Given the proclivity of many people to engage in extreme pastimes these days, there could indeed be such a thing as aqua camping, but I have not yet seen it mentioned elsewhere.

The phraseology employed in the sign seems to capture perfectly the grumpiness of the local Yorkshire farmer, aggrieved at tourists pitching camp at the water's edge without making a suitable donation to his purse. 'Tents will be shifted' it gruffly states, but what of their occupants? Would they be bound for an involuntary dunking? "Aye! 'Appen!"

Wharfedale's scenic grumpiness: 'Tents will be shifted'

Party Progress: Part One

Introduction

It seems that the internet is abuzz with news and rumours pertaining to new political parties these days, although quite how new their content may be, is another matter altogether. Some of them are focused on single issues, whereas others see themselves as successors to a small ethnonationalist party in terminal decline. Not unnaturally, some readers of this blog may have concluded, given the statement made here earlier this year, that one or two of these rumoured new parties may in some way be linked with this announcement, or backed by this blog; they are not. Why this should be the case will become clear in the paragraphs below. However, before outlining precisely what it is that we propose, and characterising in broad ideological terms what we are and the values that we stand for in the next article, it will first be necessary to provide a digressive introduction, for it is an unfortunate fact that from the outset it is likely that we will be attacked and deliberately misrepresented by our political foes. It is in recognition of this coming campaign of disinformation that this outline is given, so that unprejudiced readers may adjudge for themselves what we truly are and wish to achieve, rather than running the risk of having them misled by the defamatory lies and distortions of those who oppose the emergence of a genuine non-globalist political alternative in our country today.

Earlier this year, I wrote a series of articles that outlined the need for the creation of a moderate political party that placed the national interest first; that had amongst its primary goals the advancement of the material well-being of the people of this country and the recognition that sovereignty inheres within the people and flows from them, not from any supranational agency or body. Part of the recent crisis of confidence in democracy has arisen from a lack of accountability and responsiveness on the part of political elites and, although it has not been articulated quite so frequently, of a nascent transnational economic stratum to which they are linked, and with which they overlap in terms both of outlook and membership. The intent of what was written therefore was to turn attention to this democratic deficit, and to propose a remedy in the form of the creation of a credible and moderate political party, which unlike the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green parties would not advance the principle of globalism, but that of popular national participatory democracy. Whereas our current party political system militates against choice and in favour of technocratic managerial authoritarianism of one flavour or another, our proposed party advocates a thoroughgoing democratisation.

Marx and Hayek: In Globalism we trust 

For those on the Far Left, the principle of national sovereignty is anathema upon doctrinaire grounds, for it is believed to hamper the coming of the desired-for socialist millennium, whereas for the capitalist advocates of globalism, national sovereignty is seen as an unwelcome hindrance to the transnational movement of capital, goods and labour. The two therefore, have become vigorous advocates of an interrelated set of ideologies: transnationalism; globalism; cosmopolitanism and ‘diversity’. The disciples of Marx and Hayek have paradoxically united in their opposition to such inconveniences as national self-determination and democracy, with both promoting a politico-economic fatalism that portrays globalisation as an unstoppable, inevitable and desirable process. There is no conspiracy as such at play here, but rather the complex interaction of different material interests and ideologies embodied within and articulated by a plethora of non-state, sub-state and transnational actors, whether they be commercial, political or cultural. The revolutionary Marxist Left has since its inception sought not to ameliorate what it terms ‘the contradictions of capitalism’, but to exacerbate them, so as to try and bring about an intensification of human suffering, and thereby precipitate a revolutionary situation through mass radicalisation. It is their hope that the current global financial crisis can be exploited in their favour; globalisation, they believe, is their friend.

Elements of the Far Left have thus welcomed the coming of globalisation and the promotion of its attendant ideology of globalism, and a number of ‘radical’ theories and stances developed by the New Left and US Civil Rights Movement since the 1960s, have been eagerly appropriated by transnational corporations (TNCs) and agencies (TNAs), to lend a veneer of ‘progressivism’ and ‘morality’ to their narrow self-interested operations. Thus it is that the discourse of ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-racism’, largely developed within the context of the politics of the United States, a racially cleft society of immigrants, has been taken up by TNCs and TNAs and employed as a means of challenging the legitimacy of nation-states, promoting the dismantling of border controls to facilitate mass immigration which drives down labour costs, assists in the stripping away of European workers’ rights, and thereby enables an assault to be made upon European welfare states that they portray as being ‘too costly’. The latter is untrue, but TNCs possess sufficient financial clout to be able to promote this message through a compliant mass media that they effectively own. Our party opposes this attack upon the material conditions of working people in the UK, whilst at the same time not placing blame upon the immigrants who have come here genuinely to work, for they have merely taken advantage of a near de facto open borders policy.

The concept of popular sovereignty, of political authority being anchored in and flowing from the people – from the nation – has been subjected to an ongoing and sustained ideological and material assault, undermining the very basis, and hollowing out the substance of democracy itself. Part of this attack upon national self-determination in the UK has consisted of the relatively recently propagated myth that ‘we are a nation of immigrants’, whereas prior to the post-war waves of mass immigration which this narrative has been devised to accommodate and legitimise, the situation was rather different. The Far Left scorns popular national democracy as ‘bourgeois democracy’, whereas the TNCs and TNAs do not find it conducive to their smooth operation, so these various actors have found it convenient to recast defenders of popular democracy as ‘xenophobes’, ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’, fabricating a discourse about their constituting a new ‘Far Right threat’, lumping them in with the small number of people who genuinely merit such appellations.

This seeming digression has been provided for one straightforward yet highly salient reason: the proponents of globalism are willing to do whatever they deem necessary to discredit and destroy any opposition to their globalist objectives, and in order to do this, they employ the most potent weapons available in the political arsenal: accusing their opponents of being ‘Far Right’, ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’. In doing so, they not only manage to target those who do deserve such labels – a vanishingly small number of people in any country including our own – but those of us who do not. These smear tactics are calculated and deliberate, and once thrown, the mud tends to stick no matter how undeserving the target. How then should we popular democrats rebut such allegations? It is in fact, quite straightforward.

The first thing to consider when rebutting the above accusations is that those who employ these smears fail to define their terms. So, we must define them, and once they are defined, it is but a straightforward matter to prove that their allegations are baseless. Let us start by turning to the term ‘fascism’.

What is Fascism?

Fascism is an anti-democratic authoritarian movement that takes many forms, but at its core lie the following features: a cult of anti-rational violence, militarism, authoritarianism and national or racial supremacism, often combined with territorial expansionism. The role of law is disregarded, being replaced by the arbitrary exercise of power undertaken by the governing party and its authoritarian leadership. Moreover, many definitions refer to a fusion of corporate and state interests, with private interest being portrayed as embodying the public good. A single ideology is promulgated and enforced, with dissident views being suppressed, and those who articulate them persecuted.

It is traditionally characterised as being of the ‘Right’, but combines features from various elements of the political spectrum (‘Left’ and ‘Right’, particularly in practical terms, are now largely antiquated labels and should to all intents and purposes be discarded, although they still possess a certain emotive appeal for those who believe that they belong to one or the other).

What we are not:

Fascists

We are not fascists, for we believe in intellectual pluralism, freedom of speech and expression and the principle of holding politicians to account; we favour thoroughgoing democratisation, not authoritarianism.

We are resolutely opposed to political violence and to the ready recourse to military adventurism in foreign affairs. Militarily, we stand for a policy of neutrality and non-interventionism overseas, holding to the principle that our armed forces should act in a purely defensive capacity.

We are not xenophobes or supremacists, and recognise and appreciate the genuine expression of human cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity around the globe, as well as the right to assert our cultural primacy in our own country through ensuring that all official communication is in our native languages, that there is one common law for all, and that children are taught our history and traditions in our schools. All peoples should be accorded the inalienable right of cultural self-determination in their own home territories. We respect and value cultural pluralism, but we reject state-imposed ‘multiculturalism’, which is a different affair altogether.

We oppose the fusion of corporate and state power, and seek instead to ensure that our citizens are protected both from unwarranted state intrusion into their domestic lives, and corporate attempts to drive down wages and depress the general standard of living.

Conspiracy Theorists

We do not believe that there is any cohesive global elite or one in the making that possesses any ‘plan’ bent upon global domination. Instead, we recognise that international relations are governed by a complex interplay of competing and overlapping material and ideological interests embodied within states, transnational corporations, supranational institutions, NGOs, social movements and the media, that at times converge to produce statements and policies deemed to be mutually beneficial and expedient by a number of these actors, whilst at others generating conflict between them. The idea of there being a single aspirant hegemonic force at play in global politics is utterly misguided and unfounded. We therefore do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories centred upon the following: Bilderbergers; UN New World Order; the Illuminati; Jews; interdimensional lizards or any other fantastical force capable of being dreamt up within the mind of a conspiracy theorist. 

Racists

We are not racists, for we believe that individuals each possess their own merits and aptitudes irrespective of their racial background. To treat someone in a negative manner because they happen to be of a different race is simply wrong. The selection of candidates in the workplace should be based upon merit alone: the right candidate for the job in question. No favouritism should be displayed in the form of ethnic and racial quotas, or associated ancillary measures promoting the creation of ethnic and racial pressure groups, as is the case today.  

Concluding Remarks

It should now be clear from what has been written that we are not proposing some thuggish, authoritarian, anti-rational politics and system of governance as elements of the Far Left will doubtless claim, but something altogether different: a broadening and deepening of democratic practice intended to promote the well-being of the nation.

Having spelt out what our party is not, the next instalment will outline our broad policy platform and objectives. If after reading this you should find it to your liking, we invite you to become involved in making this party a success. We need a fresh, viable political alternative to the globalist options currently set before us, and the time for the launch of a party embodying such principles is ripe. We cannot bring this about alone, and need to draw in dedicated people with a diverse range of talents. It is up to you.

Whither the Liberal Democrats?

With the results in from the three parliamentary by-elections held in Corby, Manchester Central and Cardiff South and Penarth, and the outcome of the first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) filtering in from across England and Wales, a number of clear messages are becoming apparent. The first of these relates to widespread voter apathy, with turnout – particularly for the PCC elections – being remarkably low. So unmotivated to visit the polls were electors, that the Corby by-election turnout of 44.79%, which in itself would normally be seen as low, looked very high compared to what was achieved elsewhere. In Cardiff South and Penarth, turnout was a meagre 25.35%, whilst in Manchester Central, the corresponding figure stood at 18.2%. The last of these figures was noteworthy for being the lowest turnout in a parliamentary contest since the Second World War, but even so, it seemed high when compared to the percentage turnout in the PCC elections, which in many areas was below 15%.

Whereas these figures in themselves constitute an indictment of the current state of our democracy and of the wasted £100 million allegedly spent in introducing elected PCCs, they also contain some interesting messages for our existing political parties. Although Ed Miliband’s Labour Party may be trumpeting its relative success today, the clearest message for any party has been delivered to the Liberal Democrats, and its content cannot be seen as anything other than highly disagreeable for its membership; overall, the party has been resoundingly crushed. In Corby, its share of the vote plunged from 14.5% in 2010 to just 4.96%, with its candidate Jill Hope losing her deposit. The party was squarely beaten into fourth place by a robust performance from the UKIP candidate Margot Parker who took 14.3% of the vote. As UKIP did not stand a candidate in Corby in 2010 and the Conservative share of the vote went down by 15.6% on this occasion, it seems clear that many traditional Tories disaffected with the Cameroonian coalition switched their support to UKIP. Other candidates fared so poorly as not to be worth a mention.

Although the Liberal Democrats managed to hang on to second place in the Manchester Central constituency, their share of the vote collapsed from 26.6% to 9.4%, whilst in Cardiff South and Penarth they narrowly held onto third, place despite their corresponding share falling from 22.3% to 10.8%. Whereas UKIP may have been ebullient about Corby, their shares in these two by-elections were rather more modest, although they were both up from the last General Election: 4.5% and 6.1% respectively. UKIP are therefore enjoying something of a fillip in their fortunes, but the percentages that they are polling fall way short of offering them the prospect of winning any Westminster seats. However, from the perspective of the Conservative Party, a resurgent UKIP that could potentially ‘rob’ them of anywhere between 10 and 15% of the vote in any given constituency, might cause them to lose many more marginal seats to Labour. Farage’s party could therefore be strong enough to damage the Conservatives, but not robust enough to take any power for itself. This in itself is indicative of two of UKIP’s primary weaknesses: its embrace of Thatcherite globalism, which is justifiably unpopular with all but a minority of the electorate, and the manner in which the party is run.

The experience of coalition government has clearly done the Liberal Democrats massive damage. Their unpopularity should not be seen as the straightforward consequence of Nick Clegg reneging over his promise regarding university tuition fees, but as indicative of a wider discontent with Liberal Democrat policies. Whilst I am no fan of our mainstream political parties, when the Coalition Government formed I had a glimmer of hope – admittedly illusory – that the fusion of the separate policy agendas of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could result in something more positive than either alone would impose. Like many people, from the Conservatives I hoped for a robust approach to the EU which would have presented us with the option of withdrawal, as well as an end to mass immigration and to the legislation that muzzles free speech in the name of political correctness, whereas I wished for the Liberal Democrats' approach to economics to temper the asset-stripping globalist monetarism of the Conservatives.

This best of both worlds outcome however, was not to be, for we ended up with an inversion of this scenario: the rigorous promotion of Liberal Democrat policies in favour of the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, combined with the ongoing ruinous globalist economics promoted by Osborne. Who therefore, other than the stereotypical sandal-wearing bearded liberals of yore, would have any positive regard for the Liberal Democrats today? Personally, I know people who have supported the Liberal Democrats and their predecessor parties for decades (none of whom wear sandals or sport beards of any description), and yet they are disgusted with the party’s attitude towards the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, as well as of course, tuition fees. They would willingly support a party that put an end to this ongoing undermining of our national sovereignty and social fabric, providing of course that it was reasonable, in favour of genuine freedom of speech, assembly and expression, and not some monstrous authoritarian entity harbouring tacit agendas imbued with sinister motives. In this respect, they are like many people today, who feel that they possess no real political choice and no viable political party to vote for. A new mainstream anti-globalist party with a libertarian streak is required, and the various alternatives currently being hawked in the political market place do not fit the bill.

Returning to the question of the future electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats, what lies in store? One development that could have a major bearing upon their prospects relates not to their current unpopularity in England and Wales, but to the future status of Scotland, for it could, after all, theoretically have left the Union by 2015. Scotland is home to 11 Liberal Democrat MPs. Another major bailiwick for the party is the West Country, where it has for many years provided the effective opposition to the Conservative Party and has won an impressive number of seats. Quite how many of these it might lose in 2015 however is moot, for the West Country is also one of the strongest areas for UKIP, which given its current stronger showing could take considerable numbers of votes from Conservative candidates in many seats where they are challenging the Lib Dems, potentially allowing the latter to retain their seats. It is a complicated picture, and we have another two and a half years before the next General Election, so much could change in that time. Nonetheless, whatever should happen, the future does not look bright for the Liberal Democrats who could be replaced by UKIP as the nation’s third party. Then again, what impact might a new political entity with the correct policy formulation make? Time will tell. 

Liberal Democrats: not flying high

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections: Democracy in action, or an unwarranted politicisation of the Police?

Tomorrow, voters are for the first time entitled to vote for Police and Crime Commissioners in 41 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. The elections will take place on the same day that parliamentary by-elections will be held in Cardiff South and Penarth, Corby and Manchester Central, but quite to what extent these elections will grip the public imagination remains to be seen. In my area, I have seen no publicity for any of the candidates standing, and only today, after a bit of digging, discovered that there would be four of them in total, with three hailing from the big mainstream Westminster parties and one independent. If the voter wishes to see what each candidate stands for, it is necessary to trawl through their statements online such as at this site here entitled quite simply Police Elections.

Some will argue that the chance to elect the Commissioners will make the police more accountable to the local electorate, but given that a considerable proportion of those who turn out to vote will not know what the candidates stand for, can this be adjudged to be an effective democratic exercise? Moreover, what percentage of the electorate will bother to turn out in those areas where the numbers are not boosted by parliamentary by-elections? At a guess, the percentage is likely to be small.

Another issue that the direct election of the Police and Crime Commissioners raises is that of the overt party politicisation of the police. Do we really wish to have individuals acting in line with party political agendas in such positions? Would it not be better for the police to attempt to remain aloof from party politics altogether? Moreover, at a time when the police are experiencing cuts in their budget, is spending money on these elections a good use of funds? Could they not be used to better effect elsewhere? 

Party Politicisation of the Police

 

EDL to Demonstrate in Norwich

An EDL demonstration will be taking place in Norwich today, accompanied by a customary counter-demonstration under the now well-known "We Are" franchise created by the SWP-dominated UAF: We Are Norwich. The demo has apparently been prompted by ‘a decision by the city council, banning a Christian preacher from distributing anti-Islamic“hate-motivated” leaflets from a stall on Hay Hill.’ Given the blanket use and abuse of so-called hate-crime laws when it comes to matters of belief, it is hard to adjudge whether or not the leaflets really were “hate-motivated”, but such an allegation really ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. In all likelihood, he was just proclaiming that Christianity is the true religion, as would be the position of any Christian preacher, and probably highlighting some of the bloody and intolerant aspects of Islamic doctrine.

The ‘preacher’ in question may of course have been one of those ranting types yelling about fire and brimstone and eternal damnation for those who do not follow ‘The Lord’, but such people are best ignored rather than prosecuted. From the little information available, it seems that he is one of those types, and in line with doctrinaire Islam, enjoys inveighing against the evils of homosexuality. There is often little that differentiates literalist Old Testament ‘Christians’ from their doctrinaire Muslim equivalents, with both holding exceptionally objectionable views and making for very bad company.

Norwich, it would seem, does not possess a significant Muslim population, but the city is home to a group that calls itself the ‘Norwich Muslim Community’, which possesses its own website and claims to be some 150 strong (including children). Whereas in the bulk of our towns and cities where such a presence is in evidence the representatives of this faith originate from overseas, in Norwich, the situation is different, with the website claiming that ‘The majority are British-born converts to Islam.’ Those words – ‘British-born converts to Islam’ – always sadden me, for I cannot understand why anyone would wish to freely embrace that faith in particular, when so many others (and none) are available. Why would anyone in the full possession of his or, particularly, her mental faculties who was not of a malicious bent choose to embrace such a doctrine? Perhaps asking such a question is superfluous, for there is a strong irrational urge in many people.

Thus, having ascertained that Norwich is not home to a large Muslim population and that there are no specific problems with those who describe themselves as adherents of that faith in the city, is holding a march the best way to protest against the idiotic decision by the local council to ban a fringe Christian preacher from distributing leaflets? Perhaps it is. Then again, it might be better if the EDL were to get behind the Reform Section 5 Campaign instead. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the chosen course of action, expect a lot of people under the banner of We Are Norwich to be screaming ‘fascists!’ at the EDL today. It is only a matter of time before the reports start rolling in, with the press giving a platform only to the anti-EDL protesters. A live blog of the demo is being provided by Norwich Evening News.

 'Norwich Muslim Community': mostly Converts

Guest Book Review: 'The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury'

The following book review is a guest article by Ivan Winters, formerly of the Democratic Nationalists. He outlines what looks to be a very balanced and interesting account that treats its subject matter in an objective and non-inflammatory manner. At some point therefore, I look forward to reading Lockwood’s book myself. Without further ado, here is the review:

The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury

The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury by Danny Lockwood is a very interesting book which comes to some interesting conclusions, not necessarily the conclusions that those reading this book might expect. Two things come through immediately on reading this book. The first is Danny's intimate knowledge of Dewsbury and the second is his own personality. Whenever people or places in the area are mentioned Danny is encyclopaedic in his knowledge and often offers interesting historical background. This was one of the things that immediately gave me a good opinion of this book as some of the people and places mentioned are also known to me. Two obvious examples are his references to a local pub the 'West Riding' at Dewsbury Railway Station and one of several people mentioned in the book who are known to me is Colin Auty. I have spent many a happy hour in the West Riding drinking from their interesting range of real ales. Colin is of course well known to Nationalists.

Danny makes clear from the very start of his book his personal affection for Dewsbury and his two great loves, Rugby League and Journalism (yes, I have got them right, Rugby League comes first!).

Danny started his career as a trainee reporter at the Dewsbury Reporter, moved to other parts of the country to work on other titles, returned to Dewsbury as editor-in-chief of the Reporter. Since then he has set up his own newspaper, The Free Press (Dewsbury) along with some Rugby League titles.

When dealing with Nationalists in the Dewsbury area the comment was regularly made to me by such persons as Colin Auty, David Exley etc. that 'we always get fair coverage with the Free Press'.

His book has the staccato writing style of short sentences that marks out a journalist turned author. I seem to remember a claim that journalists on 'The Sun' were trained to get their point across in 11 words or less. Presumably journalists working for 'The Sun on Sunday' have a shorter word limit as many of their readers will still be hungover from Saturday night! Some of the chapters are self-contained. Other chapters in the book have a narrative running through them and some link to events in later chapters. Two examples of this are references in early chapters to a court case described in detail in a later chapter where Shahid Malik (at the time, the Dewsbury Labour MP) sued 'The Press' for libel (the jury could not agree a verdict in this case and the two then settled out of court) and his regular references to Baroness Sayeeda Warsi who of course is from the Dewsbury area.

A couple of the early chapters give some interesting history of the area and refer to local persons who have become nationally known. There is a typo in this listing on page 66. Danny refers to such well-known figures from Dewsbury as Eddie ('oop and under') Waring and Mike Stephenson ('Stevo') both Rugby League commentators. In politics he refers to Baroness Betty Boothroyd, the first female speaker in the House of Commons and, er, 'former Labour politician Sir Marcus Fox MP'. He had better not tell the good Tories of Shipley who elected Sir Marcus as their MP for 25 years – he ended up as Chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee.

I referred above to this book coming to some interesting conclusions and the most important one that runs through this book is that everything in Dewsbury is not a case of 'White good, Asian bad' like some sort of West Yorkshire version of Animal Farm. Danny strongly makes the point that, yes, there are persons in the Asian community who are venal, criminal, or both, although of course there are also persons in the non-Asian community to which those words could be applied. In fact he names some of the venal/criminal Asians but he also names Asian community leaders including some Asian Councillors who have at various times spoken out about the fractures between the two communities, who is behind it and what should be done. And that is where the real point is 'who is behind it' that Danny identifies, as did some of those Asian leaders who spoke out, and writes about in forensic detail. Yes, there are some Asian leaders who are part of the problem, after all the Markazi Mosque and Shahid Malik MP do not get nice write ups from Danny but the biggest part of the problem identified by him is the 'professionals' in the 'race relations industry'. It is in the race relations industries interest for there to be 'race relations problems' for them to have to sort out. After all if there were no such problems then the 'professionals' would be out of work and, sure as hell, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. As co-defendants on Danny's chargesheet you can add the local Council, Kirklees MDC and the local police force, the West Riding Constabulary. Living in Bradford I am well aware of the 'institutional incompetence' of the West Riding force.

In his descriptions the vast majority of Muslims in Dewsbury are hard working people who just want to get on with their lives and he has a similar description of the non-Muslim community. As one of his examples of Asian leaders who have spoken out about the problems between the communities and identified who is behind it he mentions (page 155-156) Tory Councillors Khizar Iqbal and Imtiaz Ameen. Cllr Iqbal spoke out at a Council meeting in 2003 about the 'absurd political correctness, this fear of addressing the tough issues of the day, stopped.' Among other issues referred to in Councillor Iqbal's speech was the issue of 'second-language assistants in classrooms (they wanted English-only spoken)'. The result was a standing ovation from members of all parties. As Danny comments 'The vested interests of the race industry . . . were never going to be diverted . . . so casually' and so it has proved despite the fine rhetoric. Note in that quote he refers to 'race industry' not 'race relations . . ', his spelling sets out the agenda of that industry much more accurately than the normal spelling!

Another example Danny quotes is the case of Lee Massey (page 246 onwards). The incident in which Lee Massey was nearly killed (his wife was asked three times by doctors if they could turn off his life support machine) started with greed by Kirklees Council! The Council agreed, in return for a substantial payment from the Home Office to provide housing for Iraqi Kurds, 'refugees' from Saddam Hussein's regime. Yes, other councils in England have provided similar housing for 'refugees' but the Council must have been well aware of the very volatile racial situation in Dewsbury. The Kurds were put into Islamic areas such as Ravensthorpe and Savile Town among Muslim populations many of whom regarded Saddam as a hero and the 'Western powers' offering sanctuary to the Kurds as 'Satans'. The Kurds are described by Danny as 'dissolute, non-English speaking' (page 250-251) and soon were in conflict with the local Muslim community*. In the Lee Massey case a gang of up to 20 of them attacked a group of drinkers at the Royal Hotel Ravensthorpe. When other drinkers came out of the pub the Kurds ran away. Two of the Kurds then jumped into a car, a Honda Civic, and drove it at the drinkers hitting Lee Massey.

Why have I particularly mentioned the Lee Massey case? As Danny Lockwood goes on to write (page 255) 'Suddenly there were detectives and coppers and patrols all over Ravensthorpe . . most of the Kurds had abandoned ship . . to stay with 'cousins' and friends across the country.'. 'the community of Ravensthorpe, British white and Muslim together, suddenly found a common cause and a united front.'. 'They marched together from Ravensthorpe to Dewsbury town hall to protest against Kirklees Council's policy of housing migrants and illegals and creating such a combustible mix. For the most part they were making a decent fist of living alongside each other, the last thing they needed was another incendiary ingredient being poured into an already unstable mix.'

I have given above two examples out of the many vignettes that Danny writes about with great accuracy and detail in his book. The book is not a history of 'How those nasty Muzzies wrecked my beautiful home town'. It is more a fascinating insight by a local journalist who on occasions had serious pressure put on him to change his reporting of events, an insight into how a mixture of civic authorities, race relations 'professionals', media, police and politicians failed in their public responsibilities. He is particularly scathing and forensic in his details about how local politicians of all parties and ethnic origins used, abused and then betrayed local communities for political gain. Anyone, particularly from the 'milltowns' of the North reading this excellent book could easily cut out the various names involved in various incidents and insert the names of persons from their local community – that is how relevant this insight is!

* A factual footnote. Danny Lockwood does not get the detail of the ethnic rivalry and hatred between Kurds and other Muslim groups. He assumes simplistically that it is a matter of 'Sunni-Shia . . trump Muslim-Christian every time in the hate and violence game,' (page 251). Er, no, a bit of simple research (I used Wikipedia) shows that Iraqi Kurds are predominantly Sunni the same as the majority of the local Pakistani population. The simple fact is it has nothing to do with religious sects. Kurds are loathed by their fellow 'Muslim brothers in peace' and this applies to Turkish Kurds, Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds. Iran is a special case as the majority of Iranians are Shia and the Iranian Kurds are a mixture of Shia and Sunni – I could almost feel sorry for the Iranian Ayatollahs!

The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury : (ISBN) 978-0-9570964-0-0. Paperback 8 ¼ x 6 314 Pages. Printed by The Press News Ltd. £14.95 Available from Amazon etc. Many thanks to Danny for providing me with a copy of his book.

 

Mitt Romney: the Defeat of a Russophobe

Whatever your opinion of Obama and Romney, one thing is clear following Obama’s re-election as US President: we may breathe easily insofar as Romney’s potentially disastrous approach to foreign affairs will not now be realised. The Cold War will not be reanimated.

Romney posed as a patriot, and yet he had been instrumental in the mass offshoring of US jobs; he presented himself as the international strongman, advocating significant increases in defence spending, whilst undermining the US economic base through his promotion of globalism and domestic deindustrialisation. Romney either lacked the intellectual capacity to recognise that Russia is not the US’s “main foe”, or cynically used Russia as a convenient bogey, attempting to whip up a pointless Russophobia as a means of harnessing the sense of domestic disquiet over the US’s geopolitical decline. 

Mitt Romney has failed in his presidential challenge. The nations of Europe will be safer as a consequence. 

Muslim Paedophile Trial collapses in Somerset

Even rural Somerset, so it would seem, is no longer immune to a certain type of crime that has become nauseatingly familiar to people living in places such as Rochdale, Rotherham, Bradford and Keighley, although in the case in question the alleged underage sexual assaults did not involve grooming by gangs, but were perpetrated by a single individual: Muhammod (yet another variant of this tiresomely common name) Kamal Uddin. Uddin, a 40-year-old Bengali of no fixed abode, first appeared in court in May this year on a number of charges of sexual assault involving underage girls in the Somerset village of Street between 1 September and 31 December 2010. The girls were aged 11 and 12 at the time of the alleged assaults. By the time that Uddin was brought trial, he was said to have been a resident of Colnbrook Immigration Centre, which rather than being in the environs of Glastonbury, is in fact close to London. Quite why this Bengali immigrant was in Street has not been made clear.

Uddin however, reports the Central Somerset Gazette, was able to walk free earlier this week just before the jury was to be sworn in for his Crown Court trial because 'it was announced that an alleged victim was refusing to give evidence and the trial was subsequently abandoned.' He had not entered any plea, and a Bengali interpreter had been drafted in to help with proceedings, so poor was Uddin's command of English. No explanation was provided as to why the girl had decided not to give evidence, but at her age, the court proceedings, as well as the memory of the alleged assaults themselves, must have been traumatising. Nothing has been divulged about the other alleged victim and her willingness to give evidence or otherwise. However, any man accused of such offences who was not guilty of them would clearly have entered a plea of 'not guilty', and that Uddin had not done so is telling. It would seem therefore that in this instance a Muslim paedophile has been allowed to walk free. Where will he go and what might he do now? Will he be monitored? This is the very least that we should expect.

The Uddin case illustrates that not even the villages in our shires are now safe from Islamically-sanctioned paedophilia, and it behoves parents to keep a watchful eye upon their children should male Muslims appear in the locality. Not all Muslims are paedophiles of course, but there is sufficient evidence, given the seeming proclivity of a significant minority amongst followers of this 'faith' to indulge in such practices, to warrant caution on the part of parents.

Why was Uddin permitted to enter the country? What was, and is, he doing here? That he currently possesses no fixed abode and cannot speak English illustrates, even without taking into consideration the alleged crimes that he is said to have committed, that he should not be here. If the girls should eventually be willing to speak and give evidence, then Uddin should be put on trial; if not, he deserves to be deported. People such as Uddin have no reason to be here, and are far from welcome.

Street, Somerset, with Glastonbury Tor in the Background