South Somerset's well-known Liberal Democrat listed among Quentin Letts' "Patronising Bastards".

My wife and I were in the centre of Taunton last Friday and, as is usually the case, we could not pass Waterstones without dropping in to view what was on offer on the bookshelves.  Quite a few books caught our eye.  In particular I was drawn to the following: Big Week by James Holland which tells how the fighters and bombers of the USAAF’s Eighth Air Force won air superiority over Germany in early 1944; Breakout at Stalingrad, an autobiographical novel by Heinrich Gerlach who himself was wounded and captured at Stalingrad; Patronising Bastards – How The Elites Betrayed Britain by Quentin Letts who describes himself as a “scurvy parliamentary sketchwriter, and Marches blunderbuss”.  Unable to resist leaving the premises empty handed, I bought Quentin Letts’ “peppery polemic”.      

Back at home I opened Patronising Bastards at page 7 where The Rt.Hon. Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon GCMG KBH CH, the most well-known Liberal Democrat in South Somerset, is the target of Quentin Letts’ wit.  He quotes Lord Ashdown, before the EU Referendum results started coming, as stating: ‘ I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of 1 per cent or 20 per cent.  Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.’  However, Mr Letts writes: ‘Once remain lost, he rapidly tried to contest the result.’ Such an attitude reinforces my belief that the great majority of those in the British Political Establishment only believe in democracy when it suits them.  In my view the Liberal Democrats are not bad at local level as their councillors do seem to make an effort to sort out problems that impact on their constituents, but nationally they are much too politically correct for me.

Be that as it may, Lord Ashdown comes in fifth on Quentin Letts’ list of the Top 100 Patronising Bastards, but another former Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, comes even higher in second place!

I look forward to reading more of Mr Letts’ humorous takedowns.    

The statue of Edward Colston in Bristol. Will it have to go and what might replace it?

On Russia Today recently (July 25) notable left-winger Lee Jasper and Stephen Morris of the English Democrats debated the issue of the statue of Edward Colston – prominent philanthropist involved in the slave trade – which stands in a conspicuous position in the centre of Bristol. 

As Stephen Morris points out, the African slave trade existed long before European slavers became involved.  Europeans should take their fair share of the blame for the evils of slavery, but not all of it.  History records that Africans captured and enslaved their fellow Africans before selling them on to European and Arab slave merchants. 

Bristol merchants such as Colston, despite their local philanthropy, must inevitably take their share of responsibility for the horrors which helped make their fortunes.  In these politically correct times it seems inevitable to me that sooner or later Edward Colston’s statue will have to go, but what should replace it?

I suggest a couple of alternative memorials, both of equal merit.  My first is for Hannah More (1745-1833), poet, playwright, and advocate of social reform and the abolition of slavery, she was one of the most significant women of her times.  Furthermore, she was born in Fishponds, Bristol, and lived for many a year in nearby Wrington just a few miles south-west of the city.  She returned to Bristol for her final years before her death in Clifton. 

My other suggestion is for a memorial to the men of the Royal Navy’s African Squadron whose mission was to put the slavers out of business.  Between 1807, when Parliament passed the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, and 1860 the squadron seized around 1,600 ships involved in the slave trade and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard them.  This was not without cost to the Royal Navy crews involved.  In 1829, the squadron’s worst year, 204 out of 792 men died, mainly of malaria or yellow fever.  Between 1830 and 1865 around 1,587 men were killed in action, in accidents or from disease.  The mortality rate was 55 in every 1,000 men – more than 5 times the rate of a crew serving in healthier climates nearer home.  A memorial would be a fitting tribute to their courage, fortitude and sacrifice.

For those interested in the Royal Navy’s part in abolishing the slave trade I recommend Bernard Edwards’ Royal Navy versus the Slave Traders: Enforcing Abolition at Sea 1808-1898 (Pen & Sword, 2007).    

To view the debate on RT between Lee Jasper and the English Democrats' Stephen Morris, here is a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw4yJTriYHw&feature=youtu.be

David Allen, English Democrats' Mayoral Candidate, excluded from Sheffield City Region Election Hustings.

David Allen the English Democrats' candidate in the Sheffield City Region Mayoral Election was one of two candidates excluded from an election hustings organised by Sheffield for Democracy – a name which seems rather inappropriate in the circumstances!

According to a report in The Star hustings event co-ordinator Vicky Seddon said they had “nothing to apologise for” and the move was “perfectly legitimate”.  She said the candidates from the respected (sic) parties were chosen on the amount of councillors and prospective candidates standing in local elections in South Yorkshire.

Oh well, that’s democracy in Sheffield for you!

Here is a link to the story:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-city-region-mayoral-candidate-felt-discriminated-against-after-snub-from-hustings-1-9135753

For readers interested in David Allen’s views and policies, the words below were taken from his Election Address in the Sheffield City Region Mayoral Information Booklet.

“I was born in Doncaster and have been based here all my life. I have an engineering and sales background and I am married with two daughters. I am a proud Yorkshireman but even prouder to be an Englishman. I campaigned and voted for England to leave the EU, just like majority of the people of South Yorkshire.

South Yorkshire in particular and also Yorkshire as a whole would be better served by an English national parliament that could fairly distribute taxpayer’s money. The British government's various devolution arrangements for the UK have granted a national parliament for Scotland, and effectively the same for Wales and Northern Ireland. British establishment Remainers who hate the very idea of England, instead intend to break England up by forced ‘regionalisation’ against the will of our people. If elected I would do everything in my power to prevent the implementation of an EU Region by the anti-English Remainers within the British State and by local MPs!

Vote for me and I shall be a strong voice for England and I shall block the creation of a new tier of "Regional" government for the bogus EU Region of "Yorkshire and the Humber" - which includes part of North Lincolnshire and excludes parts of our traditional county!

The people of South Yorkshire voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. I guarantee to represent the democratically expressed wishes of the people in our desire for a meaningful and swift exit of the EU and regaining control of our borders, our laws and ending mass immigration.”

Bristol City fans banned from displaying the English flag. Stephen Morris of the Workers of England Union reports the ban as an Anti-English hate incident.

As a former Bristolian of 60 years, and someone who followed City at home and away during the 1960s, 70s and 80s, I was astounded to read a report in the Daily Mail that Bristol City fans were banned from displaying a Cross of St.George during the recent game at Ashton Gate against Cardiff City so as not to cause upset among visiting Welsh supporters. 

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5055255/Bristol-City-fans-banned-displaying-England-flag.html

I have always admired the Welsh sense of Nationhood and the thought of banning the Welsh flag anywhere in England, or elsewhere for that matter, has never entered my mind.

It seems that the management at Bristol City has succumbed to the present politically correct attitude of going to extreme lengths to avoid even the possibility of causing offence. 

Be that is it may, Stephen Morris, General Secretary of the Workers of England Union, has reported Bristol City Football Club to the Police for perpetrating an Anti-English hate incident by banning the English flag yet allowing the Welsh flag to be flown.

Here is part of a statement from Stephen Morris:

“I read in disbelief that Bristol City, an English football club and a member of the ‘English Football League’ banned the flying of the English flag.

It appears that they were quite content to have the placards being displayed until they found out it was the English flag that was going to be shown. They were however prepared to allow the Welsh flag to be flown. Taken together, this is clearly an Anti-English hate incident. I have reported this to the Avon and Somerset police and it is now registered with them.”

A local English football team, Bristol City Football Club is ideally placed to bring the communities of Bristol, England, and Cardiff, Wales together in the name of community cohesion. Instead, they just divisively denied English people their right to express their national identity in England. If this is true, which we are waiting for the police investigation to verify, then the English Football League should apply sanctions against the individuals and Bristol City Football Club who would be guilty of an anti-English race hate incident."

If the Welsh can fly their flag, so should the English be allowed to fly their flag as well, especially in England.”

Incidentally, Bristol City won the game 2-1!

"I am going to curtail alien immigration and deport undesirables", said the Conservative Home Secretary - in 1924!

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, has posted an interesting article on his blog comparing what an English Conservative Home Secretary said about immigration in 1924 to the views of today’s Tory leadership.

Mr Tilbrook reveals Sir William Joynson- Hicks, Conservative Home Secretary in 1924, said:

“I am going to curtail alien immigration and deport undesirables; we do not want to flood England with the alien refuse of the world.  I regard aliens who live in their own communities, marry within them, and speak their own language, as unsuitable to be British residents.”

The English Democrats Chairman writes:

“Of course in those days Conservative Home Secretaries were proper Conservatives and were also patriots who would be revolted by the current Home Secretary’s unpatriotic support for foreigners ruling over us through the EU.”

To read Robin Tilbrook’s blogpost in full here is a link:

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/home-secretary-going-to-deport.html

Meanwhile, it seems one Conservative, Rory Stewart the Minister of State for International Development and Minister of State for Africa at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, might have one or two thoughts along the same lines as Sir William Joynson-Hicks.

Mr Stewart, speaking of British Isil fighters, was quoted in The Telegraph saying:

“They are absolutely dedicated, as members of the Islamic State, towards the creation of a caliphate, they believe in an extremely hateful doctrine which involves killing themselves, killing others and trying to use violence and brutality to create an eighth century, or seventh century, state.

So I am afraid we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us, and unfortunately the only way of dealing with them will be, in almost every case, to kill them.”

Doubtless British Isil fighters could be classed as “undesirables” but, if they somehow managed to return to these shores, could they be deported?   They are, after all, British and which nation would want to take in British “undesirables"?

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/22/way-dealing-british-islamic-state-fighters-kill-almost-every/

Bristol University makes decision over renaming Wills Memorial Building but slavery debate rumbles on.

It has recently come to my attention that those campaigning to rename the University of Bristol’s Wills Memorial Building have failed.  The University has pointed to the fact that without the money given to it in 1908 by Henry Overton Wills III it might never have achieved university status.

I am surprised that the University of Bristol took this intolerant, politically correct renaming nonsense seriously.

If the Wills family links to the slave trade through its tobacco interests had been reason enough to rename the building with which they are associated where could this eventually lead us?  Would the city of Bristol itself become a target for politically correct zealots calling for it to be renamed – Repentanceville perhaps? 

The Wills Memorial Building commissioned in 1912 by brothers George and Henry Wills as a memorial to their father, and designed by architect Sir George Oatley, is described by Pevsner in his The buildings of England – North Somerset and Bristol (Penguin Books, 1958) as:

“It is in its way a remarkable piece, proof of its architect’s unfaltering faith in the Gothic style and accurate knowledge of the Gothic style.  The tower has established itself quickly as one of the landmarks of Bristol, with its foursquare strength, its tall octagonal upper part, and its four subordinate spired pinnacles.”

The tower of Bristol University's Wills Memorial Building.

This from the Bristol Post makes interesting reading:

“It comes as the Colston Hall has agreed to change its name and Colston’s School is consulting parents over a similar move.  But the University of Bristol has said the prominent building at the top of Park Street will continue with its current name.

The university had struggled financially until 1908 when Henry Overton Wills promised a gift of £100,000.  That cash enabled the college in 1909 to be given a charter and become a university and he became the first Chancellor.”

Here is a link to the full article:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-university-makes-decision-over-163397

Russia - ". . . the most conservative, patriotic and Christian country left in Europe." A potential friend rather than enemy?

I always look forward to Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column, the latest being particularly interesting especially his suggestion that there is more freedom of speech and thought in today’s Russia than there is in the UK.  As he points out, in Britain it is possible to be driven out of a non-political job as a result of saying something politically incorrect.  Something which as Mr Hitchens writes: “simply isn’t so in Mr Putin’s Russia, now astonishingly the most conservative, patriotic and Christian country left in Europe.”

If Russia is indeed an enemy why on earth has the British Government carried through a program of excoriating defence cuts?  The Royal Navy has aircraft carriers with no aircraft and a fleet of only 19 frigates and destroyers – hardly enough to defend the Bristol Channel.  The Army could easily be seated in Wembley Stadium with room to spare while the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight has more aircraft than any Squadron in the RAF.

In such circumstances are British guarantees of military support to the nations of Eastern Europe worth the paper they are written on?  After all, Britain has 'form' in this area.   

As Poland found out in 1939, when attacked from the west by Germany there was no direct help to come from Great Britain.  Lord Boothby, Conservative MP 1924-1958, could not have described the British Government's response more precisely when he said: "We had gone to war for the defence of Poland.  In the event we did nothing to help Poland at all.  We never lifted a finger."*  When Russia invaded Poland from the east there was no British reaction whatsoever.  Considering such a record no country east of the Rhine should count on the British Government coming to their aid in the event they are attacked by Russia.

Furthermore, Britain, as it exists today, may not be around for much longer.  Brexit has led to the possibility of Northern Ireland joining the Irish State and Scotland ending the Union of 1707 as a result of seeking a second independence referendum. 

Be that as it may, Britain’s enemies today are much more likely to be found within rather than from Northern Eurasia.  Indeed, it may come to pass that England will need to make friends with conservative, patriotic and Christian countries - like Peter Hitchens’s Russia.

Here is a link to Peter Hitchens’s article of the 7^th of August. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/08/silenced-by-our-boot-faced-commissars-of-thought-crime-1.html

*The World at War, Episode 2 (Thames Television Ltd, 1973).

   

   

"Political correctness" is a self-righteous creed writes Clive Lavelle of the English Democrats.

The English Democrats Party Manifesto states: "Political Correctness is incompatible with a free and democratic society."
Clive Lavelle had this letter published in the Western Daily Press on the 20th of May.

No place for this political correctness.
I listened to part of Peinaar’s Politics on BBC Radio Five, last Sunday, in which John Peinaar asked if any reference to Adolf Hitler was acceptable in political debate.

The answer lies in a separate debate; that of “reasonableness versus political correctness”.

Ken Livingstone in attempting to defend a Labour colleague, described Hitler as a “Zionist” and claimed that his statement was an historical fact. It is true that Hitler advocated sending German Jews to Palestine but as a means of getting rid of them.

More recently, Boris Johnson, who advocates that we leave the EU, made reference to historical attempts to unite Europe by military might; citing Bonaparte and Hitler as two cases. He went on to say that the EU seeks to do the same thing by different means.

Michael Heseltine, a former Conservative deputy prime minister (and Europhile) has described Mr Johnson’s remarks as “preposterous and obscene”. While Mr Livingstone’s remarks were historically inaccurate and therefore, “preposterous”. Whether they were also “obscene” is a subjective issue. Mr Johnson’s comments were both historically accurate and reasonable.

What this episode demonstrates is that “political correctness” is a self-righteous creed, the purpose of which is to stifle debate. It must be confronted and defeated.

Clive Lavelle

Weston-super-Mare English Democrats

The "Politically Correct" must understand that immigrants to England have to adapt to English customs, traditions and way of life. The immigrants themselves must also understand this.

Clive Lavelle of the English Democrats provided the following eminently sensible and reasonable piece.

 

The “Politically Correct” must understand that immigrants to England and especially non-Christian immigrants have to adapt to England, her customs, her traditions, and her way of life, and not expect the English to adapt to theirs. The immigrants themselves, must also understand this.

Immigrants to England and especially non-Christian immigrants must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in England.  They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle and not the English who so generously welcomed them.

Immigrants to England and especially non-Christian immigrants must understand that the English are neither racist nor xenophobic. England has accepted many immigrants over the years; often from countries that would not welcome emigrants from England.

In common with other nations, the English are not willing to give up their identity or their culture.

England is a land of welcome but it's not the politicians who welcome foreigners, it’s the English people as a whole.

Immigrants to England and especially non-Christian immigrants must understand that England is a Christian country and must remain free to celebrate Christian festivals such Christmas in all traditional ways, including Christmas trees and nativity scenes.

 

English is the language of England. Immigrants to England must understand that to converse in public in a language other than English is impolite.

English law is the only law that is to be observed in England. Any non-Christian immigrants who would prefer to follow a different law should re-locate to a country where their preferred law is observed.

Anyone who disagrees with Christianity or secularism and for this reason, does not feel comfortable in England is free to find a country with whose religion they do agree and feel comfortable.

If you are a non-Christian and left your country for England and not for another non-Christian country, it is, no doubt, because you have considered that life is better in England than elsewhere. You are welcome here provided that you are willing to respect the culture, traditions and beliefs of the people with whom you have chosen to make your home.  

Just after receiving Clive's piece I came across an article in The Telegraph quoting Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as saying Britain is "sleepwalking to catastrophe" because of a "liberal self delusion" over the impact of mass immigration.  Here is a link to the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/britain-sleepwalking-to-catastrophe-over-race-trevor-phillips/

The Telegraph was reporting on a Civitas article entitled Race and Faith: The Deafening Silence by Trevor Phillips.
Here is a link:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/race-and-faith/

It would appear that English values, integration and unity are being sacrificed at the altar of multiculturalism and diversity.

"Political Correctness" - an evil to be confronted and defeated.

A guest post by Clive Lavelle of the English Democrats.

If we are to enjoy true democracy, there has to be debate and no subject should be off-limits. “Freedom of Speech” should be just that; freedom to express an opinion on any matter regardless of how contentious or even distasteful others may find it.

There are, of course, certain proper limitations on Freedom of Speech; defamation being an example. There is, however, an insidious limiter of our Freedom of Speech under whose tyrannical rule we have, to a lesser or greater extent, all succumbed.

The Tyrant’s name? Political Correctness.

Political Correctness hides behind a (seemingly philanthropic) smokescreen of not wanting to “offend” people, (individuals or groups). However, its true purpose is simply to stifle debate.

By creating a myriad of groups and ways in which to “offend” them, the Politically Correct have also created a minefield that makes ordinary folk fearful of expressing a point of view that may “give offence”.

The source of the fear? Assorted labels that the Politically Correct apply to dissenters. Most of these end in either “ist” or “phobe”, and include, “extremist”, “homophobe”, “islamophobe” and, of course, their Ace of Spades, “racist”. Nobody wants to have any of these labels (and particularly, “racist “) applied to them, so most folk endeavour to ensure that their language is “PC”.

The consequence? The Politically Correct no longer need to formulate an argument. All they need to say is, “You don’t need to listen to him, and he’s a Racist.” Or, “Don’t listen to her, she’s a Homophobe.” It matters nothing that an argument has been carefully formulated; if it’s not PC, you needn’t listen.

One final PC epithet that must be mentioned is “Bigot”. Anyone who dares to express a point of view on, say, immigration, that isn’t entirely favourable, risks being labelled a “Racist” or a “Bigot” or both.

A bigot is someone who believes that the only valid opinion is his own. The Politically Correct believe that the only opinions that are valid, are theirs, and woe betide anyone who dares to express another. Funny, that! The people who call everyone else “bigots” are actually the ones who will not tolerate any other point of view.

Clive Lavelle was the English Democrats' candidate for Weston-super-Mare in the 2015 General Election.