The Defence Sell-Out

By Richard Carlyon, Defence Spokesman

13th October 2019

Our entire Defence capability will be switched to EU control on November 1st – no matter what happens with Brexit.

Despite a clear national vote to leave the EU, despite the Government’s prime responsibility to defend our realm, its land and people, despite the inalienable rights of the people to possess full sovereignty, it appears that agreements have been made and signed with the EU by the government, then led by Theresa May.

Lt.Gen J. Riley in his public briefing on 2 Sept. 2019, revealed that these agreements, made covertly after the Referendum of 2016, sign away command and control of our Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Royal Marines and all their personnel, weapons, equipment and holdings, plus all of our Intelligence Services, MI5 and SIS (MI6) and others. Crucially, also included is our nuclear capability.

ALL our defence assets will be owned and controlled by the EU without any control from the United Kingdom – while the UK continues to pay all the costs. This is in accordance with the Lisbon Agreement.

The Lisbon Agreement (2007) replaced previous treaties and agreements as the main ‘foundation’ text of the EU. It introduced the European Defence Union (EDU), a programme of integration on every possible topic and area of defence. Central to this defence integration is the ‘Pillars’ concept, a series of supporting plans coming on-stream at set dates (up to 2027).

It was stated by General Riley that after the Referendum of 2016, the May government covertly locked Britain into the EU Defence structures. The last European Defence Fund was established in 2017 and was agreed by the UK as recently as 18 April 2019.

Riley reveals that this subordinates the UK into ”the whole of the EU’s global strategy.”

The current Minister of Defence, Steve Baker, M.P. ducked the issue at this year’s Conservative Conference by stating that the defence questions raised were a matter ‘for the lawyers’.

The EU has created an interlocking web of ‘EDU’ defence plans, agencies, programmes, and some existing institutions. All have innocent titles and confusing acronyms, thus:
PESCO, Permanent Structured Co-operation, ‘a treaty based framework and process to deepen defence co-operation’. The UK has not opted in to the ‘core’ option; but PESCO has a linked range of industrial and financing areas to which Whitehall has signed.

PESCO is linked to CARD, Co-ordinated Annual Review on Defence, signed by Sir Alan Duncan on 19 November 2018. Also linked are EDF, European Defence Fund, and EDA, European Defence Agency. This EDA is central to policy development, research, strategy, and has a ‘significant dedicated budget’’.

The European Defence Action Plan, has been signed by Whitehall and has ‘significant consequences’.
The European Defence Research Programme involves preparatory action on defence research. The UK has signed up to this.

We are therefore locked into the European Defence Union by these four signed commitments.

This may be confusing and obscure, but is only the beginning of the bureaucrats’ web. Untangling their multiple detailed links would require another blog, but the bottom line is this: sign up to one, sign up to all. We have signed several. We are in a trap.

The scandal of signing away our defence has been revealed by a group of concerned senior British retired officers who oppose the sell-out of their country. They refuse to allow the EU to seize command of UK armed forces, defence industries and intelligence services. Among them are Maj. Gen. Julian Thompson, Rear Admiral Roger Knott-Bower, Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, Lt.Gen J.Riley, Sir Richard Dearlove (MI6), Lord James. Not least among them is Sgt. Simon Bean whose recent video helping to reveal this story on social media has hit one million views.

Publicity, public pressure and swift political action are now needed as the only way of avoiding this sinister scandal.
You can help. Contact your MP, demand to know why he or she has failed in their prime requirement, to defend Britain.


For Britain – PayPal Ban Statement

Important Message re PayPal (please read the whole message)

9th October 2019

updated 11th October

On Tuesday the 8th of October, PayPal decided to close the For Britain account without warning or explanation.

An automated email informed us that the account was suspended immediately, and in 6 months they will let us know if they intend to return to us any funds they are holding.

This has the effect of cancelling thousands of member subscriptions who pay via that method, and is of course harmful to the party.

Members are now asked to pay their subs by another method, ideally bank transfer.

We’re sorry for any inconvenience this causes. It’s staggering that private companies have the power to interrupt and obstruct is in this way.

Alarmingly, this suspension was not explained when we contacted PayPal. Our legal officer has written to them and I contacted the MD, Cameron McLean, who has not yet had the courtesy to reply.

He and PayPal have happily taken thousands in fees, but won’t explain the reason for their decision – the reality being, this is politically motivated and they cannot justify the suspension for any other reason.

We of course appeal against this discriminatory decision.

For Britain has not broken any of the Terms & Conditions. PayPal reference the fact that in their pre-written automatic email that they can effectively do whatever they wish.

So this is clearly a political decision aimed at defunding us. This won’t work.

In a sane world, all people on all sides would be alarmed by this. Large companies exercising this much power over politics is a profound threat (yet another one) to our democracy.

We know our media and politicians celebrate these interferences, even though the winds may blow in their direction one day.

For Britain is listed on the Electoral Commission website as a major political party. To have the ability to disrupt politics in this way is something that must be dealt with, and pushed back.

We are aware of other organisations that have suffered a similar fate yesterday – the constant theme being they are also non-left wing.

Please don’t let them win!

Please set up your new payment methods, and help us in this short term cashflow issue by buying conference tickets and donating. Don’t let them have the satisfaction – fight back and answer them by making us bigger and stronger.

This is evidence why For Britain must succeed and turn the dangerous tide.

We will continue to fight back no matter what they throw at us. But we can only do it with your support.

Thank you.

The For Britain Leadership Team

Global debt fuelled economy, heading for disaster

by a retired fund manager and For Britain member

Our economy and indeed, the global economy, is in a far more fragile state than we are being told. There is one word for it and that word is debt.
We are drowning in the stuff yet it remains largely invisible until something like Carillion or Thomas Cook happens, when suddenly it becomes all too visible.
Politicians, the media, elements of the financial system and a generational change in attitudes are all responsible. With 11 years of endless money printing and debt creation since the near collapse in 2008, we appear to have been able to change water into wine as if by magic. That wine is about to turn into vinegar because debt never goes away and there are signs that the crunch is creeping upon us.
The roots of what I believe might well will be a financial implosion started many years ago. It is beyond the scope of this blog to go back into the mists of history but it is fair to say that financial discipline started to erode in the seventies. There were some good patches but overall things deteriorated culminating in the near death 2008 financial collapse.
Few lessons were learned from 2008 as politicians took the easy route, merely blowing a gigantic bubble but doing nothing to tackle the underlying problems. The world went on its greedy, short term, have it all now, path. The idea of saving for a rainy day was consigned to the dustbin as debt took the place of saving. Money printing (just pressing a button these days) ever more “liquidity” took centre stage as all the former discipline was progressively discarded in a frantic effort to keep the plates of the global economy spinning.
So where are we now? In the first quarter of 2019 the world global debt was $246.5 trillion and it grew by $3 trillion in that quarter.
Do you know how many zeros there are in a trillion? The answer is 000000000000. It is twelve zeros so to make it easier to grasp the numbers are sometimes spaced out in fours, i.e. 0000 0000 0000.
The debts are so big that there are what is known as debt clocks on Google where, together with the links, you can read endless details for each country and much more. The one that really hits you in the eyes is called the World Debt Clock. It shows you in real time what is happening. It also shows the interest accruing as you watch.
These debts can never be repaid and there is no will to tackle the problem. Some day, and my instinct is that it is not far off, somebody sufficiently important, will not want to buy the debts. Credibility will then be shattered and the cascade will start.
Why do I think we are almost here? The manipulation of stock markets ever upwards, particularly in the U.S. which has a massive global influence, is now getting tired. Even though it is never mentioned in the Main Stream Media, this manipulation is all over the blogosphere, plenty of people know about it and they have a fair idea of how it is done. Even those remote from the scene sense that something is not right.
Here I need to go into an explanation. In October 1987 world stock markets had a sudden and violent flash crash, from which they later recovered. One of the results was “The President’s Working Group on Markets” which was established in March 1988 under Ronald Reagan. Essentially it was a group of luminaries which was to ensure the smooth running of financial markets.
Fast forward to the aftermath of the 2008 debacle and it slowly became obvious to financial people that something strange was happening. Time and again the U.S. stock market would stabilise just when, to seasoned observers, it looked as if a sell a sell off was coming. Also markets would magically rise towards the end of a rough day to hide the earlier day’s goings on. This also influenced markets in the Far East and Europe, including the U.K. The “Working Group” had morphed into what became known as the “Plunge Protection Team”. To this day neither its existence nor its activities have ever been openly admitted.
This so called team is devilishly sophisticated. It knows exactly what it was doing, has a brilliant sense of timing, and as much “press button” new money as it ever needs to achieve its aim.
There are other activities, all aimed at pushing up markets. One of the most notorious is share “buy backs” which take the cash out of companies. They used to illegal as the idea was thought to be a form of manipulation. However they were legalised in the U.S. in 1982 and the U.K. followed later. They raise the share price enabling the bosses to make more on their share options. There are plenty of supporters for this dubious practice but in my view they may look good but lead to long term fragilities. It is raping the past for the present and the complete opposite of saving for a rainy day. Huge amounts of money have been taken out. In the U.S. alone around $800 billion was taken out in 2018 and this year it might even be $1 Trillion.
If we add in the debts and machinations in Japan, China, and the enormous money printing by the European Central Bank over many years it is no surprise that we have ended up with a global financial system as flimsy as one made of Balsa Wood.
We are not there yet but there are increasing signs that a full blown recession might be in the wind. Let us take a look. The global motor industry is in trouble now that the last great market, China, is maturing. One in eight workers in Germany is employed, either directly or indirectly in that business. Manhattan property prices are falling and good luck trying to sell in Miami. The latest industrial output figures for the U.S were the worst since 2009. The start up WeWork’s proposed new issue has had to be abandoned, it is in meltdown and has big operations worldwide including office space in London. Other new issues have had to be cancelled. South Korea is slowing down, Sweden is in trouble. One of the best global indicators is a company like Federal Express (Fedex) whose last numbers were down amid cautious comments for the future.
Finally there are worrying developments in the “plumbing” of the U.S. money markets. That is the market where banks, and some others, lend money to each other. This is a complex area but it is looking as if the U.S. Central Bank (The Federal Reserve) is having to inject more money than expected to keep control of interest rates. It is doing it by issuing “Repos” which are “Securities Repurchase Agreements.” It raises the question of whether there is something nasty under the surface.
These are early days. The authorities have done everything to keep the balls up in the air. They will continue to do so but if, despite their efforts, we are heading for a crash it will have immense political repercussions. It would not just impact the stock market. Money reaches every nook and cranny and even the leafiest of leafy suburbs will start talking. There would be no papering over the cracks a second time.

Converting to Islam – A Health and Safety Warning

By Nissar Hussain – For Britain Islam Spokesman

2nd October 2019

I think I am going to get an MP to propose a new law or regulation that will save lives. You would think that with the duty of care fetish system we now live under that this would be an easy task, a no-brainer. But what if I ask them to put out a health and safety warning about Islam’s apostasy laws which demand death for leaving the religion? I am sure you can imagine the look of despair in their eyes when they get word of this proposal. Too hot, too dangerous and … and … Islamophobic!

Now hold on! I come from a Muslim family and cannot be a white supremacist, courtesy of my Pakistani heritage. But you can see the eyes closing to a suspicious slit, the wheels in the brain whirring and the eyebrows lowering and coming closer together as they work out how to deal with this conundrum.

What do they say to an ex-Muslim who has been abused, driven from his home – twice – and taken a beating in which he could have died (which Bradford Police refer to as an assault and not attempted murder with no arrests) all because he left Islam? Do they look after the understandable concerns of the viciously attacked convert, or do they look for the quiet life – you know, like Chamberlain and Lord Halifax did back in the day? And there are always the votes. Yes, that community can be guaranteed to come up with the goods, they can always drum up the postal vote needed to swing the seats. I should know. Yes, a difficult one.

Freedom of conscience over pragmatism. Arms sales over a few arms broken. What to do? You can see their cunning little minds going ten-to-the-dozen, eyes darting around as they work on a seeming solution. “This falls into the acceptable level of violence category, just like Ireland. These apostates are just going to have to lump it – or should I say, take their lumps.”

“If I propose something, I might end up on someone’s list in Bradford or Rochdale. Delay, prevaricate, obfuscate and distract. Work through the playlist I have learned over the years and see which one will get this problem-maker off my back.”

“I know! Pass it upwards! I can tell him that I will speak to the right department and Sir Humphrey will deal with it. That’ll take forever and he’ll get bored or go off and pester someone else. Problem solved! ‘Yes, Mr Hussain, I know what to do!’”

File 13, nearly always works. But not this time. The ex-Muslims are doing what they have feared. We are organising, we are going onto the front foot and taking the issue to the public directly. Who needs an MP when you can get a whole party supporting you?

For Britain has given us a voice, and it is a voice that helps the party as well as us apostates. The press and the rest love to employ the knee-jerk reactions that have been inculcated into the general population by saying the mighty magic words – “FAR RIGHT RACISTS!”. Not going to work on us or For Britain now – well, it may do if they cut me out of the photo alongside Ann Marie again!

We are real victims of the currently favoured victim group. But not for long. The more prominent we become, the more effective our group is, the harder the task they face in down-playing what we are demanding. As Morrissey might say, “The more you ignore me, the closer I get”!

Look at my talks on Youtube with Ann Marie (while you can), read the materials on apostasy at the Legalise Apostasy website, and support our campaign under the Apostaid banner. And, most importantly, inform your friends and family of Islam’s disgraceful and genocidal threat to ex-Muslims. It is time we called out the Ulema, the Sharia’s law-makers, and demanded action by our law-makers, our politicians, to deal with this fifth column in our midst.

The death-threatening Ulema versus the freedom-seeking apostates. Whose side are you on?

Brexit | The Saga So Far

By Anne Marie Waters

25th September 2019

It continues.  This is becoming more and more alarming, and the established elite more and more remote.  The Supreme Court has ruled that Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament was unlawful, and MPs have gone back to work; many of them with the sole intention of preventing Brexit.

The fact that we are still debating this is a sign of the peril we are in.  Supreme Court rulings, Parliamentary manoeuvring, and a Labour leader whose official policy it is to sit on the fence; all of it to determine whether or not we ought to leave the EU.  Something that we were told was decided over three years ago.

Since the result, it has been relentless.  The media re-writing of history began the day after, with the sudden introduction of ‘hard Brexit’ and ‘soft Brexit’, or ‘this isn’t what people voted for’.  Since then, it’s been a horrifying pantomime.  Here’s the story so far…

Following the formation of Theresa May’s Government in 2016, David Davis and Michel Barnier were appointed to thrash out the details of our departure from the EU.  The House of Commons voted in December to trigger Article 50 by the end of the following March. But it wouldn’t be that simple.

In early 2017, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter raised by Gina Miller, a business owner, who argued that the Government couldn’t trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary approval.  So, Theresa May introduced legislation, and it was passed.  Parliamentary approval was gained.  May subsequently sent a letter to Donald Tusk triggering two years of negotiation; the UK would leave the EU on the 29th of March 2019.  Except it wouldn’t. 

A disastrous (from a Tory point of view) general election soon followed – one in which May lost her already slim majority.  A deal with the Democratic Unionist Party allows her to govern, but on thin ice, and beholden to the DUP.

Along comes June 2018 and the ‘Chequers agreement’ is produced.  So little did it satisfy the Cabinet’s Brexiteers that both David Davis and Boris Johnson resigned from the front bench.  It mattered little, because the EU didn’t accept it in any case, partly because it sought a ‘special relationship’ that would give Britain far too easy a ride, and encourage other countries to consider life outside the bloc.  That would never do.    

The notorious Withdrawal Agreement was a published a few months later.  This included an equally notorious transition period, one that could (and likely would) last indefinitely.  This one was happily accepted by the EU (which should set alarm bells ringing).  The same deal was rejected in Parliament not once, not twice, not even three times, it would go on to be voted down four times.

As March 29th 2019 – apparently ‘Brexit day’ – approached, so unpopular were May’s exit proposals, that the first extension to Article 50 was requested.  The new ‘Brexit day’, desired by Theresa May, was June 30th 2019.  However, following some to-ing and fro-ing about the date, October 31st 2019 was eventually settled upon.  ‘Brexit day’ is once again looming, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has found his hands tied since the moment he set foot in Downing Street.

Fast forward to September of this year and Johnson announces that the Parliamentary session is to come to an end in mid September, to be opened again with a Queen’s speech on October 14th.  This, Remainers in Parliament argued, restricted their ability to debate Brexit (despite the three years they’d just had to do so). 

Parliament afterwards busied itself with passing a bill to prevent a no-deal Brexit at the end of October, and rejecting the possibility of a general election.

Now, the latest.  The Supreme Court has ruled that Johnson had no legal right to suspend Parliament at all.

That’s where we are. 

This has been an entirely unprecedented period in British politics.  The gap between Parliament and the people has never been wider.  Parliament is openly defying a democratic mandate and is in total opposition to the voting public. 

This cannot continue indefinitely, but while there are so many vested interests in its continuance, that may tragically be the reality.  Remainers will stop at nothing, politicians believe they are untouchable, and the people at the bottom of the ladder watch as their vote is rendered void.

There is only one answer, do what it takes to get out now, then clean up the House of Commons permanently. 

Press Statement : Supreme Court Decision 24th September 2019

Press Statement : 24th September 2019

The For Britain Movement strongly disagrees with the decision reached today by the Supreme Court that the Queen’s prorogation of parliament is void. 
As pointed out in the Law Spokesman’s blog yesterday, the principle that parliament is sovereign is at the heart of UK’s unwritten constitution, but it is not a replacement for the constitution. The court failed to address in its reasons,  and the government failed to argue, the extent of the present constitutional crisis we are now in. It is illogical for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty to be cited to justify surrendering that sovereignty against the will of the British people formally expressed in a referendum. 
The Supreme Court’s decision is impeccably expressed, and in accordance with convention, but fails to reflect the unprecedented paradox the country faces. An opportunity to remind parliament of the basis of its sovereignty, the consent of the people, and thereby bring some order to the chaos has been missed.

Legal Officer’s View: The Prorogation Case in the Supreme Court

By Paul Ellis, Legal Officer

19th September 2019

The news watching public have sat through more parliamentary votes and debates over standing orders and Erskine May over the past three years than is normal for a whole lifetime.
The respite from more Brexit that came with prorogation of parliament has proved brief as the battle has only moved a few hundred yards across the square to the Supreme Court. Here arguments have been put that prorogation was illegal and that the parliament should be recalled to hold the government to account and possibly enact more legislation. What joy.

The point in issue is initially an arcane one: is the prime minister’s advice to the monarch to prorogue parliament an act of the executive, in which case the courts can review it, as they review any act of the government to determine if it is lawful, or is it a political act that forms part of the proceedings of parliament and which the courts are forbidden from pronouncing upon by the Bill of Rights of 1689. If the court decides that it is an act of the executive, it must then consider a second and more controversial question: whether Boris Johnson acted through ‘improper motivation’ in advising the Queen to prorogue this parliament for five weeks.

There is, it should be said, no ‘correct’ legal answer to either question. The British constitution works on following convention, but the country is in the midst of an entirely unprecedented set of circumstances and a deep constitutional crisis.

Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, insisted again and again that the case was not about Brexit. The court would focus exclusively on the narrow one of the decision to prorogue and ignore all context.

So the court did not ask whether achieving the decision voted for by the majority in a national referendum would be an ‘improper reason’ for proguing a parliament that was refusing to do so. It did not address parliament’s own unconstitutional behaviour in seeking to legislate to negotiate with a foreign power from the opposition benches whilst refusing to allow an election. Most importantly, the court looked away from the heart of the Brexit crisis: the paradox that parliament is stretching the doctrine of its own sovereignty to braking point for the explicit purpose of surrendering that sovereignty, possibly permanently, to an unaccountable foreign power.

As David Starkey succinctly put it, parliamentary sovereignty is meaningless without national sovereignty. Many, including myself, would go further, and say that parliamentary sovereignty is not superior to the will of the people formally expressed in a referendum.

Possibly the justices hoped that by isolating the issue of the prorogation from its context they could provide one small island of certainty within the chaos. But how could the court sensibly find and apply precedent for a situation that is completely without precedent? How can one address the propriety of Boris Johnson’s motives without considering the context that British democracy is fighting for its life?

The case offers a golden, possibly the only opportunity for the Supreme Court to introduce some much-needed sanity to the present crisis. In its judgment it could point out that parliament is sovereign only within the constitution, but that its own behaviour is subject to the law. It could point out that Parliament, the constitution, even the authority of the court rests ultimately upon the consent of a free population.

The Supreme Court could and should be democracy’s backstop. However, I saw little sign from the justices that the court is about to say any such things or offer the country any stability. On the contrary, I fear that the nation is about to be plunged into another round of law making without rules, and government by opposition, and the constitutional crisis will deepen yet.

Brexit Latest – Labour’s Demise

By Anne Marie Waters, Party Leader

10th September 2019

Some things don’t age very well – especially Jeremy Corbyn’s demands for a general election!  It must be embarrassing for Labour at present.  Not only do they have to crawl backwards on their hitherto insistence on an election, but they find themselves in a position where they are promoting a ridiculous policy of negotiating a deal with the EU and then campaigning against it.

In the latest episode of the Brexit saga, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has once again failed to persuade Parliament to back a General Election.  Labour don’t want one, despite all the months they were calling for one.  They’ve come up with the rather lame excuse that they do want an election, just not on Boris Johnson’s terms.  Tripe.  Labour is running scared.  On his Twitter account, Corbyn insists he wants rid of Johnson’s government, so it is obvious then that he doesn’t think he can win, and he’s probably right.

Meanwhile, Parliament has now been suspended, and already EU leaders are hinting that they will allow an extension of Brexit – of course they will, the EU doesn’t want the UK cash cow to depart.  Just like other referenda in countries across Europe, the EU machine will happily ignore the result of this one and carry on as before. 

Boris Johnson’s promises to take us out of the EU on October 31st are now in serious doubt, but few will blame Johnson himself.  Our opportunity to change the House of Commons has been denied to us by MPs, whose opposition to democracy becomes ever clearer by the day.

Labour, a party whose heartlands voted to Leave, has turned its back on the British working class, whose livelihoods they claim to be defending.  Labour acts as if there will be no employment rights outside the EU, their entire premise is built on nonsense.  Their policy on Brexit as it stands is nothing less than laughable.  In fact, it’s making for some good comedy hits on social media.

Essentially, Labour are now stating this: if they were in power they would negotiate a deal with the EU that maintains employment and environment laws etc, and then they would campaign to Remain.  In short, they’ll negotiate a deal and then campaign against it.  It truly has gotten to new levels of ineptitude now. 

Labour is revealing, more and more each day, its absolute contempt for the voice of the British voting public.  In backing Remain, it trampled all over its own voters’ choice, and now, in disallowing a general election, it is doing the same. 

What is needed is for all of us who are pro-Brexit to get behind Boris Johnson at this time.  Ukip should get behind him, Farage should get behind him.  We should leave as promised on October 31st, without a deal, and begin the process of putting Great Britain back together again.  Failing this, a general election in which all Brexiteers get behind Boris, so we can get out – once and for all. If not, this will drag on for decades and professional politicians will make a handsome living out of it; Farage has done so for decades.

We must get the country back in order, but we must never forget what so many MPs have done.  They have denounced the voice of the public, they have shown us their contempt time after time.  When we get out of the EU, we then get on with the business of draining the swamp – by throwing them out of the Commons and reminding them of exactly who is in charge. 


Animal Welfare | Non Stun Slaughter Report

Religious Slaughter in the UK and Beyond

Written by Anne Marie Waters, issued 7th September 2019

Halal food, food prepared according to sharia law, has become a staple of the Western diet – and much of this food is sold unlabelled. Halal is a multi-billion dollar global industry involving agriculture and farming, food processing, catering, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, tourism and trade.

Halal slaughter involves cutting the throat of a conscious animal – “unstunned slaughter”. British law maintains that animals should be stunned to unconsciousness; this is often carried out with a bolt of electricity to the head prior to slaughter. The animal therefore does not feel the pain of slaughter and is unconscious throughout. Unstunned slaughter means the animal is conscious while its throat is cut – a method used in both halal and kosher animal slaughter.

A long series of legislative provisions over the last century prohibit the unstunned slaughter of animals in the UK. This stretches all the way back to the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which introduced the requirement to stun animals before killing. However, then, as now, a religious exemption applied and both Jews and Muslims were permitted to continue with conscious slaughter.
In a statement to the House of Commons in 2014, George Eustice, Agriculture Minister, said the “UK Government recognises and respects the needs of religious communities, so has always maintained the limited exemption, which is to be used only for meat produced for Jewish and Muslim communities.” [1]

This was a reiteration of the requirement that religiously slaughtered meat is provided only for those religious groups. This is dramatically not the case in relation to halal.

A Mail on Sunday investigation in 2010 found that schools, hospitals, pubs and sporting venues throughout Britain are routinely serving halal meat unlabelled. Iconic arenas named included Ascot, Twickenham and Wembley Stadium. NHS hospitals serving halal meat, without informing patients, include London’s largest Trust – Guy’s & St Thomas.

In 2013, an East London newspaper reported that three quarters of schools in the London Borough of Waltham Forest were serving halal meat to all pupils. These schools were under the control of the Borough Council. The same report referred to a school in Chingford which informed parents that meat served there would be replaced by an all-halal menu, prompting protests from some. A council spokesperson is reported to have said “All meat provided to local schools is certified by the Halal Food Authority.”

Various reports of people being fired from their jobs for accidentally serving non-halal meat have also emerged. A dinner lady was fired from a Birmingham school in 2013 for serving non-halal meat at a supposed multi-faith school. The subsequent news reports confirmed that 1,400 pupils at Moseley school were routinely being served halal meat, regardless of religion and without being informed. The head-teacher apologised for the unintentional error of allowing non-halal meat to be supplied, but many Muslim parents demanded punishment. A Birmingham City Council spokesperson also apologised.

Critics of halal, or even those who raise questions or call for labelling, have been accused of ‘picking on religious minorities’. Those who attest that they are acting out of concern for animal welfare are dismissed as liars – meaning they are in a lose-lose situation. In 2014, Conservative MP Philip Davies tabled a motion in the House of Commons arguing that religiously slaughtered meat should be labelled as such, but his proposals were defeated. Davies had quoted Oxfordshire Imam Taj Hargey, who has stated that halal imposition amounts to “covert religious extremism and creeping Islamic fundamentalism making its way into Britain by the backdoor“.

In response to his proposals, Conservative MP Jonathan Djanogly asked of Davies, “Why is he picking on religious communities in his new clause?” The fact that it is religious communities requiring the exemption to unstunned slaughter is of course the reason religious communities are being discussed.

More recently, in October 2018, councillors on Lancashire Council voted to stop supplying the county’s schools with unstunned halal meat. The Lancashire Council of Mosques objected to this, and “threatened to ask Muslim families across the county to boycott all school meals”. Abdul Hamid Qureshi, the chief executive officer, called the move “hugely discriminatory.” He said “It could be categorised as Islamophobic, it could be categorised as a racist approach. It’s not sensible action but offensive action to me.

Similarly, in Kirklees, West Yorkshire, councillors attempted to debate the provision of unstunned halal meat to schools, but the debate was shut down under accusations of ‘targeting sections of the community’. Labour’s council leader Shabir Pandor shut down any debate, saying “I’m closing the debate on halal at full council. Diversity is our strength. Those questioning our provision of halal don’t have animal welfare at heart. They have targeted sections of the community which had caused fear [sic]. Our policy on halal will remain in place.”

In effect therefore, according to some members of Kirklees Council, people are no longer permitted to raise concerns about animal welfare in relation to unstunned slaughter, and their concerns will be dismissed as lies or hatred.

Non-Meat Certification
The halal certification of non-meat products is also a fast-growing business. The Halal Food Authority (HFA) is perhaps the most prominent halal certification provider in the UK. Companies pay for their products to be certified halal in order to appeal to the rapidly expanding Muslim market. On its website, the HFA boasts of having provided certification to food giants including Mars, KFC, Kingsmill, Warburtons, and McCain. The Guardian has reported that Subway, Nando’s, and Pizza Express serve halal food at many of their outlets.
Furthermore, much has suggested that some funds raised through halal certification is being used to fund Islamist organisations, and even terrorist groups.
(As with many matters involving the Islamic faith, accurate and reliable information is difficult to find. We can therefore only inform you of some of the most common beliefs and statements surrounding this issue).

In the United States and Canada for example, some foods have been receiving halal certification from the Canadian Islamic Society of North America (ISNA-Canada). The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) issued a suspension and fine to ISNA-Canada in 2018 after an audit raised concerns that it had provided resources “to support armed militancy”.

According to the CRA, “the society’s resources may have, directly or indirectly, been used the support the political efforts of Jamaat-e-Islami and/or its armed wing Hizbul Mujahideen.” The group’s halal certification scheme was reportedly described as “essentially a business”.

In France, the revenue of the halal food industry has been estimated at around $7 billion. It is believed that halal certification in France is often provided by “experts”, themselves certified by the UOIF, or Union of the Islamic Organizations in France, which according to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. French journalist and author Alexandre del Valle was threatened with violence when he investigated the extent of halal food in France. His investigation concluded “Nearly 60 percent of halal food is controlled by organizations belonging to the Muslim brotherhood.” [2]

The halal preparation of meat consists of cutting the throat of a fully conscious animal while uttering an Islamic prayer, and then allowing the animal to bleed to death. This procedure can only be carried out by a Muslim.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has stated that “Evidence clearly indicates that slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering.” The RSPCA launched a campaign against religious unstunned slaughter in 2019, but it has had little success in persuading authorities to take action on this issue.

The Government advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (now Committee) argues that the practice should be banned because animals experience “very significant pain and distress” before they become unconscious.

According to the National Secular Society, “the Government no longer keeps statistics on religious slaughter and said in October 2010 that it did not know the number of halal slaughterhouses.”
On top of the above, there are further concerns surrounding employment; only a Muslim can carry out the ritual slaughter demanded of halal, and as such, as the market grows, a de facto discrimination against non-Muslims emerges in the abattoir employment field. The law potentially allows for exemptions to discriminatory employment laws for reasons such as these (if it can be argued, legally, that there is a “genuine occupational requirement”), however this merely compounds the advantage of Muslims in employment terms in the meat market as halal continues to expand.

While significantly smaller, and not imposed in public places, kosher slaughter (prepared according to Jewish law) also requires the unstunned killing of animals. There is however no suggestion or evidence that funds from kosher certification are used for political or terrorist activity. However, on animal welfare grounds, both practices must be considered impermissible.

For Britain’s Position

For Britain is fully committed to our long-standing proposal to repeal the religious exemption to unstunned slaughter in the United Kingdom. Unstunned slaughter carried out within the UK’s borders should not be permitted.

Both Denmark and Belgium have banned religious slaughter, and so there is no reason that the same can’t be done in the UK. What is required to implement such laws is the ability to withstand and dismiss false accusations of ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’ (etc.) and to insist that animal welfare is prioritised over and above the requirements of religious minorities.

Any import of halal or kosher (or unstunned meat of any kind) must be carefully labeled and its sale geared towards to relevant religious communities as originally intended. No schools, or hospitals, or sporting venues, or other public places should serve meat from animals slaughtered without stunning.

We will continue to campaign on this vital issue and will not be deterred by false smears. Animals have no voice of their own, so For Britain is committed to being a voice on their behalf.

[1] HC Deb 4 November 2014 c168WH

[2] Note the original CBN report is no longer listed on the CBN site


Party Statement Regarding Brexit / General Election

5th September 2019

For Britain is watching the situation with Brexit, and the potential for a General Election closely. A General Election, if called, would clearly be a single issue election.

We, like all democratic people in the country are horrified at the contempt and disregard for the democratic will of the British people shown by politicians from all parties. This has become not just a battle for Brexit, but a battle to restore democracy within the United Kingdom. If Jeremy Corbyn and his consortium are successful, the country has some very dark times ahead. The decent people who support democracy, love their country and want to ensure Brexit happens must come together and do the right thing.

As the situation is fluid, it is impossible to make definitive statements, but I felt it important to state our thinking at this time.

We recognise, for the good of the country, that Brexit must be delivered. In the recent EU elections, our members overwhelmingly supported For Britain not standing candidates to risk splitting the vote. We cannot allow Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister via the back door, and for Brexit to be thwarted. So with this in mind, our position will be to act in a way that minimises the risk of splitting ‘Leave’ votes, a Labour Government or Brexit not being delivered. It is our view that by rejecting the chance of ‘no deal’, the politicians are effectively undermining any negotiation ability, and as such trying to land us in a position of no Brexit. This must not be allowed to happen.

There may be a seat with unique circumstances that warrant our standing a candidate, and these will be reviewed if that situation arises, and we will keep you informed of our intention and rationale. Our strategy of building the party up from a local level will of course continue, as will our long term vision which will ultimately bring us power.

Brexit : Best & Worst Case Scenarios

By Anne Marie Waters, Party Leader

4th September 2019


The best case scenario is easy. We get out on the 31st of October with a trade deal that allows businesses to do business. Tariff-free movement of goods and services between the EU and the UK is entirely reasonable, and entirely doable if parties are acting in good faith.

The UK does not have to be in a customs union or a single market in order to trade freely with the EU, the only reason for it is the EU’s insistence. Free movement of people is not necessary for free trade either, that’s also a product of Brussels’ ambitions.

As such, the European Union’s machinery would never allow such a scenario to occur, so our best and only option of getting out now is no deal. The failure to secure a simple trade deal is, as Boris Johnson rightly says, largely the fault of the MPs doing their utmost to scupper Brexit. Their continued attempts to keep the Remain dream alive has handed all the advantage to the EU. If Brussels is sure we won’t leave on No Deal, it strengthens their negotiating hand infinitely. The Remain camp is effectively working with the EU to block our exit.

The behaviour of some of our MPs, in failing to respect the Brexit referendum result, is a shocking reality for the British public to face. They want unaccountable power; it’s attractive. They are fully on board with the anti-democratic Brussels bureaucracy, and the direction that Europe is taking, because it is removing the public voice from the governing process. This suits them very much indeed. They think they know best after all.

Members of Parliament have pledged to introduce legislation to the House of Commons forcing Boris Johnson in to yet another extension, and pushing our departure date back until January 2020. This of course is to buy them more time, until they can bring Brexit crashing down altogether, and (they hope) hammer the final nail in to the coffin of the input of the disobedient electorate.

The worst case scenario is staying in, and those who voted to leave left to wonder what happen to their country, what happened to their power. It’s entirely feasible that a Labour government would cancel Brexit altogether, or MPs force through a May-like deal that keeps us in the customs union and single market, i.e. we stay in the EU in all but name.

Then we face the possibility of a decade or more getting bogged down in arguments over the details of the Brexit deal; politicians continuing to play the big political game (that provides them with a handsome living) while the enormous social and cultural problems we face grow ever larger.

We must get out now. MPs have a moral duty to get behind Boris Johnson at this time and deliver the will of the electorate. If they don’t, they must pay with their seats. I sincerely hope that the British public makes sure this is done.

State of the Nation Documentary

Welcome to our latest campaign

We are going to produce a documentary to tell the public what the situation is that this country is facing. We will look at politics, crime, rights, democracy, the defence of our future, our culture. We will tell the public exactly why For Britain has the policies we have and why we feel the way we do about the country today. The State of Britain 2020 will be produced over the next few months. We need your help to produce it. We need your funds to produce it, so please do donate via link below. Donations can lead to a credit on the film for example and if there’s any other help you’d like to offer us please do get in touch this is important.



Be Part of The Production

We have created the following levels to this end:

  • Under £100 donations = credit on end of documentary
  • £100 = invite to private screening / credit on end of documentary
  • £200 = advanced copy of the doc / private screening invite / credit on end of documentary
  • £350 = advanced copy of the doc / screening invite / after show VIP / credit on end of documentary
  • £500 = advanced copy of the doc / private screening invite / after show VIP / credit on documentary  / EXECUTIVE PRODUCER credit on end of documentary

BREXIT: Speaker’s Authority Is Now Very Dicey

by Paul Ellis, Legal Officer

29th August 2019

When I was a teacher of law, one of my favourite classes concerned the rule of law. To make a potentially rather dull and theoretical topic more engaging for my students, I devised a fiendishly complicated game. The game had a board with a start and a finishing line, some randomly positioned snakes and ladders and a Monopoly-style jail. Students moved their counters around the board, or failed to, by throwing an ever-changing number of dice of different colours and sizes, including some novelty and poker dice. The students were not told the rules of the game, and it quickly became clear to them that any ‘rules’ were different for different students and changed frequently without notice.

The point of my little exercise was to demonstrate Albert Venn Dicey’s analysis of the rule of law – the principle that all laws, to be effective, should apply equally to everyone, be prospective and reasonably clear, certain and publicly discoverable, and that they be fairly and impartially applied. These principles are more important than any individual law, and whilst compliance with them does not guarantee democracy and just laws, it is a necessary precondition for them. Without the rule of law, the exercise of authority must be tyranny and people’s response will be inevitably tend towards anarchy. My classroom ‘game’ certainly moved swiftly from the former to the latter!

I later asked the kids what they thought of my game and received the highly memorable reply from one frustrated hijabi-clad girl, who had spent almost her entire game trying to throw the mystery combination to get out of jail, that it ‘sucked like a porn star, sir’. The name that I had chosen for the game was ‘Dicey’, in honour of the great Victorian jurist, and I doubt that there was a student present who will not, for the rest of their lives, get a flashback to that game whenever they hear the name of A. V. Dicey mentioned.

Dicey’s name has been cited frequently by remainers over the twenty four hours since Boris Johnson announced that he had advised the Queen to prorogue parliament for a longer than normal period in the build up to Brexit. However, remainers’ sudden conversion to the rule of law makes them utterly unconvincing democrats. It is remainers who have campaigned relentlessly to ignore the outcome of the 2016 referendum, often on the basis of an undisguised contempt for people they regard too old, white, undereducated or poor to have their vote recognised as legitimate. Remainers in the House of Lords that have casually and repeatedly ignored the Salisbury Convention that as the unelected chamber the Lords must not frustrate the manifesto commitments of an elected government. In the Commons, back bencher and opposition MPs have sallied far beyond their proper role of holding the executive to account, to attempt to become back seat drivers in the UK’s negotiations with Brussels. Most scandalously of all, the person upon whom the enforcement of the rule of law within parliament falls most directly, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has time and again demonstrated his bias, even to extent of driving a car with a ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ bumper sticker proudly displayed.

With political events now moving very quickly, it is worth taking a moment to recall and fix in our minds his statement of yesterday, sent shortly after the prorogation was announced. The proroguing of parliament would be, Bercow fumed, ‘a constitutional outrage’; it was ‘blindingly obvious’ that its purpose was ‘to stop parliament … performing its duty in shaping a course for the country’; ‘shutting down parliament’ is ‘an offence against the democratic process and the rights of parliamentarians as the people’s elected representatives’; and by the move the Prime Minister ‘undermine(s) his democratic credentials and indeed his commitment to Parliamentary democracy’.

The facts are that a prorogation of parliament, at the prime minister’s discretion, is a normal part of parliamentary procedure and is now very long overdue. A month-long conference season recess is also normal at this time of year. Yes, Boris is no doubt also using this as device to make it more difficult for remainer MPs to block Brexit, but he is acting within the constitution and the ultimate purpose of the exercise is self-evidently to restore parliamentary democracy, rather than allow parliament to be forever subjugated to a foreign power against the expressed will of its people. Speaker Bercow’s polemics about a lack of an offence against and a lack of commitment to parliamentary democracy are wild, wrong and dangerous.

The UK’s unwritten constitution relies upon convention. It offers flexibility but also uncertainty in unconventional times. In such times, the role of Speaker in enforcing the rule of law might be expected to offer a rare instance of stability, but instead John Bercow has hopelessly compromised himself as an impartial adjudicator of Commons rules. It is Bercow, not Boris, that is undermining democracy, by his hollowing out the rule of law upon which it stands. Parliamentary sitting time before 31 October may be curtailed, but there is still more than enough of it for us to see extraordinary scenes stemming from this abdication of due impartiality: and conceivably the collapse of order in the Commons chamber altogether. After all, why should a Brexit-supporting MP now defer to his umpiring any more than one of my students playing the mug’s game ‘Dicey’ to mine?

The Irish Backstop – Here We Go Again

Here we go again.  Since we voted to leave the European Union, we have been going around in circles, and now we’ve arrived back at the start.  Boris Johnson finds himself locked in the same back-and-forward arguments with the EU; he insists there can be no deal involving the Irish backstop, the EU tells him the opposite.  Round and round we go.


In the latest developments, Johnson has given cause for enthusiasm among those of us who voted Leave.  He has repeatedly stated, and his ministers do the same, that we will leave the EU on the 31st of October, with or without a deal.  But he has also stated that a deal is preferable, one that won’t involve an Irish backstop.


The backstop can best be summarized like this: when we leave the EU, Northern Ireland will continue to have a land border with the Republic of Ireland.  This means that part of the UK will have a land border with part of the EU.  The debate therefore surrounds what kind of border this will be.  Given the tumultuous history of Ireland, all parties involved state that they do not wish to see a ‘hard border’ in Ireland, as this could evoke and revive divisions on the island.


The European Union therefore insists that Northern Ireland remain in the EU’s Customs Union for an undefined period, until a ‘soft’ border can be agreed on the island of Ireland.  Parties in Northern Ireland have objected to this idea as they do not accept different treatment to the rest of the UK.  This has meant that the UK’s full inclusion in the Customs’ Union be continued for an undefined period.  Leaving the Customs Union however is vital if we are to leave the EU – something the people of the UK voted to do.  Customs Union membership means that the UK will still be unable to make new trade deals unilaterally, once again, something that people voted for when they voted to leave the European Union.


This is the sticking point.  The United States has also warned that we do nothing to threaten peace in Northern Ireland.  It is a serious matter, so does Boris Johnson have a solution?  Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has given him 30 days to come up with one![1]


Johnson has met with the leaders of France and Germany over recent days.  While both meetings appear to have been amicable, Merkel has persuaded Johnson that it is the UK, and not the EU, that must come up with a workable solution to the Irish backstop.  Johnson has accepted this.  The Guardian reports that he told the German Chancellor “You rightly say the onus is on us to produce those solutions, those ideas, to show how we can address the issue of the Northern Irish border and that is what we want to do”.


By contrast however, France’s Emmanuel Macron has been more robust, stating that the backstop is “indispensible”.[2] 


The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has come closer to Macron’s position than Merkel’s.  He told Boris Johnson that the demand to scrap the backstop is “unacceptable”.[3]


Even with all of this in mind, Johnson still insists we will leave the EU on Halloween.  We will leave without a deal unless a deal scraps the backstop.


We must now simply wait and see.  For those of us on the Brexit side of the debate, this looks like a strong position for the UK.  If Johnson can now come up with a solution to the Irish border problem, we may well get out in October, and we may well be able, as a nation, to move forward and to politically focus on problems here at home – problems that the people face, rather than the politicians.


We can then refocus our efforts on Westminster instead of Brussels, and we can shine a light on the failings, past and future, of Boris Johnson and his government, as well as Labour and the Conservatives, and the damage both parties have inflicted upon our country.  It is time to move on.  Let us hope that time is soon.

Impartial Policing

By Mike Speakman (Law & Order Spokesperson)

22nd August 2019

One of the themes drummed into me at basic police training was that it is imperative that the police do not take sides. Respect and trust for the police was seen as conditional on our fairness and impartiality.

I soon experienced practical examples of this. Liverpool is well known for its Orange parades and no more than on 12th July. Policing the 12th July was a major exercise in Liverpool. Orange bands would assemble all over the city and march to the city centre to get on trains for a day out in Southport. Several thousand people were often involved. The weekends throughout the summer were also subject to local marches, accompanied by bands. The first time I ever accompanied such a march I was told in no uncertain terms that I must not march in step with the band as this would imply solidarity with the march. Now this was actually quite hard to do as the music was often lively and vibrant. Such events could be a bit contentious as many of the marches passed though Catholic areas of the city and the odd brick or bottle was sometimes lobbed at the marchers.

Although Liverpool police contained many Catholics and a few Orangemen, you could never tell their allegiance at any of these parades and I never ever heard of the impartiality of the police being called into question.

We were given similar instructions for policing industrial disputes and political demonstrations. In the nineteen eighties there were quite a lot of National Front demonstrations and marches which were opposed by the Socialist Workers Party in particular. Again, it was emphasised that we must not give any appearance of being aligned to any one group. This was not too hard as policemen detested both groups equally, but we were also very keen to ensure that they had their right to march and demonstrate protected.

Contrast that era with today. Any suggestion of impartiality has long gone. Police forces are heavily influenced by the political makeup of local authorities and the Police and Crime Commissioner. Chief Constables were the bastions of police independence and their authority has now been undermined by the Crime Commissioners and increasing central government influence over policing activity.

The most outstanding example today is the police involvement in “pride” parades. Firstly, I do believe these parades are political, many LGBT (etc etc) groups are seeking changes to the law, particularly as the gender identity issue is being heavily promoted. I would definitely characterise these parades as political marches, and are the police impartial? They certainly are not, there is no semblance of impartiality at all, they are full on identifying with the members of these parades. Now it may be that some of these police officers are LGBT (etc etc), but so what? We don’t need to know that, and it should not influence the way they do their job. In these circumstance police officers are like umpires. They are there to enforce the law and ensure fair play. Their sporting of LGBT symbols is like umpires wearing Australian colours at a test match. They appear to have taken sides.

It doesn’t end there, For Britain has been at the receiving end of police bias where the police actively attempt to stop us meeting at a particular venue, sometimes successfully. I was once proud to uphold any organisations right to assemble and have meetings, this is no longer a police priority. They will try and stop any organisation that doesn’t fit the establishments criteria of political correctness.

We need to take politics out of policing and that means from the top down. Get rid of Police and Crime Commissioners, replace the government-controlled Police Chiefs Council and reinstate a professional body to lead the police. Make the police accountable to the local public, not political appointments. Above all, we need to change policing culture and have one law for all. This is what For Britain is about.

The Freedom Index

The UK probably isn’t the first country to spring to mind when one thinks of political oppression.  The Freedom Index (which measures freedom of the press but provides a glimpse a freedoms generally) rates us at 33rd out of 180, an improvement on 2018, where we sat at 40.[1]  That might be an improved picture, but that’s not a full picture of civil liberties in the country at present.  The real picture is far less positive; definitive, abject political oppression is taking place on a broad scale in Britain, and very few seem to notice.


First, a definition of political oppression (or repression).  In Wiki, it is summed up as a “state entity controlling a citizenry by force for political reasons, particularly for the purpose of restricting or preventing their ability to take part in the political life of a society thereby reducing their standing among their fellow citizens”.[2]  Does that sound familiar?  It should.  It’s happening every day in Britain – at least to some of us.


Just like the rest of Europe, and the Western world, opposition to government policy on migration (and accompanying Islamisation) subjects a person to genuine political oppression and persecution in Great Britain.


Governments prevent the participation of some of their citizens in the political process by various means including violence and removal of their human rights; this includes the right to a fair trial.


A “fair” trial is an interesting concept in politically correct Britain, as is fairness in the legal system generally.  Take for example, hate speech and hate crime.  The language used to discuss these on the British legal scene is alarming. The website of the Metropolitan Police Service for example, on discussion of “hate crime”, includes the following chilling statement: “Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement”.[3]  What you’ve just read is that evidence is not required to punish a person for a crime.  If ‘hate’ can be shown to be an element of a crime, then the punishment is greater, and so a person receives a punishment, or part of one, based on zero evidence.  This statement unashamedly appears upon the website of the biggest police force in Britain.


Just as chillingly, the same site states: “A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion” etc.  The emphasis there is mine, but can you see it?  ‘Hate’ is proven if the victim or someone else thinks the crime was motivated by ‘hate’.  A person can therefore be criminally punished for what someone else believes they were thinking when they committed a crime. This is wide open to political abuse, and that is indeed what it is used for.  “Hate” is not an issue when Muslim gangs rape white “trash”,[4] but it can be very important indeed when offensive or threatening language is used against Muslims on Twitter.  It’s entirely arbitrary, vague, and is only used against one political viewpoint. That’s why it amounts to political oppression.


Collusion between state and media to silence political opponents is also a method of oppression (and repression) of dissenting voices, and here in Britain, if you dare to oppose mass migration, Islamisation, or indeed express disgust as barbaric practices such as halal slaughter or FGM, the press will immediately destroy your reputation with labels of “racist”, “fascist”, and “far right”.  This then closes off an honest route to public discussion for those deemed unacceptable by the state/media alliance.  If a candidate for example expresses views inconsistent with celebration of mass migration, the press will destroy them on behalf of the state, which has no time for such criticisms of its open border policies.  Destroying the reputation of political opponents using falsehoods is a form of political oppression.


Just as with hate crime laws, accusation in these matters is proof – no evidence is needed.  If a newspaper calls you a fascist, as I know from personal experience, no evidence is required, and none is produced.  The newspaper in question will not phone its victim to ask for a response to such an accusation, nor will it print any actual policy proposals.  It won’t define fascism or explain how the accused fits the bill, it will simply label them a fascist and leave it at that.  In addition, the ‘journalists’ will chase Hope Not Hate for back up, an extreme left-wing group known for smearing its opponents.  The papers don’t contact the accused, they deliberately seek out support for the accuser.  The words ‘witch hunt’ are truly apt.


To add an extra injustice, those on the receiving end of political oppression in the UK are often there because of their race – making them victims of racial oppression as well.  Evidence is not required to prove motive in “hate crime” cases as outlined above, but nor is it required to imply motive.  If I oppose halal meat on animal welfare grounds, I will be told “no, that’s not the reason, the reason is that you don’t like people with brown skin”.  That’s the accusation and no proof is needed.  If I am white, that accusation is ever more serious and ever more powerful.  Indeed, sentencing guidelines produced in 2017 for the first time suggested greater sentences for white offenders than for non-white.[5]   It is a disastrous recipe for division and disempowerment, and that is exactly the point of it.


The British state, and all mainstream political parties, have committed themselves to mass migration, that is a given.  In order to open the borders and keep them open, both had to lie to the populace about the future that lay ahead.  It was a future of racial and religious segregation, and the appeasement of alien cultural norms considered crimes among the British majority.  What results is a confused citizenry, one lacking leadership or moral clarity, and one told by its leaders that it is weak and deserving of demise.


The state’s disempowerment of the British people was complete when it refused to honour the result of the Brexit referendum, but this is just one example, the British people have been insulted and silenced for years with political correctness and censorship.  We need urgently to rediscover our power.  As civilised people, we will exercise that power through the utilisation of our democracy, and we will fight at the ballot box for a say over our lives again.  For Britain is committed to this, we will travel the country, we will make our voices heard. We are politically oppressed, and we will fight back for Britain.


Anne Marie Waters


New Website Launches

We are pleased to launch our new website, taking the party forward as we grow and progress.

We wanted to iron out the issues with our original site by rebuilding it from scratch, as well as moving to a private server on dedicated infrastructure. The frustrations some of you had with payments and the joining process have been addressed, and we are pleased to now have card payments as an option too.

The site as it is today is just the start – we have lots of media, blogs and content to add – but it is a website you can all contribute to. We would love your blogs and content, or your photos and videos to add.

Members have an extra section on the website for member only information.

Keep coming back to the site, content will be added all the time, and it will be the hub for other content such as videos and podcasts.

We hope you like the new site. The red, white and blue of Great Britain proclaims what we stand for:

Freedom | Justice | Democracy

Blog on Islam – We’ve lost Muhammad part 1

We’ve lost Muhammad

Look at these maps from the 6th Century of Saudi Arabia and see if you can identify what’s not there that should be.

Here’s another of the same region from 1484AD, with a little bit more detail and colour, showing the advancement of cartography over the previous centuries, but still with one thing missing.

This one, dated from the 18th Century, is of the same area and has the same lack.

None of these maps shows Mecca, not even the one from the century of Muhammad’s birth in 570AD.

This is surprising, given how important the city is to Muslims and how it is described by them as the birthplace of their prophet.

Mecca then was not the place of importance that we see today as the centre of Islamic worship. Back in the 6th Century, it had no strategic positioning for trade or for the military and therefore no reason for it to be on any map, as it was nothing more than a quiet hamlet.

By the time we reach the middle ages, nothing much had changed, as Mecca still hadn’t risen to any prominence and cannot be seen on the maps from 1484AD and the 18th century.

Mecca was not considered of any importance for at least a millennium, and its elevated status today is very much a modern invention.

The discrepancies

But we are told by Muslims that it is the mother of all settlements, the centre of Islam and therefore the centre of history.
The trouble is, we have Islamic text that describes where Mohammed was born which doesn’t match with reality. The geographical picture given and the information supplied of the vegetation that was around the locality of his place of birth at the time, make it impossible for him to have been born in Mecca.

When we examine the text for clues, we find the following details about his birthplace. It was: in a valley with a parallel valley (IbnIshaq; AlBukhari2:645, 2:685, 3:891, 2:815, 2:820, 4:227), with a stream (Al Bukhari 2:685), fields (Al Bukhari 9:337), trees(Sahihal-Tirmidhi 1535), grass (Al Bukhari 9:337), fruit (Al Bukhari 4:281), clay and loam (Al Tabari VI 1079 p.6), olive trees (Surah6141; Surah16; Surah80) with Mountains overlooking the Kaaba (Ibn Ishaq; Al Bukhari 2:645, 2:685, 3:891, 2:815, 2:820, 4:227)

Lot’s wife as Pillar of Salt outside Sodom in Jordan

None of these descriptions of geography and vegetation matches Mecca of that period or even now. So the weight of evidence for where this place was point away from the place Muslims like to tell us it is.

The place of Mohammed’s origin is described elsewhere as having outside ruins and a pillar of salt (Surah37:133-138), which is a description of a place 730 miles north, called Sodom and Gomorrah of the Bible, where Lots’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt after looking back whilst the cities were destroyed after being warned by God not to.

The Kaaba

The other descriptions, of clay and loam, mountains overlooking the Kaaba, and of it being in a parallel valley, match Petra, which is 50 miles away in Jordan. The Kaaba was in Petra before being moved by Abdullah Ibn Zubayr around 683AD, 50 years after Mohammed died.

Archaeologists have since found an irrigation system that would have served adjacent fields growing the type of vegetation described in the Quran, such as olive trees and fruit, none of which can be found growing in Mecca today.

So we know now that Mohammed was not originally from Mecca and we also know that the Saudis know this too, which is the reason why they are so keen to hide any evidence that suggests otherwise.

This centre of the Islamic world, like Islam itself, is false. Islam wants to keep the myth alive and Muslims are trying their hardest to hide the truth. Even to the point of building over what is supposed to be ground of such historical importance.

Modern Mecca

Mecca, it seems, is being developed at a rapid pace, as we can see from these two pictures. Which show the work in progress of a complete modernisation plan, which will cover this supposed historical site.

A town that is supposed to be of such great religious heritage for the most important figure in Islam is being bulldozed to hide all evidence that Mohammed came from there at all.

It is surely a crime against humanity to deprive the world of a place of such supposed historical importance. A place of such renown should be open to archaeologists and historians from around the world. They should be working full time on this historically valuable ground before it is lost to the developers forever. Unless, of course, this priceless ground is in fact worthless and the archaeologists have nothing to find.


We’ve lost Muhammad (Part 1)

by Ian Sleeper

Intro and first blog – Islam Spokesperson

My name is Nissar Hussain.  I am from a Pakistani heritage and a muslim background. My family and I are internally displaced people, living in hiding in the UK, where we were born and raised. The reason for this is because I am an ex-Muslim. In technical terms, this makes me an apostate, someone who has renounced their old religion. By leaving Islam, I have personally come to know religious persecution. I have sentenced myself and my family to death, even in our supposedly free, democratic country. This is because the punishment for apostasy in all the law schools of the Sharia is, sadly, execution. No other religion has a blanket death sentence for those who leave their religion, only Islam.

I have been invited by Anne Marie Waters’ deputy chair, Kadeeja Adam, to join For Britain to represent ex-Muslims, and I cherish this opportunity to take our case forward. I am grateful to Anne Marie and For Britain for giving us a voice, and for the support of such an enthusiastic group of freedom-lovers from across our great country.

I look forward to working together with you all and increasing awareness of the “Legalise Apostasy” campaign.  We hope to  free 1.6 billion Muslims from a death threat and all ex-Muslims from a death sentence. Kadeeja is an apostate from Islam as well.  As such, she has an instinctive feel for this matter. I know she will be working alongside me and be a great catalyst for change, opening eyes to the disgraceful acquiescence on the part of the authorities and the mendacious advance of the silver-tongued Muslim leaders, the Ulema (scholars).

My Story

You may think that this is the UK and that therefore, we live under common law, but in the Islamic community, the Sharia is adhered to more closely, by many adherents, than are the laws of this land. You need to understand that, for most Muslims, the Sharia is for all time and for all people – Muslim or not – and that the UK’s laws are not from God but are man-made, temporary and over-ridden by the strictures of the Sharia. That is why I was persecuted for nearly two decades, driven from my home on two occasions, and nearly bludgeoned to death outside my front gate. I won’t list here the innumerable other incidents that occurred to cause my PTSD.

How did the authorities help my family and me through this ordeal? They minimised, denied, obfuscated and belittled the issues, and eventually armed Police escorted us from our home after claiming they had “intelligence” on another imminent threat to my life. I believe they just wanted me out of their hair and out of Bradford, as I tied up too many resources and was becoming known as an example of the failure of the Muslim community to integrate and to follow the rule of law.

However, the community was following the law, but that law was the Sharia.  The authorities covered up this law-breaking by describing it as a “community issue”.   This was backed up by the disgraceful, anti semitic Pakistani MP Naz Shah, who is seemingly in cahoots with Toby Howarth the Bishop of Bradford, the agenda-driven Interfaith betrayer who seems keen not apostates,to lose friendship with the muslim community. So, where you see “community issue”, read “Sharia enforcement” – UK-style.

Since my brutal attack and enforced flight from Bradford, I and others began to campaign for all ex-Muslims on behalf of the Legalise Apostasy campaign. The aim of the campaign is to force those who guide and largely control the Islamic community. The Ulema, to rescind all laws punishing apostates from Islam. Is this a difficult task? Yes, and so was the eradication of the slave trade, but Thomas Clarkson and the 11 others who met to begin the campaign to end slavery in the West did eventually succeed. Now we want to free the slaves of Sharia from a threat that terrifies many into staying in Islam and causes immeasurable suffering across the globe.

We believe that this change can be brought about,  first, in the UK, by demanding that politicians deal with the Sharia-enforcers through the use of British law and its statutes, which defend religious freedom. Second, we want, eventually, to free Muslims everywhere from the genocidal grip of the Ulema. By campaigning for reform in the UN and in the institutes run by the Ulema. But to do so, we need to vote for politicians who have the will to act. That is why I and so many ex-Muslims are now joining For Britain.

Legalise Apostasy Petition

For Britain and Anne-Marie Waters have demonstrated immense courage.  Anne Marie has put her head above the parapet and is the only politician to do so. How are we, in For Britain and the Legalise Apostasy campaign going to make these changes? First, we go for the low-hanging fruit.  That is, we bring about change where we remain strong – here in the UK  – and the law can be used to defend our rights. After success here at home, we can begin to apply pressure on the international stage.

But first, we MUST have our laws enforced and the Sharia councils removed. It must be made clear to Muslims that the Sharia’s disgraceful laws requiring the death of ex-Muslims are the absolute opposite of the British people’s unqualified support for tolerance. The means for applying continuous pressure on our cowardly politicians, our supposed “representatives”, is to use the Legalise Apostasy campaign’s petition here.

The petition asks for support for ex-Muslims by demanding the rescinding of the Sharia’s apostate-killing statutes. This is clear and reasonable enough, you would think, for any politician to support. And this is where For Britain supporters can lead the way and demonstrate their courage, their belief in our freedoms. The freedom of all of us to live the life we choose – as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists or non-believers.

Please arrange to meet your MP at a surgery. Print off the Petition (and any supporting documents from the website that you may want to take with you) and when you meet, ask the MP to sign up to support ex-Muslims from being killed. Ask your councillors and other elected representatives at every level to do so. Best of all, ask if you can video it on your mobile phone and download it. Anyone want to front up to Mayor Sadiq Khan and video him signing up to Sharia reform? That will be harder for him than defending his record on knife crime. How about Hope Not Hate too?

Contact Us

Please send copies of the signed Petitions and videos to For Britain at [email protected].  We will host them and drive the campaign:

    • To eradicate the Sharia from our shores.
    • To free ex-Muslims from terror.
    • To re-assert our moral authority as a people.
    • To demand the reform of the Sharia wherever its long arm reaches.

Nissar Hussain

For Britain Islam Spokesperson

Labour vote of no-confidence

I’ve just been talking to a couple of my friends in Parliament, and it looks like my worst fears have been realised.  Labour are going to take a vote of no-confidence to the table as soon as possible. This has important implications for us as a party, because if Labour are able to install a new leader before Halloween, then we’re probably looking at a second referendum. But if they can’t manage that, we’re almost certain to be facing a general election call on November 1st.

We are prepared for future elections

We have no choice but to be ready for the coming fight, whether it be against a new Labour leader (which I predict will be Sadiq Khan or John McDonnell) or the expected new Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

We haven’t got much time to organise the fight either way, but we’re British and we can pull rabbits out of a hat when we need to. Now really is the time to prove that, as we’re looking at a catastrophe in the making!

Future generations

I trust you, each and every one of you, to do everything in your power to keep this ship, the ‘HMS United Kingdom’ safe for your, my and future generations, no matter the cost, because we’ve got an eternal debt to those who came before us.

  • There have been many lives lost in multiple wars but Britain has survived.
  • There have been many casualties of Muslim Jihadi atrocities but Britain has survived.
  • There is over £2tn national debt but Britain survives.
  • There will one day be a For Britain majority in Parliament and we will ensure that Britain continues to survive and thrive!

We don’t know what defeat is. It’s just a word the weak use to explain failure – we will not fail. We will prevail.

It’s appropriate that this is the 50th anniversary of the moon landing because, as President Kennedy said in his immortal words:
We choose to do this not because it is easy but because it is hard.

Fly safe brothers and sisters. We’re in for a rocky ride, but by jingo we’re going to enjoy every second of it. And when the dust clears, we’ll be able to look back with such pride that it will bring tears to our eyes, knowing what we started and what we managed to deliver – FREEDOM

The Tommy Robinson Contempt Judgement Summary

On 5th July 2019 judges Mark Warby and Victoria Sharp found Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court: See here.

They were only able to do so by using a misleadingly-edited quote of what Tommy said and retrospectively making up sweeping new laws on contempt. The page numbers given are those in the judgement. Many details, such as the complete absence of the required notices advising the reporting order was in force (p11), and Warby and Sharp’s innovative definition of “court precincts” (p25) have had to be left out to keep this summary short.

Warby and Sharp found Tommy guilty in three particulars:

1. Breaching the reporting restriction order (RRO) that Judge Marson had imposed on his series of three linked trials of 29 mostly Muslim men for gang-raping and prostituting children (p2).

According to Judicial College guidelines (p16), RROs cannot prevent re-publication of material that is already in the public domain. Tommy knew this because he had recently attended a legal training course on contempt. He therefore took care to report only details from a BBC News article and a Huddersfield Examiner article published at the start of the trial. These named the defendants and what they were accused of.

Warby and Sharp simply added a new clause to the guidelines (p17), stating that “they believed”

courts have no power under s 4(2) to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain

actually means

courts have no power under s 4(2) to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain which is not or does not purport to be a report of the relevant proceedings.

Why would the guidance mention the publication of material at all unless such material were relevant to the case? Of course RROs cannot prevent publication of the Beano or David Copperfield; that does not need stating. This is not a matter of re-interpreting an existing but unclear guideline: Warby and Sharp simply added a new clause that was not there before. In their court on 4th and 5th of July it became contempt to re-publish any material that reported details of proceedings, even an article currently on the BBC News website. They changed the law a year after the fact.

2. The content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded (p2) by reason of its impact on the defendants (p20).

A. Warby and Sharp claim that Tommy incited his supporters to harass the defendants (p21), based on this quote from the transcript of his video:

You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man, he was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution, harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about do about them

Here is the full quote in context, with the bit Warby and Sharp extracted in red:

look, there’s no media here, there’s no media here, there’s no press here, there’s no mainstream media, they’re all taking photographs of someone who said something mean on Twitter. They’re not here, they’re not here to find who these people are, they haven’t followed these people, you know this lad who runs Generation Identity, I found out that the media had been harassing his family, yeah y’all know, you want to harass someone’s family? You see that man, he was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution, harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about do about them instead of doing it about someone speaking about them.

Tommy is rhetorically asking the mainstream media why they don’t harass Muslim gang rapists like they harassed the family of the leader of Generation Identity. He is not asking his followers to harass anyone. Warby and Sharp have simply stripped the quote of its context to hide the fact that he is rhetorically addressing the mainstream media. George Eaton did a similar thing to Sir Roger Scruton recently, using partial quotes to make out he’s a racist. The New Statesman was eventually forced to retract and apologise and demoted Eaton.

B. Warby and Sharp claim that Tommy’s ‘harassment’ of the defendants (see below) as they walked into court was so aggressive and so upset them that it “impeded their ability to participate fully in the trial” (p21). This might be arguable if it were the start or middle of the trial. But the evidence had finished being heard. The jury was out. The defendants were attending that morning expecting to be told the verdict. Besides standing up when told to, what “participation in the trial” did they need to do? Warby and Sharp’s argument here is ridiculous.

C. Warby and Sharp further claim there was a risk that the defendants might be so upset by the harassment Tommy hadn’t told his followers to carry out that they might abscond. “Bad man told his followers to harass the defendants (in a quote lifted out of context); his followers whom we can’t name and have never met might do what he (didn’t) ask them to do; the defendants might get so upset they do a runner.” What-if piled upon what-if is not a basis for sending a man to prison. Unless his name is Tommy Robinson, apparently.

If the defendants were a flight risk they should never have been on bail. Contrast Warby and Sharp’s extreme solicitation for the upset feelings of gang rapists with the fact that one of the defendants did actually abscond, though not because of anything Tommy did. He was free to do so because Judge Marson had given all the defendants bail, despite the overwhelming DNA evidence that they had gang raped and prostituted many children. But the police couldn’t appeal to the public to help catch him before he fled the country because of Judge Marson’s gagging order.

3. Aggressively confronting and filming the defendants as they arrive at court interfered with the due administration of justice.

Defendants should be able to arrive at court “without let or hindrance or fear of molestation” (p24). Warby and Sharp claim that Tommy’s behaviour was “of an intimidating nature, and aggressive and provocative”. As anyone who watches Tommy’s livestream can see, his behaviour was much less intimidating than that of many journalists covering trials. He asked the defendants what they thought about the verdict and asked one, “Is that your prison bag?” Asking defendants questions from a short distance away without standing in front of them is not “causing them let or hindrance”. When they tell you to “**** off”, if you then leave them alone that is not “molesting” them. Defendants do not have a right not to be asked questions, even pointed and unwelcome questions. All they had to do was stay silent and keep walking.

If Tommy’s behaviour counts as so “aggressive and provocative” that it interfered with the due administration of justice, almost every reporter who has questioned defendants arriving at court for decades is guilty of such interference. The BBC’s own Lucy Manning aggressively confronted Tommy on his way into his own trial and asked him, “Are you finally going to face justice for potentially collapsing this trial? Is it right that you finally face justice?”

thus presuming his guilt. This was far more “aggressive and provocative” than anything Tommy did. But no-one thinks Lucy Manning will face contempt of court proceedings.

In summary, Warby and Sharp

1. Used misleadingly-edited a quote to ‘prove’ Tommy asked his supporters to harass the defendants when he didn’t

2. Simply made up sweeping new guidance on contempt, a year after the fact, which made re-reporting any article detailing proceedings subject to an RRO into contempt of court, and

3. Asserted that asking defendants unwelcome questions on their way into court is likely to so badly upset them, causing them to be unable to fully participate in proceedings and possibly abscond, that it amounts to interfering with the administration of justice.

2. and 3. would be sweeping changes to English law on contempt – if they were permanent. But we all know they are not. [2019] EWHC 1791 (Admin) will not set a new standard on contempt. The Judicial College will not open an inquiry into whether they should now change their guidelines, nor do Warby and Sharp expect them to. Mainstream media employers are not asking whether they should now change their guidance to their journalists, advising them not to quote material already in the public domain when an RRO is in force and not to ask defendants on their way into court difficult questions. No mainstream journalist risks prison for doing what Tommy did. The new standards for contempt apply only to Tommy Robinson – plus any of his supporters who dare to report anything at all about a Muslim gang rape trial.

Readers will note that Warby and Sharp are not accorded the respect of their official titles. Cutting and pasting a partial quote to ‘prove’ an untrue claim does not merit respect, be you ever so high and mighty. George Eaton is just a left wing journalist who was out to destroy Sir Roger Scruton’s reputation because he is a prominent conservative. How much worse is it when the highest judges in the land use the same tactic to deprive a man of his liberty? Making up new laws as you go along, to retrospectively make something that was legal illegal, does not merit respect either. Mark Warby and Victoria Sharp are a disgrace to their profession.

Philip Hammond

On Sunday 14th July 2019, Philip Hammond made a statement which could be the perfect example of how idiotic the mindset of a remainer can be! He found it necessary to inform the media that the UK would not be able to control all aspects of a no-deal brexit.

No kidding Phil! That’s exactly the same as saying that a bingo player can’t control the numbers pulled out of the bag! Trade deals on a bilateral basis do tend to rely on both parties agreeing terms. Spreadsheet Phil and the MayBot are past their sell-by dates. No matter whatever Parliament does in desperation to cling onto the EU’s skirt, we made our minds up three years ago.

We need to train our sights on what comes next and what the UK wants to become. Not on saving face in front of a failed establishment! Get your leafleting boots on people, we’ve got a country to win 🙂

Richard, Chair of North Staffordshire

Who will rid me of this man?

In Hadith number 59:369 collated by Sahih Bukhari he recounts the murder of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote verses about Muslims that Muhammad found insulting. So Muhammed asked his followers, ‘Who will rid me of this man?’ Several volunteered. Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was subsequently stabbed to death and the precedent was set of ‘ridding’ people for calling out Islam. And this has continued into modern times. Recall the fatwa on Salman Rushdie and the slaughter of the staff of Charlie Hebdo, along with many many more.

Fast forward to July 11th 2019 at the Old Bailey in London. Two judges chose to ‘rid’ society of Tommy Robinson, but did someone give them that order? Did someone say, ‘Who will rid me of this man?’ And if so, WHO?


[Muhammed (571 AD – 632 AD) was the founder of Islam.]

[The Hadith are a collection of words and actions of Muhammed which constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran]


By J Jay Dupre, author of ‘Al-Britannya’ – a novel recounting the horrors of life for a non-Muslim family living in Islamic Britain in 2042AD

For Britain vs the Global Elites

Tommy Robinson was sentenced on the 11th of July as we all know. Outside the court there were many flags flying but, guess what? The biggest one was OURS!

Not a single flapping UKIP cloth amongst them despite how important that moment was, doesn’t that speak volumes?
To have our flag flying so proudly on national television nearly made me cry with joy, it was probably the fact that I’m made of stone that prevented it 🙂

Seriously though, we are not chasing UKIP anymore. We’ve left them in the stalls as we gallop away. Don’t let complacency set in though, we have a lot of work to do before the next election, and with hard work and resolve we can build on the foundations laid during the local election successes we had in May. We need to be out there handing out leaflets, moaning in the local papers, speaking to people in pubs and doing anything else we can imagine to make sure that, when the time comes, people know who we are and what we are intending to deliver.

Freedom is the enemy of dictators

For that to happen, we need to be strong and stand up straight, proud of our trident symbol, because it represents everything we believe. We are the protectors of the United Kingdom, whether we’ve been openly recognised by the masses yet or not. We are the FINAL line of defence for our nation against the federalist elitists who want ultimate power over us.

They want a world of slave nations with no sovereignty but with convoluted ideological conflicts, so they can ensure that no nation or people ever becomes powerful enough to stand up and defy their status as overlords ever again. They’ll do anything under the sun to prevent democracy and freedom of thought being the norm. Because freedom is the enemy of dictators.

For Britain is the only party that is willing to say these things out loud. We will ask the questions that need to be asked, instead of burying our heads in the sand like all the others do. Tommy Robinson has been sent to prison for telling the truth. If we don’t fight back, we might be next. Fight for freedom!

Thank you for taking your time to read this. I look forward to hearing your reactions 🙂

Richard Broughan,

For Britain chair of North Staffordshire branch

For Britain Welcomes the Visit of President Donald Trump

For Britain Press Release

Title: For Britain welcomes the visit of President Donald Trump to the UK
From: The For Britain Movement, Press Office
Date: Monday 3rd June 2019, 1 a.m.
Notes: For immediate release.

British political party For Britain wholeheartedly welcomes the State Visit of Donald Trump and his family to Great Britain.

President Trump is here to commemorate the D-day landings of 75 years ago; to remember the dedication, sacrifice and bravery of those who liberated Europe from a totalitarian aggressor. This event also reminds us of the important bond between the United States and the UK.

We believe that Donald Trump is already one of the great American Presidents, and we strongly admire his ‘America First’ vision and philosophy.

We note the economic success and growth that the President has brought to America; creating jobs for all communities and a US financial market that is reaching ever new highs.

Furthermore, we respect the fact that President Trump ‘says it as he sees it’. He is authentic, and does not filter his words through a government spin machine.

No matter what President Trump has achieved, we know that the biased UK mainstream media will cause mischief with the usual smears and denouncements during his visit, as will many of our politicians.

Smears and denouncements aside, Mr Trump has enormous support in the UK for his straightforward and common sense approach. It is the same approach we believe in at For Britain, and when this message is heard, it will bring us similar levels of support.

Endorsement from Morrissey!

We’ve had another clear endorsement from Morrissey! You might have seen on social media that legendary musician Morrissey has been spotted proudly displaying his For Britain badge – twice!

Morrissey IMG: Dream Propaganda

We think he looks fantastic! If you want a badge too why not take a look at our shop with badges and other great merchandise.

Morrissey For Britain badge
Morrissey For Britain badge

Morrissey is known for his fantastic music, but also for his politics. He unashamedly stands up for Britain, our culture and heritage, and our working people – the backbone of our nation. He is also passionate about animal welfare. So it should come as no surprise that he has thrown his weight behind our party.

We would like to thank him for his endorsement and courage in defying the lies and smears of the so called journalist and media.

For Britain is a democratic populist party with a constitution that promotes equality. For Britain is a steadfast supporter of the Jewish community and Israel. We campaign on behalf of real people for the people in local communities and one of our primary goals is to fight for animal welfare.

Muslim men: The invisible victims of Islamic intolerance

In 2017, as Britain entered the month of October, a fifteen-year-old boy was left fighting for his life after being stabbed in the head outside a mosque in Birmingham. The mosque leaders described the horrific attack as “racially motivated”.  But this wasn’t an attack by a stereotypical far-right racist.  If it had been, no doubt the mainstream media would have reported on it.  Although police stated it wasn’t terror-related, an elder at the Maarif-e-Islam Hussainia mosque said the attack was ISIS-inspired and carried out by a Muslim of a rival sect.

Islamic terrorism

When debunking the myth that Islamic terrorism is caused entirely by Western foreign policy, it’s often brought up that Sunni and Shia Muslims have been fighting each other for 1,400 years.  Violence began when the two sects formed, immediately after the death of the prophet Mohammed, but it’s sadly somewhat overlooked when a Shia is almost killed by a Sunni in this country.

This Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Birmingham shouldn’t surprise anyone. Tarik Chadilioui, a Birmingham-based imam is currently facing extradition, charged with supporting ISIS. The Islamic State has been accused of ethnic cleansing, with hundreds of innocent Shia prisoners executed.  Muslim hate preachers defend these crimes against humanity.

Muslim-on-Muslim murder

Muslim-on-Muslim murder in the name of Allah has been largely overlooked in the UK. In March last year, an Ahmadiyya shopkeeper was stabbed thirty times and kicked to death by a Sunni militant from Bradford shouting “Allah is the only one!” and “Praise for Prophet Mohammed, there is only one prophet.” Why? The kind shopkeeper’s last Facebook post read “Good Friday and a very happy Easter especially to my beloved Christian nation”.  His name was Asad Shah.  Where was the outrage? When Lee Rigby was murdered, thousands took to the streets to confront radical Islam. Asad Shah was killed because he loved this country. Just hours before his death, he made a video about the response he received and warned that radical Islam “needs to be nipped in the bud”. He was a British patriot and deserves recognition and respect.

When we think of Rochdale, we think of the rape of a generation of children. We forget the terrorist attack in February 2016. When a respected imam, Jalal Uddin, was beaten to death by ISIS supporters. The quiet, but popular old man was killed with a hammer in an attack “borne of hatred and intolerance”.  The terrorists, Mohammed Hussain Syeedy, 22, and Mohammed Abdul Kadir, 24, accused the imam of practising “black magic” for following an Islamic superstition called Ruqyah healing. It’s punished with death in the Islamic State and was punished with death in the United Kingdom.

“moderate Muslim”

This fringe lunacy enables extremism. But it has been normalised. When questioned by Richard Dawkins, Medhi Hasan, journalist and go-to “moderate Muslim” for the left-wing media, insisted that the prophet Mohammed went to heaven on a flying horse. If a moderate Christian or Hindu were confronted with something like this, they’d probably call it a metaphor or lost in translation. If not, they would be considered hard-line. Are our expectations of Muslims so low that we consider them moderate simply for not being terrorists? Atheists should challenge and mock these ridiculous ideas. Muslim leaders should do more to discourage their followers from reading scripture so literally.

Then there was the Bangladeshi Muslim man who died in Luton in a suspected honour killing, after a relationship with a Hindu girl; , Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim, who was beaten to death in Liverpool at 17 for drinking alcohol; and the seven year-old boy beaten by his mother for failing to memorise verses from the Quran. The child died in his home in Cardiff.

Support Muslims

When we think of Muslims being the first victims of Islam, we think mainly of Muslim women. Because many of whom are subjected to FGM as children. We rarely think about the abuse and persecution sometimes faced by Muslim men from their communities. At demonstrations around the country and in my beloved city of Exeter, I’ve met ex-Muslims who can no longer see their families and reformists demonised around mosques. Sometimes for their views, other times simply for the colour of their skin. A gay Muslim told me how he hated seeing his mother wear the burqa and how children received corporal punishment in mosques where they were taught to hate Ahmadiyyas.

Muslim Men matter too

When Muslim boys are exposed to radical ideas, the first victims will be their childhoods. In numerous documentaries, hidden camera footage has exposed teachers in Islamic schools beating their pupils. This is where the seeds of hatred can be planted, ensuring these boys grow up spiteful and angry, to dream of Jihad.

These innocent men have been overlooked for too long. We need to stand up for Muslim men from the more peaceful sects and westernised Muslims. Find common ground with the reformists, who expose the hateful teachings that produce Jihadist terrorists. And listen to what solutions they have to offer. This would not only help a section of the Muslim community that is often ignored but would also help us ditch the “far right” label once and for all.

Frankie Rufolo / Islamism

Britain’s Political Prisoner

Press release

Britain’s Political Prisoner

Paul Ellis, legal officer


Given that For Britain deplored the outrageous decision of the High Court to find Tommy Robinson in contempt of court for filming and speaking to defendants as they attended court, it must follow that we also deplore the sentence. Given that Tommy did nothing wrong, any punishment must, by definition be unfair.

But yesterdays’ sentence of six months immediate imprisonment plus the activation of three months of his suspended sentence, puts the lie to any suggestion that Tommy had fallen foul of some legal technicality.

This  but that the point needed to be made that an was breached

In sentencing a court should primarily look at two factors: the culpability of the convicted person and the harm that the offence caused. A person may be very culpable and yet cause no harm, such as an attempted murderer who misses his target or they may have relatively little culpability but cause great harm, for example a driver who from a momentary lapse of attention causes death and serious injury.

There was no dispute that Tommy had believed that he was not breaching the order preventing ‘any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings’ (section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981) by by reading out the accused’s names and charges (which had been fixed and publicised before the proceedings started) and by asking those individuals attending the proceedings how they were feeling and broadcasting their replies (mostly vulgar profanities). He made references in his reportage to his intent to remain with the law concerning the reporting restrictions.

Nor could it be said that his interpretation of the law was unreasonable, since it was in accordance with the wording of the guidance issued by the Judicial College – the body that trains judges:

‘… courts have no power under s.4(2) to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain.’

To find Tommy guilty of contempt, Dame Victoria Sharpe QC had to restate this advice as:

‘We believe the point that the Judicial College was striving to make was that a section 4(2) order cannot prevent the publication of information in the public domain which is not nor does not purport to be a report of the relevant proceedings.’

This may be the sort of technical distinction (what Katie Hopkins wonderfully described as ‘legal twat-waffle’) that a particularly pernickety judge might think it worth the expense and inconvenience of an Old Bailey trial to clarify for future reference, but taking pains to abide by the judges’ own official guidance as it was written, rather than as it was later interpreted, hardly constitutes the sort of wickedness that merits nine months in the slammer.

As for harm caused, it is agreed by all sides that there was none, other for a fleeting moment of social awkwardness for some child rapists, being asked for a comment by a lone citizen journalist.

There are other factors that a sentencing court can take into account, such as suffering already incurred by the defendant as a result of their actions. Before these proceedings had even begun, Tommy had already suffered ten weeks on starvation diet in virtual solitary confinement from the previous ‘kangeroo court’. Love him or loath him, Tommy Robinson is no snowflake, and the Sky News footage of his release, gaunt and haggard, from prison, resembling a prisoner of war, speaks volumes about the hardships that he must have endured on the inside.

If ever there was a case for a judge to pass a time served sentence, this was it, but from the moment of Tommy’s illegal arrest for breach of the peace this case never looked as though it had anything to do with achieving justice. In previous blogs I have accused the state of putting on a show trial. Yesterday’s sentence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that I was correct to do so. It is not Tommy at all but the English legal system that now stands convicted of impeding justice.

You can read the full court transcript here:

Case No: QB-2019-000741

Democracy vs Theocracy: A fight to the death part 2

The End of Intolerance

Part II

CS Lewis wrote that the adjective “democratic” has two meanings, which are frequently antithetical. It describes institutions – such as freedom of speech and equality before the law – that democracy needs in order to thrive. But it can also describe things that democracies like, such as organised sentimentality and the promise of easy answers. And there is nothing that modern democracies like more than feeling good about themselves. “Tolerance” gives them the chance to preen over their own niceness.

The most pernicious falsehood undermining democracy is the claim that tolerance is a major virtue. It is not a virtue at all. It is just a feeling, and a pretty flabby one at that. At best, it is ethically neutral – at worst, it is an alibi for intellectual sloth and moral cowardice. We would have more honesty in public life if the word were abandoned entirely and replaced with “apathy”. A society which prides itself on its tolerance will be swept away by those who don’t know that such a thing even exists.


Those Islamic “scholars” who claim that Islam can co-exist with democracy are either indulging in the same kind of sentimentality and self-delusion as secular liberals or they are practising the deception of infidels sanctioned by the Koran. Perhaps even they don’t know which.

We used to know a subversive, totalitarian ideology when we saw it. That is why communism was recognised as a national security risk and its supporters were excluded as far as possible from public office. But the followers of Islam – an equally ruthless and violent ideology – get a free pass, and even preferential treatment, when they squawk about “culture” or “freedom of religion”.

The notion that the demands of Islam can be appeased is the supreme delusion of the liberal mind. Islam means “submission”; Muslims submit to Allah, while the rest of us are supposed to submit to them. There is no “common ground”.

When the Roman Empire collapsed, political power passed to the only institution still functioning – the Christian Church. The various forms of paganism were more or less eradicated, not by persecution of individuals, but by closing temples and ceasing to pay priests from public funds. This is the way to deal with Islam. While opposition to the spread of Sharia courts etc. must continue, the long-term aim must be eradication.

Book banning

I would not advocate banning the Koran (nor any book for that matter, not even Mein Kampf). People should be free to read and think what they want. What matters is no organising. That means no mosques, no imams, no “Islamic cultural centres”, no faith schools.

Those who are committed to Islam can move to countries where it is the norm, though I suspect that a great many would be happy to escape from the pressures exerted by their “community”, and sink into the pervasive agnostic torpor of the rest of this country. Jihadis will still be a problem, of course, and they will have to be dealt with more seriously than they are now. There would be negligible public opposition to the re-introduction of capital punishment for terrorist crimes.

Whether we have time left to implement the above is the real question. Whatever happens, we must stop being tolerant of the intolerance of Islam.

Michael North

Read Part One here.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness”

Was once said by Oscar Wilde. If that is true, then we at For Britain should be feeling fairly flattered right now.

It seems our inaugural manifesto in 2018 was so good, other parties both old and new couldn’t help but recycle elements for themselves. Both the Brexit Party, led by Nigel Farage who smeared supporters of leader Anne Marie Waters ‘Nazis and Racists’. And the party he used to lead at the time UKIP seem to think our common sense policies are political gold.

Odd, as the Brexit Party has bizarrely banned For Britain members from joining. Yet it seems to like what we are saying! Bizarre, as UKIP agreed with what Anne Marie said when she was a member. But would whisper to her “we just don’t like the way you say it”.

We fully expect our manifesto this year to be plagiarised, it is going to be even better than last year’s. The beauty of not being a defined left or right wing party is you can just do the right thing. You can pick the best and most sensible direction of travel on any subject.

The only mystery is why anyone would choose the impostors and not the source. Who knows which direction the wind will blow next year for UKIP, and whether their members will be back to being called ‘Nazis’ by their own leadership. If Brexit is delivered, does anyone now trust Farage to preserve British culture that is under attack from all quarters? Islam bullies people and the weak eventually choose the easy path and stop speaking out when they have grave concerns. I don’t think anyone doubts that the one party that stands firm and principled on these issues will capitulate. If you do feel strongly, even if you can’t speak out yourself, you can trust us to fight on your behalf.

We won’t imitate anyone. We won’t steal ideas. We have always thought for ourselves and we always will.

Don't Copy

Is Islam Halal For The Rest Of Us?

by Ian Sleeper


“Halal” means permissible in Arabic. Under Islamic law, anything halal, is allowable for a Muslim. It doesn’t just apply to meat, or food generally. The term “halal” also applies to any product or activity that Muhammad, according to Muslims, would allow (including marrying your sex slave, if you have one). This includes a wide range of items, for example, halal lipstick, halal skin cream, halal beer which is non-alcoholic of course, and even halal cigarettes.

Halal meat requires the animal to be blessed by a prayer, in the name of Allah, using the “Bismilah”, a most powerful prayer to a Muslim: Say (O Muhammad): Invoke Allah or invoke the Most Gracious, [al-Rahmaan] (Allah) (Quran S.17:110).The animal’s throat is then cut and it dies a slow, cruel death, without being humanely stunned first. Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allah’s Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal) (Quran S.6:121)

Currently, UK government guidelines on animal slaughter state that animals must be stunned to render them unconscious before being slaughtered, stopping them from feeling pain when having their throats cut, and therefore reducing any suffering; unless, the animal is to be slaughtered for religious consumption, i.e. halal for Muslims or kosher for Jews. Here the act of stunning first is omitted and deemed unnecessary. Government guidance on stunned slaughter. So, there is one rule of slaughtering for one group of society and another for the rest.

My Indian Restaurant

Sitting in my Indian Restaurant (yes, I own an Indian restaurant), a Muslim couple drinking beer and wine asked my waiter if our lamb was halal. All food and drink is Halal for Muslims, apart from pork and alcohol, but the meat must be prayed over before slaughter. So, the answer for the couple at the table was: “Your lamb jalfrezi is halal, but your Cobra beer and Chardonnay aren’t”.

It’s so ridiculously contradictory, and funny, for them to be so concerned about keeping within Islamic law whilst not keeping within Islamic law. They might as well have asked for a halal bacon butty but sadly bacon butties are not on our menu, so not possible anyway.

To make meat halal for Muslims, the animal from which it comes has to be slaughtered in a certain way, in accordance with Islamic practice, and this practice has been written into UK law.

No choice in suppliers

Now, I know what you are all thinking, hang on Ian, aren’t you being a bit hypocritical, owning an Indian Restaurant and serving halal meat? Well yes, you could say that but, I still must keep the peace with my chefs, who won’t handle anything that is not halal, and none of my suppliers will deal in non-halal chicken. I do have to tread a very fine line. It is easy to criticise halal meat and the practices surrounding it, but I must equally keep the Singleton Tandoori a happy ship. Besides, I can’t change things on my own. I must be realistic.

Halal meat, whether we like it or not, is used in many institutions in the UK, such as prisons, schools and hospitals, to satisfy the needs of a minority. It is easier and more cost effective for them to supply halal-approved foods for all, rather than offer a choice of halal or non-halal. This is an imposition on the majority for the sake of the vocal minority.


The choice between halal and non-halal is being reduced for the rest of us too, as more and more food outlets, such as KFC, M&S, Pizza Express, the Slug and Lettuce chain, Domino’s Pizza, Morrisons, Tesco, Greggs, Waitrose, Subway, Zizzi and Nando’s are vying for the Islamic pound.

There are specialist Kosher meat outlets for those who specifically want Kosher meat, and that’s fine if you are not concerned about the inhumane killing methods at the abattoir. But the same cannot be said for halal where there is no choice for the rest of us.

Many people won’t have a problem with the availability of halal food for Muslims. We are, after all, a tolerant nation. But when it is forced onto all our plates, it is fair to say that our tolerance is being abused.

However, all this controversy is unnecessary, because an Imam’s advice to any Muslim travelling abroad to somewhere where halal meat cannot be found, is to follow the rule of convenience… just don’t worry about it, eat what’s there! Our government does not need to allow halal slaughter at all. Muslims would not suffer.

How do Christians feel?

Some Christians are concerned about whether they are allowed to eat meat which has been offered up in worship to another God, but halal has only been prayed over and not offered as an appeasing sacrifice. Besides, whatever has been prayed into your dinner, can be prayed out again for your peace of mind. Be assured also that Jesus said, in Mathew 15:11, “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them”.

Of further concern is the suspicion that a portion of the funds generated from the fees charged to businesses for the certification of products as halal is being used to fund terrorism. At the very least, money generated is used to prop up and fund an ideology that is anti-female Surah 4:34 “Men are in charge of women” , “Men can beat their wives”; anti-homosexual “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” Book of Al-Akhan Book 38 Number 4447; anti-unbeliever “Slay the unbelievers, and ambush them” Sura 9:5; and anti-apostate “Kill the apostate” Sura 4:89.

Whatever is permissible or not permissible for Muslims, it is not acceptable for the rest of us to be asked to follow the rules of their religion. We must stop all non-stun slaughter in this country.

Ian Sleeper’s YouTube Channel

The State of Policing

This week has seen a number of events thrust the future of policing back into the spotlight, if it ever left. Her Majesties Inspector of Constabulary Mr. Tom Winsor, a civilian by the way, has published his annual review of policing (The State of Policing The Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2018) and finds fault with the police service.  Retired senior Metropolitan Police Commissioners have finally had the bottle to criticise the government’s handling of the Police service for the last eight years under Theresa May as Home Secretary and Prime Minister.

30,000 officers and support staff gone

I think the problems go back further than eight years. But they have certainly seen the most damage to the policing of this country. The headline figure is the loss of some 30,000 officers and support staff, over 20 per cent of the total available 10 years ago.  The bulk of these have gone from street policing.  It was always the way that specialist roles were filled first, and the remainder allocated to beat work.

Government have consistently imposed additional priorities on the police and indeed built targets to enforce them. Consequently, the number of specialist squads has multiplied and the source to fill them has been uniform patrol.  These priorities were often ones that the government wanted rather than what the local population thought was important.  This has reached absurd levels with the formation of units to monitor so called Hate Crime, where people’s feelings and sensitivities take priority over the real world of burglary, knife crime and grooming gangs.

Tory Cuts

The government and in particular the Tory party have never understood policing from the grass roots of local communities.  They have failed to understand the crucial links between communities and their police. The police have effectively withdrawn from street policing and the consequences are evident across the country. This has resulted in a lack of confidence in the police and I believe this has been a deliberate aim of the government.

The Tories in particular were always jealous of the independence of Chief Constables. Historically they were accountable to a police authority of mixed politicians and magistrates. The Tories made several attempts to take control of policing services, initially unsuccessfully, but they eventually appointed Police and Crime Commissioners. When you look in detail at the role and powers of these Commissioners you find that they are subject to almost total control by the Home Office.  They are government agents, even when not members of the governing political party.

Association of Chief Police Officers

The Tories also abolished a professional body I belonged to, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). ACPO used to advise on policy and practice and was independent of government. It has been replaced by The Police Chiefs Council, accountable to government.

Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary used to be headed by retired senior police officers. Not any more, the current incumbent is an ex rail regulator, which says it all really.

So, the thrust of this week’s publications is that the police service needs further “reform”. This is often code for centralisation and political control. In my view the exact opposite of what should be done. Policing is essentially a local service delivered for local people and national politicians are best kept out of it.  A little story will illustrate what I see as the problem.  In the 1990’s it is claimed that a certain Home Secretary was fed up with going to meetings with his European colleagues and finding he was the only Minister of the Interior (Home Secretary)  who did not have direct control of police activity, as is the case in European countries.

Regional Crime Squads

What they did was to hijack what at that time were known as Regional Crime Squads. These were local officers who were pooled regionally to combat serious and organised crime. They were coordinated centrally.  What was done was to take these officers away from their local forces and form them into what has become the National Crime Agency. Forces were not given a choice. Hence a national agency, accountable to the Home Secretary was created to satisfy the ego of a national politician.

Now there is a case for some crime to be dealt with at a national level, but there were mechanisms in existence to do this. The response to the IRA was one such example.

There is now a risk that perceived weaknesses in policing will be used as an excuse for further centralisation of policing, again to the detriment of local communities.

“Boots on the ground”

It is fundamental to the nature of policing that it requires boots on the ground.  The beat bobby is the eyes and ears of the police force and the friend of the local community. I have numerous examples from my career of information and intelligence being passed to me because I was known in a particular area where I was a foot patrol.  You cannot beat being out on the street in uniform talking to people.  The government tried to undermine the idea of beat patrol over several years by commissioning research that showed that a uniformed foot patrol hardly prevented any crime.  Apart from it being difficult to establish what you have prevented the idea that that is the only role of a beat bobby shows a true ignorance of the nature of policing. Indeed, crime is only about 20% of what a bobby deals with.

I have only scratched the surface of some of the issues with this article. There is a lot more to be said about a quite complicated and intricate relationship between Police Forces, Local Communities and central and local government.

For Britain Policies

For the record For Britain has policies to deal with the problem. Some of them are:

  • We will restore policing numbers to pre2010 levels. (Thank you, Boris, for stealing this policy).
  • We will remove the Police from the Political Control of Police and Crime Commissioners.
  • We will make sure they are accountable to local populations.
  • Reform the HMI from a puppet of government to an independent professional body
  • Prevent further mergers of Police Forces
  • Restore Beat Policing
  • Remove restraints on Stop and Search
  • Abolish the concept of Hate crime.

Mike Speakman is a retired Deputy Chief Constable and Policing Spokesman for For Britain.

We welcome ex police officers to the party and value their experience.

E mail: [email protected]

Democracy vs Theocracy: A fight to the death

Part I

Islam is wholly incompatible with the kind of liberal democracy that we in the western world have come to regard as normal. It is not just the cultural elements associated with Islam that most of us find repugnant, such as FGM, the denigration of women, halal slaughter, “honour killing” and the rest. These may not be essential to Islam, as some “liberal” Muslims claim, though the fact that they are so entwined in the minds of countless Muslims worldwide indicates something deeply wrong with its intellectual structure. The two truly insurmountable obstacles in the way of Islam’s co-existing with democracy are its radical obscurantism and its ideal of theocracy.

Islam’s obscurantism – the fact that it deliberately prevents the facts or full details of something from becoming known – negates any possibility of critical or sceptical discussion. The Koran is the Word of God, and that’s that. How does one know it’s the Word of God? Because the Koran says so. Anyone who doesn’t accept that circular proposition is, ipso facto, an infidel, and infidels have no rights; though a merciful Islamic government may allow them living space, if they perform some useful service. Muslims cannot allow non-Muslims to utter anything critical of Islam, so the basic democratic principle of free speech is out of the question.

The old adage runs that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others. Theocracy is the worst, including all the others, because those in command possess all power, both temporal and spiritual, to use Christian terminology.

A democracy is concerned only with what people do; a theocracy is equally concerned with what they think and believe. We already have theocracy creeping into our system of justice, with the concept of “hate crime”. The idea that an objective crime is somehow made worse by the emotion that is supposed to have motivated it is an essentially theocratic one.

The scourge of the 20th century was the atheist theocracy of communism, with its drive to ensure that its subjects had the “correct consciousness”. China’s Cultural Revolution was one of the most monstrous examples of communist theocracy in action, with the Red Guards persecuting millions for the crime of being educated and, perhaps, thoughtful.

In fact, Islam resembles communism in a number of ways. As a total system, claiming to have an answer to every question, it has no respect for other systems, sweeping them aside as soon as it has the power, but exploiting them when that serves its long-term objectives.

Just as 20th century communists would make use of the “bourgeois” freedoms allowed them by the democracies they despised, so Islam exploits the apparatus of the rights-and-equalities industry, all of which it would obliterate, once in power.

To both Islam and communism, the very existence of these freedoms is evidence of the decadence of democratic societies, which refuse to acknowledge the inevitability of the triumph of Sharia or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Both justify any crime in pursuit of their particular goals. Both can count on the support of useful idiots in government, the media, social services and academia.

There is a dangerous myth that there is something “natural” about democracy and only adverse circumstances keep it from flowering. (It was this delusion that helped take the USA into Iraq.) In fact, it is no more natural than a garden, created by hard work and constant attention. Neglect it and it goes back to the jungle. That’s natural.

We must maintain democracy as a gardener maintains his garden, and we must keep it free from the ravages of the pestilent theocracy of Islam.

Read Part II Here.

Michael North

Love Muslims Hate Islam!

Ali couldn’t believe his eyes and ears when a white Englishman offered to buy his Indian restaurant.

This was not what he was expecting. Only Muslims, and mainly those of Bangladeshi descent, buy Indian restaurants in the UK, not pasty-faced middle-aged Christians.

This was not going to be a business venture of great money-making proportions, but more of a God-led calling to save a Muslim soul from Hell.

I had never run a restaurant before, and I am by no means a chef. I was completely reliant on God to get me through the next few years. So the decision to buy the restaurant was made not from a proper business point of view, but from a spiritual one. My attitude was that you come into the world with nothing and you leave with nothing.  Anything in between is God-given.

Sayem, a Muslim waiter at the Singleton Tandoori, was asking searching questions about Christianity and telling me about Islam. Conversations deepened, and after he received a vision of Jesus in a dream (a popular way for Muslims to know Christ),  he was baptised in June 2017. That was the day I knew why this pasty-faced middle-aged Christian had bought an Indian Restaurant.

Reading about Islam is not the same as immersing yourself in it, and running an Indian restaurant, and employing Muslims is the closest I could get to total immersion without, God forbid, converting.

None of the Muslims staff were united, they were all jealous of each other and bickered a lot. Everyone was a “no 1 liar” – their favourite phrase- as if they had some sort of chart going on and none of them trusted one another. Toward me they were fine.  They worked hard and produced a good curry, but I couldn’t recognise them in Islamic text. The Islamic texts that talk about not making friends with the Kafir and about killing the unbeliever were not the instructions these fellows were following. These guys were normal; these guys were just like most Muslims.

Muslims are just ordinary people who follow Islam, a religion, an ideology a belief system that is man-made and which holds them in check. Leaving Islam makes you an apostate, a figure of hate, isolated from friends and family. You cannot hate Muslims, as they are men and women, but you can hate the doctrine, the creed that they are following.

It is Incredible how most Muslims have not got a clue about the truth of Islam, and certainly the same goes for most of the rest of us.

This is because the media are silent on the truth of Islam, and the silence is deafening. And by being silent, they are in fact lying to the public.

The silence of the media made me angry. I couldn’t just sit still and do nothing,  so I decided to get a long way out of my comfort zone and pitch up outside the BBC to stage a game-changing one-man protest act.

Every week, I would travel on the High Speed train from Ashford International to London St. Pancras International and head straight for Broadcasting House, Langham Place with my “#lovemuslimshateislam Time For The Truth!” placard.

Immediately after I arrived the first time, a pretty young girl told me she liked my sign and thanked me for it. I was buoyed by this and remained happy to sit on the ledge inside the Langham Place courtyard, waiting for a reaction. I didn’t have long to wait before four burly guys came walking by with hard hats and yellow hi-viz vests on. When they told me they were Muslims, I thought the worst, but to my relief, and as an answer to my prayer, they agreed with my sign too!

After a few weeks, when the Westminster attack happened, in March 2017, I turned my attention to that side of the capital.  Then  I went to London Bridge, after the attack there weeks later, provoking an interesting but mixed reaction from locals and tourists alike.

When I read that Southwark Cathedral was holding a public service for the victims of the London Bridge attacks, I couldn’t resist.  I just had to be there and let all of my 33 Twitter followers know of my intention to be outside. Little did I know that Southwark Cathedral was also one of my many followers and that someone from there would alert the police in advance of my plan.

My freedom of speech was severely tested when two Metropolitan Police officers took exception to the “hate Islam” part of my placard and, despite my protestations of innocence, they decided to arrest me under the Crime and Disorder Act.

After 13 hours locked in a police cell, at silly o’clock in the morning, the police finally released me on the condition that I would not be allowed to go anywhere near Southwark Cathedral. I found myself outside Elephant and Castle tube station trying to find working public transport, only to discover that the last tube train had gone. I decided to try my luck and walk to the main line London Bridge Station, only to realise that within minutes of being released, I had already broken my bail conditions.

Weeks dragged by until the Crown Prosecution Service finally came to their senses and dropped the charges against me, leaving the way open for me to sue the Met for wrongful arrest.

Of course, the left want to accuse me of Islamophobia and call me racist. They have no idea that I am a son of an immigrant, that my wife is an immigrant, or that I own an Indian Restaurant and employ Muslims, so I always reply “Which part of me is Islamophobic? Which part is racist?”

Ian Sleeper

He Died Singing

A Cornishman named Rick Rescorla

After a notable military career in Vietnam, an ex-patriate Cornishman named Rick Rescorla found himself responsible for the safety of forty floors of the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.  The WTC basement explosion of 1993 caused Rescorla to predict an air attack. He devised evacuation precautions for his forty floors and rehearsed them regularly, to the annoyance of all those whose work he interrupted.

On the morning of 9/11, 2001, Rick went to work – to fill in for an absent colleague. When the first strike happened he left a voice message for his wife : ‘Are you watching TV?’ and then he implemented his rescue plans.  He guided 2, 687 office workers to safety. To keep their up spirits on the long trudge downstairs he sang out some Cornish songs, including ‘Camborne Hill’.

The ‘orses stood still, the wheels went aroun’

Goin’ up Camborne Hill, comin’ down!’

This song celebrates Trevithick’s first steam road vehicle. That first ‘horseless carriage’ was the ancestor of the steam railways.

Now on 9/11 Rick Rescorla sang while he led to safety those 2,687 people. There were stragglers still to come so Rick Rescorla, who was not even on duty that day, re-entered the shaking tower to look for them. The tower fell. He was seen no more.

The ‘Camborne Hill’ song celebrates an adventurous, creative spirit which embraces life wholly and frankly. Rescorla spiced his duty with a wry grin. He was a man all Britain should admire and celebrate. As we should another incident of self-disclipine and cool courage.

Lord Kitchener and the HMS Hampshire.

In 2016, we celebrated the centenary of Lord Kitchener’s death. He is familiarly known to some of us as ‘K of K’, Kitchener of Khartoum. We gathered in St Paul’s under the dome for evensong. We sang, not without tears , ‘O hear us when we cry to thee/For those in peril on the sea.’

You know Kitchener well from the famous poster in which he stares at you over his moustache and pointing finger with the words: ‘Your Country Needs You’.

Kitchener was Secretary of State for War during the ‘Great War’ of 1914-18. Setting sail in 1916 from the Orkneys to visit Russia, his ship, the H.M.S. Hampshire, hit an enemy mine. It sank fast.  Of the full complement of 600 plus men only a few survived. One of those few told of his last sight of Kitchener. Dressed in full uniform, with greatcoat, cap and heavy boots, he was standing on the quarter deck. What was he doing? Talking calmly to two of his officers. Talking!

My mind whirls with supposition. What was he talking about so calmly, with his certain death a few moments away? Was the man utterly mad? Why was he not tearing off his cumbersome uniform, his heavy boots which would act like dead weights and drag him down, down, down? My guess is that he was thanking his men for their past service together. But that is mere supposition. We shall never know: ‘Oh hear us when we cry to Thee / For those in peril on the sea.’

Kitchener had won notable victories, he had seen off the crazed Mahdists at Omdurman, the battle in which the young Churchill had a small part.  But before Kitchener’s 1916 death at sea there were other soldiers, sailors and marines, many of them young, inexperienced and not so privileged, who had shown equal self-discipline and fortitude on a previous sinking ship, the ‘HMS Birkenhead’, in 1852.

Young soldiers, many of them poor Irish seeking respite from the Famine, older men, and also wives and children were on the troopship ‘Birkenhead’ when it hit an uncharted rock off the coast of South Africa. There were not enough lifeboats.  So that a rush would not swamp the few boats there were, it was ordered: ‘Women and children first!’ And that was the origin, they say, of the now famous phrase. It has become standard practice, for us British at any rate.

The soldiers, from many different regiments, stood calmly in parade line. An officer drew his sword. Was he aware that this was his last battle? The nine horses on board were loosed into the sea, to give them a fighting chance. Eight landed safely, evading the hosts of hungry sharks.

The soldiers, young and old, stood firm as the deck canted steeply. All the women and children were saved – over a hundred. Five times that number of men were lost to the sea, which was soon boiling with feasting sharks.

Kipling wrote of this incident, in his poem celebrating the Royal Marines,’Soldier and Sailor Both’ :

‘To stand and be still in the Birkenhead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew’.

Damn right, I respond, ‘A damn tough bullet to chew.’

All these three examples of courage are relevant now, today. Some of us may be called upon to exhibit similar levels of courage and self-discipline. Indeed some already face death threats. You know their names very well.

We have never in my lifetime been in as much need of inspiration from our heroic ancestors as now. I believe we can win against the dark rising tide, win against the cult of death and savagery, win against our own internal enemies and despicable traitors.

So thank you for your example Rick Rescorla, thank you Lord Kitchener, and thank you all, you nameless, gallant men on both the ships I have named.

And thank you, our own present leaders, for putting yourselves in danger, for the truth.

‘A damn tough bullet to chew…’




Revised 05/06/2019.

Vibrant, Enriching Diversity

Stratford, E London, 2009

At this time I was teaching in a small college dedicated to ‘teaching the unteachable’ – 16 to 19 year old teenagers that had been excluded from other colleges and were in danger of being left NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training).

The college was very proud of its ‘diversity’ displays in the corridors but, in truth, it was the least diverse place I have ever worked. The ethnic mix of students was predominantly Bengali Muslims with a handful of black Christians. There were two, yes two, white pupils.

Students were late or absent on a daily basis, often having been arrested the night before for a violent incident of one sort or another. Listening to their conversations, it seemed they had no value for life.

“Yeah, he was stabbed, innit?”

“Did Abs mash him?”

“Yeah blud, dead.”

“What for?”

“He disrespected Abs innit?’

The students self-segregated by gender, by religion and by race. The Bengali Muslims hated the black Christians. They were seen as the lowest of the low and many Bengalis wouldn’t sit near them, work with them, or even touch anything they had touched. I learned this on one notable day during my first week there.

Cultural Racism

I naively asked the students to swap their work so they could mark each other’s answers (a common assessment strategy approved of by OfstEd). I swapped a few reluctant students’ work and all hell broke loose. One of the Bengali lads shouted he wouldn’t touch the black girl’s work. She exploded in rage and, within seconds, I had a full-on bar-room brawl. Tables and chairs were flying everywhere, girls were screaming and punches were being thrown. I got myself between the two in the centre, received a number of blows, but still managed to separate them. The girl raced out of the classroom and many followed her into the hallway, where numerous phone calls were made to notify ‘crews’ from other classes (and even neighbouring areas) to join the fight.

Every member of staff had to intervene to separate the crowds and settle the different groups and segregate them into different classrooms. All lessons were suspended for the day.

That was my first true taste of London’s vibrant diversity. I didn’t feel stronger for it, nor enriched. I felt terrified.

Fast-forward a few months; the students and I had formed a precarious mutual respect. They knew I followed through with my threats, that I was “bare strict man”, but they also knew that I was a good teacher, and that I wanted them to achieve. Some of them were even beginning to enjoy learning.


In the middle of one lesson, a text message alert was heard, then another, then another. Soon almost everyone in the class had their phones in hand reading the same text. “EDL outside Green Lanes mosque. Get here now”.

It’s unbelievable to think that at that point, I had never heard of the English Defence League or Tommy Robinson. I asked the pupils what was going on. Ignoring me, the lads left. One turned back, showed me the text and said: “Sorry sir, gotta go and smash some white boys, no offence.”

Other bemused teachers met in the corridor where we informed each other of what was happening. Most Bengali Muslim lads, and even a teacher, left the building to go and fight the EDL. College management did nothing.

Death Threats

Not long afterwards, I was full to the brim with my newly acquired enrichment and vibrant diversity. After my daily walk from Stratford station to the college, I’d been spat at a number of times. I walked into work only to be met by a student threatening to have me killed. “One of his boys” was going to wait in a car outside and shoot me when I came to school in the morning or when I went home in the afternoon. The management did exclude the student, but for a couple of weeks I had to arrive and leave at different times, so that I didn’t have a routine. I wanted to contact the police, but the college told me it would bring negative publicity.

The daily walk to and from the station became unbearable. I had no idea if that guy over there, or that bloke outside the shop, or those lads talking together had guns or knives. I had no idea who might kill me and who might to spit at me, or call me a filthy kuffar under their breath.

Eventually, living and working in London got to me.  You see, London is not English anymore. It hasn’t been English for a long time. John Cleese is correct. London is another country. Somewhere ‘other’. Go to Wood Green shopping centre and you won’t hear English spoken anywhere. Go to Walthamstow market and you won’t see any of the “Pound a bowl!” barrow boys that used to sell fruit and veg. The last Eastend ‘Pie n Mash’ shop is barely frequented and you won’t find fish n chips unless you go to Toffs out in Muswell Hill, and take out a small mortgage for some Dover Sole. London is now Shisha bars, hair weave salons, Pakistani takeaways and Polski Skleps. Sadiq Khan says “London is open”. So open and welcoming that there’s no longer any room for the English.

Abandoning London

Within a few weeks of being threatened with death, I joined the tens of thousands of white people who have abandoned London and I walked away. I left my flat in East London, where a girl was raped outside my window and a man was stabbed to death in my doorway. I left behind the ‘Sharia Zone’ stickers and the racial abuse. No longer would I be pushed off tube-trains because I was white. No longer would I be fearful walking home. No longer would I be afraid of students rioting, killing or dying.  I came home to the North. Back to England.

London has been lost.

Mortal Neglect

Mortal Neglect. No other words are sufficient to describe the disgraceful way in which our politicians – and Britain’s internal enemies – are treating our Armed Forces. To this neglect they have added contempt and vindictiveness. The neglect may be seen in these official Treasury figures which show expenditure on our Armed Service as a percentage of GDP.

1947 16%
1950 11.2%
1959 7.0%
1970 5.5%
1990s 4.0%
2003 2.63%
2010s 2.4%
2018-19 2.3%

Much of this decrease in spending is because defence is now much more about machines than it is about men. We no longer have National Service, which forced often unwilling young men into the army. Instead, we have highly professional armed services using high tech weapons.  This is much more efficient and less costly.  However, the decline in spending has continued to the point where it is now leaving us vulnerable.  It should not be allowed to continue any further. It risks our very survival as an independent nation.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

No Strategic Defence and Security Review has taken place since 2015. This is highly significant.  Brexit will certainly have a deep impact on our national Defence policy. Yet the government seems not to be making the changes necessary to prepare for when we leave.  Is this an indication that the government has no intention of taking us out of the EU and wishes for our armed services to be part of a common EU defence force? Make of it what you will.

The fiscal aspect is damning, but more damning is the increase in human cost and suffering to those who have placed their lives in jeopardy for our national defence.

It was reported a short time ago by a retired officer, a Falklands veteran, that more Falklands veterans have now committed suicide than were killed in action in that conflict. This is shocking and shameful. It requires our attention and our action.

The inevitable problems resulting from psychological stress in action, from new stresses in civilian life after retirement, and from loss of comradeship and purpose are simply not being addressed. Meanwhile aliens, whose ideology is based on hatred of our society, and who have expressed a clear desire to destroy our values, are being treated as honoured guests, bad guests who rape and kill our innocent children.

The prosecution and persecution of retired soldiers

Things are even worse than we realise, for our enemies within are now using our own ‘fair’ system to take retired soldiers to court, just for loyally doing their duty in the past. This is a deeply corrupting phenomenon, it is a psychological weapon intended to destroy the morale of our Armed Forces. For they are the best of patriots and they may well be our final shield against the attacks on our freedom by the Globalist-Neo Marxist-Islamic alliance. Each of these enemies of our freedom can only benefit from causing dismay and distrust among our Armed Services.

We are not a poor nation yet those who have risked their lives in our defence are left homeless on our streets by the thousand. This is a disgrace which each one of us must take to heart. For Britain must take action on this. Conditions for ex-servicemen, and disregard for their sacrifices, have fallen back to the 1890’s when Kipling wrote:

‘Yes, making’ mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;’

Mortal neglect of our finest men and women can only lead to mortal results in the society they defend, results which the far left seem to intend. We have been warned. We must make For Britain the party of choice for all our Armed Services.

Richard Carlyon 17/06/2019

For Britain Taxi Driver Policy

For Britain will introduce a Six Point Plan for Taxi and Private Hire Drivers (including ‘Uber’ drivers).

Taking a taxi is a contract between the customer and the driver.  The customer wants to be taken to their destination safely, in a professional manner, in a clean and safe vehicle. The driver wants to earn a living and be treated with respect.

This proposal seeks to ensure the safest possible environment for the passenger, and a fair and reasonable market for the driver to operate.

Private hire drivers often work via an operator (the taxi firm). Black cab drivers may operate fully independently of an operator.


Taxi drivers are self-employed. Many work around 50 hours a week or more to earn enough to live. They are generally dependent upon tips to make up their wage. Drivers do not get sick pay or holiday pay. Fares are often artificially low and do not reflect a true market value. Fares are set in place by each operator (the taxi firm). Operators may lower taxi rates or keep them low as a marketing tactic to attract customers; it can be a case of a ‘race to the bottom’.

Each licensing area (Local Authority) has different criteria for a driver to gain a taxi licence – some areas have less strict criteria than others.

For Britain would introduce the following as national requirements for a driver to become a taxi driver:

  1. The driver must have a registered UK address and be listed on the electoral register;
  2. Drivers must be legally resident in the UK for at least 24 months;
  3. The driver must hold a full valid UK (or Irish) driving licence, earned by taking and passing the national driving test in Britain or Ireland;
  4. The driver must satisfy a comprehensive DBS safety check (formerly a CRB check) going back a minimum of 10 years;
  5. The driver must be able to speak English and pass a national standardised spoken & written English test. All tests and interviews will be carried out in English;
  6. Licencing fraud, or any fraud committed by drivers in the establishment of a taxi service, will be punishable with a prison sentence and/or deportation for non-British citizens;

Local knowledge is key to the customer getting the best possible experience. The above would support and encourage more local drivers.

Existing taxi drivers would also have to comply with the above criteria.

For Britain - Taxi Policy
For Britain – Taxi Policy – 6 point plan

Further notes:

It is our belief that, because of the lack of proper regulation (and corruption within some council licensing departments) in the taxi market, the British public is put at unnecessary risk in taxis and private hire vehicles. An income stream for British workers is also being lost.  The above proposal will have the benefit of bringing local people back into the trade and supporting the local community.

Furthermore, it is well known that large numbers of non-British taxi drivers have been involved in rape gangs over the last few decades – many of whom would not have passed the above criteria.  In many cases, taxis were used to deliver young white and Sikh girls to have sex with Muslim men.  Some of these girls were as young as eleven years old.  Putting all and any systems in place to prevent this must be a priority: The For Britain Six Point Plan will make our taxis safer.

Jerking and Twitching Like Chickens

‘They were jerking and twitching like chickens.’

Not my words. Words I came across years ago while researching eye-witness accounts for a postgraduate degree. Words I felt unable to include. Words which have been burned into my brain.

‘They were jerking and twitching like chickens.’

What, you ask, could ‘jerk’? What was it that ‘twitched’?

Why…. ‘like chickens’?

You demand context. You deserve context. For you may have stopped, you may have looked away. Your eyes may have wandered from those few words, may have wandered away from the words, to seek those familiar objects around you. Why have you stopped? Are you  afraid? Are you seeking relief? Or reassurance? Or escape? Do you really wish to continue?

Some of you may have passed over those words, in fearful dismissal. You may have stopped, as I did. Stopped, as in one of those childhood moments when I approached some unexpected terror,  moments of agony – just before the opening of a dark mental door. That door opening into a sudden depth of disbelief at the horrors of which humanity is capable.

What is down there crawling in that black icy depth? What could it be that was so terrible that it made the ‘grown-ups’ exchange swift but meaningful looks; and swiftly  diverting your bewildered childish horror?

‘They were jerking and twitching like chickens’.

God help me.

You demand context? The context is autumn, 1895, in Constantinople,  ‘Bulis’. Bulis is the familiar name which the Armenian people called that city. Similar to the Greek ‘polis’, the city.

‘They were jerking and twitching like chickens.’


Ah, says the mind, frantically seeking diversion from the darkness ahead. Ah yes, yes….

‘They were….’

But you nod rather quickly, eyes averted, and you hear your own voice, far off, mutter: ‘…yes, Armenian, an Indo-European language, developed alongside Greek……..’

‘… chickens!’

Like chickens?

Yes, on an autumn day, in Bulis, hordes of  ‘softas’, koranic students, came pouring out of the madrassas and mosques armed with metal-shod clubs provided by the Ottoman emperor. The butchers, and police, donned leather aprons to avoid staining themselves with kufar blood and took up their finely-honed slaughtering knives.

Screaming with bloodlust the Muslims, hundreds and hundreds of them spread out across the city in full view of everyone, including the European diplomats, the financial and technical European staff employed by the Ottomans. The Muslims grabbed any Armenian they could find and  then obeyed the instructions of the Koran as ‘written’ by Mahomet, as preached by the imams: ‘Kill them wherever you find them.’, ‘Strike them on the neck!’

Thousands of innocent Armenians were savagely clubbed to death in the streets, in full view of all;  rich Armenians as well as poor Armenians, women also, priests, businessmen, writers, ordinary Armenian folk. For they were all Christians, you see. Muslims are urged to kill Christians simply for not being Muslim. Its very simple. Its very clear. The most childish and ignorant mind can understand it. All non-Muslims can be killed, because Mahomet said so, indeed they MUST be killed. And he, the aforesaid Mahomet, was the most perfect man who ever lived. Fact, for thus it is stated in the Koran and in the hadith, see? Solid fact. How could those venerable men lie? The words of Allah!

The 1895 Constantinople slaughter was open, brutal, horrific. The Armenians had dared to protest against the massacres, rapes and robberies they had suffered. This protest could not be allowed. These kufar had to be taught a lesson.

One butcher, I call him butcher though he was a policeman, was more skilled than the loutish knout-wavers, those who beat out the brains of  every Armenian they found. He was more skilled, more accomplished. For, you see, many small Armenian children and babies, yes babies, were brought to him as he sat, knife in hand, clad in a leather apron.

And he seized them one by one, pulled them over his knees and slit their soft throats expertly, halal style. Halal style. Not chickens. Toddlers and babies. Then threw them aside, in a bleeding, twitching heap, to grab the next. As authorised by islam. Delicate and exact work. Blessed by the hovering, excited imams. As the little Christian children and babies bled to death, halal style, oh yes, halal style, they squirmed. They jerked. They twitched. Like chickens.

Can you ever eat chicken again, halal chicken, any chicken ?

‘They jerked and twitched like chickens,’ he said. He relished ‘their ensuing convulsions’. We know this because he was asked about it afterwards.  He described what he had done, relishing it, to Professor A. Moriz, a specialist in Ottoman studies.

His words.

Not mine.

He showed no remorse, no regret, no shame, no doubt. He relished his work. Work of note and credit, holy work, a form of prayer. Authorised by the imams, by Islam. By Mahomet. ‘The perfect man’.

‘They jerked and twitched like chickens’.

And recently, the yelling supporters of Diane Abbot and her dear ‘friend’ Comrade Corbyn, had the temerity to call me Islamophobic, a bigot? Racist scum they screamed as they kicked and punched me, for to the left, the modern Islam appeasers, I am racist scum for I openly oppose the death ideology they cringe before like slaves.

That day’s work in Bulis and in many previous massacres all over Armenia, was repeated with greater terminal fury in the Genocide of 1916 in which 2 million Armenians perished in many unspeakable ways. 200,000 Armenian women and girls were made sex slaves. The road to Deir-es-Zor was lined with scores of crosses on which twisted and twitched the naked bodies of Armenian women who had been raped before crucifixion, in mockery of their Christian faith.

This satanic behaviour was recorded in many European languages. The eyewitnesses of the hellish slaughter perpetrated by Islam included one young German officer who took photographs of this Genocide. Many photographs. I have seen them. They too are branded deep in my brain.

Have any of our ‘leaders’ bothered to read what always happens when Islam gains the upper hand over the kufar? It is happening now, now. Last year 90,000 Middle Eastern Christians were murdered. Most Iraqi Christians ‘have disappeared’. The killing continues as you read these words.

And now our own police escort Muslim rioters to attack peaceful working citizens in Oldham. Instead of arresting the violent ones they appear to side with them against the victims, women, frightened children, innocent folk. Today it happened, in Oldham. So I am forced to think again of  that day in 1895, ‘They were jerking and twitching like chickens’.

‘… jerking and twitching like chickens’.





My Descent Into Islam and My Ascent Out

My descent into Islam did not happen  in a  vacuum or without context.    There were many variables and extenuating circumstances that occurred before I became a Muslim.  There are many factors that have affected me, from my childhood, early adolescence, and my life as an adult woman. It’s a similar experience for many converts.  Many people think those who convert to Islam must be un-intelligent to join such an oppressive ideology and faith . But the female converts I have known have usually had  an abusive upbringing or childhood.

I have not known any male converts,as women and men are forbidden friendships under Islam.

I came from a back ground of severe abuse as a child; psychological, sexual, and physical.  I have known women who are also survivors of child sex abuse, and who went on to convert to Islam. They had come from horrendous backgrounds, full of horrific abuse. I’m not suggesting this is the case for all converts, but it is the case with many I have met.

Some convert to Islam because they feel disillusioned with their own religious faith, or are looking for a different path of spirituality. I noticed also that some converts had a propensity towards dogmatism. I often felt uncomfortable with other Muslim convert women, because they were very controlling. They would often try to control other converts, and preach the details of how to be a good Muslim.

I think some join Islam because it also gives them power and control over the sexuality of other women.  Women were often overly focused and consumed with each other’s Islamic dress and sexuality.

I must tell my own story ,and my own experience and not dwell  too much on why others convert. But I do think it is important to try to understand why women are persuaded to embrace  Islam. It is detrimental to their well being, and many enter a world they did not realise they were entering.

The main reason that Muslims desire to live in our Western cultures is to do dawah; proselytizing  and  spreading the ideology of Islam.  Being aware of this , we can educate young women about the dangers of Islam. The religion is often sugar-coated,and women are not told the truth about the reality and true meanings of the Quran and the hadith.

Muslims teach other Muslims to provide non Muslims with a version of Islam that they can handle –  a sanitised version.  Their belief is that after we convert, slowly our hearts will be open to the ‘truth’ of Islam.

One needs to understand the different contexts that can make a person vulnerable to this religion. If we understand why some people are more vulnerable than others, then we can prevent their descent into Islam and save girls from being influenced by this cult.

I call it a cult because that is what Islam truly is.  Some say it is not a religion, but it does contain strong dogmatic rulings and spiritual practices.  However, Islam is not only a religion, it is a political ideology and all-encompassing way of life.  Most alarming of all, leaving or criticising Islam carries the penalty of death.

A true religion or authentic spirituality I believe is about compassion and love. People are free in their choice to leave or join an authentic religion.  If a religion is real and true, it never needs to be forced on anyone.  Therefore I see Islam as a dangerous cult,that  controls the people in it by using fear and tyranny.

Because of my childhood of severe abuse, I was very vulnerable before I came to know about Islam.   I  was isolated, I was a struggling single mother and college student. When one feels isolated and alone, they are more prone to be drawn into a cult or religion that presents itself as a warm family,and gives a person a sense of belonging .

The reality is very different.

Written by Sara Slater

We’ve been suspended from Twitter

This morning we discovered that unfortunately our party has been suspended from Twitter. This looks to be a permanent ban, but we have not received any notification. Twitter’s censorship of Conservative voices is well documented.

Project Veritas

Project Veritas released undercover footage of Twitter employees stating they censor political opinions of Conservatives.

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

“Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?’”

Find out all about Twitter’s censorship of Conservative voices and help support Project Veritas here. 

Twitter is interfering with British politics

It is very clear: Twitter is interfering with British politics and is busily engaged in the demonetisation and silencing of dissenting political voices.

For Britain has never indulged in racist or hateful behaviour, never encouraged or endorsed violence, so this censorship is based solely upon the fact our political views do not suit the elite – we are silenced because we are a threat to the established order.

We will not allow them to break our spirit. We will continue to fight back.

Help us by making your voice heard. Complain to Twitter. Write to the newspapers. Tell vloggers and bloggers!

Let’s put pressure on Twitter and demand our rightful place on social media.

It is not up to private companies to regulate politics in this way. The influence of the tech giants is too enormous for us to accept this manipulation.

Fight back for free speech… prove that the greater Twitter’s censorship of Conservative voices , the greater our fight back will be.


Hartlepool Borough Council Election Win

Read all about our new Councillor in Hartlepool Karen King in the following news article by the Hartlepool Mail. Karen is dedicated to making changes to her constituency for the local residents. For Britain wants to help make lives better for all our countries citizens. Karen is a perfect example of who For Britain supports and what we really wish to achieve in Great Britain.

“For the previous five weeks I had been asking residents to give me a chance to show them what I could do for them as a For Britain councillor. The fact that they have graciously given me that opportunity is a huge honour but also a huge responsibility. I will never be able to thank them enough for their trust.”


“During May I will be doing a lot of behind the scenes groundwork to start dealing with the ward’s problems. Once again, I would like to thank the residents of De Bruce for their support. For De Bruce, For Hartlepool and For Britain.”

If you too want to make a difference then why not Join For Britain and become a local councillor like our new Hartlepool Councillor Karen King or help in other ways. Making a better future is our passion and it could be yours too.


The For Britain Movement – Big Local Election Breakthroughs

Press Release

Title: The For Britain Movement makes big breakthroughs in the local elections
From: The For Britain Movement, Press Office
Date: Friday, 03.05.2019
Notes: For immediate release. All pictures and content are free to use without any prior consent or licence.

For Britain are up and running, with some fantastic results in the 2019 Local Elections including seat wins! Last year the party had just been formed, missing out on postal votes, but still managed some credible results for a brand new party, beating the Greens, UKIP and the LibDems in some wards.

But in 2019 we have gone further, winning seats which is extremely pleasing. This campaign has taught us a lot, when you take to the streets and talk to people, our message is extremely well received. 99% of the public agree with the common sense views we hold. It is incredible for a brand new party to beat Labour in the Northeast; congratulations to new Councillor Karen King, and in beating the Tories in Epping Forest; congratulations to new Councillor Julian Leppert.

Digging deeper, For Britain has consistently managed to finish ahead of other major parties, we managed to beat the LibDems and Greens in many seats, and both the Tories and Labour in others. This is something extremely positive to build on, and the party will now learn from the success to replicate the models that work across the country. These wins are the acorns from which future success will grow.

Some results are still not in at the time of this article, but we have already seen enough to know that we can compete and can win. We can take on Labour and we can take on the Tories and we can beat them. This is without any help from any of the media, so as our name becomes better known, we will go from strength to strength.

Party Leader Anne Marie Waters: “I’m so very proud of our new Councillors, who I know will do a fantastic job. As a new party, we beat the two big players right in their heartlands. To beat Labour so significantly in Hartlepool is proof that we can take the Labour vote. Likewise, beating the Conservatives in Essex proves that we can take that vote as well. For Britain is showing itself to be the party of the common sense majority, regardless of political affiliation. People now see that we can win, and we know this will inspire many more to get on board. Now is the time to join us as our journey truly takes off!”

Local Elections 2019

For Britain are up and running, with some fantastic results in the 2019 Local Elections including seat wins! Last year the party had just been formed, missing out on postal votes, but still managed some credible results for a brand new party, beating the Greens, UKIP and the LibDems in some wards.

But in 2019 we have gone further, winning seats which is extremely pleasing. This campaign has taught us a lot, when you take to the streets and talk to people, our message is extremely well received. 99% of the public agree with the common sense views we hold. It is incredible for a brand new party to beat Labour in the Northeast (congratulations to new Councillor Karen King), and to beat the Tories in Epping Forest (congratulations to new Councillor Julian Leppert).

Digging deeper, For Britain has consistently managed to finish ahead of other major parties, we managed to beat the LibDems and Greens in many seats, and both the Tories and Labour in others. This is something extremely positive to build on, and the party will now learn from the success to replicate the models that work across the country. These wins are the acorns from which future success will grow.

Some results are still not in at the time of this article, but we have already seen enough to know that we can compete and can win. We can take on Labour and we can take on the Tories and we can beat them. This is without any help from any of the media, so as our name becomes more well known, we will go from strength to strength.

Party Leader Anne Marie Waters: “I’m so very proud of our new Councillors, who I know will do a fantastic job. As a new party, we beat the two big players right in their heartlands. To beat Labour so significantly in Hartlepool is proof that we can take the Labour vote. Likewise, beating the Conservatives in Essex proves that we can take that vote as well. For Britain is showing itself to be the party of the common sense majority, regardless of political affiliation. People now see that we can win, and we know this will inspire many more to get on board. Now is the time to join us as our journey truly takes off!”

Anne Marie Waters barnstorms about Brexit at Swansea Castle

Press Release

Title: Anne Marie Waters barnstorms about Brexit at Swansea Castle
Date: 27.04.2019
Notes: For immediate use. All images here are free to uplift use and free from licence or restrictions.

Saturday the 27th of April, Swansea Castle Gardens. Anne Marie Waters, Leader of The For Britain Movement, has just come off stage at Swansea Garden Square. At a Brexit Rally organised by local campaigner Stephen Harry. Anne Marie delivered an impassioned and barnstorming speech to a crowd of both local people and people who had travelled in from other parts of south Wales. The For Britain Movement calls for full and complete Brexit now, on WTO terms. Anne Marie Waters message “the current Political class have betrayed you, vote differently, stop voting them back in, I can’t say it enough”

Toot for Brexit

Opening up the speeches at the Rally was Dave Simpson who runs ‘Toot for Brexit’. Toot for Brexit is a hardworking south Wales grass roots group, actively keeping people alerted to appalling betrayal of the referendum. Toot for Brexit is in the same vein as the Yellow vests movement Paris. An organic popular response to the treachery of the incumbent and impotent political establishment. With Dave’s call to action banners up, motorists beeped their agreement as they drove past in response. Hugh Nicklin, recent For Britain Candidate in the Newport West by-election also spoke at the event. Hugh discussed the important historical back story to the Brexit betrayal, and why is so vital that we now leave the EU.

Swansea a refuge city

Sadly, on the run up to today’s public event, the local Labour Council Leader Rob Stewart and his left-wing cronies had disgraced his Public Office, and betrayed the people of Swansea, by acting undemocratically and churlishly to disrupt this free speech event. This would be shocking if it was not now so normalised by the pro-Palestine Left wing elitist Political class that Stewart represent. And their Latte drinking Brown Shirts; in the form of the hysterical ‘Stand up to Racism’, and ‘Hope not Hate’

‘Open borders Stewart’, who has proclaimed ‘Swansea a refuge city’ and aims to score high on the ‘virtue signalling charts’. However, this begs the question; where do the decent working Welsh people. People who have invested generationally into this area, go themselves to seek refuge for Rob Stewart and his extremist ideas? Where do they go to find affordable homes, jobs and good school places as Stewart gifts these resources away to the on-going stream of third world arrives? We implore the good people of Swansea to kick these Labour Quislings out at the ballot box. Ex-servicemen of the British forces sleep rough on the streets of Swansea.

Labour Brown Shirts

From Stewart’s shock troops: Repetitive and illogical slurs where screeched out across the lines. But when Anne Marie Waters engaged with them directly and asked them to come and debate. There was no legible or intelligent response from these hard Lefts open border extremists.

For Britain is a Patriotic party that wants the very best for the people of this nation, and looks to put British people and the interests of this nation first and foremost.

Easter Message

Press Release

Title: An Easter message from The For Britain Movement.
Date: Saturday 20.04.2019
Notes: For immediate release

This Easter For Britain remember the on-going and daily slaughter of Christians around the world at the hands of Islamic-doctrine soaked Muslims.  This Easter is the right time to remember and highlight these crimes. For Britain says we see what is happening and we a shout about this as much as we are able. However, we note that the British mainstream media and establishment remain quiet on these facts.

Back in our own country, the media and establishment continue to sneer and snark towards all things Christian; and further encourage the general populace to do the same – while at the same time themselves bowing down, submitting to and excusing all ‘indiscretions’  Islamic at every opportunity.

A Time to reflect

This Easter we also think about Asia Bibi; the Pakistani Christian lady who for years remained on death row in Pakistan for alleged ‘blasphemy’ crimes against Mohamed. After many years of tough legal fighting and international pressure, Asia Bibi’s sentence was finally overturned; however she still remains in hiding in Pakistan for fear of her life from the screeching Muslim mobs & clerics. To its shame the UK government, under Theresa May, refused Mrs Bibi safe asylum ‘for the risk of upsetting local communities’- in reality this code means Mrs May did not want to risk upsetting Muslims. Asia Bibi has become a symbol of those Christians around the world who live under on-going persecution in Islamic countries.

This past week we watched the tragic scenes as the over 800 year old Notre-Dame Cathedral burned in Paris. We are still waiting to be told the establishment official line about the cause; we may never know. Whatever we are told, we think upon the past 12 months alone where hundreds of churches right across France have been damaged and degraded at the hands of Muslim groups and individuals. Although like the ‘yellow vest’ protests in Paris, airbrushed out of the UK news.

Christian message

Easter is the most important Christian festival. The Christian message is that; Jesus Christ allowed Himself to take ‘the Cross’ in our place; as ‘payment for, settlement for, the Bill’ of Man’s rebellion and sin. Christian belief is that Christ going to the Cross meant that man could have communion with God again; the God of the Old Testament, the God of Israel. Easter is the message of Salvation and of Hope. This is the Christian message.

Mohammedan/Koranic/Islamic teaching is that Christ did not in fact go to the Cross – but in the last moments ‘he bottled it and swerved it’ and in a supernatural ‘sleight of hand’ ‘allah’ put Judas the traitor on the Cross instead. This is the Islamic belief and the reason why Islam looks to shut down the Christian message with such hatred and ferocity.

Regardless of a person’s beliefs, For Britain recognises the deeply important and foundational role that Christianity has played in our nation’s history, culture and journey. We honour and respect our nations Christian festivals and traditions. We also see that they are being rapidly eroded.  Easter Sunday is a day that Christians remember the resurrection of Christ. Our hope is that as Christians remember the courage and character of Christ, and they find it in themselves to stand further for the persecuted Church around the world, and find new courage to stand for Britain again in a reborn vision of this our nation’s purpose and function.

Easter Greetings and Peace to all,

The For Britain Movement

EU Elections 2019

Press Release

EU Elections

The Brexit betrayal continues, with preparations for EU elections we should not be subject to.

For Britain is NOT standing in the EU Parliamentary Elections

We object strongly to these elections and are reluctant to spend £10,000s of members’ money attempting to get elected to an illegitimate Parliament that we could leave at any time. Therefore, following much discussion, as well as feedback from members and supporters, and in light of recent election results, we conclude that it is not in the interests of our party to stand in the upcoming European elections.

Collaboration approaches rebuffed by other parties

We also acknowledge the surge of concern around ‘splitting the vote’ on this issue. When our collaboration approaches were rebuffed by other parties, the For Britain leadership had to put country first. The EU is not our sole focus, and as a new party. It is important to analyse where we spend our resources, both in terms of money and manpower.

The European Parliament is merely a stage show, making names for politicians. It has no power; the Commission holds the power and the Commission effectively controls elected governments across Europe. We know it will dismiss elected governments it doesn’t approve of, and we certainly know that it will ignore referendum results.

Recent election results here in Britain have revealed something very important: that even at the height of the Brexit scandal, the response of the public is not to vote differently, but to not vote at all.

People don’t trust current parties, any of them. They don’t trust politics at all, and who can blame them?

We will not waiver

For Britain will continue to tell the truth, and it is the truth that will gain the public’s trust. Our party will not waiver in its endeavours. We will reach out to those with no faith in politics, and convince them to rethink, to use their right to vote to make the changes needed for our country. Much of the country doesn’t vote – we will turn that around. Just imagine the power non-voters actually hold!

The battle for this country will not take place in Brussels, it will take place in local councils, then Westminster. That is now our aim and not standing in the enforced EU elections. We have enormous obstacles facing us, and let’s be clear. We will struggle to compete against Nigel Farage and his instant national platform, where he represents the acceptable opposition to the status quo. Farage and others will continue to raise their profile, and bank balance, in Brussels but this will achieve nothing for Britain’s every day working people.

This is the big political game…

and it matters nothing to people struggling to get by as their taxes keep going up, their services continue to be decimated, and their neighbourhoods turn in to places they don’t recognise. This is the battle for Britain – not the stage-show in Brussels.

We will, therefore, focus our efforts on the local elections in May, and I want to thank those who have put themselves forward in spite of all the abuse we are subjected to. The media seems obsessed with us and disseminates outright lies about us everywhere we go. Antifa protest against us everywhere we go. They do not do this to other parties, they do it to us because they know our message is strong.

So we hold our nerve, persevere, and play the long game.

Brexit is the start of the process of getting Britain back, but it will not happen dramatically, or overnight. It will be a long hard slog to gain the trust of the voters, that is our key – we have been honest throughout and that honesty will gain us support. We will persevere and we will fight because our fight is worthwhile.

Parliamentary elections

I know some will be disappointed with this, and it has been a difficult decision to make, but I would urge those who sought to stand in these elections to re-focus on local and Parliamentary elections. That is where our country will recover, not in Brussels.

We know that the EU must be brought down, but this will be done in the nation-states, not a fake Parliament in Belgium. We will continue to work with our friends across the continent to bring the corrupt cabal crashing down, but we must focus here at home, that is where change needs to take place.

Thank you for your continued support. I know this isn’t easy, but I have never wavered and I never will.

We must save Britain by turning the ship back in the right direction. We are authentic and genuine and won’t be intimidated or bought. This is why we are such a target for the press and leftist activists.

I make you a solemn promise that regardless of the difficult time we find ourselves in, I will keep fighting. I will still be here in a decade, and in two decades. I will still be standing, still telling the truth, and still working for the Britain I love.

Please join me.

Anne Marie Waters

For Britain


What’s right when writing about the ‘Far Right’?

Please define ‘Far Right’

Dear Members of Press & Media Organisations
The Media’s coverage of the notion of ‘Far Right’ would be comical if it was not so deadly serious.

For the past couple of years it would appear that the Mainstream Media and journalists have created an entire sub-industry around screeching or printing the unqualified phrase ‘Far right’. The Media seem obsessed with ‘finding the Far right’; but far less clear about defining what ‘far right’ (ideology) might actually mean; what the ‘checklist’ is, as it were – hence my article here today.

My request: In your role as journalist / news organisation, I would be most keen to read your succinct definition of the phrase: “Far right”

Currently, it could look to the outsider, that unless a person is either: a loudly self-promoting & self-defining ‘socialist’, member of Labour’s Momentum, a full Europhile/open boarders extremist , somebody desperate to genuflect towards Islam (to demonstrate how ‘woke’ they are) – or in fact all of the above -, then via the media a person, it seems, can legitimately be a target of the weaponized dog whistle word ‘Far Right; and potentially have their life destroyed.

However, we note with interest Labour’s deep opposition to the State of Israel and apparent disdain of all things Jewish does not qualify them to be viewed as ‘far right’; your thoughts on this matter also would also be illuminating!

This is a serious request, if you could if you could email me back with your ‘easy for us all to follow Far Right definition’ we would be most grateful and it would be most useful.

Yours in eager anticipation

Ian Mack
Press Officer
For Britain Movement
[email protected]

Christchurch – Shocking


Following the horrific terror attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, visited one of the largest mosques in New Zealand, the Masjid e Umar mosque, and personally thanked the mosque’s chairman, Ahmed Bhamji, for the invitation. Bhamji, a prominent Muslim figure, was subsequently invited to speak at the “Love Aotearoa, Hate Racism” (Love New Zealand, Hate Racism) rally in Auckland. In this video, you can see film of him making his speech, in which he makes an unsupported allegation that the Christchurch terror attack was backed and funded by Mossad (Israel’s national intelligence agency), as well as local, Zionist, Jewish businessmen in New Zealand.

Why Mossad would have any interest in attacking two pretty obscure mosques on the other side of the planet, in Christchurch, New Zealand (albeit that one of them was associated with “extremist” preaching in 2014, and two of its congregation were subsequently killed fighting for ISIS), is anybody’s guess. And Bhamji isn’t saying. He produced absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support his vile, racist allegation, made at an anti-racist event, merely talking vehemently about having the “very, very, strong suspicions”.

The excellent David Wood has exposed this appalling antisemitic allegation, but where has it featured in the news? And is Jacinda Ardern aware of it? If she is aware of what Bhamji has done she should be issuing the strongest possible public condemnation of this, just as she rightly did of the bigotry at the root of the Christchurch attack itself – and so should all other prominent New Zealander public figures, including Bhamji’s co-religionists. Because antisemitism, and attacks on Jews, are rising, and must be condemned by us all.

But where are these condemnations? When Bhamji delivered his disgusting and dangerous statement just one person in the crowd shouted assent – the rest of the crowd looked pretty stunned and uncomfortable. All this should be giving New Zealanders, public figures and private citizens alike, and indeed the rest of us, pause about exactly what ideas are actually being purveyed behind closed doors in mosques in New Zealand, and everywhere else. Condemning a terrible act of terror should never deter us from honest scrutiny of, and debate about, the ideology of Islam, its tenets, and the attitudes and activities it produces. Still less induce us to defend or endorse Islam itself. It is no coincidence that Islamic scriptures specifically demonise, and incite violence against, Jews.

I’m Spartacus! I’m an Islamophobe?

URGENT. Here is our letter to our MP – please send a similar one to your MP too. We can change things. Politicians and the press care about their political futures and money. If we constantly deluge their postbags with the truth, and demands for our rights and freedoms to respected and protected, they will have to begin to take notice of that. Get active.
Dear {…….} ,

We have close family living in Wellington, New Zealand, and we have been strongly emotionally affected by the horrific massacre of worshippers in mosques in Christchurch. Like all decent people, we utterly condemn the attack, and our hearts go out to all the victims and their families. A Muslim colleague and friend of one of our relatives had advised several Syrian friends to come and settle in lovely, peaceful, New Zealand, and two of them are now dead. So this feels very close to us, and we can only imagine what our relative’s friend is going through now. The attack is especially shocking precisely because it has happened in such a peaceful country, hitherto untouched by terrorism.

You will understand from the above that we strongly condemn all generalised anti-Muslim bigotry, as we do all bigotry. But, that said, we do have grave concerns about the kinds of response we are seeing to this attack, in terms of the closing down of freedom of speech on Islam, and even the closing down of opinion, and banning of books, from what is, often wrongly, designated the right in politics (even Jordan Peterson’s blameless “12 Rules for Life.” has been removed from bookshops in New Zealand).

In democratic, secular New Zealand, the Islamic call to prayer is to be broadcast nationwide in commemoration of the victims, and non-Muslim women are being asked to honour the occasion by donning the hejab, a garment that is a symbol of the oppression of women under Islam, with Iranian protesters against its imposition currently in prison, and apparently suffering rape and flogging there. At the same time, references to Jesus have been removed from Parliamentary prayers in Wellington. As a secularist, I (Mary) can see an argument for removing religious observances from political institutions and national events, but broadcasting the call to prayer, and asking non-Muslim women to wear hejabs, makes no sense alongside this action.

The response to the atrocity in Britain, while not as florid, has also been extreme. In just the last few weeks, hundreds of Christians have been murdered by Muslims in terrorist attacks around the world. These attacks on non-Muslims, and Muslims not considered Muslims by the killers – 34,725 since 9/11 – go on month in month out, unceasingly. But where is there any response to those atrocities which remotely compares to that which the lone-wolf, apparently ethno-nationalist, Christchurch atrocity has elicited in the West? There has been near silence on those attacks which took place virtually at the same time as the Christchurch attack.

We are very worried that this horrific event is already being used to defame any criticism of Islam as “Islamophobic”. Let’s be clear, “Islamophobia” is not, and never has been, a legitimate concept, and we now desperately need to repudiate it as dangerous nonsense. How about Christianityophobia, Zionismophobia, human rightsophobia, Nazismophobia, Hinduismophobia, secular democracyophobia – or Kuffarophobia for goodness’ sake (though that one is actually a reality of course) – the whole idea is absolutely ludicrous. Sticking the word “phobia” on the end of a word representing an ideology or set of ideas, thereby suggesting that you are mentally impaired (or morally reprehensible) even to examine or debate those ideas, is unconscionable, or should be, in any free society – and in this case, it seems to us, completely calculated. How did the word “Islamophobia” ever get accepted as having any legitimacy? We can only assume as a result of fear of Islam (which as we know is not unfounded).

The current standard definition of Islamophobia is “Dislike of, or prejudice against, Muslims or Islam, especially as a political force.”. This deliberately conflates human beings and ideology – something which we’re sure you agree should never be done – in order to close down debate on the ideology of Islam, which we must, of course, be free to examine, criticise, debate, and even condemn, as we see fit, like any other set of ideas. And anyone who doesn’t more than dislike political Islam is a great deal worse than a fool – when we can we see what it does in the countries living under Sharia control (and is already doing in the West). The OIC refused to sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because Islam doesn’t recognise human rights. So they confected their own Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which, it goes without saying, doesn’t protect human rights as we understand them at all. (And yet Saudi Arabia, one of the greatest human rights abusers in the world, has chaired the UN Human Rights Committee – with our government’s shameful support). And have people forgotten the centuries of hideous wars, slaughter, persecution and torture inflicted by theocracy on mediaeval Europe, and elsewhere?

To be perfectly frank, the point is being reached where ordinary people like us, with very serious, and perfectly legitimate, concerns about political Islam, and its codification in the Sharia, will have no choice but to “be Spartacus”, and say yes, I’m an “Islamophobe”- because I believe in human rights, and therefore condemn political Islam and the Sharia, which discriminate against, and oppress, women, children, gays, apostates, blasphemers, and “dhimmi” Christians and Jews and other “Kuffar”. And because they endorse forced and child marriage, wife-beating, rape in marriage, and slavery etc. etc.. And because where Sharia rules it frequently executes gays, apostates, blasphemers, and women or girls judged to have committed adultery (who have often actually been raped), or exerts totalitarian control by means of the threat of those barbaric penalties. And also because Islam’s scriptural incitement of violence against Jews is stoking a shocking rise in antisemitic violence against Jews in Europe.

Such a protest against the inflicting of the the false concept of “Islamophobia” on us all to silence criticism of Islam would be entirely justified. And the longer freedom of speech on this vital issue is suppressed, the worse the eventual consequences will be for everyone. You can support individual human rights, or you can support theocracy – you can’t do both.


But our grave concerns about this issue have greatly intensified lately, because we hear that, far from the term “Islamophobia” being rejected as the falsehood that it is, a Parliamentary group (including Naz Shah MP, who tweeted that the Muslim rape gang victims should “shut up for the sake of diversity”) has produced a new definition of “Islamophobia”, defining it as a form of racism – and we understand that there is an intention to attempt to criminalise it, that is to criminalise criticism of Islam, along with criticism of a wide set of what are designated as manifestations of “Muslimness”, including observations, whether well-founded or not, on Muslim entryism in politics and the block vote. This is simply outrageous, and terrifying. The definition has already been taken up by a number of Councils (including Oxford council) as guidance. And this will obviously spread.

We cannot let this happen. We must maintain and defend our freedom of speech, which has already been shockingly constrained, and must be re-established. People have rights, ideas have none, and, as Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation has affirmed (as a result of which we understand that he has received much abuse, and some threats), “No human being is beneath dignity, and no idea is above scrutiny.”. (Regarding our reference above to “Muslim rape gangs”, we use that phrase advisedly, because, as Maajid Nawaz has observed, the overwhelming preponderance of members of these shocking and widespread gangs are Muslim, mostly of Pakistani origin, but some from the much smaller Somali Muslim population. And the same phenomenon is in evidence in Europe, involving Muslims from other Islamic countries.)

We will be very grateful if you can give some serious consideration to this issue, and commit yourself to the repudiation of the concept of “Islamophobia”, and the defence of freedom of speech – our foundational human right. This is essential in the interests of our whole society, including, of course, many Muslims, and others, suffering from coercion and abuse as a result of aspects of political Islam and the Sharia.

Yours sincerely,



‘Islamophobia’ really means being scared of the truth

In late 2018/early 2019 parliament’s Home Affairs Committee undertook a consultation in the supposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’. As the Labour Party has today formally adopted the supposed ‘definition’ of Islamophobia drawn up by the All Parliamentary Group on Appeasing Muslims.

‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’

(which isn’t actually a definition at all), I share the concluding paragraphs of the submission that For Britain made to that consultation.


  • It is readily observable that throughout the report the word ‘Muslimness’, which is often used in the phrase ‘expressions of ‘Muslimness’’ appears in inverted commas in order to indicate that it is a word being used with a technical, unfamiliar meaning, and yet is introduced without explanation and is never explained …

The term ‘Muslimness’ is clearly used as a substitute term for Islam in this definition in order to blur the meaning of ‘Islam’ within the term Islamophobia. By this legerdemain, a person’s adherence to the Quran’s encouragement that a man should beat his wife for disobedience or its instructions to kill idolaters and homosexuals is equated with a person inheriting the surname Khan from their parents or eating Middle Eastern food. All are manifestations of ‘Muslimness’ and under this definition any person who challenges the reasons for the former, violently intolerant but specifically Islamic, behaviour is automatically lumped together with racism based upon the latter entirely value-neutral characteristics.


  • It should also be clearly recognised as inappropriate for any person, in any circumstances, to make sweeping accusations against the mental health of those who pursue an argument with which they disagree or which they find to be inconvenient. Such terminology seems specifically designed to prevent the resolution of any issues of contention in a peaceful and civilised manner. It is also, of course, insulting to those people unfortunate enough to suffer from real phobias. The proposed use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ is in fact a pernicious form of hate speech, projecting the accusation of irrational hostility, using the trope of a person suffering mental disorder, onto a person with whom one disagrees.


  • All of the spawning Newspeak vocabulary, such as ‘Islamophobia’, ‘raceing’, ‘(de)culturing’ and ‘Muslimness’, outlined above [in the APPG report] represents more than mere incompetent use of the English language. True to Orwell’s concept, the promotion of the word ‘Islamophobia’ is clearly designed to avoid people speaking, and by so doing ultimately to prevent people thinking, the inconvenient truth that in the UK and around the world, many acts of intolerance, not to say barbaric cruelty, are being committed by Muslims sincerely following the unambiguous teaching of the Quran and the example of Mohammed.

Use of such words to deny the link between Islam and Islam-inspired intolerance is more insidious than merely a decision to see no evil or avoid a thorny issue. It appears to give official support to the narrative that there is no such link and that those who challenge the values of the Quran, even using the most moderate language and in the name of liberty and democracy, can only be irrational and themselves motivated by intolerance and ‘hate’.

  • It is in the interests of all UK citizens that the UK remains a country in which all can live together in peace. The lesson of the past four hundred years of British history is that peace comes only from a rule of law that respects the individual’s freedom to live, express themselves and worship or not, as they see fit, and a democratic culture in which communities integrate and share decision making rather than progress, or not, in separate, parallel worlds. Social harmony can never be based upon empowering people sympathetic to one tradition to silence its critics and malign views that they do not wish to be expressed.
  • The word ‘Islamophobia’ has no legitimate use. It is suggested that its use be abandoned immediately.

You can read Paul’s full response to the Home Affairs Committee here:


By Paul Ellis

For Britain Legal Officer


Political Lite

There are few media figures as inoffensive as Stacey Dooley.  Dooley is an investigative journalist who makes excellent documentaries (if you haven’t seen her interview with jailed ISIS fighters, I recommend it).  She leans to the left of course (she wouldn’t work if she didn’t) but as journalists go, she is one of the better ones.  She also took part in Strictly Come Dancing and Comic Relief, and it is the latter that has landed her in trouble.

When can charitable work land a person in hot water?  When they are white, of course.  The latest episode in the long-running series of open hatred of white people involves condemnation not just of Dooley, but of white people involving themselves in charity work generally.  The attack was initiated by an extreme anti-white MP, one Mr David Lammy.

David Lammy is the future of Labour – if it has a future.  This anti-white party produces MP after MP who clearly loathe those of white skin.  Diane Abbott, a Labour front-bencher and potential Home Secretary, has expressed similar contempt.  Abbott has tweeted that “white people love playing divide and rule”[1], as well as describing Britain as the inventor of racism[2].  Abbott’s dislike of our country and its white majority has been evident throughout her career.  But it is David Lammy, a Labour MP in Tottenham, London, who has made recent headlines for yet more Labour anti-white rhetoric; Mr Lammy condemned Stacey Dooley for her Comic Relief charitable work in Africa, and said the world no longer needs “white saviours”[3].

Lammy not only wants Comic Relief, an annual charitable event that raises millions for good causes, to prevent white people making informative films in Africa, he wants these replaced by African comedians telling anti-white jokes.  Lammy openly promoted a comedian whose act seemed solely to consist of her hilarious contempt for whites.[4]  Could he be any clearer?

This is hardly news though.  Anti-white hatred is widespread and sanctioned.  The media’s response to Lammy’s race-baiting was naturally enough to side with him.  The Scotsman said “Celebrities like Stacey Dooley should think twice about Comic Relief” and accused her , and Comic Relief, of “enduring colonialism”.[5] It is nothing short of stunning – white people must stop being charitable, it’s reminiscent of colonialism.  Hatred doesn’t get much more hateful than that.

The media agrees with Lammy’s take because the media too is openly anti-white.  Here are some actual headlines from various media outlets: “White men must be stopped – The future of mankind depends on it”, “How to talk about white people”, “White privilege has enormous implications for policy”, “Time to profile white men?”, “White guys are killing us”, “I chose not to have children because they’d be white”, “Whites should die”, and the icing on the cake, “10 ways white people are more racist than they realise”.

Just imagine for a moment “white” replaced with any other racial group, and then imagine the outcry.  But this outcry doesn’t occur when whites are attacked, because “white privilege” means it’s not race-hate to hate white people for their race.

White privilege also means that whites are excluded from job applications and can’t complain – if they do, they’ll be racists.  Throughout the public sector, “diversity” requirements mean offices up and down the land openly lament the presence of ‘too many white people’, and set up departments and appoint officers to focus on bringing this horror to an end.

By any objective standard, what I’ve described above amounts to racial oppression and racial abuse.  But as it is aimed at white people, “privilege” means that standard doesn’t apply (itself a form of racial abuse).  Only white majority countries are expected to open our borders to mass immigration, or to disadvantage our majorities with “diverse” employment quotas.  One assumes there is no “diversity” crisis in Nigeria, with offices dedicated to improving non-Black representation.

Nobody in politics will talk about this, it is a major taboo, so once again For Britain will step up to the plate.  We will talk about this, and we will change it.  There is only one way Britain can move on to the future peacefully, and that is for all people to be subject to the same rights and rules, and for anti-white hatred to be tackled and condemned as it would for any other group.

We will end racial segregation and re-instate one law for all.  Furthermore, we’ll protect and preserve the majority British culture, as well as its authority.

Most people are fair-minded and reject racism, but we must understand that anti-white hatred is racism, and we must stamp it out, For Britain.






Come and join us on the 29th of March in London

I’m no longer invited to speak, but I’ll make my voice heard, join me.

Meet at 11 am outside Westminster Station. We’ll be joining the rally, please bring your ‘For Britain’ flags and banners.

Please watch and share my latest video. We hope to see you at both events.

Come and join us on the 31st of March in Essex.

Meet at 12.15 pm at Woodford Underground Station (Central Line)

The Westbound or Snakes Lane East exit

For car drivers, there is ample parking available at Madeira Grove (postcode for Sat Navs IG8 7QQ)

We have some great speakers including our special guest Lucy Brown.

We’ll also hear from Nissar Hussain who is a victim of hate crimes, Muslims repeatedly brutalised him and his family. At one point he was hit thirteen times with a pickaxe outside his home and suffered a broken knee cap and shattered hand. He had previously been smoked out of his home which he was forced to leave after Bradford police stated they could no longer protect him, a poor indictment on the state of extremist expansion in the UK.

For Britain For Brexit

Come join us if you want to leave….

Act now to stop the “Great BREXIT Betrayal”

We have been betrayed by Theresa May and her government. For several years since the majority of the country voted to leave the EU we have been told time and time again that we would leave the EU on the 29th of March 2019 with or without a deal. Over one hundred times did May state that lie. We were told no deal was better than a bad deal.

Theresa May and her government have ignored your democratic vote. They have ignored your wishes, they have lied to you countless times since the referendum. Now is the time to make your voice heard once again. Come join fellow betrayed citizens on the 29th of March at 11:00AM at Westminster Station – London.

We will be joining Tommy Robinson on the march in London – please bring ‘For Britain’ flags and banners.

Use the below share links to share this on social media – FAR AND WIDE!

Great Events in the Next Few Weeks

You’re invited to a Public Safety Event on the 21st March in Southend Essex.

We are inviting you to come to an event dedicated to public safety and the issues and concerns YOU have.

There’ll be 4 great speakers who are well worth listening to, you’ll also have a chance to ask questions and voice your opinions.

We want people to be able to come together and share their concerns.

Please email us at [email protected] to receive the venue details.


Our VIPs (volunteers in politics) have already received an invite to attend a meeting on 23rd March in Birmingham.

If you haven’t yet accepted/declined your invite then please do so by emailing us at [email protected]


You’re invited to a branch meeting on 25th March in Manchester

I and many other speakers will be attending and we’d love to see you there. For further details please email the branch chairman Simon Collins at [email protected]


You’re invited to a rally on 31st March in Essex

As you are hopefully aware, For Britain will be holding a major rally in Essex on the afternoon of Sunday 31st March. I will be speaking along with others.

The main theme will be to address the outcome of Brexit, whatever that might be, and to launch our local election campaigns.

Please promote this event energetically through your local social media, also email others to ask that they spread the word.

There will be good rail and road connections for the venue. We’ll send further details nearer the date.

Rally in Essex
Rally in Essex, 31st March with Anne Marie Waters

London branch ‘MEMBERS ONLY’ will meet on 1st April in London

The branch is holding elections for its governing roles, including chairman and secretary at 7 pm. 

We strongly encourage all London members to attend and to vote for a new start for the London branch.

I will attend this event and will discuss the future of our party in London.

If you’re interested in standing for any roles then please send a few lines about yourself and what you’d bring to the branch. Send this in before the 25th March to [email protected]

All applications will be sent to members beforehand to help with their decision on who to vote for.


You’re invited to a meeting on 6th April in Morton on Marsh

Where I’ll give a speech and chat with people. Please come along. For further details please email [email protected]


The future is here, the future is For Britain.

Essex Branch

Two fantastic new For Britain recruitment leaflets are now available for our branches and activists.

These were professionally designed on our behalf and will be a vital tool in developing local support in the run up to this year’s local elections in May and in recruiting new members.

They will be going out in their tens of thousands up and down the country over the coming weeks.

One of the leaflets focuses on the Brexit betrayal in very forthright terms. The other is a more general introduction to the party.
Both are important new additions to our arsenal.

BREXIT Leaflet
5 Point Plan
For Britain – 5 Point Plan


Our good Councillor Brian Silvester has created this letter you can send to your MP and ensure they understand you demand they protect the vote you made in the 2016 referendum. Just type your post code in to the search engine on and send an email or letter to stop the Brexit Betrayal like the one below to your MP.

Let them know you will not sit ideally while they break their oath to uphold the democratic majority that they’re meant to represent.


Dear Sir,


Maclean, Burgess, Philby, Blunt, & Cairncross betrayed the UK.

To this list of infamy we can now add Theresa May.

She’s trying to sell out our country to a foreign power.

PM is part of an establishment fifth column trying to overturn the biggest democratic vote in our history.


Incredibly it is now alleged that the PM’s Withdrawal Agreement was hatched in Germany, in Mrs Merkel’s Berlin office.

It was written by the Germans in such a way to make it easy for the UK to re-join the EU in a few years time.

It was written by the Germans, for the Germans.


PM’s Tory Government is committing the biggest ever fraud on the British people. The Tories are telling us they are delivering Brexit. In fact her Brexit Betrayal means the EU dictators will have MORE control over us, for evermore, with no exit door. UK media are complicit in trying to deceive us about what is really proposed.


‘For Britain’ says we should LEAVE now on WTO terms.

No more dither or delay.’No Deal’ is the best deal.

We voted to get our freedom back and we will not allow a bunch of duplicitous MPs to overturn it.

Yours faithfully,


Concerned Constituent

If you want more traction then why not copy your local paper into the Brexit Betrayal letter / email. Let the rest of your constituency know how you feel and what you are doing to protect their vote.

Newport West by-election

Press Release

Date: 11.03.2019
From: The For Britain Movement
Notes: For Immediate Release

For Britain are pleased to announce that Hugh Nicklin has been selected as the party candidate to fight the Newport West by-election, to be held on April the 4th.

Hugh commented: “Newport West deserves better than Labour – and that’s why I’m standing For Britain, a party that is in tune with the public not the Westminster bubble.

For years, Labour and the Tories have failed us, and now with their Brexit incompetence and betrayal, the people of this our great country know for sure that these old parties represent nobody but themselves.

I am a retired teacher, a father, and a lover of rugby! I played for Llangwm and Narberth, a ND AM A qualified W.R.U. referee, as well as previously serving as Vice Chairman of the Welsh Schools’ Cricket Association.

I’m Welsh and know Wales and I will stand up for its decent people of Wales.  No more empty promises from career politicians, For Britain is here to bring long lasting change to politics, ignoring right and left stereotypes.

My priorities are:-

    • Brexit NOW!
    • End mass immigration.
    • End politically correct policing.
    • Protect children.
    • Protect health services.
    • Invest in local infrastructure and job creation.

Hugh Nicklin

Hugh Nicklin
Hugh Nicklin

Further Background on Hugh:

Hugh Nicklin was born in Worcestershire to an English father and a Welsh mother. He attended a state primary school and Worcester Royal Grammar school, and was awarded an Open Scholarship in History to Hertford College, Oxford, in 1961.

After graduating he obtained a Diploma in Education from Oxford University Department of Education. Inspired by the comprehensive ideal, he chose a comprehensive school at random and joined the staff of Fairham Comprehensive School in Nottingham. After a period at Bilborough Mixed Grammar School he was appointed Head of History at Haverfordwest Grammar School in 1973.

He played rugby for Llangwm and Narberth, and cricket for Burton and Haverfordwest. He retained his teaching post under reorganisation, and was Head of History at Tasker Milward VC Comprehensive School from 1978-1990. During that time he worked for school cricket, and was Vice Chairman of the Welsh Schools’ Cricket Association. He was elected a parent governor of the school.

Appalled by the National History Curriculum of 1990, he moved to the independent sector, and was Head of History, Classics and RE, and Boys’ Housemaster at The Downs School, Colwall, until his retirement in 2004. He then lived in the South of France for eleven years, writing two history books and two pantomimes for the local French primary school. Missing teaching he then spent another year as Head of History at a prestigious International School in Bombay.

Hugh now lives in Herefordshire. Up till very recently was Treasurer at a local Village Hall. He is still an active member of local Cricket and Rugby Clubs.


Further Party Information

Anne Marie Waters is available for discussion & interviews of relevant political topics.

Anne Marie Waters is the Leader of the British political party; The For Britain Movement and the author of Beyond Terror: Islam’s slow erosion of Western Democracy. She is a lead figure and voice within the Patriotic and anti-EU arm of British politics. For Britain are the UK’s only serious democratic Populist movement and voice. Anne Marie is in favour of a strong Brexit / NO DEAL, now.

Founder of Sharia Watch, Waters has a deep knowledge and understanding of the operational influence of Sharia Law & Sharia Councils within the UK, plus the growing damaging impact that Islam has on British society, culture and its people; most notably the industrialised rape and damage of young white working class and Sikh girls over the past 30 years (largely ignored by the MSM), to this end she is busy ‘sounding the alarm’.

Please take a look at Anne Marie Waters’ videos on YouTube;


The For Britain Movement is now a proud member M.E.N.F: The Movement for a Europe of Nations & Freedom. It is an alliance of like minded pan-European political parties, many in the European Parliament; it is a group that’s against the creeping power of the current federal Euro-super state.

My name is Ian Mack, I am the Press Officer here at The For Britain Movement, and I would be happy to discuss Anne Marie availability with you.

Ian Mack
Press Officer
For Britain Movement
Tel: 07419 193 878
[email protected]
For the forgotten majority

Newport West by-election

Press Release

Date: 11.03.2019
From: The For Britain Movement
Notes: For Immediate Release

For Britain are pleased to announce that Hugh Nicklin has been selected as the party candidate to fight the Newport West by-election, to be held on April the 4th.

Hugh commented: Newport West deserves better than Labour – and that’s why I’m standing For Britain. A party that is in tune with the public not the Westminster bubble.

For years, Labour and the Tories have failed us, and now with their Brexit incompetence and betrayal. The people of this our great country know for sure that these old parties represent nobody but themselves.

I am a retired teacher, a father, and a lover of rugby! I played for Llangwm and Narberth, a ND AM A qualified W.R.U. referee, as well as previously serving as Vice Chairman of the Welsh Schools’ Cricket Association.

I know Wales and I will stand up for its decent people of Wales.  No more empty promises from career politicians. For Britain is here to bring long lasting change to politics, ignoring right and left stereotypes.

My priorities are:-

Brexit NOW!

  • End mass immigration.
  • End politically correct policing.
  • Protect children.
  • Protect health services.
  • Invest in local infrastructure and job creation.

Hugh Nicklin

Hugh Nicklin
Hugh Nicklin

Brexit Betrayal

MP’s are taking voters for complete idiots.

The REMOANERS want a second EU referendum, even thought the first one has not even been implemented. 30 months after it was held. The choice on ballot paper for a second EU Referendum would be the PM’s Brexit Betrayal or REMAIN.The PM’s Brexit Betrayal will keep us under the control of the EU dictators for evermore, with no exit door.

So the choice would be REMAIN or REMAIN

MP’s are taking voters for complete idiots.

Do the REMOANER MP’s not realise the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit will not be betrayed? At  every opportunity the 17.4 million will vote against all the parties that are trying to overturn Brexit, starting with the local elections on the 2nd of May.

Ten Labour and Tory MP’s have left their parties and have formed a ‘Independent Group’. They all want to keep us IN the EU. So despite their name, they don’t believe in independence of their country.

Some Tory MP’s have formed a ‘Brexit Delivery Group’ but what they want to deliver is the opposite of Brexit, they want us to stay in.

We are living in an Alice in Wonderland world where nothing is what it seems. From the PM down, most of our politicians are lying through their teeth and telling us fairy tales.

‘For Britain’ says we should get out now.If the EU want a free trade deal that is fine. If not, we will trade on WTO tariffs and be £8,000,000,000 a year BETTER off. Which is the equivalent of giving every constituency in the UK  £12 million a year.

Happy days.

Once we are OUT, ‘For Britain’ believes the UK will boom, as we take up all those opportunities that have been denied us, whilst we have been under the control of the EU dictators for the last 46 years.

A ‘No Deal’ Brexit would give UK business the certainty they want. They will know they will be trading on WTO terms, just like they do with most of the rest of the world. If Article 50 is extended it will just extend the uncertainty and that is the last thing that UK business wants.

There is a world of opportunity out there. We should grasp the freedom that we voted for.

Cllr. Brian Silvester.

Brexit Spokesman

‘For Britain’

The For Britain Movement is now here For Wingate

Press Release

Date: 06.03.2019
From: The For Britain Movement
Notes: For Immediate Release

The For Britain Movement is proud to be fielding Local candidate Gareth Fry in the Wingate by-election on the 14th of March. Gareth Fry is a local business man, he lives in the Sedgefield Constituency. He is a former Chief Petty Officer in the Royal Navy. Gareth states he would be proud to serve the people of Wingate if elected onto the Durham County Council”.

On the upcoming election Gareth says:

In the Wingate and Sedgefield constituency, we see the problems that local people face that are ignored. If elected, The local For Britain branch will fight to take on and fix these problems, and in doing so truly represent the decent and working people of this great town.

High taxes, mass immigration, high levels of crime and unemployment are the issues that people are very concerned about. The other old complacent political parties have failed; and now it’s time to put the people of Wingate first. NHS local parking is an unresolved issue as is street littering; unimportant to the establishment perhaps, but important to us the people.

We also believe that people want to see the Brexit vote that was requested delivered upon, and that works that for good of the United Kingdom and its people.

For Britain will work hard to end waste in local government and prioritise ‘value for money’. Un-elected council officials are often paid huge salaries, and as such these people must be held accountable to the public. For Britain will make sure this happens; Public sector accountability is central to our policy. We will introduce a Public Sector Accountability Act; to hold council executives, hospital executives, and police chiefs to greater scrutiny – they must answer to the people.

For Britain offers a genuinely unique political voice and it is not be scared to tackle the sometimes uncomfortable problems and issues that the old parties fear or ignore.

Labour, Step Aside. The 'For Britain' Movement is Here.

The new, replacement for the Labour Party IS HERE! We are the new political party, the movement FOR BRITAIN. We represent the WORKING people of Britain. Join us. —READ OUR MANIFESTO: US:

Posted by For Britain – Media Centre on Tuesday, 25 September 2018

For Britain is happy to engage with the media in discussing on the upcoming Wingate by-election on the number below or [email protected]

Thank you

For Edinburgh

For Edinburgh: We held our first branch meeting in January 2019. After a general discussion, we decided that one way forward for our politics in Scotland would be to start university branches. This would be an effective way to increase our activist base over the medium term.

At present Edinburgh and Glasgow universities have no political groups other than the failing established parties. Hence, we decided to contact the Scottish Family Party (SFP) we have some joint activity in mind. We felt that the family concept was a positive For Britain campaign.

Other branch activities have been: Leafleting of both a Vegan Fair and a European Parliament meeting, also door to door leafleting.

Please take a look at our new Facebook page

Scottish politics – opportunities

For Britain has a real opportunity in Scotland over the next cycle as we have, Community Council elections (Oct 2019) – Scottish parliament elections (May 2021) – Local government elections (May 2022) and as these are held under a form of proportional representation we must stand in them all.

In general, the people are fed up of the same old and they’re ready for a new party, a new party like For Britain.

For Swindon

For Swindon: Last week we had a great meeting in Somerset with For Britain Leader Anne-Marie Waters giving a brilliant speech to a packed venue of members and supporters.


When the audience was asked ‘who would be volunteering as candidates’ there was a very good show of hands, so look out for more news on that and if you would like to stand in elections for us then please let us know. Thanks go to Richard and his team for the venue and a lovely buffet.

Locally, we held a lively meeting in Swindon, the main focus was to elect/re-elect the For Swindon Committee. Members present voted unanimously to re-elect both Ian Baxter as Chairman and Robert Baggs as Secretary.

We also discussed and agreed to organise a social event locally, for members, supporters, friends and families. So if anyone wishes to get involved with that please let us know.

Please take a look at our Facebook page

For Epping Forest

For Epping Forest: We are making great progress in our areas. We are leafleting more than ever and are doing an 8 am session to get into the flats.

Everyone is working together nicely and we feel our tactics are working out.

Last month I mentioned the good work of the other officers, special mention should go to Eddy Butler. His tactical genius and sheer hard work are a real driving force to this branch and we could not have done it without him.

Also, we plan to hold our rally on the 31st of March (see below) and we really hope we can get good attendance for that. Anne Marie will be our main speaker.

March Rally
March Rally – Sunday the 31st. Meeting at Woodford Underground Station.

For Wirral

For Wirral: We have been out delivering leaflets in the Eastham ward of Wirral. We’ve almost covered all of the Mill Park Estate.

We attended the Valentines Charity Ball in aid of Clatterbridge Cancer Centre. Which raised in excess of £10,000 for the charity.

We have continued to feed the homeless every month without fail and continue to donate clothes and toiletries etc.

Homeless care packages
Homeless care packages

Our Chairman Mark attended the candidate training in Warrington and found it very useful.

We have continued to attend GP PPG meetings and are getting stuck into some big issues locally regarding NHS services and their provision. Hot topics are the walk-in centre’s proposed closures and the phlebotomy service.

We have lots more leafleting to do and once again appeal to anyone who may be able to spare us an hour or so to assist us to raise awareness in our area. Please contact me Susan Cooper Branch Secretary.

For Manchester

For Manchester: We have Anne Marie coming to our branch meeting on 25th of March. If you’re interested in attending then please email us at [email protected]

For Britain has appointed Simon Collins as the North West Regional Organiser. Simon said – “Thanks to For Britain for placing their faith in me to take on the role of developing our North West region branch network. Our existing NW branches are well established and proactive, it’s my privilege to be working with them and providing them with the support they need to grow”.

”My first task as NW RO was to organise our NW candidate training event in Warrington last week in preparations for May’s elections. Attendance was great, we filled every seat in the venue. Majority of the attendees have now filled out their Vetting forms and got their Nominations forms ready. Candidates and branches are campaigning ahead of the May elections”.

Please contact Simon if you’d like to set up a branch in the North West, or contact Janet at [email protected].

Simon can be contacted at [email protected]

For Southend on Sea

News Bulletin:


For Southend on Sea: We regularly have a stall in the town centre, we receive positive feedback from the public. We managed to have all the official paperwork completed in a week, we’ll appear on the ballot papers for Milton ward in Southend on Sea on May 2nd.

We will be leafleting with the official party leaflets in the ward next week.

For Somerset

For Somerset: This month the branch has concentrated on holding more social evenings, with meetings in Langport, Bristol, Glastonbury and Yeovil. These were very encouraging and productive with a good number confirming their availability to join in branch leafleting activities. As these evenings develop our aim is to have them regularly in every major populated centre in the county, where we can organise groups who, working together can cover wide areas of what is primarily a large rural county.

Our branch has commissioned a further stock of leaflets and with the additional national message. The leaflets also contain our branch Facebook and email contact details. We need to pay tribute to those who are volunteering and call on others from the branch to join them. The more that join, the quicker we will get the For Britain message out there.

On 12th of February, Anne Marie visited the branch and provided those attending with a truly inspiring evening. A good attendance ensured a useful discussion and Anne Marie’s call for a show of hands of ‘those interested in standing for election‘ produced an encouraging response.

Once again, the buffet was well received with thanks to the committee. We also really appreciate the donations to the branch funds. These truly are the lifeblood which keeps us moving forward.


BBC Big Questions

Statement regarding Anne Marie Waters appearance on today’s BBC Big Questions Programme

I expect little from the BBC, but this was extraordinary even by their standards.  I appeared on BBC One’s ‘Big Questions’ on Sunday and from the moment I walked in, and heard the whispers, I knew what I was in for.  Had I not brought my press officer with me, I would have been completely alone.

Anne Marie Waters BBC The Big Questions
Anne Marie Waters BBC The Big Questions

The audience was packed with people ready to pounce – where does the BBC get this audience from, and was there any attempt to provide balance?  We shall be asking these questions of the BBC very quickly.  I will also be asking why it is that I sat and listened to people slander and smear me, throughout, and was given no right of reply.  I knew I wouldn’t be, so when I heard a lie, I answered it, until apparently my microphone was switched off (I shall be asking the BBC about this as well).  Furthermore, as I didn’t tell anyone I would be appearing, how was it that the audience was so filled with those who would obviously attack me?

I was called a fascist repeatedly, audience members implied that I should be imprisoned – thereby implying I have committed a crime, and an outright lie about For Britain’s manifesto (that it was largely about Islam) was told by a chap just in front of me.  Once again, though my hand was up, no chance to reply.

Mike Killian of the Far Left UAF
Mike Killian of the Far Left UAF

No mention of left-wing extremism

There was no mention of left-wing extremism, or the fact that I had had my life placed in danger by the very lies the BBC allowed to be propagated – I was unable to attend a Parliamentary by-election for my own safety because of left-wing thugs threatening me, and this is the direct result of the BBC’s allowance of smears to go unanswered.  Indeed, the BBC itself participates in those smears.  Every time my party has been mentioned by the BBC, it is referred to as “far-right”.  No evidence is put forward to substantiate this and there is no mention of For Britain’s actual policies – all of which are aimed at empowering the citizen against the state (the opposite of fascism, in other words).

When my life is placed in danger as a result of these lies, so starkly demonstrated by the fact that I cannot attend a hustings for my own safety, the BBC is suddenly uninterested.  Not one mainstream media outlet reported this story, but as soon as someone called Anna Soubry a nasty name, the media screams how something must be done.

I wasn’t allowed to reply for the bulk of the programme, so let me respond here; particularly to the man who said the political right have been taking away people’s rights.  If I’d been able, I would’ve told him how my right, as a Parliamentary candidate, to take part in a hustings event was denied to me, not by the right, but by the extreme and violent left which escapes all analysis or criticism from the mainstream press.

BBC slander

I fully intend to formally ask the BBC why it is that outright lies about me and my fully registered, fully legal political party were allowed on national television, with the leader in the room, but they did not allow that leader to respond.

The mainstream and the left (pretty much the same thing) still don’t understand why people are so angry.  Do they think we can’t see this bias, just because they can’t?  Their gobsmacking arrogance allows them to look down on us, dismiss us; we can’t possibly have an informed argument, we’re “far right” after all.

If this doesn’t stop, if people like me and those who agree with me (and there are millions of us), aren’t allowed to speak in a fair and balanced way, then a real far-right will rise – one that will make Tommy Robinson look like a Sunday school teacher.  When that happens, we’ll all suffer, and the mainstream media will be entirely to blame.


Anne Marie Waters,

Leader of the For Britain Movement

Policing Poetry

A docker from Hull likes a tweet which contains a poem about transgender issues. Someone complains to the police. A police officer rings the man’s employer and subsequently has a conversation with the docker, who is, apparently, an ex-policeman.
The police officer confirms the docker has committed no crime and that the matter will be recorded as a “hate incident”. The police officer tells the docker he is concerned about what he may be thinking. Hence 1984 truly arrives in our politically correct world, the police are now interested in “wrong think”.

To me, one alarming fact to arise from this is that the police officer says he has been on a course where he was taught that in the womb, brains and bodies can develop different sexes and that is where transgender issues arise. I do not even know if this is true, but what on earth is going on. In my days as a trainee police officer, we were taught about rape, murder, burglary and the like. It seems that policing has got a lot more complex and nebulous.

The problem starts with the fact that the police pay any attention to social media at all. It is not the real world yet seems to get a disproportionate amount of what these days is a very scarce resource.

Personally, I deplore the perversion of police priorities that has emerged in the last 20 years. No wonder the public are losing faith in the police when they will not even investigate a domestic burglary but have the time and resources to pursue none hate crime. I feel a certain amount of shame as the force involved was the one I retired from.

To use a rather pejorative phrase sometimes used in my day “Have they got nothing better to do?”

For Britain would abolish the concept of hate crime and concentrate on policing that matters to the public.

Mike Speakman

Mike Speakman is a retired Deputy Chief Constable and policing spokesman for the For Britain Movement.

Poll Tax on Wheels

Press Release

Friday 25th January 2019

Labour is once again declaring war on taxpayers – from 2021 the Ultra Low Emissions Charge will extend to the whole of London. Drivers will be charged £12.50 per day to drive in outer London, and £24 in the city centre.

The first stage of the scheme — called the Ultra Low Emission Zone, or Ulez — comes into effect on April 8, covering the current Congestion Zone.

Drivers of pre-2015 diesels and petrol vehicles made before 2006 will have to pay the tax. There will be no exemptions or discounts for residents, or relaxation of the rules at weekends.

The environmental impact is believed by some experts to be minimal, so Labour is once again latching on to trendy schemes based in ideology rather than the best interests of the people, and punishing the working people making their way in to London.

For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters says: “Labour is again hitting the poorest hardest in schemes that are unlikely to have any significant impact on the environment. We want a clean environment but this is not the way to go about it.   We would scrap all green taxes on fuel but improve public transport, encourage cycling, plant more trees, retain open spaces, give incentives to change from diesel cars etc. Taxing the working public once again is not the answer”.




Make Teesside Airport Part of a Joined-up Transport Plan for The Tees Valley

Press Release

Wednesday January 23rd 2019

Teesside Council has backed plans to bring the local airport back in to public ownership. The purchase of the airport will be part of Tees Valley Investment Plan for 2019-2029. For Britain supports this positive move. We have further suggestions on what action is needed in the interests of local people.

For Britain’s suggestions for transport in the Tees Valley:

    • Introduce a Road Rail Container Depot on the industrial land at Teesside Airport;
    • Take away freight transport from Teesport, one of the busiest ports in the country;
    • Replace an unused railway station with a metro style drop of point at the airport;
    • Move the proposed New Tees Crossing close to Yarm, along with a new A19 bypass, which will reduce congestion and accidents close to Teesside and make the airport readily accessible, both from the A19 and the A1;
    • Teesside airport makes an ideal location for distribution of containers and collection from manufacturing facilities across the Tees Valley;

Kevin Brack of The For Britain Movement, a new centre right party, along with the leader Anne Marie Waters (who this week came out in support of the “Save Teesside Airport” group), said future For Britain candidates will also back the new plans and will work with Save Teesside Airport candidates to support them.


Kevin Brack,

For Britain


Pro-Remain Bias Exposed in Treatment of Anna Soubry

Press release

Tuesday 8th January 2019

The furore surrounding verbal abuse issued towards Conservative MP Anna Soubry has once again revealed the staggering pro-Remain and pro open border bias of mainstream politicians and media.

Soubry was reportedly labelled a “Nazi” by protesters outside Parliament.  While obviously upsetting for her, this insult mirrors those routinely hurled at Brexit campaigners, and anti mass migration parties, without a murmur of protest from establishment politicians or press.  Indeed, our leader has been deliberately mis-contextualised and misrepresented by both mainstream press and opposing politicians, who characterise our party as “far-right” without ever offering a morsel of evidence that this is the case.

As a result of such untruths, Anne Marie Waters, For Britain’s leader, was unable to attend a hustings event during a Parliamentary by-election in London for her own safety.  The mainstream media however found this unworthy of reporting at the time.

For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters says “the deliberate lies espoused by the media and mainstream politics about our party not only mislead the great British public, but they potentially place our party activists in danger.  The mainstream has knowingly led the British public to believe we are racist or fascist, when there is simply no evidence to support this.  There is no condemnation of these smears however, and certainly no police investigation.  Once again, the extreme and obvious bias of mainstream politics towards pro-Remain or pro open border activists has revealed its ugly face”.


For Britain Movement 

For Britain’s response to Home Affairs Select Committee Report

Press Release

The For Britain Movement agrees with the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee. This government has been slowly dismantling the police service to the point where it is almost not fit for purpose. The government are in denial of the problem they have created.

Mike Speakman, a former Deputy Chief Constable said:

“I deplore the way this government is treating the police service. Officer numbers are the lowest they have been for decades.

Police officers are demoralised and exhausted. Police forces have largely abandoned policing the streets of this country and violent gangs have replaced them in many of our cities.  At the same time the Home Office have made the police divert scarce patrols to the policing of social media trivia.

Some people that you meet are quietly voicing concerns that it is only a matter of time before vigilante gangs fill the law enforcement vacuum that has been created. For Britain would restore police numbers to at least 2010 levels.  The government needs to recognise the crisis that it has created and deal with it immediately.”

Contact: [email protected]

Letter to Stephen Bannon from For Britain

A letter to Stephen Bannon from For Britain regarding ‘The Movement’.

Dear Mr Bannon

I was very interested to see that you are setting up a foundation in Brussels entitled ‘The Movement’ to support patriotic, anti-establishment groups.

I am the Leader of the For Britain Movement which was registered with the Electoral Commission earlier this year, and we are a part of the patriotic movement that believes in leaving the EU without any further delay, freezing immigration and ending multiculturalism.

Our policies and manifesto can be read on our web site

We believe in nation-state democracy, we believe in individual countries, with their own identities and their own borders, as the only safeguard against unaccountable tyrannical government.

We believe that leaving the EU is not in itself sufficient, and that the future of liberty in Europe depends upon the EU being dismantled and the nation-state restored.

We therefore campaign for the EU to be abolished so that all the citizens of Europe can be set free. We believe this is not only in the best interests of mainland Europe, but the best interests of the United Kingdom as well.

We are also out-spoken and honest critics of Islam and the threat it poses to our freedoms both today and tomorrow.

We already have thousands of members and supporters and that number is growing fast; particularly in light of the recent Brexit Betrayal by Prime Minister Theresa May.

We have stood candidates in local elections in May and I stood in the recent Parliamentary by-election in Lewisham. The hustings event for that by-election was shut down by a howling, feral left-wing mob who were afraid to let me speak as they are aware that I will tell the truth about what is happening in Britain today.

I am very interested in meeting with you to discuss any potential collaboration. Democratic and free speech parties are on the rise in Europe and we intend to fill that current gap in Britain (the ‘first past the post’ electoral system increases the difficulties faced by new parties in Britain).

We would be delighted to discuss and contribute to any plans to take on the establishment elite across Europe and more practically, to take their seats in our Parliaments.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Maire Waters

Leader of the For Britain Movement

‘My day at the historic Durham Miners Gala’ by Jeff Wyatt

I was delighted to accept the local For Britain branch Chairman Mr Kevin Bracks kind invitation to spend a day experiencing the Durham Miners’ Gala.  Here’s what happened..

I have been vaguely aware as a southerner for years of the annual Miners Union festival in Durham City. I was delighted to accept the local For Britain branch Chairman Mr Kevin Bracks kind invitation to spend a day experiencing it and at the same time meeting and speaking to local For Britain supporters.

I had no idea that the modern day Marxist leaning Labour Party had attempted to hi-jack the event.

I departed Milton Keynes very early in the morning with my trusted branch secretary Bill and stalwart local member Kevin on board. Expecting to be welcomed by the good people of the North-East to their lovely old Town at their well-known public event celebrating their Mining heritage.

Arriving in Durham

Indeed, we were welcomed by the vast majority we met. I saw with my own eyes tens of thousands of people enjoying the hot sunny day and the marvellous spectacle of marching bands and the brightly coloured Miners Union and other organisations banners. I am told some 200,000 people attended. I believe it. England at its best.

I met up with local Kevin and our supporters outside the magnificent and humbling Durham Cathedral on the grassed square. Fortunately we had a little spare time and Kevin escorted me around the inside of the Cathedral where he pointed out the 975 AD memorial to St Cuthbert and the facts his ancestors were imprisoned there a few Centuries ago ! Marvellous to see it. Literally touching the 1000 years history that has created our lovely Country.

Just before I started a brief speech to our supporters I became aware that there was now a bigger Police presence with us and that apparently they had banned us from walking to “the Field” where I now know the marching bands etc. gather. Kevin and Colin the locals who invited me up, then walked us all over to a nearby memorial to the local soldiers that had received the Victoria Cross since the mid-19th Century. Colin gave some moving words and recounted the tale of one those men, a Mr Annand, who Colin had the privilege of meeting.

Pub time

Our group started to go our separate ways. I walked up to the Police Inspector in charge and asked him what we can and cannot do. I explained I was from down south with some colleagues at the invitation of some locals and I would be really unimpressed if I had to leave without seeing the famous festival. He relented and was happy for us to proceed if we broke up the now smaller contingent in two and didn’t wave our flags on the way to the pub just down the hill. This I was happy to comply with. Walk to the pub we did, where cool refreshments were consumed.

Upon leaving The Library Pub we opened up our flags a mixture of the Union Jack. The Royal Standard (appropriately held by one of the ex-soldiers) and a For Britain flag. Within a few yards of proceeding, Katie’s Union Jack was spat on by a middle aged female Labourite. I did not see the incident myself. But that was shocking enough. Apparently some passers-by had a serious word with that despicable lady spitting on her country’s flag.

Main street of Durham

We then walked up the beautiful main street of Durham calmly waving our flags. Thousands upon thousands of people, the vast majority of whom were quite happy to let us do our thing. The very essence of being an Englishman in our free and pleasant land. We had a couple of sneery glances yes. But these were easily dwarfed by the odd “good on you” “nice to see it” comments from the crowd.

At the top of the street a Scottish marching band were having their bag-pipes tuned. We stopped and awaited their loud march down the street. A fantastic sight and sound. The personification of over 300 years of Union with the Scots.

Things then turned a touch tense. I was at the head of our group. An elderly man looked at my Union Jack flag, looked at me, and then felt it acceptable to aggressively brand me a fascist. I walked on saying something like “you don’t know what you are talking about mate”. Then several more members of the public started hurling abuse at me and the flag. The “Field” was rammed with tens of thousands of people. I was listening to some speeches coming from the stage, sounded left wing to me, but that’s fine. Nothing wrong with listening to those that do not quite see the World like yourself.

Jeff holding his Union Jack high
Jeff holding his Union Jack high

We all had no intention of causing trouble, no intention of shouting or even speaking to others. We simply wanted to attend the public event and show our flags, like everybody else.

Then the Police arrived

The Police then arrived. I had a perfectly calm conversation with the Inspector I think he was. He then said the words to me that I will never forget.

“Sir if you go down into the Field you will cause a riot waving that flag”

I turned back as instructed by him. My companions for the day including let me make it clear, two obviously retired soldiers were also then asked to leave. I then said to the Inspector or something close to “do you realise how fundamental what you have just said is”

Police Officer sting people are not allowed to fly a Union Jack at the Durham Miners' Gala
Police Officer sting people are not allowed to fly a Union Jack at the Durham Miners’ Gala


I was brought up to trust the Police would defend an Englishman’s right to wave his Country’s flag to the hilt. Apparently not, when some foul mouthed Marxist inspired (Corbyn and McDonnell) yobs decide you must go.

We were then officially told by the Police to leave the City at once.

Durham Miners Gala
Told to leave Durham Miners Gala

We were as a group escorted out of the City in front of the bewildered good people of Durham.


Lewisham East by-election

On June 12th the southern colleagues of these abusive left wingers made it impossible for the For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters to attend a Public debate in the lead up to the Lewisham East by-election. Why? Because the Metropolitan Police despite knowing full well in advance that the Labour Party / Momentum encouraged rabble would be turning up, did nothing, did not see it as their sacred duty to allow the fulfilment of the democratic process to take place. Easier just to shut the meeting down on the pretence of “public safety”. Please note I have to date not received a response to my Open letter to Met Police Commissioner Miss Dick . Nor has the Party a response to our official formal complaint sent about this appalling snub to free speech.

I have seen with my own eyes within a matter of weeks now how the modern day British Police deem it appropriate to dismiss, shut down and frustrate the lawful goings on of a newly formed centrerist political party named The For Britain Movement.

This is what is happening right here, right now.

Jeff Wyatt

For Britain

Tories join cowardly Labour and refuse to face awkward questions

The extreme-Left “Antifa” pretend I pose a threat-to-the-peace at the by-election hustings in Lewisham East.  The only threat I pose is to weak career politicians, the only threat to peace comes from “Antifa”.  

Lewisham East by-election hustings

I had an interesting conversation with a journalist today. She asked about the threat-to-the-peace my presence poses at the upcoming Lewisham East by-election hustings. There is a a threat, as I explained to her. “Those of us who point out uncomfortable truths about Islam and mass immigration face regular threats. Most of which comes from a violent extreme Left egged on by a smearing press.”

An article in a local Lewisham newspaper reveals the Orwellian absurdity of the entire affair. Referring to hustings held during the general election of 2015, when I also stood in Lewisham East, writer Bridie Witton declares that “Discussions were moderated by a chairman and she did not cause any problems”. Quite right, I didn’t cause any problems.  It was me who had police protection on the night.  As far as I’m aware, nobody needed police protection from me.    


The feral thugs of the hard left-wing have tried to obstruct the meetings of my party on many occasions. By intimidating venues and threatening physical disruption. I have never done this. When was the last time an ‘Antifa’ meeting was cancelled because of threats from For Britain? Or anyone else on their fantasy “far-right”?

I’ve seen the hatred of these thugs up-close on more than one occasion, and in Denmark I saw them launch an unprovoked violent attack on Tommy Robinson. At every out-door rally I’ve attended, I’ve seen police attention directed towards protecting us from fascist “anti-fascists”, often masked and quite possibly with hidden weapons.  

By contrast, I have never stood at the side of the road shouting at people. I’ve never tried to get a venue cancelled, and never had a person barred from a democratic hustings. I do however need private security, I’ve had police at my door assessing my safety. I’ve had death threats. All because “anti-fascists” and their complicit media continue to mislead the public with articles comprised of little less than fiction.  

Conservative party candidate

A second journalist today informed me that the Conservative party candidate in Lewisham will join with Labour and boycott the hustings. How frightened they must be. Here, of course, is the real threat I pose – the threat to the career politicians and their well-rehearsed soundbites. Politicians who have no answers to the questions I raise, or for their parties’ repeated failures.

A major policy area to For Britain is crime, and as we all know, crime is exploding. Murder rates in London are at shocking levels (rising 44% in just one year), and violent crime reports have increased by 67.9% in Lewisham since 2012.

This is the result of a Conservative government that has decimated police numbers since it came to power in 2010 (while continuing to send billions abroad).

In London, even with crime levels so high, Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan utilises 900+ police officers for ‘hate crime’. Where they dedicat time to cases involving subjective ‘offence’ and to recording incidents that do not event amount to crimes.
Labour and the Conservatives have failed, time and again. They fail in their basic duty to keep our people safe.  Now, they refuse to turn up to a public event and answer to their voters. They assume they don’t need to.

Inability to enter in to debate

What they reveal is their utter inability to enter in to robust debate, or to defend the record of their party. My presence may force them to answer one or two rather awkward questions, and they’re not up to it. They’re not up to the job.
I will be there. To representing my party, to represent my supporters, and to represent the millions of decent Britons the length and breadth of our country who are sick and tired of cowardly career politicians, bullying leftists, and smearing journalists.
We will tell them the truth, as we always do, and hold our heads high as we claim our democratic rights.

Cowardly Labour duck out of debate

So it seems that Janet Daby, the Labour Party candidate for Lewisham East, has decided not to attend the hustings organised for Tuesday next week. I’m not even remotely surprised.

Janet Daby could, instead of mindlessly smearing me as ‘far-right’ (in order to get the applause she seeks), engage with me in honest debate. That she won’t, is evidence that she can’t, and there are many reasons why.

If the Labour candidate had the courage to show up next week, I would ask her why it is that a Labour-dominated area like Lewisham continues to suffer such high levels of poverty. Why are Lewisham’s children so failed in education, why is homelessness and child poverty so prevalent in Lewisham? She has no answer, that’s why she’s decided not to turn up.


What if I asked her about the crippling debts placed upon the NHS by the Labour Party? PFI arrangements have financially crushed many hospitals, such that they will spend a generation merely paying off the interest. Labour did this to the NHS, why?

Why also did Labour bring private corporations (like Virgin) in to the health service? Why did Labour introduce competition? Daby will not answer these questions because she can’t; the Labour Party is the problem.

Instead of facing me as an MP should be expected to, Daby has decided to play the victim and virtue-signal card. That’s all she’s got.

Where are your Answers?

She has no answer as to the state of the country. She has no answer to crime, to poverty, to educational underachievement. Nothing. But she’ll pretend, and she’ll portray her cowardice as virtue, by refusing to ‘share a platform’.  Will she refuse to share a platform with those who support the Lewisham Islamic Centre (see here)?  Of course not, no doubt she’ll praise them to the hilt.

Janet Daby has told the people of Lewisham that she is too busy for them. As a back-up, she’s decided that not ‘sharing a platform’ will do.

This is pathetic. We live in a democracy, but instead of facing her public, Daby and the Labour Party will continue to ignore us.

We can only change this when we vote to change it. Vote. Vote For Britain.

Morrissey Endorses For Britain Lewisham East Candidate

Morrissey endorses For Britain

In an interview with author and blogger Fiona Dodwell, on 5th June, singer songwriter Morrissey of ‘The Smiths’ fame once again threw his weight behind the patriotic centre-ground party For Britain.

The singer this time endorsed the candidacy of Anne Marie Waters. The For Britain candidate in the upcoming Lewisham by-election, stating: “It is the first time in my life that I will vote for a political party. Finally I have hope. I find the Tory-Labour-Tory-Labour constant switching to be pointless. For Britain has received no media support and have even been dismissed with the usual childish ‘racist’ accusation. I don’t think the word ‘racist’ has any meaning anymore, other than to say

“you don’t agree with me, so you’re a racist. ” People can be utterly, utterly stupid.”

Morrissey then went on to call the For Britain leader a ‘humane version of Thatcher’, saying:

“Anne Marie Waters seeks open discussion about all aspects of modern Britain, whereas other parties will not allow diverse opinion. She is like a humane version of Thatcher … if such a concept could be. She is absolute leadership, she doesn’t read from a script, she believes in British heritage, freedom of speech, and she wants everyone in the UK to live under the same law.”

Anne Marie Waters and Lewisham East

Anne Marie Waters stood in Lewisham East in 2015 and came third. Before that, she campaigned to Save Lewisham Hospital during her time in the Labour Party. The former Labour Party candidate’s slogan, on her leaflets and mobile billboards roaming the constituency:

‘I Left Labour, So Can You’

Morrissey endorsed Waters during her campaign to become the next leader of UKIP.  Then after the launch of her new political party, The ‘For Britain’ Movement.  For Britain campaigns not just for Brexit, but to bring down the entire European Union, temporarily freeze immigration and deport illegal immigrants, speak honestly about the impact of Islam on society, and to make the public sector more accountable.

Along with a policy to ban all religious slaughter and enhance animal welfare, Anne Marie Waters proposes making chief executives of public services like the NHS, and local councils, more accountable. Her party believes in giving local people the power to sack chief executives who do not do their job.

Anne Marie Waters reaction

When speaking about Morrissey’s endorsement of her party, Waters said:

“I’m honoured to have the support of one of Britain’s most talented singers.  Morrissey, thank you for being brave enough to say what needs to be said. Thank you for being a champion of the regular, hard-working British people, and thank you for being a champion for animals. You are always welcome on the campaign trail.”

For more information about For Britain and Anne Marie Waters’ campaign, visit

Remember: Morrissey endorses For Britain!

My response to the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign

The Save Lewisham Hospital campaign has posted questions for all candidates in the up-coming Parliamentary by-election.  Here is my response.

1. Can you tell us anything you have done to save the NHS, in Lewisham or in your local area and nationally.

It was campaigning for the NHS that first brought me in to politics. I worked in the health service for several years and was active in Unison, helping members with employment law issues. As secretary of the South London branch of Keep Our NHS Public, I was heavily involved in campaigning to Save Lewisham Hospital in 2013.

2. What do you intend to do to protect Lewisham Hospital and our community services if elected to Parliament?

One of my absolute priorities is to make sure that the NHS works for local people, as well as the entire public sector. For Britain campaigns for accountability from hospital chief executives, and we want full transparency of how Lewisham Hospital’s money is being spent; it must be spent on patients, not bureaucracy. We will fight so that public sector waste and inefficiency is brought under control and our core services are protected.

3. Do you think there are particular problems facing women and BAME communities as patients in Lewisham, and also as NHS staff in Lewisham and elsewhere, where women and people from BAME communities form a very large part of the total workforce? What do you intend to do about these issues?

All people are having problems obtaining decent services, because the services are not being run efficiently – that is where the problem is, and that is what we need to fix. All local people should be able to rely on a public sector and an NHS that works. All employees must be supported, paid enough to live on (not just survive), and senior managment accountable for their decisions. This is how we will bring change and save the NHS.

4. The campaign has campaigned successfully on the issue of children’s and young people’s mental health; the elderly population in Lewisham is growing significantly. What are your views on developing social care and supporting mental health services.

Mental health is a vital but often over-looked part of our overall health. For Britain is committed to greater funds for mental health and services for the elderly. Protection of children is at the very heart of our work, and this is why we want an end to the blind eye that is so often turned to terrible abuses of children in the name of religion or culture. This must stop. All children, regardless of race or religion, must have the equal protection of the law and social services – who must be fully staffed and funded as priority.

5. The NHS is rapidly being privatized. What are your views on restoring a publicly funded and run NHS i.e. getting rid of internal markets and privatization of the NHS. How do you think the NHS should be funded.

The NHS should be funded by a national insurance as it is now. The problems of the health service do not stem from this. The problem is the market that was introduced by the Labour Party. Which brought private money and giant corporations in to the NHS to make profits from public money. Labour also saddled hospitals with massive debts thanks to PFI – Labour has spectacularly failed the NHS, time and again. The NHS should be publicly funded, publicly run, and publicly accountable.


Anne Marie Waters to stand in Lewisham East

Anne Marie Waters, leader of the ‘For Britain’ Movement, has today announced her candidacy in the Lewisham East by-election.

Waters previously contested the seat for UKIP in 2015, achieving 9.1% of the vote and beating the Liberal Democrats and Greens. The constituency, a safe seat for decades, has been consistently let down by an increasingly extremist Labour Party. Waters intends to give local people the opportunity to show Labour what they really think of them.

Amidst news that the Labour Party candidate is likely to be a Momentum-backed, far-left ideologue, Waters said:

“I want to champion the working people of Lewisham East who have been taken for granted and used for votes by the Labour Party time and time again. This is a party that is becoming increasingly more focused on faux outrage and social engineering, than it is on righting the wrongs inflicted upon the working and middle-class people of this country. The people who get out of the bed in the morning, take the kids to school, go to work, and come home late at night.”

“Not only will I give a voice to the Labour voters left behind by their party, but I want to tell the 30.7% of people who didn’t vote last time that their opinion does matter. I want to speak to everybody in Lewisham, and show them that a new kind of politics is possible. We can beat corrupt politicians who don’t care about the average voter if we are brave enough to stand up to them.”

Waters, a former member and activist for the Labour Party, founded the For Britain Movement in late 2017, with a view to challenging the Labour Party’s grip on working class voters.

In its manifesto, For Britain calls for a significant reduction in immigration, for equal policing and justice regardless of skin colour, for a full national investigation into child grooming and abuse, and the deportation of foreign criminals. For Britain also goes beyond the typical Brexit narrative, calling for the total destruction of the European Union, and greater accountability for politicians and police chiefs.

“The For Britain campaign in Lewisham begins now” Anne Marie Waters said today. “Our party is prepared to stand our ground, stand up to corrupt politicians, and demand that voters have greater control over the direction our country takes.”



For Britain website:

For Britain manifesto:


What has happened to the police?

We probably all realise that there is a crisis of policing in this country. It’s been building for many years but what is driving it and where did it come from?

Policing from the 60s

First a bit about me, I joined Merseyside police in 1968 and did the foot patrol that all bobbies of that era went through. I was in the front line for the Toxteth riots and the Messenger dispute as well as the “Winter of discontent” in the late seventies. I rose through the ranks and eventually transferred to another force before retiring as Deputy Chief Constable.

The crisis in policing is all down to the war between the police and the Tory party. I would tentively trace its origins back to the 1960s. There was an interlude during the Thatcher years where policing experienced a golden age. Numbers expanded and pay and conditions improved. However it seems there was some lingering resentment amongst Tories and the knives were out, particularly for the Chief Officer ranks.

Policing has always had to manage a fine line between accountability and independence. Politicians have always wanted to control the police and there are some embarrassing examples in the fifties where Chief Constables were too close to their governing bodies called “Watch Committees” and some people went to prison. The job of chief officers has always been to keep politicians at arms length yet at the same time recognising that they have to be accountable. Traditionally police chiefs fiercely defended their independence and this annoyed Tory politicians in particular.

One of the jobs of Chief Officers was to juggle the competing demands for policing. Businesses, Traffic, Residential communities, Minority groups, politicians…all demanded services from the police and the priorities used to be determined by Chief Officers who listened to everyone.

In the 1990’s

In the 1990’s the government decided to set a police target for domestic burglary because they believed the police did not give sufficient priority to it. The police responded with more resources into this crime. Some time later I met a local MP who complained the police did not pay enough attention to business crime (he owned several which were vulnerable). I told him that his government had told us to concentrate on domestic burglary and he shouldn’t really complain when we did what we were told by his government. He was unhappy with this response and made a complaint about me.

This was the start of the rot, government set more and more targets and actually distorted what would have been a more local response to local issues. The targets never encompassed everything the police did and indeed there was never a target for murder. The focus on crime ignored that the bulk of police work is not crime related. The lesson is that politicians should keep out of directing police activity particularly when they have a conflict of interest as many of them do. Several Tory MPs described Chief Constables as “The last of the robber barons”. What they meant was that they couldn’t control them.

Conservative Government Policy

Successive Tory Governments tried various means to bring the police under political control, sometimes the police fought them off and this caused more resentment. We now have politicised police forces where they are accountable to party political Police and Crime Commissioners. The Tories have abolished the Chief Police Officers association and indeed anyone who wants to become a Chief Officer has to be approved by the Home office.

Theresa May as the most disastrous Home secretary ever, has literally decimated the police service. She has undermined the credibility of senior officers in a planned campaign and successfully sacked some police chiefs. She has prevented effective policing by curtailing the use of “stop and search” in order to appease minority groups. They have outsourced and privatised many policing services. Most Police helicopters have been scrapped. None of this is an “austerity issue”. There is plenty of money to fund policing if they chose to.   Is there a hidden agenda? I believe the Tory plan is to weaken and discredit the Police so the public will accept the privatisation of policing. The ongoing war reaches the occasional peak for example with Plebgate and Damian Green. Such events reinforce the perception that each side is out to get the other.

This blog is getting too long. Where does it lead me?

My response to all this is:

  1. Get rid of Police and Crime Commissioners and restore the independence of Chief Constables.
  2. Make police accountable to locally elected police boards.
  3. Prohibit the outsourcing and privatisation of all policing roles. Reverse those that have occurred.
  4. Improve the preventative role of the police, for example by restoring stop and search practices.
  5. Increase police numbers beyond 1995 levels and introduce a formula based on population size.
  6. Cease using the police to police social media.
  7. Reinstate the commitment to beat policing.

I could go on, there is much wrong with the criminal justice system, but that maybe best left for another time.

By Mike Speakman

The Women’s March and Modern ‘Feminism’

Modern ‘feminism’.

A lot was written about the absurd “Women’s March” that took place in Washington last year. Feminists from across the world bravely came together to protest against a man who has done nothing at all to women’s rights. They did so in “solidarity” with a religion that openly practices female slavery and gets away with it.

Women’s March

The organiser of the “Women’s March” is a Saudi apologist who praises the very sharia law that ensures women in countries like Saudi Arabia are kept as property. Even so, Islamist Linda Sarsour led a group of gullible, privileged, clueless feminists though the US capital. Every bearded jihadi on the planet must have been laughing at that one, while the woman who suffers his oppression was told that Western feminists not only don’t care about her, but are actually marching in his favour.

Vida Movahed antihijab real women's march in Iran
Vida Movahed anti-hijab protester on a real women’s march in Iran

The stupid women’s march aside, something else that caught my eye in the weeks since it took place has confirmed to me that modern feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with women’s rights. In fact, it threatens them. Feminism is now the enemy of women.

Feminists have decided not only to support the world’s most misogynistic religion, they also offer unwavering support to male-female transsexuals, once again at the expense of actual women (no, not “cis” women).

Firstly, my attention was drawn to an article by someone called Marie Solis. Solis objects rather strenuously to the “pussy hats” worn by those protesting against the Presidency of Donald Trump. She objects to this because recognising the vagina as part of the female, excludes transsexuals. Transsexuals don’t have a vagina is the ‘thinking’, so vaginas are incorrect. According to some of today’s feminists, vaginas are offensive. This is what she wrote: “While clever, pussy hats set the tone for a march that would focus acutely on genitalia at the expense of the transgender community. Signs like “Pussy power,” “Viva la Vulva” and “Pussy grabs back” all sent a clear and oppressive message to trans women, especially: having a vagina is essential to womanhood”. These people have clearly lost all connection with objective reality.

A second article I read was an objection to this insanity, and alerted me to even greater insanity. Charles Rae wrote a piece entitled ‘Women are being told their bodies are hate speech’ and in it referred to tweets she’d found referencing the Women’s March. One such tweet asked “do y’all silly cis white women not get how problematic your vagina signs are???”. So the bodies of actual women now represent something problematic – is this feminism?

Even worse, ‘lesbians don’t have penises’ or ‘women don’t have penises’ was deemed “transphobic”, and a reference to FGM (female genital mutilation) was labelled “cissexist”. My favourite one though is this: Planned Parenthood presents itself as a feminist organisation “founded on the revolutionary idea that women should have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams — no ceilings, no limits”. Nice words, but I was stunned by a tweet the group sent regarding the so-called tampon tax. In it, Planned Parenthood referred to women as “menstruators”. Menstruators! Just imagine the feminist meltdown if Donald Trump referred to women as “menstruators”.

Furthermore, what happened to all those years of work real feminists did to inform the world that a woman is a human being and not a walking uterus? But to accommodate transsexuals, the feminists have decided that all of that was meaningless, and we can in fact be referred to as “menstruators” after all.

It gets even worse.

Rae also points us to a “safe sex guide” issued by a group known as the Human Rights Campaign. In this one, we learn about the “front hole” of a woman. This, they say, is the “word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina”. In other words, actual women have now been designated “front holes”. Meanwhile, transsexuals are granted the word vagina for themselves. Vagina is now the “word to talk about the genitals of trans women who have had bottom surgery”.

Barack Obama, the President who cared so much about women that he wanted Americans to experience the cultural enrichment of mass immigration from the most woman-hating societies on earth, set about opening up girls’ bathrooms to anyone who said they were female.  I personally know American women who objected to this, but the feminists don’t care. The opinions of women have nothing to do with feminism. That’s so last century.

Here in Britain, the British Medical Association (i.e. not some looney left fringe group) issued guidance requesting that pregnant women no longer be referred to as “expectant mothers” but “pregnant people”. The word “mother” may be offensive to transsexuals you see. Whether an actual expectant mother is offended by being referred to as a “pregnant person” is of no significance whatsoever. Who cares if actual women are offended? Certainly not feminists. The guidance booklet also states “there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant”.

I have been back and forward on this issue. I’m a lesbian and I have known a few transsexuals in my time, and I’ve liked them. In fact, my guess is that it isn’t transsexuals themselves making these demands, but ridiculous ‘feminists’ on their behalf.

I have sympathy for people who genuinely believe they live in the wrong body, but my sympathy starts to wane when I am labelled a “menstruator” with a “front hole”. My sympathy also wanes when actual women’s concerns about sharing private spaces with men are dismissed, and women’s views ignored. I have almost no sympathy left however when I and everyone else is asked to alter objective realities in the public space to accommodate someone else’s desire to change their sex.

The definition of language

The importance of objective truth, and clear definition of language, is beyond measure. Without clear, defined, and objective language, society is chaos. The law is built on objective language for example, without it, there is no law enforcement possible. Without objectivity, there is no solid ground to stand on, there is no truth and no lie, everything is what we want it to be. It is entirely destructive (likely why it is so popular on the Left).

Some things change and so eventually some definitions change.   Some things however do not change, we merely pretend they do, and we alter objective reality to accommodate this pretence. Here is some objective reality – men do not become pregnant, women do. Objective reality number two – men do not have vaginas, women do. That the British Medical Association talks about “pregnant men” is frankly frightening, and indicative of how far from reality and truth we have drifted.

The just treatment of women is far more important than ‘feminism’. A society where men hold a violent hand of authority over women is a dark one, where children grow up witnessing the constant humiliation of their mothers. This is not healthy, and it is not the direction we should be heading in. (It is not a coincidence either that the most unjust, brutal, dysfunctional, and often poverty-stricken countries in the world – where child-rape and mutilation are the norm – are the ones in which women have no say).

Feminists today have decided to defer to misogynists at a time when women’s rights need immediate defence. If it isn’t Muslim immigration threatening us, we have Western misogynists who take every opportunity to blame all of the world’s problems on us (how original), and to top it off, we have a ‘feminism’ movement that has decided that bringing Islamic rape culture to the West is more important than protecting women from it. They’ve decided too to insult our bodies, demean our genitals, and hand over female private spaces to any man who wants access. As a lifelong feminist, my disgust for this behaviour, and this betrayal of women, has made even me despise the very word.

This is occurring because when real feminists in the West achieved their goal of equal rights, they went away and got on with enjoying them. What was left behind was a vacuum that would be filled by inept whining children with no idea of the importance of what they were dealing with. All schooled in Social Justice Warriorism 101 – ‘if it ain’t white, it must be alright’ – they rode on the coattails of feminists while simultaneously destroying their legacy.

I take no pleasure in writing any of this, but it has to be said. Third-wave feminism is a poison that has elevated all other considerations over and above those of actual women. They are the new misogynists, the enemy to me and any woman (or man) who wants to live in a free, just, and democratic society.