Police in Barrow are Lying

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

Police in Barrow are Lying

Sunday May 24th 2020

 

That may be a provocative headline, but I stand by it.  I know from bitter experience that reports of “Asian” grooming gangs have been made in that town, and little to nothing was done.  The police reacted with obfuscation and lies on that occasion, there’s no reason to think they’re not doing it again.

Let’s get the “Asian” aspect out of the way.  We know what is meant by “Asian” in the UK.  It means Muslim.  I recall from my own encounter in Barrow-in-Furness, “Turkish looking” was the description given.  It makes no difference what part of the Muslim world they come from; its the Muslim element that is relevant and therefore the Muslim element that is deliberately ignored.

Now lets get on with the story.

I needed to search my memory for this, and my computer, and while I found the article I wrote at the time, and some emails, it’s imperfect, so I’ll do my best to describe it as accurately as I can.

First the current situation; social media has been alight over the weekend with a story concerning a young woman (Ellie) in the northern town of Barrow-in-Furness, who posted pictures of herself with her body covered in bruises and injuries, claiming to have been raped.

She said she had been trafficked and prostituted across the north of England by “Asian” gangs, a description very similar to the testimony of previous victims.  She has since been arrested and charged with perverting the course of justice and remanded in custody to appear before Magistrates in June.  The 19 year old claimed the abuse had gone on for some years and she has received the support of former police whistleblower Maggie Oliver, who is clear that she believes the young woman’s account.

I know nothing of this individual case, however I am willing to go out on a limb and say that I am inclined to believe her too.  If I am wrong, I will admit as much, but as it stands, I believe her, and I believe there are others suffering similarly.  There are a couple of reasons for this; the first being the bruises on the girl’s body.  I can think of very little that would cause these kinds of injuries, and while I’ve never seen a victim of gang rape immediately after the event, I imagine she looks a little bit like this.  Secondly, I have personal experience of the police in Barrow-in-Furness and I know they are lying.

The response of Cumbria Police to this controversy has been to insist they are on the case!  In a video statement (no longer available on the police website), Det Chief Supt Dean Holden is reported to have said the following:

“What I can say about this particular scenario is that Cumbria Constabulary have been undertaking an operational investigation for nearly 12 months now that has been looking at specific allegations of abuse.

That investigation has involved a dedicated investigative team, a senior investigating officer and significant resources dedicated to it.

As a result of that investigation I can say that an individual has been charged with some offences. I have to be very careful what I say about that because I do not want to undermine any judicial processes, but what I can say is that the investigation was subjected to an independent peer review in March this year.

That review was conducted by subject matter experts nationally, qualified and experienced in investigating sexual abuse and physical violence.

Whilst that review did give us some minor recommendations the outcome was that the investigation was conducted with utmost integrity, transparency and professionalism.

More importantly our safeguarding approach had been very robust and professional, which we had taken with partner agencies.

So I want to reassure people this is not something we had ignored or otherwise dismissed, it is something we have taken extremely seriously and we have sought an independent review to ensure that our investigation is transparent and professional.

What I would say is, when the question is asked, “Is there an organised gang of Asian men in Barrow conducting abuse or other exploitation against individuals?”

Our investigation has shown that has not been corroborated or otherwise evidenced.

Here in Cumbria Constabulary we are not complacent, we are humble and if individuals think they have information that suggests that is the scenario or have any information about abuse, sexual abuse or physical abuse they must contact us and put those reports in.

We will take them very seriously and will do our utmost to investigate them and more importantly safeguard and support victims of crime. We have a really good relationship with our partner agencies and have been really well supported.”

That said, let me take you back to 2016.  I received a report from a young girl in Barrow-in-Furness telling me of a gang of men who had followed her home from school.  A friend who was with her corroborated her story.  The girls even took photos of the men’s cars (yes, plural).  They reported these men to the police.  No response.  They contacted me and I travelled to Barrow to meet the girls, whom I spoke to at length.  I wrote the following report for Breitbart news at the time.  I will use pseudonyms for the parties involved.

In August [2016], two young friends from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, were walking through the town when a group of men pulled up alongside them and ordered them to “get in the car”. I recently spoke to one of the girls, 15 year old “Michelle”, who despite having reported the incident to police, had had no contact from them when I met her on December 5th. She told me she is almost certain that the same has happened to other girls in the town since then.

There was more than one car of men involved. Having started with one,  phone-calls were made and more men arrived. “Michelle” took photographs of some of these cars, but the police, when I interviewed her, had still not looked at them. Part of the description of the men provided by “Michelle”: “like Turks”.

The details of the story are these.

On the 8th of August, “Michelle” and a 13 year old friend were walking through Barrow-in-Furness, close to their home. A silver car pulled up alongside them and the men inside shouted at them to get in. When they refused, one of them said “Michelle’s” name and told her he “had her details anyway”. She had never seen these men before and had no idea who they were, nor had her friend. Understandably very shaken by this, she suggested to me that its possible that girls are being sought out on social media sites. She and her friends are avid Facebookers so this is indeed a likely scenario.  

Both girls’ families reported the incident to police on the day it happened; they had received no response by December, despite chasing several times. Police told the girl’s family that they had called to the house to find nobody home, but no note was left and there was no attempt to contact them either before or after this supposed visit.

“Theresa” is a friend of the family and said that she too had phoned the police saying she had copies of the photos and asking if they wanted to see them. She said they told her that as she wasn’t directly connected to the case, she could not report it. On hearing this, the family contacted police again and were told they would be visited – they weren’t.

Following this, “Theresa” posted the details on her Facebook page, only to find out later that the post hadn’t been made public. “Michelle” also wrote about it on Facebook to warn her friends. She soon found herself attacked for “racism”. She told me “it was like I was the one in the wrong for reporting it”.

When a local journalist contacted Barrow police to follow up on “Michelle’s” complaint, he was told “The victim did not wish to pursue the complaint further”. I was assured that this was completely untrue. 

The Police and Crime Commissioner for the area is Conservative Peter McCall [accurate as of December 2016]. He was sent an email on September 23rd with a detailed description of both the incident involving the girls, and the lack of police response. “Theresa” stated in the email that she represented worried parents in the area, but she didn’t hear back until she chased him on Twitter on October 31st. At that point, he replied “Once we have the police response, they come to me so that I see them with the facts/issues so that I can give you a more informed answer. I have just checked and we are expecting the response from the constabulary imminently. I do appreciate that this does seem slow but you will understand that they get many questions from the public all of which take police time to answer and some are very complex. I am keen to have honest and open dialogue with the public and very much welcome your engagement. As soon as I have the response to your particular concerns we will write and if that doesn’t answer your questions I’d be very pleased to chat.”

I wrote to Chief Constable Jeremy Graham on December 9th and asked him about the above. I have not yet heard from him. However, I learned today that “Michelle’s” family has finally had that contact from police they’d been promised for so long.

I therefore know first-hand that reports have been made about “Asian” gangs in Barrow-in-Furness before, and the police ignored them for as long as they could.  They most certainly did not do their “utmost to investigate them and more importantly safeguard and support victims of crime”.  They did the exact opposite.

It’s impossible to know what will happen with Ellie’s case, and nobody but herself can be sure of the exact details as to how she came by those injuries, but we do know that this is happening all over the country, and we do know that police have been complicit in the silence and inaction that permits it to continue, year on year on year.

The police in Barrow are lying about the presence of “Asian” gangs in that town.  They are there and they are active, and the police have been told about them.

It is both heart-warming and encouraging to see the outpouring of support for Ellie from among local people.  The hashtag #JusticeforEllie contains posts and videos showing the good people of Cumbria standing up and making themselves heard; they even organised a social-distance-complaint protest!  Good for them, because regardless of the details of this particular case, and whether they are true or not, police have been lying to us for years.  They have demonised victims and protected perpetrators.  If this latest furore does anything useful, it reminds us of that harsh reality.

This fight is on-going and we are nowhere near the end.  Rape gangs will continue to be exposed, as will police complicity.  On a positive note however, the people of Britain are becoming braver and prouder, proving that this will not be tolerated forever.  It is the people who will achieve justice and put a stop to these atrocities.

For Britain is with them – 100% and permanently.  We will fight these monsters together.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

 

The Power of the Multinationals

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday May 19th 2020

 

Last week, in my economic blog, I discussed debt and with it, the power of banks.  Debt has exploded over the last few decades, as banks create new money and extend loans at unprecedented levels.  This does make the economy move, and many businesses would never have been born without these loans, but it is wise for us to examine all aspects of the systems of our society; we must know what is wrong in order to try to put it right.  This means an honest look at the pitfalls of unregulated capitalism.

I am a capitalist.  I believe in the free market and particularly, entrepreneurship and creativity.  I believe in a person’s liberty to trade, to make money, and to reap the rewards of their efforts.  I do however recognise that there are problems.  The market has no conscience.  The raison d’etre of business is to make money, and there is nothing at all wrong with that, but we cannot look away when big business holds the whip hand of power over our elected governments.  This is anti-democratic, and above all, I am a democrat.

This week, I will look again (for the final time) at the content of a book I referred to in my previous blog (which you can read here).  That book is Grip of Death – A study of modern money, debt slavery, and destructive economics’ by Michael Rowbotham.  In it, Rowbotham describes an increase in debt at all levels of society, all over the world, giving banks and lenders an unwarranted level of power.  The 20th century also saw a huge rise in the prominence (and dominance) of the big multinational company (MNC); the result too has been unwarranted power.

Multinationals are large companies with outlets, branches or sales all around the world.  While these companies often provide convenience, familiarity, and cheap products, it has come at a hefty price.

The first casualty is small business – entire high streets have been wiped out.  Because MNCs can produce large amounts of their products cheaply, they undercut independent businesses and drive them in to the ground.  There is no way to calculate how many small businesses have gone under thanks to the entrance of MNCs to their area.  However, there is no doubt that these companies have disrupted livelihoods, driven people on to benefits or to lower paid work (perhaps in a multinational company).

A wider effect is uniformity; all towns have the same shops, the same restaurants, the same cinemas… towns lose their individuality.

In terms of production, companies that operate the world over can take advantage of poor (or none) working conditions legislation, paying a pittance to workers who cannot afford the product they’re busily manufacturing.  Lack of environmental protections may also attract business that is damaging to localities.  For example, according to Rowbotham “companies such as Shell or BP, which have cultivated an ecofriendly image in the northern hemisphere, have been heavily criticised for their environmentally damaging operations in underdeveloped nations”.

But it is the power over governments that MNCs exercise that should worry us most.  They do so because of the numbers they employ.  They essentially blackmail governments, using this as their leverage.

MNCs may bring employment to an area, but often the government has to pay them to do so.  Let’s take an example from ‘Grip of Death’.  In the ’90s, BMW were looking for a site for their new $400 million car factory.  Offers had been made from 250 localities in 10 countries before the car giant settled upon a site in South Carolina in the United States.  The site they wanted however already had 140 homes within it, so the South Carolina taxpayer bought the homes (and the land) at a cost of $36.6 million and leased it to BMW for $1 per year.

Furthermore, the state funded the recruitment and training of workers, as well as providing $2.8 million to send new employees to Germany for training.  The estimated overall cost to the taxpayer? $130 million.

Similarly, when Ford opened a new factory in Birmingham, England, the state provided 18% of the costs.

Tax avoidance, monopoly, and customer service are also key facets of this discussion.  As anyone who has had to deal with huge companies knows, it can be maddening.  Long waits to speak to a representative, lack of solutions, any problems will inevitably lead to great inconvenience for customers, who are powerless when faced with a company with millions of people buying its product. Moreover, when a small number of companies dominate a particular market, the customer does not have a great amount of choice, often forced by necessity to use a service they otherwise would choose not to (such as transport for example).

Some corporations have avoided paying taxes for years, and according to the Financial Times, they have paid even less since the economic crash of 2008.  FT reports that “Big multinationals are paying significantly lower tax rates than before the 2008 financial crisis, according to Financial Times analysis showing that a decade of government efforts to cut deficits and reform taxes has left the corporate world largely unscathed.”

So while others have been forced to tighten their belts, including governments, the world’s richest companies escape any burden.

Once again, I am a capitalist, I believe in the freedom to make money, but these matters have to be addressed.  Are we entirely comfortable with all of the above?  If we want a fairer and more moral capitalism, then it is up to us to create it, something we can only do with political power.

That’s our first task, join us.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

SUNDAY COLUMN: Fake News – The Outrageous Mainstream Media

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

Fake News – The Outrageous Mainstream Media 

Sunday May 17th 2020

 

I had intended to write something different today.  I planned to write about the grotesque power of multinational corporations (MNCs), but I shall cover that in my weekly economics blog instead.  I changed my mind because just yesterday, I happened upon an article about the Canadian rock singer Bryan Adams.  Once again, I shook my head in dismay; a mainstream newspaper had again taken issue with a harmless comment and considered it more newsworthy than the issue being commented on.

This behaviour is typical of the mainstream media.  I like to call it “Twitter journalism”.  This “journalism” seems to spend its time wandering the spiders’ webs of social media seeking out comments that amount to wrongthink, and making mountains out of a molehills.

Let’s take a look at what the MSM considers important, and what it doesn’t.  We’ll start with Bryan Adams.

The mainstream media is currently in moral meltdown about comments published by the singer.  On social media, he said:

“Tonight was supposed to be the beginning of a tenancy of gigs at the Royal Albert Hall, but thanks to some fucking bat eating, wet market animal selling, virus making greedy bastards, the whole world is now on hold, not to mention the thousands that have suffered or died from this virus. My message to them other than ‘thanks a fucking lot’ is go vegan.”

Unfortunately, Adams apologised and in doing so, bowed down to hypocrites and liars and encouraged them to continue their tactics in the future.  Here are some of the headlines that followed:

Bryan Adams under fire for ‘racist’ tweet blaming ‘bat eating b*******’ for coronavirus

Bryan Adams apologizes for racist rant linking coronavirus to animal cruelty

Coronavirus: Bryan Adams accused of racism over ‘bat eating, virus making’ rant

B.C. MLA links hate crimes to racist comments in wake of Bryan Adams’ ‘bat-eating’ post

Nothing short of hysteria.  Adams is not only castigated as a racist for pointing out what is true, he is also blamed for violence – something that is “evidenced” by the biased speculation of equally outraged-about-nothing virtue signallers.

Yes, the MSM was appalled by the comments, all of them true, made by a singer about the worst pandemic of our lifetimes.  It is outraged by Bryan Adams, but less outraged by this: China’s wet markets engage in the most abhorrent animal cruelty imaginable.  Live and conscious dogs are hanged by their back paws and tortured to death with a blowtorch.  Wild animals, including the 80 million year old Pangolin, are captured, taken to these markets, held in tiny crates in appalling conditions and slaughtered to order.  And by the way, yes, they sell bats and people eat them….. and that’s just the wet markets.

China is also directly responsible for the demise of species across the world: From ivory to pangolin scales, totoaba bladders to shark fins, the country has a ravenous appetite for wildlife products. 

According to a group dedicated to protecting wildlife, “A lot of the species that are most threatened on Earth right now are threatened because of demand in China.”

Its people aren’t much better off.  China is a tyrannical dictatorship where there is zero free speech and zero human rights.  That tyranny directly led to the global pandemic and economic catastrophe we now face, but the MSM considers this far less important than Bryan Adams.  We know that China was aware of this deadly virus that was spreading in its midst, and we know that the Communist ruling party silenced whistleblowers with threats and intimidation (indeed some whistleblowers are now either dead or “missing”).

But, but, but ….. Bryan Adams!

It’s nothing new.  Prime Minister Boris Johnson once referred to burqa-wearing Muslim women as looking like “letterboxes”.  The MSM was outraged, and still is.  At every opportunity, the media still harps on about this rather humorous (not to mention accurate) comment from Johnson, one that millions of people agree with and relate to.

Again, very unfortunately indeed, Johnson apologised, leaving many of us wondering what ever happened to the notion that standing up to bullies is the only way to defeat them?  The MSM is a bully, but few, including the Prime Minster, seems willing to tell them where to go.

Here are some of the headlines that followed Johnson’s joke.

Boris Johnson faces criticism over burka ‘letter box’ jibe

Boris Johnson finally apologises for comparing women in burqas to ‘letter boxes’

Boris Johnson’s Telegraph column comparing Muslim women with ‘letterboxes’ led to Islamophobia ‘spike’

Islamophobic incidents rose 375% after Boris Johnson compared Muslim women to ‘letterboxes’, figures show

Once again, the MSM was outraged and employed its usual tactic; accuse them of racism, then of violence.  All without the ability (or requirement) to prove any of it.

The same “journalists” incensed by Boris Johnson’s comments are not at all concerned about this:

During the Iranian protests of 2018, people took to the streets to demand the end of the brutal Islamic regime.  The nature of the regime, which decrees the hijab to be compulsory for women and stones adulteresses (and rape victims) to death, is not enough to enrage the MSM.  While it went crazy about ‘letterboxes’, it had less to say about the women jailed and given long sentences (20 years for example) for removing their hijabs during protests.  Such women became symbols of freedom and heroism, but the MSM was little phased.  There was certainly no condemnation of the treatment of women in Iran, and there rarely is.

The mainstream media shrugs its shoulders generally where the treatment of women, apostates, Christians, gays, and others in Islamic countries are concerned.  It couldn’t care less, indeed, its only concern about these atrocities is to punish those who oppose them as “far right”.  It is nothing short of evil.  But it gets worse.

There is no organisation that so exemplifies the evil of the media than our very own BBC, and nowhere is this more evident than in its coverage of the horrific ‘grooming gang’ reality in British towns and cities.

In his book The Fake News Factory, David Sedgwick gathers together all the damning evidence against the BBC that is needed.  Its behaviour has been absolutely shocking.  The BBC has gone out of its way, time and again, to minimise or outright ignore grooming gang scandals.  When they do come to light, the Beeb is quick to downplay the significance of the religious identity of the rapists, and quick to try to discredit those who speak out against them.

The first thing to note is its refusal to name the religious affiliation of the rapists, choosing instead to engage in actual racism by labelling them “Asian”.  Perhaps then the BBC is particularly sensitive to religion when sexual abuse is concerned?  No.  Well, it depends on the religion.

In 2017, the BBC reported on child sex abuse among Jehovah’s Witnesses and named the religion right there in the headline.  Under the heading ‘Victims told not to report Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse’, the report directly implicated the religion itself when it stated: “Victims from across the UK told the BBC they were routinely abused and that the religion’s own rules protected perpetrators.”

Content to report on this, the Beeb does all it can to avoid naming Islam in relation to grooming gangs, despite the fact that the religion explicitly allows Muslim men to rape non-Muslim women (don’t believe it?  Read the Koran!)

That wasn’t the end, the headlines continued over the following couple of years.  “Jehovah’s Witness elder jailed for child sexual abuse” said one, “Jehovah’s Witnesses sued over historical sex abuse” ran another, proving that the BBC has no problem criticising religion at all, provided its the correct religion.

It gets even worse than this.

When Britain’s “worst ever” grooming gang scandal broke in 2018, the BBC didn’t even bother to cover it.  The rape and torture (and murder) of girls in the town of Telford in Shropshire was revealed following an in-depth investigation by The Mirror newspaper.  What girls (as young as 11) had suffered in the town is almost indescribable, and all of it happened while authorities covered their eyes and ears and pretended nothing was wrong.

The story was published by The Mirror on March 11th 2018; by March 12th, the BBC had said nothing.  Nothing on its website, nothing on its national news, nothing on Newsnight, or Panorama, or its radio broadcasts.  Even the regional BBC Shropshire, the county in which the abuse took place, didn’t see fit to report on it.

When it was finally published (by BBC Shropshire only), it claimed that the issue was “not new”, hence no need to hurry to report on it.  A radio Shropshire host repeated the assertion on social media: “Well, there’s nothing new to say apart from the renewed call for an inquiry”.  He was referring to the words of the area’s Labour MP Lucy Allan who insisted there must be a thorough investigation in to the story.  That was it.  That was the attitude of the BBC.

While it didn’t consider the Telford scandal worthy of reporting, here are some stories that were covered on the day: Crufts (the dog show), a factory that was ‘saved by slime’, and the stunning headline ‘Cream tea advert sparks outrage’.  All of this was considered more important than the mass rape and torture of young girls.

While reports on the abuse were hidden away on BBC Shropshire, this headline appeared right on the front page; this one didn’t get local billing, but was splashed nationwide.  The headline was “Telford abuse: Victim numbers ‘sensationalised’ says police chief”.

It is hard to know what to say about this, it is beneath contempt.  “Journalists” at our national broadcaster are so despicably immoral that they will throw in to doubt the horrific torture of girls, deliberately and knowingly, and do so for all the country to see.  It will simultaneously hide the details of the horror on pages that few will access (and only so they can say “look, we published it”).

Our national broadcaster, funded by us (I have a TV licence bill on my desk as I write – with a dire warning written in red that I must not ignore this important communication), is so morally deficient that it will attack with smear and innuendo both the victims of vicious gang-rape and those who seek to bring it to an end, and all to protect the religion of the rapists.

Rotherham MP Sarah Champion is a case in point.  The town of Rotherham is of course synonymous with the UK’s grooming gang phenomenon.  The first story to break in 2014 shook the nation as we learned that 1,400 girls (at least) had been raped and tortured by Muslim gangs over a 16 year period.  Champion, being the MP for the town, spoke up.  She wrote in The Sun newspaper (3 years later) that we must admit and acknowledge the ethnic element of this crime.  (She was wrong, it isn’t ethnic, it’s religious, but I suppose it’s a step in the right direction).

The BBC was, you guessed it, outraged, and Sarah Champion would pay the price.  She was sacked from her front bench job by then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who replaced her with Naz ‘rape victims should shut up for the good of diversity’ Shah.  (Of note, Shah has also been given a front bench job by new Labour leader Keir Starmer, Sarah Champion has not).

So rotten, so indescribably corrupt, is the British Broadcasting Corporation that it decided to discredit Sarah Champion, and this is how it was done.  Wait for this, it has to be seen to be believed!

In her article in The Sun, Champion wrote that white girls were being raped by Pakistani men.  In a BBC report entitled ‘Sarah Champion quits Labour front bench over rape article’, the Beeb implied that Champion had written the article in response to the news that the same crime had unsurprisingly been taking place in the city of Newcastle as well.  “Ms. Champion’s article was written after 17 men were convicted of forcing girls in Newcastle to have sex” said the BBC.  They therefore implied that Champion was referring to this latest scandal, but she wasn’t, she was referring to the widespread rape of girls that has been going on in the UK for decades.

Having made that false impression, the BBC was suddenly very interested in the ethnic background of the men involved.  The article goes on: “The men, who were mostly British-born, were from Iraqi, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian and Turkish communities”.

As Sedgwick asks in his book, do you see what they did there?

You see, Sarah Champion had referred to the rapists as “Pakistani” but the BBC said ‘hold on, Champion’s wrong, there were also Bangladeshis and Iranian and Turks’.  This quite unbelievable attempt to throw doubt on Champion’s factual assertions is truly mind blowing, and genuinely evil.

To finish, let’s compare some headlines surrounding grooming gangs between the BBC and other media.

Daily Mirror 

Girl, 13, ‘told police she had been repeatedly raped but officers did nothing’ – court told

The Times 

Police ‘failed to protect’ girl, 13, over rape claims

Rotherham Advertiser 

Alleged rapist bragged to girl’s mother about attack, Rotherham abuse trial told.

Compare these to the following BBC headlines:

Rotherham abuse trial; woman denies lying about childhood rape 

Rotherham abuse trial: woman denies ’embellishing’ abuse claims 

Rotherham abuse trial: Accused brands allegations ‘false’

It couldn’t be more obvious, right there in the headlines, the BBC wants to, and makes sure to, cast doubt on the testimony of the victims.  How on earth can a journalist, in any good conscience, attack the victims of terrible crimes?  How can they add to the misery already suffered by defending the rapists and castigating them?  What kind of moral degeneracy is this?

It is the moral degeneracy of the mainstream media, desperate to force us all in to its worldview that multiculturalism is wonderful and has no downside, Islam is peaceful and Muslims are incapable of wrong-doing, and of course, whatever goes wrong, whatever the atrocity, somehow the innocent British public is to blame.

There is only one word for it: evil.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Falling Birth Rates, Not Just a Woman’s Issue

By Orlagh McGlade, Doctor and For Britain Member

14th May 2020

Over the past few years I have been thinking a lot about the demographic change taking place around us, whereby relatively low European birth rates and mass immigration are literally changing the face of Europe. As a significant proportion of my generation remain without children at ages when previous generations were long settled with families, it feels as though we are at a critical crossroads for the future of European natives.

Any conversations around demographic change mostly focus on women. Why are women getting married and having children later? Is it a good thing that women have careers? Should women even get to make their own medical decisions? We are always treated like the conundrum to solve. However, many of us do not remain single because we live for our careers, because we don’t want children or because we are hideous, but due to a multitude of factors that sometimes seem completely insurmountable.

Women’s lives have changed dramatically in recent history and for this reason it is tempting to pin demographic problems on this, however, too few people want to talk about the obstacles that are in the way of women who do want children. Today I would like to offer my perspective as a woman of child-bearing age and shift the focus onto others for a change.

***

Firstly, let’s talk about the choices men are making. While women’s careers are a handy scapegoat for delayed child-bearing, it is actually often men who are the rate-limiting factor when it comes to establishing families. There appears to be a certain regression among much of my generation (as reflected for example in a pop culture of superhero films and video gaming) and for perhaps the first time in history there seems to be very little societal pressure in the West for men to settle down. Combine this with modern methods of dating, such as apps, which offer seemingly unlimited dating options and many men can delay commitment indefinitely.

Meanwhile, women are subject to the same biological pressures we always have been and tend to want to settle down earlier. The casual dating culture we live in has shifted the power in dating in favour of men, the overall result of which is that women’s most fertile years are wasted. If women end up choosing men from different cultures, ones which apparently value their genetic legacy, they receive criticism for this but rarely do we acknowledge the vacuum that was left in the first place.

Instead of expecting women to gamble with their fertile years while waiting for passive men, why not challenge this Peter Pan syndrome? Education may also play an important role in encouraging young adults to see a future with children. We should not only teach teenagers how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but also provide a realistic timeline for wanted pregnancies and promote respect for female fertility.

***

Our increasingly atomised existence also contributes to the problem. Pair bonding, as a fundamental building block of society, requires both guidance and social support. Not so long ago matchmaking was common and mutual contacts set behavioural standards and accountability. We seem to have largely stopped doing this as our communities disband, hence the rise of the aforementioned dating apps. As well as providing unlimited scope for procrastination I believe the use of these apps cause a great deal of emotional damage in women particularly, which makes finding a healthy relationship all the more difficult. A little more interest and guidance from older generations would go a long way.

I have noticed that many millennials lack this kind of support from their families, who may believe that any involvement is interference or pressure. We have thankfully progressed from the days of arranged marriages but the pendulum now seems to have swung to the other extreme; indifference. This approach leads to loneliness and a lack of confidence. Family involvement doesn’t need to be overbearing, but can function to set expectations and help younger people envision a future with a family.

If we want to help women to settle down earlier we need to strengthen social systems that not only place expectation to men to settle as well, but make efforts to connect potential partners.

***

Then there are the societal factors which work against or discourage those who are open to having families, especially for women in careers. In losing ‘the village’ when it comes to matchmaking so too have we lost the community that would help raise children. Instead now, having a family is commonly reported as an isolating experience in the western world. It also remains the case that women do the bulk of domestic work and childcare even if they also have a career[1].

The attitude towards motherhood often appears to be that it is a lifestyle choice and an inconvenience to employers, rather than an essential job. What if instead we treated it as a common life event that is disruptive to both parents and necessary in order to have a society at all? A little more respect may go a long way. Humanity exists, after-all, because of women who suffered cycles of constant pregnancy for much of our species history and who lived lives of tough domestic work with no remuneration.

Women’s traditional roles do not gain status or respect, yet now we find ourselves in a demographic decline suddenly we realise their importance. Times have changed and women are no longer trapped in these roles in service of everyone else, so it is up to us to make it more attractive and manageable. Simply put, we can’t diminish motherhood and then wonder why fewer women become mothers or why mothers have fewer children.

***

There are also a number of distraction issues when it comes to demographics. Often abortion (and even sometimes contraception) is brought up in conservative circles as a conspiracy against the European population and considered highly suspect. As a woman and a doctor this concerns me greatly. Firstly, because it betrays a certain alarming lack of understanding when it comes to the medical realities of reproduction.*

There is an illusion of permanence when it comes to the safety of women in pregnancy and childbirth, but the medical realities must be acknowledged and respected by any society which intends to even approach gender equality. Secondly, because it suggests a certain sympathy with our enemies in their attitude towards women. Our heritage is of women who fought hard in order to determine their own lives and be respected as people in their own right. Throwing European women under the bus in order to win at competitive reproduction is not an option.

***

In summary, there are many contributors to our demographic problems, but also many opportunities to intervene. I believe we should focus our efforts on removing the obstacles facing women who want children. Countries such as Hungary have tried to boost the population with financial incentives, but strategies like this will obviously only appeal to already existing couples. Despite the fact that women have the more demanding role in reproduction, in many instances finding a suitable partner is the rate limiting factor. We must find ways to challenge Peter Pan syndrome and examine the real effects of social apps on public health. We can all help bring back supportive, connected communities, which will provide the required environment for matchmaking and pair boding to take place.

We should find ways to encourage child-bearing, but as a civilised society must draw the line at reproductive coercion, a recognised form of domestic abuse no less unethical when committed by the state.

Finally and most urgently, we must of course resist mass immigration and remove some of the pressure that we are under to solve these problems in a potentially unrealistic time-frame. It is clear to me that For Britain intimately understands this urgency and is the only party which is capable of being honest about the demographic shift and therefore the solutions to it.

[1]. McMunn A, Bird L, Webb E (2020) ‘Gender Divisions of Paid and Unpaid Work in Contemporary UK Couples’, Work, employment and society, 34(2)

* I hope to write a more detailed article on this subject at a later date for a non-medical conservative leaning audience.

Committee Member’s Memory of Buchenwald

By Mike Speakman, Nominations Officer

13th May 2020

Anne Marie’s mention of visiting the Buchenwald concentration camp, and the impact it made during her recent livestream prompted a memory.

In the early 1970s, I think it was 1972, I went to Denmark with a small group of British Policemen.  We went in full uniform and our job was support a British Trade Fair in Copenhagen. I was the youngest of the group, in my early twenties.   Needless to say, we were hosted very well by the Danish police.   One evening we ended up at the home of a Danish policeman in his basement which was fitted out as a bar. (I learned later that every house in Denmark had to have a room as a potential fallout shelter for use in the event of a nuclear attack. It was after all the height of the cold war).  That evening I had noticed that there were candles displayed in the windows of houses and on the streets and I asked our host why?  He explained that this was the day every year that the Danes remembered those who had fought and died in the resistance against the German occupation.  The war was less than 30 years ago at that time and it was apparent that memories were still vivid. Indeed, whilst walking down the main street in Copenhagen in full bobbies’ uniform, we were continually being dragged off the street into bars by people who said they had been in the resistance and wanted to buy us a drink. The Danes were definitely big admirers of the British and were followers of our culture, particularly Coronation Street which was shown on Danish Television.

Anyway, when talking to our host about the remembrance of the resistance he told me he had been imprisoned in Buchenwald concentration camp, not because he was Jewish (I had no idea whether he was or wasn’t) but because he was a policeman.  On occupying Denmark, the Germans had rounded up most of the policemen and imprisoned them. They feared that policemen would be quite capable or organising resistance to them and wanted them out of the way.

Our host wouldn’t talk about his experience in Buchenwald but at one point he grabbed my arm very firmly and looking me straight in eyes very intensely, made me promise that I would never let anything like that happen again.  That was rather a big promise for a twenty something bobby to make but nevertheless I did promise him.  He had obviously been traumatised by his experience and I have never forgotten that evening or the look in that man’s eyes.  I have no time for Holocaust deniers and feel privileged to have met someone who had been in a concentration camp.

Debt: The Real Cost

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday May 12th 2020

 

If you’re a book lover, like me, there will be books in your life that fundamentally change the way you view the world.  I have recently read (and am re-reading) just such a book.  ‘Grip of Death – A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics’ by Michael Rowbotham has changed how I see things.  It has opened my eyes to how our financial systems work, and for whose benefit.   Modern economics (societies built almost entirely on debt) is having a profoundly detrimental impact on our property rights – an essential element of our liberty.

Rowbotham’s book is just over 20 years old, but that doesn’t matter, the picture he paints is very much still with us, and I would wager, getting more grim with each passing year.  Here we are in 2020 facing the deepest recession in centuries and we are about to go in to even greater debt; individuals, business, and government are all going further and deeper.

So, how much debt are we in?  The UK owes a shocking 85% of our GDP.  That is 85% of everything we earn through production and service provision in an entire year.  That was before coronavirus, now it will be much higher.  We will owe much more than 100% of our GDP before this is over – something we can’t possibly ever pay off, we will scarcely scrape the interest.

That means simply that the next generation and the one after that will begin their lives in debt, spend their lives paying off debt, and will never actually be free of it.  When you owe someone money, they have a hold over you, this is no different.  Big business and big banks own so much that they can (and do) make demands of their debtors – including governments who dance to the tune of the debt.

Individuals suffer similarly.  The deed of my house may have my name on it, but its not in my possession, because it is held by the bank.  The same bank that can (should I for whatever reason become unable to pay them) throw me out of my house, that’s a great deal of power to wield over me.  This brings me to the first of the staggering revelations in this engrossing book.

Almost all businesses are now in debt.  That means that debt is a large part of their expenditure.  The more debt, the greater the repayments.  This is the starting point.  Before staffing, stock, advertising, there is debt.

Rowbotham (2000): “Most companies survive on the slenderest margins, so competitive is today’s economy.  The majority of firms also have substantial outstanding debts.  In fact, the bigger the economy, the larger the borrowing.  Any profit a company makes has to be seen in the context of its outstanding debts before any judgement of excessive profiteering can be sustained.  In fact, the majority of companies never expect to clear their debts through profits; the debt is kept at bay with interest payments, and any small surplus is used for investment.  Even then, further borrowing is often necessary.”

A consequence of this is the race for profits, a race to the bottom.  It has resulted in outsourcing from the West to the East, cheaper and less durable produce, and environmental calamity.  Small businesses have become far less viable, and to compete, they need cheaper produce and to ship it further.  This means transport; commercial transport on the UK’s roads increased by 30% between 1985 and 1990.  Just imagine how much it has increased since then!

Furthermore, goods are often transported around for no reason.  Again, to quote Rowbotham: “The increasingly globalised pattern of production, distribution and consumption in the modern world economy almost defies belief.  There is no obvious rationale behind the constant traffic backwards and forwards; shifting, ferrying, loading and unloading.  At the very moment that washing machines from Germany are being unloaded in Felixstowe, washing machines made in this country are being loaded, perhaps in the same container ship, bound for where?  Germany!”

Doesn’t he have a point?

Debt also keeps poor countries poor, as they scramble to compete in the export market of a globalised world and self-sufficiency takes a back seat.  The IMF and World Bank loan billions to countries steeped in poverty, but in attempting to pay this back, the needs of their own citizens are neglected.  “Brazil is a net exporter, but the increase in her debt meant that whereas in 1960, 30% of her export revenues went on debt repayments, by 1980 this had risen to 78%.”  In 1990, Brazil’s exports were $31.4 billion, with imports at $22.5 billion.  But the debt owed by Brazil took ALL of this income and still showed the country’s economy at a loss.

Another interesting statistic: in 1963 the percentage spent on debt repayments by British businesses was 7%.  By 1990, it was 28%.  Hence our race to the bottom.

It’s the same for individuals, and to give you an idea of how much this has grown in the last 5 decades or so, here is a staggering statistic: in 1963, the UK total of personal debt (mortgages, overdrafts, and loans) was £4 billion, or 14% of GDP.  In 1996, it was £490 billion, 70% of GDP.

While businesses raise prices to pay off debts, and consumers also have to pay off debts, leaving them less money to spend, big business has supplied cheaper products and cut corners to do so.  The ripple effect isn’t measurable.

But it is Rowbotham’s claim that banks don’t actually possess the money they loan that is perhaps most striking aspect of this book.  He argues that when banks give loans, they simply create ‘money’.

There is a fascinating US court case that illustrates this.  In Montgomery v Daly, a bank tried to foreclose on a man’s house.  A clever lawyer, the man argued that the bank had offered no consideration for the loan and therefore no contract between him and the bank.  “Consideration” (a legal term) is the asset exchanged in exchange for another.  If I give you £10 in exchange for a meal, the £10 and the meal are the consideration.  Contract law in the United States, as here in the UK, means there is no contract unless consideration is present.  Daly claimed that the bank, in giving him a mortgage, hadn’t actually given him anything but simply created the funds for the mortgage out of nothing.  In other words, it didn’t give him money from its holdings, which weren’t affected.  If the bank’s money doesn’t go down when it gives a loan, then the money has just been newly created.  This confused the jury in the case somewhat who didn’t believe that banks created money, that was until the bank’s president took to the stand and said yes, they create money “out of thin air” and this is standard banking practice.  Mr Daly kept his house.

This is a tantalising matter; debts are created to carry out tasks that are often unnecessary, interest payments dominate the books of both business and government, and all of it to pay a bank that simply created the debt out of nothing.

The circle of debt is endless and goes round and round, individual, business, government – they borrow and borrow and borrow, knowing full well they’ll never pay it back.

Our economy is sitting on a meringue, and one day, loans taken out to pay off debts will be called in.  This bubble has to burst.  Loans called in while few people can pay them, and no more borrowing available.  It’s a recipe for disaster and it is our modern economy.

Why is this so significant?  Firstly because when we are in debt, we are never truly free.  Property rights are crucial to our independence and power.  Until we own something outright, it is never truly ours.

Secondly, I shall offer my final quote from Michael Rowbotham:

“We are bound to our jobs by reliance on a wage, and held there by debt, lack of purchasing power and the fear of unemployment.  The pressure exerted by finance throughout the economy has been sufficient to impose an entirely new economic culture on many countries.  In less than a generation, people have worked so hard that their combined efforts have altered the physical structure of their society beyond recognition.  People have been obliged to keep pace with rampant industrial change, altering their working methods, retraining, often uprooting themselves from their homes to follow employment.  The unsuccessful, and those unable to adapt, have been sidelined in to poverty… the successful have been forced to run just to stay on their feet.”

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

SUNDAY COLUMN: The Global World

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

The Global World 

Sunday May 10th 2020

We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism. – Donald J Trump

‘Globalism’ is one of those words that everyone knows but few can define.  Some argue that the world is no longer politically Left or Right, but nationalist or globalist: the fight at the ballot box is for the voters’ choice between one or the other.

To be clear, For Britain, and myself, are on the side of the nation.  We are fighting for its restoration, and like Trump, we no longer wish for Great Britain to dance to globalism’s devious tune.  But dance we will, and we’ll continue to dance, until and unless we replace the occupants of the Mother of all Parliaments – Westminster.  We must remove the status quo to defeat globalism, because Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and the SNP are globalists all.

The problem with globalism is that there is no agreed definition of the word.  A little like “racism” it is used as an attack word, quite often inappropriately.  The term globalisation roughly refers to the interconnectivity of the world – a globalist is one who assumes this to be good and wants more of it.  Globalisation is economic or political.  Globalised trade for example means we can buy strawberries all year long; it also means the transfer of jobs from the West to poor countries, and in the process, gutting our own working class and working class towns.

Its political identity is found in internationalist bodies which, while having little formal political power, set the global tone and lecture national governments on any policy that goes against globalisation.  Or, perhaps I should say, lectures some national governments if they go against globalisation.

I say some because not every country is treated in the same way by the global bodies, including the leading globalist-body-extraordinaire – the United Nations (UN).  The UN doesn’t have direct political power, but that is not to say it has no power at all.  The United Nations broadcasts and delivers stern tellings off to certain countries, sending a ‘moral’ message around the world.  For example, when President Trump defied globalism to institute a ban on travellers from countries with high rates of terrorism activity, the UN objected:

President Donald Trump is in breach of the country’s human rights commitments, a group of United Nations rights experts have called on the US to live up to its human rights obligations and provide protection for those fleeing persecution and conflicts.

Not only are they legally wrong (US law does not allow for limitless refugees and there is no “right” to travel to America), but there is not even an attempt to disguise their obvious bias against the United States.  One would think that if the UN is going to lecture America on its human rights record, that it would also condemn the multitude of nations, from all over the world, with a far FAR worse record than the United States – right?  Not at all.  The criticism is reserved only for Western countries, real human rights abusers not only get off the hook, but are promoted to….. wait for it ….. human rights councils.

Here is the UN’s current human rights council:

Armenia, Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sudan and Venezuela 

A fascinating fact you may not know about Mauritania: Mauritania is one of the last countries in the world where people are still born into slavery and literally owned by other people, facing a lifetime of abuse and forced labour.

Indonesia has an FGM (female genital mutilation) rate of around 50%.

Human Rights Watch reported on Sudan in 2018 as follows: The National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) used excessive force to break up protests and arbitrarily detained dozens of activists and opposition party members. The authorities censored the media, confiscated newspapers, detained outspoken critics, and barred key opposition figures from traveling outside the country. 

According to the UN, these countries are better than the USA in terms of rights.  They must be, otherwise why would the UN criticise the US while placing these countries on human rights boards?  There’s only one answer, and it is the right answer, globalism isn’t about the ‘globe’ at all, it’s about the West.

Migration

Have you ever noticed that in our globalised world of open borders, that the human traffic is going in one direction only?  Are there queues of Europeans at African embassies seeking asylum?  No.  Are there boats full of Europeans landing at African shores and being allowed to stay, given necessary resources, and eventually housed and clothed?  No.

The migration goes in one direction – from the rest of the world to the West.  That’s the traffic and it is not an accident.  From the criticism of Trump as outlined above, we can only conclude that the UN isn’t serious about human rights; it prioritised the ability of people to move to America, not human rights.  What is happening here is the promotion of a mass exodus to the Western world in order to dismantle it.

This is not a conspiracy theory, there is nothing underhand occurring here, it is all happening in plain sight.  It is a powerful political philosophy making itself reality.

The world is ruled by an increasingly connected and increasingly wealthy elite; it is ruled in other words, by big money and big business, and it they who are calling the shots.  Why would big business demand a mass exodus to the West?  Simply because the West is too well off, and Westerners demand good pay and good working conditions.  People from countries steeped in poverty will simply be glad of work, meaning they will take far lower wages and work in much worse conditions.  This all saves money for big business.  It also decimates the working opportunities of westerners, keeping wages low and increasing poverty levels with it.

Western politicians are happy with this for a couple of reasons; 1) they want big business to be pleased with them, 2) they want an increasingly impoverished population which will allow them to reduce the confidence, wealth and power of their citizens, allowing them to pass laws restricting our rights.  There is no better example of this than so called “hate speech”.  Hate speech is an old trick of communism, it labels political opposition as wholly immoral (i.e. “hate”) and then it criminalises that “hate”.  The effect is that it has criminalised its opposition, allowing it free reign in politics.  That very reality is evident all over Europe.  Oppose open border migration?  You’re guilty of “hate” and globalist governments are very happy to destroy your life (or imprison you) for having the temerity to swim against the tide and think independently.

Anti-white hatred is also integral to globalism. The West is (still, but only just and only for now) the freest and richest part of the globe.  For globalism to work, the West (by which I mean its citizens, not its leaders) must be made less free and less wealthy.  This is achieved through mass migration from the third world to the first, but in order for the majority in Europe to accept that scenario, that majority must be psychologically defeated, unwilling to fight for its own position and even its own rights.

To persuade white Europe to hand over its countries to the globalists, we whites first had to be persuaded that it is what we deserve – as whites, we are inherently evil and the only way to escape this, the only redemption, is to surrender our land, our culture, our heritage, and even our jobs.

Not only did whites allow our borders to be opened, but so self-hatingly docile had we become that we even agreed to laws which give non-whites an advantage in the jobs market (“positive discrimination”).  We opened our borders then bowed down in apology and obedience to those who arrived; all the while destroying our own way of life and our personal  prospects.

This is globalism – it is the destruction of the free and wealthy Western populations.

Trade

Global trade is the sales pitch.  What globalism means economically is a world of buying and selling across borders.  In practical terms, it means to deliberately move manufacturing from the rich West to the poor East, leaving the West with broken working class communities, while the East thrives – and all at much lower cost to the multinationals.

The perfect example is China (another of the UN’s previous “human rights” promoting nations!)  China now manufactures much of the world’s man-made produce, and a glimpse inside its factories will reveal the awful conditions and machine-like existence of many Chinese workers.  Significantly, China has little protections for employees or the environment.  The ‘Greta Army’ seems not to have noticed while they blame the Western world for environmental threats.

But China is, by far, the world’s largest polluter – knocking the USA in to a fairly distant second place.  Chinese factories exhale toxic fumes with absolute impunity.  China’s Yangtze River, the longest in Asia and by far the most polluted river in the world, carries 1.5 tonnes of plastic in to the sea every single year.

How does business profit from this?  Because it is far cheaper to open factories in China than in the West, it is far cheaper to pay for substandard Chinese products than for high quality products produced in the West.  The Communist Chinese government is happy because it is able to improve the lives of the Chinese people (their situation had been much worse) and claim the credit for it.  Meanwhile, its sins will be ignored because the globalist elite is too busy focusing on bringing down the West.

The Nation-State

The only way out of this is to restore our nation-states and our independence.  We must also restore our self-confidence as a matter of urgency.  The coronavirus pandemic has taught a hard and stark lesson to the people of Great Britain – we are no longer able to produce our own basic necessities at a time of national crisis.  This is the result of globalism.  We have outsourced the vast majority of our basic manufacturing and now, when the chips are down, we need to turn to countries like China to help us save the lives of our own citizens.  This is even more sickening when we add to the mix that China caused this pandemic in the first place.

For supplies of simple protective clothing (PPE) for our medical staff, we turned towards Turkey.  We paid our money, the PPE never arrived, we sent our airforce to collect the PPE, only to find it was substandard and we couldn’t use it.

We needed ventilators, but producers in the UK seemed unable to build machines that met with NHS specifications, so we went to China instead.  Nine days after the ventilators arrived from China, doctors wrote to the government stating that the machines were more likely to kill patients than save them.

The situation is beyond absurd.  Here we are, a major wealthy first world nation, and we are unable to produce our own basic products for the health of our citizens, even in a time of life-threatening upheaval.  Do we need more evidence to demonstrate the downfall of the West?

For Britain is 100% committed to bringing this to an end.  We will turn the tide.  We will discontinue our relationship with China as a starting point.  There are a number of countries that can produce our low cost products, let’s not put all of our eggs in China’s basket.  That is a big step and one we can take now.

Furthermore, we can bring upmarket manufacturing home.  Britain was once the world’s workshop, now we produce little to nothing; let’s put that in to reverse.  Let’s encourage a society of high quality and less quantity.  Do we really need all the China-produced substandard products we have in our homes?  Wouldn’t we be better off with higher quality, longer-lasting products that won’t pollute our lands and seas as rubbish not long after we’ve bought them?

We must deliberately, and with determined purpose, ensure that in times of crisis, Britain is self-sufficient.  We will make sure our NHS has high quality British-made products at its disposal as much as possible.  We will ensure that medical machinery produced in the UK meets with the standards of the NHS; this is common sense stuff!

But perhaps most importantly of all, we will stop immigration, send home those who should not be here, and wipe out the anti-white hatred once and for all.  As well as deporting those who commit crimes (including in the name of culture) and those who refuse to adapt to the morals of the British majority, we must change our education system and make Western children proud of their heritage; there is every reason for them to be proud, but they seem completely unaware of this.

None of this can happen however unless we change how we vote.  We know, there is no ambiguity, no need for speculation, we know that all of the parties currently sitting in our Parliament are a-ok with globalism, they all actively promote it.

As Britons therefore, our responsibility is great but simple.  If we want a Britain that is British, and if we want to pass this on to the next generation as it was passed on to us, then we must vote against the status quo.  We must vote For Britain.

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

Grooming Gangs – We Want the Truth

I wish to start by stating this blog does not refer to all Muslims. It certainly does not apply to the wonderful nurses, doctors and others who come to our country to work hard, obey the law and contribute to our society. If only all Muslims displayed the same high standards – our country would be in a far better place.

I am writing this blog in the hope that ‘For Britain’ will consider my request for turning a dishonest situation into an honest one. I am referring to the dishonest way in which our government has betrayed us as a nation, by not publishing the true and full facts of the inquiry into the child rape gangs that have plagued our country.  I am writing this because our government thinks it’s totally acceptable to ignore the fact that thousands of officials, be they MPs, councillors, police officers, or social workers, have failed to act to stop or report what has been happening, and not a single one of them has been prosecuted for their inaction. It is simply a further cover-up over an existing cover-up.

I watched Tommy presenting his Rape of Britain speech in Russia and although I was already aware of most of the despicable details he outlined, when I actually heard them all in chronological order it sent shudders down my spine.

I personally believe Tommy is very brave in dedicating much of his life to this cause, and one day he might actually get recognition for his actions – but not now, because of our spineless government’s capitulation to this country’s Muslim community.  Indeed, the ‘politically correct’ brigade, along with the media, will openly support the government in stifling the true results, and the inquiry will remain censored under the Public Records Act for the next 30 years. By that time, we will be governed by Sharia Law and our population will be well on its way to Muslim domination

Governments of both major parties have ignored what has occurred, because they want the Muslim vote. This is so corrupt.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows the perpetrators of these abuses were mainly Muslim and that their filthy behaviour stems from the Koran’s teaching, so let’s have the true facts out in the public domain.

With this in mind, I now believe it is time for the ‘For Britain’ party to hold its own official investigation into this national scandal and bring it to the public’s attention in a big way. Legal action should be demanded against every single person who, in their official work capacity, neglected to act or failed to stop the abuse.

No British political party has had ‘the balls’ to do this thus far, so ‘For Britain’ is in a perfect position to take this on. Unbelievably, these abuses are still going on all over the country and needless to say, they predominantly affect working class children and children in care homes – a fact that is not made sufficiently.

As an ex-police officer, I feel ashamed this could ever have happened, and although I retired on medical grounds in 1990, this would not have been allowed to happen in my day, and certainly not on my watch. The inquiry could be carried out under the supervision of Mike Speakman who, given his previous occupation and rank, cannot be polarized like Tommy.

I believe this would be a defining move for ‘For Britain’, and if the party made an appeal for funds to help finance this review, I and other members would support it generously. Its conclusions could officially be handed in to 10 Downing Street with the promise if they don’t publicise its contents, we will.

There is an inspiring Lebanese-American activist called Brigitte Gabriel, who is America’s version of our own Anne Marie Walters, and I will steal some of her words here in summing up:   “It is time to throw political correctness in the rubbish where it belongs and start speaking the truth. It is time to develop a backbone, to develop courage, to stand up and speak with authority in defense of our nation, in defense of our values, in defense of our freedom, in defense of everything we stand for” – so that Great Britain can once again be the best country in the world, bar none.

 

Paul B. 

For Britain member 

The State of the Economy? Shrinking

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday May 5th 2020

 

Almost a quarter of the UK’s workforce is currently funded by the Government.  Figures show that 6.3 million people are now paid through the government’s job retention scheme that funds 80% (or £2,500) of workers’ wages. This amounts to 23% of the workforce.  In addition to this, 1.8 million have applied for Universal Credit in the last week.

We are now being warned to expect the worst; a downfall not seen since the 1930s.  Forecasts now suggest the economy will contract by 6.5% this year.

The Government says that it has so far paid out £8 billion as 800,000 employers have ‘furloughed‘ their staff since April 20th when the scheme opened.  It will last until the end of June and is expected to cost in the region of £30 billion.

There’s every reason to believe that costs could be greater than predicted, and that severe economic crash is coming.  The Government is spending billions to fund the coronavirus lockdown with one study suggesting £350 billion (so far).  The same study also suggests that the Government take legal action against China for a return of those funds.  For Britain agrees, and we have launched a petition here, please sign it.  China is responsible for this global crisis, and it must pay the price.  Literally.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak however is beginning to make some cautious comments.  In response to requests to extend the furlough scheme beyond June, Sunak said spending of this kind is “not sustainable”.  Quite an understatement!

The Chancellor went on to say: “I am working as we speak to figure out the most effective way to wind down the scheme and ease people back into work in a measured way. But as some scenarios have suggested we are potentially spending as much on the furlough scheme as we do on the National Health Service for example. Now clearly that is not a sustainable solution.”

Meanwhile, car sales have fallen to their lowest figures since the 1940s.  The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), the industry’s representative body, say only 4,321 cars were registered in April, the lowest monthly level since 1946.  This represents a collapse of 97% from the same month last year.

Car production and sales have been all but non-existent in April, so the sales that did take place, were largely “needed to support key workers and for those who had a pressing need for them” according to the BBC.

The news is as bleak as can be expected, and this is just a taste.  Difficult times are coming and they’ll need to be carefully managed.  It would be entirely neglectful of us if we not take this unprecedented opportunity for genuine change, particularly in our relationship with China.

We must alter our manufacturing practices.  Whether production takes place in the UK or another country, we must reduce our dependency on China. The whole of the Western world must do the same.

But in the meantime, we want our money back.  China lied, people died, and our economies ground to a halt.  That money must be returned to the British taxpayer and used to help businesses stay afloat and prevent a catastrophic crash in employment.

Now is the time to take back control of our own destiny; we are out of the EU, let’s get out of other unhealthy arrangements while we’re about it.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

SUNDAY COLUMN: Is the Lockdown Ending?

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

Is The Lockdown Ending?

Sunday May 3rd 2020

 

It’s something that none of us have known before, and life is unlikely to return to what we once knew.  At present, one third of the world’s population is on ‘lockdown’.  What a staggering reality.  Lockdown means different things in different countries, but only by degree, the reality is that one third of the world’s people are in some way restricted – not able to leave their homes except for essentials, not able to work, not able to see family and friends, no socialising, no cinema or theatre or cafes or bars or clubs or societies or parks or museums.  It’s all gone.

But there are signs.  Green shoots are beginning to blossom through the cold ground.  While there is still a long way to go, we should try to be positive.  Lockdown may well be coming to an end.

Let’s look at what has been happening so far, starting with friends and neighbours.

Ireland

Irish Premier Leo Varadkar confirmed this weekend that schools and colleges will reopen at the start of the new academic year in September/October.  Some restrictions on daily life have also been lifted.  For example, people in Ireland have been unable to leave home except for essential items, but this is now slowly being lifted.  People over the age of 70 can now leave home for isolated exercise and can do so within a range of 5 km from their homes.  Other restrictions will remain in place until May 18th.  From this date, construction can resume as well as other outdoor activities including sports (in small groups).

Spain

The Spaniards have been subjected to a more stringent lockdown than we have here in the UK.  From day one, we in Britain have been permitted to leave our homes for exercise once a day.   Not so in Spain, only essential shopping has been allowed.  This is now ending.  From the 2nd of May, children in Spain will be able to leave their homes accompanied by an adult.  Everyone is allowed to go out for essential exercise once per day.  From this coming Monday, face masks will become compulsory on public transport as government provides millions of masks to local authorities for distribution.  Hotels will reopen on May 11th with social distancing rules in place.  This has been criticised however by the Hotel Business Association of Madrid, which expressed “disbelief” that hotels would open despite the fact that “the arrival of clients is impossible”.   Spain’s beaches will be closed until June, and travel within the country restricted until the same time.

Germany

Shops are reopening slowly in Germany.  Shops no larger than 800 square meters were allowed to resume business last week.  Also reopening are car showrooms, bicycle shops, and bookshops, but with social distancing rules applied.  Like Spain, face masks will now be compulsory on public transport and almost all German states will enforce mandatory mask use while shopping.  Europe’s richest country has however reported a predicted economic shrink of as much as 6.3% this year.

Austria

Austria has also made face masks compulsory on public transport and like Germany, has begun to reopen its shops.  All shops have been allowed to open from May 2nd but bars, restaurants, and other entertainment will remain out of bounds until at least mid-May.  Gatherings of more than 5 people remain banned and many non-essential shops remain closed.

Switzerland

Moving faster than most in Europe, Switzerland already started lifting restrictions on April 27th.  Florists, hairdressers, and garden centres have reopened, with schools due to do the same on May 11th.  Bars and restaurants will remain closed until at least mid-June.

Sweden

Unusually in Europe, Sweden has not instituted a lockdown – unlike its fellow Scandinavians Norway and Denmark.  Sweden has taken the approach of allowing its citizens to decide for themselves what constitutes responsible behaviour, and has “advised” rather than obliged separation measures.  Children have continued to go to school throughout, and bars and restaurants have remained open.  Images of people in Swedish bars and cafes have raised eyebrows across Europe.  Large events have however been banned, and workers “advised” to work from home when possible and refrain from non-essential travel.  The Swedish government has defended its position and insisted that COVID-19 will be with us for a very long time, so we must learn early on how to live with it without shutting down society.  There are some rules however; in bars and restaurants, people are required to stay an arm’s length apart, and gatherings of more than 50 people have been banned.  Sweden has a population of just over 10 million people.  It’s COVID-19 stats are these: confirmed cases – 22,082, deaths – 2,269 (May 3rd 2020).  For comparison, the combined population of Norway and Denmark is also approximately 10 million.  The stats for these countries: Norway – 7,809 cases with 211 deaths, Denmark – 9,407 cases with 475 deaths. Combined then, Norway and Denmark have seen 17,216 cases of infection, and just 686 deaths; far lower than Sweden.

France

France’s leaders have begun to discuss lifting the country’s lockdown that is now 6 weeks old.  To “avoid economic collapse”, France intends to slowly lift restrictions on May 11th.  Shops and restaurants may reopen on this date (though not if they are based within shopping centres).   The government recognises however that this date may need to be revised.  Schools may reopen in France on May 18th, but with only 15 pupils per classroom.  Paris’ transport system is due to reopen in mid-May with 70% of services expected to run.  The introduction of face masks will accompany the reopening and passengers will be expected to leave an empty seat between them. Travel further than 100 km from home will be restricted to business and urgent family matters.

United States 

America’s response to coronavirus has seen mass protests erupt across the country.  Americans want to get back to work.  But America has also been the hardest hit nation on earth; it has had 1.16 million confirmed cases and 67,067 deaths.  At its lockdown peak, over 90% of the US population was restricted.  The lifting of these restrictions will largely be left to individual states, but Federal demands include social distancing rules be kept in place at least until the end of the summer.  Some states have already begun to reopen, with more due next week.  Georgia, Oklahoma, Alaska and South Carolina have already allowed some businesses to reopen.  Colorado will allow businesses, including hairdressers, tattoo artists, and “kerb-side” shops to reopen from Monday.  Similarly, Tennessee will allow restaurants and bars from Monday, with Montana following on May 7th.  California had instituted a state-wide stay-at-home order but when people flocked to beaches in good weather, authorities were content that they were following social distancing rules.  New York also instituted a state-wide lockdown; this ends on May 15th.

Australia

Australia has been relatively lucky with this virus.  A small number of deaths – 93 – have been recorded, and the infection rate is at 6,783 as of May 3rd.  Each state in Australia has taken a different approach.  Sitting alone in a park for example is ok in Victoria, whereas in New South Wales, people are only allowed out for essential exercise once a day.  In Queensland, people are permitted to sit in parks with family members; similarly in Australian Capital Territory.  In Western Australia, gatherings of more than 10 people are prohibited.  In both South Australia and the Northern Territory, people are permitted to leave home without reason and, like Sweden, have been expected to take personal responsibility for social distancing.  In Tasmania, people are permitted to leave the house only for essential reasons.  In recent days, individual states have begun to ease some restrictions, including allowing people to visit other households provided distancing measures are kept in place.

China

The source of the virus, China began lifting restrictions some weeks ago.  The lockdown on the city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, was lifted as early as April 8th.  Most shops are now reopened, as are the notorious “wet markets” from where the disease is believed to have begun its worldwide journey.  It is difficult to obtain reliable information about goings-on inside communist China, but reports say that travel has increased by 50%, and the Chinese have begun splurging on big brand names since their shops reopened.

Back home in the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has spoken openly about his own COVID-19 infection.  Johnson reported that contingency plans were put in place in the event of his death, and that he had needed “litres and litres” of oxygen during his hospital stay.  He returned to work last week and says he is determined to prevent others suffering as he had done.

The UK has been on lockdown now for more than a month, and government tells us that we are now over the worst.  However, our leaders are emphasising the need for a slow end to lockdown as they prioritise the avoidance of a second wave of the disease.

Throughout our lockdown, we have seen the vast bulk of our businesses closed and most of our workers sent home.  We have not been allowed to travel and are permitted only to leave our homes for essential shopping and exercise (close to where we live).

Now though, Ministers are beginning to reveal how Britain will enter our ‘new normal’ as restrictions are eased.  This will begin with the reopening of parks and beaches.  We are permitted to leave our house more than once a day provided we stick to social distancing.  This distancing (keeping 2 metres apart) will continue indefinitely.  Further moves to ease the lockdown are unlikely to be made until at least late May.  Our current death toll stands at 28,131, with 182,000 confirmed cases.  Ministers have warned that this number will need to fall significantly before major lockdown restrictions (such as reopening bars or going back to work in offices) can be lifted.

In summary then, the UK will remain in some form of lockdown for the foreseeable future.

There is increasing disquiet however regarding this reality. Those of us who live in the UK can see a marked difference in numbers outside over the last week, and some are beginning to question what is going on in the NHS.  Videos and photos of medical staff engaged in rigorous dance routines have surfaced, and special hospitals built to accommodate coronavirus patients have been largely unused.  Conspiracy theories are rife, and over the weekend, a gathering of protestors organised a “group hug” outside Scotland Yard in London to demand an end to the lockdown.  Police ordered the protestors to go home and one man was arrested for refusing to do so.

It is both obvious and inevitable that locking a nation’s population behind closed doors will eventually lead to protest – people will naturally want to get on with their lives, and will distrust governments who tell them they can’t.  It is also inevitable that our economy will suffer enormously and this could lead to greater suffering in the longer term.

The coronavirus story is far from told.  A road of uncertainty is ahead, but people may take comfort from the fact that there now appears a light at the end of the tunnel.  Plans are being made to get life back to some kind of normal, and that is what is needed at this time.

As a country, we must be patient but questioning.  We cannot expect to return to the lives we knew overnight, in fact, it may be wiser if we never expect to return to them again.  But we must continue to demand competence and responsibility from our leaders, and make certain they understand that we want out of this as quickly and safely as we can.  Once again in other words, we want our country back.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

www.forbritain.uk 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

 

 

Enforcement and Consent

By Mike Speakman, Law & Order Spokesman

30th April 2020

There is much speculation about the government’s timing of the lockdown; were they too early or were they too late?   Many of the government’s opponents claim they were too late, citing South Korea or Taiwan who were very quick to introduce lockdowns. Taiwan in fact did it in December.   Allowing for the delay in the spread to Europe, most critics, with the benefit of hindsight say the government were a week late.   There is however another factor that is being overlooked and that is the question of consent.  There is no doubt that the current measures are draconian and a very severe limitation on the freedoms we have come to expect in a modern democracy.  One question the government will have asked is “Will the public accept these restrictions?”   It would be critical to the implementation of the restrictions that the majority of the public accepted their imposition. If they did not, they would not work.

So, one of the first tasks was to convince the public that there was a problem to deal with.  In the very early days of the outbreak in this country that might have been difficult. I seem to recall that the first case was traced to a tourist returning from a Ski Resort. It was seen as a foreign import and not an issue for this country.  I doubt that people would have accepted the new restrictions at that stage.   I think the government decided to wait until there were enough cases in this country for people to accept that there was a problem and that there was a need to deal with it.

There are actually some parallels with policing in this respect.  The British public do not like to see police in riot gear on the streets or “heavy handed policing” for no good reason.  They need to see that the police are justified in what they are doing.  To this end, police will often delay the deployment of riot officers in a deteriorating public order situation until they can demonstrate the need.  Even though you may have intelligence of what is coming when you find caches of petrol bombs and bricks in advance of an event, you can’t afford to be seen to anticipate the trouble. If you do you will be accused of causing the trouble.  Often you have to wait until it is very evident.

This I believe is the problem the government had to deal with, and I wouldn’t disagree with their timing.   It’s not just a question of the science, there is a clear political dimension to the decision to introduce a lockdown.

That doesn’t mean I think the government has got it all right. There are some serious flaws in the theory of a lockdown when you allow flights in from disease hotspots around the world and cooperate with illegal immigrants arriving by boat, whilst penalising lone sailors exercising in the boats offshore.  It is these inconsistencies that are now undermining public consent, along with, dare I say, some idiot police officers and some even more idiotic police leaders who want to search shopping trolleys.

The question of consent is at the heart of government and this virus has highlighted how fragile it is.  The government needs to do more to keep the public onside.

Stand Up To Racism: The Frankenstein’s Monster of Crackpot Organisations

Guest Article

By Frankie Rufolo

30th April 2020

Recently I was impressed by For Britain London’s short film “Behind the Front”, so I decided to follow it up with an article. When you type “The For Britain Movement” into a search engine, the words “far right” come up straight away. It’s important to look at the people who make this accusation, parroted by the mainstream media, and what they really believe.

Stand Up to UKIP, Unite Against Fascism and Stand Up To Racism – they’re the same group, under different names. If someone holds one of their signs when a few old bigots are in their town with National Front flags, I don’t think any less of those local people objecting to actual neo-Nazis. It’s the groups that provide these signs, produce the banners and arrange the counter-protests that should be ridiculed and despised. Diane Abbott’s organisation Stand Up To Racism is not serious about anti-racism; they are anti-West.

You can’t talk about SUTR without discussing the presence of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Formed from the Socialist Review Group in the 1950s, this minor party has failed to interest sufficient people in Marxism to enjoy electoral success. However, unlike the political dinosaur that is the Communist Party of Britain, the SWP have evolved with the times. Because they know their praise of murderous tyrants like Vladimir Lenin won’t attract anyone, this fringe party, in an attempt to draw people in, uses front groups campaigning on more popular issues: anti-racism, anti-war, anti-austerity and so on. One of these front groups, the street-protest movement Unite Against Fascism (UAF), now only operates through Stand Up To Racism. The leader of UAF and co-convenor of SUTR is Weyman Bennet, a member of the SWP’s central committee. He was arrested in 2010, along with 55 of his supporters, on charges of inciting violent disorder, and disrupted UKIP’s campaign launch in the snap election of 2017, breaking into the hotel venue, shouting aggressively and refusing to leave. It doesn’t matter how much Stand Up To Racism insist they’re not a front group – UAF is and it’s inseparable from Diane Abbott’s organisation. Another SWP front group SUTR work with is the Stop the War Coalition, led by Andrew Murray, a supporter of Kim Jong Un’s regime in North Korea. Though they might be against fascism, they’re certainly not freedom fighters.

The SWP not only praises Trotskyism, but openly supports Hezbollah, an Islamic terrorist group which aims to destroy Israel, denies the Holocaust and pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, even accusing Jews of spreading AIDS throughout the Arab world. The terrorist group was deemed responsible for a suicide bombing in July 2012 which killed six Jewish-Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Not only does the SWP support this violent anti-Semitism, it’s no safe space for women; in 2013 it emerged that the party leadership had all actively discouraged female members from going to the police to report sexual assault and rape by one of their senior figures.

The SWP, in its different forms, is perhaps the worst of the groups involved in SUTR and is seemingly a dominant force, but it’s not the only one. The director of activist group CAGE (formerly Cageprisoners created as a reaction to the ‘war on terror’) Moazzam Begg, has been invited to speak at “anti-racism” conferences. The former Guantanamo Bay detainee supported the Taliban as well as the deported Al-Qaeda-linked cleric Abu Qatada.

Stand Up To Racism also has links to the Muslim Council of Britain – the organisation that networks mosques and Islamic schools and which is Britain’s most prominent Muslim group. Its founder Iqbal Sacranie infamously said, during the Satanic Verses affair, that Salman Rushdie deserved to be “tormented for the rest of his life” and has described homosexuality as unacceptable. The MCB are staunchly opposed to Prevent and have even called on politicians to decriminalise the glorification of terrorism. They also condone ultra-conservative attitudes in Muslim communities, supporting Islamic schools in Britain which require girls as young as eleven to wear the hijab as a mandatory part of the uniform. In the past, other senior figures have also expressed extremist and intolerant views, such as Ibrahim Hewitt, who compared homosexuality to paedophilia. Far from opposing racism, the MCB have had a policy of boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day. They claim to be non-sectarian, but after the religious murder of Assad Shah in 2016, the MCB released a statement refusing to recognise Ahmaddiyyas like him as fellow Muslims. At the time, they were affiliated with Pakistani Islamist hate group Khatme Nabuwwat, which distributed leaflets in London mosques describing Ahmadi Muslims as “deserving to die” just weeks before the killing.

Another Muslim group involved in Stand Up To Racism and the Stop The War Coalition is the Muslim Association of Britain. It was set up by Kemal el‐Hebawy, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood – an international Islamic movement which condones violence against civilians and with members who have gone on to form terrorist groups, including Hamas and Al-Qaeda. The Brotherhood itself has been banned in some countries and could soon be proscribed in the US. The leader of the Muslim Association of Britain, Omar El-Hamdoon, has defended wife-beating. This misogynist was a speaker at SUTR’s national demonstration in 2015.

An associate of Weyman Bennett and a regular speaker at SUTR’s conferences is Azad Ali, director of Muslim Engagement and Development – or MEND. In 2010, Ali lost a libel case against The Daily Mail and was deemed an Islamic extremist by a high court judge after supporting the killing of British soldiers on his blog. Ali has also expressed support for the leaders of Hamas, claiming that the Palestinian terrorist group, which has called for all Jews to be killed, should rule a “future caliphate.” In March 2017, Ali wrote about the Westminster Attack, refusing to call it terrorism. Other senior figures in MEND, such as Sufyan Ismail, Heena Khaled and Siema Iqbal, have also made anti-Semitic statements, yet have been hosted at “anti-racism” conferences. Another of MEND’s organisers, Sheikh Suliman Gani, has been described by politicians as an extremist imam and is opposed to homosexuality. He also believes women should be subservient to men. He’s even believed to have attended a rally organised by Anjem Choudary. In 2010, he told worshippers in his mosque to boycott Ahmadiyya businesses, describing Ahmadi Muslims as “deceptive.” However, discriminating against a minority religious community didn’t stop this imam from speaking at a Stand Up To Racism protest in Croydon.

The many groups that form Stand Up To Racism do not take anti-Semitism seriously and even go as far as to support it. Far from building bridges, these Islamist groups only fuel sectarian divisions within Muslim communities. When they’re not shouting “fascist scum” at liberal people, they’re supporting violent theocrats and apologising for the most oppressive regimes in the world. Abbott’s organisation is not serious on racism, which is why at their protest outside UKIP’s conference in Torquay, activists called ethnic minority members of the patriotic party “coconut” and “race traitor.”

I’ve seen this behaviour for myself. At a pro-Brexit and free speech rally, SUTR activists assumed a mixed-race friend of mine was on their side because of her skin colour and called a South Asian mate of mine a “Nazi.” They’re a joke – but unfortunately, so is the mainstream media. I’m against all racism – and that includes left-wing racism. That’s why I’m proud to be a member of For Britain.

 

COVID-19: The Economic Fallout

Anne Marie Waters 

April 28th 2020

 

The Government has promised £60,000 to the families of health workers whose relatives die from coronavirus.  The measure was announced by Health Secretary Matt Hancock on April 27th.  This will no doubt bring some relief to devastated families and very few people would object.

However, as it is one of many enormously generous promises made by the Government since the beginning of the coronavirus, it has perhaps become time for a tally-up.  Just how much money has the Government promised to date?

We cannot know how many payments of £60K will be paid out to families, but so far, there are more than 100 NHS staff members who have died in relation to coronavirus.  That’s already £6 million – a mere drop in the ocean.

Also made available from the Government is £2,500 per month (or 80% of salary) for employees unable to work.  Again, it is impossible to quantify how much this will be over all, but the UK has a working population of over 31 million people – 5 million of whom are self-employed.  Therefore, at a rough calculation, 26 million people at £2,500 per month over a 3 month period amounts to approximately £195 billion.

For self-employed people, Chancellor Rishi Sunak has announced a package of taxable grants that are based on the average trading profit of the claimant over the three tax years between 2016 and 2019.  Once again, it is impossible to measure how much this might amount to.

What else has the Government promised?

  • Cash grants to retailers worth £25,000
  • No business rates for the retail, hospitality, and leisure sectors for one year
  • Grants worth £10,000 for small business
  • State backed loans to the value of £330 billion
  • Tax breaks worth £20 billion

No doubt some of this overlaps, but in attempting to find a clear overall figure, it’s not possible to do so. What we do know is that hundreds of billions of pounds have been made available, taxes have been cut, and our economy is in shut-down.  In short, our coffers are being plundered while there is little-to-nothing coming in.

What we also know is that our country is already in levels of debt never known before (as are most countries).  The UK’s debt is currently at a frightening level of 85% of GDP.  That means that the UK owes 85% of all of the goods and services it produces and provides each year.  We owe 85% of our income.  After coronavirus, we are likely to owe more than 100% – some have even suggested that debt could reach 150% of GDP.

So what happens then?  What happens when we owe more than we earn?  The truth is it’s a completely absurd situation and these debts simply cannot be paid.

We are living in a debt-laden world and it affects our production, our income, and our prospects in devastating ways.  It is now set to grow and grow as a result of coronavirus and we can’t pay it.  So we will leave it to the next generation, who will probably borrow to pay it and the circle will continue round and round.

The bubble must burst, and it will, so the UK must make change and increase our self-sufficiency, but the world must look now at this bubble of debt and the global suffering it causes.  Third world countries for example are in enormous debt to the IMF and World Bank; so much so that paying debt dominates the economic policy of countries with starving populations.

We must make change and we must do it quickly. Future generations will find their lives blighted by endless debt, we must therefore seize the coronavirus crisis as our opportunity to steer the future in a different direction.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

www.forbritain.uk 

You can read Anne Marie’s previous blog on the economic impact of coronavirus here

 

 

Open Letter to the British Government: When will this end?

The following is a suggested letter to the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson ([email protected]), as well as Health Secretary Matt Hancock ([email protected]). 

Please copy and paste and send this to Government.  The more letters they receive, the more they’ll become aware of public feeling.  Thank you. 

 

Dear Prime Minister/Health Secretary

Re: Coronavirus ‘lockdown’

As of Monday evening, April 27th, the latest information from Government is that we will continue in our current state of ‘lockdown’ for the foreseeable future.

The United Kingdom has been under strict ‘lockdown’ for more than 4 weeks. During this time, as you know, all but necessary shopping has been prohibited, as have visits to friends and family. Crucially however, large numbers have been unable to work. The effect on our economy is therefore perilously serious.

The National Health Service has been effectively closed to all but coronavirus patients, meaning for example that 1,000s of cancer patients’ lives may at risk, something that experts have previously warned about.  Meanwhile, we are informed that the Nightingale Hospital in Birmingham, a section of the National Exhibition Centre structured as a specific COVID-19 hospital, was “not being used at all” 10 days after being opened by the Duke of Cambridge.

In addition to this, social media sites reveal photos and videos of NHS staff dancing and singing. They do so while wearing PPE (which we are told is in short supply) and sometimes using expensive NHS equipment as props.

A recent study has calculated that the cost to the UK economy, so far (this will rise as the lockdown continues) is a staggering £350 billion.

The longer this lockdown goes on, the greater the economic burden we will carry, as will our nation’s children and grandchildren. It goes without saying that as our economy suffers, so will the poorest and most vulnerable. Fewer resources will be available to care for our elderly and disabled, which will inevitably result in suffering and mortality, indeed, there is every chance that the economic impact of this lockdown could result in more deaths than those caused by coronavirus itself.

Germany and others have already begun to ease restrictions and businesses have begun to reopen. Sweden has not entered a full lockdown at all, and yet its coronavirus statistics are remarkably similar to those countries that have.

Finally, the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University has concluded that the peak of coronavirus deaths occurred in the UK as early as April 4th.

We are aware that the Government has instituted a series of five tests to determine if and when the nationwide lockdown will be lifted.

These tests are:

  1. Can the NHS cope?
  2. Has there been a “sustained and consistent” fall in death rates?
  3. Is the rate of infection decreasing to manageable levels?
  4. Can supplies of tests and PPE meet future demand?
  5. Would easing the lockdown risk a second peak?

Can you answer the above questions for us, and address in particular the question as to whether the health service can meet demand. Given the fact that staff are regularly seen dancing in the wards, and new facilities are going unused, is it reasonable to suggest that the NHS cannot cope?

According to data, death rates have indeed fallen.  Can you confirm to us what constitutes “sustained and consistent” in this context?

Further reports suggest that rates of infection were falling in mid-April, what is the current situation?

Regarding supplies of PPE, isn’t it somewhat concerning that NHS staff appear to be wasting such supplies, and why has it taken Government so long to secure these basic necessities? Is lack of plastic gowns a solid justification for halting the economy of our country?

What are the results in other countries regarding a second peak? What countries have eased restrictions and avoided this, and what action did they take to do so?

In summary, we are highly concerned about our stalled economy and the potentially disastrous long-term impact. We are equally concerned at the lack of a coherent plan – beyond “wait and see” – thus far put forward by the Government.

Please let us know what the current situation is, as well as how and when the Government intends to get the country back on its feet.

We look forward to your reply.

 

For Britain Movement

www.forbritain.uk 

 

 

 

SUNDAY COLUMN: Grooming Gang Cover-Up Continues

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

Grooming Gang Cover-Up Continues 

Sunday April 26th 2020

The British Parliament provides a facility for the public to post petitions which, if they gain over 100,000 signatories, will be put before the House of Commons for debate.  At least that is the theory.  In reality however, petitions are ignored if they are politically inconvenient – 100,000 signatures or not.

When it comes to political inconvenience, there is little as troublesome as grooming gangs.  “Grooming gang” is the commonplace title used to describe a particular phenomena – groups of grown men who groom young people (befriend and exploit vulnerable girls who are generally alone in the world – most being in “the care” of local authorities).  The girls are groomed for rape, and rape is what they get.

In Britain, grooming gangs are known to operate everywhere from Rotherham to Glasgow to London to Telford to Manchester to Newcastle to Oxford to Birmingham.  All over the UK the story is the same.  Gangs of men get hold of underage girls, rape them repeatedly, then traffic them around the country to be raped again and again.

But surely, you may be thinking, surely a government would prevent this, especially when it is happening in plain sight?   What can be the reason that this horrible crime has gone on for decades in the UK unpunished?  One word: Islam.

The rapists are almost always Muslims and the victims almost always white British girls.  This is race-hate crime committed against whites by non-whites.  If this is admitted, then the government would have to admit that is has allowed mass migration, in to Britain, of people who will do us great harm.  It can’t admit this, not because it feels any shame, but because admitting it may lead to far-reaching political opposition to further mass migration that will do us harm, and preventing that is the government’s priority.  The borders must stay open no matter how much rape it will lead to.

Now the Conservative government is refusing to publish the latest report in to the grooming gang scandal.  It has also refused to debate the issue despite the 100,000+ who signed a petition.  The message from the Tories as exactly as it was from Labour; Islam first, raped children irrelevant.

Let’s take a look at how this all started.

Rotherham

The grooming gang scandal, the most shocking child abuse revelation in our nation’s history, exploded on to public consciousness in 2014 with the publication of the Jay Report.  Commissioned by Rotherham Council, Professor Alexis Jay’s report in to child sexual exploitation in that town would shock the country.  The report estimated that a staggering 1,400 children had been sexually abused by Muslim gangs in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013.  This was acknowledged to be a conservative estimate.

The report fully recognised that the men involved were almost exclusively Muslim and the girls white.  It also recognised that police had done nothing to prevent these rapes for fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” or “racism”.  The injustice was so stark that instead of arresting rapists, police arrested parents of victims, or even victims themselves.  The Labour Council, fully dependent upon the Muslim vote, kept quiet as well.  Why stir up all this trouble and risk alienating the imams and the block votes they deliver?  Rotherham’s girls were sacrificed to Muslims.  They were sacrificed to Islam, and they were among 100,000s of girls across the UK who were in exactly the same boat.

After Rotherham, it was like a domino effect; town after town, city after city, the truth began to emerge.  Rochdale, Oxford, Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Telford, and elsewhere.  The press, having ignored these gangs for years, suddenly began reporting on them.  The police, having done the same, suddenly began making (token) arrests.  In a short time, the public became aware of what the state had known all along; they had been completely betrayed in the name of “diversity” and “multiculturalism”.  The betrayal was so bad, so evil, that it involved allowing children to be gang-raped.

The British public is angry.  It may be about to get angrier.

Labour v Conservative 

It is well known and widely accepted that the worst towns for incidence of grooming gangs are those controlled by Labour.  This is for a couple of reasons. The first of which being that Labour areas are often high immigrant areas.  The reasons for that are obvious.  Labour depends on the immigrant or minority vote and so its areas are filled to bursting with that demographic.  In many areas, the dominant minority groups are Muslim, and Labour has aligned itself so completely with Muslims that it cannot possibly offer any criticisms.  Labour tags on to all the Muslim causes; “Palestine”, the defence of Iran and other brutes, and the obligatory anti-Semitism.

It is also well known that Labour councils looked away while children in their care were shared by rapists on a nightly basis.  Labour governance then is clearly disastrous and will never face this problem.  But what of the Conservatives?  In short, the only difference is rhetoric, the reality is exactly the same.

Sajid Javid 

In 2018, then Home Secretary Sajid Javid caused a storm when he tweeted these words:

These sick Asian paedophiles are finally facing justice. I want to commend the bravery of the victims. For too long, they were ignored. Not on my watch. There will be no no-go areas

Something happens in the public mind when senior politicians say things like this; people believe that politician is on their side and will finally make change.  But sadly it almost always stops with words, action is rarely close behind.

What he said was also untrue.  The rapists weren’t “Asian” but “Muslim”.  They’re not “facing justice” now any more than they have been.  The situation in Rotherham is worse than it was before the Jay Report.

Finally, the word “paedophile” is a something of a red herring here. These men don’t see themselves as paedophiles, the difference is, they don’t see the girls they’re raping as children.  In Islam, a girl is a grown woman at the age of 9 (as per the example set by Mohammed) so raping a 13 year old isn’t deemed paedophilia – this is an enormous gap between the Western and Islamic view of girls that governments don’t want you to know about.

Despite the outcry about his language, Javid somewhat persisted.  He said it would be wrong to ignore the “ethnicity” of the perpetrators.  But again he was either mistaken or deliberately muddying the waters.  The issue isn’t ethnicity (except the race hate crime against whites), the issue is religion. The religion of Islam teaches its adherents utter contempt for non-Muslims (on every page of the Koran).  The hatred for non-Muslims is matched only by the hatred for women.  Imagine then Islam’s teachings on non-Muslim women.  It is as terrible as you might expect, and the Koran explicitly permits the rape of non-Muslim women by Muslim men.  It is indisputable.  That’s why it is kept under wraps, even by a Home Secretary desperate to look like he is tackling the subject.

Javid wasn’t to last at the Home Office, but before his departure, he ordered a review of the characteristics of grooming gangs.  He did so in response to requests by Labour MP for Rotherham Sarah Champion.  Champion is the sole Labour MP to take this matter seriously, and for her trouble, she lost her front bench job.  Is it any wonder MPs are so reluctant to show moral fortitude? When they do, they’re punished.  Back to Javid, his investigation was indeed carried out, only for its findings to be buried.

Priti Patel 

The MP to follow Javid in to the Home Office, and its current boss, is Priti Patel.  Patel started off well and was initially popular, partly because she produced the toughest (though not nearly tough enough) immigration proposals seen from a Home Secretary in many years.  However, the shine is beginning to dull because Patel, despite apparent efforts on her part, has not been able to publish the results of Javid’s review in to the ethnicity of grooming gang offenders.

Upon taking control at the Home Office, Patel insisted that the results of Javid’s investigation be made available to her.  Press reports suggested that the Home Secretary was “battling” with her own officials for access to the report, apparently with no success.

Both Patel and Sarah Champion spoke openly about this, which prompted a Westminster petition for the release of the report.  In no time at all, the 100,000 signature threshold was met. But there would  be no debate, that was simply ignored.  Instead, the government issued the following response by email:

Child sexual abuse is a truly horrendous crime that shatters the lives of victims and their families. This Government has made it our mission to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and we will continue to work tirelessly at every level to protect children, support victims and stamp out offending.

Our approach is simple: we will do everything in our power to help those at risk and to leave offenders with no place to hide.

First, we have improved support for those who have suffered this appalling crime. We have increased funding for specialist local services for victims of sexual violence from £8 million to £12 million a year. Those affected have our unequivocal support, so we have also doubled our Support for Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse fund to £1.2 million, to help charities do more to help people across the country.

Second, the vile offenders preying on our children must face justice. The Home Office continues to support and drive improvements in the police response to child sexual abuse. We have prioritised this horrific crime as a national threat to ensure offenders face the full force of the law and provided significant Police Transformation Fund investment to improve the police response. Group offending must be eradicated, and we continue to provide Special Grant funding to forces carrying out major child sexual exploitation investigations.

Last September, we announced an additional £30 million to strengthen our mission to take down the worst offenders and safeguard and support victims. We continue to look for ways to do more and are developing a cross-government Child Sexual Abuse Strategy to ensure the whole system works for victims. The Strategy will set out how we will work across all sectors – including government, law enforcement, safeguarding and industry – to stop offenders in their tracks, and to help victims and survivors rebuild their lives.

Group-based child sexual exploitation is a particularly repugnant form of abuse that has a devasting impact on villages, towns and communities, particularly where it has gone on for years. These unthinkable crimes tear neighbourhoods apart and leave lasting scars that go beyond the direct victims. Extremists may also seek to exploit legitimate concerns to sow further division. The Government will continue to challenge these views and to help communities unite.

Child sexual abusers come from all walks of life, and from many different age groups, communities, ethnicities and faiths. Abuse is abuse, and misplaced sensitivities must never be allowed to put any child at risk. We are clear that police forces must continue to fully investigate these heinous crimes whenever and wherever they occur, and to ensure that anyone found responsible is prosecuted.

To help end this terrible form of abuse, the Home Office has been investigating the characteristics of group-based child sexual exploitation. It is right, proper and routine for the Government to carry out internal fact-finding work as part of policy development, as we do across a range of crime threats. Any insights gained from this important internal work will be used to inform our future action to end this devastating abuse, including the forthcoming Strategy.

Our research will help us better understand offending, to help prevent these vile crimes. Key findings will inform our own work, action at a local level, and law enforcement action to catch those responsible for this horrific abuse.

As part of our work, we have completed a review of existing literature. We have spoken to investigators and safeguarding professionals to better explore the challenges in investigating these crimes and their understanding of the offenders and victims of group-based child sexual exploitation.

The Government appreciates public interest in this matter and shares the nation’s outrage and determination to end this atrocious form of abuse. Mistakes have undoubtedly been made in the past and must never be allowed to happen again.

We will continue to work relentlessly to understand and end all forms of child sexual abuse. The most vulnerable in our society deserve our protection and we will work tirelessly to keep them safe and to bring their tormentors to justice.

Note the repeated use of words like “atrocious”, “vile” and “unthinkable”.  Yes the government wants us to believe how horrified it is.  Not horrified enough to tell the truth though.

This response could have been written by a left-wing think-tank, or even the Labour Party.  The Conservatives are clearly no different.  They too want to protect the open borders (primarily) and the lie of multiculturalism that inevitably follows.

The government response goes to great pains to point out that abuse happens in all communities and across all faiths, but that was not the point of this investigation.  The point was to investigate the characteristics of the grooming gangs (i.e. that they are Muslims) but this does not form the basis of the reply – it has been entirely whitewashed.

As for Patel herself, she has gone silent.  No sooner had she ordered that this report be made available than bullying accusations were made against her.  This prompted an internal investigation in to her behaviour and the grooming gang issue was shelved.

One of two things has happened here.  Two Home Secretaries in a row promised to uncover the truth about grooming gangs, but neither actually managed it.  Why is this?  Is the Home Secretary genuinely unable to have this information published, or were they just making the right noises with no intent to follow it up?  Either answer is alarming, and in the end, will make no difference to the victims of these gangs.

There is still no justice, there is still no truth, the only certainty going forward is that the rape will continue, and both Labour and the Conservatives will continue to cover it up.

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Coronavirus: PPE and the lockdown

Anne Marie Waters 

April 22nd 2020 

 

It’s easy to criticise the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis, but we should remember we’re in unchartered waters and nobody has been here before.  However, it is the job of the government to act in the people’s best interests, even (or especially) at difficult times like this.

There have been enormous failings for example regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) for key workers.  This isn’t necessarily Johnson’s personal doing however, because most Western countries find ourselves in the same position; unable to be self-sufficient because we’ve outsourced key manufacturing year on year on year.

Britain is a country that has been so badly run for so long that we appear to be incapable of producing our own plastic gowns.  That isn’t true of course, Britain is perfectly capable of producing plastic gowns, but British manufacturers are not asked, instead we are relying on China (the source of the virus) and now it seems on Turkey.

At around 3.30 this morning an RAF plane carrying a consignment of protective equipment landed in the UK.  The plane had been sent to Turkey to pick up what is thought to include some 400,000 urgently needed surgical gowns.  The equipment was supposed to arrive on Sunday, but delay has resulted in this undoubtedly expensive trip to Istanbul.

Meanwhile, ventilators are ordered from China because those produced by British manufacturers do not meet NHS specifications.  This is quite incredible.  We must ask why.  Why do ventilators produced in the UK not meet NHS specifications?  Presumably these are then for export.  But why do we rely on others for products we can make for ourselves?  I’m not suggesting we do no international trade and make absolutely every product ourselves, but surely we must recognise how vulnerable we are in being this reliant on other nations; in the case of China, potentially hostile ones.

In an emergency situation such as this, the government should buy emergency produce from homegrown business – why not give our own people a boost?  The only possible answer is cost: we have spent decades demanding inferior products from far away places and undercutting our own manufacturers.  This is the result.

The government is coming under increasing criticism furthermore because of the growing impact on the economy.  The lockdown will hit us hard and medical advisors are advising that it should not end prematurely.  One thing that would help however is testing, and here again the government has come under fire.

Laura reported on testing being a political problem as early as April 1st, and there aren’t many signs of improvement since then.  The procurement of testing has been described as “a fiasco” but Dominic Raab has today insisted that the government will meet its target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of April; 82,000 more than at present. This is a tall order.

The lack of testing has of course had a negative impact on the NHS (and the wider economy) as the likelihood is that there are people perfectly capable of working but who are staying at home just when they are needed most.

There are no easy solutions to any of these problems, but at times like this, tough decisions must be made.  These decisions will have ramifications for years to come, but that is the responsibility that government takes on.

There is a real opportunity to learn from this crisis.  We should learn about self-sufficiency and ensure we are capable of protecting ourselves when we enter a particularly difficult period in the future.

More urgently though, this lockdown needs to now be brought to an end.  This cannot happen overnight we know, but firm plans must be put in place, as soon as possible, to get this country back to work.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

Member Submission: Why Anne Marie’s PA Video is so Important

By Phil Kemble

21st April 2020

My experience from debating Patriotic Alternative and why Anne Marie’s video on them is so important for our party

I have debated conspiracy theorists before but have not done so for several years because the debate always follows a predictable pattern.  Your opponent provides some factual information but if you dig a bit deeper, you find it is just conspiracy theory nonsense. However, members of Patriotic Alternative (PA) had challenged us to a debate so I wrote two opening posts in the comments section under Anne Marie’s video.  For brevity, I have only included pertinent information.  You will find this account very interesting and why Anne Marie’s video is so important for our party.

The first thing that strikes you about conspiracy theorists targeting Jews is their pathological hatred of Jews.  Jews control the West as in PA’s case or the World in other cases. In their warped minds, everything from wars to mass 3rd World immigration to the West, is orchestrated by Jews for the benefit of Israel.  That was the firm belief held by the member of PA that I debated.

In conspiracy theories targeting Jews, Muslims are not to blame for their actions because Jews control Muslims as well; they are helpless puppets. For that reason, conspiracy theorists targeting Jews wreck anti-Islam movements because the anti-Islam message becomes totally corrupted.

Several members of PA commented on my opening posts but only one member stood the course for a reasonable debate.  My opponent was intelligent and well educated.  For the most part, the debate was cordial without ad hominem abuse.  PA’s policies are easy to tear apart in a debate but some very interesting points came up in the debate as you will see below.  PA’s lack of knowledge of Islam and the Muslim mindset unravels their cornerstone racist policy of making Britain 95% white.

PA want to form an alliance with both Sunni and Shia Muslims to achieve “common goals” which obviously include the destruction of Israel.  This would likely lead to the widespread slaughter of Jews in the Middle East.

PA’s Laura Towler shows in a video that Muslims are vastly outbreeding whites and have the highest birth rate in Britain so Muslims must be PA’s prime target for paid voluntarily repatriation.

This raises a massive disconnect in PA’s policies.  PA need the assistance of Muslims to destroy Israel but also need Muslims to leave Britain.  The Global Muslim Ummah would reject Muslims leaving Britain because for over a thousand years Muslims have dreamed of conquering European Christendom and can only do that through immigration and demographics. Anyone who has studied Islamic history knows this fact.

The above information on PA wanting to form an alliance with Muslims and the Global Muslim Ummah etc was in one of my opening posts.  My opponent replied:

“You are thoroughly disingenuous. Nothing you have written provides any substance to your opening claim that “PA want to form an alliance… which obviously includes the destruction of Israel. Do you have any links to video evidence that supports your opening claims?”

My opponent was unaware of his own organisation’s policies but must have seen PA’s videos on British demographics by Laura Towler. These videos are the cornerstone of PA’s racist policies so the only person being thoroughly disingenuous was my opponent.  In an article on PA’s website titled: “Zionism & Neoliberalism: A Struggle for the Soul of the British People “it states:

“It is claimed Zionism is merely supporting “a homeland for the Jewish people”, but we can understand it to be the endorsement of the destruction of every surrounding people. Libya, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria have already been destroyed and obedient puppet Trump recently threatened to destroy precious ancient sites in Iran with Aryan, Zoroastrian roots. The threats of the New Yorker echo the Book of Esther without the mythos but all of the bloodlust. Zionist support for jihadis that destroyed Palmyra and beheaded Aramaic speaking scholars and priests demonstrates the criminality of tolerating this uncultured greed”.

“So, we can conclude that Zionism and neoliberalism are two sides of the same anti-white coin and as nationalists, we should be prepared to work with Arabs, Syriacs and Persians for common goals”.

Article referred to here.

The beginning of the first paragraph shows an inclination towards supporting the destruction of the “homeland for the Jewish people” (Israel) because in PA’s warped minds, Israel is behind the destruction of countries that surround it and Libya.  But that inclination of support is solidified at the end of the first paragraph with this statement: “…. demonstrates the criminality of tolerating this uncultured greed”. You can picture Hitler speaking the exact same words.

In the second paragraph, it is common knowledge that Muslims want to wipe out Israel and kill every Jewish man, woman, and child in the country.  Hamas has it in its charter!  Surrounding Muslim countries have invaded Israel three times to do just that.  Iranians (PA’s Persians) regularly chant “death to Israel”.  Putting the two paragraphs together, the “common goals” are obvious.  They are the destruction of Israel and the mass slaughter of Jews.

In a Laura Towler video titled: “Demographics Explained in 5 Minutes!”, at 1.29 in the video Laura Towler says: “these numbers were then swamped from 1997 onwards when mass immigration was amplified”.  This is when hundreds of thousands of Muslims started arriving every year under Tony Blair’s Labour.  The Conservatives did not stop that mass immigration either.  Laura Towler’s video shows the British white birth rate being only 1.5 children which she says: “is below the recommended 2.1 birth rate per woman required to maintain a population to stay the same in a 1st World country”.  At 2.40 in the video, Laura Towler says: “Pakistani and Bangladeshi families have a birth rate of 3.5 and above” with a picture of a Muslim woman in a niqab.  They have the highest birth rate in Britain by far according to the video so by their own evidence, PA would have to target the Muslim demographic with their paid voluntary repatriation scheme.

The massive disconnect between needing Muslim assistance to destroy Israel and needing Muslims to leave Britain is clear to see.

Zionist support for jihadis is yet another conspiracy theory.  The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has a military field hospital on the border with Syria. They have made a pact with Al Nusra Front to treat its wounded in return for them not attacking a large Druze community close to the Israeli border inside Syria. The IDF field hospital also treats wounded Syrian civilians.

In the PA article, they are anti For Britain, anti Tommy Robinson, anti “Zionist” Trump and even anti “Zionist” Winston Churchill.  According to PA, For Britain and Tommy Robinson are funded by Zionists.  My opponent claimed Churchill was originally anti-Jewish but then took the shekels!  However, PA are pro the megalomaniac Putin and the butcher of Syria, Assad who they believe have been maligned in western media.  You couldn’t make this stuff up.

PA being anti a “true” British patriot, Winston Churchill, formed my 2nd opening post.

In reply, my opponent quoted from an extract of an article written by Winston Churchill and published in the Sunday Herald on 8th February 1920 as proof that Churchill hated Jews.  I countered with an extract from Churchill’s official biographer to show Churchill was always pro Zionism.  I have since found out that Churchill’s 1920’s Sunday Herald article is often misquoted by anti-Semites. The article is titled: “Zionism versus Bolshevism”.  My opponent’s extract conveniently did not have a title. “Churchill’s article was an attack on Bolshevism (“a sinister confederacy”), not Zionism, which Churchill supported”.  This is typical of digging a bit deeper to find the real truth behind conspiracy theories.

Although claiming to have read the For Britain manifesto, my opponent had our immigration policy completely wrong.  I explained For Britain’s immigration policy and how it and other policies in our manifesto would greatly reduce the Muslim demographic.  I informed my opponent that around a third (1.1 million) British Muslims are Islamists and that percentage would rise as the Muslim population rises. Our future would be civil war and Lebanon unless action was taken to address the Muslim demographic.

Trapped in a catch 22 situation where PA’s policies would not resolve the Muslim demographic problem but For Britain’s policies would, my opponent had the gall to say:

“For Britain’s immigration policy is weak; it is also “racist”.

This coming from a member of an organisation whose raison d’être is racism!

My opponent was obviously blind and deaf to Anne Marie’s passionate rejection in the video of policies based purely on the colour of someone’s skin.  PA’s supporters obviously were not blind and deaf.  Their comments, many with high upvotes, are totally against Anne Marie for standing up for British people of colour.

For Britain wants white British people to be recognised as indigenous British and we want the dominant culture and values in Britain to remain those of the indigenous British people.  That is not racism.  In fact, it is racism to refuse it.

Patriotic Alternative will only ever be a conspiracy theory organisation and not a serious political party.  Their belief in a loony conspiracy theory will always weigh them down.

Anne Marie asks a pertinent question in the video.  What do you do if people of colour do not take up your offer of paid voluntary repatriation?  I asked the same question but my opponent failed to answer.

I am an Army veteran.  Some of my closest brothers in arms are veterans of colour.  I would never ever desert them.  I would not be a member of For Britain if it was a racist political party.

Perhaps Anne Marie’s video on Patriotic Alternative should be sent to the likes of “Hope not hate” etc to show them that For Britain is not a racist far right Nazi party whereas Patriotic Alternative most definitely is.

Anne Marie’s raw passion is plain to see in the video.  Unintentionally, the video could become one of the best PR campaigns our party has had to date.

Phil Kemble

COVID-19: The Economic Fallout

Anne Marie Waters 

April 21st 2020

 

An extraordinary thing has occurred on the world markets; the price of oil has fallen below zero for the first time in history.  In what can only be described as a surreal situation, traders were actually paying people to take their oil.

The causes of this are largely a drop in demand for oil, as well as a lesser availability of storage space – both prompted by the increasingly bizarre COVID-19 world we now find ourselves in.

What has been described as a “quirk” saw oil at -$37 a barrel (however the BBC reports this is now correcting itself).  The oil was sold on the “futures” market.  A “future” is an agreement to buy at a later date.  The parties to the contract agree to buy (and sell) the product on a specified date at a specified price.  When that date arrives, the price of the product may have fallen, so the holder is unable to sell the futures on.  This means they are stuck having to find a place to store oil in a market with less space available.  Subsequently they found themselves paying others to take it off their hands.

It is yet another example of the never-seen-before nature of the coronavirus pandemic.  The territory we are in is the very definition of unchartered.  There are likely to be more surprises in store and we can only speculate as to what our new “normal” will look like.

Meanwhile, China continues to reap the benefits of the catastrophe it caused.

Like many airlines, Virgin Australia is in financial trouble as a result of the global lockdown.  The company wanted $1.4 billion from the Australian government, but Scott Morrison refused, telling Virgin Australia to find a market-based solution instead.  Now, China is eyeing the airline for a takeover bid.  According to the Daily MailChina Southern Airlines, China East Airlines and Air China are all in discussions about purchasing the carrier in a last-minute takeover in a bid to stop its ‘catastrophic’ collapse.”

While no formal offers have yet been made, it may represent yet another financial gain (therefore increased control) by the Chinese government.  All of the airlines named are government-owned.

This scenario presents something of a conflict.  On the one hand, we don’t want the taxpayer bailing out big business over and over again.  Something has to change.

On other hand, letting the market sort it out leads to results like this – China’s dominance grows and grows.  China is the world’s manufacturing giant and as such, it holds its customers – and their governments – over a barrel.  It already has the power to blackmail the world, particularly given its dominance in the production of medicines or medical products.  The USA is overwhelmingly supplied with medicine from China, and would find itself in hot water should China cut off its supply.

It is our global financial interaction that is erasing our nation-states.  The world is an open market place and it has left nations dependent upon other nations for the provision of basic necessities.  There is nothing wrong with international trade, but if a country can’t stand on its own feet, globalism has succeeded.

There must be an answer to this, but it would involve regulation, something many free market supporters run a mile from.  But if the taxpayer is required to bail out big business, then surely the taxpayer is entitled to say as to how money is being spent.  Should business be spending recklessly in the good times only to call on the taxpayer in the bad?  Instinctively we know this isn’t fair, and it isn’t.

However, we don’t want even greater chunks of our countries’ economies owned by China or another hostile or potentially hostile world power.

It is a fundamental question of our age – how should we organise our money and trade?  It’s a question For Britain will answer with our new economic manifesto this summer, as well as regular economic reviews on these pages every Tuesday.  Please join me.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader

For Britain 

SUNDAY COLUMN – What’s behind the climate change movement?

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

What’s behind the climate change movement?

Sunday April 19th 2020

 

Alarmism

Under the heading “The Truth” the campaign group Extinction Rebellion (XR) tells us this:

We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making.

The language is pure alarmism and the message so vague that it veers in to outright dishonesty.  Scientists do not all agree, as was evidenced when 500 wrote to the UN saying that there is no climate emergency.  They wrote the letter on the same day that Swedish left-wing activist Greta Thunberg made her famous “how dare you?” speech at the United Nations HQ in New York.  While the world’s media focussed on Thunberg, 500 scientists were ignored.  Given what their letter said, it’s no wonder the left-wing mainstream media didn’t give it much attention.

It stated:

1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause [global] warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

The last one is particularly note-worthy, because the left much relies upon panic, particularly in children, to bring about the radical economic transformation it is seeking.

 

Greta Thunberg and the role of children

Children play a core role in the climate change movement, as can be seen in the promotion of Thunberg (who looks younger than her age) and the propagation of climate change alarmism at school.

In late 2019, millions of children took part in “global climate strikes” around the world, led by Greta Thunberg.  These would be followed up in the UK when 1000s of pupils walked out of schools to protest the “climate emergency”.  The same “emergency” 500 scientists insist isn’t an emergency at all.

UK protests included speeches from the uber-left Jeremy Corbyn and were supported (with gusto) by Labour London Mayor Sadiq Khan, another notorious leftist.

Thunberg herself is an example of the fear tactic used to bring children to the cause, and resulting in great optics.  She said she learned about the “climate crisis” at school, and has suffered severe depression at a very young age as a result.

This alarmism continues in schools and Newsweek reported in 2019 that a University of Bath study found “children are commonly being subjected to a barrage of concerns about the future of the planet and “environmental doom.””  

The study also found that “a rising number of kids and young adults are being treated with psychiatric drugs in order to reduce the emotional stress and exhaustion caused by “eco-anxiety,” or, a fervent fear that humans will go extinct as a result of their own pollution and damage to the environment”.

 

Environmentalism vs Climate Change

So what is behind all of this?  Is this really a campaign for environmental protection or yet another hard-left hijacking of a legitimate cause?  Let’s have a look at the evidence.

Gabriele Niehaus-Uebel is chair of a local campaign group in Essen, Germany.  She is fighting proposals to build wind farms – an array of solar powered wind turbines – because “a previously intact ecosystem would be destroyed.”  This case reveals something very interesting: the climate movement and environmentalists are on opposite sides, and wind farm advocates are arguing for a reduction in bird protection laws.  The clash is caused by the fact that the blades on wind turbines are responsible for the deaths of 100,000s of birds and bats every year.

When the climate change movement is arguing against environmental protections, it’s clearly not a movement based in environmental protectionism at all.

It’s not, it’s an economic movement.

The Greta fan club don’t speak about pollution or real environmental protection solutions, but they do allow these legitimate issues to be confused with their own alarmist cause.

Pollution is a true environmental emergency, but as so much pollution is the fault of non-Western, non-capitalist countries, the left-wing climate change movement isn’t overly interested.  Its wrath is aimed at capitalist countries only, and that is not a coincidence.

The Greta-ites target US and European leaders for criticism, but little is said about who the world’s greatest polluter is.  It isn’t the US, and it isn’t Europe.  In fact, it emits more carbon dioxide (the exact thing the Greta protests are complaining about) than the US and the EU combined.  That country is of course China, the same country that brought us COVID-19 via its appallingly unhygienic food preparation practices and its totalitarian and sinister government.

We can look forward to absolute condemnation of communist China by the left-wing climate change movement, but we shouldn’t hold our breath.  Nor should we hold our breath waiting for acknowledgement of the species threatened by Chinese buying habits.  Tigers and rhinos are being driven to the verge of wipe-out because China refuses to ban the trade of their body parts.

Greta and her followers don’t often mention these looming disasters, nor campaign for real environmental or ecological protections.

As if we need further evidence of the left-wing nature of the climate change movement, Barack Obama made it the centre of his “commitment to protect the environment”.

 

Green Tyranny

In his book Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, Rupert Darwell describes a conference held in Essen, Germany in June 2009.  The 450 conference delegates included powerful groups like the government-funded Advisory Council on Global Change.  Also in attendance was the Essen Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, a group Darwell claims includes “long-standing members of the German Communist Party”.  John Podesta, a Washington heavy-weight on the Democrats’ side, was also there, as was Angela Merkel’s top climate advisor.

Speeches made at the conference made the situation clear – what was needed was economic transformation.  Darwell writes: “democracy came in for a lot of criticism”.

(Democracy also came in for criticism when anti-globalism Trump was elected and when Britain voted to leave the EU).

One particular speaker has spelled it all out.  Ottmar Edenhofer told the Swiss Neue Zurcher Zeitung in 2010 that we must free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environment policy.  Admitting the economic aim at its core, he said “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”.

Herman Ott, former Greenpeace activist and now Member of the German Bundestag, briefly explained some of the ways in which climate change activism can bring about economic transformation when he spoke of the need to “break down the last resistance of the big oil and chemical companies”.

 

Conclusion

There are environmental emergencies facing our planet, but climate change is not one of them.  The climate change movement has hijacked legitimate concerns about our planet in order to push through radical economic policies, including widespread taxation much greater government control.  It targets capitalist countries while the communist state responsible for most of the world’s pollution largely escapes criticism.  It is, in other words, a fraud.

It is a fraud that exploits our fears and deliberately places children at its front line.  As has happened across the board, the extreme left has taken control of a legitimate movement and turned it in to an attack on capitalism and defence of communism.  As so often, the left-wing media is happy to help push the narrative.

We do need to protect our environment, but in order to do so, we must expose the fraudulent nature of “climate change”.  This won’t be easy, but the natural world (as well as our economy) is at stake.  Once again, we have no choice but to stand up and tell the truth.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

 

SUNDAY COLUMN – Why we must ban the buyback of shares

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

Why we must ban the buyback of shares

Sunday April 12th 2020

 

Why now?

The coronavirus crisis has once again necessitated a government bailout of business. While this one was caused by biology (and the negligence of China), market forces have also brought us to the brink of economic catastrophe, such as the financial crash of 2008 when taxpayers were called upon to save major banks.

What started as a housing boom in the United States ended in global financial meltdown.  US investment giant Lehman Brothers collapsed following a period of ‘easy lending’ that boosted the housing market but that crashed when unemployment rose.  This sent shockwaves through the financial world and in the UK, Northern Rock building society fell, while Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds bank were rescued by government bailout.  The story therefore was this; risky banking led to a global financial collapse, but the banks could not afford to save themselves when the crisis came, and so the taxpayer stepped in.

Now, we see a similar situation in response to the coronavirus outbreak.

Let us take an example.

In the United States at present, the airline industry is calling upon the Trump administration for help to survive the global coronavirus pandemic lockdown.  As part of Trump’s multi-trillion dollar bailout, the airline industry will receive around $50 billion, but there is some disquiet; airlines have “used 96% of their cash flow on buybacks over the past 10 years”.

What this means is that the airline industry has used up 96% of its cash to buy its own shares.  This has depleted its cash balance and left it unable to cope financially in a downturn such as this one.  So the question is, why should big companies be able to spend their money so readily and then call on the tax payer to replace that money when times turn bad?

Big business that finds itself without cash when it’s needed will very often lose a large section of its workforce to cut back.  The workers then represent more victims of thoughtless spending undertaken by companies in the years prior.  Had they kept money in the bank, they may not be forced to lay off workers during a rainy day.

Why share buybacks?

So why would a company want to buy its own shares?

The short answer is to please shareholders as it increases the value of shares.  To put it another way “Because there are fewer shares on the market, the relative ownership stake of each investor increases”.

Furthermore, when a company announces that it intends to buy back its shares, this sends a positive message to the markets and causes the share value to rise.  Stock buybacks therefore provide a short term boost to the company and to the shareholders, while draining the company of cash.

Short-term boosts to shareholders will often mean a hefty bonus for directors, so everyone is a winner except the cash balance of the company.  Buybacks furthermore allow companies to provide bigger payouts to shareholders but without the company actually performing any better.

Now that big companies are seeking bailouts again, the discussion around how they spend their money is heating up.  In the US, even pro-business Republicans are beginning to complain.  In March:

President Donald Trump also announced his support for restrictions on buybacks in a press conference Saturday afternoon. “I want money to be used for workers and keeping businesses open, not buybacks,” the president said, adding that he is “strongly recommending a buyback exclusion.”

How did this come about? 

Share buybacks had been illegal in the UK until 1982.  Considered to be manipulation of the stock market, the practice was banned until the Companies Act 1981 came in to force.  This Act allowed share buybacks for the first time, and now, companies spend billions of pounds per year acquiring their own shares.

The change occurred in the US at around the same time.  The American Securities Exchange Act of 1934 also considered share buybacks as a manipulation of the stock market.  This changed also in 1982 when buybacks were allowed under certain conditions.

The future 

In our upcoming economic manifesto Moral Money, For Britain argues for a return to pre-1982 rules and a consequent return to ‘responsible capitalism’.

Share buybacks represent a failing in the modern world economy – a “get rich quick” philosophy of stock manipulation and enormous debt.  This attitude has spread from the boardroom to society as a whole where debt is now ‘a given’ and solvency a thing of the past.  We must begin to put this in to reverse.

Financial responsibility is crucial, we have seen what recklessness can cause.  It is not limited to big business and finance however, in the modern world, people are encouraged to place themselves in enormous debt, and savings or solvency are not rewarded as they once were, or ought to be.

This responsibility needs to be encouraged, and an example set by those at the top of the financial heap.  Big business and banks must be required to spend more wisely and to understand that if their funds are used to enrich themselves during the good times, they cannot assume to call on the taxpayer when those good times come to an end.

The UK taxpayer is already overburdened quite enough.  When big business finds itself needing a bailout, the burden becomes ever greater.  Banning share buybacks is just one way in which we can help to ensure financial responsibility, keep jobs safer, and make sure the poorest in society do not have to continue to come to the rescue of the richest.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

 

SUNDAY COLUMN – What’s Happening at the Greek Border?

ANNE MARIE WATERS’ SUNDAY COLUMN 

What’s Really Happening at the Greek Border?

A battle between the EU and Turkey. 

Sunday April 5th 2020

 

Background

For every story, there must be a starting point, so let us start with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey.

A former Prime Minister, Erdoğan has been President of Turkey since 2014. Hoping to join the European Union, he made moves towards improving human rights, but when this stalled, things began to reverse. Turkey dropped in the Press Freedom Index. In what the New York Times called “a political purge of the governing party’s critics”, the numbers of journalists in prison began to rise.

The erosion of Turkey’s renowned secularism would follow as Erdoğan began targeting women and children with Islam. In January 2020, Erdoğan made his second attempt to provide amnesty to child rapists if they married their victims.  Erdoğan’s government reportedly said that the move was an attempt to “deal with Turkey’s widespread child marriage problem”.

But it is his dominant relationship with the EU that has given him much of his power – by revoking on his promise to keep migrants away from the Greek border, Erdoğan unleashed yet another wave of migration in to Europe – something he had previously threatened to do.  He warned of a “war between the crescent and the cross” in 2018, and no doubt mass migration from the Muslim world to Europe would help such a war on its way.

Let’s start the EU story in 1987, when Turkey applied to become a member of the European Economic Community (EEC). It has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1949 and of NATO since 1952. It allied itself with the United States during the Cold War. However, its 1987 application for the EEC was deferred citing Turkey’s economic and political circumstances as well as its strained relationship with Greece.

Throughout the 2000s, accession negotiations went to and fro, back and forward. In 2012, on a visit to Germany, Erdoğan stated that he expected his country to be a full member of the EU by 2023.

A year later, in 2013, Germany blocked new talks with Turkey following a crackdown on anti-government protests (this seems somewhat hypocritical given Germany’s own silencing attempts that would later follow). As of 2019, accession talks have been blocked; the European Parliament suspended these in February of that year.

Erdoğan’s current relationship with the EU, and with Germany, is therefore somewhat strained, with worse likely still to come.

Migrant Crisis of 2015

More than one million migrants (the vast majority Muslim) entered Europe in 2015. The vast majority arrived by sea and entered Greece. While described as “refugees” and “asylum seekers”, evidence suggests vast numbers qualified as neither. Afghans, Somalis, Eritreans and others passed in to Europe freely and sought asylum across the continent, most notably in Germany. Suspending protocols that refugees seek asylum in the first safe country they enter, German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited them to Germany. Her government stated that “Germany will become the member state responsible for processing their claims”.

Since this time, Germany has transformed. Terror attacks, widespread rape, illegal cultural practices, have all rocked Europe’s richest country and led to the rise of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland). This party has pledged to end mass immigration and protect native German culture.

Having been formed only in 2013, AfD now holds 94 seats in the country’s national parliament, the Bundestag. The migrant crisis of 2015 had therefore changed the political landscape in Germany. The success of AfD occurred despite Merkel’s attempts to quash criticism of her policy (for example, she pressured Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to censor critical posts).

Worried about this political backlash, the EU negotiated an agreement with Turkey that would stipulate as follows:

  • Returns:All “irregular migrants” crossing from Turkey into Greece from 20 March [2016] will be sent back. Each arrival will be individually assessed by the Greek authorities.
  • One-for-one:For each Syrian returned to Turkey, a Syrian migrant will be resettled in the EU. Priority will be given to those who have not tried to illegally enter the EU and the number is capped at 72,000.
  • Visa restrictions:Turkish nationals should have access to the Schengen passport-free zone by June. This will not apply to non-Schengen countries like Britain.
  • Financial aid:The EU is to speed up the allocation of €3bn ($3.3 bn; £2.3 bn) in aid to Turkey to help migrants.
  • Turkey EU membership:Both sides agreed to “re-energise” Turkey’s bid to join the European bloc, with talks due by July.

Crucially, this agreement would mean that Turkey would gain visa-free access to the Schengen area, would receive billions of Euros, and its application to join the EU would be revisited. In other words, to prevent one wave of immigration, the EU agreed to another, and paid billions for the privilege. It’s clear that this was not intended to stem immigration, merely to provide the political pretence of doing so. Proving itself to be utterly inept at negotiating in Europe’s favour, the EU had handed Turkey its trump card.

Turkey Opens the Border

Fast-forward to late 2019 and Erdoğan threatens to reopen the floodgates to Europe if the EU and US do not do more about the Syrian crisis. He claimed that the 6 billion euros paid by the EU as part of the agreement to stem the flow of migrants was not nearly enough.  He said the cost to Turkey had been nearer 40 billion.  Having decided the EU had not kept its side of the bargain, Turkey opened the door, and the Greek border would soon resemble a war zone.

Chaos visited Greece and it has remained.  Since the start of 2020 political diplomacy has also disappeared.  In March, only days after the borders were open, Turkey accused Greece of killing three migrants, which Greece furiously denied.  In turn, Greek Prime Minister Kyriákos Mitsotákis called Turkey the “official trafficker of migrants“.

Also in March, EU Commission President Ursula van der Leyen visited a town in Greece where police were using teargas to stop migrants entering the country.

Van der Leyen offered EU support to Athens in the form of 700 million euros and:

 one offshore vessel, six coastal patrol boats, two helicopters, one        aircraft, three thermal-vision vehicles, as well as 100 border guards to reinforce 530 Greek officers at land and sea borders

This is all the EU has to offer to a country defending its territory from 10,000s of illegal entrants who had amassed at its border in a matter of days.  Once again proving itself entirely inept, the EU failed to recognise the significance of what was happening.

The United Nations, as one may expect, demanded that countries not use force and “maintain systems for handling asylum requests in an orderly manner”.  In order words, to accommodate all who arrive.

Greece didn’t agree however, and postponed asylum applications.

Meanwhile in Turkey, Erdoğan states:

“Since we have opened the borders, the number of refugees heading toward Europe has reached hundreds of thousands. This number will soon be in the millions.”

Then came coronavirus.  The world’s attention is focused on this outbreak and things have changed at the border to Greece.  As Deutsche Welle put it “Erdogan was forced into retreat. The virus, it seems, has solved the troubling situation at the border — at least for the moment.”

The latest crisis at the Greek border is now of course the spread of COVID-19.  Greece, along with the rest of Europe, has closed its borders.   Some migrants however have already tested positive for the virus on the Greek mainland.

The Future

The future for Greece, as everywhere, is now entirely unpredictable.  Much of the world, including the entire Western world, is on lockdown, our economies ground to a halt.

Great crisis however can bring about great change, and this unprecedented scenario will inevitably do the same.

The world’s attention is now on China, and that’s a very good thing.  China is an extremely powerful country.  It’s so powerful because our leaders have sold our assets in the name of cheap labour and mass production.  China’s manufacturing dominance is so great that a study has shown 97% of antibiotics in the United States originate in China.

This is an extraordinary and frightening figure because as Gary Cohn (former adviser to President Trump) has stated, “If you’re the Chinese and you want to really just destroy us, just stop sending us antibiotics.”  He warned against a trade war with China on these grounds.

China is also hot on the heels of the US in terms of world’s largest economy.  Some predict it could overtake the US by 2030.  If it then becomes the world’s most powerful military, our planet is likely to change.  America-haters of the Left would of course welcome such a development, China is a communist country after all, but for the rest of us it would be a dark day.

If there is a positive to emerge from these coronvirus crisis, it will be an increased awareness and a new relationship with China.  The Chinese government must be aware that the world is watching as calls for its notorious ‘wet markets’ to be banned has attracted widespread support.

China’s treatment of animals is under the global microscope, and one city has now banned the sale of meat from cats and dogs.

For now everything is uncertain, we are in a period of wait-and-see, but there is reason to hope for a growth in the demand for borders in the wake of this crisis.  One thing is for certain, whatever happens now, those amassing at the Greek border must be sent home, and this ‘refugee’ free-for-all brought to a permanent end.

If we build up our borders, reinforce them, and most importantly, replace the politicians who opened them, we stand a good chance of restoring Europe.

Great crisis brings about great change, that great change will include political change.

As for Erdoğan, if Europe reclaims our borders, what moves can he make?  If we no longer agree to be blackmailed by him, and simply refuse to play the game, what exactly can he do?  The Greek border has been Erdoğan’s golden ticket, its his cold war with the EU.  European nation-states should now bring that war to an end by asserting its superior position – it is far wealthier and militarily powerful than Turkey, it has the means to defend its borders… Europe is not without power despite how its leaders currently behave.

We’ll close our borders now and keep them closed.  We’ll assert some strength and defend the continent.  It’s up to us to make that happen.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain 

 

Dignity and Comfort – Our Pensions Policy

Anne Marie Waters

April 3rd 2020

 

When a person comes to the end of their working life, they have paid their dues.  It’s time to relax and enjoy life, something that is earned having worked and contributed to society for decades.  For Britain believes strongly in pursuing the most dignified and most comfortable retirement we can provide.  At present, our country is falling behind in this regard.

In 2018, the Financial Times wrote that the UK’s state pension was among the lowest in the developed world.  While there are differences in how pensions are calculated across European nations, in terms of take home pay, the UK also lags behind Germany, France and Spain.

This must change; we cannot and should not allow British pensioners to struggle hand to mouth, to choose between heating and eating – it is a national scandal.

For Britain will increase the state pension to bring it further in line with the rest of Europe.  The cost of this will be met through ending waste across the public sector.  The NHS, for example, wastes more than £7 billion per year.  There is something very wrong in a society that wastes billions while its elderly starve – For Britain will not tolerate this.

A further issue of concern is the inequality of pension entitlement between men and women, and the botched attempts by previous governments to bring this in to line.

The Pensions Act of 1995 raised women’s retirement age to 65, making it equal to men (it had previously been 65 for men and 60 for women).  The age change was to be phased in but the coalition government of 2010 brought the date forward and much struggle was the result.  Many women were not prepared.  At the same time, both men and women were told they would work a year longer – until the age of 66.

For Britain wants this reduced, and certainly never increased.  A pension age of 63 for both men and women is our proposal.

Previous governments have complained about cost, but they still continue to flood our shores with “asylum seekers” and “refugees” (most of whom are neither).  There is always money for strangers from across the world, but never for our own pensioners.  For Britain will put our pensioners first, over and above asylum seekers, just as we will for all British people.

We are not without compassion, we are part of the world and value our friends and allies, we wish the world’s peoples well, but we will not allow our own elderly to live in hunger and poverty while we spend billions on people from all corners of the world.  We spend £14 billion a year on foreign aid, imagine what we could do for our pensioners with that money!

Our country has been going in a negative direction for some time.  The British people have been abandoned in favour of “woke” concern for everyone else and everyone else’s culture – it is always the native Brit called upon to pay for everything but be entitled to very little.

Britain’s elderly built our country.  They have seen unimaginable change.  Some have lived through major wars, including the second world war, when bombs fell on them from German planes and still they kept themselves and our country together.

The idea that after 50 years or more of service to our country, retired people should spend their later years in hunger or cold, is morally reprehensible.

For Britain honours those who went before us, just as we work for those who will come after us.  The very least we can do then is offer a comfortable and dignified retirement to the people who built Britain.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

 

 

Policing the Virus

By Mike Speakman, Law & Order Spokesman

31st March 2020

From my first day at Police training school in 1968 it was drummed into us that we police with the consent of the public. This central tenet of British Policing remained true throughout my service, and throughout the ranks I achieved. Until recently, the British police service had never seen itself as an occupying force or as an arm of the state, or as an arbiter of social behaviour.

In recent years the support of the public for the police has declined, largely as a result of the polices own actions. They abandoned beat patrol in favour of monitoring social media; They blindly enforced speeding laws with little regard for the alienation of the easy targets of otherwise law abiding motorists; They ignored the behaviour of favoured identities; they set their own standards of social behaviour with non-crime hate crime; They chose not to attend the scenes of house burglaries. The list is quite long, and every example has alienated parts of the British community who were traditionally at the heart of support for policing.

We now have the police reaction to their role in enforcing the social distancing legislation to combat the virus. Roadblocks in rural areas; Drone surveillance of beauty spots; the creation of facilities to report your neighbours for too much exercise; searching of shopping bags for “non-essential” items: The list goes on. There was even an example of a Sergeant issuing a fixed penalty to a lady who was marking safe distance lines in chalk on the pavement outside her shop.

What has happened to the notion of the traditional British bobby with common sense and discretion. In my view that Sergeant was not fit to hold the office of Constable never mind having achieved promotion and it speaks volumes of the recruitment and selection process where sound standards from my time have been abandoned in the name of diversity. I was a recruiting Sergeant for part of my service and the Home office were continually pressuring forces to lower their standards, in education, health and previous character. So, I believe we have a number of officers who do not share the traditional values of British policing. (It is worth noting you no longer have to be British to be a British police officer, although I have no evidence that this is a factor.) However, the presence of some bobbies who are not fit to wear the uniform does not explain it all.

The culture of policing has changed, and this has several origins. Firstly, the government exercises far more control over the police than it ever did in my time. They abolished the Polices own professional body (The Association of Chief Police Officers; ACPO) and replaced it with a government appointed quango.   The government also exercised far more control over the appointment of senior officers. They reduced the local accountability of Chief Officers by getting rid of police authorities and replacing them with Police and Crime Commissioners, accountable to the Home Office. It was in my time that the Government started introducing their own targets for police forces and enforced them through government Inspectors. Thus, chief officers looked to please central government and the local agenda received less priority. Chief Police Officers no longer serve their communities, they are agents of government.

These factors have been highlighted in the approach to enforcing the COVID 19 laws. Some forces are going beyond the law, because their managers think that is what will please their masters. These managers need to realise that like it or not, they still need the consent of their communities to do the job. There will be an end to the current situation and all police officers need to remember who they serve. The last force I served in had the motto, “Protect, Help and Reassure”. The sentiment behind those words matters, the police are the friends of the public, not their enemies. The relationship is being damaged by the current culture and the many retired officers I have contact with despair at the state of modern policing.   For Britain will restore local accountability to the Police and other public services.

This is something of a side issue, but whilst there is overwhelming public compliance with the new rules, the governments approach has not been entirely logical. Many people are asking what’s the point of isolating ourselves? Why set up rural roadblocks when illegal immigrants are allowed in and there is still unrestricted movement through airports? It doesn’t help public acceptance of police enforcement

Tayside Police” by conner395 is licensed under CC BY

Coronavirus – What are the numbers?

Anne Marie Waters 

March 30th 2020

 

Since the outbreak of the global coronavirus pandemic, we have heard startling numbers of cases reported every day, and even more startling numbers of deaths.  But how accurate are these numbers?  The truth is we can’t be sure.

As a starting point, it’s important to note that deaths are reported as a percentage of cases.  Current data strangely shows vast differences between developed countries.  At the time of writing, the figure is 1.8% in the US, 10.8% in Italy, 8.2% in Spain, 0.8% in Germany, and 6.2 and 6.0% for France and the UK respectively.  We do not know why these figures are so different, simply because we can’t yet know what the true figures are.

Here’s why.

The symptoms of coronavirus are flu-like; headache, sore throat, fever etc.  The trouble is these symptoms occur in a variety of illnesses.  The severity of coronavirus symptoms also vary from patient to patient.  There is a no way a doctor can know whether these symptoms are caused by coronavirus or a similar illness.

The only way to know this for sure is by testing, but even this is fraught with difficulty and almost impossible to carry out effectively.  Any test must of course test only for this strain of the virus and nothing similar.  It must also test for the virus irrespective of the severity of the symptoms.  Finally, in order to have truly accurate figures, it must be used to test everyone in the country with symptoms; this isn’t practicable given the common nature of the symptoms.  Many people may well have had the virus, recovered, and never known.  Similarly, people may have had the virus and sought no medical help.  So far, testing has only been carried out on hospitalised patients with significant symptoms.

Furthermore, there is a distinction to be made between people who have died and had been diagnosed with the virus, and those who died from virus.  Dr John Lee, a retired pathology professor, explained this brilliantly in a Spectator article at the weekend.  In his example, he wrote of people with severe illnesses who die while infected with coronavirus.  But people with such illnesses would be vulnerable to any such virus (including the flu).  This is entirely different to people who die from the virus, and yet all deaths are recorded as coronavirus deaths.

There is much confusion surrounding coronavirus, as the government finds itself in unchartered territory day after day.  Our freedoms have been curtailed as never known before.  We are living in a strange and disorienting time.  All of this compounded by the fear of not knowing exactly what we are dealing with.  Let’s hope in the coming weeks, this becomes clearer and we can navigate our way back to normal life.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader

For Britain 

Lockdown, What Lockdown?

By Suarav Dutt, Author & Political Analyst

30th March 2020

Guest articles do not necessarily represent the views of The For Britain Movement.

Is this really a lockdown? Where are the police vigilance groups making sure Britons aren’t gathering en masse, hosting barbecues in wide open spaces,cramming together in tube carriages without face masks and gloves and congregating in construction sites?

Where is provision for face masks? Why aren’t we being told to wear them when leaving the house or incur a fine? Where are the stricter ordinances
on our borders ensuring visitors are screened, especially when they are coming from other countries that have experienced full scale lockdowns due to the staggering fatalities in those territories due to Coronavirus?

There are a number of reasons for the transport network seeming so busy: the first is that there are still a lot of people who need to get to work,
whether because they are key workers, or working on construction sites which are remaining open. But the second is that the Underground is operating a reduced service, and so commuters are having to cram into fewer trains. Boris Johnson can talk about two metres worth of social distancing all he wants but saying nothing about the risk of hundreds of people cramming into a Tube carriage next to healthcare workers who will have been exposed to the virus on an hourly basis is not enough.

Then there’s the call for healthy members of the public to volunteer for the NHS. Why don’t all the MPs volunteer? You know, lead from the front instead of cowering from their voters in their cossetted retreats, contemplating how they will utilise the recently increased £10,000 limit on their “company” credit cards. That’s £10,000 a month limit, just to be clear. So outside of internet shopping they haven’t anything else to do. Parliament isn’t sitting. This is their golden hour, where they can demonstrate they are not motivated solely by venality and self-interest, which in the jobs they have is outright fraud, and actually do something useful for the salaries we pay them.

After 7/7 Ken Livingstone got on the first tube to show his journey would not be disrupted, where is the vertically challenged Mayor of London?

The airports are still open, and thousands of carriers of the virus continue to fly into Heathrow every day, and are allowed to just walk out onto the streets with no checks. Sensible people are not travelling only the few idiots, what’s needed is a lockdown on aviation, you can’t leave it to market forces, government needs to take responsibly and close the border.

For those who decry that such steps are draconian remember that this too will pass.

Life goes on. From a psychological perspective the isolation and forced confinement is an unusual sensation. Police patrols that were once described as ‘racist’ should be a new aspect to our life because quite simply Britons cannot be trusted to behave. Observing how stress manifests in neighbors is sometimes an unpleasant experience but without firm guidance from the front they will act to their own needs.

Scaring them with a possible fine is insufficient; on the spot fines must be standard operating procedure to punish those who treat this lockdown with contempt.

The key to weathering these changes is to remain calm, stay informed from factual sources, journal your feelings, relieve anguish and frustration through positive activities like puzzles, reading, board games, online games, music, dancing, studying languages. If you keep your mind in tact, most likely your body will follow.

Demanding fairness – Our family law policy

Anne Marie Waters

March 25th 2020

 

When I was a law graduate, I spent a lot of time working around the courts of central London.  Much of it was voluntary clerking and paralegal work and while it involved long waits on a regular basis, it was also a fascinating insight in what goes on in our society.

I worked with Victim Support and spent time in the criminal courts, and I worked for various family law firms and so also spent time in the family court system.  Family law deals largely with divorce and its aftermath: division of assets and arrangements for children are the most common issues dealt with by family lawyers.  It is in the arrangements for children specifically that an injustice in the system is revealed, and needs to be corrected.

If a family cannot agree amicably on arrangements for children post-divorce (or separation), the courts will step in and make these decisions instead.  Both statutory and case law have established the methods by which the courts determine what is in the best interests of the child – the guiding principle in this area of family law.

Importantly, the law deems the best interests of the child to be served by causing as little disruption as possible in the child’s life.  This will usually mean arrangements are reached that allow the child to remain in the family home, remain in school, and crucially, to live with their “primary carer”.  This usually means the mother, who will often have a greater role in her child’s life, and therefore a greater advantage, not only in keeping full time custody of children, but in keeping the family home so that the child may live there.

If the child’s father has not been able to spend as much time with the child as the mother, because for example he works longer hours, it seems instinctively unfair to punish him for this.

There is a further more troubling element to this, and that is that mothers have the ability in practice to deliberately refuse access to children, and in doing so, force fathers in to long and expensive legal battles just to spend time with their own children.  Courts often make orders for visitation etc. that are not adhered to, meaning fathers must go back to court again.

This situation can’t continue.

For Britain will conduct a full inquiry in to real or apparent parental injustices in the courts system, with a view to a complete overhaul.  Immediately however, we will introduce the legal assumption of shared parenting (including clear instruction on the responsibilities of parents) as well rights for grandparents.  Grandparents are often the best people to care for a child but face can protracted legal battles to do so.

We at For Britain believe in family and we believe in the place of fathers within that family.  We must be fair at all times, and we must ensure that there are no automatic advantages to either parent.

Whilst the need for a child to live with their primary carer is understandable, it has opened a loophole that needs closing.  Family law needs to be modernised and updated to equalise parenting and reflect the modern age.

We must bring fathers back in to families. We must celebrate families; mothers and fathers, and the wonderful job they do.  But there’s a problem, and it has to fixed for the sake of fairness.  For Britain will do just that.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

VIDEO: Demanding fairness – Our family law policy 

URGENT ANNOUNCEMENT: COVID-19 & COMMUNITY SUPPORT

24th March 2020

Dear Members, Activists and Supporters.

We recently asked for you to help in your community, by dropping in contact cards to the elderly and vulnerable so that they can ask for assistance if needed.

Hopefully this paid dividends for some.

However, in light of the latest Government (23rd March 2020) announcement forbidding non-vital travel outdoors, we believe it is now NOT advisable to undertake this task.

Instead please try to contact people you feel may need help via phone or other methods. Caring for the elderly or vulnerable is not going to be restricted, so shopping etc can continue.

Thanks for your continued support of For Britain.

Party Chair and Committee.

 

Coronavirus – What we know

Anne Marie Waters 

March 23rd 2020

 

We have entered a frightening and confusing time with the outbreak of coronavirus.  People are uncertain, our society has plunged in to something unrecognisable almost over night.  So what is actually going on and how did it start?

What we know so far is that the virus began in the city of Wuhan in central China.  Doctors in the city began discussing cases they had seen, which one believed to be a resurgence of the deadly SARS virus that killed more than 800 people back in 2003.  A similar virus was now presenting, and doctors were worried.

Those same doctors were arrested by Chinese police and told to stay silent.  Other instances of state cover up have been alleged, and it was claimed in an extraordinary study that had China acted 3 weeks earlier, 95% of infections could have been avoided.

The source of the virus was identified as a ‘wet market’ in the city of Wuhan.  This is a market where wildlife is butchered and sold on the spot.  Live animals are taken from the wild, held in tiny cages and in cramped conditions, and slaughtered to order.  Australian scientists have claimed that the handling, rather than the ingestion, of these animal products is the most likely source.

However, as can be expected, left-wing agitators are attempting to shut down discussion of the practices of such markets across Asia. The label of “racist” has been used to silence such discussions, but they must be had.  The whole world is now subject to Asian hygiene practices – what happens in China can kill us in the UK; all thanks to our modern open-border globalist approach.  So important do open borders remain, even during this crisis, that flights from the worst affected countries were still landing in the UK as government was asking us to stay home.

As it stands, we are being asked to only leave our homes when necessary – for food or exercise.  When we do so, we should remain 2 metres apart from others.  Schools, shops (except food shops), cafes, bars, pubs, restaurants, cinemas, theatres, museums, libraries are all closed.  We don’t know how long they will be closed for, and this not only presents us with questions about how we will cope socially if this goes on for months or years, but what effect will this have on our economy?

Most people are currently unable to work.  That is staggeringly difficult for an economy to survive for any length of time, so the Government has taken unprecedented steps to intervene.  Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced plans for the government to fund 80% of the wages of many workers, increase working tax credit and universal credit, as well as providing unlimited 0% interest loans (for 12 months) for businesses, among other measures.  This is a solid response from the government and is welcome.

As for what the future holds, we can only speculate.  The possible options are these: a vaccine is developed, we develop natural immunity, or we begin to learn to live with it.  The latter of these is of course the worst option – what people want is to get back to normal, but not a whole new normal that doesn’t resemble the old one.  It must be government’s top priority to ensure that happens when the time comes.

In the meantime, we must remember that at the heart of all this, people are dying and their families left devastated.  That is at the forefront of our concerns, our thoughts and hopes are with all of those who are suffering.

We will come back from this.  In China, it is reported that life is beginning to return to normal as new cases of the disease have ceased.  There is every reason to hope that this will pass quickly, but we must never forget the lessons from this tragedy – we must bring back our borders, our manufacturing, and we must insist upon our right to criticise and condemn practices in China or elsewhere that lead to the deaths of innocent people.  To do otherwise is to allow this tragedy to have been in vein.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

Chinese Whispers: Communist China Owes The World

By Suarav Dutt, Political Analyst & Author

23rd March 2020

When the COVID-19 dust settles, there has to be a reckoning, and the Chinese government cannot be allowed to deflect or deny. There is going to be a new global dispensation after the Coronavirus pandemic is over, and if the Chinese want to be part of it, they have a lot of changes they are going to have to make, and a lot of accountability to dispense.

China initially failed to regulate the highly dangerous “wet markets”, lied for months about the nature of the disease, refused to cooperate with the WHO, politically persecuted whistleblowers who refused to participate in the cover-up, and is now waging an international campaign of black propaganda to accuse the United States for nefariously creating the disease.

For the first two months the media was reporting on this virus, they were referring to it as the Wuhan virus. It wasn’t until the Chinese Communist Party propaganda machine started cranking up that the media hit their fainting couches at the mentioning of China in reference to the virus.

Nobody is foolish enough to blame the Chinese people, nor harbor any animosity towards them. However, it is accurate to blame the Chinese communist government, through their secrecy, lying and suppression, for this plague unleashed against the world. It is a Chinese virus, specifically from the Wuhan region. Call it the Chinese virus or the Wuhan virus, either is accurate.

China did exert enormous influence on the WHO and through international diplomacy to prevent any other countries from responding. The PHEIC wasn’t declared until Jan. 30, the WHO then refused to declare a pandemic (even claiming they no longer used the term on Feb. 24) until Mar. 11. China directly threatened repercussions for any country which cut off travel. They downplayed the severity of the disease and the outbreak through February in their foreign relations, while having shuttered their economy.

This only changed in early March, after it became clear that the disease had escaped their borders, and was spreading uncontrolled. They immediately pivoted the declaring victory domestically and offering humanitarian aid to Italy.

It should be obvious that this was done on purpose. The Chinese regime clearly did not want to contain the virus within their own borders. They wanted to make sure that they were not the only ones weakened, because that would have harmed their goals on the international stage and probably threatened their grip domestically. Instead, they now look like saviors to their own citizens (and look at how many Chinese are repatriating right now) and are driving hard to pin this whole disaster on the US.

Referring to COVID-19 as the “Chinese” virus or the Wuhan virus is not racist. Taking the name from the locale from whence a particular virus or disease first arises is a common and long-standing naming convention. Lyme disease anyone? MERS? Spanish flu? Do not concede this point. The moment you throw a bone to the insane woke left, they will devour you. The moment you buy into their narrative – that all people are secretly deeply racist and xenophobic – is the moment they own you. Why? Because it’s the moment you supplant truth with their lies. Truth matters

China can see that there will be a tremendous amount of anger directed against it by the rest of the world, that its attempts to become the world’s new indispensable power with every country dependent on its technology and resources and investment are suddenly threatened, and that countries everywhere may start to rethink their dependence on China in their critical supply chains.

And so Xi is taking actions to try and head all of this off – engaging in propaganda and rewriting recent history to deflect blame and generously “giving” (ie selling) much needed supplies to other countries out of the sweet and sincere generosity of their loving hearts.

Will this entire shameful episode make our western governments think twice about stripping their sovereign nations of the ability to self support? Only time will well.

Animal Welfare – Let’s Keep up the Pressure

Anne Marie Waters 

March 19th 2020 

 

On the 16th of March, MPs in our Parliament debated the welfare of animals.  This doesn’t happen often, and rarely is anything actually achieved.  For years, people have campaigned against the live export of animals, so far to no avail.  People campaign against religious slaughter, but this isn’t so much as entertained.  On this occasion however, our representatives debated the sentience of animals – something that should have been settled centuries ago.  The caging of farm animals was also up for discussion.

According to the campaign group Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), two petitions were promoted by animal welfare groups, and both passed the 100,000 signature threshold to be debated in the House of Commons.

The debate was opened by Kerry McCarthy MP stating:

“A sow confined in a crate in which she cannot turn around will suffer because she will not be able to exhibit natural behaviours, even with the best care and stockmanship”

Surely this is obvious.  Imagine being so tightly confined that you cannot turn around.  This is the fate of countless sows and it must be brought to an end.  There is simply no reason that we cannot make farming far easier for animals.  All that is needed is the will.

McCarthy also pointed out that Germany and Austria have already begun to remove cages from their farming systems.

In a response that was welcomed by CIWF, Defra Minister Victoria Prentis MP announced:

“the Government are currently examining the future use of cages for all laying hens. The Government have made it clear that we remain completely committed to the ambition that farrowing crates should no longer be used for sows”  

This is great news.  Let’s keep an eye on it to make sure it happens!

On the sentience issue, it is extraordinary to think that our Parliament would debate the sentience of animals!  Of course animals are sentient.  They are aware, intelligent, and exhibit complex emotions.  They feel joy, fear, pain, and attachment.  Luckily, the Government appears to agree.

While the sentience of animals is enshrined in EU law, there are concerns that there will be no such recognition upon our departure.  Therefore campaigners are asking the British Government to close the gap and ensure that animal sentience, and its recognition, is enshrined in British law.  The response of the Government has been positive on this also.

Victoria Prentis MP said: “It has never been in dispute that, of course, animals are sentient beings… While absolutely committing to bring forward the legislation at some point, I am not committing to bringing it forward this year.”

James West, CIWF’s senior policy manager, stated the following in response:

“Compassion would like to thank all the MPs who attended the debates on animal sentience and caged farming, and particularly Kerry McCarthy MP for leading them both.

We encourage the Government to bring forward sentience legislation that needs to be introduced, to prevent a gap in our animal welfare laws, as a priority.

It is clear from the debate that many EU countries are leading the charge when it comes to stopping caged farming practices. If the UK is to not be left behind and instead be the global leader it wants to – and should – be, the Government must set about phasing out crates and cages on UK farms. We urge Defra to consult on the use of farrowing crates and enriched cages with a view to ending the cage age – improving the welfare of millions farm animals each year.”

We echo those sentiments.  Let’s make it happen.

Read our animal welfare policy here.

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

COVID-19: Call To Action – Help Your Community

18th March 2020

We are in an ever changing and evolving situation with the Coronavirus pandemic, and many of us are keen to help within our local community as much as possible.

With activity on hold for the local elections, For Britain is urging members and activists to help the elderly and vulnerable in your community.  If each person delivers a few of these cards, it will make a huge difference (note, to be effective, just deliver locally to a limited number of people and gauge response to avoid over committing).

We owe the older generation so much and this is an opportunity to give something back.

If you are not in a high risk group, do not need to isolate and are fit and healthy / young enough – why not ask your neighbours and local community if you can help them? Many elderly and vulnerable are alone, without family and extremely worried.

Attached is a card that you can pop through letterboxes offering to help. To minimise printing costs, you can print 4 cards on one sheet of A4 paper (it has some colour but you can print in B&W).

It is a pdf that you can download and print 

Simply enter your contact details below the line so if a neighbour in need of help requires assistance, they can get hold of you to ask. Just post these through the letterbox rather than knock on doors – but of course always do this in line with current Government guidelines, this may not be possible in the coming days.

Brits pull together in times of crisis, and the kindness and generosity we show is something we excel at as a nation. For Britain has the protection of people encoded in our DNA, so I am sure you will all take up this challenge and do us proud.

Thank you.

Party Chair & Committee

Download PDF

For Britain Statement on the cancellation of the 2020 Local Elections

14th March 2020

Chairman Update

Yesterday, Government announced that Local and mayoral elections in England will be postponed for a year to May 2021 due to the coronavirus outbreak. Elections were due in 118 English councils, the London Assembly and for seven English regional mayors.

The announcement came the day after the Electoral Commission recommended a delay until the Autumn.

For Britain fully supports any measures to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus. The health and wellbeing of the people of this nation is always our top priority.

This clearly has an effect on our plans for 2020, as we were looking forward to contributing to the heavy losses predicted for the Labour Party. We appreciate all our candidates that stepped forward and have already put hard work into designing leaflets etc.

Our attention will now focus on the development and growth of our party, national activities, and the message to all our members and activists is to use this time to help promote the party and continue our expansion.

Many people could be spending weeks at home, and as such may have additional time to read articles and watch more videos, so please continue to spread our message and encourage people to our party.

There are a number of initiatives already planned for 2020, so we will focus on those and new national campaigns – the committee will be meeting shortly and further announcements will be made about our plans.

We urge everyone to follow the advice being given to stay safe and to do all you can to protect loved ones.

 

Press Release: Anne Marie Waters to represent teacher at misconduct hearing

For Britain Press Team 

March 11th 2020 

 

On Monday 16th March 2020, For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters will act as legal representative for Mr Damian Ryan.

Mr Ryan is charged with bringing the teaching profession in to disrepute and the case could result in his inability to continue in his profession.

The hearing will take place at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT and will continue for 3 days.

Representatives for Mr Ryan include Father John Dane and For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters.

The facts of the case are that Mr Ryan produced a small number of YouTube videos (now unpublished) in which he expressed concern about the ‘grooming gang’ scandals erupting across our nation.  Mr Ryan stated his support of Anne Marie Waters, Tommy Robinson, and others who believe, based upon evidence, that misogyny and hatred of non-Muslims, as mandated in Islamic scripture, are significant factors in the ‘grooming gang’ debate.

Father Dane and Anne Marie Waters will argue that this is in fact true, and stating so is in keeping with Mr Ryan’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Ryan has an unblemished teaching record, is not deemed to present any danger to children, and yet is facing the loss of his livelihood merely for stating an opinion based upon objective evidence and extensive study of Islamic scripture.

This case is crucial, and will set an important precedent.  Are we permitted to state facts and express our opinion and still maintain our ability to earn a living?  That question will be answered.

For Britain will update on the hearing proceedings daily and provide a full report upon its conclusion.

 

 

A good result on gender madness, but unlikely to be permanent

Anne Marie Waters 

March 11th 2020

 

The Court of Appeal has ruled that people must state their sex (i.e. male or female) on their passports.  This may sound like common sense has at last prevailed, but upon reading the court’s judgement, it is clear this is unlikely to last.  The fact that our courts are even entertaining the concept of “non-binary” shows how far in to science-fiction we have fallen.

The case began with an attempted judicial review of the government’s requirement that sex be stated on passports.  This was dismissed by the High Court before Christie Elan-Cane took it up with the Court of Appeal.  Elan-Cane is “non-gendered” and insists that there ought to be an ‘X’ option available on passports.  The government said otherwise and the Court of Appeal has agreed.

This will now go to the Supreme Court, and given the language of the Court of Appeal, the chances are it could succeed.  The core of the problem is the notion that sex and gender are separate and distinct.  The ‘thinking’ being that a person’s sex is biological, but their ‘gender’ is somehow separate and can be decided upon by the person in question.  This is of course completely absurd, and a recipe for chaos, but the Court of Appeal, despite ruling in favour of the government, doesn’t seem to think so.  The language used by the court is nothing short of alarming.

Christie Elan-Cane had argued that the refusal to provide an ‘X’ option on passports amounted to a breach of the right to a private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (the sooner we are rid of this, the better).  Elan-Cane was represented in court by the enormous law firm Clifford Chance, whose lawyer stated: ‘This is an important case in the anxious context of the proper understanding and respect for the intimate, human rights of the affected class – persons whose gender identity is neither, or neither exclusively, male nor female.’

So for clarity, a major law firm in one of our most significant courts, has matter-of-factly made the case that it is entirely feasible for a person to decide they are neither male nor female.  Apart from the tiny number of people born without a clear biological sex, this is demonstrably untrue.  We are born male or female.  That is biological fact, but our courts are pretending it isn’t.

Lady Justice Eleanor King delivered the ruling at the Court of Appeal: “There can be little more central to a citizen’s private life than gender. In this case, however, the passport issue cannot reasonably be considered in isolation, given that the driver for change is the notion of respect for gender identity across the board. The court finds that there was no positive obligation on the state to provide an ‘X’ marker in order to ensure the right of the Appellant to respect for private life. Therefore, the current policy of HMPO (Her Majesty’s Passport Office) does not amount to an unlawful breach of the Appellant’s Article 8 private life rights.”

Note the words “respect for gender identity”.  This is the driver of the problem, it is its source.

Our society has fabricated something called “gender identity” and for some reason, it has been taken seriously.  All contenders for Labour leader are fully on board with the concept, and the Mayor of London has even tweeted that ‘all gender identities are valid’.

Wikipedia’s entry on this is fascinating.  It states:

“The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person’s biological sex (the anatomy of an individual’s reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from that person’s gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one’s own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).”

We are therefore told, all of a sudden, that gender means something completely different to what we once understood.  Most of us thought that sex and gender were interchangeable, but we were apparently wrong.  We’re now to believe that “gender” actually refers to our “role” in life.  It declares that women and men have a certain role to perform.  As part of that role, we are expected to behave a certain way, or dress in a certain way, and if we don’t, we no longer qualify as our sex.

If a man or woman doesn’t fit in to the narrow confines set down by the gender activist, they are no longer legitimately male or female.  So, if a girl is a bit of a tomboy (like me) or a boy doesn’t enjoy sports and instead prefers art or fashion, he is not in fact male.

This is an extraordinary limitation on our individuality and it is profoundly damaging to our basic self-image.

When I was a child, I was a tomboy.  I liked my Barbie doll, but I also liked climbing trees and kicking a football, and nobody ever told me that I wasn’t a real girl as a result.  I never thought I was a boy and I never wanted to be a boy, I never thought about it, I was just me.

Thankfully, I was a child of the 80s, when sanity and reality were still ‘a thing’.  I am terrified at the thought of growing up today, because I know that extremist activists would be welcomed to my school to tell me I was in fact a boy.  It would have confused me deeply and shattered my concept of myself.  That is exactly what is happening to children today.

Kids are now taught that their sex and gender are separate, and if they don’t fit in with the behaviour restrictions placed upon their sex, then their gender doesn’t “align” with their sex (that’s the lingo).

In other words, if a girl isn’t wearing pink and spraying glitter, she’s really a boy … but a boy stuck in a girl’s body.

This is child abuse and nothing less.

To deliberately and wilfully confuse children, to deliberately and wilfully tell them that they cannot be an individual of either sex, and to tell them that sex and gender are separate, has created a world where children no longer understand themselves, and they have become burdened with enormous “decisions” about their identity when they ought to be playing with their pals without a care in the world.  It is shameful.

Even more shameful is our court’s willingness to entertain the very concept that sex and gender are separate, or that people may “decide” they are neither of the two sexes.

Our legal system is built upon objectivity, without it, we are lost.  All of this is happening because bullying transactivists and revolutionary left-wingers want us to be lost.  They seek to bring down all that is true and functional and replace it with disarray and endless confusion.  They seek to destroy society and rule over the rubble – just as left-wingers have sought time and again.  This time they may actually succeed.

If we can ‘decide’ to opt out of reality, of biology, and then impose this on children, we are lost.  When our courts agree that all of this is legitimate, we know there is a long way back.

But there is a way back.  For Britain is utterly determined to fight back against this assault on the truth, this assault on science, and this assault on children.  Transactivists are using children, confusing and stereotyping them, to push a radical political agenda.  They are winning because they are merciless in their punishment of those who won’t concede.

There is only one way to deal with bullies and that is to push back, to stand up to them, and that is what we at For Britain do best.

Join us.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader

For Britain  

At the Heart of Climate Alarmism

By Paul Burgess, Spokesman for the Environment

10th March 2020

The very heart of climate alarmism is the claim that CO2 levels control the temperature of the earth.  So let us examine that by simply looking at the history of the earth.

Ice core data has provided a very good record of the earth’s historic  temperature as well as its CO2 level. Here it is:-

Fig.1 Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration & temperature change

Now when you compress hundreds of thousands of years into a graph a few inches wide a relationship between CO2 and temperatures is clear for all to see. So there is no doubt that there is a relationship …… except that it is the exact opposite of what the alarmists claim.

What the graph shows is that the temperature changes first and then on average about 800 years later the CO2 increases. Hence the temperature change causes the CO2 change and not as the alarmist claim the other way around. In fact that has always been the case throughout earth’s history.

In real science it is not enough to show such correlations. After all ice cream sales correlate well with temperature but do not cause it. You have to show a cause and effect that makes sense. So what would cause CO2 rise to follow temperature rise?

The answer is very simple.

By far the most free CO2 on earth is stored in the oceans, and they absorb CO2 when cooling, and conversely give off CO2 when warming. So as the temperature increases, then the oceans begin to slowly give off CO2.

Boiling a kettle of water takes time, so imagine how much time it takes to heat up blue planet oceans such as those on earth? The answer is hundreds of years. So it is clear what is happening  – temperature increases and then as a result, CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase. Hence CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature increase, but are a RESULT of it.

Of course this is simply ignored by the alarmists. They even claim that current CO2 levels are the highest we have ever had when the fact is they are at drought levels. The alarmists trade in the exact opposite of the truth and so have to suppress the truth and even turn it on its head. To do that they have to abandon the scientific method and squash free speech. So far they have done that very well indeed because today 2+2 does equal 5.

You only have to ask the BBC that.

Paul Burgess B.Sc., M.Sc, C. Eng (retired)

Failing victims, fuelling hate

Dr Elle Cockbain is an Associate Professor in Security and Crime Science at University College London.

Dr Waqas Tufail is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Leeds Beckett University. Dr Waqas Tufail’s research interests include policing, anti-Muslim racism, and racialisation.

Apparently, Muslims are a race.

They have written a report together.  We have the perfect storm here; a Muslim and a left-wing academic writing a politically correct report.  The main thrust of the report is to minimise any claims of Muslim involvement,  or disproportionate Muslim involvement, in grooming gangs.

The report is filled with term “racism” in every form imaginable.  This includes “anti-Muslim racism”, which is repeated again and again.  Dr Waqas Tufail’s “expertise” in “racism” comes to the fore. It seems nearly every sentence has “racism” in it.

It is also filled with the usual accusations of “Islamophobia” or “far right”.

Here is my response.

This article examines how racist framings of ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ exist not only in extremist, far-right fringes but in mainstream, liberal discourses too. The involvement of supposedly feminist and liberal actors, and the promotion of pseudoscientific ‘research’, have lent a veneer of legitimacy to essentialist, Orientalist stereotypes of Muslim men, the demonisation of whole communities and demands for collective responsibility.

Because of the above “supposedly feminist” input, the report later introduces a different form of feminism that is apparently needed… called “anti-racist feminism”.

It seems western people have Muslim men all wrong!

The “Muslim victim card” is played straight away in the report’s introduction.

 “Home to a significant population of Asian Muslim heritage, workers from the Indian subcontinent initially arrived into towns such as Rotherham to work within the manufacturing sector and were often treated poorly in comparison to whites”.

“Despite routinely (and wrongly) being depicted as a ‘specific’ crime type, ‘grooming gangs’ are better understood as a vaguely and inconsistently defined subset of child sexual exploitation (CSE) offenders”.

A large component of CSE is online, where the offender does not touch the child. It is abhorrent, but compare it with the violent gang rape of a child.

Most online offenders are white, so by including grooming rape gangs in CSE, it serves to obfuscate the offence. Grooming gang rape needs to be included as a special category regarding the rape of children.

“Existing data simply do not enable reliable assessments of the prevalence or correlates of CSE, let alone those of ‘grooming gangs’ so claims of ethnic or religious disproportionality in ‘grooming gangs’ are just not testable in any meaningful sense”.  

There you have it.  We can’t even prove that Muslims are grossly overrepresented in grooming rape gangs. Based on the names of the men convicted for this crime, it is obvious that they are Muslims. This was found by Times Reporter Andrew Norfolk, the Muslim Quilliam Foundation and their report, and Peter McLoughlin, the author of “Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal”.   Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail obviously reject this in their report.

“The racialisation of ‘grooming gangs’ must also be understood in the context of a long history of racialised and gendered Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism”.

Three versions of racism in one sentence!

“Muslim men have been stereotyped as both religiously fanatical and prone to committing violent, sexual acts motivated by a patriarchal, misogynistic culture and backward, barbaric religion”.

It’s called the truth! Islam is a patriarchal, misogynistic and backward, barbaric religion. Evidence for the above is mountainous and available in Islamic scripture, Islamic history, and current events.

Muslims have viewed white European women as whores for over a thousand years.

From the Muslim Quilliam Foundation website: “There are elements from within the British Pakistani community that still subscribe to outdated and sexist views of women embedded within their jaded interpretations of Islam. These backward views are passed down from generation to generation until the lines between faith and culture dissolve, making it increasingly difficult to criticise one without being seen as a critic of the other”.

Muslim grooming rape gangs include grandfathers, fathers, sons, grandsons, uncles, nephews and cousins. What more evidence of backward views passed down from generation to generation is needed?

But there is more.

Surveys show 2nd and 3rd generation British Muslims are at least, if not more, fundamentalist in their religious beliefs than their parents and grandparents. Some of the girls raped reported that the men read from the Quran or prayed to Allah before raping them.

They also reported the men said their religion allowed them to rape non-Muslim girls and women. Most Muslims in Britain are of Pakistani descent, and Pakistani Muslim men form the bulk of grooming gang rape offenders. A list of the best and the worst countries in the World to be a woman was produced by National Geographic; the list includes 167 countries. The best are Western countries, and the worst are Muslim countries.

Pakistan was rated the worst country in the World for discriminatory norms against women. It is also 164 out of 167 in the list with only Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen below; three countries at war!

We contend that genuinely practised anti-racist feminism is vital in tackling child sexual abuse and resisting anti-Muslim forces.

Even the highly respected Times journalist, Andrew Norfolk, doesn’t escape the ire of Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail and their accusations of racism. In addition to this report, Andrew Norfolk has been accused of racism and Islamophobia by left wing and Muslim organisations.

“……The story combined two particularly explosive contentions: that Pakistani-heritage men were preying on white British girls; and that the authorities failed to intervene ‘for fear of being branded racist’….”

So, the facts in the Jay Report on Rotherham and subsequent grooming rape gang trials in other towns and cities throughout the UK do not exist; they’re just “contentions”. A cover ‘for fear of being branded racist’ below.

“…. seemingly chosen to stoke ‘his personally crafted crime model of white victims and Pakistani perpetrators’…”

 “His dubious journalistic standards notwithstanding, Norfolk’s racialised crime threat immediately caught the media, political and public imagination and soon became entrenched”.

 Labour politicians are also in the firing line:

“Centre-left politicians have proved particularly pivotal in migrating rhetoric more characteristic of the far Right to the political mainstream. Key early contributions came from Labour MP Jack Straw. he notoriously blamed ‘grooming’ on regressive British-Pakistani culture, arranged marriages and views of white girls as ‘easy meat’…”

 Jack Straw was 100% correct – well done Jack. The Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, is especially singled out in the report and is mentioned many times. Even though she did a public “mea culpa” it was too late for the likes of Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail; the damage had already been done.

“One particularly dramatic intervention came from Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham and, ironically, shadow secretary of state for women and equalities. Champion had to resign from the frontbench after writing an inflammatory article entitled ‘British Pakistani men ARE raping and exploiting white girls . . . and it’s time we faced up to it’ for The Sun….Her views in this article were likened to those of the far Right”.

 “The Sun’s former political editor Trevor Kavanagh, which characterised ‘grooming gangs’ as ‘the Muslim problem’: a framing heavily criticised for evoking Nazi-era rhetoric”.

I was wondering when Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail would use the word “Nazi”.

“Consequently, the impression stood that ethnic disproportionality in ‘grooming gangs’ was an accepted fact and legitimate focus for government-commissioned research”.

 It’s not an impression; it is a fact!

The excellent book “Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal” by Peter McLoughlin is classed as far-right propaganda in the report.

The Muslim Quilliam Foundation’s report on Muslim grooming rape gangs comes in for special criticism. After all, if you can rubbish a report by an officially recognised Muslim organisation on the subject, it helps to obfuscate the problem and classify those highlighting the problem as being far right, racist and Islamophobic. Much of the input on Quilliam’s report is taken from an article written by Dr Elle Cockbain titled: “When bad evidence is worse than no evidence: Quilliam’s ‘grooming gangs’ report and its legacy”. Her article was published in the Policing Insight journal. Anne Marie and the For Britain party are mentioned in the article. Anne Marie assures me she has never used the term “Rape Jihad”.

 “The report’s 84 per cent statistic, with its veneer of legitimacy, assists Islamophobic agendas and claims of “rape jihad”: a term favoured by the likes of “Tommy Robinson” (Stephen Yaxley Lennon) and Anne Marie Waters, leader of the extreme anti-Islam party For Britain.  

Central to this is Quilliam’s 84% of offenders being South Asian (read Muslim). The Quilliam Foundation Report is dated December 2017. Peter McLoughlin, the author of “Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal” maintains an online list of those jailed to date for grooming gang rape and a ratio count of those who are Muslim. Assuming the latest date for evidence to be included in the Quilliam report was November 2017, Peter McLoughlin’s list produces 86% Muslims for those jailed as at November 2017. Quilliam took a sample of cases so their 84% is within the range of acceptance for a sample within a population. Considering Muslims are only 5% of the British population, they are grossly overrepresented in grooming gang rape convictions of predominantly white schoolgirls. That is a fact.

From Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail’s report:

“Stereotypes of ‘Muslim rape gangs’ were greatly boosted by the Quilliam Foundation’s ‘grooming gangs’ report, source of the spurious but ubiquitous claim that ‘84% of grooming gang offenders’ are Asian”.

 “Worryingly, some academics (including the author of a book on ‘anti-racist practice in social work’) have since uncritically cited Quilliam’s drivel”.

“Information appears cherry-picked to support a central thesis that ‘regressive’ Pakistani culture drives abuse of white British girls”.

 Both Quilliam and Jack Straw mentioned earlier are 100% correct on ‘regressive’ Pakistani culture drives abuse of white British girls.

The Sikh Youth UK (SYUK) group come under fire because they also published a report on Muslim grooming rape gangs raping Sikh girls and collaborated with the left’s most hated person, Tommy Robinson.

“The fringe, nationalist Sikh Youth UK (SYUK) group then released a much lower profile but similarly shoddy report, which addressed ‘religiously aggravated sexual exploitation of young Sikh women’. SYUK had already been accused of propagating anti-Muslim hatred in collaborating with ‘Tommy Robinson’ around ‘Muslim grooming gangs’…”

 One of the subheadings in Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail’s report is: “How the international far Right is co-opting women’s rights”.

 “Central to pan-European and indeed global far-right narratives is the presentation of Muslims as a specific and urgent civilisational threat. Far-right propaganda commonly refers to the ‘Islamisation’ or ‘Islamification’ of Europe, or ‘Islamofascism’. The ‘war on terror’ helped mainstream such perspectives and normalise the use of secular and feminist discourses to inveigh against the supposedly increasing threat of Islam in Europe”.

The Islamification of Europe, indeed western civilisation is happening and Islam is a civilisational threat. Islam is not a “supposedly” increasing threat in Europe; it is a “real” increasing threat. Women are complaining in Europe because their freedoms have been eroded by the influx of Muslim men and they have been the target of sexual assault by Muslim men.

This anti-Muslim climate has served as ideological justification for domestic and international ‘war on terror’ efforts – and the attendant wide-ranging human rights abuses – of which Muslims in Europe, the US and elsewhere bear the brunt.

 The justification for domestic and international war on terror efforts is down to Islamic terrorism and nothing else. The Muslim victim card is played yet again.

“In the Nordics, as in the UK, serious sexual offences have been racialised and politicised”.

 In the Nordics, as in the UK, and indeed in other European countries, governments have tried to hide sexual attacks on their women by Muslim men. Like everywhere in this report, the truth about these sexual attacks by Muslim men is classed as racism. People will vote for political parties that listen and act upon their justifiable concerns over immigration, Islam and Muslims.

The Jay Report into Muslim grooming rape gangs in Rotherham also doesn’t escape the ire of Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail. They do not accept the oft quoted 1,400 victims in Rotherham. From the Jay Report itself and everything I have read on the subject that figure was conservative; the actual number was believed to be much higher. Also, there wasn’t enough emphasis on the non-white victims for Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail’s liking when the Jay Report was covered by the press. Again, from everything I have read on the subject, the number of non-white victims was extremely small compared to white victims. Quilliam took a sample of cases so there were obviously no non-white victims in their sample.

“The Jay (2014) report received intense publicity for its (methodologically dubious) estimate that 1,400 children were abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, mostly by groups of Pakistani-heritage offenders. BME victims were almost entirely overlooked in the coverage. Meanwhile, Quilliam’s report literally whitewashed out BME victims in its sample through untrue and insulting claims that all victims were white”.

 One of the subheadings in the report is: “Fuelling anti-Muslim hostility and violent Islamophobia”. This is where the typical Muslim victim card is played. We see the usual flipping of victimhood that we see after Islamic terrorist attacks. It includes Anders Breivik, Darren Osborne, the Mosque shooting in New Zealand and the murder of an 81-year-old Muslim man in Rotherham. All of them were horrendous attacks and not condoned by any normal person. If the truth is not allowed to be told as Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail want in their report, it will worsen the situation and lead to more violence.

The following was mentioned earlier under “failed to intervene for fear of being branded racist”. It was classed as a contention and is now a misapprehension.

“…the misapprehension that ‘grooming gangs’ flourished primarily due to ‘political correctness’ must be tackled. Decrying political correctness (usually in the context of racialised minorities) is common among right-wing and far-right commentators but detracts from broader systemic issues that require attention.

The Jay Report and investigations in the many other towns and cities where Muslim grooming rape gangs operated with impunity for decades, do blame political correctness in the guise of accusations of racism as the main obstacle to reporting on and stopping Muslim grooming rape gangs. That is a fact. Ironically Drs Elle Cockbain and Waqas Tufail’s report is replete with the word “racism” for anyone who dares to speak the truth about Muslim grooming rape gangs. We all know the great power political correctness wields when commenting on Islam and Muslims in Britain and other western countries.

The report blames the following for why offenders were not brought to justice sooner: fear that the victims would not make credible witnesses, unsympathetic attitudes to sexually exploited children and austerity measures. Among the countless thousands of victims, there would have been a significant number who would have made credible witnesses. Remember this went on for decades throughout towns and cities in the UK. The girls were treated like prostitutes who had made lifestyle choices by some police forces but that does not detract from the power that political correctness had in the police covering up these cases. Besides the police, local councils (mostly Labour) were also at the centre of this problem and they used political correctness to cover up this abhorrent crime against schoolgirls. When thousands of schoolgirls are being brutally gang raped on your patch, it should be a top priority for spending in your budget so austerity measures are not a reason why action was not taken sooner. Blaming austerity measures also smacks of a left-wing political dog whistle.

For Britain 

Patel’s immigration policy is largely to be welcomed, but…

Anne Marie Waters 

March 2nd 2020

 

Priti Patel’s immigration policies are largely to be welcomed. A points-based system is an obvious method of weighing up a person’s merits and deciding who can or can’t come to Britain. It’s a convenient and common sense way to have a look at those who wish to live here, for whatever length of time.

But there are problems with Patel’s overall approach – culture isn’t taken in to account, and there’s a worry that the speed at which ‘unskilled’ workers will be severely restricted may contain risks to business.

What the Tories seem to see as a selling point is similar to that little bit of political correctness that Ukip used to put forward – that non-Europeans will now have the same opportunity to come to Britain as Europeans.

What is actually needed is for that policy to be reversed.

Europeans should have priority. There is nothing at all wrong with that. Europeans do not threaten our cultural values in to the future, nor are they likely to drag us back to the dark ages with practices like FGM or honour violence.

For Britain cares for the longer term, and we maintain therefore that Europeans are far more likely to integrate than migrants from other parts of the world. This is crucial.

Furthermore, is it right to make unskilled migration so difficult so soon?

Nobody wants to reduce immigration as much as I do, but I also understand the need to listen to the nation’s employers.  We cannot make rash decisions on our economy.

The ares most likely to affected included the hospitality sector, care, farming, and the NHS. Will we have enough grown workers for these jobs in a year’s time? I’m afraid it’s unlikely.

Patel proposes that ‘unskilled’ workers will need 70 points to work in Britain. They will earn 10 points for speaking English, and 20 for having secured a job. The higher the salary they will earn, the more points they will earn. The points are not easy to build and will most certainly bring immigration down (or should).

It’s right also to state that British business must invest in British workers, bringing employment and wages back up. But one must wonder whether the country will be ready for this by January 2021; we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and damage British business – particularly small business which can ill-afford it.

For Britain proposes something different. Yes we propose a points system but cultural compatibility will be among the points.

Most crucially at this point in time, For Britain would stop all illegal migration via the English channel from France, close the open arms to refugees and asylum seekers, and certainly have no part in accommodating the masses currently making their way to the Greek border.

We will restore British culture and make certain that mass migration cannot further threaten it in the way that it has. We have religious violence and censorship in Britain and it is a direct result of immigration from societies where religious violence and censorship are not uncommon.

For Britain wants to suspend immigration for 5 years. This includes asylum (except in very rare circumstances), indefinite leave to remain, the granting of British citizenship, and all current visas to the UK. Temporary visas will be issued for vital workers, and Europe (e.g. eastern Europe) will be given priority.  The numbers will be determined upon balance; the short term needs of business versus the medium-to-long term investment in British workers, and the reduction of reliance on foreign workers.

The movement of large families from poverty-stricken parts of the world, something exploited using forced marriage, has to stop as well. We have to look again as the asylum seekers and illegal immigrants already in our country, and prepare to deport the vast majority. This is the only way we can stop mass movement towards our shores.

Britain has to secure its borders and has to do it soon. It has to happen, not only for our current well-being, but for the future of this nation. We have a duty to pass on a free and vibrant Britain to the next generation; that’s our task, let’s take it seriously…

Join us.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain

Maths: We’re losing our ability to count

Getting the basics right at school is one of For Britain’s most important policies.  Children are leaving our schools without sufficient skills in the most fundamental subjects, such as maths and English.  

A For Britain member and maths tutor has sent us this account of the mathematics skills she encounters in her work.

I am a private tutor and constantly see poor levels of mathematics skills among pupils.  It is essential in mathematics to really grasp the basics before trying to embark on more difficult work.  The problem in school is that there is a fixed curriculum for the year, and all topics have to be covered regardless of whether the children are ready to learn them.

It is essential that addition and subtraction skills are learnt thoroughly, so children can quickly recall the answers without having to use fingers. Then they can move on to mentally calculate these sums involving 100s, 10s and units.  All too often they are allowed the use of a calculator before they are even able to do a sum such as 65 -38: they have not had enough practice to learn these skills, and just don’t know how to approach them. 

Alternatively, they may be able to do it if they write the sum down in columns, but even many in secondary schools will get this wrong!

Regarding multiplication, I rarely see children who know their times-table well, even in secondary school.  If they do come up with an answer, they often count one at a time – there is no instant recall in sums such as 6 x 7.  Even with the times-table, some don’t realise that 8 x 2 for instance is the same as 2 x 8. 

It is astounding, because within a short time studying these basic skills with me, through daily repetition, they can recall instantly all of the basic addition, subtraction and multiplication sums.  

These skills should form the basis of all mathematics teaching in schools, and pupils should be taught how to work things out mentally. 

When I was at school (many years ago!) we had daily drills on times-tables, and once these are learned, they are never forgotten.

It is impossible for instance to learn how to add fractions if the tables have not been learned thoroughly.  This applies in numerous other areas where these basics also need to be applied.  They cannot understand more difficult concepts without a thorough knowledge of these basic skills.

Of course, the huge problem with maths in primary school is that the classes are often of sizes of 30 or more, and are of mixed abilities. There are vast differences in the speed at which children can learn mathematics, so an overcrowded environment can only be detrimental.  

Overall, the standard is low, and getting lower.  Quite simply, we are losing our numeric and mathematical abilities.

For Britain is fully aware of the low standards in UK schools in the 21st century, and we are determined to turn this around.  There must be greater emphasis on intelligence, thought, and excellence in our education system.

You can learn more about our education policy here:

Video: The Foundations of it All – Our Education Policy 

Blog: The Foundations of it All – Our Education Policy 

London has fallen – but we can still save it!

Alessandro Merola

February 28th 2020

 

I have always considered myself patriotic. What can I say? I love this country. I am who I am today because of my country. It has given me healthcare, education, a home and a community to belong to. Therefore, I am so saddened to see the current state that our beloved nation finds herself in. But what concerns me most is the issue regarding the city of London. What was once a shining capital city that attracted so many from so far to come to gaze at its beauty in awe, is now (in my opinion) about as attractive as a landfill.

London has become a war-zone.

Not a day passes without another horrific murder or inhuman acid attack. The youth of London now find stability and meaning in gangs – leading a life of crime rather than pursuing an education.

Being young myself, I find myself looking at old videos of London online – videos filmed in what looks like a completely different city to the one that now stands. A city of smiling faces, where culture was celebrated, not hidden. A city where children were free to play in the streets, not forced to live behind double-bolted doors and barred windows. A city with happy and united communities, not no-go zones and foreign ghettos.

I fear that if action is not taken, the great city that survived invasions, the plague, great fires and the Blitz, will not be standing strong for much longer.

However, if action is taken, and taken quickly, I believe that we can salvage from the ruins the City of London that elder generations of my family and many others knew and loved dearly.

That is why I joined “For Britain”.

I saw that this was a movement of proud individuals, not elitist politicians, who were prepared to act to help their country be better – not for money, not for fame, but for Britain. A movement that would speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A breath of fresh air, instead of the rotten stench of the mainstream political parties (Liberals, Labour and Conservatives) who are all the same and who are indeed all to blame.

And I believe with all my being that “For Britain”, is the movement that not only London needs, but it is the movement that the entire country needs, to return the greatness that was once proudly hers. We know this is possible.

After all, it’s in the name – Great Britain.

 

Alessandro Merola

For Britain, London Branch 

Government hides the truth about rape gangs (again)

Anne Marie Waters

February 23rd 2020

 

They must know the disquiet it will cause.  They must know that the silence will only help to confirm what I and others have said for many years.  Even so, even with this in mind, our leaders have chosen to cover up the truth.  The truth therefore must be truly terrible.

It is terrible.  The truth is that Muslims rape kuffar girls because they are kuffar, and therefore their rape is permissible in Islam.  I know this, the rape victims know this, and the government knows this.  Hence the silence.  Nothing has changed – Islam will be protected at all costs.  It will be protected even by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, in whom so many had placed their hopes.  But the fact is that neither Patel nor Johnson can tell us the truth, because that would mean admitting what they’ve done.  The Tories have overseen mass immigration just as Labour has, and are equally to blame.  It is their failure that is being disguised here, and rape victims are merely collateral damage.

Lord Pearson, by far my favourite person in the entire Palace of Westminster, has written to the government for an update on their investigation in to the characteristics of the notorious rape gangs.

His question was:

further to the answer by Baroness Manzoor on 18 October 2018 (HL Deb, col 562), whether they intend to publish the findings of the working group set up on 3 September 2018 to examine the characteristics of the perpetrators of child sexual exploitation and abuse; and if not why not.

Baroness Williams of Trafford  replied:

Officials have been pursuing work on several fronts to improve our understanding of the characteristics of group-based child sexual exploitation, as well as the implications for the investigation and prevention of these crimes.

This internal work is being carried out as part of routine policy development. As such, it has not been undertaken with the intention of publication.

Much of the insight gained through our work with law enforcement partners contains operationally and personally sensitive information and will need to remain confidential.

In early 2020 the Government will publish a national strategy, the first of its kind, to tackle all forms of child sexual abuse.

Our new strategy will set out our whole system response to tackling child sexual abuse, including group-based sexual offending, drawing on this internal work. It will set out how we will work across government, law enforcement, safeguarding partners and industry to root out offending, protect victims and help victims and survivors rebuild their lives. We will work tirelessly to tackle all forms of sexual abuse; there will be no no-go areas.

Extraordinary stuff.  Lies upon lies upon lies.  The government will tackle “all child abuse”.  This means they will tackle none.

There is nothing complicated about the characteristics of these rape gangs, a child could tell them, they’re all Muslims.  Across Europe, rape gangs are comprised of Muslims.  Women and girls have been brutally attacked in Europe by men from Morocco, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world.  In Cologne, in a notorious mass attack, German women were assaulted by 1,000s of Muslim men.  It’s the same story in Sweden, where Swedish women have been told to stay home to avoid sexual assault, just like in Muslim countries.  In Norway, in an infamous national report, it was revealed that Norwegian women were being raped by “non-Western immigrants” with a “very different attitude to women” than is normal in Norway.  Reports have even stated that blonde Norwegians have begun dying their hair because blondes are targeted disproportionately.

One rape victim in Norway reported that her rapist had told her “he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman”.

Where might he have gotten this idea from?  He got it from Islam and it is that fact that our government is covering up, yet again.

Here in Britain, the women raped by these gangs are being heard for the first time, and what they are saying is uncomfortable for our leaders.  More and more of them have reported that their rapists tell them the Koran allows them to treat women however they wish.  I personally have spoken to survivors of grooming gangs who told me the same thing.  The gangs would call them “white whores” deserving of no respect.  They can be raped and abused at will by Muslim men, for the Koran says so.

Islam is uniquely poisonous to women.  It is truly abhorrent.  Men who are raised from the cradle to adopt the Koran’s attitude to women will, unsurprisingly, hold the Koran’s attitude to women.  Let’s not forget the reverence of the Koran.  Insulting it can carry the death penalty, and Muslims are raised to believe that it is the ultimate and final and direct word of Allah.  If the Koran makes a statement, it is taken very seriously.

Here are just some of the Koran’s teachings on women (thanks to thereligionofpeace.com).

Koran 4:11 (Inheritance) “The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females”

Koran (2:282) (Court testimony) “And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.” 

Koran (2:228) “and the men are a degree above them (women)”

Koran (5:6) “And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”

Koran (2:223) “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will

Koran (4:3)  “Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four”

Koran (4:34) “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them” 

The Hadiths, the words of Mohammed and therefore almost as ‘holy’ as the Koran, are even worse.

Sahih Bukhari (6:301)  “[Muhammad] said, ‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence.’

Sahih Bukhari (6:301)  continued “[Muhammad said] ‘Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religion.'”

Sahih Bukhari (2:28) & Sahih Bukhari (54:464) Women comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven mentioned explicitly by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).

Sahih Bukhari (62:81)  “The Prophet said: “‘The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women’s) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).”

Sahih Bukhari (62:58) A woman presents herself in marriage to Muhammad, but he does not find her attractive, so he “donates” her on the spot to another man.

Sahih Muslim (4:1039)  “A’isha said [to Muhammad]: ‘You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses’ These are the words of Muhammad’s favorite wife, complaining of the role assigned to women under Islam.

Given all of the above, is it any wonder that the Muslim world is particularly toxic for, and brutal towards, the female half of humanity?  Is it any wonder that when Muslims come to the West, they bring these attitudes with them?  Is it any wonder then that our girls have fallen victim?  It was as inevitable as night following day.

Our leaders have known this for some time, but so committed to mass migration are they, that they have chosen to discount the rape victims as insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Every girl being gang-raped in a Muslim-driven taxi at this very moment is in that situation because her government has chosen to allow it.  Despite 900 arrests of Syrian asylum seekers in 2015 (some for rape and sexual assault), the Conservative government is still fully and completely committed to bringing more Syrians to the UK.  If they rape girls, so be it.

Open-border globalism has brought brutal savagery to our country, the kind of which we have never known before.  The Conservatives know this.  They know they’ve allowed people to come here with attitudes that we left behind in the stone age, but they do it anyway.  The victims of that stone-age attitude will be our young girls, and our government doesn’t care.  It has chosen to allow this in the name of mass migration, just as governments across Europe have knowingly allowed the same.  Western women and girls have been thrown to the wolves, and will be again, because the result of yet another cover up will be yet more rapes.  The Muslim gangs know that they are still untouchable, they know Islam will never be criticised, so more and more rapes will take place and the British government will cover them up again.

The only way out of this is to replace the British government, and for the sake of our girls, we intend to do just that.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

The Foundations of it All – Our Education Policy

Anne Marie Waters 

February 17th 2020

 

If you had enormous influence over the minds of the young, how would you use it?  Would you teach them to be positive and self-respectful, or would you fill their minds with shame and self-contempt?  The former is a gift to a child, the latter is nothing short of abuse, and it is incredibly cruel.  But it is the latter that is happening in our classrooms, and For Britain is determined to bring it to an end.

It is no exaggeration to say that British children are taught to hate their own country at school.  There is simply no doubt about it.  Whether it is encouraging children to see things from the perspective of an anti-British terrorist, or promoting mass migration and multiculturalism (i.e. all cultures are better than ours), the message is consistent and clear; Britain is bad and you should feel ashamed to be British.  It is terribly damaging, both to the individual child and to our future as a nation.

The reasons are not hard to understand.  The teaching profession is dominated by “progressive” leftists.  The National Union of Teachers (now the National Education Union) in 2020 proposed motions at its national conference condemning “Islamophobia” and supporting transgender teaching in schools (disguised as “inclusivity”).

It has also called on the government to abolish the Prevent strategy, aimed at restraining Islamic extremism.

This is clearly a left-wing organisation, and it is free to promote its destructive left-wing ideals to Britain’s children while the government stands by and does nothing.

This has to end.

As usual, For Britain has the policies that the country needs – they will transform our education system.  We will introduce a new curriculum to restore excellence, and to teach British children pride in themselves, their country, and their national identity.  Those who refuse to teach this curriculum will be removed from their jobs; no ifs or buts.

We will bring back the basics – strive for excellence in reading, writing, mathematics, and the sciences. Our schools and universities will be places of open debate, diversity of opinion, and facts.

We will prevent universities expelling students because of their political views, and will oblige discussion and debate with all perspectives represented.  A University Bias Board will be established, to which students can appeal if their event of is cancelled as a result of left-wing bullying and intimidation.

The Conservatives have spoken about this, but as so often with mainstream parties, speaking is all that they’ve done.  No real action has been taken or will be taken until we replace mainstream politics with a pro-British alternative.

That is our role, and we will succeed.  We must succeed, for the children of Britain and the future of Britain.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

 

Fair Cop’s Day In Court

By Mike Speakman; Retired Deputy Chief Constable, Policing Spokesman

15th February  2020

In recent years, it has sometimes been said, with a sense of irony, that George Orwell’s 1984 was written as fiction, not an implementation manual. This message did not get through to many establishment organisations, including Humberside Police. I served in Humberside Police from 1995 to 2000 as both Assistant and Deputy Chief Constable. This forces behaviour as recently highlighted is nothing short of appalling and I am quite distressed at what they have become. But I should acknowledge that the problem is not confined to Humberside alone, the country’s police forces are infected with the same virus.

Harry Miller, an ex-Humberside police officer, under the umbrella organisation which he set up called “Fair Cop” was in court yesterday to hear judgement passed on a case he brought last year challenging the way Humberside Police implemented the College of Policing’s Hate Crime guidance, and also challenging that Guidance itself.

Harry had shared a tweet and written some himself which called into question the latest craze of multiple trans identities. One woman/man/it complained. The police went to Mr. Millers workplace and subsequently interviewed him and told him that the incident was being recorded as a “none crime hate incident” in accordance with College of Policing guidance. Such findings could subsequently be disclosed to potential employers in a DBS check, even though no offence had been committed. There is no objective test to a “Hate Crime” it only needs one person to perceive it as such.

In common with most police officers. Harry has a strong sense of justice and took exception to the action of Humberside police. He founded Fair Cop and using his own money and crowdfunding took the case to court. In delivering Judgement in favour of Mr. Miller, Justice Knowles actually quoted George Orwell and compared Humberside Police to the Stasi and the Gestapo. He concluded that Humberside Police were unlawfully trying to restrict Mr. Millers freedom of expression. He did not however find that the College of Policing’s guidance in itself was unlawful. He has fast tracked the issue to the Supreme Court, so we are not at the end and there is a way to go yet.

Many of us in our party have been subjected to constraints on our freedom of expression, whether it be being de-platformed at universities, venues surrendering to the threats of violence from the left and police forces refusing to protect our right to hold meetings to name but a few. So, this issue goes to the very heart of our democracy and a right to express views that others disagree with. It’s probably one of the most important issues of our time.

The role of the Police in all this is very troubling. Police forces are actively siding with various extreme groups against others whom they do not support. The police service is not impartial in this debate and there appears to be some centralised coordination across forces which favours some groups over others.

The Police role in social media also needs examining. I do not believe the police should be responsible for what goes on Twitter or Facebook. The police role in monitoring communications goes back to a time when messages were written on paper, put in an envelope, addressed, a stamp was purchased and a trip to the post box was involved. Any such message had thought, and energy expended on it. Now a casual drunken few thumb presses can convey the same words, even though there is no requirement on the recipient to actually read it. We are also now entitled to take offence at anything. I think the Police involvement in social media is a perversion of the role and does indeed take sources away from issues that really matter and used to be at the core of policing activity. It cannot be right for the police to refuse to attend a domestic burglary but will turn up if you are thinking “wrongly” in their opinion.

Now we shouldn’t blame all police officers for this, although it seems some have become religious zealots in pursuing people who express a different opinion. The problem lies in the management levels and the mechanisms that have been put in place to centralise thinking across the service. The college of policing and the Home Office being the prime drivers.

I still have faith in the basic bobby, who understands right from wrong, still has a sense of justice but is pressured to follow the politically correct orthodoxy that infects all public services. I know harry Miller has the support of thousands of serving and retired officers who have helped fund him and supported him with information. Harry’s campaign has only just started, he has other organisations in his sights who are using their charitable status to pursue political agendas, and this is illegal. This campaign has a long way to go.

Across the country beacons of resistance are being lit, whether it be about grooming gangs and corrupted policing, University de-platforming or promotion of transsexual migration in schools.

For Britain will play its part.

Mike Speakman
Retired Deputy Chief Constable
Policing Spokesman
The For Britain Movement

[email protected]

“Wokeness” will spell the end of the Labour Party

Anne Marie Waters

February 12th 2020

 

Rebecca Long-Bailey, a front-runner in the race to be the next Labour leader, has given her backing to the expulsion of “transphobic” members of the party.

Obviously Labour still has its finger on the pulse of the British working class!  (Or not).

A new group, comprised of people who are so self-indulgent and narcissistic that they will not countenance other people having the freedom to disagree with their dictats, has formed within the Labour Party, and its specific purpose is to ‘rid the party of transphobes’.

The “Labour Campaign for Trans Rights” has made a list of requirements that it feels fully entitled to demand.  It wants absolute authority over what people are allowed to think, and knowing the Labour Party, it will get it.

The first tactic is to pretend that there is a threat to trans rights, but where is it?  Who is arguing that transpeople shouldn’t have the same fundamental rights as everyone else?  Nobody that I’ve heard and if I did, I’d disagree; transpeople should have all their rights in tact, just like the rest of us.

But this approach tends to work, it turns the trans lobbiests in to the victims, and disguises what many of them truly are – cowardly bullies demanding control.

The requirements are clear: “transwomen are women, transmen are men”.  That’s the starting point and if you disagree, you will be expelled from the Labour Party.  All in the name of inclusivity and tolerance.

Furthermore, if you point out that there are clashes between the best interests of “transwomen” and of actual women, that too is transphobic and will mean you’re no longer welcome in the party of the marginalised and demonised.

The fact that there are obvious clashes, and that actual women always lose out when these clashes occur, is completely irrelevant.  Women are losing sporting contests to much larger men, men are violating women’s refuges and rape crisis centres, women’s toilets are handed to men on a daily basis; this is a clear clash of interests, but point it out, and you’ll be expelled from the Labour Party.

There is going to be an exodus of people from that shambolic party, and For Britain will be waiting to welcome them on board.  Labour has become a Titania McGrath-like parody, even indulging the utter, mind-bogglingly absurd “non-binary” farce with full gusto.  “Non-binary” is someone who doesn’t identify as a man or a woman.  If you find that silly, or even slightly odd, or completely pointless, or the tantrum of an attention-seeking narcissist, or even remotely confusing, you’ll risk expulsion from the Labour Party.  It’s staggering.

This is the party that once stood for the working folk, the coalminers, the factory workers, the road sweepers… now it is a party that will expel you for not appreciating the nuances of gender fluidity.  Give me a break.

It’s over for the Labour Party, this is its death knell, it will never win back its core vote with this nonsense.  This is the end, and nobody deserves it more.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

The NHS Race – Can You Speak Fast Enough?

Anne Marie Waters 

February 11th 2020 

 

This morning I read the most fascinating string of tweets on the account of Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson (@allisonpearson).  It’s something I haven’t previously been aware of, and reveals to us, yet again, the shocking state of the NHS – it’s even worse than I thought.

The tweets refer to NHS GP services.  People are sending messages to Pearson describing the speed at which their GP appointments must take place, and the apparent ‘rule’ that doctors will now only deal with one ailment at a time.

This isn’t medicine.

I last saw an NHS GP a couple of years ago, and I learned for myself that these services are not patient-centred.  This is all about getting people out the other side as fast as possible.  There is no real discussion, no inquiry as to general well-being, and you will be very lucky indeed to see the same doctor twice.

The tweets shared by Pearson however are genuinely shocking.  These are life and death situations.  For obvious reasons, I can’t vouch for the validity of any of these statements, but if I’m honest, I’d well believe them.

Here are some, beginning with the initial tweet from Pearson herself.

@allisonpearson Two friends in different parts of the country say their GP now limits patients to raising one ailment only. Surely it’s often the second or third “minor” twinge that helps make the diagnosis? This is dangerous.

@wendmyway Diagnosis of ovarian cancer is often involving swollen stomach, tiredness, bladder or bowel frequency, difficulty eating normal quantities, if those were limited to one it explains the nearly 70% death rate from ovarian cancer.

@mummyJo46 It’s been that way at our local surgery for a while. I’ve often thought that surely if they hear all of your ailments it may help them more accurately diagnose

@JeunesseLon We always had that – second ailment book a second appointment – they had to achieve 7 minute per patient target

@remindme2smile Ditto…exhibited symptoms of lymphoma (so we found out) but not spotted by any of the docs at my GP. Took a locum who I saw quite by chance to identify it. I owe him my life. All it took was a simple blood test.

@ChipsEgg  Same in ours. I even had a discussion with the doc that it is more efficient, saves time and admin, to discuss everything in one visit. Not interested. It’s all about getting patients through asap.

@peteharry23  After real horror stories from a number of friends , one of whom has terminal cancer due to late and misdiagnosis, I took out private medical insurance 2 months ago. No party is allowed to reform the NHS as it needs .

The final tweet from @peteharry23 is particularly interesting.  This is a person who has taken out private health insurance to avoid the NHS; the very reason the National Health Service was created was to ensure we didn’t have to pay for healthcare.  Now, people are paying for healthcare because the NHS isn’t working.

I’ll respectfully disagree with final point from pete, it’s not because parties aren’t allowed to reform the NHS, it’s because they simply don’t have the courage.  The NHS is sacred, and if you dare criticise it, left-wingers will go for the jugular.  Our politicians are terrified of left-wingers.

For Britain will keep the NHS, but not in its current form.  It isn’t working, and when it isn’t working, it must be fixed.  Part of the problem is people draining its money straight in to their own pockets. Virgin for example is making millions from the health service, and nothing has improved for patients – quite the opposite.

The top-heavy and completely unnecessary management and consultancy culture has turned the service in to a nice little earner for professional bureaucrats.  Millions are wasted on ‘diversity’ and other nonsensical political correctness that has nothing to do with healthcare.

The NHS can be reformed, of course it can, but it will take a party of genuine courage who will not play the political game, and will put the people first.

That party is here.  A party for the NHS, for health, and For Britain.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

 

 

MPs Spring in to Action

Anne Marie Waters 

February 10th 2020 

 

MPs are rarely as vocal as they’ve been for the last few days.  Some have stood up in Parliament to speak out, others have made television appeals, and 170 have gathered together to write to the Prime Minister to demand action.  What’s happened?  The Government is due to deport 50 offenders to Jamaica, so MPs have sprung in to action.

For Britain is clear that the vast majority of foreign offenders, particularly those who commit violent crime or are reasonably suspected of involvement in crimes such as rape, should be removed from the UK if they are not British citizens. That is our policy and it won’t change.

The details of the offenders to be deported aren’t known to me, therefore I will not comment on them.  However, what is notable is that while our MPs argue to keep convicted criminals inside the UK, they’ve said nothing at all about the record number of foreign criminals currently walking our streets.  I include Boris Johnson in this.

Johnson is clearly trying to look tough by pushing this deportation, but let’s not forget this is the same Boris Johnson that called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants; people who have also broken UK law.

What has Boris got to say about the record number of foreign criminals on our streets?  Nothing.  Where is the letter to the Prime Minister from 170 MPs regarding the obvious danger posed to the British public by this?  There is none.

The Daily Mail reported today that 7,300 foreign criminals are currently free on British streets.  These include killers, rapists, and class A drug dealers.  Since the start of the year, as many as 5 foreign criminals per day have been released from prison.  They are supposed to be deported, but this hasn’t happened in 1000s of cases.  They clearly pose a threat to the public, and yet, silence from MPs.

It really is rather obvious.  Our MPs care far more about people from other countries than about British people.  We’ve known this for a long time.

What we want is competence, justice, and a system that works.  Yes, people were unjustly deported during the Windrush scandal and this should not recur.  But the British people want to know why our MPs become so animated about foreign nationals, but we don’t hear a peep from them when our people are assaulted in the streets.

Political correctness utterly dominates our political scene, and the Tories are every bit as bad as Labour.  It’s “woke” to care about foreign nationals, and “racist” to care about our own… that message has been roundly reinforced by every MP jumping up and down about this issue while staying silent about the victims of crime.

For Britain will turn this around.  The real scandal isn’t rare deportations, the real scandal is the number of foreign criminals on our streets.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

Boris’ Promise: PCs or SJWs?

Response to Boris Johnson stating an additional 20,000 PCs will be recruited.

By Andy Thomas

6th February 2020

Andy was a serving officer in a Northern Force for 25 years, uniform, Support Group, CID, Drugs and latterly Intel.

Housing officer for 10 yrs working ASB cases in various high crime estates.

Married with two children and mad England RUFC supporter!

Hats off to Boris…

A great soundbite, a fantastic promise and er……well…..a great soundbite. How are you going to turn this into something useful? How will you make any difference? 20,000 extra officers sounds, on paper, a lot. However, the 20,000 at best, merely returns officer-levels to the pre-austerity period or probably less..

Social media is now being filled with ‘passing-out’ photos by proud parents of the new officers. The determination on their faces are both touching and also strangely evocative. Mainly because we dinosaurs know full well the frustrations and disillusionments to come.

Most of us know that mere numbers will not change a single thing. You could make the number 40,000, 50,000…..it won’t make an ounce of difference to the society we have deliberately engineered and foisted on us by stealth.

The British public have had more than enough of cultural Marxism and the Emperor’s New Clothes World this has engendered. And why? Because it has failed miserable. The Police being forced to swallow the nonsense of Scarman and MacPherson. In 2019 the public want Gene Hunt – they’ve been lumbered with George Dixon and they’ve had enough!.

Boris purged the Party of Remainers, now he MUST purge the Home Office of the anti-Police/Left wing cadre there. If not, they will water down each and every reform you try to make about law and order. They will, of course, tell you otherwise. Already many of us can detect the whiff of house-training. Poor Teresa May was eaten alive by the cop-haters in the Home Office and turned her into the worst Home Secretary in history. Having Tess on a butty was a doddle.
Does the British public need another 20,000 Social Justice Warriors or minority political activists masquerading as Police Officers, preening, prancing and dancing and openly relishing their lack of impartiality? While their kids are being poisoned by drug dealers and subject to industrialised and organised rape. Or butchered in the streets in the name of ‘Multi-culturalism’?

Preening, prancing and dancing, of course, is great PR for the Police and why not? On the promotion stakes – Gold dust. As for Joe Public, who probably and rightly applaud ‘Diversity’ but may be more concerned about the return of their stolen lawnmower/bike/car. Or could be unhappy about the all- pervading smell of cannabis smoke everywhere. Because the Woke Generation think it is fab, groovy, harmless and will result in the end of ‘Gangsterism’.

What they really mean, of course, is that they don’t want the Old Bill paying unwelcome visits when they hold their Cocaine, Chablis and Quiche evenings in Islington. The fact that the urban mental health system is overflowing with Waynes, Waynettas and Shaniquas is not relevant.
Until the same institutions overflow with Hugos, Tamsins and Nigellas…..

Boris, how do you propose to recruit and train your street cleaners? Labour closed most of the Regional Training Centres. Where will you train your recruits – sorry ‘students’? And who will train them? It is well-known that (with the very odd unpopular exception), the vast majority of Police trainers were notorious street-dodgers on the career carousel. Whose ballistic upward career is dependent on avoiding REAL policework as much as possible. They’re mostly back in post, pushing the woke garbage forced on them by the Home Office via their acolytes in the ‘College Of Policing’ (College of Policing for God’s sake!)

Hint: – They call it ‘street-tainting’. At one time the name ‘Thief-taker’ was a name given by reputation with pride.
The SJWs now snigger at this title and use it as a term as abuse.

‘PC X….he’s only a thief-taker’.

This attitude pervades through Police Headquarters and even up to the Home Office.

How can Boris put right this obvious dichotomy? As a former proud street-cleaner I would respectfully offer up several strategies and tactics..

STRATEGY
1) Get rid of Police Commissioners – useless expensive baggage. Exactly what have they achieved? Answers on a postcard….
2) Ramp up the pay of CPS lawyers – make sure only the best apply to be prosecutors as their first choice
3) Bin the Graduate Entry nonsense idea for Police Officers and in fact bin the National Police College – or whatever it calls itself
4) Bin Graduate entry to higher ranks – didn’t work in the 1930’s – won’t work now. Does the British public REALLY want failed supermarket managers running the area where they live.
5) Return proper pay grades.
6) STOP listening to people who call themselves ‘Doctor’ – a medieval scholastic moniker which induces people to think they know where to put a thermometer- whereas the reality it’s just another meaningless academic title.
7) Start building prison space for 200,000+ offenders and be prepared to keep most of them there.

TACTICS
1) Rule 1. Teach recruits the law and how to enforce it
2) There is NO rule 2
3) Rule 3 in case of confusion/debate/argument, Rule 1 applies
Will it work? Is Right On PC policing working?
You decide. When you hear the noise of someone sneaking around the back of your house at 3 am, who do you REALLY want to speed up and protect you…….It’s up to you. Do you want action, empathy and a report to Social Services because the offender is disadvantaged? Or the prevention of you and yours becoming another meaningless crime Stat? It’s THAT simple

Your call Boris

Our First Priority – Law and Order

Anne Marie Waters

February 6th 2020

 

It is fairly uncontroversial, or should be uncontroversial, for a government’s number one priority to be the safety and well-being of those who elect them.  One could make this assumption, but would not always be correct.  Today, in the United Kingdom, law and order has quite simply broken down; the law has become irrelevant.  Even the police ignore it.  It is a shocking reality.

For Britain’s primary promise to the British electorate is this – we will keep you safe, and we will do so by applying the law.  There will be no exceptions to this rule.  All British people, of whatever race, religion, sexuality or gender, will be equal in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of the law.  We are firm in our commitment to this fundamental democratic principle.

Law at present is sporadically applied as politicised police forces enforce it arbitrarily and on the basis of race, religion or sex.  Police also enforce the law in accordance with so-called ‘progressive’ ideals and in doing so, have trampled upon our freedom of speech.  For example, people have been arrested or threatened with arrest if they state openly that they do not believe people can change their sex.  This must end.

Furthermore, certain cultures and beliefs are given impunity, regardless of the seriousness of the crimes involved.  Female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honour violence, child marriage, and other horrific crimes are taking place across Britain while police and elected leaders do little to stop it; in effect therefore, allowing terrible crimes to occur.  This is evidenced most notoriously in the ‘grooming gang’ scandal that continues to blight our nation.

For Britain is committed to changing policing culture away from absurd political correctness and back to justice and order.

We will de-politicise and de-centralise the police, restore the authority of the law, and punish people for serious crimes.  We will reform our sexualised culture and reinforce the adult nature of sexuality.  We will raise the age of sexual consent to 18.

We will oblige police to prioritise violent crime and do away with the “hate” aspect of criminal offences.  All “hate speech” laws will be abolished.  The police and Crown Prosecution Service will be directly accountable to the public, to whom they will explain their decisions.  Early release, suspended sentencing, and the court system will be completely reformed; all with the safety of the British public as the first objective.

The British public is crying out for law and order.  The decent law-abiding taxpayer is confused at best, and distraught at worst, at the total breakdown of the social order that the law is intended to provide.

We will restore the law.  No exceptions.  As always, we will do so For Britain.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain  

Streatham Attack: The Motivation is in the Koran

Anne Marie Waters

February 3rd 2020

 

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

“And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah” 

“Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people”

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth”

“O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination”

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness”

“Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it”

“Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them”

“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” 

Gavin Boby, the infamous “Mosque Buster”, once told me that a person can open any page of the Koran, at random (he had tested it), and find condemnation of the unbeliever.  Every single page.  He’s right, test it for yourself.

The above verses are all taken from the Koran, the very book that devout Muslims believe to be the perfect, unchangeable, and unchallengeable word of God.  So seriously is the Koran taken that criticising it carries the death penalty in many Muslim countries, and can have fatal consequences even here in the UK (ask any British ex-Muslim if they feel safe enough to be open about their apostasy).

And yet, in the coming days, as the UK ponders its latest jihadist terror attack, these verses will not be examined or considered or discussed in any way.  They will be completely ignored as they always are.

Isn’t it possible, even probable, that a person who strongly and passionately believes that he ought to fight the unbeliever, will go out and fight the unbeliever?

Sudesh Amman thought he ought to fight the unbeliever (“smite at their necks”) and in Streatham on Sunday, he followed through.  Amman is the latest example of jihad running amok in the street with knives.  The last one was in London just 3 months ago, when Usman Khan murdered two people with a knife, and injured others.  He too was convinced he ought to fight the unbeliever.

Usman Khan and Sudesh Amman have something else in common as well; they were both in jail on terror offences and released early.  Reports today claim that Amman was freed only days ago, and that authorities had received warnings not to release him.

But they let him walk away freely anyway, because in the grand scheme of things, the safety of the British public is considered low on the list of priorities.  “Sensitivity” and “dialogue” and “interfaith” are all very high on the list however, and the British people stand no chance up against all that..

Priti Patel has given a weak “package of measures” response.  Not good enough.  “Measures” are nothing when nobody implements them.  I’ll also bet the “measures” pay no heed to the ideology behind these attacks, or in closing the borders to this ideology.  That won’t be addressed by the Tories any more now than it has been for the past 10 years.

That’s why we need to change the political landscape.  Labour is beyond redemption and the Tories need to be held to account.

All of the things that I warned about, that Tommy Robinson warned about, are playing out in front of us.  This isn’t going to go away, it will get worse and worse.  All over Europe.  We’ll get so used to it that we’ll forget that it’s new, that it’s imported, and that we can drive it out if we choose to.  But to do that, we have to vote for a party that will follow through.

We need to vote for a party that will do what needs to be done.  We need to vote For Britain.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

2020 | We Go Again!

2nd Feb 2020

As Party Chair, I enter 2020 with a sense of excitement and anticipation. Brexit (although it may not be perfect) has finally happened. The country feels like it has taken a breath, and all of us can reflect on where we are at. Britain is now an independent nation again, free from the control of the EU monster. We all hope trade deals are going to be as good as possible, but Brexiteers craved sovereignty above all else, and we now are on an irreversible path to that.

For me, however, we can’t take our foot off the gas. UKIP and the Brexit Party have now effectively gone. And while Boris is being slapped on the back for getting Brexit through, he cannot be trusted on all the other big issues. The Tories have been in power for 10 years, and society has taken many steps backward in that time.

For Britain needs to be the political home for all the people who have concerns about our basic freedoms, including freedom of speech. People who worry about the fact that whilst EU immigration is falling, immigration from outside the EU is rising and how that is changing the fabric of our society. Islam continues to bully to get it’s own way and the left have enabled this religion to tighten it’s grip on the establishment.  Trans madness isn’t going away. Left wing indoctrination is on the rise in education, and animal welfare won’t improve under Boris as we continue to slaughter over 100 million animals a year without stunning. Last but not least, we have been proven right as the police admit they have been wilfully ignoring the mass rape of white girls across the country.

The de-platforming of Katie Hopkins, whilst not a surprise, is a reminder of the grave situation we are in. Katie has never incited violence, yet a group of left wing and muslim activists managed to call a meeting with Twitter to demand her right to speak be removed. They obliged without any pushback from our politicians or media. The story was published in the left wing press within minutes suggesting collaboration, and a hit job was placed online later in the day, so she had no right to reply. Katie was insulting a muslim couple who are in prison for plotting to behead her during a speech, but this was of course edited out so a one sided version of events could be presented to the world without right of reply. North Korea would be proud.

The only way we can change things is through political power. We have to win more council seats in May because that is the foundation to ultimately win parliamentary seats. UKIP didn’t manage this, and neither did the Brexit Party. But we will, as we have a strategy, all we ask is you back us in the long term.

If that sounds dull to you, then become an activist. We will lobby MPs to address the Stasi style tactics of the far left / Islamic activists. We need to make a noise so the mainstream media simply cannot ignore us. Help us with this. This is your party, we are representing all the people who crave a return to sanity. Yes, other groups will come and go, with figures who may strike a chord on a certain issue. But it isn’t an either / or. Keep supporting us by being  a member and let us get on with the serious business of delivering a plan to win us political power. People are jaded, I get that – but we can’t afford to be. We can’t afford for For Britain not to succeed, I am deadly serious.

It’s so urgent. So important.

If your friends, family, neighbours show concern about the direction of our nation, tell them to join. The bigger the party grows, the louder our voice. The left are terrified of us, it is why they lie about us constantly. They know a strong For Britain voice will resonate with millions. Stifling our voice and spreading lies are all they have.

We are launching a fighting fund for the May elections. Give what you can. Raise what you can in branch meetings. We also are launching a 20 for 2020 campaign in Feb – new members can join for £20 in this momentous year. Do what you can – speak to us if you are able to do more. Talk, encourage, educate and bring new people into our family.

The time is now, 2020 is the year that we kick on.

Happy Brexit Day!

Anne Marie Waters 

January 31st 2020 

 

Well, here it is.  The day we’ve been waiting for.  But before we get to the celebrations, let’s answer the critics.

It’s true, this isn’t the Brexit we wanted.  It isn’t a clean break, and Farage is right to say that Johnson’s deal is little different to May’s, but the British people made their voice heard in December, and that’s that.

People had had enough of the Brexit to-ing and fro-ing, and Boris knew it.  His entire general election campaign centred on three words: Get Brexit Done.

It worked.  The people wanted it over with, even if it wasn’t the Brexit they necessarily voted for.

My views on this are clear.  I don’t believe a clean break from the EU is genuinely possible for any European country.  It is a mammoth political and financial institution and region and it is right on our doorstep.  We must deal with it.

But now the cause for celebration.  The United Kingdom is taking an enormous stride away from the EU and its burdensome bureaucracy.  Control is coming back to the UK.

The glass is definitely half full!

I believe the EU will interfere in the life of nation-states for as long as there is an EU, but we have just made this undemocratic scam a lot weaker, and our success outside of it will inspire others to follow suit.

In the not-too-distant future, the EU could well be gone, and Europe a free continent again.  But for now, let’s celebrate this giant leap towards the restoration of the United Kingdom.

Happy Brexit Day Everyone!

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader

For Britain 

 

Grooming Gang Cover-Up: Now in Scotland

Anne Marie Waters

January 30th 2020

 

A ‘grooming gang’ consisting of around 55 people has been “taken down” in Scotland, and the case covered up by police.

According to the Scottish Sun, the gang was comprised of Kurdish, Afghani, Egyptian, Moroccan, Turkish, Pakistani and Iraqi men.  Needless to say, these are all Muslim countries, which means we cannot blame it on “Asians” or “Pakistanis”, despite the best efforts of both police and press to do so.

To add insult to injury, these men were all asylum seekers; offered a safe place to stay by the generosity of the Scottish people, and repaying this generosity by raping Scottish girls.  It’s a familiar story.

All over Europe, asylum seekers rape local women and girls with utter impunity.  Governments know this, but continue to welcome them to Europe regardless.  Authorities are therefore choosing to allow European women to be raped in order to accommodate the economic aspirations of Muslim men.  Rapists from the other side of the world are given priority over and above our own girls and women.  Can a betrayal be any greater than this?

Back in the UK, the rape gang in question is believed to have victimised at least 44 girls, and most of the rapists are still living in Scotland.

Operation Cerrar, which brought down the gang, was kept under wraps by police in Scotland, and only revealed via a Daily Express investigation.  When asked why this information was not released to the public, police replied; “We need to be very clear that we always carefully consider when and what information to release in relation to ongoing investigations to protect vulnerable victims and the integrity of the inquiry.”

Rubbish, and we all know it.

These rape gangs are protected, the truth concealed, and the victims betrayed, for the sole reason that the rapists are Muslims.  The reputation of their deeply misogynistic religion is prioritised.  The British people  are denied the truth about what our government is inflicting upon us, knowingly, via mass migration from the Muslim world.  Police are no longer interested in truth or justice, but in political posturing.  The police are protecting government policy at the expense of Britain’s daughters.

The only political party in the UK that will stand strong on this is For Britain.  This we know for sure.  We have devoted our energies to exposing the treachery of mass immigration, and bringing it to an end once and for all.

For Britain is clear: all who are reasonably suspected (yes, suspected) of involvement in grooming gangs will be thrown out of the UK permanently.  We will not risk British girls or women for the sake of foreign rapists and their economic prospects.

For absolute clarity, British girls are more important than immigrant rapists, and it’s shocking that we even have to say so.

The country is angry, and getting angrier. They have an option, they have a choice, they can join the party that really will fight this, or they can settle back and wait until their daughter is the next victim.

Stop this now.

Join us.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

 

Policing Muslim Rape Gangs

By Mike Speakman, Law & Order Spokesman

28th January 2020

As a retired Deputy Chief Constable, I hang my head in shame at the emerging scandal which must be the worst and most damaging to the Police service in my lifetime. It seems that several Police forces and other public organisations have been complicit in ignoring and even covering up most blatant cases of rape and abuse, amounting to at least a neglect of duty at a corporate and individual level. Some individual officers may be criminally guilty and there may also be a corporate liability on some forces.

It is hard to keep track of all the forces involved, but it seems

South Yorkshire,

West Yorkshire,

Greater Manchester,

Thames Valley,

West Mercia,

Northumbria,

West Midlands

have been a party to this stain on the integrity and trustworthiness of British policing. There are probably more exposures to come. Conscious decisions were taken not to investigate or pursue numerous allegations against gangs of Muslim men abusing young white and some Sikh girls. Overwhelming evidence is emerging of a consistent pattern in England and also recently in Scotland.

How has this happened?   I suggest there are several factors which have led to this situation.   In my day (I retired in 2000) Chief Constables were fiercely independent people, principally accountable to their local police committee. Policing was predominantly a local function and national government, whilst involved, was a secondary player. This has changed. Chief Officers had their own national association (ACPO) which coordinated and constructed policy in cooperation with government in the form of the Home office. The independence of Chief officers always sat uneasily with central government and over the years they have tried to curtail it. They have been successful. ACPO has been abolished and replaced with a government quango, the Police Chiefs Council.  They also took control of the Police College, the premier research and training national unit and restyled it the “College of Policing”. It is this unit that has produced amongst other things, the guidance on “Hate Crime recording” which is being challenged in court. The independence of Chief Constables has also been usurped by the creation of Police and Crime Commissioners. If you look at the job description of a Crime Commissioner, you will see that they are totally accountable to the Home office. Crime Commissioners are also political animals and introduced an unwelcome party-political element which was less evident in the former multi-party police authority.

It is no surprise that almost exclusively the Police Forces involved in this scandal are from Labour controlled areas. It has become evident in recent years of how dependent the Labour party has become on the Muslim bloc vote. There does not appear to be the will at a local level to tackle crime in the Muslim community. Indeed, in South Yorkshire they have had to bring in the National Crime Agency to do the investigation into the Muslim rape gangs. There are allegations that some local police officers were close to these gangs.

On top of this there is legacy of the McPherson report which branded the police service as institutionally racist. I personally never accepted this finding as it did not fit with my experience, but it seems to have a had a very damaging effect on police activity as it created a climate where any enforcement against ethnic minority groups, no matter how justified by their criminal activity was at risk of being called “racist” and could destroy an officers career. This damaging effect has pervaded the whole criminal justice system and we now have the situation where we have two legal systems, one of which favours minority groups, both in terms of conviction and punishment. This effect is not going away, we have some ethnic minority politicians who insist that that that arrest figures should reflect the population demographics, as if crime was uniformly distributed across the population, which it isn’t.

A further factor is the famous alleged Home Office Circular. There are claims that in 2008 the Home office published a circular which advised police forces as follows: ‘as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in.’”

All Home office circulars are numbered sequentially and almost always published online. I have never seen a copy of this circular and apart from its apparent clumsy language, it seems incredible that given its contentious nature that a copy has not been posted on social media by now. I am not sure it exists. However, if someone can produce a copy, I and many others would love to see it. Another reason I am dubious about its existence is that its actually dynamite. No one, not even the government can direct any police officer or Police Force to enforce or not enforce any laws. If such a circular existed, it would be invalid if not illegal and any Home Secretary who approved it would be misusing their office.   This doesn’t mean that there might not be some other form of communication of a less formal nature. I cannot understand how so many different police forces could come to such a similar approach to really serious criminal activity if it were not for some form of central “guidance”. I suspect there is something somewhere, but it is unlikely to be a Home Office Circular.

What about the last line of defence, the individual bobby? Most Bobbies I knew had a very strong sense of Justice and integrity. If a senior officer tried to dissuade them from arresting someone because they favoured them, the bobby would be likely to give two metaphorical, if not actual, fingers. We should be singing the praises of the Maggie Olivers of this world. This woman, a Greater Manchester Detective, sacrificed her career and home to defend the raped girls of Rochdale and has only recently been vindicated. Where are the other Maggie Olivers? The widespread extent of these cover ups across several police forces means there should be more. There should be thousands of Maggie Olivers and we should be encouraging and supporting them.

No one is getting a grip of this situation. It seems it is still going on and the media and establishment are desperate to conceal it from the public. It is a national scandal and embarrassment. If we will not enforce quite sound and sensible laws for fear of producing a racial backlash we have failed as a society and as a democracy. The oath of a Constable required that the law was enforced “without fear or favour”. Our leaders are both fearful and favouring Muslims. They try to disguise the problem by not identifying offenders or describing them as “Asian”. The media hide the issue, they are burying their heads in the sand. Is it any wonder that “paedophile hunting groups” have emerged? The police have failed us, and it is inevitable that outraged communities will take the initiative to fill the gap.

It’s very difficult to see how to get out of this. The government and establishment are part of the problem, so who could conduct a national enquiry, for that is what is needed. The judiciary are also part of the problem, I wouldn’t trust them to do the job with any integrity. The whole establishment is riddled with political correctness. We have a clash of cultures which no one will address.   Do we wait until the public become so incensed that they do something about it? There are signs that is already happening. We have dug a hole and need a way out. Who is strong enough to tackle it?

I do think some form of public enquiry is required. I do believe prosecutions against police officers are necessary and also against senior people in other organisations who have turned a blind eye. Education, NHS, Social services, Probation, Local Councils. We need a clear out of leaders who have let us down. Dare I say Drain the Swamp?

The question is who could we trust to do such an enquiry?

Small changes make a huge difference – Our transport policy

Anne Marie Waters 

January 25th 2020

 

Decent transport in a primary prerequisite for a functioning society.  We must be able to get around, cheaply and with ease.  Our goods and products must do the same, and transport is an area in which small smart changes will make a huge difference.

Firstly, there must be investment, and it must be wise.  HS2, the notoriously expensive new high speed line connecting London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, is already projected to cost around double the initial costs stated.  You can read my article on this here.

What the north of England needs however is not high speed access to London, but high speed and reliable trains to connect northern towns and cities.  I regularly travel in the north of England and know only too well about delays, crowded carriages, and increased ticket costs.

For Britain will end HS2 and invest the money in a new system for the north.  This is crucial.  In fact, with the money saved by abandoning this project, we could revitalise the railways all over the UK.

Britain’s taxi service also needs reform, and national legislation to prevent licencing fraud.  For Britain is proposing a nationwide register of taxis, that will ensure uniformity of standards across the country.  Taxi drivers must live legally in the UK for at least 2 years and be able to provide a criminal background check for at least 10 years.  Illegal immigrants must be actively prevented from working in the taxi trade.

Furthermore, drivers must speak English and hold a licence from either the UK or the Republic of Ireland.

We also believe in making life easier for Britain’s millions of motorists.  Two hours free parking in town centres will encourage greater community engagement and revitalise the high street and small business.  It will also lessen the ever-increasing expenses born by drivers.  Speeding penalties will only be applied to drivers who go over the limit by more than 5 mph, and motorway speeds will be increased to 80 mph.

These small changes will give new life to transport in the UK.  They will cost little, in fact, we will make savings.  We will allow people to travel with greater ease and at lower costs.  It’s an essential change For Britain.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain 

VIDEO: Small Changes Make a Huge Difference – Our Transport Policy

 

My Response to the Daily Record – by Kadeeja Adam

Kadeeja Adam

January 22nd 2020

 

Something called “The Daily Record” has recently published an article about us, portraying us as some kind of Nazi militia! If there was equal justice in the UK in 2020, this would be defamatory, but we know the legal establishment isn’t prepared to listen to our argument.

The article is jaw-dropping. Not only does it place pictures of Anne Marie Waters, the leader of For Britain, on the same page as a man with a machine gun standing in front of a swastika, it repeatedly implies that she is a racist or far right.

Stephen Stewart, the writer, has clearly made no effort at all to learn about For Britain, or what we actually stand for.

Such writers simply don’t understand that criticism of Islam is not racism. They are trapped in a mental cage. Any criticism levelled at people who happen to be non-white, is automatically believed to be related to race.

But Islam is a religion, an ideology – the ideology that I escaped from.

I am the Deputy Chair of For Britain, and I am honoured to take on this role because I know that we will stand up for the former Muslims who have been completely abandoned.

I have seen the sharia council system in the UK, I know how it treats women, because I was one of those women. I am of Pakistani ethnicity and I know how women are treated in Pakistan, also from first hand experience.

The justification for this mistreatment of women is always found in Islamic scripture, it is used as a whip to keep Muslim women in line.

The party I am proud to call my family fights for me and my daughter and the daughters of countless British Muslim women who are stuck behind closed doors, controlled and abused, while their daughters (and sons) look on.

Anne Marie Waters has supported Muslim girls, often on the run from their families, for many years. For Britain currently provides a refuge to ex-Muslims, and we will continue to reach out to more.

Mr Stewart may not be familiar with the plight of ex-Muslims in the UK, and I suspect he finds us rather inconvenient; people of Pakistani background who confirm some uncomfortable truths about Islam. One of those uncomfortable truths is that apostasy carries the death penalty, and many UK ex-Muslims live in fear that this sentence will be carried out.

Nissar Hussain, for example, was almost beaten to death, here in the UK, for leaving Islam. He was escorted from his home by police for his own safety, and now effectively lives in hiding.

When Nissar reached out for help to our political and religious leaders, he was met with silence and dismissal. Nobody would hear his case.

Political and religious leaders in the UK turn their backs on people like Nissar and I because they fear being critical of Islam. They fear this because “journalists” like Stephen Stewart cause them to fear it – labelling them Nazis if they speak out.

Nissar now acts as For Britain’s spokesman on Islam, because he also knows that this party is nothing like Mr Stewart describes.  These dishonest tactics (comparing us to neo-Nazis for example) mirror those used by Hope Not Hate when they leafleted against one of our candidates using doctored photographs.  Nissar had been cropped out of a picture taken at an event we held shortly before the election.  (Our candidate won, by the way).

It is the same depressing and familiar story. The horrific rape gangs, FGM, halal, or sharia law, all attempts to help the victims of these horrors are met with cries of “racist” from people like Stephen Stewart.

It may be easier for such people to dismiss things they don’t understand as bigotry or hate, but it would serve them better to find out the truth, instead of slandering and smearing innocent people in the press.

It tells us something significant about Mr Stewart’s integrity and work ethic. Printing false information is shameful. It is deeply immoral. It therefore tells us something about Mr Stewart’s morals as well.

 

Kadeeja Adam

Deputy Chair

For Britain

Northern England Needs Better Rail – HS2 Is NOT The Answer

Anne Marie Waters, Party Leader

January 20th 2020

The controversial HS2, a high speed rail linking London to Birmingham and Manchester is set to see costs go up to £106 bn.  The cost was set at £56 bn in 2015.

A report leaked to the Financial Times warned of the potential rise, and also recommended that the second phase of the project, Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds, be stalled “while experts look at whether conventional lines could help link Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds instead”.

Labour’s Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, said that to stop the northern phase of HS2 hints at preference to the south, while Northern England is left behind.

Burnham said: “To me that would be the same old story. London to Birmingham, money is no object, and then all the penny pinching is done in the North of England”.

However, Lord Berkeley, vice chairman of the review, said “I suspect that most of the people who like to use the trains around Manchester and Leeds would rather have a really good commuter service just like there is in London, rather than get to London half an hour quicker.”

That certainly sounds sensible to me.  I use trains in the north very frequently, and it needs vast improvement.  It is never too late to rethink, save money, and provide better transport for the people who need it.  Massive investment is essential, but it cannot be wasted.

So far, £7.4 bn has been spent, from an original budget of £32.7 bn.  The current budget is £55.6 bn and if this report is accurate, that will almost double.

There are billions of pounds at stake here, and billions would be saved if this project were scrapped.  It would cost far less to completely revitalise railways in the north, and give people an affordable service that can get them to where they need to be (preferably on time and without being squeezed on to a standing-room-only train every morning).

Public money is so easy to abuse and throw around, because the taxpayer will pick up the bill.  For Britain believes that the person who picks up the bill should have a voice, and what the people want is a system that works; they do not want to pour another £100 bn in to this, when that money could pay for so much more.

It’s time to scrap HS2!

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

 

Photo by Johannes Plenio is licensed under CC0

Not “Asian” nor “Pakistani”: These rape gangs are Muslim

Anne Marie Waters 

January 17th 2020 

 

We can expect little better from the press.  Once again, the nation’s “journalists” are participating in (and encouraging) racial slurs in order to protect a religion, an ideology, from the scrutiny it so richly deserves.  A report this week revealed that Greater Manchester Police allowed known rapists of children to carry on raping children for fear of stoking up racial tension.  Once again, we are told the rapists are “Asian”.  They are not.  At least, that’s not the relevant characteristic. 

The press has been referring to Muslim rape gangs as “Asian” since it was shamed in to reporting on these some years ago (having been silent for decades).  While it may be true that the vast majority are comprised of Pakistanis, and Pakistan is in Asia, so is Japan, and China, and Thailand.  Yet there are no Japanese, Chinese, or Thai men involved in these gangs.  

In the UK, the word “Asian” refers to people whose origins lie in the Indian subcontinent.  Overwhelmingly it refers to people of Pakistani, Indian, or Bangladeshi background.  So to a British audience, the press is suggesting that these gangs include Hindus and Sikhs, but they do not.  Nor are there any Pakistani or Bangladeshi Christians involved. 

Even on the right of politics, these men are characterised incorrectly.  For example, Katie Hopkins has referred to this as a “Pakistani Muslim” problem.  But she’s only half right.  These rape gangs are only Pakistani in areas where the Muslim majority is Pakistani.  In Bristol, where the majority Muslim population is Somali, the rape gangs are also Somali.  

Across Europe, rape statistics are staggering.  In Norway’s capital, 100% of stranger rapes over a 5 year period were carried out by “non-Western immigrants”, and in Denmark, a shocking 10 out of every 12 such rapists are of immigrant background.  (I’ll bet a few pounds that we’re not talking about immigrants from Switzerland). 

The rapists enjoying free rein to destroy the lives of European women in Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and elsewhere are not, on the whole, Pakistani, so we cannot consider this a Pakistani issue.  They largely stem from Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Morocco.  None of these are Pakistan and not all of them are “Asian”.  These are countries encompassing a variety of cultures and ethnicities, but they do in fact have one thing in common.  They are all Muslim.  

Muslim men in the Muslim world are taught from birth to see women as inferior, and as such, they are free to treat women however they please.  It says so in the Koran itself.  Clearly.  So seriously is the Koran taken in these countries that in some, criticising it carries the death penalty.  What is written in the Koran is not taken lightly.  The Koran also tells Muslims that non-Muslims are vastly inferior.  Given this, what do we expect attitudes towards non-Muslim women to look like?  

We found out in Cologne, we found in Rotherham, we are finding out again and again, and still the religion of Islam avoids blame or even scrutiny.  The media, politicians, the commentator class, still insists on smearing an entire continent to shield the real culprit; a religion that teaches contempt for us, our culture, and certainly our women.  

The police didn’t prevent child rape in Greater Manchester because the rapists were Muslims.  They chose to allow girls to be brutally raped to protect the reputation of Muslims.  Meanwhile, the establishment, police and beyond, pursued “racism” at every turn.  

The message was clear, shut up about rape gangs or we’ll label you a racist and destroy your life.  They set a stark example with their relentless campaign of injustice against Tommy Robinson.  Labour led the way politically, turning a blind eye to the rape of girls in its own voting heartlands, and manipulating party selections to elevate Muslims to positions of local authority.  Labour is at it again this week; all of its leadership candidates have promised to bow down to the Muslim Council of Britain’s demands to further protect Islam from criticism. 

For Britain will throw these rapists in jail, 20 year minimum.  If they are not British citizens, we will throw them out of this country permanently.  No ifs or buts.  

But just as crucially, For Britain will give the British people the means to punish the rotten police who allow this and other atrocities to take place across our country. 

Shame on the police, shame on the press, and shame on the Labour Party and the treacherous establishment who continue to let this happen.  

Britain’s girls have been utterly betrayed in the most horrific way, we will end this mass rape and restore justice, and we’ll do it for the girls of Britain. 

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Responsible and Accountable – Our Policy on Government

Anne Marie Waters 

January 14th 2020

 

The response of our leaders to the Brexit referendum result taught us a stark lesson, but a valuable one. It revealed that the majority of MPs did not wish to keep their promise and withdraw from the European Union. They felt fully comfortable in doing this, showing that they take their seats in Parliament for granted. It goes without saying that this is intolerable, and as well as holding them to account at election time, the people of Britain need a means to protect their rights from the very Parliament currently assigned to protect them.

Freedom of speech is the prime example. Laws have been passed in recent years to limit the political expression of British citizens. We are not permitted, indeed it is a criminal offence, to engage in something called “hate”. Who determines what constitutes “hate” is a public sector and Government with a vested interest in preventing free speech by labelling the proposals of their opponents “hate”. It is a totalitarian tactic as old as totalitarianism itself.

Free speech must be restored in the United Kingdom.

For Britain is proposing a written and codified constitution for the United Kingdom; combined with a Constitutional court. This will strike down laws or overturn public sector decisions if they have had the effect of limiting the civil rights of the British people.

The ability for the citizen to hold the public sector to account is limited. It should be expanded. While local councillors are directly elected and therefore accountable to voters, local government chief executives are not elected and the people have no means to remove them. For Britain will change this. Senior local government executives, NHS executives, CPS, and police are simply not accountable enough to those whose lives they affect. For Britain will introduce the Public Sector Accountability Act to (inexpensively) allow citizens to a review of the duty of their local police chief (for example), provided those citizens can provide evidence of the failure of the police chief to carry out their public role.

Reform of the House of Lords must also be undertaken, starting with a total review of who is in there, what they do, and how much they cost. The role of the House of Lords requires a full public debate which For Britain will facilitate.

The Human Rights Act has long had a bad name, and deservedly so. It exists apparently to provide protection for our rights, but left-leaning judges have interpreted it not to protect our right to free speech for example, but to protect the rights of known criminals and terrorists from foreign climes, often at our expense. The Human Rights Act has to go, and be replaced by something that works; that actually protects the civil rights of the British people.

Electoral fraud is something we can deal with simply and immediately, all that is needed is the will. We must restore police numbers, end the “hate” emphasis, and turn the police around. They must treat electoral fraud seriously, and the CPS must prosecute to set a much needed example. Postal voting should be brought to an end, it’s a breeding ground of corruption.

Overall, there are serious flaws in how Britain is governed, and these can be turned around. The policies put forward by For Britain (see my video here for more details) are the policies that the people of Britain are crying out for.

We’ll get our message out there and we’ll turn the tide, back in the direction of what is best for the people of Britain.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain

 

 

 

 

More Police Force Mergers?

By Mike Speakman, Policing  Spokesman

13th January 2020

There is a new initiative from the Police Chiefs Council to merge police forces. The last decades have seen an increasing centralisation of policing, geared more to satisfying central government objectives which often have little to do with real policing issues. I believe the government and civil service see the Police as a tool for social engineering rather than for law enforcement and this approach has skewed policing to the point where they will not attend a burglary but will knock on your door for “wrong think”.

Yes, mergers will reduce costs in the same way as closing hospitals, courts and police stations have reduced costs. All at the expense of making these services more remote from and increasing costs on Joe Public.

In policing the underlying issue is accountability, people identify with their local forces and the more remote they become, the weaker the relationship between police and public. The reputation of the police is probably at an all-time low and will be further damaged by more amalgamations. This is definitely the wrong way to go.

For Britain policy is to oppose any more force mergers.

Mike Speakman
Policing Spokesman
For Britain

We’ll Save the NHS!

Anne Marie Waters 

January 10th 2020

 

I have family in the Irish Republic, which doesn’t have an NHS. I know of countless cases, including in my own wider family, of people deciding not to go to the doctor because they are stuck in the middle: they’re not poor enough to qualify for state help, and they’re not well off enough to afford the kind of health insurance they may need. I’ve known of cases, reported in the media there, of people suffering with cancer or other serious illnesses, receiving letters from the debt collector whilst they are in the midst of their treatment.

We have no idea how lucky we are.

I don’t want to see the UK return to the society it was prior to the NHS. It was always the poorest who suffered most. In countries run on private health insurance only, people often can’t afford the premiums, or they do pay them dutifully, only to find their particular illness “isn’t covered”. Either way, it places an enormous strain on those who can least afford to bear it.

The NHS was created so that people no longer had to carry the burden of healthcare bills. It was provided to all who needed it and was funded by taxation. Healthcare is something we are all going to need, and it is something therefore many people would happily pay taxes for – provided those taxes aren’t wasted. But so much of them are, and governments won’t talk about it.

Waste is endemic in the health service. Report after report confirms that billions of taxpayers’ pounds are poured down the drain by unaccountable managers every year. Procurement costs make absolutely no sense, with hospital purchasing products at way above the market price, and health service management spending billions on “management consultants” to tell them how to do their jobs. It must end.

“Health tourism” (coming to the UK just to use the health service) costs the NHS around £2 billion per year, while people must pay extortionate parking charges to visit sick relatives.

Major private companies are furthermore making a fortune with NHS contracts. The service has seen no improvement, despite millions of public pounds being paid in to already wealthy pockets. Some MPs and members of the Lords are known to be voting on proposals to extend private entry to the NHS market, while themselves making profits from these sales. This is a recipe for corruption and I don’t believe the majority of British people would be happy with MPs profiting from our NHS taxes.

For Britain knows that things must change, but throwing more money at the problem isn’t going to solve it. We need new and accountable management, we need to target waste, we need to stop health tourism, and we must use public funds in the best interests of the public.

Hospitals are saddled with enormous debts, so finances must therefore alter in the future. Training of new nurses and doctors should be prioritised because we cannot continue to open our borders to more and more people to staff our services.

The NHS can’t continue to be a bottomless money pit. If it does, we will lose it. Only by genuine reform and spending re-prioritisation can we have our NHS.

For Britain can, and we will.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain

WATCH: Anne Marie Waters – We’ll Save the NHS!

NHS Waiting Times “Unacceptable”

Anne Marie Waters

January 9th 2020

The Royal College of GPs has spoken out about delays now experienced by patients waiting to see a doctor. The College calls waiting times “unacceptable” and said that patients were often waiting as long as three weeks for an appointment.  Furthermore, doctors are under heavy workloads, which could mean that their service will suffer – putting patients at risk.

According to official figures reported by the BBC, there were just over 28,000 fully qualified full-time GPs in England as of September 2019. This is a down by 3.7% since September 2015.

Further figures reveal that there were 160.8 million GP appointments in the 12 months to November 2019, 450,000 more than the previous year.

Like nurses, doctors in the NHS are increasingly overworked as patient numbers go up, but doctor numbers go down.

The solution to the problems of the NHS, offered by every major party in British politics, is one thing – more money.  In the recent general election, both big parties promised just that, but as so often, there was no discussion of how the money will be spent.

For Britain knows that there are problems in the NHS that can’t be solved with more money.  Mismanagement and absurd procurement costs drain money from the health service.  This means that giving more and more cash to the NHS is simply throwing good money after bad.

The shortage of doctors is not being addressed for the longer term.  The Conservatives propose to make it easier to come to the UK if it is to work in the NHS, but more people coming here also means more patients for the already overburdened health service.

Furthermore, young Britons struggle to find training places in the NHS every year, why?  If more money is to be spent in the health sector, then training young British doctors and nurses must be a priority.

We must also admit and address the huge levels of immigration that are changing the face of NHS GP surgeries – personal care is limited as surgeries are simply too busy.

We must also act on “health tourism” (people coming to the UK to solely to use the health service) and find better use for the £2 billion it costs the NHS every year.  To do that, we need better management.

There must now be fresh thinking on how the health service is run.  More and more money will not solve the problems.  We must first acknowledge what the issues are, without fear of the usual accusations, and then apply common sense to solve them.  It really is as simple as that.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Convicted of Patriotism? We Must Defend Free Speech

Frankie Rufolo 

January 9th 2020

Based Amy: Guilty of Patriotism

Amy Dalla Mura, a passionate Brexiteer, was recently sentenced to 28 days in prison for shouting at Anna Soubry. This should be a national outrage as it sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in the UK.

Soubry is gone from Westminster, her uninspiring failure of a party humiliated and disbanded, but she has left a dangerous legacy of political censorship. At the beginning of 2019, her encounter with the anti-EU yellow-vest protesters had the mainstream media exaggerating to the point of hysterics, after she was unfortunate enough to be labelled “a Nazi.” There was no media outrage when the hustings in the Lewisham East by-election was shut down by far-left protesters determined to stop Anne Marie Waters from speaking, and all the candidates in attendance evacuated. Soubry’s hoo-ha in Parliament Square had the far-left and the anti-Brexit lobby blaming the social media presence that Tommy Robinson had at the time, as well as newspapers’ use of words such as “enemies,” “surrender” and “traitor.”

Saying “traitor” got Amy Dalla Mura (AKA Based Amy) imprisoned in December. She saw Soubry being interviewed – live on BBC Newsnight – and shouted at her. The word ‘traitor’ has been subject to criticism from the far left and EU advocates, arguing that this “toxic language” is causing ‘far right radicalisation’ and encouraging violence, with the murder of poor Jo Cox constantly hijacked by shameful MPs.

As well as “racist,” “fascist,” and “Nazi,” “incitement” is another term which has been overused and devalued to the point where it has become almost meaningless. As for the word ‘traitor’, why shouldn’t we level this accusation at the powerful? Free speech means we have to be able to shout it from the rooftops if we feel betrayed, and politicians have let us down. Let’s not hold back: if an MP lies, goes back on their promises, goes against the wishes of their constituents or the wider country, and votes on a fundamental issue that sells out this country to a foreign power, they’re not a nitwit, they’re not a silly billy. That MP is a dishonest, shameful, fat-faced, back-stabbing traitor!

Amy Dalla Mura never called for violence, never threatened to hurt Anna Soubry and was probably never within an arm’s reach her, yet still the MP shouted “get the police!”  It shows that someone like me or you can have the establishment scared, but the establishment’s reaction can be scarier still. By the time the “harassment” case was taken up in court, Amy Dalla Mura was a rival parliamentary election candidate in Anna Soubry’s constituency of Broxtowe. The Brexiteer’s bail restrictions meant she was banned from the entire constituency – excessive when it includes three towns – and prevented any mention of Soubry in Dalla Mura’s election literature. It could certainly be argued that the law was hindering the pro-Brexit candidate’s election campaign.

Despite this major setback, she still secured 432 votes, beating an obvious joke candidate and an independent. This court case not only shows Anna Soubry to be cowardly, but it perhaps raises concerns about political bias in our judiciary.

Amy Dalla Mura was found guilty of harassment and sentenced to 28 days in prison. Needless to say, this sets a particularly dangerous precedent. Whilst Marcus Meechan (AKA Count Dankula) was arrested, and after his conviction could have been imprisoned for what was clearly a joke on the internet, this lady has actually ended up behind bars.

Heckling politicians has been a tradition of working class protesters for centuries. Whilst it should be acknowledged that the likes of suffragettes were forced to take more extreme direct action because they didn’t have the vote, Brexit brought democracy itself into question. Remoaners have tried to prevent the result of our referendum being enacted, even though Leave won by more than a million votes, many seriously suggested that the elderly should be disenfranchised. Leavers felt their votes no longer meant anything at all. By standing up to MPs like Soubry, we’re only fighting back, democratically with words, not terror. It’s clear that the laws against harassment have to be reined in to protect free speech, as well as our right to protest – to boost morale, to raise awareness of issues, and make ourselves heard… to scream and shout and let it all out!

Having met Amy myself, I have commented on her dreadful situation before but I feel guilty about how long it has taken me to write this blog. Perhaps because I am guilty of what she has done, the crime of campaigning for Brexit!

On May 22nd, my friends and I turned up in Bedford Square to counter-protest a Labour Remain rally in Exeter. I called my local MP Ben Bradshaw a traitorous cow, exposed Lord Adonis as a racist and for a laugh, called Luke Sills, who represents St David’s ward on Exeter City Council, a soyboy. Am I guilty of harassment? Was my language toxic? Does calling a politician names amount to dangerous rhetoric? What about the politicians who speak out against our democratic vote?

On a footbridge in February last year, I was assaulted and threatened with death by someone who called me an “ignorant racist,” – an incident which was recorded by chance and quickly went viral. I still fight on and defend my opponents’ right to say something that I consider to be flat-out wrong, because I know they’ll expose their ignorance.

Boris Johnson has said nothing. Almost no one is defending this poor lady. I should maybe prepare to join Amy in the cells but for now, I’ll keep advocating for free speech, challenging the Labour and Tory hypocrites who speak of imaginary incitement and toxic language, and standing for election as a For Britain council candidate in May.

I’ve always enjoyed the experience and highly recommend it if you’re a member or are thinking of joining our exciting party.

You may feel you can’t commit to becoming a councillor, or fighting an election, but there are many other ways that you can help.

People must be able to vote for our party, as many as possible.  The 2020s could be another decade of political revolution, the option of that vote is needed!

 

Frankie Rufolo

For Britain Exeter

 

 

The Truth Behind The Australian Bush Fires

By Paul Burgess B.Sc., M.Sc., C. Eng, Spokesman for the Environment.

8th January 2020

I so wish there was no need for this but there is a need to start to provide a truthful news outlet to the mainstream media distortion.

I am currently in new Zealand sitting under an amber haze as a result of the bush fires in Australia so in this news article I am dealing with the truth behind those fires and just who is responsible for them.

Today there are many very brave firefighters battling the fires in Australia. There is no doubt the fires are huge and widespread.

The fire chiefs in Australia blamed climate change but this has baffled the bush fire experts. It seems to have also confused the actual fire fighters themselves. They published this:-

David Packham is an expert on bush fires and was frankly staggered by the ignorance of the fire chiefs.

You can listen to what he has to say – a link is posted at the end of this article. Much of what I write here comes from that source.

First what is this ‘fuel load’. The answer is very simple – it is the amount of combustable material on the ground. If you look at the videos of the fires spreading you will see they spread through the ground cover. Not always, but most of the time they pass the trees just charring them. Only intensive fires damage the trees. Fires are a natural occurrence in nature and without going into detail many plants rely on the occasional fire to propagate and stay healthy.

So why is this expert backed the actual fire fighters, claiming that this fuel load is the problem?

The answer is because green movement has pushed and pushed to introduce legislation that has now stopped frequent, controlled burning to reduce fuel load and they have succeeded. It is called ‘Green Tape’. Even before Europeans arrived the aborigines did controlled burning and always in the wet season. So these fires are simply down to lack of land management.

Look at what David Smith a resident fighting the stupidity of the ‘green tape’ has to say:-

“I have a small 60 acre property in central Vic and the local CFA told me I could not do any hazard reduction burning and they had no resources to supervise a burn. I will re-apply this winter when cooler heads might prevail. I have two fire pumps and a 1,000 ltr tank mounted on a pallet, plus a backpack, clothes and shovel. I was told not to do anything and a permit would not be approved. slashing and bulldozing are my only resources apart from poison and ploughing. All have draw backs, all are harmful one way or the other, most are too expensive. Very frustrated small holding farmer wanting to reduce fuel loads”

David Packham points to the well established science on this matter and what he has to say really make the cause crystal clear.

The science has been worked out. The fuel load is well understood and the limits of fire fighting control are equally well understood.

Hot, dry, windy conditions, ignition and fuel are needed to start a fire. Without the fuel you cannot start a fire. In central Australia you have very hot, dry and windy conditions but little to no fuel. It can take years to build up enough fuel to have a fire. 37% of the land area above the tropics in Australia burns every year.

Of those five factors for a fire to begin the only things humans can control is the fuel. Fuel was controlled well by the aborigines but they did not have the ‘green tape’ to cope with. They had frequent small fires that never reached the crown of the tree and it made the land very healthy. They also always left spaces for the wild animals to go to to, in order for the fire to pass. Insects and bugs simply bury themselves a bit and let the fire pass. Intensive fires however, burn all the carbon in the soil and kill animals by the hundreds of thousands. There is a huge difference between controlled burns and what is happening in Australia today.

The Ability to Control Bush Fires
A Douglas DC6, bulldozers or any other method of putting out brush fires can only do so, to a maximum of up to 3 to 4 megawatts of fire per metre. Ignore those units, just think of them as a number. Yet the fires in Victoria are 70 megawatts per metre and in New South Wales about 30 megawatts per metre – ten times greater than the limit of any fire fighting method. The only thing that can stop the fires is rain or running into the ocean! That is just a physical fact. There is only a show at fire fighting the fires are not controllable but those in charge do not want to admit it.

This fact is simple – you should never allow a fuel load to pass the point where, when on fire, it cannot be controlled. Australia like much of the western world has been brainwashed by a green movement that often does much more harm than good. It is no longer a science but a cult religion.

The green movement in Australia campaigned against these small, frequent
controlled fires. There is so much ‘green tape’ in the way that effective fire control is no longer possible.

We have a responsibility to care, not just for humans but for wildlife that has been slaughtered by their millions because of ignorance by those who claim that they have our interests at heart.

There is a history of ignoring these facts so the fire chiefs have to blame someone and who? Well, climate change is the scapegoat. Previous inquiries into massive bush fires wiping out towns and cities have concluded that the reason was simply too much fuel load and not enough controlled burning. Lessons have not been learnt. Top officials are not telling the truth. Climate change has nothing to do with it. The fuel load was allowed to build up pure and simple.

In response to fire chiefs stating climate change was the issue, David Packham stated:-

“I find it incredible that such dedicated intelligent people can talk so much stuff that is absolutely dangerously wrong.”
Had the fuel not been allowed to build up and had there been a proper land management policy carried out ,this tragedy could have been avoided.

If you wish to listen to an expert explain what I have just written, here is the podcast.

As the For Britain spokesman on Climate Change and the Environment my job is to keep up with the news and provide the truth behind the torrent of misinformation and simple lies that we are all subject to every day. It does not require degrees or anything other than common sense to appreciate the real truth behind a story. The fuel load should not have been allowed to build up pure and simple.

Paul Burgess B.Sc., M.Sc., C. Eng (retired)

The Low Expectations We Have Of Iran

 8th January 2020

Imagine for a moment that in Trump’s America, schools started their morning by chanting ‘death to Iran’.

There would rightly be a media uproar, and ‘the left’ would be apoplectic with rage.

For years, Iranian schools have demanded that pupils chant ‘death to America, Israel and Great Britain’ each day, brainwashing another generation to hate the West and Israel.

We don’t hear this in the current discourse though do we? Why do we have such low expectation of Islamic nations, that we just shrug our shoulders at this behaviour? It seems that any group of people in the West stating they are ‘against hate’ are merely against the West, and Western values, as they never seem to call out actual hate. Particularly religiously motivated hate, which this is.

Iran killed over 1,000 anti Government protestors recently – it’s own citizens, dumping bodies in the river like garbage. It imprisons women who remove their veil, and shot in the head a 16 year old girl for dancing in the street.

People are currently taking their side.

For many the focus of their anger is on America,  a country that has never, ever carried out these types of acts, and never would. There is absolutely no disadvantage in America to being a woman in 2020, but feminists spend all their time ranting about Trump, as their ‘sisters’ are beaten and sent to jail in Iran (or worse).

When Iranian General Mohammed Reza Naqdi stated earlier in 2019 that Iran will annihilate Israel, and threatened to attack American bases, should everyone assume these people just lie all the time? Do nothing, because they’re just crazy fanatics and they don’t actually mean it? Is that how the left and apologists view muslims? Liars that fantasise about genocide but won’t act it out?

Or should we believe them and act accordingly?

Not once has Corbyn denounced this sort of rhetoric from Iran, but he can’t wait to tweet his criticism of President Trump. He won’t call terrorists that kill Westerners ‘terrorists’. In any book, it makes him a traitor.

Boris Johnson is wholly correct not to share any information with him.

Iran has spent the last year boarding American ships, shooting down drones and attacking the US embassy. Neutralised terrorist Soleimani is known to be behind hundreds of American deaths, and atrocities across multiple regions. If Trump wanted war, he has had every opportunity to start one. He held back a strike in June 2019 so as not to risk the lives of any Iranian civilians, as the military couldn’t guarantee no causalities.

During the period of mourning for Soleimani, the Iranian Parliament broke out into chants of ‘Death to America’ (can you imagine that in Westminster!).

At what point to you take action?

Maybe some of those attacking America can provide a figure. How many people need to die before the looking away stops, allowing the deaths to continue?

To stage manage the funeral they kettled their own people into a tight space to make the crowd appear larger for the cameras, resulting in over 50 deaths in a tragic crush. There’s a complete lack of regard for human life, but it never gets called out. The news is just full of how bad America is, it is truly bizarre to see.

Yes, there are risks in striking back, but it is moral cowardice to abstain from doing the right thing. Leaders must take tough decisions, and as our closest ally, Britain should support and defend the US when it chooses to defend itself. We would expect (and receive) the same in return.

Both the far left and the far right seem angry, blaming Jews and offering a whole host of ridiculous anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for what is happening.  They criticise For Britain because we aren’t racists that subscribe to their warped world view. These people are abhorrent.

Soleimani’s daughter took to twitter asking for suicide jihadis to wreak revenge (what does it take to be banned from Twitter unless you are perceived as ‘on the right’?). Imams and Clerics call for American blood to the spilled, for death and for slaughter.

Where is the media questioning why Iranian religious figures aren’t calling for peace and unity? Why is all this being allowed to slide, whilst everything that happens is being twisted to attack Trump and America?

We don’t want wars. Nobody should. But we stand by our allies when they defend themselves and take action against monsters, because not to would be devastating for us all in the long run. They kill their own people because in that situation they are in a position of strength. It is illogical to suppose they wouldn’t do the same to sworn enemies if they built up the ability to do so.

End The Cruelty – Our Animal Welfare Policy

Anne Marie Waters 

January 6th 2020

Mahatma Gandhi once said that the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Britain has a long and proud tradition of kindness and respect towards animals, it was part of our greatness, but like this greatness generally, our kindness to animals is rapidly disappearing. For Britain intends to bring it back.

For Britain proposes a unique and comprehensive package of proposals to reform animal welfare in our country, and we know that we have widespread public support. Britain cares about animals, and so do we.

There is growing public disquiet for example about the terrible and unnecessarily cruel religious slaughter of farm animals, and we at For Britain demand that this is brought to an end. The law requires that animals are stunned to unconsciousness prior to slaughter, however an EU imposed religious exemption is in place – allowing both halal and kosher un-stunned slaughter to continue. This renders the law entirely meaningless. Why create a law to protect animals and then provide the very people who want to flout that law with an exemption? It makes no sense. It is political trickery.

For Britain will ban ALL un-stunned slaughter of animals without exception. We will remove the religious exemption and give the law its teeth. This is not a matter of religious oppression but of the protection of animals from unnecessary suffering. Animal welfare trumps religious belief.

Furthermore, we will take action to punish those guilty of the abuse and neglect of animals. Those found to be engaged in dog-fighting for example will be jailed or deported. There will be zero tolerance of cruelty.

We will end the experimentation on animals for cosmetics or commercial products, and severely restrict and regulate any medical testing until this can be phased out altogether.

We will transform dairy farming and end factory farming. We will incentivize farmers to return to organic and natural farming where cattle will roam freely and have access to their calves. We will also end the abhorrent practice of veal production. We will ban live exports and ensure that egg-laying hens roam freely and the caging of hens is brought to an end.

Animals are not items or objects, they are living sentient creatures who exhibit complex emotions and social practices. Animals clearly feel fear, joy, and attachment to each other. They are however entirely defenceless against human beings. The question therefore must be asked: how do we treat the defenceless? Do we act with mercy, or are we merciless? The answer determines who we are as people, and it’s an answer we should consider very carefully.

You can learn more about our unique animal policy here.

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain 

When Is It Right To Be Wrong?

By Paul Burgess B.Sc., M.Sc. C.Eng, Environment Spokesman

6th January 2020

Dr William Happer is a retired professor of physics from Princetown University  with over 200 published papers. He was an adviser to the USA government until vice president Gore cleansed the advisors of any different opinions to his own. He is probably the man who understands more about the CO2 molecule and its radiative behaviour than any man alive. He co-authored a book in 1982 on CO2 being a cause of global warming and how, because of feedback mechanism with water vapour, it would cause accelerated global warming. However he was wrong and openly admits he was wrong because the empirical data that followed did not tally with his claims. He is now a major climate change realist and I very much respect him.

He openly admits his wrong conclusions.  The fact he was wrong does not bother him one jot. He was pleased to have learnt more from the science and in taking this attitude is a true scientist. That is how most science worked, well that was until climate ‘science’ came along.

I learn, almost daily, of friends who dare not speak their views not just on climate change but on any subject for fear of losing their left wing friends. It is as if a censorship has settled on  the land and people are offended by any opinion that is even slightly to the right of Carl Marx. How this censorship came about is still a bit of a mystery to me. When I was at University, yes I was unusual at being to the right of the crowd, but this never led to anything but good robust debate without anyone taking offence.

My university years took place when the ‘consensus’ was of a coming ice age. Up until 1945, the year I was born, the earth had warmed and had just experienced the 1930’s which is the hottest decade on record or, at least it was until the data revisionists changed it. This warming was natural and CO2 levels were low. The warming was understood because we were coming out of a mini-ice age. Then as soon as I was born the climate began to cool. The cooling was against a background of rising CO2. By 1970 this worried scientists so much that they wrote to the president of the USA to inform him of their consensus asking him to prepare for the coming ice age. Thankfully, he ignored them.

The climate then taught the scientists a lesson because by the late 1970’s they were forced to change their minds and they switched to ‘global warming’. So warm periods occur at low CO2 levels as in the 1920’s ands 1930’s. Cooling periods occur when CO2 levels are rising as per the 1945 – 1970 period. This shows no  correlation between CO2 levels and warming but what about historic ice ages?

Well each ice age start when CO2 levels were high and end when  they are low. Each warming period begins when CO2 levels are low and ends when CO2 levels are high. How can this be? it is the exact opposite of what the propaganda is teaching us?

Well, let us suppose, just for a moment or so, that these climate changes are not related to CO2 levels and say some other cause like the natural cycles of the earth’s orbit, tilt and wobbles are the cause. Now add the simple fact that the atmosphere has only about 2% of the CO2 in it compared to the 98% in the oceans.  Then, as we know, the fact that water absorbs CO2 when it cools and gives it off when  it warms and an explanation  begins to emerge that explains it all.

The orbital effect cause cooling – the CO2 gets absorbed more into the oceans thus reducing the CO2 as the earth cools ending up the cooling period with low CO2 levels. Then with now low levels of CO2 the orbital effects cause warming and as the climate warms the oceans give off CO2 they raising the CO2 level ending up with high CO2 levels before the next cooling cycle starts. Does that sound a good explanation? Well, lets us check that out a bit more.

It takes a lot of energy to heat water and the volume of the oceans is incredibly high so when you have a warming period starting from low levels of CO2 as they always are the CO2 given off from the oceans would follow the warming because it is not the cause of it but the result of it. Guess what…..that is what happens the CO2 level increase follows the warming from about 600 years to over a thousand years. This is looking good…. but we need to see if those earth cycles match the historic ice age record.

Ok, so now let us plot those orbital cycles and compare them to the ice ages and warming periods and eureka they fit – there is an excellent correlation between them and the climate. These cycles were determined by a chap called Milankovic, a chap who started off as a civil engineer just like myself. There being no computers in his day, and as it needed decades of computations by a whole team of mathematicians, his problem was to recruit a team for such a thankless boring task. Well, back in those days clever women were a problem for society. There was simply no work for them so he recruited a whole gang of clever women and they set about doing the work , that took decades and it proved the correlation! Why, it seems is there always a clever women behind each clever man? Or in this case a whole gang of them? I will not even attempt to answer that question as i know which side my bread is buttered.

To make this story even stranger Milankovic was a prisoner of war at the time and was released, as was the officer code in those days, to do his work, provided he was honour bound not to resume hostilities towards his captors.

Restoring Sanity – Our Transgenderism Policy

Anne Marie Waters 

December 22nd 2019 

 

Every adult man and woman has the right to live their lives as they prefer. It’s our most fundamental liberty that we are able to choose our own destiny. The only restrictions on our liberties should be to prevent harm to others in the form of bodily harm, violation, or imposed servitude or containment, and more. In other words, our liberties should only be limited by the liberties of others.

Because I believe this, I believe in the right of adults to alter their genitals or other parts of their bodies, in an attempt to live life as the opposite sex. They say they do this because they believe they should have the body of the opposite sex, because they ‘feel’ like that sex on the inside. I have sympathy with people who struggle with this, and if they genuinely want to change their bodies, I have no right to interfere. But the matter of transgenderism is not as simple as this. It now encompasses harm to others, particularly to children.

Children are being introduced to a whole new fabricated “reality” of non-binary, pansexual, demisexual, and polysexual (to name just a few).  They are then encouraged to choose one of these genders and “identify” with it. The whole thing is incomprehensible.

Perhaps even more shockingly, children have been referred for medical intervention to alter their bodies at a young age. More than 800 children in the UK have been given ‘puberty blockers’ to halt their biological development, and this is funded by the NHS.

This effectively amounts to experimentation on children, it must be brought to an end.  This is why For Britain proposes that medical and surgical intervention to change sex be limited to adults.  People may of course wear whatever clothes they wish, act as they wish, wear their hair as they wish, but to prevent harm to children, we will ensure only adults can undertake major life changes such as the removal or alteration of their genitals.

Self-identification is another important element of the transgender debate.  This means a person simply needs to state that they are the opposite sex, and then be treated that way by the law.  What I and others are arguing here is not that “all transexuals are sexual predators”, but that sexual predators will exploit self-id to gain access to women’s dressing rooms, toilets etc, where they constitute a threat to women.  Therefore, we must prioritise the safety of women and disallow ‘transwomen’ accessing areas intended for women. For Britain therefore will ensure that self-ID never becomes law in the UK, and convicted sex offenders may never “identify” as a woman and gain access to women’s prisons or other areas intended for women.

Women’s sport is also off limits.  People who were born male may not compete in sporting contests intended for female competitors.  Full stop.

Finally, we will make sure that the police, and the judiciary, remember our fundamental right to freely express our opinions on this matter.  We have no right to threaten transgendered people in any way, and we do not.  What we are calling for is our right to disagree that transwomen are women or transmen are men.  Currently this legitimate belief has been pushed in to the realm of “hate speech”.  Police have arrested people, interviewed them under caution, warned them about their “thinking”, and told them what that thinking ought to be.

This is not a free country.

For Britain seeks to restore sanity, and this starts with restoring speech.  We will lead by example and have the courage to say openly what so many of us are thinking.  Join us.

Video

Anne Marie Waters: Restoring sanity – Our transgender policy

Anne Marie Waters: Cash for child abuse – the Lib Dems’ exploitation of children

Blog

Barbara Wood: Why We Need For Britain’s Trans Policy

Why We Need For Britain’s Trans Policy

Barbara Wood

December 22nd 2019

In my speech on Freedom, Justice & Democracy at The For Britain Conference 2019, I spoke about the fear that many of us now feel when all we want to do is express an opinion. For those of you that haven’t seen the speech you can watch it here.

In the light of the transgender issue, it might come as a surprise to many people that we actually do have the right to not only express an opinion, even if it offends, but we have an equal right to refuse to express an opinion in which we do not believe. One is free both to believe and not to believe. For example, I do not believe that transwomen are women. I uphold the right of any individual to dress how they wish and call themselves what they wish but I will continue to believe that transwomen are men. Our freedom of expression rights are enshrined in law under Article 10 of the European convention on Human Rights which was incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998.

However, as far as transgender activism is concerned, the level of fear is such that we’ve reached a stage where only one side is able to speak, no dissent allowed, the debate has been shut down. Speak out, express a different opinion and you put yourself at risk. And that creates fear which in turn shuts down freedom of speech.

The fact is that the police are knocking on doors, interviewing people under caution, recording a tweet or speech as a ‘hate crime’ while at the same time acknowledging that no crime has been committed. People are advised by the police to refrain from expressing political opinions on social media and told the police want to ‘check their thinking’. People are losing their jobs, academic careers are under threat. Whatever happened to Article 10 protections?

Fear is a great silencer so I am in awe of people who are fighting back. My speech mentioned people who have lost their jobs and I had in mind one particular case. There wasn’t the time to go into more detail at conference so I’d like to give some more background in this blog.

This case involves a researcher and tax-expert for a a non-profit think tank in the field of international development, whose contract was not renewed after complaints that her views made people feel ‘uncomfortable’. This is the article that got her fired, seems all very reasonable to me, what do you think?

She decided to fight, crowd funded for legal fees and raised over £60,000 in just a few days. Her case was heard at the Central London Employment Tribunal in front of Employment Judge James Tayler in November 2019. The claimant’s case was based on her belief that:

  • Sex is biologically immutable
  • There are only two sexes, male and female and this is a material reality
  • Men are adult males
  • Women are adult females

Judgement was given on December 18th 2019, and she lost. Interestingly, her crowd funding total has shot up since the judgement, an indication of the fury with which people have reacted to the judgement and the hope she will appeal. It now stands at £97,000+.

I made the comment in my speech that “it’s a very short step from loss of freedom of speech to compelled speech, but that is where we are heading. Recent events indicate we may have already arrived”. I think this judgement shows very clearly that we now live under a judicial system that compels speech. Some of the judge’s comments are just astonishing:

“The core of the Claimant’s belief is that sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females”. And “The Claimant’s position is that even if a trans woman has a Gender Recognition Certificate, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society” (my emphasis).

I would suggest that this judgement shows contempt and disdain for a woman with an opinion. The judge didn’t like her ‘absolutist’ approach and it showed when he said: “The human rights balancing exercise goes against the Claimant because of the absolutist approach she adopts (my emphasis). What he’s really saying is ‘be a good girl and do as you’re told, if only you’d been kinder’. What about her dignity and intellectual integrity? Out the window, apparently, when the pronoun police come calling.

If you would like to read the full judgement it is here:

I noted he made reference to the Supreme Court ruling in Lee v Ashers which I referred to in my speech (Para. 91 in the judgement). I’m no lawyer, but even I can see a difference between what he is saying and what the Supreme Court said, and it centres on protecting people and protecting ideas. There’s a difference and from my reading he seems to be denying her the right to hold ideas and opinions, in favour of someone feeling hurt by the wrong pronoun. In this case the hurt parties say they are non-binary, which apparently means they identify as neither male or female, and use the pronouns ‘they/them’ instead of ‘he/him’.

So, the outcome is that if, in your opinion, no one can change sex, not only can you lose your job, but don’t bother taking your employer to an industrial tribunal because you will lose that as well.

Anne Marie and I recently had a great chat about the whole transgender issue and the podcast is here.

In my next blog, I’ll cover more examples of people fighting back against insanity, some are seeking judicial review of how current legislation is interpreted by the police and schools. Watch out for it.

Let’s make 2020 the year we start fighting back and reclaim our freedom of speech. It’s too precious to sit back and do nothing. I’m feeling braver than ever, who’s going to join me? You can email me on [email protected]

Barbara Wood 

Transgenderism Spokesperson

For Britain 

Confronting the Lies – Our Media Policy

Anne Marie Waters

December 21st 2019

When you have been on the receiving end of the mainstream media, it changes your life. It changes you because you learn firsthand just how corrupt public life can be. People often believe “there’s no smoke without fire”, they believe that the press simply isn’t allowed to lie – they are wrong, and it’s a hard life lesson to learn. The press openly and repeatedly lies. It does this unashamedly. I can’t recall the number of times I’ve taken part in interviews with journalists, only to read the resulting article and scarcely recognise it.

Journalists will take a single line and completely transform what was actually said. They’ll try to make you look and sound ridiculous and crass, they’ll find the worst possible photos, it’s public humiliation and it’s all based on lies. I’ve had journalists attempt to spill water on me, tell me to “calm down” while blocking the camera showing that I was perfectly calm, and I’ve had journalists imply that I agree with the “far right” label they affix to me. For example, a newspaper has reported that I intended to form a “far right” party to take the place of the BNP. This was written despite the fact that I have never said I want to take the place of the BNP, and I deny, with evidence, that I am far right. But the journalists say whatever they want to, and I have no right of reply.

In a demonstration of the weakening of the journalistic trade, reporters and writers no longer investigate or ask questions. They simply copy and paste from Wikipedia, or present the biased position of Hope Not Hate as fact. Hope Not Hate exist, and are paid, to fight “fascists”. When they can’t find real fascists, they invent them, and the press facilitates it.

So what is to be done?

For Britain has a refreshing and unique policy to make the media fair. In a free society, we should only impose regulation on the press for a justifiable reason, and any regulation must promote rather than restrict free speech. For this reason, For Britain proposes that all political candidates, during an election, are given a right of reply to any articles written about them. This is particularly the case when the coverage portrays the candidate in an unflattering light.

Furthermore, the right of reply must be of a similar length and prominence to the original article.  Candidates must be contacted about articles to be published about them, and there must be justification of any labels attached to that candidate.  If a journalist will call a candidate a “fascist” for example, they should explain what fascism is, and why or how the candidate meets that definition.  This should be based upon the candidate’s own words and not information from Hope Not Hate or a similar group.

It can never be deemed to be fair that a person can be smeared and slandered in the national press without right of reply.  All just-minded people can see this isn’t fair, and they will help us right that wrong.

Finally, we will fight any attempt to restrict our rights online.  The internet has provided unprecedented liberty in communication; everyone can make a website and have their voices heard.  It’s a profoundly important development in our public lives and it has given a platform that no government should be permitted to take away.

Social media is openly biased towards left-wing politics, and this must be confronted and opposed.  For Britain will take all opportunities to fight back against media tech, and the British people know the importance and the justice of this fight.

For Britain will put an end to the lies that are so poisoning our democracy.  Join us.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain 

You can watch a video on this topic here.

 

 

The Worst of ‘Remain’

Frankie Rufolo

December 19th 2019

 

As soon as Boris Johnson’s victory was declared, the chattering classes of anti-Brexit politicians, journalists and commentators from the Remainstream media, as well as D-list celebrities among the Twitter mobs, repeated the lie that everyone who wants a real exit from the EU is a racist bigot. We’ve been told this was a win for the rich, the elite, and the establishment. Whilst the Tories are an old party who have improved nothing in their time in power, and are nothing to get excited about, it’s worth a reminder that big banks, big business, and the international corrupt establishment supported Remain (which had more than its fair share of bigots and racists as well). Here are a few examples of the worst of Remain:

 1: John McCain

Yes, Senator John McCain endorsed Remain in the referendum. Remember when the mainstream media praised this never-Trump Republican because he wasn’t racist to Barack Obama? Meaningless tripe. John McCain is known for saying “I hate the gooks.” So not all old bigots are Brexiteers. On top of that, having suffered the horrors of war himself in Vietnam, he inflicted them on others by voting for needless foreign intervention such as the Iraq War.

2: BAE Systems

This giant weapons dealer, that has been arming the Islamic tyrants of Saudi Arabia, endorsed Remain in 2016 when chairman Roger Carr wrote a letter to The Times. As well as assisting some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet to commit war crimes in the Middle East, this bloodstained business has been accused of ripping off poor developing countries in Africa, and investigated and fined by the Serious Fraud Office for corruption. Hopefully the arms manufacturer will be very disappointed when The For Britain Movement and our allies on the continent prevent the formation of an EU Army.

3: Shell

The Remoaners often argue that we need the EU for environmental protections, but some of the endorsements for Remain are not as green as anti-Brexit fanatics would like. This fossil fuel company is responsible for oil spills all over the world from the Gulf of Mexico to the River Niger. Like BAE systems, this pro-EU company has been accused of assisting human rights abuses, and collaborating in political executions in Nigeria.

4: Joko Widodo

You probably won’t have heard the name but this man is the president of Indonesia. Once praised as a “progressive” Islamic country, Indonesia’s human rights record has been getting worse and worse since this man took power; executing people for drug crimes and subjecting homosexuals and adulterers to corporal punishment in public. On a visit to Brussels to solidify Indonesian relations with the EU, this tyrant also said he’d like Britain to remain a member.

5: Richard B Spencer

Whilst it is true that the tiny and insignificant real far right in the UK was pretty much united behind Brexit, the story was quite different internationally. American alt-right leader Richard Spencer wrote an article in the lead-up to the referendum arguing that leaving the EU would not be good for Britain. He defended the EU regarding the migrant crisis, despite the fact that EU agreements like Schengen effectively meant that Merkel’s invitation to a million migrants affected the rest of the continent. He also that the EU had the potential to be “a white racial empire.”

6: Tony Blair

It’s no secret the former Labour Prime Minister has been trying to keep us in the EU. While he’s widely despised for starting an illegal war in Iraq, George Galloway’s film “The Killing$ of Tony Blair” exposes  his corporate sabotage of Britain’s public sector . Whilst the Remoaners are scaremongering about Donald Trump privatising the NHS, it was their criminal mastermind who got Richard Branson involved in the NHS, started the dodgy contracts with huge companies, and even privatised our airspace.

7: Richard Branson

This brings us on to Margaret Thatcher’s poster-boy who more recently has been donating to Gina Miller’s campaigns, as well as trying to sue the NHS because he can’t privatise it quickly enough. Conservative newspapers have been banned from sale on his trains, and Breitbart censored for those who use his broadband. Remoaners are frighteningly happy with the Orwellian Brave New Matrix direction our country is going,  but one thing that may inconvenience them is the fact he has previously been arrested for the tax fraud the EU is supposed to prevent. Other controversies include skimpy sexualised uniforms on female staff, and profiting from trips to Seaworld and other parks that keep dolphins and orcas in featureless tanks. It just shows that the elites care more about money than they do about freedom.

8: Change Nothing UK

Stopped laughing yet? This breakaway group from the UK’s political establishment, founded to fight for the EU’s political establishment, seems to have been pretty short lived. Perhaps there was potential for a new centrist party but this one was dropped as a baby in the European elections that should never have happened. You may struggle to remember but Chuka’s chums spent much of their campaign attacking Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, trying to demonise them as racist. They probably should have been more careful not to throw bricks from within a glass house: The “Independent Group” got into a race row on the day they launched with former Labour MP Angela Smith appearing to describe ethnic minorities as “a funny tinge” on Politics Live (before issuing an apology). Then when these flashy neo-liberals unveiled their candidates, three of them were forced to step down for derogatory remarks such as “crazy black whore.” Not the best start. Now Anna Soubry is gone and they have no MPs, it looks like good riddance.

9: Xi Jinping

The president of China told David Cameron that he wanted to see “a united EU.” The Communist Party leader tends to support tyrannical super-states that suppress islands of democracy, as the brave and courageous people of Hong Kong know all too well. When the EU has the support of this dictator with an appalling human rights record, it casts doubt on the notion that Britain’s membership makes us any safer from dangerous superpowers – are we supposed to stop them by doing everything they want? It’s also somewhat ironic that the Leavers were demonised as racist and Nazis when the Remainer Jinping is erasing non-heterosexuals from the media, and condoning electric shock gay conversion therapy, whilst putting thousands of China’s Uighur Muslims in concentration camps – a travesty that looks like a build-up to genocide.

10: Anjem Choudary

Although Choudary couldn’t endorse either side because he sees voting as un-Islamic, he did say that he would prefer it if Britain remained in the EU because of European legislation that protects the so-called rights of terrorists. It should be no surprise, as Choudary has influenced countless Jihadis. Specifically, the EU protects against deportations, but the EU’s own agencies admit that the weakened internal borders are also enabling terrorists and human traffickers. When Theresa May said that Britain is safer in the EU, she was wrong. It’s time to take our country back and stamp out this Jihadist problem. Remoaners may cry about the ‘Breaking Point’ poster and push the “hate crime” hoax, but Anjem Choudary is the perfect face of hate for Remain.

Frankie Rufolo

For Britain Exeter

The Only Credible Party | Our Five Year Plan

16th December 2019

We now have 5 years of a Conservative government with a large majority. Brexit, even if not the pure form we would prefer, is happening and so it is time for the UK to start focussing on other issues. It is time for a patriotic party to fill the vacuum left by Labour.
Labour has been driven out of Scotland, and it can happen in the rest of the United Kingdom too.

To drive our collective agenda we must all come together behind one common sense and patriotic party which can represent us politically. I urge both UKIP and Brexit Party members and supporters who are now politically homeless to join For Britain without delay. I also urge Labour members who have lent a vote to Boris for Brexit to join us, as we have a plan that will deliver the change that we urgently need. Greens, Tories and everyone else, we represent important issues that transcend traditional politics, and I urge you to look at what we stand for and be part of our growing movement.

We have spent the last two years working incredibly hard to establish our party, battling the entire system to do it. We have been waiting for resolution on Brexit to detail our longer term plans. We acknowledge the national focus on Brexit, and the general political fatigue for other issues, but it hasn’t stopped us working away in the background to be ready for this moment.

Everything is in place.

Now is the time to tell you our strategy.

We have a 5 year plan, because success is about serious politics, not street marches or rallies, but changing things through the ballot box. This takes time and patience as history shows.

Last year we won Council seats, beating both the Tories and Labour in the process. We will build on this, standing more councillors and winning more seats, starting in May 2020. This is the cornerstone of our strategy.

We will use our influence to lobby this new Tory Government about dangerous and divisive extreme left wing and Islamic groups that attack our freedoms and poison our education system. If you were equally appalled by the students wishing death on Boris Johnson after his win, you will understand what we mean. A toxin has entered society, spreading anger and intolerance, and has been allowed to grow. For Britain will be doing everything we can to reverse this trend, and a large Tory majority means that we now have more options to make that happen. Get involved, your country depends on it.

As our local election successes increase, we will in parallel implement our plan for parliamentary seats, meaning by the time of the next election For Britain will not only be standing candidates, but standing candidates to win. We are working on that strategy now.

The biggest difference of all that we can make is having people inside Westminster.

We are established, and listed by the Electoral Commission as a ‘Major Political Party’. Don’t split support across fly-by-night groups and parties, get behind the one party that is serious about politics and will actually make the change across all the important issues. We can, we have the structure to do it, and we will.

Five years seems a long time away, but a credible plan needs to be built on solid foundations. In that five years we will be making a difference through activism nationally as well as community work locally, and we will be relentless in representing the issues we all care deeply about.

As an example, surveys show that the vast majority of Brits would ban the burka, yet the media and politicians try to convince you this is an extreme minority view. The vast majority of British (and European) countries wish to see immigration reduced, and are concerned about Islam and the effect on our culture. Again, you are made to feel extreme for holding these views that are in reality mainstream. This election showed again just how out of touch both the media and the political class are with the general public. We have our finger on the pulse of the country, because our party is made up of the normal people of the country. It’s our greatest strength.

The Tories won’t ban non-stun slaughter on their own, they need pressure and we are already running our campaigns to this end. And if the EU For Britain is now a member of the prestigious pan-European Identity & Democracy Partyis still your priority then know this – we believe the whole EU project must be brought down, and we won’t stop working with our European friends and allies in the Identity and Democracy Party to make this happen.

We will represent you, we know how you feel about the direction of this country. Read our manifesto, unite behind us and For Britain will be the party that deals with all the critical issues beyond Brexit.

The first step is joining, do it now and let’s all come together.

The time is now.

A Fairy Story

By Paul Burgess, Environment Spokesman

12th December 2019

Are you sitting comfortably?
My story is about two men, Paul and John sitting on a bench in a park. Paul is the dreamer of the two but occasionally comes up with a good idea, whilst John is much more down to earth.

Paul: “Looking at those nuisance birds John, I have a great idea on how to get rid of them pretty quickly. There will be less bird droppings and I hate all that flapping of wings. My idea will make landowners richer and the poor poorer because its about time somebody stuck up for the rich instead of the constant harping on about the poor. I reckon the government will support my invention and finance it. Sound good so far?”

John: “Sounds absurd. Not everyone objects to birds like you. I can see no benefit in getting rid of them.?”

Paul: ‘Well, besides birds, some people are scared of bats and insects. So as a bonus the idea will kill hundreds of thousands of bats a year and decimate migratory insect populations thereby cutting down the food supply for many life forms as well as threatening the survival of some. Does that make better sense to you? “

John: “Not really, OK for those who do not like flapping birds, bats and insects it gets rid of a lot but I do not think the idea can fly on what you have told me so far. There must be more to it?”

Paul: “Here is the clever bit. The idea will actually add to global CO2 output but we can fool folks into thinking that it reduces global CO2.
You see the public will not understand that the manufacture, transport, erection and maintenance of them will in practice produce more CO2 than they save but I am confident we can fool them on that. Further I think we can fool the government on it as well and so they will pay for it.”

John: “But the government only has the money that it takes from its people so will not the people be paying for this idea of yours?”

Paul: “John, you are spot on but the simple fact is that a large proportion of the public have never understood that. They think that there is government money.”

John: “OK, seems stupid to me, really stupid so what is this great idea of yours?

Paul: “Glad you asked. It is to construct large quantities of huge windmill type structures with blades turning at speeds of 150 m.p.h. so that even insects cannot avoid them never mind birds. Bats do not even have to touch them get killed because the pressure differences around the blades would cause their lungs to explode. Birds that are killed fall to the ground to be spotted by birds of prey who come to investigate and get the chop themselves.

We will call them wind farms under the guise that they generate green energy with the aim of reducing plant food in the atmosphere called CO2.

You see there is all this talk about reducing CO2 but nobody seems to realise that it was at a dangerously low levels for plants before mankind started pumping more in to the atmosphere. What’s more nobody has ever defined the right level of it but there is a drive to return it to pre-industrial drought levels and that is where my wind farm invention comes in. In practice of course my wind farms will produce more CO2 from building, transporting, erecting and maintaining them. This produces more CO2 than they save but we got away with that on solar panels so it should be easy to convince the public yet again that we are doing well for the planet.”

John: “I still do not get it. I can see benefits to those who want to kill birds, bats and insects. But past that what is the benefit to others of this crazy idea of yours?” I can see the benefits in increasing this plant food thing you call CO2 but that would not even be understood by most folks because they think we have to reduce it.

Paul: “Of course there are benefits to some. Landowners will be paid large sums of money for the installations on their land. The industry that produces them, contractors who erect them all gain from the idea. I accept that someone has to pay for all this because I feel the public would not want to voluntarily pay, we will have to convince the government to force it on them. So large subsidies as well as large increases in energy bills would be the way to go.”

John: “But that would mean that in effect the rich landowners would become richer at the expense of everyone else including the poorest. It would also mean that the higher energy bills would put our economy at a huge disadvantage in relation to the other countries that do not adopt your idea. No Paul, the idea seems bonkers to me and is not one of your best. I do not believe any sensible government would fall for it. For a start it would mean almost brain washing the entire public that this is the right way to go….”

Paul: “Hold on John.The government control the education of the children so they could brainwash the young arming them to lead the fight for the idea. We can even have teenagers striking from school in support of my idea. The mainstream media, I am sure will join in on the game.”

John: “Paul, give in, nobody and I mean nobody would fall for such a stupid idea that costs so much achieves nothing but harm to the environment and the looks of the country side whilst not even achieving what it pretends to achieve – a lowering of plant food in the atmosphere.

Then you have to set about brain washing the public let alone teaching fake science to kids in school. Just think about all those pylons and wires stretched across the country side let alone these huge bird chopping machines. The whole idea is so crazy that no modern, educated civilisation could fall for it.”

Paul: “Well I suppose it was a big ask and you are probably right. It was just an idea and thinking about it, yes, a stupid one that could never fly, it was just that I do not like birds flapping around. Thanks for bringing me down to earth John.

But I do have another idea based on my new mathematical model. In fact I have proven what causes global warming and they all have it wrong.”

John: “sighs…. What is that Paul?”

Paul: “I have modelled my data with warm weather and it fits perfectly, far better than any model out there today. It proves beyond any doubt what causes warm weather.

John: “And it is?”

Paul: “Ice cream John, every time sales increase it is hot weather, and every time they decrease the weather cools!.
Nobody seems to have noticed this before but it is a better fit than the CO2 models, which show we get ice ages when CO2 is high and warm periods when CO2 is low. What do you think John?

John…. John, where are you?”.

Left Wing Terrorism is the Real Threat

If you read the mainstream press or listen to the police you could be persuaded that so-called Far-Right terrorism is a growing and very specific menace facing British society. But is that true?

Well there are two major points to make on this. The first one is that the term Far-Right has been so widened, that it includes anyone essentially who isn’t on the Far-Left! If you have any objection whoever reasonable or moderate to mass immigration you will be labelled Far-Right. If you don’t believe that men should be competing in women’s sports, you’ll be labelled Far-Right. Or if you have any criticism at all or even any questions about Islam you will be labelled Far-Right. So no matter who you are if you have any objections to the mainstream rhetoric that you’re supposed to accept without question, you will be labelled Far-Right.

“You will then be unpersoned and have your rights taken away.”

So the term Far-Right is huge, it includes decent ordinary reasonable people who just object to the status quo so that’s far right and that’s point number one.

Point number two. I’m not suggesting that there is no Far-Right in the UK, there is as there is in every country. But the fact is, it’s tiny and it’s perilous. The chances of the real Far-Right coming to power anytime soon are well minimal at best. So what about Far-Left terrorism? Can the same be said for that?

Well first of all unlike Far-Right, the Far-Left isn’t labelled as such. You won’t hear the press call Jeremy Corbyn for example Far-Left or communist or even talk about communism at all. They’re not labelled Far-Left to start with. They’re certainly not labelled terrorists despite the evidence that members of the Labour Party and associated groups are engaging in political violence. Secondly the Far-Left, Antifa,  hope not hate, UAF, stand up to racism and all these various groups which i have personal experience of who engage in criminal activity and many of them are members of the Labour Party.

It’s not just Conservative voices, this applies to anyone regardless of political affiliation.

Recently on Twitter; George Galloway has been unable to secure venues as he’s standing in the general election in West Brom. According to him he’s unable to secure venues to hold public meetings because left-wing thugs associated with the Labour Party.

George Galloway Tweet

For Britain knows this of old tactic. We also know that women’s groups are having their events closed down. They’ve even been subject to bomb threats by hard left groups.

We need to replace the spineless disgraceful politicians who are allowing this country to turn from a democracy into one of left-wing mob rule join us and fight back!
Read my full article here:
Anne Marie Waters: Left Wing Terrorism is a Growing Menace
https://www.forbritain.uk/2019/12/06/left-wing-terrorism-is-a-growing-menace/

How We Freeze Immigration

Anne Marie Waters 

December 9th 2019 

In our unique immigration policy, For Britain proposes radical reform. We know that migration concerns many Britons, and we also know that an important aspect of this concern is culture, or way of life. Cultural compatibility is vital, but is ignored in mainstream politics. Instead we are told that we now live in a multicultural society, and that this is entirely positive.

We do not accept this, we know that multiculturalism has caused serious and long term damage to the rule of law, cohesion, and a unifying British identity.

Furthermore, immigration has simply been too high, running at 100,000s of people per year added to the population. This is affecting the economy, particularly the government’s welfare bill, in a variety of significant ways. Housing costs are high, NHS spaces are sparse, and people are sending their children to schools bus rides away. We can’t turn a blind eye to the realities of mass immigration any longer.

Contrary to their scripted rhetoric at election time, the Conservatives intend to make immigration to the UK even easier. Boris Johnson has encouraged amnesty for illegal immigrants and in doing so, sent a dangerous message to the world; that Britain’s immigration laws are meaningless and don’t need to be adhered to.

Labour would open the borders to unlimited numbers.

A significant element of our immigration policy is to freeze immigration for 5 years. This is not a gimmick, it can be done, and it is necessary. Decades of dysfunction in migration must be called to a halt, and we must know exactly where we stand. We are clear that this will not impact the economy as work visas will still be issued, but we are also clear that dependence on foreign workers will be reduced in the near future, as we will invest in Britons and improve their options in the jobs market.

So what do we mean by “freeze immigration”? Let’s start with looking at immigration and how it happens.

Workers

The highest number of visas issued is to those coming to work – current rules say they must have a job offer.  While For Britain understands the need for foreign workers, and we will issue temporary work visas for that reason (including during the 5 year freeze), what cannot be accepted is the hiring of foreign workers at the expense of Britons.  The NHS is a good example.  While we consistently hear that the NHS couldn’t survive without foreign workers, 80,000 British students were unable to secure nurse training places in 2014, despite the health service hiring thousands of foreign nurses.

We are told that young Britons don’t want to work, but how can this be true when so many are refused opportunities?  It isn’t true; it is an excuse for cheaper labour at the expense of young Britons.  It must end.

The NHS must be obliged to offer training places for both doctors and nurses to British citizens first.  If it cannot afford this training, then funding should be re-prioritised.  For example, if the billions spent on ‘health tourism’ were instead spent on training young Britons, there would be little medium to long term need for foreign workers.  Similarly, young British aspiring doctors struggle to find medical school places, even while there is a shortage of doctors; a shortage that is filled with temporary doctors from across the world.  This presents enormous problems in terms of language and cultural differences between medical staff and patients.

Students

In 2016-2017, there were more than 400,000 foreign students in the UK.  Most of these students make enormous contributions to our education system and economy and are welcome.  However, there is evidence to suggest that illegal immigration by those pretending to be students is a specific and significant issue.  In 2012, the National Audit Office reported that 50,000 people had entered Britain illegally the previous year by pretending to be students. For Britain will prioritise bringing illegal immigration to an end, while continuing to welcome legitimate students from across the world who bring huge assets to our country and economy.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Applications for indefinite leave to remain are open to family members of British citizens, or those settled in the UK.

For Britain proposes calling a halt to both indefinite leave to remain and the granting of British citizenship for a period of 5 years.  This is both a radical and effective proposal that will transform migration to this country.  Britain needs time to get a grip on the entirely chaotic immigration situation as it is today.

We also propose a freeze on the numbers of workers and students coming from outside the UK, in order to incentivise the creation of greater opportunities for Britons.

Marriage

Immigration via marriage and family is enormously important and needs a considered political response.  We don’t seek a situation where British citizens with foreign husbands/wives cannot live in Britain, but there are elements of family migration that need frank discussion and urgent reform.

According to Migration Watch:

“as late as 2001, it was estimated that 60% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi marriages in Bradford were with a spouse from the country of origin”. 

A rule to ensure that marriages to spouses from outside the UK were not solely for the purpose of arranging admission to the UK (the Primary Purpose Rule), was abolished by Labour in 1997.  Migration Watch states that “Since the abolition of the rule, the number of fiancé(e)s and spouses admitted to the UK has increased significantly”. 

For Britain will re-instate the Primary Purpose Rule.

It was reported in late 2018 that forced marriage of young British-born girls (primarily) is being used to facilitate migration to the UK. This must end.

Another route of family migration to the UK is via the asylum system – therefore this too must be transformed.  The current rules state that families may join asylum seekers in the UK if they were separated at the time of seeking asylum.  Families of migrants who have been given asylum or 5 years’ humanitarian protection, but do not yet have British citizenship, may come here. This invites entire families to Britain, and given the rather loose definition of asylum seeker, it’s an even bigger concern.

For example, when the mass exodus from Syria towards Europe began, along with Syrians came people from all over Africa and the Middle East with no discernible grounds for asylum.  Even the European Union admitted that only 1 in 5 “asylum seekers” were actually coming from war-torn Syria.  Therefore, For Britain proposes reform of asylum.  Only those who meet the strict definition of asylum seeker should be considered, and only when local government can afford to house such asylum seekers.  Asylum will be temporary and family reunification will end.

Marriages that are not recognised by UK laws, such as polygamous or child marriages, should not be considered valid in the UK.  Cousin marriage should also be prohibited.

Following a period of 5 years, migration will re-open, but For Britain believes that the cultural compatibility of migrants must be considered.

If migration to Britain is necessary, it should only be available to those with similar cultural values.  Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with similar cultural values should be prioritised.  But even with this in place, individuals from within those societies will also be scrutinised, and those found to actively reject British culture, or our majority way of life, will be refused.

In summary, For Britain will bring an end to mass immigration.  We do not accept ‘net migration’ figures as an appropriate indicator of migration problems in our country.  If, for example, 1 million Middle Eastern migrants were to enter Britain, and 1 millions Brits leave, that would equate to 0 ‘net migration’.  It would also equate to a replacement of the British people in Britain.  Therefore, ‘net migration’ targets will cease and our migration policy will aim to keep Britain British.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader 

For Britain

Well done Hull branch!

Well done to our Hull members who attended last night’s BBC Question Time.

It is wonderful to see genuine people with genuine concerns grill the current crop of inept politicians on issues that the general public faces.

Hull members on BBC Question Time
Hull members on BBC Question Time

Hull is a great city full of real down to earth people, who are friendly and full of life and have always thought and acted independently, not suffering fools gladly.

The Hull Daily Mail captured the evening perfectly in this article. 

One of the areas they highlighted is the attitude of the Left wing activists and Cosmopolitan elite of cities such as London. Not only do their unpleasant tweets reveal many on the Left for the angry, petty and vindictive trolls they are. But that the Middle Class “luvvies” in these cosmopolitan areas care more about their own shallow lives than the life affecting issues that normal working class citizens face on a daily basis.

As soon as it became apparent that the audience wasn’t packed with pro-remain Corbyn worshippers, the snide remarks starting appearing on social media. These obnoxious individuals seem only to care about remaining in the EU at any cost (even democracy), no doubt to ensure that their favourite coffee shop can continue with what amounts to a slave labour force of Eastern Europeans. A Mocha Light Frappuccino to go is always high on the priority list.

The show and subsequent reaction is a good barometer of how out of touch these people are. They know nothing of the North or anything about the culture outside of their little bubble. I’m glad Hull was made the capital of culture and I’m glad the residents of Hull get the chance to show the rest of the country the unique character that makes Britain such a wonderful diverse country. These patriotic people valued sovereignty and freedom from the EU above all the Project Doom & Gloom thrown at them pre referendum.

So many politicians and so much of the media have failed to grasp this simple fact in over 3 years. A risk to economic growth is a price worth paying for long term independence. If Labour had understood this, maybe they wouldn’t be losing so much support. But they’ve shifted away from patriotic working class Brits. They’ve settled for other demographics and now look down their noses, so the truth is they will never understand it. Patriotism and pride in your own country is an alien concept to them.

For Britain plans to stand candidates in Hull in May and we would like our members to stand as candidates. Hull is a great city and we intend to show the rest of the country what Hull can do. If you are a member in Hull please continue to spread the word and keep up the good work.

Nick Ryder & The For Britain Team

Most UK supermarkets have made a commitment to end the sale of caged hen eggs by 2025

Supermarkets made a commitment to stop selling caged hen eggs by 2025.

For Britain believes this is not enough!

The onus must be on the government to create tougher animal welfare standards, rather than the foolish dreaming that corporations will ignore higher profits and do the humane thing.

Which companies are doing what?

Asda, Lidl, Aldi, Tesco, Morrisons and Iceland have set a 2025 deadline to stop selling eggs from caged hens. This is to permit a transition period to cage-free production. Many popular restaurant chains, including Frankie & Bennie’s, Café Rouge and Pizza Express, have also made cage free commitments.

However a leading farm animal welfare charity – Compassion in World Farming has discovered the UK’s three largest discount retailers – Poundland, B&M, and Home Bargains are still sourcing eggs from caged hens.

IMG: Farm Watch
CC 2.0 Licence

At a time when the market is shifting in the direction of greater animal welfare standards, it’s deeply disappointing that Poundland, B&M and Home Bargains continuing to source eggs this way.

Compassion has written to the retailers on a number of occasions over the last year. But all have failed to make a cage free commitment. Sixteen million laying hens within the UK are presently kept in cages. These animals will spend virtually their whole lives confined, with barely sufficient room to unfold their wings.

Research data has found that animal welfare is a significant concern for UK shoppers.  81% of the general public believing that cages in farming is a cruel practice. Over two-thirds feeling that this methodology of farming is outdated and needs to be replaced.

“These so called ‘low-cost’ eggs might appear to be a superb deal, however they come at a high price to the tens of millions of hens confined in cages.”

“We must guarantee there isn’t any market for caged eggs anywhere in Britain. Major UK food companies have already committed to a cage-free future – it’s high time for discount retailers to do the same.”

“Caged eggs on any retailer shelf will mean tens of millions of hens will continue to live a lifetime of distress, year after year.”

For Britain leading the way in political intervention

For Britain is dedicated to ending all caged fowl farming. Not waiting on companies to implement purchase guidance which could be dropped at the next board meeting.

For Britain looked at the impact such policies would have on  the agricultural industry in drafting it’s own commitments. As well as following reports produced by the BFREPA and other industry leaders in the field. We have concluded that ending the practice wouldn’t have an adverse affect on our agricultural industry. But rather a positive in levelling the playing field for farmers. In addition to actually increasing growth in the free range and barn hen markets.

Copyright Philip Halling and licensed for reuse below Inventive Commons Licence.

Shell egg export figures from HM Revenue and Customs for August 2019 were 109,000 cases, 67 per cent up in comparison with the same interval in 2018. While egg product exports were 13,000 cases, up 7.9 per cent in comparison with August 2018.

Recent trends in free range production are in keeping with a report produced in 2017 by Jason Gittins of ADAS on behalf on the BFREPA. A report which is now reflected within the latest trends. Suggesting this would not have the negative impacts some individuals had feared.

Forecasts

Retailers reported a gradual increase of their percentage share of free range egg gross sales over cage eggs in recent years. Forecasts for the longer term are mixed. Some suggested an increase of 10% or more.

If 5% free range growth is realised before 2025 by the six retailers who have announced a non-cage purchase policy, then the aggregate capital cost is likely to be around £58 million.  With an additional 112 houses (16,000 fowl capacity) being needed.

If it was a 10% free range growth forecast, the total capital cost increases to £86 million. With an additional 169 houses needed.

For a 15% increase, the equivalent figures are £122 million and 237 houses. These costs are easily off set in current purchase intention trends and export figures. As detailed in the latest HM Revenue reports of Shell eggs.

Girls Must Eat After Boys. Ofsted Grilled For Raising Issue.

Ofsted has come under fire by Government committee for trying to protect girls rights.

For Britain supports the actions and reports carried out by Ofsted with regards to the line of investigation taken with “all” schools, regardless of faith or those of a secular nature. Ofsted is committed to protecting children and ensuring they receive a balanced education in line with the modern values of Great Britain today.

We can empathise with those at Ofsted who feel like they are being attacked for highlighting wrong doing by certain communities. It is something we are accused of often. But highlighting abhorrent practices is never wrong and we will continue to call out those who reject values of decent British citizens.

Equalities Select Committee

Committee chairman Robert Halfon and Labour MP Ian Mearns raised concerns from Islamic pressure groups “that Ofsted is now delivering an anti-faith agenda”. The chairman also raised the issue of ‘questioning the wearing of the hijab’, and proposals that faith schools be inspected under the latest Education Inspection Framework. Also the inspection of unregistered faith classes and Sunday schools“.

For Britain is disappointed that the Government Equalities Select Committee embarked on this line of questioning. There is clear evidence from Ofsted that certain faith schools refuse to change their policies.

The Chairman also told MPs that Ofsted had been accused of “the repeated calling out of faith schools who have not met the standards, while at the same time apparently turning a blind eye to a quarter of state schools which are allegedly failing to deliver religious education, as required by law”.

Defection tactics

Again we see the usual tactics of trying to deflect criminal wrong doing by suggesting others also act inappropriately. It is good to see that Ofsted made it clear they treat all schools equally and are not focused on faith schools. The report viewing tools on the Ofsted website clearly show the same standards are used across all schools.

When Mr Tryl of Ofstead addressed the Equalities Select Committee, he stated that Ofsted inspectors are trying to stop discrimination. However inspectors feel “isolated” because ministers won’t support Ofsted’s findings.

Mr Tryl explained that his inspectors are going out and having to make some quite difficult judgements. Judgements that would potentially clash with religious freedoms.

He stated that Al-Hijrah school was imposing a “very strict gender segregation”. Which included “denying the female students to have their lunch until after the boys have had theirs”, along with “very discriminatory texts encouraging violence against women“.

The school has previously been criticised over its extreme policies of censoring textbooks that showed pictures of women’s knees. The policy mandates references to homosexuality to be blacked out and a photo of Hollywood actors be covered up.

The Equalities Act, does it mean anything?

For Britain stands beside Ofsted in welcoming the Court of Appeal’s ruling that gender segregation throughout the school was in breech of the Equalities Act 2010. The school has still not removed its segregation policy since the case ending in 2017.

Al-Hijra School Birmingham

Whilst Ofsted inspectors can shine a spotlight on these issues of segregation in their reviews, enforcement action falls to officers at the Department of Education. Which is clearly not happening. For Britain questions if the Equalities Act has any meaning when the Government chooses to ignore it when dealing with certain communities.

Mr Tryl informed MPs: “The Court of Appeal rightly said that schools needed a transition period where they were segregating and yet still we have not just Al-Hijrah but we have countless other schools, mixed schools which are segregating on the basis of sex.”

Mr Tryl went on to explain that many other Muslim schools were refusing to teach about sexual orientation issues.  That these findings had been recorded in reports that were sent to the Government. He explains that it is his inspectors that go out and highlight these issues for which they take a lot of unfair criticism over and then see no enforcement action take place after all their hard work.

For Britain supports all rights in line with British values

For Britain has made it clear that intolerant views must never be indulged. We support the right for ALL religious groups to teach their faith to children in their community. However we will not tolerate abhorrent teachings that go against the values we in Great Britain hold dear.

As stated in our Manifesto, For Britain will protect the rights of faith schools to teach their faith so long as criminal values are not taught. Ofsted has highlighted shocking findings in it’s reports. The current Government is choosing to not only ignore these finding but berate Ofsted for highlighting them. This needs to change and clearly the Labour and Conservative Parties are not the right choice to do this.

Left Wing Terrorism is a Growing Menace

Anne Marie Waters 

December 6th 2019 

 

If you read the mainstream press, it will attempt to persuade you that “far right” terrorism is a growing menace in Britain. The same press will then describe objection to mass migration, nation-state democracy, and Islamic radicalism as “far right”. On the other hand, Antifa, a group that Donald Trump has expressed support for banning, is routinely portrayed as “anti-racism”, and of course “anti-fascism”. No further explanation is needed; “far right” = bad, “anti-fascist” = good. The mainstream press, in other words, has taken sides with the left, as it almost always does.

So what is the truth? Given that the “far right” gets so much press condemnation, what about the far left?

Firstly, what do I mean by “far left”? At the moment, in the UK, I mean the Labour Party and its street minions. Whether members of Antifa, or a similar group, the crossover is there; Antifa members are also members of Labour, of Momentum, of Stand up to Racism, or another of a number of groups with similar virtuous sounding names that the press gladly repeats again and again. Their tactics amount to threats, intimidation, and thuggery. They behave in historical terms exactly as Hitler’s Brownshirts – closing down events and discussions that threatened his rise.  These hard left groups intend to do the same for Corbyn, and their reach is getting wider.

The characterisation is not difficult; the far left is open border, “progressive”, and fervently pro-Islam. It will shut down anyone who dares to swim against the tide of insanity that the far left promotes. If you have any objections to mass migration, however mild or reasonable, you will become a target. If you believe that women’s sport should be for women and not men, you will become a target. If you believe that Islam is less than an entirely pleasant religion of peace and tolerance, you will become a target. Now, more increasingly, if you pose any threat to Labour, you too will become a target.

George Galloway recently complained that venues had “blanked” him when he tried to secure public meetings for his current Parliamentary campaign in West Brom. He wrote on Twitter:

“Having been blanked and even refused school venues (as is our right under election law) now TWO pubs we’d been forced to book for election meetings have cancelled citing “complaints”. Labour are determined that @sandwellcouncil remains their “Rotten Borough”

I have very similar personal experience. When For Britain was first founded, we attempted to hold a public (i.e. publicly advertised) meeting in Plymouth. Two venues cancelled because of far left intimidation. This continued in Hartlepool at our next attempt, and has continued since. We must now hold our meetings, our conference, our events, in secret locations and must go to great lengths to make sure these aren’t leaked. This is no way for a party to operate. To add insult to injury, the far left then portrays For Britain as a party with secrets to hide, despite the fact it is they that force us in to hiding.

When I stood in a Parliamentary by-election in Lewisham East, I was forced to stay away from the only public hustings organised. Dozens of hard left activists had gathered outside the venue shouting hysterical lies about my character, and physically intimidating and even assaulting those in attendance. Police on the evening appeared to decide that I was the problem, not the dozens causing trouble, and it was me who was kept at bay. The group Stand Up To Racism was openly the ringleader at this event; a group headed by none other than Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott. Just imagine if the Tory Home Secretary was head of a group that closed down a hustings using intimidation and violence. We know the response of authorities would be very different.

Recently, I was hounded out of Whitechapel by an Antifa group, who bragged about their exploits on Twitter. Once again, no response from politicians and no arrests by police.

It doesn’t end here.

Far left activists are increasingly attacking both people and venues who won’t toe the line and agree with their radical politics. Women’s groups are among the victims.

Last year, a group called A Woman’s Place, which was formed to add the voice of silenced women to the transgender debate, wrote to Leeds City Council following its cancellation of a booking they’d made to hold a perfectly lawful discussion. In its letter, A Woman’s Place wrote:

“our meetings have been constantly subjected to intimidation and harassment from activists opposed to women’s voices being heard. These have included a bomb threat when we met in Hastings and aggressive protests from masked activists at other meetings. We are unable to announce the venue of our meetings in advance, to avoid activists bombarding the venue with threats and intimidation to force them to stop hosting the event”.

Police take little notice of these disruptions.  Actually, that’s not entirely true…

A group named Lesbians on Chairs was formed in 2018 following the outrageous removal, by police, of lesbian women from an event on transgenderism. One of the women, Dr Julia Long, was physically manhandled by police out of the venue. Their crime? Sitting on chairs (hence the rather clever name of the group). It seems then that police can be bothered to protect events and ensure they go ahead, it just depends on who is hosting it and what they have to say. Seven officers removed Long from the event as she was “causing disruption” by being a woman who believes that men are not women.

Inside the Labour Party, things are no better. That party is being purged of moderate voices. Stalwart MP Frank Field quit Labour in 2018 citing a culture of bullying and intimidation, and attempts to replace with MPs with those aligned with Corbyn’s hard left beliefs. Luciana Berger, a Jewish MP, also quit citing antisemitism. A new Labour Party is therefore emerging, one that will not tolerate the democratic process being extended to its opponents.

Terrorism is essentially the use of violence or the threat of violence for political means. Therefore, these hard left groups, Antifa and beyond, are engaged in acts of terrorism. But you’d never know this by reading the press, which continues to focus solely on the so-called “far right”. There is a far right in the UK, as there is everywhere, but it is tiny and has no power.

By contrast, left-wing terrorism is carried out by people who are very often members of the party comprising Her Majesty’s official opposition, and they carry out their criminal acts in the pursuit of the power of a potential Prime Minister.  There is nothing comparable on the far right.  Left wing terror is an imminent and genuine threat, but press and authorities look the other way.

For Britain will continue to fight this and continue to demand our rights. We are descending in to mob rule and our great democracy will be the ultimate victim.

 

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

Lancashire Council bans “Non-Stun Slaughtered’ Meat for Schools, Branded ‘Islamophobic’

For Britain wishes to provide you with an update on a case that has been in and out of the news in NW England for some time. It is regarding a long battle over the supply of Halal food to schools in Lancashire (that finally ended in 2018 due to the Council’s action) but has some points for us to note. There is also a warning for the future.

The case saw multiple attempts by Muslim groups to exploit loopholes, setup boycotts and challenge the Council’s decision to ban non-stun slaughtered meat from schools in the Lancashire region.

After the first vote was ruled to have not met the legal requirements of having a public consultation, the authority was forced to open one in which Muslim pressure groups mobilised their community to respond to the consultation.

The Council still voted to cease supplying Halal meat from “some” animals killed without stunning, but the move was described as “discriminatory and Islamophobic” by local Muslim leaders.

It is reported that this is the first local authority within the UK to rule that meat provided to pupils by its supply chain must be from suppliers that stun animals prior to slaughter. This closes a loophole that Muslim groups have exploited to enable the supply of Halal meat, often unwittingly, on all pupils at schools within the region.

Under UK regulations, livestock should be shocked before slaughter – though there are religious exemptions for the Jewish and Muslim faiths.

Councillors at Lancashire County Council argued that un-stunned slaughter induced needless stress and suffering to the animals.

 

St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School. Chorley

The authority supplies school meals for 27 schools. From September, these schools will have the opportunity of ordering stunned meat from the council or seeking their own alternative suppliers of un-stunned Halal meat on a school by school basis as detailed in this PDF release of the change in policy.

Muslim opposition

However Muslim Labour opposition councillors Azhar Ali and Abdul Hamid Qureshi, chief executive of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, condemned the choice as “undemocratic and vastly discriminatory”. They allege animal welfare claims weren’t the main factor in this decision.

He stated the group was offended and upset, and that members would contemplate legal action and explore independent catering services for affected schools.

In a statement made on the move he said: “This is dictatorial – two-thirds of the people surveyed stated they didn’t desire a ban. It doesn’t matter what individuals say – the council leader had made up his mind!”. He claimed the choice was not based on animal welfare grounds, but as “…a political whip to kick individuals, particularly Muslims and Jews”.

Council Bosses

Cllr. Geoff Driver, leader of Lancashire council made the following statement. “There was a lot debate about what constitutes halal” and noted that in some international locations “all animals must be stunned before slaughter”.

Cllr G Driver
IMG: Councillors section of the Lancashire Council Website

A council spokesman stated the move was not a “ban” because faculties were free to cease using the Council catering service. They also stressed that its policy was completely based on animal-welfare grounds.

As much as 180 million chickens killed last 12 months with out efficient stunning.

When Mr Driver was asked why the choice was made in opposition from two in three respondents. he stated the session was not about whether or not to implement the policy. But rather for the impact it would have on animal welfare.

Mr Driver stated: “We accept a small number of schools might choose to make use of completely different suppliers for halal meat. Nevertheless, we hope that individuals perceive how the council has arrived at this determination, which has been taken solely on the grounds of animal welfare with due consideration for the impacts outlined within the responses to the proposed policy.”

“We want to work with the Lancashire Council of Mosques to make sure that the meals we provide to the affected faculties in future present a variety of nutritious choices which fulfil college students’ dietary needs and are acceptable to LCM, parents and governors.”

Another council spokesman stated: “Now we have excluded the stunning of poultry as a result of it [stunning] can kill the fowl earlier than it may be humanely slaughtered in accordance with halal and kosher requirements.”

Mr Qureshi stated that they had asked to sit down with council leaders to debate stunning processes. He stated his group would not compromise on its no-stun stance.

He also made the bizarre and unscientific claim. That stunning animals was “unhygienic” as blood is believed to hold illness so needs to be drained from a carcass.

Support from other groups

The Humanists UK group strongly backed the council’s position. Declaring that polling by the British Veterinary Affiliation revealed that 64 per cent of vets believed that welfare in the slaughter process, particularly a requirement for stunning, needs to be a priority.

In response to the move, the group stated: “By offering non-stunned meat in its faculties, Lancashire county council is arguably performing as an adjunct to a breach of the regulation, because the exemption from the requirement for animals to be stunned is explicitly solely ‘for the meals of Jews’ or ‘for the meals of Muslims’, and some meat would be eaten by pupils not from these communities”.

For Britain reached out to Mr Driver for comment on this story and he replied with the following:

Thank you for your e-mail.

The reason for LCC ceasing to provide meat to any of our establishments unless the animal was stunned before it was slaughtered is easily expressed. A majority of council members believes that it is cruel and barbaric to slaughter an animal whilst it is conscious and modern methods of stunning can guarantee that the animal is still alive (but unconscious) at the point of slaughter which should comply with religious requirements.

That ban remains in force and will do so whilst I remain as leader of the council but we have to keep this subject before the electorate because it is a fact of law that no council can commit its successor.

Regards

Geoff Driver

We applaud Mr Drivers stance and wish him every success in this issue. But it is clear that Labour opposition would reverse this policy the moment they gain a majority. Which is why we ask you, our readers to share this story with family and friends in the Lancashire area. Labour cannot be allowed to win the upcoming election this month.

 

Nick Ryder

The Greens and animal welfare

The Greens and animal welfare

Yesterday I published a blog about Jonathan Barclay, the co-leader of the Green Party. He said on radio that he would ban halal slaughter. I even wrote in my blog; “Good for him”.

Well I take it all back, because unsurprisingly he has now apologised for the deep hurt feelings that he has caused.

If anyone thinks I would ever apologise for defending animals think again, not in a million years! Now the Greens animal welfare policy on halal is to label it and they put this in with their animal welfare policy. But this is not an animal welfare policy labelling it is is achieves absolutely nothing for the animal. It’s a cop-out! A cowardly political trickery cop-out policy.

The animal doesn’t care if it’s labelled or not. The animal is still going to be tortured to death. The label isn’t going to make that any easier and I wonder how many animals were tortured to death while Jonathan Bartley was apologising for defending them? This is animal welfare. It is a huge issue in this country and politicians sit up and take notice they make all the right noises or at least they do at a convenient time to a convenient audience during election periods.

When we started For Britain, my policy was to end non-stunned slaughter. For as long as I am active in politics my policy will be to end non-stunned slaughter!

I’m not concerned about people’s hurt feelings, I’m concerned about the animals being tortured to death. I will stand my ground on this for good! There is never ever going to be any bending from For Britain on this and our animal welfare policy isn’t just about halal or kosher. Read it and see for yourself.

For Britain animal welfare policy

 

 

 

Our Policy on Islam & London Bridge Attack

Our Policy on Islam

Over the coming weeks I’m going to be taking you through in some detail this the for Britain manifesto for 2020.

Now given that we have just been subjected to yet another Islamic terror attack where two people were murdered a few days ago in London, I want to start by talking about a policy that makes this party unique. That shows who we are our courage our strength and our determination to defend British culture and that issue is of course Islam.

Now others will talk about lack of police, they’ll talk about sentencing and and letting people out early and these are all pertinent points. But they do not address the ideology behind these attacks both labour and the Conservatives have turned Britain into a country where twenty-three thousand known jihadis are walking our streets. More importantly the borders are open and will stay open to the same countries that brought 23,000 jihadis to Britain. It’s insanity and no one is discussing this in terms of immigration either so immigration will be up next.

Anne Marie Waters: The Leaders’ Debate and London Bridge
https://www.forbritain.uk/2019/12/02/the-leaders-debate-and-london-bridge/

Huge scale of terror threat revealed: UK home to 23,000 jihadists
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

 

Halal and Muslim victimhood

Anne Marie Waters 

3rd December 2019 

 

Labour can always be depended upon to defend the indefensible. Birmingham Labour MP Khalid Mahmood has accused the Green Party’s co-leader Jonathan Bartley of “Muslim bashing” because he expressed sympathy for animals who are tortured to death in the name of medieval superstition and bloodthirst, i.e. halal slaughter.

For those who aren’t aware, halal means torture for innocent and defenceless animals. It means animals are not stunned to unconsciousness (despite the propaganda that says they are, they are not) prior to slaughter. They die in pain and in terror and if you object to this, you’ll be the bad guy.

I have been passionate about animals all of my life. I have deep sympathy and compassion for them, and cruelty towards the defenceless is what the word ‘evil’ truly means in my view.

I understand the food chain. I understand that death is part of life, that animals hunt and eat each other, and I am not, and never have, advocated the end of meat production. But this, this is different. This is cruel and completely unnecessary and I would ban it in an instant.

My party’s policy is to ban all un-stunned slaughter, including Kosher.  It’s the animal that matters, not religion.  Religious communities have many times changed their traditions, and they can do it again now.

Khaled Mahmood however doesn’t believe that I, or Jonathan Bartley, are actually motivated by concern for animals. He can read our minds apparently. Mahmood did what some Muslim loudmouth always does when there’s a complaint about the many disgusting practices of this religion; he played the victim. He said “This is nothing to do with the green agenda. This is purely to do with scapegoating the Muslim community.” What remarkable insight. I’m fairly certain he doesn’t know the inner thoughts of Mr Bartley, but he’ll make this assertion anyway, as if it’s a fact.

Mr Bartley, or myself, have no ability to effectively respond, because our actual views are dismissed and we’re told what we really think by someone who knows nothing about us.  What we say doesn’t matter, because Mahmood knows better. This is the beauty of this despicable devious victimhood.

The implication of racism is there of course (it doesn’t need to be named), as well as a nod to the myth of Islamophobia. This victimhood turns reality on its head; the person standing up for defenceless animals becomes the immoral actor, while the person defending the torture of defenceless animals becomes the moral. It’s a complete inversion of morality.

The Greens are a weak party on this, it is not their policy to ban halal or Kosher, so I must admit I reluctantly admire Mr Bartley for telling Nicky Campbell on radio that yes, he would personally ban halal. Good for him.

I do not know if he has backtracked on this, but I have no doubt that millions agree with him, and they are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to speak out because people like Mahmood will implicitly accuse them of bigotry. Meanwhile, millions of animals are tortured to death.

For Britain would ban both halal and Kosher, but we’re also fully aware that British Jews have made no attempts to impose Kosher on the whole of society, and the Kosher market is relatively small. Halal, on the other hand, is served in schools, hospitals, and across the public sector. If you object, you know what will happen.

For Britain is currently campaigning for a ban on all un-stunned slaughter. You can find a variety of videos on our YouTube channel and further information on our site www.forbritain.uk/halal

Animals have no voice, let’s give them one.

Join us.

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain

 

 

The Leaders’ Debate and London Bridge

Anne Marie Waters, Party Leader

December 2nd 2019 

Nigel Farage is in a sticky situation. The leaders’ debate that took place on December 1st proved this. Farage spent much of the debate criticising the Conservatives, despite stating only weeks ago that he was standing down more than 300 of his candidates in favour of the Conservatives; yet more inconsistency and lack of clarity from our politicians. Farage however was aiming to win the points on Islam. In the opening question about how our leaders intend to keep us safe in the wake of the latest Islamic terror attack in London, Farage was the only one to mention jihad. However, those of us who are acutely aware of Farage’s record on this issue, know that he is playing the game for the sake of the game. In other words, saying something controversial at a convenient time, but backtracking on it when the time is less convenient. It is called ‘playing to the gallery’ and it is cheap political trickery. Farage is absolutely happy to label other people racists, just so he can take the “jihad” points for himself. But cheap politics has a way of revealing itself, and it will reveal itself once again. Only For Britain is consistent on Islam. Only For Britain has maintained its courage, even while under fire from Farage, and as we go forward, the British public will increasingly seek this courage and consistency – For Britain will never bend or break on this issue.

With this in mind, now is a pertinent time to remind readers of our robust and unique policy on Islam. We are experiencing these terror attacks because our leaders have been weak on this issue. Both the Conservatives and Labour have turned Britain in to a country where 23,000 jihadis walk our streets. Crucially, both parties still allow, and will continue to allow, mass immigration from the same countries that provided us with 23,000 jihadis. It is absolute madness, and nobody, including Farage, dares to address it.

For Britain has the most robust policy on immigration, we must stop people coming here from countries with large populations intent on doing us harm. But that’s not the end of the matter; we must also deal with the problems already here. That will not be easy, but it can be done. All that is required is a reversal of our weakness in the face of Islamic terror – weakness no better demonstrated than in our refusal to name the problem.

The problem is in the scriptures of Islam itself. Until we acknowledge that, we are condemned to a fate of burying our heads in the sand while more and more people are murdered, raped, threatened, or have their free speech curtailed.

For Britain will stand firm. We state clearly that the problematic aspects of Islam will be opposed. We will not allow Islamic doctrine to run roughshod over our rights. Muslims are free to be Muslims, but only insofar as their religion does not conflict with the law. When it does, the law wins. This message must be repeated and repeated until it is understood.

Words however are not enough. We must take tough action, and we must stick to our plans irrespective of how many times we are labeled racist or Islamophobic. Our policies of tough action include:

  • Close sharia tribunals
  • Ban the burqa
  • Close mosques where child marriage is performed or the incitement of violence is preached
  • Deport non-British members of ‘grooming gangs’ and apply penalties of at least 20 years in prison for others
  • Ban halal slaughter
  • Support ex-Muslims loudly and vocally and highlight the threats and violence they face in the UK
  • Do not allow those in child or polygamous marriages to live in the United Kingdom
  • Deport known jihadis who are not British citizens
  • Deport those convicted of female genital mutilation and remove the evidentiary burden from the victim
  • Ban madrassas
  • Hold a public inquiry in to the teachings of Islam

This is just the beginning, but if each of the above were applied, the entire culture of the UK would change for the better. The UK would show itself as a strong country, unwilling to tolerate medievalism. It will also make us safer by removing and punishing those intent on destroying our society and civilisation. It will provide an unequivocal defence of Britain, its culture and its people.

Only For Britain has the courage to go forward and implement the tough policies that are needed. Our strength will grow greater and greater as the British people become aware of this. We will make history and turn the tide that will otherwise envelope us.

Join us now.

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain

Terrorist on a tag

By Paul Ellis, Legal Officer

30th November 2019

Yesterday’s terror attack on London Bridge brought us images that are now depressingly familiar: Londoners and tourists attacked by a knife wielding jihadi, tales of heroism and tragedy, and the suspension of general election campaigning.

Little was more formulaic than the statements of thoughts and prayers from people who clearly give neither, with Katie Hopkins wryly tweeting that Sadiq Khan could easily have reposted his 2017 London Bridge attack statement as his response to London Bridge #2, without changing a single word. The killer’s body would still have been warm as Twitter filled with faux anxiety about the ‘far right’ and ‘islamophobia’, by those desperate to shut down analysis of what had occurred and why.

The attacker has now been identified as Usman Khan, a former member of al-Muhajiroun the terrorist organisation founded in Saudi Arabia in 1983 by Osama Bin Laden’s brother in arms Omar Bakri al-Mohammed.

The UK’s attitude to this group from the start to the present has been marked by extraordinary naïvity. When the Saudi’s expelled al-Muhajiroun in 1986, the organisation found a hospitable new home in London where it became the centre of a complex web of terror, based around Finsbury Park and Brixton Mosques, with links to 9/11, 7/7, the shoe and underpants bombers and many more attacks.

Omar Bakri Mohammed was never prosecuted in the UK for any offence although he was refused re-entry after making a foreign trip in 2005 (he currently languishes in a Lebanese prison). His successor Anjem Choudhary was allowed to take his place and continue to preach jihad for another decade to the likes of Lee Rigby killer Michael Adebolajo and London Bridge 1 leader Khuram Butt, until 2016 when he was sentenced to a derisory five years for inciting support for ISIS (to be released last year after just two). Incredibly Khuram Butt and Anjem Choudary even starred in a Channel 4’s documentary The Jihadi Next Door.

So it is with a sense of despair rather than shock that we discovered last night that Usman Khan, who had been given an indeterminate prison sentence in 2010 for a plot to establish a terrorist training camp in Pakistan and/or plant bombs in a range of possible targets in the UK (local pubs and the London Stock Exchange had been discussed) had had this sensible sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal to a fixed sentence of sixteen years, of which half would be served on licence; that is to say eight years.

Raffaello Pantucci comments in ‘We Love Death as You Love Life’ that at the time of the trial, the British media ridiculed Khan’s cell for their amateurism and compared them with the hapless jihadis of the then recently released comedy Four Lions. A hint of this arrogance can be seen in Lord Leveson’s reasons for granting the sentence reduction, as he described them as ‘novices’ and commented that there was no evidence that had received training or were in a position to put their plans into immediate effect ‘however keen they might have been to do so and however much they might have talked up their prospects between themselves or to others whom they sought to influence.’

It does not seem to have occurred to them that any idiot can stab people.

Never such innocence again. The first and most important lesson to relearn is one that was known to our ancestors from medieval times. The common law, possibly these island’s greatest achievement, with safeguards and procedures designed to carefully balance the rights of the individual against the requirements of public safety has evolved to govern misbehaviour within society. It is utterly unsuited to the task of protecting that society from a group of insurrectionists in its midst; fanatics who kill for the love of killing and fear death less than capture.

In past centuries, treason was treated outside the normal criminal processes by a special court, the Star Chamber. It is time now to recognise the distinction between law and war by establishing a special court to deal with acts of jihad. Those accused of wrongdoing of any sort must of course always be entitled to challenge the evidence against them before a fair and impartial tribunal: anything else would be tyranny.

The public must be trusted with as much information as it is safe to reveal about what is being done in their name, to avoid the distrust that has dogged the secretive US military tribunals of Guantanamo Bay. Basic human rights must be respected or we destroy what it is that we seek to preserve.

But charges of treason are not to be dealt with as though they were ordinary crimes. The same rules of disclosure and evidence are not warranted, and the adage that the punishment must fit the crime has no application to those who are ideologically committed to launching more attacks.

Most importantly, once convicted, an active jihadi – whether a British-passport holder or not, whether personally guilty of violence or not, should lose forever the right to be released back into the society they have declared war upon. Never again should innocents lose their lives to a terrorist on a tag.

London Bridge and our non-existent rights

London Bridge and our non-existent rights

Yesterday two people were murdered in central London and others injured there. Obviously our hearts go out to all of those affected and we all feel the deepest sympathy for anyone affected by this atrocity. But unfortunately sympathy is not enough! We all know that this man had a terrorism conviction – he was convicted of terrorism jailed and allowed out early because he has rights. You on the other hand… well yes technically on paper you have rights, but when weighed up against the rights of jihadists, terrorists, rapists, foreign criminals and whoever it may be your rights are essentially worthless!

The British state is making a decision. It’s deciding to let you walk the streets unsafe it is deciding to prioritise known terrorists over and above your safety. It has been doing it for a long time, 23,000 known jihadists are walking the streets of the UK. We know who they are because they’re under surveillance. So why are we allowing them to continue walking around the UK and more importantly why are the borders still open for more and why won’t we address the ideology behind these attacks and speak openly and honestly about it?

Because we are governed by cowards that’s the only reason this all comes down to how this country is run and by whom.

London Bridge: Who was the attacker?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50611788

Huge scale of terror threat revealed: UK home to 23,000 jihadists
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

The Terrorism Betrayal

By Anne Marie Waters, Leader

November 30th 2019

Two people have been tragically murdered in central London by a jihadist.  Usman Khan, a 28 year old from Stoke on Trent, stabbed two people to death, and injured three others, near London Bridge, before being shot dead by police.  Shockingly, though not surprisingly, Khan was a convicted Islamic terrorist who had been released from prison early.

In 2012, he was sentenced to an indefinite term for plotting terror attacks.  This conviction was later quashed, in April 2013, when he was sentenced to 16 years.  He had served less than half of this term before being released in December 2018.  He then went on to murder and maim innocent people on the streets of our capital.

These terrorists are responsible for their heinous acts, but they do not alone bear the blame; those who decided to free him should hang their heads in shame.  Our politicians, completely ineffective in the face of these threats, should do the same.  Our legal system is broken and justice has been turned on its head.  The innocent are placed in harm’s way as the system concerns itself only with the rights of attackers.  Why on earth was a known terrorist released only half way through his sentence?  What is the reason for this?  The British people deserve to know why violent criminals are deemed so much more important than their safety.

Reductions in prison terms have got to stop.  There is clearly a reason for the sentence, so why does it turn out to be meaningless?  How can a 16 year sentence become a 7 year one?  It’s something that people simply don’t understand, and they deserve an explanation. A “life” sentence often ends up being 10 years or so, it’s pointless, and an insult to law abiding people.

For Britain will  bring it to an end.

We can now expect the usual platitudes from politicians.  “They won’t divide us”, “our values will prevail” etc. etc.  It’s like cut and paste.  We can be certain our leaders will not discuss the religious beliefs that drive these men to carry out these murderous acts; in fact, the only mention of Islam will be to defend its name.

Enough.

The British people are growing more and more aware of this extraordinary betrayal.  They know that politicians have placed them in danger, and continue to place to place them in danger, now and in the future, by keeping our borders open and ignoring the threat that Islamic doctrine presents to our safety.

For Britain will not run and hide from this.  We’ll bring the change the country needs.  We’ll end the threat posed by the 23,000 jihadists that roam our streets, remove those who should not be here, and close the borders to anyone who endangers our people.

We can only do this with your help.  Join us.

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader 

For Britain 

 

 

Don’t let Silicon Valley determine our future

Don’t let Silicon Valley determine our future – Anne Marie Waters

Keep going persevere that is our mantra

Now we know that Silicon Valley likes to interfere with politics and we know that they do that because the leaders, founders and bosses of these big tech companies are on a particular political side. We know for example that they were openly opposed to Donald Trump and tried to do all they could to bring him down to prevent him from winning in the first place and then to stir up nonsense about him afterwards and they’re doing the same for his election in 2020.

But it’s no different here whether it’s Facebook or Twitter as you may know I personally was flicked off Twitter for criticising South Yorkshire police. Big tech is is trying to dictate our political life. It’s so crucial now so many people get their information from Facebook or Twitter that these companies have become supremely powerful to the point where they are instrumental in deciding who governs us.

We cannot allow this to happen we can’t allow this to continue why should it be that tech giant’s determine our democracy do not let them do it!

Join us and protect your democratic rights!

Anne Marie Waters

Freedom | Justice | Democracy

Please watch my review of the leaders debate. Share with your friends and family.

My Review of the Leaders’ Debate – Anne Marie Waters

Anne Marie Waters: The Great Immigration Bluff

Please watch my review of the leaders debate. Share with your friends and family.

Corbyn’s hatred of Britain and its children

Corbyn’s hatred of Britain and its children

Jeremy Corbyn wants British children to hate themselves even more than they already do. He said that under a Labour government British children will learn about the evils of the British Empire.

He will introduce a new national curriculum for this he’ll also of course open the borders to people from poor countries and offer them the world and so millions will come here. His aim of course is eventually to outnumber native Brits so he no longer has to pretend to care about them at election time. Because the destruction of Britain and turning it into a communist hellhole isn’t happening fast enough for the Labour Party they need to speed it up a bit and just to make sure there is no resistance, there is no fight for Britain in the future from future generations.

He will brainwash children early on to despise the colour of their own skin, their ancestry that the very land that they come from he wants them to hate themselves in order to control them better and so they don’t put up a fight for this country.

Don’t vote for Labour!

General election 2019: Labour plans to teach British Empire injustice in schools
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50551765

 

The Police and the Election by Mike Speakman

Mike Speakman

27th November 2019

 

Policing issues are of some relevance in this election, now only two weeks away. Parties are making commitments which they may or may not keep, but the trend is generally in the right direction. As we all know, police numbers have been cut drastically since 2010, at the instigation of the worst Home Secretary and Prime Minister in the last 100 years. Those who know me will be aware that I believe the Tory party set out to destroy the police service in revenge for being thwarted in their attempts to control it for their own ends, and I speak with some personal experience.

The Conservatives have now committed to an extra 20,000 officers, perhaps by 2022. In practice, to achieve this they would need to recruit about 54,000 officers in that period to replace retirements and wastage. The police consensus is that they do not have the capacity to train that many. And in case you thought they would be uniform officers on the beat….no! Some are going to the National Crime Agency, controlled by the Home secretary and others to specialist units.  (There is another story to be told there, but for another time).

Many of Theresa May’s disastrous changes are now likely to be reversed, such as impeding Stop and Search, the curtailing of which is partly responsible in the spiralling level of knife crime. They are also going to look again at the bail system. Theresa May changed the nature of Police bail and limited it to 28 days. In practice many investigations take longer than this, so many offenders were “Released Under Investigation” (RUI). In practice, not on bail or subject to any restrictions at all, and as a consequence, some serious offenders involved in offences against children and murder fled to the Indian sub- continent.

The reversal of May’s damage is being led by Priti Patel who has all the hallmarks of being a pretty good Home Secretary (presuming she is re-appointed) and recovering the trust of the police service.   However, she is not an entirely free agent and I think she is constrained by cabinet collective responsibility. I expect Boris to win the election, but the Tory party hierarchy is full of barely disguised socialists who would be more at home in Tony Blairs Labour party.

There are many issues that are being ignored in this election. All parties are paying some lip service to policing, but the hard issues are ignored.

There is no one looking to re-establish the Forensic Science Service, no one looking to get rid of the ridiculous concept of hate crime, No one looking at the way the Criminal Justice system now favours minority groups over the indigenous population, no one looking to stop the political control of police forces through Police and Crime Commissioners and the Government Inspectorate.

No one is trying either to make sure the Crown Prosecution Service (known in the police as the Criminal Protection Service) becomes something other than an agent for implementing central government diktats. (If you want to understand the culture of the CPS, remember they were once led by Kier Starmer, Labours Brexit spokesman). No one is looking at the inequal application of the law across different communities. No one is proposing making policing more accountable locally, indeed there are even pushes for further centralisation.

This election is significant for the policing and criminal justice issues that are being ignored. It is said more often now, but we really do need to change politics for good. Our politics is broken and not fit for purpose.

Mike Speakman

Policing Spokesman

For Britain 

AMW: We must never be frightened of Antifa

Anne Marie Waters

November 25th 2019

Today I produced some videos showing an ambush on myself and other For Britain members by Antifa on Saturday night. The videos are at the bottom of this article, as well as some of the mugshots of the mob we are looking to identify.

We started the evening at the Blind Beggar pub in Whitechapel (infamous for its Kray twins connections!) where we met with Eddy Butler, an expert on the East End, who had arranged a walking tour around the area.

Around halfway through the tour, a group began to form behind us and I was told we had to get a move on. It’s always a bit of a shock to the system when things like this happen – they are thankfully rare – but my immediate concern was our safety, as we were considerably outnumbered. In front of us was a Tesco store, so we went in there to find a safe place to call the police. The staff were excellent, and kept the thugs at bay.

Antifa were soon on Twitter boasting of their exploits (@slamtifa).  No surprises there.

We’ve today followed up with a formal report to police, as well as letters to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and the Member of Parliament for the area, Rushanara Ali MP. Further information will follow.

The most important things to take away from this are to recognise the reality of Antifa, and to remember what they are – cowards. We must never be afraid of this crew, they are bullies and they cannot dictate our political life.

Despite our manifesto, our constitution, as well as my repeated and consistent statements that we believe in the equal rights of all people, they still call us racists. Despite the fact that we passionately call for the voice of the people to be elevated to power, they still call us fascists. Despite our consistent opposition to the very ideology, as well as our consistent condemnation of anti-Semitism, they still call us Nazis. There is simply no reasoning with them, no debate, just thuggery… but we will not give in.

I want to remind members that this is extremely rare, and that our candidates have enjoyed previous campaigns in complete safety. These people are bullies, and we won’t indulge them. What we will do is fight back in the most effective way we can. We know that Antifa’s worst nightmare is our success at the ballot box, so let’s make sure they have some new nightmares next May! I am more determined than ever and I want you to join me. Think about standing for local government in May, it’s the best possible way to stand up against this thuggery.

We will also of course be pursuing the matter with the police. This was criminal behaviour and we will insist it is taken seriously. The Metropolitan police investigated when Anna Soubry was called a Nazi, so we demand the same. You will hear on the video that we are repeatedly referred to as neo-Nazis. If it matters when it happens to Anna Soubry, it matters when it happens to us.

The core problem here is that nothing is done about left-wing violence. It’s been going on for years now and yet the press remains silent… we don’t hear much from so-called ‘leaders’ either. Politicians only seem to care about political intimidation when left-wing or pro-Remain people are on the receiving end.

Antifa are mindless zombies, and their only aim is to shut down free debate. We will not let them. For Britain aims to bring change via the ballot box, because we believe in democracy. We know that millions agree with our message, and we will reach them, no matter what the street thugs of Antifa throw at us. When they are your enemy, you must know you are on the right side. You are, and we will win.

Anne Marie Waters

Leader, For Britain 

 

Letter to the Mayor of London on Antifa harassment

Sadiq Khan

Mayor of London

City Hall

London SE1 2AA

 

November 25th 2019

 

 

Dear Mr Khan,

I write to inform you of an incident that occurred in London on the evening of November 23rd 2019.

On this evening, a group of my colleagues and I were engaged in a walking tour of the East End/Whitechapel area. Midway through this event, a group of menacing looking people began to follow us, shouting insults in our direction and telling us they were there to drive us out of the area.

We have filed a criminal report with the Metropolitan police.

What took place was clear and criminal harassment of innocent people behaving lawfully. The reason for this criminal behaviour is political; this group attempted to hound us out of Whitechapel because of our political views.

We call on you to publicly condemn this appalling behaviour and to make clear that such conduct is not acceptable in London. We call on you to condemn criminal harassment and public disorder, and to affirm your belief in the right of British citizens to hold a variety of political views and to be able to do so without being subjected to harassment or threats.

We call on you to take public action to prevent further such incidents and to promote a culture of political tolerance in London.

Please inform us of what action you intend to take to ensure that British citizens and London residents may carry out lawful activities in our capital city without being subjected to criminal harassment on political grounds.

This letter will be published, along with any response you may provide.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader, For Britain

Letter to Rushanara Ali MP re Antifa harassment in Whitechapel

Rushanara Ali MP

Houses of Parliament

London SW1A 0AA

 

November 25th 2019

 

Dear Ms Ali,

I write to inform you of an incident that occurred within your constituency on the evening of November 23rd 2019.

On this evening, a group of my colleagues and I were engaged in a walking tour of the East End/Whitechapel area. Midway through this event, a group of menacing looking people began to follow us, shouting insults in our direction and telling us they were there to drive us out of the area.

We have filed a criminal report with the Metropolitan police.

What took place was clear and criminal harassment of innocent people behaving lawfully. The reason for this criminal behaviour is political; this group attempted to hound us out of Whitechapel because of our political views.

We call on you to publicly condemn this appalling behaviour and to make clear that such conduct is not acceptable within your Parliamentary constituency. We call on you to condemn criminal harassment and public disorder and to affirm your belief in the right of British citizens to hold a variety political views and to be able to do so without being subjected to harassment or threats.

This letter will be published, along with any response you may provide.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

 

Anne Marie Waters

Leader, For Britain

Time To Act! Islam Spokesman Nissar Hussain Blog

From Nissar Hussain, Islam Spokesman

22nd November 2019

Here’s to Sharia Enforcement! Halal – ujah!

“We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat… and I do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.”
Churchill on Munich

What Churchill had to say on Chamberlain’s appeasement is quite appropriate today. The reckoning will come and the weakness and delusion of New Labour, the LibConnners and the feeble Tories in the face of the Sharia enforcers will haunt them. When new parties like ours will replace this tired old guard of time-servers and self-serving naifs.

Their gutlessness in failing to enforce our widely-regarded animal protection norms, allowing the daily mass slaughter of terrified and un-stunned livestock across the country will not be forgotten. This abject failure clearly demonstrates their lack of resolve in the face of an intransigent group whose long-term objectives are the eradication of all such legal constraints, and our eventual subjugation to the halal/haram continuum.

Be under no illusion about the strategic focus of Islam’s governing class; their jurists known as the Ulema. The famous strategist Liddell Hart made the point that if you had to define strategy in one word that word would be concentration. And the Ulema understand strategy as they have the knowledge, born of a Millenia of expansion, to view matters over the very long-term – they are in no rush.

They are happy to allow the centuries-long concentration of their compounding efforts to eventually bring about their aim – a Muslim dominated UK state with subject peoples living under their laws, the Sharia.

Ridiculous, you think. No. Ask the remaining Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh, or the remaining Christians there such as Asia Bibi, or those who only recently resided in Iraq and Syria. Better ask them soon, as soon there won’t be many to make enquiries of. There are none left across North Africa after their expulsion by the Almohads back in the day. That day being 800 years ago in the time of the vaunted Al-Andalus Caliphate, reputedly of toleration unbounded – which you will no doubt have heard so much about from mendacious supremacists or ignorant useful idiots).

Schools, supermarkets and countless other institutions are busy serving up halal products with the recipients being in absolute ignorance of the horrific demise of the donor. The ready acceptance of this situation encourages the Ulema in their assessment of the weakness inherent in our fading culture. All they have to do is shuffle us towards the exit, murmur comforting noises and let demographics and spinelessness do the rest.

The childless politicians and highly educated women who now predominate in the professions will see to the decline whilst quietly acceding to the calculated salami-slicing by the Ulema (all men of course) of our norms and freedoms.

Like the South African rugby team, the Ulema have a simple strategy. The South Africans relied on their scrum and everything resulted from this simple focus. For the Ulema, their intransigence will trump the vacillation and wilful ignorance of the arrogant new elite before, they hope, the mass can replace them with a group more on their mettle. Time will tell, but the cost will probably be great. It was after Munich, and it could well be this time too.

Both left and the supposed right are complicit in this failure. The left after winning the culture wars and the right the economic ones. Both now feed on the carcass of our past achievements and have ready excuses for their acceptance of new values which make a mockery of their past “beliefs”.

White working-class males for the left are now simply white supremacist bigots, rather than the down-trodden workers of the past; and work-shy girls happy to pump out new bairns to keep them housed and catered for from the public teat, are now for the right the mental health casualties of the money-grubbing elite. And all bow obediently to my fellow “people of colour” with their strong religious faith and readiness to assert it.

How to turn this around swiftly? Support our simple strategy. Take up the noble cause of the ex-Muslims and remove all threats to them as this will begin the de-fanging of Islam and kick-start its rapid decline. Without retaining the threat inherent in the mass-murdering decrees so prevalent in all the Sharia manuals, the religion’s leaders will be exposed for what they are: a cabal of macho theocrats with sociopathic tendencies who love to wield their power over the cowed masses they so enjoy “leading”.

If these are respectable community leaders, then Stalin, Mao and Hitler were wonderful yoof-club mentors. Ask the Hindu historians in India of the centuries of Hindu-culling by the Islamic invaders and Mughals – they knock all the above into a cocked hat. Time to call “Time!”.

Take the fight to the halal merchants who profit from the trade. Take the fight to the Ulema in their haunts. Take the fight to your MP. Use the Legalise Apostasy campaign petition to demand the release of the unwilling flock. Amend the apostasy laws and watch as Islam collapses as the herd rushes for the gates as there will be no genocidal statutes to bring them to heel by terrifying them and turning them back to face the Imams and the rabid Sharia-enforcers.

The Ulema will be crushed in the rush and the halal laws will be trod into the dirt along with them.

As the Yanks say, do the math. If hundreds of millions of Muslims become ex-Muslims, the daily painful killing of millions of animals will reduce in line with the open wound through which ex-Muslims find their freedom.

Then, truly, we can cry “Hallelujah!”

For Britain National Conference 2019

Well we did it. We improved on last year!

The For Britain Party (FBP) returned to Merseyside for our 2019 National Party Conference.

As last year, the event was a sell-out, with members bringing guests from other parties to sample what the For Britain family is all about. Tables were decorated with balloons, union flags adorned each table and rousing music played to set the mood. Right from the start, the atmosphere was positive and upbeat, with everybody socialising and getting to know each other. It was great to see returning faces, as well as faces new.

Across the stage a banner proclaimed “Punk Rock of Politics – For Britain” confirming FBP as the anti-establishment, rebellious political party that dares to say it as it is. Just after 10am, with people still queuing at the entrance, a screen at the front displayed a video of lady looking at her watch as though waiting for something, and a countdown clock started. At zero, and with a bang, a video launching the conference played, summarising 2019 and announcing the launch of the new party manifesto for 2020.

Party Deputy Chair Kadeeja Adam introduced our host for the day David Vance, returning for a second year to manage proceedings. Kadeeja had the audience laughing when she said that we nearly did not have the venue, as The Labour Party tried to book it for the same day. However, luckily for us, Diane Abbott tried to place the booking, and when asked to confirm numbers arrived at a figure of several hundred thousand!

First up, Katie Hopkins on video from America. She apologised for not being able to attend this year, but sent best wishes and a message of support for all attending. She also announced that to compensate, she is holding an event with For Britain in Birmingham called ‘Offensive’ on the 3rd December. It will be a relaxed fun evening and a chance for people to have a bit of a laugh and let their hair down.

David Vance followed with a good humoured speech, summarising all the political parties and their various states of chaos. He stated his belief that the FBP are uniquely poised to take advantage of the general unhappiness from the public with all the parties, who are failing them on just about everything!

After David, we had a very moving talk from a military veteran, himself campaigning for veterans, and seeking change to their appalling neglect, from issues such as homelessness and suicide. He ended his speech with an extremely moving poem, which gained an ovation from the audience. Unfortunately the speaker does not wish to be named due to intolerance from the left wing, who he believes will hamper his cause.

Next up was Damien Ryan, who spoke about his persecution from Rotherham Council, following on from his speech last year. Incredible to know that a council which failed countless children over many years are focusing their efforts on hounding a father because he had the temerity to speak out about issues that they’d prefer remain unspoken. The video cannot yet be posted due to an upcoming employment tribunal, but to give you an idea, one of the charges against him is that he ‘showed dislike for Jeremy Corbyn’.

A break followed allowing attendees to browse the For Britain shop, bursting with a great new range of merchandise. Popular amongst guests was the tee-shirt as worn by Morrissey, proclaiming dislike for The Guardian!

After refreshment, the audience settled down to a startling video from Dr Bill Warner entitled ‘Civilisation War’. Bill had just returned to the US from a trip to Europe, otherwise would have attended, but he addressed the conference via the big screen and his hard hitting message gave everyone something to think about.

After Bill, FBP spokeswoman Barbara Wood gave an incredibly detailed and fascinating speech on issues of gender (though we should not use that term) and “trans” issues. Barbara had dozens of members ask her afterwards for more information, and we will add her speech in documented format to the site. Her info sheet on the law around these issues will also be made available, as people have requested that this too is made available.

Before lunch we had some awards – the For Britain Britannia awards, with Nominations Officer Mike Speakman and Anne Marie giving a medal and certificate to members who have gone above and beyond with their work for the party. The Britannia will become a regular award each year at conference. A special award was given to Morrissey, in standing up for free speech, and will be sent to him. We’ve let him know that he won!

Other worthy winners were:-

Delroy Noel

Richard Taylor

Jim Miller

Frankie Rufalo

The reality is, so many of our members could have been nominated, it is a shame to limit it to just four.

Lunch followed, and for the non-vegetarians and vegans, a delicious meat and potato pie with mushy peas was served up! The giant pies were cut up and served and seemed to go down well, along with the trifle and cake! The atmosphere continued to be extremely positive, everyone getting along well and the feeling was one of a large family. Some guests who visited from UKIP remarked just how refreshing it was to feel such positivity, and to hear such a diverse range of topics being discussed.

Anne Marie then took the stage after lunch to talk about the issues that have shaped the manifesto for 2020. She reiterated her belief that the FBP has the best manifesto of any political party in the UK. Without constraint from right wing or left wing thinking, it can simply reflect common sense, moral and correct policies across all subject matters. From trans issues to climate, from education to immigration, these are the issues of our time in the UK and the party has a stance in line with the British public, not the politicians in Westminster. Anne Marie’s rousing speech received a standing ovation.

Watch it now…

Following Anne Marie, Julian Leppert delivered a good humoured talk on how he became elected as a Councillor in Epping Forest. He referenced the local media who proclaimed a headline ‘no place for this party in Epping Forest’, shortly before he won. Clearly there is a place as he pointed out to laughter! It highlighted the positive effect on our popularity from counter campaigning; how far left rhetoric is generally disregarded by the normal people of the UK and in reality pushes people the other way.

Julian was followed by one of our ‘For Britain Youth’ members, Frankie Rufolo. He had the audience in stitches with a passionate speech about his worldview and how he believes the youth are rebelling against establishment narrative. Frankie has stood for election in the past and is standing again in Exeter in December 2019. Julian was followed by by another youth member Jack Rockett, who echoed many of Frankie’s sentiments. Jack confessed to nerves beforehand, speaking to hundreds of people, but did a great job and was applauded off the stage.

Another break was followed by another video from America – this time Pamela Geller. Pamela and Anne Marie discussed many things, from the jihadi attempts on her life through to the fact that she will be coming to the UK to celebrate a For Britain political victory in the future (this led to cheers and thunderous applause).  Incredibly, Pamela is currently banned from entering the UK thanks to Theresa May, an astonishing situation for someone who helps victims of Islam and has never once promoted anything violent or dangerous. The audience was engrossed in Pamela’s story and the video is well worth watching.

The formalities of the day ended with an amusing raffle hosted by Mike Speakman, and formalities were brought to a close by David Vance.

Members and guests continued to mingle and the feedback post event has been overwhelming in positivity. Thanks for all the kind comments, it is greatly appreciated.

Download our manifesto for 2020 

Offensive: An evening with Katie Hopkins

Katie sadly couldn’t make it to our national conference this year, though she did send us a video message from the USA, which you can view below.

To make up for the fact, we have arranged an evening with Katie in Birmingham.

UPDATE: THIS EVENT HAS NOW BEEN MOVED TO FRIDAY 21ST FEBRUARY.

The intention is a relaxed evening of socialising, a few drinks and a good old fashioned laugh. What’s not to like?

There are a limited amount of tickets for this event, and you can purchase yours here.

Don’t miss out – Katie promises to live up to the title of the event, so the faint of heart should probably give this a miss!

 

Explaining the IPCC

By Paul Burgess, Spokesman on the Environment

18/11/19

A short Note

Explaining the IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This is assumed to be a scientific body but it is not. It organises scientists from many counties to produce reports on this basis:-

  1. Each scientist must conform to its own government’s rules and policies. They are appointed to uphold their government’s policies.
  2. Each IPCC report is produced from a panel that includes many non-scientific government and UN people.  It is, after all, an inter-government organisation and not an independent scientific body.
  3. Reports are edited by non-scientists who overrule scientists and have the final say.  All reports have to be passed by all governments before being published.
  4. The results are that many scientists have left and protested against the reports.
  5. Many governments see it as a transfer of wealth from the Western countries to the underdeveloped countries.

So it is not what people think that it is, but there is also one very important aspect to it’s charter that renders it useless anyway. It is confined to only studying man-made climate change.

It is a simple fact that throughout the history of the earth there has been climate change, sometimes really huge changes such as the ice ages. So in order to understand any effect by humans on climate change, you must understand the natural cycles and these are totally ignored.

Otherwise how can you tell what man does without knowing what is there naturally anyway? That simple fact renders all the work useless.

Today we live in a world that assumes all natural climate change has stopped. A world where, as ClimateGate showed, scientists try to manipulate data to remove things such the medieval warming period and the mini-ice age.

In this new brave world the only thing that controls climate is a single factor – CO2. They act as if the climate is controlled by this one dial, like a thermostat. Governments argue in conferences how to control the future temperature of the earth by this single trace part of the atmosphere- just one molecule in every 2,000.  All based on ignoring all the natural cycles of the climate – truly absurd.

The IPCC is an organisation of world governments promoting government policies and not what many think it is – a scientific organisation based on science. 

Book review: ‘The Testaments’ by Margaret Atwood

By Anne Marie Waters 

13th November 2019

People who criticise the ideology of Islam can usually report that they have lost friends as a result. I certainly have. But there is another loss; the loss of heroes and heroines. It’s not controversial to point out that the vast majority of celebrity and public figures are pro-Islam. They condemn critics as far-right and signal their “I’m not racist” virtue (even though Islam is not a race) at any and every given opportunity. If this is someone whose work you’ve long admired, you’ll be left disappointed and wondering how someone so otherwise talented or intelligent can be so blinkered on this issue.

This is the case for me having read the latest book of one of my previous literary heroines Margaret Atwood. Atwood is the author of the horrifying classic ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. This is, without doubt, one of the most disturbing books I’ve ever read. It portrays a futuristic era in which the United States has transformed in to an Old Testament theocracy, where science, evidence and reason have been replaced by dogma, and brutality is the norm.

As is to be expected in such a society, women particularly suffer; reduced to property and valued only by their ability to give birth – something entirely controlled by their male masters. It is the subtlety and simplicity of this book that makes it so frightening. Reading it, you believe it, and Atwood takes you right there, right in to the midst of this medieval nightmare scenario.

She has done it again in the sequel entitled ‘The Testaments’, which I have just finished reading. Once again, the horror is laid bare in this brilliantly written novel. But as I read, I had to wonder; does Margaret Atwood realise that what she is describing is not fiction, but fact? She is describing life inside numerous Islamic states to this day.

In both books, Atwood describes how women are forcefully covered, forced in to marriages and killed if they refuse. In her dystopia, a woman’s word is worth less than a man’s, women are stoned to death for being raped, and face constant fear or violence or death for any expression of independence or autonomy. In one example, she refers to a grown woman needing permission from a young boy to carry out a fairly standard task.

Does she realise she is describing life for women in Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan? Only she can answer that question, but the sleve of ‘The Testaments’ provides us with one or two clues.

It states:

“Her 1985 classic, The Handmaid’s Tale, went back in to the charts with the election of Donald Trump, when the Handmaids became a symbol of resistance against the disempowerment of women…”

 The implication is quite clear: Donald Trump, and what he stands for, threatens to turn America in to a country resembling what is described above.

If this is the view of Margaret Atwood, she has gotten this spectacularly wrong.

Atwood must realise that the enslavement of women she is describing is nigh-on word-for-word sharia law. It isn’t Donald Trump promoting sharia law in America, it is the very leftist organisations, and “feminists” that are apparently showing resistance to his presidency. It is the Democrats that have gone out of their way to appease and to welcome all things Islamic to America, including sharia law. Forced marriage, child marriage, FGM, are all now realities in the land of the free, thanks not to Donald Trump, but to his opponents.

It is of course Trump who has pointed out the dangers of bowing down to the demands of this highly illiberal creed, and who has called for mass immigration to be brought to an end, because only by stopping mass immigration can America hope to halt the ever growing power of sharia.

It’s an extraordinary reality. The world upside down. So-called feminists protest against Trump at every opportunity, while elevating the genuine and deeply-held misogynistic beliefs of Islam.

I hope that Margaret Atwood understands this, and more importantly, I hope she finds the courage to say so.

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain

For Britain Will Honour Our Troops Every Day, Not Just Armistice Day

By Anne Marie Waters 

11th November 2019

It’s no surprise that career politicians talk the talk but rarely walk the walk. Today, on Armistice Day, both Labour and the Tories have announced plans to support Britain’s Armed Forces. But this is talk; we know them by their actions.

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party promising support for service men and women is particularly galling. In 2016, Corbyn supported investigations in to troops that had served in Iraq, and called for the Armed Forces to be dramatically scaled back. He is quoted as saying that the country should no longer have a “huge land-based defence force”.  He also argued that MI6 should not be allowed to recruit new spies, even while the terror threat against the country was at fever pitch.

We know how much Corbyn sympathises with Britain’s enemies, from the IRA to jihadists, Corbyn is always on their side. In his first memorial service as Labour leader, he refused to sing the national anthem, and this year, neither he nor John McDonnell bothered to turn up to a Festival of Remembrance to honour British soldiers.

However, we mustn’t let the Tories off the hook either.

Over the last decade, soldiers have been prosecuted (and persecuted) and the Armed Forces utterly decimated, and all of it while the Tories were in Government. Why only now, on Armistice Day, have they changed their tune?

In 2018, Sir Mike Penning, former Defence Minister, said the UK was on the verge of “no longer being taken seriously” because defence had been “cut to the bone”.

He only spoke out after standing down from his role, but when he did, he stated:

  • The SAS and SBS are leaving in large numbers as they are deployed on missions almost continuously
  • Royal Navy Frigates can only stay at sea for six days because they are short staffed
  • The Navy does not have enough ships to mount a pirate fighting operation off the coast of Africa
  • Troops were sent to Eastern Europe to fend off Russians with light desert vehicles because it was so hard to deploy tanks

He also declared that the Army is now too small. At 82,000 troops, the country is not ready to defend itself.

Added to this is the pittance that serving troops are paid, and the appalling abandonment by the state when they return from active service.

It really is a shocking betrayal by our politicians, on both sides of the house, over and over again.

I have spoken with countless service and ex-service people since For Britain was founded, and it is nothing short of heartbreaking. Left to fend for themselves, shoved to the back of healthcare queues, and often living in awful home conditions, the British Armed Forces deserve so much better.

That’s why in our manifesto for 2020, For Britain will produce our most comprehensive defence policy portfolio to date. Not only will we raise defence spending, but we will outline exactly how we will make our troops safer, and show them the respect they so richly deserve.

We will build a party for our Armed Forces. We will honour and respect them, not just on Armistice Day, but every day.

Join us.

Anne Marie Waters 

Leader

For Britain

Jeremy Corbyn – Dangerous, But No Hero

By Anne Marie Waters 

7th November 2019

Tom Bower has given his book an interesting title: ‘Dangerous Hero’. I would say he is half right. Dangerous yes, but no hero, certainly not to the majority of British people.

I recently finished reading this astounding book, and while the contents are known, they are nonetheless shocking. Jeremy Corbyn’s political history is one that should frighten the British public, and frighten them enough to never allow this man to take the country’s helm in 10 Downing Street.

His career is a festival of anti-Britishness. He (and his comrades) come from the tradition of the extreme Left; anti-Western, anti-America, and anti-Israel. Such sentiments shape his thinking and he seeks nothing more than the complete destruction of the Britain we know and love.

A consistent supporter of open border migration, Corbyn has long sought to open Britain up to all comers. During his years as a Labour councilor in London, he promoted the building of council blocks, often on rare green spaces, and if local people objected, he dismissed them as racists. He was particularly keen on building in middle class or ‘upmarket’ areas, again dismissing all resistance as prejudice or bigotry.

Corbyn likes to call himself a pacifist, but not where the IRA is concerned. He invited its leaders to the House of Commons within weeks of the bombing of the Tory party conference in Brighton in 1984. Five people were murdered in this IRA attack, with 31 injured, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher narrowly escaped with her life. Corbyn’s “pacifism” however did not extend to keeping the IRA out of the UK’s Parliament buildings.

He became a “pacifist” again however following the Islamic terror attack on New York City in 2001; his “pacifism” wasn’t invoked to condemn the attack on our friend and ally the United States, but to condemn any potential US retaliation. Following 9/11, Corbyn and some of his comrades founded the Stop the War Coalition – a group which would go on to include some of the nastiest Islamist groups in the country, and it is here that his romance with Islam began.

Corbyn is fervently pro-Islam and no matter the issue, no matter the cause, he will take the side of Muslims. In doing so, he has turned his back on Hindus (in the case of Kashmir) and of course Jews. Anti-semitism is something that Corbyn had in common with Islamist groups, and where they found their most fertile common ground.

Bower’s book confirms what we already know – that Corbyn has serious discomfort with Jews. A champion of minorities and immigrants throughout his career, Jews have long been a notable exception to this rule. Bower states clearly that in Corbyn’s eyes, all Jews are “guilty”. Whether they are in north London or Tel Aviv, to Corbyn, they are all the same.

Furthermore, like so many on the Left, in his dalliance with Islam, Corbyn is more than willing to turn his back on women and gay people. Anyone who knows Islam knows it’s horrific attitude to women (whom it views as property) and of course of homosexuals. A majority of British Muslims believe homosexuality should be criminal, but Corbyn is silent, despite pretending to be a champion of equality. He is silent too on sharia law, the appalling system under which women are treated as worth half of men, and which is practiced informally across the UK without objection from Corbyn or any of his Labour front bench allies.

Speaking of which, those who would take major offices of state should Labour win a general election, have views almost as alarming as his own. Two of Corbyn’s long term allies are repeatedly referred to in the book: John McDonnell and Diane Abbott.

Abbott’s anti-British views have been well publicized. The book quotes her as stating “every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us”. McDonnell is little better. An avowed Trotskyist, he was a supporter of Trotsky’s “permanent state of unrest” philosophy. What this means in short is that in order to bring down a society, one must create endless problems, stir up division and hatred, pit one against the other until the system collapses, then rule over the rubble.

Corbyn is distinctly unimpressed by European culture as well. In one example, he is described as standing in view of Vienna’s iconic Ringstrasse, and denouncing it as “capitalist”. His economic views are every bit as extreme as his anti-Westernism. He is a supporter of all things communism-like, seeking to end private ownership, and seize private wealth.

In short, Jeremy Corbyn and his allies present a serious and major threat to the UK’s well-being and prosperity. There is no doubt that they would happily bring Great Britain to its knees if given half the chance. Let’s not forget either, that Corbyn was elected Labour leader by a significant majority. We must learn a vital lesson from this: Labour is now an extreme Left-wing party and there is no way back. The working class people once represented by Labour have been abandoned, in favour of mass migration and niche minority causes.

The people of Britain need an alternative. They need and deserve a party that will stand up for them, that cares about them, and that intends to act in the best interests of our citizens and their children. That party is here. That party is For Britain.

Anne Marie Waters

Leader

For Britain 

A Message For UKIP Members

Dear UKIP Member,

As an ex member of UKIP myself, it gives me no pleasure to see the party destroy itself with ever increasing internal warfare. Like so many others, I left due to the politics within the party, and the inconsistency of views from top to bottom.

Gerard Batten helped UKIP financially with a high risk strategy that alienated some members but brought in many more. Rather than stick with this strategy they have attempted to return to the days pre The Brexit Party, and this is a fatal flaw. Like him or loathe him, Farage and The Brexit Party owns ‘hard Brexit’ and the new UKIP membership is disillusioned at the NEC’s behaviour and leaving in droves. UKIP will never ‘out-Brexit’ The Brexit Party.

The latest leader Richard Braine has now gone and it is hard to see how the party can continue in any form. Certainly not with any credibility. As I said, this isn’t pleasant to see, but it seems there is a huge self destruct button in UKIP that a succession of people are intent on pressing. There’s no future there – it may be harsh to say it, but it is true.

The good news for frustrated UKIP members is that there is another party that has none of the baggage you have had to endure. Leader Anne Marie was treated appallingly in the run up to the UKIP leadership election in 2017, and as a result set up our party, For Britain.

It is a party that has absolute consistency of viewpoint from top to bottom. What we stand for is clear and unwavering, and as our manifesto demonstrates, our policies are probably the best of any political party in the country right now. Our new manifesto due to launch at Party Conference is even better.

UKIP members are joining, and in some cases entire branches are coming across as they see the difference. If you would like Anne Marie and/or our committee members to visit your branch to tell you what we are about, or to talk to you individually then please make contact at [email protected]

Anne Marie is the best leader UKIP never had, and For Britain is the party that UKIP could have been under her leadership. But with areas such as animal welfare, climate science and gender issues, we now have moved way beyond what UKIP can offer, so get in touch. We are a great family, from all walks of life and backgrounds, and you will be most welcome. We want clean Brexit, we want an end to the EU project, but we are also fighting for what comes next. We have a long battle ahead.

Join us, we are the only party speaking about what is really important for this great country. We are the only ones that will save it.

To be a part of the For Britain family click here

Ed DeMolay

Party Chairman

The True Darkness of the Trans Insanity

By Anne Marie Waters

30th October 2019

If our world ever regains its sanity, future historians will look back in horror at the era we live in at present. They’ll do this with much justification, and nowhere will this historical insanity be more stark than in our current obsession with all things “trans”.

Let’s be clear about something. The tiny percentage of people who are truly life-long transsexuals, who simply cannot and do not accept their bodily sex, are not actually to blame for this madness. There have always been transsexuals, people with gender dysphoria (described by the NHS as “distress, anxiety, uncertainty and persistently uncomfortable feelings about their biological sex”), or others who are simply a bit different to the norm in terms of gender behaviour or conformity, but never have they pushed for the current state of affairs, and they’re not the ones overwhelmingly pushing for it now. This monstrous situation is the work of the extreme communist Left, intent on doing irreparable damage to Western society at every opportunity. They wish to subvert reality, deny truth, and they are using confused and vulnerable children to do so.

I attended a conference this week entitled ‘Inventing the Transgender Child, a new Sex Education?’ and I came away knowing that this situation is even worse than I imagined. I imagined it was pretty bad. Somehow, overnight and from nowhere, books in children’s schools are telling them that there are dozens of genders and the child gets to choose from a vast array of options. Such books matter-of-factly describe our natural sex as merely “assigned at birth”. The problem is that, apparently, the sex “assigned at birth” may not match a person’s “gender identity”.

Babies can’t talk, we are informed, and so their “gender identity” is guessed at by reference to the physical body. In other words, babies can’t tell us what gender they are, so it is “assigned” based on bodily appearance. Unfortunately, these “assignments” are often the wrong ones and need to be fixed with expensive medications and surgeries. Someone is getting rich from this, of that you can be certain.

Words like “cis” and “non-binary” have been shoehorned in to the language that children are hearing and reading, and of course, all of it nonsense with no basis in evidential fact. Yes, gender dysphoria exists, but this is not gender dysphoria, this is invention, it is the deliberate wrong-footing and confusion of both children and parents for political ends. It spectacularly pigeon holes people by forcing absurd categories and identities upon them, rather than leaving them to be the individuals they are.

This is communism; individuality crushed, replaced by categorization.

Parents have an equally hard time. They are made to feel that they are guilty of “hate” (what else?) if they dare to question this utter madness, so they stay quiet and go along. What makes it immeasurably more difficult for them is the collusion of the police and politicians with the toxic “trans” agenda. Parents can see that people can be arrested for criticizing this cult, and this is simply because the communists have gotten a firm hold on the police, as they have the entire public sector.

To fight back against this, we must first realise what it is. The slow march of communism is exploiting children, and mentally torturing them with profound identity crises imposed from outside. Kids will always struggle with identity, or suffer low self-esteem, and the communists have grabbed hold of this to reshape society to their model.

Once again, For Britain is leading the way in recognizing this, and demands the right of parents, and young people, to speak out against it. The complete de-politicisation of the police, the end of public funding for transctivism groups, and the total exposure of this child-manipulating scam, are the first and minimum steps that need to be taken.

In our 2019 manifesto, For Britain will take exactly these steps. We will speak to the parents too frightened or confused to confront this growing menace.

We cannot simply stand by on this one, history will not forgive us if we do.

Anne Marie Waters
Leader
For Britain

Open Letter to the LA Times re Morrissey

Open Letter to Randall Roberts and the Los Angeles Times

Khadija Adam, For Britain Deputy Chair

Sir,

The headline of your article of 24th October 2019 claims Morrissey is “anti-immigrant”. He is not. He is a supporter of The For Britain Movement which wants to see limited immigration for skills that are in short supply in the UK. What we aren’t in favour of is the current unlimited mass immigration, much of it of unskilled people from the Third World, equivalent to a city the size of Anaheim moving net to England each year. Immigration has to be limited to be sustainable, a majority view in the UK and Europe. England is already the most crowded European country with extreme pressure on social services, housing, the benefits system and more.

The headline also claims For Britain is “a white nationalist political party”. That’s a white nationalist party with, err, a Pakistani-heritage ex-Muslim woman (me) as its Deputy Chair and an incredibly diverse membership! We have no policies that any reasonable person could describe as “white nationalist”. This is a mere defamatory slur. Anybody can check this by simply visiting our web site forbritain.uk (something I’d expect a ‘journalist’ to do if they aren’t merely an activist. I have never experienced any racism from any For Britain member, and if I did, I’m sure my boss would instantly cancel their membership. Your claim is nonsense.

Also nonsense is the claim in Randall Roberts’ piece that For Britain is “a far right political party”. Wikipedia does indeed say we are far right, but that’s only because Wikipedia is run by people of the same political persuasion as Randall Roberts who have locked the page to stop anyone correcting it. It is a left wing blog and people do not take it seriously anymore. Again, Los Angeles Times readers don’t need to take my word for it: try editing For Britain’s page on Wikipedia with some positive information and see how far you get.

Nobody who has called us “far right” will ever say what they think “far right” means exactly, even though our press officer Ian McFadzean has specifically challenged them to. Not a single one has been able to articulate the rationale behind the words they write. Isn’t that something?

They won’t define it because any definition that includes For Britain will have to be so broadly drawn as to be patently ridiculous. For Britain believes in 1) British sovereignty outside the EU, 2) tightly limited immigration and 3) stopping Britain becoming an Islamic state, which on current demographic trends must happen in the middle third of this century unless the UK’s immigration and social policies change drastically. If that makes For Britain “far right”, then so are most people in the UK, because all three points are majority views here.

Randall Roberts describes For Britain’s leader Anne Marie Waters (AMW) as being “anti-Islamist” as if that’s a bad thing. The Koran says that husbands who fear disobedience from their wives should beat them (4:34), that thieves should have their hands chopped off (5:38) and that unbelievers are the worst of created beings but Muslims are the best of people (98:6-7). Sharia law which is part and parcel of Islamism says that women who commit adultery, homosexuals, apostates and anyone who criticizes Muhammed or Islam should be killed.

Islamism is a supremacist ideology that seeks to supplant the West. Anyone who supports Western liberal values such as free speech, gender equality and non-violent punishments for offenders should be anti-Islamist. The largest poll in the UK of it’s type revealed over half of UK muslims believe homosexuality should be a criminal offence. Do you therefore not understand why this may be an issue to the leader of a party who is gay herself? This intolerance does not belong in the 21st Century.

I can speak with authority on these matters due to my Islamic upbringing and living in the muslim community. The reality of life experience led me to For Britain as nobody else will confront the truth and talk about it. I do not wish to see this problem continue to grow unchallenged in my country.

Finally, Roberts criticises AMW for talking about what he calls “white replacement theory” regarding “the replacement of white Europe by non-Europeans”. It’s not a theory, it’s a fact. London, Birmingham and Leicester have always been majority white British cities; in the 2011 census they were no longer. White Britons will be minorities in many more English towns and cities in the 2021 census. White British babies have been the majority in the British Isles since the end of the Ice Age; that will cease being the case in the early 2020s. If that’s not “the replacement of white Europe by non-Europeans”, what on Earth is it? Randall Roberts might prefer people to pretend not to notice it, but not talking about it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Roberts rounds off his article by approvingly quoting a long list of people who have “cancelled” Morrissey by refusing to play his music on radio or booking him for concerts. He does let the other side get one word in: Los Angeles Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, who says “Everyone in this country and anywhere, in my belief, is entitled to their opinions, even if I am not a proponent of that mindset.” I agree. Indeed the importance of free speech is one of For Britain’s main policies, but it is disappearing in the UK under “hate speech” laws designed by people like Randall Roberts.

Morrissey and I believe in Randall Roberts’ right to free speech; it is clear he doesn’t believe in ours.

It would be good if Randall Roberts and the Los Angeles Times could allow their readers to judge Morrissey and For Britain on what we have actually said, rather than fact-free assertions dredged up from Wikipedia and articles by other left wing journalists. Let alone such arrant nonsense as describing a party with a British Pakistani ex-Muslim Deputy Chair as being “white nationalist”.

Yours sincerely,

Khadija Adam

For Britain Deputy Chair.

Anne Marie’s Blog – Animal Sanctuary in India

It was a very personal journey for me. For as long as I remember, I have had the most intense passion and compassion for animals. I possess a deep sympathy for them. I don’t know where it comes from, but it’s there. I find genuine peace being around animals. There’s an inspiring innocence and a connection to nature, the kind that humans lost as we evolved intellectually. So for my holiday this year, I wanted to be around animals; to enjoy a genuine break, something completely different from my everyday life – and it doesn’t get much more different than this.

I’ve just returned from a weeklong trip to India, where I worked at an expansive animal shelter in the north of the country.

What an experience! The animal shelter itself was extraordinary. Never before have I been around such a large number of people with the same deep sympathy for animals. They perform little miracles every day. Animal Aid Unlimited, based in the city of Udaipur (about an hour’s flight from Delhi), receives around 100 calls per day from local people reporting an animal in trouble. One of their rescue vehicles is dispatched, and an animal is either patched up by vets and re-released, or stays with the shelter for life if it is deemed that they cannot survive on the streets.

It calls itself a hospital and shelter for street animals, which in India overwhelmingly means cows or dogs, and those are the majority inhabitants in this large refuge. It’s hard to explain the prevalence of street animals to those who have not witnessed the poverty-stricken streets of India. The dogs are not any particular breed, but a breed all of their own – the breed of street dog.

Characteristic of nothing we know in the West, cows wander the streets in this and other parts of the country. This is the case in both rural areas and the city centre. A large cow, or several, strolling down busy city streets is a common sight. Given the chaotic traffic (there is little to no order on the roads), accidents are common, and injured dogs and cows a frequent fallout. It is here that Animal Aid does most of its work. It’s a heart-warming mission and one that matches the obvious reverence for animals among the Indian people.

The animal shelter aside, seeing India for the first time was an eye-opener. I have never visited a 3rd world country before, and the culture shock took me by surprise. On leaving the airport at Udaipur, the impact was instant. There is simply no structure or order like we know in the West. Traffic is one obvious example, but business is another. “Shops” don’t necessarily have shop fronts, and people rest in the sun on a seemingly endless number of rubble piles. I saw people sitting in the streets, children playing on mountains of plastic garbage, and makeshift tents along busy roadsides. The poverty is stark.

It is the business practices however that caught my eye, and I couldn’t but wonder if these weren’t contributing significantly to this widespread poverty. For example, items in shops are not often priced. I bought a diary, something I do on all visits abroad, and asked the vendor for a price. He told me 700 rupees (about £7.50) and I was happy to pay. This took him by surprise; he had expected me to haggle him down. But that’s not how I do things, and I had no intention of bartering for a lower price from someone so obviously struggling. The result? A free gift on top of my purchase. On another occasion, at a restaurant, I paid a 100-rupee note for a bottle of water worth 50 rupees. I was told there was no change available. I was therefore offered the bottle free of charge! A colleague from the animal shelter changed the 100-rupee note for me and thankfully I was able to pay. Soon after, the same restaurateur tried to give me my change again, forgetting that he already had. When cash is handed over, the likelihood is it will be thrown in a drawer rather than a cash register. In other words, a cultural shift, in terms of business, is truly needed if India is to tackle its poverty. It would at least be a good start.

Overall, I loved the experience. The people were warm and friendly, and the staff at both the shelter and my hotel couldn’t have been more obliging. It is a unique country with a unique philosophy; its dominant religions are completely different from most others in the world. Its attitude to animals warms the heart of an animal lover like me, and despite its problems, it is a relaxed and pleasant atmosphere to be in.

I’ve always had a respect for India as a nation, and that respect has only deepened now that I’ve been lucky enough to be there. I wish it very well, I wish its wonderful people well. I wish them a future of prosperity, and I sincerely hope they can achieve it.

Watch the videos of my diary below

 

Brexit | What’s The Deal?

By Anne Marie Waters, Party Leader

21st October 2019

Back in 2017, when I was standing in the Ukip leadership election, I made a clear point about the EU – I called it Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave. I was right.

Leaving the EU should not be difficult. All we have to do is pass a law revoking our membership. We could strike a simple trade deal, we can agree to tariff free access to each other’s markets to keep things flowing, this should present no problems to parties acting in good faith. We know of course that both sides, our Parliament and the EU, are not acting in good faith. Neither wants us to leave (some MPs do of course but they are not the majority) and so frustrating the process is the method that will be used, and has been used, since the referendum result.

Now, the latest developments reveal yet more game-playing by the British Parliament. Boris Johnson has negotiated a deal with the EU. It is not everything we would want, but the EU will never agree to everything we want. That’s the reality.

The primary details of the deal are: a transition period until December 2020, a ‘divorce bill’ of £33bn, the protecting of EU citizens’ rights here and UK citizens’ rights in the EU, and the removal of the controversial ‘backstop’ regarding Northern Ireland, ensuring no hard border on the island. In the new deal, Northern Ireland will leave with the rest of the UK, but will remain regulated by the EU on some products, meaning there will be some checks between NI and the Republic of Ireland, but Northern Ireland can make changes to this as times goes on.

Also of great importance, the day after the transition period ends, the UK can engage in unilateral trade deals. This is what we wanted.

MPs were asked to vote at the weekend whether to approve this deal or not. They didn’t, instead they voted on an Oliver Letwin amendment to delay approval of the deal. This means that the Benn Act, requiring Boris Johnson to request an extension has been triggered. So Johnson has written to the EU, as required by law, to request this extension. He has not signed this however, a move labeled “childlike” by some remainers.

Accompanying the unsigned letter is a signed one stating that a delay would be a mistake. Johnson will now put his deal before MPs again this week. Labour, for their part, are threatening another amendment, demanding a second referendum on the deal, with Remain as an option for voters.

Ministers remain convinced that the deal can be passed in Parliament, and have triggered Operation Yellowhammer, the Government preparation strategy for a no deal Brexit.

The European Union meanwhile has said it will extend until February 2020, or beyond. Of course it will. The EU will continue to allow extension after extension because it has no intention of letting Britain go – at least not without great difficulty, or without keeping us entangled in a variety of areas for years or decades to come: Hotel California, we can leave, but we can’t.

Whatever happens this week, one thing must be clear, we must get out by whichever means. No deal is certainly the preference, but this deal is better than more and more extensions. At least with a deal, we can be officially out, giving us far more power as we deal with individual issues in the coming years. Our military for example, must be untangled from EU arrangements, but this can happen after this deal is struck.

What we can’t do is stay in a minute longer. If we do, that’s British politics for years to come, and this will suit many – both on the Remain and Leave side of the debate. Some leave campaigners won’t agree with this deal because it means the country moving on, and they don’t want that. It would suit Nigel Farage perfectly well to carry this on for years; it keeps him in the limelight. It makes politics all about him and others whose living is made as long as Brexit at the forefront of political debate. This has to end.

If we don’t bring an end to this charade, by whichever means (deal or no deal), the country may well be lost for good. Because while this carries on, so does mass immigration, so does the loss of our free speech, so does the perversion of reality of the trans madness and the subsequent abuse of children, so does the climate change lie which will tax us and instill panic across the board, so does the Islamisation, so does the politicisation of the police. It all continues unabated.

We must bring an end to this now, and confront the other major issues, before it’s too late to ever deal with them at all.

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?

For Britain 2019 Party Conference

Dear For Britain Member,

I am delighted to announce that tickets are now on sale for our annual party conference in the NorthWest of England on Sunday the 17th of November. We have a new (improved) venue with (some) parking, and it is located between Liverpool and Manchester. Further details will be announced closer to the date. We won’t run coaches this year as it caused some delay and bottleneck last year.

This year, catering (all options) is included in the price of the ticket. We will also have card payment for any merchandise you may wish to purchase on the day. Vegans, please let us know in advance if you purchase a ticket, as well as anyone else with special dietary requirements.

The tickets are limited to a first come first served basis. You are responsible for any guests that you choose to bring. We sold out last year so don’t delay. We will announce our guest speaker line-up in due course, but expect a packed informative and fun day, mingling with like minded friends.

To order, you will need to log into the website. Then if you click ‘members’ in the top bar, you will see the ‘Annual Conference 2019’ option appear. This will take you to the ticket ordering page. There is an option to ‘pre-order’ a personally signed copy of Beyond Terror by Anne Marie, as well as an optional donation. The cost for putting on the event is high, so please support the party and the conference if you can, and we can’t wait to see you there. If you are now logged in, click here to go to the ticket ordering page.

Please note: Gold Members and Platinum Members: for your discount code, please email [email protected] before ordering your ticket.

Party Chairman

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

Introduction
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]

Campaigns
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.

Kosher
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

BREXIT
BREXIT

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
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.

Scholars?

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

“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.

Choice

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