Climate Change: Consensus? What Consensus?


2nd July 2020

This article focuses on a single issue: the idea of a ‘consensus’ on human-caused climate change in the scientific community. I’ll be discussing the origins of this notion in some detail, because it is absolutely pivotal to the climate change narrative, and understanding how it arose is essential to debunking the myth. It also powerfully illustrates the degree of duplicity, and the lengths that are gone to, in promoting it.

The notion of a ‘consensus’ is used again and again to stifle debate on the subject of climate change. After all, why continue to argue about something there is already a consensus on – and amongst the world’s experts, at that? Why continue to ask questions? In fact, you don’t even need to think about it: most scientists – 97%, to be precise – agree that climate change is real, dangerous and caused by human beings!

Straight off, this should sound the alarm. When you think about it, there are millions of scientists in this world, so how is it possible that they’ve all been polled on their ideas on climate change? Second, conducting a poll is simply not how science is done! It certainly doesn’t prove a theory one way or the other! This smacks of marketing, not science. More on that later.

So here is the story of the ‘97% consensus’.

In 2013, John Cook, a ‘Climate Communications’ expert from the Global Change Institute in Australia, published a paper which caused a media storm. In it, Cook and colleagues claimed to have reviewed the ‘Abstracts’ (i.e., summaries, typically around half a page to one page in length) of just under 12,000 scientific papers on climate-related issues and to have found that 97% of these papers endorsed the idea that climate change is being driven by human activity. To quote Cook, they ‘found that over 97% of papers surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause’. His ‘findings’ spread like wildfire around the world, and in no time world leaders were parroting his words. Obama declared, ‘97% of scientists agree. Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous’. Our David Cameron followed suit.

But the fact is, John Cook was telling a big fat lie. To explain how, I’ll need to present the details of the study:

Of the papers reviewed by Cook and his team, 66% expressed no opinion at all on human influence on climate change. They didn’t even mention it as a factor. Of the remaining 34%, 33% did mention that humans were having some impact, but as Cook didn’t set any benchmark for this, any degree of perceived influence, however tiny, counted as a ‘yes’. Unbelievably, this is where the ‘97%’ claim came from: 33% of the 34% who expressed an opinion on the subject thought that human release of greenhouse gases might be implicated in climate change. It’s important to remember here than scientists are very literal people: any influence, even that of ‘urban heat islands’, where cities raise the local temperature, would count. Critically, only a tiny number – just 64 papers – thought human influence was a significant driver of climate change. This equates to just 0.5% of the papers reviewed! It gets worse: when Cook’s work was reviewed some time later by a Dr Legates, he found even this number to have been wrongly presented: it was just 41 papers, not 64!

To summarise: it wasn’t 97% of scientists who expressed the idea that human beings were driving climate change, but 0.5%.

This flawed and ridiculous piece of ‘research’ has been the basis for policy change all around the world. It seems unbelievable that Cook could have got away with it.

To add insult to injury, there’s another twist to this. I did a quick Google search of John Cook, and found, to my astonishment, that he isn’t actually a climate scientist. His field is Cognitive Science – i.e., psychology, in particular how our brains process information. His work centres around how to best promote the idea of human-caused climate change – the marketing, you could say, of the idea. (It was later discovered that Cook had actually worked on the press releases announcing the results of his research project before he’d even begun it!) To this end, Cook has written books with titles like, ‘Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand’ and designed online courses in ‘Climate Science Denial’. This seems deeply manipulative – using his knowledge of psychology to promote the idea of climate scepticism being some kind of mental impairment.

You could accurately say that John Cook is no more qualified to assess and comment on climate science papers than you or I.

Not all scientists have taken this lying down.

Most notably, Dr Art Robinson organised ‘The Petition Project’: a petition, which was presented to the American government, signed by 31,487 scientists working in climate-related fields, around 9,000 of whom were PhDs. The petition stated their objection to the way climate change is presented and affirmed that there is no climate crisis: ‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing… catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere or disruption of Earth’s climate…’ Furthermore, the petition emphasised the many beneficial effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

This should have been massive news, overturning, as it did, Cook’s claims. But there was barely a murmur in the press. The very fact that so many scientists are unhappy about the current narrative and refuse to give their assent to it (despite the consequences) should have made headlines around the world, but most people would never get to hear about it.

If you ever get into a disagreement about climate change, just knowing this one piece of information is enough to pull the rug from under an alarmist’s feet. There is a reliance on the fact that most of us won’t do our homework, and having just this one piece of arsenal at the ready could be a real asset in a debate. It should be mentioned here that there were other sources to the ‘consensus’ myth, such as Al Gore’s reference, in 2006, to a review of 928 articles by climate scientists, claiming all endorsed the idea that humans are causing warming and that it’s a problem (they didn’t; 75% agreed humans might be affecting the climate to some degree). But it’s Cook’s study that really drove the idea forward.

If climate alarmists are misrepresenting scientific opinion in this one, fundamental way, then it’s likely that the dishonesty in this matter is far-reaching. It’s not okay to mislead the public like this. It’s not okay to misrepresent science and to lie about your findings, or to belittle and insult scientists who have the integrity to voice their concerns. I’m a believer in the saying, ‘The truth will out’. Sometimes it takes a long time – centuries even – for the truth to surface, but it seems to be a law of nature that it does, eventually. The lies told about climate change will be no different. I really hope it’s sooner rather than later.

Who Owns Britain?

Richard Carlyon

Tuesday 28th July 2020


The London branch recently opposed an application to turn part of the famous ‘Troc’, or Trocadero, building into a mega mosque. We learned from this struggle that the whole building, well-known to generations of Londoners, is owned by a company of Muslim origin.

On hearing this I recalled discovering, two years previously, that another of our classic buildings had been sold to Saudis. Unbelievably, and shockingly, this was the famous Old Admiralty building. Its popular Friday night bar was immediately closed. A memorable piece of our national history, situated in Whitehall, is now a shariah zone. Just let that sink in.

These, we regret, are not the only examples. I am told that half a dozen or more significant sites in Central London alone have been sold off to Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis and inevitably, to the Chinese. London is not the only place where this has happened – but London is the heart and soul of our nation. Each square foot of it has meaning for our national history, and there are layers upon layers of our past stored here – events relevant for all the nations included in the United Kingdom. It is being sold from under us without our consent or even our knowledge. And to our everlasting shame.

Who has committed this gross sacrilege? Who made these decisions to lay waste our unique and priceless heritage? How was it accomplished? Where did the money go? Who made themselves a tidy profit from all these transactions? I would like to know the names of those who have sold us out.

Some of you may sneer, indeed some have already sneered, at my concern, my anger and my hurt. Those who hate our nation and its unique history will shrug, as they have already done over the recent vandalism of our precious statues and memorials. ‘Its only stone and metal’, said one of these people. No. No. No. To be able even to say such a thing is proof enough for me that the ‘enemy within’ is cold, heartless and unable to feel what you and I feel.

So what do we do? What can we do now? First of all, we must begin to find out and uncover detailed information about all places sold off to the enemy. They will include whole streets of houses, famous places, historic sites, manufacturing sites, and places generally important in British history. We must begin to make lists of all British sites owned by foreign concerns, by ‘shell’ companies and by alien individuals. I fear that this process will be distressing. There will be some nasty shocks for us. But we need this knowledge. Some of it is already known, but I suspect that very many such places are secretly held by aliens.

It should not be a difficult task. Even a thousand years ago, such a record was made in fine detail: the Domesday Book. The clerks of the time had none of the electronic aids which we possess. We ought to know who owns Britain.

I suggest that the alien owners should then be notified that they must dispose of/sell the properties to British individuals or wholly British companies. This to be done by a certain date. If they do not comply, then the property will revert to the United Kingdom, without recompense. This final requirement would, I think, make the alien owners act with a certain swiftness.

We have for too long allowed our nation to be slandered, traduced, lied about and vilified. Will we sit idly by while it is actually sold from beneath us to people who wish us harm? I note that New Zealand has recently passed a law forbidding the sale of landed property to foreigners. Well done, you Kiwis! We need a similar law, which goes further and retrieves our common history from alien hands.

This situation is not the first time that the corruption of our leaders has made a painful mockery of our national pride. Kipling’s poem ‘The Dutch in the Medway’ tells the story of how our ships, immobile in Chatham for want of basic upkeep and supplies, were unable to resist the attacking enemy. Our ships were burnt and our betrayed sailors forced to watch as our Navy’s flagship was hauled away as a prize. That shameful and wounding disaster happened through the corruption, neglect and lack of patriotism of England’s then leaders.

‘Our King and Court for their disport Do sell the very Thames!’

In these lines from the poem Kipling uses the image of the Thames being sold, as a fanciful and outrageous idea, But today it is no longer fanciful. It is real, and it is outrageous.


Richard Carlyon

Regional Organiser

For Britain (London)

State of the Economy: Struggling Again

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday 28th July 2020


The UK hospitality sector, it was reported today, dropped a massive £30 billion worth of sales during lockdown.  Revenue plummeted by 87% between April and June, in comparison to the same time last year.  This means the state will be down £38 billion in tax revenue in 2020.  This is a blow for an already overstretched public purse, and given the industry employs 3.2 million people, potential job loss will add to the burden.

This is a burden that will be shared by most of the world.  The Financial Times has published an extraordinary graph showing employment downturns across the globe.  Job losses are in the millions and every major nation has suffered vacancy drops of between 20 and 60%.

The uptake of entertainment has also dropped significantly, with a notable exception in Sweden – which did not impose any lockdown throughout the crisis.

The FT writes that tourism is recovering, but there is bad news in that regard for Spain.  The UK government has imposed a 14 day quarantine on people returning from holiday there.  This is  something few people can afford in terms of time or money, and will have a huge impact on Spain’s important tourism trade.  Pedro Sánchez, the Spanish Prime Minister, has called the measures “unjust.  According to the BBC:

Mr Sánchez said he was hoping to convince the UK to reverse its decision to remove Spain from the list of countries exempt from quarantine rules.

He said: “We are talking with British authorities to try to get them to reconsider a measure that, in our opinion, is not well adjusted if we consider epidemiological criteria of Spain, particularly in some tourist destinations in our country.”

Back home, since my last economics update, mandatory face masks have been introduced for shops and enclosed spaces – this now applies in both Scotland and England, but not Wales.

Meanwhile, negotiations for Brexit continue; clarity on this, as soon as possible, can only benefit the economy’s recovery, but clarity is in short supply.

A major sticking point is the UK’s desire for tariff-free access to the EU market, while the EU wants assurance of a ‘level playing field’ in return.  This would mean that the UK would be obliged to mirror EU laws on workers’ rights and other regulations, to prevent us undercutting EU countries.

According to the Financial Times:

The EU is adamant that it will not allow the UK “zero tariff, zero quota” access to the EU single market unless it signs up to a set of “level playing field” principles that minimise the risk of Britain undercutting the EU on environmental regulation, workers’ rights and state aid to business.

Brussels has signalled a willingness to drop its demand that the UK accepts future EU state-aid rules and the oversight of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), but in exchange it wants the UK to sign up to a “shared philosophy” on future subsidy policy. Britain argues that an independent dispute resolution system should be sufficient to give confidence to both sides, but has thus far refused to tell Brussels what the UK’s new subsidy regime will look like. 

Mr Barnier [EU chief negotiator] told EU diplomats on Friday that the level playing field was the most difficult subject in the entire future-relationship negotiation. Closing the gap here will be critical to any deal.

After a couple of weeks of relatively good news – economy reopening for example – we are back on the bottom end of the see-saw this week.  Uncertainty remains, and new (and rather surprising) restrictions in terms of face masks will slow recovery down once again.

Who knows what the news will be next week?  The only consistency throughout this pandemic has been unpredictability.  We’ll soon see how the next chapter will read.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain  

For Britain should be for Hong Kong

By Frankie Rufolo, Member & Activist

27th July 2020

Recently, Frankie Rufolo commented on Hong Kong during a livestream and was invited to write a blog and make a case for the protests and to re-unify Britain and Hong Kong. These are Frankie’s views and do not necessarily reflect the view of the party.

I remember sitting in a student bar, chatting to a few friends of mine from immigrant backgrounds, when I asked them what they would miss the most about the United Kingdom if they had to leave. A Polish girl, who had moved to England when she was eight, said “beans on toast and processed food generally.” Her boyfriend, a Swedish student, said “cheap alcohol.” My girlfriend at the time, a student from mainland China, simply said “the freedom.”

She told me in more detail the oppression the Chinese people have to endure under the regime in Beijing. Her neighbour had been arrested simply for complaining about the quality of food in the hospital, Chinese artists are banned from depicting or writing about kissing below the neck or anything beyond that and a politician from her area who challenged the president for power ended up in prison. From research and just following current affairs programs, you can quickly find out that China’s human rights record has gone from bad to worse under the current president-for-life Xi Jinping. The country executes more people – largely for drug offences – than the rest of the world combined, is persecuting religious and ethnic minorities, forcing the Uyghur Muslims into concentration camps and bans anything non-heterosexual from the media whilst allowing electric-shock gay conversion therapy to be practiced. This is the regime the people of Hong Kong are fighting.

Hong Kong became part of the British Empire after the Opium Wars, agreeing to return the islands to China after a hundred years. By the time this happened in 1997, China was a Communist country but the one country, two systems arrangement was made so that Hong Kong would be largely self-governing and more democratic. However, Douglas Murray’s think-tank, The Henry Jackson Society, has documented the far more gradual erosion of human rights in Hong Kong causing international concern. In 2019, the situation reached breaking point with a proposed extradition bill which would have given the government in Beijing the power to force Hong Kongers to face trial on the Chinese mainland. The people of the island saw this as an attack on the one country two systems arrangement and came out for huge rallies against the legislation. As a result, the protesters have faced a backlash from fanatical Communists in white shirts that turn red with heroes’ blood and shocking police brutality: rubber bullets fired into crowds have seriously wounded demonstrators and women in the Hong Kong freedom movement have been sexually assaulted by officers in riot gear, even subjected to humiliating strip-searches in the street. The fight went on with notable battles taking place on the public transport system and on university campuses. The uprising became known as “The White Revolution.” Now China has passed a National Security Bill in a further crackdown on dissenters, banning any demand for independence or further autonomy. Even seemingly small things such as mocking the Chinese national anthem have been criminalised in Hong Kong.

Last year, after the uprisings on the island started, there were demonstrations in solidarity all over the UK as well. The University of Exeter was where one such demo took place. Although I didn’t see what happened myself, I heard from people who were there that communist mainland Chinese students turned up, spat in the Hong Kongers’ faces and started a massive fight. The local media reported on the clashes between the two groups and there were similar reports on campuses up and down the country. The For Britain Movement is not against foreign students who generally obey the law, spend lots of money in this country and take their skills back home where they’re needed once they’ve finished studying, but it was alleged that the mainland Chinese students, who physically attacked the young Hong Kongers fighting for democracy, were not punished by the universities too scared of losing money. Obviously not all mainland Chinese are bad people: some are dissidents, just not to the same extent as their island neighbours and some are just victims of the regime. I remember talking to another girl from the mainland. She told me she didn’t like the Hong Kongers and when I asked why, she just laughed and said she didn’t know. However, law and order must apply to everyone.

In the lead-up to and the aftermath of the local by-election in Heavitree and Whipton, I joined the Hong Kongers demonstrating and leafleting in Exeter’s city centre. They all spoke perfect English, talked very bluntly about their politicians and were willing to hear out other people’s views on the situation, all whilst having good banter. They didn’t object to me flying the British flag in a show of solidarity between two islands with a historic connection or holding up the cross of St George with some slogans hastily written on in permanent marker. The student activists also debated amongst themselves whether or not to fly the old colonial flag of Hong Kong – with the Union Jack enmeshed – or the current flag with a stylised orchid – which some saw as being imposed on the island by China. Our flag, the old flag and American flags have been seen at many of the protests both in Hong Kong and abroad.

There is a movement to re-unify the island with the United Kingdom. A woman called Alice Lai currently leads the campaign and a minor party which pre-dates the recent uprisings. I think The For Britain Movement should not only make it clear that we support the wider protests, but we should be open to the idea of Hong Kong becoming British again. Not all the protesters want this or even independence, as they made it very clear they were defending the one-country two-systems arrangement, but it is likely that anti-China sentiment has steadily risen. When mainland China has covered up the coronavirus outbreak, allowing the disease to spread round the world, For Britain and the Hong Kongers would be uniting against a common foe. An autocratic communist state becoming the leading global superpower can only be a bad thing, so any kind of break-away for Hong Kong would be a big blow to the dictatorship. True, re-unification would make it easier for millions of people to immigrate here like the government’s current proposals, but if it were a British territory free from Beijing, there would be less incentive for them to do so and the UK would benefit from the island’s successful economy. We needn’t worry about Westminster becoming saturated with far-Eastern politics either – the overseas territories Britain currently has such as Gibraltar and the Falklands are largely self-governing with their own political parties. At the very least, an independent Hong Kong should be welcomed into the Commonwealth. These people are fighting this country’s enemy, they share our values of democracy, capitalism and free speech and many of them feel British, love our flag and enjoy many aspects of our culture. When Jinping said he wanted “a united EU,” these protesters could be considered the Han Brexiteers. It’s time to stand up in solidarity with our fellow dissidents and patriots taking the fight to the far-left.

Why Islam Spreads: 10 Reasons They Don’t Want You To Know

We have all heard the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, a claim implying that, were it the case, this would somehow prove Islam’s truth and value.

Whether Islam is growing is debatable. What seems less open to debate is that Islam is spreading: many countries that till relatively recently had negligible Moslem populations are today suffering from Islamisation: for example, over the past 50 years Britain has seen the appearance of FGM, Islamic terrorism, grooming gangs, sharia courts, the Niqab and the Burqa, halal slaughter, mass illegal Islamic immigration, Moslem ghettos, ‘honour’ culture, the building of mosques and madrassas, and the infiltration of Islam into its institutions.

But here is the crux of the matter: the fact that something spreads in no way implies that it is good, true or desirable. 

Having recently witnessed the spread of Coronavirus we hardly need reminding that harmful and undesirable things can be very effective indeed at spreading. Diseases become endemic not because they are good, desirable or embody Truth, but because they have effective strategies for finding new hosts, and for neutralising that host’s immune system once established.

Islam likewise spreads and entrenches itself by means of strategies that have nothing to do with virtue, desirability, Truth or human flourishing. What follows are ten such strategies.

1 Islam Produces Failing Societies, Which Moslems Flee for Non-Islamic Countries

Islam creates social and economic systems that fail, are overpopulated, backwards, unjust, tyrannical, violent and plagued by war and conflict. People living under these systems understandably want to escape them for countries that are safer, freer, fairer, more prosperous and stable.

Hence the one-way flow of immigrants and refugees from Islamic countries to the West. And where formerly this flow would have affected only neighbouring countries, the internet, film and television make these people aware of more desirable societies further afield, and improved transport systems make it possible for them to access these societies.

But when they flee to the West they bring with them the very beliefs and practices that ruined the societies they fled from. And they generally fail to integrate, instead striving to establish Islam wherever it is they find themselves. Which starts off the process of Islamisation and decline in the host country.

Plagues have an identical epidemiology: during the Bubonic plague, people fled London seeking the safety of as-yet uninfected towns, and by doing so introduced the plague to those towns.

2 Islam Eliminates Doubt, Criticism and Apostasy

It would be expected that an ideology that consistently produced conflict, ignorance and misery would be consigned to the dustbin of History. But this has not been the case with Islam.

Islam is a Utopian ideology (as are Communism and Fascism). Such ideologies claim they hold the key to perfecting humanity, and because they believe themselves perfect, don’t respond to their inevitable failures with self-criticism (as do non-Utopian systems) but instead suppress criticism or misdirect it onto scapegoats.

Scapegoating involves attributing failures to vulnerable or unpopular groups in order that people should not notice that those failures are inherent in the favoured ideology – examples are the persecution of intellectuals under Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and Jews under Nazism. Islam also reflexively blames its failures on Jews, but also Christians, Atheists, America or the West – depending on which scapegoat can be most credibly mobilised. This way Islam’s gnotional ‘perfection’ is left unsullied by the inevitably failed societies it generates.

Islam also eliminates competing narratives, and the critical thinking and dialogue that can lead people to question or reject it.

Criticism or questioning of Islam is considered as ‘blasphemy’, which is punishable by death. And Islamic ‘blasphemy’ law does not just apply just to Moslems but to also to non-Moslemsn who are also considered impure and are routinely persecuted and subject to genocide.

20-year-old Man to Be Executed for Renouncing Islam, Insulting Prophet Mohammed – Daily Post

Islam controls every aspect of society and life from the economy, laws, government and culture right down to which foot one should enter and leave a latrine with, how to knock on a door and how to say ‘hello’. This totalitarianism removes the need (and therefore the capacity) of its followers to think clearly, honestly or critically, and to decide about their religion, instilling in its place a mind-set focused on obedience.

“Islam is not merely a set of devotions, rituals of pilgrimage, moral homilies, and mechanical readings of God’s book. No, our Koran is a complete encyclopedia that leaves no aspect of life, thought, politics, society, cosmic secrets, mysteries of the spirit, legal transactions, family law, without giving its opinion. The miraculous aspect of Koranic legislation is that it suits all time”
– Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, 1970–81 (quoted from ‘Male and Female Circumcision’ by Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh)

“[…T]otalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life …”
– Totalitarianism – Encyclopaedia Britannica

An economic model based on plunder and slavery does not require an educated population. This removes the necessity for critical thinking and reason, and instead favours submission and obedience. Problems are resolved by determining what the Koran commands, or what Mohammed would have done. The best minds are occupied learning the Koran and studying Islam.

Where Islam has a foothold in non-Moslem countries it uses terrorism, lawfare, entryism and infiltration of institutions to restrict freedom of speech and thought – examples are the Charlie Hebdo attack, the prosecution of Elizabeth Sabbaditch-Wolff for having suggest that Mohammed had behaved like a paedophile, and attempts to classify any criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’ (‘Labour formally adopts definition of Islamophobia‘).

3 Islamic Societies Are Belligerent

“And fight them until there is no more worshiping others besides Allah, and worship will all be for Allah alone, in the whole of the world” Koran 8:39

“Warfare is ordained for you” Koran 2:216

Islam is the codification and sacralisation of a small society, existing in Western Arabia in the 7th Century. This codification exists almost entirely in the words, deeds, teachings, and approvals of its leader, Mohammed, whom Moslems are obliged to consider as perfect and exemplary, for the rest of time, for all mankind.

Today we’d describe Mohammed as a ‘warlord’ and the tribe he presided over as an ‘army of marauders’. It is therefore not surprising that Islam, the religion Mohammed built round himself, is supremely belligerent. And, of course, war, when successfully prosecuted, results in expansion.

Wikipedia’s page of Ongoing Armed Conflicts reveals that almost three-quarters of ongoing armed conflicts have at least one Islamic entity as a main protagonist, always in the role of aggressor. Only one of the nine most lethal conflicts (i.e. with more than 1,000 fatalities during the current or past year) – the Mexican Drug War – is not caused by Islam. Inter-Moslem civil wars (Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia) generate the most civilian casualties, and consequently the most Moslem refugees.

“In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations, from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders.” – Samuel P. Huntington ‘The Clash of Civilizations?‘ (1993)

4 Islam Must Expand to Find New Supplies of Non-Moslem Slaves

Islam allows the taking, owning and trading of slaves. Indeed, slavery is an essential and integral part of the traditional Islamic economic model.

Mohammed forbade Moslems from enslaving other Moslems. This has meant that Moslem communities have had to engage in constant wars and raids on their non-Moslem neighbours in order to maintain a supply of slave necessary for their economy. This has forced progressive expansive waves of conquests, as non-Moslems in conquered countries, in order to avoid slavery and persecution, convert to Islam – and thus ‘dry-up’ as sources of slaves.

Traditional slavery is still today endemic to much of the Islamic world. However, even in countries where it is not possible to practice overt slavery Islam develops practices that approximate as closely to slavery as the society will allow: Islamic Grooming Gangs and the recent Slave factories in Leicester are examples, as is the treatment of non-Moslem migrant workers in Moslem countries, such as Qatar).

5 Islam Must Expand to Find New Populations to Plunder

‘Raids are our agriculture’ – Arab proverb

A second pillar of the traditional Islamic economic model is Plunder. Mohammed considered productive work (such as manufacturing and agriculture) fit only for slaves and dhimmis (Jews and Christians subservient to Islam). Agriculture requires commitment to the land, which prevents farmers going on raids, which often lasted weeks or months. The only normal source of income Mohammed approved of was Trade, preferably in plundered goods and slaves. Economies based on plunder must keep geographically expanding, as recently-looted territories are exhausted of their wealth.

And once there is no one left to loot (either because a geographical barrier – such as the Atlantic Ocean – is encountered or because Islam’s neighbours become sufficiently technologically advanced to defend themselves) Moslems start cannibalizing each other, branding each other as ‘kafir’, ‘hypocrites’ or ‘heretics’ in order to justify raiding and looting each other. The resulting conflicts generate a flow of refugees and immigrants seeking safer, stable, more prosperous and fairer (i.e. non-Islamic) societies.

“I against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I, my brothers and cousins against the world” – Arab Proverb

As with slavery, Moslems living in non-Islamic societies will engage in those forms of plunder that the society will let them get away with: in 2015 a House of Commons committee reported that in the UK 65% of Moslem women and 35% of Moslem men were unemployed and living off the British taxpayer.

6 Islam Must Expand in Order to Alleviate the Bride Vacuums Created by Polygyny

Islam allows and encourages polygyny (men taking multiple wives and/or sex-slaves).

Polygyny, a preserve of rich, powerful men, creates a scarcity of females in the lower strata of society (imagine 10 men and 10 women on an island, and what happens if some men take more than one wife…). The only way low-status young men can procure wives is either through capturing wives in war against either ‘infidels’ or ‘hypocrites’ (Moslems who are not devout enough) or through raping girls or women of their own community – which, in ‘honour’ cultures, renders them unmarrigeable, and obliges the girl’s parents to marry her to their rapist.

The promise of sex-slaves (‘also prohibited to you are all married women except those your right hands possess Koran 4:24) was one of the main driving force of the initial expansion of Islam under the Mohammed, and under the Rashidun and Ummayad Caliphates.

‘Kidnapped Nigeria School Girls Reportedly Sold As Brides to Islamic Boko Haram Militants’CBS News
‘Women Who Are Captured by Isis and Kept As Slaves Endure More Than Just Sexual Violence’The Independent

Another effect of Islamic polygyny is that, in countries where Muslims are in a minority, because Islamic polygyny is nevertheless unofficially practiced by Muslim communities, a few men thus tie-up a disproportionate number of the marrigeable Muslim women and girls.

This means that low-status Muslim men have therefore to look to the non-Muslim population to find sexual satisfaction and marriage (under Islam a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman; Islam does not allow a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man). This will drive conversion, but also, in combination with Islam’s allowing of sexual slavery of conquered women drives phenomena such as the Islamic Grooming Gangs that are endemic to wherever there exist Muslim enclaves.

7 Islam Maximizes Fertility of Girls and Women

This is the most commonly cited cause for Islam’s spread.

Moslems have more children than members of the other major religions, with an average 2.9 children (non-Moslems on average have 2.2 children). And wherever there is a sizable Moslem population, their fertility exceeds that of their non-Moslem neighbours.

High fertility rates are associated with poor education, early marriage, and restricted life-choices for women. Women have fewer children in societies where women have control over their fertility and equality to men, where they can have careers, get an education pursue their interests.

Furthermore, Islam attempts to fill the ‘bride vacuum’ polygyny creates at the bottom of society by forcing the age of marriage ever downward – meaning that girls marry and tend to start reproducing younger in Islamic societies.

8 Islam Is an ‘Easy In/Hard Out’ System

One has only to pronounce the Shahadah (“There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”) to become a Moslem. But leaving Islam carries the death penalty. At best you will be persecuted, stigmatised and rejected by your family and community.

A similar paradigm operates on a civilisational scale. Islam has an inbuilt reflex to revert to the precise conditions of its origins in 7th Century Arabia. Islam routinely regresses whole countries from Modernity back to a close approximation of Arabian Dark Ages (think the Iranian Revolution, Pakistan after partition, Syria and Iraq under Islamic State). No other religion or ideology does this, or aspires to do it.

This is because Islam sets up the condition of life in Medina under Mohammed as an ideal, to be forever emulated to the last detail. This acts as a centre of gravity in Islam. Societies that drift too far from this ideal are jolted back by fundamentalists, to whom Islam grants license to use whatever means necessary to achieve this end.

Islamic countries attempting to modernise are therefore inherently unstable, vulnerable to violent regression to as close a facsimile of Medina under Mohammed as the Islamists can manage. This makes Islam’s ‘gains’ more persistent.

9 Moslem Minorities Sabotage Non-Islamic Societies

‘Let not Moslems take non-Moslems for friends, rather than Moslems’ Koran 3:28

Islam discourages Moslems from integrating into non-Moslem society, encourages them to prioritise their religion’s laws, traditions and norms above those of the host country, especially where they most conflict, and incites some followers to engage in terrorism and other acts damaging to society.

‘Moslem Opinion Polls: A Tiny Minority of Extremists?’
‘Erdogan Urges Turks Not to Assimilate’Spiegel International
‘Grooming gangs of Moslem men failed to integrate into British society’The Telegraph

Terrorism (and other such extreme actions such as sexual slavery and FGM) are tools whereby non-Moslem societies are demoralised and rendered submissive.

The fact that not all Moslems engage in terrorism prevents the nation under attack treating Moslems en masse as enemy aliens. In the wake of terrorist incidents, the media and authorities are desperate for representations of Islam that will reassure and pacify the native population, and also discourage Moslems from engaging in further terrorism.

Therefore ‘peaceful’ Moslems obtain a prominent voice. The public discourse becomes saturated with favourable representations of Islam. Realistic or critical representations of Islam are stigmatised, censored or criminalised. This of course contributes to the Islamisation of society.

In order to appease Moslems, the authorities grant them exemptions from laws and norms that the rest of society are expected to observe.

This is ‘Moslem Privilege’. It can take the form of Islam and Moslems being portrayed favourably in the culture and media, it can take the form of official exemptions, such as halal slaughter (which exempts Moslems from animal cruelty laws), identity concealment in public (the niqab and burqa), male genital mutilation; or it can involve the authorities turning a blind eye to criminal activity (e.g. Grooming Gangs, FGM, Hate Speech, illegal Islamic immigration, lone-wolf terrorism,slavery surrogates…)

And even actively concealing it…

This effectively sabotages society, driving a wedge through its heart, creating fear, division and persecution, sometimes to the point of provoking civil war. A standard model of Islamisation is, by whatever methods necessary, to bring about the breakdown of a society; groups such as the Moslem Brotherhood can then step in and take control. We have seen this in Kosovo, Lebanon and Syria, and the way the Arab Spring was exploited by Islamist groups.

10 Islamic Colonization Is Almost Irreversible

Western powers have been able to return most of the countries they colonised to their original people, with their cultures and belief-systems intact.

Islam, if it ever should choose to do so, is unable to do this because it aspires to religiously and culturally ‘cleanses’ those countries it occupies, meaning that there is none) of the original population or culture left to return the country to.

Whilst the French could return Algeria to the Algerians, with their culture and religion undamaged, Islam can not return Afghanistan to its original Buddhist inhabitants, having genocided, force-converted, expelled and replaced their ancestors, and destroyed all traces of their culture and religion. Likewise Pakistan and the Hindus, Iran and the Zoroastrians, and Islamic Africa to the Animists and Christians.

And where European colonizers can’t return a country to its original population (as with North America) it is because they employed an approach similar to the standard Islamic one. And the West, having a critical relationship to its own history, acknowledges its fault in these cases and attempts reparations. No Moslem will express guilt or regret at Islam’s history of conquest and Religious Cleansing, at the 80 million Hindu children, women and men Islam killed in its conquest of India, for the ‘crime’ of being polytheist (Mughal India ~ The Biggest Holocaust in World History).

This renders Islamic territorial gains virtually irreversible.

* * *

This list is not comprehensive, but furnishes examples justifying a way of understanding and analysing Islam. Others may pursue the analysis I have started here. What should be clear is that Islam is highly effective at spreading because it refrains from no outrage against humanity if committing that outrage contributes to its spread and entrenchment.

Each item in the list invites the question of how a nation wishing to protect itself from Islam might counter each strategy. I have not attempted to address such questions, but hope that in clarifying the epidemiology of the problem it will be easier for those who value civilisation to find cures for the disease.

Watch my interview with Anne Marie on the above subject:

SUNDAY COLUMN: The Coming Animal Bloodbath

Anne Marie Waters

Sunday July 26th 2020


On Monday morning, July 27th at 4 am, I will set out on a trip to Ramsgate in Kent.  I will attend my first protest against the live export of animals, and I won’t be alone.  Live exports are extremely cruel and all the moreso because they are so appallingly unnecessary.

There is absolutely no good reason why animals cannot be slaughtered prior to transport, or indeed why animals can’t be raised and slaughtered where they are to be consumed.  This agonising journey is pointless, and For Britain vows to bring it to an end.

Public feeling is strong on this, as it is on issues related to animal cruelty in general.  The British public knows that animals are sentient and therefore capable of great suffering, and the British public sympathises with the animal and is willing to politically support measures to end cruelty.

The politicians have picked up on this, with the Tories promising to bring it to an end post-Brexit.  But let’s be clear, the Tories have been power for what feels like an age.  Power drifts between Labour and Tory with the Conservatives enjoying the lion’s share.  They’ve done little to nothing about animal welfare in all those years, so why trust them now?

(If you need another reason not to trust the Tories, have a look at the high levels of illegal immigration taking place).

Besides, the Tories are only proposing to end “excessively long” journeys.  Who will determine that?  Answer: nobody, because it isn’t going to happen.  The Conservatives will not deal with this.

Of course, nor will Labour, even though they also say they will ban live exports.  Isn’t it curious that the two parties who share power suddenly find resolute determination to tackle an issue when they realise where public opinion is, but have never cared about the issue previously, and did nothing to tackle it while in power?

Even the governing party is determined to do it (apparently), so what’s the hold up?  They have absolutely no intention of doing anything, that’s the hold up.

Across the world, feelings on this run very high.  In Australia for example, 3 out of 4 people support banning live exports, and yet, it continues on the spurious grounds that “if we don’t do it, someone else will, and they won’t be as kind to the animals as we are”.  This disingenuous defence of the practice, described here, furthermore dismisses 3 quarters of Australians as “fanatics” for wanting it banned.

This argument makes a rather strange assumption: that the Australian method is not cruel, and others will be crueller.   But cruelty is cruelty, and do we judge ourselves by the standards of the third world or oppressive communist states or Islamic states?  Aren’t we supposed to be better than them?

We used to be, but then globalism came and money became king while Western standards and ethics were thrown straight in the bin as we lowered ourselves to disgusting behaviour in order to trade with countries immersed in disgusting behaviour.  They’ve dragged us down, we haven’t lifted them up.  We don’t have the belief in our morals and ethics necessary to do so.  That’s the number one thing that must change.

Australia is an interesting case in point on this issue, so let’s stay there for the moment.

The Australian RSPCA appears to be just as “fanatical” about live export as three quarters of the population.  Here is its position full:

Farm animals exported from Australia face journeys of up to five weeks from the farm gate to their overseas destination. Prevailing weather conditions and requirements of the importing country can considerably increase the length of the journey. Voyages can subject animals to extreme changes in temperature and humidity, especially during the Middle Eastern summer. The main welfare concerns relate to:

  • transport, handling and holding prior to embarkation
  • stocking densities that prevent animals from comfortably lying down or accessing food and water
  • the conditions animals experience onboard ships, which often result in inanition (failure to eat), salmonellosis, heat stress, pneumonia, and high mortality rates
  • extreme changes in climatic conditions from the farm of origin to the importing country
  • inadequate contingency planning for when animals are rejected at the ports of importing countries
  • poor handling and inhumane slaughter practices in the importing countries.

The RSPCA has long maintained that livestock should be slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production to reduce the stress associated with their transport. The trade in live farm animals from Australia, which requires transporting millions of animals over thousands of kilometres on arduous journeys which can last several weeks, could not be further from this principle.

The justification that ‘other countries are crueller’ simply does not hold any water.  In fact, it is the treatment of live animals in receiving countries that provide the greatest reason to stop exporting them.

The animals suffer terribly, and almost all animal welfare charities and organisations agree.

Compassion in World Farming thoroughly opposes live export as unnecessary and cruel.  It too expresses concern about what country will be receiving the animals and how they will be treated.  If only meat were transported, as the RSPCA demands, then the animal can’t suffer any further when they reach their destination.

In the UK, a poll by Farmer’s Weekly showed that 91% of readers believe live export should be banned – this is despite the fact that the article to which the poll was posted, was in favour of the practice.  The readers overwhelmingly disagreed with the writer.

What happens when the animals reach their destination is of crucial importance, and relates to the coming protest in Ramsgate; religious slaughter.

Religious (or ritual) slaughter is the slaughter of an animal while it is fully conscious and alert.  It includes both halal (Islamic) and kosher (Jewish) slaughter practices (however the halal market is far larger and its products imposed upon the public in general; kosher is not imposed in public places and there have been no demands for this to change).

There is a vast amount of information about religious slaughter here.  For Britain has campaigned to have it banned in the UK and we will continue to.

As is the case for live export, the arguments in favour of religious slaughter quite simply amount to lies and obfuscation.  There are two main points put forward: 1) animals suffer less under religious slaughter, and 2) to prevent it would be an infringement of religious liberty.  Let’s look at these in detail.

The first argument is a lie so large that people will believe it.  It’s a similar concept to hiding in plain sight; do something wrong and then just stay where you are, everyone will assume it wasn’t you because if it was, you would have run away or hidden.

The same principle applies – tell an enormous lie and people will assume you’re telling the truth because the lie is just bizarre: “Surely nobody would make that up, they’d never get away with it” is the thinking, and the irony is that this thinking is exactly how they get away with it.

The first argument is essentially this: animals who are slaughtered while they are unconscious suffer more than animals who are slaughtered while they are conscious.  Every part of us knows this isn’t true.

Think about it for a moment; how can it possibly be better to feel the full pain of having your throat cut versus not feeling anything at all?

Many animal welfare organisations (though by no means all) see through this lie and are not afraid to point it out.  The UK’s RSPCA is firmly against it:

We’re opposed to the slaughter of any animal without first ensuring it is rendered insensible to pain and distress.

We therefore believe that all animals should be stunned prior to slaughter. Evidence clearly indicates that slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unnecessary suffering.

PETA makes a fairly obvious statement on the matter: any fully conscious animal is absolutely and understandably terrified when a chain is shackled to their leg and they’re hoisted into the air upside down. 

The Farm Animal Welfare Council reported in 2003: “Such a drastic cut [of a conscious animal’s throat] will inevitably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal… such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes.” 

The same year, the EU Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) stated: “Cuts which are used in order that rapid bleeding occurs involve substantial tissue damage in areas well-supplied with pain receptors. The rapid decrease in blood pressure which follows the blood loss is readily detected by the conscious animal and elicits fear and panic. Poor welfare also results when conscious animals inhale blood because of bleeding into the trachea.”

If you need any further convincing, take a look at this video (graphic) and ask yourself if these animals would suffer more if they were unconscious and unaware.

That’s how big the lie is!

Religious slaughter is not something that politicians are even pretending to care about however.  There have been one or two MPs over the years who have brought it up, only to be dismissed. When Philip Bone MP simply asked that the meat be labelled as halal or kosher, fellow MPs wouldn’t entertain it.

They know that if they did, they would probably be accused of ‘racism’ or ‘bigotry’ and  very few (if any) have the moral fortitude to stand up to such accusations, so the animals continue to suffer.  One MP is reported to have said antisemitism and Islamophobia are the real motives.  Once again people who are concerned about animals are told that we are not concerned about animals at all, by people who apparently know our hearts and minds better than we do.  This of course is a disgusting political tactic; imply someone is a racist and that’s that.  Debate over.  They have no comeback.

The religious freedom argument furthermore has no standing.  It is the religious and philosophical freedom of people who don’t want unstunned slaughter that has really been infringed.  In refusing to even label it, MPs have removed the religious freedom of Christians, Sikhs and Hindus – none of whom are religiously permitted to eat this meat.  Non-religious people with ethical objections to this cruelty are also ignored (or labelled ‘racist’).  So much for freedom!

The argument is a complete whitewash, another lie.  Religious freedom is not absolute, and politicians know this.  It is balanced against other interests and religions have been expected to change their practices before, without the sky caving in.  In fact, Denmark and Belgium have both completely banned religious slaughter.  They still manage to function perfectly well, and so can the rest of us.

So what does all of this have to do with our upcoming protest at Ramsgate?  The animals being exported this week are being sent for religious slaughter as the blootbath of Eid al Adha fast approaches.

There are two annual Eid festivals in Islam; one is Eid al Fitr which took place earlier in the year.  The other is Eid al Adha – the festival of sacrifice.  This does not refer to personal sacrifice for the benefit of others, or any such noble aspiration, it means the sacrifice of animals painfully and slowly.  It will happen here in the UK just as it will in the Middle East.  To see pictures and descriptions of the bloodbath of Eid al Adha, take a look here.

Do we still have morals in the West?  Values?  Ethics?  What made us legislate to stun animals before slaughter in the first place?  Ethics and standards, that’s what.  Unstunned slaughter is outlawed in the UK, but unlike Belgium and Denmark, our politicians do not have the strength of character to make that law effective.  Instead, we provide a religious exemption, making the entire thing completely meaningless.

This is cowardly and deceptive politics at its very worst.  Clear away the smoke and mirrors and you’re left with cruelty and extreme suffering; that’s all there is to it.

Our ‘leaders’ do nothing because they no respect for our values.  “Global trade” is the aim – always.  If this means we lower our standards to those of the worst countries on earth, then our leaders have decided ‘so be it’.

I reject this entirely.  We can and will thrive as a great nation, and we will do so with our values and ethics in tact.  That is a fundamental aspect of what will make us a great nation once again.

The public is behind us on this, and we will continue to fight for moral and ethical standards on their behalf.  Let us demand that other countries respect our values for a change, instead of constantly bowing down to theirs.

Join us.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Recruitment of Minorities into the Police Service

By Mike Speakman; Law & Order / Policing Spokesman

24th July 2020

The desire to increase minority representation in the police service is rising up the political agenda, again.  I have lost count of the number of times the Home Office has believed the way to improve relations between the police and minority groups is to increase their representation. I believe this is a flawed response and the product of Cultural Marxism within the Home office.  The Home Office is renowned as the most left wing and perhaps not coincidentally, the most incompetent ministry of government. I can testify from my own experience that they are obsessed with supporting minority groups based on ethnicity, drug abuse and sexual orientation. Bottom of the list are the law-abiding majority who just want the law enforced.  Law enforcement is not a priority in the Home Office, it is full of social activists and the latest announcements about “diversity training” show that this is still the case.

I believe there is a perception held by a section of the public and the Home Office that there is a large pool of ethnic minorities who want to become policemen (and women) but the nasty racist police forces deliberately put obstacles in their way. Nothing could be further from the truth. The biggest obstacle to minorities joining the police are their own communities. They are perceived as traitors and quislings and if they live in those communities they often suffer from abuse and intimidation. A second reason is cultural. In the South Asian communities, policing is a low status job and poorly paid. That perception is imported by immigrants and there is little encouragement from parents who have ambitions for their children to become doctors and lawyers.

I have seen first-hand the abuse directed at minority officers when policing their own communities.  Despite that I have also known some minority officers who have been superb police officers, but they do have a difficult time juggling their communities’ attitudes and their commitment to upholding the values of British policing.  Two notable exceptions are Chinese and Jewish officers who will normally have the support of their communities.

Over the years the home office has seen the problem as the responsibility of  the police and they have reduced many  entrance requirements which they believe benefited minorities, such as lower physical and medical standards, education requirements have also  been lowered to be almost meaningless and they have been very willing to compromise on character.  Perhaps the most startling was in the 1990s.  A standard part of any application to join the police used to be to visit the applicant at home. This allowed you to validate the address they had given and also to asses them in their own environment.   The Home Office stopped this saying it was discriminatory against certain sections of the community who often moved between addresses sleeping on couches or with friends on an ad hoc basis. One of the fundamental requirements of policing is to be able to get hold of officers at short notice, maybe for emergencies or court appearances.  The idea that it was acceptable that you didn’t know where to find an officer showed how naïve the Home Office was.  Mobile phones may have now made this less of an issue but the underlying point remains, you need to know where officers live.

The imperative to recruit minority officers has had consequences. Forces are never allowed to talk of “quotas” and instead  mention “targets” to reflect the local population. In order to please the home Office and Inspectorate, forces have compromised on standards to the point where they are fairly meaningless.

The whole concept of recruiting minorities is symbolic and a sop to Cultural Marxism. What we need are people who will fairly enforce the law and the colour of their skin is irrelevant.  I am reminded of an event some years ago.  I was commanding a racially “diverse” area which at the time was very much in the international eye from a policing point of view.  We had a visit from a South African university professor who wanted to know how we policed the area, particularly with so few minority officers. In the course of our discussion it became apparent that she believed that only black officers could police black populations and I assumed this must be the case in South Africa.  I responded that we would expect any police officer to provide the same level of service to anyone, irrespective of their racial identities. She was quite taken aback, and I pointed out that the implication of that assumption would mean we would need Welsh Police officers to police Welshmen and Scottish for Scots etc.  A ridiculous notion.

The quest for minority recruits has damaged the police service.  We have imported alien cultures into a British institution. I am aware of one very senior police officer of Pakistani origin who was sending his British born daughter back to Pakistan for an arranged marriage. This was prior to the Forced Marriage Act so probably was not illegal, but it does illustrate that in the attempt to fulfil “targets” (quotas) we have people who do not share our values and standards. We have a senior Metropolitan police officer who said he would join Black Lives Matter if he wasn’t a police officer.  What does that say about his values? It also now seems that some minority police officers have also been involved in the grooming gangs in some of our cities.

The attempt to increase minority representation is flawed, what we need is policemen and women who share British values. The colour of their skin is irrelevant. Government obsession with “diversity” issues is counterproductive. Character not colour should be the test and not just for the police.

Climate Change: Science or Politics? 

Climate Change: Science or Politics?   By DP

Recently, Paul Burgess has been producing a series of videos on climate change. These are an excellent resource, presenting information on this subject in a way that all of us can understand. As the subject of ‘man-made climate change’ has been a preoccupation of mine for years, I’d like to take up the discussion started by Paul and expand upon some of the themes here in a series of articles. It’s important to say that I am not a scientist, and these articles will be very much in layman’s terms.

First, why have this discussion here?

The simple answer to the question of why we need to have this discussion and get informed about climate change is that it is a political issue, not some abstract scientific theory. As well as all the changes that have already taken place in terms of government policy, investment in renewables and our paying for this (check the breakdown of your fuel bills), and proposed Green taxes, its proponents are demanding structural changes that would impact on the everyday lives of each of us. The narrative on climate change has infiltrated every area of life, including education. And because it is political, it is everybody’s business.

Science or propaganda? Some giveaway signs…

Once you start to look at the subject of climate change with an open mind, the signs that it is about politics, not science, hit you like a ton of bricks. You start to notice that something is wrong, that you’re being played. Let’s consider some of the clues.

A dead giveaway is that mainstream coverage of the subject is almost entirely one-sided. We are only ever fed disaster stories about the climate, and about how things will only get worse. We are panicked half to death by headlines declaring ‘the hottest ever…’ this or a ‘record-breaking’ that – horror stories of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, climate-related fires and disappearing polar bears (that one really rankles with me; I love animals, and couldn’t believe it when I found out there are record numbers of the bears and that they are thriving like never before! All that worry for nothing!). Paul discusses this much better than I could, but my point here is that we are drip fed bad news on the climate, continuously, and with no context or perspective – and little or no actual science to back up the claims. Notice, too, the language used by the media, politicians and activists. They don’t talk of ‘carbon dioxide’, for instance, but of ‘carbon pollution’ (implanting the idea of a nasty, dirty substance rather than an odourless gas, and one, of course, upon which all plant life on this planet depends).

Striking, too, is the way the issue is presented as a closed case. We’ve all heard the sweeping repetitive statements: ‘The debate is closed’, and ‘the science is clear’. These, straight off, should sound alarm bells. In science, the debate is never closed; it can’t be. Science, after all, is about evolving knowledge and discovery, where the door is always open to unfolding understandings. Most pernicious of all is the reference, over and over, to ‘the consensus’ – the notion that the world’s scientists are all in agreement that human beings are driving dangerous climate change. (This fallacy will be the subject of a future article.) These statements are meant to lull you into acceptance and away from inquiry.

Worse of all, perhaps, is the sinister linking of sceptics with evil-doers. The damning phrase ‘climate denier’ is meant to echo ‘Holocaust denier’. Scepticism should be welcomed in science, not condemned, and this defensiveness is a dead giveaway. The consequences for scientists who refuse to tow the line can be devastating, however – the science parallel of celebrities like Laurence Fox or JK Rowling being ‘cancelled’ because of saying something the woke brigade doesn’t endorse. The penalties can include ostracism, loss of funding, or an end to one’s career and livelihood. Conforming scientists, the media and politicians conspire to push this singular narrative and to suppress dissenting voices. Obama went so far as to name and shame sceptical American scientists on his personal website.

But why?

The most obvious question in all of this, though, is ‘why?’ Why, in effect, would there be a global conspiracy to convince us the Earth is warming and that it’s all our fault? In particular, why would scientists be complicit in this? Science, of course, should be immune to political pressure – but history has shown it’s not. A generation of scientists in Nazi Germany supported the notion of eugenics, because it was expedient to do so. I’m not drawing any comparisons, but it shows how science can be subverted – especially when grants/funding/livelihoods are concerned. It is evident that overwhelming effort has gone into convincing the world of man-made climate change and suppressing any contradictory evidence or voices. But why?

A friend of mine often says, ‘When in doubt, follow the money’. Al Gore, who popularised the idea through his contacts at the US Congress, has become a billionaire off climate change. The renewables industry is vastly lucrative, and the recipient of government grants around the world. It provides an excuse for Green taxes and the ‘Green New Deal’. This isn’t an area I know much about, but it’s not difficult to see why governments would warm (excuse the pun) to the idea of climate change. The UN is positively evangelical about it. Aside from taxation, the climate change narrative also gives a good ‘reason’ for further globalisation and control by global bodies, given the need to tackle the ‘challenge’ collectively.

For years I resisted looking at climate change from a sceptical standpoint. I’ve always been very environmentally minded and was completely convinced that the greatest threat facing mankind was climate change. It didn’t even cross my mind, in fact, to question it – after all, how could all those scientists be wrong? It just seemed so improbable – like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. When I finally did delve in, however, I was astonished, and dismayed, to find that the evidence of a planet-sized hoax is there for all to see, if you dare look.

State of the Economy: Unknown

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday July 21st 2020


I say the state of the economy today is unknown because it felt like the only appropriate word (other than “terrifying” which probably wouldn’t help the situation!)

The government’s furlough scheme will soon end, and then UK business will need to stand on its own feet again in terms of staff costs, which will inevitably mean job losses: the “unknown” element refers to how many.

This isn’t a UK problem though, this is a major global problem.  This week for example, the President of Microsoft Brad Smith said the world is facing job losses of quarter of a billion, many of which are gone for good.  This is because post-coronavirus, the world will become more digital and more and more of our lives will be lived online.  This of course means major change for the global economy because how we do business, or buy products, will never be the same.

The situation is reflected here in the UK as we experience a “spike” in IT job advertisements.  According to the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, demand for web designers and developers has risen by 15.5% since June.

Deputy chief executive of TechUK Antony Walker said “We’ve seen two years of digital transformation happening in the space of two weeks.  A lot of business leaders we’ve been talking to, and survey data, shows that digital will be more important to their business, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.”

Employment figures in Britain are dropping as can be expected, with 34,000 more unemployed in April to reach a figure of 1.3 million.

The rise in IT jobs is both good and bad news; good news for those who are trained, bad news for those who are not.  Non-IT jobs it seems are becoming more and more rare.

Meanwhile, UK borrowing is up.  In fact, it’s at record levels.  The government borrowed a record £127.9bn between April and June as it tries to keep on top of coronavirus costs.  (Prior to the pandemic, Britain was already in debt to the tune of 85% of GDP).  This borrowing is unlikely to stop any time soon.

Meanwhile, public sector workers such as doctors and teachers are to receive an above-inflation payrise.  Few would argue with a pay rise in normal circumstances, but given the strain already placed on the public purse, one wonders sometimes where Rishi Sunak is getting all this money from – and how he intends to pay it back.

There have been times through this pandemic that Sunak’s pockets have appeared rather deep and I suspect I’m not the only one somewhat on edge about how much deeper they can get.

Across in Brussels, the EU has finally come to an agreement about post-coronavirus help for business.  It has set aside 750 billion euros for the task.  I can’t help but wonder if it’s too little, too late.  The EU showed itself as staggeringly inept in dealing with this crisis, but luckily, after December 31st, that’s one coronavirus problem we won’t have to deal with.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 


SUNDAY COLUMN: ‘Don’t Mask, Don’t Get’


‘Don’t Mask, Don’t Get’

Sunday July 19th 2020


The mysterious Bristol artist ‘Banksy’, who anonymously creates graffiti based art in public places throughout the country, has left his mark on a London tube.  The artist stencilled images of rats wearing face masks and complying with coronavirus restrictions.  Banksy, an obvious advocate of unquestioning obedience to the government, has named the collection ‘If You Don’t Mask, You Don’t Get’.

Don’t get what?  Food? Medical treatment?  Well, yes.  That’s exactly what is meant.  Great Britain has entered that arena.  The government will tell us to cover our faces and if we don’t, they can (and will) deny us the ability to feed ourselves or visit the doctor.  What’s tragic is that the likes of Banksy, supposed to be ‘edgy’ and non-conforming, is promoting absolute blind obedience to the state.  (I remember when ‘edgy rebels’ didn’t preach unquestioning deference to the powerful but those were simpler times).

The Government has decided that from the 24th of July (no reason for that particular date, stop asking questions) face masks will be compulsory in shops.  They will not however be compulsory in pubs, bars, or restaurants.  (Stop asking questions).  Even more bizarrely, Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, gave an embarrassing interview in which he said that a person does need to wear a mask if buying a takeaway sandwich from Pret a Manger.  However, if they plan to sit down inside Pret a Manger and eat their sandwich there, no mask is required.

Stop asking questions.

Furthermore, staff in shops won’t wear masks, but customers will.

But the icing on the cake is this: masks do not prevent a person from being infected with COVID-19.  In fact, they achieve very little, if anything at all.

The ‘selling point’ of the masks appears to be that an asymptomatic sufferer, wearing the mask, reduces the chances of transmission.  But does anyone spot a problem?  If this disease is so deadly, why are so many suspected of having it while showing no symptoms?

That’s not the only confusion. Only a couple of months ago, Dr Jake Dunning, head of emerging infectious disease at Public Health England said that there is “very little evidence of a widespread benefit” of mask wearing.  He added: “Face masks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good universal hygiene behaviour in order for them to be effective.”

Why then are they being imposed in such an arbitrary and haphazard fashion, when only by strict and regulated use can they be of any benefit?

Stop asking questions.

If none of this makes any sense, that’s because none of this makes any sense.  It is even less understandable given that we have just begun to come out of lockdown and have restrictions eased.  Then the most restrictive policy of all makes a sudden appearance.

Worse still, we don’t know when this will end.  Some articles suggest that we will obliged to wear masks (sometimes, in some places, none of which make any sense) until the elusive coronavirus vaccine is found.

We have no idea how long this will take, nor do we know what will happen to those who refuse a vaccine.  Did you ever imagine that this is where we would be in 2020?

We’ve established that the mask requirements are arbitrary and nonsensical.  How on earth can a mask not be required to sit in a restaurant, but it is required to obtain a takeaway from the same restaurant?

We’re told just to obey, just do it, what is there to lose?  Actually, quite a lot.  Way more than there is to gain.

The cost of mask wearing has not been quantified, so I’ll attempt to do so here.

Our culture is one built on trust.  Our economy is designed around it.  The essence of purchase and sale and contract are based upon trust, our willingness to do the right thing.  This works, but the human element of it is primary.  Human contact is of the most crucial importance in building trust.  This cannot be done without access to the face.  We must see each other’s faces in order to fully connect.  Crucially, our smile builds trust.  That smile will now be hidden under masks. Do not understate the importance of this, it will change us.  It will change how we feel about each other, it will change how we interact.  Those who don’t wear masks (for one of the many exceptions for example) will be treated as no less than killers.  One can already see the dirty looks exchanged between strangers who have suddenly become enemies because of the presence or otherwise of masks.

What about our health?  Is wearing masks healthy?  No.  Of course it isn’t.  Dr Vernon Coleman, who speaks out rather candidly against these masks, said that people have died from wearing them, and more are very likely to do the same.  Furthermore, those whose profession requires them to wear masks are obliged to change and dispose of them on a very regular basis (every few hours).  Are we to do the same?  If not, why not?  If so, who will pay for them?  Finally, where will the discarded masks go?

Stop asking questions.

To finish this column, let’s look to the government’s official advice.  Pay close attention to the language used (as a rule in fact, that’s my constant advice – always pay attention to specific words).

The first thing the government tells you to do is stay away from people.  It states: “it is important to be aware that the risk of infection increases the closer you are to another person with the virus, and the amount of time you spend in close contact with them. Therefore, you are unlikely to be infected if you walk past another person in the street.”

Why then are we likely to transmit it if we walk past each other in shops?

Stop asking questions.

Then we are told to avoid face to face contact.  Instead, we should stand “side by side”.  (Why do I get the sudden urge to roll my eyes when I read this?)

The third piece of advice is to wash our hands.  Sound advice at all times if I may say so.

We are furthermore advised to keep well ventilated rooms, avoid crowds (unless attending a Black Lives Matter rally), work from home, avoid public transport, avoid shouting or singing, reduce the contact or time spent with work colleagues, keep your clothes clean (again, good advice generally), and follow onsite advice wherever you happen to be.

There is a recurring theme in all of this, and it will have an incredibly damaging effect.  In combination, all of these rules and regulations make very little scientific sense, but what they will do, and what they’ll achieve quite easily, is to drive a wedge between us, distance us from each other both emotionally and physically.

It is the breakdown of the trusting society we have taken centuries to build.  It will be unravelled in the space of mere months.  Snitching and arguing and expressions of fear and revulsion between strangers has already started.  It reminds me of ‘1984’, when the kids reported their own parents for ‘wrongthink’.

To return to the topic at hand, the government guidance on face masks (or ‘face coverings’ as they’ve decided to call them) is a must-read.  In fact, I’ll post some of it here.

“The best available scientific evidence is that, when used correctly, wearing a face covering may reduce the spread of coronavirus droplets in certain circumstances, helping to protect others.”

The best available?  Is it from the same people who said half a million of us would die?  Pay attention to the “may” and “in certain circumstances”.  Our trust society, our relations with one another, are being poisoned beyond repair for something that “may” help in “certain circumstances”.

The exemptions are equally bewildering.  Firstly, the rules are different depending on where you are in the UK, which either means the virus is different in different parts of the UK, or the rules are simply being made up by useless officials as they go along.  My money is on the latter.

The guidance states: “In settings where face coverings are mandated in England, there are some circumstances, for health, age or equality reasons, whereby people are not expected to wear face coverings in these settings.”  Equality reasons?  Huh?  That’s not explained further sadly.

Here is the list of exemptions.

  • young children under the age of 11
  • not being able to put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability
  • if putting on, wearing or removing a face covering will cause you severe distress
  • if you are travelling with or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading to communicate
  • to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to yourself or others
  • to avoid injury, or to escape a risk of harm, and you do not have a face covering with you
  • to eat or drink, but only if you need to
  • to take medication
  • if a police officer or other official requests you remove your face covering

These exemptions are so broad and vague as to make the whole thing even more erratic. What exactly is the point of this?  There may be lesser transmission in some circumstances and cases?  That’s why we’re turning citizens in to enemies, fearful of one another?  That’s why we’re covering faces making the risk of crime higher?  That’s why we’re disconnecting from each other in the most fundamental ways?  That’s why we’re inflicting a rule that will have catastrophic social consequences?  Because it may help reduce transmission in some circumstances?

Do you think this is wise?

While providing you with a list of exemptions that cover just about everyone, punishments for non-conformers are also specified.  These are:

Measures can be taken if people do not comply with this law. Transport operators can deny service or direct someone to wear a face covering. If necessary, the police and Transport for London authorised officers can issue fines of £100 (halving to £50 if paid within 14 days). Shops and supermarkets will be expected to encourage compliance with the law (as they would do more generally) and can refuse entry. In both cases, if necessary, the police have the powers to enforce these measures, including through issuing a fine of £100 (halving to £50 if paid within 14 days).

So what happens if I have an exemption and yet a supermarket refuses to allow me entry?  What if I find it all too distressing so I don’t wear a mask, then I get in to a furious row with a supermarket worker who won’t allow me to buy food.  Police are called, fines issued, the supermarket worker and I are firm enemies, the police are distracted from real crime (not that they seem to mind), and our relationship with each other, as fellow citizens, suffers a fatal blow.

And of all of it because it may help in certain circumstances.

If you’re not convinced about the wisdom of all this, or you simply don’t trust it, then I’m afraid it’s you who is the problem.  Just do as you’re told you troublemaker and be very careful; you want to eat don’t you?

Remember this above all…. if you don’t mask, you don’t get.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

BREAKING: Piccadilly Mosque Application Withdrawn

Anne Marie Waters

Saturday July 18th 2020

Good news!  For Britain’s campaign against the Piccadilly Mosque has been successful.

The 1,000 person mosque that was planned for the Trocadero centre in Piccadilly Circus will not go ahead – for now.

Plans to build an Islamic place of worship in the heart of the West End were met with fierce objection, and communication has now been sent to objectors that the plans have been withdrawn by the applicants; the Aziz Foundation.

The Foundation had initially argued that the mosque would bring “diversity” to the area, but For Britain believes it would bring nothing but tension.

Building a mosque in the middle of the capital’s entertainment hub, and in close proximity to London’s ‘gay village’ Soho, was entirely inappropriate and should not have been entertained.  The West End is not a place for devout Islam, but for secular entertainment, and we say it should stay that way.

Well done and thank you to our fantastic London Branch for getting out there and informing local people about this flawed venture, without which so many objections would not have been heard.

Well done London Branch!  Once again we show what can be achieved.

We’ll continue our fight to keep Britain British.  Join us.

SUNDAY COLUMN: Immigration and why it matters


Immigration and why it matters 

Sunday July 12th 2020


For Britain recently launched its national campaign against open borders to the world.  Illegal immigrants have been entering the UK, by the 1,000, while the rest of us were on coronavirus ‘lockdown’.  Both Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are fully aware of this, and apart from a few meaningless words with nothing behind them, we’ve had no response from either.  In fact, it gets worse, the UK’s Border Force (or Farce) is actually ferrying illegal immigrants in to the UK.  We should have expected this from Boris Johnson, he has of course called for amnesty for illegal immigrants in the past.  This is an invite to the world to come to the UK; all you have to do is get here and we’ll let you stay and the taxpayer will foot the bill.

That is where we are.  It is little different to how Britain would look under Jeremy Corbyn.  We’ve got to come to terms with the fact that both big parties in this country are pro mass migration, even if their reasons are different.

Labour wants mass migration for a couple of reasons.  Among these are its visceral and psychopathic hatred for Britain, white people, and capitalism.  The hatred for Britain is based on its past, and because left-wingers are incapable of accepting the world as it is.  Britain was not the only country ever to engage in what might be described as immorality.  In fact, in terms of morals and behaviour towards others, Britain has a better record than most.  That fact isn’t entertained by leftists; their psychology allows them only to focus on negatives, there is no positivity.  They hate Britain and there’s no debate allowed.  They hate Britain because it was once a colonial power, but they also hate it because they hate many things – they hate white people (the native majority) and they hate capitalism.

The open onslaught on white people at present is truly something to behold.  It is a crime against humanity.  The hatred of whites is so intense that it isn’t even described as hatred.  It’s more ‘understandable’ than hatred. That’s how far it goes.  White left-wingers latch on to self-hatred for whatever personal reason they are steeped in it.

In my experience, most people’s hatred of others truly stems from hatred of themselves.  Self-hatred exists in almost every human being, but most of us can get a grip with it to an extent that we can lead productive lives (though none of us are perfect).  The level of self-hatred exhibited by British (especially white) left-wingers is extraordinary, and if it was only harming them, I wouldn’t care.  But it isn’t.  It is harming Britain and its children and that is something we should not accept.

Capitalism is the final culprit.  Leftists loathe capitalism with passion.  This is because their self-hatred once again causes them to believe they cannot make it in a world of self-reliance and sufficiency. These are people who want to be ‘cared for’ by the state rather than stand on their own feet.  They dress this self-contempt up as concern for others, but this is a lie; left-wingers hate, they don’t feel concern.  They hate themselves so much they can’t stand a society where they’ll be called upon to take responsibility for their own lives.

The Left believes that mass migration will destroy Britain (and it will) by destroying its historical and ethnic character, and by bringing down capitalism – something it is far more likely to do by importing the world’s poorest people in the belief that Britain owes them and they are welcome to collect.  Mass immigration not only bring votes for Labour (from people not willing to stand on their own feet), but it will also make state dependency bigger and bigger and bigger… leading inevitably to outright communism.  That’s the left-wing dream.

The Conservative Party also wants mass migration, but for different reasons.  The Tories want to make big business happy, that has always been their primary concern, and so immigration will provide all the cheap labour it can muster – keeping staffing costs down, keeping wages down, and keeping the working class with their heads just about above water.

In short, we must accept and come to terms with the fact that both big parties in the UK (and indeed all other parties currently sitting in Parliament) are committed to mass migration, regardless of the speeches they make saying otherwise.

No more denial.  No more fingers in our ears.  That’s the reality, so the question now is – what are we going to do about it?

Let me start by explaining it in detail.  Why is immigration such an issue?  Why is it so important?  There are countless reasons, but I’ll stick to the most profound, covering both legal and illegal migration.


Legal Immigration 

What makes immigration legal?  Simple; when the state legislates for it and allows it.  Legal immigration therefore should never be ‘blamed’ on immigrants, and indeed many British people understand that immigration per se is not a wholly negative or unusual thing.  Human beings have been moving around the planet for centuries – history has taken course around this very fact.  The United States is a prime example.  It was built by Europeans (mostly), as was Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Bringing it back to the modern era however, most Brits would still suggest that some immigration is ok.  What they’re concerned about is how much and from where.  They are right to be concerned.  Culture is one of the most important reasons.  Our culture is the way we live, it is a reflection of our morals and values, it is, in other words, of the most profound significance.

For example, let’s take a look at what is happening in Seattle on the back of the so-called Black Lives Matter protests.  A group of anarchists has taken control of part of the city in Washington state, and they intend to build their utopia within.  So what was the first thing they did?  They built a border.  This is a group that firmly believes in borderlessness.  Or it pretends to.  In reality however, it thoroughly believes in borders for what it values, it believes in borderlessness for what it hates.  It knows borderlessness brings destruction and as such, seeks it for the United States.  It does so because it hates the United States.  It is no more complicated than that.

But what does Black Lives Matter admit by setting up a border?  That to keep its values in place, it must physically keep out those who do not share those values.  That’s what borders are all about.  BLM has admitted that many won’t share their values and so they can’t be allowed to join.  It’s really very simple.

BLM want a certain kind of lifestyle within their commune; they want shared property (which of course means theft), they want no police, no money, no ownership… no reality.  They’ve put up a border to keep out those who won’t agree to this lifestyle and don’t share their values, because what would happen if not?  Well, anyone could join the commune, including those who don’t share its values and if enough of those join, people without those values will outnumber people with those values.  That means those values are gone.  The entire area becomes something completely different and their utopia is over.  That’s how it works.

They also set up a ‘black only’ area inside the commune (because they hate white people) and this too had a border.  Why? Because if whites (or Asians or any non-blacks) were allowed to enter the area, then it would no longer be a black only area.  The whole point of the border is to maintain what is inside.

It’s exactly the same with immigration.  To keep Britain a certain way, to maintain its culture and values, we must keep out what threatens that culture and those values.

It’s simple; people from countries with entirely different value systems will threaten the value system of this country, especially if they come here in large enough numbers (which they do).

The best examples for the UK are Pakistan and Somalia; two countries with huge levels of migration to the UK and two countries with entirely different sets of values to the UK.  The impact has meant the demise of the UK’s values, its identity, its character, its safety and freedom.

Most (though by no means all) Pakistani immigrants to the UK have formed insular communities, cut off from the rest of the country.  Much of this community will not integrate and are appalled by the UK’s freedoms; particularly religious and sexual freedom.  This is because of the culture in Pakistan.  There, religion and sex are both heavily regulated by the state and this is done through grotesque cruelty such as death for apostasy or stoning for adultery.  Women in Pakistan are expected to cover from head to toe or be thought of as a whore (or ‘immodest’ but they mean the same thing).  If women are ‘immodest’ they are asking for rape, and rape is what ‘immodest’ British women have been subjected to.

The Pakistani ‘grooming gang’ is no modern phenomenon.  The rape of British women and girls by Pakistanis has been happening in the UK since Pakistanis first started arriving.  We must accept that they came with a certain mentality towards women that made itself felt in the form of rape.  Because our ‘leaders’ wanted more immigration regardless, the rapes were covered up and allowed to continue.

Similarly, religious freedom does not exist in Pakistan, and so when people from that country came here, most of them brought objections to religious freedom with them.  What does that mean for us?  It’s obvious, it has led to a demise in religious freedom.  Apostates cannot live freely in the UK without threat; objectively then immigration from Pakistan has reduced both the safety of women and freedom of belief in Britain.  That is indisputable.

Somalia brought female genital mutilation (it brought other horrors too but let’s focus on this one).  FGM is practiced by 98% of Somalis.  Yes, 98%.  So what happens when migration from Somalia to the UK takes place?  The UK suddenly finds itself with FGM.  There are now clinics all over the UK dedicated to ‘fixing’ the physical effects of FGM.  It is now a part of the UK’s landscape.  Only a couple of generations ago, this part of the world had never even heard of FGM, but now it’s a brutal reality, and that’s all thanks to immigration.

British values and morals in other words, have been turned completely upside down because of immigration.  Britain is divided between those who share its traditional values and those who reject them, often violently.

Police can’t do their job because crime is so high, that is also because of immigration.  It is tragic.

Illegal immigration brings all of the same problems, while making an additional mockery of the law.


Illegal Immigration 

All of the issues mentioned above are compounded by illegal immigration.  Division, hatred, violence, rape, all comes from illegal immigration as well as legal.

But this one is even worse, and it is very serious because when lawmakers ignore the law, so will everyone else, and not just immigration law.

When a person’s first entry to a country is done through breaking the law, and they are not punished for this, what message do they receive?  That our laws mean nothing.  That Britain has no values it is willing to defend.  That’s what illegal immigrants are told and that is how many go on to live their lives here.

If Boris Johnson tells immigrants to ignore immigration laws, why not other laws?  Why should immigrants obey the law at all?  The message is they shouldn’t, and as a result, they don’t.

Being allowed to stay despite having broken the law is just the start.  If they commit crimes, including violent crimes, it makes no difference.  Rapists, terrorists, murderers, have all been allowed to stay in the UK at taxpayer’s expense.  They are literally rewarded for committing horrific crimes.  What message do they receive?  That they can do what they like and Britain will never punish them.  This includes murdering and raping Britons, stealing our money, destroying our way of life.  All of this ends not in punishment, but again, reward.

Given this, its hardly a surprise that people from all over the world think Britain is pretty pathetic.  Why wouldn’t they?  The Prime Minister said so.  He may not have used those words, but he didn’t need to, he told the world to come here and they can stay – regardless of the problems it causes for Brits.  The message to immigrants is Brits don’t matter, you do.

Illegal immigration reduces this great country to a mere ‘bit of land’.  This ‘bit of land’ has no history, no identity, no values, no culture, and it belongs to everyone and anyone.

If immigration continues, Britain will die.  Now we must decide if we want to let it die, or fight to save it.  I have given my life to saving it, and this starts with ending immigration.


The Short and Long Term

Culture isn’t the only thing under threat from immigration, but resources.  How on earth can any country be expected to provide resources for the whole world?  It can’t. The British taxpayer can’t afford to spend on healthcare for the world, or social welfare, or housing; we do not have an infinite amount of money.  We also have no responsibility here.  We owe nothing to the rest of the world.  In fact, if Britain owes anything, it is an apology to its own people and a promise to right the wrongs committed against them.

In the longer term, immigration means destruction and this takes me to the second part of For Britain’s most recent campaign; Save British Heritage.

It broke my heart to watch Churchill’s statue defaced – I could scarcely look. This isn’t because I have a particular love of Churchill himself (though I am a big fan), it is because of what that statue represents.  It is a tribute to everyone who has fought and died for Britain.  It remembers the dark times of the blitz (for example) and the fighting British spirit this brought to the fore.  That’s what was attacked and defaced, and that is why it broke my heart.

Much of this cannot be blamed on immigration, I understand that.  In fact, much of the Black Lives Matter mob are not black and therefore not descended from immigrants, they are white Britons filled with hatred.  However, immigration still plays a part.  Immigration from countries who have a history with Britain (ex colonies for example) will often bring people who feel entitled, who feel the UK owes them.  Many will have been raised with hatred for Britain, then when they come here, home grown Britain haters have gained a new set of allies.  The white Britain haters exploit the hatred of Britain we’re importing, and the hatred grows and grows.

Because many of the immigrants are non-white, the Britain hating left will exploit this and tell the non-white immigrants that Britain hates them because it’s racist, and so they must destroy it.

In other words, the Britain-hating left wants Britain-hating immigrants, both to swell its own numbers, and to exploit the race element so that anyone who objects can be accused of racism.

Look how well it has worked.

Police, politicians, footballers, and beyond, literally got on to their knees in submission to a radical Britain-hating, democracy-hating, West-hating, communist mob that openly calls for anarchy and destruction, and they did so purely because the left attached the race element.

Police allowed the torture and gang-rape of British children purely because the left accused them of racism if they intervened (a lesson quickly learned by the rapists themselves who used it to great effect).

Mass immigration in other words is a complete disaster for any settled nation.  Good individuals who contribute are of course welcome in manageable numbers, but that is not what is happening here.  We have imported people whose contribution is overwhelmingly negative, which has broken Britain in to pieces.  Such people continue to come here, and continue to be invited here, by those who hate Britain and want it destroyed.

To those immigrants who come to Britain because they love it, you also need to know that Britain is under threat; that others intend to bring it down and will exploit immigrants to do so.

My advice therefore is to stand up for Britain and contribute to its defence.  It is in imminent danger and all of us who love it must now come together to save it.  We cannot do that while allowing current immigration levels.

For Britain will ends mass migration to the UK.  We will deport those who break our laws or who reject our culture.  We will deport illegal immigrants and send a new message to the world;  Britain is no longer weak, it will no longer apologise to those who harm it.

Britain is NOT a ‘bit of land’, it is Britain, and for as long as I breathe, I will fight to keep it that way.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777



Cressida Dick Stabs Front Line Officers in the Back

By Mike Speakman, Policing and Law & Order Spokesman, ex Deputy Chief Constable.

8th July 2020

We all know about the knife crime epidemic in London, but we never thought it would extend up to the highest ranks of the Metropolitan Police Service.  Cressida Dick has stabbed her own officers in the back and then thrown them under the bus.  Despite two internal reviews finding that the officers who conducted the stop had acted lawfully and with propriety, Commissioner Cressida Dick has apologised to Bianca Williams and her partner for their treatment.

Despite the IOPC saying they will investigate; she has pre-empted their findings.  I have not seen the officer’s bodycam footage, but others have, and they  variously report the car being driven down the wrong side of the road with the door open. The vehicle also apparently had tinted windows and it was not possible to see who was inside.

It is highly unlikely that the internal reviews conducted by the Met were a whitewash. Whoever conducted the reviews would have known that they would be scrutinised and that nothing could be concealed.   They must have felt very confident of the public announcement that nothing was untoward.  Why then the apology?   I can only see it as the latest in a long line of senior police commanders appeasing minority communities. Tension is high at the moment because of the actions of the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement who have made race an issue like never before.  For years now police leadership have appeased minority groups from “grooming gangs” to outright street thuggery. It continues to this day. They will not learn the lesson that appeasement doesn’t work.

The country rests on a knife edge, police control of the streets is fragile.  It is fundamental to all policing that the Police have control of our streets. You cannot police if you do not have access.  This control has visibly been surrendered in recent months to various groups behaving unlawfully, for example, Extinction Rebellion and Black lives Matter who have openly broken the law, almost without exception with the support of the police.

Cressida Dick’s abject failure to support her own officers will have consequences.  Many bobbies will say and some already are “Why should I bother?”. If you are doing the job lawfully and diligently you have every right to expect your boss to support you. In years gone by Chief Constables were independent people who understood leadership and knew you backed your people when they undeservedly came under attack.  Unfortunately, our modern police leaders are more about management than leadership.  They fail to realise that part of their job is to support their staff.

If I was a Met bobby I would be saying “What’s the point?”  Some may vote with their feet just like they have in some US cities. If the wheel really comes off and we end up  in the next few weeks with large scale disorder in our cities, a prospect which is becoming more likely every day, do Cressida Dick and other Police Chiefs expect their bobbies to answer the call.  It must be in doubt if they feel they are not supported by their bosses.

The retired bobbies and senior officers I am in touch with are itching to get back and sort the current mess out.  Not for the first time I am saying Policing has lost its way.  For Britain would remove the current crop of police leaders. They are not fit for purpose.



Remembering the London Bombings

By Hugo Jenks, Islam Spokesman

I remember the morning of 7/7/2005.

It started uneventfully for me. I walked to my job at a small engineering company in Walton on Thames, greeted my colleagues, and settled down to my tasks for the day. A colleague then said there were explosions in London. As the picture clarified, it was then hard to concentrate on doing any work. It felt very close – I would go into London for sightseeing at weekends, and it was a shock to me. A shock to us all.Until that point I had not examined Islam at all, and had only vague memories of it being discussed in RE lessons at school. Suddenly it became significant, and it was necessary to find out more.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, spoke of Islam as a peaceful religion. That the Koran was beautiful, and that he kept a copy on his bedside table. And of course he said that this attack were nothing to do with the peaceful religion of Islam. I had never trusted Blair, and it seemed obvious to me (but unfortunately not obvious to everyone at that time) that whatever he said should be treated with extreme scepticism. My task then was apparent: I would have to read the Koran for myself and decide whether Blair was accurate or not regarding Islam.

I downloaded a copy, and set about reading it. Starting at the beginning, as I knew no better at that time. It took around five days of determined slog to get through it. It is tediously repetitive, it makes little sense in many places, and what sense it does make demonstrates its violence, lack of concern for non-believers, scientific absurdities, lack of modern concepts of morality or basic rights, inaccuracies when relating Biblical stories, and yet with one overwhelming theme: inducing a state of fear into believers regarding the threat of eternal punishment in Hell – that they risk falling into if they fail to do exactly what the Messenger of Allah tells them to do.

As an aside: almost every church service that I have attended has barely mentioned Hell. On one occasion I did attend a small church where the preacher, shall we say “warmed” to his theme of hellfire and damnation, painting a picture of eternal torment in a lake of fire. It seems not to be something that the Anglican or Methodist churches that I am more familiar with have really mentioned. Not so with Islam it seems. This fear of eternal punishment appears to be central to their religion, and is a powerful motivator!

As I read more about Islam in the months following 7/7/2005, and gaining the understanding of the principle of Abrogation (that the more recently revealed generally intolerant verses supercede the earlier more tolerant verses wherever contradictions exist) and that Islam really is violent and filled with hatred – contrary to the deceitful statements by Tony Blair – it clearly needed some sort of response. I wrote to various people to try to alert them, however without many replies. A few months later David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives created a website were members of the public could write comments and suggestions for policies. Of course I set about attempting to alert them to the threat of Islam itself. It is not apparent that they took any notice whatsoever, unfortunately.

And today, a decade and a half later, it is clear that they are still taking no notice at all. Indeed they now expel any of their Party members for “Islamophobia” for even the mildest questioning of Islam. I absolutely know that they have been told the harsh truth about Islam – because I have told them! They have had plenty of opportunities to correct their errors, and I never gave up trying to alert them, and am still trying. However it is equally apparent that if we are to tackle Islam itself, then the Conservatives have shown repeatedly in the years since the London bombings that they have no willingness to do so. They must be replaced by a party that will tackle Islam: The party is For Britain of course! The next election will in effect be a referendum on whether the UK wishes to become Islamic or not. Time is rapidly running out – we do not have another 15 years to waste.

We have no option but to persevere with this task. The task is ongoing. We have to win in the end – we have truth on our side. Truth, justice, and beauty – the Platonic Triad – are the ideals that we must strive for. Islam is diametrically opposed to these – it is deceitful, unjust, and ugly.

The choice for us is obvious!

State of the Economy: Fragile

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday July 7th 2020


It’s back!  Our economy has now pretty much re-opened, so how is it going?  The short answer is: mixed (again).

The re-opening of pubs and restaurants (and others) on July 4th did not deliver the economic boost that was hoped.  High street footfall for that weekend was still down by almost half compared to the same weekend last year.  In response, and with the end of the furlough scheme looming large, the British Retail Consortium (BRC) has asked Chancellor Rishi Sunak to take action to boost consumer demand.  According to Sky News, the BRC urged the government to “act fast to protect the three million retail jobs, as well as millions more throughout the supply chain”.

Its chief executive Helen Dickinson said “It remains a long way back to normality for the retail industry.

“The reopening of pubs, cafes and other hospitality businesses this Saturday does not appear to have benefited shops much, with the Saturday showing more modest growth than the days prior to these locations reopening.

“By European standards, the UK’s recovery remains slow, and while safety measures introduced by retailers have been well received by customers, many shoppers are still reluctant to visit physical shopping locations.”

Indeed visiting shops has become more cumbersome, and many will be put off, as can be seen by the sparse numbers venturing out in comparison to 2019.

Barclaycard said spending on leisure however was up by 19% on the previous weekend, but still down by 45% compared with a year ago.

For now, we are forced to continue our wait-and-see approach.  The next big hurdle on the path to ‘normality’ is the end of the furlough scheme.  The Chancellor’s Job Retention Scheme has been extended until October, and is then that employers will be called upon to pay their staff, something that the government has been doing since March.

Meanwhile, Sunak continues to spend.  In a bid to rebuild the economy with ‘green’ concerns in mind, the Chancellor has promised £2bn for projects including home insulation.  This is part of a £3bn package to “cut emissions”.

The BBC speculates today as to what steps Rishi Sunak may take next, and the idea of VAT cuts is floated.  It is hoped this will increase spending, because as the BBC notes, “A skilled workforce isn’t enough; you need the demand for their talents”.

The budget will provide a chance for the Treasury to take a fresh approach, but it will be a difficult path.  Sunak is due to set out the country’s finances in the autumn, and he will be expected to explain how he intends to fund coronavirus spending, and what more needs to be done to accelerate the economic comeback.

As usual, let’s end on a positive.  A few months ago, we were lost.  We were setting out on a journey with no discernible end in sight.  Now we’ve a bit more clarity on the road ahead, provided of course there aren’t more nasty surprises.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777 


SUNDAY COLUMN: In Defence of Democracy (Part Two)


In Defence of Democracy (Part Two)

Sunday July 5th 2020


In last week’s column (which you can read here) I introduced you to my new book In Defence of Democracy.

The book is written in three parts, with part one covering democracy itself; the morality of it, the history of it, and why it is superior to other systems.  By way of comparison, I describe communism, socialism, and other totalitarian philosophies.  Democracy is superior to every one and I describe exactly why that is.

In section two, I defend democracies.  This includes Western Europe and the United States; how they developed democracies and the long bloody journey they travelled to get there.

In part three, which I will focus on today, I will show you what threatens democracy today, and the peril it currently finds itself in.

Throughout history, notions of democracy have come and gone.  We have drifted between aspirations to freedom and submission to unaccountable rule.  Today, unaccountable rule is on the rise and democracy is spiralling.  We are in a perilous place and we must turn that around.

The threats to democracy that I highlight are these: China, Islam, Globalism, and the Far Left.  Let’s take these in turn.

China is a major threat to global freedom and has plans for world domination. That may sound fanciful but that is a mistake.  China does not play by the rules; it has promised it will engage in free trade as other nations do, and the hope is (or was) that given its engagement in the global capitalist economy, it would follow this up by instituting democratic principles.  This was naive at best.  China has no intention of adopting democracy.  It engaged in global trade, and said all the right things at international conferences, but the sole reason for this was wealth, not liberty.  China wants to be an economic behemoth in order to increase its power.  This task is almost complete.

China now has the second largest economy in the world and is predicted to overtake the United States in as little as 10 years’ time.  It achieved this by lying to the West, which was naive enough to believe its lies.  What the Chinese government says it will do, and what it does, are two very different things.  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) loves to perform for the crowd.  It loves to sound like a responsible member of the international community by parroting all the usual buzzwords, but its actions portray something entirely different.

China obeys no international law.  It obeys no copyright law, no environmental laws, no workers’ rights.  It is a law entirely on to itself.  Much of its economy is quite simply stolen from others, and nothing is done to hold it to account because it has become too powerful.

The CCP knows how to gain global power – by both stealing and purchasing.  This country has made so much money through copyright theft and the dismissal of laws that it is now in the position to buy influence around the world, and that is what it is doing, including in America.

China has rode roughshod over the US Constitution, even getting interviews cancelled and employees fired in the United States for being critical of its government.

What’s more, it has made itself unaccountable.  As the world’s leading communist state, the Chinese government owns all of the country’s businesses, and of course its courts.  So, if a Chinese company steals your idea and passes it off as its own (which it does regularly), what recourse will you have?  The answer is none.  You cannot take the Chinese government to court because it owns the courts.  If China steals from you, you simply have to take it because your own government has sold its soul to this communist state and will not challenge it in any way.

For its part, China is utterly brutal and we already know what a world dominated by its ruthless leaders will look like.  There will be no free speech and no concern for individual rights or liberties.  It will turn the world in to one large communist state, and only by preventing its growth through holding it to account, can we avoid such a terrible fate.

Along with China comes Islam, although the two are incompatible with each other.  China does not allow freedom of religion and Uighur Muslims are held in concentration camps even as I write.  But two things, even if not compatible, can simultaneously pose the same threat, and that is the case here.

Islam is the religious equivalent of China; it tolerates no liberties or rights, it cares nothing for the individual, its punishments are arbitrary and brutal, and it demands total obedience at all times.

It is also given a free pass in the West as our leaders cover their eyes and ears to its reality.  Islam thoroughly dominates the weakened West.  It clearly opposes all of the liberties that make the West what it is, and yet we as a society are desperately pretending otherwise.

“Religion of peace” is about the most dishonest ludicrous catchphrase in the politically correct handbook.  It is the very opposite of the truth and yet our corrupt and dumbed down media parrots it at every opportunity.  Islam is a religion built upon violence and theft.  Mohammed was a murderer and a conqueror.  Islamic societies today reflect this.  Islam’s brutal and unforgiving philosophy governs several nations and all of them are theocratic tyrannies, irrespective of what they call themselves.

Islam has transformed our democracies; it has made religious violence and censorship very much a part of the Western world in 2020.  For 1,000s of years, Europeans fought against religious violence and  censorship, only to import and accommodate it in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Globalism is another layer of anti-democratic elitism (or “fascism”?)  Globalism seeks a world of open borders so that it can remove democracy from the states in which it operates, and replace it with people who will dance to its tune – all in the guise of democracy.  Here is how it works.

Globalism has combined with communism/socialism for a common cause – the destruction of nation-state democracy.  I am unsure if this is strategic or naive, but it is the case nonetheless.  The two philosophies have very different reasons but their requirements remain the same.  Globalism seeks the destruction of nation-state so that it can effectively select its chosen “elected” governments; ones that will obey the demands of unelected corporations.

Communism/socialism seeks the destruction of nation-states so that it can usher in a global communist utopia.  The two sides appear not to have discussed what happens when their shared goal is achieved and they find themselves on opposing sides.

This bizarre reality has led to a strange marriage; communists are giving their unconditional support to the advancement of privately owned mega corporations.  Communists are currently making the extremely wealthy even wealthier on the backs of the world’s poorest.  So much for “equality”.

The communists and globalists have completed their long walk through the institutions; schools and universities are steeped in anti-democratic thought.  It is for this reason that the media is so immersed in it.  The journalists have all been through university, they’ve all be trained in anti-democratic philosophies, and because the profession has been so dumbed down, and the majority of journalists so utterly unintelligent, they have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.  They then persuade the electorate to back these notions (indeed they persuade people if they don’t back them, they are Nazi-like racists and hate-mongers).  Nobody wants that so people vote to avoid it.  They vote the way the press tells them they should.  The press is telling them to vote for globalism and communism and this, in turn, makes the politicians go along with globalism and communism.

We know the threat posed by communism, but what of globalism?  Why does this endanger democracy?  Because it is buying politicians, who answer primarily to their CEOs, not the voting electorate.  The interest of big business is now placed way above the interest of the people.  We see this time and again.  When the British people voted to leave the EU, Conservative politicians spoke of keeping our borders open so that big business could satisfy its demand for imported staff that will work for low wages, keeping their expenses down, as well as causing wages to stagnate or fall backwards in the West.  Governments do nothing do stop this because, like China, there is no political will to put up a fight.  It’s easier for weak politicians to accept the status quo.

Furthermore, globalism threatens independence.  Small business is its first casualty.  Small businesses (individually) can’t threaten governments as they do not have the wealth or power.  They are also a hindrance to big corporations.  Big corporations therefore want rid of them and governments are more than happy to oblige.

Governments are wiping out small business using a variety of methods, not least taxation.  Business rates in most town and cities in the UK for example are astronomical and small independent businesses struggle to bear them.  If a small independently-owned fast food outlet for example is struggling to keep up with massive regulation and business rates, not to worry, McDonald’s won’t struggle.  McDonald’s can afford it, and so we end up with more and more McDonald’s and fewer and fewer independent outlets.

When corporations single-handedly own the retail and entertainment sector, then it is much easier for them to work alongside government in order to maintain the power of both – through the disempowerment of the people.

Do not underestimate how much big business can reduce our individual power.  It can do this by having so many customers that it doesn’t give a damn whether you buy their product or not.  That leaves the paying customer with no recourse, no comeback.  The company can, and does, do whatever it likes; there’s nothing the end consumer can do about it.  This creates a society-wide feeling of helplessness and individual unimportance, something that suits governments very much indeed.

Finally, the far left.  This has shown its ugly face most recently in the guise of the Marxist-anarchist Black Lives Matter.  To witness the totality of the surrender to this terrible group was genuinely alarming.  Politicians, government, police, media, and sport, all literally bowed down to Black Lives Matter, and those who opposed it were threatened with job loss – something that was carried through for a number of people.

Once again, weak government allowed this and once again, the voting public was the primary victim.  In Britain, we watched as historical statues were torn down and great leaders of the past defaced and insulted.

These are our challenges, and we must act and rise to them as others have done in the past.  A common factor to all of these threats is the unwillingness of our leaders to face them, or even acknowledge them.  That is the first step and it is a step I have taken by writing this book.

We must speak in the defence of our power, and remove those who would be betray it.

We must act now in defence of democracy.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Are Rape Gangs Islamic?

by Hugo Jenks, Islam Spokesman

1st July 2020

The purpose of a court of law is to ascertain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and to administer justice based upon truthful findings.  Yet the search for truthfulness is sidelined when Islam is involved.  Two court cases in England have demonstrated this to be so: in both, the defendant had made an accurate assessment of Islam, that it does indeed enable the rape of captive women and girls. However, the judges, in both trials, disagreed with the defendant.  Can we prove these judges to be wrong?  Yes, indeed we can.  Read on…

Islam may be defined as the faith deriving from the Koran and Islam’s prophet, Mohammed; whose biography and teachings are found in the established Sunna, Sira and Hadiths. Mohammed is regarded by Muslims as the perfect man.  This supposedly perfect man kept sex slaves, as is well documented in mainstream Islamic scriptures.

One significant reason why Muslims turn away from Islam is that they find its teachings morally repugnant. Ex-Muslim scholar and former preacher Ishmael has stated one of the reasons he left Islam:

“[because of] the Koran and Mohammed, and their teachings on moral standards and conduct.  You see, over the past few years I have found that I am no longer able to defend the Koran and especially Mohammed’s morals and conduct.  In the past I have done my best to defend Islam and in particular to defend Mohammed from the claims and charges made against him.  I tried my best to love Mohammed, and I can prove that I stood up for him and defended him many times…  As shocking as it may seem, both the Koran and Mohammed teach that it’s permissible, Halal, to capture and rape female war captives, even if these women are married and their non-Muslim husbands are still alive.  [i.e. it is not regarded as adultery in this case]  So let’s investigate the Islamic sources to see what they say:  The Koran …informs Muslim men about the categories of women who they are forbidden … ‘except those whom your right hands possess’.”

A search of the Koran reveals a number of verses containing the phrase ‘right hands possess’, referring to women owned by Muslim men whom they are permitted to have sexual intercourse with: Koran 4:3, Koran 4:24-25, Koran 33:50, Koran 70:30, Koran 23:6.

The Abrogated Koran is available as a free download:

Ex-Muslim Ishmael continued:

“No sane person in his or her right mind could defend the Koran and Mohammed on this issue.  This is nothing more than legalised rape of married women, and I cannot believe that this is from God.  So therefore I am rejecting the Koran and Mohammed on this issue.  Now you have some idea why I left Islam.”

Ishmael is courageous – the penalty for leaving Islam is death.  See the video: “Why I left Islam”, on YouTube channel “Don’tConvert2Islam“.  Forcing a religion upon someone with such threats of violence itself demonstrates the weakness of that religion, not its strength.

It is now necessary to prove that Islam is of necessity fundamentalist, with no real scope for other interpretations.  The Koran itself demands that Islam is interpreted as a fundamentalist religion.  There can therefore be no such thing as “moderate Islam”.  Those Muslims who think this is possible are either deceiving themselves or are seeking to deceive non-Muslims.  In proof that Islam can only be fundamentalist, see this verse as an example:

Koran 3:7. He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations – they are the substance of the Book – and others (which are) allegorical.  But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it.  None knoweth its explanation save Allah.  And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

In other words, this entire paragraph states that no interpretation is necessary and that all verses must be taken as they are written.  Literally!  A fundamental Islam is the only permissible Islam, according to the Koran itself.  It is not possible for anyone to pick and choose verses that they like.  Often apologists for Islam will quote the “no compulsion in religion” verse, attempting to support a “moderate” interpretation:

Koran 2:256. There is no compulsion in religion.  The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.  And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break.  Allah is Hearer, Knower.

However, note that these apologists will never tell you that this verse is abrogated – effectively nullified.  And you will never be told by them that it has been abrogated by the Verse of the Sword, Koran 9:5. Apologists seek to deceive, or as a minimum they deceive themselves.

The testimony of ex-Muslims is powerful indeed.  They have studied Islam, lived it, and for a time believed it and defended it.  They really do know what they are talking about.  Why then should non-Muslim judges disregard the evidence of Islamic scriptures, and the testimony of ex-Muslims?  Evidently such judges are not interested in determining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The defendant in both trials referred to earlier was Tommy Robinson.  At Canterbury Crown Court, Judge Heather Norton criticised Robinson for using phrases such as “Muslim child rapists”.  At another hearing, at the Royal Courts of Justice, the report dated the 9th July 2019 states:

“… he gave graphic and disturbing examples of other historic sexual offences committed by Muslim men; and suggested that ‘sexual slaves’ are permitted, if not encouraged, by Islam as a religion”.

Why can’t these judges look up the Islamic scriptural references for themselves, rather than being prejudiced in favour of Islam?  The information is freely available.  Islam is of necessity a fundamentalist religion.  There can be no “moderate”, contextual interpretation of the phrase “right hands possess”.  It clearly refers to women owned by Muslim men, who they can rape.

The rape of captive girls and women by Muslim men has been proven permissible within the Koran.  The testimonies of ex-Muslims back up this interpretation.  They have become the captives of gangs of Muslim men via coercion, alcohol, and drugs.  Furthermore, there can be no doubt that genuine mainstream Islam does indeed permit and condone such rapes.  The proof is readily available in the public domain.

We must strive to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  It is deeply concerning that the Courts are attempting to suppress the true root of the Muslim rape gangs – namely, the teachings of the Koran and the acts of Mohammed.  With an estimated minimum of 19,000 girls raped by Muslim gangs in the UK in 2019, it is extremely irresponsible for those in authority, including the Courts, to continue to deny the truth [1]

We can surmise that hundreds of thousands of Muslim men may be responsible, from the gang members themselves, through to their paying clients, and those who know about it but fail to notify the authorities.  There are simply not enough prison places available, and maybe this is one reason why the authorities are soft on this matter.  They are thereby, however, supporting the worst aspects of Islam.  The paradox is that Tommy Robinson, in his unorthodox and controversial approach, is supporting traditional values and true justice, while the Courts, by suppressing this truth that the root is Islam itself, are in effect ushering in Sharia law and delaying the possibility of justice and protection for these girls.

[1] “Muslim rape gangs exploited 19,000 children in past year, actual figure may be much higher.” Jihad Watch, Dec 30, 2019

Surveillance Society: The Death of Cash

Anne Marie Waters

June 30th 2020


The coronavirus pandemic has brought quite a lot of change to our world, and that’s putting it rather mildly.  On my livestream last night, I read about what we can and cannot do at a wedding in the UK in 2020.  The government has issued a set of requirements that include a maximum guest list of 30, restrictions on dining, and of course, a ban on singing!  Who would have thought the government would be this involved in our lives, and that we would adapt and accept it so quickly and easily?  But that’s what’s happened, and there isn’t an easy road back.

Cash has been dying out for quite some time now, but coronavirus might have delivered the final blow.  The use of cash has been reduced even further during the crisis as notes are viewed as potential carriers of disease.  Some shops, including the big supermarkets, have been encouraging contactless card use to minimise interaction between customer and shop staff (that in itself is disheartening).  Others have been refusing cash altogether.

The phasing out of notes and coins is yet another element of our liberty that has lost out to convenience.  Just as we’ve sacrificed  jobs for cheaper products from abroad, we have sacrificed the tangible for a parallel universe that exists only in the ether.

Technology has made everything we do recordable and visible to others.  Almost everything we watch, listen to, or write, is recorded somewhere.  This very blog, your emails, your online purchases, your tweets, somewhere there is a record of every single one, and if someone wants to keep a close eye on you, it has never been easier.

Cash is something that is still tangible, it isn’t just a figure on a screen that is open not only to error, but malicious intent. Paying with plastic means everything we buy and everywhere we visit can be followed in real time.  In addition, cameras can accompany us on entire journeys; everywhere, we can be seen.

If this doesn’t worry you, you may not be aware of how things run in China.  The world is rapidly becoming one big China, and the phasing out of cash is another step in that direction.

In this brutal communist state, citizens (or ‘units of production’ more accurately) are judged using a social credit score.  If you misbehave in China, however mildly, there will be a consequence; you will lose points on your social credit score, and that could mean that you will be refused services, such as a flight, or a class, or going to see a movie.

For such a system to work, it is necessary for us to be watched all the time, and that’s exactly what’s happening.  But even if we discount the potential for government to control every aspect of our lives, force us to hold certain opinions, oblige us to act against our own interests, that kind of thing.  The potential for error here is every bit as dangerous.  Imagine a society where our rights are determined by what is on a screen, what happens if it goes wrong?  How will you avoid punishment, and set things right, in a society where 10s of millions of humans have been reduced to pixels?  Let’s face it, individual human beings mean nothing in a collectivist society, the state won’t care.  All that matters is the machine.

Cashlessness is part of that machine, part of the state’s ability to watch our every move, bringing the last scraps of our independence to an end.

There are some of us however for whom tangibility is still popular, and we believe it may even make a comeback.  Some people still want to read books rather than screens, some want to speak in person rather than on zoom or Skype, and some still want to buy things without a record of their purchase stored (somewhere) for anyone to see forever.

Those people are large in number, I am one of them, and I hope we increase our use of cash as an act of defiance, as I now intend to.  I will do my bit to try to hold back the wave of state observation of my life.  Others ought to do the same, to bring the world back to reality (at least for a while) and away from the alternate and fragile universe of the world wide web.

On my livestream last night, I was asked a question about Nigel Farage.  The question was why I believe For Britain will succeed when Farage didn’t, despite him having much larger social media numbers than For Britain.

I find the question itself somewhat alarming because it is indicative of the success of the scam.  We have come to believe that the internet reflects reality, when the truth is that Farage’s lack of success proves that the internet just isn’t real.  If social media followers translated to votes, he’d probably be Prime Minister, but he’s not.

Tommy Robinson is one of the most popular people online from our side of politics, but this sadly didn’t reflect the vote he received when standing for the European Parliament.  By contrast, For Britain’s elected councillors are not big social media people.  Karen King isn’t online at all, and Julian Leppert has a modest Twitter account that from what I can see, he doesn’t spend his every waking moment on.  Both of them were elected by going out there in to the real world and showing local people that they were willing to go out there in to the real world. That is For Britain’s future.  We will be out on the streets while others are on Twitter thinking this represents life, but it doesn’t.

I’ve never been a fan of big tech and I never will be.  I use the internet and I know its convenience and the many benefits it has brought to us, but I also know what it has cost.  It has presented us with a falseness that we can’t even put our fingers on.  How many people are aware that there are a large factories in Russia for example, where people’s job is to set up troll accounts and push false information?  People can buy followers and subscribers.

It’s not real.

Reality is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and freedom is going down with it.

Cash is one of the few non-traceable or recordable things we have left.  I commit today to increasing my use of it, if only to delay my own submission to complete control in a world of smoke and mirrors.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain 

The Case for Raising the Age of Sexual Consent

By Frankie Rufolo

June 29th 2020

I remember taking part in the members’ poll last year when this unusual issue came up. I later discussed it with Anne Marie Waters herself and some older For Britain members at a meeting we had in Plymouth that summer (unfortunately, having to miss the opportunity to heckle some Remoaner rallies that day!). I voted to keep the age of consent at sixteen and argued at the meeting that it can be as low as fourteen or fifteen in European countries known for being socially conservative. Given the war on drugs has failed, I didn’t feel optimistic about going into a war on teen sex. However, I accepted how the membership voted and have actually been won round by the policy. Having thought about it, I’ve realised that I have my own reasons, as a young person, to advocate for raising the age of consent to eighteen – and after schooling scandals, such as the recent example in Hull, where sex education for pre-teens has been particularly inappropriate and explicit, I believe it’s something we should be talking about.

For a bit of background information, the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 states that in order to be considered legally competent to consent to sex, a person must be sixteen or over, irrelevant of gender or sexual orientation. In the context of reality, the law generally isn’t used against high school sweethearts getting frisky when their parents aren’t looking – as Anne Marie pointed out in her video on the subject, whatever the consent age is, it isn’t enforceable in this way. It exists to prevent perverted older people taking advantage of impressionable teenagers.

The arguments I would make for raising the age of sexual consent are the same ones I would make against lowering the voting age. I remember when I was fifteen, general election candidates took part in a rather amusing school assembly. The Green Party candidate, Diana Moore, made her opening speech about “equality” and her desire to get more women into parliament. When the issue of lowering the voting age to sixteen came up, she quickly jumped on the e-word in the hope of winning round some schoolchildren who couldn’t vote either way.

The truth is, when it comes to different age group, people are objectively not equal in many respects. Scientifically, sixteen-year-olds will not be as mentally developed as their older peers. It’s a simple fact that a young person is not equal to an older person when it comes to life experience, just as a very elderly person generally won’t be able to stand up on public transport as can someone in their prime. The same logic should apply when it comes to sex.

Ben Bradshaw, the Blairite Labour MP for Exeter, and Claire Wright, the “progressive” anti-Brexit independent councillor and parliamentary candidate for neighbouring East Devon, at least elaborate a little on why they support lowering the voting age. The classic argument is that you can leave school at sixteen, but given that young people are usually encouraged to stay in some form of education, such as college or sixth form, it’s a non-point. When I was in college, I had a job working in a homeless shelter; this shaped my outlook on life and my political views before I could vote, and I think this is an important transition stage.

Technically, sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds can get married, but in England and Wales they need parental consent, which illustrates that in the eyes of the law they are not fully capable of making such life decisions. Both voting and sex should fall into that category. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds can sign up for the armed forces – but that also requires parental permission, and they cannot be sent to the frontline like those aged eighteen and over.

Often, when I have these conversations with young people in Exeter, I put it like this: if you’re not old enough to buy a beer (eighteen), then you’re not old enough to vote; by that same logic, surely you’re not old enough to consent either. While the law currently states that sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are not old enough to drink responsibly, but are old enough to have sex, we perhaps risk sending young people potentially harmful mixed messages.

I remember watching the young people’s BBC Three discussion show “Free Speech” (which bore more resemblance to mob-rule when controversial contributors such as Tommy Robinson and James Delingpole were on the programme) when panellists were discussing whether or not to lower the age of consent after a scandal involving a secondary school teacher and a fifteen-year-old student of his. Similar calls have been made over the years by barristers and public health experts. I can’t find the video, but from memory, the panellists were overwhelmingly against the idea, stressing the fact that if it were to be lowered once, it could be lowered again, and sex would become more and more normal the younger you were. If the age of consent is more of a moral guideline than an enforced law, sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds who sleep together willingly will most likely still be able to do so if it is raised. It’s no secret that there can be a lot of pressure on even younger teenagers to lose their virginity, and changing those moral guidelines could help alleviate it.

Throughout our country’s history, the age of sexual consent has been progressively raised. In the Middle Ages, in law this was just twelve and technically only applied to girls. It took six hundred years for it to be raised to thirteen, until the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 made it sixteen. Based on our past, it would appear that the rightful and natural course of progress is towards raising the age of consent. From child beauty pageants, to drag queen story time, to schools teaching young children about pornography and self-stimulation, the sexualisation of children is real and warrants a political pushback. With reasonable proposals such as this one, the For Britain Movement can provide that option for concerned and protective parents.


Frankie Rufolo

For Britain – Exeter 

SUNDAY COLUMN – In Defence of Democracy (Part One)


In Defence of Democracy (Part One)

Sunday June 28th 2020


It’s a great feeling to finish a book, and I had that feeling last week when I handed ‘In Defence of Democracy’ over to my long-suffering publisher Wade.  (Thank you Wade).

It will be published – after being edited, proof-read and no doubt up dated as history continues to take shape – over the next couple of months, but in the meantime, I’ll share some of it with you here.

The idea for the book has been on my mind for a long time.  I am not a relativist, I believe in objectivity in terms of basic moral behaviour.  I believe that cruelty is morally wrong, objectively. While the word ‘cruelty’ itself has a subjective use, it is also objective in that it means to impose or inflict gratuitous violence, degradation, and humiliation upon sentient lives.

In the history of the world, governments have inflicted cruelties on their populations (and others’ populations) that are beyond imagination.  The story of mankind is one of bloodshed and war, and most of these wars share a fundamental characteristic – they are a battle between an elite that wants to impose its unaccountable will on the people, and people who want to be free.  It’s a battle between tyranny and democracy, and it goes back many years.

First things first: what is democracy?  It comes from the Greek ‘demos kratos’ which roughly translates as the ‘strength of the people’.  Ancient Greece is usually considered its birth place, and it is certainly fair to say that the era produced democratic principles that lasted for 1,000s of years and indeed are still in full use to this day.

Democracy as we know it today is very much a European story.  The history of the continent is a to-and-fro between different ideas as to how society should be governed.  Centuries of clerical and monarchical rule define the centuries between the Middle Ages (or Dark Ages) and today, and it is that period I focus on in my book.

From the Renaissance, largely seen as the end of the Dark Ages, to the French Revolution, Europe developed the fundamental aspects of democracy as its journey progressed.  The Renaissance introduced ideas of free thought and the criticism of power, particularly through the arts.  These notions soon spread throughout Europe and a new era took shape.

As I describe it in the book:

This period is fundamental to the growth of democracy in Europe because it was a time when human thinking began to divert towards humanity, and away from superstition and religious restriction. It has been described as the time of humanism and humanities, which would later lead to expansion of thought in to the sciences and reason.

Key eras that followed included the Reformation, which split Christianity in to various churches and the reduced the power of the Vatican. It would also lead directly to the religious wars that blighted Europe for centuries to come.

The Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution were the next great progressive eras. Once again, while they didn’t necessarily lead to governmental change, they fundamentally altered society in terms of focus, morality, liberty, and art.  The challenges that art and philosophy presented to the church, and the loss of its power that resulted, led to scientific enquiry and discovery that further challenged church teachings, thereby further reducing their power.

France and Italy have played enormous parts in the social and cultural development of democracy in Europe, and the French Revolution is one of its most significant (and indeed bloody) events.  I will take you through this Revolution and its effect.  This bloody revolt led to the establishment of a an Assembly that would introduce principles still adhered to in France and elsewhere today.

Momentum and history on their side, the National Assembly passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. The document spoke firmly to the Monarchy about the rights of citizens, it provided for free speech, property rights, and trial by jury. It stated: “All men are born and remain free and equal in rights”. Furthermore, freedom of religion was guaranteed, a radical change for Catholic dominated France.

Throughout the same period – from the Middle Ages to the modern era – Europe had dominated the seas.  Great world powers included Spain, which colonised south America and what would become the southwestern United States.  Upon witnessing the wealth that colonisation brought to Spain, other European powers began to set out on similar expeditions.

One great European power setting its sights on global exploration was England.  It built several colonial settlements in the ‘New World’.  It wasn’t an easy journey for these colonies,  but in business and development terms, they thrived, and over time, developed a new identity of their own.

The new ‘Americans’ that developed in England’s Western colonies began to tire of taxes imposed from London, and sought greater and greater autonomy.  Notions of themselves as an independent culture had grown and self-rule became more and more desirable.  Eventually the colonies would come together and work towards the common aim of independence.   Eventually of course they would succeed with the defeat of England in the Revolutionary War.  The US constitution was soon devised, and after the brutally bloody US civil war, America as we know it today took shape.

In the chapter ‘In Defence of America’ I will describe the development of this great nation in detail; from the colonial era to the civil rights movement to the election of Donald Trump.  I will show you how and when democracy developed in America and how it is threatened today.

I will describe the most crucial sections of the US constitution and why they provide a protective shield for democracy in the world of 2020.

Similarly, I will briefly look at the tiny Middle Eastern democracy of Israel.  This country is routinely accused of ‘apartheid’ or other human rights abuses, but the facts reveal something very different, and any truthful acknowledgement of these facts expose the democratic nature of the world’s only Jewish state.

The book is written in three major parts, the first of which provides the moral argument for the objective moral superiority of democracy. Why is it better than other systems?  Because it provides for liberty and accountability and is therefore the only method by which people may protect their own rights.  Democracy has facilitated the construction of the wealthiest and most civilised societies in human history. That is not an accident.

Democracy is a word that can be debated endlessly, but my argument is clear – democracy means the will of the people and in order for that to be established, we must have free speech and universal suffrage.  I will provide a defence for each of these facets of a system that simply can not exist without them.

Why is free speech so important?  I’ll outline this in full.  Why is universal suffrage morally superior?  I’ll explain that too.

To fully examine democracy, we also have to examine what isn’t democracy, so I’ll have a look also at other political systems.

What is the state of democracy today?  It won’t surprise you to learn that it’s currently in a state of freefall.  From Brexit to Black Lives Matter, there’s a cultural war for democracy going in the Western world right now.

Next week, join me here for part two and I’ll tell you more.

See you then.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


State of the Economy: Better

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday 23rd June 2020


So, we’ve got the first week of post-lockdown high street trading under our belt, but how did it go?

A mixed bag.  The economy is gaining momentum, according to the Telegraph, and we’ve had “a record surge in activity”.  Manufacturers led the biggest growth spurt since 1998 as lockdown restrictions were eased and high street businesses reopened.

Boris Johnson today announced further easing and as expected, pubs, cafes, cinemas and other recreational business can reopen in early July.

With the hospitality industry also on its way back, businesses are doing their best to prepare for “the new normal”.  Social distancing rules will inevitably alter this industry, particularly in the early days, in ways that could be enormously detrimental economically.  A B&B owner told the BBC “I’m going to be really interested to see how much I’m going to be allowed to achieve by myself, when I have to switch from cooking to cleaning, for instance.  I’ve heard that breakfasts may have to be delivered to rooms, which isn’t practical for me as a one-person business.  I also can’t afford to buy room service trays.”

Space will be another issue, particularly in dining rooms; the further from each other that diners are required to sit, the less space is available and customer numbers are cut.  Buffet breakfasts will not be allowed, putting extra strain on staffing.

The newly announced social distancing requirement of 1 metre means strain on space in pubs as well.  Small pubs i.e some of our oldest and most beautiful, may struggle.  Simon Daws, a pub owner in Gloucestershire, said “If the distance is 1m then pubs with generous garden areas can make a go of it”.  This begs the question, what if a pub doesn’t have a generous garden area?

Daws later added “We will be walking a tightrope. We are relying on sunny weather to make the new system work.”

Uncertainty is playing a major part in the country’s business woes, and firms are unsure how to prepare because rules are perceived as mixed and confused.

Hair salons may reopen in July but they are unclear as to how they will conduct their business.  One salon owner said “We’ve taken no bookings yet but once we have some clarity I hope to book appointments in for the first week.  We don’t know what grade facemasks we’ve got to have or what kind of gloves we need, given we’re washing our hands constantly in normal times.  We have some cloth facemasks but they may not fit in with the guidelines.”

Salons will have to cut their client numbers significantly and work longer hours, meaning less income and higher wages.

It’s not all bad news though so let’s end on a high.  The shops are back open and people are visiting them again.  Small businesses have had a boost and the end of the lockdown is in sight.  (Corner shops did well under the lockdown.  Between mid-May and mid-June, their sales rose by 69%.  But patterns there are beginning to return to normal as 19 million more supermarket trips were made in June than in May.)  There’s been a hoped-for surge in economic activity, and a post-Brexit trade deal with Japan is still on the cards (though time is short).

For now, once again, we are unsure what faces us.  But when things are moving in the right direction, it’s best to cautiously keep going.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

SUNDAY COLUMN: Fathers’ Lives Matter

SUNDAY COLUMN: Fathers’ Lives Matter

Anne Marie Waters

Sunday June 21st 2020


It was the saddest and most devastating moment of my life so far when my dad passed away.  I was 14, and I have missed out on decades that should have spent with him.  However, I’m still grateful for the years we had.  I don’t have a father but I do care about them, and the fact that they are so often left out in the cold.  In my ideal society, work would be split between parents, with fathers spending as much time with children as mothers.  I know this wouldn’t be easy to achieve but perhaps it’s something worth working towards.

Today is father’s day and we at For Britain wish Dads all over Britain a pleasant and peaceful day – hopefully spent with their children.

I’m proud of For Britain’s policies on levelling the playing field between mums and dads when couples divorce or separate.  Although the law makes no distinction between mum and dad, or men and women, it has ruled that it is in the best interests of children to stay in the family home and live with their primary carer.  The primary carer, in most instances, is deemed to be the mother.  This results in both children and family home (for the children to live in) being awarded to the mother.  There is no easy answer to this, and UK family law rightly centres the best interests of the child, but in practice the same law gives an unfair advantage to mothers.

There is also a major flaw at the heart of the system that allows mothers to prevent fathers seeing their children.  They’re not allowed to do so by law, but the processes and procedures for enforcing laws are so burdensome as to be prohibitive: expensive and time-consuming, the father usually does not see his children while he’s engaged in court battles.

This needs reform.  If we are going to bring fathers back in the children’s lives, let’s start by ensuring that good dads are not kept from away from them by the law.  It is in the best interests of both parent and child.

For Britain will introduce the new legal concept of parents’ rights (and responsibilities).  Family lawyers will find this a radical legal transformation.  At present, the law centres on the right of the child to a relationship with their parent, we are proposing that parents have a similar right to a relationship with their children.  It will alter the legal position of parents, while still protecting the rights of children (who will retain the current rights while obtaining new protections).

When we first began to discuss these issues as a party, one of our activists in the north of England, Gary, told me that men suffer enormously when kept away from their children.  He said this is a cause of suicide among men, and after looking at it in more detail, it looks like he’s right.

It is fairly common knowledge that suicide is higher among men than women.  In a comprehensive report on suicide in the UK and Republic of Ireland, the Samaritans reveal the following facts.

In 2018, there were 6,507 suicides in the UK.  Men are three times as likely to end their lives as women (four times as likely in the Republic of Ireland.)  The rate of death by suicide among under 25s that year increased by 23% on the previous year.  The figure rose to 730.

The group most likely to commit suicide is men aged 45 – 49.

What can explain this?

It is interesting to start by noting that the age most likely to commit suicide is the same age most likely to divorce.   It is probable then that a high number of men are committing suicide as a result of divorce (in many cases losing the family home and regular access to their children).

In an analysis as to why male suicide is so high at this age, we must include the fact that it often coincides with family breakdown, and this must be addressed with the father’s interests in mind.

A BBC special report in to the issue in 2019 highlights other reasons men are thought to commit suicide at higher rates than women.

The last data available from the UN is from 2016, and this shows 793,000 suicides worldwide that year.  Most of them men.  This is a long-standing pattern.

Jill Harkavy-Friedman, vice-president of research for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, said “As long as we’ve been recording it, we’ve seen this disparity”.

The report contains the following information about suicide disparity between the sexes.

  • Suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 45 in the UK
  • 40% of countries have more than 15 suicide deaths per 100,000 men; only 1.5% show a rate that high for women
  • Women are more likely to suffer depression, but men are more likely to have suicidal intentions
  • Men are more likely to succeed at a suicide attempt than women
  • Women are more likely to seek help from a doctor than men
  • Men are twice as likely to be alcohol dependent than women – alcohol is a known contributor to suicide

Other contributing factors include men apparently being less willing to ask for help or discuss problems, and while this may be true, there is also a public negativity towards men in modern society that doesn’t treat their problems seriously when they do.  This negativity towards men cannot be helping matters in a society where they are excluded and shunned as fathers, and find themselves at a serious disadvantage when seeking to spend time with their children.

The campaign group Fathers for Justice wrote to the Prime Minister today asking for violence towards men to be taken more seriously.  It also calls for unlawful denial of contact to their children to be made a criminal offence.  All of these proposals need serious consideration as we strive to make things fairer between the sexes.

Various countries have now began looking in to this more carefully and programmes have been initiated to help men with personal problems.

In wider society, loneliness is a known contributor to suicide, and this has exacerbated in recent years as communities and families break down.

There is a big problem here, and For Britain is determined to bring it to public consciousness and prepare comprehensive and fair policies to redress the balance.

I have long campaigned against the unfair treatment of women in various institutions and walks of life, and it is right that we do the same for men.

This isn’t a day to dwell on hardships however, but to recognise the importance of Dad and to celebrate him for a day.  We should work to bring him back in to family life and celebrate him more often.

Happy Fathers Day!


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777 



Mike Speakman on the violence in Reading

Mike Speakman

Sunday 21st June 2020


Whilst the deaths and attacks in Reading may not be directly attributable to the preceding Black Lives Matter rally, Black Lives Matter’s rhetoric has created a climate of division based on race which may incite some people to acts of violence against British citizens. 

The media are providing a distorted narrative which does not reflect the wider issues. It seems that this individual’s presence in this country is due to the failure of this government to control our borders.  He has been described as a Lybian “asylum seeker” which probably means he was an illegal immigrant. 

He is also reported as having previously been imprisoned which means he could have been deported at the end of his sentence but was not just like most illegal immigrants and criminals who the government have chosen not to deport.  Boris Johnson and Priti Patel’s failure to enforce our laws means that further unnecessary deaths are likely. 

The government continues to facilitate Illegal immigration across the English Channel to this day. For Britain extends it sympathies to the families of the dead and injured and asks, “How many more before this government lives up to its responsibilities?”


Mike Speakman 

Policing Spokesman 

For Britain 

State of the Economy: Re-Opening

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday 16th June 2020 


Queues wound through organised blocks yesterday as Britain’s retailers re-opened, and we got an idea of the changes we’ll see on the high street the post-coronavirus crisis.  After reading through the rules in place, I’m sure I won’t be the only one who isn’t looking forward to getting there.  (I’m not a big fan of queues!)

Retail giants including Marks and Spencer, Gap, and Primark opened all of their outlets in England, with others opening most or many of theirs.  Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged people to get to their high street and shop “with confidence”.

Thousands did just that, but not at numbers as high as might have been expected – footfall was up 38.8% from last week.  Numbers were reported as far lower than this time last year, proving it is going to take some time for the high street economy to recover to pre-coronarvirus life, if it ever does.

Shoppers are obliged to stand in long winding queues to stick to the requirement to remain 2 metres apart.  There are still no cafes or restaurants, something that will shorten the length of time shoppers spend on the high street.  We don’t yet know what restrictions will be in place when they re-open, but they will inevitably have a negative impact on trade.

Retail is facing a very difficult few months ahead.

Meanwhile, the number of people claiming work-related benefits rose 23% in May to 2.8 million.  According to economists, the lockdown is now being felt in the employment market, with the Office for National Statistics revealing that “early indicators for May show that the number of employees on payrolls were down over 600,000 compared with March.”

In America, fewers jobs were lost than expected in May.  The US regained 2.5 million jobs, leaving its unemployment figure at 13.3%.  Ending lockdown is at the discretion of individual states, and some have been opening their doors gradually over recent weeks. Regardless, this crisis has cost the US economy trillions of dollars (and its not over yet) while it could cost up to 82 trillion dollars globally.

So we continue to limp onwards, in to a new economic world.  The impact isn’t yet understood and will become clearer in the months ahead, particularly when the furlough scheme ends.  We don’t yet know either how recreation and entertainment will fare, or what off-putting or cost-raising regulations will be put in place.

In the UK, job vacancies plunged by 612,000 between March and May.  Around 9 million workers are currently furloughed and when October arrives, those 9 million will be looking for work in a far smaller economy.

But let’s not be pessimistic, and remember to focus on the positives; our shops are re-opening, which is a vast improvement on our situation a mere month or so ago.  It’s a slow and painful road ahead, but at least we seem to be on our way.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

The Ebb and Flow of Plastic


The Ebb and Flow of Plastic

Sunday June 14th 2020


It has been a difficult week in Britain, one of several recent difficult weeks.  Yesterday I attended the early part of a protest in central London that later turned ugly.  Those of us who are passionate about the defence of our country and its heritage, were once again smeared by the presence of violent thugs who couldn’t care less about either black lives or Winston Churchill.

The press and mainstream politics as usual are keen to defend left-wing rioters and sell their propaganda as fact, while portraying patriots as protesting only to involve ourselves in violence.  It is a sorry state of affairs.  Join me on my livestream on Monday evening at 7.30 pm for a detailed discussion.

Be sure to tune in also on Thursday, when I will release a speech outlining how our country must now bring this wave of street anarchy to an end, and how we then move on.

Today however, I thought perhaps a distraction would be welcome.  We have countless issues to face, and therefore countless discussions to have, so in a brief change of focus today, I’ll address a rather different matter and cover my scheduled topic as planned – the Ebb and Flow of Plastic.

This is a fascinating subject, and to my mind, one that demonstrates how complex seemingly straight-forward issues can actually be.  There is no doubt that we have a huge problem with plastic pollution and waste management, and we must find an answer to this, but the plastic dilemma is not quite that simple.

So, what is plastic and where did it come from?  More importantly, how did it revolutionise the world?

The Birth of Plastic

Plastic wasn’t born in 1907, but that was when it began to really make its mark.  Prior to this, in 1869, John Wesley Hyatt responded to an advertisement in a New York newspaper.  The ad was seeking someone to find an alternative method of creating billiard balls – a game growing in popularity and putting increasing strain on the ivory market; the substance used to produce billiard balls.  Obviously, this growing billiard ball market meant an increase in elephant slaughter, and it is here that we meet our first complexity of plastic.

Today, plastic is seen (rightly) as a threat to some wildlife.  At its origins however, it relieved pressure on wildlife, and is likely to have saved 10,000s of elephant lives.  Indeed it was lauded at the time as the saviour of both elephants and tortoises.

Hyatt’s work led to the first plastic – a product that could be shaped to imitate other products previously made from ivory, wood, or metal.  Though there are a variety of different types, the production is described by Plastics Europe, the industry representative body, as follows:

Plastics are derived from natural, organic materials such as cellulose, coal, natural gas, salt and, of course, crude oil. Crude oil is a complex mixture of thousands of compounds and needs to be processed before it can be used. The production of plastics begins with the distillation of crude oil in an oil refinery. This separates the heavy crude oil into groups of lighter components, called fractions. Each fraction is a mixture of hydrocarbon chains (chemical compounds made up of carbon and hydrogen), which differ in terms of the size and structure of their molecules. One of these fractions, naphtha, is the crucial compound for the production of plastics.

Two main processes are used to produce plastics – polymerisation and polycondensation – and they both require specific catalysts. In a polymerisation reactor, monomers such as ethylene and propylene are linked together to form long polymer chains. Each polymer has its own properties, structure and size depending on the various types of basic monomers used.

The use of fossil fuels in the production of plastic is one that will be debated by environmentalists no doubt for the foreseeable future.  However, the fossil fuel debate is entirely separate from the central environmental concern raised by plastic – waste management.

Hyatt’s discovery was followed by the next significant leap in the progress of plastic in 1907.  This was the year that Leo Baekeland invented Bakelite – the first fully synthetic plastic.  This plastic was easier to mould, more durable, heat resistant and suitable for mass production.  Next came huge investment in this product-with-endless-possibilities, and plastic went mainstream.

During the Second World War is when it truly came in to its own. describes its uses at the time:

World War II necessitated a great expansion of the plastics industry in the United States, as industrial might proved as important to victory as military success. The need to preserve scarce natural resources made the production of synthetic alternatives a priority. Plastics provided those substitutes. Nylon, invented by Wallace Carothers in 1935 as a synthetic silk, was used during the war for parachutes, ropes, body armor, helmet liners, and more. Plexiglas provided an alternative to glass for aircraft windows. A Time magazine article noted that because of the war, “plastics have been turned to new uses and the adaptability of plastics demonstrated all over again.”  During World War II plastic production in the United States increased by 300%.

The growth and growth continued after the war as plastic came with limitless possibilities; it could be transformed in to an endless line of products.  This included live-saving products, but just as importantly, and indeed revolutionary, was its price.  Plastic would improve living standards beyond anything that could have been predicted in 1869 or 1907.

Global Revolution

The impact of plastic is impossible to quantify.  In her book Plastic, Susan Freinkel outlines the scientific and social impact of plastic, perhaps most significantly in medicine.  A hospital today will depend on a variety of plastics to save lives, resources that would simply not be readily available otherwise.  Life-saving machinery, syringes, drips, tubes, and incubators are all included.

Plastic also caused an explosion in our standard of living.  It provided the ability to store food, increased sanitation, and made entertainment easier and cheaper to access (games, children’s toys etc. became cheap and widely available).  Plastic furniture and household products made domestic life easier and cheaper, and as Freinkel argues, made life so much easier as to shift focus from domestic hardship to the public realm, thus increasing the participation in democracy.

‘Economic democracy’ refers to the impact of economic progress on the growth of democratic participation, and plastic has played a historic part in this advancement.

Freinkel wrote of a changing market economy:

“In product after product, market after market, plastics challenged traditional materials and won, taking the place of steel in cars, paper and glass in packaging, and wood in furniture.”

It wasn’t until the 1970s and ’80s that the reputation of plastic began to wane.  Health concerns were increasingly expressed surrounding the chemicals included in its production, and the possibility of these making their way in to human bodies via the use of plastics for food storage and cookery.  The second major concern was pollution and waste management; the world’s seas and oceans had become plastic’s burial ground, and its impact on animal welfare shifted from positive to negative.

The Oceans

Plastic Oceans is an organisation committed to cutting of the route of plastic to our oceans “within a generation”.  It makes the following claims.

  1. 52% of sea turtles are believed to have ingested plastic
  2. There is 22% chance that a turtle will die from ingesting a single piece of plastic
  3. 100% of turtle species have now been observed entangled in plastic
  4. Approximately 5.5% of turtles have been found entangled in plastic; 90% of these are already dead
  5. There are approximately 5 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans

According to “over 1 million marine animals (including mammals, fish, sharks, turtles, and birds) are killed each year due to plastic debris in the ocean.”

Moreover, microplastics – tiny pieces of plastic which come from larger plastics that have degraded over time – are now also floating in our seas in staggering numbers.  World Animal Protection reports that “in 2014, an estimated 15 to 51 trillion microplastic particles were floating in the world’s oceans, weighing between 93,000 and 236,000 tonnes.”

There is little debate that despite plastic’s enormous impact on our lives (so profound that it is often described as the fourth industrial revolution), it has come at a cost.

This complexity means that we cannot remove plastic from our lives, but nor can we continue in the current vein.  There are changes we can make, and make them we must.

The Future

Current efforts to reduce the negative impact of plastic on our environment are often sound, but the political will to implement them is severely lacking; particularly in the countries that are responsible for most pollution.

The world’s largest polluter is (unsurprisingly) China.  The plastic waste from China is far higher than that of the United States in second place.  China’s rate is 60 million tonnes per year, while America’s tally is 38 million tonnes.

China has no environmental or animal welfare protections and so it will continue to pollute unless the rest of the world puts economic pressure on it to stop.  The much-needed global will to ‘stand up’ to China is unlikely to emerge short of political revolution (something I believe will take place in the next two decades).

The United States must also take responsibility for its waste output and commit to meaningful change.

In the meantime however, recycling is the answer, assuming it is done correctly.  Some studies estimate that most rubbish intended for recycling ends up in landfills regardless.  The onus here is on local authorities, who must be held to account and required to effectively carry out the recycling they promise.

Research in to degradable forms of plastic is also crucial.  We must find a cheap and safe alternative to the current chemical make-up of plastics, so that they are less likely to linger around the earth for potentially 1,000s of years.

Even if all of the above were committed to, it still does not solve the problem of the plastics currently inflicting our waters, and it is here that ‘blue sky thinking’ is needed.

What if we could remove the plastic from our seas and recycle it?  Then recycle that ad infinitum?  For the long term future of our environment and ecology, we can and must build an entire new global industry simply by re-utilising all of the plastic we’ve already made.  It would save our seas, our waste problem, and create millions of jobs.

The fact is there are solutions to this.  We can keep our much loved (and needed) plastic products if we come up with new and cleaner ways to do so.  We can easily clean our seas if we wish, all that is absent is the political will.

That is what For Britain will provide.  Join us.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777 


They’re Celebrated, We’re Arrested

Alex Merola 

Thursday June 11th 2020


In November 2018, six suspects handed themselves over to the police. The police, in turn, scrambled to see if they could be charged with a crime. Their offence? Burning a cardboard effigy of Grenfell Tower. Like a shark at the first scent of fresh blood, the media went into a frenzy. Videos, reports, interviews of so-called “victims”. Twitter was filled with blue check marked opinions, people frothing at the mouth with hate and demanding the heads of the offenders…

A more recent case involved one of three British teenagers being arrested for posting a photo of posing with his knee on his friend, in imitation of the officer who pinned down George Floyd.

Let us examine a different example, where a video “comedy skit” from a Channel 4 presenter named Tez Ilyas, entitled “Asian Grooming Kit”, circulated across social media. This video sought to make light of the Pakistani Muslim rape scandal. One of the lines from this skit was,

‘the perfect present for that brown man in your life who absolutely loves grooming’.

The full video can be viewed on Politcalite here:

Where was the media outrage? Where was the police response? Where were the anti-racist campaigners?

They were burying their heads in the sand and some, most likely, having a good old laugh at the expense of around 19,000 abused English girls who were targeted purely because of the colour of their skin. Where was their “white privilege” then?

Another, more recent, case occurred in Hyde Park this year, when two anti-lockdown protests were held. Police turned up in massive numbers and arrested many under the draconian new Covid-19 legislation. The media labelled the protestors “Covidiots”.

But fast forward a few weeks and we see literally hundreds if not thousands of rioters being escorted (not arrested) by police in London. We see vandals desecrating monuments, assaulting police officers and breaking the social distancing guidelines (and they complain that the infection rate for minorities is higher?). What was the police response here? They decided to join the technically illegal gathering by kneeling alongside, hoping that the vicious crowd might absolve them.

I would like to ask the question, why the hypocrisy? Why are offensive jokes about George Floyd and Grenfell Tower an arrestable offence, when making light of the abuse of 19,000 English girls is considered comedic late-night television material?

Why are protests against lockdown measures “crazy” and “conspiratorial”, but rioters alleging that the entire police force is engaged in some sort of mass race-based assault on minority communities for no apparent reason, considered peaceful truth-telling and some sort of public community service?


Alex Merola, For Britain London Branch 


State of the Economy: Poor

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday 9th June 2020 


The news doesn’t get much better.  The coronavirus crisis carries on and on, our economy gets weaker and weaker, and the pinch is now beginning to bite.

Among job losses now being announced as a result of the virus are from BP.   The oil giant has announced the loss of 10,000 jobs as reduction in demand for oil hits.  Chief executive Bernard Looney told staff “The oil price has plunged well below the level we need to turn a profit.  We are spending much, much more than we make – I am talking millions of dollars, every day.”

That’s 10,000 more people in need of work in a market that is stagnant to say the least.  Many will require help, increasing the benefits bill, and increasing the tax burden that will inevitably be imposed when this crisis peters out.

Fashion brand Mulberry is also reporting job losses involving a quarter of its workforce.  The company said: “Even once stores reopen, social distancing measures, reduced tourist and footfall levels will continue to impact our revenue. As a result of this, we must manage our operations and cost base accordingly to ensure the company is the correct size and structure to reflect market conditions.”

In essence then, we are seeing the economic impact of social distancing, this time on retail, even before shops reopen.

Retail sales are down again in May, following an obvious huge slump in April, but online sales are up a huge 60%.  The question now is whether we will return to the shops in sufficient numbers, post lockdown, to keep the high street alive.  There are of course likely to be greater business and employment opportunities in online sales that can buffer some of the unemployment fallout, but certainly not all of it, or even most.

The British Retail Consortium said May had been “yet another month of struggle for retailers across the country.   For those shops whose doors remain shuttered, it was once again a tough month and even those who stayed open suffered reduced footfall and huge costs implementing social distancing measures.  While the month showed record growth in online sales, many retailers will be anxious to see whether demand returns to our High Streets when non-essential shops reopen from 15 June.”

Meanwhile, the United States has officially entered recession.  As the coronavirus crisis bites there, up to 22 million jobs are expected to be lost.  This year has brought an end to America’s longest ever period of growth, exceeding 10 years.

There is one piece of good news to leave you with; there may be signs of positivity, at least for the future, as trade deal talks begin with Japan today.  International trade secretary Liz Truss will speak with Japan’s foreign affairs minister Toshimitsu Motegi by video-link.

Truss said “We aim to strike a comprehensive free trade agreement that goes further than the deal previously agreed with the EU, setting ambitious standards in areas such as digital trade and services.  This deal will provide more opportunities for businesses and individuals across every region and nation of the UK and help boost our economies..”

Let’s hope she’s right, because post coronavirus, we are certainly going to need that boost.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

SUNDAY COLUMN: ‘An Assault Upon the Elderly’


An Assault Upon the Elderly

Sunday June 7th 2020


An Assault Upon the Elderly

I recently heard it expressed that British society is engaged in an assault upon the elderly, and I was relieved to hear someone finally say it.  I feel the same way.  I first started thinking about it when toxic elements of the Remain camp went on the attack, blaming elderly people for the result.

Before we start, let’s define elderly.  I’m reluctant to includes 70s; some suffer ill health, some do not, but for the sake of argument, let us define it as 70 onwards.



So criminal was the response of the dark side of the Remain camp that the United Nations human rights people felt obliged to comment.  Brexit unleashed a political assault on the elderly.  Demands were made for the removal of their very legal autonomy and identity – their right to vote.

In yet another display of its rotten lack of morality or responsibility, the mainstream media was right on-side.

Soon after the referendum, in July 2016, Rosa Kornfeld-Matte, the “UN independent expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons” said “We have seen a number of European national newspapers and social media outlets stigmatizing older persons as the scapegoats for Brexit and calling for restrictions on ‘grey’ votes.”

With the headline “People over 70 shouldn’t be allowed to vote”, the Manchester Evening News promoted the idea, and the mainstream felt it entirely appropriate to debate whether the people who built Britain should be allowed to vote in Britain.

The Sun ran with “Out with the old” as its headline before announcing that “Half of young adults say over 70s should be banned from voting on the country’s future”.

An equally appalling headline I saw was from Time, who went with “Why Old People Shouldn’t Vote” (quite revealing editorialism there). The reason this Time contributor believes people over 70s shouldn’t vote?  “..old people vote shortsightedly, choosing the least progressive outcome.”

Those italics are my emphasis.  That’s the truth right there.  “Progressives” are unhappy that their opponents’ vote is still counted, so instead of attempting to win the debate, they try to take that vote away, and they’ll do it by any means necessary.

I’m genuinely livid about this.  What is being proposed here is that when we reach the age of 70, we should have no say in the society in which we live.  We will have no ability to hold politicians to account on their policies related to us.  Laws could trample all over older people and they have no ability to protest.

People who care about their children and grandchildren and want to vote in their interests won’t be allowed to.  It also demands that those who have worked and paid the taxes that built our roads and infrastructure and much more besides, should be rewarded by having their fundamental human rights removed.  How dare anyone suggest this?

This is more evidence, as if any were needed, that some of those with interests in remaining in the EU, and the globalism and open border world it represents, are capable of sheer – I’m afraid I have to use that word again – evil.

What’s more, they see nothing wrong with their attitude.  They are tyrants.  This is the mindset of dictators, and these dictators have the backing of the media and most Western governments.  (The same forces are on the march again in America and have literally brought its police and leaders to their knees).


“Kill Old People”

Not content with campaigning to remove the votes of their opponents, many gleefully wish them dead.  The Express reported that there was “Outrage as Remainers taunt coronavirus to ‘kill old people and swing Brexit vote’”. The article states:

Several posts were shared online, where people appeared to delight in the outbreak, which has hit the elderly community hard. One social media user, who previously posted about stopping Brexit wrote in a sick post: “If Covid-19 kills a hefty amount of old people in this country, does that mean the general opinion will swing away from Brexit?” Another Twitter user said: “Coronavirus is the ghost of Brexit coming to kill the old people for voting wrong.”

Despicable.  These are the people we are at political war with, and remember, they claim the moral high ground: “equality”, “progress”, “tolerance”, “inclusion”… utopia.

But to reach it, we will throw people on a trash heap when they reach a certain age.  We’ll remove their rights, send them to “care homes” and hope disease kills them as fast as possible.

No doubt the hope is get rid of those who haven’t been indoctrinated in to “tolerance” and “inclusion”.


Care Homes

The Express reported in 2019 that “The number of allegations of abuse in care homes has nearly doubled in the past four years, with almost 70,000 made to the Care Quality Commission last year alone.”  In five years, reports of abuse went from 37,060 to 67,590.  Some examples of this abuse have been caught on tape.

Back in 2012, the BBC’s Panorama investigated abuse in care homes with undercover cameras.  It is difficult to watch.  This video shows a woman beaten and abused by a male nurse.  She is defenceless as he gives her an unwanted bed bath, and slaps her across the face to make her comply.

The same elderly lady, suffering from Alzheimer’s, was thrown around like an object by two female nurses as they put her to bed at 5.30 pm.

All of the nurses involved came here from the Philippines. No, I’m not saying “all nurses from the Philippines are potential abusers”, but why are so many from the Philippines?  The woman’s daughter said that she didn’t understand what the nurses were saying to each other when she visited the home.  This means they more than likely speak in their own language around patients.  This is not acceptable.

This woman was fed (too quickly) by a nurse who said nothing to her, no pleasantries, no friendly good morning, nothing.

The care home in question by the way, had been rated “excellent” by the regulator.


Coronavirus Crisis 

In March, the decision was made to lock people away in our homes.  This had a particularly hard impact on elderly people, who were made to give up any socialisation they may have had, and some struggled even to obtain food (not everyone has made the transition to the virtual world).

Elderly people were kept away from their families, many died alone, and people were forced to accept the awful reality that they could not say goodbye to loved ones.  Moreover, people over 70 were less than encouraged to visit their doctor, and serious life-or-death tests or treatments were kicked down the road indefinitely.

This is important.  This is a terrible thing to inflict upon people. Mismanagement across the board in dealing with care homes and the coronavirus crisis is likely to have cost 1,000s of lives.

In order to free up hospital beds, coronavirus patients were moved in to care homes.  In other words, people with a disease that can be fatal to the elderly and/or those with serious conditions, are moved in to places filled with the elderly and/or those with serious conditions.  What was obviously going to happen is exactly what happened.

The Telegraph reports:

Care homes cannot safely accept hospital patients suffering from coronavirus without risking the lives of residents, ministers were told on Wednesday.

Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, said hospital patients who tested positive for Covid-19 would continue to be discharged into care homes despite growing evidence that the policy is fuelling outbreaks and deaths.

Charities and local authority leaders said the approach, designed to free up hospital beds, was “madness” because many homes do not have the resources to keep vulnerable and elderly residents safe.

A study in June showed that people in care homes accounted for more than half of the coronavirus deaths in England.  What’s more, Age UK issued a statement saying:

We are seeing shocking examples where blanket decisions seem to be being made about the care and treatment options that will be available to older and vulnerable people, who have felt pressurised into signing Do Not Attempt CPR forms.

Alongside this, many of the people affected have experienced fear and anxiety, and feel that their lives and wishes do not matter. This is shameful and unacceptable.

Yes it is.

Naturally the media can be relied on to whip up hatred of those who vote incorrectly, but politicians are little better, if more subtle.

When Ministers take part in things like Question Time, you’ll often hear them talk about an “aging population” as a primary cause of rising NHS costs.  They never mention mass immigration, nor the ridiculous past policies and mismangement that have seen millions spent on “consultancy” (not the medical kind) by a middle management so inept that it paid out £100,000s in redundancy payments to workers they then re-hired as contractors on higher pay.

That’s why the NHS is a money-pit. The whole world is allowed to use it, and it is run by jobsworth bureaucrats with a great deal of public money in their hands, and who answer only to other jobsworth bureaucrats.

This attitude to the elderly is sinister, it’s short-sighted, and it’s dark.  We have a duty to oppose both the cruelty and abuse and bring it to an end.  We have to protect people today and bring this horrific abuse to an end.  But we also have to protect everyone, including ourselves, from the kind of people who celebrate the death of their political adversaries.

We should all be very careful with this.  This is a proposal that people should be effectively extinguished if and when they prove to be politically or financially burdensome. Let’s not forget that government spending on pensions is the largest part of its welfare bill.

What’s extraordinary is the short-sightedness.  With a bit of luck, many of us will reach 70, so on top of the fact that it is deeply immoral to abuse elderly people and take away their rights, why jeopardise our own future?   Like women who argue against their right to vote, or the many who are keen to see the US brought down and replaced by China, my advice is to be very very careful what you wish for.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


Taking the Knee

By Mike Speakman, ex Deputy Chief Constable, Policing Spokesman

4th June 2020

I frequently write in these blogs that I am ashamed of the state of modern policing. I never thought that I would see worse than rainbow laces, rainbow make up, dancing bobbies and inaction within sight of flagrant breaches of the law.  I was wrong, we have reached a new low and it seems we might not yet have plumbed the depths to which our police force can sink.

Kneeling is a sign of submission and I never thought I would see British Police Officers kneel to a gang of law-breaking thugs as they did yesterday at Downing Street.  It may be that this was the action of individual officers and in my view, they should be subject to disciplinary proceedings. They were not upholding the law; they were not being impartial, and they broke every rule about policing demonstrations.

However, the problem starts from the top. The Police Chiefs Council saw fit to issue the following statement yesterday morning (Wednesday 3rd, June).

We will tackle bias, racism or discrimination wherever we find it,” the statement signed by the leaders of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and the Police Superintendents’ Association “

Why did they say this? Were they not behaving in this way anyway? Why did they feel the need to own a problem generated thousands of miles away?  By making this statement they created a climate where they accepted responsibility for the behaviour of an American Police Officer and thereby implied guilt on behalf of British Police Officers.  Did some of this guilt rub off on the bobby on the street?

There is no British police officer who would defend the way that the American arrest was carried out. Once an individual is in your custody, you are responsible for his care. Sometimes force is needed and sometimes people do not want to submit, but once you have control of them, you have to look after them.

Of course, this problem was not started by the British Police, they have just made it worse.   The death of the individual in America was a trigger to be exploited by all opposed to Trump and his administration. In America the rioters have had support and sympathy from the Democratic Party and the American media.  Their failure to impeach Trump was just one of several attempts to undermine him. The current riots are just the latest.

As an aside it is interesting to see that America’s second amendment right to bear arms was instrumental in the defence of many properties. Rioters avoided properties under armed guard, and in case anyone thought the protest was really about “Black Lives” the media and protesters ignored the murder of a retired black police officer, David Dorn, who was helping a friend defend his property from looters. His black life did not matter because it did not fit the political objectives of mob, the Democratic party and the politicised media. The protests are not about black lives, they are about opposing the current administration.

It’s the same over here, the media (in particular BBC and Sky) are going out of their way to express sympathy and understanding for the mobs on the streets of London. The Labour party are also jumping on the bandwagon. They want to do everything to obstruct and discredit the government, their campaign in cooperation with the media over Cummings was their previous attempt. They are now trying to whip up opposition over this issue. I emphasise that it is not our problem and we should not own it.

There is a consistent history of foreign problems being imported into this country. One of the often-ignored by-products of uncontrolled immigration is that immigrants often bring their conflicts with them. This includes inter-tribal wars from Africa, divisions within the Islamic communities and dare I say it, Russian dissidents?  These are examples of why strictly controlled immigration is essential for a stable society.

I will say one thing in defence of the British Police.  They are in a very difficult position. Above all they will not want to give the mob a trigger incident like that in America. This may explain the very softy approach they have taken so far.  They have to balance the need to keep public support with that of not giving excuses for more violence.  The difficulty is that apparent weakness will encourage more violence from the mobs.

There is no doubt that British policing has lost its way, it is seen actively taking sides with different political groups. Something that was unimaginable twenty years ago. The police are no longer impartial. For Britain saw this when a parliamentary hustings was prevented from happening by a mob comprising of various Labour and far left activists.

For Britain would institute a root and branch reform of the police. The current leadership would be removed. We would make police accountable to the public they serve and require strict neutrality. Their job is to enforce the law, not to decide who to support.

State of the Economy: Gradual

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 


On the 15th of June, some shops in Britain will re-open, but we’re not quite clear yet how this will work.  Will we be required to wear masks?  Will there be a limit as to numbers inside the shop at any given time?  What we do know is that we are very gradually taking steps to reopen our economy, and the good news is that the markets have reacted positively.  The bad news is that we cannot pick up where we left off.

According to Shares Magazine yesterday, there were highs and lows on the stockmarket, but British business had responded well to the announcement of a date of June 15th.  Associated British Foods, which owns Primark (due to reopen on the 15th), saw its stock price rise by 6.5% to just over £19.  There were other rises too, demonstrating optimism, but it is a cautious optimism; there is a long way to go and it is unlikely to be pleasant.

With more than a quarter of the UK’s workers now paid by the state, the public purse is stretched to the limit.  Nimesh Shah, partner at Blick Rothenberg, a tax advisory firm, told the Financial Times that “tax rises are inevitable”, and indeed they probably are.  It is only a matter of how large these rises will be.  Too large will be deeply unpopular for the Government, particularly given how much individuals and businesses will struggle to get back on their feet – more tax means less to spend and the obvious impact this has on business.

Meanwhile, the housing market has been transformed by the lockdown.  Nationwide announced today that house prices fell 1.7% in May, the lowest for 11 years.  Furthermore, house price growth fell from 3.7% to 1.8%, and residential property transactions fell by 53% compared with April of 2019.

The rental market, by contrast, has grown.  Rightmove, the estate agent, has reported that demand for rentals is up 22% on last year.  With lockdown restrictions easing (estate agents reopened in May), people have begun looking for new places to live at a growing rate.  Break-ups and job changes caused by lockdown are believed to be primary drivers.

But with demand increasing for rental, the likelihood is of course that cost will increase along with it, and this could see homelessness rise and even more pressure placed both on Government and on public finances.

Holidays this summer are likely to be rare.  The combined increase in unemployment and potential new rules on flights will see the global tourist industry stagger back to its feet over years, or even decades.  Spain has ruled out UK holidaymakers returning to its shores until our coronavirus state has improved.

María Reyes Maroto, Spain’s tourism minister, said “Regarding the United Kingdom, there have been talks with tour operators but British data still have to improve, because it’s important to ensure that the person comes well and then returns well.”

Overall, the economic situation today is still pretty bleak.  The impact of coronavirus isn’t yet fully understood, but high unemployment, high living costs, and high taxes – a perilous combination – are the obvious immediate results.  This leaves the Government in a very difficult situation, and there is still no plan as to how they intend to deal with it.

Demanding payback from China would be a good place to start.  For Britain insists China pay for what it has done, please help us by signing our petition here.  Thank you.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Only in America?

31st May 2020

By Ed, Party Chairman this week as Anne Marie is finishing her new book!).

This week has been particularly eventful, at a time when every week seems to bring us increasingly significant news. Anne Marie will be talking about the mainstream media earning the trending hashtag “#ScumMedia” (much to their collective annoyance) in her next livestream, so I will prologue that a little in today’s column. As ever the media have had a major role in shaping the narrative of the news of the week, and as ever, they haven’t covered themselves in glory!

The ‘ScumMedia’ hashtag was well earned here in Britain by the relentless witch hunt of Dominic Cummings. The Press wasted their questions and answers opportunity at the daily Government briefings by pursuing personal vendettas, no doubt still sore over Brexit. At a crucial time for the UK coming out of lockdown and ahead of the greatest recession we have ever known, did they really think their priority was shared by the public?  But the events over the last few days in America have seen further irresponsible behaviour from them, fueling a powder keg situation in US cities that risks spilling over to the UK and beyond if it isn’t challenged and dealt with appropriately.

The riots that have sprung up across the USA originated in Minneapolis, the location of the death of George Floyd, a criminal and African American who died under police restraint on the 25th May. The policeman involved, Derek Chauvin, has been roundly  and correctly condemned from across the political spectrum for pressing his knee on the neck of Floyd. The President himself spoke to the victim’s family and has expressed his sadness and outrage at the incident. Ideally justice would then take it’s course, because as a civilised society that is of course what should happen. The actions of one individual do not reflect an entire group of people – he wasn’t taking orders or instructions for his actions, or was part of a community that collectively believe his actions were justified.  He is one man, who acted inappropriately of his own accord. Nobody is supporting him.

However we have entered the now all too familiar zone of ‘politicisation’. The initial coroner’s report shows that Floyd died from a heart condition exacerbated by the intoxicants in his system and not asphyxiation. Now it would be crazy to claim that the knee on the neck didn’t cause his death, triggering stress and anxiety that led to the catastrophic result of his death. But the likely defence of the policeman is surely newsworthy? Yet the media have ignored this, even the latest ‘timeline of events’ from the BBC today fail to mention it. They also minimise the fact he struggled under arrest (he was arrested for passing a counterfeit note), because the media wish to paint a picture of an innocent black man murdered by a white cop then start to frame it against President Trump. Make no mistake, the actions of Chauvin were reprehensible and he deserves all the criticism he receives and whatever justice that is coming, but ahead of all the facts in the public domain, we have angry mobs acting as judge and jury before justice has run it’s course. And that is down to the media providing the ammunition needed for extreme groups to engage in criminal behaviour

The best way for me to articulate what I mean are to make a few statements that people I have told don’t believe until they research it. Every year, the police in America kill more white people than any other race. Of the 228 civilian shootings by police in the first quarter of 2020, 31 were black. Every weekend there are double digit shootings in Chicago between predominantly black gangs. One of the worst cop ‘murders’ was the case of Daniel Shaver, who was on his knees sobbing and begging for his life. Haven’t heard of him? He’s white and this isn’t the narrative of division the media wishes to disseminate so it isn’t headline worthy.

The fundamental problem here is that this ISN’T a race issue. There may be rogue racist policemen, that is a reflection of society. But America, like the UK is far less racist that most countries around the world – all polls show that and it is why so much of the world wishes to emigrate to our countries. Being a minority in America or Britain is far better than being one in an Arab country for example. Like For Britain, most people don’t see skin colour, they see character and actions. Yet the (left leaning) media won’t allow this. They fan the flames and try to make every story about racial division; and that is entirely political and to destroy the characters of individuals they dislike. For some in this country, child rapists attract less anger than the people criticising those child rapists and shining a light on them, and the first line of attack from the left leaning media is to insinuate they’re ‘racist’.

The media (and the usual race baiting politicians from Labour) rushed to tell us that Belly Mujinga, the TfL worker allegedly  ‘spat on by someone with COVID’ and who subsequently died tragically was another ethnic minority suffering from racism. Anger and fury provoked, they failed to mention there was no evidence of this incident. Consequently when the CCTV footage is examined and the Police say there was no evidence she was spat at, they drop the story rather than ensure they correct the misinformation. The assailant didn’t have COVID, but the press is safe in the knowledge that their original intention was placed firmly in the public psyche. To hell with the white guy who may well now be receiving death threats, hatred and career problems. What happened to journalism and a desire to report facts?

So back to America – it is entirely likely that what is unfolding could happen here in the UK. If you wish to see how the Media is desperate to stoke racial tensions, read the Independent’s twitter feed. Every headline is twisted to create some sort of “racist” narrative (always with white people as the bad guy of course). The combination of Antifa / Far Left and BLM activists looting, rioting and destroying are receiving little criticism because there’s an anti Trump / anti West sentiment that they typically subscribe to.

Imagine for a second that the cop victim had been a Trump supporter and Trump supporters were currently attacking elderly women in wheelchairs (yes that happened, just not reported) and looting / rioting; imagine the coverage. Look at how in the UK any so called ‘right wing’ rallies where a minor scuffle happened the media leapt on it to tar all normal decent Brits as ‘knuckle draggers’, yet here we have coordinated unrest, violence and destruction. What does the media do? Investigate Antifa and the criminal gangs ? No, the media manages to criticise Trump for saying the mob descending on the White House will be met with force as though this isn’t a completely reasonable thing to say.

Katie Hopkins has had tweets with tens of thousands of likes threatening her both directly and indirectly if riots start in the UK, but Twitter don’t seem to mind. They’re still there. All because she had the temerity to question whether Black Lives Matter are genuine when black lives are lost every weekend in Chicago in gang shootings. Michael Moore, with 6.1 million followers tweets “White Minnesota – you’ve told us quite clearly police murder of black people is OK”. This incitement whips up further anger, yet Twitter choose to censor the President for correctly pointing out that when looting  starts, inevitably shooting starts . A point proven correct by a store owner defending his property and shooting dead a looter as the angry mob attacked business and properties.

I come back to it – the West is incredibly tolerant and non racist. The only people obsessing about skin colour are the leftist media because they seemingly can find no other way of attacking centre right / right wing politicians. They assumed when President Trump called the rioters ‘thugs’ he meant black people – racist much?! I actually think they know he didn’t mean that, they just pretended he did to stoke the fires further.

We must reject the normalisation of criminal rioting and looting under some kind of moral justification umbrella. Crime is crime (one law for all). We must reject the media’s unchecked incitement (and that is what it is) hoping to stir racial tensions and live our lives judging people just by their actions and character. They project their guilt at Trump, Boris or whoever else for stirring up division, knowing full well they are entirely guilty of that which they accuse.

At For Britain we are clear about this – there is a determined media and far left effort to create tensions and problems when we have enough real issues to deal with, so we will call out the toxic press every time they try and set us against each other. We can’t let what is happening in America happen here, we must not have rioting and looting whipped up by the Press.

Listen to Anne Marie in the livestream on the 1st June to hear more about this and discuss it in the Q&A on YouTube.

Stop the Mosque! For Britain Takes The Lead…

For Britain activists in London today campaigning against the ‘Piccadilly Mosque’

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday May 26th 2020 

Plans to build a 1,000 person capacity mosque right in the heart of London’s West End are meeting fierce opposition – with For Britain leading the way.

Members of our London branch have been working in the hot sun today, raising awareness of this serious issue.  Well done to all the team.The mosque, to be funded by the Aziz Foundation, will be located at the iconic Trocadero in London’s Piccadilly Circus.  The group states on its website that “the Piccadilly Mosque will be a great addition to the area, adding diversity as well as boosting it economically.”

For Britain says it will not bring “diversity”, it will bring religious tension.

Piccadilly Circus is right in the midstof London’s nightlife capital – the West End.  It is a place filled with theatres, bars, clubs, and restaurants and has been a centre of entertainment in London for decades.  A 1,000 man mosque is entirely inappropriate and raises significant questions as to why this site has been chosen.

Furthermore, the mosque, if plans go ahead, will be within spitting distance of Soho – the ‘gay quarter’ of central London.  Soho is home to many gay bars and clubs, and this already raised serious concerns.  It is particularly worrying that the mosque will ‘let out’ at 7 pm on a Friday evening, when Soho will be packed with gay party-goers.  Is this really a good idea?


We must fight this, and people have been expressing their opposition here (you don’t need to live in London to object).  Please add your voice if you can.  Meanwhile, For Britain will continue to protest these entirely inappropriate plans.

The West End is a place for entertainment, not tension.

State of the Economy: Changing

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday May 26th 2020


Former BBC ‘Dragon’ Theo Paphitis has declared that “retail will never ever be the same again” when economic life begins to stagger back to normality.  The coronavirus lockdown has closed all shops except those selling food and medicine, and it has been this way for more than a month.  The effect on our economy is immeasurable, and the effect, it seems, will last far longer than lockdown itself.

Paphitis echoed the sentiments of Marks & Spencer leader Steve Rowe, who agreed that some shopping habits “have changed forever”.  The winner in all of this will be internet-based business, as countless people have been forced to discover online shopping, and many will never go back.

As it must, our economy will change as people’s habits do, and so we can expect delivery companies to be created, and those already working to get much bigger.  Online shopping will explode and retail shops will transform in to warehouses.  Jobs will be very different too.

The high street had already diminished thanks to the internet, but this, according to Paphitis, has accelerated the process.

The acceleration in the demise of retail will inevitably have an impact on other services people use while shopping, such as cafes and restaurants.  Great change, and great economic struggle, is ahead, possibly for millions of Britons.

Further change will be to the office environment.  Since the lockdown began, almost half of the UK’s workforce have been working from home.  Many are predicted to stay that way.

This too will have a wider ripple effect than perhaps first estimated. Businesses of course will have far smaller overheads in terms of real estate and utilities.  But it will also lead to a disjointed workforce; colleagues who don’t know each other well may make teamwork more difficult, and there is also a social aspect to consider.  For some, work is a place of friendships and even deeper relationships.  This will mean people will find new ways of meeting, probably causing yet another boost to the online world.

There’s no doubt about it, the internet is significantly altering our reality, and will continue to do so.  The future, including the future of business, is very much moving in to virtual reality, and thanks to coronavirus, it is now moving faster.

According to author Bruce Daisley, writer of ‘The Joy of Work’, anyone who “thinks things are going to go back to the way things were is bananas”.  He may well be right.

Economic developments this week include:

  • All non-essential retailers in England may reopen on June 15th
  • The New York Stock Exchange reopens today after a 2 month closure
  • The UK Government has hinted that it is willing to save essential companies from going under, as a “last resort”
  • The German Government has agreed a 9 billion euro bailout for airline Lufthansa


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Police in Barrow are Lying


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


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 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


SUNDAY COLUMN: Fake News – The Outrageous Mainstream Media


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 


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 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


SUNDAY COLUMN: The Global World


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.


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.


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


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 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


SUNDAY COLUMN: Is the Lockdown Ending?


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.


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).


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.


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 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.


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.


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’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 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.


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 


For Britain 

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 


For Britain 

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 (, as well as Health Secretary Matt Hancock ( 

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 




SUNDAY COLUMN: Grooming Gang Cover-Up Continues


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.


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 


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 


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 


For Britain 

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


What’s behind the climate change movement?

Sunday April 19th 2020



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”.



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 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


SUNDAY COLUMN – Why we must ban the buyback of shares


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 


For Britain 


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


What’s Really Happening at the Greek Border?

A battle between the EU and Turkey. 

Sunday April 5th 2020



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


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 


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 


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


For Britain 

VIDEO: Demanding fairness – Our family law policy 


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


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


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 


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


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

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 


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 


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

“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 


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 


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


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… 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..

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.

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


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


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 


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


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,


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


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 


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 


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


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


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 


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


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.


Anne Marie Waters: Restoring sanity – Our transgender policy

Anne Marie Waters: Cash for child abuse – the Lib Dems’ exploitation of children


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

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


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

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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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 


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.


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

Huge scale of terror threat revealed: UK home to 23,000 jihadists


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

Animals have no voice, let’s give them one.

Join us.


Anne Marie Waters


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


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?

Huge scale of terror threat revealed: UK home to 23,000 jihadists

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.


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 


For Britain