No End to Jobs Crisis

Anne Marie Waters 

Tuesday October 27th 2020 


Two articles have caught my eye this morning; how jobs are continuing to be lost due to local lockdowns, and the impact this will have on the next generation.

According to the BBC, there is a ‘long winter’ ahead for those seeking work, as job advertisements continue to fall.  The primary reason is lack of high street footfall.

The Centre for Cities think-tank (CfC) has analysed 63 towns and cities across the UK and has found that “vacancies have failed to return to pre-pandemic levels across all 63”.

Scotland has been particularly badly affected, while London’s job advertisements are down 52%, with a nationwide reduction of 46% since this time last year.  That’s a staggering figure, and means that employment is not going to recover at any time soon.

Industries that depend upon high street footfall are particularly suffering.  This includes high street shops, but also leisure pursuits and entertainment.  People working from home has significantly impacted this and there is little sign that vast numbers will ever return to the office.

Pawel Adrjan, UK economist at Indeed, said: “The timid recovery in job vacancies is a portent of the distress towns and cities could face if restrictions continue to spring up in parts of the country already reeling from imposed lockdowns and reduced footfall.

With the remote work trend showing no sign of abating, and entire regions being placed under stricter control, service jobs in large towns and cities could become scarcer still and pull the UK into a jobs spiral.

That could mean a very long winter ahead for the millions of people currently unemployed.”

This is indeed dreadful news, but when looking at the longer term prospects of the coming generations, the news gets even worse.

For Britain has always strived for future generations – it is central to our philosophy that Britain should remain free and prosperous for their sake, but coronavirus has brought us to a new place; a place where young people are unlikely to own their own homes, or in fact to own much at all.

They have been labelled ‘Generation Covid’ and their future could well be quite bleak.  Panorama has reported that people aged 16-25 are more than twice as likely to have lost their jobs in this crisis than older generations, and 6 in 10 have seen their earnings fall.

The inevitable mental health consequences of increased hopelessness, particularly among young people from poorer backgrounds, is already making itself felt.

The Samaritans claim that suicidal thoughts among this age are higher than others, and this generation is spiralling in to depression.

An assistant principal at a Westminster sixth form college told Panorama: “We’ve seen a big increase in students with eating disorders this year. And increase in depression as well. So, we’ve had to, where possible, direct them to the nursing and the counselling, but within the first two weeks, those two things were completely saturated”.

Anxiety about their future is high, and the younger generation knows it will have to foot the bill for the decisions made by the Johnson government today; decisions that have caused an almost total collapse of the British economy.  Moreover, there are no signs at all that this will end soon.  In fact, with smaller lockdowns throughout the country, the opposite is the case.

We need urgent action on youth unemployment now, the future of the country depends on it.  But admittedly, I’m thinking of a certain kind of future – one of prosperity, education, property ownership, autonomy, creativity, individuality and entrepreneurship.  What ‘Generation Covid’ faces will be very very different.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777 


(Economic Facts and Fallacies book review will return next week).


SUNDAY COLUMN: What the Papers Say

Anne Marie Waters

October 25th 2020 


It is one of my favourite days of the year; gaining a full hour in the morning to do with what we wish.  Bliss!  If I gain an hour, especially in the morning, it is inevitable that I will use that time to read, and that’s what I’ve done.  But rather than research my next book as I might have, I decided to trawl through the papers, take a step back, and have a look at where we are on October 25th 2020.

Nobody can say it isn’t interesting!

We’ll start mainstream, then have a look at some alternatives.  The place to begin is obviously the good old BBC.  Featuring heavily with the Beeb this morning is unsurprisingly Covid-19.

Let’s not go over the ludicrous rules in detail again, but a thought about the new measures in Wales is worth a few moments to reflect upon.  Last week, rather strange rules came in to effect; supermarkets and shops were not allowed to sell non-essential items.  Or were they?  It’s not quite clear.

Needless to say, to impose a rule about ‘non-essentials’ instantly starts an argument over what does or doesn’t fit the bill.  What is essential for one person will not matter in the slightest to another.  Are clothes essential?  Yes.  One would have thought so, and yet, sale of clothes are temporarily forbidden.

According to the BBC: Supermarkets have been told they can only sell “essential” items and must close parts of their stores which sell products such as clothes, shoes, toys and bedding during Wales’ 17-day “firebreak lockdown”.

Unsurprisingly, there is confusion, as one big Tesco was selling stationary and another wasn’t.  A poster on Twitter however said that the Welsh government confirmed stationary was fine to sell after all.  Why stationary and not clothes?  We may never know.

The leader of the Welsh government is Mark Drakeford, a Labour Corbynite.  Perhaps that’s where he gets his desire for absolute control, and why he sees nothing particularly worrisome about the state telling folk what we can or cannot buy in the shops.  That’s the kind of society Corbynites dream about!

The reason the Welsh government offers is to keep people in the shops for as little time as possible.  This doesn’t cut it I’m afraid.  If this is the case, if our time is so desperately limited (despite wearing masks and ‘social distancing’), why can we use that limited time to buy a pen but not a pair of trousers?

Moving on, Rishi Sunak’s latest financial package of bailouts (using your money) features on this morning’s Sky News home page.  The Chancellor’s initial furlough package – where the state would foot the bill to the tune of 80% of staff wages – will cease at the end of October, so Sunak must now introduce the next phase.  This is how it’s described by Sky this morning:

The successor to the furlough scheme, the Job Support Scheme, which begins next month will only require employees in open businesses to work one day a week to be eligible for support, with employer contributions for unworked hours falling to 5%.

An example provided by the Treasury said that under the improved conditions for employers, a full-time member of staff paid an average £1,100 a month would still take home at least £807 – with employers contributing £283.

Grants for the self-employed are doubled to 40% of pre-crisis earnings. It means that the maximum grant will increase from £1,875 to £3,750 under the two looming schemes which will cover November to January and February to April.

Understood?  Not really?  Same here.

It goes on:

There is no change to the support on offer from the Job Support Scheme for businesses forced to close because of the highest level of restrictions UK-wide. The government will pay 67% of wages with no employer contributions.

Under England’s tiered approach, companies can claim up to £3,000 per month under the Local Restrictions Support Grant scheme if they fall within a Tier 3 lockdown.

Add to this that England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all have different restrictions, there are the distinct “tiers” that make things even more bewildering, and the fact that even police and politicians admit they don’t understand the rules, and you have a country running around like a headless chicken.

ITV news this morning is utterly dominated by Covid-19 on its home page, far more so than the BBC or Sky.  Its primary headline focusses on Wales, but others include: “NHS will be unable to cope”, “Police to stop non-essential trips across the Welsh border”, “Police shut down COVID rule break wedding with 250 guests”, and “UK records 23,012 Covid cases and 174 more deaths”.

Yes, ITV is determined to stoke the flames of Covid fear, and will no doubt continue to.

On another matter, the US Presidential election is hotting up, though less attention is paid than one might expect.  What we do expect however is anti-Trump bias, and we get it.  The BBC is absolutely head of the game in this regard.

Under it’s “US Election” section, it has put together a series of “fact checks” regarding claims made by both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.  It has to be seen to be believed so do check it out for yourself.

The overall gist is this:

Trump = “liar”,

Biden = “he got that bit wrong but never mind”.

It’s entertaining if nothing else.

The mainstream is filled with Covid fear stories, anti-Trump rhetoric dressed up as news, and the occasional bit about the economy, so what about the alternatives?

Breitbart leads with an amusing headline of: “Escape from Wales – UK Police Set Up Checkpoints with Lockdown Region”.  As can be expected though, Breitbart delves in to areas the mainstream won’t.  For example, Swedish police will be using drones to observe “no-go areas” (i.e. areas blighted by foreign criminals who are destroying Sweden from within).  This is a prime example of political theatre – like Priti Patel making tough speeches about immigration.  It’s all a facade, an attempt to persuade the public something is being done.  Nothing is being done.  As usual.  There is absolutely no point in Swedish police observing anyone if they don’t intend to prosecute and punish the crimes observed.  But on past form, Sweden has little intention of prosecuting or punishing anyone except its own people.

Speaking of Priti Patel, despite her great speeches, life continues as normal – illegal immigration, Brits on the streets while foreigners are housed in hotels… the usual stuff.  She’s done nothing to stop it.  To be fair, there’s little she can do when we have legislation in place that specifically places the rights of foreign criminals over and above law-abiding Brits.  It’s called the Human Rights Act and the Tories have had every opportunity to get rid of it.  They haven’t, and they won’t.  So we’ll continue to see the scenario described by Breitbart this week; a foreign murderer can stay in Britain despite having already been subject to a deportation order, and despite the fact that he poses a direct threat to the safety of the British people.  He has “human rights”.  Brits don’t.  That’s the message from both Labour and Tory.  We only need to decide if we intend to put up with this forever.

Finally from Breitbart, I doubt many of us will be surprised to learn that teachers in France have been subjected to a deluge of death threats from Muslims following last week’s horrific beheading of Samuel Paty – a Paris teacher who dared to stay true to the crucial French value of secularism and discuss Mohammed cartoons in class.

The French government is still talking tough on this.   But the problem they’ve got is that only ending immigration and insituting mass deportation will stop it.  Will France do this?  Not a chance!

The final media site I browsed today was UK Column.  I know little about this site, but the headlines tell me it might be worth paying more attention to.  Issues covered include the level of death caused by lockdown, the potential for defence unity that will include the UK in a post-Brexit Europe, and the prospects for future One World Government.  But it is the headline ‘Civil Liberties, Once Given Away, Won’t Come Back’ that particularly caught my eye.  This article quite rightly argues that we have lost our civil liberties and will have to fight to get them back.  It partly blames the media for this, as do I, and as should anyone who is paying attention.

The author writes:

Combined with Daily Mail inspired fear-porn, such inflammatory coverage, amplified on social media, is building the public consent needed to drive through restrictions on civil liberties which could very quickly be reminiscent of Soviet Russia.

Soviet Russia is a very apt comparison, because it is communism itself that is at the heart of this.  It is the hard left that is so desperately keen on lockdowns and restrictions, because it suits them.  The hard left likes control.

What is also pointed out on UK Column: If history tells us anything, it’s that once a government claims power, it rarely willingly gives it back.

That’s of course entirely true, but within this cloud is a silver lining – people are aware of the corruption and incompetence, and increasingly so.

It’s therefore the best time in our lives to bring about political change; not with gimmicks or celebrity self-interest, but with people power and democracy.  That is what has always brought change, and that’s what will bring it again.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

China’s Economic Recovery

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday October 20th 2020


The world economy is moving fast and it isn’t easy to keep up.  Last week I gave you some detail on the latest scheme offered by the Chancellor to help those out of work as a result of these increasingly absurd COVID-19 government restrictions.  (I will return to the Thomas Sowell book review when things are rather quieter).

This week, there is further COVID related economic news that must be shared: while we’re bickering over “tiers” and “lockdowns”, China is well on the way to recovery.

According to The Economist:

Officials reported that the economy expanded by 4.9% in the third quarter compared with a year earlier, just shy of its pre-pandemic pace. Whereas most other countries are mired in recession and grappling with a new wave of covid-19 cases, China has just about completed the upward leg of a V-shaped rebound.

The reason for this is placed at the feet of Chinese efficiency in controlling the virus.

China got one crucial thing right: by almost stamping out the virus, it was able to allow activity to resume with few restrictions. Schools are fully open, factories are humming and restaurants are buzzing. 

What an incredible scenario.  We are told (though many have serious doubts) that this virus began as a result of rather filthy Chinese food preparation practices i.e. at a ‘wet’ market.

We know that the Chinese government covered it up, delayed any response, lied, lied, and lied again, and yet, here we are: China is praised for bringing the virus under control while the rest of us are still stuck in economic no-man’s-land.

China caused this.  Now it is laughing all the way to the bank.

Back home in the UK, our politicians are nothing short of a laughing stock.  In the news this morning, the headlines tell us that the local leaders of Manchester are at loggerheads with the government over “Tier 3” restrictions being imposed on the city.

The BBC reports:

The government and local leaders – including mayors and MPs – have been embroiled in 10 days of talks over moving Greater Manchester’s 2.8m population from tier two to the highest restrictions.

Greater Manchester has been under local restrictions since July.

The “very high” alert level – also known as tier three – would mean closing pubs and bars which do not serve meals, and additional restrictions on households mixing.

How we got in to this mess is one question; the other is how we get out of it.  We got in to it for two reasons – China, and our own inept government.  China’s role has already been explained, and while it is responsible (and therefore should foot the bill) for starting this fiasco, it is not responsible for the UK government’s continued refusal to change direction.

Lockdown has been a disaster, and with more lockdowns, will come more disaster.  Boris Johnson seems to have only one idea however.  He is still listening to the same advisors, the same scientists, still excluding any new voices or views that may take us in a different direction.  This is a complete lack of leadership.

What needs to happen now:

  • End lockdowns and allow the economy to get back on its feet
  • End unnecessary spending (like foreign aid) and pump that money in to tax cuts for local and small business
  • Protect the elderly and vulnerable
  • Listen to alternative voices in science and medicine and try new approaches, what we’ve been doing isn’t working
  • Take any available legal action against China and recoup some of our lost earnings

Anything short of these measures will amount to yet more failure, more unemployment, more state dependency, more poverty.

What we need now is fearless leadership and an absolute commitment to put the interests of the British economy first.  What we have are headless chickens, floundering from one bad idea back to the same bad idea, over and over again.

If we want new ideas, we need new leaders, and that is up to us.  Every cloud does indeed have a silver lining.  I sincerely hope political change is what emerges from this disaster.  Only then can we truly get our country (and economy) back in to shape.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Tory Dhimmitude

By Hugo Jenks, Islam Spokesman


Within countries controlled by Islam there are traditionally three choices for non-Muslims: convert to Islam, be executed, or live as a Dhimmi.  This third option was usually available only to the “people of the Book”, namely the Christians and Jews.  The strict rules have been varied at different times and in different places, such that it was simply impractical to slaughter tens of millions of Hindus when Islam conquered India.

A Dhimmi is regarded as an inferior person, and they are obliged to pay a special tax, the “jizya” tax, as a sign of subservience and humiliation.  The Dhimmi may be required to bow down low, or even crawl on their stomach when paying the tax.  The subservience is spelled out in the Koran in verses that have not been abrogated:

Koran 9:29. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [jizya] readily, being brought low.

See this website for further information.

This verse, Koran 9:29, abrogates eight other verses.  To find out which verses these are, do a text search for “9:29” within the Abrogated Koran eBook.  Just to add a little extra complication: note that some verses are abrogated by more than one abrogating verse. Knowing which verses abrogate which other verses is absolutely key to gaining an accurate understanding of the Koran.  The “verse of the sword” Koran 9:5 abrogates an astonishing 108 other verses – which were generally the more tolerant ones.  You can sometimes also catch out Muslims, even Imams, when they quote abrogated verses.  The Imam who spoke during an evensong service at Wells Cathedral quoted two verses which had been abrogated.  They may well do it knowingly – deception is permissible within Islam.  If we are to have much hope of tackling Islam itself we have to be one step ahead of these blatant deceivers!  It is not an easy task.

The Abrogated Koran is a valuable tool for this task – the eBook edition is a free download. It indicates which verses are abrogated, and by which other verses.  Key verses are also colour-coded.


For all that the Muslim Council of Britain complains about “Islamophobia” in the Conservative Party, the reality is that the Tories are very willing to bend the knee to Islam.  They have evidently already developed the Dhimmitude mindset.  And furthermore, they show a willingness to give special financial and other assistance to the Muslims in their area, using of course our money.  This has to be regarded as a jizya tax, levied upon unwilling non-Muslims.  This may seem like a bold claim, however, you can see the evidence of it with your own eyes.

See this video, where Councillor Simon Dudley, the then leader of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, made some extraordinary promises to a group of Muslims:

Councillor Dudley’s speech to Maidenhead Mosque:

There is much in his speech that is despicable.  Consider some examples of his shameful statements:

…the whole Conservative group guarantee to you…”  an extraordinary guarantee.  Does any other community have such favoured status?

“…I want them to redesign their plans to provide both the parking locally, which can be used by people who live there, but also your community as you come to worship...”  this is deliberately setting up a conflict between the future local residents and those attending the mosque.  They will be competing for parking spaces.  This is hardly likely to engender good community relations.

I hope when we have our local government elections on the second of May, you will vote Conservative…”  blatant electioneering – using taxpayers resources as the bait.  Is this permissible?

Note that the speech was on the 26th April 2019.  On the 29th Sept 2019 a local newspaper reported that Cllr Simon Dudley had resigned with immediate effect.  It is not clear from the newspaper article what the true reason for the resignation was.

It is vitally important that we hold the existing elected representatives (of all parties) to account.  It is highly doubtful that many of them have examined Islam in any depth, and thus it seems unlikely that they have understood the existential threat that Islam itself is to us all. As seen by the behaviour of this councillor as a prime example, we cannot expect the Conservative Party to be of any use whatsoever in the task of saving Western civilisation from Islam.  They have to be booted out of office!

Nevertheless, we should meanwhile still keep up the effort to educate them regarding the harsh reality of Islam.  Some Conservative councillors (elsewhere than Maidenhead) have spoken out honestly and courageously against Islam.  They know that they will then be expelled from the Conservative Party.  Some see this as a price that is worth paying, in order to retain their own integrity.  We need to put in the effort to encourage more of them to do so.


Sagheer: We’ve had talks over the last year and a half, two years with the council, and just this morning we’ve had some papers through on email (from the council) to say the council will give us preferential treatment or first denial on the site next door, so I’ll allow Simon to say a few words.

Councillor Dudley: Sagheer, thank you, As-salamu Alaikum, I hope that was reasonably good. I am Simon Dudley, I am the Leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and I wanted to come along and talk to you, because we’ve been discussing with Sagheer, and Arif as well, how we can make sure that your community has the opportunity to expand over the coming years. I think as you know, there is a lot of work going on in Maidenhead, regeneration of Maidenhead. But what I as the leader of the council, and people like Gurch, as hopefully a future councillor, and the whole Conservative group guarantee to you, is that as the town develops, we will make sure that you have the space to expand here, for the education of your children and the important community worship facilities that you need. With the Ivy Leaf, the council own the freehold of that site and we are negotiating with them for them to surrender their lease. We had thought that we might build apartments, flats on that site. We will never do that. That is my undertaking to you, as the leader, the Conservative leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. We have sent an agreement over that when we have control of that site, we will allow the Islamic Trust to acquire that site, so that you can expand here. And indeed, when the Magnet Leisure Centre, we’re building a new one along the Braywick Road, when that closes, and we start to build new homes on here, we will make sure that they are set back from the mosque here, that they aren’t overlooking it, that it is respectful of your place of worship. So I am going to tell our partners, who are called Countryside, that I want them to redesign their plans to provide both the parking locally, which can be used by people who live there, but also your community as you come to worship, but also that the development is respectful of the mosque. Now, the reason this is important to us, is that your community is an essential part of the community of Maidenhead, and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. So I’m proud to be the leader of a multicultural local authority, and I’m proud to be a Riverside councillor with so many of you as residents there. And I will always defend your religious beliefs and freedoms as long as I am the leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, because you are an essential part of our community and one which I hold in deep respect. So these are my assurances to you, to your families, to your friends. As your community grows, we will ensure that your facilities are able to grow as well, because that’s essential in the development of Maidenhead as a town, in exactly the same way that the community at 22 Cookham Road, we made sure that they were able to buy that site a number of years ago. I was instrumental in that, that they got that site, and now that is being redeveloped. So the same way that I was true to my word then, I will be true to my word with what I’ve just said to you, which is being filmed, and that’s absolutely fine by me, and you can hold me to account. So I wanted to thank you for your time, I hope when we have our local government elections on the second of May, you will vote Conservative, you will put your crosses, yourselves and your families, next to the tree, the Conservative tree, because it’s that political party that is going to help you develop a stronger community here, and the facilities that you and your loved ones need. So hopefully, that, you know, I just wanted to make sure you were all aware of all of that, and thank you very much for giving me some time to say that.

We Always Knew That Police & Crime Commissioners Were A Mistake

By Mike Speakman, Retired Deputy Chief Constable
Policing, Law & Order Spokesman

Many professionals from the police and other public bodies warned against the creation of Police and Crime Commissioners. They warned it would politicise policing, it would undermine the independence of the police and introduce a heavy political element into policing.

Not true we were told. PCCs would not have operational control and the post would not be political. Now we can see how we were misled. Look at the situation in Greater Manchester.  Commentators are suggesting that the reason Boris is hesitant about imposing a Tier three lockdown on the area is that amongst other reasons he cannot be sure the police will enforce it.  Why is this?

The question  being asked “is to whom do the police owe allegiance?”  In days gone by this would have been easy to answer. The police are there to enforce the law in the interests of the local population. There would not historically, have been a discrepancy between the law and police enforcement of it, but now the police are perceived as accountable to their Police and Crime Commissioner.  In GMP we have a situation where the PCC who is also the Regional Mayor is also at odds with the government.  The Chief Constables job is in the hands of the PCC.  This is a most unhealthy situation.

I have long argued that a Chief Constables role is to keep politicians at arm’s length, whilst still being accountable. The creation of the PCC role has made this very difficult if not impossible.  The previous arrangements meant accountability to a corporate body, the Police Authority. This meant that no one political person or ideology could hijack the police.  In GMP the PCC role has become very political and there is a risk of operational control of the police being used by a PCC for political ends, all of which we were promised would not happen.

The combination of PCC role and Regional Mayors has the potential to create quasi autonomous republics around the country, where the governments writ may not apply at all, or at least is impaired.  London is a very good example.  The Metropolitan Police certainly appear to be operating to the Mayors agenda, evidenced by the differential policing of demonstrations and protest in the capital, where the law is imposed on some sections of the community and not others.

Some Chief Constables are very close to their Police and Crime Commissioners and this is a fundamental perversion of the role. We need to remove the current tier of police leaders and once again find the fiercely independent Chiefs of old who had the bottle to tell the politicians when to back off.

Our party would replace Police and Crime commissioners with a directly elected public body. Politicians and Police Chiefs should never be “Mates”.

SUNDAY COLUMN: Coronvirus and the Media

Anne Marie Waters

Sunday October 18th 2020


I’ve been clear in the past in my views on the media.  I believe it to be nothing short of evil, and I do not use that word casually.  To wilfully and knowingly misinform an entire population, stirring up panic, spreading outright lies, and then sitting back and watching the consequences while never personally paying any price, is surely awful enough to warrant the label.

The latest example of media rottenness can be found in the coronavirus panic.  It was stirred up by the media, compounded by incompetent and ignorant governments.  The consequence?  The collapse of Western economies, countless deaths, the immense mental suffering of millions of people.  The media will pay no price.  Unless the people vote them out, nor will politicians.

If you would like greater detail on this, I highly recommend the following book.  Please read it.  It’s a short book, but it will change your worldview.

Corona, False Alarm? Facts and Figures was written by two German doctors, Dr Karina Reiss and Dr Sucharit Bhakdi.  They describe in detail how media and governments turned a fairly typical flu bug in to a worldwide meltdown.  It was all based on false data, misunderstood science, and the media desire to stir up trouble.  The media, as so often, is almost entirely to blame.

I will copy some of the most significant passages in this column.

Back in December, stories began to emerge from China of a deadly new virus.  The media dispersed images of horror coming from that country and apparently revealing widespread death.  Then the same happened in Europe, Italy in particular.

First, the reality.

The starting point is the way in which data was collected.  The vast majority of those who “died” did not die from this virus, but from other causes.  This is fact, and yet, the press (and governments) presented a completely false narrative to the public.  The doctors write:

Right from the beginning, the media and politicians spread a distorted and misleading picture based on fundamental flaws in data acquisition and especially on medically incorrect definitions laid down by the World Health Organisation (WHO).  Each positive laboratory test for the virus was to be reported as a COVID-19 case, irrespective of clinical presentation.  This definition represented an unforgivable breach of a first rule in infectiology: the necessity to differentiate between “infection” (invasion and multiplication of an agent of the host) and “infectious disease” (infection with ensuing illness).  COVID-19 is the designation for severe illness that occurs only in about 10% of infected individuals, but because of incorrect designation, the number of “cases” surged and the virus vaulted to the top of the list of existential threats to the world. 

Another serious mistake was that every deceased person who had tested positive for the virus entered the official records as a coronavirus victim.  This method of reporting violated all international medical guidelines.  The absurdity of giving COVID-19 as the cause of the death in a patient who dies of cancer needs no comment.

So our starting point is false data.  The figures put forward simply weren’t a true representation.  The doctors continue:

The WHO estimates that there are 290,000-650,000 flu deaths each year.  Now turn to COVID-19.  In May, the RKI [Robert Koch Institute – a German federal government body responsible for disease control] calculated 170,000 infections with 7,000 coronavirus deaths equals 4% case fatality rate – as predicted by the WHO!  Conclusion: COVID-19 is really ten times more dangerous than seasonal flu.  However, the number of infections was at least ten times higher because most mild and asymptomatic cases had not been sought and detected.  This would bring us to a much more realistic fatality rate of 0.4%.  Moreover, the number of “true” COVID-19 deaths was lower because many or most had died of causes other than the virus.  Further correction of the number brings us to a rough estimate of 0.1% – 0/3%, which is in the range of moderate flu.  

But what of the role of the media in all this?  Let’s look to Italy for an early example.  Italy was the first European country to appear seriously affected.  The media delighted in showing the world images of mass coffins and overwhelmed hospitals.  This sent fear around Europe, and the media relished it.  The truth however, was somewhat different.

Since northern Italy was particularly affected, it would be interesting to ask if environmental factors had any influence on the way things developed there.  Northern Italy had been dubbed the China of Europe with regard to its fine particulate pollution.  According to a WHO estimate, this caused over 8,000 additional deaths (without a virus) in Italy’s 13 biggest cities in 2006.  Air pollution increases the risk of viral pulmonary disease in the very young and the elderly.  Obviously, this factor could generally play a role in accentuating the severity of pulmonary infections.

Furthermore, in Italy cremations are rare, and that’s part of the reason undertakers were reported as overburdened when the government ordered cremations in the midst of the pandemic, and even brought the army in to assist.  The truth though is that there simply weren’t enough crematoriums and the infrastructure was completely lacking, leading to a backlog.  The media reported none of this, just presented a horrifying picture of what was happening in Europe.

The situation in Germany is covered in great detail in the book.  The media reported impending catastrophe and Germany began to lock down.  Politicians took advantage of the opportunity to present themselves anew to the electorate.

Politicians entered a race for voter popularity – who could profit the most?  Markus Soder, State President of Bavaria, presented himself as “Action Man”, emanating force and determination in front of the cameras.  

But what of the media in the UK?  It was just as dreadful as the rest of Europe.  BBC, Sky, ITV, none of them questioned the extent of the harm caused by this virus.  None seriously questioned the data and whether it was accurate.  They said nothing when it became clear that our hospitals were not overwhelmed but in fact half empty.  Doctors and nurses carrying out dance routines because they were bored did not make the front page.  Instead, the narrative was ramped up: death is at our door and the only way to stop it is to completely shut down our country.  Nothing veered from this, and it is still the narrative all these months later.

Even the soap operas are absolutely drowning in propaganda.  Coronation Street, Eastenders, whatever it may be, the set is swimming in coronavirus warnings and the characters dutifully don their masks.  Advertisements tell us to wear our masks because if we don’t, we’ll be little less than murderers.  The press does not question the use of masks, despite the fact that these only became compulsory after the peak of infection had long passed.

Politicians here too are making the most of the situation.  Mayors and local councillors are jockeying for publicity and position.  This is currently evident in Manchester for example, with Mayor Andy Burnham reinventing a tough public persona for himself.

But it is the role of the media that truly created a global catastrophe from which it will take a generation to recover, if we recover at all.

The media, including social media, did all it could to silence voices stating that all was not as terrible as perceived.  The media wanted panic and panic it got.  We know the fallout.  According to Drs Reiss and Bhakdi:

When critical voices were heard, immediate action was taken to silence them by defamation.  The lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg was the first to raise his voice.  The defamation campaign that followed was unparalleled.  

As soon as we published our first YouTube videos warning about excessive measures and pointed out that Italy might have other aggravating factors (e.g. the high levels of air pollution), there was the first “facts-check”.  Under the headline “Why Sucharit Bhakdi’s numbers are wrong”, an article was quickly put in to the ZDF Medithek.  Nils Metzger supposedly got to the bottom of it: “Biology professor downplays coronavirus danger”.  A good starting point since the title immediately suggested that we were not dealing with a medical doctor who had seen countless patients and was a specialist in infection epidemiology, but with a biologist.  And at some point the classic situation whereby things are put in to your mouth that you have never said – just to discredit you.  

Metzger: “To present the factor air pollution as the sole trigger for the crisis – as Sucharit Bhakdi did in this video – is unscientific”.  Naturally it was never once claimed anywhere that the high number of victims was solely due to air pollution, because that would indeed have been unscientific.  This statement was a blatant lie.  

Dr Bhakdi had therefore been presented with an awful reality, perhaps for the first time.  That reality is that the media has its own agenda.  It knows what it wants to publish before setting out.  It will find all that confirms its agenda and either ignore, censor, or outright lie about anything that doesn’t.

It is rotten to the core.  The media has destroyed countless lives with its lies and smears, but this time, it has outdone itself.  To inflict this misery on the whole world, knowingly, can not be brushed off as ‘one of those things’.  This is an act of evil, and it should be described as such.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Teacher Beheaded In Paris

By Hugo Jenks, Spokesman on Islam


A teacher was beheaded by a Muslim man after he had discussed free speech in his classroom.  Before discussing this topic, he had asked Muslim pupils to leave the room.  The article: “Footage captures the moment Chechen gunman, 18, is shot by French police after BEHEADING a teacher who ‘showed his class cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed during lesson on freedom’” in the Daily Mail states that: “[the teacher] Samuel P. had ‘invited Muslim students out of the classroom’ before showing a Charlie Hebdo caricature of the Prophet crouching with a star drawn on his buttocks and the inscription ‘A star is born’.”

Later, the murderer shouted “Allahu Akbar”.  He was shot by police.

There can be no mistaking that the motivation for this was Islam.  Islam itself.  Politicians must now understand that there can be no excuses, that “it is nothing to do with the religion of Islam” or other such deceit.  However they cannot yet bring themselves to accurately blame Islam itself.  President Macron called it an “Islamist” attack, as far as can be seen from reports, he did not outright deny the connection with Islam.  He did however say that the attack should not divide France.  Is it not a bit late for such a hope?  France, and indeed many Western countries are already divided – it is impossible for Islam to become integrated, the evidence is in the Koran itself: the verse Koran 5:51 states that Muslims must not befriend Jews or Christians.  This verse has not been abrogated. Koran 9:23 states that Muslims must not take unbelievers, even family members, as friends.  This also has not been abrogated.  How does anyone think that integration is remotely possible, given that Islam itself teaches separation?  Maybe President Macron has not read the Koran?  If he had, and properly understood the huge scale of the problem, he would surely not come out with such irresponsibly deceitful statements.  France is already divided, and no amount of deceitful wishful thinking will unite it.  The Koran is very clear on this point.


There are numerous verses in the Koran that instruct Muslims to attack unbelievers.  There are verses that do specifically command beheading, notably Koran 47:4 and 8:12  Note however that Koran 47:4 has been abrogated by the “verse of the sword” Koran 9:5.

            Koran 47:4 So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks…

Take note of the possibility that apologists for Islam may quote Koran 47:4 to deceitfully claim that beheading only applies during a battle.  This verse goes on to explain that prisoners taken during battle should be tied up, i.e. not beheaded.  We know however that this verse was not followed because Mohammed himself slew hundreds of Jewish prisoners.  The apologists will of course not mention that this verse has been abrogated by a more intolerant verse, nor will they mention that Mohammed himself massacred Jewish prisoners.

What is interesting to note however is that the Koran can attempt to obscure the full, harsh reality.  And this is the case with Koran 8:12, which has not been abrogated.  See these translations into English:

Koran 8:12 ˹Remember, O Prophet,˺ when your Lord revealed to the angels, “I am with you. So make the believers stand firm. I will cast horror into the hearts of the disbelievers. So strike their necks and strike their fingertips.”   Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran

Koran 8:12  When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.   Pickthall

The reality is of course, that striking at the neck would sever the important arteries and death would follow.  At that point, whether the head is entirely severed or not seems unimportant, however Islam has created piles of human heads on numerous occasions, and shows no signs of abating.


France has traditionally promoted secularism – the strict separation of religion from the state.  France has also upheld the virtues: Liberté, égalité, fraternité – liberty, equality, fraternity.  None of these virtues are compatible with Islam.

This attack on the schoolteacher has amply demonstrated that secularism cannot exist now in France: even though all Muslim pupils were asked to leave the classroom before the discussions on free speech were started, nevertheless one Muslim pupil remained.  That one pupil was enough to effectively shut down free speech.  This classroom is a microcosm of the entire nation: it indicates that complete freedom is not possible in France, if even a single Muslim remains in France.

Furlough Scheme: What Happens Next?

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday 13th October 2020


I’ll return to my series of reviews of Thomas Sowell’s Economic Facts and Fallacies in the coming weeks, but for now, Rishi Sunak has announced his latest plans for the economy.  It will involve a lot more spending, and a lot more uncertainty as to where that spending money is to come from.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has recently laid out his plans for the nation’s workers and employers when the furlough scheme comes to an end.  Under that scheme, the state footed the bill for 80% of employees’ salaries; the end point being October.  So, October is here and Sunak needs to make alternative arrangements.

The government will continue to top up wages for the foreseeable future.  The newly named Job Support Scheme will see employees paid around three quarters of their usual salary for the next six months.

The BBC reports:

Nearly three million workers – or 12% of the UK’s workforce – are currently on partial or full furlough leave, according to official figures. The current furlough scheme ends on 31 October.

Mr Sunak said the new scheme would “support only viable jobs” as opposed to jobs that only exist because the government is continuing to subsidise the wages.

Sunak was not prepared to be drawn on what constitutes a “viable job”  (in which case one might argue he should think through his policy in more detail).  He said:

“It is not for me to sit here and make pronouncements on every individual job,” he said. “What I want to be able to do is to provide as much support as possible given the constraints we operate in. We obviously can’t sustain the same level of things that we were doing at the beginning of this crisis.”

In percentage terms, the amount now provided by the state will drop from 80% to a mere 22%.

This is not good enough from the government.  Once again, they are failing in response to this crisis.

In his speech to the Conservative Party conference recently, Sunak did not provide any information on how he intends to get the country back on its feet.  Now, with this second scheme, those questions remain unanswered.

The new scheme also comes with some conditions attached.  These are:

  • the government will subsidise the pay of employees who are working fewer than normal hours due to lower demand
  • It will apply to staff who can work at least a third of their usual hours
  • Employers will pay staff for the hours they do work
  • For the hours employees can’t work, the government and the employer will each cover one third of the lost pay
  • The grant will be capped at £697.92 per month
  • All small and medium sized businesses will be eligible for the scheme
  • Larger business will be eligible if their turnover has fallen during the crisis
  • It will be open to employers across the UK even if they have not previously used the furlough scheme
  • The scheme will run for six months starting in November

Given the 6 month timeframe, it is clear that the government does not see this crisis coming to an end any time soon.  The handling of this has been shambolic by the Tories, not to mention their demonstrative lack of real concern for the economic outfall.

Jobs, jobs, jobs … must be the priority of government coming out of this extraordinary time, but Sunak takes a rather more casual approach: “I can’t save every business” he said, “I can’t save every job”.

If current policy doesn’t change, it becomes more likely that he will not be able to save many at all.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Islamic Charity

Hugo Jenks, Islam Spokesman

The following contains correspondence with the Charity Commission regarding concerns, as widely documented, with Islamic charities and the Commissions approach to them.


There are numerous verses in the Koran that instruct Muslims to give to charity.  It is a key pillar of Islam.  The uses to which this charity is put are defined in Koran 9:60:

The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah.  Allah is Knower, Wise.

The problematic phrase is “for the cause of Allah”.  This phrase is used frequently in the Koran to command Jihad:

Koran 61:11 Ye should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives.  That is better for you, if ye did but know.

Koran 49:15 The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.  Such are the sincere.

Koran 22:58 Those who fled their homes for the cause of Allah and then were slain or died, Allah verily will provide for them a good provision.  Lo! Allah, He verily is Best of all who make provision.

Also see Koran 47:31, 4:75-76, 4:100, 3:168, 8:74 etc.

The zakat charity donations that Muslims are obliged to pay, 1/8th is for Jihad.  The UAE has found 15 ‘charities’ in the UK, Europe and the USA as allegedly terror supporting:

Detail here

Islamic charity cannot be given to non-believers: see Koran 28:86 “…never be a helper to the disbelievers.”

Occasionally a small amount may be given to non-Muslims, but only for PR purposes – to confuse donors and the charity authorities.  Muslims are permitted to deceive, look up: “taqiyya”, “kitman”, “tawriya”, and “muruna”.


I wrote to the Charity Commission, enclosing a copy of my book “Hellish 2050”.  (The printed copy can be ordered from the website  – the eBook can be downloaded at no cost.)  The letter and book were sent on the 2nd March 2020.

Dear Chief Executive,

On the subject of Islamic charities: are you aware that according to Sharia, 1/8th of Islamic charitable donations are allocated to “the cause of Allah”?  As described in numerous verses in the Koran “the cause of Allah” does include violent Jihad.  The United Arab Emirates has identified 15 charities operating in the UK, Europe and the USA which, they  warn, may be supporting Islamic terrorism.   These including:

  • Islamic Relief UK (the British affiliate of IRW)
  • Muslim Association of Britain (part of the U.K. Muslim Brotherhood)
  • Cordoba Foundation in Britain (described by David Cameron as a Muslim Brotherhood front group)

Reference: “World’s biggest Islamic charity branded as terrorist group by 2nd Middle East country”

Do you agree with the assessment made by the UAE? I would suggest all Islamic charities should be examined carefully.

The Charity Commission Statement of Strategic Intent includes these words: “Our purpose is to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society.” It appears that you are not applying this principle to some Islamic charities – for instance, those associated with Halal certification.  The RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association are opposed to the avoidably cruel religious non-stun slaughter of farm animals.  Non-stun and inadequate “stun to stun” methods of slaughter are mandated for compliance with Halal certification.  Can you please withdraw the charitable status of any organisation associated with Halal slaughter, as incompatible with the above Statement?

I have read the Charity Commission Annual Report and Accounts 2017-18 section “Protecting charities against terrorist abuse”. Although individual cases such as those identified must be dealt with, there seems to be a general lack of understanding regarding the fact that 1/8th of Islamic charitable donations, according to Sharia, must go to “the cause of Allah”. Additionally these charities are, according to the Koran, obliged to be discriminatory against non-Muslims:              see Koran 28:86 “…never be a helper to the disbelievers.”

The problematic phrase is “for the cause of Allah”. This phrase is used frequently in the Koran to command Jihad:

Koran 61:11 Ye should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know.

Koran 49:15 The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah. Such are the sincere.

Also see Koran 22:58, 47:31, 4:75-76, 4:100, 3:168, 8:74 etc.

Yours sincerely,

Hugo Jenks



They responded on the 29th June 2020:

Dear Mr Jenks,

Islamic charities

Thank you for your letter of 2 March 2020 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Charity Commission (‘the Commission’). Given that the concerns set out in your letter fall within my team’s remit, she has asked me to respond.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing a response to your letter. As explained by my colleague on 23 June 2020, the Commission did not receive your letter until 26 May 2020 as it was sent to our old address in London. In addition, during this time period all of our offices have been closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Commission is the independent regulator of charities in England and Wales. We work in line with a clear, published regulatory and risk framework in accordance with our statutory duties and functions.

Your letter highlights that in 2014 the United Arab Emirates identified 15 charities (some of which operate in the UK) which it considered may be supporting terrorism. I can confirm the Commission is aware of this information. However, it is not for the Commission to make a determination and/or express a view on any such decisions by another government. The organisations identified in your letter are not listed as proscribed terrorist organisations in the UK (or EU), nor are they subject to financial sanctions. Further information regarding this can be located online in the following guidance: . If you have concerns regarding the proscriptions and sanctions regimes in the UK, you should contact the Home Office and HM Treasury respectively.

Your letter requests that the charitable status of any organisation associated with Halal certification should be withdrawn, as you consider this is incompatible with the Commission’s purposes. Charitable status is not a license or granted by the Commission but is a legal status based on legislation – to be a charity an organisation must be established for a charitable purpose and operate for the public benefit. Whether an organisation supports Halal certification or not does not affect this legal test. Further information regarding chartable status is available at the following link: .

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Roake

Head of Compliance Visits and Inspections

Charity Commission



I did write back, and they replied, however there was no further progress.

As an aside, the Black Lives Matter organisation had by then become prominent, and I asked whether it was to be investigated.  One of the main fundraisers in the USA is a convicted terrorist.  In the UK the BLM organisation has an outward appearance of a charity, (taking donations, and claiming to do good works) although it is not a registered charity.  I asked about this, however the response by the Charity Commission was disappointing and unhelpful: “Regarding the Black Lives Matter movement; this organisation is not a registered charity. Charities cannot be established for political purposes, and it is clear that Black Lives Matter is such a political organisation. ”


Note that in my initial letter to the Charity Commission I had listed several Islamic charities operating in the UK that had been identified as potentially problematic by the United Arab Emirates.  Including Islamic Relief UK (the British affiliate of IRW).   My initial letter was sent on the 2nd March 2020, and the Charity Commission replied on the 29th June 2020.  Subsequently events have shown that my concerns were fully justified.  Newspaper reports on the  22nd August 2020 described the prominent members of this charity holding blatantly anti-Jewish views, which had been publicly visible via social media.  The entire board of directors of the charity has resigned, and been replaced.  Why such views should come as any surprise to anyone is baffling:  Islamic scripture is itself blatantly anti-Jewish.  Indeed it is anti-anyone who is not a practising Muslim.

An article in the mainstream media described the problem:  Entire leadership of Britain’s biggest Muslim charity QUITS  in antisemitism row after it replaced disgraced trustee with director who branded terrorists ‘heroes’ and shared posts glorifying attacks on ‘Zionist enemy’ Israel

It should be noted that Islam is inherently anti-Jewish.  The root of the problem seems to be that Mohammed tried to persuade the Jewish tribes of Medina that he was a genuine prophet, but they refused to acknowledge him.  His anger resulted in the massacre of the Jewish tribes, hundreds of Jewish prisoners being slaughtered by Mohammed himself.  Furthermore, the Islamic end-times prophecy states that Jews will be slaughtered by Muslims, assisted by talking trees and rocks.  It does sound absurd, but this is really believed, and the Hadith describing it is incorporated into the Hamas Charter.

The Charity Commission is clearly operating out of its depth.  It fails to respond in a meaningful way to my request that they investigate all Islamic charities.  The evidence of their failure is that the revelations of the Islamic Relief Worldwide directors came via an independent investigator, not via the functioning of the Charity Commission.

Furthermore, it is well known that 1/8th of Islamic charitable donations are used “for the cause of Allah”.  As described in numerous verses in the Koran, this phrase is associated with violent Jihad.  I have pointed this out to the Charity Commission – their response indicates that they do not take this problem at all seriously.

Can you help?  If anyone would like to contact the Charity Commission to express your concerns, here is their email address:

Compliance Visits and Inspections

The more of us that write, the better.  They can easily ignore one person, they surely cannot ignore hundreds or even thousands writing.  It is best to write using your own words though!  Additionally, if anyone would help to investigate Islamic charities, then please do so.

We must believe that we will succeed in the end.  Truthfulness and decency are on our side.  Islam permits deceit and it is simply not compatible with modern decent values.

SUNDAY COLUMN: Teaching Britain’s Future

Anne Marie Waters 

Sunday 11th October 2020


Earlier this week, I spoke to Mike Walker, For Britain’s new education spokesman.  You can view the discussion here.

As promised, I will now look in more detail at new government guidance in to teaching about relationships, sex, and health.  This is crucial.  It is crucial because it is under these headings that some teachers are propagandising; their own worldview imposed upon children.  It is also crucial to the increasing confusion and sexualisation of children in schools.

The reason that there is an apparent licence for schools to bring drag queens in to class is just such guidance.  It is vague and can effectively cover any given scenario.

‘Drag Queen Story Time’ hit the headlines earlier this year.  Its founder Thomas Canham has written that any objection to this is “pure homophobia”.  How ironic that Mr Canham is himself both homophobic in this remark, and he is creating more homophobia.

Most people in Britain today have no problem with same sex relationships, but, in equating homosexuality with drag queens, fetishes, “non-binary” nonsense, and other non-related matters, Canham is making sure that ordinary gays who don’t walk through the streets half naked, will be blamed for this crazy situation we are now in.

There is one major aspect of this issue that is glaringly absent – why?  Why is there a need for a person called “Flow Job” to talk to children in schools, while dressed outrageously?  If the idea is to tell children that gays exist, then tell them that.  Why “Flow Job”?

There is no good reason for it, it is antagonism for its own sake and it causing real damage to children.  The Mirror reports today for example on a 12 year being provided with ‘puberty blockers’ as “trans” ideas, backed with no science whatsoever, are thoroughly confusing children, who are effectively presented with a list of “identities” to choose from.  This is scandalous, and it takes place under the guise of relationship and health teaching.

The new guidance addresses some of the political bias in schools, but arguably, is equally dangerous to free speech and thought.  The teaching unions make it clear that they lean to the left – and its been clear for a long time that anyone not on the left is fair game to many teachers.  Ukip has been slandered in schools, as has Donald Trump, Brexit, and others.  But in this guidance, the Conservatives are being equally biased.

When left-wing teachers use their classroom to propagate left-wing ideas (and they do), they impose a one-sided view of the world on to children, but just as importantly, they hamper debate.  Children must be taught to think, to discuss, to oppose, to scrutinise – this is what is missing from our society and it is desperately needed.

The problem is lack of open debate and this guidance does nothing to fix that problem.

On the gender issue for example, the guidance tells us:

The Public Sector Equality Duty (as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) requires all public authorities (including state-funded schools) in the exercise of their function, to have due regard to the need to:

  • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act
  • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it
  • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

Relevant protected characteristics are:

  • age
  • disability
  • gender reassignment
  • pregnancy and maternity
  • race
  • religion or belief
  • sex and sexual orientation

In summary, schools are to prevent “discrimination, harassment or victimisation” of pupils based on gender “reassignment”.  What this means is schools won’t openly debate whether transwomen are women.  They’re not.  Schools still aren’t allowed to say so.

Furthermore, religious or otherwise conservative views on homosexuality, or sexuality generally, are also stifled.

A few paragraphs later, this is included:

We are aware that topics involving gender and biological sex can be complex and sensitive matters to navigate. You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear. Resources used in teaching about this topic must always be age-appropriate and evidence based. Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material. While teachers should not suggest to a child that their non-compliance with gender stereotypes means that either their personality or their body is wrong and in need of changing, teachers should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support.

This is good, but it’s got no teeth in the wider context of the guidance.  What are the consequences for a teacher who does propagate the trans narrative?  Plus, its confusing and inconsistent.  It’s vague.  That’s the entire point.

This is all very Tory.  It sounds good in parts, but it isn’t workable and it contradicts itself.  It makes very sure not to commit itself, except perhaps in the guidance surrounding politics.

On external agencies, the guidance states:

Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters. This is the case even if the material itself is not extreme, as the use of it could imply endorsement or support of the organisation. Examples of extreme political stances include, but are not limited to:

  • a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections
  • opposition to the right of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion and conscience
  • the use or endorsement of racist, including antisemitic, language or communications
  • the encouragement or endorsement of illegal activity
  • a failure to condemn illegal activities done in their name or in support of their cause, particularly violent actions against people or property

As a democrat and a capitalist, this is an endorsement of my beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I want debate around my beliefs cancelled.  Will children never hear arguments against capitalism?  That’s just as unacceptable as socialism being driven down their throats.  Let them debate!  Let people learn for themselves what the different systems are.  I believe in capitalism not for ideological reasons but because it works.  It is tried and tested.  Let children know this, let them know about communism and socialism and fascism, and then they will realise the superiority of democracy, and they will do it with thought and information and debate, not biased teaching.

The forbidding of “racist” material also sets off alarm bells.  Not because there should be racism in schools, but because of who gets to define that word.  Is open discussion of immigration and its downside “racist”?

Religion is also protected, meaning robust debate on their teachings presumably cannot take place.

The Tories are fixing nothing with this guidance.  Like so much that emanates from the Conservative party, it is a soundbite, designed to look tough, but while having little to no impact.

Once again, children in British schools must be taught to think, not what to think.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777



Islam – An Open Letter to Scottish Parliament

Hugo Jenks is For Britain’s Spokesman on Islam.

Below is a letter written to Scottish Parliament for consideration, and it is published here for transparency. Two previous letters were seemingly ignored and not responded to. The points raised are well sourced, but undoubtedly any response will attack the messenger and fail to address the points raised.

We have a bizarre situation in the UK in which the public cannot express thoughts and concerns and have them answered in a measured and reasonable way. We know that the concerns related to Islam are shared by millions, yet all our politicians dismiss them.

Any response will be added to this article.

Dear Member of the Scottish Parliament,

Regarding Saving Western Civilisation:

Western nations are facing an existential threat from Islam. Demographic changes are far more significant than terrorism. Terrorism directly affects relatively few people, whereas the demographic changes will, in time, affect everyone. If we are to avert tragedy, the time to act is right now. The younger generation, your children and grandchildren, will be eternally grateful if you would help to save Western civilisation.

Please read the attached document [see below] “The real nature of Islam”. I am in contact with the author, and so if there is any feedback I will forward it to her. Of particular relevance to the current deliberations of the Scottish Parliament is this section, on page 5:

And it also means that Muslims can settle in non-Islamic places (hijra) – as Mohammed supposedly did in Medina – be accepted as peaceful, law-abiding, citizens as Islam gains strength there, and avoid being expelled. So the majority of Muslims are required to live their normal lives, whether in Islamic countries or elsewhere – but are required to support, in every way possible, the activities of the minority who engage in violent jihad. And, to advance the cause of Islam, they should incrementally increase their influence and power in the West, through demographic change, politics and “lawfare” e.g. supporting “hate” speech laws, lobbying for laws against blasphemy, and protesting against “Islamophobia”, to prevent all honest scrutiny of Islamic practices, and debate regarding Islam.

Deceit is permitted within mainstream Islam. Please look up: “taqiyya”, “kitman”, “tawriya”, and “muruna”. These are different types of permissible lies within Islam. Do not be fooled by the words of Muslims. There is no requirement to be truthful within Islam, if deceit will further the cause of Allah.

Modern concepts, such as: equality, the abolition of slavery, Human Rights, and freedom of speech are alien to Islam. Once we lose our hard-won freedoms, they will probably be gone forever.

This is my third attempt to alert you to the threat that we all face from Islam itself. Will you have the courage to speak out, before it is too late?

Yours sincerely,

Hugo Jenks

[7 page pdf may be downloaded or browsed]

The Tories and the Economy – Failure after Failure

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday October 6th 2020


In recent weeks, I’ve been covering the work and ideas of American economist Thomas Sowell by reviewing his book Economic Facts and Fallacies.  I will continue this review in the coming weeks,  but for now, a look at the current economic situation in Britain is warranted.  Once again, it is not good news.

The Conservative Party conference is currently taking place online and the speeches are enlightening.  Boris Johnson spoke about the ‘green economy’ and how post-COVID he intends to rebuild in this fashion.  In his speech, he promised greater investment in wind farms, pledging £160 million to upgrade current infrastructure to build turbines.  His target is to use wind “to produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of every UK home by 2030”.

Johnson doesn’t appear to have got the memo that wind farms just don’t work.  They don’t produce the electricity we need and their construction uses up about as much energy as they’ll ever produce themselves.  According to Forbes, “wind is providing only 0.1% of the electricity demand of the country today”.  Despite this, Johnson believes “offshore wind will be powering every home in the country” in 10 years’ time.

It’s hard to know if Johnson has switched allegiance to the Green Party, but this is pure nonsense from him.  He is singing from the globalist hymn sheet; no facts, no science, no evidence, just narrative.

Next up is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.  Rishi Sunak has been handing out billions since the coronavirus crisis began, and now he is promising to ‘balance the books’.  Here is the relevant section of his speech, see if you notice anything…

And we will protect the public finances – over the medium term, getting our borrowing and debt back under control.  We have a sacred responsibility to future generations to leave the public finances strong.  If instead we argue there is no limit on what we can spend, that we can simply borrow our way out of any hole, what is the point in us?  I have never pretended there is some easy cost-free answer.  Hard choices are everywhere.  I will not give up, no matter how difficult it is. 

We share the same values, the Conservative party and the country. And these values are not devoid of meaning to people. They are about protecting that which is meaningful to them. Their family, their home, their job, their ability to choose for themselves what is best for them and those they love.  To create second chances, to see potential met, and to extend the awesome power of opportunity to all who seek it. To answer questions of character with action not rhetoric. To put the people first, their hopes and their aspirations. And above all, to be worthy of the great trust they have placed in us.

Do you see what I see?  It’s just flannel.  Only words, no content.  Rather typical of the Tories if I may say so.  Sunak is full of flashy promises but with nothing to back them up.  Throughout this crisis, it has been the same story again and again.  Sunak throws money, but doesn’t inform us of how he intends to get it back.  Now, he is telling us he will balance the books, but nothing about how or when.

Is this governance?  Is this leadership?

Perhaps the plan is to work us all to death.  Our pension age has now risen to 66 and will increase further.  It is set to rise to 68, and then who knows where?  One thing is clear, it is the British taxpayer who will suffer the consequences as usual.  This in a country that still insists on giving billions to African warlords while its veterans sleep rough.

Finally, the BBC has reported this morning that British employers have planned almost half a million redundancies since COVID-19 entered our lives.  That’s half a million more people depending on the state, that’s half a million people added to the benefits bill, and half a million people no longer financially independent.

Big government is here, and it was brought to us by the Conservative Party.  Years of financial hardship are ahead, brought to us by the Conservative Party.  A nonsensical unscientific policy for “climate change” will leave us with enormous energy deficiencies – will the lights go out in the UK?  If so, this was brought to you by the Conservative Party.


This crisis (not to mention Brexit) have shown the public once again that we cannot rely on the current crop.  That is because they are complacent.  Both parties have shared power for so long that they no longer care about using that power in the interests of the people.

The globalist narrative, that’s all that is on offer, and for as long as they take our votes for granted, that offer will be the only one on the table.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

SUNDAY COLUMN: The Infection of Politics

Anne Marie Waters 

Sunday October 4th 2020


It’s been a strange week yet again.  It seems that every week this year has been a strange one, characterised by new and silly rules that few can follow, or a press that parrots the government line without question, or just flat-out nastiness from the usual suspects.  This week took it all to a new level.

On Thursday we woke to the announcement that US President Donald Trump and his wife Melania have both been diagnosed with COVID-19.  It turns out that much of Trump’s inner circle have also been infected.

I and For Britain hope that the President and First Lady make a full and speedy recovery, and that both are fighting fit for the upcoming election – an election that is crucial not only for the United States, but the entire Western world.

It is however the nastiness of the response to Trump’s announcement that signifies a different kind of infection; the infection of politics with bile.  Never in our lifetimes have we known such incredible contempt for a sitting US President.  Trump has brought out the very worst of his opponents (which very much include the mainstream press).  People have taken to social media to wish him dead, others have expressed nothing short of glee that he and his wife are suffering.  They truly believe that Trump himself is the cause of the 200,000+ tragic deaths that have occurred in the United States.  He is blamed often by the same people who refused to blame China for inflicting this horror on the world in the first place.

The coverage of Trump’s announcement has been as expected.  Celebrities took to Twitter to suggest he was ‘faking it’, others expressed their sympathy to COVID-19, while some openly wished him dead.  We are in a new era where the sheer hatred of so many has become part and parcel of mainstream politics.  Hatred is compounded by ignorance to make it an even more formidable force.

Take for example Joe Biden’s announcement that he will end Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ on “day one” of his presidency.  He also promised to bring Muslims in to his top team.

Where to start?

First of all, there is no Muslim ban and never has been.  Biden is appealing to ignorance and hate; he’s lying about a Muslim ban just as people have lied about Trump since he entered the White House.  He is also encouraging fear and division, while accusing Trump of doing the same.

The President has been criticised for ‘downplaying’ the virus by assuring people that all would be ok in the end.  What was expected of him then?  To tell people to panic, that disaster is moments away?  It is the job of a leader to provide reassurance and comfort to the people.  This is something that our own leader Boris Johnson has spectacularly failed to do.  But the point is that politics has been so infected with ignorance and hatred and lies that no matter what Trump does, he is condemned for it, and all on the basis of the lie that he is a racist, or a fascist, or any of the other buzzwords thrown around by the ignorant and hateful (most of whom have no understanding of the words they use).

If Trump had not reassured the public that it would all be ok in the end, he would have been condemned.  He did reassure the public that it would be ok in the end, and he has been condemned for it.

There was another significant event in US politics this week – the first of the live debates between the two candidates for the most powerful job in the world.  It was calamitous.

The “debate” was characterised by constant interruption from both sides, and an obvious bias by the mediator.  At one point, Biden told Trump to “shut up”.  Trump was questioned on his taxes, he was questioned on his supporters, over and over again the questions to Trump were loaded and filled with implication – all of which are false.

The President was asked if he would tell his supporters not to engage in “any civil unrest”.  This is extraordinary.  Over the past year, Black Lives Matter and Antifa and those of similar ilk have been running amok across America.  An entire neighbourhood was taken over in Seattle and quickly turned in to a lawless hellhole.  It is the Left, as Trump rightly tries to point out, that have been engaging in civil unrest – setting fire to cities and destroying livelihoods, and yet, it is Trump supporters who apparently have to be told to refrain.

That’s not the end of it.  The Mayor of Seattle (a Democrat) actually praised the rioters and looters and called the hotbed of crime in her city “a block party“.  Why aren’t the democrats and Joe Biden held to account for this?  Biden was asked if he would tell his supporters to stay calm, but the detail of the behaviour of Biden supporters (including Antifa and BLM were not focussed on as they should have been).

Then there were “the highlights”.  The press didn’t disappoint and its coverage shows Trump in the worst light imaginable.  Look at this from Sky News.  Almost all of it paints Trump as an aggressor.

He was asked to condemn white supremacists (he immediately said “sure”).  What is utterly galling about this question is the implication that Trump is somehow a leader of white supremacists.  He is not.  He does not speak out, support, or condone white supremacy and never has.  Every time he has been asked to condemn it, he has.  On the other hand, there is not so much as acknowledgement of the violence of the left, much less the implication that Biden is their leader.

The whole thing stinks.  Even the group suggested as a white supremacist group, Proud Boys, isn’t white supremacist.  It’s all a big lie.

Trump isn’t only competing against Biden, he is competing against ignorance, press bias, lies and outright vicious hatred.  Our public life is now infected with it and it goes to the highest levels.

It is far more toxic, far more dangerous, and will destroy far more lives than COVID-19 could ever hope for.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Two Tier Policing

Over the last few years we have seen increasing examples of how the British Police service has implemented two separate models of policing.  This perversion of “one law for all” first became apparent as the grooming gang scandal was exposed in more and more forces across the whole country.  It became apparent that these gangs of almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim men had been given a free pass to rape, kidnap, drug and generally abuse young white girls and some Sikh girls.  Evidence has emerged that the police ignored the problem in the interest of “Harmonious Race Relations”.  There is also a close association of this phenomenon with majority Labour councils.   Effectively the Police gave the Muslim community a get out of jail free “Race Card”.  Labour councils are heavily reliant on the Muslim vote and gave them a similar card.  Some Police Forces were so compromised by their complicity that they were deemed incapable of investigating their own grooming gangs and responsibility for investigating these crimes has been given to the National Crime Agency. This is an admission of the scale and depth to which some forces have been rendered impotent in dealing with minority groups, even when they are patently and overtly criminal.

One might assume that the exposure of the extent of the problem would have seen the end of this two-tier style of policing. It is unfortunately apparent that this is not the case.

In recent weeks we have seen the police take very different attitudes towards policing protests and political demonstrations.  They have shown a willingness to resort to excessive force when dealing with anti-lockdown or anti-illegal immigration demonstrators often inflicting quite serious injuries with the use of unnecessary force.

Contrast this with the total lack of action and sometimes overt submission in the face of illegal activity by Black Lives Matters demonstrators or the Ashura March in London on 28th August when thousands marched in contravention of the Social Distancing rules. Social media regularly provides examples of how police ignore the law when it comes to minorities.

It is the enforcement of the COVID restrictions that is once again illustrating how extensive is the Two-Tier Policing system.  The failure to observe social distancing was the excuse for the police to violently break up anti lockdown demonstrations in Trafalgar square on two occasions, the last only a week ago.

Contrast this with the scenes in Rochdale, Greater Manchester this week when at a funeral (Limited by COVID rules to a maximum of 30 people) was attended by hundreds of mourners with no attempt at social distancing.  No action at all was taken. The mourners were Muslim. Could this have been a factor?   Rochdale has the highest level of COVID cases in Greater Manchester, if ever there was justification for enforcing the rules it was here. Not for the first time Greater Manchester Police have been derelict in their duty.

This failure to not enforce laws against minority groups but use excessive force when it comes to protest by disaffected white people is seriously undermining the reputation of the police. They are supposed to police by consent and the consent of a large proportion of the community is being withdrawn.  There is a wide body of opinion who foresee serious disorder in this country in the next few months. The police may find they do not have public support to deal with it unless they are seen to be equitable.  They are actively favouring racial and religious minorities and we are in a dangerous position where the indigenous population may no longer support the police.  I have to ask why the police are doing this, but I do not have an answer.

Mike Speakman
Retired Deputy Chief Constable
For Britain Law and Order Spokesman.

New Education Spokesman: It’s Time to Make Our Stand!

Mike Walker

September 29th 2020


Sometimes your whole world can change overnight. Everything you’re accustomed to, and which made you happy, is gone in just a few short hours.

This can happen in times of war to a conquered people. The physical devastation of a bomb blast is clearly evident, causing the destruction of cherished buildings, monuments, the natural environment… even the air becomes poisoned. Friends and family taken away as prisoners. Some being killed.

Sometimes your world can change for the worse slowly and over years. The change is so gradual, yet insidious in its purpose, that many fail to notice. That was the case with me.

Then, something happened. It was ten years ago. It made me start to wake up and realise that everything that I cared for was under deliberate attack from an enemy more deadly than any other: human selfishness.

It began in a Yorkshire hospital. I was with my brother and two sisters. My mother was dying of cancer. We all knew it was terminal, and that she did not have long to live. She had a separate room, away from other patients, and was on a morphine drip.

We got there on the Friday night and stayed with her all weekend. I was told that the doctors were ‘very busy’, after I asked to see one. My concern was about her discomfort. The nurse had said that she was not certain if the morphine dose was sufficient for her. I never blamed that nurse.

I remember, in the waiting room on the Monday morning, hearing the news that she had died. I was looking through the window, watching cars passing by on the nearby road. Soon after, the doctor came and asked me what I wanted him for.

I kept watching the cars and just told him to go away. Something inside me changed.

My thoughts began to clarify and focus, the feeling of hate blowing away the confusion.

The MPs collectively lie: ‘The problem with the NHS is that it is underfunded and just needs more public money’.

Suddenly, the truth! The ratio between the number of doctors and their patients is exponentially widening, because of population growth exacerbated by mass, uncontrolled immigration into the UK.

As a result, doctors diagnose and now prescribe antibiotics over the phone to the public. I found this out recently when they misdiagnosed my daughter. She became very seriously ill as a consequence.

Too many patients to see. Too little time.

My mother-in-law is 82 years old and could soon die from a ruptured aorta if her aneurysm bursts. She lives alone but is continuously attended by my wife, who has had to become her carer. Social services are stretched, and we are waiting for their support. She is confused over her multiple types of medication, regularly overdosing; she then rings for the ambulance. In and out of hospital. There is no coordination of her medical information and needs between the various agencies. Just the same tired excuse: ‘Sorry, we are overstretched. We are doing our best’.

In the meantime, our government annually allows hundreds of thousands, both legally and illegally, into the UK.

The result is to push us further back to the end of that ever-growing queue of want.

Meanwhile, more of our wonderful countryside is being covered in concrete and tarmac.

Annually, 36 000 die of air pollution.

The water boards tell us there will be shortages of drinking water in 20 years.

Pieces of the simplest jigsaw puzzle ever designed! Anyone prepared or daring enough to fit them together?

I said that the enemy is human selfishness, and it really is a nasty, voracious enemy – one which now has declared total war on every patriot in this country.

It is the selfishness in every MP who tells you that you are racist to mention immigration, whilst shaking the hand of the globalist and capitalist who profit from the torrent crossing our borders. The same MPs who tell us to support the NHS and who poison the minds of our school children with false idealism, claiming that all cultures should be accepted and tolerated, and have equal standing.

This occurs in overcrowded citizenship lessons in schools. It is without recourse to the fact that other cultures may have different moral boundaries, with regards to, say, women’s rights, or the way animals are treated, or anyone of a different religion to themselves.

At the same time, these hypocrites never go near the NHS, with their private health insurance. And they send their children to the best public schools.

They belong to that self-promoting, hubris-ridden bunch called the ‘interest groups’. There are so many of them, such as BLM, the transgender lobby, Communists etc. All care nothing for the honest, hard-working taxpayer and their family, who value the culture and heritage of our great country. They want but never give.

At the same time, they create division within our families. They produce willing prisoners with a fixed mindset, who feel shame towards their parents. They cannot see with clarity the devastation being caused.

More casualties of war.

I am Michael Walker, 58 years old and a semi-retired teacher. I have been lucky enough to have been made the new For Britain Education Spokesperson by Anne Marie Waters. She is a fantastic person, and I have finally found where I belong.

I pledge my sword to Anne Marie in the coming battles against these barbarians.

As Education Spokesperson, I want to use all my skills to develop the best policies that I can. These policies will be like the shells for our ‘guns’ and will have such an impact when we canvas at elections.

I want to focus my hate and channel it in a way that hurts our enemies the most. There will come a time when we will feel their angst and pain; we will rejoice on those days, when we get our councillors and MPs elected.

I say to everyone in For Britain, grab the jackboot of perception, now pressing your face into the mud. Get up and push it aside and stand tall.

Together, let us all make our stand.

Let us remind the world that we are the British!


Mike Walker 

Education Spokesman

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Economic Facts & Fallacies – Part Three

Anne Marie Waters

September 29th 2020


In this series of blogs, I’m looking at some of the ideas of the American economist Thomas Sowell, and specifically his book Economic Facts and Fallacies.  You can read parts one and two here.

This week’s topic is highly topical and Sowell puts forward the most fascinating arguments to this question: what is the ‘gender pay gap’ and what has caused it?

In chapter three – Male Female Facts and Fallacies – Sowell argues that the gender pay gap is not what modern day feminism or equality campaigners describe.

Firstly, Sowell outlines the mainstream narrative: that women have been oppressed throughout history and advancements have only been made through feminist campaigning and legal changes to require equal pay.  While he acknowledges there is truth in this, women certainly have earned less and have been subject to social and religious restrictions, in the West today, this is broadly not the case.  He points to the fact that more women than men receive honours degrees in the US today, as well as Sweden and other Western countries.  Laws have been passed to ensure equal pay for equal work, and women make up around half the work force in most Western nations.

To understand the arguements around the gender pay gap, Sowell believes we need to look to history first.  He acknowledges that women have been paid less than men, but puts forward potential reasons for this that do not necessarily involve unjust discrimination against women.

Our agricultural history is one example because much of the work required a level of physical strength few women could meet.  This changed not because of campaigns against sexist policy, argues Sowell, but economic advancement generally.

The replacement of human muscle by machine power, and the growing importance of industries and occupations not dependent on either, have made sex and age differences no longer as significant as they had once been.  The economic consequences could be seen in the rising age at which people reached their peak earnings, now that experience and skill were more important than physical strength.  Other economic consequences included reductions in male-female pay differentials, even before laws were passed mandating equal pay for equal work.  

A further potential cause of gender pay disparity is another obvious physical difference – women give birth.

Mothers as a group tend to fall furthest behind men in income, as competing domestic responsibilities reduce the ability of women with babies and small children to be able to maintain continuous, full-time employment in the workforce.

A fascinating aspect of Sowell’s work in this area is the pattern of women’s education in recent years.  He argues that we can only compare male and female income if we are comparing from an equal footing.  In other words, we can only find discrimination against women if all other factors are equal; same education, skill etc.  Women have been, and still are in some parts of the world, discriminated against in terms of education rather than job opportunity, meaning it is difficult to properly adduce active discrimination in employment.

Interestingly, women’s advancements in education have been higher in the past.  For example, the proportion of women in the professions and other high-level positions was greater during the first decades of the twentieth century than in the middle of the twentieth century – and all of this was before either anti-discrimination laws or the rise of the feminist movement.  

Several statistics reveal the numbers of women earning degrees, doctorates etc. as greater at the start of the 20th century than in the middle.

In summary, Sowell shows that, as with so many mainstream narratives today, all is not what it seems.  In effect, he is stating that it is economics and education that create the work situation for men and women, and not necessarily discrimination by employers.  Indeed, he states that the demand for female workers was pushed by employers and businesses themselves, who were keen to tap in to the “manpower” of half of the population.

Sowell concludes:

Among the many factors which influence male-female economic differences, the most elusive is employer discrimination.  Since no one is likely to admit to discriminating against women, which is both illegal and socially stigmatised, in principle discrimination can only be inferred indirectly from the disparities between men and women that remain after all other factors have been taken in to account.  In practice, however, there is no way to take all other factors in to account, since no one knows what they all are and statistics are not always available for all the factors we do know about.  What we are left with, after taking into account all the factors that we are aware of and for which statistics are available, are residual differences which measure the upper limit of the combined effect of employer discrimination plus whatever other factors have been overlooked or not specified precisely.  That residual is often much smaller than the gross income differences  between men and women, sometimes is zero, and in a few intances women earn more than men whose measured characteristics are similar.  

What is so notable about these ideas is how rarely we hear them.  Voices like Sowells are not included in the debate surrounding the gender pay gap.  As with climate change and coronavirus (and other key issues) we are presented with one version of reality and nothing is permitted to call this in to question.  The narrative is that women earn less because of discrimination, the reality is far more complex.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

SUNDAY COLUMN: Powerless Police

Anne Marie Waters 

September 27th 2020


A policeman has been shot dead in Croydon by a suspect who had been arrested and transported to custody.  Somehow, through his arrest and transport, he had managed to conceal a gun to use when he arrived at the station, killing the officer before reportedly turning the gun on himself.

It’s a strange and tragic occurrence.  A person who has experienced arrest and detention at the same station told the Mirror newspaper “I do not know how this is possible – you really can’t get anything in there.  They search you properly, I can’t think how it would be possible to get anything, never mind a gun, inside.  There have been police stations closed down in this area in recent years – in South Norwood and Croydon, so it gets busy in there.”

The shooter had concealed the gun in his waistband and retrieved it, while wearing handcuffs, as the officer took his temperature as part of COVID-19 regulations.  The 23 year old shooter is in a critical condition in hospital.

Today however has been all about tributes.  The shocked colleagues of the slain policeman, and of course the authorities – the same authorities that have made the police so vulnerable.  It seems like not a day goes by that there isn’t a headline involving police and it is rarely encouraging from officers’ point of view.  Morale is low, crime is high, and police face constant criticism from the public (most of it justified) while senior officers and politicians subject them to an absolutely crippling political correctness that ties their hands.

The ordinary Bobby on the beat has a lot to contend with, and that’s the case on both sides of the Atlantic.  In the US, police are under the same pressure.

This year has been characterised by so many odd occurrences, including of course the killing of career criminal George Floyd in the United States.  In May, the US city of Minneapolis provided the spark; black criminal George Floyd, high on drugs at the time, died when policeman Derek Chauvin kneeled on his neck during restraint.

The well funded Marxist-Anarchists of Black Lives Matter (BLM) soon took to the streets in protest at Floyd’s death, and what followed was weeks of street violence as mobs descended on British and US cities.  The scenes are familiar; we watched as anti-British fanatics set fire to the Union Jack, defaced the Churchill statue in London, and tore down a tribute to one of Bristol’s most famous sons Edward Colston (they have not, to my knowledge, agreed to refund Mr Colston’s financial contributions to the city).

Police across America and Britain then faced an onslaught of lies, helpfully promoted by the mainstream media of course.  The narrative is this: black people are severely abused and oppressed by police in both the US and UK.  Both countries are inherently racist and their very design and structure is to the disadvantage of black people.  What this means and how this manifests is never explained, largely because the press isn’t interested in asking questions or fact-checking, because if they were to fact-check, they would find that this is an enormous and truly dangerous lie.

The lie is that black people are disproportionately killed by police in the US.  The truth is that far more white people than black are killed by police in the US.

The lie is that black people are under siege and cops will shoot first ask questions later.  The truth is that police are under siege from black criminals and are far more likely to be killed by them than vice versa.

The lie is that white police go out of their way to knowingly and deliberately target black suspects.  The truth is that police are so afraid to approach black suspects that they essentially have a free-for-all.  As noted by Taleeb Starkes in his incredible book Black Lies Matter, stop and search by police in Chicago dropped by a staggering 86% in recent years.  Police actually avoid black suspects, not seek them out.

The lie is that black people are oppressed and kept in a state of poverty.  The truth is that black people have every opportunity to make the most of their lives as white people do.  In fact, moreso.  Black people in the UK are given a material advantage over whites in the jobs market (“positive discrimination”) in what ought to be criminal but is dressed up as justice.

The truths addressed above are never acknowledged by a dumbed down and unintelligent press.  Across the board from CNN to BBC, falsities about race relations and police are stated as undisputed fact.  Major organisations involving TV and sports began to repeat the falsities again and again.  A powder keg is about to blow, and it is all based on lies.

The police meanwhile are caught right in the middle.  Their role has completely transformed from enforcer of laws to regulator of political opinions.  The police stood back and watched Churchill’s statue be defaced, they watched Colston’s statue toppled in to Bristol harbour, and worst of all, they got down on bended knee to BLM, a far-left ideology that seeks to dismantle policing.

It’s easy to criticise officers for that, but before we do so, let’s take a moment to consider why they are in this position.  For example, what would happen to individual officers who refused to ‘take a knee’ to BLM?

People from the civil service have coincidentally contacted me over recent weeks with the same complaint; they are being forced to support BLM and other hard left groups and notions.

It was reported this week that Parliamentary staff have been writing all about their “white privilege”.  My guess is they’re under strict orders to do so.  White privilege is the ultimate hard-left lie and it contributed a catastrophic amount of hatred towards white people and caused immeasurable racial tension and stress.

White people in the public sector are under constant pressure and nowhere moreso than in the police.  Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick was vocal in tribute to the dead officer in Croydon yesterday, but when she’s needed to back her officers in race-related scandals, she fails to do so.

When black athlete Bianca Williams was stopped by police in London, she immediately insisted it was a racial issue and that was that.  It was.  No evidence needed.  At no point throughout this row did Dick back her officers.  In fact, she apologised and utterly humiliated them.  This will have been witnessed by every police officer in the country who knows perfectly well they’ll get little to no support should things go wrong.

Similarly, when the appalling race-baiting Labour MP Dawn Butler made a racial issue out of being stopped by police, the officers were thrown under the bus, as they so often are.

When police are weak it is everyone’s problem.  If police can’t stop and search, or make arrests, far more crimes will take place and that is to the detriment of all of us.

A complete cultural transformation from top to bottom is what is needed to shift the police dial back to a position of equilibrium.

As it stands, the press portrays them as racists, they have no support from their bosses, their imposed political correctness and bias has made them despised by the general public, but when one of them is killed, the tributes flow in.  What hypocrisy.  Of course we must pay tribute to the officer who died, but a greater tribute to police across the country would be to provide them with sufficient numbers, free their hands from obsessive political correctness, and allow them to enforce the law freely and fairly without bias.

That is the tribute that our powerless police really need.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

The Police & Military Should Not Mix

Boris’s announcement that he will use the military to back up the police has quite rightly raised alarm across the political spectrum, and I think shows signs of confusion in the senior ranks of the government.

Firstly, I accept that there are not enough police officers to do the job, the consequence of more than a decade of Tory cuts to the police service.

Secondly, what the police do has changed and their priorities are very distorted from traditional British policing. “Hate Crime”, social media, protecting and not enforcing the law on minority ethnic groups, the suppression of any but far left views and promoting Gay/Trans “rights” are now the police  priority, not law enforcement.

The police are way out of touch with the public mood and respect has plummeted.  They struggle to enforce the unpopular and arguably ineffective Covid regulations.  No wonder they are seen as needing help.   But is the military the right answer?

My policing experience of working with the military is mostly around the Fire Service strike of the 1970’s.  There is no doubt that the military are superbly well organised, have good command and control and effective communication systems.  All useful attributes in certain circumstances where a specific requirement must be met. This was illustrated in the early Covid response when they were used to distribute PPE across the country in the absence of an effective NHS system.  They are also useful when lethal force is required as they have capabilities well beyond normal policing.

But can they “backfill” in general policing roles?  I think not, but there is an assumption behind that statement that doesn’t stand up. The assumption that police officers are sitting in offices and available to be deployed on the street is no longer true, if it ever was.  The pressure put by successive governments of both parties on police forces to be more efficient led to wholesale civilianisation of “back office” policing roles to the point that virtually every police officer is on a front-line operational role.   One side effect of this has been the increasing level of “burn out” amongst officers.  Operational policing is incredibly stressful, and the office roles were often used to give some respite, just like rotating troops from the front line.  This doesn’t happen anymore and combined with the shortage of numbers some forces are now warning that their officers are exhausted from continual 12-hour shifts and cancellation of rest days.  The thin blue line is at breaking point.  So, it is a myth that more police officers can be released for front line duty. Those posts are occupied by civilians who cannot be forced onto the front line.

So, what can the military do?  Everyone recognises that the Covid rules are a nightmare to enforce. Even the most experienced bobbies struggle and the sight of police officers arresting people for not wearing a mask is a public relations disaster. Do we want our soldiers tainted by similar images? I don’t think so.

I will also throw another pebble in the pond.  In recent months I have seen the police respond in a rather brutal and heavy-handed manner with some veterans who have been protesting quite peacefully.  The veterans have sustained injuries at the hands of the police.  I am not sure that serving soldiers are going to feel too well disposed towards the police, it might be a bit of a toxic mix.

I conclude there is no role for the military in supporting the police at the moment.  They might be better deployed on the South Coast beaches in support of the Border Force who are obviously not up to the job.  They might also be needed very urgently if the threat of insurgent terrorism continues to escalate beyond random murders by illegal immigrants.

Mike Speakman
Retired deputy Chief Constable
Law and Order Spokesman
For Britain

Economic Facts and Fallacies – Part Two

Anne Marie Waters

September 22nd 2020


In the first of this blog series (you can read part one here) I looked at the concept of fallacy as put forward by noted economist Thomas Sowell in his book ‘Economic Facts and Fallacies’.

In part one, I described Sowell’s definition of the word ‘fallacy’, which he applies to economic scenarios to reveal that things are not always what they seem, and good intentions can lead to not-so-good outcomes.

In part two, we look at ‘Urban Facts and Fallacies’.  These refer to aspects of city life, economic problems faced there, and how politics has got it wrong on the solutions to those problems.

Sowell begins by asking what urban areas actually are, and from where they emerged.

Cities came about for a couple of reasons; transport being the primary one.  As Sowell notes, many cities have developed on or near a major waterway.  Most European capitals for example, as well as big US cities like New York, are based on rivers or coastlines.  This is certainly the case in Europe where centuries-old cities developed around the only method of transporting goods; the water.

Sowell states: “A city must continually transport in vast amounts of food alone to feed its concentrated population, and it must also transport out the goods it produces to elsewhere in the country or around the world.  Given these imperatives, it is hardly surprising that most cities throughout history have been built on navigable waterways – whether rivers, lakes, or the sea”.

The arrival of the car in to common life in the 20th century entirely changed transport and with it, city life.  Cars also meant economic transformation.  They allowed people to commute to jobs further from home, and they allowed for the transit of goods far beyond anything permitted by waterways.

Transport is obviously a major policy area for leaders and the introduction of cars in to our economy has provided examples of some of the dual-consequence policies Sowell discusses.  Initially, cars were a major boom to the economy but as policies surrounding them began to be introduced, the twists and turns began.

“While the advent of the automobile allowed people to live farther from where they worked, the need for large numbers of people to arrive at work at about the same time from widely varying distances and directions created a problem of rush-hour traffic congestion.  In fact such congestion on highways and city streets during rush hours became a common problem in cities around the world”.

In keeping with the theme, solutions to congestion problems in some cities have caused economic damage. London for example has a congestion charge and other fees to be paid upon entering the city.  The consequence is that fewer people use cars to enter London, meaning fewer people will come to the city and spend money there.

Furthermore, it will lead to even more overcrowded public transport, and a whole new set of problems for government to deal with in that respect.

The second major aspect of urban economic life is housing.  Sowell writes:

“The biggest fallacy about housing is that “affordable housing” requires government intervention in the housing market, perhaps with subsidies, rent control, or other devices to allow people with moderate or low incomes to be able to have a decent place to live without paying ruinous prices for homes or apartments”.

On the formation of policy in this regard, Sowell claims that “it is precisely government intervention in housing markets which has made affordable housing unaffordable”.

He describes the 1970s as being the period in the United States housing market which saw both greater government intervention and an explosion in house prices.

In places where restriction and regulation were particularly stringent, prices went even higher.  In other words, the more regulation, the greater the cost and the greater the price.

Sowell points to zoning laws, environmental protection laws, historic preservation laws and others which limit or restrict house building, keeping prices high.  He gives the following example:

“Contrasts in housing prices are sharp between places that have numerous or severe restrictions and places that do not.  Houston, Texas for example, does not even have zoning laws, much less the array of severe housing restrictions found in other cities”.

The result is that a house worth $152,000 in Houston, will cost around $300,000 in Portland, or $900,000 in Long Beach, California.

This is certainly food for thought, and Sowell puts forward an entirely hands-off government approach to the economy.  This might make good economic sense, but one might argue that governments are responsible for more than economic growth; I would tend to agree.

Do we need decent housing that the average person can afford?  Yes.  But does this come at the expense of all else?  Should we fail to protect the environment or historic sites in the name of economic growth, there may be little left worth enjoying.  There is little point in having lots of money if one does not have an environment in which to enjoy it.

Next week, we’ll look at a current and topical aspect of economics; the so-called “gender pay gap”.  Is it real and if so, why?  What is the real reason women apparently earn less than men, and what should governments do, if anything, to narrow this gap.  Join me then.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 



The Heresy Of Common Sense

In the Middle Ages, mankind started to look beyond religious reasons to explain the world around them. The transition from Alchemy to Chemistry was a painful one as many enlightened thinkers and brilliant minds were persecuted for daring to suggest theories that contradicted the religious status quo.

Famously Galileo was placed under arrest for publishing the theory that the earth rotates around the sun, as the Church at the time believed that the earth sat at the centre of the Universe. Such suggestions to the contrary were deemed heretical resulting in serious personal consequences for the heretic in question. There are many examples, not just in Western Culture, of scientific evidence being rejected as it threatened the establishment. Like me, you probably believed that those days were long gone, that now we all embrace critical thinking and diverse scientific opinion. That all significant decisions would be made based on scrutinised, challenged and ultimately proven beyond reasonable doubt science.

How wrong we would be.

When both Brexit and Trump won in 2016, something changed significantly regarding democracy and the accepted way of doing things. An angry establishment could not bare the fact that their worldview was not shared by the majority of the population. As soon as the ‘resist’ and ‘FBPE’ movements appeared, the media has fuelled a campaign for the ‘losing sides’ to exact revenge.

Surveys after Brexit revealed that between a quarter and a third of ‘Remain Voters’ wished to see Britain fail abysmally once we left the EU. They wished hardship on their own country and citizens simply because they didn’t get their own way. People who cannot fathom losing a vote prefer a scorched earth policy rather than accepting democracy – it is a spiteful nihilistic and nasty mindset that has grown  over the last four years. The Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion movements have ‘legitimised’ bitter and angry people to behave appallingly, safe if the knowledge that they have the mainstream media working as their PR arm.

And now it is COVID.

We appear to have a Prime Minister who is struggling to lead because he wants to remain popular with as many people as possible. He foolishly believes that the media and the left will start to like him if he plays their game. The cost of this misconception is becoming catastrophic. Mental health, cancer and other conditions are going undetected, not to mention suicides – all this is seemingly acceptable collateral damage. For what? To avoid criticism from point scoring politicians and a partisan media? Good luck with that.

The financial cost is incalculable both now and in the long term, with businesses closing on a daily basis. All of this costs lives, even if indirectly and in the long term; it just doesn’t appear as a scrolling number on a BBC News ticker so perhaps it is easier to ignore?

Leadership requires ignoring the noise of the countless opinions thrown at you, and not paying attention to activists with nefarious agendas. Rather it is acting on the best information available that has been checked and cross checked, is demonstrably correct and will deliver the best outcome possible.

Boris must see how political the virus is; after Trump closed the borders early with the EU he was called all the usual slurs at the time. Nancy Pelosi told people to gather and party in Chinatown as a way of responding to the President’s measures! Yet now he is accused of not acting fast enough by those same dishonest people who expect us to forget their words and actions at the time. COVID has become a political pawn from a bullying frustrated and angry left in the same way that Climate Change has; a desire to change the world to their warped utopia without the inconvenience of democracy. They’re happy to hand an advantage to a cruel regressive regime in China, such is their lack of patriotism and obvious loathing of all things Western.

The COVID pandemic has followed the same curve of all similar viruses despite the many approaches to dealing with it around the world. Sadly the vulnerable are lost early, then the impact diminishes over time. The doom laden predictions of Neil Ferguson and Imperial College have again proven wildly inaccurate. Yet as the virus has a tiny flat growth in line with all season viruses such as flu, Boris seems to be listening to the clamour from bad faith actors to shut down the country once again. Hancock is talking about ‘tougher measures’ to control us.

A quick overview of Prof Neil Ferguson’s track record:

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code after a long delay.

It is worth providing some statistics for context of the death rates, as there is a general misconception (unchallenged by the Media) that COVID deaths and excess deaths are disproportionately high.

Currently around 42,000 people have sadly died with COVID, which is 0.06% of the population. Of those deaths, just over 300 are of people under 60 without known pre existing conditions. Each year, approximately 620,000 people die in the UK, which is circa 1,700 a day. A bad flu winter will see this number rise, and mild flu season will see it fall. That impact is greater than COVID.

The media is now reporting COVID deaths as ‘someone who tested positive in the last 28 days and has subsequently died’. So if you had no symptoms, didn’t go to hospital, yet had a heart attack but had a positive test recently, your death would be registered as a COVID death. Don’t believe me – look at the small print the next time the BBC publish the figures on the news.

Worse still, there is a ‘false positive’ rate of just under 1% for the testing. As we know cases are being presented as ‘on the rise’ but we are now testing far more than earlier in the year; over 200,000 a day. In April, testing on this scale would have shown a much higher number than we were reporting, so the correct way to report numbers would be ‘positive tests as a percentage of total tests’. Yet each week the numbers are juggled to make the situation appear worse than it actually is. It keeps much of the public frightened, and as such, compliant.

To explain the danger of ‘false positives’ in a high testing number, think of it like this. If 1,000 people are tested, then with a ‘false positive’ rate of 1%, ten people will incorrectly be shown as having the disease. Now place that in the context of hundreds of thousands of tests and you can see why we are seeing an increase of cases, despite relatively few people dying and being admitted to hospital. From 200,000 tests, 2,000 people will be incorrectly shown as having COVID which is a large percentage of the new cases being reported. From recent interviews with cabinet members, it is clear that they don’t have any understanding of this relatively straightforward statistical phenomenon.

Bolton – the current hot spot in the UK reported as the worst place in the country – currently has two, yes two people in hospital with COVID. Coronavirus is now only the 24th biggest killer in Britain, accounting for just 1.4% of August deaths. Only half a percent of hospital beds have COVID patients in them (yet routine health care continues to be impacted despite the extra billions pumped into the NHS).

The local lockdowns are based on the ‘R’ number which uses yet another model for calculations. For example, opening the pubs increases the R number, as does opening the schools. It is prediction not actual data, and in reality is when pubs opened in June, we did not see the huge second wave predicted by some.

(click to enlarge picture)

I encourage people to look deeper into the statistics, but the purpose of this article is to pose the following questions:-

Boris is neither a medic nor a statistician, so he will be relying on advice. Is he simply incompetent, in that he has failed to realise the agenda from a media and left wing group of academics that wish to see his Government fail & fall, and who wish to punish the country that we inhabit? He was bullied out of the ‘herd immunity’ strategy at the start and can now clearly see the outcome in Sweden, so will be aware that we could be much further along. He will know that the much lauded (in the media) New Zealand approach has ruined their travel industry and they have no population immunity, so are susceptible as soon as they open their doors again.

Or does he understand that scientific voices raising the alarm bell, presenting solid evidence against current strategies, are being silenced? That he is happy to continue on this path in order to suppress the population and use powers to control and restrict us from freedoms we took for granted just a year ago?

Is there a bigger reason that justifies demoralising and ruining your own country in order to enforce greater state control of the population?

There isn’t an answer to any of these questions that should not be highly alarming to us, and provides yet more evidence that drastic change is needed from the political status quo.

The ‘Rule of Six’ Is Not Backed By Science

Anne Marie Waters

September 15th 2020


Here we go again.  Yet another rule has been plucked out of the air, yet another demand that we alter even the most basic elements of our lives – this time, talking to our neighbours.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has confirmed that stopping in the street to chat is now punishable by law.  It’s surreal just to type that sentence.  This level of power by government has become frighteningly ‘normal’ frighteningly fast.  According to polls, the majority of people are content with a second nationwide lockdown.  It’s an incredible and startling reality that so few people understand their freedom and the value of it, and how many are willing to trust a government that has already gotten so much wrong.  Not only that, but it is a government breaking its own laws in plain sight, and yet, still they get away with it.

So what is the latest rule, and what is it based on?  The answer to the first question is that we are not allowed to meet or mingle in groups of 6 or more, and the second answer is – nothing.  There is simply no science behind this.

How do I know there’s no science behind it?  Not because I’m a scientist, but because it is simply so obvious.  Let’s look at just one news report on this.

In a report in the Sun, we’re told that we can not meet with more than 6 people indoors or out (this was previously 30).  But it is the exemptions that make the whole thing farcical.  Exemptions include:

  • Weddings
  • Funerals
  • Work, school, or education
  • Places of worship
  • Angling
  • Baseball
  • Canoeing
  • Caving
  • Climbing
  • Curling
  • Cricket
  • Dodgeball
  • Dragon boat racing (whatever that is)
  • Equestrian
  • Floorball (whatever that is)
  • Football
  • Gaelic sports
  • Goalball (whatever that is)
  • Hockey
  • Ice hockey
  • Lacrosse
  • Netball
  • Octopush (apparently underwater hockey)
  • Polo
  • Roller sports
  • Rowing
  • Rugby league
  • Rugby union
  • Rounders
  • Sailing
  • Shooting
  • Ultimate frisbee
  • Volleyball

I kid you not!  Some perhaps are understandable, like sailing, but rugby union??  How can anyone truly take this seriously?  How can there be so many exemptions if this thing is so deadly?  Does the virus take a break when people are engaged in a rugby scrum?  It doesn’t make any sense.

Meanwhile, Sweden, which didn’t have a lockdown, is thinking of raising its limit from 50 to 500.  Is the virus different in Sweden?  What on earth is going on?

Back in the UK, Priti Patel has confirmed that she would be willing to report her neighbours to police if she happens to spot them mingling.  She is urging ordinary British people to turn on each other.  She’s encouraging a society of spying and snitching.  Can this country become even more divided?  Yes, and the government seems to want it that way.

Furthermore, this is the same Home Secretary who has done nothing, absolutely nothing, about the boat loads of illegal immigrants landing on Britain’s shores every day.  Are they allowed in groups of 6 or more?  You bet they are.  No rules apply to the illegal immigrants.

This is a genuine scandal.  I’m not suggesting COVID-19 isn’t a real issue, and I’m not denying that it has helped to kill 1,000s of people, but this response from the government is arbitrary, inconsistent, and draconian, but worst of all, it doesn’t have scientific backing.  Science is science, and it is the same in Sweden as it is here.  It is the same on a rugby pitch as it is on a suburban street, so why is it ok to play rugby (a close contact sport involving much more than 6 people) but not chat to neighbours down the road?

I have lost all trust in this government.  It sometimes feels like they are deliberately trolling us with absurdities and outright hypocrisy.  It feels like they are pushing and pushing to see what they can get away with.  I’ve never known such an incredible time; unprecedented is the only word.

I know I’m not alone in being utterly sick and tired of this.  Is it too much to ask that we have a competent government who puts our interests above those of illegal immigrants, that is clear with us about why they do what they do, and which does its best to protect our long term as well as short term interests?

We’ve got to stop voting for the Labour-Tory Party.  We’ve got to change who is at the top while we still can.  The power, as always, is in our own hands.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain

Text ‘Join’ to 60777



SUNDAY COLUMN: Who is Bill Gates?

Anne Marie Waters 

Sunday September 13th 2020 


On my most recent Monday night livestream (which you can see here) I opened a Pandora’s Box; I delved in to the life of billionaire Bill Gates.  It was shocking.  This man has global power, masses of it, and yet he is accountable to no-one.  Governments, including the world’s most powerful government of Donald Trump, are dancing to his tune.  What he says seems to go, so it’s rather important then that we know who this man is and what his ideas are.  It’s uncomfortable reading.

Bill Gates has transformed from a software giant to a health one.  Gates owns a piece of just about every health organisation in the world.  He has purchased influence that no single person should have.  Even the World Health Organisation counts Gates as its second largest donor behind the US government.  He is a passionate advocate in particular for vaccination and immunisation and has helped to fund GAVI, an organisation paid by world governments to deliver vaccination to the poorest parts of the planet.

This is not in itself a bad thing, vaccination has saved probably millions of lives, but what is so disconcerting is his power, his role in the coronavirus crisis, and above all, his dedication to vaccinating everyone in the world while advocating that digital records of people’s vaccination history be inserted in to the body and read via a barcode.

This is exactly the scenario that people have feared; that our vaccination history will not only barcode and label us, but will be used to force compliance in the post COVID-19 world.  The idea has gained ground – vaccinate the world in response to COVID-19 and while doing so, include a ‘chip’ recording the vaccination which can be read to determine whether or not a person can be given access to an area or service.

This is what Bill Gates wants, and without opposition, he may get it.  To top it off, he stands to make millions from the deal, as do the world’s big drug companies.  It is all hugely convenient, COVID-19 has been a gift to Big Pharma, and indeed to Bill Gates.

In an explosive documentary entitled ‘Who is Bill Gates?’ (which  you can watch here) the driving force behind Gates is concluded to be “control”.  What Gates visualises, according to the documentary, is a world where all people have an internal ID chip, cash is abolished and replaced by a global spending grid, and where every corner of the earth is filmed all the time.  It sounds fanciful, until you consider the technological “advances” of the last few decades.  Cash has been largely replaced by debit cards (something accelerated by COVID-19), but most remarkably of all, we have gone from a dial telephone in a fixed position in our homes, to technology that allows us to video broadcast live to the whole world from a device in our pocket – all in the space of two decades.

The nightmare is becoming reality.  GAVI, a group part funded by Gates, has declared its intention to digitally tag every person on earth.  Seth Berkley, GAVI CEO wrote in 2017 that “vaccination needs a technology boost” and argues that the goal of 100% immunisation can’t be reached without vaccination records being kept.  He advocates “secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history”.

Not only could such a global system be used to control our every move, but the potential for abuse on political grounds is immeasurable.  Look at how people are ‘unpersoned’ for having the ‘wrong’ opinions in the UK today.  Now imagine a society controlled and divided by who has had a vaccination and who has not.  If you do not wish for this vaccination, you’ll be denied basic services and rights.  That’s the nightmare scenario and it is drawing ever nearer.

The British government is in talks with a company called Onfido, and this is exactly where the talks are headed.  The press keep telling us that vaccination won’t be mandatory, even though Health Secretary Matt Hancock has not confirmed if this is the case.  In May, Hancock said “the question of whether it’s mandatory is not one that we’ve addressed yet”.  We have no choice then but to wait and see, however, 1 in 6 Britons say they will refuse the vaccine, so whatever happens is unlikely to be strife-free.

Back to Bill Gates.  What is this control he seeks and how close is he to getting it?  According to ‘Who is Bill Gates?’, the “very purpose of a globally integrated ID grid and cashless payment architecture is to remove privacy from our lives”.  Information is power, and those who hold your information, hold power over you.  Immense power.

Bill Gates is an investor in Earth Now LLC.  This group will be the one responsible for making the whole planet visible to everyone all the time.  They describe their plans as follows:

The Earth is our one and only home, and human activity resides in almost every corner. As our civilization advances, and as we put increasing pressure on Earth’s resources, we all share in the responsibility of caring for and maintaining our home. One way for each of us to better understand the health of our planet is to see it for ourselves. At EarthNow, we’re creating the means for you to instantly see almost anywhere on Earth in “true real-time,” giving you a live and unfiltered view of your planet. Our aim is for you to experience Earth’s beauty and its fragility, and to recognize the importance of being good stewards of our world. Via a constellation of advanced imaging satellites, EarthNow will deliver an unprecedented and highly valuable user experience: continuous real-time video of the Earth enhanced by machine intelligence.

Under ‘What is meant by machine intelligence?’ it states:

Each satellite is equipped with an unprecedented amount of onboard processing power, including more CPU cores than all other commercial satellites combined. When combined with terrestrial processing and machine learning, this will give the EarthNow satellites the ability to interpret what they see in real-time. Machine intelligence is expected to be of great value for applications where users need to know what is happening, as it happens.

A world under constant surveillance everywhere is now a technological possibility, cash has largely been replaced, and COVID-19 has opened the door to global vaccination and identification.  Gates’ idea of utopia is closer than we think.  But there is one remaining question: why?  What is to be gained through this transformation of our world?

A starting point is Gates’ own wealth.  Since reinventing himself as a philanthropist, Gates has grown ever richer with his personal wealth doubling in just the last decade.  He is now worth approximately $105 billion.  Furthermore, in an interview, he described the return on his $10 billion dollar investments in to vaccination as 20 to 1.  Gates said “so if you just look at the economic benefits, that’s a pretty strong number compared to anything else”.

But the real issue is one of power and control.  Gates has no need for more money.  He comes from a background of power and wealth with two rich and influential parents.  His “big break” partnership to provide software to IBM only came about because of his mother’s influence with that company’s board.  His father was a prominent lawyer and lobbyist.  Gates started his career by complaining that software was being shared freely, something he sought to end and turn in to a business instead.  He succeeded.

Gates’ father was involved in Planned Parenthood and he grew up exposed to concerns surrounding population numbers.  He has spoken throughout his public life of reducing the amount of people in the world, once again, something that is not a bad thing, it depends on whether this means fewer births or more deaths.  In one interview, Gates argued that instead of paying for another 3 months of life for one person, the money might be better used elsewhere.  In other words, allowing people to die.  The question then is, which people?  My guess is that the answer won’t include anyone loved by Bill Gates.  He called this idea “the death panel” and added “we’re not supposed to have that discussion”.

Some would argue that a “death penal” deciding whose life is worth saving amounts to something like eugenics.  Some would also argue that a man who openly discusses “death panels” isn’t necessarily the best person to lead the response to a health crisis in the way Gates appears to be leading the response to COVID-19.

Gates is in bed with all the bigwigs, including Jeffrey Epstein and other world elitists.  He has denied any relationship with Epstein, but the New York Times contradicted this with an article in 2019 entitled “Bill Gates met with Jeffrey Epstein Many Times, Despite His Past”.

The creation of “perfect” people is something that preoccupies Gates, and according to Forbes, he poured millions in to a “revolutionary gene-editing start up” company.  The science behind this is as it sounds, the editing of genes.  It is the stuff of sci-fi nightmares, as is Gates’ idea (for which he has funded Harvard University research) to “dim the sun” to stop global warming.

Whatever one thinks of Bill Gates, some things are very clear; this man has immense power, something he has bought and paid for.  He has ideas to create a world of engineered people constantly surveilled.  He is doing just that.

Those of us who remember life before the internet and mobile phones, remember the value of privacy and ownership and individuality.  We know that’s where our power comes from, and we know that is why it is being taken away.  None of this is inevitable.  Throughout history, things have been turned around, bad ideas have been defeated and the unaccountably powerful have been dethroned.  It has happened before and it can happen again.  For Britain is 100% dedicated to restoring our rights; including our right to privacy.  Technology has brought a lot of good, but at a high cost.  It’s a cost we don’t necessarily need to pay, so let’s stop paying it, and return our world to imperfect human beings and their independence.  That’s the future we need to aim for, not the One Government global prison state we are currently predicted to become.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


9/11 Did The World Wake Up?

By Hugo Jenks, For Britain Spokesman on Islam

11th September 2020

Out of a blue sky, passenger planes smashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York.  A plane also smashed into the Pentagon and another was heading towards Washington D.C., but hit the ground in open countryside, as the passengers attempted to gain control.

It felt numbing and surreal.  Almost the whole world was in shock.  Not everybody was outraged by it – there were some who celebrated.  There were some who shouted “death to America”.  There were some who sought to defend these despicable acts.  The callous murder of nearly 3000 souls, and around 25,000 injured.

If you have read the Koran, you will know that the Islamic enemies of the West believe literally and fundamentally the words within it.  They make no secret of it. There are numerous verses that call for the murder of unbelievers.  The Islamic scriptures are as powerful and relevant today as when written some 14 centuries ago. (It may be less than 14 centuries, but let us not be side-tracked.)  Read the Koran for yourself, with an understanding of abrogation – the later revealed verses superseding the earlier verses where contradictions exist.  Unfortunately the later verses are the more violent, intolerant and hate-filled.  Non-Islamic countries are traditionally regarded as Dar-al-Harb, the “house of war”.  We may not wish to be at war with Islam, however Islam is very much at war with us.  Whether we want it or not, this is the stark reality.

I have a feeling that 9/11 was a turning point in another significant way too.  We started to see openly and in plain sight the notion of a “moderate” Islam and a “radical” Islam.  This concept was promoted by Western politicians – President George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Prime Minister Tony Blair.  This same error was propagated on the other side of the political spectrum: David Cameron, and more recently by Theresa May and Boris Johnson.  Pragmatically you can see some sense in this, in that it allowed the USA and UK to operate military bases in Islamic countries.  However it makes no sense from a theological perspective.  Islam is, of necessity, fundamentalist.  This concept of “moderate” Islam unfortunately also fatally weakens the West, in its centuries old battle against Islam itself.  It is a significant distraction, and is deeply dishonest.  It is not possible to solve any problem, in any field, unless the root cause is properly acknowledged and addressed. It is a good thing that our ancestors knew what Islam was intending, or the West would have been lost centuries ago.  Our foolishly ignorant and wishful thinking politicians today are clearly out of their depth, and floundering.  We desperately need a Churchill.  He would undoubtedly be expelled from the modern Conservative Party, for his “Islamophobic” views, if he were alive today.

Somehow we must wake up the political class to the reality of Islam.  If they refuse to wake up in a timely manner, they musty be replaced by those who do understand. The next general election will de facto be a referendum on whether the public wishes the UK to become an Islamic state, or not – we are rapidly running out of time – as the point of no return towards the Islamisation of the UK approaches.  The problem is multi-faceted.  In the simplest case we are faced with the argument “I know Abdul at the corner shop.  He is a really friendly man, how on earth can you say Islam is evil?”  Then there are arguments such as: “There are well over a billion peaceful Muslims in the world, how can you say that Islam promotes violence?” (or promotes sex slavery or the death penalty for apostasy / gays / blasphemers etc.)  Other arguments are along the lines: “You don’t know much about Islam, why should I listen to you?”.  Then there are arguments: “But there are some beautiful verses in the Koran, such as whoever kills a man kills all mankind, and whoever saves a life saves all mankind”.  And in denial, an exact quote: “Ancient texts aren’t relevant to the modern world.”

All such questions are, in a way, intended to divert us and to dissipate or energy and effort.  Non-Muslims apologists for Islam – the “useful idiots” – seem to have been pre-programmed with these questions, and they deploy them, not so much because they are interested in the answers, but as a smoke-screen in which they try to hide themselves from reality.  Somehow we must clear away the smoke screen and to challenge them, honestly and fearlessly, to examine Islam for themselves.  There is an immense resource online to do so – point them in that direction:  Robert Spencer, David Wood, Dr Bill Warner, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bat Ye’or, Gad Saad, etc. and any videos by ex-Muslims such as Nabeel Qureshi explaining why they left Islam.  We need to persuade people to be honest.  Truthfulness is on our side.  Islam permits deceit. How can we fail?

Unfortunately 9/11 was a missed opportunity to wake up the world to the threat of Islam itself.  Had Islam been taken seriously, and tackled comprehensively, we in the UK might have avoided the London bombings of 7/7/2005, and the numerous other Jihadi attacks.  We would also have been more able to tackle the “grooming” gangs.  In 2019 an estimated 19,000 girls, maybe even more, were raped by Muslim gangs in the UK.  The problem seems to be getting worse, not better.  At the root of the problem, why neither the Jihad terrorism nor the Muslim rape gangs are comprehensively and effectively tackled, is because mainstream politicians are refusing to be open and honest about the root cause – namely Islam itself.

NB: Why not send this to your MP?

New Spokesman: Nature and Environmental Protection

Monty Brack

September 9th 2020


In the For Britain Movement, we believe that we have a responsibility towards future generations and to conserve an unspoilt and diverse environment. A healthy environment is the basis for human life for this and future generations. However, nature conservation should not be to the detriment of mankind.

Nature and environmental protection: agriculture, forestry, the sea and land areas must be set aside where nature is allowed to flourish without interference. These untouched areas secure the survival of many rare plant and animal species.

The For Britain Movement is committed to the protection of the environment and the conservation of nature. It considers humans not as aliens and intruders, but as valued and helpful agents in an integrated action plan. We are guided by the vision that a healthy environment and a diversity of species form the foundation of human livelihood and the wellbeing of future generations. Therefore, precautions must be taken to protect resources such as soil, water, air, landscape, fauna, and flora from exploitation. The priorities of The For Britain Movement’s environmental policy are, therefore, to minimise the consumption of uncultivated land, reduce soil and water pollution, and improve the quality of the air. In addition, measures would be taken to curb noise pollution.

Until proven harmless, The For Britain Movement opposes the use of the pesticide glycol-phosphate, which the WHO rates as likely to be carcinogenic.  We must farm healthy foods for a healthy population.

The For Britain Movement is committed to a rigorous implementation of animal protection acts. Animals are not soulless objects, but fellow creatures. Exceptions for cruel and unnecessary animal experiments should not be permitted, even if conducted for scientific purposes. As sensitive creatures, animals have the right to suitable housing and handling, be it in private households or animal husbandry. Legal regulations must be enforced for appropriate husbandry conditions for each species, whether this is in the context of industrial livestock farming, zoos, circuses (a ban on the keeping of large wild animals), marine life aquaria, or households.

Within Britain, the transport of animals for slaughter should only be permissible over short distances. Farmers rearing livestock for food production have the responsibility of ensuring that their products are free of antibiotic residues and the antibiotic-resistant MRSA bacteria. Because of the growing spread of MRSA, the treatment of livestock with antibiotics must be kept to a minimum.

The For Britain Movement is convinced that professionally run farms which are rooted in their historic environments are best suited to produce food which is both marketable and environmentally responsible. The goal is to produce, on a sustainable basis, high quality, healthy food that is free of chemical residues, and which remains affordable. Furthermore, we would insist on detailed information on food, and transparency as to its origin. Current EU regulations, which only require limited information from food suppliers, mislead consumers. There is a need for different farming concepts.  We therefore have an opportunity to put this right upon our departure from the EU.

The For Britain Movement will strive to improve the general framework of a sustainable and productive agricultural sector, with the promotion of small and medium-sized farming units. Subsidies are currently granted according to a scattergun approach, and their bureaucratic excesses will have to be abolished step by step. Farmers, once again, should be granted the freedom to make their own decisions. Farming needs to become an attractive profession again.  For Britain will work to make this happen.


Monty Brack

Agriculture and Rural Development Spokesman

For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


Respect Your Elders

Anne Marie is having a weekend of activism, so this week’s Sunday Column has been written by the Party Chairman.

“Respect your elders”

A phrase we can all remember being told when growing up. And with good reason too. As life develops, we realise that much of the advice and comment given to us by our parents or more elderly people proved to be sound, as nothing can replace life experience. I remember often rejecting the words of my parents as a teenager, thinking I knew better. But I didn’t, and looking back I realise how they were right about pretty much everything – especially as a parent now myself. And all their advice was selfless, because they simply wanted the best for me.

Cultures across the world have also taught this wise approach, with elders often revered and venerated, sometimes even worshipped after death. But in recent years, here in the UK, we have seen our approach to the older members of society deteriorate, and it is unpleasant to see.

The time I first started to notice a dramatic change was around the time of the Brexit vote. A functioning society would have listened to the generation that had 40 years experience of living through the EU. Many older people articulated the erosion of control and independence in the EU and believed the future was better for their kids and grand kids outside. The vast majority of older people still live the morality and ethics of a generation that puts others first, including people that were so selfless they rushed to fight fascism for the protection of their country and families.

One would have hoped for at least civil discussion, but instead we then had a widespread assault on the old and their opinions, which all too often turned into disgusting death fantasies. How many time did we see pundits and celebrities tweeting life expectancy figures and working out the point where enough older people would be dead to swing the Brexit decision?

To believe that your views and opinions as a 16 year old completely invalidate that of someone who has lived 70 or 80 years, seeing it all, points to a selfish generation that lacks common decency and respect, and this is a major worry for the future.

There are of course many good younger people so we cannot generalise, but what we see is a shift.. a trend. We see it elsewhere. I had the unfortunate experience of my mother being rushed into hospital. I was called in during the early hours and the first thing the medical staff did when I arrived was to try and force me to sign a ‘do not resuscitate’ form. It was a horrendous experience to be greeted with in that situation, hoping to catch me in a vulnerable moment. The message I took was ‘this is a bed she is taking, and inconvenient for us’.

Fortunately she recovered, but it didn’t stop her being treated badly in the hospital. She became ill again due to lack of food and water (had become dangerously underweight); she was not able to eat the inappropriate food they brought round at mealtime. Instead of noticing she hadn’t eaten, they simply removed the untouched food and drink and did nothing else. I had to break the rules and take in appropriate food at visit times, and am convinced without me doing this, she would never have left that hospital. No wonder such a large percentage of the NHS budget is for settling negligence claims.

The state of our NHS is for another article.

Most people reading this will agree that there is an assault on families, the family unit in particular. But also all the values, morals and ethics that have served us well for generations. We spent time with our grandparents, listening stories and enjoying every minute of it (OK, most of it!), and learnt our life lessons. Now the state wants to teach us our values. Schools and Universities have replaced the ‘father to son’ talk for many – and we can all take a little blame. As life became more complex, technology made us busier by fooling us into making us believe it was making life easier. We’ve allowed the state to fill the void, because we don’t gather often enough as a family and just talk.

“Grandad is from a different time, he’s bigoted to think men cannot menstruate. He’s making it up about his wartime experiences in Arab countries as he just doesn’t like brown people”.. and so on. Teachers are openly political, and invariably left wing, and are feeling emboldened enough to push the envelope on what can be promoted in our schools and colleges. It’s all contributing to the breakdown of respect. Curriculums are evolving all the time, it is shocking to see how much now attacks Britain, her history, her culture and elevates everyone else as somehow better.

Simple truths, simply told such as ‘there are plenty of good reasons not be fat’ have been deemed inappropriate by the woke class. Most of the best advice I have ever had in life has been in direct and to the point statements such as these from people who have learned and experienced far more than I have.

Nish Kumar, ‘comedian’ and BBC favourite took a break from attacking British heritage and joked ‘I want you white people in the audience to do something for me….. I want you to go home and kill your racist Brexit-voting parents’. Charming eh? But it is OK when the left do it, a right wing figure saying the reverse wouldn’t appear on TV or social media again.

This is all part of the drip, drip, drip effect of undermining the older in society. The disrespect has spread too, it isn’t just left activists and students, we have seen it in certain professions. We all saw the appalling scenes of one of our veterans being pounced on and man handled to the ground by police at Dover during the protest against illegal immigrants. If only they acted with such enthusiasm against the criminals entering the country! It isn’t just Britain, in Australia police manhandled and arrested an elderly (and quite frail looking) pair of men who were protesting against masks and the lockdown. They are scenes that would scarcely have seemed believable 5 years ago. Some of the footage in Care Homes caught on CCTV is too distressing to even talk about.

There is no consideration in decision making for older people, as we saw with the ridiculous ‘Land of Hope & Glory’ on last night of the Proms debacle. Many older people have been locked up in care homes or isolated for months. Many still stand for the Queen on TV and have had generations before them passing down what our history, royalty and achievements mean. So when a 25 year old immigrant on Sky News tells us why the song should be banned, why on earth should her (preferred pronoun assumed) opinion carry any weight against generations of Britons? The anti British feeling of these vindictive people is happy to cause distress to our elders who are heartbroken by what is happening.

During COVID, we haven’t allowed them to be with family, even in their final moments. It is a wicked scandal.

Age counts for nothing – in fact it now counts against you – and this unpleasant age has been ushered in by nihilist intolerant and ugly people who think of nobody other than themselves and their hatred for the country they are blessed to live in.

I am happy to say that For Britain does not adopt this mindset. Our respect for people with long and varied lives, and what they can teach us couldn’t be higher. Actually, we feel loss for the time when society held their values, and Britain was a safer, happier and a just more tolerant place. We may not have had as much, but we knew right from wrong, and who to show respect and courtesy to.

It starts with rejecting this assault on us from the left, in whatever form the Marxists take – be it Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter or whatever. The Tories are failing miserably, and Labour would only accelerate it even further.

It isn’t only this party that sees it, most people we talk to do. I am sure it is the same for you, so let’s tell them that there is something they can do about it. Help promote the only party that is awake to this and will tackle it head on. The war we are fighting now may not carry the same risks that our elders had to endure, but if you feel that same sense of selfless pride and determination to fight for what you believe in, join us in this battle for Britain, a battle for hearts and for minds.

Losing isn’t an option we can consider.


Why Planning Laws Need to Change

By Councillor Karen King

According to a House of Commons Briefing paper, published in 2019, ‘figures from MHCLG show that, for the year ending March 2019, 94% of planning applications in England were delegated to officers’.

I believe unelected officers making such decisions is wrong and needs to change. By allowing the electorate to make decisions on major planning applications, and delegating a number of other decisions to planning committees (without advice from council officers), we could reduce the ability of councils to decide what kind of communities we live in, and give that power back to our residents.

The For Britain Movement believes that local referenda should be held for major planning applications. I fully support this policy because I believe that local residents should decide what is built in their area.

This would also solve the problem of councils trying to implement national planning policies that go against the wishes of local people.

Another reason for reducing the input of councils on planning decisions is: ‘The introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012 greatly reduced the volume of planning guidance, (arguably) making planning officers more reliant on their own judgement when recommending whether an application should be accepted or rejected’  G G Grimwood (2019).

So, what can the public do to have a greater say? At a local level, take a look at the voting record of councillors who sit on planning committees and make a note of those who publicly support planning applications with little local support. If these councillors aren’t backing their residents, then local elections give people the chance to remove them from office.

At a national level, when a government has a planning policy that goes against  public interest, again, this problem can be dealt with at the ballot box in national elections. The electorate has the power to change things. They just have to use it.

Reference: Must planning committees follow officers’ advice in reaching decisions? House of Commons briefing paper Number 01030, 30 August 2019. Written by Gabrielle Garton Grimwood.

Facing The Future

Steven Porter, Mid Kent Chairman

1st September 2020

Love it or loath it, technology is now embedded in our daily lives. It’s certainly not going away and we are all impacted by technology developments. In many ways we all have a choice in how we use and engage with technology. However, sometimes we have no choice when technology is used on us when going about our daily lives.

For example, we have all become accustomed to seeing CCTV cameras around public spaces, entertainment venues, shopping centres, high streets and private buildings. Many of us now have CCTV and other cameras installed at home for security purposes. We take comfort in knowing this technology is deployed and can be used by the police to find the perpetrators in the event of criminal or terrorist activity. It increases our safety and security so we generally take no exception to its use. We should also not forget that CCTV use is covered by various laws governing how it should be operated.

While we may be content to be filmed on CCTV, are we comfortable knowing that the advances in technology means we can now be identified by cameras using biometric data (Facial Recognition)? Are we still content to be captured and potentially identified by these cameras as we go about our daily lives?

An important test case has recently been concluded relating to the use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) by South Wales Police (SWP) [1-4].

The case was brought by a Mr Bridges (with Liberty the Civil Rights group) who challenged the legality of South Wales Police’s use of AFR Locate (LAFR) (a particular application of Facial Recognition Technology) on the grounds that its use was contrary to the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, Data Protection legislation (the Data Protection Act 1998 and its successor, the Data Protection Act 2018), and that the decision to implement or use it had not been taken in accordance with the public sector equality duty contained in the Equality Act 2010. The case was originally brought in 2019 and in Aug 2020 Mr Bridges, on appeal, won the case on 3 of the 5 points raised.

It is perhaps worth briefly explaining how the technology works. FRT allows the automatic identification of an individual by matching two or more faces from digital images. It does this by detecting and measuring various facial features, extracting these from the image and, in a second step, comparing them with features taken from other faces. The other faces are stored in what is referred to as a ‘watch list’ – a database of facial images of people that are to be identified. These could be, for example, missing persons, persons wanted in connection with crimes or persons banned or restricted from visiting certain locations. The ‘watch list’ and who is on it is one of the areas of concern that was covered in the case referenced above.

So, on the face of it (excuse the pun), should we be concerned about the use of this technology? After all, many of us now use Facial Recognition Technology to unlock our mobile phone. When passing through security at airports we now have facial recognition technology to check our passports. Social Media now tags us in pictures and we can be identified quite easily across social media platforms. Does the the law abiding citizen have anything to worry about if, just like CCTV, FRT is actually helping the Police and Security Services keep us safe?

On appeal, SWP lost the case on three key points – a good summary of the case is provided in [5].

“In Mr Bridges’ case, the Court of Appeal gave a unanimous judgement, finding there to be three ways in which the South Wales Police’s use of LAFR technology was unlawful:

– It breaches Article 8 (the right to privacy) because it is not ‘in accordance with law’. In the Court of Appeal’s view, there are ‘fundamental deficiencies’ with the legal framework, which leaves too much discretion to individual police officers about how and where the technology is deployed.

– It breaches the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) because the data protection impact assessment (DPIA) conducted under s.64 DPA failed properly to grapple with the Article 8 implications of the deployment of LAFR. Specifically, the DPIA failed properly to assess the risks to the rights and freedoms of individuals, and failed to address the measures envisaged to respond to the risks arising from the deficiencies in the legal framework.

– It breaches the public sector equality duty (PSED), because the police have taken no steps to satisfy themselves that the underlying software doesn’t contain bias on the basis of race and sex. As the Court observed, there is no reason to think that the software used by the South Wales Police does contain any such bias – but the whole purpose of the PSED is ‘to ensure that a public authority does not inadvertently overlook information which it should take into account’ and so it was unlawful for the police to have failed to obtain evidence of whether the software might contain inherent bias.”

The use of FRT is the subject of much debate and raises many more questions than has been addressed specifically in the judgments in this case. For example, what happens if the technology is deployed to a location and someone on the ‘watchlist’ is not identified (a false negative) and goes on to commit an act of terrorism?

In America many states have banned its use completely on Civil Liberty grounds [6]. The EU are actively reviewing the technology for migration and border control purposes [7]. The Met Police have also done extensive work on its use [8].

YouGov surveyed the public attitude to use of this technology and the survey shows that the British public are prepared to accept use of facial recognition technology in some instances, when there is a clear public benefit and where appropriate safeguards are put in place, but they also want the government to impose restrictions on its use [9].

So what is our view in For Britain?Should we embrace the technology and see it as a good means of enforcing the law, enhancing security, enforcing strong immigration controls and border security?If a fit for purpose legal framework governing its use can be implemented, is this something we support?

Or do we take the view this is an infringement of our civil liberties to go about our business without being tracked and identified?

What policies might we derive from the above case?

For members reading this blog, I’ll pose the question in our Members Blog for views to be provided.

[Ref 1]

[Ref 2]

[Ref 3]

[Ref 4]

[Ref 5]

[Ref 6]

[Ref 7]

[Ref 8]

[Ref 9]


Economic Facts and Fallacies – Part One

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday September 1st 2020


You may be familiar with Thomas Sowell, the American economist.  If not, I recommend his work.  He grew up in Harlem and is now a senior fellow at America’s prestigious Stanford University.  Sowell is not your average “PC” academic, he’s willing to put forward the sensible view of millions.

A Twitter user (@ThomasSowell) posts quotes from Sowell, here are the most recent:

Leading people into the blind alley of dependency and grievances may be counterproductive for them but it can produce votes, money, power, fame and a sense of exaltation to others who portray themselves as friends of the downtrodden.

Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin. You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

Our children and grandchildren may yet curse the day we began hyping race and ethnicity. There are countries where that has led to slaughters in the streets but you cannot name a country where it has led to greater harmony.

As you can see, this man speaks sense, so I was excited to receive his book recently as a birthday gift.  Economic Facts and Fallacies has a table of contents that includes Male-Female Facts and Fallacies, Academic Facts and Fallacies, and Racial Facts and Fallacies.  Yes, you know this is going to be interesting!

As a starting point, here is how he describes fallacy:

Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas.  They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing.  Their plausibility gains them political support.  Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing or ignored factors likely to lead to ‘unintended consequences’, a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters.    

The first chapter introduces us to five general economic fallacies.  These are the zero-sum fallacy, the fallacy of composition, the post-hoc fallacy, the chess-pieces fallacy, and the open-ended fallacy.  Let’s look at these in turn.

The Zero-Sum Fallacy

Sowell argues that economics is not a zero-sum game, but that each participant to a transaction is better off as a result of the transaction, if not, the transactions wouldn’t continue.

Many individual fallacies in economics are founded on the larger, and usually implicit, fallacious assumption that economic transactions are a zero-sum process, in which what is gained by someone is lost by someone else.  But voluntary economic transactions – whether between employer and employee, tenant and landlord, or international trade – would not continue to take place unless both parties were better off making these transactions than not making them.  As obvious as this may seem, its implications are not always obvious to those who advocate policies to help one party to these transactions.  

He claims that government policy aimed at helping one party to a transaction (employees for example) often ends up harming both.  Government intervention has reduced the terms available to parties because there are now three different parties involved in these transactions and only those particular terms which are simultaneously acceptable to all three parties are legally permitted.  In other words, these new terms preclude some terms that would otherwise be mutually acceptable to the parties themselves.

To put it one way, if one side of a mutually beneficial agreement is harmed, it stands to reason that the other side would be harmed too.

A given example is rent control.  These are usually aimed at helping tenants, but as Sowell describes, can end up causing landlords and construction firms to supply less housing given the less favourable terms available.  The reduction in cost of housing leads to higher demand; demand not met with supply.  This leads to decline in housing maintenance and repair because landlords are no longer under the same competitive pressures to spend money on such things in order to attract tenants. 

The Fallacy of Composition

This fallacy is the belief that what is good for one is good for all.

Many economic policies involve the fallacy of composition, as politicians come to the aid of some particular group, industry, state or other special interest, representing the benefits to them as if they were net benefits to society, rather than essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

The idea is that government often simply move problems around rather than solving them.  If one area of a country benefits but another falls in to decline, there is no overall benefit to the country as a whole.

Sowell argues that local government intervention in the form of redevelopment and “revitalisation” will only move people from one place to another.  Yet governments from the local to the national level have set up innumerable programs to engage in what is usually at best a zero-sum operation, and is often a negative-sum operation, as millions of lives are disrupted across the country and billions of tax dollars are spent demolishing neighborhoods, accomplishing nothing on a national level other than a voluntary relocation of taxpayers to places where they can get property without having to bid it away from its current owners, and an involuntary relocation of the people displaced.  

The Post Hoc Fallacy 

This is the flawed assumption that something is caused by what precedes it.  For example, Sowell mentions DDT, an insecticide, that was banned partly because it was believed to have caused cancer.  In fact, it had killed the mosquitoes that carried malaria, thereby saving so many lives that cancer numbers had begun to rise.

Now millions of people, who would otherwise have died young, lived long enough to get cancer in their later years.  But the DDT did not cause cancer, and its banning led to a resurgence of malaria that took millions of lives around the world.

Sowell states that the belief that the Great Depression was caused by the stock market crash of 1929, was “widely believed for decades”.  However, a similar stock market crash in 1987 was followed by 20 years of economic growth, with low unemployment and low inflation rates.

The Chess-Piece Fallacy 

This one is my favourite!  Some in politics believe they can move people around like pieces on a chess-board.  They believe they can make policies that amount to economic and social experimentation.  But people don’t like being subject to experimentation and may rebel, with ‘unintended consequences’.

Unlike chess pieces, human beings have their own individual preferences, values, plans and wills, all of which can conflict with and even thwart the goals of social experiments.  Moreover, whatever the merits of particular social experiments, experimentation as such can have huge economic and social costs. 

The Open-Ended Fallacy

The final fallacy relates to the notion that “desirable things are advocated without regard to the most fundamental fact of economics, that resources are inherently limited and have alternate uses”.

This is of course highly political.  Politicians love to promise endless supplies of housing and development, all the while failing to acknowledge a limit to this, or the price they’re willing to pay.

This is a fascinating book, and it has scarcely begun.  I’ll read a chapter per week and describe it to you here.  Next week, Urban Facts and Fallacies.  Make sure to catch up every Tuesday!


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Black lives don’t matter to the European Union

Frankie Rufolo

August 30th 2020


Back in June, there was an online promotion for a “Black Lives Matter” event on the cathedral green in Exeter. One of the pictures used was of a black girl throwing some shade at Nigel Farage when he and Ann Widdecombe briefly visited Exeter for the European elections. I showed it to a mixed-race friend and political ally of mine, and she agreed it was dumb. The obvious question was “What on Earth has Nigel Farage or Brexit got to do with BLM?” However, it also raises far broader questions. If the UK is not innocent, then how guilty is the European Union of racism or indeed any crime against black people? The truth is, Britain’s history of colonialism and racist rule is further behind us than the scandalous politicians that have engineered the EU project – which has all the same problems and could be accused of “micro-aggressions” today.

Take Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, for example. This President of France lost his re-election in 1981 due to the Diamonds Affair, a scandal unveiled by a satirical newspaper. Giscard had been Minister of Finance in 1973 when he was secretly offered diamonds from the notorious Central African tyrant Emperor Bokassa. It was perhaps no coincidence that throughout his presidency, Giscard was an ally of Jean-Bédel Bokassa, a military leader who became president for life before crowning himself in a lavish coronation ceremony which cost an entire third of the developing country’s annual budget and all of the foreign aid provided by France. Under Giscard, French taxpayers supported the authoritarian regime, which was at times friendly with Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya. In 1979, the extravagant Emperor Bokassa massacred civilians during the food riots, and when primary school children protested against government-mandated costed school uniforms, around a hundred poor pupils were killed by troops, with Bokassa himself allegedly beating innocent youngsters to death with a cane. Giscard sent in the French military to assist a controversial coup – which was later overturned in another coup. During Bokassa’s trial, the absolute monarch was accused of cannibalism, although this was never proved.

You’d be forgiven for thinking this foreign affair of bribery and bloodshed would be a career-ruining scandal, but after losing the General Election in France, Giscard went on to become a leader in the European Parliament. As French President, he was always a proponent of greater EU integration, with his rivals accusing him of leading “a party of foreigners”. It was probably for this reason that Giscard was appointed President of the European Convention by the European Council in December 2001. This institution was established to decide the future of the union, with Giscard himself drafting EU treaties. Although his legislation was unsuccessful, this politician, who aided tyranny in Africa, probably set the trajectory for our continent for years to come.

Another French President who was supportive of the EU but perhaps not black people was François Mitterrand. The socialist leader was initially a Eurosceptic, but he went on to support the enlargement of the European Union to include Spain and Portugal in 1986 and 1992, and, along with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, fathered the Maastricht Treaty. Mitterrand’s presidency oversaw France’s involvement in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. In the years prior to the tribal massacres, the African country had negotiated arms deals through its embassy in Paris. At the time, Human Rights Watch reported Mitterrand’s government supporting Rwanda militarily, as it did other French-speaking African countries at the time, delivering arms without following their own rules amid rising tensions between the two ethnic groups: the Hutus and the Tutsi minority. In the first few days of the genocide, the French army evacuated European expatriates such as missionaries and aid workers but left behind innocent Tutsi people, often dropping them off at Rwandan checkpoints where they would be killed, hacked to death with machetes and garden tools. The UN mandated that France launch Operation Turquoise, a mission to create a safe zone in Rwanda, which is estimated to have saved 15,000 lives. However, the safe zone also allowed many perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide to escape the country and evade justice. The Europhile President Mitterrand also maintained good, close relations with apartheid South Africa, like many other pro-EU leaders at the time, and supported the corrupt president of Gabon because he regarded the country to be of strategic importance. Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, who was uncompromising in his opposition to racial segregation in South Africa, on the other hand, warned the European Union could be dangerous if allowed to overpower national sovereignty, and his country did not join the bloc whilst he was in office.

This modern history may sound a few-steps-removed from the supernational bloc we know today, but the current European Union itself has policies that have done more harm than good to people who are not white. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy has been criticised for leaving farmers in third world countries at a disadvantage, with Asian and African farmers unable to compete with cheap competition from Europe. Needless to say, the EU’s soft-border policies and poor handling of the migrant crisis have only encouraged more people from Sub-Saharan Africa to make risky journeys to this continent, with thousands drowning off the coast and some perishing in the deserts.

The European Union’s institutions also can be, and have been, accused of the “everyday racism” Black Lives Matter activists complain about. The Green MEP for Yorkshire and Humber, Maagid Maagid, cited racial discrimination when he had a bad encounter with security guards in the European Parliament – it was probably because he was a newcomer they didn’t recognise and his hoodie, baseball cap, and t-shirt that read “fuck fascism” broke the dress code of any normal parliament, rather than his ethnicity, but BLM aren’t interested in details like that. Perhaps a better example of a “micro-aggression” would be the treatment of Louis Stedman-Bryce, the gay, black Brexit Party MEP for Scotland: he criticised the President of the European Commission for talking about “gender diversity” but not ethnic diversity, calling her speech “rubbish” and pointing out that most ethnic minority people in the room were actually cleaners, before being told that his language was “offensive”. Stedman-Bryce and his Eurosceptic colleagues then pointed out that the “Bollocks to Brexit” t-shirts worn by overwhelmingly white Lib Dem MEPs were more offensive but received no such criticism. If a black Labour politician like Diane Abbott had been treated in such a way, the left would have been outraged, but there was no notable uproar when the EU institution treated a Eurosceptic politician with many diversity points in such a way. Given the Brexit Party was the most ethnically diverse group in the European Parliament, the place will now be considerably whiter. Will that be enough for the race-obsessives to have a problem with it? It is genuinely possible that some of the more well-meaning protesters of recent months will actually join us in the Brexit club and pay more attention to the future of our continent than the imperfect past of our country. At the same time, many of the people taking selfies at the rallies and riots will just look massive hypocrites.

SUNDAY COLUMN: The Times We Live In

Anne Marie Waters 

Sunday August 30th 2020


Yesterday I used public transport for the first time since ‘the madness’ began.   There are plenty of occasions we could name as the start of the ‘the madness’, but for the sake of argument, let’s make it the day the world stood still, our shops closed, and we were confined to our homes.  In other words, the start of ‘lockdown’.

I had completely forgotten about the masks (I forget about them regularly) so I found myself in a position of rebellion, and it wasn’t an enjoyable experience.  Things feel different, tense.

I was on my way to the capital from Essex to a poetry reading in central London, and the launch of a new For Britain branch.  The train pulled in to the platform and it was only then I remembered that masking is now compulsory.  Sitting opposite me on the train was a young couple who decided, upon seeing me maskless, that they would join me.  There were three of us unmasked at that point.  Then another two young girls got on and made it five.  No problems so far.  Then I descended to the tube, and the mood changed.  Here I was on a packed Central Line, and the only person not wearing a mask.  Not everyone keeps their annoyance at this to themselves.  Stares and dirty looks followed, indicating there’s an anger growing – people are frustrated and taking it out on each other.

Other than looks, the tube was incident-free, but I also attended a bank in the last couple of days and this was another tense experience.

Outside Barclays was a long queue of depressed-looking mask wearers.  I saw that the machine I needed to use inside the branch was free, so I asked the woman in charge if I must queue for a machine that nobody else desired to use.  She said ‘no, go ahead’.  So I did.  Only to be confronted seconds later by a man incensed that I had avoided the queue.  I asked him if he wished to use the deposit machine before me, and he didn’t.  But that wasn’t really the point.  This man was angry not because I was using a machine nobody else in the queue wanted to use (I checked), but because I had avoided the queue simply by asking.  He was angry that his time was being wasted and mine wasn’t.

Arguments and rows and anger and dirty looks and hostility are what happens when a population is frightened, unsure, and encouraged by unscrupulous leaders to turn on each other.   A public distrustful of each other is much easier to control.

These are the times we live in.

On my way home from the poetry reading, I was handed a leaflet that said the following:


This was from a group that firmly believes our government intends to commit genocide against us, either using technology or contaminated vaccines or both.

Meanwhile, a large protest against facemasks, vaccines, and lockdowns takes place at Trafalgar Square.  The press reports the crowd as about 10,000 people.  It is as biased as it always is.  Those are the times we live in too.  Forget about an objective media.  It simply does not exist.  Reporters dismiss all concerns at this rally as absurd, but what I saw on the tube is absurd: signs telling us to keep 2 metres apart on a packed tube.  That’s absurd.  Facemasks at the end of the pandemic, that’s also absurd.  Shutting down an entire economy for months on end, that’s absurd.  But never does the press question this.  On coronavirus, as with so much else, the press merely acts as the propaganda arm of the state.

Politicians tell us we must wear masks that do nothing.  We must “social distance” (unless protesting about black lives!)  The whole situation is arbitrary and ridiculous and has taken all of the joy out of life, but the press parrots the government line without scrutiny.

Speaking of “black lives”, throughout this madness, we’ve been told again and again that they “matter”, as if we didn’t already know.  The fact that black and white have the same rights in British society is completely ignored and we are told that black people face severe and awful oppression; something that simply isn’t true.

This spectacular lie has of course been parroted by the press without question, without scrutiny, whilst those protesting against economy-breaking lockdowns are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists”.

Even if that were true, surely the press should ask questions of the government instead of pretending nothing is wrong.  The Guardian (the worst of the worst) makes the following observation:

“A PA system set up in front of Nelson’s Column broadcast speeches by a number of speakers, who denied the reality and severity of the pandemic and accused the government of attempting to curtail civil liberties.”

Accused the government of attempting to curtail civil liberties? The government HAS curtailed civil liberties, not “attempted” it, but done it, and spectacularly so.  The government has power over us now that would have been entirely unimaginable a year ago.  We are little different to communist China.  The press finds this unremarkable and instead focuses on deriding those who raise objections.

It’s easy to understand why, the press is part of the machine taking away our liberties.  This is not conspiracy, it is fact.  We no longer have the freedom we had a year ago.  Fact.

Here are more facts.

We do not know for certain how many people have died from coronavirus.  We don’t know what age they were or what complications they had.  The numbers are hidden among smoke and mirrors.

We introduced mandatory face masks in the UK after the peak of the infection was over.

We have spent billions of pounds of public money with no indication or information from government as to where this money is coming from.

We are facing the biggest recession we’ve ever known.

Law enforcement is arbitrary and political, with police picking their favourites and siding with them – openly.  Police officers got on to their knees to participate in a protest that took place unlawfully during lockdown, not only expressing preference in a political debate, but breaking their own rules to do so.

The press is also openly biased and political. It describes left-wing violence as “peaceful”, while describing right-wing speech as violence.

These are the times we live in.

Finally, this morning I checked online to catch up on the news.  I saw a post on Twitter stating that “transphobia” includes debating transgenderism.  In other words, just debating whether someone can change sex is itself transphobic and as such, 21% of people in Scotland believe it should be a criminal offence.

A fifth of people in Scotland believe we should go to prison if we don’t believe people can change sex.  This comes closer to reality with each passing day, because Scotland is about to introduce a ‘hate crime’ law that could criminalise just about any dissent from the prevailing norms, no matter how mind-boggling these norms may be.

In her book Invisible Women, Caroline Criado Perez discusses the medical differences between men and women in some detail.  She tells us that even heart attack symptoms differ between the sexes and some drugs will have one affect on a male body, and a completely different one on a female body.

She writes: “Researchers have found sex differences in every tissue and organ system in the human body, as well as in the ‘prevalence, course and severity’ of the majority of common human diseases.  There are sex differences in the fundamental workings of the heart.  These are sex differences in lung capacity, even when these values are normalised to height (perhaps related is the fact that among men and women who smoke the same number of cigarettes, women are 20-70% more likely to develop lung cancer)”.

What Criado Perez is saying is that men and women are entirely physically different.  She provides a mountain of medical and scientific evidence and fact to back up her claim.  Every cell in my body is female, every cell in a man’s body is male.  That cannot be changed by wishful thinking, and regardless of how trans people “feel”, science is science and facts are facts.

To clarify, even though science, medicine, reason and truth tell us without question that people cannot change sex, it will soon be a criminal offence in Scotland to agree with that science.

These are the times we live in.

To summarise then; the government can confine us to our homes, it spends billions without telling us where the money is coming from, it closes our businesses and destroys our livelihoods, it compels us to wear masks for dubious reasons and this is enforced arbitrarily, it tells us to stay away from each other – “social distance”-  while doing nothing about left-wing protestors refusing to do just that, it tells us black people are oppressed while white people are prevented from applying for jobs, it does nothing to protect our statues from defacement, it allows children to be manipulated and confused and experimented on with drugs and hormones, it tells us that men can become women simply by saying so….

If you object to any of the above, the press will dismiss you as a conspiracy theorist.  Worse, the police may well arrest you as a criminal.

These are the times we live in.

There has never been a better time for political change.  There are millions of us who  know that all I’ve written above is 100% true.  They also know that the big political parties, the press, the police, the education system, the judiciary are corrupt, corrupt, corrupt… and absolutely wedded to solidifying this tyranny we find ourselves in.

To end on a positive note, that tyranny is now so evident that any thinking person can see it.  That’s the silver lining.  It’s up to us now to give those who see the truth a place to go, and an action to take.

That’s what For Britain intends to do.  Join us.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


Are We Under Attack?

By Mike Speakman, Law & Order & Policing Spokesman

26th August 2020

I may stray from my usual brief in this blog, but at heart it really is a law and order issue.   The country is being undermined from so many different angles that many people, including me, must wonder what is going on.  Despite an 80-seat majority we have a government which seems totally impotent and manages a “U” turn at the slightest hint of opposition. Its really difficult to know where to start.

Prior to being elected and several times since Boris and Priti Patel promised to end free movement and in particular to stop the illegal immigration across the channel.  Not only are they now providing a free taxi service into the country but at the same time saying the law prevents them from returning illegals or stopping them coming in the first place.  This is the same European Law that has seen Poland and Hungary refuse to take immigrants and sees Greece, France and Italy forcibly return some of them.  Why are we so impotent when countries with stronger leadership can put their people first?   It is not just the principle that’s at stake, ISIS has consistently said that they will infiltrate Jihadis into Europe under the disguise of “Refugees” and it is apparent they were telling the truth.  Many of the terror attacks here and in Europe are committed by Jihadis disguised as refugees and the government ignores the issue despite the origins of the Manchester bomber and other murderous attackers.  Admittedly, some of the Muslim terrorists are home grown, but with hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants welcomed by the government we appear to be in the midst of a clandestine insurgency.    Their Jihad is not just about stabbings or bomb attacks on people but there has also been a massive upsurge in Arson against churches in Europe and to some extent in this country, although the media try to hide it as much as possible.  It is almost certain that all mosques have been provided with security at public expense when the evidence that they are threatened is rather thin, but have we done the same for churches where inexplicable fires are now regular? I do not believe we have.

The government’s failure to acknowledge the insurgency is fueling all sorts of conspiracy theories, are we signed up to something we don’t know about and have never agreed, are politicians corrupt and being paid off?

Apart from the overt terrorism threat from Islam we have pseudo terrorist activity at home in the form of Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion.   Both organisations have shown they can break the law with impunity even with the active assistance of the police. Both organisations have overt political aims for the overthrow of capitalism, and both have displayed violence in their activities. Both these organisations have been actively supported by some elected politicians.  I have no sympathy at all for BLM, they are openly racist and creating division, but that is what the history of these sort of groups illustrate. If they cannot find a grievance, they will manufacture one.  The Tyranny of the Majority seems to have become the Tyranny of the Minority. We have seen Muslims attack mosques trying to implicate “far right” groups and in my policing experience I saw black activists causing damage they attributed to attacks on the black community by white racists. Fortunately, they sometimes get caught.

For some months I and other retired police officers have feared an outbreak of serious public disorder and the coming weekend is a critical point.  The bank holiday Monday is usually the occasion of the Notting Hill carnival with its associated spike in crime and violence.  It is cancelled this year and now Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion are combining in an unholy alliance with marches in central London on Monday, despite the law saying you cannot organise an event of more than 30 people. (What chance of that being enforced?).  Police numbers are at their lowest for decades, police moral is destroyed by the failure of their senior officers to support their constables, and the police management is itself seriously woke.   If there is big trouble in London this weekend, it will probably trigger copycat events around the country. The police will not cope.

Internally the government is being obstructed at every opportunity, no matter how incompetent they may have been over Corona, the professional bodies of the General Medical Council and the teaching unions have been quite defiant of the government’s attempts to deal with it.  The NHS is mostly idle, few patients are being treated and no one seems to know why. Teachers on full pay don’t want to go back to school.

In my younger days it was the manufacturing and miners unions which lead opposition to Conservative governments. Now it is more subtle with professional and managerial groupings leading the way, in alliance with minority-based activists. All want to destroy capitalism and replace it with some form of socialist anarchy.

So are we under attack?  Yes we are, its not as overt as in the past and is all the more dangerous for it.  Our government is incompetent and impotent. They are not fit for purpose.

There are small emerging signs of a public backlash which the media are desperate to hide. In truth the British people have become too tolerant.  We need to recognise what is happening and stop voting either Labour or Tory, there is little to choose between them. The rhetoric may be different but the outcome is the same. The country is being destroyed from without and within.   For Britain will be standing many candidates at the May elections. It is your chance to make a difference. Come and join us. We are the only populist party left standing. We are here for you, for Britain.

The Great Immigration Betrayal

Anne Marie Waters 

Wednesday August 26th 2020

There is a strange feeling about Dover, something it’s difficult to quite put your finger on.  On Saturday, August 22nd, several members of For Britain travelled to the Kent coastal town to see what we would find.  We found tension….. and a lot of discarded boats.

Dover has been the site of much of the illegal immigration in to the UK that has been taking place over recent months.  Since we ‘locked down’ for coronavirus, 1,000s have crossed the channel; many of them aided by the UK Border Force.

The role of the Border Force is to maintain immigration laws and ensure they’re enforced.  It is entirely illegal for people to come here without official permission, so these crossings require a cover, a veneer of legitimacy.  What happens when something has no actual legitimacy?  Officials lie, and pretend it does.  The Border Force is engaged in a fraud, telling enormous fibs to the British people.

The fibs?  Among others, pretending that those arriving on the UK’s shores are fleeing war or political persecution – the only actual grounds for (temporary) asylum.  The persecution test is a subjective one.  In other words, it’s not enough that hypothetical people might be endangered by their government for exercising free speech for example, an asylum seeker must be able to show evidence that they are in danger for exercising their free speech.

Does anyone believe this is happening?  That all of the men (and they are men) arriving in Dover are providing evidence to show that they, the individual, are threatened by a government for exercising a fundamental right?  Not a chance.

The reality is, they are not asylum seekers or refugees and the Border Force couldn’t care less one way or the other.  Don’t ask, don’t tell, just arrive.  That’s the message.  It is the message sent firing round the globe by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, and the world is hearing it.

The story is that those making their way to Dover are desperate and poor and fleeing horrors.  All of it lies.  Even if they are poor, that is not grounds for asylum. This is another lie told by our politicians and press.  Most of the world is poor.  If the West is to take them all, it too will be poor.  In fact, that’s the idea.  It is very difficult to impose top-down government tyranny on well-off, free, united and confident people.  That was the West, so they’re now bringing it down – immigration and censorship will be the primary tools.

The lies don’t stand up to even minimum scrutiny.  Poverty?  Fleeing war?  Persecution?  No.  There are no signs of this.  What we see instead are hugely expensive (often brand new) dinghies; equipment that costs a small fortune.  Where are these desperate people fleeing war, poverty and oppression (remember poverty isn’t grounds for asylum in the first place) getting the £1,000s it costs to buy these boats?  For that matter, who is paying for the expensive clothes they wear and phones they carry?  They’re better dressed than many working Brits, and certainly have better phones.  What’s going on?

What is going on is that European governments are doing all they can to import as many people as possible as quickly as possible.  The transformation of Europe in to a grand prison-state was not moving fast enough, and the resistance to it was becoming stronger.

It has happened in all European countries.  Mass migration has transformed our continent, and it has been a complete disaster.  Rape, terror attacks, murder, cultural clashes, racial and religious tension, censorship, and a fast-train back to the 7th century in terms of science and secularism, that’s what we’re getting, and what we’ll continue to get.

Mix this up with anti-white hatred, a dumbed down (and that’s putting it mildly) education system, corrupt police and judiciary, a media so divorced from journalism that it’s like they’ve never met, and politicians with fewer principles than scruples, and you have the perfect storm.  The end of the greatest civilisation we have ever known.

To add insult to grave injury, the immigrants coming here illegally are overwhelmingly Muslims.  What better way to crush our speech, destroy our liberties, and send reason and truth crashing out the window than to impose Islam?  If you want to destroy people and immerse them in fear and dysfunction, Islam is the ticket.  It will get the job done.

Now, we are under unprecedented control.  Thanks to coronavirus and the social madness it has produced, the government can dictate what shop we go to and whether or not we cover our face when we do.  Boris Johnson can decide tomorrow that you can’t visit your parents, or meet any friends, or mingle with other people at all.  Did you think you’d see such a day?  Probably not, but you’re not only seeing it, most of the country has accepted it without question.

Despite all the panic about locking you in your home, there is no such panic when 1,000s arrive from Africa.  You stay home because you’re dangerous.  Africa however is welcome.

Even the rotten globalist United Nations has admitted that the whole thing is a fraud.  Just like the EU was forced to admit it in 2015.

The UN’s Refugee agency has this weekend acknowledged that around 70% of those coming to Europe from the Middle East and Africa have no legitimate claim for asylum.  If the UN says 70%, assume it’s more like 90%, and you’ll be closer to the truth.

Back in 2015, the EU was forced to admit similar.  We were told that people were coming from the Syrian war zone (a legitimate asylum claim) but only 1 in 5 actually were.  The rest were coming from whatever African or Middle Eastern nation that springs to mind.  Nobody checked.  Nobody cared.  The political class wants us subjugated, it doesn’t care how.

This is a betrayal of truly shocking proportions.  In Kent, we visited the Battle of Britain memorial.  The site commemorates those who died defending our great country from Nazis at the famous Battle of Britain over Kent skies 80 years ago.  The names of those who died are etched in stone.  Is this a facade?  A pretence?  If we truly honoured those who died defending Britain from invasion, we would honour them by ensuring that invasion never takes place, that they did not die in vain.

Instead, the very Battle of Britain site overlooks the beaches of Dover, the entry point of illegal migrants making a mockery of Britain and its history.  Those who fought for it, are forced to overlook the very site of Britain’s potential demise.

Despite all of this, I remain optimistic and I know that something as special as Britain won’t be wiped out easily.  I also know that most of its people love this nation dearly.

Therefore, do not lose heart, take inspiration from those who fought and continue the fight in their memory.

We will save Britain, but we must take that urgent first step to do so; that step is to stop and reverse the flow of immigration.  Be in no doubt, under a For Britain government, there would be no further illegal immigration, no bogus asylum, and no more lies.  ALL of those who have entered this country illegally will be returned home.  Immediately.

Then it is time to look at those who are here legally but have contributed nothing.  Jihadis on benefits?  No more.  Polygamous non-English speaking families all paid for by you?  Not a chance.

We’ve had enough.  It’s time to send home those who bring nothing but trouble; whether it be rape gangs, religious fanatics, or simply those who live in a world we left behind centuries ago, they must go.  We owe them nothing.

We do however owe something to the people of Britain, beginning with an apology for all that has been inflicted upon them and their society.  This apology will be followed up with action and that action has one focus, restoring Britain for its people.

It can be done and it will be done.  Join us and be a part of it.

Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


The Strange Religion of Climate Change

Monday August 24th 2020 



Climate alarmism claims to be grounded in science. In reality, however, it displays many of the hallmarks of a religion – and a fundamentalist one at that. In this article, I’m going to discuss how this manifests and indulge myself in some amateur psychology. In a previous article I’ve talked about how scientists might find themselves unable to take a stand that contradicts the mainstream position on climate change. I’d now like to talk about the popular appeal and the ‘pull’ of the climate alarmism movement, with a focus on its most extreme expression: Extinction Rebellion.

I’d like to start by saying, this isn’t meant to be a criticism of religion, but of what is essentially an unconscious religious movement pretending to be scientific.

Believe as we do…

So what are the signs that climate alarmism is religious rather than scientific in nature? Most obviously, it has a ‘creed’ – a set of fixed beliefs to which everyone must subscribe, such as CO2 and fossil fuels being the enemy and the driver of climate change and that we are headed for climate disaster (Armageddon, The End Times, The Rapture). These beliefs have to be accepted in their totality, and refusal to do so is ’denial’ or heresy. This is surely the only time the word ‘denier’ has been used in relation to science. There are witch hunts of dissenters who dare to think differently – such as Obama’s naming and shaming of ‘deniers’ on his personal website – and rather than healthy debate, a stifling of alternative voices.

The Prophets of Doom

The rhetoric around climate change has been intensifying over the years and has reached fever pitch with Extinction Rebellion (XR), the group responsible for the recent disruptive protests in London and elsewhere (you may recall the images of XR members in garish theatrical costumes, in imitation, I think, of characters from Greek plays or initiates in the mystery religions!). XR are telling the world that billions of people will die in the next few years and that our children will likely never have children themselves. The prophecies of its founders, Gail Bradbrook and Roger Hallam, include famine, mass migrations, wars over resources, and total social breakdown. The language used is the language of doom: we are going to burn; it’s going to be hell.

The End Times has been a theme throughout human history. In recent times, there was the millennial bug panic, which centred around the imminent collapse of the world’s computer systems, and the anticipated apocalypse of 2012, when the Mayan calendar supposedly came to an end.

In my research (well okay, Googling) for this article, I came across a fascinating piece called, ‘What’s the Point of the Apocalypse?’ by Amanda Power of the University of Sheffield. In it, she explains how Doomsday predictions have been a repeating theme since the 3rd century BC, and were very prominent in the Middle Ages. Doomsday was seen as the natural ‘consequence of human failings’ which could only be prevented by last-minute repentance. But these predictions weren’t just religious: they were a means of attacking your enemy, who could be portrayed as the Beast or the Antichrist. They were a way of criticising society and demanding change by those ‘committed to reforming injustices, tackling disparities in wealth, challenging the behaviour of powerful elites and arguing for the equal value of all…’ This made me think of XR’s Roger Hallam, with his background in political agitation and working for trade unions, and his talk of social justice, fighting oppression and racism, and the need to overthrow corrupt capitalist systems. The article concludes by drawing the parallel with global warming, with its ‘threat of the end of the world’.

This digression is to illustrate that climate alarmism is part of a religious tradition. In the climate change creed, carbon dioxide has assumed demonic dimensions and its acolytes are the greedy fossil-fuel guzzling corporations. There is the call to return to a kind of primitive purity – to turn your back, as Hallam puts it, on the ‘monstrous’ and ‘toxic’ capitalist system. The fanatical Gail Bradbrook, despite her doctorate in Biophysics, can insist, with a straight face, that people will be eating each other within the next few years.

As an interesting aside, it turns out Roger Hallam’s mother was a preacher.

We can save you…

I watched a long interview with Roger Hallam in which he talked about how everyone was welcome to join his movement, whatever their past or current failings, and how they’d be accepted without judgement. You don’t even have to change your ways – the essential thing is to believe! (Gone are the days when environmentalism meant rolling up your sleeves and actually doing something useful for the environment!) This felt to me, again, religious in tone: welcoming in sinners, who can be redeemed through association with XR. This generous attitude seemed to be reserved for those who joined his group, rather than the wider world. In this ‘Post Doom’ interview, the host, Michael Dowd, adoringly described him as one of the world’s ‘leading prophetic voices’.

XR are the elect, the chosen ones, on a spiritual mission to show us the way – the government, as the representation of authority and the corrupt system, are the baddies, the sinners, and they don’t get credit for doing anything right. They are the rank materialists, profiteering from fossil fuels. Their authority must be overthrown to make way for a new order: a ‘people’s assembly’. When he came to my town on an XR recruitment drive, Roger Hallam announced he wanted to get ‘thousands of people to go to prison and be arrested in the next 12 months’. He is very serious in his effort to crash the system.

We can be heroes.

Hallam’s messianic aim is to bring about, ‘the greatest transformation in world history’. To turn the world upside down in his personal version of saving the planet. As Paul Burgess puts it in his seventh video on climate change, ‘the arrogance of man!’

But do they actually believe they’re right?

Something I really don’t understand is whether climate alarmists are truly convinced of what they’re saying. Roger Hallam claims he reads climate-related scientific articles every week. Gail Bradbrook has a PhD in Biophysics. How is it possible these educated, intelligent people haven’t spotted the glaring problems with the ‘science’ of climate change (the fact that we’re not actually warming, for instance, and that rising CO2 levels clearly aren’t making a difference…)? Is it that they are so ‘invested’ in their mission that they overlook reality? Have they just created an echo chamber where the only voices they hear are those which reinforce their own views? I’m reminded of someone I knew at school, who was a Jehovah’s Witness. She insisted the Earth was just a few thousand years old. If you said to her, ‘But we have fossils going back hundreds of millions of years!’, she would say, ‘They are fakes, planted by God to test our faith’. Climate alarmists are determined to be right. And being right is, perhaps, more important to them than the truth. How would they react if they discovered that, in fact, everything is fine with the climate and we’re not headed for disaster at all? Would it be a big disappointment?

If something is your ‘thing’, and you have built your identity and sense of worth and meaning around it, it takes a lot of courage to admit that it’s not real – or that you’re plain wrong. And if your mission is to save the world, it must take a lot to pull your cape off, shrug, and admit it’s all been a pointless expenditure of energy.

Climate alarmists have tried to make out that ‘deniers’ have psychological issues, unable to accept the reality of what we’re facing. The tables need to be turned on them, as surely they have issues of their own. The desire to tear down symbols of authority and to collapse society smacks of unresolved parental issues and a childish need to blame the grown-ups. And why would you want to infect a generation of children with fear, anger and hysteria? To fill them with a terror of growing up? To tell them they ‘probably won’t have enough food to eat in a few years’ time’? Maybe it’s because you yourself feel terrible inside and want others to experience the same. The irony is, whilst claiming to be safeguarding future generations, the alarmists are actively creating distress and hopelessness in young people. Surely, this carries an enormous weight of moral responsibility.

The hook that reels you in

One last theory to end on! There is, perhaps, some truth in the alarmists’ position – enough for their message to resonate and have popular appeal. Most of us would recognise that we are out of step with nature and are abusing the Earth. That we have got used to being consumers, to having what we want rather than what we need, and to a horribly wasteful culture of the disposable. We know this, and we want to put it right. Climate alarmism taps into this genuine feeling and is securing a monopoly on offering expression for it. Unfortunately, however, its energies are spent on fighting a myth.


For Britain activist

Housing & Immigration – A For Britain Councillor’s Opinion

By Cllr M Americanos-Molinaro, Hertfordshire Branch Chair

19th August 2020

Recently, an opinion column poured scorn on local Councillors trying to respect constituents’ wishes on planning and housing issues. Their sarcastic tone accused local groups of wanting to “preserve in aspic” the areas in which they live. It appeared that they thought little of ‘developing’ and changing the face of a pretty, peaceful village, against the wishes of residents and their chosen representatives.

In addition to having to contend with such views, Councillors throughout the UK are now being informed that all manner of changes are on their way; changes to planning legislation, white papers being drawn up with an ever increasing urgency, changes which shall result in a deluge of applications for all sorts of projects which will place even heavier burdens on local infrastructures and amenities.

Surely it is time for us to question why the urgency to loosen our planning laws? Why the persistent steamrolling over our local groups’ concerns about their towns and villages, particularly at a time like this? In the light of the last 7 years’ dropping UK birth rates why is it so essential to build so much new housing all over the country? What is going on?

Net migration figures into the UK which accelerated in 2019 provide at least part of the answer along with the “ask no questions” mass-immigration policies of Labour and Conservatives.

According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) the legal UK population is approximately 67 Million. This does not include an additional 1.2 million illegal migrants in 2019. Over the past 10 years the net migration into the UK has averaged a staggering 256,000 each year with the highest level in 2019, since 2016. (Source Migration Watch UK)

Perhaps this is the driver behind the loosening of the planning laws? Perhaps this is why our local councils find themselves under ever increasing pressure from Central government to permit massive housing projects despite the concerns of the local people. Whilst our country has been on a painful lockdown, our government has been rushing through and pushing out changes to our local planning laws so as to get housing projects underway for more permanent solutions to the swelling migrant numbers. The ONS has already confirmed that immigration has “increased the overall demand for housing”, in turn there will inevitably mean pressure on our own services and finances.

The latest debacle, highlighting our government’s lack of will, is that of the illegal economic migrants crossing the channel. Escorted into British waters by the French navy in convoy they are escorted by our own border force to landing points in the UK where coaches take them to centres i.e. hotels for free board, free dental and medical care, a weekly allowance and a phone. One such centre is on our doorstep in neighbouring Epping, the 3* Bell Hotel. This despite having paid France to prevent migrants leaving their camps in their designated “safe country”.

These illegal crossings have doubled since 2019, estimated at 4000 this year the numbers are growing with the improving weather. Priti Patel’s inaction has seen an acceleration of numbers coming across. Does she even care that we are aiding and abetting the human traffickers in their profit making?

British people are required to quarantine when returning from some holiday destinations but the illegal migrants being escorted to our shores are held to a different standard, no draconian mask wearing for them in their hotels…

The 4 billion pound contract with Serco – set to run for 10 years, suggests our government has long term intentions towards housing a continuing stream of such economic migrants in UK hotels and purpose built properties for years to come.

So next time somebody wants to write in with an opinion piece attacking a Councillor or a small local group for wanting to preserve their district’s character, maybe they should instead direct their attention to those further up the chain of power. Perhaps direct your anger towards those who are facilitating the last leg of the inward journey of economic migrants with our own tax payer funded rescue services, those who have sold out the British taxpayer to provide homes for strangers from across the world – whilst our own people face a housing shortage created by successive governments’ failed immigration policies.

Cllr M Americanos-Molinaro
Hertfordshire Branch Chair
For Britain

State of the Economy: Much the Same

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday August 11th 2020


It feels as though this column only ever features bad news, but that is hardly surprising given the times we are in.  Those times are tough and getting tougher.  It’s worth a quick recap to remind ourselves where we are.

It began in mid March, just about 6 months ago (it feels like a lifetime).  Actually of course it really began a couple of months earlier in China when a new virus, Covid-19, was first discovered.  China fails to take action to prevent its spread, and we have a global pandemic on our hands.

The Western world goes in to “lock down”.  This means that incredibly, businesses throughout the entire West (with the only exception of Sweden) simply shut their doors.  For three months or more, everything stood still, no businesses were open unless they sold food or medication.

What do governments do in such a scenario?  They spend; and spending is exactly our government has been doing.

To be clear, I support the measures taken to support business through this lock down, but what I don’t support is the lack of clarity on how we intend to get back on our feet, nor any reassurances that the British taxpayer will not foot the bill all by itself.

These measures included making billions available to business in grants and loans.  One big bill the government would pay was staffing costs.  The ‘furlough’ scheme was the Chancellor’s attempt to keep people in work by funding the bulk of wages throughout the lock down and beyond.  That furlough is still in place, but unemployment has been shooting up regardless.  Last week, I reported on yet more job losses, and this week I will do the same.

The oil industry has been hard-hit during this crisis as demand collapsed.  Now the BBC reports on its latest victim: the North Sea oil industry.  It has been described as “close to collapse”.  The price of oil makes it unprofitable, but that’s not its only concern.  Investment has all but stopped.

Robin Allan, chairman of the independent explorers’ association Brindex, said the industry was “close to collapse”.  He said:

“It’s almost impossible to make money at these oil prices.  It’s a huge crisis.

In terms of new investments – there will be none, everyone is retreating, people are being laid off at most companies this week and in the coming weeks. Budgets for 2015 are being cut by everyone.”

Throughout the pandemic, business has transformed.  Online sales have skyrocketed while the high street has collapsed.  Signs of going back to pre-lock down high street sales are not yet appearing.  In fact, there is every reason to believe that parts of the transformation are permanent.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak offered support in a variety of ways, including, most recently, by picking up half the bill at restaurants.

This scheme is now a week old and has been taken advantage of more than 10 million times.

The BBC reports:

“Under the scheme, which is intended to boost the struggling hospitality sector, the government pays for 50% of a meal eaten at a cafe, restaurant or pub on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.

The discount, which is due to run through August, is capped at £10.

Treasury estimates put the average claim at close to £5, making the cost of the policy around £50m so far.

HMRC said that, as of 9 August, it had received 10,540,394 claims under the scheme.”

Every week for months the story has been unchanged: unemployment up, government spending up, positivity down, and a coherent government plan for how to pay for it all seems as far away as ever.


Anne Marie Waters


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

SUNDAY COLUMN: Why We Must Deport the Rochdale Rapists

Anne Marie Waters

Sunday August 9th 2020


Last weekend I spoke at a rally in London demanding the deportation of the ‘Rochdale three’.  These are three men convicted of raping and pimping girls in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.  They were jailed, stripped of their citizenship, and “deported”.  Yet somehow they remain in the country to this day.

The admirable group Hearts of Oak intends to take legal action against Home Secretary Priti Patel to have the men removed.  In a statement, its spokesman Alan Craig said the following:

“There has been a complete failure of duty by the Home Office, and an abject betrayal of the victims and residents. This also sends a clear message to the wider public that the Home Office is not prepared to do its duty and rid the country of these and similar monsters.

“We had hoped for better from you, Ms Patel. You have said rightly that the child victims ‘have been let down by the state’. Yet you do not remove these paedophiles and thereby you perpetrate the injustice against them.”

The rally was a joint effort in partnership with Women Against Groomers, whose representative said: “Rochdale residents are very unhappy with the total lack of action regarding the removal of the three men.”

It’s hard to describe, quantify, or put in to words, the betrayal of our young girls by the state and its machinery.  A clear lesson is given to us, the ordinary people of Britain, and that message is of existential significance.

The British people have received notice that they don’t matter, that foreign rapists are far more important than British girls.

I’ll return to this a bit later, but first, let us look at Rochdale in detail, and remind ourselves exactly what has been going on.

“Three Girls”

Dramatised by the BBC, “Three Girls” is the story of the Rochdale grooming scandal.  We’ll begin the story in 2008, when a young girl in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, was arrested for breaching the peace.  She told police that she had in fact been raped by “Asian” (in reality, Muslim) takeaway and taxi drivers in the area of Heywood.  She was ignored, and she wasn’t the only one.  Hundreds of attempts had been made to get police to take this seriously, but each time the working class white girls were not considered credible witnesses.

In 2011, when Nazir Afzal took over as chief prosecutor for the north west, he reversed the decision about the credibility of witnesses.  This reopened investigations in the town.  Afzal’s status as a British Pakistani Muslim was of course exploited to the hilt and used as ‘proof’ that these rapes had nothing to do with the religious values of the men involved.  Nonsense.  One good apple does not mean the orchard isn’t poisoned.

The Rapists

These were racist rapes, but they were not treated as such.  The case provided the perfect demonstration of moral inversion; the world is quite simply turned upside down.  The men who raped these white English girls did so because they were white English girls, whom they thought of as trash (for being white English girls).

Shabir Ahmed, the ring leader of the grooming gang, made it clear what he thinks of these girls at the trial.  He referred to them as “prostitutes” and was quick to condemn white people in general, but particularly white women.  His outburst in court included “It’s all white lies. Shame on the police. You’re looking for scapegoats. Where are the white people?”

He would later try this trick again; accuse whites of racism.  That is now standard behaviour, and it’s a get-out-of-jail card for anyone, including child rapists, who happen to have non-white skin.

Ahmed was taught to cry “racism” (as were the countless other Muslim child rapists caught in the act in recent years) by a system that demonstrates over and over again that it will cower down in fear at the very sound of the word.

Police didn’t investigate the cases in Rochdale for years, and for the simple reason that the girls were white and poor, and the men were brown-skinned immigrants.  Britain has decided in no uncertain terms that white and poor is far, far less important than brown-skinned and immigrant, and both brown and white have received that message loud and clear.  Over and over again.

As soon as the details of these crimes began to become clear to the public, the response of our public sector was to protect Muslims and Islam.  The girls are irrelevant in comparison.  Despite the overwhelming evidence that this particular crime was carried out by Muslims, police and public sector chiefs continue to prioritise the reputation of Muslims.  Police go to great lengths to make sure we don’t even consider that Islam may be part of the problem (despite the fact that its scripture condones the rape of non-Muslim women).

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre also prioritises Muslims rather than get to the heart of the actual issue.  “Child sexual exploitation is not confined to one community, age demographic, social status or gender” they said.

Think about it for a moment, we have been told that 1,000s of girls are being raped by Muslim men, it was covered up for decades by police, and yet, when it is uncovered, what is the priority of child protection?  To make sure we don’t blame Muslims.  British people need to understand the significance of that.

We also must understand the significance of the police reaction.  According to the Guardian:

Detective Chief Superintendent Mary Doyle, of Greater Manchester police, said: “As long as there are adults willing to abuse vulnerable children and other adults, it will continue.” On the issue of race, she said it was about vulnerability, not ethnicity. “I think if we start to get ourselves hung up on race and ethnicity issues, we take away the real issues,” she said.

Real issues?  The targeting of white girls by gangs comprised exclusively of Muslim men isn’t a real issue?

It is, but that is covered up because the rapists are more important than the victims.

The Rochdale trial eventually came to an end and the rapists were given short sentences to once again reflect how unimportant British girls are in Britain.  There is little point telling you what the sentences were, because they weren’t served.  They rarely are.  They ranged from 4 to 19 years in prison, but needless to say, not only are many of them already back on our streets, but they victims have to see them there, and the government doesn’t appear to give a damn – despite the hard-hitting rhetoric from Priti Patel and others.

The “Deportations”

It’s May 2020 and a woman is walking through a supermarket in Greater Manchester.  Who does she bump in to?  Adil Khan, who had raped her as a child.  He was sentenced to jail but only served a few years, and now he is back to his life, back to the streets of Rochdale.  He is free.  She will never be free.  This is because she is British and in Britain, that means her rights and needs are at the very very bottom of a very tall ladder.

In 2017, Home Secretary Theresa May stripped the rapists of their British citizenship, and they subsequently lost their appeals against this ruling.  Shabir Ahmed argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because the jury was “all white”.  It didn’t work (nobody would have been surprised if it had), and he is due to be deported on his release.

But for now, three men, Adil Khan, Abdul Aziz, and Qari Abdul Rauf, have all been released from prison, and all stripped of their citizenship.  And yet they’re still here, still free to torment their victims.

Theresa May ordered their deportation, they appealed, lost the appeal, but as reported by the Independent in 2020, they remain in the UK regardless.

Nobody seems to know quite why they are still here.. and Hearts of Oak intends to pursue the matter through the courts.  I wish them well.

To conclude, I will tell you why these men remain in Britain.  It’s the same reason that I have been repeating throughout this column; because they matter, and the native British don’t.

The Assault on the British 

Imagine a mother with two children.  She treats the children very differently.  One of them gets anything he demands, his needs are always paramount – regardless of how unreasonable they may be.

No matter what this child does, he is rewarded.  This child routinely and frequently uses violence against the other child, and when he does, he is rewarded and the victimised child blamed for provoking his own assault.  This continues year on year on year.

What messages is that mother sending to her children, and what messages do they receive?

The wayward child who is constantly indulged is told to continue with his destructive behaviour and he will continue to be rewarded for it.  There is never any punishment for his wrong-doing, he has a place of privilege and is untouchable.  The result will be that his behaviour gets worse and worse, and his victim (the other child) will suffer more and more.

And what of this other child?  What message does he receive?  That he is worthless.  Nothing more.  A mother who watches her child abused and beaten and does nothing but blame them for it, is a mother who has told her child that he means nothing to her.

A hierarchy has been established, the mother, as the authority figure, has determined the status of the children; one is so important that no matter what he does, he is not blamed.  The other is so low, and so unimportant, that they are not even deserving of basic justice, protection, or consideration.

Both children have had this communicated to them repeatedly.  What happens is only to be expected; the bullying child continues to bully without consequence, the bullied child learns not to fight back because they believe they are worthless and deserving of this punishment.

Now, consider the British government as the mother.  The ill-behaved child represents Muslims (or another protected minority group such as ‘trans activists’) and the bullied child symbolises the native British population.

This analogy is entirely and completely appropriate.  British people seem always to be the least important party in any given situation, even when they are children and victims of rape.

That is the reason these rapists are still here, simply because they are more important than their victims.  They are more important than their victims because their victims are native British.

That’s the world we now live in.  We either accept this, or we don’t.

I do not accept it, and I will fight for my entire life against the injustice of it.

Rape victims matter, including British ones.

We must now send our own message right back to the governments that have betrayed us so spectacularly; we have awoken, we know the truth, and we won’t stand for it for much longer.

The fightback has started.  Be a part of it.

Text ‘Join’ to 60777


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

Text ‘Join’ to 60777

Climate Change: The Hot Air over Carbon Dioxide


August 7th 2020


We have been trained to think of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Use of the phrase ‘carbon pollution’ has become standard, by both politicians and the media. Often, ‘carbon’ is used interchangeably with ‘carbon dioxide’ in order to link the two and implant the idea that this clear, odourless gas, an essential component of the Earth’s atmosphere and the airborne food of plants, is somehow dirty and corrupting.

It’s true that there are real problems with our air quality, particularly in cities. This is to do with ‘particulates’ – tiny particles of solid or liquid matter which are suspended in the air and which can be inhaled. These are known to be dangerous to our health, and are linked to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and various respiratory diseases. But CO2 is not one of these. Obama tried to blame his daughter’s asthma on CO2, but this was absolute nonsense.

The Mainstream Argument

To be frank, I don’t understand the mainstream argument for carbon dioxide driving temperature change and ‘global warming’. This could be because I’m just not very bright. Or perhaps it’s because it doesn’t make sense. It seems to centre around the following idea: that CO2 is a component in the ‘greenhouse effect’, which helps warm our planet by trapping infrared radiation from the sun that has bounced off the Earth and is heading back out into space. The argument also seems to involve some kind of positive feedback, whereby CO2 amplifies the warming effect of water vapour, the main greenhouse gas.

Here is an edifying quote (!) from The Guardian (28 Jan 2011): ‘This is an example of a positive feedback loop: humans release CO2, which causes warming, which boosts evaporation, which in turn amplifies the warming’. This is ‘driving the observed change in temperatures’.

There are so many problems with this argument, it seems to me. One: we’re not actually warming – there has been no rise in the average global temperature since the late 1990s. Two: CO2 is just a tiny fraction of greenhouse gas; along with methane, nitrous oxide and others, it forms just a few percent, the rest being water vapour (clouds) – over which we have no control whatsoever. Three: CO2 levels are low – yes, low. Current levels are around 400 parts per million (PPM). Over the course of the Earth’s history, CO2 has tended to be in the thousands rather than the hundreds of PPM. If CO2 is so dangerous, and drives increases in temperature, how come the Earth hasn’t boiled like a pot again and again throughout its history?

Another point which is seldom raised is that human activity is only responsible for a small part of the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2. Most is the result of natural processes. We could turn our world upside down in the effort to cut CO2 emissions without making a significant difference.

It’s worth noting, too, that the rhetoric used to be all about CO2 driving ‘global warming’. We don’t hear that phrase so much nowadays… Given the embarrassing lack of warming and the stubborn refusal of the Earth to follow the predictive models, ‘climate change’ has replaced ‘global warming’ as the expression of choice (ignoring the fact that ‘climate’, by definition, is about change; the climate, of course, never stands still…). Recently, the attention has shifted to ‘extreme weather’ events, as the alarmists hope to pass those off as our fault, too. The inconvenient truth that extreme weather events have actually been in decline (as explained so well by Paul Burgess; please see his video on this) isn’t mentioned.

It’s my suspicion that climate alarmists are hoping that most of us won’t educate ourselves on this – that we’ll just take the scary headlines at face value. This is what I did for decades: I just assumed the work had been done by people much cleverer than me and that their conclusions could be trusted.

The Making of a Myth

So where did the idea of CO2 being bad come from?

It seems that the story of the demonising of CO2 started with a scientist called Roger Revelle, who was Professor of Science and Public Policy at the University of California San Diego. During the 1950s, Revelle came up with the idea that increases in atmospheric CO2 might be linked to human activity – the burning of fossil fuels – and that this in turn might be contributing to temperature change. One of Revelle’s students (though not a particularly gifted one), Al Gore, took up the idea and ran with it… passing his enthusiasm for the idea on to Congress. Before long the funding was rolling in and a movement was born. A Canadian called Maurice Strong, who worked at the UN, took the idea there, and the alarm began spreading around the world. In 1988, the UN created the IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – on which governments have relied for information and guidance on the subject ever since.

Meanwhile, Dr Revelle was having second thoughts. By now, he had retired. A cynic might say he no longer needed to pull in or justify funding. It does appear that he was genuinely concerned about how seriously his idea was being taken and the consequences of this for the world. In 1988, he wrote twice to Congress, advising caution: ‘My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important… we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm…’

Three years later, Revelle wrote an article for Cosmos magazine with colleagues Fred Singer and Chauncey Starr. In it, he urged scientists and governments to be cautious about trying to curb CO2 emissions, given the lack of knowledge about the effects of this and the potential negative impacts of doing so. I have read this article, and it really does read like someone trying to undo a mistake, whilst trying to save face at the same time.

Needless to say, Revelle’s attempts to undo the harm he’d done and put the brakes on were in vain. His D-grade student Al Gore, for one, was not listening.

Is Carbon Dioxide Good for the Planet?

William Happer, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University, is a world expert in carbon dioxide. He has spent decades researching the molecule. I’m inclined to pay more attention to what he says about it than, for example, Greta.

Professor Happer exudes enthusiasm about carbon dioxide. He explains that, as far as life on Earth is concerned, and the health of plant life in particular, the more the better. Rising CO2 levels do not threaten human life: on space flights, for instance, the upper limit is set at 7,000 PPM. In plants, growth occurs in direct correlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is why commercial growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses. Furthermore, plants require less water when CO2 levels are higher. Crop yields have been increasing in some parts of the world by up to 25% because of the rising levels. If you put ‘NASA Greening’ into your search engine, you should see pictures of areas of the world that are starting to become green, having previously been desert; it is estimated that around 80% of this new growth is down to rising CO2.

I learned something completely new, and crucially important, listening to Professor Happer: that CO2 follows the ‘logarithmic dependence scale’ in its behaviour as a warming gas. In layman’s terms, this is effectively the law of diminishing returns. The impact of carbon dioxide is not linear: it’s not a question of the more there is, the more warming occurs. Instead, there’s a natural levelling out, or saturation, effect. Going forward, the values will have to double to achieve the same effect. If we assume, say, we’d get 1 degree C of warming if CO2 doubled from 400 PPM to 800 PPM, it would need to double again, to 1600 PPM, to get the next 1 degree of warming… And so on. In short, there would need to be a truly dramatic increase in CO2 from now on to generate any discernible warming.

You have to wonder at human perversity: environmentalism is focussed obsessively on reducing ‘carbon pollution’, yet you could make a convincing case that the one good thing humans are doing for the planet is helping raise CO2 levels. Alarmists such as Extinction Rebellion want to get CO2 levels down to pre-industrial levels – i.e., around 280 PPM. Below 150 PPM, all plant life dies. Meanwhile, we are distracted from the serious environmental issues of plastic pollution, habitat loss, the quality of our air, the oceans, species decline, and the obscene quantity of waste we generate year after year.

Perhaps most concerning, however, is what the status of environmentalism will be, when the scale of the lie finally comes to the public’s attention.



For Britain activist 


State of the Economy: Rising Unemployment

Anne Marie Waters

Tuesday August 4th 2020


The word that takes centre stage this week is unemployment.  Big names are laying off staff in increasingly worrying numbers, and we are still in the midst of the government’s furlough scheme.  The state footing the staff bill for business will come to an end soon, and then the real unemployment figures will hit.

In the meantime though, Pizza Express has announced it is considering the closure of 67 of its outlets, resulting in the loss of over a thousand jobs.  According to the BBC:

All its UK outlets had been closed since lockdown began on 23 March. They began reopening in July when lockdown rules were eased.

Pizza Express said in Tuesday’s statement that customer demand had been “encouraging” at the restaurants which had reopened and that plans for further re-openings were well underway.

The company said restructuring the business would put it on a stronger financial footing in the new socially distanced environment.

If all 67 outlets are closed, that would mean the loss of 15% of its restaurants, but it said the final outcome was yet to be decided.

There is equally bad news in the electronics retail sector as Dixons Carphone stated it was cutting around 800 jobs.  Chief operating officer Mark Allsop said: “We’ll do everything possible to look after those colleagues we can’t find new roles for, financially and otherwise.”

The company has a staff of 24,000 and has reported that online sales were helping to make up for the two-thirds of sales it lost during the coronavirus lockdown.

At the other end of the scale, big business is similarly suffering.  Oil giant BP has reported a $6.7 billion quarterly loss and reduced its dividends – again as a result of the coronavirus.  The BBC reports:

The dividend news is another blow for pension funds and private investors who have seen a string of firms cut or halt payouts.

The loss was largely due to BP writing down the value of its assets after it cut its oil price forecasts.

BP said the outlook for oil prices and demand was “challenging and uncertain”.

It also warned that the pandemic could weigh on the global economy for a “sustained period”.

In the short-term, BP said it expected demand for oil could be up to nine million barrels per day lower compared to last year.

It has already announced it will cut 10,000 jobs, with as many as 2,000 set to be lost in the UK.

Finally, the tourism industry continues to take its blows.  Hays Travel, which bought Thomas Cook and has a staff of around 4,500, has also announced staffing cuts.  Now the company says it will lose up to 878 jobs.  A statement read “We are devastated that after all of our efforts and the huge investment we’ve made, we now face losing some of our valued employees, through no fault of their own.

Following the decision to ban travel to Spain and the changes in furlough conditions coming at the same time, we have had no choice.”

In July, the UK government imposed a 14 day quarantine for travellers returning from Spain and its islands, having an enormous impact on tourism there.

Overall, the picture is still a bleak one, and getting bleaker. The months ahead will bring more of the same and a coherent government plan for our recovery is desperately needed.


Anne Marie Waters 


For Britain 

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 detra