Total Visits

Wednesday, 23 December 2020


Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats is intending to stand as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Essex.
 “My priorities as Police Commissionership of Essex will be to make Essex Police hunt down and lock up murderers, grooming gangs, rapists, burglars, poachers, vandals, paedophiles, thieves, thugs, fly-tippers and illegal immigrants.
Essex Police will not be permitted either to kneel before Marxists or to hassle ordinary people for making jokes!
Police and Crime Commissioners have replaced the previous largely ineffective and anonymous Police Authorities with a Directly Elected Police Commissioner with the power to hire and fire the Chief Constable and to allocate the Police Force’s budget and to set priority policies.

Our slogan for this election will be 'English Democrats -"MORE POLICE - CATCHING CRIMINALS!"'

"MORE POLICE - CATCHING CRIMINALS! Traditional English Law and Order; Cracking down on real criminals and gangs. Criminals should be afraid, not good citizens!

Zero tolerance for political correctness in Essex policing!

In May 2021 - Vote English Democrats for more and for tougher policing in Essex.

See our policies on:
Relevant parts of the English Democrats’ manifesto are below:

1.6 The English Flag

1.6.1 We call for the compulsory flying of the English flag, the cross of St George, on all state-maintained public buildings in England.

2.11 Policing
2.11.1 Policing is an increasingly difficult job due to changes in our society, which now lacks the social cohesion and shared values that once gave us a mostly peaceful and well-ordered way of life. Our cities have become places where it is impossible to perform traditional communal policing.
2.11.2 English Democrats seek a return to a system of policing which recognises the principle that all citizens are treated equally. In their efforts to prevent crime and catch criminals the police should not be hindered and demoralised by unreasonable ideological constraints.
2.11.3 We should not lose sight of the fact that the basis for the maintenance of law and order in England rests on a firm foundation of active participation by law-abiding citizens. A relationship of trust and co-operation between citizens and police is essential to effective policing and the prevention of crime. With that in mind, it is reasonable to expect that policing should not be oppressive. The aim is a peaceable society in which liberty and justice can flourish.
2.11.4 It is essential that the police force be adequately trained and resourced.
2.11.5 Police forces should be more democratically accountable than at present. This would require the election of Chief Constables or the Police Authorities which appoint them.
2.11.6 English Democrats call for the creation of a scheme enabling businesses to pay for their security staff to train and register as Special Constables, their powers of arrest applying to their place of work and its neighbouring streets.
Such registered security staff would be subject to Police staff performance monitoring and discipline.
2.12 The Legal System
2.12.1 The primary role of a legal system is to provide the means for settling disputes. It should enable those who suffer loss, in the form personal injury, theft, or damage to property, to be properly compensated by the party at fault. Laws, and the penalties for breaking them, should comply with the principles of natural justice. As societies have become more complex, so have their law codes. To a great extent, this is unavoidable.
2.12.2 However, states and their governing elites are extending the reach of law into areas that infringe upon individual liberties. The result is a body of law which is more restrictive and complex than it need be.
Many of the customs and principles of English law are being undermined in the political quest for greater conformity with Continental ideas and practices. Law is being used as a tool for imposing dogma. One of the consequences of these changes is that the police are increasingly being made the enforcers of political doctrine and moving further away from their traditional role of upholding the delicate balance between Order and Liberty.
2.12.3 To obtain justice, citizens must feel able to consult and employ the services of the legal profession. Many people are deterred from this by the procedures and costs of the present legal system. Improvements have been made in recent years but more needs to be done to make the system user friendly and efficient.
2.13.4 The English Democrats favours less law and a simplification of law. There are far too many matters currently covered by the criminal law. There should be a drastic reduction and rationalisation of the number and extent of criminal offences.
2.13.5 We must reform the jury system but not abandon it because the jury provides a democratic check on the legal system. The law is not the property of lawyers; it belongs to the people and should serve their needs.
Our preference is for a return to comprehensible, just and effective law. Given its current chaotic state, the law should be codified.
2.13.6 Once the criminal law has been properly codified, the English Democrats would ensure that the criminal law is vigorously policed and enforced.
2.13.7 Except in an emergency there should be a single annual implementation date for new law. This will help rectify the current muddled situation where no one can be sure, without considerable effort or expense, whether a clause of a new Act has been brought into force or not. Also, some rules, for example the Civil Procedure Rules, are being rewritten so frequently that new editions are being published more than once a month! This lead, not surprisingly, to the shameful situation where no-one, not even the judiciary, can be sure of the current rule in force without first making unreasonable efforts to research the point.
2.13.8 To avoid such excessive complexity developing again, a monitoring system should be devised which ensures that new law is unambiguously comprehensible and properly and efficiently enforceable. This could be a function of a reformed Second Chamber.
2.13.9 The English Democrats respect the right of victims of crime to defend themselves and their property against criminals. The English Democrats would extend the right of self-help. People should be allowed to use simple non-lethal means of self-defence such as pepper sprays, or CS gas sprays. The Government has the right to request the National Standards Authority to prepare reasonable Standards for the preparation of such devices. They may pass a law that requires the manufacturers of such products to follow the national standards. Such devices should be no more harmful than tasers currently used by the Police The police in England seem increasingly unwilling and unable to help our people when attacked or burgled. So, if elected, our Police Commissioner candidates will require their Chief Constables to grant firearms and shotgun licences for personal protection, as well as CS gas and pepper spray items (of the sort commonly available over the counter on the Continent). These will be for the purposes of citizens protecting themselves and their property.
This is in accordance with the actual law. We will direct Police Constables to ignore the unlawful Home Office, politically motivated, guidance to the contrary. The English Democrats respect the rights of citizens who are victims of crime to defend themselves and their property against criminals. The English Democrats regard this as no more than the traditional English right of self-help. Furthermore it will be Force policy that no police officer who is called to a scene of a burglary or other situation where a victim of crime has defended themselves or their property against a criminal or criminals shall be permitted to arrest the victim. If, in breach of this policy a police officer does arrest the victim, then the Chief Constable will be directed to indicate to that officer that their chances of promotion within that constabulary are thereby ended. Any Chief Constable instructed as above who does not comply with our Police Commissioner’s instructions shall be forthwith dismissed by our Police Commissioner.
2.13.10 The English Democrats believe that every victim of a criminal offence should have the right to address the court on the question of sentence and for the court to be required to bear the victim's views in mind when passing sentence.
2.13.11 It is not acceptable that 100,000 hardened criminals commit over half of all crime in the U.K. Once a criminal is identified as beyond effective rehabilitation he or she must be kept out of the community until no longer a risk.
2.13.12 Prisons should be designed and equipped so that prisoners are not subject to degrading conditions. Prison space should be increased rather than release offenders early, and there should be sufficient prison space to allow the imprisonment of deserving offenders.
3.19 Political Correctness

3.19.1 The English Democrats share the public concerns as to the harm caused to our society by political correctness.

3.19.2 The English Democrats unreservedly condemn this intolerant creed. We reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil. Political correctness is incompatible with a free and democratic society.

3.19.3 One key aspect of political correctness is that a person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, and become focused on the deliberate subversion of English national culture and interests, the denigration of English history and of the English themselves, and the promotion of the objectives of minority pressure groups.

3.19.4 Political correctness is grounded in the capture of state institutions, with official spokespeople, legislative powers and sanctions for breaches of political correctness. It is this capture of state institutions which makes political correctness so oppressive and dangerous. This must end.

3.19.5 The English Democrats will take whatsoever measures are necessary to remove political correctness from both national and local government, including the various quangos and other government bodies funded either directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. These measures will include the following three steps: Firstly, those educational establishments, legal establishments, quangos, departments or other government organisations that are promoting political correctness will be fundamentally reconstituted and/or have their funding withdrawn or, where appropriate and if possible, be closed down. In particular, the so-called Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be closed. Private organisations that promote political correctness will not be awarded government contracts. Secondly, the English Democrats recognise that those institutions that are run by state appointees are the most detached from public opinion and are more likely to become politically correct. The English Democrats will, where practical, ensure that senior public employees, such as police chief constables and senior judges, are democratically approved by the community they serve. This will be achieved either via direct elections or via approval by democratically elected representatives. Many senior public posts will be subject to a maximum occupancy period, for such senior public employees to be accountable to the public will form a part of a bulwark against political correctness. Thirdly, the English Democrats will carry out a review of all laws and regulations, and will amend or, where appropriate and if possible, completely repeal those laws and regulations that foster and promote political correctness.

3.20 St George’s Day

3.20.1 The people of England should be able to celebrate St George’s day as a National Holiday.


"We are in danger of getting virtually nothing, while the EU walks away with everything it asked for"! Professor DAVID BLAKE

This is an article that every patriot should read:-

The EU has outsmarted the UK at every turn

We are in danger of getting virtually nothing, while the EU walks away with everything it asked for

The standard mantra in EU trade negotiations is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Everyone knows this, except apparently British trade negotiators who have accepted the very opposite by acceding to the EU’s sequencing of negotiations.

First was the divorce bill. The UK agreed to pay a £40bn settlement when under international law there was no legal obligation to pay any bill to leave the EU club. But we made this an act of good will. However, there was supposed to be a quid pro quo. In exchange, we would be offered a comprehensive free trade agreement, like the one offered to Canada. It would be even better and include a comprehensive deal on services as well as goods.  It would be Canada Plus Plus Plus.

But the moment we agreed to pay the divorce bill, the EU withdrew the offer of any such deal. It suddenly remembered that the UK is much closer geographically to the EU than Canada and so could not possibly be offered the same terms as Canada. Any excuse will do.

Second was the Withdrawal Agreement’s Irish Protocol.  The EU’s major concern was the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, leaving open the possibility that goods could illegally flood the EU’s precious Single Market from across the border. Only a tiny proportion of EU trade with the UK crosses this border, and Irish and UK customs officers were quietly working on a solution to stop illegal cross-border trade just as they had done with other illegal transactions, like red diesel. But the Irish premier, Leo Varadkar, under instructions from the EU, stopped these talks.

Instead, the EU saw an opportunity to turn its greatest weakness into its greatest strength by weaponising Northern Ireland's troubled history. Preserving ‘peace’ on the island of Ireland became the EU’s most important public objective and so the Northern Irish Protocol was dreamt up. But the real aim was to trap one part of the UK in the EU’s regulatory orbit. And this, in due course, could be used to ensnare the rest of the UK. Martin Selmayr, then secretary-general of the European Commission, freely admitted that the loss of Northern Ireland would be the price of Brexit.

The EU is not interested in peace, it is interested in power:  it thinks nothing about locking up nine Catalan rebel leaders. Theresa May and Olly Robbins went along with all this – in fact they suggested the Protocol ‒ since it was part of a secret agreement they had with Angela Merkel that would make the reality of Brexit so harsh that the UK would be begging to rejoin the EU in due course.

Boris Johnson’s changes to the Withdrawal Agreement did not negate this. Gavin Barwell, May’s chief of staff, has boasted that the PM's Withdrawal Agreement was 95 per cent May’s; the most significant change being the removal of articles keeping Great Britain in the EU Single Market, but at the cost of a border in the Irish Sea between GB and Northern Ireland – thereby threatening the integrity of the UK’s own Single Market.

Having laid the trap that UK negotiators at the time willingly fell into, the EU was all set up for the third stage of the negotiations, the future trading arrangements. What the EU wanted were three things. First, to protect its £100bn trade surplus in goods with the UK. It would allow tariff- and quota-free trade in goods, but only if we agreed to follow all EU rules and any changes in those rules in perpetuity. Again, this was to ‘protect the integrity’ of the EU Single Market from unfair competition. In fact, from any competition, something the protectionist EU does not like - hence, the ‘level playing field’ requirements.  But these are anything but level.

We would have to report any state aid to the EU, but there is no full requirement to reciprocate.  It proposes to impose lightning tariffs on us if it decides we have broken the rules, but we cannot reciprocate. We are EU’s biggest external customer and it has a huge trade surplus with us, but as the EU constantly reminds us – and the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation faithfully reports ‒ it is the UK which is being offered ‘privileged access’ to the EU Single Market. Not once has our side used the evidence that the EU’s huge trade surplus is due to a structurally undervalued euro which allows it to treat us as its dumping ground.

Second, the EU wants to keep its existing access to our fishing waters, something that Edward Heath disgracefully gave away for nothing in the final stages of the negotiations to enter the EU in 1973. The EU has been taking us for a ride for 48 years so why should it stop now. It has spent most of the last year discussing issues that matter only to it ‒ continuing free access to a captive goods market and retaining the bulk of the fish caught in the UK sovereign waters.

The third issue is services where we have a £20bn trade surplus with the EU. It is offering absolutely no deal on services. In particular, it wants to make it very difficult for the UK to sell financial services in the EU. This is part of a French plan to take Europe’s financial services from London to Paris. To achieve this, the EU is refusing to offer either mutual recognition or even equivalence to our financial services. This is in addition to the threat from the European Parliament to stop British planes and lorries entering the EU after 31 December unless the UK agrees to follow EU competition rules.

This then is the trade deal that our negotiators are about to sign up to. Everything is agreed until nothing is agreed. We are in danger of getting virtually nothing, while the EU walks away with everything it asked for. This is what Boris Johnson will try to sell as ‘getting Brexit done’.

David Blake, Professor of Economics, City University of London, and a member of Economists for Free Trade


Sunday, 13 December 2020






It is worth reminding ourselves that 2020 started off with a newly elected Boris Johnson Government enthusiastically making noises that they were a patriotic, libertarian, pro-Brexit Government, that had thrown off the years of Brexit betrayal under the lacklustre (Conservative) Theresa May. 


What a difference a year makes!


2020 has revealed Boris Johnson’s Government as a Government that has planned Lockdown whilst misleading people that they were going to show common-sense.  Instead of following our Constitution and our Parliamentary traditions they have used deceitful tactics to roll out a raft of highly authoritarian, ministerial diktats which have, without any proper parliamentary debate or democratic mandate, stripped away our rights as citizens.  This has all been done under the traditional tyrant’s cry of “Necessity”!


Even Brexit has not been properly honoured.  Instead we have what is little more than Brexit In Name Only (BRINO!).


Also far from controlling mass immigration Boris’ Government has been actively persecuting those who have highlighted illegal immigration on boats coming over from France.  The British Government has then housed 10,000 or more of them, in 3 and 4 star hotels across England!  Far from making any serious attempt to deport them!  The Government has also quietly made it easier for migrants to come here who will inevitably immediately claim our Welfare Benefits.  They have done this by dropping the minimum income requirement on bringing over a spouse. 


The Government is also now demanding the building of 12m houses over English countryside to house all those migrants who have already come here! 


All this at a time when the Government’s incompetent handling of Lockdown has crashed our economy and driven the national debt up far beyond what it was after the Second World War!


Turning from politics to the Law, here the transformation of the British State from an ostensible Liberal Democracy into an openly Police State has been as dramatic as what has happened at the political level, but with even less acknowledgement in our dishonest and deceitful Mainstream Media!


The 23rd March came and went with Boris’ dishonest claim that he was locking down the country when he had no power to do so.  This was superseded by a raft of Regulations brought under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 after Parliament had been brow-beated into passing the Coronavirus Act 2020 on the basis that it was an emergency (although at nearly 370 pages it is obvious that it had been months in the preparation) but without declaring a “State of Emergency”.


The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was also side-lined, as that would have meant that Parliament had some supervisory role over what Ministers were up to. 


Instead the wholly undemocratic and, on all traditional principles, unlawful approach has been of using a 1984 Act which was primarily about controlling diseased goods and individuals coming in through the docks, instead to Lockdown the whole of England (N.B. the British Government does not have direct authority over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and thus avoid parliamentary scrutiny.


In England slowly some Judicial Review challenges started to come forward, the most high profile of which is the Simon Dolan case, which has raised over £400,000 as a fighting fund on their Crowd Justice Appeal.  The English Democrats also issued a Judicial Review. 


Unfortunately the Simon Dolan case only argued that the Regulations were beyond the powers granted in the Act (ultra vires) and that the Regulations were in breach of the rights protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.  In the end the Human Rights Act claims failed entirely.  This was partly because Simon Dolan is a multi-millionaire who lives in Monaco and therefore wasn’t personally affected by the removal of Human Rights in England.


Also it was because the Government has adopted the tactic of regularly changing the Regulations, so that by the time any case gets to court, the Regulations that are being challenged have long since been overtaken by other newer Regulations.  Many of these newer Regulations are remarkably similar to the previous Regulations but not quite identical!  They are thus avoiding judicial scrutiny too!


The Simon Dolan case was allowed to be heard by the Court of Appeal. It failed on the ultra vires point which, on the traditional legal analysis, should not have failed, but the Court of Appeal has produced a Judgment which has endorsed the power of Ministers to make fundamental alterations to citizens’ rights without the need to go to Parliament, based entirely on ministerial diktat. 


This is a Judgment that would not have been out of place in mid-1930’s Germany, at which time German Judges were confirming that the powers granted to the Reich Chancellor under the Enabling Act meant that he could re-write any law and that it was lawful for him to do so. 


It is therefore not inaccurate to say that the Court of Appeal has endorsed a wholly new constitutional understanding of the nature of the British State.  It no longer a Parliamentary Liberal Democracy, but instead a Police State, in the traditional definition of a Police State.


This is particularly true when you couple the Dolan Judgment with the way that the police have actually been behaving on the streets. 


The police have regularly made clear, when they are dealing with any protest that challenges the new order, that they do not care whether what they are doing is legal or illegal.  They say that they are focussed on doing is enforcing the orders that they have been given.  Police Officers have thus shown themselves to no longer be that traditional English idea of the police as Officers of the Law, but instead they are now merely paramilitary state enforcers, as is vividly reflected by the transformation of their uniforms!


Where does that leave those of us who are not happy with the Globalist, International, Multi-culturalist, Europhile, Authoritarian (but fundamentally incompetent) British Political Establishment? 


Well firstly there are still legal challenges going on.  The English Democrats’ Judicial Review challenge was over the original Lockdown Regulations and as the Dolan case was proceeding to hearing in the Court of Appeal, the High Court didn’t give us permission to proceed even though we did have the good additional points of pointing out that what was being done was unconstitutional, which had been missed by Simon Dolan’s lawyers.


Our Party’s National Secretary and Greater Manchester Mayoral Candidate, Stephen Morris, together with other Lockdown sceptic activists have continued the challenge by issuing a further Judicial Review dealing both with the more up to date Regulations and also raising the constitutional arguments.  We need to bring all these arguments to court to give the courts the final chance to redeem themselves and to uphold our constitution.


Given that, since Tony Blair’s Government, you cannot become a judge without having to “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”, it maybe that this will not succeed, but it would be wrong of us not to try to use purely legal means to challenge the authoritarianism of this Government. 


Many people ask me what other options are available for us.  One of the ways in which the Government has been trying to enforce Lockdown is by way of fixed penalties by the police.


If you are not fully observing whatever the current Rules are regarding Lockdown in your area, then they can demand your name and address.  You are required to do so and, if you do not, they can then arrest you. 


I have noticed that there are some people who are falsely claiming that the “Common Law” allows them to refuse to give their name and address.  This is simply nonsense.  What in fact you are triggering is Section 25 of the Police Criminal Evidence Act which gives the police the right to arrest you.  Instead what should be used is Option 2 of the fixed penalty notice, which is to take it to court. 


In 1942 the Kent miners, of the Betteshauger Colliery used this tactic very effectively.


Here is what the Dover Museum website has to say about this:-


“Betteshanger was the only pit to strike during the Second World War. The colliers reason for striking was over allowances for working a difficult seam because the conditions changed from week to week. This resulted in three union officials being imprisoned and over 1000 men being given the option of a fine or hard labour. The authorities were keen to suppress the strike: there was a danger that it could spread to other mines and the Government could not afford such a strike in the middle of a war. All but nine of the miners refused to pay. In the face of having to find prison spaces for 1000 men, the government decided to take no action and released the three imprisoned officials”


Here is a link to their website>>>


It is also worth reminding ourselves about what Ghandi’s tactics on civil disobedience which were outstandingly successful at undermining the greatest Empire that ever existed!  Here is some interesting comments about that:-


“How to Fight Back, the Gandhi Way


Wondering what we can do, now that we’re facing the prospect of being in lockdown in all but name until Easter? Professor Ramesh Thakur, a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and a long-standing sceptic who’s written numerous articles attacking lockdowns, has a suggestion: take a leaf out of Gandhi’s book. As Professor Thakur points out, there is a considerable body of scholarship that shows nonviolent protest – civil disobedience – is more politically effective than violent protest, with the road to Indian independence being a case in point.

But Professor Thakur has a particular form of civil disobedience in mind, one perfected by Gandhi and still used in India to this day. Here’s the gist of it:

‘Jail Bharo Andolan’ is one technique of civil disobedience. It literally means ‘Fill the prisons movement/agitation’. It’s a deliberate, coordinated campaign to subvert a law or regime by courting arrest and imprisonment in numbers that physically clog the courts and overwhelm the prisons. The fact that those imprisoned are normally law-abiding citizens adds greatly to the authorities’ embarrassment…

So to those looking for what you can do: protest peacefully in large numbers, have several rungs of leaders to take the place of any who are arrested, be unfailingly polite and charmingly courteous to police officers and judges, refuse to pay fines in favour of court appearance and trial, and after the court has delivered its verdict go to prison rather than pay fines to overwhelm the prison system until the justice system breaks down.

It requires sacrifice, courage and steadfastness to refuse obedience to the dictates of a discredited and despised government. The dissenters must be prepared to accept the legal consequences, including imprisonment. But if you don’t fight for freedom, get ready to lose it.”


So although the British State may have given itself undemocratic, authoritarian powers over the People of England, but I would say to Boris “who do you think you are kidding Mr Johnson, if you think that old England’s done?” - and we don’t even need a Dad’s Army to fight off this attempt! 


We do however need keen supporters and activists to help us fight in the coming elections in May 2021!