Total Visits

Monday, 22 January 2018

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED



CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED


The Law Society Gazette is the in-house magazine for the Society of England and Wales,which is the professional body for all Solicitors in the English and Welsh jurisdiction. Like all such organisations there is a creeping move towards political correctness and “positive action”towards “diversity”; “multi-culturalism and globalisation”. An example of this appeared recently in the 8thJanuary issue of the Gazette. It was entitled“Racial Disparity in exams by Max Walters”. Here is his article :-



Minority ethnic students lagging behind in LPC success

By Max Walters


White students are more likely to pass their legal exams and law conversion courses than people from an ethnic minority background, data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority has revealed.

According to an SRA report, almost 80% of white students successfully completed their LPC, compared with only 40% of black students and 53% of Asian/Asian British students.

The figures, which cover September 2015 to August 2016, were published on the SRA website at the end of last year.

They appear in the annual ‘Authorisation and Monitoring Report’ which focuses on the success rates for two qualifications – the legal practice course (LPC)and the common professional examination (CPE) – a conversion course for non-law graduates.

It will come as another blow for the profession’s reputation for diversity after barristers’ regulator the Bar Standards Board revealed at the end of last year that black and minority ethnic (BME) students were half as likely as their white counterparts to achieve pupillage.

The figures for CPE candidates were similar to those taking the LPC. Among white students, 74% successfully completed the course, compared with 33% of black students and 46% of Asian students.

The report also reveals a stark gap between success at training institutions.

For the LPC, one provider achieved a pass rate of 100%, compared with 30% at another. CPE completion rates were similar and varied from less than 45% to100%. ?The providers have not been named.

The report also reveals that the University of Hertfordshire has opted to reinstate the LPC this year. The university suspended the course in 2016 in light of forthcoming changes to qualification. The Gazette has contacted the university for comment.

Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/minority-ethnic-students-lagging-behind-in-lpc-success/5064169.article



Here is my letter to the Editor in reply:-


Dear Sir


Your article in the 8th January issue of the Law Society Gazette:-“Racial disparity in exam results” by Max Walters


The statistics which Mr Walters quotes of “disparity” between “Black” and “Asian”Students and “White” Students may not actually “constitute a fresh blow to the profession’s reputation for inclusion”. For that inference to be properly drawn we would have to know whether the LPC “providers” were requiring the same levels of prior academic achievement from prospective students from each of these respective racial groups.



Anecdotally it would appear that the providers are actually not requiring the same level of academic achievement from each of the racial groups. Instead the providers appear to be offering course places at least partly on the basis of politically correct “positive discrimination”.



In other reports it also appears that “Asian” were 22% and “Black” were 9% of the total candidates. This is well over the percentage of these racial groups compared with their percentages of the population as per the 2011 Census. These percentages mean that even given their lower pass rates more Asian and Black candidates are becoming solicitors than these racial groups proportion of the population of England. It is actually English candidates who are underrepresented (so much for “White Privilege”?).



This supports the idea that “positive discrimination” is occurring which confirms that the “providers” are probably giving places to “Asian” and “Black” students who have not previously done as well academically as the “White”students. It may therefore be the reported results are hardly surprising. Law exams are testing knowledge of what is objectivity true. Hence, it was always improbable that racial discrimination came into the picture.



The disturbing implication of Mr Walters’ article is that he may be implying the academic standards for the LPC should be lowered. If this is his intention then the impact on the basic purpose of open examinations and of Professional regulation (which is to create a profession able to maintain and guarantee high professional standards of service to the public) would be sacrificed on the altar of politically correct “diversity” targets!

Yours sincerely


Robin Tilbrook

Solicitor& Chairman of the English Democrats



What do you think?

Wednesday, 17 January 2018

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER


LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

In the best Blairite traditions, the EU Remainiac, Dan Jarvis, who ironically is the MP for the strongly Leave constituency, Barnsley Central, got his debate on Yorkshire devolution last Wednesday afternoon in the Westminster Hall annex to Parliament.  Here is a link to the record of that debate from Hansard >>>

It is lucky for Dan Jarvis that the debate took place in Westminster Hall rather than on the floor of the House of Commons, as then he might be in trouble for misleading the House of Commons. 

In the debate he said:-

“Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 

The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.

It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us”

“My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.”

“Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?”

“They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored”

“I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire.”

Mr Jarvis is referring not to a “democratic” vote, like a referendum or an election, but to what would normally be called a consultation.  (Here is a link to a report on this >>>http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-12-21/barnsley-and-doncaster-voters-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-one-yorkshire-devolution-plan/).  This consultation only offered two options, neither of which were very attractive to any patriots.  The options were a South Yorkshire Region, based around Sheffield, or alternatively a “One Yorkshire” Region.

Since the last thing that Barnsley and Doncaster people want is to be dominated politically by Sheffield it is not surprising that many of them voted for their county to be the devolved body. 

Even so out of a total electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber region of 3,835.075 only 41,952 “votes” have now been made for “One Yorkshire” devolution. 

In Barnsley, 40,280 residents took part in the “community poll” - that's 22.4% of the electorate. Of those, 34,015 (84.9%) chose “One Yorkshire”, while 6,064 (15.1%) opted for Sheffield City Region.

Meanwhile in Doncaster, 45,470 residents voted - a turnout of 20.1%. Of those, 38,551 (84.7%) came out in favour of “One Yorkshire”, with only 6,685 (14.7%) preferring “Sheffield City Region”.

For Mr Jarvis to talk about 85% as if that was of the whole electorate and to make remarks about democracy, can only be sensibly described as disingenuous and deceitful.  The total number of people who participated in the consultation was only 85,750, the total number people who voted for “One Yorkshire” devolution was 72,566.  That is not only less than 85% of the consultations but also is just over 1% of the electorate of Yorkshire and Humberside!

It is also interesting, when considering Dan Jarvis’ deviousness and disingenuousness, to pick up the way he jumps from talking about the county of Yorkshire, which even so is not all the historic county of Yorkshire to “Yorkshire and the Humber”.  Yorkshire and the Humber is of course the name of the EU “Region” which includes North Lincolnshire, but does not include, for example, Middlesbrough. 

In doing this he, of course, gives his game away.  He as discussed in the previous article on this blog, is not a patriot or even a Yorkshire nationalist but is a “Europeanist” or Europhile who is looking at ways to try to break up the integrity of not only the UK, but also England, in continuing to push for Regionalisation, as per the EU’s Regionalisation project. 

Mr Jarvis not only has no care for our Nation in pursuing this project, but also he would appear not to even care for his own constituents in Barnsley Central, since if England was in fact effectively Regionalised there would be every chance that the politicians of each “Region” would be wanting to hang onto all the tax take of their “Region” and this would be very likely to mean that there would be a dramatic reduction in the Government subsidy to people in Yorkshire. 

Again Mr Jarvis is deceitful in his use of the statistics as to what way Yorkshire stands on the level of subsidy, since he quotes a comparison to UK subsidies and thus the vastly inflated subsidies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett Formula rather than looking at the average level of Government spending across England only.

The other thing about Mr Jarvis’ focus on devolution for Yorkshire and Humber is that he and his other “Europeanists” do not seem to have learnt from the fiasco of their attempt to try and entrench Regional Assemblies in “Yorkshire” and in the “North East”.  It was the very fact that the proposed regionalisation for Yorkshire was not the traditional county but instead the EU Region of Yorkshire and the Humber which led to the proposal for Yorkshire and the Humber being so unpopular that John Prescott did not even try to have a referendum there, but instead went for the only “Region” where he thought he had any chance, which was the “North East”.  Even then his proposal utterly flopped at the ballot box - getting only 29% support!

As it says in Proverbs, Chapter 26, Verse 11:- “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly”.  So can we say to devious Dan “Ay up lad! Sup up!?”

Here are all the comments which Mr Jarvis said in the debate which I found to be “interesting”. 

What do you think? 

Here they are the extracts from his comments:-  All of us here have a responsibility to work co-operatively together to best serve the interests of our region. 

A constructive way forward for a future devolved settlement for Yorkshire
people of Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 

The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.

It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us.

The status quo is not delivering. People are disillusioned, and they have a right to feel that way.

Not only do the people of Yorkshire receive an income that is 80% of the national average, but they also receive £300 per head less in terms of public spending, 

Secretary of the State to send the strongest signal of intent to the north of England that they are listening to what people are saying, and are prepared to make decisions that best serve those people’s interests.

This Friday in York, the coalition of the willing—leaders from across our area—will meet to reaffirm their support for the wider Yorkshire proposal.

I do understand why people in our region are disillusioned and angry.

We need a new economic and political settlement that involves genuine devolution of political and economic power that will spread prosperity and opportunity to towns and counties of all regions.

The solution must be as ambitious as the challenge is profound. That is why I believe that a wider Yorkshire deal is the way forward. By working together across the whole of our county and, like in the west midlands, not being confined to just one city, we would have the collective clout and the brand reputation to co-operate and compete not only with other parts of the UK, but with other parts of the world.

My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.

Could not have agreed more. Both nationally and internationally, a single Mayor would provide the single voice required to unlock the much-needed new investment. That is critically required in areas such as our transport system.

A wider Yorkshire combined authority directing investment decisions and using its purchasing power to negotiate

Devolution is about more than just transport infrastructure. It is about accessing funding for skills and training, building affordable homes, and preserving our unique culture, countryside and heritage by working together, harnessing our talents, combining our energies and maximising our influence, all of which is in reach.

The sense of place, community and belonging that comes from identifying with Yorkshire is, in many ways, our greatest asset. 

That will take more time, so first we need an interim solution not only to preserve the goal of a wider Yorkshire deal,

Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?

They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored, not least because the Secretary of State was right when he told the Local Government Association that the driving force behind devolution is the desire to bring decision making to a more local level. 

This is not a political argument, in the sense that there is cross-party support.

As part of the coalition of the willing, some people have said to me that we should press for a wider Yorkshire settlement earlier than 2020,

I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire. It means something to them, and it means something to us. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place an arrangement that could be really meaningful for the people we represent, and I very much hope that we will not miss out.

Where there is political will to make changes, it should be entirely possible to do so".

Tuesday, 9 January 2018

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK




Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK (& England!)
 
Many thanks to the Campaign for an English Parliament for this intel:-

"Many initial responses to hearing that there is a Yorkshire independence movement and a Yorkshire Party is to pour scorn on the idea as being fiscally irresponsible or plainly unworkable. This is because it is obvious that without the British government’s subsidies Yorkshire Services wouldn't function properly.

However, to simply dismiss these two organisations that have the same Liberal Democrat leadership is to underestimate the manipulation and the devious actions of the EU in supporting a new sounding name for the old EU Regionalisation project for Britain and for England. http://www.e-f-a.org/about-us/

First it is important for any patriots to realise that the EU is supporting the Yorkshire Party as it belongs to an EU umbrella organisation, called the European Free Alliance (EFA). That EU organisation gathers together 45 “Progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomist” parties throughout Europe. This grouping can only be conceived as an EU attempt to break-up and digest those nations that the regionalist organisations work within. This is because the EU supports the Regionalisation agenda because it makes resistance to their EU federalism agenda difficult if the nation state is fighting on two fronts. (the EU commission and EU supporting regionalist voices within).

The structure in Catalonia and Spain is a good example showing how devious the EU truly is:- The EU has openly distanced itself from those Catalonian parties that have called for full independence but it fails to mention that some of these parties are also included in their EU, European Free Alliance organisation. In effect, they are funded encouraging Regionalisation behind the scenes but are publicly slapping down independence. That is because the regionalist within the nation state is an EU regionalist patsy!

Once you accept that Regionalisation is all about pushing the EU Federalist agenda then you realise that The Yorkshire Party is not about benefiting the people of Yorkshire but about promoting EU federalism. This makes the Yorkshire party dangerous because it is about creating internal divisions and arguments within England and the UK whilst the British Government are engaged in full Brexit negotiations.

The British Government is weakened by the Regionalist pro-EU parties of the SNP and Plaid Cymru but now the EUs promoting a Regionalist political party within England that is for continuing to stay in the EU.
http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/europe, http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/sign_our_petition_support_the_rights_of_eu_citizens_in_yorkshire

This is not new and any person should be able to see the 4 EU stages that have and are being attempted to create destabilise the UK:-

(1) Under the Blair Labour government the EU promoted regionalisation of the UK and of England but the idea failed to gain any momentum in England and they lost at the ballot box in the North East of England. (You only need to look at the EU zealot, Tony Blair's current EU stance to realise what his regionalist agenda was not about better governance. It was about destabilising the UK for EU advantage by creating a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament, and a Northern Irish Assembly and English Regional Assembly*). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance#Full_members

(2) Thus with Tony Blair’s help the EU had been successful in creating an unbalanced constitutional situation. Having created Regional Parliaments that could challenge the British government, the EU began to focus more on England. They started to support the term 'Localism' which really meant Regionalisation of England. If you break England up into EU Regions then you really have created an internal political and constitutional crisis for the UK.

Initially, it was Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists getting far more pro-EU media exposure than the actual support for their party would have commanded and now it's the turn of the Yorkshire Party to be promoted. http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15787239.Councillors_vote_to_back_devolution_move/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-leeds-42427906 ;

(3) Now we need to look forward to 2018, having helped establish the idea that Yorkshire can stand alone as a Region within the EU, they could allow the Yorkshire party to push for their own parliament with more fiscal autonomy and claim that Yorkshire doesn't have any connection with the south of England and that the British Government has no more right to speak for them than for Scotland. http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk

(4) Then Yorkshire Party will demand the same powers as Scotland and it's own independence referendum which states it wants to remain in the EU!
https://en-gb.facebook.com/voteyorkshire/

To fully corroborate the Regionalist agenda it is worth noting that the Leader of the Yorkshire Party, Stewart Arnold, was previously a liberal Democrat Councillor and Parliamentary candidate and he also worked as a Policy and Communications Director for the European Parliament between 2001 -2012. Mr Arnold was involved in establishing the “Yorkshire Independence Movement” and is its Vice Chairman as well as becoming the Yorkshire Party’s as its leader. Also added to this is Nigel Sollitt’s comments as, The Yorkshire Independence Movement’s Chairman, states that their aim is:- 'a Yorkshire empowered to make her own decisions and determine her own destiny'. https://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/current-executive-committee.html

In conclusion, by not discouraging Regionalism, the British government is sleepwalking into the same problems that Spain now has with Catalonia but with the major difference being that the British government is about to start negotiations to leave the EU, Spain isn't. The Spanish Government must therefore seem as an enemy of the EU whereas the British Government is.

Regionalisation is a process that the EU uses to promote its Federalist policy, if English Regionalism is encouraged then “dissolution” of the UK will occur. This puts the EU Regionalist party, Yorkshire party in direct opposition to the British government and the British State itself as well as in opposition to the continuance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!"



Friday, 5 January 2018

VISITING No. 10 - THE BRITISH STATE’S POWER-HOUSE



VISITING THE BRITISH STATE’S POWER-HOUSE



My wife and I were lucky enough to be invited to a private tour of 10 Downing Street. It turned out to be a very interesting visit.



Although of course I am interested in politics and history and, in particular, anything that relates to England, I have never really thought about wanting to go to see around 10 Downing Street. That might be lack of imagination on my part. From the front door it looks very much like the sort of 18th Century house that you can see in many of the more expensive parts of Central London.



It may also be that I am old enough to have often walked through Downing Street before it was cordoned off by a ring of steel security fences and armed police. I also delivered a 25,000 signature petition calling for an English Parliament to door of 10 Downing Street on the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union. I therefore thought that it was a nice, fairly grand Georgian terraced Townhouse. One of the things that was interesting was to find that that wasn’t really true.



Although at the front it looks like it is, the fact is that there is a very substantial house behind that façade, with a sizeable high-walled garden set out in such a way to make you feel the impression of a very spacious garden. Indeed if you are on the terrace of No. 10 looking out over the garden you also are going to be able to look out over St James’ Park and it seems like you are almost in a parklike setting.



The other thing about No. 10 is that there are a series of very nice and very grand rooms which would be worth visiting even it was simply a National Trust country house.



But what makes No. 10 particularly interesting is the fact that it has been the power-house of British politics ever since the idea of a Prime or First Minister came into existence under Sir Robert Walpole whose portrait hangs in many of the rooms.



What this means is that in going around No. 10 Downing Street you are in the very space occupied by some of the most famous political figures in British history, almost ever since the Act of Union in 1707 itself.



So by having the opportunity to sit in the Prime Minister’s chair in the Cabinet Room, I wasn’t only sitting in the chair given by Queen Victoria to Disraeli and which has been occupied by every Prime Minister since, but I was also, for example, in the space where William Pitt the Younger was sitting when he got the news that Nelson had destroyed the French and Spanish fleets off Cape Trafalgar!

Tuesday, 2 January 2018

THERESA MAY AND HER “CONSERVATIVE” GOVERNMENT APPEASES ISLAMISTS – AGAIN!


THERESA MAY AND HER “CONSERVATIVE” GOVERNMENT APPEASES ISLAMISTS – AGAIN!


Just before Christmas we had the revolting spectacle of the British State’s name being misused in the UN to back a resolution led by various Islamic states attacking both Israel and the United States over the movement of the US Embassy from Israel’s old capital Tel Aviv to its current capital Jerusalem.

The capital of Israel has legally been Jerusalem since 1980 and is where its Parliament, the Knesset, and its Government’s ministries etc. are all to be found. Jerusalem was captured by the Israelis in 1967, i.e. longer ago than many of the UN “Nations” have existed.

You might think that any sensible Western Government would long since have recognised that fact and had their embassies in Jerusalem. You would of course be right that any sensible Western Government would have done so! In fact, of course, there are all too few sensible Western Governments.

The main policy of Theresa May’s Government, so far as I can see on almost all levels is appeasement (appeasement of Remainers, appeasement of the EU, appeasement of Islamists etc. etc.).

In this case appeasement of the strong brand of anti-Semitism which is deeply imbedded into Islam dating back to the Hadith’s of Muhammad’s attacks and atrocities against Jews.

In appeasing Muslim opinion in this way Theresa May’s Government may have badly damaged our Nation’s diplomatic interests in maintaining both good relations with Israel and the United States of America.

Melanie Phillips has written a very good article in the Daily Mail, albeit more from her Zionist point of view than from the point of view of the interests of our Nation.

Here is her article:-

The UN theatre of hatred


"Many people are understandably baffled by the recent UN vote condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Since such a vote has zero practical effect, they ask, what was the point of it?

Well indeed. As the American ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in her barnstorming response, America will still be moving its embassy to Jerusalem regardless of the UN’s opinion.

The resolution didn’t need to have any practical import. It was merely part of the UN’s theatre of hatred, the malevolent campaign it has waged for decades against Israel and Israel alone as a result of the preponderance of tyrannies, dictatorships, kleptocracies and genocidal antisemitic regimes that make up what’s called called the UN’s “non-aligned block” and which are united in their desire that Israel should be wiped off the map.

So egregious is this hypocrisy in singling out Israel, the sole democracy and upholder of human rights in the region while ignoring the brutal and murderous record of those tyrannies, dictatorships, kleptocracies and genocidal antisemitic regimes, that even a CNN correspondent has been moved to call this out. Jake Tapper tweeted: “Among the 128 countries that voted in favor of the UN resolution condemning the US decision to move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem were “some countries with some rather questionable records of their own”.

You don’t say. The shocking thing is that so many democratic nations voted alongside these tyrannies: nations such as Germany, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, most disappointingly India and, most sickening (to me, anyway), the UK.

Britain, the historic cradle of liberty and democracy and which once fought to defend freedom, has now made common cause with China, Iran, Libya, North Korea and Russia in their joint aim of denying the right of the Jewish people to declare, in accordance with law and history, the capital city of their own country, a right the UK and these other states would deny to no other people or state. What a disgrace.

What on earth did the UN think it was doing? What does Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May think she’s doing? Does nobody in the British government have a clue about upholding international law or sovereignty? For the real point about this UN vote was that, on this occasion, the principal target wasn’t actually Israel. It was America, and its sovereign right to govern itself. The UN was telling the United States it was not entitled to conduct its own foreign policy in the way it thinks fit.

As Brook Goldstein of the Lawfare Project has observed, this contravenes the UN’s own charter:

“Article 2(7) of the UN Charter is crystal clear: ‘Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.’ Today’s General Assembly resolution is therefore extralegal and transparently political.

“The UN was built on the principle of respect for the sovereignty of member states (known legally as complementarity), with full awareness that independent nations of the world must make policy decisions in the best interests of their domestic constituencies. The moment the institution begins to attack that very sovereignty is the moment the UN loses all credibility, authority and international deference.”

That’s why most significant part of Nikki Haley’s response was where she said this:

“The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

For decades, the UN’s malicious double standard in repeatedly singling out Israel for condemnation has constituted the negation of its foundational ideals of global justice and peace. The UN has become instead the world’s principal engine of institutionalised Jew-hatred. Now it has crossed another line altogether. The Jerusalem vote could just be the point at which a US President finally decides that America’s tolerance towards the malign global incubus that the UN has become is now at an end.”


The original can be found here >>> The UN theatre of hatred | MelaniePhillips.com

http://www.melaniephillips.com/un-theatre-hatred/


What do you think?






Sunday, 24 December 2017

ANTI-ENGLISHNESS IN THE JEWISH LOBBY?




ANTI-ENGLISHNESS IN THE JEWISH LOBBY?

Earlier this year one of our activists, who was thinking of standing in the General Election in the Bradford area, and who not unreasonably thought that West Yorkshire's Jews might feel particularly beleaguered in Bradford, approached the Jewish community leaders to see whether there might be common ground.  The story is best told in her own words:-


  1. I met on Sunday 4th June at Starbuck’s in Bradford Centenary Square, with Laurence Saffer, (pictured above) President of Leeds Jewish Representative Council (part of the Board of Deputies of British Jews), Rabbi Rudi Levi, Chairman of the Bradford Synagogue, and a lady whose name I cannot recollect.

  1. I was surprised to find that three people had come to meet me as I thought I was just meeting Laurence Saffer believing him to be the Rabbi of the Bradford Synagogue.

  1. We began by introducing ourselves and I explained my background and why I was keen to hopefully establish links between our organisations.

  1. Laurence Saffer explained that they have a policy of not working with extremist groups such as the BNP and National Front, but that they do invite guests from other political parties to speak at various conferences and events; and provide support for candidates standing in elections.

  1. I found this reassuring and then was completely taken aback when the tone of the conversation began to change. Laurence Saffer drew a copy of our manifesto from his briefcase, slapping it down on the table, and stated that he could not possibly sell me or my party to the Board of Deputy of British Jews, based on what he had read, as he felt that I was a racist and I belonged to a racist party. (This section of the manifesto is intended to make clear the rights of the English Nation to our historic culture in our country by giving primacy to our indigenous English culture in England as opposed to the multi-culturalist idea that English culture and our Society’s integrity must give way to the interests of a "diversity" non-English communities).

  1. Obviously, I responded with a firm rebuttal of his claims and Rabbi Rudi Levi was a little more conciliatory – he was an elderly gentleman who seemed to be more approachable.

  1. He asked our views on shechita slaughter and labelling of foods where I mentioned the findings of the FAWC Report several years ago, and that I felt there was a need to debate the issue of pre-stunning of animals before slaughter and the need for more transparent labelling. I also mentioned the fact that some Muslims in Australia and in parts of Europe had developed a form of pre-stunning which complied with their religious beliefs and that perhaps this was something both the Muslim and Jewish communities could think of adopting.

  1. We all agreed that a person’s motivation for questioning these religious practices was important and I stressed that, for my part at least, it came purely from an ethical perspective regarding animal welfare.

  1. I was asked further about our position regarding circumcision and other Jewish religious beliefs and assured them that there was no problem regarding these matters and that they had nothing to fear from us.

  1. Laurence Saffer, however, became increasingly condescending and belligerent pointing repeatedly at several clauses in the party manifesto which he claimed he had real issues over and had highlighted with asterisks.

  1. He physically pointed to clause 3.15.13.2 and other clauses he had marked with an asterisk regarding radical Islam which it mentioned the figures about the minuscule number of mosques which identified as moderate.

  1. I admitted that I couldn’t recall this specific clause, that it would have been adopted before Veritas merged with the English Democrats but that it seemed to have a credible source and was therefore a reasonable position to take.

  1. Sadly, this gave him more reason to be belligerent, exhorting that I, as Deputy Chairman should know precisely what was in our manifesto and that my reply simply wasn’t good enough.

  1. Laurence Saffer also criticised our policy on asylum seekers and refugees and highlighted, for particular criticism, our position on withdrawing from the 1951 UN Convention of Human Rights, contrasting this to the Kindertransport programme during WW2.

  1. Rabbi Rudi Levi was interested to know why this was our policy and was subsequently more understanding of the explanation I provided. Laurence Saffer, however, sadly remained rather infuriated regardless and not open to debate on these issues. (Given what I know now that he is an Immigration and Asylum judge in Leeds, it is not surprising).

  1. There were several further clauses, one which was rather badly drafted, 3.15.12.3 – 2 and 3.15.12.3 – 3, II referring to the admission and deportation of those we believed did not conform to English values and to our policy regarding establishing a programme of education for Islamic community leaders and Imams which might extend to other religions causing concern, to which Laurence Saffer again took issue.

  1. The latter policy where it states ‘…and extend this to other religions causing concern’ was a serious point of contention as I had to concede after some persuasion, that it could also apply to the Jewish community – although I was keen to point out that that would not have been the intent.

  1. We had a brief discussion on the work that the Jewish community does in Leeds and surrounding area promoting community cohesion and inter-faith dialogue, especially with the Muslim community. I told him that when I used to teach RE in Bradford I had encouraged this kind of work and dialogue and thought that we had found some common ground at last.

  1. At some point in the conversation Laurence Saffer asked how large I thought the Muslim and Jewish populations were in Bradford and appeared to argue that it was vital that they worked with the Muslim community for their survival, as the Muslim population already outnumbered the Jewish community in the Bradford area by 50-1.

  1. Then the conversation moved to the Labour MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, who was apparently saved from being expelled from the Labour party for her alleged anti-Semitism due to their intervention - and tuition. To my surprise, Mr Saffer was keen to point out that they were supporting her candidature in the general election. I found this very disconcerting as I couldn’t believe just how naïve and foolish they were being given her clear anti-Semitic views.

  1. Laurence Saffer then decided that they had to go, put the copy of our manifesto back in his briefcase, got up from the table and walked away without shaking my hand. His two colleagues were polite and shook hands. I assured them that they were mistaken about who I was and what I stood for and we left things open for me to contact Laurence Saffer should I wish to do so.

  1. I came away feeling completely humiliated and belittled and betrayed as I have spent my life fighting anti-Semitism and injustice and felt I had something to offer in support of the Jewish community.


I didn’t think that something so outrageous should be left unchallenged and therefore wrote the following letter to the British Board of Jewish Deputies:-

Dear Sirs

Re:  Complaint against Laurence Saffer

We act for Mrs H.  We write to make a complaint against Laurence Saffer arising out of an incident on the 4th June 2017. 

Mrs H. has set out what happened in some detail in her Witness Statement, a copy of which we enclose for your information.  I hope you will agree that the behaviour complained of is unacceptable and should be sanctioned.  Please confirm receipt. 

We await hearing from you on the steps you propose to take to deal with the complaint.

Yours faithfully


The response I got was this email:-

In a message dated 11/12/2017 17:50:54 GMT Standard Time, tony@tonyleifer.com writes:
Dear Mr Tilbrook, 
I refer to your letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews dated 27 November and to our telephone conversation today.  I write in my capacity as the chairman of the Board’s constitution committee, which is responsible for its code of conduct and dealing with breaches of that code.
Your client, Mrs H., in her statement, describes an incident involving Laurence Saffer which she says took place on 4 June, I assume this year. On her behalf you ask the Board to sanction Mr Saffer’s behaviour.
 Mr Saffer  was the Deputy for Leeds Jewish Representative Council until he resigned in January 2017, a date prior to the alleged incident, and as such the Board has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
Kind regards

Tony Leifer
(Notice no apology or even an expression of regret!)

My reply was :-
From:RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 15 December 2017 13:42
To: Tony Leifer
Subject: Re: Complaint against Laurence Saffer

Dear Mr Leifer 
Re:  Mrs H.
Thank you for your email of the 11th and for responding to my letter dated the 27th November.  It is correct that the incident was on the 4th June this year. 
However as of the 30th May 2017 Mr Saffer was using the email address PresidentLJRC@mail.com and the Leeds Jewish Representative Council has him on their website as President.  Here is a link to that website >>> http://ljrc.org/about-us-2/meet-the-ljrc-team/
Please could you therefore review your stance?
Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

To which the reply was:-

Dear Mr Tilbrook,
The relevant dates are those when Mr Saffer was a Deputy of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, as set out in my earlier email.  The email address he was using is not what matters.
Regards

Tony Leifer

My further reply:-
From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com [mailto:RobinTilbrook@aol.com]
Sent: 15 December 2017 19:55
To: Tony Leifer
Subject: Re: Complaint against Laurence Saffer

Or his appearance on the Leed's website?

Mr Leifer’s further response:-
Subj: RE: Complaint against Laurence Saffer 

It is only to members of the Board of Deputies, and not of other entities, to which the code of conduct applies.


So that seems the end of the road for the complaint and no attempt to distance the Board of Deputies from what Mr Saffer said.


This is what the Jewish Leadership Council website says about Laurence Saffer:-
 

Laurence Saffer has lived in Leeds all his life and has been involved in a number of communal groups over the years, including Habonim Dror.

As LJRC president, Laurence aims to ensure that the voice of all parts of the Leeds Jewish community and surrounding areas is heard and acted upon by all local decision makers, and that the Jewish community continues to be loud and proud. Laurence is also a judge who sits in Bradford and London.


The Habonim Dror claims to be:-

A Socialist Zionist Culturally Jewish youth movement. Through a progressive lens we create a culture and educate based on our worldly values of equality.

Habonim Dror has been pioneering the future of the Jewish people for over 85 years internationally and is continuing to do so in a fun and engaging way. We do this through weekly activities, residential weekends, Day-Schemes, Israel programs and Summer Camp.




Thursday, 14 December 2017

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE EU/UK TRADE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS?


WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE EU/UK TRADE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS?

When trying to work out what the British Establishment are up to in the Brexit negotiations it is worth bearing in mind that all the members of Theresa May’s Government have made their political careers, at least in part, out of claiming that they were Eurosceptics. The reason for that was clearly revealed in the EU Referendum when it appeared that over 60% of Conservative Party members voted for Leave and over 60% of Conservative Party voters voted for Leave.



It follows that anybody who was aspiring to be a Conservative Parliamentary Candidate or Minister before the Referendum would have destroyed their career if they had admitted that they would do what they actually did do during the Referendum - which was vote for remaining within the EU! You cannot therefore trust at face value anything that these people say about their politics. Let’s therefore look at what they are actually doing.



In analysing this it is worth thinking what you would do if you were a Minister in a Government which was enthusiastically committed to exiting the EU. The first thing that you would do would be get all of the research done as to what the difficulties, bottlenecks and obstructions would be in fully exiting the EU. David Davis is the “Brexit” Minister. Davis in many respects is admirable, but he nevertheless showed his compromising character in dropping his previously vocal support for an English Parliament, when it looked possible that he might become Leader of the Conservative Party and he was told that the Conservative Party would not support that. This is the same David Davis who has now admitted that in fact the Government has not done any proper research on the consequences of leaving without a trade deal. He admitted that this had not been done because the Government has no intention of leaving without doing a trade deal. That is a highly revealing indication of the Government’s agenda from somebody who is supposed to be one of the keenest “Brexiteers”.



The second thing that you would of course have done was to have opened up negotiations with all those countries that are interested in doing a trade deal with us and also with the World Trade Organisation and any other entities that we will need to be dealing with immediately upon exiting the EU. None of this has been done! That is another highly revealing fact as to what the Government is actually up to.



Another thing that any Government truly committed to exiting would be at the very least thinking about doing is reverting to England’s historic, strategic and diplomatic position in trying to make sure that no one power dominated in Western Europe. At the moment that power is of course the EU and therefore a Government committed to exiting the EU would be looking for allies and working with any opportunity to break-up the EU block. Obviously that would have meant supporting Catalonia and using our potentially massive trade leverage with Southern Ireland to force them out of the EU. In addition we would of course be seeking to work with the European Free Trade Association, EFTA, to reinvigorate that as a block which could counter the EU. It hardly needs saying that none of that is being done and, indeed, Theresa May’s Government backed the Spanish repression of Catalonian Independence and has not even shown any support for the Eastern Europeans opposition to EU policies on mass immigration.



Last, but not least, a truly Brexit orientated Government would absolutely refuse to pay the EU a single penny that we didn’t owe them, let alone over £50 billion of English taxpayers’ money.



Let’s not forget that any talk of payments to remain within the EU single market is actually talk of the use of ordinary English taxpayers’ money to subsidise big business in maintaining their access to the EU markets. It is not as if membership of the EU single market is of net benefit to the UK already because although we can buy as consumers (if we have the money!) Audis, Mercedes Benz, etc without paying a tariff the fact is that not only do the Germans and the French, etc., sell us more cars than we sell them, but also there has been a balance of trade in favour of the EU for almost all the last 30 years. This means that actually when considered a national economy the EU profits more from UK trade than the UK profits from EU trade. It would also mean if we went to tariffs that substantially more tariffs would be paid to our Government than would have to be paid out to the EU. Concessions are therefore not being given in the interests of ordinary people, or of our Nation, they are being given in the interests of the Conservative Party’s backers in big business corporations and in the City.



So where are we going I hear you ask? I thought one of the most interesting conversations that I have heard recently was one in which it was being suggested that the Westminster rumour mill is talking about Theresa May having gamed the DUP into refusing any different treatment for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the UK over the proposal that Southern Ireland and the EU had signed off on, which was that Northern Ireland would retain “regulatory alignment”. The rumour is that Theresa May wanted the DUP to refuse that for Northern Ireland only so that she could apply pressure on members of the Cabinet to accept “regulatory alignment” for the whole of the UK. If that remains accepted then we will not have properly have left the EU. The only plus of that situation is that as Michael Gove has been saying, then we won’t be constitutionally part of the EU and that means that a future Government (with more spine than the current one) can change anything that is being agreed at this stage.