Total Visits

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

'Bigoted' Multiculturalists Exposed

For those of us with children, now is the holiday season so this excellent and thought provoking article from the Spectator is the perfect antidote to any feeling of family complacency!

The author does however seem oblivious that he is discussig the same kind of multiculturalist bigotry which led to the disgraceful failures, by the 'authorities', to act, amongst other examples, in the recent mostly pakistani muslim male paedophile sex gang case in Rochdale, which we discussed here:

We English Democrats have long had a robust manifesto with items relevant to this issue:-

On Multi-Culturalism "3.16.1 It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society. However, multi-Culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere."

And on 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."

I am intending to stand in the Essex Police Commissioner election in November. If elected, woe betide any Essex officer with the attitude of Commander Foy!

Here is the article. It is well worth reading and is an interesting indication that the British Establishment mindset supporting multiculturalism is breaking down!

The racism of the respectable
Nick Cohen
24 July 2012

To be a racist in Britain, you do not need to cover yourself in tattoos and join a neo-Nazi party. You can wear well-made shirts, open at the neck, appreciate fine wines and vote Left at election time.

Odd though it may seem to older readers, the Crown Prosecution Service now regards itself as a liberal organ of the state. This week it is making a great play of its success in deterring violence against women. Its lawyers brought 91,000 domestic violence prosecutions last year and secured 67,000 convictions. As I have mentioned in this space before, many criminologists believe that the willingness, not just of prosecutors and the police but of wider society, to take violence against women and children seriously explains the welcome fall in homicide rate. But officialdom’s concern for abused women is strictly colour coded. The CPS will defend women’s rights, but only the rights of white women. Girls with black or brown skins can go hang — or, rather go have their genitalia cut to pieces.

In a report for BBC Newsnight, Sue Lloyd Roberts investigated what euphemists call ‘female circumcision’. I have sympathy with the German court which said that male circumcision was an assault on boys unable to give informed consent, that no rabbi or imam parroting the dictates of Judaism or Islam could excuse. But the female and male versions of ‘circumcision’ are not comparable. Twenty thousand British girls, mainly the daughters of immigrants from Africa, are at risk of what the World Health Organisation calls Type III ‘infibulation’. Their mothers or grandmothers, or maybe an iman or some other variety of priest or ‘traditional healer’ cut off the inner and outer labia and clitoris with scissors or a knife. They tie together the girl's legs for a month so that the labial tissue bonds. It forms a wall of flesh and skin across the vulva, leaving only a hole the size of a matchstick. Sexual intercourse and childbirth, and the passage of urine and menstrual blood become incredibly painful.

Beyond continuing a barbaric tradition, and one should never underestimate the appeal of doing what has always been done, FGM ensures that women remain the property of men. The bridegroom can be certain his bride is a virgin, and have some confidence that she will not sleep around, because the second object of the exercise is to reduce the woman’s libido.

Britain made female genital mutilation a criminal offence in the 1980s. Later we said it was illegal for parents to take their children abroad for the ‘procedure’. Yet although thousands of British girls are the victims of wounding with intent, the CPS has not instigated one prosecution, let alone secured a conviction. Sue Lloyd Roberts illustrated official indifference when she interviewed Somalis in Glasgow. She came up with sensible proposals to prevent child abuse. When doctors saw a mother whose genitals had been mutilated they could insist that medics monitored her daughters. Or when families from an — how to put this in PC language? — ‘at risk’ group left the country, female doctors could examine the daughters on return. She tried to put these ideas to the representatives of Glasgow’s liberal professions — teachers, health and social workers. Not one would go on air.

To his credit, I suppose, Scotland Yard's specialist in child abuse cases Commander Simon Foy found the courage to speak in public. Unfortunately, his words were a disgrace. ‘I am not necessarily sure that the availability of a stronger sense of prosecution will change’ the incidence of FGM ‘for the better,’ he said. Is there any other law that Commander Foy and his superiors think it pointless to enforce? Do senior officers say that prosecuting burglars or rapists or murderers makes no difference? Or is it only in the case of the mutilation of girls from other cultures that the cops abandon their belief in the deterrent power of punishment?

Imitating the French by having medical staff check girls, would infringe the girls’ rights, Foy continued, as he used the language of human rights to justify his failure to uphold the rights of women and girls. In this instance, and in this instance only, the police not only believe that putting alleged criminals on trial is pointless, they add that investigating an alleged crime is a criminal act.

Under white imperialism, colonialists had one set of rules for themselves and another for ‘lesser breeds without the law’. Nineteenth century liberals and socialists berated their double standards. Now the roles are reversed. Men and women who call themselves liberals are the new Blimps.

Their respect for other cultures and celebrations of diversity has undermined equality before the law. Anti-colonialism is no longer an opposition to foreign occupation but opposition to the ‘inappropriate’ imposition of ‘western’ values on the formerly colonised. Fear plays its part in the silence. I know doctors who worry they will be accused of racism if they protest about the mistreatment of girls. They suspect that their employers will not report protesting parents to the police but punish them instead.

I often wonder which of the beliefs or practices that we take for granted the future will regard with repugnance. My best guess is that our insouciance about man’s mass extinction of species will provoke the greatest disgust. But the liberal toleration of illiberalism may run the destruction of the natural world a close second. ‘Just think,’ people will say, ‘in the early 21st century prosecutors, teachers, doctors, social workers and police officers, who considered themselves respectable citizens, did nothing to protect innocent children from injuries they would carry for rest of their lives.’

A brave daughter of African immigrants described the racism of the respectable better than I can. ‘They are so terrified,’ she told the BBC. ‘They are using cultural sensitivity as a barrier to stop themselves from really doing anything. What would you do if the girls had blue eyes and blonde hair? Would FGM still be going on in the UK?’

Friday, 13 July 2012

Unite using London's Bus Drivers as Political Pawns

Is McCluskey’s Unite shamefully using London’s bus drivers as political pawns in an attempt to take over the Labour Party?

It seems that Len McCluskey, the Unite General Secretary, is frustrated with the Labour Party leadership and it has been reported that if his visions for the Labour Party is not implemented then Unite the Union will break links with the Labour Party.

For Red Len McCluskey the Labour Party leadership ought to consult with Unite before making or changing policy. No longer happy with part funding the Labour Party, the ambitious Unite leader wants to take on a more dominant role politically!

Here is a blog article explaining what is afoot and here is the Unite’s “strategy” document

You would think that Unite’s political ambitions would worry any bus driver contemplating strike action as no one wants to be used as a political pawn especially when striking costs money (over £100 per day) which is needed to pay for family needs and a mortgage!

It is right that London’s Bus Drivers receive an Olympic bonus but questions arise as to why Unite failed to get this implemented 5 years ago.

Red Len’s talk of "reclaiming" the Labour Party should not be his number one concern. The primary purpose of any Trade Union should be to improve the long term working condition and pay of its members. Striking should always be a last resort and focussed on long term improvements to working conditions.

It also appears that Unite were offered £350.00 for each bus driver as an Olympic bonus (TLF and bus company payment) but this was rejected. That means Unite members were duped into striking over a one off payment of £150.00 because they had already been offered £350.00.

Seeing Bus Drivers being used as political pawns for Unite’s now publicly known agenda to run the Labour Party, is of concern.

While Red Len talks about principles he is reportedly paid £150,000 a year! This is classic ‘I’m alright Jack’!

But then maybe he and Unite don’t care about their bus drivers, after all aren’t pawns expendable when you want to take over the Labour Party?

UKIP Trolling?

On Tuesday I was in the splendid Victorian Gothic surrounds of Court 14 in the Royal Courts of Justice at the Strand before Mr Justice Tugendhat, who is a highly respected ornament to the Judicial Bench of England and Wales.

The occasion arose out of the activities of one of UKIP’s ‘keyboard warriors’, Mr Stuart Parr of Brookside (sic), Telford, Shropshire, who wrote some months ago that the English Democrats were “Not left, not right, JUST RACIST”, This is of course simply a lie.

I asked Mr Parr to apologise and to withdraw the remark, but he refused to do so.

One of the interesting elements in this attack by Mr Parr, in his role as "Bloggers for UKIP", was that it took place very shortly after I had told Nigel Farrage that I was not interested in joining UKIP. Also at that time Mr Farrage was involved personally in trying to recruit other English Democrats to UKIP. Draw your own conclusions!

Mr Parr had regularly criticised me in past blogs and therefore in effect identified me, which raised the possibility that, by doing so, he had taken the case outside of the rule that political parties cannot sue however outrageous and untruthful any remark may be in which they are attacked.

Interestingly, and usefully for the future, the Judge has ruled that, if Mr Parr had mentioned me by name in the defamatory remarks, then I would be clearly within my rights to sue. As he had not specifically mentioned me I therefore had to go through various legal technical pleading “hoops” to bring my case. As I was only suggesting that Mr Parr should pay £500 by way of a token to a charity of my choice, I naturally had not been prepared to spend the thousands of pounds on the case that would have been required to get libel barristers involved.

In the circumstances the case will not be going forward but I make no apology for firing a warning shot across the bows of Mr Parr and indeed any of the other enemies of English nationalism who might be prepared to adopt gutter tactics to attack us.

As the old saying goes it is not the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog that counts and there is plenty of fight left in this old dog!

As it was, I rather enjoyed my outing, which may get reported in the press as there was a journalist present.

Below is my witness statement that was submitted in this case.

R C W Tilbrook
- and -

I, Robin Charles William Tilbrook, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP, will says as follows:-

1. I am the Claimant in this case and I am also the sole Principal of Tilbrook’s Solicitors. I am also a past President of the Mid-Essex Law Society.

2. It is obviously professionally important to me to maintain my good name, as I would naturally wish to do so, as I would suspect would any honourable person. In any case I do bitterly resent any allegation that I am a racist.

3. I am also the Chairman and one of the founder members of the English Democrats Party, which is a party whose primary purpose is to campaign for a Parliament, First Minister and Government for England with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a federal UK. The Party is expressly open to peoples of all background, ethnicity, etc., who share our aims and, indeed, we have stood quite a few candidates who are not ethnically English, not only people of Scottish, Welsh and Irish extraction, but also Jewish, Sikh and Kashmiri and Muslim.

4. I mention about the English Democrats Party because we are an avowedly non-racist Party. I appreciate that I could not bring this claim on behalf of the Party. Although any accusation that the Party is racist would be very unfair and untruthful, I do appreciate that the courts have, perhaps wisely, excluded this, given the potential scope for litigation. Our country now unfortunately has an unpleasant, untruthful and amoral political culture, in which all too many political opponents have no scruple or compunction about lying about parties and individuals that they oppose.

5. I have not met the Defendant very often. He was a fellow member of the Campaign for an English Parliament. I now think I may have fallen into the trap of taking him at face value and assuming that his motives were honourable. It now appears in fact that his involvement with the Campaign for an English Parliament was mostly focussed on undermining them and preventing them from making any progress and also for reasons of personal profit. In any event, to my knowledge, he appeared, until recently, to be someone who was a sincere, patriotic Englishman, despite the incongruity and inconsistency of him being an activist for the United Kingdom Independence Party (“UKIP”).

6. I gradually became aware over the course of several years that the Defendant appeared on the internet masquerading under several different names and in most guises claiming to be a sincere English nationalist but claiming that the English Democrats were simply the wrong type of English Nationalist and therefore should not be supported. He was also unusually keen to highlight any mistakes that had been made. As time has gone on I have appreciated more and more that in fact these attacks were part of a sustained campaign by the Defendant and several other UKIP activists that he is working with. I know this has been described as a UKIP “Black Ops Team” of internet trolls.

7. On various occasions the Defendant has criticised me on his blog and highlighted my role as Chairman/Leader of the English Democrats Party. It follows that any attacks on the Party by the Defendant are inevitably closely entwined with attacks on persons, such as myself, that he has clearly identified as being the decision makers within the Party.

8. Although most of his attacks on me have been incorrect and misguided, I have become increasingly conscious that he has been attempting to smear my personal reputation and I consider that he has done so in this case. He has also done so from the ignoble motive of seeking to obtain improper advantage for his Party. To me the allegation that the English Democrats (and therefore myself) are “just racist” is simply one too many dishonest smears by this Defendant.

9. I accordingly wrote to him seeking a retraction/apology/and offer of amends. Far from retracting the comment, or in any way being conciliatory, the Defendant published the correspondence and commented upon it seeking to smear my reputation further. The Defendant made no attempt to claim in his further comments that I was not one of his intended victims.

10. So far as I can see, the Defendant’s case and Application rests upon pure technicalities, rather than any attempt to deal with the claim justly, either within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Rules or at all. In open correspondence I have made it clear that I restrict my claim to £500 which of course would usually be well below the Small Claims limit; albeit as a libel claim the rules require it to be conducted in the High Court. In the circumstances I do not consider this Application to be either well-founded or proportionate.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed………………………………….. Dated …………………….
Robin Charles William Tilbrook

Monday, 9 July 2012

What has Cameron told us about his own sense of National Identity?

This picture tells a tale about Cameron's national identity. It is said to be "Chillaxing: David Cameron walks with his wife Samantha past stalls at this year's Cornbury Festival" held at the Great Tew estate near Chipping Norton, the Cotswolds market town that has become the unlikely power base for Britain’s political and media elite. Mr Cameron’s constituency home is close by in Witney.

The Cornbury Music Festival prides itself on being a “top notch, very English affair”. Organisers describe it as “a homespun melting pot where music-lovers share pies and a glass of champagne with superstars, toffs, rockers, crooners, Morris dancers, farmers, urbanites, fashionistas, gourmet chefs and little old ladies who make exceptional cakes”.

But what has Dave Donald Cameon told us about his own sense of National Identity?

What follows is a sample of some revealing comments. What do you think it really tells us about his attachment to England?

Negative stereotypes of Scots undermining union: CameronPublished: Sunday, 17 September, 2006, 10:22 AM Doha Time

David Cameron
By Colin Brown

ENGLISH ignorance of Scotland and the portrayal of Glaswegians as drunks is damaging the union, Conservative leader David Cameron warned in a speech aimed at defusing growing calls for an English Parliament.

Mr Cameron vowed to ensure that Scotland would remain part of the UK if he became prime minister, but he said that ‘ignorant and inaccurate stereotypes’ by comedians and commentators were threatening to undermine the union.

“Whether it’s Russ Abbott-style lampooning or the inevitable aggressive Glaswegian drunk in TV programmes, the cumulative effect can be depressing,” he said.

Sports commentators who described Scottish sportsmen and women as ‘British’ when they won but only referred to them as Scots when they lost were also blamed by Mr Cameron for exacerbating the tensions.

He said there was also no excuse for shops in England treating Scottish pound notes as if they had come ‘straight out of a Monopoly box’.

“Instead of deriding Scots as chippy or difficult, isn’t it time that English people of good will educated themselves?” he said.

Attacking confusion among English commentators, Mr Cameron claimed they derided the Scots as ‘hopeless drunks and beggars’ while at the same time protesting at the domination of Scots in the media as the ‘Scottish raj - a race of superhumans led by John Reid and Kirsty Wark’.

Calling for a fresh start by the Tories on Scotland, Mr Cameron admitted that a series of ‘blunders’ had been made by the Tories in Scotland including the poll tax.

It was the second time in recent weeks that he had criticised Scotland’s past record, having said it was wrong over apartheid in South Africa.

“The decision to treat Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new methods of local government finance was clumsy and unjust,” he said.

“On devolution too, we fought on against the idea of a Scottish Parliament long after it became clear that it was the settled will of the people.”

It was no compensation to see the Labour Party ‘displaying the same insensitivity’, he said, by destroying historic regiments such as the Black Watch. “It weakens the Union and reminds Scots of Tory mistakes,” he said.

Mr Cameron made it plain he wants to rebuild Tory support in Scotland in advance of next year’s May elections, which are expected to be bad for Labour.

He said the Tories’ hold on only one Scottish Parliamentary seat out of 59, and 17 seats in the Holyrood Parliament was ‘pretty dismal’.

But his remarks underlined growing fears that the election of the Gordon Brown as Prime Minister with a Cabinet dominated by ministers with Scottish seats will spark a renewed controversy over Scottish representation at Westminster next year, which marks the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union.

Some senior Conservative figures believe it will lead to fresh calls for an English Parliament that could be dominated by the Tories.

The Tory leader warned that SNP leader Alex Salmond could not ask for more effective allies than ‘sour Little Englanders’ who cried ‘good riddance’ when full independence for Scotland was raised.
Mr Cameron set himself against calls for an English Parliament, and warned against exacerbating anti-English opinion north of the border.

One recent poll showed a majority in Scotland were in favour of independence, and during the World Cup, tensions had boiled over with Jack McConnell, the Scottish Labour leader, being criticised for adopting an ‘anyone but England’ attitude.

The Conservative leader said the so-called West Lothian question was a ‘problem’ that needed addressing, and was being reviewed by the Conservative commission on democracy under Kenneth Clarke, the former Chancellor.

The issue - raised by Tam Dalyell, when he was Labour MP for West Lothian - questioned the right of Scottish MPs to vote on bills affecting England at Westminster while English MPs were denied that right because of Scottish devolution.

“Sending and MSP to Holyrood to vote against tuition fees for Scotland is fine,” he said. “Sending an MP to Westminster to vote for tuition fees for England is fine too. Doing both at the same time is problematic to say the least.” – The Independent

The full text of the speech is here:-
Click>Scottish Conservatives :: Speeches

Perhaps we should not be surprised after this, from the MP for Witney:-

Subj: Andrew Marr interviews "Dave" Donald Cameron, Sunday 25th June 2006

ANDREW MARR: Another area of constitutional argument just at the moment is the whole business of the Scots and the English. Lots of people are saying now there should be English votes for English laws - Ken Clarke is clearly attracted by that - and there's quite hubbub now saying that the Scots are getting too much public money, that the old Barnett formula, in fact Joel Barnett himself has said this, needs to be looked at again. Are the Scots getting too much public money at the moment, proportionately?

DAVID CAMERON: I don't have any plans to change the arrangements. Obviously we're in opposition, we have the opportunity to look at these things and we should do so. But I don't have any plans to make changes. And we should look at funding on the basis of need. And I think that's the right way, right way round. But I want, you know, I am a passionate Unionist, I think that Scotland brings a huge amount to the United Kingdom. The Scottish people bring a huge amount to the United Kingdom and I don't want, and I'm a Cameron, there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins.

ANDREW MARR: It's clearly the problem that you could have is in effect one party, shall we say the Conservative Party, had won a majority of seats in England, and was therefore in effect the government of England when it came to most of the things that voters were interested in, and there might be another party, Lib-Lab party or whatever it might be, still formally the British government.

DAVID CAMERON: Well I would put it another way which it would mean in the future that you couldn't have a government that could override the wishes of MPs sitting for English constituencies on matters that affect England in terms of health and education and transport.
ANDREW MARR: But it's tricky?

DAVID CAMERON: Well I don't see why it should ... I want parliament to be back at the centre of national life. I think one of the problems under this government is Parliament and the House of Commons has been so by-passed.

Here is his official position:-

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for writing to David Cameron - I am replying on his behalf.
David was born in England so, if you are asking whether he is Scottish, English or Welsh - he is English. However, he likes to think of himself as British.

Many thanks again for your email.
Yours sincerely,

Anna Biles
Correspondence Secretary
David Cameron's Office
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Here's a link to this:- Click>

David Cameron continues to be adamantly against any show of Englishness. In proof, I give you a quotation from a recent article by a journalist, Mark Stuart.

“As an ardent Unionist, I was greatly encouraged by David Cameron’s remarks earlier this year, when he took part in a grilling from Yorkshire Post readers. When quizzed by Paul Cockcroft, a member of the Royal Society of St George about introducing a new public holiday to celebrate St George’s Day, Cameron rejected the idea, adding: “I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just England. I think we’re stronger having England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland united”.

So one of the first things English nationalists need to realise about David Cameron is that he will leave them disappointed. The Conservatives have no plans to establish an English Parliament. Nor do they propose solving the so-called West Lothian Question”..

Tory leader, David Cameron, was at Christ Church Parish Centre in North Shields on the 10th
January 2009 fielding questions from the public. Newcastle’s Evening Chronicle Alaistair Craig reported this response.

“One member of the audience complained of the huge differences between services in the North East and Scotland.

She complained that free prescriptions, university tuition and care for the elderly in England should be a priority issue for any Cameron Government.

Mr Cameron responded “I don’t want to do anything that will encourage a sense of English nationalism and distance between the two countries.”

Sunday, 8 July 2012

Any Such Nationality as English?

You may have caught some of the news about the arguments within Labour recently. Some Trade Union bosses were grumbling about another group who have called itself “Progress”. Progress have dared to receive funding from sources other than the Trade Union movement! Progress have been described as Blairite.

The reason I mention it is because I recently attended a seminar, under the umbrella of Progress, with the “Policy Network”. The meeting was under the “Chatham House Rule” which means I shouldn’t name names!

Present was an academic from Nottingham University, who has studied the rise and fall of the BNP. He recently wrote a study of the similarities between the BNP and UKIP. There was also an academic from Manchester University who is collaborating in a study of UKIP with the Nottingham academic. They are both looking at the rising tide, as they put it, of populist or radical right wing opinion (by which they mean nationalist, Eurosceptic, anti-mass immigration and anti-establishment).

Almost all the commentators seemed to be firmly of the view that the BNP are now terminally beyond the point of recovery, which, they thought, presents a worrying opportunity for a populist or radical right-wing party to emerge.

One of the interesting speakers was someone from Hope Not Hate, who talked about their campaign against the BNP in Barking and Dagenham and in Stoke on Trent. From this speech it emerged that the BNP’s positioning was part of its weakness. Apparently even amongst people who are most concerned about the effects of immigration, there is still considerable dislike of the BNP brand, with its image, not only of racism, which ordinary people are anxious to disassociate themselves from, but also, just as significantly, any tinge of street violence or of any gang mentality, which in particular the women in the targeted areas were likely to be very hostile to.

It was pointed out that if a party came into “populist” right wing politics from another issue, then the spokesman of that party is more likely to be treated as respectable and listened to than representatives of a party who seemed to be founded solely on opposing immigration. The example given was the comparison of the treatment of by the media and audience reaction to Nick Griffin and to Nigel Farrage.

The meeting was also interesting from the point of view that it showed that elements within Labour are becoming hugely aware that they are vulnerable to losing support in England and they need to adopt strategies to “re-engage with Englishness”. (Thus Ed Milliband's recent attempt to discuss Englishness)

All in all it was a very interesting meeting which I think should give strong grounds for confidence that the cause of Englishness and of English Nationalism is making such headway that it’s causing considerable alarm amongst those who have traditionally been its opponents. I wonder whether even John Prescott would still try to claim now, as he used to, that “there is no such nationality as English”?

Friday, 6 July 2012


A few days ago I was listening to Radio 4, when an item came on about the International Olympic Committee profiteering over future Olympic Games coverage. Apparently they are selling the rights to various commercial television companies, like BskyB, and making hundreds of millions of pounds on the deal.

The BBC then interviewed one of their “talking heads”, who reported that there would be a limit to what could be done in “our country” as there are certain types of sports coverage which, by Act of Parliament, have to be available to “terrestrial/freeview TV”.

There was then a discussion as to whether the BBC would pay for any extra coverage not covered by this rule. In reply the reporter gushed that the BBC would certainly pay a big premium to have full coverage of the Olympics because of the importance in creating a shared sense of our “country” and of “Britishness”!

I wondered whether that reporter realised that he had admitted, on air, that one of the core purposes and objectives of the BBC is to propagandarise on behalf of “Britishness”?

In the light of this ‘revelation’ I would urge everyone to question which part or parts of the UK is actually covered when expressions such as “Our Nation”, “Our Country”, “The Country”, “National”, “The Nation”, etc. are used. Also please do consider critically what attempts are being made to manipulate our feelings in the forthcoming coverage of Olympic “Team GB”!

Wednesday, 4 July 2012

Another Anti- English outrage by the Cameron led government - this time it's the Army!

After all the blather about a carefully considered cut to our armed forces, not only does it seem that it is all the usual ill considered slash and burn Tory cuts but also it is profoundly discriminatory. Any guesses who told the BBC's Andrew Marr:- "I'm a Cameron, there is quite a lot of Scottish Blood flowing through these veins"?

Scottish infantry spared as English regiments axed

All five Scottish infantry regiments are to be spared the axe as English troops take the brunt of defence cuts today.

All five Scottish infantry regiments are to be spared the axe as English troops take the brunt of defence cuts today.

It can also be disclosed that the Scots Dragoon Guards that had been considered for merger with another cavalry regiment will survive unscathed Photo: PA

The move has caused outrage among MPs and serving officers south of the border with three English and one Welsh battalion chopped.

Anger is likely to intensify when it is disclosed that the English battalions will now lose their historic titles such as the Green Howards, Staffords and Duke of Wellingtons.

It can also be disclosed that the Scots Dragoon Guards that had been considered for merger with another cavalry regiment will survive unscathed.

One serving officer called the move “deeply unfair, bordering on the outrageous”

The first four battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland will now reduce by about 100 to 450 men each and the fifth battalion, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders will shrink to a company of about 120 men performing ceremonial duties outside Edinburgh Castle and elsewhere.

However, English battalions will remain at up to 600 troops each.

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former commanding officer of an English infantry battalion, said: “If this is the case why, yet again, do the Scottish unit get preferential treatment?

“They have been allowed to keep their regimental titles and now they are going to be reduced to nothing larger than a major’s command and yet English battalions now just have to lump it.”

The cuts in Army 2020 will be the biggest reforms to the Service since 1904 reducing it to 82,000 men, its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars.

The Government has argued that the shortfall in numbers will be made up by boosting the Territorial Army to 30,000 troops. However it can barely field half that number with officers deeply skeptical of its future role.

“On which planet do they seriously believe that we will sustain TA force of 30,000,” one office said. “It’s just laughable. I have yet to meet a single individual at senior level who believes this feasible.”

In last minute deals struck by Downing Street it is understood that the deal with the Scottish regiments was made to undermine the pro-independence lobby.

The wrangling over cuts to famous names has been going on for months with the Army 2020 package originally meant to be announced in April.

The English battalions to go will be the 3rd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment (the Duke of Wellington's) and the 3rd Bn The Mercians, who gained renown as the Staffordshire Regiment.

As disclosed in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week the 2nd Bn The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, one of the best recruited in the Army, will also be cut.

It will be joined the 2nd Bn The Royal Welsh, who can trace their roots back to Rorke’s Drift.

Two English cavalry regiments will disappear when the Queen’s Royal Lancers amalgamates with the 9th/12th Lancers and there is a merger of the 1st and 2nd Royal Tank Regiment.

However the biggest cuts will come with what are known as “combat support” arms vital to servicing an army in the field. The Royal Logistic Corps, the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers all face losing a third of their strength.

It is understood that the cuts, which Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary will announce in Parliament at midday, were delayed by a week to avoid embarrassment to the Prime Minister during Armed Forces Day ceremonies last Saturday.