Total Visits

Thursday, 28 February 2013

Wirral Globe and the Far Left anti-English smears

Following on from our success in getting the Sunday Times to retract their smear that the English Democrats are an “Extremist” party, we have recently had another contretemps with a newspaper, this time a local one in Cheshire.

We have been standing an excellent candidate, Neil Kenny in a Wirral local election.

Neil has never previously belonged to any other political party and has not stood for any other party other than the English Democrats. He is a respectable and professional family man and has absolutely no track record of any extremism, let alone racism, homophobia or any tendency to violence. Any such accusations are therefore not only outrageous libels but are also criminal offences under Section 106 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1983.

Below is the trail of correspondence leading to the retraction and finally the corrective article published on-line. I understand that my response was also published in full in the printed edition of the Wirral Globe.

First here is the offending article:-

Trade unions launch campaign against Wirral by-election candidate

1:16pm Monday 4th February 2013 in NewsExclusive By Stephanie Cureton
WIRRAL trade unionists are leading a campaign against a right-wing party fielding a candidate in an upcoming local by-election.
Merseyside Coalition Against Racism and Fascism and Wirral TUC are uniting against the English Democrats when the ballot for Pensby and Thingwall ward takes place later this month.
They believe the election of English Democrat candidate Neil Kenny would be “damaging” to Wirral.
Alec McFadden from Wirral TUC said: “This party is neither English nor democratic and they have a violent past.
“We believe they are openly racist and are against gay and lesbian people.
“We will be putting out leaflets and canvassing to let people know about the party, regardless of their existing political beliefs.
“If this candidate was elected, it would have a similar effect as Nick Griffin from the BNP being an MEP for the North West.
“It would damage our reputation greatly at a time when things are already bad with poverty, unemployment and benefit cuts.”
According to their website, English Democrats believe in “standing up for what made England great” and that English residents should not be treated as “second class citizens.”
The website says the party wants the repeal of the Human Rights Act and the withdrawal of the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights.
It claims: “Both of these flawed items of legislation have perversely assisted criminals while offering little of substance to the law-abiding population”.
It also advocates “punitive fining and possible withdrawal of trading rights of companies, company directors and other employers who employ illegal immigrants.”
Immigrants convicted of crimes should be deported, it says.
The Globe has contacted the North West offices of the English Democrats and a response is expected shortly.
Other candidates standing in the by-election, which takes place on February 28, are: Phillip Brightmore for Labour and the Co-operative Party; Allen Burton for The Green Party; Sheila Clarke for Conservatives; Damien Cummins for Liberal Democrats; and Jan Davison for UKIP.
The by-election was triggered by the resignation of Conservative ward Cllr Don McCubbin.

Here is the trail of correspondence:-

Sent: 08/02/2013 18:59:39 GMT Standard Time

Subj: Check out Trade unions launch campaign against Wirral by-election candidate (
Trade unions launch campaign against Wirral by-election candidate (From Wirral Globe)

The Editor
Wirral Globe

Dear Sir

Re: Article Monday, 4th February 2013 by Stephanie Cureton “Trade unions launch campaign against Wirral by-election candidate”
This nakedly Labour Party partisan article falsely asserts that the English Democrats are:- “neither English nor democratic and they have a violent past. We believe they are openly racist and are against gay and lesbian people”… “If this candidate was elected, it would have a similar effect as Nick Griffin from the BNP being an MEP for the North West.” These comments are wildly inaccurate, untrue and libellous. Printing such a report without checking with us was grossly inappropriate.

The significance of this unjustified attack taking place in the midst of a by-election makes this matter one of importance.

I request the right of reply to these spurious allegations.

These allegations are put as a statement of fact not opinion (within the usual meaning given both by the law of defamation and of common sense). They thus clearly relate also to our candidate’s personal character or conduct. In the context of the article, its timing, and the absence of defamatory comments about any other candidates an inference can be drawn of the improper purpose of affecting the election of our candidate.

I respectfully suggest that you would be hard pressed to support any defence of reasonable belief in the truth of these statements. There is no sensible suggestion anywhere that we are a racist etc., nor indeed have you made any sufficient effort to find out what we do stand for. Indeed we have recently had a forced retraction of a lesser smear by the Sunday Times >>>

Also insufficient effort was made to speak to anyone from the English Democrats about these allegations prior to making them.

Not only do Alex McFadden’s professional standards (if any) appear to be very sloppy, but also, I would respectfully submit, your reporting of them, or relying on such an obviously dubious and partisan source, breaches the Press Complaints Commission's Editor’s Code of Practice by failing to maintain the “highest professional standards”. The comments are frankly inaccurate and misleading and untruthful and thus contrary to section 1 of the PCC's Editors' Code.

Rather than accurately reporting you seem to have stooped to cloak with respectability smears and innuendo against the English Democrats and against our candidate, Mr Kenny.

It may also be that these smears derive from an anti-English discriminatory attitude either by you or Mr McFadden, who bears a Scottish or Irish surname. Such is contrary to section 12 of the PCC Editors' Code.

In the circumstances I wish formally, and on behalf of our candidate so smeared, and also of the English Democrats, to complain and to request the Right of Reply pursuant to section 2 of the PCC Editors' Code.

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook
The English Democrats,

In a message dated 11/02/2013 09:26:28 GMT Standard Time,

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for your email.

I do understand your anger, and it would be entirely appropriate had
we not made any efforts to speak to the English Democrats.

But I must respectfully point out we did try to contact your party
using the press inquiries telephone number on your website - 0207 242
1066 - and asked several times for a response to the Wirral
TUC/Merseyside Coalition Against Racism and Fascism statement – but
none had materialised by the time the Globe went to press last Tuesday

I am more than happy to give you the right of reply, and would have
done so in the original article had this have been possible.

Yours sincerely,

Leigh Marles,
Globe editor.

Sent: 11/02/2013 09:45:54 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Right of reply

Dear Mr Marles,
Thank you for your email. I am looking into what you say as that should not have happened.
Thank you also for your agreement to give us a right of reply. How many words are you offering and what is the deadline?
Robin Tilbrook

Sent: 11/02/2013 10:01:02 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Right of reply

Dear Mr Tilbrook

I would suggest a piece of around 300-350 words.

If it is to appear in this week's edition, we would need it by around
10am tomorrow, if that would be possible?

The English Democrat press officers our reporter spoke to said they
were going to put us in touch with a North West ED representative; we
tried to firm this up two or three times, but unfortunately it just
did not happen.


Leigh Marles

Sent: 12/02/2013 10:08:02 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Right of reply

Dear Mr Marles

Here is my piece. I am afraid I am a bit over on the word count. Is that OK?

Robin Tilbrook

I am writing to reply to the downright lies written about the English Democrats and our candidate, Neil Kenny, by Mr Alec McFadden purportedly of the “Merseyside Coalition Against Racism and Fascism and Wirral TUC”.

The English Democrats are certainly not a racist or homophobic Party and have never had any history whatsoever of violence and nor has our candidate. All of that is pure invention by a Far Left activist who hates the very “idea of England itself”.

Alec McFadden claims to represent an organisation, Labour’s Trade Union Congress, which is however, just like the Labour Party itself, institutionally anti-English, being happy to have a Scottish TUC and a Welsh TUC but is totally opposed to an English TUC! Just consider these comments:-
Labour – Jack Straw - “The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent”.
Labour – John Prescott – “There is no such nationality as English”

The English Democrats’ campaign is a moderate and sensible one to improve England’s democracy. We are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. We campaign for a Parliament for England, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; for a Referendum to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England.

The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster MBC. We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!)

We are a Party that is making steady progress and are spearheading the growth of English National Identity. In reply to the 2011 Census over 32 million people in England stated that they are “English Only”. This shows that moderate, democratic English Nationalism is the future for England and the English Nation. This is why anyone who cares about England should support us and our candidates!


Sent: 12/02/2013 10:34:54 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Right of reply

Dear Mr Tilbrook

I think it's fine, it'll go on page 3 in this week's edition of the Globe.

How should I describe your position in the ED? Are you party chairman?


Leigh Marles

Sent: 12/02/2013 10:40:30 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Right of reply

Thank you. Yes I am.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM,
Dear Mr Marles
When is this to be published?
Robin Tilbrook

Sent: 20/02/2013 19:37:20 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Right of reply

Dear Mr Tilbrook

I am away from work this week visiting Malta but the article appeared at the top of page 3 in last week's edition of the Globe.

Here is the corrective which has been published on-line:-

English Democrat Party hits back after accusations of 'racism and homophobia'

9:34am Thursday 21st February 2013 in News
Robin Tilbrook
THE English Democrat Party has hit back after a Wirral trade unionist accused it of 'racism and homophobia'.
Party chairman and founder Robin Tilbrook said the claims were 'downright lies'.
Last week, Alec McFadden said Wirral TUC and the Merseyside Coalition Against Racism Fascism and would campaign against the ED candidate for the Pensby and Thingwall by-election, which will take place on February 28.
Mr Tilbrook, in a letter to the Globe, which we are treating as a right of reply, said: "The English Democrats are certainly not a racist or homophobic party and have never had any history whatsoever of violence, and nor has our candidate. All of that is pure invention.
"Alec McFadden claims to represent an organisation, Labour's Trade Union Congress, which is, however, just like the Labour Party itself, institutionally anti-English, being happy to have a Scottish TUC and a Welsh TUC - but opposed to an English TUC.
"The English Democrats' campaign is a moderate and sensible one to improve England's
"We are England's answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru."
He continued: "We campaign for a Parliament for England, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK [and] for St George's Day to be England's National holiday."
He said the English Democrats' greatest electoral success includes winning the directly-elected executive mayorality of Doncaster.

A further little wrinkle in the story, but so typical of the Far Left is that, it turns out that Alec McFadden’s “TUC” is not the Trade Union Congress but rather a far left micro “group” (which for all I know may not consist of anyone else other than Mr McFadden himself) called the Trades Union Council.

Perhaps one of the morals of this story is that if someone like Mr McFadden tells you that it is sunny outside, you should check it first before leaving your umbrella at home!

What do you think?

English business interests poorly served overseas!

Today I have had this reminder that it isn't just here in England that English interests are treated as second best by our political masters!

Hi Robin,

I hope you are well?

I am currently living overseas (Dubai) and wanted to share with you some experiences I have had recently here in Dubai that in my opinion clearly show the intent of our Celtic cousins and the way we (the English) appear to be being left behind.

Firstly there is a very good radio show here called Dubaieye, this is an alternative to the normal run of the mill radio shows with their light hearted approach and play lists. Dubaieye and in particular a breakfast slot they have called the The Business Breakfast covers the regions (and to a lesser degree) business world. I often listen to this show whilst making the hour and a half journey over to Abu Dhabi and have now on a couple of occasions sat listening to presentations and interviews with a couple of Scottish bodies (apparently of a governmental type) who are over here to investigate and encourage business connections with the UAE Government and Scotland.

Whilst I encourage all elements of the UK to continue to grow their business/exports in all global markets what irked me was the fact that this was not a 'British' representation in any sense at all but 100% Scottish, in fact I think they must have mentioned 'Scotland' even more times than it was during the film Braveheart!

So this intrigued me that here are governmental (I assume) bodies coming overseas and possibly at the UK Tax Payers cost purely and very deliberately promoting Scotland as an independent body, would the English be allowed to do this?

I guess the reason why I am actually writing to you on this issue was that yesterday I experienced an even worse example of this when I attended the Dubai held Gulfood Exhibition.

Gulfood is a huge exhibiton for the food and drinks industry and is now believed to be one of the largest of its kind in the world. I was lucky enough to be invited there by a friend whom was exhibiting there.

Whilst he was busy I set off to have a look at the various stands around the exhibition. After passing numerous 'areas' where countries like Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, etc were displaying their products I saw the end of a block showing the Union Jack titled 'Great Britain'. Unfortunately but sadly not surprising when I got there the 'British' stands were actually only two or three very small and forlorn (in comparison) stands of 'English' products. However venturing right next door I came across the huge and very impressive stand for Scotland, very independent, very big (and no doubts very costly) and very Scottish not British. Venturing even further I then came across stands which were again much bigger than the 'British' one for both Wales and Northern Ireland!! After much searching I disappointedly realised that the small 'Great Britain' stands were the 'English' ones, there was no English stand (complete with St George's) like there was for our Celtic Cousins.

Now I have no problem with the UK either staying together or going their separate ways however I fail to understand why we the English appear to be unable to promote ourselves in such a large way as our Celtic cousins appear to be doing, why are we stuck under the banner of Great Britain whilst they are able to promote themselves individually on an international basis?

Anyway, rant over, it really made my blood boil and thought you may be interested to know that the imbalance currently existing in UK political and national affairs is not just restricted to the land mass called Great Britain.

Keep up the good work!

Kind Regards

If any reminder were needed that we English need to stand up for ourselves or we will be crushed in the stampede of others seeking advantage!

Monday, 25 February 2013

English Democrats: One - Abu Qatada’s family: Nil!

In the latest abuse of our Nation’s “generosity” to illegal immigrants, following Mr Abu Qatada’s cost to the taxpayer rising to over an estimated £1m, his wife and family have been seeking an injunction, on the back of legal aid, to prevent any protesters from appearing outside their new taxpayer funded house in Stanmore, North London.

In the midst of suing all and sundry who might be contemplating protesting, the English Democrats and I surprisingly found ourselves included in the list of Defendants, despite never having expressed any intention to take part in any demonstration!

That is of course not the remit of a political party standing in elections and not a sensible approach for a political party to take.
That does not mean of course that the English Democrats would not morally support well-behaved and lawful demonstrations against Abu Qatada’s abuse of our welfare benefit system. It is English Democrats’ policy that non-citizens should not be entitled to any welfare benefits at all. We do also seek the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Having made our position crystal clear in various letters and also in a witness statement, which I reproduce below, even Labour supporting Bindmans solicitors who were acting for the Qatadas rushed to remove all mention of me and the English Democrats from the proceedings.

On Thursday I was in the High Court of Justice in the Strand before Mr Justice Silber and the Order was made removing us from these proceedings and also dropping all claims against us.

Here is my witness statement. What do you think?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                   CASE NO. HQ13X00479




representative Paul Golding, Paul Pitt,
James Dowson and Andrew McBride)
(2) BRITAIN FIRST (by its representatives Britannia Campaigning Limited,
Paul Golding, Andrew McBride and James Dowson
(3) THE ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE (by its representatives Kevin Carrol, Trevor Kelway and Joel Titus)
(4) THE SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE (by its representative Paul Pitt)
(5) THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS (by its representative
Robin Tilbrook)



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

1. I am the Principal of Tilbrook’s Solicitors and Chairman of the English Democrats.

2. I would state, for the record, that neither I, nor the English Democrats, have ever organised or attended a demonstration at or near the Applicants’ house. Nor do I believe that any member of the English Democrats have ever attended any such demonstrations. So, with the greatest of respect, the chronicle of misbehaviour that the Applicants’ Solicitors affectingly relate cannot properly be laid at either my or the English Democrats’ door.

3. Further I have never had nor expressed any intention of attending any such demonstration nor have I or the English Democrats given any indication of any intent to do so.

4. I would also confirm that the English Democrats do not engage in street protests as a general rule, except to small media orientated events on issues such as prescription charges. The English Democrats are more involved in the 'West Lothian' question and the English Constitutional questions arising from devolution. Neither I nor the English Democrats have ever taken part in any protest relating to Islamists, such as Abu Qatada.

5. I would also point out that I confirmed the substance of what I am saying in this Witness Statement in writing in correspondence to Bindmans prior to them issuing any proceedings or applying for an Injunction. I am a Solicitor and Officer of the Court and so I do think, with the greatest of respect to them, they should have taken me at my word, especially given that the “evidence” which they offered against me and the English Democrats is ridiculously flimsy and comes from a third party website which does not even expressly state that either I or the English Democrats are involved in the new organisation or more pertinently the protest itself.

6. My primary involvement at the meeting reported in that email was a guest speaker on the topic of Englishness and, in particular, the rise in English National Identity which has been demonstrated in the results of the 2011 Census which shows that over 60% (more than 32 million people) within England have self-identified their national identity as being “English Only”.

7. I do naturally support the rights of people to protest and I do support those protests being done in an orderly and civilised manner, which I understand is the intention of the English National Resistance. That support fairly obviously does not give rise to any presumption that I or the English Democrats are somehow members of the organisation; any more than the comments of senior establishment politicians in Parliament criticising Abu Qatada could be taken to imply anything similar from them!

8. I am aware that Labour strategists have identified the English Democrats as a threat to them and that is particularly so, not only after our victories over them in the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Mayoralty, but also our very good performance throughout South Yorkshire in the Police Commissioner elections in which we came second to the Labour candidate whilst winning the vast majority of all the second preference votes as well. I suspect that the sole reason for drawing me and the English Democrats into this matter was Bindmans’ Labour supporting agenda, rather than any proper legal basis. I regard that the whole way that the Injunction has been approached as being fundamentally a politically motivated abuse of process and, indeed, no doubt also of the taxpayers’ contribution through legal aid/public funding.

Statement of Truth

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

Signed …………………………………….. Dated……………………………..

 Robin Charles William Tilbrook

Here is the BBC report of the outcome of the case:-

Abu Qatada's family win injunctions against demonstrators

The radical cleric has been fighting deportation to Jordan for more than a decade
The family of radical cleric Abu Qatada has won an injunction preventing protesters from demonstrating directly outside their home.

His wife and five children were granted an anti-harassment order by a High Court judge in London.

The judge said demonstrations could still take place but they have to be more than 500 metres from the Qatada home in London.

Last year, a court blocked the cleric's deportation to Jordan.

Home Secretary Theresa May's appeal against that decision is due to be heard on 11 March.

The Palestinian-born Jordanian faces a re-trial in Jordan for allegedly conspiring to cause explosions on Western and Israeli targets in 1998 and 1999. He was found guilty of terrorism offences in his absence in Jordan in 1999.

Second injunction At the High Court, Mr Justice Silber said evidence showed the claimants, including two children under the age of 16, "have suffered extreme distress and upset" by the actions of demonstrators directly outside their home.

He accepted the evidence they were "effectively prisoners in their home" while the demonstrations were taking place.

He said the protests had "terrified" the family, particularly the younger children.

There was "powerful evidence" from the claimants of weekly demonstrations "with much shouting of abuse" such as "Abu Qatada off our streets" and "All Muslims are terrorists" and calls for him to be killed.

The legal action was brought against a number of groups, including English National Resistance, Britain First and the English Defence League, as well as against "persons unknown who are intending to assemble outside the home".

The defendants argued the injunctions would interfere with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights - in relation to freedom of thought, expression, and of assembly and association.

The judge pointed out Abu Qatada, whose real name is Omar Othman, was not a party to the proceedings.

He emphasised the case was not concerned with whether "Omar Othman should still be in this country or whether he should be in prison in this country" and was also not concerned with whether he or his family "should be provided with a house financed by the United Kingdom taxpayers".

It was accepted "that it is perfectly legitimate" for there to be protests about his presence in the country and about the house provided to his family.

The injunctions granted continued previous orders made by another High Court judge earlier this month.

As well as the anti-harassment order, Mr Justice Silber granted a second injunction restraining the defendants from communicating or disclosing personal matters relating to the wife and children, such as their address, names, names of schools, and also images of them.

Abu Qatada was released on bail from Long Lartin prison, in Worcestershire, in November after spending most of the last 10 years in custody.

He was released after he won the latest round of his long-running deportation case. Immigration judges ruled there was a risk that evidence obtained through torture could be used at his retrial in Jordan.

Monday, 18 February 2013

Britishness "dying of Greed"?

Here is an interesting article from the pen of Joyce McMillan which appeared in The Scotsman on the 8th February. 

Joyce McMillan: Shamed nation dying of greed

The NHS and banking scandals reflect the corruption and moral vacuum threatening the heart of the UK, writes Joyce McMillan

IT’S A strange experience, to open the newspapers and see the word “shame” blazoned across the headlines on both of the leading stories of the day; shame in the National Health Service, and shame in the world of finance, as the twin scandals at Mid Staffordshire hospitals, and in those upper echelons of the banking industry where the Libor borrowing rate was fixed and corrupted, are finally exposed to public gaze.

Those responsible, of course, still seem largely shameless, in the manner perfected by the 21st century British boss class. In the aftermath of the Mid Staffordshire scandal – in which up to 1,200 patients are thought to have died unnecessarily, in conditions of thirst, hunger, filth, isolation and misery which almost defy description – no-one has been prosecuted; and almost incredibly, the man who was then in overall charge of the West Midlands Hospital Trust, Sir David Nicholson, is now head of the entire English NHS, with no intention of resigning.

As for the bankers – well, despite their egregious role in almost bringing the entire global economy to its knees in 2008, no banker has yet been imprisoned in the UK for his role in this orgy of irresponsible and fradulent trading.

In both cases, there is neither punishment for the individuals responsible, nor a significant dismantling of the systems which spawned them; and to say that this situation is morally and socially unsustainable is barely to hint the depths of public anger and disillusion that these abuses have brought in their wake.

So what is it, we have to ask, that underpins this growing culture of impunity, among Britain’s business leaders and top public managers? In essence, they all seem to have entered a world where, despite recognising the existence of concepts like decency, honesty, compassion and legality – and perhaps even trying to express them in their private lives – they have felt permitted and even encouraged, in their professional environment, to ignore, or even directly challenge those values, in pursuit of a set of goals defined entirely in financial terms.

The report into the Staffordshire scandal should make fascinating reading for anyone interested in the importing of inappropriate sub-business language into British public services over the last generation; apparently managers “put corporate self-interest and cost control ahead of patients and their safety”.

Yet even in the private sector, it seems, a bottom-line approach ungoverned by any sense of legality, or ethics leads rapidly to chaos. A major bank may not have the same overwhelming duty of care and compassion as a hospital trust, but it still has an obligation to operate within the law, and to avoid fraudulent dealings; and it needs to have this kind of decent and lawful behaviour written into its organisational DNA, from top to bottom, if those at lower levels are to feel empowered to do their jobs properly – just as a hospital trust management needs to send out signals that patient care comes first, if nurses and ward managers are to feel empowered to deliver that care.

And it’s because the cultural shift involved in this collapse of ethical behaviour has been so profound – starting at the top of our society, and filtering down to the lowest levels, in the form of casual workplace cynicism, and the taking out of violent and abusive feelings on the very weakest – that all the measures proposed to counter it seem so pathetic, and in some cases so laughably misconceived.

Faced with an English NHS corrupted over decades by the risible idea that it is a “business”, for example, David Cameron’s best proposal for restoring some heart and compassion to the service is apparently to make good treatment of patients the subject of performance-related pay; thereby reifying the very notion – that nothing matters or motivates people, except money – that is causing the rot.

Faced with a banking sector in which almost every senior player seems implicated, at some level, in condoning or failing to prevent corrupt and irresponsible behaviour, it seems the best the government can do is to whimper from the sidelines about ­ring-fencing some aspects of banking activity.

Well, enough; and under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that ever-larger numbers of thinking Scots are tempted by the idea of a fresh start in a fresh nation. Yet in truth, there is no mainstream party, at either UK or Scottish level, that will finally call this corrupt and self-serving elite for what it has become, or will name the frightening process of splitting and denial which sets in, when modern bosses convince themselves – like so many apparatchiks of some old Stalinist state – that in order to do their jobs properly, they have to suppress their own natural moral sentiments, and trample over everyone else’s, in the service of the prevailing business ideology.

For you can split the human psyche for a while of course; long enough to pocket the thick end of a billion quid as personal wealth, if you are a lucky player in the banking sector. But when it comes to constructing a society with the strength and resilience to survive shocks, to maintain its institutions, to look towards a credible future – well then, you need to put the psyche together again, to balance freedom and ambition with security and justice, individual opportunity with the need for a strong and decent convivial life.

To trade honestly, to care for the sick, to meet crime with justice, to do as we would be done by; these are the cornerstones of any civilisation. And it is therefore difficult to feel anything but contempt for the market-dazzled generation of politicians who decreed that we could afford to put these values on the back-burner, while a bunch of blank-eyed business school graduates, taught to pride themselves on their emotional and civic dysfunction, told us how to run our lives and our institutions.

For in their seduction by a creed so obviously wrong-headed, and their sheer lack of practical political wisdom, those politicians have gradually conspired to bring almost every institution in British life into increasing disrepute; and the nation itself – given another year or two of shame and impunity on this scale – to what may be the brink of dissolution.

 Joyce McMillan is theatre critic of The Scotsman, and also writes a political and social commentary column for the paper. She has been involved in many campaigns for democracy and human rights, both in Scotland and internationally, and has been a freelance journalist, based in Edinburgh, Scotland, for more than 25 years. She was a Visiting Professor in the School of Drama and Creative Industries at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh from 2006 to 2010. 

Thursday, 14 February 2013

PRESS RELEASE - Eastleigh Parliamentary By-election

English Democrats woo ex-Labour and ex-Liberal Democrat voters.

In the Eastleigh by-election the English Democrats’ are delighted to announce our candidate Michael Walters.
Michael Walters is an English Democrats' county Chairman, he was our Dover 2010 general election candidate (when Labour was planning on selling off Dover Harbour to the French!).

A popular member of the English Democrats he is a member of the Royal British Legion Riders Branch and poppy tin Distributor, having served in the R.O.C. in the seventies when he was trained in nuclear defence.

A committed Anglican he has been a Christian Aid doorstep collector for the last twenty years, a Parochial Church Council member and 'Churches Together' representative.

Michael joined the SDP (Social Democrats Party) in 1984 at the Crosby by-election and also campaigned for the SDP in Glasgow Hillhead. He is an ex-Liberal Democrat constituency party chairman and election agent. Michael left the Lib Dems in 2002 after being ordered by the Gravesham party to remove the word “Christian” from his County Council leaflet! He was also concerned by their growing anti-English stance and so joined the English Democrats.

Robin Tilbrook said:- “In the November Police Commissioner election in South Yorkshire we came within a whisker of winning – we would have done so if second preferences had come into play. Interestingly most Labour voters had put English Democrats as their second preference and also so had most Liberal Democrat voters”.

Robin said:- “We are aiming to replace the Liberal Democrats as the choice for those voters who have noticed that the British Political Establishment does not have any regard for England’s needs. It is significant that our candidate, Michael Walters, has previously been a Liberal Democrat.”

Robin asked:- “If we can persuade a great activist like Michael Walters to come over to us – why not almost all patriotic Liberal Democrat and Labour voters as the process of devolution reminds the English people of their Englishness? In the 2011 Census over 32 million people in England stated that their National Identity is “English Only”. In the Eastleigh Council area it was 65.6% or 82,146 people. English Nationalism is rising and will eventually sweep away those politicians and parties who stand against it."

Robin Tilbrook
The English Democrats,
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website:
Chairman's FB
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002. The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party which campaigns for a Parliament for England, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; for a Referendum to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England.
The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!)

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Guest Post - Effects of Mass Immigration

‘We are stronger for it – and I love Britain for it. It gives us access to new ideas, new perspectives, new energies.’ These are the words spoken by Ed Miliband in response to the news that white Britons are now a minority population in London, their ancestral city. We should of course not be surprised by this comment as Miliband was part of the New Labour project to demographically transform London and England through mass immigration. The very idea that Ed Miliband, New Labour and large sections of the media can celebrate whites being reduced to minority status in their own city, however, is of course scandalous in the extreme. No other population group in history has voluntarily and actively sought to reduce themselves to ethnic minority status in their own homeland. This is because all previous populations throughout history knew only too well that once territory is conceded to foreign populations it spelt the end for them.
Let’s examine the latest census data that seems to have the liberal left multiculturalists engaged in a collective orgasm of joy. Just 44.9% of Londoners are white British according to the Census data for 2011. 7.5 million residents of England and Wales were foreign born in 2011 and less than 90% of the country is white for the first time ever. In 2011 the number of foreign born, made up 13 per cent, or one in eight of the population. More worryingly still the proportion of Muslims rose from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent. None of these figures include those who are here illegally so the situation is actually worse than the official figures would have us believe. London’s ethnic make-up is now as follows: White British 44.9%
Other white 14.9%
Asian 18.4%
Black 13.3%
Arab 1.3%
Mixed race 5%
How has this demographic transformation happened? We can of course go back to the post war period and identify the factors that gave rise to the immigration flows from the 1950s. However I dealt with this in my previous article: ‘The demographic transformation of Britain.’  Here I want to focus on the emergence of New Labour under Tony Blair in 1997. It was Tony Blair’s New Labour party that really fuelled mass immigration between the years 1997 and 2010. During this period more immigrants came to this country than did the immigration flows into Britain between the period 1066 and 1997. It is New Labour that must be held primarily responsible for the demographic transformation of London in such a short period of time and the subsequent reducing of whites to minority status as an ethnic group. Indeed Andrew Neather, a former New Labour advisor to Tony Blair and David Blunkett, recently admitted that this mass inflow of immigrants was a deliberate New Labour policy to make Britain more multicultural. He stated that Labour’s relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan to ‘open up the U.K. to mass immigration.’ Of course these mealy mouthed multiculturalists refused to discuss this openly at the time for fear of alienating their ‘core working class vote’. This seems odd given their belief that we are all enriched by hoards of people from the Third World living amongst us! Neather, uncharacteristically for a labour politician, is honest about the reasons for this mass influx of people from the Third World. He states; ‘I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. So one of the main reasons why 3 million immigrants  arrived on these shores during the time Labour were in office was because they wanted to make a political and ideological point to those of us who do not support the multiracial and multicultural experiment. They had no mandate for this demographic transformation and simply labelled  anxious moderate voices as racist when concerns were raised about the consequences of this policy. They have shown the utmost contempt for the people of this country as well as a reckless arrogance and conceit. They should hang their heads in shame! However as we can see from the response to the 2011 Census data, Miliband is excited by our dispossession. In fact he loves Britain all the more for it!
So what have been the results of this mass inflow of people from the rest of the world? Let’s briefly examine just a few of the consequences of Labours mass immigration policy: Education. Our schools have been unable to cope with the rapidly increasing numbers of children needing school places so class sizes have increased. Many of these new arrivals cannot speak a word of English so interpreters and specialist language teachers have had to be brought in at the tax payers’ expense. Indigenous children have fallen behind in their language development as teachers, already stretched, have had to concentrate their efforts on teaching the new arrivals English. In the boroughs of many inner cities white children have become minorities in the schools that their families have used for generations. These children can forget about being taught their history and culture as the local curriculum begins to reflect the cultural heritage of the new arrivals. The evidence is strongly suggestive that British school children in many of the inner city schools have experienced a fall in educational standards as a direct result of schools not being able to cope with large numbers of non-English speaking foreign pupils.
Environment: Immigrants of course need to be housed so we are seeing further encroachments into the countryside for mass house building programmes. Planning Minister Nick Boles blames Labour’s immigration policies for the fact that ‘large swathes of the countryside must be concreted over for housing’ Mr Bowles further stated that: ‘The population of England has gone up by three million during the last 10 years. These people now live here, these people are now British and they need homes just like British people’. Indeed Mr Bowles and the fact is that 43 per cent of the new households which need a home are accounted for by immigration! Guess who is going to pay for these new homes? Here’s a clue. It won’t be the immigrants themselves. The lack of affordable housing to buy has meant an increase in rents making life difficult for young couple who can’t afford to buy. The demand for social housing has reached crisis point and many British people are pushed to the back of the queue as priority is given to those with large families. The destruction of our countryside however is a major concern as new towns and cities will be located in some of the most beautiful parts of the country. 50 % of these new homes will be for immigrants.
Welfare: The demands on the welfare system in the U.K. and the National Health Service are so great that things simply cannot go on as they are. Thousands of people are in receipt of benefits who have never contributed a single penny into the system. The Muslim population and particularly the Somali, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities are a net drain on these services and are supported by the beleaguered indigenous population. The NHS is under increasing strain as it treats more and more foreign born who have not contributed to the cost of running the system. Our hospitals and schools have again recently been flooded by Eastern Europeans who have made no contribution whatsoever to the costs of the services they receive.
Islam: Many of our cities have now become Islamic enclaves as many Muslims have taken the decision to self-segregate from mainstream society. Enoch Powell once remarked, ‘There are at this moment parts of this town which have ceased to be part of England, except that they are situated within it geographically’ No more is this true for places like Bradford, Oldham, Leicester and Birmingham. Literally dozens of boroughs within our major cities are now lost to Islam. Forty per cent of Muslims surveyed said that they backed Sharia in parts of Britain. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers’ motives and one per cent felt the attacks were right. Given the numbers of Muslims now living in the U.K. these figures are terrifying. These are the people who mock and abuse our troops, who burn poppies and insult our war dead. These are the people who threaten to kill us if we dare criticise their barbaric religion and these are the people, with the support of the liberal elite, who are poisoning the minds of our children in primary and secondary schools with a sanitised version of Islam thus disarming our young people of the dangers that they will inevitably face from Islam as they get older.
General: There are of course many other ‘benefits’ brought over by the new arrivals in the form of crime, disease and backward cultures that are better suited to the 7th century: Africans killing their children because they are ‘witches’, honour killings, terrorism and parasitic Muslim preachers of hate are some of the other delights that the people of this country have been blessed with. My heart goes out to our older people who have seen their communities changed beyond recognition in their lifetimes. What must they think? How must they feel? They have been abandoned and left alone to rot in inner city hell holes without the comfort of their people or culture to support them in their old age.
Walk through any of the inner London boroughs now and you will observe that English people are conspicuous by their absence. All I hear when I walk through the culturally enriched areas of parts of north London are eastern European languages and a host of other unrecognisable dialects. London has become a modern version of the Tower of Babel! Our inner cities are increasingly becoming Third World ghettoes and unfortunately too many of them are becoming increasingly Islamic in character. Sometimes I just have to stop whilst walking through these areas and pinch myself. I have to remind myself that I am living in London and that I am not on some exotic holiday in the Sudan. The above discussion only deals with some of the results of Labours mass immigration policy but I think that we can conclude that much damage had been done to our country and our people. In contrast to the feelings that Ed Miliband expresses I personally believe that Britain is weaker not stronger because of multiculturalism. Unlike him I don’t love it; I hate it. Let me share some of my personal feelings with you on this. I hope you will indulge me for a while.
 I no longer recognise the London I grew up in; the city that I was proud of and emotionally attached to, my ancestral city, with its rich heritage and wonderful history. It has been taken away from me and other indigenous folk and given to foreigners. It’s theirs now and there is no point pretending otherwise. Living in London has become a nightmare for many of us and for me personally. We are no longer with our own people; we have become strangers in our own lands. We are exposed to alien cultures that are unfamiliar to us. I hear languages that are not my own. If I use public transport I don’t see or hear many English people. I feel left out and on the margins, peripheral to the social activities going on around me. I cannot relate to people in my community because they are not my people. Sometimes I feel awkward because I am only one of a few whites in a pub that is no longer frequented by White people and I feel that I am intruding in a place that is no longer there for people like me. To feel like this in my own city and in my own country does not enrich me. I have nothing to celebrate but my own dispossession. I know that many others feel this way too and that’s the only consolation that I have. In this respect I’m not alone!
Culture is very important for groups because it gives them meaning and structure. It gives them rules and guidelines to live by. It’s shared so it gives rise to the familiar and enables us to feel comfortable in our geographical space with others like us. There is however very little of the familiar left for those of us stuck in the multicultural ghettoes of inner London. We are surrounded by the unfamiliar and the stranger. We are forced to live in the midst of those who despise us and treat us with contempt, those who hate our society and way of life. So I cannot agree with Ed Balls and the advocates of the destruction of my heritage and culture that Britain is a stronger place because whites are a minority in London and soon to be a minority in the whole country. I sincerely hope that one day Mr Balls and all the criminals and traitors in the three major parties have to give an account of themselves to the people of this country for what that have done to us; to me. I can promise that the penalty for this treason will be of the harshest kind.
Daily Telegraph 19.02.2006
Daily Telegraph 01.12.2012
Migration Watch U.K.
Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan’
Daily Mail  11.12.2012.
Leon Martin

Friday, 8 February 2013

A Conservative notices the hole where his English pride should be

The “Conservative Home” on-line blog has begun to notice that the Conservative Party is not even attempting to engage in the argument about the future of the English Nation.

This is now beginning to produce the odd bat-squeak of dissent as the article below shows.

The author however clearly hasn’t realised that the Conservative leadership is simply part of the manifestation of the neo-liberal Lib/Lab/Con consensus for the last 35 years. Not only has his Leader said that he wouldn’t do anything for England because “I am a Cameron and there is plenty of Scottish blood flowing in these veins”, but also his Foreign Secretary and former Leader, William Hague has gone so far as to say that “England nationalism is the most dangerous form of all nationalisms”.

Indeed it does seem that Conservative politicians with Scottish heritage are most hostile to any expression of Englishness. They always claim that this is because of their historic attachment to “unionism” and the “United Kingdom”, but some of their remarks are so excessively emotionally that they could only come from a visceral hatred of the very idea of England and of Englishness.

This in England where, despite decades of State propaganda against Englishness and the impact of mass immigration and multi-culturalism, over 60% (over 32 million people) have self-identified their National Identity in the 2011 Census as “English Only”.

Here is the article:-

Harriett Baldwin MP and Justice for England

By Paul Goodman

A fortnight ago, Harriett Baldwin MP asked the following question to Tom Brake, the Deputy Leader of the Commons, during Business Questions:

"I am delighted to hear that we will get the report in this session of Parliament. Does the Deputy Leader of the House share my aspiration that by the end of this Parliament we will ensure that English-only legislation is voted on with a majority of English MPs?"

Brake replied:

"I am aware that my hon. Friend is pursuing this matter vigorously—indeed, she made her own submission—but it is right that we wait until we have carefully considered the arguments and options in the report before taking a view. I am sure the House will want to do the same."

That question-and-answer highlighted an injustice to England; a Coalition tension; an uneven playing field - and a campaign by a tenacious backbencher.
Injustice to England: Since the Blair devolution settlement, MPs who sit for Scottish, Wales and Northern Ireland have been able to vote on English business, but MPs from English constituencies have not always been able to vote on theirs. This is a special problem for the relationship between England and Scotland because of the combination of the extent of devolution in Scotland and the number of Scottish constituencies.
A Coalition tension: Eleven of the Liberal Democrats' 57 seats are in Scotland. These include the Scottish Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Government's third most senior Whip. We, by contrast, have a single Scottish seat. Rebalancing the Parliamentary relationship thus has bigger implications for the Liberal Democrats than for the Tories - and they thus have far less of an incentive to give England justice.
Uneven playing field: Depending on who you listen to, we need a 7 or even an 11 point lead over Labour to scrape a bare majority. The present boundaries and the Opposition's strength outside England aren't the main reason for this disparity: Labour's vote is spread more efficiently. But this week's demise of the boundary review is a reminder that the present injustice to England censors the self-expression of its natural Tory majority.
A tenacious backbencher: How should you deploy your energies as a new MP in the Commons? One answer is: find a campaign to fight. This is exactly what Harriet Baldwin, the MP for West Worcestershire, did after 2010. Two years ago, I reported debate on Harriet Baldwin's Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill on this site. It proposed what its author called "a lower-strength version of English votes for English laws".

However, her intention was less to pass the bill than to stick a spur, repeatedly, into the lethargic horse of the commission examining the West Lothian Commission - and into the Ministers responsible for it. The McKay Commission, set up under the Coalition Agreement, has vanished amidst the long-grass for the past two years. But it is apparently due to report by the end of the coming session - in other words, by the summer.

David Cameron won't want to see the pitch queered during the run-up to Scotland's referendum. But if it produces, as it hopefully will, a "Yes" vote, the way will be clear for a future trade-off of further devolution, north of the border (Peter Duncan has argued the case for "Devo Plus" on this site), and justice for England, south of it. This won't be possible under the Coalition, but the Prime Minister should give the idea a big push come the end of 2014.

Indeed, he should wrap himself in the flag of St George after the referendum is safely out of the way. It will be claimed that justice for England - which Tim Montgomerie, I and Roger Scruton (in a beautifully-argued recent piece on this site) have all put the case for - is not exactly top of the list of voters' priorities. True enough. But it is part of the business of politicians to try to shift public opinion. I would like to see:
David Cameron give a big speech or interview, or write a big newspaper piece, about Justice for England after the referendum on Scottish independence.
Once given or written, the theme shouldn't simply vanish into the ether: Grant Shapps, Lynton Crosby and CCHQ should be charged with following it up.
With Michael Moore in the Scottish Office, and no Conservative Minister charged with pushing England's cause, Cameron will need to find one - fast.
I'm not sure whether an exiled Scot is the right man for the task, but Michael Gove's immense media savvy and intellectual grasp commend him for it. Any other ideas?
Cameron could also make a big thing of St George's Day, if the business is done in a suitably groovy way.

And the campaign should also have a role for Harriett Baldwin, the determined backbencher who saw this ball on the ground, picked it up, and is running with it to this day. 

Here is the link to the original piece>>>

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Is Mass Immigration a "Good Thing"?

The 2011 Census results on the National Identity Question shows that over 32 million people (over 60%) regard themselves as “English Only”. It also shows that the percentage of people who claimed to have no indigenous ethnic or National Identity connection with any of the constituent nations of the UK had risen to over 15%. In many inner city areas the percentages are even more startling.

Here is an article about the human story behind these statistics:-

'I feel like a stranger where I live’

As new figures show 'white flight' from cities is rising, one Londoner writes a provocative personal piece about how immigration has drastically changed the borough where she has lived for 17 years

Multicultural: the shops in Acton Vale, west London Photo: Jeff Gilbert

By Jane Kelly

Daily Telegraph 29 Jan 2013

"When you go swimming, it’s much healthier to keep your whole body completely covered, you know.” The Muslim lady behind the counter in my local pharmacy has recently started giving me advice like this. It’s kindly meant and I’m always glad to hear her views because she is one of the few people in west London where I live who talks to me.

The streets around Acton, which has been my home since 1996, have taken on a new identity. Most of the shops are now owned by Muslims and even the fish and chip shop and Indian takeaway are Halal. It seems that almost overnight it’s changed from Acton Vale into Acton Veil.

Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they never look me in the face.

I recently went to the plainly named “Curtain Shop” and asked if they would put some up for me. Inside were a lot of elderly Muslim men. I was told that they don’t do that kind of work, and was back on the pavement within a few moments. I felt sure I had suffered discrimination and was bewildered as I had been there previously when the Muslim owners had been very friendly. Things have changed. I am living in a place where I am a stranger.

I was brought up in a village in Staffordshire, and although I have been in London for a quarter of a century I have kept the habit of chatting to shopkeepers and neighbours, despite it not being the done thing in metropolitan life. Nowadays, though, most of the tills in my local shops are manned by young Muslim men who mutter into their mobiles as they are serving. They have no interest in talking to me and rarely meet my gaze. I find this situation dismal. I miss banter, the hail fellow, well met chat about the weather, or what was on TV last night.

More worryingly, I feel that public spaces are becoming contested. One food store has recently installed a sign banning alcohol on the premises. Fair enough. But it also says: “No alcohol allowed on the streets near this shop.” I am no fan of street drinking, and rowdy behaviour and loutish individuals are an aspect of modern British ''culture’’ I hate. But I feel uneasy that this shopkeeper wants to control the streets outside his shop. I asked him what he meant by his notice but he just smiled at me wistfully.

Perhaps he and his fellow Muslims want to turn the area into another Tower Hamlets, the east London borough where ''suggestive’’ advertising is banned and last year a woman was refused a job in a pharmacy because she wasn’t veiled.

On the other hand, maybe I should be grateful. At least in Acton there is just a sign in a shop. Since the start of the year there have been several reports from around London of a more aggressive approach. Television news footage last week showed incidents filmed on a mobile phone on a Saturday night, in the borough of Waltham Forest, of men shouting “This is a Muslim area” at white Britons.

The video commentary stated: “From women walking the street dressed like complete naked animals with no self-respect, to drunk people carrying alcohol, we try our best to capture and forbid it all.”

Another scene showed hooded youths forcing a man to drop his can of lager, telling him they were the “Muslim patrol” and that alcohol is a “forbidden evil”. The gang then approached a group of white girls enjoying a good night out, telling them to “forbid themselves from dressing like this and exposing themselves outside the mosque”.

Worse, though, is film footage from last week, thought to have been taken in Commercial Street, Whitechapel, which showed members of a group who also called themselves a “Muslim patrol” harassing a man who appeared to be wearing make‑up, calling him a “bloody fag”. In the video posted on YouTube last week, the passer-by is told he is “walking through a Muslim area dressed like a fag” and ordered to get out. Last Thursday, police were reported to have arrested five “vigilantes” suspected of homophobic abuse.

There are, of course, other Europeans in my area who may share my feelings but I’m not able to talk to them easily about this situation as they are mostly immigrants, too. At Christmas I spoke to an elderly white woman about the lack of parsnips in the local greengrocer, but she turned out to have no English and I was left grumbling to myself.

Poles have settled in Ealing since the Second World War and are well assimilated, but since 2004 about 370,000 east Europeans have arrived in London. Almost half the populations of nearby Ealing and Hammersmith were born outside the UK. Not surprisingly, at my bus stop I rarely hear English spoken. I realise that we can’t return to the time when buses were mainly occupied by white ladies in their best hats and gloves going shopping, but I do feel nostalgic for the days when a journey on public transport didn’t leave me feeling as if I have only just arrived in a strange country myself.

There are other “cultural differences” that bother me, too. Over the past year I have been involved in rescuing a dog that was kept in a freezing shed for months. The owners spoke no English. A Somali neighbour kept a dog that he told me he was training to fight, before it was stolen by other dog fighters. I have tried to re-home several cats owned by a family who refuse to neuter their animals, because of their religion.

In the Nineties, when I arrived, this part of Acton was a traditional working-class area. Now there is no trace of any kind of community – that word so cherished by the Left. Instead it has been transformed into a giant transit camp and is home to no one. The scale of immigration over recent years has created communities throughout London that never need to – or want to – interact with outsiders.

It wasn’t always the case: since the 1890s thousands of Jewish, Irish, Afro-Caribbean, Asian and Chinese workers, among others, have arrived in the capital, often displacing the indigenous population. Yes, there was hateful overt racism and discrimination, I’m not denying that. But, over time, I believe we settled down into a happy mix of incorporation and shared aspiration, with disparate peoples walking the same pavements but returning to very different homes – something the Americans call “sundown segregation”.

But now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists, wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by the white population – the rate of white flight from our cities is soaring. According to the Office for National Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter of their population of white, British people. The number in Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844 (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.

I suspect that many white people in London and the Home Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly one million pupils do not have English as a first language.

I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with safe streets, nice housing and pleasant caf├ęs, are beyond my reach. I see London turning into a place almost exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.

It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.

Jane Kelly is consulting editor of the 'Salisbury Review’