Here is my speech from our St George’s dinner in Barnsley

Here is my speech from our St George’s dinner in Barnsley:-

Ladies & Gentlemen

I would just like to start by offering our thanks to Chris, Joanne, Kevin, Ian and all those who have helped make this a very enjoyable evening.

Ladies & Gentlemen

We are gathered here this evening in a celebration of St George, our English Nation and also at the start of the English Democrats’ EU  and local Election campaign.

On St George’s Day, on the 23rd, UKIP put out a thoroughly deceitful claim stating:-
 
“UKIP is the only political party which has consistently campaigned to mark St George's Day with a national holiday
Today, and over the past few days, we have seen people across the country mark St George's Day. Whether it be by organising a procession or a festival, or simply flying a flag, more and more of us are taking the opportunity to celebrate England and Englishness.
The huge increase in awareness of what St George's Day means, which we have seen gather pace in the past decade, has happened amongst people at a local level and in the face of official indifference, or often hostility, from above. UKIP is the only political party which has consistently campaigned to mark St George's Day with a national holiday. We look forward to that becoming a reality.
We recognise that a great and benign pride in our history and achievements is something which is felt by people of all generations, despite constant attempts to discourage it and turn our history into a source of shame.
Next year sees the 800th anniversary of one of the greatest moments in that history, the signing of Magna Carta. It will rightly be a time of great celebration for all of us.
In the meantime, happy St George's Day!?”

Ladies and Gentlemen I remind you that that is from a party whose leader recently said:  “I didn’t read it.  It was drivel.  It was 486 pages of drivel.  It was a nonsense”. 

Curiously the man who said that not only wrote the foreward to UKIP’s manifesto but also repeatedly defended it and quoted it in various radio and television interviews!  So much for “drivel” and “nonsense”!

But in fact and in all truth it is us, the English Democrats, which is really the only party of which this could truthfully have been said.  

Indeed in the run up to this St George’s Day we put out this Press Release:-
 
“CALL TO CELEBRATE ST GEORGE’S DAY ON 23RD APRIL AS THE ENGLISH NATIONAL BANK HOLIDAY
 
The English Democrats are calling on all the 32 million people who identified themselves as “English Only” in the 2011 Census to turn out on Wednesday and to make this St George’s Day the best ever!

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, said:- “St George has been the Patron Saint of England since 1325.  As the emblem Saint of our Nation we English, as a proud and historic Nation, should celebrate with gusto on Wednesday, 23rd.”

Robin continued:- “ Our English flag should be flying high on every flagpole in England upon St George’s Day!”

What do you think of that?

This year however what we have seen is an upsurge of many of England’s enemies making deceptive noises about being pro St George’s Day.  They are doing so not because they are now friendly but with an agenda in mind:  Consider these comments:-
 
“The England football team has helped reclaim the England flag from the far-right, ‘who should never have been allowed to take it in the first place’.  Research for British Future confirms that civic celebrations of Englishness and Britishness have facilitated a more tolerant and open understanding of ethnicity and nation.”

The Director of IPPR, the Labour Think Tank, Guy Lodge warns about politicians and Engishness:- “Think about it. Contest it, but do not let it become something that is ‘not allowed.”
 
The Left call this stratagem:- “Adopt and Adapt”.

A fantastic example of this Adopt and Adapt stratagem was Boris Johnston’s, Mayor of London’s adoption by putting on a St George’s Day event in Trafalgar Square at which I am told that not a single one of the many flags officially on display was a Cross of St George!  Now that really is adaption for you!

Also we had David Cameron saying:- “
 
“I want to send my best wishes to everyone celebrating St George’s Day.
Up and down the country – including here in Downing Street – the flag of St George is flying high and celebrations – from the archaic to the eccentric – are taking place:
In Plymouth – a patriotic festival; in London – a great feast in Trafalgar Square; in Leicester – a medieval re-enactment; and in Worcestershire – an annual ‘asparagus run’, to welcome the new harvest.
St George has been England’s patron saint since 1350. But for too long, his feast day – England’s national day – has been overlooked. Today, though, more and more people are coming together on or around April the 23rd, eager to celebrate everything it is to be English. And there is much to celebrate. Because this is a country whose achievements in industry, in technology, sport, music, literature and the arts - they far outweigh our size.
Our counties and cities are known the world over:
In America, where Newcastle Brown Ale is the most imported ale; in China, where the most popular international football team is from London: Arsenal; in Australia, where they go mad for a Cornish cuisine – the humble pasty; in South Korea, where Yorkshire-set Downton Abbey is a TV favourite. And across the globe, where the best-selling band is from Liverpool: the Beatles.
This St George’s Day, I want us to reflect on one of England’s greatest achievements: its role in the world’s greatest family of nations – the United Kingdom. In just 5 months, the people of Scotland will go to the polls and decide whether they want to remain a part of this global success story. So let’s prove that we can be proud of our individual nations and be committed to our union of nations. Because no matter how great we are alone, we will always be greater together.
So once again, to everyone across England, I’d like to wish you a very happy St George’s Day.”

Compare that with what he said only a few years ago.  David Cameron used to claim to be adamantly against any show of Englishness.  Consider this quotation from an 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”.

We English Democrats need to bear this in mind when people say to us that the Conservatives might be willing to do something for England .  I think that Conservative Leadership is actually our nation’s worst enemy.

What all this kerfuffle shows however is that we are already being successful with our campaign for St George’s Day to be officially recognised.  By being in the fight we are changing the dynamics of political discource.

The fact is that St George as the patron saint of England is a reflection of the history of our country, but I think he is a good patron saint for England, not least because of his visually striking red cross on a white background, an emblem which for 700 years has adorned our English flags.

In history St George seems to have been a Roman soldier, indeed it has been said that he was of the rank of Legate in the Emperor Diocletian’s Pretorian Guard.   If so, that makes him not only a career soldier, but roughly equivalent in status to the Lieutenant Colonel in Command of the Guards. 

The Roman Empire had been going through a terrible period in the run up to Diocletian’s seizure of power in which Emperors came and went kaleidoscopically in bloody civil war.  The Empire seemed to be tearing itself apart whilst it was also under almost constant attack from the barbarian hordes outside of the Empire.  By this stage the Roman Empire was less heavily populated than the barbarian lands on the other side of the Rhine in what is now Germany.

The General who was to become the Emperor Diocletian had commanded the Roman armies in the Roman province of Britain, a province which then was made up of most of England and Wales but not that part north of Hadrian’s Wall.  The Roman province of Britain was frequently the source of rebellious and ambitious Generals seeking to become Emperor.  The usual pattern would be that he would get the army in Britain to acclaim as Emperor and he would then march on to wherever the then current Emperor was and seek to defeat him in battle.  If he succeeded in doing so, or succeeded in getting the current Emperor murdered, he was then in a good position to have himself accepted as Emperor, at least until the next rebellious General came along. 

Usually the legion that had been most supportive of the new Emperor became his Pretorian Guard and, accordingly, if the story about St George being the Legate of Diocletian’s Pretorian Guard is true,  then St George probably did do a considerable period of time serving in Roman Britain and therefore in what is now England. 

St George appears to have come from what is now either Turkey, Lebanon or Israel.  He would appear to have been a Hellenistic Greek.  Some oddball commentators have talked about his being Turkish, but the Turks did not actually arrive in that part of the world for another 500 years because it appears that St George was martyred in 303. 

As I say it is also the year of St George’s martyrdom and is of course the 23rd April which according to the medieval church calendar is his feast day. 

The story goes that St George had either always been or had became a practising Christian.  Diocletian was the last of the successful pagan emperors and introduced a new system of rule which is known in history as the Dominate in which the Emperors became much more like oriental despots and the last vestiges of the old republic were shed.  Diocletian also sought to support the established pagan religions and issued an edict of persecution against the religion which was increasingly challenging paganism within the Roman Empire, that is Christianity.  It appears that St George sought to personally argue with Diocletian about this.  If he was the Legate of the Pretorian Guard then St George may have thought that Diocletian would listen to him.  In the event it appears that St George was tortured to death. 

Ladies & Gentlemen you should remember that there was nothing cuddly or quaint about the Romans.  In fact the Romans were probably the most accomplished torturers ever and indeed Latin is the language that has the most words of all languages in all of human history for executioner and torturer because they had so many specialisms.   

There is a lurid tale from Roman history of a Carnifex, a maker of meat, who received a standing ovation in that most impressive Roman public building the Amphitheatre for removing every last piece of meat from his still conscious victim over the course of an hour or so. 

St George’s tomb is in what is now Israel in Lydda (Lod) is approximately 25 miles from Jerusalem.  His tomb is in the Christian church and next door is a mosque and the Palestinian Christians and Muslims of Lydda jointly venerate him and maintain his tomb.  In Islamic tradition he is thought to be El Quadir, a white knight. 

The legend of the dragon and the knight is a medieval morality story.   St George who is the classic military saint is here depicted as fighting against Evil and the classic image of the dragon is the emblem of Evil.  The image of Goodness is dramatically represented as the virgin princess whom he saves.   This story has all the elements of such a visual story that it has remained fixed as the myth of St George ever since but it was a moral allegory rather than ever intended to be a description of history.

St George has a long history in England and indeed the original Anglo Saxon Church in Doncaster was dedicated to St George.   So here we are ladies and gentlemen gathered to celebrate a brave soldier and Christian martyr who through history has become an emblem of our English Nation. 

St George became increasingly popular as a saint during the Crusades and its said to have fought for them when the crusaders were attacked outside Antioch and helped to bring the crusaders to the sensational victory of taking back Jerusalem from the Muslims who had then occupied it. 

After this the Genoese adopted St George as their patron saint and as they regularly transported crusaders to the Holy Land, his red cross on its white background became increasing associated with crusading. 

Richard the Lion Heart adopted him and then eventually he was formally adopted as England’s patron saint in 1325 and his feast day as the 23rd April. 

Edward III’s armies in his three famous victories first against the Scots at Halidon Hill and the French at Crecy and Poitiers were emblazoned with the Cross of St George and English armies ever afterwards until the Act of Union in 1707 always carried the Cross of St George which then became incorporated into the new Union Jack. 

You might remember Ladies and Gentlemen, at our Spring Conference in Dartford we displayed the image of an original medieval illustration of the Peasants Revolt 1381 in which both sides, the Royal army and the armed peasants, were displaying the Cross of St George!

Ladies and gentlemen, our Nation has three patron saints, the traditional patron saint of the English monarchy being Edward the Confessor, the last King of the Saxon Royal Family and St Edmund, who was the much earlier King of East Anglia, who was shot to death with arrows by Vikings.  St Edmund is traditionally the patron saint of the English as a Nation, folk, or people.  Some people say that St Edmund should be treated as England’s patron saint, others St Albans and various others like St Cuthbert but I think that somewhat misses the point and is really a diversion from what needs to be done politically in England. 

The issue for any serious English nationalist isn’t which patron saint we support, or what the emblem of England is, but to try and concentrate on what we can do to celebrate our English Nationhood.

Our history has given us St George and his visually striking red cross on a white background as the patron saint and the emblem of England. 

It would appear that he actually has more connection with England and English history than St Andrew, who after all certainly never visited Scotland and one of Jesus’ Galilean Disciples. 

Consider the alternative.  Who here would like our current Masters to decide upon our nation emblem? What would that be?  Globalist?  Multiculturalist?  Suggestions.   Tolerance of all faiths and non.

All in all I think England is fortunate to have St George as our patron saint but there is certainly no reason why other days should not be celebrated, some want to celebrate St Edmund and I would encourage that. 

I would also strongly encourage the celebration of the anniversary of the Union of England into a single united nation state when King Athelstan became King of all England on the 12th July 927.  This should be English Unity day!

So here we are Ladies and Gentlemen at a feast organised by our Yorkshire hosts to celebrate St George and at the start of our EU and local election campaign and so Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the toast:- England! St George! The English Democrats!



 

CALL TO CELEBRATE ST GEORGE’S DAY ON 23RD APRIL AS THE ENGLISH NATIONAL BANK HOLIDAY The English Democrats are calling on all the 32 million people who identified themselves as “English Only” in the 2011 Census to turn out on Wednesday and to make this St George’s Day the best ever!

CALL TO CELEBRATE ST GEORGE’S DAY ON 23RD APRIL AS THE ENGLISH NATIONAL BANK HOLIDAY

Our press release:-

The English Democrats are calling on all the 32 million people who identified themselves as “English Only” in the 2011 Census to turn out on Wednesday and to make this St George’s Day the best ever!

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, said:- “St George has been the Patron Saint of England since 1325. As the emblem Saint of our Nation we English, as a proud and historic Nation, should celebrate with gusto on Wednesday, 23rd.”

Robin continued:- “ Our English flag should be flying high on every flagpole in England upon St George’s Day!”

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
FaceBook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
English Democrats' FB Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/www.EngDem.org
Chairman's FB
Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/Robin.Tilbrook.English.Democrats
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002. The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party which campaigns for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; 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)

ALL EU NOMINATIONS IN FOR THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS!

ALL EU NOMINATIONS IN FOR THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS!

This is the text of our Press Release:-

The English Democrats are pleased to announce that all 60 of our candidates for the EU Parliamentary Elections, which will be taking place on the 22^nd May, have now been accepted as valid nominations by the Regional Returning Officers.  The English Democrats are standing in all 9 of the English EU Parliamentary Constituencies which means that the English Democrats have put up a “full slate” of candidates for the second time running. 

In the last EU elections in 2009 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). 

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats and the Party’s National Election Agent said:-  “I am delighted that yet again the English Democrats have managed to stand a full slate of candidates across England.  That means that every English voter will have a chance to vote for the English Democrats and for the only genuine English nationalist party.  England has been very poorly served for many years by our increasingly ineffectual, self-interested and careerist British Establishment political class. It is time that England was properly represented politically by our own political party now that Scotland has the SNP and Wales has Plaid Cymru, it is time that English nationalism was properly represented too!”

Robin added:-  “If just 4% of the electorate vote for the English Democrats then we will get some MEP’s elected.  In recent elections our percentages have been increasing in line with peoples increasing awareness of their English national identity.  The 2011 Census results showed that over 60%, that is over 32 million people consider themselves to be “English Only” and not “British”.  England needs independence from the tired old Union, just as much as Scotland and Wales do!”

Complaint against the Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee

After I had submitted evidence to the House of Lords “Constitution Committee” chaired by Baroness Jay, I found that none of the English groups that had given evidence are to be called to give oral evidence.


It is no surprise that a Committee chaired by the daughter of Jim Callaghan would be biased and anti-English but that is no reason not to protest!


So I complained to the House of Lords’ Commissioner for Standards. Here is the correspondence.


What do you think?


My initial letter to House of Lords’ Commissioner for Standards dated 20th March 2014


Dear Commissioner for Standards


Re: Complaint against the Clerk and Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee


The English Democrats and two other English groups (the English Lobby and the Campaign for an English Parliament) put in submissions to the “Scottish Independence: Constitutional: Implication for the rest of the UK” Inquiry by the House of Lords “Constitution Committee”.


None of the English submissions were called in for oral submissions, which I find suspicious as to the Committee’s agenda and whether or not it has behaved in an open, transparent and proper manner, both under the Code of Conduct and also under the Equalities Act 2010.


The members of the Committee are as follows:-


Baroness Jay of Paddington (Chair) - Labour


Lord Crickhowell – Conservative


Lord Cullen of Whitekirk – Crossbench


Baroness Falkner of Margravine – Liberal Democrat


Lord Goldsmith – Labour


Lord Hart of Chilton – Labour


Lord Irvine of Lairg – Labour


Lord Lang of Monkton – Conservative


Lord Lester of Herne Hill – Liberal Democrat


Lord Lexden – Conservative


Lord Powell of Bayswater – Crossbench


Baroness Wheatcroft - Conservative



I note from their entries in the House of Lord’s website, that none of them appear to have either made a registration or a declaration of interest relevant to this inquiry. It is obvious that, in such an inquiry, their national identity is a relevant interest in the context of the matter under discussion, to use the words of paragraph 82 of the Code of Conduct.


I submit that it is also in a category of “Interest” which although possibly non-financial (depending where their property is) but, in any event, is an “Interest” that ought to be Registered and/or Declared.


I consider that the members (apropos paragraph 7) should have conducted this Inquiry based on considerations of public interest and the public interest does of course include compliance with the Equality Act.


Regarding section 9) c) the conduct of the Committee does not meet the standard of objectivity in carrying out public business, nor do the responses that I have received from the Committee’s Clerk (copies of this correspondence I enclose), comply with the section 9) e) requirement of openness about the decisions that they took - in this case to exclude all English representation from the discussion.


Considering that the English represent some 90% of the population of the UK and over 60% (over 32 million) of them have declared themselves to be of ‘English Only’ national identity in the 2011 Census results, it is obvious that no inquiry into the constitutional implications for the rest of the UK could be properly conducted without English opinion being fully taken into account.


I submit that failure to register and/or declare their national identity is a breach of 10) a) and that as a reasonable member of the public I consider that under paragraph 11 national identity interests in this question would be thought by any reasonable member of the public to influence the way in which the members of this Committee have discharged their parliamentary duties in the case of the Committee, in respect of the particular matter under discussion.


As the Clerk has declined to answer my questions, I am unable to focus this complaint on the individual members of the Committee who have acted to the detriment of a proper discussion on this issue. I would therefore ask you to enquire into the answers to my Equality Act questions and also to determine whether there has been a breach or breaches of the House of Lords’ Code of Conduct in respect of each and every Committee member.


Yours faithfully


R C W Tilbrook


Enc.


Letter dated 26th March 2014 from the House of Lords Commissioner of Standards, Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM


Dear Mr Tilbrook


I am writing in response to your letter of complaint dated 20th March 2014 (your ref RT/37).


Your letter is headed “Complaint against the Clerk and Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee”. My remit is limited to investigating complaints against members of the House of Lords, not the staff of the House. This reply therefore addresses your letter only as it applies to the members of the Constitution Committee.


I have carefully considered the points you make and my preliminary assessment is that your complaint does not meet the criteria set out in the House of Lords Code of Conduct and Guide to the Code of Conduct.


The first element of your complaint appears to be that the English Democrats, the English Lobby and the Campaign for an English Parliament were not invited to give oral evidence to the Constitution Committee. The Code of Conduct relates to members of the House of Lords individually, and not to a select committee’s collective decisions. There is no provision in the Code about committees inviting oral or written evidence; this element of your complaint therefore falls outside my remit and does not relate to an alleged breach of the Code.


The second element of your complaint seems to be that the members of the Constitution Committee have not registered or declared their national identity as an interest relevant to the Constitution Committee’s inquiry into “Scottish independence: constitutional implications for the rest of the UK”. Members of the House of Lords are required to be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. There is no requirement in the Code for members to register on the Register of Lord’s Interests their national identity. Nor is there a requirement in wider British law for individuals to declare a national identity. I considering whether members of the committee should declare their national identity I must assess whether that would be considered by a reasonable member of the public as relevant to the subject-matter of the committee’s inquiry. In this case the inquiry is into certain constitutional implications for the rest of the UK of any “yes” vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The committee’s call for evidence states that the inquiry is covering the conduct of potential negotiations; the position of assets and liabilities, and shared services of the UK; and implications of the UK Parliament. The call for evidence states that the committee’s inquiry is focussed. At no point does it indicate that the committee is exploring questions of national identity or citizenship matters. I therefore conclude that this element of the complaint does not demonstrate a prima facie breach of the Code.


The third element of your complaint appears to be that members of the committee have not complied with the Equality Act 2010. My remit is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. That element of your complaint therefore falls outside my remit.


In the light of the above I do not intend to investigate your complaint. However, if you can provide further evidence of a specific breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct, I am prepared to examine that material.


Yours sincerely


Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM

Commissioner for Standards


My letter to Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE QPN, Commissioner of Standards dated the 31st March 2014


Dear Mr Kernaghan


Re: Complaint against Members of Constitutional Committee


Thank you for your letter of the 26th March and for responding so promptly.


As you have dealt with our complaint in what you have labelled as three “elements” and indicated that you think that the first and third elements are outside your jurisdiction, I will concentrate on the second element.


I must admit I am somewhat surprised with your response to the second element, since it seems to me absolutely obvious that the national identity of individuals is probably the most relevant interest that they could have in an Inquiry of the nature that the Constitutional Committee is inquiring into.


There may not be any specific requirement in the Code for Members to register their national identity. My point is however that in inquiring into Scottish Independence: Constitutional Implications for the Rest of the UK, it is obvious that any reasonable member of the public would regard the individual Committee Member’s national identity as being of utmost relevance to the subject matter of the Committee’s inquiry.


This is especially so when it is realised that there is no constitutional validity to the idea of the “rest of the UK” being an automatically continuing constitutional entity if Scotland become Independent, as was made plain in both my submission and in that of the only other submission made by a practising lawyer dealing with this concept, Judge Ian Burns Campbell. I enclose a copy of my submission.


In the event that Members of the Committee seek to use their position to give substance to a constitutionally bogus idea such as “rest of the UK”, it would be of great interest to know their national identity.


It would also be of some interest to know whether the Committee adequately reflects the proportion of national identity across the current UK. From what I can see of the background of the Committee Members it would appear there are relatively few who would have any interest in or desire to speak for England – because of their national identity!

At a time when the 2011 Census results show that over 60% of the population of England, that is over 32 million people, regard themselves as having English Only national identity it would certainly be of considerable relevance to know whether there are in fact any Members of the House of Lords Constitutional Committee that have English Only national identity. At the very least, in my respectful submission, what Members should have done and should now be required to do is to make a Declaration of Interest so far as this inquiry is concerned, and, indeed, any other Inquiries that relate to devolution or to the independence of any of the constituent nations of the UK State.


In light of the above I do hope that you will take the necessary action to require the Members of the House of Lords Constitution Committee to make a Declaration of Interest of their respective national identities.


Whilst writing I would remind you that National Identity under the Equality Act is a different concept to racial group or ethnicity. It is the concept of which national group an individual self-identifies with. It is that very element of self-identity which means that any reasonable member of the public would want to know the National Identity of each Committee Member in order to understand what the Committee Member’s views are likely to be on any relevant national question as the UK moves towards this dissolution.


Yours sincerely


R C W Tilbrook


Enc.


Letter dated 9th April 2014 from the House of Lords Commissioner of Standards, Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM


Dear Mr Tilbrook


Thank you for your letter dated 31 March 2014.


I have carefully considered the points you raise but have decided to screen out your complaint.


The Guide to the Code of Conduct provides guidance on non-financial interests in some detail. Paragraph 90 lists non-financial interests that are not normally registered but which it may be necessary to declare in certain circumstances. Amongst these are “membership of Churches or other religious bodies or organisations”. There is no mention of “national identity”. As I have previously advised you, members of the House of Lords are required to be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens. There is no requirement for committees of the House to consider “national identity” when calling witnesses. As mentioned in my previous letter, “national identity” is not covered in the call for evidence for the Constitution Committee’s inquiry. Thus I do not consider that any member of that committee has breached the Code of Conduct by not declaring their national identity.


Yours sincerely


Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM

Commissioner for Standards


My letter dated 11th April 2014 to Mr Paul Kernaghan CBE QPN



Dear Mr Kernaghan


Re: Complaint against Members of Constitutional Committee


Thank you for your letter of the 9th April. With respect you have demonstrated the inadequacy both of your role and of the House of Lords Code of Conduct. For it not to be an admissible complaint that members of the committee have failed to declare their national identity when conducting an inquiry into an issue where national identity plays a key role is simply the stuff of a classic Whitehall farce!


You have nicely demonstrated the rottenness of the current system of crony appointments by the British Political Establishment to our Upper Legislative Chamber.


The sooner the British Unionist State is dissolved and England has a proper and fully democratically elected legislature the better!



Yours sincerely


Robin Tilbrook

English Democrats and the Green Party of England & Wales in agreement in supporting Scottish Independence and the dissolution of the United Kingdom

English Democrats and the Green Party of England & Wales in agreement in supporting Scottish Independence and the dissolution of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish Greens have set out their vision for an independent Scotland by launching a new paper outlining a raft of “bold” ideas.

The Green Party say an independent Scotland would have the ability to pursue “bold” ideas for a successful economy including the creation of a local banking network and a regulator for small businesses. They have said a Yes vote in September’s referendum would give Scotland the opportunity to grow emerging sectors like the digital and creative industries and support secure jobs with fair pay.

On Wednesday 9 April 2014 we had two appearances along with Green representatives.
In one, Derek Hilling the English Democrats' National Party Secretary and Lead Candidate in the West Midlands for the English Democrats in the 2014 EU Elections attended a radio debate in Birmingham at "Newstyle Radio 98.7FM" www.newstyleradio.co.uk. Attending was also the Green's representative “Laura” who was nodding as Derek enthusiastically talked about our policy of Independence for England.

In the other appearnce on Wednesday 9 April 2014 Steve Uncles our National Campaign Director and our Prospective Lead Candidate in South East England for the English Democrats attended a hustings at Kent University, Canterbury. Also attending was Green MEP Keith Taylor. Steve Uncles and Keith Taylor sat next to each other at the hustings. During his opening speech Steve Uncles said:-

"On the panel here today, then all but two parties here support the continuation of the United Kingdom, however although we may disagree about Europe it is good to see that the Green Party, agree in the self determination of people in Scotland, and are campaigning for Scottish Independence and therefore an end to the United Kingdom – this will free England."

In response Keith Taylor MEP who immediately followed Steve Uncles in making his speech in reply accepted the statement made by Steve Uncles. 

So there you have it. In this EU election there will be two real alternatives to the tired old, and not so old, Unionist parties!

On BBC Radio Essex this morning

 

I was up early to be in Chelmsford to be interviewed on the BBC Radio Essex breakfast show this morning at 7.10.

 

You can 'listen again' to the Peter Holmes Show. Click here >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01vr82g

My item starts at 01:12:15


What do you think?

FARAGE – V – CLEGG - THE LBC EU DEBATE

FARAGE – V – CLEGG - THE LBC EU DEBATE

I watched the LBC/SKY debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage over “Britain’s” membership of the EU.  I thought Nigel Farage did very well.  Although he is not as polished a debater as Nick Clegg, he was certainly able to more than hold his own.  From an English nationalist point of view, it was also interesting to hear him confirm repeatedly that he was “British” and to emphasise that what he is concerned about is “Britain’s” place in the world.  His comments will have firmly and finally nailed UKIP’s colours to the mast of Britishness!

So far as Nick Clegg was concerned, there was again talk of “Britain” and “British” interests, although Clegg is not as enthusiastically patriotic about Britain as Nigel Farage, he did take the crown by saying that:- “I want us to be Great Britain, not Little England.  And if you feel the same, then now is the time to make your voice heard”.  My response to Nick Clegg is: Now is the time for a voice standing up for England to be heard!

After Nick Clegg’s performance over student “top-up” fees, we all know that nothing he says should be taken as anything more than a useful line spun for the moment, but it was entertaining to see that even applies to his rhetoric about “our country”.  After the 18th September, we may be moving to the end of “Great Britain” whatever the Westminster and Whitehall Establishment may want (memo to Nick Clegg :- E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E).

One very interesting aspect of the discussions that Sky TV showed afterwards, was interviews with the various political commentators like Sky’s own Adam Bolton and many other media lovies. They all seemed to think that Nick Clegg had won the debate.  This is an interesting illustration of the point made by Drew Weston in his book, ‘The Political Brain’, that people tend to be completely blinded to what other people think during political debates because of their own political identity.

The opinion polls show that by far the majority of people thought that Nigel Farage had won.  This is, of course, for the same reason, in that those people are seeing only what appeals to their political identity.

Putting these reactions together shows that the leading commentators in the British media are so politically divorced from the views of most normal people that they have no instinctive understanding of how most normal people will react to a political point.

It seems that “liberals” think that political debates are won by making precise nit-picking points rather than statements with emotional punch.

The other thing about the debate was that it was very nice to see a studio audience in a TV debate not as carefully selected for Leftist bias as we always seem to find with BBC selected audiences!  I wonder if we will see usual BBC audience bias in the BBC hosted debate in a few days?