Total Visits

Saturday, 28 February 2015

Leaving the EU

On the 18th February I attended, at David Campbell Bannerman MEP’s invitation, a conference that he had organised at Europe House, the former Conservative Party Headquarters at 32 Smith Square in London. The conference was entitled ‘Alternatives to EU Membership: What are the UK’s options?’

The conference was extremely well planned, supported and very interesting with a series of interesting speakers. We had the history of the relationship between the UK and the UK and, indeed of Europe, generally extending back over the last 2,000 years from Adrian Hilton, AKA the blogger, Archbishop Cranmer. His speech can be found here >>> and is well worth listening to.

The meeting was chaired by Tim Montgomerie currently of the Times and formally of Conservative Home, who was kind enough to welcome me personally and assured me that he supported an English Parliament and wished the campaign every success.

We heard from Ruth Lee, from Martin Howe QC and interestingly from Heming Olaussen, leading No to EU campaigner, and also Thomas Aeschi, member of the Swiss Parliament for the Swiss Peoples Party, as to what the situation is in terms of resistance to EU membership in both those countries. Also from David Campbell Bannerman himself and also from Sir Bill Cash MP.

There were also impressive contributions from Matthew Elliott, John Mills, leading Labour Eurosceptic, and Dr John Warmould, an expert in the motor manufacturing sector, recorded messages from Owen Patterson MP and Niall Gardner, of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, an entertaining speech from UKIP’s Earl of Dartmouth MEP and also a great speech from Christopher Chope MP. All of these speeches can be found by following the YouTube links.

The upshot of the meeting was also useful for the Eurosceptic Cause, as it became clear there is really a very simple option which does not depend on anyone else agreeing to anything. We could simply leave the EU and there would be an automatic access to the fundamental agreements governing world trade under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation.

Other options would simply give rise to the sort of confusion which did not help the ‘Yes’ side in the Scottish Independence Referendum, as we would be left arguing that we need the agreement of particular people and trying to convince people that the negotiations would proceed favourably.

Bill Cash pointed out that because the UK does not have a written Constitution and the fundamental rule of parliamentary sovereignty (that one parliament cannot bind the next), means that there is nothing constitutionally to stop us simply repealing the European Communities Act, which means that the UK is automatically out of the EU.

Therefore with that simple constitutional step the UK would be back amongst the trade nations governed by the World Trade Organisation. No doubt also, given the balance of payments, we would also be able to get favourable terms with the EU in due course in any case. The only part of the economy which needs special consideration is the motor industry which may need special support negotiated with the industry leaders.

This clarification is of course great news from the point of view of the campaign to leave the EU, since it makes all the arguments much simpler and much easier for everyone to understand.

What do you think?

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Independent Press Standards Organisation and the Rotherham Advert

Following my correspondence with the Rotherham Advertiser I thought that I ought to see if the new Independent Press Standards Organisation would be any improvement on the Press Complaints Commission. Here is the correspondence. What do you think?

Letter dated 5.2.15

Sir Alan Moses

Independent Press Standards Organisation

Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Dear Sir

Re: Complaint against Rotherham Advertiser – Bias racial prejudice and inaccuracy

I recently tried to place an advertisement with the Rotherham Advertiser. There was then email correspondence from which it became clear that the “Editor” had an inappropriate attitude towards any matter arising out of the Jay Report. I would remind you that this is the report which was highly critical of Rotherham Council and the South Yorkshire Police. It also detailed extremely serious allegations of child gang rape and prostitution against by various Muslim/Pakistani gangs in Rotherham. Crimes in which the authorities had not only failed to properly investigate but had been complicit in at the very least the sense of covering up what was going on. Moreover instead of doing their duty they had persecuted anyone who tried to raise the subject.

I enclose the email correspondence and an article from the Daily Telegraph which I think is appropriate to consider and also refer to the recent Casey report on Rotherham.

I suspect that such a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy could not have been conducted without local journalists being aware of it. It would appear from the correspondence that the Editor of the Rotherham Advertiser is not only unwilling to mention the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators, but even the likely culpability of Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police. In the circumstances I wish to make a complaint of bias and racial prejudice against the Rotherham Advertiser.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook



From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 11/02/2015 10:18:03 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for contacting the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Your complaint is currently being assessed, and we will be in touch with you again shortly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.

Should IPSO decide that your complaint falls outside of our remit, or does not raise a possible breach of the Code, we will write to you to explain why and send a copy of our letter to the publication.

Alternatively, if we decide that the concerns you have raised fall within our remit and raise a possible breach of the Code, and you have not previously exhausted the publication’s internal complaints procedures, a copy of your complaint and any other correspondence you have sent to us, including contact information, will be sent to the publication to provide it with the opportunity to resolve the matter directly with you.

A copy of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which is administered by IPSO, can be found at

Please note, in addition, the following information about our confidentiality and data protection procedures:

Confidentiality: The system of self-regulation requires good faith on both sides. In order for us to be able to investigate complaints effectively, it is essential that neither party to a complaint, complainant or newspaper/magazine, publishes information which has been provided as part of the investigation - most notably correspondence – without the consent of the other party. Publication, without consent, may affect our ability to continue to deal with a complaint or may be considered when we reach a decision as to whether the Code has been breached. Material provided by both complainants and publications during an investigation must only be used for the purpose of the complaint to us. This will not generally prohibit a publication from publishing details of any ruling.

Data protection: By pursuing the complaint, you consent to the processing of any personal data which may be provided for the purposes of dealing with your complaint. You also consent to the publication of any decision in relation to the complaint, but may withdraw consent in writing.

Further information about complaining to IPSO, including a summary of the complaints procedure, can be found at:

With best wishes,

Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation


From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 11/02/2015 16:58:12 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

I write further to our earlier email.

You have contacted the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the new independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the requirements set out in the Editors’ Code of Practice, and provide support and redress for individuals seeking to complain about breaches of the Code.

It appears that the concerns you have raised do not relate to the editorial content of a newspaper or magazine, and it does not therefore appear that we will be able to assist you further.

If you do wish to make a complaint about editorial content, we would be grateful if you could provide a copy of any article about which you wish to complain, and explain how you consider the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached (

If we do not hear from you in seven days, we will assume you do not want to pursue a complaint through IPSO.

With best wishes

Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation


From: RobinTilbrook
To: mel.huggett
Sent: 12/02/2015 15:37:56 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mrs Huggett

Thank you for your email of the 11th.

It is concerning that the Independent Press Standards Organisation does not think that the vetting of advertisement content by the Editor is “editorial content”. Clearly the Editor has decided on the content of my advertisement and by any normal attribution of those words an Editor having a role in the decision as to content is encompassed by complaints relating to editorial content. I would like to see any legal opinion you may have to the contrary.

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook


From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 17/02/2015 15:35:18 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for your email.

Disagreements about the text of advertisements do not amount to concerns about editorial content; therefore your concerns fall outside IPSO's remit, and I am afraid that we will be unable to assist you further.

IPSO's Regulations, which define its remit, are available in full on our website, at the following link:

Best wishes

Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation


From: RobinTilbrook
To: mel.huggett
Sent: 18/02/2015 09:41:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15

So Newspapers are allowed to discriminate about adverts and that is Okay with your organisation?


From: simon.yip
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 19/02/2015 12:03:39 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your email to my colleague, Mel Huggett.

As we previously explained, advertisements do not fall within IPSO's remit.

Best wishes

Simon Yip

Complaints Coordinator


From: RobinTilbrook
To: simon.yip
Sent: 24/02/2015 09:22:37 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Yip

Thank you for your email.

Please note that the Editor’s approach to my advert is, I believe, part of and indicative of his whole discriminatory approach to the reporting of the extremely serious child rape crimes that were going on in Rotherham and about which the whole local establishment closed ranks and refused to report or even acknowledge. That is the reason that I think that you should consider this an editorial matter.

I respectfully suggest that this is also something of a test case for the credibility of your organisation.

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

Monday, 16 February 2015

UKIP 'believes' in “Britishness” not Englishness!

UKIP goes for “Britishness” not Englishness!

There has recently been a development within UKIP which I didn’t think I could leave unmentioned. Nigel Farage has given several important speeches recently, but has written the article which appears below for the Daily Telegraph. In all these he has made clear where UKIP’s national identity/nationality lies.

I have recently read an excellent book about UKIP written by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Dr Ron Ford called “Revolt on the Right”. It is such an excellent read and analysis of UKIP’s situation and of the whole of what the authors call “the radical right”, that it is well worth reading. Here is a link to purchase a copy on Amazon >>> Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy): Robert Ford,.

The interesting thing is that the authors of “Revolt on the Right” compellingly compare UKIPs position with the growth of the Right across many other Western European countries, such as the Front National in France. It is noted that all share some common characteristics. These are Euro-scepticism; hostility to mass immigration; attachment to traditional values; hostility to the current political elite; and assertive nationalism.

UKIP of course shares all these points but had been making noises about being interested in England and Englishness. This all began back in late 2010 as a serious effort by UKIPs leadership to destabilise the English Democrats using various dirty tricks.

So for several years now there has been an ambivalence about UKIP’s talk about England, the most extreme example of which we saw only a few weeks ago when Paul Nuttall said that he personally supported an English Parliament as his punch line on Question Time.

Now all that is over and UKIP has nailed its flag to the mast. The only element of the radical right agenda that they had waivered on was which national identity. Now that is clear, as you can see reading Nigel Farage’s article below. There is no more prevarication or hesitation and we can see the colours of the national flag that they have unfurled!

English nationalists should no longer be under any delusions about UKIPs national identity.

Here is the article:-

Nigel Farage's appeal to Britons: believe in Britain

Ahead of the general election, Ukip leader Nigel Farage sets out his party's vision

This election campaign has been incredibly dull so far. Labour is trying to claim our National Health Service, as if they own it. The Tories are trying to grab at the economy, as if they haven’t presided over a doubling of the national debt in just five years, and failing to erase the deficit. Pretty predictable stuff.

And that’s because these two parties – the legacy parties – have forgotten that there is a country out there.

There’s a country beyond Westminster, crying out for attention, respect, and assistance at a time when politicians are trying to convince them that everything is absolutely fine.

But it’s not fine. Now more than ever, this country needs a positive political party, with firm ideas for the future of this country. I believe that at this election, Ukip will be that party.

When you look at somewhere like Castlepoint in Essex, this election presents voters with a stark choice.

Ukip’s candidate is a local lad, Jamie Huntman, a timber merchant, who is deeply patriotic, involved in his community, and known as hard-working, straight-talking guy.

He’s a man who, in spite of this country’s woes, despite the ruling classes telling us we can’t be a great nation again, still believes in Britain.

We believe that the backbone of this country – small business owners, families and indeed the legal migrants who come here to better their lives – know that we no longer have a capitalism that works for all.

Instead, we have corporatism, lavishing attention on big corporations while ignoring the little man. Only Ukip will address and tackle this imbalance.

We’ll turn the other cheek to insults and negativity and focus instead on what we could deliver for the country if we have enough MPs.

No one will have a majority after this election. They all know it. But the thing they fear the most is a sizeable number of Ukip MPs in that chamber, holding them to account for you.

And when we say we believe in Britain, we believe in the whole of Britain. We’re the only political party with representation in all four corners of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are obviously regional parties. Labour has increasingly become a regional party in the North – though voters in the one-party state they tried to create there are now beginning to revolt. The Conservative Party is now a regional party of the South.

Ukip, on the other hand, is doing as well in the North as we are in the South. We’re a party that represents the whole country and, even more importantly, we have broken the class divide in British politics.

And our greatest, most recent growth has been in Labour areas. So far from the narrative and amusing conference line from Mr Cameron, that if you go to bed with Nigel Farage you wake up with Ed Miliband, the truth is that from Birmingham to Hadrian’s Wall, we are the challengers to Labour.

Ukip will put at the heart of its campaign not just the cost of living crisis, because we know that Britons are feeling the pinch, but also the cost of government crisis.

We will have a costed manifesto that deals with these issues, which includes taking those on the minimum wage out of tax, reducing energy bills, and by ending our costly membership of the EU.

But we’ve got to ask ourselves as voters: at what cost do we keep electing the current, Westminster college kids?

At what cost to our freedoms? At what cost to our communities? At what cost to the confidence and belief in the values that underpin British civil society?

These are the big questions the political class don’t want you asking. They’ll try to bore you into submission, or convince you that you’ll let someone else in if you vote for us. Ask Douglas Carswell or Mark Reckless about this. If you vote Ukip, you get Ukip. Nothing else.

A Britain which can govern itself. A Britain with an ethical immigration policy based on the Australian-style points system. A Britain that doesn’t weaponise the NHS, but makes it work for those who need it. A Britain that is more than just a star on someone else’s flag. Ukip believes in Britain, and we know you do too.

We believe in a Britain that can trade freely with the world, honour our troops, work without a nanny state, stop propping up dictatorships through aid, and stop spending your money on white elephant projects like HS2.

I believe in a Britain that has confidence, stands proud, projects a national identity based on our Judaeo-Christian heritage, and our tremendous natural resources.

We believe in a Britain that is the fifth largest economy in the world, not because of our governments, but in spite of them.

A Britain with room to grow, not based on debt, but on real, tangible assets: our fisheries, our gas supplies, infrastructure like Manston Airport, and the prospects of our youth and people who come here legally and integrate and become the best of British themselves.

Not only have we found a way to inject £3 billion more per year into our NHS, but we also want people to have a say in how the NHS is run.

We want to scrap hospital car parking charges, acknowledge that the future for the NHS relies on the innovation and dedication that we will get from British graduates (not middle managers), and invest in research and cleaning up our hospitals.

This is why I’m pleased to say that we would scrap tuition fees for students studying science, technology, engineering, maths, or medical degrees.

And we’ll also fight for a right of recall for MPs who have failed voters.

We’d reverse the opt-in to the European Arrest Warrant, because Britain believes in “innocent until proven guilty” and we believe in Britain.

And we’d reward our Servicemen and women with a National Service Medal, social housing priority, and jobs when they return to civilian life.

We’d toss out ideas like the bedroom tax, and the mansion tax, because they’re two sides of the same coin, equally unconscionable and intended to divide us.

And we’d say no to propping up a government that refuses us an immediate EU referendum – no to any coalition deals with the establishment parties who have taken us so far into this mess.

But we need you to come with us on this journey. So I urge you, when you go to the ballot box, when you send in your postal vote: believe.

Believe in Britain. Believe in real change. Believe me when I say this is not just another election and yours is not just another vote.

If you hold onto those beliefs, if you want that change, then we believe, that together, we can achieve great things.

Here is the link to the original >>> Nigel Farage's appeal to Britons: believe in Britain - Telegraph

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Charity for the English under police attack!

Charity for the English under police attack

Below is an excellent and alarming article about the Steadfast Trust. 

I would advise anyone to note the contacting Police officers' names and badge numbers and to complain to the Met's complaints office about Racial Prejudice (which legally includes predjudice against English National Identity/nationality/National Origin) >>>

The Met is an organisation that is so prejudiced against the English that they don't even mention us in their "Ethnic Monitoring" forms!

Here is the article:-

Charity for the English under police attack

11th February 2015
Civil Liberty correspondent

Police investigating the only charity supporting the English community

Seasoned nationalists and libertarians will be all too well aware of the lengths that the State will go to conduct repression against what it views as dissident organisations including political parties which have or have had elected representatives. The State has sunk to a new low as we learn that the Metropolitan Police are hounding donors and supporters of the only charity dedicated to self-help amongst the English community.

There are literally thousands of charitable organisations which are ethno-specific ranging from the Bethnal Green Bengali Women's Group, London Islamic Turkish Association to the Ghana Nurses Association (UK). There are over 100 charities specifically for each of the Polish and Irish communities living in the UK but the Steadfast Trust which was launched after a prolonged battle with the Charity Commission remains the sole charity which works exclusively for the English community.

As is required by Charity legislation, The Trust has strictly followed an apolitical agenda and focuses on cultural events and supporting deserving individuals from poorer backgrounds. It has provided a grant towards retaining the Staffordshire Hoard in the West Midlands, between the Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery and the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery in Stoke-on-Trent. It also helps the funding of storytellers who go into to schools to talk positively about early English history, providing books on English art and culture and individual education based grants such as funding towards schools fees, travel and equipment for a budding English soprano from a working class background. It is a relative minnow with total annual income of under £10,000.

This worthy activity carried out by the Trust is under a sustained attack by the Metropolitan Police. This included a raid on the family homes of two of the Trustees last month. 15 heavy handed police officers took part in each raid and personal items such as mobile phones, computers, printers and routers were seized. The Trustees were taken in for questioning and we understand that the nature of the interviews by the Met officers was truly bizarre and included questions suggesting that anyone interested in early English history and culture is an “extremist”. Authoritative historical works by scholars such as Tony Linsell and Stephen Pollington were cited as “encouraging extremism”.

The Trustees have not been charged with any offence but are on strict bail conditions preventing them undertaking any work on behalf of the charity and restricting their personal movements.

In addition the Met are now actively contacting hundreds of donors and Friends of the Trust. For many Friends and supporters this will be a humiliating and distressful activity, but as the Trust has not broken any laws there should be nothing to fear. It is recommended that a simple, polite and sustained “no comment” to any questions posed by investigating officers is made. Always seek professional legal advice if you have any concerns and submit formal complaints against officers who are abusive, aggressive and who utter racist comments.

It is believed that the Met’s investigation into the finances of the Trust has arisen from an approach made by an individual in 2014 who expressed an interest in the Trust and its work and befriended some its Trustees and donors. However the individual turned out to be a sneak reporter working for Hardcash Productions; a London based documentary production company. The desperately pathetic attempts to smear and ultimately seek to have the Trust deregistered as a charity, as a result of the “undercover” work are planned to be broadcast on ITV next week. The documentary unoriginally untitled “Charities Behaving Badly” goes out on ITV Weds 18th February 10.40pm

It is not a crime to make donations to the Trust and in solidarity with the Trust we would encourage our readers to make a contribution here.

Here is a link to the original article >>>

Friday, 6 February 2015

Rotherham – The creaking British Establishment shuffles into action 15 years late


Rotherham – The creaking British Establishment shuffles into action 15 years late

In Rotherham and many other towns and cities across England it appears that Labour’s “one party state” administrations have covered up a widespread problem of predominantly Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs being allowed to operate with impunity. 

Whenever anyone has sought to challenge this, the very authorities who are paid to act turned a blind eye. They not only refused to help but bullied and discriminated against the very people they were paid to help. This was done for reasons of political correctness. 

When the Creasy report was published on the 4th we saw from the BBC the same mentality displayed in their inadequate reporting of the issue. They tried to make out that there is no element of race or religion in the matrix of either these crimes or the widespread cover-up. This is an official cover-up which may well amount to offences of a “conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”.

The English Democrats demand not only that every member of the child rape gangs be prosecuted, but also that every client of theirs be prosecuted too. Those unfortunate girls were widely prostituted and trafficked so that the gangs could make huge profits (an estimated £200,000 per girl per year). 

We further demand that all those guilty of these crimes be, wherever legally possible, deported after serving lengthy jail sentences.

There should also be an enquiry in the case of each perpetrator as to whether the members of their family have a legally enforceable right to remain in this country. If not they should be deported too.

So far as the Police Officers, Labour Councillors and Labour supporting Council officials, social workers and care workers are concerned, all should be barred from holding any offices of public responsibility and wherever possible they should be prosecuted.

We also demand extra Legal Aid funding should be granted to enable every victim to sue every perpetrator and every conspirator and the guilty authorities to extract full compensation for the horror of their experience.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, who is a Solicitor, said:- “The victims of these child rape gangs may be entitled to compensation of £50,000 for each and every rape. For those victims who endured hundreds of rapes, potential compensation may well run into millions of pounds. The scandalously inadequate British Establishment owes these victims justice and the funding of their quests for full compensation.”

He continued:- “This scandal, running to perhaps over a hundred thousand cases, which reached up into the highest levels of the Labour Government, is one of the worst scandals in the whole of the developed world.”

He added:- “Journalists who knew what was going on and who were involved in covering up are also complicit in these crimes and should be debarred from journalism”.

Robin Tilbrook


The English Democrats

Monday, 2 February 2015

South Yorkshire Police Commission By-election update

South Yorkshire Police Commission By-election update

Here are the expenses for the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election:-


Number of votes: 74060


Cost per vote:£1.68.


Number of votes: 46883

Spent: £157048.65

Cost per vote:£3.35


Number of votes:18536

Spent: £18231.51

Cost per vote:98 pence.

English Democrats:

Number of votes: 8583

Spent: £9567.

Cost per vote: £1.11.

While I had already done a previous Blog item about this by-election, which can be found here >>>, I thought it was interesting that actually, contrary to some of the comments that I have seen about the relative position of the English Democrats and UKIP, that despite them spending over sixteen times as much money as we were able to spend in the election, and significantly more than even Labour’s spend, they were still not anywhere near beating Labour in South Yorkshire.

It was also interesting that UKIP spent more than three times as much than we did on each and every vote that they received. I think the moral is that if we were actually able to raise enough money to match UKIP’s spending, not only would we beat them, but we would have been more likely to win election than they ever could be.

Could that be something to do with the relative appeal of English nationalism as against British nationalism?