Total Visits

Friday, 8 April 2016



The Cabinet Office refused to spend what they claimed was £9 million on an information booklet for the Police Commissioner Elections which was recommended by the Electoral Commission, but instead it is set to waste £9 million on a booklet of propaganda for the European Union about which the Electoral Commission has stated as:- "We don't think the government should have done it, but it's not illegal," and that:- “Electoral Commission recommended that the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising”.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said that:- “In September 2015 I wrote to ask the Government to do a Mayoral style booklet for the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and wrote that:-

“the Government has neglected to properly consider and apply the Electoral Commission’s conclusions in their report dated March 2013 that there must be a Mayoral style booklet delivered to each elector. Please could you let me know what you are proposing to do to sort out this mess?”

On the 29th February 2016 David O’Gorman of the Cabinet Office’s Elections Division replied to me stating that despite:-

“the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to provide printed booklets of candidate election addresses … there are no plans to provide the booklets to all eligible households in May 2016, given it is estimated that to do so would cost up to £9m.”

Robin Tilbrook continued:- “So it is now crystal clear that this is a government which refused to spend £9 million on a Mayoral style booklet which was recommended by the Electoral Commission to enable the Police Commissioner elections to be conducted fairly. Instead it is determined misuse that £9 million to try to unfairly skew the results of the EU referendum. This is directly against the Electoral Commission’s advice. This is a striking illustration of the rottenness at the heart of the British Government and, as the old saying goes:- “A fish rots from its head”!”

Robin Tilbrook


The English Democrats


  1. Robin. This is a disgrace.

    Do you specialise in human rights law? Are you aware of the Redfearn v UK human rights case?

    1. I am a Civil Litigator but yes I am aware of that case.

    2. Glad to hear that Robin. I understand that there are six elements required to prove that a political or other belief amounts to the protected characteristic "philosophical belief" under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. Surely this is a bit draconian? What do you think Robin?

    3. Robin I have been looking critically at the Redfearn v UK ECtHR case.

      It was found that there was and still remains a deficiency in UK anti discrimination law, with no protection against unfair dismissal where the principal grounds were related to political beliefs or political association.

      The EATs guide as to what amounts to a philosophical belief still breaches Article 11 of the Convention. Has the EAT come up with new guidelines? Let me know because they've gone silent on this matter.

    4. The Act says:- "The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. So, for example, any cult involved in illegal activities would not satisfy these criteria. The section provides that people who are of the same religion or belief share the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Depending on the context, this could mean people who, for example, share the characteristic of being Protestant or people who share the characteristic of being Christian."

    5. Have a look at - Democratic socialism a philosophical belief under Equality Act 2010
      Click >>>

    6. Thank you Robin. It also follows that democratic nationalism will also be a protected philosophical belief for the same reasons. How many nationalists want to deny the fundamental rights of others? Not many, possibly the National Front but that's all.

      My phone won't pick up your link, but I got this from the CIPD website:-

    7. Robin. This is what CIPD told me. When the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 were introduced, the belief had to be similar to a religious belief. At the time BNP members failed to prove that their political beliefs were similar to religious beliefs. This was the case with the cases Baggs v Fudge and Finnon v ASDA Stores. At the time BNP membership was restricted to white people only was therefore adjudged not to be worthy of respect in a democratic society.

      In April 2007 these regulations were amended and the word 'similar' to religious belief removed. The multiculturalists were up in arms over this as they realised that BNP members could show that their political beliefs amounted to a philosophical belief.

      The tests you mentioned have developed over time and I think were agreed by the EAT after the enactment of the 2010 Equality Act. I have been told by an insider that political beliefs were not intended to be covered under the Equality Act 2010, therefore the onus is on the claimant to prove that his political beliefs amount to philosophical beliefs under the Act. The last criteria you refer has now effectively been usurped by Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention following the Redfearn case. on Human Rights

  2. I was pleased to hear that somebody pointed out on Question Time on the BBC that this sum exceeds the paltry £8m given by the government to Cumbria to cope with the aftermath of the recent floods, not nearly enough to prevent more libraries from going self-service no doubt or our local old folks' home from closing. I somehow seem to have got myself on the e-mailing list for an outfit called 38 degrees which sends out online petitions with regard to certain government policies. For anybody interested, they have sent out a petition about this one as well. I see there is also a petition calling on Cameron to stand down as pm because of the Panama leaks business. Apparently, he has also benefited from funds his late father left for him on Jersey, too. No wonder he was behind getting trust funds excluded from EU tax fraud legislation.

    The thinking now is that the leaks were a tool created by the hegemonic bankers, notably our old friend George Soros, to catch out the leaders of the BRICS nations who, with the launch of their BRICS bank, have challenged the plans for worldwide financial control by Wall Street and the City. It has backfired massively as Putin and the President of China have been shown to be squeaky clean, although Jacob Zuma was almost impeached. There are some in the entourage of the Russian and Chinese leaders who might be guilty, notably the Chinese president's brother-in-law. But nobody has released anything on any politician in the US. The thinking is that their money may all be in the States as the US is now the world's third biggest tax haven.

    Francis, what is Redfearn v UK all about? Human Rights; perhaps we should point things out like this to those who want to exclude us from being a member of the European Court of Human Rights. As has been pointed out, the Court has nothing to do with the EU but was set up after the War to cope with the aftermath of that conflict.

    1. Anon 9 Apr

      Arthur Redfearn won a human rights case in the European Court of Justuce under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights after being sacked from Serco in 2004 for his BNP membership was made public. It went through four Courts, the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribun, Court of Appeal and finally the European Court of Justice. The hearing took place on 6th November 2012 so is quite recent, but essentially paves way for protection of your rights to not suffer a detriment because of ones membership of a Nationalist political party. The UK government was also ordered to update it anti discrimination Legislation or remove the two year qualification period of unfair dismissal in which in primary reason of dismissal relates to philosophical belief.

      The worst thing for us would be for the UK to withdraw from the Council of Europe. I do hope we leave the EU though.

  3. Now that Winston McKenzie has been disqualified from standing in London, the EDs must concentrate on regaining Doncaster and getting their man/woman elected as the city's mayor.

    1. And on getting David Allen elected as PCC for South Yorkshire - one more push

  4. I agree that if we most not lose the protection of the European Court of Human Rights just the EU.
    There was a very interesting piece on RT last night for English nationalists. Apparently, a recent survey has taken place amongst British Muslims which shows sizeable minorities in favour of sharia law and the banning of homosexuality. This has horrified Trevor Phillips, who has spoken of a nation within a nation.

    RT pitted Amit Dey - I think that was his name - against Ben Harris Quinney of the Bow Group (now a pariah to mainstream Conservatives I have learned). Dey said that Islamist extremism is being fuelled by the "far right" extremism of the natives; citing the EDL, BNP and UKIP ( I think that UKIppers would be horrified to learn they have been tarred in that way!!). He said that the answer was to press on with full scale multiculturalism ( does that mean more of them proportionately and fewer of us - just give it time Amit!). He cited the example of America where African Americans, Hispanics, Jews etc all pursue their own cultural paths.

    Harris Quinney's response was that Britain was a virtually homogeneous nation once and managed when the minority groups were small. But he blamed Blair for opening the floodgates to rub our noses in diversity. He said that what you have now is bottom-up apartheid, with not only Muslims but other ethnic groups - including the natives no doubt - self-segregating. As for America, I was pleased to here him say that America is fragmenting and falling apart, despite being hailed as the beacon of multiculturalism. It is not only America but England and the rest of Europe that are falling apart. When America had a vastly more numerous host WASP society with a few blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Chinese then it survived. All those changed in the 1970s when a bill to maintain the European nature of the US was overturned by Teddy Kennedy and other Democrats not doubt with oligarchic backing. But different ethnic groups are like tectonic plates and as they grow equal in size and rub more and more against one another until parity is achieved then the inevitable earthquake occurs. Full ethnic and cultural pluralism does not work as America is showing, America is stolen land. The Europeans pushed out and massacred the native Americans and now the Europeans are meeting the same fate. Hence the mounting tension. Enoch, who almost went mad at the lack of logic of it all, cited America as an example not to follow. Apart from anything else, Dey is showing all the same arrogance of the coloniser with regard to the indigenous population.

    As regards, other minorities, I have spoken to an Indian woman living here who speaks of the violence and misogyny of her family in Birmingham. And now we hear that the Germans are having to introduce women only compartments on trains.

    For those of us who have watched this happen during our entire lives until - as Peter Hitchens said - the country in which we grew up has ceased to exist, nothing is surprising. We knew the inevitable outcome of the policies of the UN, the Rothschilds, Coudenhove Kalergi or whoever. It was just a matter of time. My hope was that I would live to see it all fall apart, as bloody as that would be and we could have London and England back again. The pace is quickening but how much longer it will take is a moot point and how bloody it will be as well. Meanwhile the homogeneous giants of Russia and China are rising and taking the place of Western homogeneity.

    On another point, the prime minister of the Ukraine has resigned because his government is becoming so unpopular because of corruption and economic collapse. And the Western Media have been very quiet about the fact that their corrupt oligarchic president is on the Panama list. Perhaps this is because the media is owned in the West by corrupt oligarchs and the journalists are like those of Pravda, just paid to churn out propaganda. And what about Neocon Victoria Nuland, who engineered the Maidan "revolution". Nothing from her either about her darling Yats.

  5. Got my share of the nine million today. It contains all the scaremongering innuendo one would expect from Project Fear. Three million of us MAY become unemployed if we leave. There MAY be ten years of "uncertainty" (whatever that is) if we leave. Some items in your grocery basket MAY become more expensive if we leave. We MAY be struck by an asteroid if we leave. (Sorry! That one's mine.) Bottom line is - we're back in control if we leave. Dodgy Dave referred to a "Reformed E.U.". There has been NO reformation. The very best description of outcome of Cameron's whizzing round European leaders is that he has a "Gentlemen's Agreement". Worth about as much as Neville Chamberlain's "piece of paper".
    Sod (a clump of grass) Redfearn. Vote No!