Total Visits

Monday, 30 January 2017



I recently had this exchange of views on Twitter with a Leftist troll:-

Robin Tilbrook 

What are British Laws when there are several jurisdictions in the UK? look at >>>
The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained


British Laws are the collective laws of the UK over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

Tilbrook‏ Jan 24

Not so. It isn't a proper "Supreme Court" like the US one. It has jurisdiction over the parameters of eg Scots' Devolved Powers

“Chris” Jan 24 

think you need to do a bit more research on their jurisdiction. Either way, UK Supreme Court, not of E&W, so British correct

Tilbrook Jan 24 

As a litigation solicitor, I suspect I know more about the "Supreme Court's" jurisdictions than most. …

“Chris” Jan 24 

As a member of a fascist group, I suspect you're more blinded by ideological hatred than anything else, but there we are.

Robin Tilbrook‏ Jan 24 

Not true and shows what a hypocrite you are, being that you are the one who is blinded.


so, despite your profile, you're not a member of a far right party with fascist beliefs?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 

The English Democrats are:- "Not Right, Not Left, Just ENGLISH!"


Are you even English? Have you had a DNA test? How long have your family been in this country? Do you test members?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 

Now who is being the Nazi?


Pointing out the absurdity of your ideology. Personally, I'm proud of my mixed background - Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Irish

Whilst it would be hard to summon much sympathy for “Chris”, as an individual, in fact he does express, albeit “through a glass, darkly” the commonly held Left-wing confusion between Racism, Nationalism, Nazism and Democracy.

Of course, as I put into the exchange, many Leftists, like “Chris”, are not interested in engaging in a sensible discussion about these matters. Their only purpose is to use what they think are ‘nasty’ words to smear people who they regard as political opponents. For this purpose Nationalist, Fascist and Nazi are all interchangeable, even if that usage tells you nothing about the real meaning of those words or the differences of political outlook that these words encompass.

We should try to be more sensible than “Chris” and have a look at the meanings of these words. Let's start with "Democracy". The word “Democracy” derives from the ancient Greek word for the rule of the “Demos” which means “the People”.

As regards the modern movement for democracy, whilst there were strands of it in the English tradition, which burst forth into full bloom in the foundation of the United States, the real impetus for much of democratic development comes from the French Revolution. The Revolutionaries talked of the “People” aka le Peuple”, and "liberté, égalité, fraternité". The Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars overturned the assumptions, practices and politics of most of Europe.

The history of the remainder of the 19th Century and quite a bit of the 20th Century can be referred back to the forces of Democracy and Nationalism which had been unleashed by the French Revolution and by Napoleon.

In particular Democracy and Nationalism were seen by people as two sides of the same coin. Nationalists wanted to see their national group and its interests properly represented in Governmental systems and the “Nation” was seen as the same thing as the “People”. The rule of the “People” was thus expanded to be the rule of the “People of the Nation.”

One of the things we see in the modern world is that where a state occupies territory over which there is no concept of a single nation, it is impossible for that state to be democratic.

It is also worth observing that while nationalism and democracy have a large overlap there are of course versions of nationalism which are undemocratic, such as Fascism. Fascist leaders tended to claim that they were doing what the people of the nation wanted or was in their interest. Nevertheless Fascism was always opposed to representative parliamentary democracy.

Nazism and Fascism are basically both heretical offshoots of Marxist/Leninism. I would remind everybody that in 1932 Hitler made a well publicised speech in which he stated:-

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions. 

And of course Hitler’s Party’s proper name translated into English, was the “National Socialist German Workers Party”. 

Where Hitler departed from the basis on which nationalism had previously proceeded was in his ideology that there was an objective "Aryan" race the struggles of which are the basis of history. This is an idea in some respects similar to the Marxist delusion of there being an objective class, the “International Proletariat”. It’s also perhaps not all that surprising that Hitler wasn’t a German nationalist since he was after all Austrian!

Before we leave the subject of Democracy and Nationalism it is perhaps worth considering what Count Klemens von Metternich said in the early 19th Century about the Italian nationalist movement. He said:- 

“The word “Italy” is a geographical expression, a description which is useful shorthand, but has none of the political significance the efforts of the revolutionary ideologues try to put on it, which is full of dangers for the very existence of the states which make up the peninsular”.

So comprehensively has that early 19th Century Statesman’s view of Italy been swept aside that I have met quite a few people who think that Italy has always been a nation! That Italy is a single nation state going back to ancient Rome.

It is worth remembering that Mussolini’s political objective was partly to try to bolster a sense of Italy being an united nation state, when in fact Italy had only become united in 1863 and the First World War had tested the idea of Italy almost to destruction. But he then went on to found the first nationalist movement which was not avowedly democratic i.e. the Fascists.

On the other side of the concept of representative democracy we have the emerging idea of “Liberal Democracy”, which “Chris” mentioned. 

In England “Liberal Democracy” was really formed on the ideas of, amongst others, John Locke. The right to vote and to hold office was mostly dependent on owning property and therefore on being somebody with a stake in society. It was after all only in the late 19th Century in England that the right to vote was no longer limited to those people with property. Even until the 1960’s those who served on juries had to be rate payers and therefore householders.

Liberal Democracy's roots therefore are not in Nationalism. 

We have seen this very clearly in the outcome of the Brexit case, in which most of the judges have firmly stated that legally the terms of the constitution is not a “Democracy” in which the “People” would be the sovereign body. Instead the Judges ruled that the “Crown in Parliament” is “Sovereign”, the “People’s” view therefore merely advisory. This is the position of Liberal Democracy clearly expressed.

Nationalists and Democrats on the other hand would say with one voice that it is the “People” that should be “Sovereign” not the Crown in Parliament. Both would also say that Parliament, the Monarchy, Councillors, Local Government, etc., should be seen as all merely the institutions by which the Peoples’ Will is expressed.

As we are seeing the development of Brexit is exposing one of the great divides in the world!

Friday, 27 January 2017



The Brexit Supreme Court case result, was not so surprising, given the shambolic and incompetent way in which the Government’s lawyers, led by the Attorney General, had conducted the case.

As I have mentioned in a previous posting not only did they agree to things that they certainly should not have agreed to, making life much easier for the Remainers to win the case, but also failed to argue the points that they ought to have argued. The most significant failure was to do what the Government had promised to do in the booklet that they sent out to all voters i.e. to immediately implement the decision and also David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn had both stated in Parliament that if Leave won then the Article 50 notice would be served the very next day. Here we are, however, months later with it still not served and now there is an irreversible ruling by the Supreme Court that there now has to be an Act of Parliament to authorise the service of the Article 50 notice.

It is not, however, certain that the Supreme Court ruling is bad news in the longer run. This is firstly because we do not know whether Theresa May’s Government will easily be able to get an Article 50 authorising Act of Parliament through Parliament. Maybe it will go through quickly. In which case the court case has been something of a waste of time with regard to the process of Brexit.

If, on the other hand, it is blocked in Parliament that will give Theresa May a “cast iron” Cause to have a snap General Election. I suspect that, if that happens, Labour will be very seriously damaged and UKIP would be completely wiped out since May would be campaigning for Article 50 to be activated.

The other reason why it is not certain whether this court case might not be a good result in the longer term is for us as English nationalists.

In the Supreme Court Judgment it has been made crystal clear that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no role in Brexit.

The immediate response of the Scottish National Party has been shrill and, with all due respect to Nicola Sturgeon, ill-considered. I always think it is tactically unsound to get involved in battles that you cannot win. Far better to be more modest in your aims in order to have small victories.

In First World War military doctrinal terms I am for “bite and hold” rather than the French military doctrine of the “Offensive à outrance” under which massed ranks of infantry with fixed bayonets were poured into the “beaten zone” of chattering machine guns. The delusional French “Offensive à outrance” was developed because of the French nationalist revanchist obsessional wish to be revenged for the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War; perhaps a somewhat similar state of mind to Nicola Sturgeon’s increasing departure from reality.

Quite apart from the incongruity and philosophical incoherence of a Party claiming to be nationalists want to be ruled from Brussels, I would also just comment that Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy is quite incoherent, given that she claims she wants to get into this fight because Scotland is going to be taken out of the EU against its Will. However if she were to succeed in her Independence Referendum in getting Scotland out of the UK, Scotland will then be out of the EU as well! Go figure!

In any event it looks as if there is going to be a second Independence Referendum for Scotland, perhaps in 2019.

So far as English nationalists are concerned that is undoubtedly good news, since it is not unlikely that it will further awaken English awareness of the Scottish political class’s contemptuous attitude towards England and us English.

Anything that helps English People come to awareness of their Englishness and raises their consciousness of the separateness of England and its separate Interests is good for English nationalism!

There is, in addition, the juicy possibility that the British Constitution as it currently stands will be blocked and incapable of activating Article 50. If that does prove to be the case then the only way out of the EU for England will be the dissolution of the United Kingdom. This would trigger automatic exit, by bringing to an end the UK which is the Treaty Accession State. Ironically enough that would mean that Scotland and Northern Ireland are automatically out, not only of the UK, but also of the EU!

Friday, 20 January 2017

Cambridge Professor Nicholas Boyle has been reported to the police for a “Hate Incident”. He called the English “the lager louts of Europe”.

Cambridge Professor Nicholas Boyle has been reported to the police for a “Hate Incident”. He called the English “the lager louts of Europe”.

The English Democrats' Chairman, Robin Tilbrook has reported Professor Nicholas Boyle of Magdalene College, Cambridge to Essex police for making various insulting and offensive remarks about the English in his article published in the "New European" called "Leave voters are "larger louts of Europe". 

The problem with the English: England doesn’t want to be just another member of a team - Top Stories - The New European

In the article Professor Boyle wrote:- 

“The referendum vote does not deserve to be respected because, as an outgrowth of English narcissism it is itself disrespectful of others, of our allies, partners and neighbours, friends, and in many cases, even relatives. Less resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, 17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.”

He also wrote:-

“Those who voted Leave were being asked to express an emotion about membership, and the English, but not the Irish or Scots, felt so urgent a need to express it that they threw reason and practicality to the winds”

Professor Boyle also compared the English to Putin’s Russian which “suffers from the same trauma of imperial amputation”.


Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats, said:- "When I read what this Professor had written I realised that he had deliberately, publically insulted the English generally. There is no doubt that he was meaning to be both insulting and offensive to the English nation.

Professor Boyle has therefore been logged by Essex Police as a "suspect" in a "Hate Incident" logged under Hate Crime reference number 42/17384/17.

Robin continued:- "Naturally as an Englishman I am offended by such a tirade by a person who is supposed to be and is paid to be a role model for students. I have therefore reported this to the police as a “Hate Incident”. 

Attacking the English is just as much "Racist" as attacking other racial, ethnic and national groups. 

We English should not put up with such anti-English racist insults and attacks without taking action against the perpetrators"

Robin Tilbrook


The English Democrats

Wednesday, 18 January 2017

“Fight the Good Fight with all thy might!"

Fight the Good Fight with all thy might!

I am a strong believer in the idea that we owe it to ourselves and to our English Cause to use all appropriate tools and opportunities etc. that are open to us to advance the Cause and also to defend ourselves from opponents.

One of the things that is altogether too obvious is that the police have come down hard on Right-wing, nationalistic, patriotic protesters even when they are being basically law-abiding. This is in stark contrast to their treatment of Left-wing, anti-racist, anti-FA, Hope not Hate types and other multi-culturalist campaigners. My suspicion has been that not only is there a degree of bias, as people have often maintained, but also there has been insufficient action on our side to use all available opportunities to counter-attack or to get in a pre-emptive attack on opponents.

One example is the Government’s new “Prevent” strategy, which has been sold to the public as being part of an anti-terrorism campaign. Most people, who only skim read news stories and do not pay close attention to what is going on, may still think “Prevent” is focussed solely on Islamist terrorists and troublemakers.

Let me tell you now unequivocally that it isn’t! 

You don’t need to be an English nationalist for this to apply to you. It will be enough for you to be a traditional Conservative!

So let’s see whether, as far as the Government is concerned, YOU are an “EXTREMIST”?

The Government has been busy developing a wholly partisan definition of “Britishness” and/of “British values”.

Those who do not read these things carefully, may think that their values because they are traditional and that they are historically British that they would qualify as part of “Britishness”. 

Let me tell you now - no they don’t necessarily!

Here is the Government definition of "Britishness" and of "British" values. They only apply in England so read it carefully!

I have highlighted the bit that you need to pay particular attention in bold and underlined.

“The Department for (English only) Education has … published guidance on promoting British values in schools to ensure young people leave school …

The guidance aims to help both independent and state-maintained schools understand their responsibilities in this area. All have a duty to ‘actively promote’ the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011.

Until now schools have been required to ‘respect’ these values, but as a result of changes brought in earlier in the year all schools must now have a clear strategy for embedding these values and show how their work with pupils has been effective in doing so. In a letter to the Education Select Committee in March, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools Lord Nash explained the changes were designed to “tighten up the standards on pupil welfare to improve safeguarding, and the standards on spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils to strengthen the barriers to extremism”.

Ofsted and the independent inspectorates now take the work of schools in this area into account during inspections.

Publishing the guidance today, Lord Nash said:

A key part of our plan for education is to ensure children become valuable and fully rounded members of society who treat others with respect and tolerance, regardless of background.

We want every school to promote the basic British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.

This ensures young people understand the importance of respect and leave school fully prepared for life in modern Britain.

Examples of the understanding and knowledge pupils are expected to learn include:
an understanding of how citizens can influence decision-making through the democratic process
an understanding that the freedom to hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law
an acceptance that people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should be accepted and tolerated, and should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour
an understanding of the importance of identifying and combatting discrimination

Examples of actions schools can take to promote British values are to:
include in suitable parts of the curriculum - as appropriate for the age of pupils - material on the strengths, advantages and disadvantages of democracy, and how democracy and the law works in Britain, in contrast to other forms of government in other countries
ensure all pupils within the school have a voice that is listened to, and demonstrate how democracy works by actively promoting democratic processes such as a school council whose members are voted for by the pupils
use opportunities such as general or local elections to hold mock elections to promote fundamental British values and provide pupils with the opportunity to learn how to argue and defend points of view
consider the role of extra-curricular activity, including any run directly by pupils, in promoting fundamental British values

The government today also published its interim response to a consultation of the revised Independent Schools Standards (ISS). The revised standards cover independent schools, academies and free schools, ensuring they - along with local authority-maintained schools - must promote British values.”

(Here is the link to the source >>>

If you are not absolutely certain that I have got this right, check it out on the link.

On the other hand if you have read the definitions carefully, ask yourself if you agree with EVERY aspect of that definition being applied only in England? If you don’t then you are what the Government is trying to redefine as an “Extremist”.

What about if, for example, you are a serious and practising Christian and you believe Jesus’ statement in the Gospel of St John, Chapter 14, Verse 6:- “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”?  If so then you are an “Extremist” and your values are not the British Government’s “British values”!

Since these values are the litmus test, here in England, as to whether or not you are an “Extremist” that means that so far as the system is concerned you are an “Extremist” and the “Prevent” strategy is there to disrupt you, your life and your associations.

You might ask how does all this relate to what I said in the beginning, that we are not doing enough to use what is available to us? Well the point is that it is not only us who would not necessarily support every last bit of the Government’s definition of multi-culti “Britishness”, but also the Left don’t support it either.

There is a case that I have recently been advising in which is relevant.

As part of the case we reported a Leftist troublemaker to the police. He was visited by the relevant police Prevent Team and has now been put on the Prevent “Watch List” as an Extremist!

What that means is that if that Leftist now takes part in any activity in the future which is hostile to, for example, English nationalists, then the police are far more likely to crackdown on him than they would have been hitherto.

From now on he will be on the “Watch List” and will be flagged up as somebody whose activities ought to be disrupted.

It is the same with reporting anti-English so called “Hate Crimes”. These always ought to be reported. If a police officer shows any reluctance to accept it as a “hate crime” then a complaint should be made against the officer concerned. The complaint should be taken as far as it can up the Police Forces' complaints system so that it gets into the records that a lot of the “hate crime” is perpetrated against the English rather than by them.

Equally no opportunity should be lost to insist that you are “English” on ethnic monitoring forms rather than permitting yourself to be put down as “British” which is a legally invalid category and therefore waives your rights and your community’s rights under the Equality Act.

I could of course give many other examples of where we need to make sure that we do pull our weight, but I am sure you get the point! But don’t be put off by any official discouragement! 

Remember the parable of the unjust Judge in the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 18, Verse 6:-  
“There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith."

Saturday, 14 January 2017



I was talking to a UKIP friend of mine recently. We were agreeing that the English Democrats had had a significant indirect impact on the EU referendum because it was us that first suggested that there should be a linkage made between mass immigration and our inability to control it whilst we were still members of the EU.

There are of course other issues where mass immigration has a direct impact on things that most English people would not want to see happen.

For instance at the moment it is the case that large parts of England are likely to be concreted over as part of a massive housebuilding push in order to accommodate not only the 10-15 million people that came into the country during the Blair years, but also May’s migrant millions.

In the period since Theresa May became Home Secretary, back in 2010, to date there has usually been in excess of half a million migrants coming into our country every single year.

So, even on the understated figures that Government usually comes out with, that must mean at least 3 million more population in the country. Therefore at least a couple of million new houses that have to be built as a result of May’s migration mess.

Simon Heffer wrote an article about this recently which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 8th January 2017 under the Title “Javid’s folly would be to build in Tory back yards”. Although he is rather concentrating on the electoral prospects of the Conservatives, a matter which I have little interest in, nevertheless he makes many good points which we need to bear in mind.

Here are a few key quotations from his article:-

“Thanks primarily to two things – unchecked immigration and high divorce rates – we have insufficient housing. Prices are so high in the south-east that many live with their parents well into their 30s. Essential staff, such as teachers and those in the emergency services, struggle to find a home anywhere near their workplace. Something must be done and Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, has announced a White Paper on the matter.

The United Kingdom has roughly the same population as France, but in square miles is well under half the size. A disproportionate number of Britons live in England, and a disproportionate number of them live in or around London. We had a taste of Government policy last week, before the White Paper, in the announcement of 14 garden villages and three garden towns. The villages will provide around 50,000 homes and the towns will have at least 10,000 each. Even then, at today’s rate of immigration, we will within months be back to square one.

Some of the proposed villages are well-placed in Essex, for example, one is destined for an unremarkable corner of bleak farmland between the M25 and the Southend Arterial Road, and will if anything improve the landscape. But the Hertfordshire garden town will swallow up existing small villages, destroying their character and history, and eat up some green belt outside the postwar new town of Harlow. The Government seems to wish to avoid confronting one key issue, which a satisfactory White Paper would address explicitly: does the Government have a conception of something called rural England that would continue to exist in our increasingly overcrowded country and, if so, what will it do to protect it? Or should those of us who live in the countryside regard our environment as temporary, and at the whim of government?

I fear it has no such conception at all. It contemplates concreting over tracts of prime farmland just as we leave the Common Agricultural Policy and have to fend more for ourselves. This would also mean, in the south-east, that towns now separated by countryside will soon join up with each other, making huge new conurbations. Bullied by the Government, local councils will accede to this blight on the homes of hundreds of thousands of existing residents, and there is no shortage of developers (some of them Tory party donors) ready to exploit this weakness. Any idea that this will be done by local consent is rubbish: the problem is too acute, and the desire for an easy way out too pressing.

The White Paper will seek to reform planning laws to make such bullying irresistible. Mr Javid knows that just tweaking the system will have no appreciable results at all. But that is all right in theory: doing it in practice will be quite another matter. It not only means that hundreds of thousands of people who think they live in the countryside will wake up one day and realise that, very soon, they will not. It will also put additional stress on the road and rail network in a part of England where that infrastructure is already at breaking point. Mr Javid is far from stupid, and he ought to realise not just the practical difficulties of trying to cram a quart into a pint pot in the home counties, but also the electoral suicide his party could be committing if it pursues this course.”

(Here is the link to the original article >>> )

Thursday, 5 January 2017

Judicial Appointments to fast-track Tick Box "DIVERSITY"!

Judicial Appointments to fast-track Tick Box "DIVERSITY"!

I wrote a letter recently to the Law Society Gazette, which is the in-house magazine of the Solicitor's profession. 


It was in response to this article >>>


My letter was published under the heading of:- 

"Ticking Boxes". 

Here is my letter:-

Dear Sir

Re: Judical fast-track would boost diversity – 31st October 2016

I viewed your above story with great disquiet as it seems that this proposal from Mr Justice Hickinbottom seems somewhat symptomatic of the various questionable, not to say flaky “Reform” initiatives launched by various members of the Judiciary of the England and Wales jurisdiction.

I suspect that most other practitioners, who have a court based practice, will have noticed that, whilst many of the Judges that we experience are still of excellent quality that there is nevertheless an increasing proportion who are not of that quality. They are being appointed by the Judicial appointments system, which was politicised by Lord Irvine when he was Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor to ensure that "no-one with reactionary views" could be appointed or promoted.

With the utmost respect to the learned Mr Justice Hickinbottom, the focus of any public service ought to be on actually delivering a service to the public rather than tick-boxing “Diversity” quotas in a fashion reminiscent of the appointment system in the Soviet Union.

Yours faithfully

What do you think?

Tuesday, 3 January 2017



The devolved Welsh Government has submitted written arguments to the “Supreme” Court in the Brexit case. My eye was caught by part of their submissions:-

“6. As the Welsh Government recently said in its written evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s inquiry The Union and devolution, devolution has become a fundamental and effectively irreversible feature of the constitution:

(i) Whatever its historical origins, the United Kingdom is best seen now as a voluntary association of nations which share and redistribute resources and risks between us to our mutual benefit and to advance our common interests.

(ii) The principles underpinning devolution should be recognised as fundamental to the UK constitution, and the devolved institutions should be regarded as effectively permanent features of that constitution.

(iii) Devolution is about how the UK is collectively governed, by four administrations which are not in a hierarchical relationship one to another. The relations of the four governments of the United Kingdom should therefore proceed on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem.

(iv) The allocation of legislative and executive functions between central UK institutions and devolved institutions should be based on the concept of subsidiarity, acknowledging popular sovereignty in each part of the UK.

(v) The presumption should therefore be that the devolved institutions will have responsibility for matters distinctively affecting their nations. Accordingly, the powers of the devolved institutions should be defined by the listing of those matters which it is agreed should, for our mutual benefit, be for Westminster, all other matters being (in the case of Wales) the responsibility of the Assembly and/or the Welsh Government."

The whole of their submissions to the “Supreme” Court can be found here >>>

It is however bitterly ironic that the 'Counsel General for Wales' then makes no mention throughout his 28 pages of legal submissions of the dreaded “E” words – ENGLAND or the ENGLISH! 

He also switches hastily to legalistic detail instead of further general statements of constitution principle. 

I suspect that this is because the above quotation would lead naturally to a discussion of fairness, equality and the unfair anomaly that England has no English First Minister, no English Government and no English only Parliament - unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!