Total Visits

Sunday, 24 December 2017

ANTI-ENGLISHNESS IN THE JEWISH LOBBY?




ANTI-ENGLISHNESS IN THE JEWISH LOBBY?

Earlier this year one of our activists, who was thinking of standing in the General Election in the Bradford area, and who not unreasonably thought that West Yorkshire's Jews might feel particularly beleaguered in Bradford, approached the Jewish community leaders to see whether there might be common ground.  The story is best told in her own words:-


  1. I met on Sunday 4th June at Starbuck’s in Bradford Centenary Square, with Laurence Saffer, (pictured above) President of Leeds Jewish Representative Council (part of the Board of Deputies of British Jews), Rabbi Rudi Levi, Chairman of the Bradford Synagogue, and a lady whose name I cannot recollect.

  1. I was surprised to find that three people had come to meet me as I thought I was just meeting Laurence Saffer believing him to be the Rabbi of the Bradford Synagogue.

  1. We began by introducing ourselves and I explained my background and why I was keen to hopefully establish links between our organisations.

  1. Laurence Saffer explained that they have a policy of not working with extremist groups such as the BNP and National Front, but that they do invite guests from other political parties to speak at various conferences and events; and provide support for candidates standing in elections.

  1. I found this reassuring and then was completely taken aback when the tone of the conversation began to change. Laurence Saffer drew a copy of our manifesto from his briefcase, slapping it down on the table, and stated that he could not possibly sell me or my party to the Board of Deputy of British Jews, based on what he had read, as he felt that I was a racist and I belonged to a racist party. (This section of the manifesto is intended to make clear the rights of the English Nation to our historic culture in our country by giving primacy to our indigenous English culture in England as opposed to the multi-culturalist idea that English culture and our Society’s integrity must give way to the interests of a "diversity" non-English communities).

  1. Obviously, I responded with a firm rebuttal of his claims and Rabbi Rudi Levi was a little more conciliatory – he was an elderly gentleman who seemed to be more approachable.

  1. He asked our views on shechita slaughter and labelling of foods where I mentioned the findings of the FAWC Report several years ago, and that I felt there was a need to debate the issue of pre-stunning of animals before slaughter and the need for more transparent labelling. I also mentioned the fact that some Muslims in Australia and in parts of Europe had developed a form of pre-stunning which complied with their religious beliefs and that perhaps this was something both the Muslim and Jewish communities could think of adopting.

  1. We all agreed that a person’s motivation for questioning these religious practices was important and I stressed that, for my part at least, it came purely from an ethical perspective regarding animal welfare.

  1. I was asked further about our position regarding circumcision and other Jewish religious beliefs and assured them that there was no problem regarding these matters and that they had nothing to fear from us.

  1. Laurence Saffer, however, became increasingly condescending and belligerent pointing repeatedly at several clauses in the party manifesto which he claimed he had real issues over and had highlighted with asterisks.

  1. He physically pointed to clause 3.15.13.2 and other clauses he had marked with an asterisk regarding radical Islam which it mentioned the figures about the minuscule number of mosques which identified as moderate.

  1. I admitted that I couldn’t recall this specific clause, that it would have been adopted before Veritas merged with the English Democrats but that it seemed to have a credible source and was therefore a reasonable position to take.

  1. Sadly, this gave him more reason to be belligerent, exhorting that I, as Deputy Chairman should know precisely what was in our manifesto and that my reply simply wasn’t good enough.

  1. Laurence Saffer also criticised our policy on asylum seekers and refugees and highlighted, for particular criticism, our position on withdrawing from the 1951 UN Convention of Human Rights, contrasting this to the Kindertransport programme during WW2.

  1. Rabbi Rudi Levi was interested to know why this was our policy and was subsequently more understanding of the explanation I provided. Laurence Saffer, however, sadly remained rather infuriated regardless and not open to debate on these issues. (Given what I know now that he is an Immigration and Asylum judge in Leeds, it is not surprising).

  1. There were several further clauses, one which was rather badly drafted, 3.15.12.3 – 2 and 3.15.12.3 – 3, II referring to the admission and deportation of those we believed did not conform to English values and to our policy regarding establishing a programme of education for Islamic community leaders and Imams which might extend to other religions causing concern, to which Laurence Saffer again took issue.

  1. The latter policy where it states ‘…and extend this to other religions causing concern’ was a serious point of contention as I had to concede after some persuasion, that it could also apply to the Jewish community – although I was keen to point out that that would not have been the intent.

  1. We had a brief discussion on the work that the Jewish community does in Leeds and surrounding area promoting community cohesion and inter-faith dialogue, especially with the Muslim community. I told him that when I used to teach RE in Bradford I had encouraged this kind of work and dialogue and thought that we had found some common ground at last.

  1. At some point in the conversation Laurence Saffer asked how large I thought the Muslim and Jewish populations were in Bradford and appeared to argue that it was vital that they worked with the Muslim community for their survival, as the Muslim population already outnumbered the Jewish community in the Bradford area by 50-1.

  1. Then the conversation moved to the Labour MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, who was apparently saved from being expelled from the Labour party for her alleged anti-Semitism due to their intervention - and tuition. To my surprise, Mr Saffer was keen to point out that they were supporting her candidature in the general election. I found this very disconcerting as I couldn’t believe just how na├»ve and foolish they were being given her clear anti-Semitic views.

  1. Laurence Saffer then decided that they had to go, put the copy of our manifesto back in his briefcase, got up from the table and walked away without shaking my hand. His two colleagues were polite and shook hands. I assured them that they were mistaken about who I was and what I stood for and we left things open for me to contact Laurence Saffer should I wish to do so.

  1. I came away feeling completely humiliated and belittled and betrayed as I have spent my life fighting anti-Semitism and injustice and felt I had something to offer in support of the Jewish community.


I didn’t think that something so outrageous should be left unchallenged and therefore wrote the following letter to the British Board of Jewish Deputies:-

Dear Sirs

Re:  Complaint against Laurence Saffer

We act for Mrs H.  We write to make a complaint against Laurence Saffer arising out of an incident on the 4th June 2017. 

Mrs H. has set out what happened in some detail in her Witness Statement, a copy of which we enclose for your information.  I hope you will agree that the behaviour complained of is unacceptable and should be sanctioned.  Please confirm receipt. 

We await hearing from you on the steps you propose to take to deal with the complaint.

Yours faithfully


The response I got was this email:-

In a message dated 11/12/2017 17:50:54 GMT Standard Time, tony@tonyleifer.com writes:
Dear Mr Tilbrook, 
I refer to your letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews dated 27 November and to our telephone conversation today.  I write in my capacity as the chairman of the Board’s constitution committee, which is responsible for its code of conduct and dealing with breaches of that code.
Your client, Mrs H., in her statement, describes an incident involving Laurence Saffer which she says took place on 4 June, I assume this year. On her behalf you ask the Board to sanction Mr Saffer’s behaviour.
 Mr Saffer  was the Deputy for Leeds Jewish Representative Council until he resigned in January 2017, a date prior to the alleged incident, and as such the Board has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
Kind regards

Tony Leifer
(Notice no apology or even an expression of regret!)

My reply was :-
From:RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 15 December 2017 13:42
To: Tony Leifer
Subject: Re: Complaint against Laurence Saffer

Dear Mr Leifer 
Re:  Mrs H.
Thank you for your email of the 11th and for responding to my letter dated the 27th November.  It is correct that the incident was on the 4th June this year. 
However as of the 30th May 2017 Mr Saffer was using the email address PresidentLJRC@mail.com and the Leeds Jewish Representative Council has him on their website as President.  Here is a link to that website >>> http://ljrc.org/about-us-2/meet-the-ljrc-team/
Please could you therefore review your stance?
Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

To which the reply was:-

Dear Mr Tilbrook,
The relevant dates are those when Mr Saffer was a Deputy of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, as set out in my earlier email.  The email address he was using is not what matters.
Regards

Tony Leifer

My further reply:-
From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com [mailto:RobinTilbrook@aol.com]
Sent: 15 December 2017 19:55
To: Tony Leifer
Subject: Re: Complaint against Laurence Saffer

Or his appearance on the Leed's website?

Mr Leifer’s further response:-
Subj: RE: Complaint against Laurence Saffer 

It is only to members of the Board of Deputies, and not of other entities, to which the code of conduct applies.


So that seems the end of the road for the complaint and no attempt to distance the Board of Deputies from what Mr Saffer said.


This is what the Jewish Leadership Council website says about Laurence Saffer:-
 

Laurence Saffer has lived in Leeds all his life and has been involved in a number of communal groups over the years, including Habonim Dror.

As LJRC president, Laurence aims to ensure that the voice of all parts of the Leeds Jewish community and surrounding areas is heard and acted upon by all local decision makers, and that the Jewish community continues to be loud and proud. Laurence is also a judge who sits in Bradford and London.


The Habonim Dror claims to be:-

A Socialist Zionist Culturally Jewish youth movement. Through a progressive lens we create a culture and educate based on our worldly values of equality.

Habonim Dror has been pioneering the future of the Jewish people for over 85 years internationally and is continuing to do so in a fun and engaging way. We do this through weekly activities, residential weekends, Day-Schemes, Israel programs and Summer Camp.




Thursday, 14 December 2017

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE EU/UK TRADE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS?


WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE EU/UK TRADE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS?

When trying to work out what the British Establishment are up to in the Brexit negotiations it is worth bearing in mind that all the members of Theresa May’s Government have made their political careers, at least in part, out of claiming that they were Eurosceptics. The reason for that was clearly revealed in the EU Referendum when it appeared that over 60% of Conservative Party members voted for Leave and over 60% of Conservative Party voters voted for Leave.



It follows that anybody who was aspiring to be a Conservative Parliamentary Candidate or Minister before the Referendum would have destroyed their career if they had admitted that they would do what they actually did do during the Referendum - which was vote for remaining within the EU! You cannot therefore trust at face value anything that these people say about their politics. Let’s therefore look at what they are actually doing.



In analysing this it is worth thinking what you would do if you were a Minister in a Government which was enthusiastically committed to exiting the EU. The first thing that you would do would be get all of the research done as to what the difficulties, bottlenecks and obstructions would be in fully exiting the EU. David Davis is the “Brexit” Minister. Davis in many respects is admirable, but he nevertheless showed his compromising character in dropping his previously vocal support for an English Parliament, when it looked possible that he might become Leader of the Conservative Party and he was told that the Conservative Party would not support that. This is the same David Davis who has now admitted that in fact the Government has not done any proper research on the consequences of leaving without a trade deal. He admitted that this had not been done because the Government has no intention of leaving without doing a trade deal. That is a highly revealing indication of the Government’s agenda from somebody who is supposed to be one of the keenest “Brexiteers”.



The second thing that you would of course have done was to have opened up negotiations with all those countries that are interested in doing a trade deal with us and also with the World Trade Organisation and any other entities that we will need to be dealing with immediately upon exiting the EU. None of this has been done! That is another highly revealing fact as to what the Government is actually up to.



Another thing that any Government truly committed to exiting would be at the very least thinking about doing is reverting to England’s historic, strategic and diplomatic position in trying to make sure that no one power dominated in Western Europe. At the moment that power is of course the EU and therefore a Government committed to exiting the EU would be looking for allies and working with any opportunity to break-up the EU block. Obviously that would have meant supporting Catalonia and using our potentially massive trade leverage with Southern Ireland to force them out of the EU. In addition we would of course be seeking to work with the European Free Trade Association, EFTA, to reinvigorate that as a block which could counter the EU. It hardly needs saying that none of that is being done and, indeed, Theresa May’s Government backed the Spanish repression of Catalonian Independence and has not even shown any support for the Eastern Europeans opposition to EU policies on mass immigration.



Last, but not least, a truly Brexit orientated Government would absolutely refuse to pay the EU a single penny that we didn’t owe them, let alone over £50 billion of English taxpayers’ money.



Let’s not forget that any talk of payments to remain within the EU single market is actually talk of the use of ordinary English taxpayers’ money to subsidise big business in maintaining their access to the EU markets. It is not as if membership of the EU single market is of net benefit to the UK already because although we can buy as consumers (if we have the money!) Audis, Mercedes Benz, etc without paying a tariff the fact is that not only do the Germans and the French, etc., sell us more cars than we sell them, but also there has been a balance of trade in favour of the EU for almost all the last 30 years. This means that actually when considered a national economy the EU profits more from UK trade than the UK profits from EU trade. It would also mean if we went to tariffs that substantially more tariffs would be paid to our Government than would have to be paid out to the EU. Concessions are therefore not being given in the interests of ordinary people, or of our Nation, they are being given in the interests of the Conservative Party’s backers in big business corporations and in the City.



So where are we going I hear you ask? I thought one of the most interesting conversations that I have heard recently was one in which it was being suggested that the Westminster rumour mill is talking about Theresa May having gamed the DUP into refusing any different treatment for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the UK over the proposal that Southern Ireland and the EU had signed off on, which was that Northern Ireland would retain “regulatory alignment”. The rumour is that Theresa May wanted the DUP to refuse that for Northern Ireland only so that she could apply pressure on members of the Cabinet to accept “regulatory alignment” for the whole of the UK. If that remains accepted then we will not have properly have left the EU. The only plus of that situation is that as Michael Gove has been saying, then we won’t be constitutionally part of the EU and that means that a future Government (with more spine than the current one) can change anything that is being agreed at this stage.

Tuesday, 12 December 2017

Report every conceivably relevant instance as an Anti-English “Hate incident” or “Hate Crime”!


I am encouraging people to report every conceivably relevant instance as an Anti-English “Hate incident” or “Hate Crime” in order to flood the Hate Crime statistics and thus make the Police’s statistical results come out contrary to their intended PC narrative!
 


Here is the link to the College of Policing Guidance on the recording “Hate Crime” >>> http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf


I was directed to this document by the Telegraph article, whose link you can find here entitled:- Hate crime levels spike in the wake of terror attacks as police record more victims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/hate-crime-levels-spike-wake-terror-attacks-police-record-victims/, which I think shows that this Guidance is of the utmost importance.

In particular what is clear from it is that if any of us state that we think we have been subjected to, or just that there has been (it doesn’t have to be against us as individuals), a “Hate Crime” or a “Hate Incident” against English nationalists, or against the English People or against Englishness etc., then the police now have to record it as such. If we can show that the incident is a crime then again they have to record it as a “Hate Crime”. In any case at the least it must be recorded as a “Hate Incident”.

The days of the police being able to say that they have any discretion not to record it are over.

I would suggest that therefore what we should quote the guidance to them and say is that we take the view that this is a hate incident then pursuant to the College of Policing’s “Hate Crime Operational Guidance”.

You can then say that the officer has no discretion and must record this as either a “Hate Incident” or a “Hate Crime”. Then say:- 'If you do not do so then I will take this matter up as a complaint against you personally.' 




Then ask for the officer's badge number if they will not do it and complain to his superior and, if necessary continue with the complaint until fully satisfied!
 
Here is the rule to quote.

 

Section number 1.2.3. Perception-based recording of hate crime


For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person (see 1.2.4 Other person), is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident.


Crimes and incidents must be correctly recorded if the police are to meet the objective of reducing under-reporting and improve understanding of the nature of hate crime. The alleged actions of the perpetrator must amount to a crime under normal crime recording rules. If this is the case, the perception of the victim, or any other person, will decide whether the crime is recorded as a hate crime. If the facts do not identify any recordable crime but the victim perceived it to be a hate crime, the circumstances should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident and not a hate crime.





Thursday, 7 December 2017

THERESA MAY TRUMPED ON ISLAMIST TERROR TWEETS BY TRUMP!


THERESA MAY TRUMPED ON ISLAMIST TERROR TWEETS BY TRUMP!



Sometimes there is justice in the world! 



Theresa May, the Remainer politician, who has, like most of the Tories in Parliament made out throughout most of her political career that she is a Eurosceptic, but she was revealed, when the EU referendum came, to be the untruthful Remainer that we always suspected that she was really! 


Theresa also makes out that, as a Church of England vicar’s daughter, she is a practicing Christian, whilst in fact she was the prime driver behind "gay marriage". 


As Prime Minister Theresa rushed to welcome Trump when he was inaugurated as President, despite her private office having been very partisan against him in the Republican primaries and also in supporting Hilary Clinton in the actual election for the US presidency.


This, of course, is the very same Theresa May who has had the temerity to lecture Donald Trump on what he should tweet about Islamist threats!


(It is an interesting reflection on the great value of the American constitutional guarantee of the right to "Free Speech" that Ann Coulter and Trump and indeed any other Americans are free to re-tweet the videos or to make comments like Jayda Fransen has made, However because Miss Fransen has made those remarks within the UK she is being prosecuted for hate speech. How ironical that old phrase from Rule Britannia, “Briton’s never, never will be slaves” is now becoming!)


Well Theresa has been well and truly bitten now hasn’t she with Donald Trump’s response?


Theresa and some of her fellow Conservative MPs exposed themselves in their knee-jerk responses to be unpatriotic appeasers. Many of the same were exposed as “Brexit Mutineers” by the Daily Telegraph just a few weeks ago. Now here they are again standing shoulder to shoulder with Emily Thornberry, Yvette Cooper and Sadiq Khan. All of whom are yet again showing that they are more attached to multi-culturalism and Islamist appeasement than they are to acting in the best interests of our country - which is clearly to have the best possible relationship with the Government of the United States!


I doubt whether it is irrelevant that this spat took place at the very time when Theresa May and her Government are in the process of betraying the interests of the country over Brexit in offering to pay £50 billion of English Taxpayers' money to the EU simply for the privilege of being allowed to engage in trade negotiations, with no real prospect of those trade negotiations actually resulting in any trade agreement, let alone one which is advantageous to our Nation!


These people are not only hopelessly incompetent, but also are unpatriotic even to the UK.


Of course it goes without saying that they also all hate the very idea of England and of the English Nation!