ONE WORLDER GLOBALISTS PROVE THEMSELVES COWARDS OVER CHINESE VIRUS

ONE WORLDER GLOBALISTS PROVE THEMSELVES COWARDS OVER CHINESE VIRUS

For years now Liberal Globalists and “Progressive” Internationalists have been talking up the virtues of globalisation, internationalisation and have also been persistently attacking and undermining Nationalists and Patriots.  All their pretentious talk of Progress and Internationalism which has accompanied Liberal Globalists’ claims of Progress towards a “New World Order” have now been exposed by their own cowardice in the face of the Chinese virus (aka Coronavirus) epidemic.

For years all those who warned against the consequences for the spread of disease and the spread of criminality and of the consequences of the importation of foreign criminals and of invasive species damaging our environment and of mass immigration damaging our Nation’s economy and heritage have been attacked and denigrated.  Defending all these was attacked as “reactionary” or “racist”, but now it is clear that it was actually just common sense!

The Liberal Globalists themselves, it seems all around the world, have been spooked into massive and hysterical overreactions never before seen, except during the height of the World Wars. 

All elections have so suddenly been banned by Boris, who has showed himself to be no Winston Churchill.   Churchill went ahead with a General Election in 1945, when we were still at war with Japan!  Boris is not even a Lloyd George, who went ahead with a General Election in December 1918, at the height of the Spanish Flu epidemic, which is thought to have killed about 50 million people around the world!

The panic of the Establishment has been partly caused by the grossly irresponsible whipping up of public fears by highly partisan and inaccurate reporting in the mainstream media.  This has now created a situation in which the national and the world’s globalised economy is being crashed around us.  It is not any exaggeration to say that the economy may never fully recover.  It almost certainly will never recover to be the same that it was before!

So far as those political leaders who have identified themselves with panic measures in their countries, including Boris in ours, it seems safe to say that if this Chinese Virus does not turn out to be the massive threat that it is currently claimed to be, to justify all the array of restrictions on liberty that have been rolled out in the last few days, then I would expect the public to take a full and thorough revenge on them at the next elections and opportunity.

I have been asked what numbers of dead would justify crashing the economy and that is a hard question, but it seems to me that the comparison is with the two World Wars. 

In the First World War Britain suffered some 895,000 dead.  In the Second World War the dead were far less at around 449,700 both including civilian casualties. 

I do however think that public tolerance of levels of dead is less now than it was. 

It may be that if the death toll is 100,000, that people will feel that Boris Johnson’s panic measures were justified to slow up and spread out the deaths. 

But if there is less than 100,000 dead, I think that we may enter a new era. 

That era will be one in which people turn against Liberal Globalists and Internationalists, turn back to our Nations as the bedrock of our communal lives and of our politics and of our trade.  

It will be one in which the whole Liberal Globalist agenda is rejected for the threats that it has created to our Nations, to our Peoples’ economic welfare and to our Peoples’ health and to our national cultures.

What do you think?

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

It used to be regularly claimed that the Criminal Justice system discriminated against Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants and imposed heavier sentences on them than they would do for “White” Defendants.  Although the statistics on the face of it looked disproportionate, most sensible commentators thought the difference was actually about the level of criminality in the different “ethnic minority” communities. 

 

That was until the not so bright Labour MP, David Lammy, made his 35 recommendations to reform the Criminal Justice system to give a bias in favour of Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants. 

 

Although the Judge’s reasoning has not been published, it seems likely that the Government’s politically correct adoption of David Lammy’s recommendations has led to the discrepancy. When the Liberal Democrat MP and Cabinet Minister, Chris Huhne and his wife were convicted of their much less serious case of Perverting the Course of Justice than Ms Onasanya’s, they got more than double the jail time that Ms Onasanya got. 

 

Any reasonable and objective commentator would have thought that Ms Onasanya would have got a stiffer sentence. 

 

It seems that we now live in a country where Whites, even if they are not English, like Chris Huhne and his wife, get stiffer sentences than Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants!  Such is the joy of diversity!

 

Here is a BBC article about David Lammy’s report >>>  

Bias against ethnic minorities 'needs to be tackled' in justice system

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41191311

 

Here is the Government’s press release on David Lammy’s report in which the Notes to Editors should be particularly instructive saying as follows:-

 

“In January 2016, the former Prime Minister David Cameron asked David Lammy to lead a review of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, to investigate evidence of possible bias against black defendants and other ethnic minorities.

 

His successor, Theresa May, said on the steps of Downing Street that: “If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white”.

 

The Lammy Review was supported by the Ministry of Justice and a panel of expert advisers. The review considered evidence from the point of arrest onwards.”

 

Click here for the original  >>>  

Press release: Lammy publishes historic review

 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lammy-publishes-historic-review

 

Here is a report on an approach that is being adopted >>> 

Prosecutions in London could be dropped or deferred as ministers respond to David Lammy report on legal treatment of BAME people

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/19/london-prosecutions-could-be-dropped-or-delayed-in-pilot-scheme

What do you think?

"GAMMON" INSULT LOGGED WITH POLICE AS ANTI-ENGLISH RACE 'HATE' CRIME

CALLING THE BREXIT SUPPORTING ENGLISH “GAMMON” HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY LOGGED WITH THE POLICE AS A HATE INCIDENT

I am setting out below my correspondence with Essex Police over reporting Matt Zorb- Cousins’ slur against those who have supported Brexit, the majority of whom identify themselves as English.  He has deliberately insulted them as “Gammon”.  On reflection it was clear that these are also racial stereotypes in what he says such people look like. 

People who read my blog regularly will know that I have been urging people to use the Left’s “Hate Crime” agenda against them.  So I followed my own advice!

Initially in this case Essex Police were not keen to log the case as a “Hate Crime” and I therefore had to again follow my own advice as to how to make them log it.

I thought that the resulting correspondence is a good read and also a good lesson in how to make sure that “Hate Crime” cases are logged against Left-wing figures.

Here is the correspondence:-

From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 18 May 2018 11:46
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon”

Dear Sir

Re:  Report of “Hate Crime  "  /“Hate incident” - “Gammon”

I wish to report Matt Zarb-Cousin for publically making insulting and offensive remarks against the majority of English who voted for Brexit in a manner which was illegally discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act in that he was discriminating against the Nationality, National Identity, National Origin and Ethnicity of the English.

He wrote his "Gammon" article in February in “Huck” which can be found here >>> http://www.huckmagazine.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/defence-calling-people-gammon/  

Mr Zarb-Cousin was also on the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2 to talk about this at 12.30 on 14^th May 2018.  

Taken together his article and tweets and Facebook comments on his accounts are anti-White and anti-English (racist), anti-male (sexist), anti-older (ageist).  His comments are grossly offensive, abusive and insulting both within the meaning of Section’s 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and within the meaning of Section 127 of the Communications Act.

   

In the circumstances please confirm that you have logged my report and let me have the crime reference number.  Please confirm what you intend to do to investigate this anti-English “Hate Speech” Crime.

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: 'Robin Tilbrook'  
CC: Crime Bureau Essex
Sent: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:51
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon”

Good afternoon Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your email.

In relation to the article on the magazine website, it would be advised if you are offended by this article to complain directly to the magazine as they would have control over the editing and publishing of the article from the writer. The magazine Huck is published and run by the London publishing company TCO London.

Again with the Jeremy Vine show, it would be advised to make a complaint directly to the BBC or to Ofcom in relation to their programming.

Following any complaints, should the publishing houses/companies deem this breaches any criminal offences they should in fact remove the offending articles.

At this time it would not fall within Essex Police to take a report of crime. This has been checked against the home office counting rules and national crime recording standards. If there is a crime that requires recording this would fall to the police force area in which it was published.

Kind regards,

S B

Crime Bureau

Operational Policing Command

Essex Police Headquarters

Ext 488888

Non-Emergency Telephone: 101 (Calling from within Essex) Non-Emergency Telephone: 03003334444 (Calling from outside Essex). When through to an operator, request to be put through to the Crime Bureau.

Email: crime.bureau@essex.pnn.police.uk

Website: www.essex.police.uk

Keep in touch with what is happening in your neighbourhood with Essex Community Messaging. Further details at www.essexcommunitymessaging.org.

From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 18 May 2018 13:58
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon”

Dear Ms Barnes

Thank you for your email.   I wish to make a complaint of these matters as Hate Crimes.  The offending publications did not originate in Essex but were published into Essex and as such are within your jurisdiction. 

Also I would remind you of College of Policing Guidance on the recording “Hate Crime” >>>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf .

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. 

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: 'Robin Tilbrook'
CC: Crime Bureau Essex
Sent: Sat, 19 May 2018 14:41
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon” 

Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your link to the college of policing website, although we do have access to this ourselves.

Under the home office counting rules the location of any offences would in fact fall to where the article was published from and in the case of the radio show where this would have been broadcast from, which is the BBC’s broadcasting house in London.

However, as you have stated you perceive these articles to be offensive and live within Essex, a hate incident has been created on our system and the reference number is EP-20180519-0726. This will be assessed by a hate crime officer for any further action they deem necessary.

Kind regards,

S B

Crime Bureau

Operational Policing Command

Essex Police Headquarters

Ext 488888

Non-Emergency Telephone: 101 (Calling from within Essex) Non-Emergency Telephone: 03003334444 (Calling from outside Essex). When through to an operator, request to be put through to the Crime Bureau.

Email: crime.bureau@essex.pnn.police.uk

Website: www.essex.police.uk

I hope that the above correspondence will encourage everyone else who is annoyed at the “Gammon” slur to complain also to Essex Police and quote the response. 

If you are minded to do so you can email them on Crime.bureau@Essex.pnn.police.uk and quote the police crime reference number EP-20180519-0726, saying that you find what was said to be a “racist, anti-English” and “grossly offensive” remark and that you want to be added as a complainant in the case as you were also offended.  Also ask for Essex Police to keep you informed as to the progress of their investigation.

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED


The Law Society Gazette is the in-house magazine for the Society of England and Wales,which is the professional body for all Solicitors in the English and Welsh jurisdiction. Like all such organisations there is a creeping move towards political correctness and “positive action”towards “diversity”; “multi-culturalism and globalisation”. An example of this appeared recently in the 8thJanuary issue of the Gazette. It was entitled“Racial Disparity in exams by Max Walters”. Here is his article :-



Minority ethnic students lagging behind in LPC success

By Max Walters


White students are more likely to pass their legal exams and law conversion courses than people from an ethnic minority background, data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority has revealed.

According to an SRA report, almost 80% of white students successfully completed their LPC, compared with only 40% of black students and 53% of Asian/Asian British students.

The figures, which cover September 2015 to August 2016, were published on the SRA website at the end of last year.

They appear in the annual ‘Authorisation and Monitoring Report’ which focuses on the success rates for two qualifications – the legal practice course (LPC)and the common professional examination (CPE) – a conversion course for non-law graduates.

It will come as another blow for the profession’s reputation for diversity after barristers’ regulator the Bar Standards Board revealed at the end of last year that black and minority ethnic (BME) students were half as likely as their white counterparts to achieve pupillage.

The figures for CPE candidates were similar to those taking the LPC. Among white students, 74% successfully completed the course, compared with 33% of black students and 46% of Asian students.

The report also reveals a stark gap between success at training institutions.

For the LPC, one provider achieved a pass rate of 100%, compared with 30% at another. CPE completion rates were similar and varied from less than 45% to100%. ?The providers have not been named.

The report also reveals that the University of Hertfordshire has opted to reinstate the LPC this year. The university suspended the course in 2016 in light of forthcoming changes to qualification. The Gazette has contacted the university for comment.

Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/minority-ethnic-students-lagging-behind-in-lpc-success/5064169.article



Here is my letter to the Editor in reply:-


Dear Sir

Your article in the 8th January issue of the Law Society Gazette:-“Racial disparity in exam results” by Max Walters

The statistics which Mr Walters quotes of “disparity” between “Black” and “Asian”Students and “White” Students may not actually “constitute a fresh blow to the profession’s reputation for inclusion”. For that inference to be properly drawn we would have to know whether the LPC “providers” were requiring the same levels of prior academic achievement from prospective students from each of these respective racial groups.



Anecdotally it would appear that the providers are actually not requiring the same level of academic achievement from each of the racial groups. Instead the providers appear to be offering course places at least partly on the basis of politically correct “positive discrimination”.



In other reports it also appears that “Asian” were 22% and “Black” were 9% of the total candidates. This is well over the percentage of these racial groups compared with their percentages of the population as per the 2011 Census. These percentages mean that even given their lower pass rates more Asian and Black candidates are becoming solicitors than these racial groups proportion of the population of England. It is actually English candidates who are underrepresented (so much for “White Privilege”?).



This supports the idea that “positive discrimination” is occurring which confirms that the “providers” are probably giving places to “Asian” and “Black” students who have not previously done as well academically as the “White”students. It may therefore be the reported results are hardly surprising. Law exams are testing knowledge of what is objectivity true. Hence, it was always improbable that racial discrimination came into the picture.



The disturbing implication of Mr Walters’ article is that he may be implying the academic standards for the LPC should be lowered. If this is his intention then the impact on the basic purpose of open examinations and of Professional regulation (which is to create a profession able to maintain and guarantee high professional standards of service to the public) would be sacrificed on the altar of politically correct “diversity” targets!

Yours sincerely


Robin Tilbrook

Solicitor& Chairman of the English Democrats



What do you think?