EU NEGOTIATIONS – DEAL OR NO DEAL?

EU NEGOTIATIONS – DEAL OR NO DEAL?

I have been watching the news reports about the British Government’s negotiations with the EU’s negotiator, Michael Barnier, and also their dealings with Jean-Claude Juncker.


The interesting thing is that, despite predictions of common-sense negotiating at the behest of German car makers, it seems evident that the EU negotiators are behaving in exactly the same kind of way as we are used to EU negotiations taking place in the past.


Had the EU been a different organisation where negotiations could take place flexibly and sensibly and on a common-sense basis, then there can be no doubt that David Cameron would have brought back a far better compromise package, which would probably have resulted in there being a narrow majority for Remain in the referendum.


So the lack of the EU’s willingness to negotiate on anything of significance is part of the reason that we are where we are at the moment.


Almost inevitably the EU is now again adopting an intransigent approach to negotiation, whereby they are not prepared to discuss the financial settlement before the terms of the divorce have been settled. That thinking would be muddled even if we were talking about a real divorce of a married couple.


In a proper divorce the first stage is merely to decide whether or not the situation is one where divorce is proper. In an English court that is now done quite simply. It is more or less taken for granted that if the couple want to divorce they will be able to, provided they can make suitable allegations.


Once the divorce has been ordered, then the court will be prepared to go on and deal with the financial settlement. Clearly there is little intention of having further relations between the divorcing couple except for looking after the children.


This is not the kind of situation that we are in with Brexit. It is not equivalent to a divorce despite some of the rhetoric that claims that it is similar.


If it was a divorce it would be one where the EU were saying that they won’t ever discuss what the arrangements for the children will be until we have settled how much we are going to pay them! That is simply not a way which the court would accept was proper for divorcing couples to behave.


So the EU is not behaving in a proper way. 


It is however behaving in exactly the sort of way that you would expect EU apparatchiks to behave, that is in a demanding and dictatorial way the purpose of which is about protecting the EU as an entity, rather than looking after the interests of EU member states, let alone EU citizens!

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?

On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-

Jeremy Corbyn:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“No she resigned.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack or did she resign”


Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned”.



BBC interviewer:-

“So you did not sack her?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned.”



BBC interviewer:-

“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“Well she resigned so that is the question.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”


(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame 'entire community' for abuse - BBC News).



This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked. 

The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.

The second deception in the interview was to claim:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.

What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.

Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-


“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!


Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.

The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is. 


But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that. 


So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?

What do you think?

IS THERESA MAY THE WORST PRIME MINISTER EVER?

IS THERESA MAY THE WORST PRIME MINISTER EVER?

I saw this question asked on Twitter recently in response to her latest outburst of what would be complete nonsense for any genuine Conservative to say about President Donald Trump finding “equivalence” between alleged fascists and the counter-protesters in Charlottesville.

Speaking with NBC Theresa May blasted Trump saying:- “I see no equivalence between those who propound fascist views and those who oppose them”.

She went on to say:- “ It is important for all those in positions of responsibility to condemn far-right views wherever we hear them”.

The latter is of course an indication of her own politics, but the former is a dubious point especially when considered in the context of the Charlottesville riots.

Also her further remarks to the BBC were equally dubious. Mr Trump had merely said in his press conference on the previous Tuesday that there was “blame on both sides”. “You had a group on one side that was bad”, he said. “You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now”.

Mrs May also went on to tell the BBC:- “As I made clear at the weekend following the horrendous scenes that we saw in Charlottesville, I absolutely abhor the racism, the hatred and the violence that we have seen portrayed by these groups.”

"The United Kingdom has taken action to ban far-right groups here, we have proscribed certain far-right groups here in the United Kingdom.”

And she repeated:- “there is no equivalence."

Here is the link to the article>>> Theresa May on Trump comments: Far-right should always be condemned - BBC News

In effect, Mrs Theresa May, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was using her office to say that Fascists, Nazis, White Supremacists etc., should have no rights.

In fact many of the protesters were there to prevent the destruction of a memorial to the Confederate side of the Civil War.

Furthermore many ordinary white anomalies feel that they have been increasingly pushed into self-identification as “whites” by the increasingly vociferous “community” groups, such as “Black Lives Matter”. A very good article appears about this in the Spectator which I set out below.

It is usually dangerous for a foreign politician to hold forth in the way that Theresa May has about what is going on in America. Of course she doesn’t know and cannot know all the details of what actually happened, but the idea that the “White” protestors are automatically in the wrong and that the “anti-fascist” protestors are automatically in the right is simply bizarre.

Is she really saying that Fascism and Nazism is automatically worse than Communism when history tells us that the Communists have killed vastly more people than the Fascists and Nazis did?

Is she really saying that there is “no moral equivalence” because the killing of the victims of Communism as “class enemies” is more understandable than the “racial” victims of Nazism?

I once heard a BBC broadcast interview of the former student Far-Leftist radical, Tariq Ali. He was saying why he thought that Stalin’s 55 million dead didn’t make Stalin worse than Hitler with his 6 million dead because Stalin’s killings were about class not race! Is Mrs May now lining herself up with the Far-Left?

If Theresa May is saying that Communist mass murderers have no “moral equivalence” to Fascist ones then I would suggest that what this shows unequivocally is that she is not a “Conservative” in any meaningful sense.

In considering whether Theresa May is a “Conservative” it is worth bearing in mind that she was the principal architect behind the push for gay marriage; also that when she was Shadow Home Secretary and the then Home Secretary, Harriet Harman (aka Hattie Harperson), introduced her Equalities Bill, having said that her Bill was “socialism in a single bill”, Mrs May responded in the House of Commons that she on behalf of the Conservatives welcomed the Bill. Theresa May said that she only regretted that it didn’t go far enough!

I am not sure whether all of this makes her the worse Prime Minister ever, but it certainly does add grist to the point which I made when she first emerged as the Conservative Leader, that I thought that she was likely to be the Conservatives equivalent of Gordon Brown. 

Here is a link to my speech saying that >>> Robin Tilbrook: CHAIRMAN’S SPEECH AT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CONFERENCE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2016

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/chairmans-speech-at-english-democrats.html

I think her latest comments show that she is going to prove to be worse than Gordon Brown, not only on her track record of action, but also on her cack-handed attitude to dealing with foreign affairs.

When she was Home Secretary she was intimately involved in welcoming various foreign leaders from the Chinese President downwards with far more questionable “moral equivalence” than Mr Trump!

Of course it may be that Theresa May thinks they didn’t matter because they weren’t Westerners and therefore their repressive states don’t challenge her Blairite Left-Liberal world view!

The whole determination by multi-culturalists to destroy statues of historic figures which the protesters were trying to prevent in Chalottesville is intended to wipe away any of the monuments to our history. This is not only a phenomenon in America (where they are even now talking about trying to get rid of statues of George Washington because he owned slaves!). It has happened here also.

Remember when an ungrateful South African student, who had been sent to Oxford on the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship repaid his benefactor by trying to have Rhodes’ statue removed from Oriel College! No doubt Cecil Rhodes remark that “to be born an Englishman was to have won the lottery of life” was too unbearable to multi-culturalists to allow his statue to remain, however great his charitable giving!

I suspect that, given the chance Theresa May would prove just as much of a failure at genuine conservatism over such a statue here in England as she has been in her comments!

Here is the article from the Spectator by Brendan O’Neill, which I think puts all these points about 'moral equivalence' into a sensible context. 

What do you think?

The violent product of identity politics

"Identity politics is turning violent. It’s been brewing for a while. Anyone who’s witnessed mobs of students threatening to silence white men or Islamists gruffly invading the space of secular women who diss their dogmas will know that, as with all forms of communalism, identity politics has a menacing streak. And at the weekend, in Charlottesville, Virginia, it blew up. That ugly clash between blood-and-soil while nationalists and people crying ‘black lives matter’ is the logical outcome of the identitarian scourge, of the relentless racialisation of public life.

Charlottesville was both shocking and unsurprising. It was shocking because here we had actual Nazis, waving swastika flags, in 21st century America, the land of the free. That is deeply disturbing. But it is also unsurprising because in recent years, across the West, people have been invited, implored in fact, to think racially. To be ‘racially aware’. To think of themselves as belonging to a particular race, and to believe their racial make-up confers certain privileges or penalties on them – it shapes them. The young men hollering about ‘white pride’ at Charlottesville are surely responding to this racial invitation. They’re being ‘racially aware’.

To those of us who believe in racial equality, who admire Martin Luther King’s vision of a society in which character counts for more than colour, the rise of this PC and profoundly divisive racial consciousness has felt alarming. The pressure to view every aspect of life and culture through a racial lens has become intense. The academy wrings its hands over all the Dead White European Males in the canon. Student radicals claim white philosophy isn’t suited to black students. The idea of ‘racial microaggressions’ invites us to view even everyday conversation as loaded with racial tension. Leftists regularly claim that Brexit and Trump and other things they hate are the fault of ‘old white men’. ‘Dear White People’, say PC people before launching into a diatribe against ‘white’ behaviour. Race has become the explanation for everything, the obsession of the age.

Things have got so bad that anyone who seeks to resist racial thinking, on the humanist basis that people are individuals rather than bundles of DNA or the unwitting products of history, can expect to be rounded on. To say ‘I don’t see race’ is actually quite racist, says a writer for the Guardian. The University of California’s guide to acceptable speech – many campuses have one these days – describes statements like ‘I don’t believe in race’ and ‘There is only one race, the human race’ as ‘microaggressions’, because they fail to acknowledge the individual as a ‘racial/cultural being’ in the past, refusing to treat individuals as racial/cultural beings was a good thing. Now it’s bad. You must treat people as expressions of race. And if you don’t, you’re racist. Talk about doublespeak.

This is the foul nature of identity politics. It defines people, not by their achievements or beliefs, not by their character or work, but by their skin colour, their genitals, their sexuality. By their inherited traits rather than things they’ve done through the exercise of their own autonomy. ‘As a black woman’, ‘As a white man’, ‘As a mixed-race genderqueer’… these are the baleful prefaces to speech and debate in the 21st century, because what matters most is not what a person believes in but what shade their skin is or what chromosomes they possess. Biology trumps belief: a full and foul reversal of the modern, enlightened idea that the individual can escape the circumstances of his birth and determine his destiny for himself.

And as part of this truly nasty business, we have witnessed the rise of white identity. Some people have an apparently ‘correct’ white identity: they check their white privilege, they go on demos with placards saying ‘I was going to write my opinion, but it’s probably about time white men just shut up and listened’. White shame. And others, like those gurning torch-carriers at Charlottesville, have a bad white identity: they love being white, they think it’s better than being black, they flirt with Nazi ideology. White pride. But these seemingly opposed whites share something very important in common: they’ve embraced racial identity. They define themselves as white. They have responded to the cry of the identitarian and made themselves into racial creatures. And both sides bristle with menace, as can be seen in the contorted faces of the ‘bad whites’ in the all-right and in those ‘good whites’ who yesterday pulled down the Confederate Soldiers statue in North Carolina and then kicked and spat on it.

Those whites at Charlottesville look to me the ugly products of identity politics, of the elevation of trait over conviction, nature over character. Popular culture and the mainstream media say over and over again, ‘You are white, you are a white man, that is your identity, that is your privilege, admit it and own it’, and those men have simply turned around and said: ‘Okay’. A serious problem in this millennium perhaps the biggest problem, is the retreat from universalism, the surrender of the racial imagination. It has green-lighted a neo-racialism without realising how lethal this is. Anyone who thinks they can racialize public life without creating tension and storing up violence is clearly unfamiliar with history.

(Here is a link to the original>>>
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/the-violent-product-of-identity-politics/)

MULTI-CULTURALISTS HISTORICAL LIES EXPOSED!

MULTI-CULTURALISTS HISTORICAL LIES EXPOSED!

I have just read a very interesting and profoundly significant book by Dario Fernandez-Morera, the Associate Professor at the Department of Spanish and Portuguese in North Western University. The book is called “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise – Muslims, Christians and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain”. The book has been very thoroughly researched and, for the academically minded, has nearly 100 pages of closely typed footnotes providing sources and evidence for every assertion.


The reason such detailed research is required is because the effect of the book is to explode the unhistorical Leftist theory that has been put forward by academics, politicians and media commentators that Islamic Spain or Al-Andalus was a “multi-culturalist” and “Diverse” paradise.


In fact as Professor Fernandez-Morera shows in comprehensive detail, the written sources, whether they be Islamic or Christian or Jewish, are all agreed there was nothing more or less than the typical Islamist tyranny with widespread executions and discriminatory legal rules suppressing, in particular, Christians.


The current political importance of this research is that it means that those Leftists advocating “multi-culturalism” are now left with no Islamic example in history where “multi-culturalism” and “diversity” has worked nicely, instead what we are left with is very many examples where multi-culturalism has led either to civil war or the need for a ruthless tyranny to put down the dissident elements within the area controlled by that State.


It should however be remembered that “multi-culturalism” has been adopted or fostered by most Empires throughout history. In the case of the British Empire it is worth remembering its record of applying the ancient Roman imperial formula of “Divide and Rule” (“divide et impera”). 


I wrote about that, as regards Malaya, in this article >>> THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-imperialistic-roots-of-multi.html. 


Within pre-First World War Europe the key example of a multi-culturalist state was the Austro-Hungarian Empire with its detailed rules on the entitlements of the various ethnic groups within that Empire.


When reading Professor Fernandez-Morera’s book I often wondered about the motivation of the various historians who are quoted telling the most outrageous lies about what life was like in Al-Andalus.


It would be very interesting to know whether their remarks are a product of both sloppy research and of simply going with the least line of resistance in following those others who have made similar remarks, or whether they have a specific purpose in distorting the history to make out that Islamic Spain was ruled justly and thus to ignore the sufferings and oppression of the subjugated Christians.


Given that academics do not mislead in the same way in writing about other parts of the world, such as when Christians subjugated others in more modern Colonial history, it seems to me to be far more likely that the misleading about Medieval Islamic Span has been done deliberately and has been done to specifically advance the multi-culturalist political project with an eye to undermining our own culture and civilisation.





Do read it for yourself and see what you think!


Here is a link to buy the book >>> The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain: Dario Fernandez-Morer

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954

THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY

THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY IS NOT THE INEQUALITY BUT THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TAKEN FROM TAXPAYERS FUNDS

I have read with amazement the mainstream media’s coverage of the BBC’s pay scandal which in its obsession with politically correct equality seems to have missed the main common sense point.


It should be remembered that the BBC exists primarily on a so-called syndicated tax. This is the “Licence Fee” which forces us all to pay the BBC £147 for the right to use a television whether we watch the BBC or not.


Any of us that do not pay the “Licence Fee” can be prosecuted and potentially sent to prison.


It is also worth remembering that everyone of those whose taxpayer funded pay has just been revealed is being paid more than the Prime Minister (who is currently paid p.a. £150,402)!


So now we all know where so much of our money goes!


It seems that it is being paid to people whose contribution to any serious public interest benefit (which you might expect from a taxpayer funded entity) is often extremely questionable.


It is also interesting to consider what these now revealed salaries show about the BBC's bias. Almost all their top names are Leftist Remainers! In fact the only one who isn’t, that I have noticed so far, is Andrew Neil.


I ask you:-

1. Whether Chris Evans, with his declared pay of £2.2m (14,966 times the licence fee!), or Graham Norton, with his declared pay of £850,000 (5,783 times the licence fee), are doing anything socially useful that is worth such a huge amount of taxpayer money?


2. Also whether even the supposedly more serious “public interest” broadcasting personnel, such as Huw Edwards (£600,000), Eddie Mair (£425,000) are worth anything like the money they are being paid?


In the circumstances I wonder if I would be alone in suggesting that far from raising any of the BBC’s women’s salaries, what should be done is to reduce the salaries of all those relevant employees of the BBC so that none gets more than the Prime Minister?


Further I would say that as regards all positions that are taxpayer funded – that is right across the UK State – all their pay should be subject to a maximum figure of what the Prime Minister gets, unless there is a specific reason justifying the exception (such as the need to recruit a particular person whose salary has to exceed the Prime Minister for reasons of competition with other potential employers).

Given the general lack of talent amongst senior UK State employees, and the UK’s various quangos, I would doubt whether that condition would often be met!

Who would agree?

WHAT THE GRENFELL TOWER DISASTER REALLY SHOWS THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING

WHAT THE GRENFELL TOWER DISASTER REALLY SHOWS THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING

I have deferred commenting on the Grenfell Tower disaster for some weeks, partly in order to let all the understandable grief of the individuals, and the knee-jerk reactions by various commentators, time to subside. However we seem to be continuing to hear demands by those speaking for the residents that the Judge dealing with the inquiry should be somebody like them. It is therefore worth considering what somebody like “them” is like.


One of the most striking things that can be said about what we saw on our TV and computer screens and in the newspapers of the pictures of the missing, and of their naturally distraught relatives and friends, it is that hardly any were English. Furthermore it was abundantly obvious that a large proportion of them were Muslim and clearly dressed in such a way as to show they are the sort of Muslims who have no inclination to integrate with English society.


Given that this tower block was public housing, or as we used to call it, “council housing”, it is a remarkable and a sorry reflection of just how appallingly badly managed immigration has been by the British Political Establishment over the last 50 years that a public housing tower block in the middle of our capital city should have next to no English people in it! What a disgrace that is! The English Democrats have long said that only our citizens should be entitled to any welfare benefits, free medical care or council housing.


We then come to the cause of the fire. It has been strangely unclear from the reports what exactly caused the fire. Given the general dishonesty of our media in trying to prevent reporting of things that might give rise to suspicion and hostility towards politically correct causes; and that this fire was started about the time when many of the residents of the tower block were breaking their fast after sunset during Ramadan it seems to me not at all unlikely that the fire was caused by something like the barbequing of kebabs in an unsafe way within the tower block. Even if that is not the case there does seem to be many reasons for being suspicious about the origin of the fire.


So far as the reason why the fire got out of control, that seems to be partly a consequence of the so-called environmentalist lobby in seeking to put cladding on the outside of tower blocks in order to insulate them. There is also the EU, in overriding the British Building Standards, to insist upon EU compliant cladding which is less fire resistant.


Naturally the fire inspection process has been made radically less effective in protection against fires by the focus on compliance with EU directives rather than on the safety of the occupants.


This type of regulatory overload is not at all an unusual situation in the UK now where the original purpose of an activity is often lost sight of in a maze of inane legal rules and political correctness.


The one thing we can be sure of there will be many more problems caused by the general institutionalized uselessness of the UK’s public authorities!

Finally here is an interesting article which has been circulated to me:-


As the catastrophe at Grenfell Tower has been so" Politicised" you may be interested to see these facts - especially the last paragraph....

The following appear to be matters of public record:

1. The block of flats was run not by the Council but by Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). This body is made up of 8 TENANTS, 4 councillors and 3 independent members.

2. Labour hold the seat that the block is situated in.

3. Labour run the London Council who manage the under-funded London Fire Service

4. Emma Coad the sitting Labour MP for that ward also sat on the KCTMO.

5. The advice to stay put which Sadiq Khan has been so vocal about was given by the London Fire Service.

6. The decision to change contractors during the refurb was made by KCTMO.

7. The decision not to spend an additional £138k on fitting sprinklers was again KCTMO.

8. The decision to create Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMO) such as the KCTMO was made under the Right To Manage legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act.

9. This was put in place to give leaseholders and tenants a greater say and the ability to self manage, which in some circumstances has clearly proven to be flawed.

10. Which Govt was in a charge when this law was passed? It was Labour.

11. Sadiq Khan as mayor of London Produced a report to say that the fire service did not need further funding.

12. Emma Coad elected Labour MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.

Further, according to Christopher Booker (a strong advocate for Remain) in the Telegraph, when the Grenfell Tower was built, the cladding materials were glass-based and inert. Fire could not pass through or behind the cladding.


Since then, authority for specification of construction materials has passed from individual governments to the EU. The EU has decreed, as part of climate change initiatives, that the main purpose of cladding is to provide insulation, thus reducing the need to burn fuel. When, three years ago, Kensington spent £10m on up-rating the Grenfell Tower it had no option but to use cladding permitted by the EU. Unfortunately, the cladding is not fireproof.
 
I have not (yet) heard anybody accuse the EU of responsibility for the fire - though that is where at least part of the blame lies.”

Complaint made about Judge who claimed 'we are LUCKY to live in a multi-racial society'!

Complaint made about Judge who claimed 'we are LUCKY to live in a multi-racial society'! 

I read with dismay the reported remarks of District Judge Emma Arbuthnot in sentencing Viscount St Davids and I have therefore written the following complaint to the Lord Chancellor:- 

Lord Chancellor’s Department

Judicial Complaints

Ministry of Justice

102 Petty France 

London  SW1H 9AJ

Dear Sir

Re:  Complaint against District Judge Emma Arbuthnot

Politically biased sentencing remarks

I am making this complaint on behalf of the English Lobby which is a ‘not for profit company’ whose purpose is to stand up for English values and the English Nation.

We read with dismay the reported remarks of District Judge Emma Arbuthnot in sentencing Viscount St Davids.  We do not know anything other than what was reported in the newspapers, internet and broadcast media about the offences for which Viscount St Davids was convicted and sentenced, but it is a fundamental principle of English Justice that Judges are neither politically biased, nor give the appearance of being politically biased. 

Judging from the reported remarks this was not the case with this District Judge.  She used the opportunity to grandstand her personal political views before the national media in a case with considerable press interest because of person being sentenced was a member of the aristocracy.  In these circumstances the District Judge is quoted as having said:- “this multi-racial society we are lucky enough to live in.” 

This is not a statement of law, on the contrary this remark is blatantly politically loaded and partisan.  It is not a remark that everyone would agree with, but it is simply an expression of the current Establishment orthodoxy of liberal multi-culturalism.  Clearly she would have been well within her rights to both hold such an opinion and also to express it both as a private citizen and in most public offices.  This is not the position however for a Judge holding forth from the judicial bench in Court.

From her other remarks in the case one suspects that the District Judge was also in the minority on the issue of Brexit which seems to have been part of the matrix of the alleged offences. 

In short it is quite wrong for any Judge either in sentencing or in convicting in any court to give voice to their personal prejudices and political opinions however orthodox.  In this situation the District Judge has brought discredit to her office and should be disciplined.  If this is part of a pattern of behaviour by her, then perhaps she should be dismissed. 

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook

Here is the English Lobby's press release:-

PRESS RELEASE

The English Lobby complaint made about the Judge who sentenced Viscount claiming we are LUCKY to live in a multi-racial society.

The English Lobby has written a letter of complaint to the Lord Chancellor to discipline District Judge Emma Arbuthnot for her blatant political bias and discriminatory prejudice in making the above remark.  Whilst this remark is fully in accordance with the increasing prevalence of Judges who are multi-culturalist liberals, it is nevertheless a blatant breach of an English judge’s constitutional and legal duty to be impartial and politically neutral. 

Robin Tilbrook, the Director of the English Lobby said:-  “Some people think like the District Judge that “this (is a) multi-racial society (which) we are LUCKY enough to live in”.”  Many others do not welcome it or accept it and others actively oppose it, so for the District Judge to use her opportunity of maximum publicity in a high profile case to make a blatantly political point was and is an abuse of her judicial position for which she should be disciplined. 

Let us see if the new Lord Chancellor, David Lidington MP, knows his duty and reins in this blatant display of political bias by a Judge. 

If you feel the same way about this please use the address above to put in your own complaint!