Can you imagine if your local police chief was a Patriotic Englishman?

On November the 15th YOU may have the chance to make this a reality!

The English Democrats are standing five candidates in the forthcoming Police Commissioner elections on November 15th.

They could give YOU the chance to vote to put an end to politically correct policing and to put the police back on the streets.

Our five candidates will be standing in Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Essex, Cambridgeshire and Kent. We will be giving voters a clear five point plan for the restoration of law and order and traditional policing:

1. Resist the government's proposed 15% cuts to police budgets
2. Put more police on the beat where they are needed
3. Cut red tape and bureaucracy that keeps officers off the beat
4. Put an end to political correctness in policing
5. Ensure a zero tolerance approach to crime & anti-social behaviour

At last English nationalists have a chance (however faint) of obtaining a measure of REAL power! We need all true patriots to stand united in these elections.

English Democrats – “MORE POLICE – Catching Criminals!”

I believe that it is criminals that should be afraid not good citizens. I will have ZERO tolerance to political correctness in this area; instead I shall focus our police on traditional English law and order by cracking down on real criminals and gangs.

When I say my priority will be “More Police - catching criminals” I mean it! It’s time we freed the police from their PC shackles and let them get on with the job they are paid to do.

On 15th November, VOTE English Democrats- “MORE POLICE – Catching Criminals!”

Facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002, we campaigns for a Parliament for England, for a Referendum to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday. The English Democrats are unashamedly English and nationalist.

If you love England, the English Democrats are the party for you! Be part of the future, it’s time to take our Country back!

The English Democrats’ polled nearly 280,000 votes in the last EU elections and as the old ‘nationalist’ parties decline we are growing at a tremendous pace. We are determined to build a better future for our people and I invite YOU to play your part as we raise the standard of St George for our beloved England. We can’t do it ourselves but together we can WIN!

ETHNIC MINORITY FORUM PCC HUSTINGS

On Saturday the 3rd November I was pleased to be invited to Southend High School for Boys to take part in a hustings organised by the Southend Ethnic Minority Forum which is a registered charity number 1116747. They proclaim reciept of funding from Southend on Sea Borough Council and the Ford Britain Trust. Their 'Mission' is stated in their website as being:- “to work to eliminate racial and religious discrimination, to champion the needs and interests of the Ethnic Minority Community, and to promote equal opportunity and harmony in the whole community" . I suspect the irony is unconscious and they aren't aware that the second item is inconsistant with the other two.

Here is a link to their website which appears to be somewhat out of date but the group is still active (click here >>> http://www.semf.info/index.html)

All the candidates were asked searching and, in the main, sensible questions about how policing will be governed after the Police Commissioner Elections.

I was additionally asked questions about English National identity and the direction of travel of English Nationalism.

We had an interesting debate about Englishness and many of the ethnic minority speakers said that they were proud to be British but they didn’t regard themselves as being English.  When I challenged what the situation would be when/if Scotland goes independent and the United Kingdom is thereby dissolved I got a very interesting reaction.  Some of the speakers became very cross at the idea that Britishness might cease to be a possible national identity! Talk about living in denial!

During the hustings the other speakers of our community trotted out all the usual platitudes and tautologies about “valuing” and “celebrating” our ‘Diversity’ of our community.  I made it clear that the English Democrats policy is equality before the law and ‘equal rights not special rights’.

Many of the participants in the Southend Ethnic Minority Forum have had various (seemingly mostly paid) roles within the various consultancy committees which are the products of the British State’s policy of Multi-culturalism!  They were not keen on the idea of ‘equal rights rather than special rights’, as that would impact on their own interests, nevertheless they could see that our policy was a position that it was impossible to openly argue against!

All in all a very interesting meeting!

“Hope Not Hate” Comes Out as Labour’s dirty tricks department

I recently wrote a blog article on "Hope Not Hate’s" anti-Englishness (here is the link to that article >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/hateful-and-hopeless-hope-not-hates.htm).
I thought that, out of courtesy, I should send a copy to Nick Lowles (in the yellow shirt).  

Here is a copy of my email to him:-
"Dear Mr Lowles,
I have mentioned your above article in this blog item and thought that, out of courtesy, I should let you know.
Here is the link >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/hateful-and-hopeless-hope-not-hates.html
Do you wish to respond?
Yours sincerely,"
 
My email elicited this response:-
"How could I not take up your kind offer.  I have a lot to say so it'll be with you in a day or two."
 
I would of course be delighted to have the chance of a proper and fair debate on political matters with Nick Lowles. England’s future is paramount to the English Democrats. Attempting to slander the English Democrats by making out we are not civic nationalists will only damage the voice of the working men and women living in England.
 
To that end I would hereby publish a challenge to him to agree to appear at the Shire Hall, Chelmsford, Essex (near to Chelmsford Police Station), at 12.00 noon on Wednesday, 14th November.  If Mr Lowles confirms that he will attend then I will arrange for the media to be invited (as well as Essex Police to ensure that order is kept, knowing the sort of tactics that some of Mr Lowles’ associates get up to!). We want fair and adult debate and we hope that Nick Lowles wants this as well.
 
So far, unfortunately rather than agree to meet me in debate, Nick Lowles has sought to target a "Hope Not Hate" campaign against the English Democrats’ Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies. This seems to be on the grounds of not being a Trade Union supporting, politically correct Labour apparatchik. This is what Nick Lowles says: "“Removing Peter Davies as Mayor of Doncaster is really important.  Since being elected he has attacked and undermined trade unions, he has blocked funding for Gay Pride, invited the co-founders of the Campaign Against Political Correctness onto his cabinet to get rid of ‘politically correct non jobs’ and has attacked Black History Month and International Women’s Day.”
 
The above statement made by Nick Lowles has twisted the facts, used inflammatory words and have a political bias to them. Unfortunately his comments call into question not only his personal integrity but his professional integrity as well.  When has challenging, as Peter Davies has done, whether full-time Trade Union officials should be paid for out of taxpayers’ pockets made someone a 'fascist' and 'racist'?
 
No doubt Mr Lowles’ friends within the hierarchy of Doncaster Labour are well pleased with him.  However the interesting thing is that he has implicitly admitted that "Hope Not Hate" are now nothing but more than the Labour Party’s dirty tricks department, rather than a genuine independent campaign against fascism and racism, neither of which allegations could be even remotely pinned on Peter Davies, or indeed on the English Democrats.
 
We are just as anti-racist as "Hope not Hate" - in fact more so, as it now appears that they are anti-English! Together we have helped bring about the demise of Nick Griffin's BNP. This might hurt Nick Lowles conceit but the ‘truth’ is simply ‘the truth’.
 
So the question remains whether Labour’s "gofer" will engage in mature debate or prove himself just a cowardly keyboard warrior?  Is Lowles a man or a mouse (sic!)?  Or is he just a Labour Party stooge? Perhaps looking for a Westminster seat?  Maybe backed by Len McLuskey’s misuse of Unite Union members' funds to try to improperly gain influence within the Labour Party?

The English voice on Scottish independence must be heard

 
With kind permission from Robert Henderson I re-publish his article, which will be of interest to all who care about the Devolutionary Process. not only for Scotland but for England too! Here is the Article:-

"The shrieking flaw in the  proposed Scottish independence referendum is the failure to establish the terms of Independence before the referendum is held.  This is vital because all parts of the UK are potentially seriously affected, especially if Cameron is mad  enough to agree to an independent Scotland using the pound with the  Bank of England as lender of the last resort (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/an-independent-scotland-must-not-be-allowed-to-have-the-pound-as-their-official-currency/).

The terms of  independence should be negotiated between Westminster and  Holyrood and put to a referendum of all parts of the UK apart from  Scotland before the Scottish referendum is held. If it is rejected the  Scottish referendum should be  delayed until further negotiations on terms have been agreed and put to a further referendum. If that  fails,  either because no such terms can be agreed or because they are agreed and the second referendum rejects them, the question of Scottish incidence should be shelved for ten  years to give time for reflection.

The Agreement between Cameron and Salmond 

There is no provision in the agreement signed by Cameron and Salmond  for what happens if no terms for independence are agreed.  ( http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence).  This has considerable consequences. On the face of things   the strength of the respective negotiating positions of Westminster and Holyrood  in the event of a Yes vote would depend on the size of the  majority for independence.  While it is true that a large majority for independence would add weight  to Holyrood’s  demands , any Yes vote,  however small the majority,   will give Holyrood a strong negotiating position because something has to be decided.  That would put Westminster in a very difficult situation  because, even if they wished to only agree to equitable terms such as Scotland not using the Pound and taking on a share proportionate to their population of all UK public debt,  Westminster  would be in a very  difficult position if Holyrood refused  such terms.   In such circumstances, the odds are that a compromise which was favourable to Scotland and unfavourable to the rest of the UK would be agreed simply to honour what was implicit within the idea of a Scottish independence referendum, namely, that the  referendum would result in independence if the vote was Yes.

It is inconceivable that any Westminster Government could refuse to come to an agreement on the terms of independence,  because it would produce a running political sore which would never be healed.   Holyrood could refuse to come to equitable terms because they would know that even if Westminster delayed matters  for a while by refusing to agree terms,  the odds would be strongly on them caving in sooner or later. Not only that, if a Government is formed at Westminster in 2015 which does not include the Tories, the terms would almost certainly be much more in favour than they would be if they were agreed by the present coalition. There is also the possibility of the next General Election happening before 2015 if the Coalition falls apart.

Any agreement on terms  would have to be agreed by both the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments.  If so, it is unlikely that Holyrood would refuse any terms laid before them by Salmond, although they might insists on better terms . Westminster is another matter.  Either the Commons or Lords or both could refuse to pass the legislation needed to give legal form to independence  or the Bill could be amended one way or another during its passage to make it unacceptable to either Holyrood or the Westminster Government.  There are many MPs in the Commons who  have good reasons for trying to stop the Bill or of improving  or worsening the conditions.  There would be a particular temptation for LibDem and Labour MPs sitting for Scottish seats to jump from the UK political ship and support very favourable terms for Scotland in the hope of making a political career in Holyrood politics.

There is also the question of how English, Welsh and Northern Irish would give their assent to any terms  of independence which were agreed.  There has been no mention of a referendum on the terms in all parts of the UK apart from Scotland.   If the Tories and Labour were behind the terms , there would be no meaningful way of voters to express their agreement or disagreement at a General Election.  The odds are that the electorate would  not be offered an opportunity to say Yes or No to the terms.

There is also the position of the Scottish electorate to consider. As they would be buying a pig-in-a-poke if  they vote for independence, there is a very strong case for saying that the Scottish electors should have a vote of the terms before independence goes ahead.

The practical difficulties

In addition to the likely friction between Westminster and Holyrood over terms for independence, there are matters which are either wholly or partially dependent  on foreigners.  There is the question of whether an independent Scotland would be able to remain part of the EU, have to reapply and if they had to reapply, whether it Scotland would have to join the Euro. Spain has already signalled that there would be no automatic acceptance of an independent Scotland into the EU ( http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-spain-would-not-allow-scots-automatic-eu-entry-1-2588253).  If Scotland was refused membership of the EU that would have profound effects, both in terms of the money she currently receives in grants from the EU and access to EU markets, especially for Scotch whisky.

Then there is the Pound. If Westminster refused Scotland the use of the Pound, Scotland would either have to join the Euro (assuming she can join the EU as an independent state) or set up her own currency from scratch.   Even if they are allowed the use of the Pound it is unlikely that the arrangement would last long. The splitting of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 is instructive. The official division took place on 1 January. Initially both countries retained the old Czechoslovak currency the koruna, but by 8 February they had set up separate national currencies (each also called the koruna) because the Czech Republic was substantially richer than Slovakia and having the same currency made no sense because she could only be a loser. In effect, the Czech Republic would have been subsidising Slovakia if they had continued to share a currency. (Once the new national currencies were established the Czech koruna traded at a substantially higher value than the new Slovakian koruna.)

As for Nato,   It is by no means clear that an independent Scotland would be accepted by that organisation.  It  would have tiny armed forces and its determination not to have nuclear weapons or capacity within its territory would make it an unattractive proposition for Nato members ( http://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-party-conference-get-nuclear-guarantee-from-nato-leadership-told-1-2590701).

The Balkanisation of England back in play

Those who imagined the Balkanisation of England through regional assemblies had died with the humiliating rejection of assemblies put forward by John Prescott ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16932030) should be on their guard.   Cameron has agreed in principle to further,   as yet undefined devolved powers,  for Scotland if the Referendum result is  No to Scottish independence.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9587910/Tories-back-new-UK-constitutional-settlement.htm).

Cameron supports the idea of a permanent constitutional convention which  would decide the constitutional balance between devolved and central power if Scotland votes No.  The Daily Telegraph reported on 5 October that

“It [the constitutional convention]  could mean power being transferred from Westminster to the English regions or new restrictions on Scottish MPs voting on domestic English issues.

Miss Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, told an inquiry by MPs she supported the creation of a constitutional convention but only if it examined the balance of powers between all four home nations.

Senior Tory sources confirmed the move is backed by Mr Cameron as means of tackling “instability” in the current set-up that can be exploited by Nationalists to stir up tension and acrimony.

The Prime Minister believes that tax powers currently being transferred to Edinburgh under the Scotland Act represents the limits of “bilateral devolution” and any further changes must be considered in the context of the UK as a whole.” ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9587910/Tories-back-new-UK-constitutional-settlement.htm)

The position is the same with the Independence Referendum:  it is a blank cheque.  By agreeing to this Cameron has placed the UK less Scotland  in a position where they are likely to see further privileges given to Scotland at their expense. That is particular true of England which has no Parliament or government to speak up for its interests.    If the independence referendum was lost only narrowly Scotland’s bargaining position would be strong because there would be a temptation for Westminster to agree to very extensive increases in the devolved powers available to Scotland.

It will be in the interests of  politicians (and voters ) in the Celtic Fringe and those sitting for English seats whose parties rely heavily on  MPs from  outside of  England  to wield power and influence (the Tories and the LibDems) to vote for a settlement which would Balkanise England through regional assemblies. They would do this because it would emasculate England politically by reducing  English political representation to a serious of minor political entities on a par or even smaller than those of the various Celtic assemblies.  Nor would such assemblies have the same  emotional attraction as those of the Celts because they would not represent a nation and many of the regions would not have a strong local identity.

It is probable that if English assemblies were put to a referendum most would be rejected just as the few trial ones under Prescott were rejected. But one or two might get through and that would be the thin end of the wedge because the Westminster government would be able, if it was still the prime revenue raising body in the UK (and it almost certainly would be),  to favour those few English regional assemblies and that could lure the others in given time. Alternatively,  English regional assemblies could simply be created by Act of Parliament with no referenda.  Once established, it would be very difficult to turn the clock back, not least because each would have established a new political class at the regional level .  English electors might hate the idea but if all major Westminster parties supported it there would be nothing the electors could do.

Eternal vigilance if the watchword

There is a very real danger of England being sold  comprehensively down the river over the next few years.  English MPs, Peers and the media should be ceaselessly lobbied over what is happening, both over the terms of independence and what is likely to happen if  the Scots vote No to independence."

What do you think about that?

Here is the link to seek out your MP's, MEP's, Councillor's contact details >>> http://www.writetothem.com/

Why not to see if any of them to make any sense about England's interests being protected?

Please post up any particularly silly/bigotted anti-English replies!

British Politics – Incestuous?

In the Telegraph Blog on the 8^th October the article which I produce below was published. This article gives some very instructive facts about the extent to which politics in ‘Britain’ today is self referencing and divorced from the People. There is now an increasing distance between the British Political Establishment system as it stands and the way in which you would envisage a properly functioning democracy operating. 

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Leverson Enquiry into the Media was the extent to which we saw how incestuous also is the relationship between the top of the British Media and leading British Establishment politicians. It is so to an extent far beyond anything that would be tolerated in the United States or indeed any other country where democratic values are genuinely prized. 

In short, not only do we need an English Parliament, First Minster and Government, but we need a renewal of the way that our democracy works – a genuinely huge task about which the words of the Chinese Philosopher Lao Tzu come to mind:- “A journey of a thousand miles starts with but a single step”! Are you willing to step forward too? 

Here is the article. See what you think?

Explaining how politics really works

By Tim Worstall, October 8th, 2012
A letter has been released from the Aldersgate Group, saying how terribly important it is that we have a firm target for carbon emissions reductions for 2030.

Perhaps this is important, perhaps it isn't. But what is interesting is what it tells us about how politics works today and about how we are governed.
So who is this Aldersgate Group? They're a civil society group: a voluntary organisation coming together and attempting to make the world a better place. Nothing wrong with this at all: freedom of association and lobbying of government is as vital to a free society as freedom of speech.
However, there is a problem when we look at the actual organisations which are members. The Environment Ministry itself is a member. So is the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Then there are various more or less taxpayer funded organisations like the WWF, Woodland Trust and so on. Even those organisations that we might think are properly private sector, or at least voluntarily funded, seem to be less than completely so.
Take, almost at random, Bioregional. Page 42 of their accounts lists the sources of their income. Out of what looks like around £1.5 million in income, there's some £200,000 from the Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs, near another £100,000 from DECC, £160,000 from the London Waste and Recycling Board (yes, that's government of a kind again) and even £60,000 from WWF.
It's very difficult to think that this is some independent group of concerned citizens making their case. Rather, one can see at least the glimmerings of government lobbying government by cycling money through supposedly independent groups.
As my sometime colleague Chris Snowdon has so vividly outlined in a report for the IEA:-

New research, released today, reveals the true extent of government funded lobbying by charities and pressure groups. Having back-tracked on the charity tax, George Osborne now needs to tackle government funding of charities.
This report argues that, when government funds the lobbying of itself, it is subverting democracy and debasing the concept of charity. It is also an unnecessary and wasteful use of taxpayers’ money. By skewing the public debate and political process in this way, genuine civil society is being cold-shouldered.

It has been said that Friends of the Earth Europe receives some 50 per cent of its budget from the European Union and that 100 per cent of Friends of the Earth Europe's attention is on lobbying the European Union. This may indeed be how the Continentals do it, but it's a practice that we really don't want to become engrained here. For it is a distortion of that very civil society which is so vital to a free and functioning democracy.
Perhaps we should have a carbon target for 2030, perhaps we shouldn't. But it's an outrage that our tax money is being used to fund those who would lobby government for their preferred policies. Everyone has a right to combine, to cooperate, to lobby, most certainly we all do. But we have to do it with our own money, not with everyone else's taxes.
(Tim Worstall is a Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, and one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rare earths. His book, Chasing Rainbows, on the economics of climate change, is available at Amazon.)

Essex Police Commissioner: English Democrats – “MORE POLICE – catching criminals!”

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate publication

Robin Tilbrook, the English Democrats' candidate for Police Commissioner for Essex, has had his nomination papers accepted by the Returning Officer for the Essex Police Force election.

Robin Tilbrook is the English Democrats’ candidate for Essex Police Commissioner.

English Democrats – “MORE POLICE – catching criminals!”.

Charles Vickers, the EnglishDemocrats' Eastern Area Chairman, said:- “Robin Tilbrook has been the English Democrats' highly successful Leader and Chairman for the last 10 years, during which the English Democrats have built up from a small group who cared deeply about England’s future, to a Party that won executive control over Doncaster, the largest Metropolitan Borough Council in England, and has several councillors and won 279,801 votes in the last EU election.

Robin Tilbrook is not only a dynamic leader of the English Democrats but he is also a solicitor who runs his own firm in Essex and is the past President of the Mid-Essex Law Society. Robin is a former Church Warden and Chairman of his P.C.C.. Robin is married with three children and has a wide ranging life experience, having been a soldier, factory worker and a teacher. I have no hesitation in recommending him to the people of Essex as being the best candidate for Police Commissioner!”

Charles continued:- “The English Democrats are the political voice for England, just as the Scottish National Party is for Scotland.”

Robin Tilbrook said:- “If elected I shall maintain the policing budget for Essex and resist the Government’s plans to cut the budget by 15% which would lead to a disastrous loss of over 350 police constables and therefore reduce our police force’s capability to catch criminals and maintain Law and Order in Essex!

If elected every police station in Essex will proudly fly the Cross of St George and will promote Essex’s celebrations of St George’s Day. I shall insist upon a zero tolerance attitude on the part of Essex Police Force to petty crime and anti-social behaviour, which blights so many of our communities.”

Robin also said:- “It is criminals that should be afraid not good citizens! I will have zero tolerance to political correctness in Essex policing and focus Essex Police on traditional English Law and Order and cracking down on real criminals and gangs. When I say that my priority will be “more police – catching criminals!”, I mean it and I shall not hesitate to use the full powers of what will be a powerful and important office to achieve it.

If you are an Essex voter and you want a police force unfettered by political correctness, doing the job that we all once thought they were paid to do, then on the 15^th November vote Robin Tilbrook! Vote English Democrats!"

Contacts:-

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats,

Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP

Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/ 

FaceBook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook 

Party Tel: 0207 242 1066 

Twitter: @RobinTilbrook

 Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org 

English Democrats' FB Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/www.EngDem.org 

Chairman's FB Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/Robin.Tilbrook.English.Democrats 

Key facts about the English Democrats

The English Democrats launched in 2002. The English Democrats are the English nationalist Party which campaigns for a Parliament for England, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; for a Referendum to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.

The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and this year’s referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!)

Hateful and Hopeless – "Hope Not Hate’s" Labourite cranks get it wrong again.

Steve McEllenborough, Liverpool based English Democrats' Council candidate, initially laughed at the absurdity of the self-styled “Hope Not Hate” blog had posted up a picture of him. Here is the link to this picture (Click here>> http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/2204/a-question-for-the-english-democrats)
Steve joked that:- “This photograph was taken at a airsoft game area. As anyone can see I was in Second World War American uniform. We were celebrating having beaten the “German” team. We were raising money for “Help the Heroes” Charity. The fact that the Labourite cranks of “Hope Not Hate” think that this picture is worth making anything of shows how truly desperate they must be to attack the English Democrats. Their attempt to twist a charitable act into something despicable surely shows that ‘Hope not Hate’ are the bigoted ones. We were raising money to help our injured armed forces.
What I like about the English Democrats is that they are a moderate, sensible and reasonable English patriotic party. The English equivalent to SNP and Plaid Cymru and by no stretch of the imagination can the English Democrats’ moderate, sensible policies be described as “far right. Please look at our manifesto and you will see the ‘hate filled lies’ of Hope not Hate."
Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said: “What the use of this photograph shows is that “Hope Not Hate” and its Trade Union and Labour Party backers are desperate to attack the English Democrats because we are winning over many traditional Labour supporters who are fed up with being let down by Labour Party policies that discriminate against England and the English.
What we state is ‘True’ that is why we would be happy to meet them and debate. I have personally offered Nick Lowles of “Hope Not Hate” the opportunity to clear any stories with me to check that they are true. Clearly this use of misleading material against the English Democrats shows that he has no professional journalistic standards at all and is merely a Labour Party propagandist. Perhaps, with the collapse of the BNP, Nick Lowles and his “team” are worried that they might lose their Trade Union and Labour finance and have to actually go and get a proper job or it is maybe that they are simply anti-English just like their paymasters. Which is it Nick?
My question for Nick Lowles and his team is: Are you really so blatantly anti-English that you have to make up smear stories to try to attack the only party standing up for English interests?”
And finally: Why have not you mentioned the Ex -Combat 18 and Far Right extremists Trevor Maxfield and Margaret Burke who are now Labour councillors?
I await your answer Nick! Or are you one of those scared hypocrites who hide behind your keyboard, too frightened to come out into the real world?