The “Brexit Hate Surge”

Around the time of the Brexit referendum the BBC and other online media outlets began sensationally reporting that there had been a surge of reported “hate crime reports” or “hate crime incidents” in the UK following the result. The narrative was that this was a sign of an upsurge of racism or xenophobia against immigrants/people of foreign origins. Many news sites were quick to try to portray this phenomenon as somehow a product of the Brexit campaign. This should be regarded as a sort of smear campaign against the Leave campaign. Were these sites trying to create the environment for a second EU referendum? The fact that these same sites had generally shown a pro-Remain bias should be noted.

Feeble politicians were goaded by pseudo-journalists into condemning the disgusting epidemic of hate.  Note that I use the phrase “hate incident” because that is the technically correct phrase to use, while the media generally referred to “reported hate crime” or “hate crime incidents”. I use the “hate incident” wording because the figures generally reported are merely the REPORTS of “hate incidents”, which are not necessarily crimes. By referring to these figures as “hate crime” reports the media are misleading their readers.


At the Independent news site this article appeared:

EU referendum: Reports of hate crime increase 57% following Brexit vote


There were 85 reports of hate crimes to True Vision, a police-funded reporting website, between Thursday and Sunday compared with 54 reports over the same period four weeks ago.

So, this sensationalist headline referring to a 57% increase was in fact referring to the reporting of a mere 31 reported hate incidents NATIONWIDE. Hardly statistically significant in a country of 65,000,000 PLUS people. The article also did not reveal what the nature of those 31 incidents was.

There was a similarly absurd article about the same data published by sky news:

Hate Crime Reports Up 57% In Brexit Aftermath

An even more sensationalist headline appeared a few days later in the Independent:

Racism unleashed: True extent of the ‘explosion of blatant hate’ that followed Brexit result revealed


Exclusive: Prime Minister accused of helping create the ‘hostile environment’ that paved the way for ‘F*** off to Poland’ messages, excrement through letter boxes, and racist abuse from children as young as ten

The Independent also published another report that attempted to prove that the hate surge was largest in Euro-sceptic areas in a further attempt to tarnish the Leave campaign:

Brexit: Surge in anti-immigrant hate crime in areas that voted to leave EU


In the BBC news website this article appeared:

The article began with this sensational announcement in bold letters:

More than 6,000 hate crimes have been reported to police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the wake of the EU referendum, figures show.

By using the phrase “in the wake of the EU referendum”, the wording here is clearly designed to sensationally suggest that the 6,000 hate incidents are somehow related to the EU referendum. In fact the figure of 6,000 was just the TOTAL number of reported hate incidents in the UK for the month. The article then reveals that this figure was only around 30% higher than the same period in the previous year. So even if you take these figures blindly at face value, then the most you could sensibly claim is that 1,800 reported “hate incidents” were somehow POSSIBLY (not NECESSARILY) related to the EU referendum campaign. Furthermore the quoted figures were for a whole month, they were not restricted to the immediate period around the referendum.

Further down the article it is then suggested that there have been changes in the way “hate incidents” are reported.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the rise in reports could also be in part due to increased awareness of the problem and greater awareness of how to report it.

… thereby casting further doubt on the sensational announcement at the start of the article.  In reference to this it should be noted that there had also been an 18% increase in 2015 over the previous year, which was probably due to the fact that the public are being encouraged to report more of these “hate incidents”.

The article also stated:

The main type of offence reported over the month was “violence against the person”, which includes harassment and common assault, as well as verbal abuse, spitting and “barging”.

This is again misleading because incidents reported are not necessarily offences. Only once the police have investigated the “hate incident” and successfully prosecuted the case can it be described as an offence. Before then it is only at most an alleged offence. Some of the reported incidents may have been entirely made up for all we know, many others may well not have qualified as crime at all. It also seems very strange to me that mere “verbal abuse” should be included in a category of “violence against the person”.

The article overall contains two videos which both describe particular alleged racist incidents. This helps to build a subliminal impression that the figures related to racist “hate incidents” alone. However there is NO BREAKDOWN of the figures to reveal the more specific nature of the incidents, for example if there was a surge in racism which races were involved.

In summary then the very worst case is that 1,800 extra “hate incidents” were reported in the whole month period. So, out of a UK total population of 65.1 million (at least) then less than 0.003% (or about 1 in every 35,000 people) felt the need to report such an incident to the police in this month over and above incidents reported last year. Also, bear in mind that these included as “hate incidents” behaviour as minor as verbal abuse (one estimate put these at 76% of the reported incidents (1)). For all we know most of these incidents might have been cases of verbal abuse aimed at Leave campaigners. We just don’t know.


Judging by the ferocity of hatred against Nigel Farage uncovered by Breitbart here:

‘Shoot And Stab Nigel Farage’: Hundreds Of Social Media Messages Urging Attacks On UKIP Leader Revealed

I think its fairly safe to say that any actual increase in hate that genuinely can be attributed to the referendum campaign did not by any means all come from the Leave side of the argument.  Ironically one of the “hate criminals” revealed in this article is one Noel Fielding, a “comedian” who regularly appears on BBC TV, who apparently had “joked” in 2015 (2):

“don’t applaud Farage, stab him”


Breitbart reported:

Speaking on Tuesday, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton clarified that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed.

See the article in full here:


The London Mayor wasted no time in trying to link the supposed racial hate surge with the referendum:

“You can’t escape the conclusion that there is a link between the referendum and a surge in racial incidents.”

During the referendum campaign he had attempted to tar the Leave campaign with the phrase “project hate” (3):

“Immigration has brought huge economic, cultural and social benefits to our country,” Mr Khan said. “Your campaign hasn’t been project fear, it’s been project hate as far as immigration is concerned.”

This is the same Sadiq Khan who not so long ago referred to “Uncle Toms” during a TV interview.  The phrase is a highly derogatory term that is used to describe those of ethnic minorities who get too friendly with the white man (4).

The wannabe first Muslim Prime Minister of the UK is now seizing his opportunity to set up an Orwellian specialized thought police unit to censor the internet:

London Mayor To Set Up Police ‘Online Hate Crime Hub’ In ‘Partnership’ With Social Media Firms

Anybody voting for this man can expect the UK would turn into a quasi theocratic Islamic police state, Erdogan style, if he is ever elected to the top job.


As you can imagine our new UK home secretary Amber Rudd, far from trying to damp down the surge in wild exaggeration by our stupid media, jumped on the bandwagon instead and announced a plan to tackle “hate crime”:

Another quote from the Independent (5):

New Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced a series of measures to tackle hate crime following a surge in reports after the Brexit vote.

She was quoted as saying:

“Hatred does not get a seat at the table, and we will do everything we can to stamp it out”

You can’t “stamp out” hatred home secretary.  Hatred is thought, you can’t “stamp out” what goes on in people’s minds.

Meanwhile the new home secretary continues to fail to regain control of our borders.  Her predecessor, Theresa May, also failed to regain control of our borders during the 5 years she was the home secretary.  The Conservatives were elected in 2010 with the promise that they were going to reduce immigration to the 10s of 1000s, no ifs, no buts, said the (then) Tory leader David Cameron.  They have failed to reduce immigration throughout their whole time in office so far, and they continue to not reduce immigration.


Some voices of reason were to be heard elsewhere on the web however:

Imaginary Yet True Headline: British Treat Opponents Tolerantly After Brexit Vote


Considering that the sensational media reporting began before there was even any significant data available, we cannot discount the possibility that these articles may have also increased awareness of the reporting system’s existence.   This could have encouraged people to report incidents that they might not have bothered to report otherwise.


To summarize, the media have attempted to smear the Brexit referendum result as creating a significantly increased climate of racial hatred on the basis of no evidence at all.  Our political leaders have hastily responded to the non-event.

See Also:

The BBC’s own article on the previous year’s 18% (2014-2015) “surge” in hate incidents that was obviously nothing to do with the referendum:


“Black Lives Matter” Protests In UK Despite Reduction In Racial Profiling

Some quotes from Breitbart in an article about UK police stop and search policy:

A prominent former Metropolitan police officer has said that stop and search saves black lives, by “stopping black youths killing other black youths”. This comes after a member of the Riots Victim and Communities Panel has said that it is “highly likely” that a drop in stop and search has contributed to a rise in knife crime in London.

This reduction in stop and search follows Theresa May’s autumn conference speech in 2014 when she condemned racial profiling in stop and search policing.

Former Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley stated on Sky News:

“Stop and search works if we want to stop, frankly, black youths killing other black youths.”

He remarked that in 2008, of the 29 teenagers who had been stabbed to death in London in that year alone, 28 had been black, and “virtually all of the assailants were black”.

“[The then Mayor of London] Boris [Johnson] wanted something done. The police wanted something done, and we started to step stop and search up. As a result of that, seven years later, only seven youths were stabbed to death in London.”

The article concludes with a recent statistic since stop and search has been reduced:

The Black Lives Matter protests came in the same week that two black teenagers were killed in separate knife attacks. Ten youths have been killed by stabbing in the capital since January.

Full article here:

Bizarrely the Black Lives Matter movement staged a protest in London recently where they were chanting “F*** off Theresa May”.

F*** Off Theresa May

One of their demands is an end to racial profiling, which is what Theresa May has been delivering. It seems some people just cannot ever be satisfied.

Hate Crime – A Terribly Flawed Concept

Some people seem to think that “hate crime” is the criminalizing of hatred, but that is not generally what is meant by the phrase. The reasoning behind the idea of “hate crime” is that a criminal act should be treated more seriously if it is motivated by hatred. So for example, if a man murders a woman, not just because he wants to steal her belongings, but also because he hates women, then the sentence should be longer (that’s THE idea, not MY idea). Hatred simply on its own is not the crime. “Hate Crime” is also not to be confused with “Hate Speech” which is a different concept.

My purpose in writing this post is to expose the flaws in this idea that evidence of hatred, particularly of a certain group of people, should warrant longer sentences. I believe trying to make such distinctions leads us into a moral quagmire and runs a risk of endangering possibly the most important principle of justice, namely equality before the law. It could also in fact be having exactly the opposite effect to the main effect intended, i.e. it could be increasing disharmony among groups in society.


The first rather enormous problem with the concept of “hate” crime is that a crime may indeed be motivated by hatred, but if there is no evidence of the hatred, if the perpetrator keeps his hatred under wraps as it were, then there is no way of knowing about it. Thus if we apply a harsher sentence only where there is EVIDENCE of hatred, then the law may be being applied unequally.

Read More »

Joint Select Committee Scathingly Dismisses Theresa May’s Counter Extremism Proposals

From the Joint Select Committee report:

“The Government should reconsider its counter extremism strategy, use the existing extensive legal framework for dealing with people who promote violence, and introduce new legislation only if it can demonstrate a significant gap.”

They echo the concerns I had expressed some time ago, some quotes from their report:

“No clear definition of extremism”

“The difference in wording suggests a degree of confusion and, in either event, these definitions are couched in such general terms that they are likely to prove unworkable as a legislative definition. In particular, the extent to which lack of “mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs” could or should be deemed unlawful is likely to prove deeply contentious.”

“The aim should be to tackle extremism that leads to violence, not to suppress views with which the Government disagrees.”

“The legal issues that we have examined are so problematic that we consider that it would serve no purpose to have a further general consultation. If the Government wishes to take forward these proposals it must bring forward a draft Bill. It is plain that a consultation which does not provide a clear legal definition of what is meant by extremism would be futile. “

To put it in simpler terms, it is not possible to “combat non-violent extremism” without abandoning our most important liberty – freedom of speech. A great deal of the government’s time is being wasted establishing this patently obvious fact.

Is this enough to sink the strategy though? Could be embarrassing for the government. Theresa May’s government.  How did we end up with this person as our Prime Minister?


The Pretend Strategy – From Chamberlain to Cameron

Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders



Theresa May – The Most Worst Candidate – Extra 2

Of course by now I’m sure readers have heard that Theresa May has won the leadership contest and is now the UK Prime Minister, despite my efforts to thwart her bid. Crucially I believe the threat by 20 Tory MPs to “jump-ship” if Leadsom won the contest was what caused Leadsom to drop out of the race. This could have undone the Tory majority so it was no idle threat. This is an example of our democracy at its most undemocratic, even the Tory grassroots never got to decide on who would lead them despite May’s protestations that she didn’t want a  ‘coronation’. Also the relentless media bias against Leadsom, who was attacked for a handful of supposed gaffes, took its toll. Meanwhile all of May’s huge catalogue of failings which I have been publicizing in these last 3 blog posts, received very little attention in the press. My purpose in posting this anyway is simply for the record as it were. Lest we forget.


A feature of politics since the Blair era particularly, has been tough talk about cracking down on “tax avoidance”. These politicians clearly hold the British public in contempt, because of course it will not ever be possible to “crack down” on tax AVOIDANCE because tax AVOIDANCE is by definition, not illegal. Only tax EVASION can ever be cracked down upon. Taxation laws may of course be improved upon to make tax avoidance more difficult, but you know that’s going to be difficult, when so many of those in power would be affected. Jumping on this bandwagon, May apparently said this in a speech:

We need to talk about tax. It doesn’t matter to me whether you’re Amazon, Google or Starbucks: you have a duty to put something back, you have a debt to your fellow citizens, you have a responsibility to pay your taxes. So as Prime Minister, I will crack down on individual and corporate tax avoidance and evasion.

The Independent newspaper now claims that her own husband Philip is a senior executive in an investment firm that has $20 billion of shares in Amazon and Starbucks, the very companies she mentioned (1).  So, we hope the Mays will be putting something back then…

It does seem a little bit suspicious, does it not, that this story has only just been published now, AFTER Leadsom had already announced she was dropping out of the leadership bid. There was intense pressure on Leadsom to publish her tax affairs, and insinuations that she had engaged in tax avoidance. Did this contest take place on a level playing field, I ask?


Theresa May’s much vaunted tough inquiry into Sharia Law in the UK, is turning out to be a whitewashing exercise, it would seem:

She has appointed an Islamic scholar as chair and two imams in advisory roles, leading to questions about the erm, impartiality of the inquiry.


May is already getting busy alienating her own supporters by refusing to confirm that EU citizens already resident in the UK may not be able to stay after Brexit. Such a suggestion was never made by the Leavers during the campaign:


[Hat tip to one Andrew Richards for reminding us about this scandal.]

According to the BBC, May excluded the Kincora boys’ home in Northern Ireland from part of a much larger inquiry into child abuse (the Goddard Inquiry) because it was a “devolved matter” (2). Criticism came from the fact that the Goddard Inquiry had larger powers which would have enabled a more thorough investigation of alleged involvement of MI5 and members of the establishment (3).


[Hat tip to ‘Neil Orange peel’ for reminding everyone about this affair.]

In 2014 the Daily Telegraph reported that a mess-up at the passport office was forcing travellers to resort to drastic measures, such as returning to the UK to get passport renewals. The trade union claimed there was a backlog of almost half a million documents to process.


Oh well sometimes old ladies do need a nap. Pity her nap had to coincide with a statement about government failings that led to the deaths of British soldiers and innocent civilians, and helped to create a huge crisis in the Middle East.


May met with Branson following the Brexit vote.  A quote from Sky News:

“He also pointed to the slide in the share price of Virgin Money in the days following the Brexit vote.”

Our deepest sympathies for your losses, Mr. Branson. Your share price does seem to have now recovered somewhat. The nation is very relieved on your behalf.

What were they even meeting about? Branson’s agenda is he wants a second referendum.

To be fair, Mrs May has now announced that David Davis the eurosceptic is her Brexit minister and Liam Fox (also a eurosceptic) is in charge of international trade. This does seem to suggest that Brexit may at least be going to happen at some point, in some form. The kind of indefinite postponement suggested by her earlier remarks (about delaying even invoking article 50 for at least 6 months), seems somewhat less likely now.


I am not planning to add any more of these posts about Theresa May. The 3 you have before already should contain enough information to cause you to call for the immediate resignation of Mrs May, and the triggering of an immediate and this time actual and fair, Tory leadership contest, preferably without Mrs May’s name on the list.

I cannot altogether resent David Cameron’s time in office, he has at least managed to save us from another Labour government, “quantitative easing” has ceased at least for now. However he has made many mistakes such as the HS2 project which will be a financial weight around the UK’s neck for many years unless it is scrapped, among other things. Could we even legally scrap it now I wonder? He has also failed to deliver on 2 key promises – reducing immigration to the 10s of 1000s, and reducing our huge national debt, which is as huge as ever. Altogether, as the clueless lame duck president Obama once remarked, he is a lightweight (takes one to know one, eh, Obama?).






Theresa May – The Most Worst Candidate – Extra

Adding to the points I made in the last blog post an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph by Jonathan Foreman, but was pulled from the paper, allegedly under pressure from May’s team. If this is true then this is a disgraceful attempt to interfere with the free press, and is surely a sign of worse press censorship to come, if she is elected. See the allegation at order-order:

Telegraph Pulled Article Critical of Theresa May After Campaign Pressure

For anyone who has followed Erdogan’s career in Turkey, alarm bells will be ringing loudly. The effect on the democratic process of a national leader who cannot stand criticism from the supposedly free press is truly chilling. Once a leader embarks on this course of action the censorship almost invariably will increase, just as a murderer will often commit further murders in an attempt to cover up the evidence of their first murder.

The article has been made available in full at Guido Fawkes blog however:

READ IN FULL: Article Pulled By Telegraph After Pressure From Theresa May’s Campaign

This should be read in full by everyone who shares my concern for the UK’s security and future. The article details May’s lamentable failure to secure our borders among many other failures.

The article also refers to the Muslim grooming gangs scandal. May also made a hash of appointing someone to lead another major child abuse inquiry, thereby delaying the painful process for the victims:


(As Douglas Murray pointed out some time ago).

Further to my comments on the Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders in the last post, people should also be considering the divisive “Prevent” strategy which is alienating Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Of course, everybody knows that the objective of this strategy is supposed to be to counter violent Islamic extremism, but thanks to the “politically correct” agenda of Cameron and May, in attempting to appear balanced, they have treated many non-Muslims appallingly. In 2015, only 1 in 3 of 4,000 people referred to the de-radicalization scheme were Muslims (according to Breitbart) (1).

Here are a couple of bizarre examples of the “Prevent” strategy in action – non-Muslim children reported to the authorities:

David Cameron has criticized his own government’s policy, in an echo of May’s absurdly hypocritical speech about immigration:

In another incident, a Christian union has been “prevented” from holding prayer meetings:

Strange incidents considering May is herself a Christian and the daughter of a vicar!  Strange leadership from a CONSERVATIVE party!


If Theresa May is elected she will be deeply unpopular among the general public and may well sabotage the Conservatives chances at the next general election. She will be resented by the 52% who voted to Leave the EU, because she has launched this internal power grab for the leadership despite backing Remain. Gordon Brown came to power in a similar fashion, his career was unpopular and gave the Coalition the opportunity to push Labour out at the 2010 election. Conservatives, do not make this same mistake. Elect a leader now that you can be confident will gain popularity for your party, not lose it, as May will do.


Theresa May – The Most Worst Candidate

The Pretend Strategy – A New Orwellian Direction

Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders


Judge Theresa May on her record



Theresa May – The Most Worst Candidate

The effect of the Brexit result for the EU referendum has had a seismic impact on UK politics. Both the two main UK political parties, Conservatives and Labour are in disarray.

The prime minister has announced his resignation triggering a leadership contest for the Conservatives. Boris Johnson, long touted as Cameron’s probable successor, has had to drop out of the race soon after it began because it became clear he did not have enough support.  George Osborne, also long rumoured as another possible successor, vanished from public view altogether for quite a while despite the fact that he is still the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had backed the Remain campaign.

Worst of all, Theresa May the home secretary, has thrown her hat into the ring and has so far garnered by far the most endorsements from Conservative MPs. This is something of a worst case scenario as far as I am concerned. She announced for Remain, in a totally cynical and calculated career move. She gambled and lost. The vote went for Leave, it is ridiculous that she is even standing in the leadership contest.


As part of her leadership bid announcement she has stated her plan to delay the Brexit process AT LEAST until the end of the year, i.e. for 6 months, and hey, who knows maybe even longer (1):

“And there should be no decision to invoke Article 50 until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear, which means Article 50 should not be invoked before the end of this year.”

You never know, it could even take a year or two…


In 2015 she made a tough-sounding speech saying that high immigration was bad for social cohesion (2). She made this speech at a time when immigration was running at the highest rates of all time (3), and – she was the home secretary and had been in that post for nearly 5 years.  This also despite the fact that the Conservative party she was a part of had been elected on the promise that they would reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands (“no ifs, no buts” were Cameron’s words). The home secretary is responsible for immigration, just as a window cleaner is responsible for cleaning windows. You would not expect a window cleaner to make a speech about how dirty the windows are, after he had failed to clean the windows.

Many foolish people were eagerly expecting this speech was going to be the start of her bid for leadership of the Conservatives. However, their expectation was also that she would lead the LEAVE campaign because surely, surely, she would not have a hope of reducing net immigration while we remained a part of a union that regards free movement of people as one of its most important principles?? In the event, she decided her best bet was to come out for REMAIN, and sit on the sidelines! A wait and see approach that was clearly all about maximizing her chances of gaining the leadership following what she expected would happen, a vote for REMAIN. By announcing for REMAIN but also staying out of the campaign she was hedging her bets and also crucially, avoiding the alienation of the Tory MPs who were campaigning for LEAVE. No principles involved. If you are doubting this, just ask yourself, why did she not CAMPAIGN FERVENTLY for Remain if she believed it was the best course for the UK to stay in the EU?


An example of great oratory or an example of Orwellian doublespeak (4)?:

‘We’re not talking about curbing free speech. We recognize that free speech is one of our values. But we have to look at the impact some people have in terms of the poisonous ideology they plant in people’s minds that will lead them to challenge, lead them to undermine the values we share as a country.’

I’ll translate – what she was saying here is that she is planning to curb free speech. Apparently one of “our” values is tolerance of those who have no tolerance of our way of life. In her view, If we have a problem with these intolerant beliefs of other people, then we should shut up about it, because it might make those intolerant people angry.


Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders (will soon be before parliament). Around the time she first proposed these orders, she was calling for it to be made illegal to ‘undermine democracy’, but these orders would themselves undermine democracy because they would give the government of the day the power to silence their critics, and interfere with freedom of speech in any way they saw fit. Democracy has no meaning without freedom of speech. A home secretary who creates legislation that (if applied logically and consistently at least) would criminalize herself and her colleagues in the government is a type of idiot that should not be in government in the first place, let alone be the Prime Minister (why am I even needing to point this out to people?).

Snooper’s Charter – she has pushed for internet history of all UK citizens to be stored for a year as part of this bill, among many other things (5). The objective of this bill is not to catch Islamic terrorists, contrary to the prevalent misconception. The bill is designed to enable the government to gain more power over the oiks, the ordinary people, you and me. The records will be used in conjunction with the Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders to find and silence the government’s critics. Most Islamic extremists tend to hide in plain sight and are quite easy to spot, for example the killers of Lee Rigby were known associates of Anjem Choudary, one of them even appeared in a video available on Youtube with that notorious Islamic preacher. There is no need whatever to gather data on every single person in the country in order to find these people. Targeted investigations are what is needed.

While she has been busy devising these appalling attacks on our freedom and civil liberty, she has of course also been too “busy” to address problematic laws that the Labour party introduced such as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. There are others, I will be writing more about these in future.


She has routinely trotted out the “Nothing to do with Islam” line following terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims, even when they were justifying their acts with direct recitations from the Koran.

She has claimed that Sharia Courts benefit Britain (6).


While not technically her personal responsibility, as the prisons are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, she nonetheless should be taking a keen interest in this situation, due to her responsibility for policing and security.

A growing feature of our prison system (according to the prison officers association) is the increasing presence and influence of Muslim gangs (7). Now I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t really feel all that safe knowing that the most violent offenders in our country are being lured (or coerced) into joining a religion that encourages them to wage jihad against the unbelievers, while they are supposedly being rehabilitated back into society.

Perhaps journalists should be focusing more on this sort of thing, instead of waxing lyrical about Theresa May’s terrifying fashion sense (2) and (8).


Theresa May is the most worst of the available candidates to lead the UK through Brexit (or at any time for that matter, as far as I am concerned).  I have not decided which of the other candidates I think is the best option yet (it may be more about deciding who is the least worst), but this one thing I am sure of, is that Theresa May is the most worst.  Our freedoms and democracy will not be safe in her hands.


Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders










Where Next For Brexit?

Now the referendum is over, there are many things to think about going forward. The referendum may have been won, but there is still a long road ahead before Brexit becomes a reality.


48% of the UK voted to Remain (well at least discounting possible fraud – questions have now got to be asked of the pencil system (1)). How many were swayed by the Remain propaganda in the media we won’t know. The disgraceful use of Jo Cox’s murder in an attempt to tarnish the Leave campaign was an example of how low the Remain side of the argument were prepared to stoop, and how lacking of good arguments they really were. Many of those who voted for Remain were the believers in big government, and opponents of “austerity” (also known as prudent financial restraint). We must work harder to convince these people that governments have to balance the books, just as individuals do. Some of these voters seem to have been genuinely under the delusion that the EU was a sort of money tree, generously handing out money to the needy people. Did they really not understand that we give money to the EU and then they give some of it back to us, if they feel like it?


The fact that the BBC does not represent the people of Great Britain came even more starkly into focus during the campaign. All through the campaign they were confidently predicting a Remain result, until the evidence became too overwhelming. I wonder if the vote for Leave would have been even more decisive had the British people not been subjected to their constant stream of pro-EU propaganda. Now the vote is in they are wailing and doom-mongering about the future, as if they are anxious to prove that Leave cannot work. This organization must be renamed and privatized. It is not British it would be better renamed as the EUBC. Let it survive in the free market, if it can.


Theresa May must also resign. As the architect of “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders” she clearly does not understand the principle of freedom of speech, or why it is so very fundamentally important. A democracy cannot function without freedom of speech.

Furthermore, in the run up to the referendum she seemed to be hedging her bets in a very calculated political move. At first she seemed to be on the Leave side when she gave a seemingly strong speech against unrestricted immigration. However, not long after this speech she announced for Remain. The fact that she is now (again) being touted as a possible Tory leader despite supporting Remain, after a Brexit vote, just speaks volumes about how out of touch most of the prominent political pundits currently are.


I’m going to study the candidates for a while before making up my mind about that. I’m tempted to think Michael Gove might in fact be a better candidate than Boris Johnson at the moment. We are trapped in a two party system, so who leads the Conservatives really matters. We also need to consider democratic reform (see related posts). The two party system is inherently undemocratic.


This may seem like none of our business, as we voted to leave altogether. However, Europe is on our doorstep, what happens in Europe matters to the UK whether we are in or out of the EU. So, to those on the continent, think about his “leadership”, what has he accomplished? The union he is supposed to be leading is showing signs it may break up altogether, a number of other countries are now considering holding their own referendums. He has done nothing at all to stop a massive illegal influx of people into Europe, a phenomenon that is likely to lead to great instability in the future. Since the majority of these illegal migrants are Muslims coming from Muslim countries it is likely that they will undermine the very European way of life, since their culture is antithetical to the freedom of the West. He declared that there will be no debate with “populist” parties, even if they are democratically elected by the people of their countries (2). If the voters of Europe cannot dislodge this anti-democratic nitwit, then it seems to me the EU is no longer a viable union at all, if it ever was. As long as the EU is in existence, the people of Europe need to press for better leadership than this. These migrations are happening right now, they will be very difficult to reverse. It is very easy to let people into your country, it is very hard (and very expensive) to eject them once they are in.

If you’re still not convinced, here is a clip of the man in action:

The Merry Leader of Europe


62% of the Scots voted for Remain. Of course now there are calls for another Scottish referendum to leave the United Kingdom. I would be sorry to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom. However Scotland is in the grip of the socialist delusion that big governments can solve all of everybody’s problems. Just like the Germans blindly follow Mutti Merkel in Germany, the Scots cling to Maw Nicola’s skirt like they haven’t properly grown up yet. Both of these seemingly well-intentioned leaders are like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, leading the children away from reality.

The glitter of black gold in the North Sea (in any case receding) is a very short-sighted reason to break up a centuries old union. We need to work hard to convince the people of Scotland that the EU is not their friend. The EU will suck their blood. Do they also think a small country like Scotland will be favourably looked on by the EU, when Spain for example has a desire not to encourage break-away regions? If the much larger UK could not get its voice heard in the EU, what chance does Scotland, less than one tenth of the total UK’s population, have of being heard?  Scotland is better off remaining in this much older union of kingdoms within our island.

If Scotland were to leave the UK, Hadrian’s wall will have to be rebuilt. This might sound like a joke but its really not. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues in Brexit voters minds was unrestricted immigration. We must have control over our borders. If the “nationalist” SNP are determined to remain in a European Union that is determined to allow free movement of people, then Scotland will otherwise be an easy route for the people smugglers.


Already the powers that be are making noises that sound a bit like they think we might be better off with an “associate” EU membership, whatever that means. Boris Johnson has always been in favour of mass immigration, his almost last minute switch to supporting Leave seems a bit suspicious. The Leave campaign is not over, yet.


(1) Possible counting fraud?


Related Posts:

“Representative” “Democracy”
Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

The Door Marked Brexit

I woke up this morning with a feeling that I could breathe more freely. The UK has voted to leave the dreadful blood-sucking, incapable, bureaucratic encumbrance known as the European “Union”. Hopefully this is the beginning of a move away from big government, nanny-statism, state censorship of dissenting opinions and is the start of a revival of the free West. The EU has not been unifying Europe it has been trying to destroy its very soul.

The Myth Of The Hard Working Immigrant

Globalists and large corporations favour immigration because the first wave of immigrants are willing to work long hours for lower wages. They are prepared to do this because the wages in “Western” countries are invariably significantly higher than in their countries of origin. Subsequent generations however often soon acquire the habit of taking from the state, as they become wise to what is on offer from the state purse. This does not particularly reflect badly on those people, because immigrants who came to do the lower skilled jobs will tend to have stayed poor and be living in the poorer areas. The education available to their children will also have tended to be of poorer quality.

The bill for supporting these future generations comes to the ordinary taxpayer, because the globalists and large corporations are expert at tax avoidance. Thus there is an incentive for the globalists to keep promoting the idea that “immigration is good, because immigrants work hard and do the jobs the natives are not prepared to do”. In reality of course immigrants are human beings like everyone else, they respond to incentives.


If we look at Muslim immigration into the UK, this gives us a good example of this pattern. It all started when large numbers of Muslims came from Pakistan to work in mills in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Nowadays a majority of them are unemployed because those industries closed down not long afterwards and very little new industry has been created since in those areas. Then over the years their numbers swelled as they brought in spouses from their countries of origin, often while they were unemployed and while their spouses had no prospects or intention of finding work either. They were coming from cultures which had not in any case acquired the habit of female employment.


British workers are only not prepared to do the jobs the immigrants do because they know there is an alternative, namely the welfare system. Relatively recently, benefit sanctions have come into force which penalize those who do not actively seek employment. If these were being applied equally across the country, the myth of the “lazy British worker” would quickly become a thing of the past. However I suspect that they are not being applied equally across the country. Also there are simply fewer vacancies in some parts of the country, so it is a lot easier in those areas to appear to be looking (or actually genuinely looking), while never actually finding work. So far at least there has been no attempt at imposing a fixed time limit on welfare, so there is little incentive for welfare recipients to seek work in areas further afield.

The UK government is now proposing to stop giving welfare to new immigrant arrivals (the welfare will only be available after a certain period of working). The incentive for governments to continue with open doors immigration policies will remain therefore, because new arrival immigrants will have a much greater incentive to work than those born here. The myth of the “hard working immigrant” will therefore be REINFORCED. Thus, what is sold to the voters as a government policy to discourage immigration, is actually an incentive for governments to continue allowing high immigration levels.


Immigrants on low wages benefit from free healthcare, schooling, better justice. Those immigrants on low wages do not have to foot the bill for these things, it is higher wage earners who have to foot the bill. Once again the globalists and large corporations are the winners, because they benefit from the lower wage immigrant workers, while their armies of expert tax accountants ensure that they pay as little tax as possible.


The idea of “the hard working immigrant” has been used in the propaganda war around the current illegal immigration crisis. However it is quite clear that the current wave of illegal immigrants are not motivated in the same way that normal legal migrants are. These are opportunistic migrants, taking advantage of a humanitarian crisis in a war zone which is far away from them in most cases. Legal migrants are more likely to have qualifications and skills, because those are needed to gain entry in the normal process, especially when coming from outside the EU.

The current wave of illegal immigrants are prepared to live in squalid and dangerous camps, they do not have high expectations. Quite what their expectations are is difficult to know, and very few journalists seem interested in discovering the truth. Some of them may be motivated by pure hatred of the “West” and a desire to spread the Islamic religion, some may even be actual terrorists, but who knows how many. Hopefully some brave journalists may eventually pluck up the courage to try to find out. I have to admit I suspect these illegal immigrants are more likely to exploit our hospitality in every way they can than conform to the mythical stereotype of the “hard working immigrant”.


It is the welfare system that drives high levels of immigration, but not for the simplistic reasons that are normally given. First waves of immigrants are often not motivated by our generous welfare system, but rather the lure of higher wages and a better general standard of living. British unemployed people are no more lazy than anyone else, they respond to incentives just as the immigrants do. They are not motivated to do unpleasant jobs for low wages because they have an alternative, to remain on welfare. The myth of the hard working immigrant – actually a product of government incentives, is likely to remain a feature of government propaganda on immigration policy until those incentives are questioned by ordinary voters. High mass immigration levels are good news for globalists and large corporations who have the resources to exploit the situation to the full. They are bad news for the ordinary people, who suffer from the pressure on housing, school places, and the tax burden. Ordinary people also suffer from a feeling of alienation and a breakdown in community, because the immigrants are usually in much higher numbers in the poorer areas.