February 17, 2008
According to a report in today’s Sunday Times “MEMBERS of parliament who represent constituencies less than an hour’s commuting distance from Westminster are claiming upward of £20,000 of taxpayers’ money a year to fund “overnight” homes in central London.” Which, of course, they can then sell at a time of their choosing and pocket all the considerable profit - including EVERY PENNY of taxpayers’ money that went into subsidising that property!
The report then adds: “The latest expenses dodge by MPs has caused outrage among senior politicians who want colleagues who live within commuting distance of parliament to be barred from claiming the cash.” Really? It was our distinct impression that “senior politicians”, many of whom are benfiting from the same “arrangement”, are only “outraged” due to the fact that the greed of their colleagues is likely to rebound on them and their activities in the form of unwelcome publicity!
Furthermore we learn: “A committee of MPs set up by Michael Martin, the Speaker, to review Commons expenses is to consider whether London MPs should be banned from claiming housing allowances which were created when late-night sittings were the norm. It will also examine whether the system of housing allowances for MPs across the rest of Britain should be scrapped.” The less said about “the committee” the better - save to suggest to the media that they should look a little closer at its constituent members - particularly in relation to allowance claiming and support for transparency in Parliamentary affairs!
Interestingly, we do learn that: “Twenty-four MPs with seats in Greater London claimed almost £400,000 of public money to fund second homes last year.” – which is interesting because a Freedom of Information enquiry lodged by our researchers revealed the figure to be eighteen.
However, in an issue first raised by the BNP on this very site, we are gratified to be reminded: “Two Labour MPs with neighbouring constituencies in west London, Alan and Ann Keen, a junior health minister, have claimed more than £175,000 in allowances since 2002 even though their family home in her constituency is less than 10 miles from parliament. Among the highest claimants are the Keens, who share a family home in Brentford which has frequent train services to Waterloo taking half an hour. In 2002 the couple bought a £500,000 flat which is a 15-minute walk from Westminster. Both were unavailable for comment.”
Furthermore, a fact that we were unaware of: “A third MP, John Austin, who claimed £22,110, bought a London flat which is approximately the same travelling time from Westminster as his constituency home”
This and a great deal more concerning the Mother of all Parliaments, can be found: here .
Saturday, 4 April 2009
Allowancesgate: Westminster’s contempt for the public
February 16, 2008
We understand that pressure is mounting on the Speaker, Labour MP Michael Martin, to take a tougher line on MPs’ expenses. This is apparently because, many – including ourselves, do not believe that the “review” he ordered following the Derek Conway affair will produce radical reforms. Indeed, quite the contrary, that apart from a little “window dressing” the perception in some minds is that nothing of any consequence will change. Life for serial allowance and expenses claimants in Westminster will continue just as sweetly as it has always done. Although Martin has been criticised for choosing a team of MPs seen as “establishment figures” to conduct the review, was there any real expectation that anything else was likely we wonder? After all, Martin’s team include David Maclean, the former Tory chief whip, who – wait for it - tried to bring in a Bill to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act - precisely to avoid disclosing details of their expenses and allowances claims! This inclusion saying more about the objectives of the team in our opinion, than any amount of Westminster waffle could ever do! To make matters even more interesting it is generally understood that the Speakers “urgent review” is likely to drag on into the autumn of this year and possibly even longer.
And of course, it has to be said, that there are those MPs – not many of them admittedly – who consider Mr. Speaker to be “part of the problem, not the solution”! This is because he has attracted no little publicity himself over his own expenses, including £4,000 in taxi bills for his wife Mary and £50,000 for his air travel.
But that’s not all! Even if that isn’t enough to raise an eyebrow or two, then the “icing” on this particular “cake” is that he has also, allegedly, thwarted demands for full disclosure of MPs’ expenses previously!
It would appear that Labour have found the right man for an urgent root and branch review of MPs expenses and allowances! As an aside it was reported in Thursday’s Independent that: “The disgraced Conservative MP Derek Conway will keep his place among a group of MPs paid a £13,000-a-year bonus for chairing parliamentary proceedings. Mr Conway’s political career was apparently in ruins after he was suspended from the Commons after being criticised for employing his son as a researcher. But he has retained a prestigious and lucrative position as a member of the “chairmen’s panel” appointed by the Speaker Michael Martin to oversee detailed debates on Bills.Members get £13,107 on top of their £61,000 MP’s salary to reflect their extra status and workload chairing standing committees.”
Fills you with confidence - does it not?
We understand that pressure is mounting on the Speaker, Labour MP Michael Martin, to take a tougher line on MPs’ expenses. This is apparently because, many – including ourselves, do not believe that the “review” he ordered following the Derek Conway affair will produce radical reforms. Indeed, quite the contrary, that apart from a little “window dressing” the perception in some minds is that nothing of any consequence will change. Life for serial allowance and expenses claimants in Westminster will continue just as sweetly as it has always done. Although Martin has been criticised for choosing a team of MPs seen as “establishment figures” to conduct the review, was there any real expectation that anything else was likely we wonder? After all, Martin’s team include David Maclean, the former Tory chief whip, who – wait for it - tried to bring in a Bill to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act - precisely to avoid disclosing details of their expenses and allowances claims! This inclusion saying more about the objectives of the team in our opinion, than any amount of Westminster waffle could ever do! To make matters even more interesting it is generally understood that the Speakers “urgent review” is likely to drag on into the autumn of this year and possibly even longer.
And of course, it has to be said, that there are those MPs – not many of them admittedly – who consider Mr. Speaker to be “part of the problem, not the solution”! This is because he has attracted no little publicity himself over his own expenses, including £4,000 in taxi bills for his wife Mary and £50,000 for his air travel.
But that’s not all! Even if that isn’t enough to raise an eyebrow or two, then the “icing” on this particular “cake” is that he has also, allegedly, thwarted demands for full disclosure of MPs’ expenses previously!
It would appear that Labour have found the right man for an urgent root and branch review of MPs expenses and allowances! As an aside it was reported in Thursday’s Independent that: “The disgraced Conservative MP Derek Conway will keep his place among a group of MPs paid a £13,000-a-year bonus for chairing parliamentary proceedings. Mr Conway’s political career was apparently in ruins after he was suspended from the Commons after being criticised for employing his son as a researcher. But he has retained a prestigious and lucrative position as a member of the “chairmen’s panel” appointed by the Speaker Michael Martin to oversee detailed debates on Bills.Members get £13,107 on top of their £61,000 MP’s salary to reflect their extra status and workload chairing standing committees.”
Fills you with confidence - does it not?
Introducing “Traitorsgate”
February 11, 2008
As from today we shall be launching a news initiative to be known as “Traitorsgate” – so-named for reasons that will shortly become obvious.
Articles published under “Traitorsgate” will concern themselves with Westminster’s treasonous collusion with the EU, in the same way that “Allowancesgate” concerns itself with issues of Westminster abuses of Parliamentary privilege, commonly perceived as fraud.
It should also be noted that we use the term “traitors” in connection with Parliament, not as a term of abuse, but as an appellation of absolute fact! Today we present a brief article that outlines the Treason Act of 1702 and its relevance to the treasonous Lisbon “Constitutional Reform” Treaty.
The provision of the Treason Act 1702 is the important one, as it states that treason may be defined as meaning that any person who signs away the power of the Crown over the territory of the realm or dominion; also meaning the APPLICATION OF THE POWER of the Royal Prerogative over Britain itself.
Dominions and territories apply not just to the Commonwealth but also Britain itself.
The Crown is not just the person of the Queen or King; it is the power of the Crown in Parliament and the power of the Royal Prerogative. The imperial crown represents the sovereignty of the Crown in this country, meaning the power of the Crown is the ultimate authority of Parliament and the Royal Prerogative.
Power may not be lawfully be exercised unless done through the Crown. Treason is therefore done when a Minister of the Crown signs a treaty that permanently revokes the power of the Crown as exercised via Parliament or through the Royal Prerogative in Britain. This is because they have signed a treaty that ensures the Crown no longer has the exclusive authority to apply the Royal Prerogative in those areas defined in the treaty AFTER THE PRESENT QUEEN ABDICATES, as it from henceforth binds all her successors, and therefore makes the Crown subservient to the EU.
This is also confirmed by the fact that Parliament may no longer prevent foreign judges from imposing laws directly upon British citizens simply by bypassing Parliament and the Crown.
In previous treaties the power of the Crown was said to be operated in the name of the Crown via the EU and that the authority of the EU laws was based on them being produced as a result of this shared control of the power of the Crown and the Prerogative with the EU. The government allowed the EU to enact laws in the name of the Crown via the EU treaties and this meant those laws became laws in the UK under the authority of the Crown.
The EU did not permanently revoke the power of the Crown but exercised the power of the Crown in the name of the Crown via the EU. This treaty though removes and surrenders totally the power of the Crown over those areas defined in the treaty and hands full power over exclusively in perpetuity to the EU. That is a fundamental legal shift.
The Reform treaty removes the power of the Crown and Royal Prerogative from the Crown and hands it to the EU. Therefore the Reform Treaty binds the next monarch, and makes the Crown subservient to the EU and the EU judges. This means the Crown loses sovereign control of British territory and British dominions.
This means the Reform Treaty is treason and those British citizens who support, promote and implement it are traitors!
Articles published under “Traitorsgate” will concern themselves with Westminster’s treasonous collusion with the EU, in the same way that “Allowancesgate” concerns itself with issues of Westminster abuses of Parliamentary privilege, commonly perceived as fraud.
It should also be noted that we use the term “traitors” in connection with Parliament, not as a term of abuse, but as an appellation of absolute fact! Today we present a brief article that outlines the Treason Act of 1702 and its relevance to the treasonous Lisbon “Constitutional Reform” Treaty.
The provision of the Treason Act 1702 is the important one, as it states that treason may be defined as meaning that any person who signs away the power of the Crown over the territory of the realm or dominion; also meaning the APPLICATION OF THE POWER of the Royal Prerogative over Britain itself.
Dominions and territories apply not just to the Commonwealth but also Britain itself.
The Crown is not just the person of the Queen or King; it is the power of the Crown in Parliament and the power of the Royal Prerogative. The imperial crown represents the sovereignty of the Crown in this country, meaning the power of the Crown is the ultimate authority of Parliament and the Royal Prerogative.
Power may not be lawfully be exercised unless done through the Crown. Treason is therefore done when a Minister of the Crown signs a treaty that permanently revokes the power of the Crown as exercised via Parliament or through the Royal Prerogative in Britain. This is because they have signed a treaty that ensures the Crown no longer has the exclusive authority to apply the Royal Prerogative in those areas defined in the treaty AFTER THE PRESENT QUEEN ABDICATES, as it from henceforth binds all her successors, and therefore makes the Crown subservient to the EU.
This is also confirmed by the fact that Parliament may no longer prevent foreign judges from imposing laws directly upon British citizens simply by bypassing Parliament and the Crown.
In previous treaties the power of the Crown was said to be operated in the name of the Crown via the EU and that the authority of the EU laws was based on them being produced as a result of this shared control of the power of the Crown and the Prerogative with the EU. The government allowed the EU to enact laws in the name of the Crown via the EU treaties and this meant those laws became laws in the UK under the authority of the Crown.
The EU did not permanently revoke the power of the Crown but exercised the power of the Crown in the name of the Crown via the EU. This treaty though removes and surrenders totally the power of the Crown over those areas defined in the treaty and hands full power over exclusively in perpetuity to the EU. That is a fundamental legal shift.
The Reform treaty removes the power of the Crown and Royal Prerogative from the Crown and hands it to the EU. Therefore the Reform Treaty binds the next monarch, and makes the Crown subservient to the EU and the EU judges. This means the Crown loses sovereign control of British territory and British dominions.
This means the Reform Treaty is treason and those British citizens who support, promote and implement it are traitors!
Senior Conservative claims £20,000 to paint house
February 10, 2008
A senior Conservative MP claimed more than £20,000 in housing expenses last year, explaining that he had to paint his property and remove moss from the garden.
Michael Ancram, the multi-millionaire former party chairman and deputy leader, claimed £22,030 - only £80 less than the maximum available to him under the controversial “additional costs allowance” (ACA). The allowance helps MPs with constituencies outside London to support the cost of running a second home.
While most MPs spend their allowances on mortgages or rent, Mr Ancram admits not a penny of the £89,927 he has claimed since 2001 has gone on mortgage payments.
Instead, he admitted he spent the money running his country mansion, including repainting its walls and removing moss from its garden.
Although the MP for Devizes has not broken any rules, the revelation has led to fresh calls for greater control and openness over what MPs can claim for.
Read the full story here…
A senior Conservative MP claimed more than £20,000 in housing expenses last year, explaining that he had to paint his property and remove moss from the garden.
Michael Ancram, the multi-millionaire former party chairman and deputy leader, claimed £22,030 - only £80 less than the maximum available to him under the controversial “additional costs allowance” (ACA). The allowance helps MPs with constituencies outside London to support the cost of running a second home.
While most MPs spend their allowances on mortgages or rent, Mr Ancram admits not a penny of the £89,927 he has claimed since 2001 has gone on mortgage payments.
Instead, he admitted he spent the money running his country mansion, including repainting its walls and removing moss from its garden.
Although the MP for Devizes has not broken any rules, the revelation has led to fresh calls for greater control and openness over what MPs can claim for.
Read the full story here…
Allowancesgate: The puzzle of Gordon’s ACA claims
February 7, 2008
According to the records Gordon Brown was first elected to Parliament in 1983 for Dunfermline East. However, following a reorganisation of Parliamentary constituencies, he became the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in 2005.
One of Gordon’s “claims to fame” is that he was Britain’s longest serving Chancellor of the Exchequer – having served 10 years and 2 months. But it is about his other claims that we concern ourselves today, in particular his claiming of Additional Claims Allowance (ACA).
You see we have a bit of a mystery on our hands.Gordon was appointed as the Chancellor of the Exchequer back in 1997 and along with a nice fat salary appropriate to his new role, he also gained the use of 11 Downing Street or, rather, its plush top-floor apartment, as his official residence. It is claimed that as the apartment atop 11 Downing Street was larger than that at No. 10 next door, that he exchanged apartments with the Blair family.
Now prior to his “advancement” it is suspected that Gordon acquired a taxpayer part-funded flat in London – with which we have no problem, as daily commuting between Scotland and The House is hardly a viable proposition.Yet, according to a media report from earlier this week: “The Prime Minister is also facing a complaint over expenses for a second home. He claimed up to £20,000 a year for a flat in Great Smith Street, Westminster, for nearly three years, even though he had the run of a grace-and-favour apartment in Downing Street.At the time the Brown’s primary residence was classed as the constituency home in Scotland.”
However, an examination of Gordon Brown’s ACA claims from the period 2001 to 2007 does not, apparently, support the three years of claiming made in the media report concerned. What the record does show, however, is that during the six-year period 2001 to 2007 that Gordon claimed no less than £99,161 from the taxpayer in ACA. To be precise he claimed £17,017 (2006/7), £18,681 (2005/6), £20,285 (2004/5), £14,304 (2003/4), £17,688 (2002/3) and £11,186 (2001/2).
As no figures are readily available for the 4-year period 1997 – 2001 we can only conclude that Gordon claimed at least £99,000, and possibly considerably more, during his lengthy tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer! And therein lays the puzzle – for what was this money claimed, bearing in mind that one of the “perks” of the job was the taxpayer funded “grace and favour” apartment at number 11?
More details of Gordon’s expenses and allowances claiming can be found: here.
According to the records Gordon Brown was first elected to Parliament in 1983 for Dunfermline East. However, following a reorganisation of Parliamentary constituencies, he became the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in 2005.
One of Gordon’s “claims to fame” is that he was Britain’s longest serving Chancellor of the Exchequer – having served 10 years and 2 months. But it is about his other claims that we concern ourselves today, in particular his claiming of Additional Claims Allowance (ACA).
You see we have a bit of a mystery on our hands.Gordon was appointed as the Chancellor of the Exchequer back in 1997 and along with a nice fat salary appropriate to his new role, he also gained the use of 11 Downing Street or, rather, its plush top-floor apartment, as his official residence. It is claimed that as the apartment atop 11 Downing Street was larger than that at No. 10 next door, that he exchanged apartments with the Blair family.
Now prior to his “advancement” it is suspected that Gordon acquired a taxpayer part-funded flat in London – with which we have no problem, as daily commuting between Scotland and The House is hardly a viable proposition.Yet, according to a media report from earlier this week: “The Prime Minister is also facing a complaint over expenses for a second home. He claimed up to £20,000 a year for a flat in Great Smith Street, Westminster, for nearly three years, even though he had the run of a grace-and-favour apartment in Downing Street.At the time the Brown’s primary residence was classed as the constituency home in Scotland.”
However, an examination of Gordon Brown’s ACA claims from the period 2001 to 2007 does not, apparently, support the three years of claiming made in the media report concerned. What the record does show, however, is that during the six-year period 2001 to 2007 that Gordon claimed no less than £99,161 from the taxpayer in ACA. To be precise he claimed £17,017 (2006/7), £18,681 (2005/6), £20,285 (2004/5), £14,304 (2003/4), £17,688 (2002/3) and £11,186 (2001/2).
As no figures are readily available for the 4-year period 1997 – 2001 we can only conclude that Gordon claimed at least £99,000, and possibly considerably more, during his lengthy tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer! And therein lays the puzzle – for what was this money claimed, bearing in mind that one of the “perks” of the job was the taxpayer funded “grace and favour” apartment at number 11?
More details of Gordon’s expenses and allowances claiming can be found: here.
Allowancesgate: Daily Mail gets there - three months after the BNP’s news team!
February 6, 2008
Left image: From today’s Daily Mail.
To which, according to a recent story in the London Evening Standard, the son is also on the payroll as a “caseworker”!
Our ”Allowancesgate” story from November 8th may be found: here .
Our original “Allowancesgate” story (4th November) on this brace of Labour “allowance claiming” MPs, entitled “The Silence of the MPs” may be found: here .
Apparently, “MPs of all parties revile the BNP” - we can’t understand why!
Lower Above: From BNP news website, 8th November 2007.
To which, according to a recent story in the London Evening Standard, the son is also on the payroll as a “caseworker”!
Our ”Allowancesgate” story from November 8th may be found: here .
Our original “Allowancesgate” story (4th November) on this brace of Labour “allowance claiming” MPs, entitled “The Silence of the MPs” may be found: here .
Apparently, “MPs of all parties revile the BNP” - we can’t understand why!
Lower Above: From BNP news website, 8th November 2007.
Allowancesgate: Brown in the spotlight over flat as Hain admits his 80-year old mum is on the Parliamentary payroll!
February 5, 2008 by
Yesterday we read how Peter Hain had his 80-year old mum on the Parliamentary Payroll.
Today we learn that Gordon Brown: “The Prime Minister is also facing a complaint over expenses for a second home. He claimed up to £20,000 a year for a flat in Great Smith Street, Westminster, for nearly three years, even though he had the run of a grace-and-favour apartment in Downing Street.
At the time the Brown’s primary residence was classed as the constituency home in Scotland.”
The Peter Hain story may be read: here.
The Gordon Brown story may be read: here.
Yesterday we read how Peter Hain had his 80-year old mum on the Parliamentary Payroll.
Today we learn that Gordon Brown: “The Prime Minister is also facing a complaint over expenses for a second home. He claimed up to £20,000 a year for a flat in Great Smith Street, Westminster, for nearly three years, even though he had the run of a grace-and-favour apartment in Downing Street.
At the time the Brown’s primary residence was classed as the constituency home in Scotland.”
The Peter Hain story may be read: here.
The Gordon Brown story may be read: here.
More Tory Family Values
February 3, 2008
Quote: A husband-and-wife MP couple have claimed £165,000 in Commons expenses for their £700,000 second home six years after they paid off their mortgage. Tory politicians Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton switched their fashionable London apartment to a family trust and used their parliamentary allowances to avoid death duty. Using a loophole in Commons rules, they claim more than £30,000 a year in “rent” from the public purse, which is paid to a family trust set up for their two children. Unquote:
The above is the start of a startling article posted on the Evening Standard’s This Is London website.
However one question the London Evening Standard may wish to find an answer to is – why has Tory London Mayoral hopeful Boris Johnson claimed more than £100,000 in Parliamentary Additional Claims Allowance (ACA) over the last six years, when he represents the constituency of Henley, just 50 odd commuting minutes from Paddington by rail?
Whereas the Wintertons have some justification for a second home in London, representing as they do, the relatively distant Cheshire constituencies of Congleton and Macclesfield, it is difficult to understand why Boris needs a taxpayer subsidised second home in London – if, indeed, that is what the money has been claimed for.
So once again we ask: Boris for what have you claimed this £100,000 of taxpayers’ money?
The remainder of the article may be found: here .
Quote: A husband-and-wife MP couple have claimed £165,000 in Commons expenses for their £700,000 second home six years after they paid off their mortgage. Tory politicians Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton switched their fashionable London apartment to a family trust and used their parliamentary allowances to avoid death duty. Using a loophole in Commons rules, they claim more than £30,000 a year in “rent” from the public purse, which is paid to a family trust set up for their two children. Unquote:
The above is the start of a startling article posted on the Evening Standard’s This Is London website.
However one question the London Evening Standard may wish to find an answer to is – why has Tory London Mayoral hopeful Boris Johnson claimed more than £100,000 in Parliamentary Additional Claims Allowance (ACA) over the last six years, when he represents the constituency of Henley, just 50 odd commuting minutes from Paddington by rail?
Whereas the Wintertons have some justification for a second home in London, representing as they do, the relatively distant Cheshire constituencies of Congleton and Macclesfield, it is difficult to understand why Boris needs a taxpayer subsidised second home in London – if, indeed, that is what the money has been claimed for.
So once again we ask: Boris for what have you claimed this £100,000 of taxpayers’ money?
The remainder of the article may be found: here .
A £122,000 Question For Derek Conway MP: Media Take Note!
January 30, 2008
Derek Conway, as practically everyone in the country now knows, is the Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup - although now that the Tory whip has been withdrawn, it may be more accurate to describe him as an independent! One little matter that the media, in probing certain aspects of his parliamentary allowances and expenses claiming activities, appear to have overlooked is that of his remarkable record in claiming Parliament’s Additional Costs Allowance (ACA).
According to the published figures the Honourable Member claimed £22,060 (2006/7), £21,634 (2005/6), £20,902 (2004/5), £20,333 (2003/4), £19,722 (2002/3) and £18,009 (2001/2) - making a grand total of £122,660 claimed in just six years!
We should stress at this point that this is all perfectly legal of course. But, we have to ask, why does the Honourable Member NEED to claim any ACA at all?
We’ll explain. ACA was originally set up to reimburse the expenditure incurred by MPs representing constituencies so remote from The House that daily commuting was not a viable option; meaning that such MPs have no choice but to pay out for their bed and board whilst attending Parliament.
The creation of this provision, for that purpose, is reasonable in our opinion.
But the problem is that Parliament has not set any criteria - meaning that any MP - except those representing INNER LONDON constituencies - can claim it; relying on the Honourable members to be - well - honourable, by not abusing the privilege.
Typically MPs claiming this money use it to allay expenses in the renting and purchase of accommodation in central London, so as to be within easy commuting distance of The House.
Parliamentary regulations allow them to claim their rent, mortgage interest, council tax, phone, gas, electricity, water, decorating, security and grocery bills under this allowance.
And, of course, should MPs use this allowance to purchase and maintain a London property, then the rules also allow them to sell the property at a later date and to pocket the entire capital gains profit made through its sale - which could be truly considerable in London’s booming property market. Of course, we are not suggesting that the Honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would engage in such practice.
But whereas we can understand why someone representing a Scottish or north of England constituency would be justified in claiming this allowance, we are unable to understand why the Honourable Member, who represents Old Bexley and Sidcup in southeast London, would need to do so.
After all, according to the RAC Route Finder facility, the distance by road, from central Sidcup to The House, is around a mere 12 miles!
In addition it is a journey undertaken by hundreds, if not thousands, of commuters each and every working day. And it’s not that Sidcup is badly served by rail either. According to the official timetables there is a frequent and fast service between Sidcup for Waterloo East (just across the Thames from The House).
For instance, tomorrow morning:
The 07:31 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 07:58 - a journey time of 27 minutes.
The 07:47 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 08:08 - a journey time of 21 minutes.
The 07:51 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 08:19 - a journey time of 28 minutes.
The 08:05 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 08:29 - a journey time of 24 minutes, etc etc.
Our point being that the service between Sidcup and Waterloo is both frequent and fast in both directions! Hence, we ask the obvious question: Why has the Honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup claimed over £122,000 in taxpayers’ money in just six years? Perhaps he’ll tell us?
Full details of the Honourable Member’s allowance and expenses claiming may be found here.
According to the published figures the Honourable Member claimed £22,060 (2006/7), £21,634 (2005/6), £20,902 (2004/5), £20,333 (2003/4), £19,722 (2002/3) and £18,009 (2001/2) - making a grand total of £122,660 claimed in just six years!
We should stress at this point that this is all perfectly legal of course. But, we have to ask, why does the Honourable Member NEED to claim any ACA at all?
We’ll explain. ACA was originally set up to reimburse the expenditure incurred by MPs representing constituencies so remote from The House that daily commuting was not a viable option; meaning that such MPs have no choice but to pay out for their bed and board whilst attending Parliament.
The creation of this provision, for that purpose, is reasonable in our opinion.
But the problem is that Parliament has not set any criteria - meaning that any MP - except those representing INNER LONDON constituencies - can claim it; relying on the Honourable members to be - well - honourable, by not abusing the privilege.
Typically MPs claiming this money use it to allay expenses in the renting and purchase of accommodation in central London, so as to be within easy commuting distance of The House.
Parliamentary regulations allow them to claim their rent, mortgage interest, council tax, phone, gas, electricity, water, decorating, security and grocery bills under this allowance.
And, of course, should MPs use this allowance to purchase and maintain a London property, then the rules also allow them to sell the property at a later date and to pocket the entire capital gains profit made through its sale - which could be truly considerable in London’s booming property market. Of course, we are not suggesting that the Honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would engage in such practice.
But whereas we can understand why someone representing a Scottish or north of England constituency would be justified in claiming this allowance, we are unable to understand why the Honourable Member, who represents Old Bexley and Sidcup in southeast London, would need to do so.
After all, according to the RAC Route Finder facility, the distance by road, from central Sidcup to The House, is around a mere 12 miles!
In addition it is a journey undertaken by hundreds, if not thousands, of commuters each and every working day. And it’s not that Sidcup is badly served by rail either. According to the official timetables there is a frequent and fast service between Sidcup for Waterloo East (just across the Thames from The House).
For instance, tomorrow morning:
The 07:31 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 07:58 - a journey time of 27 minutes.
The 07:47 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 08:08 - a journey time of 21 minutes.
The 07:51 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 08:19 - a journey time of 28 minutes.
The 08:05 service from Sidcup arrives at Waterloo at 08:29 - a journey time of 24 minutes, etc etc.
Our point being that the service between Sidcup and Waterloo is both frequent and fast in both directions! Hence, we ask the obvious question: Why has the Honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup claimed over £122,000 in taxpayers’ money in just six years? Perhaps he’ll tell us?
Full details of the Honourable Member’s allowance and expenses claiming may be found here.
It was BNP Man Who Exposed Tory MP Derek ‘The Con’ Conway
January 29, 2008
As the Tory Party is engulfed in (yet another) scandal over MP Derek Conway, the media have deliberately suppressed the biggest news of the story: that it was a BNP man who laid the original complaint against Conway.
The complaint against Conway was brought by Michael Barnbrook, a retired policeman who stood against him as a candidate for the UK Independence Party, and is now a member of the British National Party.
He told the BBC: “I don’t get any personal joy from it. He’s my local MP - he’s there to work on my behalf. It’s my money he’s working with and he should be using it properly.”
The BBC only made a fleeting reference to the BNP angle in one story (here), and the rest of the media has deliberately suppressed it, instead going to other parties for quotes. We are, of course, not surprised.
Conway has “unreservedly apologised” to MPs after the Commons standards watchdog said he paid his son too much from parliamentary allowances. Conway paid his son Freddie to work part time for him as a researcher — while the lad was studying at Newcastle University.
Standards and Privileges Committee MPs said there was “no record” of what work he had done and said the £1,000-plus a month he was paid was too high. The Old Bexley and Sidcup MP has been suspended from the Commons, and now faces a new inquiry that he also employed his other son, Henry, the same way.
MPs are given allowances to run their office and pay their staff and there are no rules to stop wives, husbands, sons, daughters and other family members working for them.
But in its critical report, the committee ordered Conway to repay “the overpaid bonus sums” of about £13,000 and pension contributions received by his son.
The committee said Freddie Conway, who they refer to as FC, seemed to “have been all but invisible during the period of his employment”.
The committee found that FC was paid at a full-time equivalent rate of £25,970 per year throughout his employment. However, “no records appear to exist of either actual work that FC did for his father, or of the work he was required to undertake”, the report said.
For the majority of that time he was based at Newcastle University where he was engaged in a full time degree course. “He had little or no contact with his father’s office, either in the House or in the constituency,” the report said.
“No record of the work he is supposed to have carried out, or the hours kept. The only evidence available to us of work carried out was that provided by FC and his family.”
The report added that this arrangement was “at the least an improper use of parliamentary allowances” and “at worst, a serious diversion of public funds”.
The committee said there was “conclusive evidence” that Conway authorised bonus payments to his son “that went way beyond the permitted ceiling throughout the period of FC’s employment”.
The complaint against Conway was brought by Michael Barnbrook, a retired policeman who stood against him as a candidate for the UK Independence Party, and is now a member of the British National Party.
He told the BBC: “I don’t get any personal joy from it. He’s my local MP - he’s there to work on my behalf. It’s my money he’s working with and he should be using it properly.”
The BBC only made a fleeting reference to the BNP angle in one story (here), and the rest of the media has deliberately suppressed it, instead going to other parties for quotes. We are, of course, not surprised.
Conway has “unreservedly apologised” to MPs after the Commons standards watchdog said he paid his son too much from parliamentary allowances. Conway paid his son Freddie to work part time for him as a researcher — while the lad was studying at Newcastle University.
Standards and Privileges Committee MPs said there was “no record” of what work he had done and said the £1,000-plus a month he was paid was too high. The Old Bexley and Sidcup MP has been suspended from the Commons, and now faces a new inquiry that he also employed his other son, Henry, the same way.
MPs are given allowances to run their office and pay their staff and there are no rules to stop wives, husbands, sons, daughters and other family members working for them.
But in its critical report, the committee ordered Conway to repay “the overpaid bonus sums” of about £13,000 and pension contributions received by his son.
The committee said Freddie Conway, who they refer to as FC, seemed to “have been all but invisible during the period of his employment”.
The committee found that FC was paid at a full-time equivalent rate of £25,970 per year throughout his employment. However, “no records appear to exist of either actual work that FC did for his father, or of the work he was required to undertake”, the report said.
For the majority of that time he was based at Newcastle University where he was engaged in a full time degree course. “He had little or no contact with his father’s office, either in the House or in the constituency,” the report said.
“No record of the work he is supposed to have carried out, or the hours kept. The only evidence available to us of work carried out was that provided by FC and his family.”
The report added that this arrangement was “at the least an improper use of parliamentary allowances” and “at worst, a serious diversion of public funds”.
The committee said there was “conclusive evidence” that Conway authorised bonus payments to his son “that went way beyond the permitted ceiling throughout the period of FC’s employment”.
Allowancesgate: All Aboard The Westminster Gravy Train
January 25, 2008
Anyone wondering how Gordon Brown got Westminster’s “Honourable Members” to accept a pay increase in line with inflation?
Well, according to the media, he “secretly promised Labour backbenchers they can keep claiming up to £43,000 a year without receipts”. Just imagine that for a moment – your employer allows you to spend up to £43,000 of the company’s cash – or, in this case, taxpayers’ money – without having to provide any proof of purchase! The argument goes that as MPs are “honourable” they are above reproach and can be guaranteed neither to lie nor to abuse the system!
This ignoring the rather obvious fact that the Government party is currently assisting the police “in their enquiries” for the third time in six months! According to one media report: “The Prime Minister had faced a Commons revolt over his demand that MPs back a 1.9 per cent pay rise - in line with policemen and nurses. But to “buy” their support he promised not to axe the perk allowing them to charge items costing up to £250 without the need to produce a receipt.
These include household goods such as fridges and toasters, office equipment, and travel costs. MPs could, in theory, claim a maximum of around £43,000 in a single year without needing to explain what it was spent on”. If this isn’t legalised robbery (from the taxpayer) then it is hard to imagine what is!
Furthermore, we also learn that “Backbenchers were told that in exchange for them voting down the higher pay award, plans to reduce the ceiling for unreceipted expenses claims were kicked into the long grass.” Which is as close to a licence to print money as anyone in this life is likely to get!
Finally, if any Westminster tax-eaters were disappointed over the size of their pay increase, then they would have derived much comfort from voting themselves an extra £10,000 a year in office staffing allowance. This will increase from £87,276 to £96,630 and cost the long ripped-off taxpayer a further £8 million. And as no few MPs employ wives, offspring and mistresses as “staff” – you can perhaps understand their sense of “achievement”!
Well, according to the media, he “secretly promised Labour backbenchers they can keep claiming up to £43,000 a year without receipts”. Just imagine that for a moment – your employer allows you to spend up to £43,000 of the company’s cash – or, in this case, taxpayers’ money – without having to provide any proof of purchase! The argument goes that as MPs are “honourable” they are above reproach and can be guaranteed neither to lie nor to abuse the system!
This ignoring the rather obvious fact that the Government party is currently assisting the police “in their enquiries” for the third time in six months! According to one media report: “The Prime Minister had faced a Commons revolt over his demand that MPs back a 1.9 per cent pay rise - in line with policemen and nurses. But to “buy” their support he promised not to axe the perk allowing them to charge items costing up to £250 without the need to produce a receipt.
These include household goods such as fridges and toasters, office equipment, and travel costs. MPs could, in theory, claim a maximum of around £43,000 in a single year without needing to explain what it was spent on”. If this isn’t legalised robbery (from the taxpayer) then it is hard to imagine what is!
Furthermore, we also learn that “Backbenchers were told that in exchange for them voting down the higher pay award, plans to reduce the ceiling for unreceipted expenses claims were kicked into the long grass.” Which is as close to a licence to print money as anyone in this life is likely to get!
Finally, if any Westminster tax-eaters were disappointed over the size of their pay increase, then they would have derived much comfort from voting themselves an extra £10,000 a year in office staffing allowance. This will increase from £87,276 to £96,630 and cost the long ripped-off taxpayer a further £8 million. And as no few MPs employ wives, offspring and mistresses as “staff” – you can perhaps understand their sense of “achievement”!
Allowancesgate: And still they claim!
January 24, 2008
Incredible as it may sound, some amongst Westminster’s “Honourable Members” are reportedly now demanding that they be provided with a special taxpayers’ funded allowance so that they may travel to “work” by taxi, so as to avoid travelling by the crowded Tube. This is because, according to the media, carrying heavy cases around on the Underground is too much for them!
This latest demand is but the latest in a series of claims by politicians calling for a dramatic increase in their benefits, in particular their salaries. Some “undervalued” MPs reportedly want their pay to jump from the present £64,000 to £100,000 per annum! Others are not quite as demanding and are, apparently, happy to settle for an increase of up to £25,000.
Ironically, the very people whose Government has insisted public services workers such as nurses and police, should not get an inflation-busting pay rise are themselves complaining that their pay has not kept pace with the inflation-busting pay of senior civil servants, company directors, senior police officers or local authority chief executives!
Not content with their already huge salaries, pensions, allowances and expenses, at least one MP is now arguing for a taxi allowance so MPs don’t have to use the Tube. Other MPs are demanded more funds to install panic buttons in their constituency offices (to protect them from irate taxpayers?), whilst others still, want more generous allowances for their office, staff, and car mileage.
And that’s not all!
It is further reported that some MPs, representing inner London constituencies, are said to be asking for their London allowance payments to be quadrupled to £11,350 per annum! And, do you know what? The overwhelming majority of MPs are refusing to disclose exactly what they are spending all the monies claimed in expenses and allowances on! Apparently, how they spend taxpayers’ money is their business, not the taxpayers.
Incredible as it may sound, some amongst Westminster’s “Honourable Members” are reportedly now demanding that they be provided with a special taxpayers’ funded allowance so that they may travel to “work” by taxi, so as to avoid travelling by the crowded Tube. This is because, according to the media, carrying heavy cases around on the Underground is too much for them!
This latest demand is but the latest in a series of claims by politicians calling for a dramatic increase in their benefits, in particular their salaries. Some “undervalued” MPs reportedly want their pay to jump from the present £64,000 to £100,000 per annum! Others are not quite as demanding and are, apparently, happy to settle for an increase of up to £25,000.
Ironically, the very people whose Government has insisted public services workers such as nurses and police, should not get an inflation-busting pay rise are themselves complaining that their pay has not kept pace with the inflation-busting pay of senior civil servants, company directors, senior police officers or local authority chief executives!
Not content with their already huge salaries, pensions, allowances and expenses, at least one MP is now arguing for a taxi allowance so MPs don’t have to use the Tube. Other MPs are demanded more funds to install panic buttons in their constituency offices (to protect them from irate taxpayers?), whilst others still, want more generous allowances for their office, staff, and car mileage.
And that’s not all!
It is further reported that some MPs, representing inner London constituencies, are said to be asking for their London allowance payments to be quadrupled to £11,350 per annum! And, do you know what? The overwhelming majority of MPs are refusing to disclose exactly what they are spending all the monies claimed in expenses and allowances on! Apparently, how they spend taxpayers’ money is their business, not the taxpayers.
Allowancesgate: BNP to be vindicated?
January 22, 2008
For the last two years now the British National Party has been “ahead of the field” in bringing to the attention of the public the scandal of MPs claiming huge amounts of taxpayers’ money in alleged allowances and expenses – whilst refusing to disclose in detail for what the money has been claimed.
Although this practice is not illegal it is, in our opinion, immoral as we cannot see how such claims can reasonably be justified! Of particular interest to us has been an allowance known as the Additional Claims and Allowances (ACA) – sometimes referred to as the “Staying Away from Home Allowance”. This allowance was originally set up to reimburse MPs whose constituencies are so far from the House of Commons that daily commuting is not a viable option – meaning they have no choice but to pay out for meals and accommodation in London.
However, what started out as a reasonable solution to a very real problem, has been increasingly abused by a growing number of MPs. Many of these claimant MPs not only live within easy commuting distance of the House of Commons, but actually represent constituencies within Greater London itself. Indeed, we have “featured” some of the MPs concerned previously on this site.
The monies claimed, in many cases, are believed to have been spent on paying the mortgage interest, council tax, utility, phone, cleaning, maintenance and even grocery bills relating to MPs second homes in London. In short, it is our belief that many MPs have been abusing this facility, in effect ripping-off the taxpayer to the tune of millions of pounds per year and using the monies immorally claimed to fund speculative investment in London property!
Although previously ordered to make details of such claims public, Members of the House have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent such – even to the extent of attempting to get the Freedom of Information Act amended to exempt disclosure of their expenses! Unfortunately, for no few within the House of Commons – they have now been ordered, by the Information Commissioner, to make all such information public. – an order that is going to prove highly embarrassing for a great many MPs of all parties we suspect.
In addition, a similar ruling is expected in Brussels soon, in respect of MEPs allowances – which will mean that Lib-Lab-Con-UKIP MEPs, those who have so far refused to divulge the detail of their allowances and expenses claiming, may soon be forced to by law!
Although this practice is not illegal it is, in our opinion, immoral as we cannot see how such claims can reasonably be justified! Of particular interest to us has been an allowance known as the Additional Claims and Allowances (ACA) – sometimes referred to as the “Staying Away from Home Allowance”. This allowance was originally set up to reimburse MPs whose constituencies are so far from the House of Commons that daily commuting is not a viable option – meaning they have no choice but to pay out for meals and accommodation in London.
However, what started out as a reasonable solution to a very real problem, has been increasingly abused by a growing number of MPs. Many of these claimant MPs not only live within easy commuting distance of the House of Commons, but actually represent constituencies within Greater London itself. Indeed, we have “featured” some of the MPs concerned previously on this site.
The monies claimed, in many cases, are believed to have been spent on paying the mortgage interest, council tax, utility, phone, cleaning, maintenance and even grocery bills relating to MPs second homes in London. In short, it is our belief that many MPs have been abusing this facility, in effect ripping-off the taxpayer to the tune of millions of pounds per year and using the monies immorally claimed to fund speculative investment in London property!
Although previously ordered to make details of such claims public, Members of the House have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent such – even to the extent of attempting to get the Freedom of Information Act amended to exempt disclosure of their expenses! Unfortunately, for no few within the House of Commons – they have now been ordered, by the Information Commissioner, to make all such information public. – an order that is going to prove highly embarrassing for a great many MPs of all parties we suspect.
In addition, a similar ruling is expected in Brussels soon, in respect of MEPs allowances – which will mean that Lib-Lab-Con-UKIP MEPs, those who have so far refused to divulge the detail of their allowances and expenses claiming, may soon be forced to by law!
Allowancesgate: Danger - Parliamentary Freeloaders At Work
It is reported in the media today that some of Britain’s Parliamentary Parasites, not content with demanding inflation-busting pay rises, are now asking for an extra £5 million of taxpayers’ money to help them cope with “answering emails and dealing with constituents”! That’s £5 million between then – not each – by the way! Our elected “representatives” will vote next week on a proposal very close to their hearts – although “close to their wallets” would be a little more accurate – when they vote on awarding themselves a backdated pay rise which will be substantially better that the 1.9% offered to other public employees including nurses and police.
But it doesn’t end there. It is further reported that the Senior Salaries Review Body, which makes recommendations for MPs’ pay, has buckled before pressure from some politicians and will call for millions of pounds of extra spending on staff allowances allegedly to “help MPs cope with more emails and constituency casework”! According to one senior politician: “Emails and websites are increasing exponentially with a large number of non-parliamentary websites encouraging people to fax their MP, email their MP - and we are constantly being asked to write letters or articles for blog sites.” As a result of this, it is now proposed that the amount of taxpayers’ money that MPs can claim for staff (which often includes family members) should increase from a paltry £90,505 per annum to £96,630 for MPs who employ staff outside London and £102,650 for those in the capital! Altogether the increase comes to some £5 million to be met out of our taxes.
In addition one Labour MP has reportedly called for the setting up of a trade union to represent MPs interests! No – we kid you not – this is absolutely true! The Labour MP concerned, who is a lifelong member of the National Union Of Mineworkers, is quoted as saying: “If the management came along and said, ‘I am going to take things off you, I would be first on the picket line.” To which a Tory MP is said to have joked that if MPs went on strike, “the whole country would clap and cheer, and be quite happy for us to stay out for the next couple of decades”. Too right we would!
But it doesn’t end there. It is further reported that the Senior Salaries Review Body, which makes recommendations for MPs’ pay, has buckled before pressure from some politicians and will call for millions of pounds of extra spending on staff allowances allegedly to “help MPs cope with more emails and constituency casework”! According to one senior politician: “Emails and websites are increasing exponentially with a large number of non-parliamentary websites encouraging people to fax their MP, email their MP - and we are constantly being asked to write letters or articles for blog sites.” As a result of this, it is now proposed that the amount of taxpayers’ money that MPs can claim for staff (which often includes family members) should increase from a paltry £90,505 per annum to £96,630 for MPs who employ staff outside London and £102,650 for those in the capital! Altogether the increase comes to some £5 million to be met out of our taxes.
In addition one Labour MP has reportedly called for the setting up of a trade union to represent MPs interests! No – we kid you not – this is absolutely true! The Labour MP concerned, who is a lifelong member of the National Union Of Mineworkers, is quoted as saying: “If the management came along and said, ‘I am going to take things off you, I would be first on the picket line.” To which a Tory MP is said to have joked that if MPs went on strike, “the whole country would clap and cheer, and be quite happy for us to stay out for the next couple of decades”. Too right we would!
Allowancesgate - “In The Name Of God, Go!”
January 12, 2008
It has been revealed that MPs are to be excused the burden of paying bin taxes on their taxpayer-subsidised, second homes! While hard-working families struggle to meet the cost of Labour’s new pay-as-you-throw charges, parasitic Westminster politicians have been told that they can put the bills on their taxpayer underwritten expenses tabs!
So in addition to the taxpayer “forking out” for MPs salaries, pensions, private healthcare – not to mention the mortgage interest, council tax, cleaning, maintenance, security, phone, gas, electricity, water and grocery bills relating to their property-speculation second homes – we now have the pleasure of paying for their rubbish!
And, to rub salt into an already festering wound, we also learn that MPs are preparing to vote on whether to give themselves an inflation-busting pay increase.
So we consider it most opportune to have received a communication from one of our correspondents this evening reminding us of the words of Oliver Cromwell, on the occasion of his dismissing the corrupt Rump Parliament with the assistance of the Army. In our opinion the words of the Lord Protector are just as valid today as they were back in 1653. History records that Cromwell said:
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defile by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and like Esau sell your country for a mess of potage, and like Judas betray your god for a few pieces of money; is there any single virtue now remaining amongst you? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscious for bribes?
Is there a man amongst you that care for the good of the commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turned the lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
You are grown intolerably odious to the nation, you were put here by the people to get grievance redressed, are you yourself become the greatest grievance. I command ye therefore, upon the peril for your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!
Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! Go! Take away that shining bauble there (mace), and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
We echo Cromwell’s words to the Parliamentary parasites: “In the name of God, go!” with the addition of “sooner, rather than later!”
So in addition to the taxpayer “forking out” for MPs salaries, pensions, private healthcare – not to mention the mortgage interest, council tax, cleaning, maintenance, security, phone, gas, electricity, water and grocery bills relating to their property-speculation second homes – we now have the pleasure of paying for their rubbish!
And, to rub salt into an already festering wound, we also learn that MPs are preparing to vote on whether to give themselves an inflation-busting pay increase.
So we consider it most opportune to have received a communication from one of our correspondents this evening reminding us of the words of Oliver Cromwell, on the occasion of his dismissing the corrupt Rump Parliament with the assistance of the Army. In our opinion the words of the Lord Protector are just as valid today as they were back in 1653. History records that Cromwell said:
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defile by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and like Esau sell your country for a mess of potage, and like Judas betray your god for a few pieces of money; is there any single virtue now remaining amongst you? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscious for bribes?
Is there a man amongst you that care for the good of the commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turned the lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
You are grown intolerably odious to the nation, you were put here by the people to get grievance redressed, are you yourself become the greatest grievance. I command ye therefore, upon the peril for your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!
Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! Go! Take away that shining bauble there (mace), and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
We echo Cromwell’s words to the Parliamentary parasites: “In the name of God, go!” with the addition of “sooner, rather than later!”
John ‘Three Homes’ Cruddas MP - mocking the homeless.
December 18, 2007
Left-winger Mr Cruddas has attacked Labour plans for more choice in education and criticised the lack of homes for working-class families.
Labour deputy leadership challenger Jon Cruddas was accused of ‘double standards’ as it was revealed he bought a £500,000 second home to be close to his child’s elite selective school.
Left-winger Mr Cruddas has attacked Labour plans for more choice in education and criticised the lack of homes for working-class families.
But he sends his own child to one of Britain’s most exclusive Roman Catholic schools. And he owns two London homes, one of which is empty most of the time, thanks to claiming £60,000 in tax-free Commons housing expenses in the past three years.
The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the MP - who has styled himself the “Real Labour” candidate for the deputy leadership - has exploited a loophole in the Commons regulations which allows him to claim for the cost of the mortgage interest for his £500,000 flat in upmarket Notting Hill - just round the corner from David Cameron - which he bought in 2004.
At around the same time his child began attending the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School half a mile away in Holland Park.
Mr Cruddas, a former Downing Street adviser to Tony Blair on unions, last week disowned neighbouring Labour MP Margaret Hodge’s controversial call to give British families precedence over recent immigrants in the council-house queue.
He said race was irrelevant, insisting: “The problem is lack of housing supply.”
But as well as the Notting Hill flat, he also owns a £160,000 Thirties terrace former council house in his East London constituency of Dagenham, where there is an acute shortage of cheap family accommodation.
He is rarely seen at the house, according to neighbours. Asked if Mr Cruddas and his family had ever been spotted, one said: “I’ve only seen him, not the rest of the family.” Another said: “Whenever he comes, he doesn’t stay long.”
A senior Labour MP told The Mail on Sunday: “Jon is guilty of double standards. On the one hand he attacks selection in education and then sends his child to one of the most selective state schools in the country.
“Then he moans about New Labour’s failure to provide more affordable accommodation while he himself claims expenses from the taxpayer to buy a second home, when one of his homes could be occupied by a hard-working low-income family.”
Mr Cruddas, one of the favourites to succeed John Prescott, has criticised Tony Blair’s attempts to introduce more choice in secondary education through city academies, saying: “We should be reviewing them and asking what empirical evidence there has been about them.”
Yet the school his own child attends is far from being a ‘bog-standard comprehensive’.
The Cardinal Vaughan, where pupils are required to learn Latin and attend weekly Mass, is four times oversubscribed and selects its children according to the religious commitment of the pupil and his parents - and their proximity to the school.
Extra points are awarded to applicants whose parents volunteer for church cleaning duties.
The school is surrounded by some of Britain’s most elegant and expensive property and parents tend to be wealthy or middle-class. Only 25 per cent of children are from ethnic minorities - low for a school in Central London.
The voluntary-aided school is free of local authority control and has some of the best exam results of any state school in London. It sends around nine students a year to Oxford and Cambridge, more than many fee-paying schools.
Its results easily outclass its more famous Roman Catholic rival, the London Oratory in Fulham, where Tony Blair sent his three eldest children.
By contrast, the secondary school nearest to Mr Cruddas’s constituency home is Dagenham Park Community School, which is one of London’s bottom 20 in terms of exam achievement, according to the latest league tables.
The pupils are drawn mainly from local working-class council estates and the school’s results at every stage are well below the national average.
Because his constituency is considered ‘outer London’ Mr Cruddas is legally entitled to Parliamentary expenses for a second home. Inner London MPs have to make do with a £2,613-a-year London weighting allowance.
Last year Mr Cruddas received £21,535 in taxpayer-funded accommodation allowances - close to the maximum permitted. This is on top of his £59,000 salary and generous pension scheme.
MPs like Mr Cruddas have traditionally been allowed to claim the so-called Additional Costs Allowance to fund bolt-holes near the Commons so they can avoid late-night journeys home after Commons votes.
However, his Notting Hill flat is more than four miles west of Parliament, while his Dagenham home is only 13 miles away in the other direction.
Mr Cruddas has told the Commons fees office that his ‘main home’ is the one in the constituency. He claims expenses on his ’second home’ in Notting Hill.
MPs can use Commons accommodation allowances to pay for mortgage interest, essential repairs, white goods and furniture.
The flat in a handsome pre-war mansion block was bought for £375,000 in July 2004 and is now worth more than £500,000. Previously he lived in a flat close to Lord’s cricket ground in North-West London.
Mr Cruddas bought his Dagenham house in 2002 for £105,000 and it is now worth £160,000, a profit of more than 50 per cent over four years.
Mr Cruddas has pledged to renounce the title of Deputy PM and the Dorneywood grace-and-favour mansion used by John Prescott if he is elected.
He has the support of the two giant trade unions Amicus and the T&G, who back his opposition to the New Labour policy of introducing more private sector involvement in public services such as schools and hospitals.
As well as living in an ultra-trendy neighbourhood, the MP recently joined one of the most sought-after golf clubs in Britain, Walton Heath in the joining fee is £3,500 and annual fee is £1,500. It was once captained by the Duke of Windsor.
Read the truth about Gerry Gable and Searchlight here:
Searchlight Uncovered :http://www.searchlightexposed.com
Left-winger Mr Cruddas has attacked Labour plans for more choice in education and criticised the lack of homes for working-class families.
Labour deputy leadership challenger Jon Cruddas was accused of ‘double standards’ as it was revealed he bought a £500,000 second home to be close to his child’s elite selective school.
Left-winger Mr Cruddas has attacked Labour plans for more choice in education and criticised the lack of homes for working-class families.
But he sends his own child to one of Britain’s most exclusive Roman Catholic schools. And he owns two London homes, one of which is empty most of the time, thanks to claiming £60,000 in tax-free Commons housing expenses in the past three years.
The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the MP - who has styled himself the “Real Labour” candidate for the deputy leadership - has exploited a loophole in the Commons regulations which allows him to claim for the cost of the mortgage interest for his £500,000 flat in upmarket Notting Hill - just round the corner from David Cameron - which he bought in 2004.
At around the same time his child began attending the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School half a mile away in Holland Park.
Mr Cruddas, a former Downing Street adviser to Tony Blair on unions, last week disowned neighbouring Labour MP Margaret Hodge’s controversial call to give British families precedence over recent immigrants in the council-house queue.
He said race was irrelevant, insisting: “The problem is lack of housing supply.”
But as well as the Notting Hill flat, he also owns a £160,000 Thirties terrace former council house in his East London constituency of Dagenham, where there is an acute shortage of cheap family accommodation.
He is rarely seen at the house, according to neighbours. Asked if Mr Cruddas and his family had ever been spotted, one said: “I’ve only seen him, not the rest of the family.” Another said: “Whenever he comes, he doesn’t stay long.”
A senior Labour MP told The Mail on Sunday: “Jon is guilty of double standards. On the one hand he attacks selection in education and then sends his child to one of the most selective state schools in the country.
“Then he moans about New Labour’s failure to provide more affordable accommodation while he himself claims expenses from the taxpayer to buy a second home, when one of his homes could be occupied by a hard-working low-income family.”
Mr Cruddas, one of the favourites to succeed John Prescott, has criticised Tony Blair’s attempts to introduce more choice in secondary education through city academies, saying: “We should be reviewing them and asking what empirical evidence there has been about them.”
Yet the school his own child attends is far from being a ‘bog-standard comprehensive’.
The Cardinal Vaughan, where pupils are required to learn Latin and attend weekly Mass, is four times oversubscribed and selects its children according to the religious commitment of the pupil and his parents - and their proximity to the school.
Extra points are awarded to applicants whose parents volunteer for church cleaning duties.
The school is surrounded by some of Britain’s most elegant and expensive property and parents tend to be wealthy or middle-class. Only 25 per cent of children are from ethnic minorities - low for a school in Central London.
The voluntary-aided school is free of local authority control and has some of the best exam results of any state school in London. It sends around nine students a year to Oxford and Cambridge, more than many fee-paying schools.
Its results easily outclass its more famous Roman Catholic rival, the London Oratory in Fulham, where Tony Blair sent his three eldest children.
By contrast, the secondary school nearest to Mr Cruddas’s constituency home is Dagenham Park Community School, which is one of London’s bottom 20 in terms of exam achievement, according to the latest league tables.
The pupils are drawn mainly from local working-class council estates and the school’s results at every stage are well below the national average.
Because his constituency is considered ‘outer London’ Mr Cruddas is legally entitled to Parliamentary expenses for a second home. Inner London MPs have to make do with a £2,613-a-year London weighting allowance.
Last year Mr Cruddas received £21,535 in taxpayer-funded accommodation allowances - close to the maximum permitted. This is on top of his £59,000 salary and generous pension scheme.
MPs like Mr Cruddas have traditionally been allowed to claim the so-called Additional Costs Allowance to fund bolt-holes near the Commons so they can avoid late-night journeys home after Commons votes.
However, his Notting Hill flat is more than four miles west of Parliament, while his Dagenham home is only 13 miles away in the other direction.
Mr Cruddas has told the Commons fees office that his ‘main home’ is the one in the constituency. He claims expenses on his ’second home’ in Notting Hill.
MPs can use Commons accommodation allowances to pay for mortgage interest, essential repairs, white goods and furniture.
The flat in a handsome pre-war mansion block was bought for £375,000 in July 2004 and is now worth more than £500,000. Previously he lived in a flat close to Lord’s cricket ground in North-West London.
Mr Cruddas bought his Dagenham house in 2002 for £105,000 and it is now worth £160,000, a profit of more than 50 per cent over four years.
Mr Cruddas has pledged to renounce the title of Deputy PM and the Dorneywood grace-and-favour mansion used by John Prescott if he is elected.
He has the support of the two giant trade unions Amicus and the T&G, who back his opposition to the New Labour policy of introducing more private sector involvement in public services such as schools and hospitals.
As well as living in an ultra-trendy neighbourhood, the MP recently joined one of the most sought-after golf clubs in Britain, Walton Heath in the joining fee is £3,500 and annual fee is £1,500. It was once captained by the Duke of Windsor.
Read the truth about Gerry Gable and Searchlight here:
Searchlight Uncovered :http://www.searchlightexposed.com
The law, the multicultural society, and Muslims
December 13, 2006
On Sunday 17th of September this year a group of Muslims held a demonstration outside the Roman Catholic WestminsterCathedral in London in response to the Pope quoting 14th century Manuel II of the Byzantine Empire saying that the Muslim prophet Mohammed introduced ‘things only evil and inhuman’. As the Christian congregation left the Cathedral it was met by chanting Muslim protesters some of whom carried placards saying, “Pope go to Hell”, and “Jesus is the slave of Allah”.
Afterwards complaints were made to the police about protest organiser Anjem Choudary who had threatened anyone who insulted Mohammed with “capital punishment”.
Choudary explained; “Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam.”
Needless to say the police took no action against either Chowdary’s threats or his demonstration.
Now imagine this situation as the reverse of what it was, although I accept it takes a lot of imagining. Suppose a group of Christians had decided to stage a protest in response to recent outrages perpetrated by Muslims on Christians in the Muslim world. And suppose they planned to hold their demonstration outside an important mosque after Friday prayers in one of Britain’s major cities. And here’s where I ask you to stretch your imagination to breaking point, suppose also that the local Chief Constable had given his blessing to this Christian demo, “.in the interest of free speech.”
Finally, suppose that on the day of this hypothetical demonstration some of the Christians carried placards that were as offensive to Muslims as the Muslim-designed placards “Pope go to Hell” and “Jesus is the slave of Allah” were to Christians.
How do you think the Chief Constable would have viewed those placards? Would he have taken the decision to let them have their say ‘in the interest of free speech’ as was done with the placards carried by the Muslims at their demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral? Or would he have argued that the Christians’ placards were irresponsible and gratuitously offensive, and would he have threatened arrests in order to prevent actions likely to cause a breach of the peace?
The rule of law and the multicultural society
One of the pillars of British democracy is the rule of law, a guiding principle of which is equality before the law, where everyone, no matter whom, is equally subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts.
The rule of law means there are no distinctions. And you’d think that given the establishment’s avowed commitment to equality its adherence to the rule of law would be absolute - because the rule of law, if it is anything, is equality in action.
Yet ironically, in a society whose watchword is equality, the rule of law in Britain has been undermined by none other than the egalitarians themselves. There are two motivating factors behind this; firstly, many members of the liberal establishment would find themselves behind bars were the rule of law to be applied strictly; and secondly, the multicultural society and the rule of law have been found to be mutually exclusive necessitating much liberal tinkering. It is this latter factor that I want to focus on here.
A people’s culture is the amalgam of its religious belief, its music, art, and literature, its philosophy and politics, its architecture and codes of dress, its science and technology, and its social relationships and law. It is a product of a people’s interaction with nature.
And because different peoples interpret nature differently cultures differ. It’s as simple as that.
Ideally a people will have its own living space in which to express itself according to its own way of seeing the world - the form of that expression is its culture. But in multicultural Britain, British culture is compromised by the need to consider the world views of the other peoples that reside here. And the further apart the various peoples are in terms of their world views the more difficult it is to compromise their belief systems.
Mass third world immigration and the multicultural society are consequences of the establishment’s ‘commitment to equality’, yet, paradoxically, the multicultural society and the principle of equality before the law are incompatible.
In multicultural Britain different laws are applied to different peoples and the same law is applied differently to different peoples. The principle of the rule of law has been weakened in the process of maintaining the multicultural society to such an extent that we now have a system of legal pluralism; there’s now no such thing as the ordinary law of the land.
Legal pluralism in act and action
British law should be an expression of the British people, like the other facets of our culture it should be a reflection of how we are. But it’s not like that.
For example, the British people recognise a responsibility to animals and so naturally we’ve enshrined in our law the right of animals to live free from cruelty. Man’s duty to exercise this right on behalf of animals is defined in law, our method of slaughter is designed to comply with this law, and we have forces of law whose function is to ensure that compliance.
But cultures differ in their world views and thus they differ in their relationship with nature, and as we are discovering, occasions arise in multicultural societies when those differences become mutually exclusive. The liberal establishment has dealt with this predicament by in effect creating parallel codes of law where certain laws are applied according to the culture of the subject.
This is most obvious in the case of ritual slaughter, where it is perfectly legal for instance for Muslims to slaughter animals by bleeding them to death whereas for ethnic Britons it would be a crime punishable by imprisonment. Muslims have their own understanding of animal welfare; they see things in their own way not in ours. Ritual slaughter is a non-negotiable mutually exclusive - that is it is fundamental to the Islamic belief system and diametrically opposed to our own. The choice for the liberal establishment was stark: Respect for Muslim beliefs or respect for British tradition and the rule of law. The liberals came down on the side of Islam and gave Muslims the right to ignore aspects of the law that the rest of us are bound to obey.
And this is how the agents of the law behave also. They too tend to interpret their responsibilities according to the culture of the subject. I began this article by referring to the Muslim demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral on a Sunday after Mass and wondered how the police would react to its Christian equivalent. All the evidence suggests that the police force, rather like the law itself, would be harsher on the Christians than on their Muslim counterparts. The establishment prefers to accommodate Islam rather than enforce the rule of law.
Consider for instance the lack of police response* to the placards carried by Muslims at the anti-cartoon protests in London earlier this year: “Freedom go to hell”; “Europe you will pay - 9/11 is on its way”; “Behead those who insult Islam”; “Butcher those who insult Islam”. And compare it with the arrest of peaceful Christian campaigner Stephen Green, who was charged with “offensive and insulting behaviour” for including a quote from the Bible, “Turn from your sins and you will be saved” in a leaflet he was handing out at Cardiff’s Mardi Gras gay and lesbian festival.
Consider also the response of the police to the aggressive nature of those Muslim anti-cartoon demonstrators and compare it to its response to the equally aggressive pro-hunt demonstrators in London in 2004. Whereas the police smiled benignly as Muslims incited violence against all who offended their way of life, they cracked the skulls of ethnic Britons for defending their traditions.
The examples of this are legion, where parliament and the forces of law and order are more severe in their attitude towards ethnic Britons than they are in their attitude to minorities, particularly Muslim minorities. We have two codes of law, a liberal code for Muslims and a more severe code for ethnic Britons.
What is the law for?
The law can have only one legitimate purpose: To act in the best interest of that which created it. And since the law is a function of a people’s interaction with nature, it stands to reason that the law should be an expression of that people’s way of viewing the world.
But because of its belief in the theory of equality and more recently because of the necessity imposed on it by the multicultural society, the establishment sees British law in abstract terms of ‘universal equality’ and ‘absolute objectivity’. And now it is as if the link between British law and the British people has been severed, where for instance the law sees no contradiction in putting the interest of Afghan hijackers (and countless other ‘asylum seekers’ and immigrants) before that of the indigenous British.
The Libs, Labs, and Cons are all guilty of supporting multiculturalism, and they’ve all gone out of their way to sing its praises and silence its doubters. It’s only very recently that they’ve changed tack, and then only because the writing is on the wall.
But in their initial eagerness to construct the multicultural model and latterly in their desperation to hold it together, the politicians enshrined cultural relativism in law: in a multicultural society no culture can be seen to be superior to any other. Of course it was complete nonsense, and it was only a matter of time before it was exposed as such. And now they’re backtracking and talking in wishful thinking terms about British values as the mortar which binds Britain’s diversity.
The British judiciary lags behind the politicians’ re-evaluation of multicultural values. Contemptuous of ordinary Britons and full of its own self importance, the judiciary has disregarded its true reason for existing, which is the wellbeing of the nation, and instead it has gone off in pursuit of a fantasy - absolute objectivity.
Consisting in the large of pompous and self righteous ideologues, the judiciary fools itself and tries to fool the rest of us that it’s an objective arbiter dealing exclusively in the currency of pure reason. In reality its decision making is a function of the increasingly absurd Marxist notion of worldwide egalitarianism, as laid down by such as the European Court of Human Rights.
This has created a tension between parliament and judiciary, especially in the law relating to asylum, immigration, ethnicity, and culture. The judiciary’s constant ruling in favour of migrants both thwarts Parliament’s (admittedly nervous) response to the growing disquiet amongst ethnic Britons and encourages further disquiet. This was inevitable. Limits on immigration and asylum and the defence of British tradition carry with them a belief in the ideas of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’, which are antipathetic to the judiciary’s commitment to absolute objectivity.
But the politicians have only themselves to blame. They complain that the judiciary takes advantage of ambiguity so as to interpret the law in a manner contrary to that that was intended. But that’s because politicians are themselves so cowed by equality dogma that they’re reluctant to ‘draw a line’, which in turn has created the ambiguity that undermines the original intention. Lawyers and judges feed on the margins; and if there’s no line it’s all margin.
British law should serve the interests of the ethnic British people; if it doesn’t it ceases to be British law and becomes something else.The universal egalitarianism of Lib, Lab, and Con politicians and the absolute objectivity of the judiciary are two sides of the same fantasy. They are both theoretical concepts that don’t exist in the real world; nothing is equal to anything else and there is no such a thing as an absolutely objective point of view.
This is not to say that the two ideas are of no use in politics and law, rather that they should be employed only in issues involving ‘like’ with ‘like’, where both parties subscribe more or less to the same world view. When parties differ radically in their world views then at best their understanding of equality and objectivity will be radically different, at worst they may not even acknowledge their existence.
The mistake our politicians and judiciary have made is that instead of employing equality and objectivity subjectively, which they would do were they to accept the ‘inner: outer’ duality, they employ them universally. This is rather like refusing to differentiate between members of one’s own nuclear family and everybody else; and the consequence is the same too - you end up losing control of your own house.
Politicians and judiciary have made British politics and British law no longer British, since neither exclusively serves the interests of ethnic Britons. The British have been pushed to the back for the benefit of ‘mankind’.
Liberals, Muslims and the law
The establishment’s fundamental contradiction is that whilst they regard all peoples as equals they also believe that were all those peoples blended into one the resulting melange would be greater than the sum of its parts. And the fundamental hypocrisy is that when liberals say that all people are the same, what they really mean is that people should be the same as them with the same aspirations.
Yet different peoples respond to the same things differently - that’s what tells us they’re different. And to their horror the liberal establishment are finding out that not everyone wants to be a middle class liberal, especially not Muslims who have their own way of viewing the world which, they believe, is superior to that advocated by Western liberals.
The conceit and insolent pride of the liberal establishment led to mass third world immigration, to the development of the multicultural society, and to the fracturing of our society along ethnic and cultural lines. As always hubris leads to nemesis.
The willingness of the liberals to undermine our (and their) way of life for an idea may very well have been an innocent expression of their egalitarianism. Perhaps they really did believe that they could create a better way of living from the top storey down.
At the beginning the liberals were in charge; they had it in mind to make British society into a precursor of worldwide egalitarianism. It was idealism gone mad. They invited millions of third world immigrants to live here and then changed our way of living so as to take into account the newcomers’ religious and cultural sensitivities. But in so doing they gave immigrants the confidence and moral authority to justify the existence and expansion of their own cultures within our culture. The establishment’s plan has backfired. Instead of being in charge they now cling to a tiger’s tail.
They made compromises of their own volition, initially. But that was when they were blinded by egalitarianism and when they were doling out concessions to immigrant communities in the belief that it would ease their transition to becoming fully fledged middle class Western liberals.
But now the establishment has lost the initiative. Its position has shifted from one where it made concessions as a means of moulding society to one where it makes concessions as a means of stopping society from running out of control. Laws were made and applied out of respect for other cultures; now they are made and applied out of fear of them. In multicultural and multiracial Britain the vigour with which the law is enforced is in inverse proportion to the vociferousness of the community on which it is applied. Thus a pacifist Christian is banged-up for upsetting homosexuals whilst a threatening Muslim is given carte blanche to intimidate the wider community.
It’s not the offence that matters so much as who is committing it - so much for the rule of law in multicultural and multiracial Britain.
Why didn’t the police remove the placards carried by Muslims on their recent demonstrations? They were threatening and offensive, as were the chants and behaviour of the demonstrators - one of the event organisers was even quoted making threats, yet the police let things go ahead without intervention*. What’s so special about Islam and Muslims that they should be handled with kid gloves?
The issue, obviously, is one of response - could it be anything else? How would Muslim worshippers respond to a Christian demonstration outside an important Mosque on a Friday after prayers? How would Muslim worshippers respond to placards offending their beliefs? Would they turn the other cheek? How would Muslim demonstrators respond to the police behaving towards them as they’d behaved towards the countryside marchers, and how would the wider Muslim population in Britain respond to news footage of these events?
The establishment is wary of the negative impact that Muslim reaction to the fair and equal application of British law would have on the ethnic Briton’s perception of the multicultural society. And no doubt they’re also worried that things could spiral out of control - so they go easy. They say that all people and cultures are essentially the same, but their actions suggest otherwise. Why else treat Muslim demonstrators differently?
The Libs, Labs, and Cons first made allowances for Muslim beliefs as a way of integrating the Muslim way of life with ours, but the medium term consequence of that has been that Muslims are now more separate than they were when they first arrived here in the early 1950’s. Now they’re making allowances for Muslims as a means of maintaining the increasingly unstable society that 60 years of mass third world immigration has created, but in doing so they can’t help but alienate a growing proportion of ethnic Britons.
The establishment rode to power on the back of the false ‘feel-good’ universal equality argument that peaked sometime in the mid 1990’s. It was the sort of idea that had an immediate appeal for idealists on the make, and so it’s no coincidence that a significant section of today’s political, judicial and media elites consists of former communists and their brothers in arms. But the habit of seeing only that which one wishes to see is not confined to the liberal establishment; sometimes the facts are hard to face whatever one’s position.
And by the same token, no one, no matter who, can put off facing the facts forever; all we can do is delay it for a while, and very often make things worse in the process.
We’re at the stage now where the liberals are being forced to face the facts. And it is the establishment’s relationship with Britain’s Muslim minority that more than anything else is exposing the contradictions in the equality of man idea; Liberalism is being pushed into crisis by Islam.
n.b. Some of the Muslim demonstrators have since been prosecuted ‘after an investigation’, but this rather proves my point - the arrests took place after the demonstration so as to minimise the chance of an unfortunate response.
On Sunday 17th of September this year a group of Muslims held a demonstration outside the Roman Catholic WestminsterCathedral in London in response to the Pope quoting 14th century Manuel II of the Byzantine Empire saying that the Muslim prophet Mohammed introduced ‘things only evil and inhuman’. As the Christian congregation left the Cathedral it was met by chanting Muslim protesters some of whom carried placards saying, “Pope go to Hell”, and “Jesus is the slave of Allah”.
Afterwards complaints were made to the police about protest organiser Anjem Choudary who had threatened anyone who insulted Mohammed with “capital punishment”.
Choudary explained; “Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam.”
Needless to say the police took no action against either Chowdary’s threats or his demonstration.
Now imagine this situation as the reverse of what it was, although I accept it takes a lot of imagining. Suppose a group of Christians had decided to stage a protest in response to recent outrages perpetrated by Muslims on Christians in the Muslim world. And suppose they planned to hold their demonstration outside an important mosque after Friday prayers in one of Britain’s major cities. And here’s where I ask you to stretch your imagination to breaking point, suppose also that the local Chief Constable had given his blessing to this Christian demo, “.in the interest of free speech.”
Finally, suppose that on the day of this hypothetical demonstration some of the Christians carried placards that were as offensive to Muslims as the Muslim-designed placards “Pope go to Hell” and “Jesus is the slave of Allah” were to Christians.
How do you think the Chief Constable would have viewed those placards? Would he have taken the decision to let them have their say ‘in the interest of free speech’ as was done with the placards carried by the Muslims at their demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral? Or would he have argued that the Christians’ placards were irresponsible and gratuitously offensive, and would he have threatened arrests in order to prevent actions likely to cause a breach of the peace?
The rule of law and the multicultural society
One of the pillars of British democracy is the rule of law, a guiding principle of which is equality before the law, where everyone, no matter whom, is equally subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts.
The rule of law means there are no distinctions. And you’d think that given the establishment’s avowed commitment to equality its adherence to the rule of law would be absolute - because the rule of law, if it is anything, is equality in action.
Yet ironically, in a society whose watchword is equality, the rule of law in Britain has been undermined by none other than the egalitarians themselves. There are two motivating factors behind this; firstly, many members of the liberal establishment would find themselves behind bars were the rule of law to be applied strictly; and secondly, the multicultural society and the rule of law have been found to be mutually exclusive necessitating much liberal tinkering. It is this latter factor that I want to focus on here.
A people’s culture is the amalgam of its religious belief, its music, art, and literature, its philosophy and politics, its architecture and codes of dress, its science and technology, and its social relationships and law. It is a product of a people’s interaction with nature.
And because different peoples interpret nature differently cultures differ. It’s as simple as that.
Ideally a people will have its own living space in which to express itself according to its own way of seeing the world - the form of that expression is its culture. But in multicultural Britain, British culture is compromised by the need to consider the world views of the other peoples that reside here. And the further apart the various peoples are in terms of their world views the more difficult it is to compromise their belief systems.
Mass third world immigration and the multicultural society are consequences of the establishment’s ‘commitment to equality’, yet, paradoxically, the multicultural society and the principle of equality before the law are incompatible.
In multicultural Britain different laws are applied to different peoples and the same law is applied differently to different peoples. The principle of the rule of law has been weakened in the process of maintaining the multicultural society to such an extent that we now have a system of legal pluralism; there’s now no such thing as the ordinary law of the land.
Legal pluralism in act and action
British law should be an expression of the British people, like the other facets of our culture it should be a reflection of how we are. But it’s not like that.
For example, the British people recognise a responsibility to animals and so naturally we’ve enshrined in our law the right of animals to live free from cruelty. Man’s duty to exercise this right on behalf of animals is defined in law, our method of slaughter is designed to comply with this law, and we have forces of law whose function is to ensure that compliance.
But cultures differ in their world views and thus they differ in their relationship with nature, and as we are discovering, occasions arise in multicultural societies when those differences become mutually exclusive. The liberal establishment has dealt with this predicament by in effect creating parallel codes of law where certain laws are applied according to the culture of the subject.
This is most obvious in the case of ritual slaughter, where it is perfectly legal for instance for Muslims to slaughter animals by bleeding them to death whereas for ethnic Britons it would be a crime punishable by imprisonment. Muslims have their own understanding of animal welfare; they see things in their own way not in ours. Ritual slaughter is a non-negotiable mutually exclusive - that is it is fundamental to the Islamic belief system and diametrically opposed to our own. The choice for the liberal establishment was stark: Respect for Muslim beliefs or respect for British tradition and the rule of law. The liberals came down on the side of Islam and gave Muslims the right to ignore aspects of the law that the rest of us are bound to obey.
And this is how the agents of the law behave also. They too tend to interpret their responsibilities according to the culture of the subject. I began this article by referring to the Muslim demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral on a Sunday after Mass and wondered how the police would react to its Christian equivalent. All the evidence suggests that the police force, rather like the law itself, would be harsher on the Christians than on their Muslim counterparts. The establishment prefers to accommodate Islam rather than enforce the rule of law.
Consider for instance the lack of police response* to the placards carried by Muslims at the anti-cartoon protests in London earlier this year: “Freedom go to hell”; “Europe you will pay - 9/11 is on its way”; “Behead those who insult Islam”; “Butcher those who insult Islam”. And compare it with the arrest of peaceful Christian campaigner Stephen Green, who was charged with “offensive and insulting behaviour” for including a quote from the Bible, “Turn from your sins and you will be saved” in a leaflet he was handing out at Cardiff’s Mardi Gras gay and lesbian festival.
Consider also the response of the police to the aggressive nature of those Muslim anti-cartoon demonstrators and compare it to its response to the equally aggressive pro-hunt demonstrators in London in 2004. Whereas the police smiled benignly as Muslims incited violence against all who offended their way of life, they cracked the skulls of ethnic Britons for defending their traditions.
The examples of this are legion, where parliament and the forces of law and order are more severe in their attitude towards ethnic Britons than they are in their attitude to minorities, particularly Muslim minorities. We have two codes of law, a liberal code for Muslims and a more severe code for ethnic Britons.
What is the law for?
The law can have only one legitimate purpose: To act in the best interest of that which created it. And since the law is a function of a people’s interaction with nature, it stands to reason that the law should be an expression of that people’s way of viewing the world.
But because of its belief in the theory of equality and more recently because of the necessity imposed on it by the multicultural society, the establishment sees British law in abstract terms of ‘universal equality’ and ‘absolute objectivity’. And now it is as if the link between British law and the British people has been severed, where for instance the law sees no contradiction in putting the interest of Afghan hijackers (and countless other ‘asylum seekers’ and immigrants) before that of the indigenous British.
The Libs, Labs, and Cons are all guilty of supporting multiculturalism, and they’ve all gone out of their way to sing its praises and silence its doubters. It’s only very recently that they’ve changed tack, and then only because the writing is on the wall.
But in their initial eagerness to construct the multicultural model and latterly in their desperation to hold it together, the politicians enshrined cultural relativism in law: in a multicultural society no culture can be seen to be superior to any other. Of course it was complete nonsense, and it was only a matter of time before it was exposed as such. And now they’re backtracking and talking in wishful thinking terms about British values as the mortar which binds Britain’s diversity.
The British judiciary lags behind the politicians’ re-evaluation of multicultural values. Contemptuous of ordinary Britons and full of its own self importance, the judiciary has disregarded its true reason for existing, which is the wellbeing of the nation, and instead it has gone off in pursuit of a fantasy - absolute objectivity.
Consisting in the large of pompous and self righteous ideologues, the judiciary fools itself and tries to fool the rest of us that it’s an objective arbiter dealing exclusively in the currency of pure reason. In reality its decision making is a function of the increasingly absurd Marxist notion of worldwide egalitarianism, as laid down by such as the European Court of Human Rights.
This has created a tension between parliament and judiciary, especially in the law relating to asylum, immigration, ethnicity, and culture. The judiciary’s constant ruling in favour of migrants both thwarts Parliament’s (admittedly nervous) response to the growing disquiet amongst ethnic Britons and encourages further disquiet. This was inevitable. Limits on immigration and asylum and the defence of British tradition carry with them a belief in the ideas of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’, which are antipathetic to the judiciary’s commitment to absolute objectivity.
But the politicians have only themselves to blame. They complain that the judiciary takes advantage of ambiguity so as to interpret the law in a manner contrary to that that was intended. But that’s because politicians are themselves so cowed by equality dogma that they’re reluctant to ‘draw a line’, which in turn has created the ambiguity that undermines the original intention. Lawyers and judges feed on the margins; and if there’s no line it’s all margin.
British law should serve the interests of the ethnic British people; if it doesn’t it ceases to be British law and becomes something else.The universal egalitarianism of Lib, Lab, and Con politicians and the absolute objectivity of the judiciary are two sides of the same fantasy. They are both theoretical concepts that don’t exist in the real world; nothing is equal to anything else and there is no such a thing as an absolutely objective point of view.
This is not to say that the two ideas are of no use in politics and law, rather that they should be employed only in issues involving ‘like’ with ‘like’, where both parties subscribe more or less to the same world view. When parties differ radically in their world views then at best their understanding of equality and objectivity will be radically different, at worst they may not even acknowledge their existence.
The mistake our politicians and judiciary have made is that instead of employing equality and objectivity subjectively, which they would do were they to accept the ‘inner: outer’ duality, they employ them universally. This is rather like refusing to differentiate between members of one’s own nuclear family and everybody else; and the consequence is the same too - you end up losing control of your own house.
Politicians and judiciary have made British politics and British law no longer British, since neither exclusively serves the interests of ethnic Britons. The British have been pushed to the back for the benefit of ‘mankind’.
Liberals, Muslims and the law
The establishment’s fundamental contradiction is that whilst they regard all peoples as equals they also believe that were all those peoples blended into one the resulting melange would be greater than the sum of its parts. And the fundamental hypocrisy is that when liberals say that all people are the same, what they really mean is that people should be the same as them with the same aspirations.
Yet different peoples respond to the same things differently - that’s what tells us they’re different. And to their horror the liberal establishment are finding out that not everyone wants to be a middle class liberal, especially not Muslims who have their own way of viewing the world which, they believe, is superior to that advocated by Western liberals.
The conceit and insolent pride of the liberal establishment led to mass third world immigration, to the development of the multicultural society, and to the fracturing of our society along ethnic and cultural lines. As always hubris leads to nemesis.
The willingness of the liberals to undermine our (and their) way of life for an idea may very well have been an innocent expression of their egalitarianism. Perhaps they really did believe that they could create a better way of living from the top storey down.
At the beginning the liberals were in charge; they had it in mind to make British society into a precursor of worldwide egalitarianism. It was idealism gone mad. They invited millions of third world immigrants to live here and then changed our way of living so as to take into account the newcomers’ religious and cultural sensitivities. But in so doing they gave immigrants the confidence and moral authority to justify the existence and expansion of their own cultures within our culture. The establishment’s plan has backfired. Instead of being in charge they now cling to a tiger’s tail.
They made compromises of their own volition, initially. But that was when they were blinded by egalitarianism and when they were doling out concessions to immigrant communities in the belief that it would ease their transition to becoming fully fledged middle class Western liberals.
But now the establishment has lost the initiative. Its position has shifted from one where it made concessions as a means of moulding society to one where it makes concessions as a means of stopping society from running out of control. Laws were made and applied out of respect for other cultures; now they are made and applied out of fear of them. In multicultural and multiracial Britain the vigour with which the law is enforced is in inverse proportion to the vociferousness of the community on which it is applied. Thus a pacifist Christian is banged-up for upsetting homosexuals whilst a threatening Muslim is given carte blanche to intimidate the wider community.
It’s not the offence that matters so much as who is committing it - so much for the rule of law in multicultural and multiracial Britain.
Why didn’t the police remove the placards carried by Muslims on their recent demonstrations? They were threatening and offensive, as were the chants and behaviour of the demonstrators - one of the event organisers was even quoted making threats, yet the police let things go ahead without intervention*. What’s so special about Islam and Muslims that they should be handled with kid gloves?
The issue, obviously, is one of response - could it be anything else? How would Muslim worshippers respond to a Christian demonstration outside an important Mosque on a Friday after prayers? How would Muslim worshippers respond to placards offending their beliefs? Would they turn the other cheek? How would Muslim demonstrators respond to the police behaving towards them as they’d behaved towards the countryside marchers, and how would the wider Muslim population in Britain respond to news footage of these events?
The establishment is wary of the negative impact that Muslim reaction to the fair and equal application of British law would have on the ethnic Briton’s perception of the multicultural society. And no doubt they’re also worried that things could spiral out of control - so they go easy. They say that all people and cultures are essentially the same, but their actions suggest otherwise. Why else treat Muslim demonstrators differently?
The Libs, Labs, and Cons first made allowances for Muslim beliefs as a way of integrating the Muslim way of life with ours, but the medium term consequence of that has been that Muslims are now more separate than they were when they first arrived here in the early 1950’s. Now they’re making allowances for Muslims as a means of maintaining the increasingly unstable society that 60 years of mass third world immigration has created, but in doing so they can’t help but alienate a growing proportion of ethnic Britons.
The establishment rode to power on the back of the false ‘feel-good’ universal equality argument that peaked sometime in the mid 1990’s. It was the sort of idea that had an immediate appeal for idealists on the make, and so it’s no coincidence that a significant section of today’s political, judicial and media elites consists of former communists and their brothers in arms. But the habit of seeing only that which one wishes to see is not confined to the liberal establishment; sometimes the facts are hard to face whatever one’s position.
And by the same token, no one, no matter who, can put off facing the facts forever; all we can do is delay it for a while, and very often make things worse in the process.
We’re at the stage now where the liberals are being forced to face the facts. And it is the establishment’s relationship with Britain’s Muslim minority that more than anything else is exposing the contradictions in the equality of man idea; Liberalism is being pushed into crisis by Islam.
n.b. Some of the Muslim demonstrators have since been prosecuted ‘after an investigation’, but this rather proves my point - the arrests took place after the demonstration so as to minimise the chance of an unfortunate response.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
