Wednesday, 22 June 2016
MURDER OF JO COX MP – UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCE OR POLITICAL ASSASSINATION?
Over the last few days we have had a torrent of outpouring of sentimentality, especially from the Left leaning media and political figures, but also some across the whole spectrum regarding the murder of Jo Cox. It goes without saying that the murder of Jo Cox, or of any person, is an abhorrent crime and in her case a very sad loss for her family.
Whether however the murder properly has any political significance to the whole country clearly depends partly on why it was done and also on reactions to it and especially the usages to which the murder is put by activists and commentators.
So far as why the murder occurred, we have so far heard wildly conflicting claims ranging from her having apparently intervened in a scuffle that was occurring between two men near where her MPs Surgery was taking place, in which she tried to intervene and the killer, Thomas Mair, turned on her. I am now doubtful about this version.
There is also the credible story that her murder is really a consequence of the budget driven policy “Care in the Community” whereby she has been attacked and brutally killed by a longstanding mental patient. That is a person who, in former days, would have been, in all probability, securely accommodated in one of the country's then many lunatic asylums. These have since been sold off and largely turned into housing to the profit of various State agencies, leading no doubt to the payment of many bonuses to the often unworthy beneficiaries of the British State’s political patronage system and many useful dodges for our careerist political class.
The other version that we have heard was that it was a calculated political assassination with the gun man shouting either “Britain first” or “Put Britain first” as he stabbed and shot the MP.
Furthermore even making due allowance for the apparent mental instability of the killer and the fact that Jo Cox record was very much of a campaigner for yet more mass immigration and, in particular, Syrian refugees, nevertheless she seems an unlikely person to pick to assassinate, as she was of virtually no political importance. Indeed I had personally never heard of her and I would think that is true of virtually all politically interested people who hadn’t actually had reason to meet her and/or didn’t live or have connections with her constituency.
The reaction of the media and, in particular, the BBC, was all too predictable and a distorted mirror image of what they always do when it is a Muslim who attacks. Then they immediately try to say that he wasn’t attacking because he was a Muslim, but he was attacking because he had “mental issues”. In this situation they were making out that whilst this killer did have mental issues, he was motivated by Far-Right Brexitism and therefore all Brexiters should hang their heads in shame and implicitly campaigning for Brexit should cease.
Amazingly the Leave campaign agreed to suspend campaigning! In my view betraying the trust that has been placed in them to lead as a designated campaign group to lead the campaign for a Brexit vote this coming Thursday. This may be down to loss of nerve or the inexperience of campaign leaders in the tactics deployed by the Left (all too familiar to those of us who have campaigned outside the Establishment) in attacking anyone who stands outside of the Establishment in the most vicious and unreasonable manner.
Whatever the reason it is deplorable that campaigning at a critical point in the EU referendum campaign has been put on hold and thus the momentum towards Brexit has been lost.
All concerned need to remember that there is never going to be another referendum on this. If the Leave campaigners lose this referendum the one thing that is certain is that the momentum towards Leave has alarmed the Establishment to such an extent that they will never again agree to a referendum. So in the words that Shakespeare so famously puts into the mouth of Henry V:-
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews , summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips ,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'"
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
FISHING FLOTILLA DEMONSTRATION ON THE THAMES
On Wednesday I was part of a thoroughly enjoyable demonstration on the Thames outside the Palace of Westminster.
The above pictures show me with the organiser of the demonstration, Bob Spinks.
It was not only perfectly organised, but an excellent idea of his, making the absolutely “on the money” point, that the EU, far from being good for jobs, has actually destroyed many jobs, focussing in this particular case on the fishing jobs that it has destroyed and doing so in a colourful, interesting and provocative way.
So much so that Remain were unable to resist trying to do a counter-demonstration led by the appalling Sir Bob (“God-awful”) Geldolf, who was vividly pictured in the press flicking V signs at the fishermen illustrating his sense of entitlement.
Geldolf’s boat had very high volume loud speakers which he was using to try and drown out everything that was being said on the Leave boat.
Amongst the journalists, Michael Crick said that it was the best political demonstration that he had ever been to. I think that is high praise indeed for Bob Spink’s efforts.
Let’s hope all this activity pays off in the early hours of Friday, 24th June!
Thursday, 16 June 2016
The deadline for voter registration is extended for the EU Referendum
What does the extension of the deadline for registration of voters onto the electoral roll in preparation for the EU Referendum tell us about the British Political Establishment?
The first point to make is that the mere fact that they wanted to extend the deadline shows the extent to which the British Political Establishment is desperate about the increasing possibility that the overall UK vote will be for Brexit. They think that the people who have left it until the last minute to register are not the sort of people who will vote for Brexit – bear that optimistic point in mind!
Less encouragingly the date for the deadline for registration is actually written into the electoral legislation and the fact that there could even be an Establishment fix, in which the law under which the election is conducted could be changed whilst the referendum is actually ongoing, is the most appalling indicator of just how far the British/EUish Establishment will go to the fix the outcome of this Referendum.
What this means is that those of us who are in favour of Brexit really must be on our guard for an Establishment fix. For instance, we do need volunteers to go to the opening of the postal ballots and check that there are no shenanigans and that the boxes are then sealed and have remained sealed when the count begins.
Even that does not offer a full guarantee, as was demonstrated by someone I knew at university who became a senior Labour Party activist. He was amused to tell me that on one occasion when the local party had selected a candidate who the central party thought was unsuitable. They had managed to get the election re-run. So he was sent to oversee the election with, as he put it:- “with two ballot boxes, one for people to vote in and the other with the right result in”!
There is also another implication to be drawn from the sudden change in law. This is the very fact that there really is such a thing as a British Political Class which can and will collude where its interests are threatened. We saw this very clearly in the Scottish Independence Referendum where there were also shocking levels of misbehaviour and improper and undemocratic manipulation.
One good example that came out at the time was this one I did a blog article. You can find the link here >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/proof-of-media-collusion-at-heart-of.html
Tuesday, 14 June 2016
The rise of political Englishness
I always think it is a good sign of changing currents of opinion when you can see even people who in many respects would be political opponents concede the way things are changing. Although they may put it in language that is different, and regard the outcome in a completely different way. A really good example of this has recently been published.
So good is it that I thought I would confine this blog article to providing a link for you to read the whole article which contains various graphics that would be difficult to reproduce in a blog article.
Here is a link to "It’s England’s Brexit" >>> http://wp.me/p5XgA2-j3
I think you will find that it fully lives up to the billing that I have given it.
Monday, 13 June 2016
Re: BBC’s “Positive” discrimination proposals
When I read about these I wrote a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act to the BBC and here is the text of my letter:-
Re: BBC’s Diversity “drive” – Freedom of Information Act Requests
I read the Daily Telegraph’s article on Saturday, 23rd April talking about the BBC’s sweeping new “Diversity” targets incorporated into a new “Diversity Strategy”, which appears to show that the BBC, in its drive to be politically correct, has abandoned all sense of both equality and of common sense.
It appears, for instance, that, in News Programmes, you propose that 50% of all commentators, experts and others brought onto the programme should be women regardless of whether they actually represent a genuine diversity of opinion, rather than represent a mere proportion of the population in the neo Soviet sense.
I also read that there are proposed targets across the BBC’s screen and back room staff which are to mirror the national population.
Since 60.4% of the population of England, according to the 2011 Census, identified themselves as being of “English-only” national identity, I ask, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, whether you propose to ensure that 60.4% of the staff, both on screen and in the back room shall be of English national identity? If you propose any other proportion then I request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the scientific basis on which you propose a different figure. If you do not propose to specify the proportion of people who are English then I request, under the Freedom of Information Act, your justification in failing to properly represent the population.
I note that you have set targets of 8% of on air roles of “LGBGT” people. I therefore formally request, under the Freedom of Information Act, how you arrived at 8%, given that the proportion of the population who are “LGBGT” is significantly smaller than that. Please also, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, confirm that you will reduce the numbers of “LGBGT” people down to 8% and ensure that they have no greater number than their proportion of the population, otherwise you will clearly be failing to properly represent the “non-LGBGT” proportion of the population. I again request your justification for such findings.
Since you propose that 15% of all “lead roles” as well as on “air positions” will have to be taken by “ethnic minorities”, please can you specify exactly which “ethnic minority” takes up which proportion of that 15% and how that figure is calculated, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Please also provide the information which relates to how that 15% is calculated, given that 15% appears to be a larger proportion of the population than is demonstrated in the 2011 Census results. It would appear, prima facie, that you are seeking to have a larger proportion of “ethnic minority” people than the proportion in the population. How are you therefore properly representing the proportions of the population if you choose to have more than 15%? I again request your justification for such findings.
Please also let me have a list of those groups that you are including in your definition of “minority ethnic groups” that will be given this representation and please also specify where this definition has been taken from and why you have excluded other groups from the list.
Please note that in view of the simplicity of the information requested in this Freedom of Information Act request, I am presuming that there will be no charge for making the request. If there is to be a charge please notify me within the next 7 days from the date of this letter.
Further please note that if a deadline of 21 days for producing the information, which I hereby give, is insufficient, then I do require you to notify me within 7 days of the date of this letter.
If the information requested is in a document then I ask for all the information in the document including its formatting data, but would confirm that the provision of a copy of the document will be a sufficient discharge of this data request.
In the absence of such notifications and should I not receive the information requested, I shall forthwith make an Application to the Information Commissioner for an Order against you to order the disclosure of the requested information.
Here is the BBC’s response:-
Dear Mr Tilbrook
Freedom of Information Request – RF120160951
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) received on 5th May 2016, seeking the following information:
1. Since 60.4% of the population of England, according to the 2011 Census, identified themselves as being of “English-only” national identity, I ask, whether you propose to ensure that 60.4% of the staff, both on screen and in the back room shall be of English national identity?
2. If you propose any other proportion then I request the scientific basis on which you propose a different figure.
3. If you do not propose to specify the proportion of people who are English then I request justification in failing to properly represent the population.
4. I note that you have set targets of 8% of on air roles of “LGBGT” people. I therefore formally request how you arrived at 8%, given that the proportion of the population who are “LGBGT” is significantly smaller than that.
5. Please also confirm that you will reduce the numbers of “LGBGT” people down to 8% and ensure that they have no greater number than their proportion of the population, otherwise you will clearly be failing to properly represent the “non-LGBGT” proportion of the population. I again request your justification for such findings.
6. Since you propose that 15% of all “lead roles” as well as on “air positions” will have to be taken by “ethnic minorities”, please can you specify exactly which “ethnic minority” takes up which proportion of that 15% and how that figure is calculated.
7. Please also provide the information which relates to how that 15% is calculated, given that 15% appears to be a larger proportion of the population than is demonstrated in the 2011 Census results. It would appear, prima facie, that you are seeking to have a larger proportion of “ethnic minority” people than the proportion in the population.
8. How are you therefore properly representing the proportions of the population if you choose to have more than 15%? I again request your justification for such findings.
9. Please also let me have a list of those groups that you are including in your definition of “minority ethnic groups” that will be given this representation and please also specify where this definition has been taken from and why you have excluded other groups from the list.
In response to 1, 2 and 3, the BBC does not currently ask staff to declare national identity. For more detail on what metrics the BBC aims to measure across the workforce see
In response to 4 and 5, we have based our targets on a combination of governmental statistics alongside intelligence and estimates.
In response to 6 and 7, the BBC currently publishes general figures relating to the ethnicity of its staff as an annual reporting requirement under the BBC Charter and Agreement and in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. We reflect the ethnicity of our staff under three broad headings: Ethnic Majority staff (White British/English/Scottish/Welsh) Black and Minority Ethnic staff (Black, Mixed, Asian, Chinese, Middle/Near Eastern) and staff from Other White Backgrounds (Irish, Central & Eastern European, Gypsy/Traveller & white staff from other backgrounds). You can see more about this on the BBC Trust’s website:-
It is not mandatory for staff to inform the BBC of their diversity information. Therefore the figures only relate to records, where the ethnicity is known (currently 98% of the workforce). The figures also excludes local recruits – staff who are recruited and work locally, outside the UK.
The BBC’s Equality Information Report for 2014/2015 can be found at the following address:
In response to 8 and 9, we have based our targets on a combination of governmental statistics alongside internal intelligence, estimates and projections.
Please note that, as set out in section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the FOI Act, our subsidies (including BBC Studio & Post Production Ltd, UKTV, BBC Global News Ltd and BBC Worldwide Ltd), as well as the charities BBC Media Action and BBC Children in Need, are not subject to the Act, therefore information for their personnel is not included in the figures quoted above.
I hope this response satisfies your request.
If you are not satisfied that we have complied with the Act in responding to your request, you have the right to an internal review by a BBC senior manager or legal advisor. Please contact us at the address above, explaining what you would like us to review and including your reference number. If you are not satisfied with the internal review, you can appeal to the Information Commission. The contact details are:- Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, Tel: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 (national rate) or see http://ico.gov.uk/.
And here is my response:-
Re: Freedom of Information Request – RF120160951
Thank you for your unsigned letter of the 2nd June 2016 from which it would appear that you have next to no actual data which would enable you to justify a basic breach of principles of equal and fair recruiting, contrary, inter alia, to the Equality Act 2010.
For your information the categories which you describe in which you “reflect the ethnicity” of your staff are not “ethnicities” as recognised by Law. “Ethnicity” is a subset of another group such as the House of Lords found Sikhs were of the wider racial group of the Northern Indians.
Since one of the leading cases on the English as a Racial Group is a case against the BBC, one would, with respect, have thought that the BBC was capable of learning from its previous mistakes and, before undertaking the kind of egregious social engineering project as proposed, would have gone to the trouble of acquiring the requisite data.
For your information ‘White British’ is a legal oxymoron, given that British is anybody who has a British passport. English, Scottish and Welsh are separate National Origin and Racial Origin groups. The idea that “Black, Mixed, Asian, Chinese, Middle/Near Eastern” all represents a single “Ethnic” Group is bizarre. Obviously your “Other White Backgrounds” is equally a miss mash of different peoples. The fact that you quote these would seem to demonstrate that you actually have not done the required groundwork to depart from basic equality law principles in recruitment.
We invite you to correct us if there is any information which supports your proposed course of action?
What do you think?
Tuesday, 7 June 2016
The English pay £140 each for the EU
Scotland’s taxpayers are no longer a net beneficiary of EU largess and now pay in £64 per person more than they get back from Brussels, according to a new economic analysis published.
David Bell, Professor of Economics at the University of Stirling, calculated that Scots now pay more than £1.4 billion towards the EU every year and receive almost £1.1 billion back through the UK’s rebate and funds such as Common Agriculture Policy payments.
However, the English on their own contribute more than that averaging £140 for each and every person in England.
In comparison, the Northern Irish pay a net sum of only £31 per person, while the Welsh are net beneficiaries to the tune of £164 per person because they receive that much more than they pay in.
Here is a link to the original article>>> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14537100.Scottish_Labour_considers_becoming___39_independent__39__party/
Tuesday, 31 May 2016
Labour’s institutionalised anti-English racism and the Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry
Given all the recent overage of Labour’s anti-Semites I thought that I would look at the Inquiry which Jeremy Corbyn was forced into setting up to give the Labour Party cover during the recent elections.
Here is the site of the Inquiry http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/chakrabarti.
On reviewing the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference I have sent this letter to Ms Chakrabarti:-
Re: Terms of Reference of the Enquiry
It is my submission that the Terms of Reference of your Enquiry are prima facie racist themselves in so far as they are as follows:-
“Consult widely with Labour Party Members, the Jewish community and other minority representatives about a statement of principles and guidance about antisemitism and other forms of racism, including islamophobia.”
The racism in question is anti-English racism contrary to the Equalities Act 2010. The anti-English racism is direct in so far as the English are implicitly directly excluded from the enquiry and indirect in so far as the effect of the terms of the enquiry is to exclude the English.
This is particularly relevant and significant when in fact the predominating racism of Labour Party members and activists is against the English. This has been amply demonstrated by Emily Thornberry’s sneering tweet against home owners in Rochester signalling their English national identity with flying the Cross of St George. Jack Straw’s comment “the English as a race are not worth saving”!
John Prescott’s comment “There is no such nationality as English”.
Jeremy Corbyn’s comment “There has never been a collective voice for England”.
Tristram Hunt’s recent article in the Spectator stated that when he raised the English question with a member he encountered the response “that he should just go and join the British National Party (sic!).
I could go on to quote many other examples of anti-English racism on the part of Labour Party members and activists and, indeed, of Labour hierarchy, not least the discrimination against England in having a Welsh Party and Scottish but no English party. It is perhaps otious to do so, given the anti-English racist Terms of Reference of your enquiry.
Please confirm whether you would get the Terms of Reference expanded to include anti-English racism within Labour’s ranks or whether you accept that the terms of your enquiry are fundamentally flawed and discriminatory.
R C W Tilbrook