"GAMMON" INSULT LOGGED WITH POLICE AS ANTI-ENGLISH RACE 'HATE' CRIME

CALLING THE BREXIT SUPPORTING ENGLISH “GAMMON” HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY LOGGED WITH THE POLICE AS A HATE INCIDENT

I am setting out below my correspondence with Essex Police over reporting Matt Zorb- Cousins’ slur against those who have supported Brexit, the majority of whom identify themselves as English.  He has deliberately insulted them as “Gammon”.  On reflection it was clear that these are also racial stereotypes in what he says such people look like. 

People who read my blog regularly will know that I have been urging people to use the Left’s “Hate Crime” agenda against them.  So I followed my own advice!

Initially in this case Essex Police were not keen to log the case as a “Hate Crime” and I therefore had to again follow my own advice as to how to make them log it.

I thought that the resulting correspondence is a good read and also a good lesson in how to make sure that “Hate Crime” cases are logged against Left-wing figures.

Here is the correspondence:-

From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 18 May 2018 11:46
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon”

Dear Sir

Re:  Report of “Hate Crime  "  /“Hate incident” - “Gammon”

I wish to report Matt Zarb-Cousin for publically making insulting and offensive remarks against the majority of English who voted for Brexit in a manner which was illegally discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act in that he was discriminating against the Nationality, National Identity, National Origin and Ethnicity of the English.

He wrote his "Gammon" article in February in “Huck” which can be found here >>> http://www.huckmagazine.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/defence-calling-people-gammon/  

Mr Zarb-Cousin was also on the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2 to talk about this at 12.30 on 14^th May 2018.  

Taken together his article and tweets and Facebook comments on his accounts are anti-White and anti-English (racist), anti-male (sexist), anti-older (ageist).  His comments are grossly offensive, abusive and insulting both within the meaning of Section’s 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and within the meaning of Section 127 of the Communications Act.

   

In the circumstances please confirm that you have logged my report and let me have the crime reference number.  Please confirm what you intend to do to investigate this anti-English “Hate Speech” Crime.

Yours faithfully

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: 'Robin Tilbrook'  
CC: Crime Bureau Essex
Sent: Fri, 18 May 2018 12:51
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon”

Good afternoon Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your email.

In relation to the article on the magazine website, it would be advised if you are offended by this article to complain directly to the magazine as they would have control over the editing and publishing of the article from the writer. The magazine Huck is published and run by the London publishing company TCO London.

Again with the Jeremy Vine show, it would be advised to make a complaint directly to the BBC or to Ofcom in relation to their programming.

Following any complaints, should the publishing houses/companies deem this breaches any criminal offences they should in fact remove the offending articles.

At this time it would not fall within Essex Police to take a report of crime. This has been checked against the home office counting rules and national crime recording standards. If there is a crime that requires recording this would fall to the police force area in which it was published.

Kind regards,

S B

Crime Bureau

Operational Policing Command

Essex Police Headquarters

Ext 488888

Non-Emergency Telephone: 101 (Calling from within Essex) Non-Emergency Telephone: 03003334444 (Calling from outside Essex). When through to an operator, request to be put through to the Crime Bureau.

Email: crime.bureau@essex.pnn.police.uk

Website: www.essex.police.uk

Keep in touch with what is happening in your neighbourhood with Essex Community Messaging. Further details at www.essexcommunitymessaging.org.

From: Robin Tilbrook
Sent: 18 May 2018 13:58
To: Crime Bureau Essex
Subject: Re: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon”

Dear Ms Barnes

Thank you for your email.   I wish to make a complaint of these matters as Hate Crimes.  The offending publications did not originate in Essex but were published into Essex and as such are within your jurisdiction. 

Also I would remind you of College of Policing Guidance on the recording “Hate Crime” >>>http://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf .

Section number 1.2.3. Perception-based recording of hate crime

For recording purposes, the perception of the victim, or any other person (see 1.2.4 Other person), is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime. The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident.

Crimes and incidents must be correctly recorded if the police are to meet the objective of reducing under-reporting and improve understanding of the nature of hate crime. The alleged actions of the perpetrator must amount to a crime under normal crime recording rules. If this is the case, the perception of the victim, or any other person, will decide whether the crime is recorded as a hate crime. If the facts do not identify any recordable crime but the victim perceived it to be a hate crime, the circumstances should be recorded as a non-crime hate incident and not a hate crime. 

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

From: Crime Bureau Essex
To: 'Robin Tilbrook'
CC: Crime Bureau Essex
Sent: Sat, 19 May 2018 14:41
Subject: RE: Report of “Hate Crime " /“Hate incident” “Gammon” 

Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your link to the college of policing website, although we do have access to this ourselves.

Under the home office counting rules the location of any offences would in fact fall to where the article was published from and in the case of the radio show where this would have been broadcast from, which is the BBC’s broadcasting house in London.

However, as you have stated you perceive these articles to be offensive and live within Essex, a hate incident has been created on our system and the reference number is EP-20180519-0726. This will be assessed by a hate crime officer for any further action they deem necessary.

Kind regards,

S B

Crime Bureau

Operational Policing Command

Essex Police Headquarters

Ext 488888

Non-Emergency Telephone: 101 (Calling from within Essex) Non-Emergency Telephone: 03003334444 (Calling from outside Essex). When through to an operator, request to be put through to the Crime Bureau.

Email: crime.bureau@essex.pnn.police.uk

Website: www.essex.police.uk

I hope that the above correspondence will encourage everyone else who is annoyed at the “Gammon” slur to complain also to Essex Police and quote the response. 

If you are minded to do so you can email them on Crime.bureau@Essex.pnn.police.uk and quote the police crime reference number EP-20180519-0726, saying that you find what was said to be a “racist, anti-English” and “grossly offensive” remark and that you want to be added as a complainant in the case as you were also offended.  Also ask for Essex Police to keep you informed as to the progress of their investigation.

SENTENCING COUNCIL WANTS TOUGHER SENTENCES AGAINST OPPONENTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

SENTENCING COUNCIL WANTS TOUGHER SENTENCES AGAINST OPPONENTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

I recently spotted that the anonymous Establishment entity calling themselves the “Sentencing Council” was proposing to dramatically increase the sentencing for those who infringe against the British State’s clamp down on free speech.  Here is the English Democrats’ submission on this matter:-

Dear Sir

The English Democrats submission to your consultation is firstly to observe that your Sentencing Council document fails to disclose details of the participating membership of the Council or their relevant interests, such as religion, ethnicity, national identity, racial group, sexuality, etc.  This cannot be right if there is be any transparency or openness in your “consultation”.  You also do not make clear how the members of the Council were appointed and whether there is any transparency in the appointments system.  Again this is another inappropriate lacuna in your document. 

Your consultation starts off with a series of dubious and unsupported assertions about the growth of “Hate Crime”.  So far as we are aware there are in fact no objective figures for the extent of the actual commission of “Hate Crimes”.  Instead what you report is merely the produce of encouraging the reporting of “Hate Crime” and recording all such reports however bogus they may actually be.

What is however known is that the politicisation of policing by the British Political Establishment continues apace in England, which of course is the only part of the “United Kingdom”, which instead of being self-governing, is directly ruled by the British Government.  This establishment is self-interestedly seeking to clamp down on the rising sense of English National Identity.  The results of the 2011 Census showed that 60.4% of the people of England regard their National Identity as “English only” and not “British”.  This was an unwelcome development for the British Political Establishment which has been increasingly directing police resources to clamp down on English free speech.  This is in sharp distinction to the traditional English liberty whose traditional attitude can be encapsulated in playground expression “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me!” 

The already somewhat un-English and authoritarian legal restrictions on free speech are rendered not only logically incoherent but also nakedly political by the Aggravated Offence Provisions.

In the circumstances, whilst we have nothing to say about the more serious offences involving violence or the threat of violence, we strongly object to your unaccountable body seeking to impose stiffer sentences on those whose exercise of free speech is only treated as a crime if what is said offends Left/Liberal Internationalist/Globalist anti-nationalist/multi-culturalist, anti-English, politically correct opinion.  Conversely when patriots and nationalists are viciously smeared we are told that this must be accepted as legitimate expressions of Free Speech.  The lack of balance and equivalence between these approaches demonstrates that you are seeking to do nothing more than to further politicise the criminal justice system in support of the British Political Establishment rather than on the basis of rationality or dispassionate objectivity. 

Yours sincerely

(Here is a link to the entire document >>>  https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/6.4328_Public_Order_Offences_Guideleines_Consultation_web.pdf 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/6.4328_Public_Order_Offences_Guideleines_Consultation_web.pdf

What do you think?  Do put in your own submissions because the more people that object the more likely the Establishment is to drop the idea!  Here is their email address to complain to:- info@SentencingCouncil.gov.uk

MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS

MAY 2018 ENGLISH LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS?

So what have we learnt as a result of the English 2018 local elections? Are they a political “watershed” milestone in English politics?

The first thing to note was that so far as the Labour Party was concerned, despite wildly optimistic predictions from the ideological Left and others, like Sadiq Khan, Labour only did well in areas where there was either a preponderance of politically correct Middle Class, mostly State employees, often with non-traditional value lifestyles, or in areas heavily dependent of welfare benefits, or where “ethnic minority” immigrant populations have become dominant. Labour is continuing on its path of becoming the multiculturalist “Rainbow” Party!

Elsewhere in England, Labour made very little progress.  As Prof Matthew Goodwin of Kent University and Prof John Denham of Winchester University and also the English Labour Network were correctly predicting that, in all the areas where people still predominantly identify themselves as being “English”, under its current policies (where Labour politicians can barely mention England or the English), any hopes of a Labour breakthrough were doomed.  This has proved to be absolutely correct. 

See: John Denham: Why does our Labour Party refuse to talk about England? >>>> https://labourlist.org/2018/04/john-denham-why-does-our-labour-party-refuse-to-talk-about-england/

And: Why Labour Needs An English Manifesto >>>> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-manifesto_uk_5a7d8cd3e4b044b3821c372f

Such progress as Labour did make can be explained either: 1/ by a collapse of the Green vote, (most of whose voters went back to Labour except for where the “Progressive Alliance" was effective; for instance in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, where 29 seats changed hands.  Almost all of these were lost by the Conservatives, and they all went to the "Progressive Alliance" of Liberal Democrats and Greens.  This success has led to some support from Labour MPs for Labour to join it >>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/07/labour-mps-revive-campaign-for-progressive-alliance, ;

Or 2/ by the third of former UKIP voters who appear to have voted Labour. 

These former UKIP voters have probably gone back to Labour on a conditional basis thinking that Labour is still committed to its General Election promises of ensuring a full Brexit.

However if Labour’s Parliamentary Party continues on its trajectory to become more Remain supporting and undermining of Brexit, this vote may easily be switched next time to parties that are genuinely in support of leaving the European Union.  It would appear that Labour’s deceitfulness and disingenuous on the Brexit question has to some extent worked – so far!

So far as the Conservatives are concerned, they are projecting this result as a great success, given that it was mid-term into a Government.  However it seems obvious from a look at the statistics that in fact their success, such as it was, was dependant on both hanging onto their own vote and also recruiting an average two-thirds of the former UKIP vote. This means that their continued success is very dependent on their Government maintaining a reputation for working towards leaving the EU.  This is however a Government which will have had to have achieved Brexit by the time of the next General Election. If they have failed to deliver a satisfactory Brexit by then, this result contains a strong hint of severe troubles to come for the Conservative and Unionist Party!

The result also does show that the Conservative leadership have again successfully used their long-standing tactic (also true of the majority of “Conservative” MPs, including Theresa May) of being dishonest and disingenuous by pretending to be Eurosceptics.  It is worth remembering that when the decision time came in the EU referendum they came out as Europhile “Remainers”.  If their true position has become clear, to those that voted Conservative this time, by the next election then I would say “woe betide” the Conservative Party - if there is then a credible alternative. 

The leaders of both Labour and the Conservative Party, Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, are clearly both liabilities for their parties, not only personally but also through political ideology.  If either Party were to exchange their current Leader with someone more in tune with real mainstream opinion in England, then their rivals would be in serious trouble come the next General Election.

So far as UKIP leadership is concerned the results were disastrous.  I understand, but didn’t hear her say it, that their Suzanne Evans MEP has said that the results show that “UKIP is over”. 

In my view, UKIP’s Party members and voters have done England a tremendous service in forcing Cameron to give us the EU Referendum and helping to ensure that it was won for Brexit. 

It was always going to be difficult for UKIP to adapt itself, given the disagreements amongst its members and supporters on most other issues other than wanting to come out of the EU, UKIP’s Leadership troubles have of course also contributed dramatically to breakup of UKIP support.  Having blocked UKIP branches from supporting a democratic Brexit voice for England with a 'Brexit' English First Minister they have failed their membership by gifting to the Conservatives the Eurosceptic position.

What these election results show however is that, if Brexit is not satisfactorily delivered by the Conservatives, and English interests continue to be ignored by both Labour and the Conservatives then there is a crying need for the English Nation to have a political party which will speak up for us. 

UKIP leadership has missed its English democratic chance but UKIP's membership does have a natural place to go if they want to! They still can make their voices heard above a corrupt and out of touch British "Remainer" elite.

I, of course, think that English voice will be only found in the English Democrats.  In the coming months, I and other English Democrat activists, will be working to encourage over to our Cause of open English nationalism, all those English voters who care about England’s future, to come over to us so that will be able to effectively represent the English Nation. My message is:- Don't give up your political voice, Don't allow yourself to become a ' sad returner' to the tired and old LibLabCon political group. England needs you! The English Democrats are here for you!

As Helen Lewis, the Deputy Editor of the New Statesman (aka Helen Lewis-Hasteley and married to Jonathan Hayes the Digital Editor of the Guardian) said on BBC Radio 4 on the 4^th May just before the 9.00 o’clock News, the only way for UKIP to have been able to come back would have been as an English nationalist party.  Being a Labour "Remoaner", she of course thought that would be “ugly”.   I will leave you to imagine what I think of that!

14,547 first preference votes and uncounted tens of thousands of second preference votes!

Our PRESS RELEASE on the results in South Yorkshire:-

David Allen, the English Democrats’ Candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election

David Allen says:- “I was delighted to represent the rising force of English nationalism in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election under the slogan of “English Democrats:- A Parliament for England!” With a miniscule campaign budget we got 14,547 first preference votes and uncounted tens of thousands of second preference votes.  I would like to thank all those who voted for the English Democrats and voted for an English Parliament in this election.”

David continued:- “The British Political Establishment parties, had the benefit, not only of their vast resources, but also quite a lot of their supporters turning out for local elections based on the self-interested leafleting and canvassing work of their local election candidates.”

David said:- “The good news for those who opposed the pro EU “Regionalists” candidates in Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the EU “Regionalist” so-called “Yorkshire” Party, is that in a few month’s time, we are likely to have a re-run of the South Yorkshire Mayoral election.  This because South Yorkshire Police have already confirmed that they are investigating Dan Jarvis for the electoral fraud offence of giving a false address in his nomination forms.”

David continued:-  “Mr Jarvis has claimed that he did this for personal security reasons, but the law is clear that upon conviction such an approach leaves his election as “void” and would also lead to him being disqualified from public office for five years.”  

David said:- “So in a few months time we may also have a parliamentary by-election in Barnsley Central, as well as a re-run of the South Yorkshire Mayoral election.  This will be at a time when there are no other elections and so it will be far more of a level playing field between the English Democrats and the British Political Establishment Parties.”

David concluded:- “I am therefore looking forward to the next election and I hope that all those that voted English Democrats their first or second preference this time round will give me first preference next time and put the English Cause front and centre in South Yorkshire politics!”