Friday, 29 June 2012
The following letter was printed in this week's Morley Observer & Advertiser (see scanned image above too - click to enlarge) .
I have also included above a letter written in support of the Commerial Inn. The Commercial is a nice friendly Morley pub and I would highly recommend it to anyone who visits our town or has a night out in Morley.
We'll continue to campaign
I would like to thank everyone who voted for me in the recent Morley Town Council by-election in the Central ward. The 33% which I received was, in fact, roughly the same percentage of the vote which secured my election to Leeds City Council back in 2006, though clearly this percentage will not be sufficient for victory when there are only two candidates!
The English Democrats will continue to campaign in Morley and elsewhere in order to provide all our people with a patriotic alternative to the old parties, and the support which we continue to receive from voters in Morley is very much appreciated.
Morley English Democrats
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
I received the following update from the Steadfast Trust in my inbox recently which I felt was worth reproducing in full here:
Grants Given out by the Trust
One of the prime objectives of the Steadfast Trust is to raise funds and then channel this money through grants towards groups or individuals who can make a difference for the English community. The charity has established five categories in which grants can come under, this allows the Trustees to review specific funding areas and allocate money to areas that are falling short.
Cultural Books for Schools
It is a fundamental believe of the Steadfast Trust that English children should be taught about their unique cultural heritage. The Anglo-Saxon period is the origins of our ethnic formation and it is hoped that such grants will enable schools to teach pupils about this time and provide a sense of identity and belonging to English boys and girls.
The Steadfast Trust would like to offer our heartfelt thanks to ASBooks http://www.asbooks.co.uk/ for its assistance in offering their superb range of publications for our book grant schemes.
Grants given to date: £675
A key objective towards benefiting the English people is to encourage and strengthen the sense of English identity and community.
With this in mind the Steadfast Trust has developed an English Community Group guide and would be happy to assist in the establishment of such groups.
Grants given to date: £1270.75
It is a strong view of the Steadfast Trust that English children should be taught about their unique cultural heritage. The Anglo-Saxon period is the origins of our ethnic formation and it is hoped that such grants will enable schools to teach pupils about this time and provide a sense of identity and belonging to English boys and girls.
Our aim to to organise and fund a network of storytellers who can entertain children about their culture, specifically their Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Grants given to date: £2783.32
English Cultural Events
It is a fundamental believe of the Steadfast Trust that the English should be enabled to celebrate and promote unique cultural heritage. Many organisations suffer shortages of funding and government grants have in recent years been withdrawn from English events, but these are important in providing English boys and girls with a sense of identity and we wish to help in this regard.
With this in mind the Steadfast Trust is willing to fund events that bring the English community together in honouring our past.
Grants given to date: £12150
Unique Grants are those that don't fall into the four main categories (Cultural Books for Schools / Community Development / Anglo-Saxon Storytellers / English Cultural Events) but have been considered worthy of funding by a number of the Trustees within the charity. Such grants will need to be justified and these will be published on the website.
The reason for this exception with in the grant system is that at times the charity may decide that a request has been made that could have long term benefits for the English community and the Steadfast Trust is eager to help in this way.
Grants given to date: £1200
So far the charity has provided over £18,000 in a range of grants that have gone towards running major national events to classroom activities that include the following…
- The first ever English Folkmoot showcasing traditional craftsmen, games and storytelling (Cultural)
- A donation to the Staffordshire Hoard Fund (Heritage)
- Professional storytellers with authentic replica costumes and artefacts visiting schools with presentations about the Early English (Educational)
- St Edmund’s Evening (Cultural)
Please feel free to view our grants page http://www.steadfasttrust.org.uk/grants.php to get more information on where the money goes, since without you our community loses this vital area of resource.
Steadfast Trust Trustees
What you can do to make a difference
Donate to the Steadfast Trust
The Steadfast Trust is truly focused on helping the English community, but we do need your support, this email has been sent to give you a glimpse of just some of the work we are doing …please consider donating to this unique charity
Become a Friend of the Steadfast Trust
Join the Steadfast Trust as a Friend of the charity by completing the direct debit form and giving just £2 per month (you will also receive a free bookmarker on Offa I as a promotional gift) http://www.steadfasttrust.org.uk/donate.php
‘Like’ our Facebook page
Show your support quickly and at no cost by clicking the ‘Like’ button on the Steadfast Trust Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/TheSteadfastTrust
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
This new book from Lee Rotherham (whom I have just learned spoke at the English Democrats' Spring conference last year) looks well worth a read. The fact that it has a foreword written by David Starkey serves as a further allurement to me.
Check out: Taxpayers Alliance - New Book Lauched: The EU in a Nutshell and Dan Hannan: The EU in a nutshell
To buy click on the link below:
Friday, 22 June 2012
|Falklands War Memorial, Stanley.|
Here is my latest article from the English Democrats website...
Stop Funding Argentina!
This week's G20 'corridor clash' between UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has succeeded in keeping the South American leader's increasingly bellicose rhetoric towards the Falkland Islands in the headlines.
Ms Fernández attempted to hand Mr Cameron an A4 envelope containing documents allegedly detailing Argentina's claim to the islands, which Mr Cameron refused to accept. The exchange was apparently filmed by an aide of Ms Fernández, stills from which can be viewed here.
This is the latest in a series of incidents demonstrating the increasingly aggressive line being taken by the Argentine President towards the tiny population (approx. 3140) of this South Atlantic archipelago.
One factor which has not featured prominently in the coverage of this issue is the fact that UK taxpayers are helping to bankroll the Argentine state through our contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Taxpayers' Alliance have produced an excellent report on UK taxpayer support for Argentina which can be viewed here.
They have also registered a petition with the government which can be signed here.
The text of the petition is as follows:
Stop British taxpayers' money supporting World Bank loans to Argentina
Responsible department: Department for International Development.
Despite repeated attacks on Britain and the right of Falkland Islanders to remain British, Argentina receives substantial loans from the World Bank, an organisation in which Britain is a major shareholder. But the Government does not use our votes to oppose those loans.
The Government has told Parliament that, as of March 2012, total outstanding loans to Argentina from the World Bank were $16.2 billion. That means Britain's share of the outstanding loans is over £200 million, based on our shareholding in the two World Bank institutions lending to the country.
The Obama Administration in the United States has already announced a policy of voting no to any new loans thanks to Argentina's failure to respect its obligations to earlier lenders. We call upon the British Government to – at the very least – support that and vote against any new World Bank loans to Argentina.As democrats we support the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination for all peoples, and should the people of the Falkland Islands ever elect to sever their ties with the UK and seek closer political relations with Argentina, or any other country, then it would be neither morally acceptable nor logistically feasible to attempt to prevent this.
The Falklands Islanders will be give the chance to vote in a referendum on this very issue next year, and it is imperative that the outcome of the referendum be respected by all sides.
It seems highly unlikely that the referendum will deliver the Islands into the hands of Argentina, which perhaps explains the Argentine President's preference for pugnacious grandstanding as opposed to allowing democracy to prevail and letting the people of the Falklands to decide on their own political future.
Opinions might be divided as to how to respond to Argentina over this issue, but one thing all reasonably parties must surely agree on is that forcing UK taxpayers to bankroll Argentina, particularly in light of that country's current behaviour, is nothing short of a national disgrace and our financial support for Argentina through the IMF should be halted immediately.
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
I believe the growth of the internet is an overwhelmingly positive phenomenon (as I have argued, for example, here), and as it takes on an ever more important role in our daily interactions with one another it is worth reiterating (or for some people, establishing) a few ground rules for our online dealings. In the olden days (i.e. pre-internet days) there was no such thing as internet trolls. Nobody fell out over comments on Facebook or misconstrued email messages.
Nowadays a person's careless use of the internet and a failure to acknowledge that different people use this medium in very different ways can lead to conflict which is both thoroughly predictable and avoidable if people just stick to a few basic ground rules.
Despite the title of this article, which I simply liked the sound of, these rules apply to everyone in their internet dealings.
It is important to remember that the tone of a written phrase, whilst perfectly apparent to the writer, will often not be so to the reader. So when writing emails and comments on websites etc, what might appear to you to be a well-intentioned and wry witticism might well be interpreted as a sarcastic rebuke by the recipient. If what you write could be interpreted either way, it is probably better to assume that the latter will apply and alter what you have written accordingly.
With this in mind, you should never send 'angry' emails to colleagues (the same goes for text messages and any other electronic communications of course) as by the time they read them you might well have cooled off and forgotten all about your foul mood at the time of writing, but by then the damage will have been done. And even if you are not typing under the influence of anger, poor formulation might well give the impression that you are.
I know a few people who send emails that come across as overly blunt (yes I know, ironic coming from me some would say, but bear with me) and quite aggressive and I know for a fact that they will not have been so intended but merely read that way because that is how those people write emails. They would never talk to anyone in such a 'tone' yet they write emails in this way, albeit wholly unintentionally. I have politely pointed this out to them with a few basic suggestions as to how to remedy this, which has had mixed results.
And whilst formal emails must obviously be kept formal (and often the correct tone is easier to maintain in such communications in any case, I find), for informal communications the use of exclamation marks or even the highly versatile 'smiley' and its many variations, whilst something that might cause some to shudder, at least allows an obviously friendly tone to be maintained.
At the root of much of the trouble that emanates from our online interactions with one another is the fact that our behavioural has not managed to keep up with the technological development of cyberspace over the past decade and a half. As such, the most basic rules of interaction - good manners online - do not come naturally to many as they have simply never been taught.
If we all give a bit of more thought to how we behave to one another online then everyone will all much better off.
The above is a discussion of one small aspect of this topic. The following links explore the wider topic of netiquette and related issues.
Network Etiquette: core netiquette rules
Taki's Magazine: How to Comment Without Getting Killed
BBC: What is Netiquette?
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
I would say that news footage from Sunday night is well worth watching regardless of whether or not you understand French.
(You will have to click to watch it on Youtube.)
Monday, 18 June 2012
Congratulations to our friends in the Front National on the election of two MPs in yesterday's second round of the general election.
Granddaughter of Jean Marie Le Pen, Marion Le Pen (pictured speaking above) will be joined in the assembly by lawyer Gilbert Collard.
The continued electoral advance of the Front National will be a boost to French patriots and a source of inspiration for nationalists everywhere.
Saturday, 16 June 2012
Here is my latest article from the English Democrats website...
Defamation Bill Threatens Internet Freedom
It's a sign of the times that the issue of internet 'trolling' has emerged from the relative obscurity of chat rooms on the world wide web to the point where it is deemed worthy of inclusion in legislation drawn up by the House of Commons.
The issue arose in this week's debate on the Defamation Bill (which can be viewed here), and several media outlets have picked up on the fact that as part of the proposals contained in the bill, internet companies and social network sites, such as Facebook, would be under new obligations to hand over the details of those posting defamatory statements anonymously online - the details of so-called 'trolls'.
A number of high-profile web-based attacks on various individuals (e.g. Louise Mensch MP) have been cited as need for such legislation, and at first glance it is hard to argue why anyone should be given the opportunity to defame people online in a way which would simply not be feasible in any other arena.
And it would be wholly understandable for anyone who has been the victim of internet trolling to support any and all legislation which would help to eradicate this thoroughly unpleasant business.
Yet before throwing support behind such proposals, it is worth taking a step back and reflecting on the effect which the internet has had on our world, and on our politics in particular, over the past decade and a half or so, in order that context be given to the proposals currently under discussion.
I first got involved in politics in 1995. Back then the barriers to entry for smaller political parties in the UK, especially patriotic ones, were huge. The internet was in existence, albeit in nascent form, and practically nobody had access to it at home. In those days, successfully making contact with a nationalist party could require a relatively herculean effort. If you didn't know anyone who was involved, and the party in question wasn't in the phone book (which it rarely was), and there was no active unit in your town who held activities and from whom you could obtain any publicity material through which to make contact (which there often wasn't), how would a young person wanting to get involved even know where to start?
Such a state of affairs will be so thoroughly incomprehensible to today's teenagers that we might as well be discussing what life was like two hundred years ago, so different is the situation today, where it is taken for granted that the vast majority of the world's information, and certainly the contact details for political parties, are just a few clicks away.
The internet has revolutionised our world and the free exchange of information through the internet continues to bring untold benefits to humanity. A world without the internet would be as unthinkable to us now as would a world without the printing press.
The internet has also done more to break down the barriers for smaller political parties in the UK, as elsewhere, than anything else in living memory.
Clearly there is a downside to the growth of the internet and it is undeniable that the web can also be harmful to society and can be used to the benefit of child molesters, terrorists, and all manner of criminals, though existing legislation is used in respect of these problems, which lies outside the scope of the Defamation Bill.
The growth of the internet has also provided a breeding ground for the aforementioned trolls, who seem very much to be in the crosshairs of the bill's drafters. Wherever action is taken to force internet service providers and websites to hand over the details of internet posters, freedom of speech inevitably takes a hit. For this reason, it must be considered very carefully whether this trade-off is worth it.
As free-thinking Englishmen and women I believe our default position will always be on the side of free speech as opposed to censorship, and despite my own personal contempt for those worthless beings of such low moral character who spend their days attacking people anonymously on the internet, 'trolling' is a phenomenon which is not worth eradicating if this comes at the price of limiting the freedom of speech of the rest of society.
This is not to say that people should be able to get away with threatening people with violence or suchlike. Existing legislation can be used to address this. The distinctions between this and the wider subject of trolling appear to have been blurred during the coverage of this parliamentary debate, either deliberately or through ignorance (or a combination of both, perhaps).
Rather than compromising our freedom of speech, what our politics and our society as a whole needs is for the right-thinking majority of our people to engage with one another through the internet and to take a grown-up approach to this revolutionary medium. Those hiding behind pseudonyms from which they attack others online should simply be ignored and treated with the derision that they deserve. When nobody pays attention to the smear of anonymous internet posters, the trolling will cease.
The internet should not be left to society's lowest common denominator. If used correctly it can be a tool for the betterment of humanity through which the creation of the kind of society in which seek to live can be facilitated. The prospect of censoring the internet will always be regarded as tempting by those in power, and this should be opposed by all those who value freedom of speech.
And for those of you who have been attacked by trolls and were shocked to have been identified as an enemy and targeted in this way, I offer you the following words from Winston Churchill;
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
Enemies who are so powerless that they cannot even attack you openly and under their own names are not worthy of your attention and certainly do not merit the passing of legislation which might adversely affect our freedom of speech.
See also: The Libel Reform Campaign and What goes around comes around
Friday, 1 June 2012
“Driven by a sincere effort to achieve legal redress for the crimes of communism and redeem the immense suffering that affected millions of citizens under totalitarian communist regimes, we request the legislative bodies of these countries and the authorities of the European Union to adopt effective legal norms that will allow just punishment of communist criminals and abolition of all benefits they still enjoy.”