'Selling off NHS for profit'

Many tell you they have your best interests at heart and have no intentions of privatising the NHS - The fact is, they have already begun the process some time ago, and the only thing they seem interested in is money and future positions in big business.

1. David Cameron - Prime Minister

Handed a peerage to nursing and care home tycoon Dolar Popat, who has given the Tories more than £200,000 in donations.

2. Andrew Lansley - Former Health Secretary & architect of privatisation

Received a £21,000 donation in Nov 2009 from John Nash, the former chairman of Care UK.

3. Harriet Baldwin - Tory whip

Former executive at JP Morgan, a major player in private healthcare.

4. Greg Barker - former Energy Minister

Held shares in Quester VCT 5 plc ,a venture capital firm with multiple investments in healthcare companies.

5. Henry Bellingham

Former director of Lansdowne Advisory Ltd, which has shares in private healthcare company Circle.

6. Jake Berry

Has registered interests in legal firm Squire Patton Boggs, which workd with multiple NHS trusts on PFI and PPP programs.

7. Graham Brady

Former advisor to PA Consulting, a management consultancy company which has worked with the NHS's new Clinical Commissioning Groups.

8. Simon Burns - former Health Minister

Attended an oncology conference paid for by Aventis Pharma - a five-day trip to the US funded by a leading drug firm.

9. Nick de Bois

Was the majority shareholder in Rapier Design Group, an events management company heavily involved with the private medical and pharmaceutical industries.

10. Steve Brine

Received almost £15,000 in donations from James Lupton, the chairman of investment bankers, Greenhill Europe which has a global network of corporate relationships in the healthcare sector.

11. Aidan Burley

Received six bottles of wine from Hitachi consultants for a speech in 2011. Hitachi Consulting UK built an online 'portal' for NHS commissioners to help them monitor performance.

12. Damian Collins

Spent almost a decade working for marketing agency M&C Saatchi, whose clients include PPP healthcare, AXA insurance, Astrazeneca, Pfizer and Merck

13. David Davis - former shadow home secretary

Received a payment of £4,250 for a six-hour speaking engagement for private health insurance company Aviva.

14. Jonathan Djanogly

Received £1,900 from Huntleigh Healthcare Ltd, which manufactures medical and orthopaedic equipment and instruments.

15. Richard Drax

Received £14,000 in a series of donations from Derek Luckhurst, chief executive and owner of care home group Agincare.

16. Iain Duncan-Smith - Work and Pensions Secretary

Has shares in hygiene technology company Byotrol plc, which sells products to the NHS.

17. Philip Dunne

Was a non-executive director for investment firm Baronsmead VCT 4 plc, which had multiple investments in private healthcare companies.

18. Michael Fallon - Defence Secretary

Former director of Attendo AB, - a Swedish private health company.

19. Mark Field

Was a board advisor to Ellwood and Atfield; a recruitment firm which recruit for NHS positions and private healthcare.

20. Liam Fox - former Defence Secretary

Received £5,000 from investment company IPGL Ltd, who purchased healthcare pharma company Cyprotex.

21. George Freeman

Has shares in Hill House Assets Ltd, formally private health firm 4D Biomedical Ltd.

22. Mike Freer

Provided marketing advice to Care Matters, a financial planning company for care homes.

23. Richard Fuller

Worked for L.E.K consulting, which has six 'partners' in European healthcare.

24. Richard Graham

Received £3,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

25. William Hague - Leader of the Commons

Received a £20,000 donation from MMC Ventures, which parts owns The Practice plc which runs 60 GP surgeries.

26. Philip Hammond - Foreign Secretary

Beneficiary of a trust which owns a controlling interest in healthcare and nursing home developer Castlemead Ltd.

27. Mark Harper

Received £5,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

28. Nick Herbert

Received £15,000 in donations from Caroline Nash, wife of former Care UK chairman John Nash.

29. Jeremy Hunt - Health Secretary

Received £32,920 from hedge fund baron Andrew Law, a major investor in healthcare firms.

30. Margot James

Had a key role at marketing giant WPP Group, which had a long list of healthcare clients.

31. Sajid Javid - Culture Secretary

Received £11,000 from Moundsley Healthcare Ltd last year.

32. Jo Johnson - Downing Street policy adviser

Received £6,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

33. Kwarsi Kwateng

Worked as an analyst for for Crispin Odey's hedge fund Odey Asset Management.

34. Mark Lancaster

Former adviser to property venture capital firm Company Palmer Capital Partners Ltd, a funder of Danescroft Commercial Developments, which has worked in the healthcare sector.

35. Dr Phillip Lee

Has worked as a freelance or Medical Solutions Ltd, which provided medical cover for events.

36. Oliver Letwin - former shadow chancellor

Was a non-executive director of N.M. Rothschild Corporate Finance Ltd, which invests heavily in healthcare.

37. Peter Lilley

Non-Executive director of management software firm Idox plc, which provides services to the NHS Health Libraries Group and NHS Education for Scotland.

38. Tim Loughton

Received £350 for training sessions with Cumberlege Connections, a political networking firm that works "extensively" with the pharmaceutical industry.

39. Mary Macleod

Was a senior executive at Andersen Consulting/Accenture, which has profited from big PFI deals.

40. Francis Maude - Cabinet Office Secretary

Was a director of PR firm Huntsworth plc, which was part of lobbying group Healthcare Communications Association.

41. Maria Miller - former Culture Secretary

Former director of Grey's Advertising Ltd, an advertising and brand company which worked extensively with clients in the healthcare sector.

42. Andrew Mitchell - former International Development Secretary

Was a strategy adviser to global management firm Accenture, which has worked extensively with private healthcare companies and the NHS.

43. Penny Mordaunt - Communities Minister

Worked for lobbying firm Hanover, where she had a range of healthcare clients.

44. Brooks Newmark - former Charities Minister

Partner in the Allele Fund, which invests in healthcare startups.

45. Jesse Norman

Received £5,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

46. Stephen O'Brien

Received payments totalling £40,000 from Julian Schild, whose family made £184million in 2006 by selling hospital bed-makers Huntleigh Technology.

47. George Osborne - Chancellor

Received donation through Conservative Campaign Headquarters from Julian Schild - see above.

48. Priti Patel - Treasury Minister

Worked for lobbying firm Weber Shandwick, which does PR for big healthcare and pharmaceutical firms.

49. John Redwood - former Cabinet Minister

Advised the private equity company which runs Pharmacy2u, the UK's largest dedicated internet and mail order pharmacy.

50. Jacob Rees-Mogg

Partner of Somerset Capital Management LLP, which has healthcare investor Redwood Emerging Markets Dividend Income Fund as a client.

51. Sir Malcolm Rifkind - former Foreign Secretary

Chairman of advisory board at L.E.K. Consulting LLP, which helps private healthcare firms identify "new business development" and "opportunities with the Government".

52. Amber Rudd - Energy Minister

Received £3,000 from hedge fund baron Andrew Law, a major investor in healthcare firms.

53. David Ruffley

Received £10,000 in donations from Caroline Nash, wife of former Care UK chairman John Nash.

54. Mark Simmonds - former Foreign Minister

Was paid £50,000 a year as a "strategic adviser" to Circle Health.

55. Chris Skidmore

Received £3,500 for speeches to STAC Consultancy, which specialises in the launch of pharmaceutical products.

56. Julian Smith

Received a £2,500 donation from Principle Healthcare Ltd in September 2014.

57. Nicholas Soames

Received £2,000 from asset manager Crispin Odey, a major investor in Circle.

58. John Stanley

Consultant on financial services to FIL Investment Management Ltd, which invests in healthcare.

59. Andrew Tyrie - select committee chairman

Attended the Ryder Cup as Secretary of the Parliamentary Golf Society, with travel and accommodation paid for by U.S. healthcare services company Humana Europe.

60. Robin Walker

His office received a £2,000 donation from Redwood Care Homes, which owns multiple care homes.

61. David Willetts - former Universities Minister

Has shares in Sensortec, a company that owns Vantix which was working on a contract for a new product to detect MRSI.

62. Rob Wilson

Had registered shares in Vital Imaging, a private screening company.

63. Tim Yeo

Also attended the 2008 Ryder Cup, courtesy of Humana Europe.
64. Nadhim Zahawi

Non-executive director of recruitment company SThree, which specialises in the Ppharmaceutical and biotechnology sector.

65. Menzies Campbell - former leader

Non-executive director of Scottish American Investment Company plc, which took over one of the care homes when Southern Cross collapsed.

66. Vince Cable - Business Secretary

Received a donation of £2,000 from Chartwell Care Services, which is 100% owned by Chartwell Health & Care PLC. It also owns Chartwell Private Hospitals plc, which provide day case surgery to NHS patients.

67. Nick Clegg - Deputy Prime Minister

Received a donation to his constituency office for £5,000 from Alpha Medical Consultancy.

68. Simon Hughes - Justice Minister

Received £60,000 donation to his constituency party from the founder of Alpha Hospitals, a private hospital firm.

69. Robert Smith

Has shares in pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline.

70. Jo Swinson - Business Minister

Received a donation of £2,000 September 2013 from private optician firm, Peter Ivins Eye Care.

Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154

To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email" in your profile.

You can view the full announcement by clicking the link below:
http://truth-wars.co.uk/forum/national-health-service/full-list-of-mps-with-links-to-private-healthcare-firms/

Regards,
The TruthWars Community Team

Do NOT accept a new Magna Carta

A NEW Magna Carta proposed by this Government. 

ALL those in that House know-without doubt- that if the people accept the NEW (which is what this is all about) they will over-ride their very own LONG STANDING Common law Constitutional Documents.  Once that is done-this Country may well become just REGIONS of the European Union that Mr Cameron introduced when he came into Government.  Having then thus destroyed their own longstanding Common Law Constitution, yes! Their very own Common Law Constitution by accepting the new-may well find that the NEW Written Constitution or constitutional Documents will be repealed and ALL will/may be under the EU and its Treaties for “all time coming”.  The people will/may have been seen to have chosen to destroy completely their very own Common Law Constitution that so many gave THEIR lives for-in the keeping of it, in that last World War.  Perhaps that was why our Constitution has indeed lasted over so very many years, for Government could not be seen to destroy the people’s Common Law Constitution..  The people had to destroy it for themselves by accepting a NEW Constitution, for the present Constitutional Documents are indeed protected by ‘Acts of Treason’. Certain Laws re Treason state that, “To destroy the Constitution is indeed an “ACT of TREASON” and although on Prime Minister tried to remove a couple of those ‘protecting Acts’-they remain in full for no temporary Government can in truth destroy them, for to do so may indeed be seen as an act of treason in the doing.

Here for you below is perhaps the greatest betrayal a Government can bestow on an unsuspecting people that take the trouble to place their trust in those they elect to sit in that once highly respected House of Commons.

You are all invited to accept a proposed NEW Magna Carta  In accepting the new-will the people be destroying the old, and once that has been done, will the government GET RID OF the new?

Is it indeed Treason to destroy our long standing Common law Constitutional Documents which in this case is our GREAT Magna Carta?   The Treason laws remain so why are they not being used?  See http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/consultation-new-magna-carta/

For papers  http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/consultation-new-magna-carta/commons-written-submission-form/

Consultation on a New Magna Carta-send here for papers

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/news/new-inquiry-consultation-magna-carta/

The consultation closes on 1 January 2015.  The Committee will report on the responses from the public in time for them to be taken into account ahead of the general election.

                                ****************************

There is no doubt at all that if the people accept any NEW Magna Carta or any NEW Written Constitutional Documents, in the doing, will destroy the original Common Law Constitutional Documents that two World Wars in recent memory have been fought to protect and keep-FOR ALL TIME COMING. Probably no Government or Members of Parliament would do this for laws re treason would also prevent them so doing, plus, parts of our Common Law are especially for the people, and because it is mostly the people that have to don Amy. Navy, Air-force clothing and fight anyone that starts a war with this Country. As all those in those Houses of Parliament-both houses- that put this forward, even though they so swear a solemn Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown- the present wearer of the Crown, our belovéd Queen, donned a Uniform-and did her bit in fighting for Her Country in the same way the Forces so did in that 1939-1945 World War.  Her father, His Majesty King George V1 along side of Winston Churchill, although most certainly not in the best of Health travelled to many cities and towns to boost the spirits up of the British people whose home towns and cities were being bombed night after night.

People my age were taught about their Constitution and why they were being bombed in that last war-some-time day and night. It makes me wonder why children of TEDAY are not taught about their own once longstanding Common law Constitution TODAY.

Magna Carta Debate  House of Lords 7^th November 2013  Debating whether to bring all four remaining copies of Magna Carta together? MY Comments on this- I most certainly do not think it wise to bring all four Copies together-for maybe an accident may happen thus destroying all four copies.  ALL FOUR GONE FOREVER. 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131107-0003.htm

Anne

Letter to Cameron

This letter has been circulated

Dear Prime Minister David Cameron,

Seeing you sporting the representation of blood spilled in two World Wars, on your lapel sickens me, because it represents sacrificed life to keep our country out of the clutches of the predatory nations we fought against, in order to keep our country able to manage it’s own affairs.

Meanwhile you are still lying to us about what you can do within the EU every day, and trying to keep us in those very same powers clutches, insulting the sacrifices of those men and women, which is grossly hypocritical, rendering your position untenable and the lowest of the low in my eyes. (1.  See the EU Commission’s own enabling clause below – you have no power to change things!)

Those forces fought for you, but you will not stand up to fight for this country by withdrawing from EU, and making sure we can manage our own affairs without interference from our illegal membership of the EU, which is impoverishing this nation.

Your perfidy in maintaining this position when there is legislation to remove us from the EU without penalty, is ignorant at best, and treacherous at worst.

Our parliament has been Null and Void, since the European Communities Act 1972 was entered into illegally, against every Constitutional restraint and under coercion, making the ECA1972 void and of no legal force (2. see Vienna Convention extracts below).

No parliament may bind it’s successors, yet no parliament since 1972 has corrected this treason against Queen and people, while more and more taxpayers' money is  poured into the failed corrupt EU experiment illegally according to the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (3. see extracts below).

1.  Commission’s enabling clause hidden under disingenuous gobbledygook (Who decides what is urgent? Who exactly do they consult? Do they really care about ‘burdens’ on members?):

LISBON TREATY

C 306/150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007

PROTOCOL

ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF SUBSIDIARITY

AND PROPORTIONALITY

___

Article 1

Each institution shall ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as laid down in Article 3b of the Treaty on European Union.

Article 2

Before proposing legislative acts, the Commission shall consult widely. Such consultations shall, where appropriate, take into account the regional and local dimension of the action envisaged. In cases of exceptional urgency, the Commission shall not conduct such consultations. It shall give reasons for its decision in its proposal.

Article 5

Draft legislative acts shall be justified with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Any draft legislative act should contain a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This statement should contain some assessment of the proposal's financial impact and, in the case of a directive, of its implications for the rules to be put in place by Member States, including, where necessary, the regional legislation. The reasons for concluding that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators. Draft legislative acts shall take account of the need for any burden, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Union, national governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators and citizens, to be minimised and commensurate with the objective to be achieved.

____________________________________________________

2. Under the   (If the provisions of the founding treaty ECA1972 are void and have no legal force neither do those that were ratcheted and built up on it )

1969 and 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

PART V 

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 49

Fraud

If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50

Corruption of a representative of a State

If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51

Coercion of a representative of a State

The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES  (extract)

Article 62

Fundamental change of circumstances

1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

SECTION 5. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

Article 69

Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty

1. A treaty the invalidity of which is established under the present Convention is void. The provisions of a void treaty have no legal force.

________________________________________________________________

3.   Under

Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000

'Section 6 (1) (a, b & c) and 6 (3) (a & c) Resource accounts scrutiny' and 7 (4) (a,b & c) 'other departmental accounts' of that act which are relevant to the EU accounts not being signed off by auditors and constituting corruption and fraud:

snipped

6. Resource accounts: scrutiny.

(1) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine any resource accounts which he receives from a department under section 5(5) with a view to satisfying himself—

(a) that the accounts present a true and fair view,

(b) that money provided by Parliament has been expended for the purposes intended by Parliament,

(c) that resources authorised by Parliament to be used have been used for the purposes in relation to which the use was authorised, and

(d) that the department’s financial transactions are in accordance with any relevant authority.

(3) Where the Comptroller and Auditor General has conducted an examination of accounts under subsection (1)—

(a) he shall certify them and issue a report,

(b) he shall send the certified accounts and the report to the Treasury not later than 15th January of the financial year following that to which the accounts relate, and

(c) if he is not satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (1)(a) to (d), he shall report to the House of Commons.

7. Other departmental accounts.

(1) The Treasury may direct a government department to prepare for each financial year accounts in relation to any specified matter.

(2) Accounts under subsection (1) shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury.

(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall carry out his examination of accounts under subsection (3)(b) with a view to satisfying himself—

(a) that money provided by Parliament has been expended for the purposes intended by Parliament,

(b) that resources authorised by Parliament to be used have been used for the purposes in relation to which the use was authorised, and

(c) that the department’s financial transactions are in accordance with any relevant authority.

Information courtesy of Ashley Mote

_______________________________________________________

The evidence and grounds to invoke the above legislation can be found on:

http://www.englishconstitutiongroup.org/

I demand that you restore this country’s Constitutional Royal Law and Common Law enshrined in Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath, and discard Corpus Juris, all and any Acts, laws and regulations, which have been imposed on this country by the EU in any of it’s guises.

Time to take the country back for the people of this country, and close down the sale of the country’s assets to private ownership and foreign buyers, something Edward III tried to guard against in his wisdom.

yours sincerely

Mrs Jane Birkby
15 DN20 0DF
ENGLAND

Dementia, Targets, £55 per patient – Who benefits?

OPEN LETTER FOR CIRCULATION   

We will all get old one day even those making these decisions. So ask yourselves whether you would wish for what you are proposing or condoning.

 

Dementia, Targets, £55 per patient – Who benefits?

 

Dear Simon Stevens, CEO NHS England and Dr Michael McBride Chief Medical Officer NICE,

 

Under FOI:

1) Please tell me the origin of this latest edict using targets to diagnose Dementia, and whether the pharmaceutical companies are already offering prescription drugs to ‘treat’ it?

2) Do any of the senior executives and officials involved have any links to funding from Pharmaceutical companies?

3) This decision as badly flawed, especially given the expectation that there WILL BE more people with dementia, and could this be because Geoengineering Aerosol Spraying in our atmosphere (aka Chemtrails), has been bombarding the population with Barium and Aluminium amongst other things?

 

*****

As a patient of 66 years old, who is as old as our NHS itself, I have seen the best and the worst of that service, and the damage that greedy politicians and individuals in various governments have done to it.

It seems to have become Big Pharma and Private Healthcare’s puppet, and totally overrun by unchecked immigration and health tourism.

 

It has been degraded from once excellent and world beating, to impoverished mediocrity, while the loyal and dedicated front line staff struggle to give good service to patients, with managers, executives, and CEOs paying themselves unacceptable salaries and perks in readiness for creeping privatisation of the service.

 

At one time I had a personal view that NICE stood for National Institute for Clinical Euthanasia, as the Liverpool Care Pathway and DNR was enthusiastically adopted on wards for the Elderly, without the public’s knowledge or consent.

In all probability because the elderly have had the affrontery to live too long, and shock horror actually draw the pensions they had paid for, on top of being considered past their usefulness to commerce, and therefore useless eaters.

 

The NHS under greedy ‘Common Purpose’ managers and executives has lacked Common Decency, Ethical Decisions, Care and Compassion, something the essence of the Hippocratic Oath, and our Royal Common Laws enshrined in the Christian Coronation Oath try to uphold.

 

Now the latest wheeze, possibly to make more money for Big Pharma, is to bribe GPs to hit targets in diagnosing Dementia, for which there is probably a harmful drug just waiting in the wings to prescribe, reducing our poor overstretched GPs to little more than drug pushers.

I can tell you now that there are some GPs in certain parts of this country, who will be rubbing their hands with glee, and worshipping Mammon at the prospect of inventing dementia patients just to claim the bribe, because they lack the honest and ethical standards of the majority of decent GPs around the country.

 

I therefore ask that you answer my questions on this issue, and think again about what you are proposing.

The money earmarked for this flawed project, must be ploughed into frontline help and service for those already experiencing dementia, not satisfying useless targets.

 

yours sincerely

Mrs Jane Birkby
15 DN20 0DF

birkby370@btinternet.com

 

left-wing opinion and the "liberal consensus",

Article written by Kevin Myers

Kevin Myers (born 30 March 1947) is an Irish journalist and writer. He writes for the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, having previously been a columnist for the Irish Independent and a former contributor to The Irish Times, where he wrote the "An Irishman's Diary" opinion column several times weekly. Until 2005, he wrote for the UK Sunday Telegraph.
His articles criticise left-wing opinion and the "liberal consensus", sometimes incorporating hyperbole, sarcasm and parody. This essay recently appeared in The Irish Independent:

Somalia is not a humanitarian disaster; it is an evolutionary disaster. The current drought is not the worst in 50 years, as the BBC and all the aid organisations claim.

It is nothing compared to the droughts in 1960/61 or 73/74.And there are continuing droughts every 5 years or so.

It's just that there are now four times the population; having been kept alive by famine relief, supplied by aid organisations, over the past 50 years. So, of course, the effects of any drought now, is a famine. They cannot even feed themselves in a normal rainfall year.

Worst yet, the effects of these droughts, and poor nutrition in the first 3 years of the a child's life, have a lasting effect on the development of the infant brain, so that if they survive, they will never achieve a normal IQ . Consequently, they are selectively breeding a population, who cannot be educated , let alone one that is not being educated; a recipe for disaster

We are seeing this impact now, and it can only exacerbate, to the detriment of their neighbours, and their environment as well. This scenario can only end in an even worse disaster; with even worse suffering, for those benighted people, and their descendants.
Eventually, some mechanism will intervene, be it war, disease or starvation.

So what do we do? Let them starve?
What a dilemma for our Judeo/ Christian/Islamic Ethos; as well as Hindu/Buddhist morality.
And this is beginning to happen in Kenya, Ethiopia, and other countries in Asia, like Pakistan.
Is this the beginning of the end of civilisation?

AFRICA is giving nothing to anyone outside Africa -- apart from AIDS and new diseases.
Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the Begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us out of Africa, yet again.
It is nearly 25 years since the famous Feed The World campaign began in Ethiopia, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78+ million today.
So, why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country?
Where is the logic? There is none.

To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.
One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of children starving.

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially.
Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a low IQ, AK 47-bearing moron, siring children whenever the whim takes him and blaming the world because he is uneducated, poor and left behind.

There is no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system but I do not know what it is.

There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.
It will win no friends and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous hand wringing,
letter writing wrathful individuals; a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority.

It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously.

So be it.
But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Irish Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30%. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules plane, Ethiopia's population has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness.
Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, AK 47-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts and housing pirates of the ocean.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive, illiterate indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world or allowances by the semi-communist Governments they voted for, money supplied by borrowing it from the World Bank!

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or common sense.
Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the president of South Africa being a firm believer in
the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against AIDS infection.
Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.
Broad brush-strokes, to be sure.

But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters.
Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.
They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation.
By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million; the equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today,
but located on the parched and increasingly Protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.
So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them?

Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity!

But that is not good enough.
For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.
It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.
If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts.

Oh good: then what? I know, let them all come here (to Ireland) or America. (not forgetting Australia!)

This is all hypothetical

but if Scotland Decides ‘Yes’ Today - then Pertinent Questions NEED to be asked of our MP’s and The EU?

After tonight, if Scotland Votes ‘Yes’ for Independence, then The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceases to exist.

Parliament needs to be dissolved forthwith, and a new English Parliament formed with English MP’s and a House of Lords also Consisting of English Only Peers.

Scotland will be seen as a ‘New Nation’ as will England, because the Welsh and Northern Irish will also decide on their futures and most likely want Independence.

As we know, all things UK and ‘British’ will cease to be legal – therefore the New Country of Scotland with England/Wales/Northern Ireland will need to re-negotiate terms with the EU? If Scotland Falls outside monetary Union with the Bank of England and the EU (The EU has stated that as a new Nation, Scotland will need to eventually apply to join the EU) Will the English/Welsh/NI payments to the EU (£53 Million a week) have to continue?

England/Wales/NI effectively are new nations too, all previous agreements signed to the EU will become null and void as Britain and the UK cease to exist, and therefore the EU will have to decide collectively if Scotland – England/Wales/NI will need to re-apply for membership? It will be down to the UKIP and its 24 MEP’s who will also cease to exist as they no longer represent a country that no longer exits to argue that point and our immediate withdrawal from the EU?

Passports; they are currently UK – GB will cease to be legal. Scottish people living in England effectively will become immigrants and vice versa, therefore it will be down to the newly formed English and Scottish Parliaments to decide if their people will need to re-apply for citizenship within that country and a new passport with their intended status?

Driving Licences; currently UK and EU. As new nations, Scotland - England/Wales/NI will need to re-define their legality? Scottish people living within (England/Wales/NI now to be known as the ‘Group’) will need visas and permission to work within the ‘Group’ and as such, would be treated effectively as those living outside the current UK EU as Scotland would need to decide if it remains within the ‘Commonwealth’ of Nations head of which is the Monarch Queen Elizabeth II. If they decide to remain within the commonwealth (which defeats the object of being Independent as the Queen will still head the country and they will require her approval as head of state, for all new laws so Scotland will still effectively be under the rule of Brittania?

England/Wales/NI do not want/need Scottish people sitting in our parliament deciding on English Laws and also influencing our Parliament in favour of Scotland as much as Scotland will not want English Politicians sitting in on their parliament deciding Scotland’s future (after all this is what the referendum and Alex Salmond is all about.. getting rid of the English Influence and rule from Westminster?

This letter could go on into a book? But I now personally feel, forget all the previous arguments we have been fighting for? This is a golden opportunity to concentrate on the job in hand? We need to question our English MP’s about OUR future within the EU? Previous Prime Ministers have stated that ANY re-writing of our terms within the EU would effectively trigger a referendum?

We don’t need to re-negotiate terms of a contract to the EU if it is now null and void ( our payments without Scotland need to be redressed) The fight must go to the EU? Why did they allow the UK to hold such a referendum which would effectively change the game plan of the EU? The ‘Group’ cannot be seen as being favourably treated by the EU as I’m sure other Nations will have something to say about it and may call for ‘The Groups’ expulsion?

It is down to us now to educate people into these matters and demand our Parliament to dissolve and call an election? If you saw David Cameron in Scotland pleading with the Scottish about leaving the UK and his worried look…. That is because he knows his political career will be over if the vote is yes. He will have to call an election and draw up new lines and rules for an English Parliament and also our legal status as a new Group/Nation like Scotland within the EU? The EU allowed it - the EU need to deal with it and make a decision?

We need to rally the support of all 24 MEP’s and push for our expulsion from the EU.

It’s now an opportunity in our lifetimes to get our country back and rid ourselves of the EU once and for all. We cannot allow the MP’s to do back room dealings to keep their own Political careers in check we have to press for a new Parliament, new English MP’s and a withdrawal from the EU. We let them decide our fate and future many years ago, and sat and did NOTHING let’s put a spanner in the works and get the ball rolling with ideas for draft letters to all MP’s and MEP’s?

Thoughts and ideas on this matter needed!

Best Wishes...... Gerry Gee.

Child abuse scandal

Child abuse scandal raises disturbing questions about UK establishment

http://rt.com/op-edge/180616-british-home-secretary-child-abuse/Get short URL = Published time: August 15, 2014 14:14

Britain has been known for many things, from being the bullies of the world, to its language, pop music, film and drama.

But as Churchill’s “finest hour” in World War II fades to a distant memory and proud post-war industries have been dismantled, one scandal has come to sum up everything that has turned our so-called leaders sour.

The UK’s child abuse scandal, rooted in the media, Westminster and the Royal Family and personified by serial abuser and BBC personality Jimmy Savile, has been shocking enough. But far more insulting to the victims, the nation and the world is the Cameron government’s attempt, in early July, to institute two separate child abuse inquiries led by establishment figures who, due to family and work connections, immediately faced suspicions of possible conflicts of interest.

This is a side to human nature which it suits most of us to think does not even exist. Those that sexually abuse defenseless children hope that few police, journalists or, ultimately, readers and viewers, have the stomach to scrutinize the depths of their depravity. Abusers also know the last thing most victims want to do is to relive their abuse by giving evidence in a courtroom. They appear to be protected by the intelligence services, who keep an eye on anyone who might expose them, and have the resources to engage the most expensive lawyers and spike any rumors.

Much of the hard graft of unearthing recent evidence of historical abuse has been down to a little known “old school” London news agency. Ear News has shown the rest of the London media up with their simple mission to expose wrongdoing. Their fearless pursuit of these criminals, particularly at the notorious Elm Guest House in southwest London, carries on despite a general lethargy by the police.

However well Exaro can stand these stories up, nervous national newspaper editors seem too often reluctant to print what a self-respecting press should, to launch the odd torpedo at the establishment battleship.

The response of the London press to the latest Westminster abuse revelations has for the most part been to look the other way. As they did the first time round, when another tiny outfit, Simon Regan’s Scallywag magazine, was sunk without a trace for daring to dish the dirt in the 1980s and 1990s. Crucial unasked questions now are whether either of these latest enquiries announced by Home Secretary Theresa May into state-sanctioned child abuse are likely to attract the trust and cooperation of even a single victim.

2 child abuse inquiries, both set up to fail

An extraordinary admission was made by the Home Office's top civil servant, Mark Sedwill, on Saturday July 5, that his department had “lost” 114 files relating to Westminster child abuse investigations handed to them in the 1980s by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens. The files allegedly included allegations against more than 10 current and retired politicians.

The next day former Tory party chairman, cabinet minister and survivor of the 1984 IRA Brighton bomb, Sir Norman Tebbit, confessed on TV that there "may well have been" a political cover-up of child sex abuse in the 1980s. He explained: "People thought that the establishment was to be protected." On Monday July 7, Home Secretary Theresa May announced two national inquiries into allegations of child abuse linked to Westminster.

The first inquiry was, conveniently, slated to deliver its report after the May 2015 general election but this one lasted less than a week before it was revealed to the public, though May already knew that the enquiry's head, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's late brother Sir Michael Havers was Attorney General when Geoffrey Dickens' allegations were made, and covered up. Even without that, her previous selection as inquest coroner in the death of Princess Diana, a role she also relinquished, should have made her connections with the establishment so tight as to have taken her out of the running.

Tapped by May to head the second inquiry into the police losing the evidence, due to report mid-September, is Sir Peter Wanless. He is the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), a national charity for which Britain’s most prolific pedophile, Jimmy Savile, was one of the most high-profile “fundraisers.”
Post-Savile, no organization is beyond reproach. It has become clear that organizations like the NSPCC have actually been the perfect “hiding place” for nests of abusers. NSPCC also runs the national Childline support phone service for the abused which some believe may also have been compromised.

Before his latest role at the NSPCC, Wanless was a “highly respected” civil servant, permanent secretary to cabinet minister Michael Portillo during the 1990s when Portillo was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and crossing departments with him when Portillo became Secretary of State for Employment. Again – an establishment civil servant investigating his own. A recipe for a cover-up.

More serious, though, are the persistent rumors about Wanless' close friend and confidant Michael Portillo, now like Savile, a BBC TV personality, being allegedly involved in a Westminster sex scandal himself. Rumors circulated in 1994 that Portillo and another Tory Secretary of State, Peter Lilley, had got sexually involved with Britain's first openly gay footballer, Justin Fashanu.

Unfortunately for the two secretaries of state though, a disgruntled Fashanu supposedly decided to“blow the lid,” threatening to “bring down the government” by leaking evidence of these affairs to the Daily Express. When MI5 allegedly threatened Fashanu, Tory MP Stephen Milligan, a part-time journalist, is said to have weighed in on the footballer's behalf on a mission to get to the bottom of it all and “clean up the Tory party.”
Within days, however, Milligan was found hanged in his London flat, naked, with an orange in his mouth in an apparent suicide, made to look like he was a sexual deviant. Fashanu was swiftly sacked by his football club and got on the first flight to the United States. Several years later Fashanu was also tragically found hanged, this time in a garage in Shoreditch, London.

Whether or not there is any truth to the original allegations, the mysterious deaths surrounding them should have prohibited any senior civil servant associated with Portillo from taking up a job heading the NSPCC, and totally exclude Wanless from heading any inquiry into the Whitehall child abuse scandal. Would anybody who has been abused, or with evidence of abuse, and is capable of doing an internet search, be likely to confide in him?

Journalist Phil Frampton has pointed out these and other flaws in May’s fanfare announcement of 7th July, explaining in an open letter signed by 28 child protection professionals to May: “The chair of this inquiry will need fearlessness, to be prepared to challenge the authorities and to ask and get answers to very difficult questions. This is a role that can only be undertaken by someone clearly seen as outside the establishment.”
Correct link to Open Letter
http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/an-open-letter-to-theresa-may-calling-for-michael-mansfield-qc-to-chair-the-child-abuse-inquiry/
Rather than simply “cursing the darkness” of the Home Secretary’s perverse appointments, Frampton has suggested Michael Mansfield QC to replace Butler-Sloss on the leaderless first inquiry. He, along with the “revised Terms of Reference” Frampton suggests, “is the only way to secure justice for survivors and protection of our children.” Mansfield, who represented the Al Fayed family at Princess Diana's inquest, is both sufficiently qualified and, crucially, far more likely to be trusted by the abused.

Blackmailing politicians in Brussels and London

Perhaps child abuse is sanctioned at high levels simply because the ease of blackmailing those involved suits the security services, bankers, royalty and others behind the scenes that want weak, pliable politicians? If that's so, it’s no surprise then that Brussels, one of modern Europe's other main centers of power, has also been the scene of the most horrendous child abuse.

Back in 1996, the arrest of Marc Dutroux in Belgium eventually led, eight years later, to his 2004 trial for the murder of four young girls he had imprisoned as sex slaves for the rich and powerful. The Dutroux scandal has many of the characteristics of the Westminster scandal: A judicial cover-up, initial reluctance of the press to take it seriously, persistent police inaction and diligent police officers being inexplicably removed from the case.

Only Belgium's biggest-ever anti-paedophile public protest of 300,000 people in October 1996 appeared to concentrate the minds of the Belgian establishment to actually do something. Exactly the same perversions of the course of justice have been seen in several child abuse inquiries in the UK, including the Jersey inquiry where campaigning Senator Stuart Syvret and police chief Lenny Harper were both removed from their posts.

In London, though, the present child abuse lies are just part of the furniture. Scattered in disarray around Downing Street you’ll find Afghanistan lies, Iraq lies and Libya lies, not to mention the daily racist lies of Islamaphobia making a bid to rival Hitler’s hatred of the Jews.

As the late Nicol Williamson, playing King Arthur's magician Merlin in John Bormann’s 1981 feature film “Excalibur” put it, “It must be truth. When a man lies, he murders a part of the world.” These constant lies also have the effect of smashing national morale and disengaging most of the population from the entire political process. Lowering voter expectations and making the population much easier to manage in a “soft fascist” kind of way.

May’s Britain is recognized up and down the nation and around the world as introducing some of the most brutal policies imaginable, punishing disabled people for the crimes of the bankers, sending innocent British Muslims off to rot in US jails. Coalition Britain is exhibiting all the worst signs of misrule, of a dying empire in denial.

One figure you won't find stalking the Downing Street corridors any more though is Prime Minister David Cameron’s deputy head of policy, Patrick Rock. Despite having worked as a top Brussels civil servant for many years and being put in charge of the coalition government's internet child porn filter, he was arrested earlier this year and charged with three offences of making child abuse images and one of possession of 62 child pornography pictures.

Downing Street kept Rock’s initial arrest secret, though, for several weeks, while a political counter-story was prepared about the opposition Labour party deputy leader Harriet Harman historically belonging to the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE). This effectively “softened the political blow” of the far more serious Downing Street child porn arrest story.

More recently it transpired that PIE was given offices under the Tories actually within the Home Office itself and that PIE also got substantial funding from the Metropolitan police Special Branch (MI5). This obsession, not with striking the root of the Whitehall abusers, but with spinning the stories as far away from the Tory party as possible, characterizes the entire Westminster abuse scandal since the 1980s.

As West German rock band Propaganda thundered out in the chorus of their 1985 hit, “Duel”: “The first cut won’t hurt at all. The second only makes you wonder. The third will have you on your knees. You start bleeding, I start screaming.” Lead singer Claudia Brücken heightens the slow pulverizing effect of government lies and media collusion made infamous by Hitler’s propaganda minister Josef Goebbels.

Enough of the dead, time to jail the living pedophiles

Pedophiles Jimmy Savile and his friend Liberal MP Cyril Smith have both been exposed as such after their deaths, putting them beyond justice. Several other celebrities have been arrested and charged with relatively minor offences, creating the illusion of “something being done,” while the living establishment pedophiles still go free.

Britain's libel laws make it difficult for establishment paedophiles to be accused as such, while they're still alive, unless the police act. In Savile's case he worked hand in glove with Leeds police. Left bleeding and screaming on the paedophile scandal's Whitehall marble floors lie the unavenged abused, battered and broken. Offered nothing by May so far this year, but another poison spoonful of saccharine.

The future for the campaign against this evil at the heart of state criminality in Britain is by no means certain. Will the London press be prepared to at last name the living establishment abusers? Will the police be prepared to pursue the evidence wherever it leads? Or will these blackmailed zombies continue oozing slime and further lies, leaving yet more blood and screams in their wake?

The power of truth in time though is relentless. When the police once more lose the files they might pop up, miraculously, on the internet for all the world to see. All the world must act on them, too, because the ultimate test in putting these vile state sanctioned abusers behind bars will be of a few good men and women. The police, politicians and journalists who take the bull by the horns and, despite the threats from unprincipled lawyers, nail and jail these vile creatures. Get them off the streets of London, once and for all.

Then our leaders, free from the foul air of paedophilia and blackmail, can resume the task of serving us, doing credit to the nation. Pick themselves up by their bootstraps and Britain can begin again a more honest and more confident stride into the 21st century.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
1.4K3751

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: Tony Gosling  

Why UKIP?

Why UKIP? The Answer Is In History – Not Bigotry

• Politics
• International

By: Robin Koerner Jun 2, 2014

7

Many people regard Magna Carta as the first Constitutional guarantee of the basic liberties of the English-speaking world.

Fewer people know that Magna Carta wasn’t imposed on King John just because he abused his power (which after all has been true of most kings and governments throughout history), but because he had handed away the sovereignty of England to a foreign governing institution in Europe. That institution was The Holy Roman Empire.

John had unilaterally handed England to Pope Innocent because earlier arguments with Rome had left England under an interdict (a kind of nationwide ex-communication), so John was facing the possibility of an invasion from a strong, Catholic France with a papal blessing that would have made finding allies impossible and inevitably led to John’s defeat. To split his enemies, and peel away the Church from France, John gifted the pope sovereignty over his entire country and leased it back as the pope’s vassal. For a time, Britain was ruled from Europe.

For the barons at Runnymede, that was the last straw: they responded to the fundamental transfer of power out of their country and forced Magna Carta on John.

More than 500 years later, the (British) founders of the USA, in the very tradition of which Magna Carta was an early part, would make explicit the intuitive principle on which the Barons had acted then, and many have acted since: that the power to govern is delegated by the people governed, in whom it entirely resides. But that principle is so deep in the Anglo cultural psyche that even the barons who faced King John at Runnymede were not the first to state it in some way or another: the Charter of Liberties of Henry I had already formally established in the year 1100 that the rule of the king was by consent and that those who made the Law were not above it.

By this long-standing principle, power is lent by the people, in whom it resides, for a limited time to those in government for the purpose of protecting the rights of those people. A British prime minster today has not more right to give his country away to a foreign power than King John had to give the country away to a pope, and it makes no difference how the prime minister is chosen. And no king or prime minister has any more right to do either than a tenant of my house has to sell or give my house away just because he is temporarily living in it. Power to govern is no more possessed by those who are allowed temporarily to exercise it, than my house is possessed by the person temporarily allowed to live in it.

The argument today for moving power further away from the people upward to a trans-European super-state is wrong on its face: it rests on the idea that legitimacy follows from the fact that the representatives who gave away that power are democratically elected, as if democratic election gives them something they can never possess, or the right to give away something that can never be theirs.

Since that idea is false, the European Union as currently conceived is anti-democratic and anti-liberal by definition.

Moreover, as has been said many times, since democracy is the exercise of kratos (power) by thedemos (people), there can be no democracy without a demos . Britain, France, Spain etc. all have their own demos . Europe does not. Setting up an election and putting lots of people from many countries in one building on fat salaries does not make it so.

A weaker claim to self-justification made EUrophiles is that the “important” decisions in the EU are made by unanimous consent … indeed, they point out, didn’t Prime Minister Cameron recently veto some proposed regulation that would hit London’s financial center?

The response from principle is two-fold. First, the British government retains a veto only in some areas of policy that affects Britons. In the rest, Britain carries a weight of about 8% in the making of decisions, so if the British want control over their waters for the purposes of fishing, for example, even if every single Briton and every single British representative voted in Europe to keep what is theirs by international law and convention, then it would make no difference if most of Europe would rather keep taking it. This is exactly why the demos is important: lack of demos is what turns a situation in which five sheep or five wolves are voting on what to eat for dinner into one in which four wolves and a sheep are taking exactly the same vote.

In this fishing example, if the British had 0% of the decision-making power in the EU, because it was out of it, it could keep 100% of the rights to its waters and its fish. The British people know this, even if many cannot articulate it in those terms: they know they don’t need to be “in Europe” to persuade the European masters with only 8% representation, to stop doing things that hurt them – when the only reason for the discussion in the first place is that their government gave away their national resources and right to properly demo(s)cratic representation.

Evidently, based on the results of elections throughout Europe last weekend, the demos of other nations feels just the same way – as they should.

The drawing of a line at the giving away of governmental power is a very basic, human and healthy self-protective instinct, which has been evident at many more points in history than just 1215. In 1258, for example, the Provisions of Oxford against Henry III, which established parliament, was also a response to the King’s giving away power to a foreign European aristocratic class. Hundreds of years later, the Glorious Revolution would follow the exiling of a king on account of his desire to bring French law and religion to England. And as the normal, healthy act of a real demos , UKIP’s victory in the UK’s European elections is a similar reaction to a similar travesty.

UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, was recently called a bigot on account of his remark about being able to understand people’s discomfort at a group of Bulgarians or Romanians to move in next door, and many have sought to insult his supporters with the same accusation.

I have traveled much of the world and I am convinced Britain is one of the most tolerant nations in it. What Nigel was getting at, albeit clumsily, was that the lack of power of the people to control even who comes into their country is a very serious thing indeed. Bulgarians and Romanians are the current placeholders because they are the latest groups who non-British politicians have determined should be allowed into the British nation, regardless of any consequences for the people who are already there. It is the latest, highly visible symbol of just how completely thekratos of the British demos has been given away.

Britain has welcomed foreigners and diversity for as long as I have been alive. It’s not that Bulgarians and Romanians aren’t welcome there. To use the metaphor of the rented house again, it’s not that the owner doesn’t welcome guests: it’s that basic fairness and common sense demands that the owner should be the one to choose whom he welcomes and on what terms – rather than the current situation in which the person who chooses who enters the house and on what terms is some foreign chap who got hold of it in a fraudulent sale by a recent tenant who never owned it.

With respect to Farage’s notion that Britons might be more concerned about an influx of Bulgarians than of Germans: as history shows, it’s human nature to feel more concerned when the uninvited people in one’s house are less familiar, appearing, rightly or wrongly, to have very different house rules and fewer means to support themselves – especially when the owner is no longer allowed to decide who may or may not take out of the family’s rainy-day fund that has been carefully built up over generations.

In summary, none of this is about ethnicity or race. It is about fairness, rights and their flipside, responsibility .

Kipling said it best.

The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.

But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.

When he stands like an ox in the furrow, with his sullen set eyes on your own,

And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealing,” my son, leave the Saxon alone.

Voting UKIP doesn’t make someone a bigot. It makes him human, with a wish to protect his fellow countrymen, what is good in his culture, and what has been earned by a demos at great cost over a long time. A UKIP voter is likely drawing the line exactly where it has always been drawn throughout history: where those who are temporarily delegated power by one demos give away thekratos that is not theirs, to those who are part of another demos altogether.

It’s not bigoted to resist that. It is right. Moreover, in historical time, liberty and democracy both depend on it.

No. A bigot is someone who, as a result of their own prejudices, treats members of a group with fear, distrust or hatred. A much better example of one would be a person who treats those who vote differently from himself as inferior based not on knowledge of them as individuals, or of the reasons why they see their country as they do, but on a simplistic assumption about them made only because of the political party they support – allied, perhaps, with a poor sense of history or, for that matter, democracy.

Those who enjoy irony, or historic parallels, or both, will appreciate the following.

King John, after signing the Magna Carta, immediately appealed to the Pope to annul that pesky referendum on, and limitation of, his power. Pope Innocent gladly obliged; he would have made a good President of the European Union today, refusing to accept any of the national referendums that rejected the European Constitution.

That act of bad faith by John, rejecting the will of his people in favor of the will of his European overlord, caused the barons to revolt, and open war to break out in England …

By that standard, and the standard of most of history, UKIP’s electoral victory seems like a very minor protest indeed.