Saturday, May 2, 2015

The ruthless ambition of Lutfur Rahman

This [state of affairs] is not the consequence of the racial and religious mix of the population, nor is it linked to any ascertainable pattern of social or other deprivation. It is the result of the ruthless ambition of one man.
Election court judge Richard Mawre

REMEMBER LAST May's European and local council elections. As I recall there was a prolonged delay in the Tower Hamlets declaration, constantly being referred to by the BBC's David Dimbleby on the night; during which the name of Lutfur Rahman, the one time member of the Labour Party, was standing once more as Mayor. The delay went on and on, and as it continued Rahman's name became familiar to me. There was no suggestion that the delay was due to foul play on his behalf; and he was eventually elected as the night unfolded to the mayoral office: but suspicion abounded.
              
               Not with me who had never heard of him, as well as the millions of others who live outside of London: rumour had it that Lutfur was a dodgy character who was expelled from the Labour Party  for what I do not know, and do not wish to know. What goes on in London is as indifferent to me as what goes on in EastEnders.
                
                But the Lutfur election to office was challenged by Labour supporter Andrew Erlam and three others; and the Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey found in their favour; declaring that the election should be re-run without Mr Rahman's name on the list of candidates. According to Mr Mawrey, Rahman Lutfur had played both the racist and religious card in order to "cling on to power"; and Mr Mawrey has now ordered that Rahman should pay £250,000 in costs following an Election Court trial that is estimated to have run up legal bills in the region of £1 million.

T SEEMS TO ME THAT Lutfur Rahman used his ethnicity and religion to advance his career; and used it to great effect within the Labour Party before he was thrown overboard before the party itself was embarrassed by his nefarious practices. The Labour party as well as all of the other three main political parties, in their eagerness to prove their multicultural identity, are always fully prepared to drag, if necessary by the hair and all four limbs into their camp, all ethnic minorities - and Lutfur proved such a prize for Labour.
                
                Lutfur Rahman proved an evil presence in Tower Hamlets; but he was given his start in local politics by those pioneers of multiculturalism – the Labour Party: who naively believed that because Rahman was an ethnic minority he was automatically a victim persecuted by white racism for the colour of his skin and his Islamic faith.
            But let me quote from the Daily Mail on what happened when Rahman appeared in court; he: "… was accused of having 'subverted democracy' by masterminding a campaign of corruption and intimidation to rig his re-election last year.

                Muslim voters were left in tears at the ballot box after being warned it was a 'sin' not to back the controversial mayor, the High Court heard in February.

            Barrister Francis Hoar told the court that anyone who challenged Rahman's crooked practices was branded 'racist or Islamophobic'. The court then went on to hear that; " the children of electoral rivals received death threats on their mobiles, [and their] postal ballots were doctored, elderly voters were manipulated and an army of 'ghost voters' was registered.

                Rahman allegedly funnelled hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money to organisations run by his cronies. 

                Before election day last year, residents – 'often elderly and with little English' – would be approached by canvassers with applications for postal votes, Mr Hoar[1] said.

                "Supporters of Lutfur Rahman told voters that 'you do not have to go and vote yourself, just give us the card and we will sort it out for you'.' There were numerous examples of men ordering women how to vote or voting for them, it was claimed.

                Mr Hoar told the court in February: 'Since the beginning of his political career he [Rahman], has been prepared to take whatever steps, use whatever means, recruit whatever support, to obtain power – power for himself, power for his friends and most importantly, power over his community.' 

SUCH PRACTICES tell us a great deal about multiculturalism and its practices. Lutfur Rahman has a dodgy past; it has to have been for both the Labour Party and Channel Four News to turn against him. The Labour Party did so when Channel Four did an investigation into Rahman that linked him to the Islamic Forum of Europe, which is an Islamic body with anti-Western and Islamist connections.

                There will be more Lutfur Rahman's in the future because our politically correct parties will allow such creatures' ever wider access to the levers of either local or national government without looking to deeply into their past for fear being handed by one of them the black spot of racism or Islamaphobia.
               
                Lutfur, like those child rapists in Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford among other towns; will continue to prevail because of the liberal fear of being deemed racist; that accursed word that the liberals are only too willing to level at the Right, whether deserved or not. The Lutfur Rahman's will always test the liberalista whose fear of being called or charged with racism will always torment them. The charge and fear of racism has haunted the liberal establishment for four decades and they have bowed down to any charge levelled against them, from any ethnic minority that wishes to appeal to their liberal flaw. 

                Lutfur Rahman managed to immerse himself into the political class through the anti-inquisitorial nature of the Labour Party when it came to electing an ethnic minority representative of the party in a constituency like Tower Hamlets. As far as the Labour Party were concerned – black skin was best; brown skin okay; white skin a no, no in such constituencies. In other words the Labour Party was always obeying their own multicultural agenda when it came to supporting Lutfur Rahman. 

                 

               









[1] The  prosecutor

Friday, May 1, 2015

The Dublin rules and the Abbot rules.

THE DUBLIN RULES are an EU concoction that says that refugees have to seek asylum in the first country they land in and are not allowed to pick and chose which country they decide they would like to live in; but the southern European countries have ignored this rule without penalty and allowed migrants to move north to richer pastures in France, Germany, the UK and the Nordic countries of Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
                
               The appalling sight of migrants fleeing from North African shores across the Mediterranean to Malta and Italy and drowning in there many hundreds is a conscience pricking event for all of us; but particularly our European liberals who spout over the digital airways and in the newspapers, that our government and all European governments must stop this egregious situation from worsening.
                
                In other words they must do something; what exactly, they do, they do not expand upon – and if the politicians fail them in their demands of providing a humanitarian solution; then it is they the politicians who must be to blame and endure the sleepless conscience riven nights liberals, at all cost, try to avoid.
                
                Our liberals; or the saner among them, only want the politicians to act like some guidance councillors to oversee their conscience in the age of secularism, where the Catholic priest confessor has lost all credibility. They want only to go to bed at night and sleep peacefully without making any kind of personal sacrifice to alleviate the problem they wish the politicians to provide an answer to.
               
               Well the answer is simple but brutal. Brutal because the European liberal conscience has allowed the problem to fester for so long; thus making a humanitarian solution harder to come by. The problem has been ignored by Europe's liberalista politicians hoping that Italy can cope with the problem (which they obviously cannot).
                
               What should have happened long ago was to follow the example of Tony Abbot, the Australian prime minister, who turned back the boats full of refugees that sought to enter his country. This resulted in some drowning, and those who did get through were put in isolation in temporary detention camps on various Pacific Islands; never to be allowed to set foot on Australian soil.
                
                Tony Abbot looked the traffickers in the eye and told them to bring it on; and because of the methods he deployed, trafficking to Australia has been all but stopped, and vastly many more lives will have been saved than were lost before Abbot acted. Word soon gets out among those wishing to get to Australia that they will never make it, and if they happen to consider themselves lucky in so doing, then their dispersal to detention camps off of Australia's shores has convinced them that trying is not worth the price of a boat the traffickers are demanding; and so the traffickers go out of business, and the asylum seekers stay where they are – unless that is, they can get to the Mediterranean; where Europe is open to them.

IF WE DO NOT STOP this migrant influx on to European shores once and for all, then our European civilisation will fall victim to the overwhelming subjugation by the sheer weight of numbers of people from (but not exclusively) the African continent. Rather than face up to the fact that such a migrant incursion represents an invasion force, the likes of Angela Merkle insists that the richer European countries must spread the load of integrating them within their borders; thus encouraging ever more migrations from outside of Europe; and if this happens ever more will try to cross the Mediterranean.
              
                Angela Merkle leads a country that has had to absorb the guilt of its previous generation's behaviour during the Second World War. She, like her fellow Germans, have absorbed into their very marrow what the Nazis did; and they will never do anything to resurrect such a past, and are therefore the perfect hosts for such a large influxes into Germany.
                
                This is why Angela Merkle seeks to stand by those crossing the Mediterranean – she does not want modern Germany to be once more associated with its inhuman past by taking the necessary action needed to turn them away. The rest of Europe understands this; and Germany has gone to almost masochistic lengths to apologise to Europe for her past. Indeed, Germany has weakened her military prowess at a time when Europe most needs it because of fears both among its own people and the rest of Europe that German militarism will someday rise once more to conquer Europe - but as the EU has shown, Germany needs no army to do this only a strong economy.

CHANCELLOR MERKLE does a great disservice to European Western civilisation by suggesting that the human detritus being washed up on Italy's shore should be shared among us. The European continent must, for the sake of its own cultural survival (already under strain from the Islamic input to Europe brought about by colonial guilt) turn these people away.
                
                Because of the EU's open door policy, Right-wing parties are already being seeded throughout the EU and challenging the old liberal hegemony in each country. Yet Angela Merkle still insists that northern Europe's richest states still invite those landing on Italy's shores to come and live among them – including the UK.
                
                This cannot and must not happen - and I will tell you why. It is not only about numbers although this carries great weight with me as a citizen of the UK. But it is also about not knowing about the background of these people. We are told they can pay up to $5,000 for their crossing – where did they get such amounts to pay their traffickers? These people are supposed to be impoverished North Africans – has the West ever considered that many of these 'boat people' may have been financed by ISIS in order to help undermine our borders.
                
                 I am not suggesting for one moment that such people wishing to escape the bondage of ISIS are in any way complicit; but given the liberal laxity shown toward these boat people by European liberal societies; we, as I did, assumed that these were genuine victims of the ISIS expansion into Libya that drove them further North until they fell into the arms of the people traffickers that cajoled them into escaping to Europe via their wretched promises of a better life in Europe – but were the people traffickers that set them on their journey members of ISIS?
                
                 The Dublin rules are not being adhered to by the Italians, rightly eager to get these immigrants off of its back; the Italians are even free to issue them with European passports which will allow them entry into all other parts of the European Union. As far as the northern European countries are concerned, this means directing them toward us in the UK as the most favoured option economically.
                
                  The Dublin rules are meaningless; because all rules within the EU are meant to be broken by all countries other than the UK. European politicians live only for the moment – their moment. What comes after is for the people of Europe to have to put up with. European politicians, whether unelected commissioners or the elected rubber-stamp brigade in the European Parliament, look only to the vast amounts of public money they can screw from the system on their behalf in order to secure a more than comfortable retirement for themselves and their families; while the people in whose interest they were supposed to serve and pay their salaries, are left deeply aggrieved by the selfish decisions they make on their own behalf.
               
                   The decision, after the European open boarders' judgement, to then take in yet another flood of migrants from North Africa into Europe will only increase the popularity of the Right within Europe and by such an increase will lead eventually to social unrest throughout the continent. Our European politicians are fast becoming part of a new Ancient RĂ©gime comparable to that of Louis XVI that brought upon France, with its overthrow, the dreaded age of terror. Will the European Right replicate such a terror in the modern age? If so, the modern liberal ancient regime will be held responsible.


Anyone but Miliband

I HOPE THAT Ed Milliband is just playing with the voters by giving them what he perceives they want, like the leaders of other parties, who are panicked into doing a week before polling day - only to forget all such promises after getting preferment to power. Remember the Lisbon Treaty and the abandonment of student loans? Promises made during the 2010 general election were quickly forgotten once power came within the grasp of politicians. Now, the same thing is happening as the politicians try to outbid each other for the electors favour on polling day: all the parties have been splashing out billions upon billions of spending promises in a panic stricken effort to win on May 8.
                
                So when Milliband promises to bring in a law to redefine Islamaphobia as an aggravated crime, I hope that, with power, he will temper what he has promised to do with it once he sits in Downing Street. After all, the Labour Party leadership have always had to orchestrate the Left's demands on the way to power, only to come to their senses upon attaining it. I have had experience of it by voting Labour in the 1960's, 70s, 80s; right up, in fact, until Blair, who after 13 years of Tory government, broke with such a formula and abandoned Clause IV; the one singular act that he did, for which the nation was eternally grateful for.
                
                I hope (and I really do hope) that Milliband is playing the traditional Labour card of appealing to its traditional voters only to betray them (as the Left always insists their leaders do). But I think it is different this time. The white working class are finished as far as Labour is concerned and they are appealing to a new constituency, one which Tony Blair, the initiator of New Labour brought about when he opened up our borders.
                
               The Miliband Labour Party in government will appeal to two constituencies in order to retain power. The first will be the public sectors workers, who no doubt he learnt from the knees of Gordon Brown, will always vote Labour, which is why Brown added some 300,000 to the public payroll while governing the country.
               
               Secondly, ethnic minorities are now a greater part of the modern Labour constituency. Those white working class red rosette wearing monkeys on Tyne Side and Liverpool; as well as many other white working class constituents in the north and throughout the country, who are still happy to see their votes taken for granted by Ed Milliband; will vote for him next week, and help give him his ticket to power - they will however matter far less in the coming years. The one time white working class family loyalty to Labour is being used in this election to eventually dump them. The party needs them now, but will not need them in the future. The Labour Party is playing upon the idiocy of working class people's sentimentality for the Labour Party.

THIS BRINGS US BACK TO Ed Miliband's promise to redefine Islamaphobia and make it an aggravated crime, which will no doubt be punishable (ultimately) by a prison sentence, if it is to mean anything for those accused of refusing to pay the fine or educational rehabilitation a Marxist like Miliband would seek to impose.
               
                For God's sake, is Ed Milliband so eager to fulfil his father's ambition for him over his brother that he promises to what amounts to be making an almost any unfavourable reference to Islam into an aggravated crime? This is dangerous, and will be met with contempt and opposition; even from the more enlightened of Ed's back benches if, God help us, he becomes prime minister.
                
                Ed Milliband will have gone too far to meet his father's political expectations of him by trying to introduce such a law. Ed's father, as we all know was a Marxist intellectual and lecturer at the LSE and managed to congregate a following in the 1960s and 1970s that tried to (under the Marxian dialectic) to bring an end to capitalism in the UK. So much for the country that adopted him: and so much for the country adopted by Islam when it comes to Islamists.
                
                An aggravated crime for any kind of perceived 'anti-Islamic' comment (for this is what it will lead to if Labour needs the Islamic community to retain power) is totalitarian in its concept and slots perfectly into the ideology of multiculturalism. If Miliband wins, such a piece of legislation should be opposed by all who believe in democracy and free speech; and the many hundreds of thousands who would oppose such a law should immediately break it in print and the social media.
                
                Such a law should make one eager to face the states punishment for breaking it. Only a politician with blood type M (Marxist) coursing through his veins and handed down to him by his parents, would attempt such an outrageous assault on the liberty of the human tongue to speak its mind.
                
                 There are now eight days to go and it is about time that the floating voter stopped floating and spoke up for democracy and decided among themselves that anyone but Labour was the best option for the country – Miliband has, shall we say, issues? The ruthlessness shown toward his brother by making a Faustian pact with the unions in order to service his need for power; when the other parts of Labours Electoral College preferred his brother David, tells us something about the man who will govern us if, come next Thursday, he becomes, via some kind of coalition arrangement; the prime minister of this country.
               

                

Friday, April 10, 2015

No compromise over Trident

OF ALL THE DECISIONS Ed Milliband says he will take if he becomes prime minister; perhaps the scariest would be the one he would be drawn into making under duress: the one he would be forced to make if he wished to continue as prime minister – and we all know from the episode with his brother when Ed wanted to lead the Labour Party what entailed. He will do anything to first of all gain power, and then to hold on to it. Ed is a Marxist via Machiavelli (a truly amoral combination). He will willingly betray all and sundry to advance himself in politics. He comes from a political family; and he is his father's progeny in the ideological sense of the word - he is a Marxist prince.
                Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, has launched (sic) an attack on Ed over our Trident submarines, and has doubted Ed could be trusted to keep them, and not barter them away or compromise their strength through an alliance with the SNP. Fallon has accused Milliband of repeating the same course of action against his nation as he took against his brother to become leader of his party; and will continue to do so to remain in power as a prime minister.
                Fallon used the phrase "stabbed in the back" to describe the way Ed treated his brother. This has brought an imbecilic response from the Guardian's Left wing infant phenomenon; and considered a L'Enfant Terrible by the Right: Owen Jones, who has taken to twitter to describe Fallon's use of the metaphor of stabbing in the back thus; "… [Fallon's] metaphor is deeply sinister. It is a classic anti-Semitic trope".
                Quite rightly the Left's infant phenomenon has been generally ridiculed for his accusation that in some way Michael Fallon is anti-Semitic; it only goes to show to what lengths the lexicon of political correctness is prepared to go to mould language to its will; and to the lengths they are prepared to go to protect the PC idiom.
                Michael Fallon is not anti-Semitic because some twerp in his ideological infancy condemns him as such. I doubt if even the paper he rights for; yes, you have guessed it - the Guardian; which supports his wretched tweet is in agreement.
                Perhaps Polly Toynbee should take Owen under her wing and invite him this summer to join her in her retreat on the Algarve, to hang out; where he can learn from the mistress of liberal conceit and hypocrisy how to avoid such idiocy of the kind he displayed against Michael
MICHAEL FALLON IS NOT anti-Semitic - but he is a hypocrite. He seeks to warn the nation of the dangers of weakening our nuclear defences, and the threat it puts upon our nation's security (and he is right to do so).
                As our Secretary of Defence, he is also right in his rhetoric when it comes to Trident. But Trident is the nuclear option, the final option we may sooner or later be forced to deploy (although we will need a new and less feeble set politicians from all parties prepared ever to deploy it under any set of circumstances , including a first strike form our enemy). But such an option will become the first option of if our armed forces do not have sufficient finances to provide our nation with conventional forms of defence meant to prevent nuclear deployment from ever happening in the first place.
                The MoD represents to all the politicians from whatever of the three main parties; a constant source of easy pickings when it comes to having to cut back on the nation's finances. No party stands up for our nation's defences on such a scale as they do the NHS. The MoD's budget has always been the first to be pared down when it comes to politicians seeking to reduce public spending; and the process will continue under whatsoever government  (coalition or not) that comes to power – and if the Tories win further cuts will follow (some reports have said that our army will be reduced to 50,000).
                Fallon, as defence secretary, knows what is needed in matters of this nation's conventional defence.  It is the lack of such a sufficiency of defence spending we now face thanks to Fallon that may lead to what should be the unnecessary deployment of nuclear weapons. The more you scale back conventional forms of defence the quicker you hasten the use of nuclear weaponry; because you begin to rely upon them as the main option in the hope of deterring your enemies. Eventually, the more we, as a nation, pare down our conventional forces, the more we will rely upon the nuclear option to 'safe-guard' our nation. And what if Ed is elected?
                Not only will he match the further cuts to our defences that the Tories have promised, but will also have the SNP baring down on him get rid of Trident. Angela Sturgeon has said that it is her party's intention to make the vanquishing of Trident, her red-line. So unless she turns out to be another Obama with her talk of red-lines, then what will be left of our nation's defences will be further imperilled (perhaps fatally so) if either Labour or the Tories are given a majority – but, has as seems likely, because of the SNP, Milliband becomes prime minister, in either a formal or informal setting (back-room deals), then chaos can be expected: the tolerance of the English will once be tested to ever greater limits.
               

               




               
               
                               



               






Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Polemic: It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

Polemic: It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

THE COMMONS HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE has brought out a report that says by the time illegal immigrants reach Calais from southern and eastern Europe (were lax boarder controls match our own) it is too late to stop illegal immigrants landing on our shores. Today's Daily Express, quotes from  the committee report thus; "Free movement rules within the EU had wrongly assumed external borders would be secure…." It then added; "They are not, so free movement means free movement for illegal migrants within the EU.”
                
                Another aspect of the free movement of peoples within Europe that will cause tensions in the near future is the question of European wide colonial guilt. It was, after all, not only the British  but the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Belgium, and German colonial powers that subdued many parts of the world's continents under their particular form of colonial rule.
                
                So the colonial guilt that British liberals felt after the fall of our Empire, was also felt by our liberally minded European ex-colonial nations. What this means is that all of the guilt-ridden European liberals, like our own, believe that they owe (on our, the peoples behalf) the people from their one time colonies the right of citizenship; and this is what has taken place all over Europe.
                
               Once the people from these one-time colonies are given their right to become citizens within  the countries of Europe they were once ruled by; then, because of the European open boarder policy, these people (now being citizens of the EU) will have automatic access to the rest of Europe  – only a liberal conscience could create such an unsolvable conundrum and the dreadful accompanying possibility of once more in Europe, reprising the rise of another Hitler,  through their liberal naivety and total faith in multiculturalism.

BUT LET US GET BACK to the home affairs report on boarder controls for those migrants  from outside of the EU, and the suggestion that once they reach Calais the game is up. The home affairs committee literates what most of us already understood was the case anyway. We (that is our government) have tried, first of all to  blame the French in Calais for their somewhat languid approach to illegal immigrants  crossing the channel in lorries. We then offered a few million pounds to the mayor of Calais to beef up boarder control including exporting to Calais officers from our own already proven to be inefficient Boarder Control Agency to help with the task. But all too little effect, according to the Commons Home Affairs Committee.
                
                We are now approaching in Europe the expunging of each individual nations indigenous culture; first by multiculturalism and then by the EU. The EU seeks the demise of the nation state (in a fortunate, and yet inadvertent co-ordination with multiculturalism) and its replacement with the Greater Europe which Europe's past dictators Napoleon, Hitler, and (under the banner of the Communist international) Stalin, all tried to invoke in order to unite Europe. Multiculturalism enters this same stream of ideologically driven panaceas that both on the Left and the Right proved disastrous for Europe's citizens in the 20th century.          
                
                Mass immigration cannot be stopped because of multiculturalism and the people's fear of political correctness in opposing it:  which allows ever more immigrants, either illegals, or through European open borders, to take up residency in the UK. The indigenous white UK population have been forced through political correctness to always look over their shoulder, either in a pub, at work, or at a football match. We live in a PC society: our multicultural society will over time, create its own version of the East German Stasi who had neighbours spying upon neighbours to glean information they felt criticised the Communist state; as will no doubt the PC society who wish to oppose those who stand out against multiculturalism – only time will tell.

                 

Monday, March 23, 2015

The liberal Lubyanka that is the BBC

ANDREW BRIDGEN MP is on a mission to bring down a broadcasting Leviathan which demands on threat of imprisonment, and a hefty fine, a yearly tax of £5 billion from the British public. According to Bridgen; "On current trends, that will see 100 more people put in prison and over 300,000 citizens criminalised ". This Goliath of broadcasting goes by the name of the BBC: it demands financial remuneration from every television owner in the land: the tax is for the mere ownership of a television set – not for watching the BBC mind you, but just for owning a television
                
                The unfairness of this system would have been readily appreciated by medieval peasants who had to pay taxes of whatever value demanded by their robber barons and city sheriffs – such as the one immortalised in fiction through the story of Robin Hood.
                
                We are obliged to pay for services provided by the likes of the utility companies. When it comes to the energy companies we have a choice (if we wish to make it); when it comes to the BBC we have none; but when it comes to one of the BBC's  main competitors[1] – Sky: Rupert Murdock was given no such right by parliament to demand you pay him through taxation. You either bought into one or more of his services or you did not – the choice is yours. No one will be imprisoned or face a fine if they default with Sky; no one will be left with a prison record if they default with Sky. They will have their service terminated -  and even then Sky will welcome them back when they are financially able to buy their services once again when they become solvent.
               
                No prison and no fine; and no criminal record. Only a state regulated body such as the BBC would ever countenance either fining or gaoling a tax defrauder for owning a television set. This is madness: or it would be in a rational world; a world that the BBC governors and its chairman (sorry, chairperson) seems not to inhabit when it comes to broadcasting in the modern world. The BBC should no longer be able to go cap in hand to the politicians each year to increase the tax on television ownership, in the hope that they grant its yearly increase, and adding further to the prison population and criminalisation of BBC tax defaulters.

THE BBC has, over the decades, seen itself (along with politicians and a majority of the British people) as the finest broadcaster in the world. The institution was much loved by the British people (including myself). The term 'auntie' was a cosy reference that kept the population enamoured even under the Savile years in the 1970's and 80's.
                 
                 Andrew Bridgen referred to the BBC's mission statement and quoted the following; " [the BBC] exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain.” This implies at the very least, that objectivity free from all political bias, is the pre-requisite when it comes to educating and informing, as well as reporting, by a public broadcaster – the only part of this mission it has managed to live up to today, is to entertain (but even hear it is losing ground fast to it competitors).
                
                 The bias in the BBC on issues such as global warming, membership of the EU; multiculturalism, and immigration, cannot be disputed. The BBC's former employees have broken the silence on this institution's liberal bias. The BBC suffers the delusion that the nation is 100 per cent socially liberal and supports multiculturalism and immigration which gives them the right to dictate the liberal agenda that they support.

REALITY IS SOMETHING that, apparently, the BBC is out of tune with. They believe the whole UK  have bought into their multicultural liberal demesne; where they and they alone dictate the liberal agenda. They will not test this of course by doing away with the licence tax and allowing themselves to be cut adrift  into the private sector to survive on their own. The BBC dares not test its belief in its own superiority within the market place.
                
                 The BBC is becoming a liberal PRAVDA[2]; being allowed to continue by politicians who call themselves democratic. Now this broadcaster is looking into the possibility of charging the same licence tax for those who use its services on line. I firmly believe that the BBC believes themselves as vital to this nation's culture, as a water supply is to our people; and without it all cultural expression would be dead, and a new dark age would descend on these isles.
                
                  I doubt if Andrew Bridgen will ever accomplish his task of reigning in or better still doing away with the licence tax – but I wish him well in his attempt. 
               
               
               
               



[1] The BBC loathes any reference to competitors – especially Rupert.
[2] The old Soviet newspaper meaning 'truth'