London is foreign country - they do things differently there.

THE LONDON metropolitan (liberal) elite cannot help themselves; they are doomed by their cavalier and overbearing natures to pour their condescension by the bucket full over the heads of those of us who live outside of their golden triangle of inner London, and who voted Ukip.

            

            On Sky news this morning, as the papers were being reviewed, the anchor related that he was told by an un-named colleague that Ukip did so badly in London because the population were young and better educated; implying that those of us who are unfortunate enough to live in the provinces are turnip sucking Neanderthals…surely there is a hate crime in there somewhere?

            

             In today's Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore gives an insightful analysis of the phenomenon that is the Metropolitan elite. He describes them as "… the numerous multi-millionaires from the financial services, many of whom are not British citizens and therefore cannot vote, the head consists of top lawyers, media and advertising executives, lobbyists, civil servants and those industries and quangos that prosper from government contracts. It also consists of those who formally rule us…"

            

             There is a smell of 1789 Paris about the division between the country and the capital in modern Britain. All power, political, financial, journalistic, media, and artistic, reverberates throughout the nation from the capital. Inner London has become the residence of a kind of cultural bourbonism; comprising the Great and Good.

            

             At Westminster the political parties are frozen in solidarity; into a social democratic overlordship that much of the country have grown weary of. All three parties are captivated by the sound-bite, dissembling, and the highly paid analysts who, with their computers, reduce the electorate to mere lab rats. The parties now concentrate on the marginals, taking for granted the votes of those constituencies who they contemptuously perceive would vote for a monkey with the relevant coloured rosette.

            

              But in Rotherham this approach backfired for Labour. For 80 years the constituency had been solid Labour; and had been taken for granted by the Labour Party. Ukip made inroads into the North of England and into Labour's working class areas. The modern Labour Party have slowly left behind its working class roots. The leaving had begun with Tony Blair who put his faith in the sympathy of migrants - particularly the Catholic Polish, as just one ethnic minority that he envisaged would replace the indigenous white working class as traditional Labour voters.

IT IS FAR TO early in Ukip's progress; but I sense that something is happening in British politics. The capital city is divorcing itself from the rest of the country.

           

              Labour has always been strong within the capital. Charles Moore uses a quote from Dame Tessa Jowell in his piece were she praises the city for rejecting Ukip. She says, "The results show London as an open and tolerant and diverse city." But also an expensive one, which only the likes of Dame Tessa and her Hampstead and Primrose Hill sisterhood can afford to live in; while purchasing the cheap migrant labour for domestic purposes. Who in turn live outside of the Golden triangle.

           

             As Charles Moore writes; "It is easy to be 'tolerant' of people whose presence reinforces your economic advantage rather than challenging it." The point exactly. The Golden Triangle of inner London is occupied by the self-satisfied believers in Multiculturalism and diversity who sneer at (and, no doubt, satirises over dinner) the average Ukip voter.

            

             This elite in London can only be brought down by the voter. It is the voter, and particularly the Labour voter in working class areas that must act. The modern "Labour" Party is no longer Labour; just as the "Conservative" Party is only Conservative in name. The working class such as is left of it are fools to continue voting Labour. I am 64 and had voted Labour all my life until the last election when I voted Ukip. I live in Great Yarmouth, and Thursday's council results left my council in no overall control.

            

             Yarmouth is a council which for decades has swapped between Conservative and Labour; and both parties have learned to take their core votes in certain wards for granted. This time Ukip took 11 wards, including my own.

SO WHAT ABOUT LONDON? As Nigel Farage was asked by one journalist. For a moment I thought Farage would lose his temper with the interviewer, as he would have been fully entitled to do after such a successful sweep of the country. But he got back to his old self and delivered a sensible response, if not an accurate one, out of deference to Londoners.

            

              London has seen white flight on a scale that threatens to turn the white indigenous population in London into a minority. This is the Multiculturalism and diversity that the likes Tessa Jowell, like many of the Metropolitan elite, has multiple orgasms over. It seems to be her G-spot. Is it no wonder that Ukip did so well in Essex? London began expelling its white working class to Essex from the 1960s, and it continues to today.

            

             Any cockney living in London today is a museum piece and nothing more. Diversity seems to exclude the white indigenous population unless they live within the Golden Triangle of inner London, where wealth and comfort determine the attitude of the Metropolitan liberal elite.

WHAT I BELIEVE WE are seeing is the rebellion of small 'c' conservatives from within all the three main parties; and there are more to be harvested by Ukip. Ukip will face set-backs, if not in Sunday's European election results; then they will, come next year's election - but set-back and only set-back it will it be. Farage must educate his party into accepting that out-come in 2015. He must prepare his party and its loyal voters for failure on the road to power.

            

              We have a fossilised political class situated in London who have been proficient in dissembling against each other on nothing more than syntactic differences and references to political correctness. Semantics is the life-blood of the LibLabCon triumphret. They have no real differences when it comes to Europe. All believe we must remain within it. But none of them offers the public an in/out referendum without qualification. Ukip does and Ukip will. This is the message Ukip must take to the voters…particularly the Labour ones, because unless we are out of Europe immigration is set flourish and do further social damage to the NHS, education, and housing in this country, as well as, probably the social stability to this nation as well as many others in Northern Europe.

            

               Already the late French president Nicholas Sarkozy is demanding an end to the Schengen Agreement that allowed the free movement of people within Europe which we signed up to. He has the same concerns as Nigel Farage but is nevertheless not considered racist by the London Metropolitan elite for expressing them.

            

The biased and intolerant BBC producers and editors

SURELY THE DAYS of the television licence fee are ending. This multi-billion pound tax-funded corporation cannot continue with such a harvesting of the peoples taxes. The corporation is politically biased and it no longer pretends not to be - the evidence is now overwhelming. It has an inbuilt liberal bias at all levels and in all of its corridors. Those working and running the BBC ignore the fact that over half the country does not share its liberal bias, which is a London phenomenon among engaged upon by the capitals political elites and commentariet which of course includes the BBC.

                    

             Nevertheless, those of us social conservatives, are still made to pay the licence fee and because we are law abiding we do so… if under protest. Last Thursday in my home town of Great Yarmouth, Ukip returned ten councillors and garnered 6,835 votes in the process: if  (and it is a big if) each paid the licence fee, it would bring £994,492 per year to the BBC -  A large part of Jeremy Paxman's salary, in fact.

            

             Yet, during the local election campaign several BBC producers and editors took to their twitter accounts to attack Ukip. First up is Mimi Kempton-Stewart, Political Editor for the Today programme, and one time Guardian student media digital journalist of the year, who tweeted the following comments:

"UKIP are awful, really terrible, I can't wait until this darned election is over so we can all be rid of them on our screens/airwaves!—" 

 May 22, 2014

"Honestly, if every UKIP voter were just to disappear forever or die, the world would be a happier place. That's my view, anyway.— "

May 22, 2014

"To me the word "UKIP" sounds like a dog being sick. Like their policies! Anyway, I'm off back to work, at my job at the BBC.— 
Mimi Kempton-Stewa"

May 22, 2014

 "and I didn't say they *should* die, I just said it'd be nice if they did, working for the BBC doesn't mean I can't have views— "

            Can this woman hold onto any position in an institution that professes to be unbiased? And what of those she hoped would like to see us "disappear forever or die"? Are we still expected to have to buy a television licence after such nasty and bias remarks from such biased broadcasting outlet?

            Meanwhile, Jasmine Lawrence, editor of BBC's rolling news, attempted to ambush Ukip's #WhyImVotingUkip on twitter to say she was voting Ukip because the  party stood up for "White, middle class, middle aged men with sexist/racist views[who are] totally underrepresented in politics today." Ms Lawrence, living as she does in the London political bubble, cannot appreciate the irony of her comment "…totally underrepresented in politics today". Her political horizon is very limited indeed; as today's European election results will show. She is also profoundly ignorant in the targeting of her abuse. I am indeed white (which is, it appears, only a problem in parts of multicultural London); I am also a man (yet another fault apparently) and Ms Lawrence's misandry only serves to identify her as the source of much of Ukip's advances in the country.

            I am not middle class, and have no sexist or racist views. Although I would no doubt not fail to meet Ms Lawrence's exacting standards with regard to being either sexist or racist… the imprint of the puritan zealot has always demanded more exacting standards after all.

            Then we have Radio 4's Rosemary Baker tweeting "I am SO sick of hearing Nigel Farage & associated UKIP lunatics on BBCr4today. Absolutely done to death & feels like skewing ed pol" - May 21, 2014. Now it appears I and the many thousands of other Ukip voters are "lunatics". If there is any truth in that, then it would not be because of our views, but because we continue to pay a licence tax and do not refuse to do so.

            Is there any significance in the fact that these troll-like twitters are all written by women? Their behaviour undermines the central tenet of liberalism which is tolerance. Something us Ukip voters are accused daily of lacking. These women live and work in the liberal comfort zones of the BBC and among the London Metropolitan elite.

            Ukip has dared challenge and undermine their liberal certainties among which are the EU, multiculturalism; and the three party liberal axis that operates our national parliament and governs our country. The BBC and the Houses of Parliament are the Two Towers of liberalism radiating their certainties (including their intolerance) throughout the nation - I will not take the analogy any further and describe London as Mordor because it would not be true. It is only in such London areas as Primrose Hill, Notting Hill, Islington, and Hampstead, where the liberal tea party operate; that diminishes a fine city.

            It is not racist to deliver a fact. London is a multicultural city where the indigenous white population have dug up their roots and left. In the first instance to the new towns in Essex constructed from the 1960s onward; and the migration has continued ever since, until the white indigenous London population will, in the coming decade, themselves become an ethnic minority.

            It has always been the case that immigrants have been, from their first arrival in the 1950s, and right through the following generations; have, in the main, always supported the Labour Party; and this support continues, and the influx has replaced the white working class as their main focus of support.

            Tony Blair understood this, which is why he ignored the seven-year breathing space provided by the Schengen Agreement, and allowed Polish migration to begin prematurely in 2008 - although it has been said that he was pussy-whipped by his wife into allowing it because she was a Catholic, as are the majority of Poles; and would therefore increase the Catholic population to the advantage of Rome and disadvantage of the of the Anglican Church[1] - but who any longer cares about that pitiful institution?

THESE BBC personages who use the etiquette and language of trolls in their tweets, have done those of us who have long believed in the reality of political bias at the BBC, a great service in strengthening our position - although it did not need it.

            The licence fee should be abandoned. If this wretched broadcaster is as popular as it professes and it believes itself to be doubly so internationally; then they will have no problem surviving with their own devices in the broadcasting market place. No broadcaster should be dependent on the taxpayer (e.g. the state) for its survival. The state in a democracy has no role to play as far as broadcasting is concerned; it is only a player in a state controlled society, like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and today in such places as Cuba and throughout many parts of the Muslim world.

IT IS TIME FOR THE BBC to depart, and be weaned from their dependence on the taxpayer; like an addict off cocaine. If they are so convinced by their self-importance that they believe themselves superior to Murdock's Sky and Fox; and see themselves as broadcasting royalty, as it appears they have always done: then the BBC should have no trouble surviving alone in the market place.

            One thing is for sure, this broadcasting institution cannot continue as a publicly financed body. That affectionate and comforting BBC pseudonym "Auntie" that saw the broadcaster, through the 1970s and 80's; was then, and still is, a loveable pastiche. But the love in whatever form, is sinking away. The BBC today is as it has always been ever since Lord Reith began the corporations ascendancy - deeply biased. In Reith's time the establishment bias was Conservative; and the public approved, as in the main they were all small 'c' conservatives, including Labour working class supporters; and believed in traditional values. The same values Reith brought to the BBC were therefore supported by the vast majority of the population.

             The advance since the 1960s of the London centred liberal hegemony, has spelt the ruination of the BBC as far as taxation for its upkeep is concerned. Those of us small 'c' conservatives are no longer supportive of the BBC. We do not subscribe to its liberal agenda and should be given the opportunity to watch television without the need to finance opinions we do not agree with - does this sound like democracy?

            The BBC must go it alone in the free market and find its own niche; thus saving the taxpayer over £3 billion a year. Those who wish to subscribe will be free to do so. But let the rest of us still be allowed to watch a television set without fear of prosecution. To this extent the BBC are no better in their methods than Putin in his.

            The BBC are tax collectors who can send people to prison if they refuse payment. It is true that the government are seeking to disband the ultimate penalty of prison for none payment replacing it with a fine. But what happens if the fine goes unpaid? Does prison still remain an option? If not, what is the purpose of any such penalty?

            It is a cruel irony that such a modern liberal construct as the BBC should rely upon imprisonment as a penalty for the none payment of the licence tax. In fact it contradicts its whole liberal ethos of tolerance. Yet the corporation illiberally pursues those who stop payment of the license fee. You can murder someone and receive 15 years and be paroled after seven or less years; but the none payment of the licence fee can be measured as some kind of a liberal equivalent to the use of the word Nigger as far as the BBC are concerned.

THE BBC is no longer the broad small 'c' conservative church it once was. Its social liberal values are out of step with much of the country; and it is an egregious affront to the majority of us who are forced to pay for its services.

            We are still a small 'c' conservative nation and long may we remain so - but as an institution the BBC is not and has never been since the 1960's; yet they demand, like the fabled Sheriff of Nottingham, their blanket tribute from the people on penalty of imprisonment or the sequestration of private property - which, after all, the Left have never been bothered about.

            It is time for a campaign of none-payment of the licence fee to begin. Many of those who support the BBC believe it cannot continue in its current form. It recruits almost wholly from the pages of Guardian, at almost every level; and serves its agenda. Which would be fine if it operated in the free market. But the BBC has lost its emotional bond with more and more of the British people. It is time for dear old Auntie to euthanised and reincarnated into a privately funded broadcaster.   

---

[1] Let me say that I have been an atheist for the greater part of my life; so I have no axe to grind. 

The rootless cosmopolitan speaks out on immigration

'The way to deal with Ukip is to stand up and take them on, because what they're putting before people is a set of solutions that anybody who analyses where a country like Britain has to be in the 21st century, knows they are solutions that are regressive, reactionary and would make all the problems of the country worse, not better.' Tony Blair

TONY BLAIR HAS given an interview with the BBC's Today programme, attacking Ukip as "pretty nasty and unpleasant"; calling on Ed Milliband to "confront and expose reactionary forces". He must have been carried shoulder high by the BBC Guardianista[1] as he left the studio. His intervention is however unlikely to endear the wider British public outside of London.

            

             He said that; "… if it [the Labour Party]tries to follow either Ukip on its anti-European platform or, even worse frankly, on its anti-immigrant platform, all that will happen is it will confuse its own supporters and it won't actually draw any greater support." Tony Blair resides in many places and has a sizable property portfolio if what we read in the press is to be believed…which it often as not can be.

            In the 19^th century there was an anti-Semitic phrase aimed specifically at Jews who were referred to as "rootless cosmopolitans" doomed to wander the world without a homeland of their  own, seeking respite, but  finding only persecution, in whatever lands they found themselves in - now, having found their historical homeland there are those who wish to send them wandering the world once more. But, you ask, what does this have to do with Tony Blair's intervention.

            

           Well, Tony Blair is a modern example of a rootless cosmopolitan. He sits, like the rest of his kind, at the apex of the social pyramid with nothing more than a passing glance at the British who live outside the M25. I wonder in fact, how many visits has he made to his old Sedgefield constituency since leaving politics?

            

            Before I tackle his opinions as a voter of Ukip (for I, as a member, I am deemed by him to be " pretty nasty and unpleasant") I would like remind the electorate, if they ever get to read this, what Mr Blair has accomplished from his post prime ministerial globetrotting, selling himself as a statesman par-excellence. This rootless traveller has garnished a £2 million pound year consultancy with the investment bank JP Morgan[2]. Tony Blair Associates has also signed a £27 million deal advising the Kuwaiti government - no doubt another perk earned from the Iraq conflict.

            

             Since leaving office in 2007, and up until 2011; the personal wealth of Tony Blair has passed the £20 million mark. Today Blair's estimated net worth,[3] denied by Blair's office, is set at £75 million; he nevertheless entered the Sunday Times rich list for the first time.

            

             In May of this year the Blair's properties stood a nine[4] with a total worth of £15 million, which according to the Daily Telegraph, comprises; "… their £3.7 million home in central London and an £800,000 mews house attached, a £5.75 million country home in Buckinghamshire, Mr Blair’s old constituency home in County Durham, flats in Bristol and Strasbourg, and London homes for each of their three eldest children. Nicky Blair, 24, who works as a sports agent, co-owns a £1.13 million town town house in London with his mother."

           

              Blair begs and scrapes the world to increase his fortune; not from manufacturing anything useful like Bill Gates, who employs hundreds of thousands of people and their families, but from his international reputation. I wonder if Blair, like several other celebrities, has indulged in tax avoidance. As a good Catholic, Cherie would draw the line - and being pussy-whipped as he is; I doubt very much if Tony would cross it…but you never know.

I VOTED UKIP, and will continue to do so. For the sake of Mr Blair's argument, I will give a brief résumé of my political past. I am 64 and from the time I was given the vote in 1968, I had always voted Labour (even if, for a brief period, when in my youth I was a member of the British Communist Party) and therefore resent myself being described as, "pretty nasty and unpleasant"[5]; or worst of all, reactionary. Which I know I am not, as assuredly as I know I am not a racist.

            

             I vote Ukip first of all, because of the EU and the way it is gravitationally dragging the nation states of Europe into a federalist concoction of European wide provinces to replace the nation state with each province divided into regions. Why am I a reactionary for opposing this? Simply because I seek to hang on to this country's  national sovereignty and the power of each nation throughout Europe to make their own laws; decide their own economic prospectus without it being dictated from Brussels?

            

             If anything, Blair is the reactionary, to go against the nation state. It is, according to Blair, now reactionary to believe in democracy; for their is very little of it in the EU. 

            

            Who elects the all powerful commissioners who are represented by appointed pensioned-off politicians like Neil Kinnock? Who, it must be said served up very little of substance while the leader of the Labour Party - only to make himself look a buffoon in British politics when, during the 1992 general election, his Sheffield rally performance caused a great deal of embarrassment to many Labour voters like myself, and allowed John Major to continue in office.

            

             It is the European project that is reactionary; for it stinks of a kind of Napoleonisation of the European continent; and you cannot get more reactionary than that. In the corridors of Brussels, a phrase in popular use (and one with which Peter Mandelson has sympathy with) is the term "post-democratic era". Can you think of anything  more reactionary than to deny democracy, whose only replacement could ever be dictatorship. Even the European parliament which is elected, only acts a rubber stamp for the commission.

IT IS ON THE ISSUE OF MIGRATION, that Tony Blair reserves his view that us Ukip supporters are "pretty nasty and unpleasant". First of all I am not against migration. It is about numbers. I am however against multiculturalism because sooner or later it will lead to  social conflict; no doubt not in London (although I would not even hold my breath there); but this wretched ideology (for that is what it is) will prove its valuelessness. Its main flaw is that it keeps cultures apart and breeds resentment between them. "Diversity" is the word on the lips the metropolitan elite, and their eyes always seem to light when they use it

            

             Since 2004, but even more so since Blair opened the floodgates in 2008, this country has had to absorb an increase in our population of some five million people. Now, if you believe, as Blair obviously does, that such waves of migrants are a good thing economically, you must also talk about the social consequences of such an influx. For migration on such a scale is a two edged sword.

            

             The social impact can be found on our public services such as the NHS, education, and housing. Politicians like to blame old farts like myself for living to long; and hold us responsible for creating the ever widening fissures within the NHS. In fact it will be another decade before the aging population has such an impact. The elephant in the room today within the NHS is migration; mainly from Portugal and eastern Europe.

            

            The impact of migration on the NHS is never, or hardly ever, referred to. But a visit to a doctors surgery, or a waiting room in any hospital will tell a different story. The NHS's problems must be discussed in the context population increases, which means migration - but it never is.

            

            In education, there are too many pupils chasing too few places in our schools; and even the liberal middle class are finally coming round to why this is.

            

            As far as housing is concerned; we need to build between 200,000 - 400,000 homes per year over the next decade to placate the demand. This means houses now having to be built in places of natural beauty which we have sought and fought to protect in the past.

            

            You never hear the argument these days for the requisitioning of brown field sites - that has passed. And once more, it is the demand from migration that has created this desire for such an increase in new homes.

            

            I will not go into the issue of welfare payments being made to the families of migrants living in their own homelands; or any other aspect of the negative impact on the welfare state wrought through migration; but it is there and is felt, but is unspoken of.  

TONY BLAIR'S life is free from any kind of social impact made by this, I would like to say, criminal behaviour; but of course it was no such thing. The free movement of peoples within Europe          is perfectly legal, and Tony Blair believed in it to such an extent that he ignored the seven year transition given by the Commission to prepare an accommodation for such a large influx. Blair pooh-poohed a period of grace and allowed migrants from the east into the country almost immediately from 2008 - mainly Poles.

            

             Tony Blair is truly free from any of the social consequences of his actions. He can turn up in the south of France at a moment's notice, or any other global safe haven on the planet. He is rootless and free. We " pretty nasty and unpleasant" people on the other hand, have to live with the consequences - literally so; as we have not amassed the Blair's fortune. The migrants he meets on a day to day level are probably the Russian oligarchs who are now resident in London. Or the multicultural rich from whatever country now living in London, who he can earn a crust from; who also support multimillion pound mansions within the confines of London's decadency.

            

             Tony Blair has lost the attention of the British people outside of London; and even in London he provokes a throaty delivery of mucus among the idealistic young of that great city. To them he is a war criminal. These young Guardianista may agree with him on migration, but cannot forgive his "war-mongering". Still, he could yet advance to sainthood; even among such hostile youth.

TONY BLAIR'S intervention after the European elections will have no doubt spurred on the New Labour Blairite's on the back benches, still wistfully thinking of the past, and still grieving Gordon Brown's ascendency.

            

             But such melancholy is a minority emotion, even within the modern Labour Party; let alone the rest of the country. New Labour is thankfully dead, even if it still remains active in David Cameron's "Conservative" Party. But its creator still seeks a part in its resurrection via the populism of Ukip.

            

             If your are wealthy and rootless, you can flit form one part of the world to the other seeking further wealth or safety; even if, in Blair's case, you fuck up the indigenous culture you were born into.

            

             I doubt if Tony Blair's father would have been proud of what he has accomplished regarding the social cohesion of the country he believed in. As a Tory, would Leo Blair, Tony's father have voted Ukip? It is a question only his son can answer; but if yes, then Leo Blair like the rest of us Ukip voters would, according to Tony Blair, and by his own logic, be regarded as "pretty nasty and unpleasant".

           

                       

---

[1] If that they have managed to forgive him for Iraq and Afghanistan

[2] All these stats have been provided by the Independent newspaper dated 26^th  September 2011

[3] According to politics.co.uk

[4] The following stats come from the Daily Telegraph

[5] Although communism certainly was

The biased and intolerant BBC producers and editors

SURELY THE DAYS of the television licence fee are ending. This multi-billion pound tax-funded corporation cannot continue with such a harvesting of the peoples taxes. The corporation is politically biased and it no longer pretends not to be - the evidence is now overwhelming. It has an inbuilt liberal bias at all levels and in all its corridors. Those working and running the BBC ignore the fact that over half the country does not share its liberal bias, which is a London phenomenon among the capitals political elites and commentariet which of course includes the BBC.

            

            Nevertheless, those of us social conservatives, are still made to pay the licence fee and because we are law abiding we do so, if under protest. Last Thursday in my home town of Great Yarmouth, Ukip returned ten councillors and garnered 6,835 votes in the process: if  (and I it is a big if) each paid the licence fee, it would bring £994,492 per year to the BBC -  A large part of Jeremy Paxman's salary, in fact.

            

           Yet, during the local election campaign several BBC producers and editors took to their twitter accounts to attack Ukip. First up is Mimi Kempton-Stewart, Political Editor for the Today programme, and one time Guardian student media digital journalist of the year, who tweeted the following comments:

"UKIP are awful, really terrible, I can't wait until this darned election is over so we can all be rid of them on our screens/airwaves!—" 

 May 22, 2014

"Honestly, if every UKIP voter were just to disappear forever or die, the world would be a happier place. That's my view, anyway.— "

May 22, 2014

"To me the word "UKIP" sounds like a dog being sick. Like their policies! Anyway, I'm off back to work, at my job at the BBC.— 
Mimi Kempton-Stewa"

May 22, 2014

 "and I didn't say they *should* die, I just said it'd be nice if they did, working for the BBC doesn't mean I can't have views— "

            Can this woman hold onto any position in an institution that professes to be politically unbiased? And what of those she hoped would like to see us "disappear forever or die"? Are we still expected to have to buy a television licence after such nasty and bias remarks?

            Meanwhile, Jasmine Lawrence, editor of BBC's rolling news, attempted to ambush Ukip's #WhyImVotingUkip on twitter to say she was voting Ukip because the  party stood up for "White, middle class, middle aged men with sexist/racist views[who are] totally underrepresented in politics today." 

            Ms Lawrence, living as does in the London political bubble, cannot appreciate the irony of her comment "…totally under-represented in politics today". Her political horizon is very limited indeed; as today's European election results will show. She is also profoundly ignorant in the targeting of her abuse. I am indeed white (which is, it appears, only a problem in parts of multicultural London); I am also a man (yet another fault apparently) and Ms Lawrence's misandry only serves to identify her as the source of Ukip's advances. I am not middle class, and have no sexist or racist views. Although I would no doubt fail to meet Ms Lawrence's exacting standards with regard to being either sexist or racist… the imprint of the puritan zealot has always demanded more exacting standard after all.

            Then we have Radio 4's Rosemary Baker tweeting "I am SO sick of hearing Nigel Farage & associated UKIP lunatics on BBCr4today. Absolutely done to death & feels like skewing ed pol" - May 21, 2014. Now it appears I and the many thousands of other Ukip voters are "lunatics". If there is any truth in that, then it would not be because of our views, but because we continue to pay a licence tax and continue to do so.

            Is there any significance in the fact that these troll-like twitters are all written by women? Their behaviour undermines the central tenet of liberalism which is tolerance. Something us Ukip voters are accused daily of lacking. These women live and work in the liberal comfort zones of the BBC and among the London Metropolitan elite.

            Ukip has dared challenge and undermine all liberal certainties among which are the EU, multiculturalism; and the three party liberal axis that operates our national parliament and governs our country. The BBC and the Houses of Parliament are the Two Towers of liberalism radiating their certainties (including their intolerance) throughout the nation - I will not take the analogy any further and describe London as Mordor because it would not be true. It is only in such London areas as Primrose Hill, Notting Hill, Islington, and Hampstead, where the liberal tea party operate; that diminishes a fine city.

            It is not racist to deliver a fact. London is a multicultural city where the indigenous white population have dug up their roots and left. In the first instance to the new towns in Essex constructed from the 1960s onward; and the migration has continued ever since, until the white indigenous London population will, in the coming decade, themselves become an ethnic minority.

            It has always been the case that immigrants have been, from their first arrival in the 1950s, and right through the following generations; have, in the main, always supported the Labour Party; and this support continues, and the influx has replaced the white working class as their main focus of support.

            Tony Blair understood this, which is why he ignored the seven-year breathing space provided by the Schengen Agreement, and allowed Polish migration to begin prematurely in 2008 - although it has been said that he was pussy-whipped by his wife into allowing it because she was a Catholic, as are the majority of Poles; and would therefore increase the Catholic population to the advantage of Rome and disadvantage of the of the Anglican Church[1] - but who any longer cares about that pitiful institution?

THESE BBC personages who use the etiquette and language of trolls in their tweets, have done those of us who have long believed in the reality of political bias at the BBC, a great service in strengthening our position - although it did not need it.

            The licence fee should be abandoned. If this wretched broadcaster is as popular as it professes and it believes itself to be doubly so internationally; then they will have no problem surviving with their own devices in the broadcasting market place. No broadcaster should be dependent on the taxpayer (ie. the state) for its survival. The state in a democracy has no role to play as far as broadcasting is concerned; it is only a player in a state controlled society, like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and today in such places as Cuba and throughout many parts of the Muslim world.

IT IS TIME FOR THE BBC to depart, and be weaned from their dependence on the taxpayer; like an addict off cocaine. If they are so convinced by their self-importance that they believe themselves superior to Murdock's Sky and Fox; and see themselves as broadcasting royalty, as it appears they have always done: then the BBC should have no trouble surviving alone in the market place.

            One thing is for sure, this broadcasting institution cannot continue as a publicly financed body. That affectionate and comforting BBC pseudonym "Auntie" that saw the broadcaster, through the 1970s and 80's; was then, and still is, a loveable pastiche. But the love in whatever form, is sinking away. The BBC today is as it has always been ever since Lord Reith began the corporations ascendancy - deeply biased. In Reith's time the establishment bias was Conservative; and the public approved, as in the main they were all small 'c' conservatives, including Labour working class supporters; and believed in traditional values. The same values Reith brought to the BBC were therefore supported by the vast majority of the population.

             The advance since the 1960s of the London centred liberal hegemony, has spelt the ruination of the BBC as far as taxation for its upkeep is concerned. Those of us small 'c' conservatives are no longer supportive of the BBC. We do not subscribe to its liberal agenda and should be given the opportunity to watch television without the need to finance opinions we do not agree with - does this sound like democracy?

            The BBC must go it alone in the free market and find its own niche; thus saving the taxpayer over £3 billion a year. Those who wish to subscribe will be free to do so. But let the rest of us still be allowed to watch a television set without fear of prosecution. To this extent the BBC are no better in their methods than Putin in his.

            The BBC are tax collectors who can send people to prison if they refuse payment. It is true that the government are seeking to disband the ultimate penalty of prison for none payment replacing it with a fine. But what happens if the fine goes unpaid? Does prison still remain an option? If not, what is the purpose of any such penalty?

            It is a cruel irony that such a modern liberal construct as the BBC should rely upon imprisonment as a penalty for the none payment of the licence tax. In fact it contradicts its whole liberal ethos of tolerance. Yet the corporation illiberally pursues those who stop payment of the license fee. You can murder someone and receive 15 years and be paroled after seven or less years; but the none payment of the licence fee can be measured as some kind of a liberal equivalent to the use of the word Nigger as far as the BBC are concerned.

THE BBC is no longer the broad church it once was. Its social liberal values are out of step with much of the country; and it is an egregious affront to the majority of us who are forced to pay for its services.

            We are still a small 'c' conservative nation and long may we remain so - but as an institution the BBC is not and has never been since the 1960's; yet they demand, like the fabled Sheriff of Nottingham, their blanket tribute from the people on penalty of imprisonment or the sequestration of private property - which, after all, the Left have never been bothered about.

            It is time for a campaign of none-payment of the licence fee to begin. Many of those who support the BBC believe it cannot continue in its current form. It recruits almost wholly from the pages of Guardian, at almost every level; and serves its agenda. Which would be fine if it operated in the free market. The BBC has lost its emotional bond with more and more of the British people. It is time for dear old Auntie to euthanised and reincarnated into a privately funded broadcaster..   

---

[1] Let me say that I have been an atheist for the greater part of my life; so I have no axe to grind. 

Unfortunately Putin is a giant, compared to the likes of Cameron, Miliband , and Clegg.

"WHAT DO SILVIO BERLUSCONI, Gerhard Schroeder, Nigel Farage and Alex Salmond have in common?" Asks Alex Spillius, the Daily Telegraph's diplomatic correspondent, in today's edition.

            

             Well they are all part of the Vladimir Putin fan club; and they are not the only ones. Many ordinary British people who do not walk within and entertain in diplomatic circles, also admire him. I, on other hand do not admire him for all the reasons Mr Spillius lists in his article. But I do admire him for defending his nation's interests; which is something British politicians have failed to do for decades when it came to the EU - on the contrary, they have signed away almost all of our national sovereignty; as well as our ability to enact our own laws if they come in conflict with those of the EU - which takes precedence over those implemented by a parliament of democratically elected politicians.

            

              Indeed many British citizens would side with Satan himself if he got into an argument with the EU. This is why so many ordinary people admire Putin. People are making this link, because it was the EU that sought to entice the Ukraine into the EU fold, and by doing so immediately enraged Putin, who has as much of an interest in the Ukraine as the EU (did I just write "as much?" I meant more). Far more in fact. For the Crimea was "gifted" to the Ukraine by a Soviet generation dictator with a perfunctory wave of his hand - as if rewarding the loyalty of the thousands of place-men the Soviet Union put into the Ukraine to keep its citizens quiet (a group in fact that NATO and the West once despised): and if the Ukraine's Russian citizens had protested against  Khrushchev's little "gift" at the time. They would have found themselves on the way to some Gulag in Siberia never to be seen again - so is this the way land is to be distributed?

            

             So Putin has every right to recover the Crimea from the Ukraine; as did Margaret Thatcher help keep the Falklands. As for the eastern parts of the country with its heavily populated Russian speaking peoples. They are calling for the same kind of referendum that David Cameron rightly gave the Falkland islanders.

            

             We know about the way homosexuals are treated by Putin, and all the other ironhanded acts he has been responsible for. There is a saying that Russia's one purpose is to   show the rest of the world how not to go about things - and no better example of this was the October revolution; following the 70 years of a socialist dystopia, under which millions were sacrificed for a political ideology.

THE WEST FEARS THAT Putin is trying to recreate the old Soviet empire - in Europe at least. But it is the EU that seeks to turn the whole of the European continent, extending eastward, at least as far as the Ukraine, into a Federal Europe, or, to use common European  parlance; a United States of Europe; beginning from where Napoleon was driven back by  Mikhail Kutuzov, commander of the Russian army in 1912.

            

              If there is a comparison, admittedly not a thorough one, it is between Kutuzov and Putin; not some communist Neanderthal, like Khrushchev. As for the EU, on the other hand, their progress reminds one of the Napoleonisation of Europe which the emperor sought to, but failed to bring about.

            

              Alex Spillius underestimates the common sense of the ordinary British citizen who have been led, through deference, by a parliament of political donkeys into the various adventures into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. In Afghanistan we are leaving with our tail between our legs, after a bunch of medieval peasants, obsessed by superstition and encouraged by Western feebleness and irresolution; have managed to claim victory over the most technologically sophisticated and professional armies the world has ever seen.

            

               So why should Putin care about what NATO or an American President, who has openly decreed that there will be no NATO military involvement in the Ukraine, thinks. Putin knows that his opponents are weak, and such people hold no fear for him.

            

               So Mr Spillius. Why are you surprised at such an abundance of Putin's many admirers? Not since Margaret Thatcher, has a European country had such a strong and demanding presence as Putin.

            

               In Afghanistan our soldiers were reined in by their political, and I am sorry to say, military masters in Afghanistan, where a sniper, in one instance, had to seek out permission from an officer to kill some unarmed Taliban deploying an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).

IN CHECHEN Putin did what was necessary to destroy his Islamist enemies free of our Western spinelessness. He was brutal. Many Western liberals would have described his acts as barbaric, or even war crimes. But in 2004 Chechen terrorists occupied the Beslan school, and killed 334 pupils while another 783 pupils suffered non-fatal injuries.

            

             Putin did what was needed to destroy his enemies; just as Churchill did when this country was under the threat from Nazism. What Putin did in Chechen was to defend his country at all cost…something which we in the West have lost the ability to do because of the parsimonious limits placed upon our abilities to destroy our enemies, by liberal politicians.

            

             Is it no wonder that Putin has many supporters within Europe. When did Italy or Greece stand up against the appointment of technocrats by Brussels to replace their own elected leaders, to govern their nations?

            

             Yet the West has the audacity to condemn Putin. If they must judge him, then do it by your own standards; especially within the EU.