Libya Gives the Lockerbie Bomber a Hero's Welcome

Whilst the son of the Libyan leader has gone on record to declare that the Lockerbie bomber, responsible for the deaths of 270 innocents, was released to smooth along an oil and gas deal between Libya and BP.

More interestingly, he states that Gordon Brown asked for 'sensitivity' to be shown to the mass murderer, and also that the release is a 'great victory' for Libya.

Well, at least he's honest about it.

Here is Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi arriving back in Libya and receiving the hero's welcome Gaddafi promised would never happen:

As thousands cheered, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was escorted down the steps of his plane by Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Whilst Scotland is bracing itself for potential boycotts after its flag was waved during the jubilant scenes as the bomber returned home, Colonel Gaddafi went on Libyan television to embrace the bomber and thank his "courageous friend" Gordon Brown:

'And I say to my friend Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, his Government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to take this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles.'

Foreign Secretary David Miliband rejected suggestions that the Government wanted 57-year-old Megrahi released so commercial relations with oil-rich Libya could be improved.

'I really reject that entirely,' he said. 'That is a slur both on myself and the Government.'

The trade claim will intensify demands for Mr Brown to come clean about exactly what contacts Britain had with the former pariah state before Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds - he has terminal prostate cancer.

Speaking on Libyan television, Colonel Gaddafi's son said Mr Blair raised the Megrahi case repeatedly to smooth the way for British firms to tap into Libya's energy reserves.

He told the Al Mutawassit channel: 'In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table.'

Yes, Mr Miliband - you're all so innocent and trustworthy, aren't you?

How much more shame are these imbeciles going to pile on this country before they are finally kicked out of office?

Gordon Brown Starts the Ramadan Simpering Early

From The Associated Press of Pakistan:

LONDON, Aug 18, (APP)‑ The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his Ramadan message to the Muslim communities in the UK and around the globe has said the message of compassion and justice is strong in Islamic faith. He said this message is strong not just in the holy month of Ramadan but a universal one that unites the humanity.

Brown said Britain is a country of around 2 million Muslims in a Europe of over 20 million and the country is a better place today because of its diversity and openness.

“Our culture and society are stronger because of the contribution Muslims make everyday,” he said.

As British Muslim communities across the United Kingdom prepare for Ramadan, starting next week, Brown wished a peaceful and blessed Ramadan to the faithful.

For those of you who do not remember, this was his effort last year (if you've just eaten you might want to skip this):


I imagine he just wants to win some Labour votes back - as we were reminded yesterday, 20 key Labour constituencies rely on the Muslim vote. This is what the result of large, restive and alien minorities will always be, political power increasingly wrenched from the majority and re-directed into special interest groups.

I am deeply ashamed that this person gets on bended knee to the ideology responsible for so much hate, death and violence in the world - a fair proportion of it aimed at us - in the name of the United Kingdom.

As the UAF thug said to the BNP member - not in my name.

Peter Mandelson Wants Britain to Join the Euro

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has praised the 'great success' of the European single currency, the Euro, and declared that it is Britain's ultimate aim to ditch the Pound and join.

I find this interesting from a political perspective; no top politician has spoken publicly or seriously about joining the Euro for five years or more.

Keeping Britain out of the Euro is in fact one of Gordon Brown's major achievements as Chancellor - his 'five economic tests' pretty much buried all talk of the project.

As a former European commissioner, Mandelson receives a £31,000 a year pension - provided he does not criticise the European project.

Lord Mandelson, on a trip to Berlin, said: 'Does it remain an important objective for Britain to find itself in the same currency as that single market in which it interacts? Obviously yes.'

He insisted such a decision was for 'the future' and had to be made on the 'right terms in the right circumstances'.

However, he added: 'It is perfectly clear that the euro has been a great success in anchoring its eurozone members during the financial crisis.

'I hope people will recognise this represents a major vindication for the single currency.'

Presumably that would be a point in the future when Labour isn't second to UKIP in the European Parliament and Eurosceptics hadn't won astonishing political victories in Britain and Europe?

More on the Shahid Malik Expenses Scandal

Yesterday I wrote about how, despite being the first minister to resign and one of the highest claimants, despite claiming for a fine for late payment of council tax, Shahid Malik MP is back on the frontbench - and Gordon Brown refused to publish the report which supposedly exonerates him of wrongdoing.

Well, the Telegraph has now revealed that Malik claimed £6,500 for a mysterious second office.

Here is the report:

This newspaper has already reported how Mr Malik, the new Communities Minister, billed the taxpayer for the £6,000-a-year cost of renting his main constituency office in Dewsbury, West Yorks, from a local landlord, Tahir "Terry" Zaman.

However, according to documents seen by this newspaper, he has also been claiming an additional £200 a month for approximately three years - a total of at least £6,500 - to pay for a second, unspecified office he calls "Office 2". He has claimed this money back on his office expenses.

Mr Malik last night said the "Office 2" claims were for "additional office space".

He declined to say where that office space was. He also refused to answer questions about who he rents it from.

According to Mr Malik's website, he holds occasional surgeries in the Asda supermarket in Dewsbury and in a library in Mirfield, near Dewsbury.

However, Asda made clear it did not charge MPs for using its stores, saying: "We would not charge MPs to use our stores. We're part of the community and want to help people contact their representatives." A source at the library, meanwhile, said that renting a room there would cost less than £20 a month.

Office expenses are intended to reimburse MPs for the cost of running an office in their constituency, however it is unclear why Mr Malik would need a second office in a town the size of Dewsbury.

Mr Malik came under scrutiny after The Daily Telegraph reported that, according to Mr Zaman, he paid less than £100 a week to rent a house in Dewsbury from him. Mr Zaman is his neighbour and the owner of 100 properties in the region.

Mr Malik was investigated by Sir Philip Mawer, Gordon Brown's independent adviser on expenses, after Mr Zaman claimed the MP was paying less than the market rate for the house while claiming tens of thousands of pounds in taxpayer-funded expenses on his designated second home in London.

Mr Malik also rents his main constituency office from Mr Zaman, claiming back the cost on his office expenses.

The £200-a-month claims for another office, "Office 2", have apparently been submitted with no other paperwork - and there is no reference to a second office on Mr Malik's official website.

In a statement last night, Mr Malik said: "This is a claim for additional office space that I used for constituency business the details of which were properly logged with the House authorities. The amount claimed covers the rent of the property. It was necessary for me to have an additional office space to carry out my duties effectively."

Mr Malik regularly claims a further £250 a month for "petty cash", which is allowed under parliamentary rules. In total, Mr Malik has claimed £82,603 on office expenses and £66,827 on the second home allowance.

The election results didn't quite seem to get the message across, so I would encourage you to send an email to the greedy, grasping little worm at maliks@parliament.uk, and tell him exactly what you think about his 'teflon man' status.

A Summary of Gordon Brown's Premiership...

...From the excellent Rory Bremner.

Hat tip: Tory Totty.

The Left's Democracy in Action

Today newly-elected MEP Nick Griffin, the Chairman of the British National Party, was forced to abandon a press conference after being pelted with eggs by anti-fascism protesters.

This event took place outside the Houses of Parliament. Despite the fact that protests outside Parliament are illegal without prior planning, and as you would imagine it is quite well-guarded, the police were nowhere to be seen.

Griffin was chased down the street by the thugs, and only escaped when his own bodyguards managed to bundle him into a car.

The Mail reports:

A crowd of angry demonstrators rounded on his car as he arrived, shouting: 'Off our streets, Nazi scum' and then hurled eggs at him when he started talking.

Smashed eggs were clearly visible on his suit and he appeared distressed as he was manhandled by security back towards the car.

A jubilant Mr Griffin, 49, had only been speaking for a few minutes today when the protesters started chanting and waving banners declaring: 'Stop the fascist BNP.'

When they began throwing eggs, the leader's burly security guards bundled him away through the crowd.

The demonstrators kicked and hit at his car with their placards then cheered as the father of four was driven off.

Protest organiser Weyman Bennett, national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, said people had to stand up to the neo-fascist party.

He said: 'The majority of people did not vote for the BNP, they did not vote at all. The BNP was able to dupe them into saying that they had an answer to people's problems.

'They presented themselves as a mainstream party. The reality was because the turnout was so low, they actually got elected.'

Mr Bennett compared the BNP leader to serial killer Harold Shipman, claiming he might appear friendly on the surface but was in fact a neo-Nazi.

'I think you have to look beneath the mask, you have to look beneath the surface,' he said.

'We cannot allow the politics of scapegoating to become the common currency of this country.'

Another protester, Sarah Kavanagh, added: 'Britain in two places has sent the far right to be with Europe. They clearly don't speak on behalf of the community and their views are abhorrent.'

Unite Against Fascism are an extreme and violent organisation. Logic should dictate that if the BNP have no place on the streets, they do not either.

It was people acting at the behest of this organisation which smashed a man over the head with a hammer in Manchester simply because of his political beliefs. They act far more like the fascists and Nazis they claim to despise than anyone else does.

You might notice their barely coherent ramblings. Was serial killer Harold Shipman a neo-Nazi, as Mr Bennett seems to be suggesting? I don't think he was, but if so would that be all that made him a bad person?

He also implies that because voter turn out was not 100%, the election of the BNP is somehow illegitimate. Why is this only true for them?

Why not UKIP, Labour or the Greens?

Take this statement from Sarah Kavanagh, masterful in how it manages to contradict itself in just two sentences:

'Britain in two places has sent the far right to be with Europe. They clearly don't speak on behalf of the community and their views are abhorrent.'

Well, if Britain has 'sent the far Right to be with Europe' in two places, then surely that does represent the views of the 'community', does it not?

I was under the impression that was how democracy worked. Their views may well be abhorrent - but the views of Sarah Kavanagh are pretty abhorrent to me. So what?

Does that give me the right to harass, assault and intimidate her, or prevent her from doing her job?

Of course not.

This is the problem with those on the Left. Democracy is only legitimate when they agree with the results. The rest of us have to put up or shut up either way.

The election of Barack Obama? TRIUMPH for democracy. The other potential outcome would have been an insult to democracy - despite the fact that either way, the majority of people had spoken.

When the other candidates stormed off stage in protest as Mr Griffin made his victory speech on Monday morning, they were not insulting him - they were insulting the people who voted for him, either because they support what he stands for or have nowhere else to turn.

But then, if the mainstream politicians cared about Britain and its people, presumably the BNP would not exist.

The mainstream parties need to wake up now - not to 'fight the BNP', but to actually listen to what people want.

A comment at the article nailed it:

Although ideologically opposed to the BNP in a political sense, I can certainly see the attraction they hold for many people in a practical sense, especially when compared to the corrupt, unrepresentative and incompetent cartel that have ruled this country for far too long.
Certainly, having the establishment tell you not to do something, especially in this climate, is likely to have the opposite effect.
Like it or not the BNP, on limited resources, managed to get nearly a million votes. Due to the low turnout, the dominant Conservatives only got just over four times as many votes cast.
I heard/saw interviews with the new BNP MEP's on both BBC Radio 4 and Channel Four News. Unfortunately both interviews were very noticeably biased against them - I expect more from both of these organisations.
If the BNP really are as bad as we are led to believe, engage in an unbiased, open and honest debate with them and they will discredit themselves more than their opponents ever could. - Trevor, Birmingham, England, 9/6/2009 16:44

Exactly. It' about time this country's elite started treating it as a mature democracy rather than a banana republic.

For all those who rant that Hitler was a democratically elected politician, and he managed to seize power, and abolish all other parties - I say actually objectively study the history of the period.

Hitler and the Nazis seized power because the zeitgeist was flowing their way. When Nazi thugs beat up Communists, Wilhelmine judges fearful of the consequences of Socialism and Communism declared 'boys will be boys' and were lenient.

They were scared of Communists and were much harsher. Of course, they were right to be scared, as like Nazism, Communism was an abomination - but at that time Nazism did not carry the historical baggage it does now.

But in the modern era, the zeitgeist flows away from Mr Griffin.

That's why he can be egged at a press conference and no one is arrested and many laugh, despite the fact nearly a million British people voted for him.

That is why he's celebrating the breakthrough of winning just two seats in the European Parliament, whilst newspapers ask their readers whether or not his party should be 'allowed' to take them.

The really dangerous people in this country today all identify with the Left - because that is where the power is.

What's more likely? Griffin becoming Prime Minister or otherwise seizing power, or Gordon Brown declaring a state of emergency under the terrifying (and very, very 'fascist') Civil Contingencies Act 2004 due to the BNP's breakthrough?

Maybe he'll be aided by his heroic, ideologically pure Antifa thugs; after all, we know he is determined to cling on to power at all costs.

Brown Refuses to Publish Report into Malik's Finances

Gordon Brown has stoked fresh anger over the expenses row by refusing to publish a report which allegedly clears Shahid Malik MP of any wrongdoing over his expenses claims.

Malik, who resigned as Justice Minister over the scandal, has been promoted back to the frontbench as a junior minister for the Department of Communities and Local Government - a role created specially for him.

Malik, you may recall, is not only the lying, cheating scumbag who claimed a fine for paying his council tax late from the public purse, he is also the man who called for a Muslim Prime Minister, inshallah.

Here is more information from the Telegraph:

The Daily Telegraph reported last month that Mr Malik's landord said he was paying well below the market rate for his constituency home in West Yorkshire.

Downing Street said he was reappointed because Sir Philip Mawer, Mr Brown's adviser on ministerial behaviour, had investigated and found nothing wrong with Mr Malik's arrangements.

A spokesman said that Sir Philip had reached his judgment on “on the basis of an independent valuation of the properties".

Asked when the report would be published, spokesman for the Prime Minister said: "It is not our intention to publish the report. It goes into quite a lot of detail about Mr Malik's personal affairs."

Asked whether Downing Street would publish a redacted version of the report, removing personal details, the spokesman said: “No."

But he admitted that Mr Malik had agreed to put his tenancy arrangements on a more formal footing.

The Prime Minister ordered Sir Philip's inquiry after The Daily Telegraph reported that Mr Malik's landlord had claimed he was benefiting from a secret cut-price rental deal on his constituency home, which he has designated as his “main home”.

He claimed tens of thousands of pounds in parliamentary expenses to cover his designated second home in London while allegedly renting his constituency home for less than £100 a week.

Mr Malik's landlord, local businessman Tahir Zaman, had claimed that Mr Malik was paying well below the market rent for his designated main home in Dewsbury.

Meanwhile, he had claimed more than £66,000 in expenses – the maximum allowable amount – on his designated “second home” in London since he became an MP in 2005.

Mr Malik had to step down after the Prime Minister ordered Sir Philip's inquiry into the rental agreement on the home in Dewsbury, where his landlord claimed he paid well below the market rate.

The ministerial code of conduct states that members of the Government must not accept any “gift or hospitality” which risks putting them under an “obligation”. The arrangement had not been formally declared to officials at the Justice Ministry.

Mr Malik claimed that Sir Philip had found no breach of the ministerial code.

Sir Philip was not required to investigate Mr Malik’s expenses claims.

"I always welcomed Sir Philip's inquiry as an opportunity to clear my name and I am delighted that this has now been achieved," he said.

The MP, who was Britain's first Muslim minister, claimed the inquiry concluded that he was "paying the market rate" after receiving evidence from The Daily Telegraph, the MP and commissioning independent valuations.

He said he would now focus on serving his constituents.

The No 10 spokesman said the Prime Minister "would support whatever Mr Malik believed was the right thing to do" in relation to repaying the expenses money.

Mr Malik was the first Government minister to step down in the wake of The Telegraph’s investigation into MPs’ expenses.

Yep, first to step down, first to be re-appointed. You can argue that this government is so devoid of talent that it needs anyone who will serve, but I think they've cut a deal - Brown needs all the support he can muster.

The fact that this thief and liar is untouchable does say an awful lot about our current situation, however.

Perspectives on the D-Day Anniversary

At the D-Day commemorations on Saturday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the following:

"Sixty-five years ago in the thin light of grey dawn, more than 1,000 small craft took to a rough sea on a day that will be forever a day of bravery.

On that June morning the young of our nations stepped out on those beaches below and into history. As long as freedom lives their deeds will never die. On D-Day the sounds of liberation on the march were heard across Europe.”

Ironic for a man who has done more than most to undermine freedom in this country and eradicate its unique character.

This anniversary is seen as a victory for freedom. In many respects, the ultimate victory for freedom.

But freedom can only exist when the will to maintain it exists. Regular contributor Dr. D commented:

With people like this less than 70 years ago, it is hard to understand why the UK is allowing itself to be overrun today. These people did not just rollover and accept servitude.

In many respects he is correct. It seems the erosion of our identity and the holes in our knowledge of history has a lot to do with our current woes, including the double-edged threat posed by Islam and mass immigration.

We have lost our will in the face of a brutal, implacable foe. Historically, those who lack the will to survive do not survive. Why should they?

GalliaWatch provided more food for thought on this subject.

Compare this, the speech given by Winston Churchill to Parliament on 4th June 1940 in which he promises that Britain will never surrender, to remarks by an ancient but until now forgotten enemy of Western Civilisation.

A brief transcript:

"Even though large parts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

Now, a quote taken from our oldest enemy and modern threat to freedom - Islam.

Sura (9:29) - Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Islamic scripture:

"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."

Here is what Churchill, who fought in the Sudan, had to say about Islam:

“How dreadful are the curses which Islam lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -the science against which it had vainly struggled -the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

I suppose the message here is that freedom is not free. As we reflect on the events which occurred over 60 years ago, it might be pertinent to take stock of what is happening in our major cities today.

Five Gurkha Test Cases Rejected - or Are They?

I've avoided wading into this row so far, but I can remain silent no longer.

It has just been reported that five test cases involving Gurkhas, soldiers recruited from Nepal who serve in the British Army, have been concluded - all five have had their applications to stay in the United Kingdom rejected.

Actress Joanna Lumley, the self-appointed spokeswoman for their cause, then cornered Immigration Minister Phil Woolas and marched him over to a press conference, where it emerged that Downing Street and the Home Office have had almost no contact on this issue, despite Gordon Brown promising her yesterday that policy would be reviewed.

Woolas insisted that the Gurkhas got their rejection letters by mistake - but he didn't say they definitely won't be thrown out, only that the Government may deliberate slightly harder and that the decision was an 'interim' one.

Two of the men were veterans of the Falklands War. Another was a veteran of the first Gulf War, a fourth the widow of a veteran. All of them are also of outstanding character.

Now, I accept that when they signed up to serve this country, settling here was not part of the contract. But considering the sort of people we let settle here for no good reason at all, and the volume of them, I see no reason why the Government can't accommodate the Gurkhas.

Well, no good reason. Of course, the Gurkhas are generally honest people who have honour, and that is a black mark against them from the start; we prefer lies and sob stories.

Having a tendency for violent criminality is not obligatory, but it is encouraged; after all, committing a crime will allow an immigrant (hell, even a potential immigrant) to take full advantage of the wide range of benefits the British system has to offer.

Here's a description of the Gurkhas, who have served with our forces in pretty much every modern conflict:

THE GURKHA SOLDIER
Bravest of the brave,
most generous of the generous,
never had country
more faithful friends
than you.
- Professor Sir Ralph Turner MC

But the modern British seem to prefer enemies to friends everytime.

There are probably some who imagine I'm joking, and Lord, I wish I were; but I'm not. Let's forget about the Gurkhas for just a moment and examine some cases where people have been allowed to stay in this country.

The one which immediately springs to mind is that of Mohammed Kendeh (pictured below), who arrived in Britain from Sierra Leone at the age of six.

He first went to prison at the age of fifteen after committing a string of offences including robbery, burglary, arson and drug dealing.

He then graduated on to sexual assault. By 2005, he had been put on the sex offenders' register and jailed after two sex attacks committed just a week after he was released from prison for burglary.

In prison, he confessed to eleven sexual assaults, mainly on lone young women in parks. The Secretary of State recognised that in light of his high risk of re-offending and the serious nature of his crimes, he should be deported.

He appealed once and the Government won. He appealed again, and then-chair of the Special Immigration Tribunal Sir Henry Hodge ruled the following:

"It would not be right to deport. Although the appellant has been denied British citizenship, he is in many ways 'one of us'. He came here at such a young age that it would be wrong, in my judgement, to treat him as though he had an affiliation to any other country."

One of us.

His victims complained bitterly - this happened in October 2007, just weeks after Gordon Brown promised a tougher line on deporting foreign criminals, and not long after a Home Secretary resigned because over 1,000 foreign criminals had been mistakenly released rather than deported.

It made no difference, however - his rights trumped those of the rest of us.


In August 2007, a remarkably similar thing had happened. An Italian citizen, Learco Chindamo, stabbed Headmaster Phillip Lawrence to death in 1995 as the latter protected one of his pupils outside the gates of his own school. He was just fifteen himself. Sentenced to a minimum of twelve years, Chindamo got out in 2008. The Home Office wished to deport him, but was blocked by Human Rights legislation.

There are many more of these cases; Ahsan Sabri, a Pakistani illegal who was driving without insurance or a licence when he killed a young writer by ploughing into her at 60mph; Caliph Ali Asmar who was not deported after being jailed for plunging a knife into a love rival's chest, then went on to rape a young woman; hate preachers such as Abu Qatada, who win appeal after appeal at the taxpayers' expense.

Brown could have appeared gracious and receptive to public opinion by simply granting Gurkha veterans residency; he could have appeared a good sport by doing it after being defeated in the Commons.

As it stands, and as I hope I have demonstrated, a country can be saddled with much worse than those willing to die for it.

Phil Woolas, however, has admitted that he 'has to consider the nice and the nasty people using the same criteria'.

The only criteria which should matter is whether or not this country and those who have served her benefit or not.

Is Gordon Trying to Tell Us Something?

Apparently this picture was taken as Brown visited a Lewisham school. That's his story, and he's sticking to it...

Gordon Brown is Disingenuous on Terror

I know 'Gordon Brown caught lying again' is hardly a major or surprising headline, but this one was pretty blatant even for a member of New Labour.

On Monday Brown was in Afghanistan to meet British troops and play the big I am. Whilst there, he warned of a 'crucible of terror' emanating from Afghanistan and the Pakistan border regions which needed to be smashed to keep Britain's streets safe. He also acknowledged that the stability of Pakistan had a direct impact on the safety of Britons in the streets of London.

There is a reason why this is so - and is has little to do with a 'crucible of terror' and everything to do with Britain's lax immigration laws and its lack of will even to enforce the ones it has.

This is the bottom line, and it is utterly astounding that anyone could think otherwise. Brown, like all mainstream politicians, is playing a game when it comes to mass immigration. He and his ilk, including the Tories, have indicated time and time again that they are unable or unwilling to listen to the majority of the British people on this most pressing of issues.

Now, after it emerged that eleven Pakistani nationals in this country were being investigated for terrorism charges, Immigration Minister Phil Woolas admitted that student and tourist visas were the Achilles' heel of Britain's immigration policy.

The Pakistani government seem to feel that these raids and the subsequent investigation were a 'slur' on them (God forbid, after they recently handed over an entire province to the tender mercies of the Taliban):

In an interview with the Guardian, Asif Durrani, Pakistan's deputy high commissioner to London, said Britain appeared vindictive against Pakistani nationals and said claims that Islamabad was soft on terror were slurs.

Durrani, a diplomat for 23 years with previous postings in Kabul and the United Nations, said: "Pointing a finger towards Pakistan was shocking for us ... it was uncalled for and shocking."

Well, that's as maybe. But whatever the outcome of the terrorism investigation, those eleven men should not have been in this country - and there are thousands more that should not either. Only one of them was studying at a reputable institution. The Pakistani government are angry and claim 'thousands' of teenagers will now not be able to get into Britain, although I'm sure the stricter controls will only be very brief - the public have a short memory.

My question is, why are 'thousands' of Pakistani students coming here, particularly when the government has admitted that its checks are not up to scratch?

On Sunday, former Apprentice star and British Pakistani Saira Khan told the story of how she had reported her cousin to MI5. He came to Britain on a six month tourist visa to visit her and her husband and see the sights - then he promptly vanished, after meeting a mysterious 'uncle' that Khan claims she was unaware of and had never seen before.

Khan says that there is no system in place to monitor or find those who abscond and then are absorbed into the community after overstaying their visas and vehemently insists she wants to see him found and deported:

It has not only caused a huge family rift, but has also opened my eyes to some of the darker practices among some people in my community.

I am referring, in particular, to the widespread belief that it is entirely acceptable to use travel and study visas to circumvent normal immigration rules.

Fifteen days after he had landed, Kamran packed his bags, with all the nice new clothes I had bought him, and disappeared. In doing so he broke the conditions of his visa, which tied him to staying with Steve and me as his sponsors.

Like many before him – it is impossible to say how many because no official records are kept of those who abscond – he has been absorbed and is being protected by a community that is as colossal as it is impenetrable.

The Government has estimated that there are up to 570,000 illegal immigrants in Britain, but with so many visas being applied for with malicious intent, that figure could run to millions. Not that there is any attempt by the Government to chase it down.

Although there are no official figures for the number of overstayers from Pakistan, or from anywhere else for that matter, there is enough anecdotal evidence to show that it is a growing problem. In 2007, at Portsmouth University alone, 379 students from Pakistan were unaccounted for when their visas expired.

Considering that the number of Pakistani students in Britain has more than doubled since 2001, from fewer than 5,000 then to 10,600 today, the national figure of absconders could run into several thousand.

So that is 379 missing Pakistanis, most of them young men (the demographic most likely to become terrorists or radicalised) missing from ONE university.

Is this not absolutely astounding? How can Gordon Brown send young men to die in far off deserts whilst talking about 'national security' when our borders are this porous, our controls this ineffective?

It absolutely beggars belief. But, as always, there's more; yesterday, Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced that the government had not necessarily ruled out taking Guantanamo Bay detainees once the camp finally closes.

He insisted that Britain must do its bit to aid Obama's decision to free the terror suspects, and confirmed that the UK was open to 'considering any request'.

There are around 240 men who have not yet been placed:

The US is working out what to do with around 240 inmates at the camp so it can be closed by the January deadline set by the new president.

Some may be put on trial in the US, released there or sent overseas.
Several European countries, including Portugal and Lithuania, are reported to have offered to take in ex-prisoners.

So, they haven't even decided which are innocent yet, but some might be sent here (or, indeed to countries which we have no real border controls with, which amounts to the same thing).

So much for being tough on terrorism - it's all just guff, like everything from this dying government. Let's just hope that this monumental incompetence, blindness and stupidity does not lead to a major terrorist attack.

If it doesn't, it will surely be through accident rather than design.

The G20 Summit Spin

Fraser Nelson of The Spectator has an excellent analysis of the G20 Summit and Brown's illusory promises.

I have reproduced it in full, because I have not seen a better picking-apart of Gordon Brown's spin and promises he knows cannot be kept:

Britain has as its Prime Minister a master of political illusion. He may not be much of an orator, but there is no one better at dressing up old money as new. If the G20 nations wanted to fake progress, to spin a $1.1 trillion figure while committing no new money at all, then Gordon Brown is their man. “This is the day that the world came together to fight the global recession, not with words but with a plan,” said our Dear Leader. Well, let’s have a closer look at this supposed plan…

1) “Making available an extra $1 trillion”. Ahh, those Brown verbal tricks. What does “make available” mean? Is it guarantees, promises, statement of intent? Real spending? Not a penny of cold hard cash has been pledged by anyone. The sum is concocted by taking the IMF’s pre-existing $500bn target for its bailout fund (a target it still hasn’t met), adding another $250bn to the target. And, then, we add a $250bn fund which the IMF would create by printing its own special money.

2) IMF Funds “treble to $750 billion”. Very fishy. We heard from the IMF on Valentine’s Day that it wanted double its rescue fund to $500 billion – then it said it wanted even more. So where has the extra $250bn come from? Who has stumped it up? No one, it appears - it's just a target. And then the IMF will print its own money, in its own pretend “currency” (called Special Drawing Rights or SDR), and then allow its members to swap this for real money. The idea was once rejected by US Congress, but Obama thinks he won’t need congressional approval now the limit is kept to $250bn. But to be clear: no one has stumped up any new cash. It’s a little quantitative easing for the world – aimed, I suspect, at Eastern Europe. China will be happy as it wants SDRs to replaced the US dollar as a reserve currency.

3) Old pledges dressed as new. Brown gave a breakdown of who had stumped up: Japan, he said, contributed $100bn to the IMF. Yes it did: in January. The EU has agreed to contribute $100bn, he added. We know: this was announced at the last EU summit. Brown said China has chipped in just $40bn, and this appears to be new. But given the size of Beijing’s $2 trillion piggy bank, that is a rather derisory amount (and won’t buy it a seat on the IMF board). The Brazilians had thought China was good for $100bn.

4) Double counting. The Dear Leader has good news. “We are going to act decisively to kickstart international trade” But how? “We will ensure availability of at least $250 billion over the next two years." Note that “over two years” means that this is $125bn, double counted. Why not make it four years, and whack up an extra $1 trillion? It’s just a joke. Nor is this real cash – it comes from trade insurance schemes to protect importers and exporters. It’s not money being spent by governments. Pure Brown-style fiscal conjuring.

5) Tax havens. “We have agreed there will be an end to tax havens that do not transfer secrecy on request.” This is a piggybacking on the long-running OECD campaign against tax havens – this is not a G20 initiative. Brown solemnly announced the OECD would publish a list of non-compliant nations, as if this were a breakthrough. It has been doing this for the last year – here is a list of the most recent such announcements.

6) “The Washington consensus is over”. A curious aside from Brown – and a dog whistle to the Soros/Naomi Klein school of economics. The so-called “Washington Consensus” doesn’t refer to any formal economic protocol. It is used by the likes of Soros to denote what he calls ‘free market fundamentalism’. The academic who coined the term talks about its abuse here.

7) Ban on new trade barriers. Yeah, right. They agreed this in November and, since then, 17 of the 20 countries have increased trade barriers.

8) Brown’s gold advice: “I’ve been proposing this to the IMF for ten years”. He was certainly proposing in 1999 that the IMF sold gold – then priced at $278 an ounce. Luckily, the IMF ignored Brown and gold is now $890 an ounce. Shame he didn’t take the IMF’s advice when it was warning his borrowing would end in tears.

9) “For the first time, we have come together to set principles for the global finance system.” As far as I can determine, all they have agreed is that banks and hedge funds should be regulated – but don’t say how. Ergo, it’s meaningless.

10) No fiscal stimulus. It’s mentioned twice in the 3,080 word document – there wasn’t one. Both Brown and Obama wanted the world to contribute new money. They failed. There was none of the big agreement that Brown led us to believe. There was a split, as evidenced by the Franco-German minority report yesterday. But still it’s a big summit, a deal was done (albeit a fairly nebulous one) and the threatre was fine.

On a presentational basis, this his has worked out well for Brown. I suspect the G20 will be written up well tomorrow, just as his Budgets are always written up well – “2p tax reduction!” – before we all realise we’ve been swindled. So look out for triumphant declarations of “$1.1 trillion to save the world” in tomorrow’s papers. Listening to Brown today, it was as if he were giving a Budget for the world. And I suspect the world is about to learn how illusory a Brown promise really is.

Anger & Anarchy

The campaign to blame bankers for the Government's incompetence is stepping up a gear, with the enthusiastic support of the British public and far-Left anarchist groups.

Earlier this week the home of Sir Fred Goodwin, Gordon Brown's favourite scapegoat, was attacked. Windows were smashed at the £3 million mansion, and a Mercedes S600 Saloon parked outside was damaged.

The tabloids are now complaining that one of those greedy fat-cat bankers who ruined our lives with their greed, the Capitalist, probably Tory-voting scum has a personal police guard sitting outside his house.

Well if you target a man's home and family for wrongs you perceive he committed in his working life, then that will probably happen. The idiots who vandalised his house and car have cost the public that money, not Sir Fred.

I must say I personally resent paying for Gordon Brown and the rest of the Government to live in their bubble of ignorance and privilege far more.

Because ultimately, Gordon, the buck stops with you. You were Chancellor for 10 years, and have been Prime Minister for nearly 2. You wanted the top job, and you were quite happy to use any dirty trick to get it, including pretending the largely stable economic conditions your Government inherited were your doing.

You told shameless lies - remember 'boom, and an end to the days of bust'?

Whilst you were telling these lies, you were busy spending like a drunken sailor and pillaging this country's assets like some Mongol-in-Chief.

How much would all that gold you took and sold off cheap to fund god-knows-what be worth now? Yeah, about 3 times as much.

You economic genius, you. I probably know more about Quantum Physics than I do Economics, and I know nothing of the former.

Yet I do know a loan isn't the solution to debt and you can't spend your way solvent.

Now, Gordon, it's time to take some responsibility. You signed off the pension payments for Sir Fred when you thought no one was looking - before it was convenient to pin your woes and failings on the man.

Let's be clear here; unlike you, Sir Fred did his job. Your responsibility should be to this country as a whole; his was only to RBS.

RBS may have lost £25 billion on his watch, but he got the Government to invest, perhaps making the bank as stable as it ever will be. So he did what he was paid for and contracted for - he got people to shore up his bank with large sums of cash.

Gordon, your job is undoubtedly more complex. But you can make up for your failings by suppressing your inner-Socialist and not letting this crisis be an excuse for the radical Left to rise in influence.

We have violent groups of extremists threatening to attack the homes of more people, a violent anarchist professor who lives in a £1 million home threatening to storm any building which does not turn off its lights during Saturday's 'Earth Hour', as well as urging people to attack the G20 and storm banks.

Let's just hope you're not looking the other way this time, Gordon, or our future does indeed look bleak.

Astounding Naivety

On Tuesday Gordon Brown announced that he was considering cutting Britain's nuclear arsenal to encourage international co-operation and a 'new era of non-proliferation and multilateral nuclear disarmament'.

Britain has already seen its nuclear arsenal halved since Labour came to power in 1997. However Brown wants to meet other acknowledged nuclear powers and talk about the day when there are no more nuclear weapons.

Clearly, the man is delusional. Russia has just announced a massive campaign of re-armament, including beefing up its own nuclear arsenal.

Barack 'let's give peace a chance' Obama is interested, of course, but then for most sensible people that's hardly an endorsement.

The main argument in favour of cutting nuclear weapons is that it frees funding for conventional troops and the potentially life-saving equipment which they so desperately need as they fight in Afghanistan.

In my opinion this is a straw man, however - the government would most likely take the money and put it elsewhere.

There are several arguments against, mainly that we would leave ourselves vulnerable to blackmail and severe danger; the world is changing, and the days when only conventional Great or Superpowers have nuclear weapons is probably already distant.

Nuclear weapons come in for a lot of criticism, but I personally feel there's a lot to be said for the 'mutually assured destruction' model. Although there have been major conflicts during the late 20th Century, I feel the idea of a power balance which nuclear weapons bring has averted much greater catastrophes.

They are also serving their purpose in a modern context; for example the stand-off between India and Pakistan. Whilst this situation is obviously far from ideal or perfect, and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of a fanatical Islamic government is the stuff of nightmares, it will take a lot to convince me that India and Pakistan would not be fighting a full-scale conventional war or have fought several already without each living in the shadow of the other side's nukes.

As it is, they have largely stuck to the border skirmishes and terrorist attacks we see to this day.

Anyway, regarding the subject of Britain's nuclear arsenal, a lady called Helene Davidson wrote a letter to a free paper handed out at Railway Stations called 'The London Lite'.

I thought it was worth reproducing here, and as I have no link, you will simply have to take my word for it that I'm not imaginative enough to have made this up:

"We can't afford to properly kit out our soldiers in the field. It is outrageous to spend money on weapons whose sole raison d'etre is to end human society as we know it. The boys' toys mentality of governments means they regard war and possession of weapons of mass destruction as evidence of their manhood. Don't they have the brains to realise that the suffering and death of conflict does not determine who's right, but only who's left?"

Well, I think we know who's 'left' here, don't we? War is as old as human society itself, and a necessary evil.

The threat to the modern world clearly does not come from Britain as much as it comes from the rising powers of the Third World. Who knows how the rules of the game will change in future?

Nuclear weapons are designed to ensure everyone has too much to lose, not destroy human society. But the professional leftists won't be happy until we have no means of self defence at all, it would seem.

A Brief Weekly News Round Up: 1st - 7th March 2009

A couple of stories which hit the headlines this week:

1) US Senator Edward 'Teddy' Kennedy is to get an honorary knighthood from the Queen, it was announced on Wednesday.

Apparently this will be for 'services to US - UK relations' and particularly pertaining to his work in the 'Peace Process' in Northern Ireland (which saw 'tough on terrorism' New Labour, er, surrender to violent terrorists).

I personally feel this is an abuse of the Honours System - I find Kennedy to be an odious and highly dubious individual, who in a fairer world might be in prison (or at least would have been tried for what happened at Chappaquiddick).

2) Gordon Brown received 19 standing ovations for his address the the US Congress. However, all was not as it seemed - many members of the British press suspected Obama just didn't care.

This was confirmed when an Obama staffer told The Telegraph:

'The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

To which my response would be: "Naff off you unpleasant, clueless little Leftist b*****d. Either that or let troops from Bolivia, Mauritania and Haiti support you in your foreign adventures, and show us how equal we all are. Here's how a real American see it."

There's nothing special about Obama, but that doesn't stop the world fawning all over him...

Any how, Obama was widely criticised for the 'gift situation'; Mr Brown took him several thoughtful presents, including a pen-holder carved from the timbers of an anti-slaving ship and a 1st edition biography of Winston Chruchill.

Obama got him a set of 25 classic American films on DVD.

The only good thing about this gift is that it inspired this image from the excellent Guido Fawkes (where all credit must go):

Apparently Mrs Obama might be transmitting her coolness to Britain through her husband, Lady MacBeth style; she can't forgive us for the slave trade, you see.

As long as she gets her husband to pass on her distaste to Arab governments and leaders about their role, and the leaders of certain African countries about their on-going trade.

Oops, best shut the blind - a pig just flew past.

Catch us if you can!

Two of the world's most notorious con men take a moment to appreciate the enormity of the scam they have pulled off.

They're going to save the world!

Best not to mention how we got into this mess in the first place...