Jacqui Smith Set to Resign as Home Secretary

Jacqui Smith appears to have jumped before she was pushed - it is being reported that she will resign.

As she must be one of the most power hungry, fascist, dishonest parasites to ever hold the post, I can only welcome this news.

It was widely expected that she would be sacked after next week's post-election Cabinet reshuffle.

This is being dubbed a 'morning of crisis for Labour' - but one thing's for sure, the government is falling apart before our eyes.

The Mail reports:

• Jacqui Smith 'is quitting as Home Secretary'
• Three other Labour MPs resign in just two hours
  
• Patricia Hewitt and Beverley Hughes to go
  
• David Chaytor will also leave at next election
  
• Private prosecution threat for Chaytor and three others
• Cameron: Election essential to 'cleanse' Parliament

Surely not even Gordon can cling on much longer?

As the Powers of the Police Increase...

...It seems their authority actively declines.

Surrey Police detectives suspected that a local gypsy site was being used to store stolen goods. They organised a police helicopter to fly over the site and observe activity, as well as locating entrances and exits and where the goods might possibly be stored.

The helicopter flew over the site everyday for a week as the officers prepared their raid.

Yesterday, at around 10pm, a group of gypsies scaled the 4ft wall surrounding the Surrey Police helipad at Fairoaks Airport. They threatened control room staff before attacking the £5 million aircraft with axes and baseball bats.

Six windows were smashed and tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage caused. The helicopter is the only one covering Surrey's one million residents.

Police say that security at the site will now be 'reviewed', but they have no descriptions of the perpetrators.

I find this very surreal, and symptomatic of the lack of respect for the police in Britain. However, that respect is missing for a reason - the gypsies must have known the risk of getting caught was minimal.

Even if they are caught, what will happen to them?

This problem was touched upon yesterday when Jacqui 'Himmler' Smith, who calls herself the Home Secretary, addressed the Police Federation's annual conference.

The Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, openly mocked her. Its chairman, Paul McKeever, said that officers were 'sick to death' of seeing the same criminals over and over again.

Some studies estimate that around 100,000 career criminals are responsible for 75-80% of all crime committed in Britain.

McKeever slammed what he calls the 'hokey cokey' justice system - criminals go inside then come straight back out again:

'It's in out, in out, let all the prisoners out. In out, in out, shake the system about.'

He makes some very valid points. The politicians constantly change and reform the system, but their commitment to failed liberal ideas about crime and punishment stay intact. These tend to be found at the root of most modern problems, so it doesn't matter what you do to the system - the failure is systematic.

Therefore the outcome is always the same. A year or two ago, Justice Secretary Jack Straw was visiting a men's prison. One of the inmates told him that prison was too soft, in terms of conditions and as a punishment.

Straw, obviously, knew better and snapped:

"I personally feel being deprived of one's liberty is punishment enough."

Of course you do Jack - but you don't live in the real world. You don't come from a place where three meals a day, a roof, a bed and regular pool and television actually constitute quite a nice life compared to the one you have - provided you can look after yourself, of course.

We've spent forty years listening to what the likes of Straw and Smith 'feel' - and it generally revolves around treating criminal behaviour as a disease and putting more and more restrictions on the liberties of the rest of us in order to cover up the system's many shortcomings.

I'll leave you with some more quotes from Mr McKeever - who would make a fine Home Secretary:

During his speech, Mr McKeever branded the belief that constant modernisation and reshaping of the police will solve crime more effectively as a 'big lie'.
He said: 'We and the people we serve are being failed by the rest of the criminal justice system.
'A criminal justice system that isn't working and is seen by many people as being there to protect offenders' interests above the interests of law-abiding members of the public.

'Rather than addressing the real problem of ineffective sanctions, ineffective education programmes and ineffective rehabilitation the focus is on us, the police, to detect the same people more often and bring them before the courts again and again.'
Mr McKeever said the police are left in a 'constant state of flux' as politicians constantly demand change.

He added: 'This means we will never be left alone as we can never be seen as fit for purpose, otherwise politicians would themselves have to be answerable to the electorate as to why crime goes on being committed.

'In effect, in the eyes of politicians, the police are the problem that needs to be solved, when the reality is that it is the criminals who are the problem and we are the solution."as faced a tough time at the conference.

More Double Standards from New Labour

The Home Secretary yesterday released a list of sixteen named individuals who are not welcome in Britain due to their beliefs or the ideologies they subscribe to.

These included Islamist clerics and neo-Nazis. It also included Right-wing American radio host Michael Savage - who now insists he will sue Jacqui Smith for being put on a list which includes Hamas members and others who preach death and destruction. His crime was apparently to refer to the Koran as a 'book which inspires hate'.

Despite Jacqui's attempts to appear tough, it's all gone a little bit pear-shaped - it has just emerged that radical cleric Abu Izzadeen, who once heckled then-Home Secretary John 'Comrade Stalin' Reid was released from jail on Saturday after having his term cut by the Court of Appeal (second great decision this week).

He is joined on the streets of East London by four other fanatics who were jailed at the same time.

The preacher urged attacks on infidels around the world, and hosted fundraising events to bankroll attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Douglas Murray, of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said:

'These men are a danger to society. Abu Izzadeen and his organisation publicly call for attacks against those whom they see as enemies of Islam,' he said.

'Their ideology not only glorifies violent jihad but teaches their followers that taking part in suicide bombings is their duty as Muslims.

'The early release of a hate preacher like Abu Izzadeen demonstrates that the British courts are still far away from understanding the very clear and present danger that this country is facing from militant Islamists.'

British courts out of touch? Well I never.

A Relevant Inquiry into Botched Terror Raids

It has been reported that all of the twelve men arrested in Manchester, Liverpool and Lancashire nearly two weeks ago on suspicion of planning a terrorist atrocity have been released without charge.

Eleven Pakistani nationals are now in the custody of the UK Border Agency, and a British national has been allowed to walk free.

The government will seek to deport the eleven foreign men, but this already faces fierce opposition, with the Muslim Council of Britain claiming the men have been dealt with in a way which is 'dishonourable', and Muslim lawyers queuing up to play the 'human rights' card.

Many are now focusing on whether or not this will be the end of Jacqui Smith's career as Britain's premier purveyor of catastrophic errors - she faces an inquiry by the House of Lords.

A lot of people are now claiming that the raids were only launched in an attempt to garner positive headlines and deflect from the almost constant embarrassing revelations about Smith and other members of the government.

I beg to differ, however; I can't see much positive about this sorry saga.

Firstly, the men have not been found 'innocent' - there was not enough evidence to charge them. That is not quite the same thing, whatever the Muslim Council of Britain would have you believe.

Despite the state of modern Britain, I don't seriously believe for a second that the police would instigate such thorough and well co-ordinated raids unless they were being planned for some time.

Generally, such things are only planned for such a length of time when there's enough anecdotal evidence to suggest it is worth time and resources, which are obviously limited.

The police lost potentially vital hours in both preparation and questioning when former Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick inadvertently revealed top secret documents including the names and addresses of the suspects to photographers as he exited a vehicle outside Downing Street.

Mistakes happen. But I'm more concerned about the mistakes and short-sightedness which is now being swept under the carpet - why were these men in Britain in the first place?

All eleven were here on student visas. Immigration Minister Phil Woolas admitted just weeks previously that student visas represented perhaps the greatest legal loophole in allowing undesirables into Britain.

It is well known that terrorist recruitment and Islamic extremism are a growing force on Britain's university campuses. Some studies estimate that the risk from this source is actually greater than from mosques, even ones with well known extreme clerics.

We have enough home grown terrorists of our own - and yet still these men were allowed in. Not only that, but it quickly emerged that only one of them was actually signed up for a course at a reputable institution. It was also easily proven that they'd all lied about their financial resources - being self-sufficient is allegedly a condition of entry.

Bogus colleges and courses are a growing problem, charging foreign students thousands for what are often fake courses and qualifications. They operate from tiny back-street premises, and often pop back up even when they are closed down. The government estimate that up to 2,000 colleges with 'little or no educational merit' are open and operating in Britain.

Even worse, one of them turned up at immigration control upon landing at a British airport with incorrect documents. One airport immigration official, interviewed later, said his story and documents were 'all over the place'.

Was he detained and deported? No - he was told to come back later for an appointment and allowed to walk free. Days later he was arrested at a Cheetham Hill cyber cafe by armed anti-terrorist officers.

Four of the men signed up for jobs as security guards. Two were working in a large DIY chain, Homebase. If they were working for a company which contracts guards out, which they almost certainly were, they could potentially have been posted anywhere, even at sensitive sites.

There was a case in 2007 in which it emerged an illegal immigrant had been given security clearance to guard Gordon Brown's official car. This individual was part of a batch of 10,000 illegal immigrants cleared for high-level security posts - including ports, airports and sensitive police locations such as evidence stores.

I'm afraid it gets even worse than this, however. Two of the men arrested had worked for a cargo company which has access to planes and secure areas within airports. They may have even attended a 'Level 4 Airport Security Terrorism Awareness' training course, which would have been quite handy had they ever needed to avoid or breach airport security.

At least one of the suspects lived in a house owned by a known al-Qaeda financier, currently on the run.

Now, whether they are innocent or not isn't relevant. They are the tip of an iceberg, and we must question why such people are allowed in at all - especially when they're not even attending a proper university.

What this case proves is that the immigration system is in meltdown.

Why should Jacqui Smith not answer for that? Why should she not also answer for having two men who tried to expose the fact arrested and threatened with life in prison?

Gordon Brown was very quick to announce he was phoning the Pakistani government to demand they 'get tough on terror' after the arrests - but shouldn't he sack the ministers who are actually responsible for this shambles?

It's the responsibility of the government when they rubber stamp immigration documents for undesirables or potential criminals - it is not the fault of the country they come from.

How can the Pakistani authorities possibly be held responsible for our gullibility and incompetence?

We now face years of legal wrangling, all at the taxpayers' expense, to remove these men to Pakistan.

Why were they here in the first place?

Someone must answer this question and expose the system to public scrutiny. Here's a taste of the problems caused once people who shouldn't be here have made it:

Lawyer Mohammed Ayub, who is representing three of the men, said in a statement: "After 13 days in custody, during which no evidence of any wrongdoing was disclosed, they have now been released without charge.

"Our clients have no criminal history, they were here lawfully on student visas and all were pursuing their studies and working part-time. Our clients are neither extremists nor terrorists."

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the government had been "dishonourable" over the way it had dealt with the men.

Mr Bunglawala told the BBC that when the arrests "took place in very dramatic circumstances of students being pulled out of university and thrown to the floor" the public had been assured the men posed a serious threat.

He said it was unacceptable for the government to make these sorts of prejudicial remarks from the outset and then, having found insufficient evidence to bring charges, to deport the men anyway.

"Politics should not be interfering with what is primarily a legal process," he said.

"What we don't want is people becoming cynical as a result of politician's premature remarks and thinking: 'well, that's what they said last time'."

Well, Mohammed Ayub will be laughing all the way to the bank - not that he has an agenda or anything, I'm sure.

In addition, it costs on average £50,000 per detainee to keep immigrants awaiting deportation in custody, so that's even more reason to not allow things to reach this point.

Jacqui Smith and her predecessors have far more to answer for than one inquiry could ever do justice to.

Damien Green MP Cleared of all Charges

More embarrassment for beleaguered Home Secretary Jacqui Smith emerged over the weekend - Tory MP and immigration spokesman Damien Green and civil servant Chris Galley were cleared of all charges after prosecutors ruled that they were acting in the public interest by leaking a series of confidential information from the Home Office.

Green and Galley were arrested by anti-terror police six months ago in a highly controversial move after a series of embarrassing revelations emerged about the poor way the Home Office was being run, including huge backlogs in immigration cases.

Sir David Normington, the Home Office's leading civil servant, claimed that national security was at stake.

The Director of Public Prosecutions begged to differ, however, stating that the information leaked was not secret.

Whilst Mr Green blamed Smith for his 6 month ordeal which included his home and Commons office being searched and being threatened with life imprisonment, he stopped short of calling for her resignation.

Chris Galley, however, insists that the public had a right to know just how badly the Home Office is being run - he says he would do it all again, even after being threatened with life in prison.

The case raises many disturbing questions - why the Home Office and asylum application system is in meltdown, and what's being done about it; why the Home Secretary is more concerned about covering it up than rectifying it; the increasing politicisation of the police and abuse of anti-terror legislation to suit the government's ends; but also why any opposition politician who actually does their job is increasingly seen as a threat to 'democracy'.

There are simple and predictable answers to all of the above questions, but none of them address the core issue of the incompetence and lethargy increasingly found in the attitude of Britain's politicians.

The road this country is on has a very unpleasant destination indeed, and I for one am very glad men such as Damien Green, David Davis and Chris Galley are prepared to stand up and say enough is enough, no matter how ineffectual the results.

Awards for Unsung Muslim Heroes

Sometimes, when I discuss Islamic militancy, chauvinism or terrorism, people ask me: "What about all the moderate Muslims, the productive members of society?"

A fair point, perhaps. Well, it turns out that not only has the BBC tracked down such Muslims, but they've had their own special award ceremony for the last 9 years.

This ceremony is the annual Muslim News Awards for Excellence. Jacqui Smith left her sister's home specially to be there, and other distinguished guests among the 800 invited included shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.

So, without further ado, who are these heroes, those Muslims who make us proud to be a tolerant, inclusive nation?

The winners included:

Mohammed Ali, a Birmingham-based graffiti artist whose so-called aerosol Arabic is influenced by both classical Islamic calligraphy and urban street graffiti.

Imran Sidat, 15, from Leicester, who competes for England in freestyle karate and kickboxing

Mohammed Mujahid Ali, an alternative therapist, for work improving the wellbeing and mental health of black and minority ethnic people.

Reverend Gilleasbuig MacMillan, minister at St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, for welcoming Muslims to the cathedral.

Acclaimed Iraq-born composer Ahmed Mukhtar, who is based in London and is master player of the Oud, the stringed instrument popular in the Middle East.

Oh.

We have a petty vandal, a sportsman (worthy, but he's no different from any of the scores of other British kids training for the Olympics), a racist masseuse, a dhimmi and a person who plays an instrument no one has ever heard of.

Can you seriously imagine the Home Secretary turning up to something like this if the terms 'ethnic minority' and 'community relations' weren't involved?

In any case, where are the Muslim firemen, police officers, paramedics, doctors? There must be many, so is this seriously the best they can do?

The BBC trills:

A judging panel drawn from Britain's Muslim community judged the awards in politics, business, sports and the arts.

Ms Smith, who took to the stage to present an award, said: "Promoting dialogue and understanding is crucially important at a time when we see those on the extreme fringes of society peddling an empty ideology of isolation, fear and hatred.

"We will have to stand up to them and we all have a duty to make ourselves heard."

Previous winners have included boxing champion Amir Khan and MP Sadiq Khan.

The editor of the Muslim News, Ahmed Versi, said: "We began this event nine years ago because we believed that British Muslims have a lot to offer to British society.

"The quality of nominations from our 150,000 readers show that British Muslims still have what it takes to be pioneering contributors to the common good."

What utterly patronising nonsense.

Albanian Spy Chief Living in London

In the same week it was announced that the Government here in Britain will set up a huge central database monitoring everyone's emails and internet visits, Jacqui Smith told us that an al-Qaeda 'dirty bomb' attack could be imminent.

She claimed that the risk of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive attack has 'soared' in the last five years.

I would imagine it has. I suppose it's just a huge coincidence that Smith wants to push yet more draconian anti-terror legislation, infringe upon our liberties even further, but takes no practical measures to reduce the threat.

She admits that all four of the highest level threats come from Muslim groups - yet anyone is still free to wander into the country, and guaranteed years of appealing even if they're asked to leave.

However, control of the UK's borders is as amusingly lax as ever. Yesterday it was revealed that a wanted Albanian spy chief, accused of torture and kidnap has been living is a west London flat and claiming thousands of pounds in benefits for 13 years.

Ilir Kumbaro, 55, entered Britain using false documents and claiming to be a Kosovan refugee. He gave a fake name, convinced the authorities he was fleeing Serb persecution and was granted indefinite leave to remain.

He was issued with a British passport and given incapacity benefits for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, Jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit.

This is a perfect demonstration of how deep this problem is; I don't think spying on emails is the answer when we have people like this in the country. If this one man is here, how many fanatics, torturers and murderers from around the world are currently living in Britain?

Maybe Jacqui could start logging her own emails and actually do her job - keep this country safe, enforce its borders and keep miscreants out. How many men do al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO and others have living in Britain, claiming benefits until the time is right to strike?

Finding out who they are and how they got in will do more to prevent a terrorist atrocity than a 3 hour training course for receptionists.

Jacqui Smith's Priorities are Wrong on Terrorism

The Telegraph reported yesterday that eleven terror suspects are still in the United Kingdom five months after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith vowed to deport them.

All charges have been dropped against one of the men and he has been released, although Smith won't reveal which one or why.

Today, she's at it again - revealing that up to 60,000 British workers, including shop and hotel staff, are to be given special training to help them deal with the aftermath of a terrorist incident. This is a central plank of her updated 'counter-terrorism strategy', which includes throwing people into prison without trial and various other tough-talk-no-action nonsense.

Apparently these measures will make Britain's ability to respond to terrorism 'the most comprehensive in the world'.

Here is a small taste of what we're talking about:

'The updated strategy will increase the focus on challenging individuals and groups who undermine the UK's "shared values" - even if they are not breaking the law.

Gordon Brown said tens of thousands of civilians had already been trained in how to look out for suspicious behaviour in crowded places and to react in the event of an attack.

The prime minister told the Observer: "Today, not only the police and security and intelligence officers and our armed forces, but also the emergency services, local councils, businesses and community groups are involved in state-of-the-art contingency planning.

"Tens of thousands of men and women throughout Britain - from security guards to store managers - have now been trained and equipped to deal with an incident and know what to watch for as people go about their daily business in crowded places such as stations, airports, shopping centres and sports grounds." '

It sounds like some sort of North Korean labour mobilisation march. As safe as I now feel knowing that 'tens of thousands' of British people had to receive special training to spot suspicious behaviour, here's a really radical thought (and not in the 'please lock me up for 42 days without trial' sense):

Why don't they actually address potential terrorist activity at its very root? By that I mean taking back a degree of control over our borders and preventing these people from entering Britain in the first place.

Smith and countless other Home Secretaries have admitted that not only do they have no idea at all who is in this country, they have also struggled in vain against EU and UN human rights legislation to deport any identified as a threat, either through violent criminal behaviour or Islamist rhetoric.

The Mail has published several articles this week about how easy it is to sneak into Britain from Calais. Lorry drivers are threatened, middlemen try the doors of trailers as the French police sit by and do nothing.

They only get lucky about one time in ten, but on that occasion as many migrants as possible will flood into the lorry and take their chance through Customs.

Nearly all of these migrants are young Muslim men. A large number come from Iraq and Afghanistan, lands were British men are still dying to fight Islamic terrorism.

As soon as these people arrive in Britain, they know that they can only be removed after a protracted legal battle, normally at the expense of taxpayers.

Many will be economic migrants, but who knows? Who are they, what are their intentions?

This is the front line in the War on Terror as far as I'm concerned, not the Brixton branch of Sainsbury's, and it's about time Jacqui Smith and others accepted the fact.

Double Standards on ID Cards

The British Government was yesterday displaying yet more of its brazen double standards. I hope that you're suitably shocked.

According to James Lyons of the Daily Mirror, if ID cards are forced through against the will of the public and Her Majesty's Opposition (and for once I'm not using that title ironically), the Government will levy a £1,000 fine if they are lost and this fact is not reported within a month.

A replacement will cost an extra £30, which is estimated to earn the Government £33 million in replacement fees (estimates based on the number of passports and driving licences lost each year). These very same calculations predict that over 1 million cards could be lost or stolen each year.

Interesting. But Mr Lyons also reveals that Whitehall staff lose, on average, 23 security passes and official accreditation per day. The Ministry of Defence alone lost 11,245 last year - but oddly, they're not fined - the documents are simply replaced at the expense of taxpayers.

I find this incredible; if someone issues you a security pass which allows you to work in the heart of government, should you not be expected to be quite careful with it?

If you can't even manage to hang on to your own security pass, are you fit to do your job?

Yes, everyone makes mistakes - but 23 separate incidents on the average day?

I feel this fact alone explains an awful lot about the state of our country and our government.

Registry on a central ID card database will be compulsory for all passport applicants from 2012, as will having your finger prints taken like a common criminal, as well as potentially an interview. However at this point you will not have to be issued with or carry the card.

They will only become compulsory for all over-16s if Labour win the next election (and I wish them good luck with that, naturally) and manage to get the legislation past MPs.

Foreign nationals living here already have them (as seen in the sample pictured above, being launched by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith).

I'm against the idea for several reasons; I see them as a sneaky way to introduce an internal EU passport (most other European countries already have them in some form, natch).

The immigration system has been too shambolic for decades for the scheme to have any chance of aiding border controls or national security.

It just seems a way for the government to increase its power and its army of bureaucrats whilst being seen to do something about immigration and the threat of terrorism - and being seen to do things whilst not actually doing them at all is what New Labour likes best.

6 Weeks for a Life: Weekly News Round Up, 22nd - 28th February 2009

A selection of telling headlines from the UK this week.


1) Nazir Ahmed, the controversial Muslim Labour peer, was jailed for just 12 weeks for the death of Slovakian Martyn Gombar in a car crash. Despite only being ordered to serve half the given sentence, his lawyer Steve Smith still thinks it's too much.

Says Mr Smith:

"Lord Ahmed is clearly no danger to the public and in these circumstances the prison authorities can consider early release, if he serves a minimum of 18 days....They know he will not try to escape. His life and career have been wrecked for the sake of 18 days in prison. It's pathetic."

Not a danger to the public! You do have to commend him for trying. I would personally say he's the most dangerous man in the House of Lords, and I think what I wrote here on Wednesday bears that out.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mr Gombar's widow has a slightly different perspective.

She says:

"I would not be happy with a decision to release Lord Ahmed on a tag. It is one rule for Lords and another for everyone else."


Sadly, I think she'll find that pretty much everyone would have been treated as leniently under the circumstances. I must say my own faith in the justice system (particularly when it comes to individuals like Ahmed) is so low that the only part of this that truly surprises me is that Ahmed is in prison as I write.

Although given the skeletons rattling in Ahmed's cupboard, I'm sure one could be forgiven for thinking it's one rule for Lord Ahmed, and another for everyone else.

After all, we wouldn't want to inflame the passions of Britain's most sensitive minority community - they might storm HMP Doncaster and carry him off astride their shoulders, like some sort of symbolic modern version of the Bastille.



2) Smith's fury as judges free four terror suspects:

Tell me - does Jacqui Smith actually live on the same planet I do? She is the Home Secretary, so she must surely have some idea of British law, and the precedents her immigration judges have previously set?

Four men, three Algerians and a Jordanian, are facing deportation, considered a threat to national security. One of the Algerians, codenamed 'Z', entered Britain in 1992 on a tourist visa, but overstayed.

In 1997, he was arrested in possession of chemicals, radios, rockets, night-vision goggles and bomb-making literature.

What was his next step?

He claimed political asylum, after admitting leading a London branch of the GIA. You see, had he been deported, those dastardly Algerians might not have treated him very well.

But none of this is the issue, according to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission; the issue is, where possible, they like to let people they're probably going to kick out of the country out on bail.

That way, not only can they not sue the Home Office or the UK Border Agency, but most of them simply abscond, saving us the deportation and detention costs. It sort of naturally streamlines the system.

In this case, the government believes the men are so dangerous that there is a risk to the public if they abscond rather than waiting for the outcome of their appeals.

Mr Justice Mitting said the government had failed to prove the men were at risk of disappearing, which, if nothing else provides some light comic relief.

Miss Smith said:

"My top priority is to protect the public. There is a risk that these individuals will abscond if they are not detained."

The problem is, protecting the public begins at the border. Miss Smith and countless numbers of her predecessors had absolutely no idea how many people were wandering into the UK, who they were or what their intentions were. Nor did they much seem to care, spending far more time pontificating about the rights of such people and the inevitability of their arrival, as well as smearing anyone who objected as racist.

As thee sow, so shall thee reap.



3) It emerged this week that Tony Virasami, who killed an ME sufferer his girlfriend wrongly accused of queue-jumping in a supermarket with one blow, was already wearing an electronic tag after being released early from prison.

Had Virasami (pictured above), a heroin addict with a record for violence, been inside serving the sentence handed down, the innocent man in question would still be alive.

I do wish that those who feel criminals deserve compassion would have some thought for prison's primary function, which is to protect the public from dangerous individuals.

Apparently Kevin Tripp, the victim, was standing near a man who had cut in front of Virasami's girlfriend. She then fetched Virasami, pointed at the perpetrator, but he thought she was pointing at Tripp.

The CCTV image above clearly shows the moment Virasami struck.

As Tripp lay dying on the floor after striking his head, it was pointed out to Miss Richardson, Virasami's girlfriend, that she'd identified the wrong man.

Her reply was:

"Yes, let's find the right one."

So a pair of drug addicts, convicted criminals both, have such fragile egos that an innocent man is dead, a young girl left fatherless.


4) A Birmingham-born Muslim, Mohammed Ali, has had his pro-Palestine graffiti mural scrubbed out by police, who feared the house it was painted on might be petrol-bombed (presumably by one of the marauding gangs of Jews who absolutely hate anyone else's right to free speech. Never let it be said that anyone in the UK is out of touch with reality).

Ali said his murals are designed to create unity between communities, and he was deeply troubled that they could be interpreted as divisive or offensive.

But then he would be, wouldn't he? The murals aren't offensive because they express a point of view with which local Muslims are sympathetic; to prove this point, Tariq Khan, a Lib Dem councillor, and Khalid Mahmood MP, Muslims both, duly started screaming about censorship, because the mural reflects the 'feelings of young people about injustices in Gaza'.

I never heard them comment on the Geert Wilders ban, or any other act of censorship undertaken to appease Muslims, however.

Ruth Jacobs, spokeswoman for the Israel Information Centre in Birmingham, said:

"I would not complain about these images because they are part of the right of free speech in this country."

Perhaps when the average Muslim feels the same, we will have genuine 'community harmony'. I will not hold my breath, however. I don't think you need much imagination to picture the type of reactions had a mural been painted from the Israeli perspective.




5) An episode of the iconic British soap opera 'Eastenders' was broadcast this week which contained only black characters.

There was a mixed reaction, with some saying it's simply for the sake of political correctness,others saying it's just not relevant, and professional race-baiters like the Guardian's Hannah Pool who took more of a 'what took them so long?' line.

I watched the episode, which focused largely on attitudes to black people in Britain and how they've changed, using the Notting Hill race riots of 1958 as a sort of prism.

I must say I largely agree with Tory MP David Davis, who said:

"It did not give a balanced view of race issues. There’s a danger here of winding up non-black people."

Firstly, a lot of the characters spoke of things like 'my history, as a black person'.

As far as I'm concerned that's not a problem; as long as it works both ways, and white Britons are allowed to be proud of their history, too. But let's be honest, that's not generally how it works at all.

The other problem I have is that generally I think mass immigration from the Third World was a huge mistake, and is an ongoing one. That doesn't mean I hate black people, or indeed hate anyone; it simply means I recognise that importing huge numbers of unassimilable immigrants from alien cultures simply does not work, and largely never has done.

However, I recognise that the black people at Notting Hill in 1958 had a right to defend their own from what they saw as unprovoked violence from the 'Teddy Boys'. I do not condone violence.

But I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a black intellectual or white BBC luvvie who thought that ordinary Britons had the right to defend their country and communities from what many saw as an invasion; they were not asked about it and were largely against it.

Controversial? Yes, but in my opinion that was a glaring double standard; just the sort of thing the BBC does best.

For Shame (II): The Death Knell for Freedom in Britain

Last Thursday afternoon Geert Wilders, the controversial Dutch MP, arrived on British soil. Upon arrival he was 'detained' by immigration officials at Heathrow airport, shown the letter from the Secretary of State banning him from the United Kingdom, and escorted on to the next available flight back to the Netherlands.

You may have heard that Geert was arrested, or at least be under the impression that being locked in a room by uniformed officials is being arrested; but no, he was simply escorted and detained. That's our story, and we're sticking to it. But, if anyone ever tells you that Britain no longer leads the world in any field, you know better; simply look at this individual, smile, and say:

"Oh yes it does. Great Britain leads the world in Orwellian political euphemisms."

At the moment, I am ashamed to be British. I have never before found myself in the position where I'd prefer to tell people I come from elsewhere; but today, that's exactly how I feel. Islamic militancy is perhaps the defining issue of our age; it has been part of the mass public consciousness since the 11th September 2001 attacks, but in reality has existed in a recognisable form since the Iranian Revolution at least.

It is far more dangerous than the most rabid ethnic nationalism, the evil we're constantly told to watch out for, whilst casting aside any politician or party that thrives on even a modicum of group interest which is not approved of by 'multiculturalism' - for example Mr Wilders' 'Partij voor de Vrijheid'.

It is dangerous because people do not understand it. Most ideas of racial, national or cultural supremacy or increasingly ethnic or racial identity are either unthinkable or easily derided, because our society and education system innoculates us so well against them.

It immunises us similarly from any ideas that are seen as outdated, old-fashioned, or standing in the way of reason, progress and one beautiful world where people of all nations and colours stand in a huge circle, holding hands and singing. Whilst singing, they are thinking about how much better they are than their fusty, bloodthirsty ancestors who did crazy, madcap things like love their country, die for flags and ideas, care about the future of the society they'd built. Well, not much better, obviously, because that would imply judging, and that's a dirty word in New Britain, one of the very few things that absolutely must not be done unless you're Simon Cowell.

However, this immunisation has worked too well. Because not only have we lost most of the natural urges needed for national or cultural survival, we have also ceased to be capable of understanding anyone who has not lost these urges.

For example, take the constant pressure the UN puts Japan under for not wanting to take in large numbers of immigrants from the Third World; as if this attempt at national preservation is a great and baffling evil. But then, looking at the general results of mass immigration elsewhere, why would the Japanese government wish to replicate what many citizens in Western countries see as a failed social experiment at their expense?

This is just one example of how something which would have made perfect sense to almost everyone a mere 40 years ago is seen as archaic, even wrong, today.

A few years ago some research came out that suggested children who lived in homes which were very clean had worse immune systems than those wo were regularly exposed to dirt; the body needs to come into contact with germs in order to build its defences against them, and thus if it has no contact at all, it is less healthy as a result.

I fear modern Britain, and the modern Western world as a whole, finds itself in a similar position. We have cast aside our demons, apologised for our past; but in the process we have cut out a huge swathe of healthy tissue along with any tumour. So much, in fact, that it's touch and go whether or not the patient will survive.

We live in a country that prides itself on many things. One of those things is freedom of speech. That died on Thursday when Mr Wilders was turned away from Heathrow. In any case, its death was perhaps no real surprise; our society has been very sick for some time. However, most of our country's political elite seem to think that we've never had it better.

They spend much time, money and effort fighting 'isms'; these 'isms' are apparently the root of all evil, and once they are finally eradicated society will be peaceful, healthy and free. Racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism and the others that get added to the list every so often will all be on the dustbin of history, and a triumphant populace will unite in the cause of progress.

If you doubt that many members of society's educated elite actually feel this way, the best way to check is to get hold of a school textbook. There is no historical or social issue that cannot be boiled down to the concept of discrimination. Nothing is worthy of pride or respect; we stole and pillaged it all.

Another example is television and the media. I recenty looked up 'The Twilight Zone' on wikipedia. The original series ran in America from 1959 - 1964, but there were a couple of remakes, the second of which ran from 2002 - 2003. Why am I telling you this?

Well, the original version was filmed and screened in a country in which racial segregation was a fact of life; widely accepted, and supported. However, the blurb for the modern series insists that many of Rod Sterling's original scripts were tweaked to 'tackle contemporary issues... like racism'. This, 7 years before Barack Obama captured 45% of the white electorate. This, in the age of affirmative action.

All very interesting.

There's a huge problem though. The vast majority of us have had the 'white nationalism' jab, and it was pretty painless. Many of us have also had the British/American/German/Swedish etc nationalism jabs, and are safely immunised against such quaint notions. Some even go on to a programme of 'one-world-no-borders-no-person-is-illegal' supplements, although these may cause mild nausea.

This political immunisation, however, distorts reality almost as much as the ideologies it so desperately wants to defend you from. Probably a bit more. Because Westerners are pretty much the only people on earth who think this way.

The government may have successfully defeated ideas of white/British/European supremacy, and in doing so chipped out a huge chunk of our identity alongside; but there are other supremacist ideologies out there. One in particular the government is afraid of; in fact, far from being defeated, this particular supremacist ideology is on the rise, throughout the West and the wider world.

Its very name means 'submission'.

This ideology is Islam.

Now, this self-confident, aggrandised supremacy exists alongside a native culture which has all but withered and died. It is, at the very least, a shadow of what it once was. In my opinion, this is because successive governments have deliberately deprived the British from any sense of their own value and worth, and tried to re-shape identity through 'multiculturalism'. They abandoned our history and culture as 'offensive', yet insist we treat values that genuinely are offensive as equal.

So let's put the strands together; we have an aggressive, supremacist Third World ideology which has a long history of conquest; not just military conquest, but cultural, linguistic and political conquest. This is now growing in a Britain which has completely lost faith or confidence in itself, in which a version of any potential conqueror's history is taught in the schools already, in which many citizens have been stripped of all but the most trivial facets of their identity and told they're evil if they even think of resisting.

We can already see the ill effects, however, and the Geert Wilders debacle was the pinnacle of something that's been growing for some time. You see, what's happening in this country today is exactly what happens when people lose all contact with their own past.

Even if we know about historical figures and events, many assume these people were so different and so detached from our reality that we're incapable of making the same mistakes. This is perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of the multicultural movement.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith must know about Hitler, the threat that Nazism posed in the 1930s, and Neville Chamberlain's attempts to appease him by selling out the Czechs. Yet it seems she has learnt no lessons from history at all; sometimes, giving in to people isn't enough. It can even embolden them, make them certain they're dealing with people who are weak and ineffectual, who will give them anything under the right circumstances.

This is a problem with supremacist ideologies like Nazism, and for that matter Islam; the chosen, whether they be defined as Germans, Arabs or Muslims, are always right. By definition, anyone who opposes them or stands in the way is wrong, an enemy.

This is where the lack of understanding we discussed earlier comes in; Jacqui Smith, like Chamberlain, casts her own mindset on to her opponents. She assumes everyone is like her, a seemingly rational actor who desires peace, tolerance and compromise. She thinks that because she goes to the meeting of minds ready to bend before anything has been said, so must everyone else.

But peace has many definitions, the simplest of which is simply a status quo; Europe could have known peace of sorts had it simply let Hitler do exactly as he pleased. Of course, it would be a different kind of peace from the one with which we're familiar; but no one would be fighting back, that much is certain. That is why 'peace' for its own sake is a ridiculous notion, because there's always a time when enough is enough, and the option of compromise has passed.

Please proceed in an orderly fashion to Part 3.

A Semi-detached Home Secretary: Weekly News Round Up, 8th-14th February 2009

The week that shamed Britain. However, the Geert Wilders debacle was far from the only thing in the news. Here is an overview of some of the more interesting stories from this week's UK newspapers.


1) 'Smith faces official probe over expenses scandal'

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is currently embroiled in a different kind of 'home security' issue; that is fraudulently securing funding for her second home allowance. Apparently she has been staying in her sister's spare room in London during the week (despite turning down a free grace-and-favour apartment which comes with her office), and claiming a second home allowance. That means she's walking away with a tax-free sum of at least £24,000 per year, which is about the average national income.

Nice to know one with such honesty and scruples is in charge of the criminal justice system.


2) 'Prescott launches online campaign against bank bonuses'

Former Deputy Prime Minister John 'Moneybags' Prescott has taken it upon himself to fight bank bosses who have been awarded large bonuses, despite the government ploughing millions of pounds of taxpayers money into propping up said banks after some spectacular failures.

In principle I agree with him, but I think a slightly more palatable crusader could have been found; this is man who was once nicknamed 'two Jags', and unlike anyone who writes at the Daily Mirror I do not think his authentic northern accent makes him some ambassador for the poor. However, I have one suggestion for his movement; maybe failed politicians could also be stripped of all financial perks and bonuses.

If you define 'fail' in the same way as the Oxford English Dictionary and me, then an awful lot of money will be saved.


3) 'Harry to be sent on a diversity training course'

Prince Harry is to be sent on something called a 'diversity course' after yet another controversy over racism in the Royal Family. Apparently, Harry told black comedian Stephen K. Amos 'he didn't sound like a black chap' after a performance at Prince Charles' 60th birthday celebrations.

Oh dear. This comedian was so bothered he took almost 3 months to say something, duly went to the newspapers at an opportune moment, then after several days of screaming headlines and controversy piped up again to say 'it was no big deal' and 'Harry's no racist'.

Well, someone has certainly got a first class publicist, that much is certain.


4) 'Geert Out: Far-right Dutch MP banned from Britain'

Dutch MP Geert Wilders made a splash in most newspapers this week after being banned from Britain. One person against the ban was Islamic cleric Anjem Chaudary, who said he would have welcomed an opportunity to engage Mr Wilders 'in an open debate about whether Islam offers a better solution than Capitalism.'

He didn't specify whether this was to be a 'Mohammed Bouyeri Vs. Theo van Gogh' style debate, however, one where success is measured by the number of stab wounds your opponent receives rather than the traditional 'rational argument' method.

I'm also not quite sure in just what field 'Islam' is supposed to be a better way forward than Capitalism. I would assume he's talking about economics and governance in general, but I must admit a glance at any particular Muslim country does not inspire me in either of those fields, or indeed any other. Certainly not when oil money is taken out of the equation.

But still, it's official. Anjem Chaudary is technically more open minded than the Home Secretary.
That or he just wanted an excuse to watch our city centres burn, not that one is usually required.


5) Kent Police, my local force, decided to celebrate 'LGBT History Month' by sending out poetry packs to school children urging them to 'think about how it feels to be gay' and 'what being gay might mean to them in the future'.

Isn't taxpayers' cash a beautiful thing? It can be put to almost any purpose, except of course that for which it was designated.

Personally I prefer to think about 'why crime is soaring yet the police are wasting time on such pointless trivialities' and 'Kent Police: is this nonsense really their job?'


6) This week it also emerged that a 13 year old boy has fathered a child with his 15 year old girlfriend.

I'm fairly certain anything I could possibly add after that sentence would be superfluous, and whilst that doesn't normally stop me, the situation simply leaves me at a loss for words.

However, it has now been revealed that this 15 year old girl has slept with so many males that the baby's paternity is in doubt, and the father of the 13 year old may have played up claims his son is the father for money.

Just makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?


7) Government professor Tony Nutt recommended that the illegal party drug ecstasy be downgraded from a Class A drug to Class B. To demonstrate his case, the eminent professor compared taking ecstasy to horse riding, because apparently they're responsible for a similar number of deaths each year. For most people that would be where the comparison ends, but not the aptly named Professor Nutt; to him, the activities are so similar in terms of risk, worth and moral standing, he coined the term 'equasy', a term allegedly supposed to be a playful word association.

Unfortunately for him, it just made him sound like a complete idiot, and pretty much discredited anything else he said beforehand. For which I thank him - it makes my job so much easier.


8) London Mayor Boris Johnson was caught going on a 'foul-mouthed tirade' at MP and professional passport salesman Keith Vaz. Good - it's about time someone did.

I'm sure if I had to deal with such people on a daily basis I too would snap. However, the circumstances do not damn Mr Johnson as the headlines would like; Vaz is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and is trying to justify the arrest late last year of opposition MP Damien Green.