Horrible Histories

The following is a clip from a BBC history programme aimed at children.

It's riddled with factual inaccuracies, but the shrill, hectoring tone and the general anti-British content gives an interesting view of how the BBC views British history - and would like us to.

We actually fund this tripe.

A count of the lies and inaccuracies can be found in the comment section here.

Hat tip: Biased BBC.

60 'Asians' Attack Crowded Pub - Ignored by Media

There's nothing new about the media in Britain ignoring violent crime directed against white people by immigrants or their descendants.

This story is slightly different, however. Innocent drinkers and their families were attacked by up to 60 Asian men who stormed into a crowded pub as people were watching a football match.

Not only was this incident ignored by pretty much all the mainstream papers, Bedfordshire Police said that the incident did not warrant comment.

A reader sent me the following scan via email, and told me that it appeared in The Sun newspaper some time last week. It was regarded as so unimportant that there is no web link.

Here is the scan followed by my transcript:

Race riot 'cover-up'

A police force slammed for being politically correct tried to COVER UP a weekend race riot.

More than 60 Asians were said to have stormed The White House pub where families gathered after a football game.

Several people were beaten up as terrified women and kids fled.

But Bedfordshire police, who sent in 100 officers, said the Luton attack "did not warrant comment."

Steve Dann, 26, who was hit by a bottle in the incident, said: "There was blood everywhere."

Earlier this year Bedfordshire police stood by as Muslim fanatics abused hero British soldiers on a homecoming parade in Luton town centre.

I googled this story, and the only place it appears seems to be on the 'Stormfront' forum.

I have to ask myself why this isn't regarded as newsworthy - as my tipster pointed out, if it had been the other way around it would have been international news.

The Daily Mail Suffers a Sense of Humour Failure

The Daily Mail brings us the following outrageous, barely believable story from this year's BNP Red, White & Blue Festival:

The BNP have often denied being a racist party.

But as a man dressed as U.S. president Barack Obama was put in stocks, the true colours of the party were clear for all to see.

The shocking scene was part of the BNP's annual Red, White and Blue festival which is taking place in Codnor, Derbyshire this weekend.

So, what we are supposed to conclude here is that because Obama is black, he is above mockery and being lampooned, something which pretty much all politicians all over the world are subjected to (except of course in repressive states)?

Would we be urged to be disgusted if the mask depicted Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, even Brown?

It's clearly a charity game where people throw wet sponges at the person in the stocks, not an effigy; perhaps the BNP simply have contempt for the man and his ridiculous policies, or his even more ridiculous cult of celebrity.

Perhaps they should have made a film imagining his assassination instead - it might have been shown on Channel 4!

Incidentally, I don't remember the Mail concluding that, for example, the following shocking scenes show the true nature of Islam:

Which one is a bit of harmless fun with a political flavour, and which one is genuine murderous hatred?

Teacher Convicted of Sexual Assault

I have written previously about the case of Nigerian-born teacher Keith Ogunsola, accused of sexually assaulting several young girls in his care.

The case was completely ignored by the mainstream press, despite such incidents usually making the headlines without fail.

On 30th July 2009, Ogunsola was convicted of sexual assault and told he was facing "an immediate prison sentence."

This information was only reported in This is Surrey Today, an online edition of several local newspapers:

A PERVERTED teacher who plunged his tongue into a 14-year-old's mouth faces jail after being convicted of sexual assault.

A court heard how Keith Ogunsola, 44, from Banstead, grabbed hold of the teenager in his office and kissed her.

He also quizzed pupils about their sex lives.

The married father was said to have embarrassed girls during a chemistry revision class by asking if they had given oral sex to their boyfriends.

Describing her ordeal in Ogunsola's office in February 2008, the girl said: "He put his arms around my waist and said 'do you want a kiss?'

"He pulled me close and then kissed me and put his tongue in my mouth.

"I pushed him away. He pulled me really close.

"He was holding my wrists and he kissed me again."

Snaresbrook Crown Court, in east London, heard the science master had been cleared of sexual assault on a pupil at the same school two years earlier.

He was also cleared of two sexual assaults at a school in Carshalton in 2000 but continued to work as a teacher.

Jurors took three hours to unanimously convict Ogunsola of sexual assault, he was cleared of two counts of indecent assault and attempted sexual assault.

Judge Martyn Zeidman QC told him: "You have committed a huge breach of trust.

"You have taken advantage of that girl and you have behaved disgracefully.

"You're facing an immediate prison sentence."

But the judge ordered pre-sentence reports and bailed Nigerian-born Ogunsola for sentencing on August 28.

Prosecutors are seeking an order banning Ogunsola from working with children.

Following his conviction on Friday, July 24, The Mirror went to his home address to ask what neighbours thought about the verdict.

One neighbour, who had known Mr Ogunsola and his family for more than 10 years, was shocked at the news.

He said: "I can't see how this can be true.

"He's a total family man. I just don't believe it."

Another resident said: "I am very surprised to hear this.

"I've always got on with him and thought he was ok."

A male relative of Ogunsola, of Chipstead Way, said the family were supporting him.

A further search of this website reveals nothing, however, so we don't know if Ogunsola was actually jailed, or how long for.

Seeing as there are frequent drives to recruit 'ethnic minority' candidates, including the foreign-born, as teachers, perhaps it would be nice if the government was capable of deciding who has the right to enter and settle in this country, before making our professions look more like the world.

Kevin Maguire on South Africa

Regular readers will know that oafish Leftist Kevin Maguire is not my favourite person.

A Mirror columnist, he keeps alive Left-Right divides which in reality died decades ago, simply so he can pour forth his hatred of those who differ from him ideologically.

This is the man who recently said: "The only way David Cameron will lose the next election is if they find Madeleine McCann in his garage."

He then refused to apologise.

Kevin is currently in South Africa. Here are his thoughts on Nelson Mandela:

Robben Island, off the coast of Cape Town in South Africa, is a shrine to Nelson Mandela, the world's living saint.

Former inmates show visitors his tiny cell and the quarry where he and prisoners, including President Jacob Zuma, were made to break rocks. But the apartheid regime couldn't break the freedom fighters, which makes Robben Island a humbling experience.

I recall bigots moaning that his release interrupted an episode of Antiques Roadshow. I'd have phoned the BBC myself had this historic moment been cut short to show a Queen Anne table.

I revere "Saint Nelson", but the great man is also the gentle butt of one of the best jokes I've heard.

Who says prison doesn't work? Look at Nelson Mandela.

He did 27 years and hasn't reoffended since his release.

Well, pretty much everything he complains about in his main column can be attributed back to Mandela's failures - although, obviously, in Kevin's world such things are still the thought of the evil white minority, who just won't give ordinary South Africans a break. Can't hold the saint responsible for his actions and his mistakes, after all - then you might trace a path back to smug Leftists like Kevin.

He once ranted about how David Cameron dared to visit South Africa whilst Mandela was in prison and the apartheid regime was still in place.

Whilst you won't hear any defence of apartheid from me, I fear that someone on Kevin's side of the ideological trench has supported some far more morally reprehensible forces than the apartheid regime ever was in practical terms (oppression, torture, concentration camps, that sort of thing).

After all, this is someone who probably still thinks the USSR and Cuba are model states in theory, with a few tiny adjustments which made them go wrong in practice.

Here are some extracts from his column:

The British and Irish Lions are currently touring with 30,000 rugby fans.

And SA's already hosted a rugby world cup, two cricket world cups and cricket's Indian Premier League.

So a touch of prejudice lurks in western criticism of whether a developing nation's capable of pulling off the big one.

Yet ticket and transport chaos did see thousands of fans miss the start of games during the Confederations Cup.

Zuma has declared it was a dry run and problems will be fixed. Maybe.

...

The southern tip of the African continent remains scarred by the evil of an apartheid regime which ended less than two decades ago.

Extreme wealth, concentrated in the hands of a white elite with a small if growing black rich set, sits uncomfortably along-side obscene poverty. Johannesburg's Maserati showroom is a world away from the tin shacks of shanty towns in a nation where a quarter of people live on less than a pound a day.

HIV is an epidemic infecting nearly a fifth of South Africans - talk of legalising prostitution ahead of the World Cup is a sick joke.

Violent crime makes much of Johannesburg a no-go area, though in fairness so are large parts of American cities such as Chicago and Detroit.

Firstly, as I've pointed out, the Lions rugby tour and the Confederations Cup have been marred by violent incidents and instances of police corruption.

Secondly, what planet does Maguire live on?

As I understood it, one of the great successes of abolishing apartheid was to make white people poor too.

An estimated 25% of Afrikaners live in extreme poverty, in shanty towns and caravans. I notice Maguire managed to overlook them well enough, despite his claim on moral superiority.

He also seems to back Zuma, without asking whether such a man, a committed polygamist and suspected rapist, is the right person to lead South Africa away from its HIV and AIDS crisis.

The notion of South Africa being 'scarred by apartheid' simply does not add up. Before the end of apartheid, South Africa was a First World nation which would have been capable of holding this tournament with no questions asked.

People like Maguire are responsible, in part, for the South Africa we see today, where poverty, misery, racist violence and disease increase daily.

If smug Westerners like him had dared to question their 'saint' when it mattered about the more flawed aspects of the transition to majority rule (such as 'Black Economic Empowerment'), this outcome could have been avoided, perhaps.

As it is, South Africa seems destined to slide into the same obscure misery as its neighbours - and that can't be blamed on apartheid. If it could, why is it the case that South Africa is slipping backwards to the standard of African countries which never had white minorities or apartheid?

Maguire, as one of Mandela's cheerleaders and shills, must take his share of the blame and let go of the ghosts of the past.

For South Africa's much-maligned or ignored white minority, it is business as usual - yesterday a renowned criminologist was left fighting for her life after being attacked with a spade by a labourer she was taking a cup of tea:

A renowned South Africa academic is in a serious condition in hospital after she was brutally attacked with a garden spade at her Centurion home.

Unisa criminologist Professor Anna van der Hoven, 64, was beaten, throttled and then punched while taking a cup of tea to a worker building a garden feature for her at her Lyttelton home on Wednesday.

Van der Hoven's alleged attacker was arrested shortly after a neighbour's domestic worker saw him fleeing his victim's Glover Avenue home.

It is believed the 28-year-old man, who began working on the water feature on Monday, was waiting behind a wall shortly after his employers left to fetch more building materials and struck Van der Hoven repeatedly over the back of the head and neck as she walked into her garden.

The man is then thought to have attempted to strangle her from behind before punching her in the face until she lost consciousness.

The attack on Van der Hoven, who lived alone with her three cats in Drummorgan security complex, has sparked outrage and shock among fellow academics, who have described her as a highly respected criminologist among the global academic community. As well as lecturing, Van der Hoven, until last year, served on the council of the Criminological and Victimological society of southern Africa.

Police describing the attack said it happened shortly after Van der Hoven arrived home. "As she was walking outside taking the labourer a cup of tea, he struck her over the back of the head before throttling her and then punching her in the face. He then grabbed her handbag, money and laptop computer before fleeing," said an officer.

A neighbour, who rushed to Van der Hoven's aid when the alarm was raised, described her as an extremely kind lady.

"I was terrified. When I saw her she was covered in blood. Her face was badly swollen and she was battling to speak. She was in shock and I just held her," she said. She said people in the complex were struggling to understand how something like this could happen, "especially to a person who had such a soft heart".

I wonder when Kevin, or any mainstream British journalist, will devote column space to this case, or any of the thousands like it, instead of portraying the victims as the evil oppressors?

Another Brutal Torture Attack

From Court News UK:

GARCIA: KIDNAPPERS WHO FORCED HOSTAGE TO SIT ON HOT STOVE JAILED INDEFINITELY

HACKNEY, BETHANAL GREEN, EAST LONDON; Three thugs who forced their terrified hostage to sit on a hot stove at gunpoint in a torture ordeal were jailed indefinitely today (fri). The 20-year-old victim was held at a stronghold in Hackney, e London, where a £30,000 ransom was demanded from his friends and family.

Again, a cursory search of Google provides not one thing about this case in any newspaper.

Is this behaviour now so common as to no longer be newsworthy?

The Smear Campaign Against Geert Wilders Continues

The Dutch establishment is apparently still reeling from Geert Wilders' victory in the European elections, in which his party took 17% of the vote and became the second largest in the Netherlands.

René Danen, the head of the Dutch anti-racist group Nederland Bekent Kleur, says it is time to stop describing Wilders and Partij voor de Vrijheid as merely 'populist' and face the 'truth' - it has all the hallmarks of a racist, extreme Right-wing party.

'The PVV wants to close the borders to people who belong to one particular religion, and ban the houses of worship and schools for one population group,' Danen wrote in an article.

'Wilders once told De Limburger newspaper that he wants to 'tear down the mosques'. He told HP/De Tijd newsweekly that 'it is okay for the Netherlands to have Jewish and Christian school but not Islamic schools'. In other words: pure discrimination,' Danen said.

Wilders is also anti-democratic, Danen argues, pointing out that he is the only member of the PVV. 'PVV MPs are not elected by the party but appointed by Wilders himself. The PVV meets behind closed doors in meetings where no one has the right to vote. So the main defining characteristics of an extreme-right party - nationalist, anti-democratic and racist - are all found in the PVV,' Danen says.

Now, if any of this were true, one could perhaps argue that Wilders wished to make the Netherlands as Islamic as possible in its single-minded hatred and intolerance of any other view point.

Despite the outright lies, Danen predictably misses several key points; firstly, most political parties have selection processes which are only open to certain people.

Even if party members are allowed to vote, it could be argued that is not democratic - not as we understand the term (one person, one vote) in any case.

Secondly, the PVV advocates tighter border control, but I was under the impression they favoured a halt to all mass immigration as they struggle to absorb those already in the Netherlands. It just so happens that the vast majority of Third World immigrants to Holland are Muslim.

The problem is that if these slurs stick (as they are designed to), the PVV will face a 'cordon sanitaire', one of the main problems in PR systems.

This means they will be able to find a willing coalition partner to form the government even if they are overwhelmingly the largest party.

The word 'racist' has become so meaningless now that it is only fit to be used as a smear and slur, an accusation akin to witchcraft in days gone by - one is very much guilty unless he can prove otherwise.

Another man was smearing Wilders this week - hate preacher Mohamed Rabbae, based in the Netherlands.

Here we get to see a little bit of Islamic democracy in action; according to Rabbae, Wilders is not to be congratulated on his victory (as he was by other Dutch parliamentarians from across the political spectrum). He is to be 'destroyed'.

The cleric, who often directs his ire against gays and Jews addressed Dutch voters from Washington,comparing people who voted for Wilders to Muslim fundamentalists:

1. Wilders should be exposed as disastrous racist. In other words: a complete cordon sanitaire, both at national and provincial and municipal level. Exclude racists. 2. The Wilders-voters should stop whining about 'the young Moroccans who and robbed a bus driver and repent. To them Rabbae would say: "There are people within the Muslim community who have said and done the wrong things to you, which will decline as Muslims become less of a minority. We target this behaviour here and there during confrontational internal discussions that you do not experience. " In other words: everything is good, but if it isn't you must not notice - or you are a racist.

Is it not curious that the Leftist and the radical Muslim are in effect calling for the same thing? The death of democracy in the Netherlands and ignoring anyone who is against or wary of the multicultural agenda which pushes mass immigration.

These slurs against Wilders must be fought - we must play these people at their own game.

Rehabilitating the Left

The recent European Elections saw many Left-wing commentators in Britain evoke historical memories when attempting to persuade people not to vote for the 'far-Right'.

Many of these memories were tainted by ideological bias, however.

The worst corruption pertains to the Spanish Civil War, where the crimes of the Communists and the Left can apparently be simply airbrushed out of history because they happened to be fighting those semi-mythical agents of evil, 'fascists'.

Never mind the fact that those 'brave lads' from Britain were volunteering for a cause which forced priests to dig their own graves before burying them alive, a cause which wished to see Spain subjugated by a wicked tyranny based on that of the Soviet Union - that can be overlooked because of their enemies, as can the ensuing cultural and economic destruction such a system would have wrought.

Of course, this ideological double standard is nothing new; for many decades Western intellectuals lied to the population at large about Stalin and the nature of his regime in the Soviet Union, and refused to admit the truth even to themselves about that blood-drenched fanatic Lenin.

One of the least acknowledged truths of history is that no one thinks of himself as the villain of the piece, no matter how easy it is to see him as such afterwards, when history's emotional baggage has been attached.

Most people are not attracted to a cause because how evil its leader is makes them tingle all over; generally they are drawn in, find themselves in too deep, and then it is too late.

Even the Nazi leadership of the Second World War were not cackling Bond-worthy supervillains - they believed themselves to be fighting for a just cause which was a long time coming. In fact, the entire Nazi movement was profoundly self-righteous.

To be honest, isn't that actually more frightening than dismissing them as 'evil', or 'monsters'?

We live in a time when only one interpretation of history is permitted in the mainstream. But, just as you would be wise not to ask a Holocaust denier how bad Nazi Germany really was, why would you expect a committed, ideologically sound Leftist to tell you the truth about his movement, and the blackness found at the centre of it?

I favour an objective, fact-based approach to history.

To the likes of Stuart Maconie, I say that the young men from Britain who volunteered in Spain - for the fascists or the communists - were simply misguided.

Neither group was uniquely evil, because they were both blinded to objective reality by ideology.

Observe the following scene from the excellent Dutch film Zwartboek, which deals very well with moral ambiguity and the many guises which evil takes. Watch General Käutner's speech before the song starts:


That probably is a fair assessment of how the Nazis really saw themselves. The only problem is that it is simply untrue. In no conceivable way were the Nazis fighting for what we would recognise as freedom, or for a good cause.

We would rightly not trust any of their modern apologists or intellectual heirs if they told us otherwise.

So why do we trust ex-Communists, Trotskyites and Stalinists to tell us about the Left and the Right?

I would hate to see the Spanish Civil War become the new Soviet Union, a one way narrative where only one viewpoint counts, no matter how deviant from reality.

The horrors of the Soviet Union are still new in the public consciousness compared to those of Nazi Germany; such large scale atrocities are so incomprehensible to normal people that stories of individual courage and suffering often highlight them most effectively.

Yesterday the Mail published the story of Brian Johnson (circled below right), an Englishman who was servant to Grand Duke Mikhail Romanov (below left), technically the very last Tsar of Russia.


Johnson and his master were murdered by bloodthirsty Bolsheviks in woodland near the Ural Mountains.

Mikhail was wounded by the first bullet, and the second struck Johnson. Mikhail crawled over to his dying servant and begged the executioners to let him say goodbye to his friend.

Both were then shot in the head at point blank range.

The man who killed Johnson, Andrei Markov, then stole his antique watch, later boasting:

'I took it as a memory of him after I shot him dead. Since that moment, I haven't taken it off. It hasn't required any repair work.'

Here is the full story:

He had devoted his life to serving his master - and, even in the face of certain death, that loyalty never wavered.

Yet for 90 years, Briton Brian Johnson - murdered by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia - was officially branded an 'enemy of the people'.

As valet to Michael Romanov, younger brother of Tsar Nicholas II, Johnson had known he faced execution as the 300-year-old dynasty was swept aside in 1917.

Michael pleaded with his faithful servant to flee to the safety of Britain - but Johnson bravely refused to leave his side.

On June 12, 1918, both were shot by a bloodthirsty rabble.

As Johnson lay dying, the wounded Michael went to his aid, begging the execution squad: 'Let me say goodbye to my friend.' Moments later, he too was dead.

Now, however, the Kremlin has officially rehabilitated Johnson - meaning he no longer carries any stain of guilt on official records.

The Russian government declared Johnson, Michael and other members of the Imperial Family had been unlawfully persecuted and killed by the feared Cheka, the forerunner to the KGB.

Johnson had been Grand Duke Michael's private secretary since 1912 and was described as being 'round faced, not very tall, and speaking three languages'.

His father, Nicholas, was a Briton, although it is not known exactly where he was from.

Nor is it known how he came to meet and marry Brian's mother, a Russian woman who was a music teacher at the Russian Imperial Court.

Brian Johnson was an accomplished pianist, and a shared love of music led to his friendship and then employment with the lanky Michael.

The pair became known as 'Little and Large' around the court. Michael represented his brother, the Tsar, at the funerals of both Queen Victoria in 1901 and Edward VII of England in 1909.

As a result of his travels, he became something of an Anglophile.

Many of his tastes and preferences shaped during those years reflect those of the English aristocracy. He was an accomplished equestrian, an avid automobile driver, and loved animals and country living.

Johnson's moment in Russian history came in 1917 after Tsar Nicholas abdicated on behalf of himself and his sole heir, his haemophiliac son Alexey, 12.

Rather than renounce the throne altogether, Nicholas quit as absolute ruler in favour of his younger brother.

Johnson was involved in drawing up Michael's response a day after Nicholas' abdication on 15 March.

The response did not turn down the throne, but agreed to accept it only if Russia became a constitutional monarchy supported by the 1917.

'will of the people'. Russian historians argue that while never crowned, Michael technically ruled for a matter of hours before Russia was declared a republic by the provisional government.

Aware of the dangers ahead, Michael told Johnson he should flee to Britain, but the aide refused to go unless Michael went with him to safety.

But the royal refused to leave Russia, which was then engulfed in the First World War. Both were soon exiled to the city of Perm.

Despite having to report to the guards every day at 11am, they lived in some luxury in a hotel, with a Rolls Royce at their disposal, much to the chagrin of local Bolsheviks.

It was local 'workers' who conducted the execution in a nearby forest - apparently on the orders of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the

Soviet Union, amid fears the anti-revolutionary White Russians would liberate Michael.

Michael was struck by the first bullet, then Johnson was shot and mortally wounded.

After going to Johnson's aid the wounded Michael was shot at point blank range in the head.

The murders were the first in an orgy of Romanov killings between June 1918 and January 1919. In all, 18 members of the Imperial Family were executed.

I think if this tells us anything, it is that ideology gives no person the right to the moral high ground.

BNP Derangement Syndrome Continues

It seems that the Mail have updated their article on yesterday's attack on BNP leader Nick Griffin as he attempted to hold a press conference outside Parliament.

This entire incident has reached ridiculous proportions, for it seems the stated aim of the protesters was to 'get between Griffin and the cameras'. Instead, they've ensured that he has received front page coverage at every major news outlet for at least 24 hours.

It also seems the attack goes beyond the egging which it was initially reported as, as this picture demonstrates.

Griffin's security were pretty much described in the press as 'thugs', despite the fact they clearly saved him from a serious assault, as what was described as 'a sizeable group of armed police' simply stood by.

Despite this, the article notes:

But when the far right leader arrived to deliver his speech opposite the Houses of Parliament, he found his party's message of hate was afforded precious little respect.

Together with fellow British National Party MEP Andrew Brons, Mr Griffin tried to use yesterday's Westminster meeting to publicise his party's racist agenda.

Why would he need to publicise anything, when it seems everyone has made up their minds?
But anyway, an innocent cameraman was also hit in the face. Presumably that was acceptable, as clearly anyone standing within 20 yards of Mr Griffin has to accept they too are a target for thugs screaming the magic words of 'Nazi' and 'racist'.

This does beg a question though; if Griffin and a few other people doing their job who happen to get in the way can be pelted with eggs for the cause, and this is all a bit of a giggle at best or at worst an actual political agenda (stopped those racists spreading their hate, dude) - what degree of violence is acceptable?

Is Griffin getting a bloody nose funny? A black eye? Couple of broken ribs? A hammer through the skull, maybe?

What terrifies me is the wonderland we're walking in, where everything means the opposite. Griffin's minders are thugs for protecting him from a beating, whilst those doing the beating are angels defending freedom and democracy - despite Griffin being the only one in the crowd with any democratic legitimacy.

The people attacking him don't care why he has that democratic legitimacy - because after all, anyone who voted for him is a moron, or a racist.

If you're against the Islamisation of this country, or the importing of millions of low-IQ, criminal Third Worlders who are a net drain and useless in any society which doesn't rely on violence and extortion for its income, then you are a lunatic.

It's like Soviet Russia, where every economic failure was due to saboteurs, or as Stalin used to refer to them, 'bastards'. Of course, if one had pointed out to Stalin that his own ridiculous policies were actually the surest route to economic failure, one would have been killed.

In such a society, truth is an anathema, and success depends on stringing out the illusion. The failure of multiculturalism and mass immigration in this country isn't due to the fact it was a ridiculous, criminal notion to begin with, but because of racists, haters and fascists.

There is also a rather unseemly battle going on over the corpse of Winston Churchill, and just what those who sacrificed their lives and their youth on D-Day were fighting for.

'Be honest with me, Sarge - did you vote BNP?'

I can assure you that no soldiers that day were fighting for 'multiculturalism' or tolerance which stretches to the point of national suicide.

To suggest otherwise is a revolting perversion of history of which Goebbels himself would be proud.

Can anyone seriously imagine what Churchill might think if he were to somehow see modern day Tower Hamlets or Oldham? I can, and I can tell you this - he'd be prosecuted under hate crime laws if he voiced his thoughts.

My Great Uncle George did not take part in the D-Day landings, but he fought with the British 8th Army across the North African theatre, culminating in the Salerno landings - the Allied invasion of Italy, the forgotten second front.

He was one of the first onto the beach, part of a wave of British and Americans which took 75% + casualties.

I can tell you from experience that in many respects he despised what this country has become, not because he held any brief for Hitler or 'fascists', but because he was under the impression that he was fighting for this country and its survival as a nation.

The UAF and other Antifa thugs despise this country outside of a very narrow prism of their own creation - the perpetual and ever-lasting multicult, which has renounced its own identity, its own history and its own birthright as inherently evil.

James Delingpole at the Telegraph sums up my views pretty well on the ongoing BNP bashing:

God, I am sick to death of the BNP. I don't mean the party - they only got two seats in the Euro Elections, for heaven's sake - I mean all the rival politicians and commentators and dinner party chatterers falling over themselves to say just how utterly disgusted they are by this victory for the racist "far right."

In yesterday's Twittersphere the talk was of little else and the subtexts of every Tweet could be loosely translated thus: "See what a caring, lovely, non-racist person I am?","Do you know just how many black people are close personal friends of mine? An awful lot, let me tell you"; "I have a West Indian supermarket near me. It sells all sorts of marvellous ethnic things: smelly dried fish, ackee fruit. The proprietor is a delightful fellow and we always have a jolly chat. Did I mention he's black? Well he is and it doesn't affect our relationship one bit"; "Oh, well I live next to an Indian restaurant and I so much prefer a lovely Sag Aloo to fish and chips with their awful racist Union Jack connotations. Kinder to the environment too. And the chap who runs it has taught me to say "two Cobra beers and some spicy poppadoms" in Gujerati." etc.

Next time, what I suggest these people do is come clean and Tweet the subtext. At least then we won't to have endure their half-baked, ill-thought-out, glib, bien-pensant inanities sullying one of the most important political debates of our age.

The people who voted BNP are on the front line of this debate. They don't have the luxury of being able to nip in and out of a cornucopia of simply marvellous ethnic food shops, and thrillingly directional Grime Bhangra clubs and delightful arthouse cinemas selling wholemeal samosas and showing seasons of Iranian cinema, before retreating to their lovely safe white enclaves. It's on their doorstep, all the time, and there's no escape: for the white working classes (of the North and North East especially) multiculturalism has been a disaster.

And this isn't, pace some tedious bien-pensant commentators, about racism pure and simple. It's partly about immigration numbers - far greater than the indigenous communities are capable of absorbing without disruption. Mainly, though, it's about assimilation.

The racial tension and unrest in Britain now would not be half so great if were not for the fact that thanks to the imbecilic liberal-leftist philosophy of "multiculturalism" two generations of immigrant communities have actually been encouraged by the apparatus of state and at taxpayer's expense NOT to assimilate. In some areas of towns in the north - Bradford, for example - white people are made to feel that they don't belong any more. And these white people whose families have been there for generations are supposed to go, what, exactly? "Ah! Bless! Bah gum I don't 'alf love living in this wonderful melting pot"?

However dangerous the BNP are - not, in fact, very, I don't think - they're not nearly so dangerous as the liberal commentators who write meaningless "Thought For The Day" drivel like "Far better would have been to enjoin our principal parties to get their act together and offer a viable politics of hope to eclipse the dark underbelly of society."

Every time a politician, media commentator, or glib dinner-party-chatterer bangs on about how disgusting they find the BNP, what they are unwittingly (at least I hope it's unwittingly) doing is shutting down the debate. "Here is a topic so beyond the pale of reasonable discussion that the only proper reaction is to pass the smelling salts, bury your head in the sand, and hope it all goes away," is what they are saying.

But it won't go away. Read Mark Steyn's America Alone: the Islamisation of Europe - it's one of the pressing problems of our age. (Why the hell do you think Geert Wilders did so well in the Euro Elections? You think, what, people just liked his crazy name?). Unchecked - and almost worse - unassimilated immigration is a threat to all Western countries.

And it's not "racist" to want to discuss this issue. It doesn't automatically make you hateful or a Nazi or the next Nick Griffin. It just means that you think.

Hat tip: The Frozen North

Apprentice Winner's Father Has Harem

The Left-wing Daily Mirror does simpering dhimmitude quite well, but it surpassed itself yesterday with an article on the family situation of Apprentice winner Yasmina Siadatan, whose father is Iranian.

The headline screams: A harem and 12 kids..but dad showed me how to be a winner.

Of course. Because we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that such unconventional living arrangements can emotionally damage all concerned. We wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that the married family, the building block of civilisation, was somehow superior to letting an Iranian immigrant claim benefits for wives and mistresses.

Her father has three wives, 12 children and even moved his mistress into the family home.

But it was this unconventional upbringing which gave gutsy Yasmina Siadatan the drive and determination to be crowned Sir Alan Sugar's latest Apprentice.

Far from condemning Iranian dad Medi's complex love life, she praises him for inspiring her victory.

Of course she does. But then, we do live in a society which sees selfishness and 'if it feels right, do it' as the ultimate aspirations.

The article continues:

Dad Medi now lives in the Middle East with his harem but is said to be proud of his high-flying daughter.

The tycoon, 57, who made his money in catering, came to the UK from Italy in 1975 and married Yasmina's mother Paula in Leeds a year later. They had three children together - Matthew, Tim and Yasmina - but after just two years of marriage Medi began an affair.

He eventually confessed to Paula who astonishingly agreed to let his girlfriend move in.

However, the bizarre arrangement was not a success and, after three difficult months, Medi and Paula filed for divorce. He said: "The jealousy was terrible. Paula and I agreed to divorce and I decided that, in future, I would follow the Muslim way.

"My religion says, just as a lion has at least four females in his pride, a man can take up to four women."

In 1986 Medi married Italian Cinzia Crispimo, now 47, in an Islamic ceremony in Turkey. Three years later he wed a second Italian, Stefania Loi, 41, before getting hitched to Brit Sarah Deakin, 35, in 1993.

Medi later launched a doomed legal battle challenging Britain's laws against polygamy and was a leader in a campaign for the UK to recognise Islamic partnerships. Yasmina and her brothers have long accepted their father's polygamy and are said to call Cinzia, Stefania and Sarah all "mum".

Medi said of his wives: "I decide during the day who I am going to be sleeping with. I don't have a rota and occasionally the four of us push the beds together.

"I don't like to see my wives feeling left out.

"I'm living in good harmony, we live together very well, the women have no jealousy. They know I have enough love for all of them."

He has even contemplating another wife. Medi said: "My wives and I have discussed this and they know I may introduce somebody else in the future. She will be another friend for them."

The lion comparison is apt - because animals can't control themselves. Human beings are supposed to be able to show self-restraint and self-respect.

How much self-respect can these women really have?

What sort of loathing for their own culture and their own values must they have felt in order to wish to live like this?

This will be our downfall as a society and a civilisation. We are raised to despise ourselves and our history, whilst people who live like this are raised to have confidence and shout it from the rooftops so that one day we might all be 'accepting' and 'tolerant'.

The idea that being raised like this is responsible for her success is simply laughable, unless of course the confidence is just a cover for low self-esteem.

But then, I suppose the idea that a journalist might wish to analyse this situation rather than simply celebrating it as another nail in the coffin for our values is absurd.

The Wrong Kind of Diversity

As we know, the BBC are committed to diversity and reflecting the wonderful, happy and united society we live in with their output.

To demonstrate that commitment, it has been revealed that Syed Masood, a Muslim character in the soap opera Eastenders, will embark on a gay love affair with an openly gay character. Scenes sure to shock his on-screen mother, a Pakistani matriarch who provides light comic relief, include a kiss.

Marc Elliot, who plays Masood, told BBC Asian Network:

"I think EastEnders would be doing the programme a disservice if they didn't give a voice to various communities. I think that's really important because I think London is a very ethnically diverse multicultural place, and EastEnders has a job to reflect that in the storylines it gives people and the characters they have on board."

That's what we like to see, isn't it? After all, we're all open minded, tolerant, and accepting of the new status quo wrought by multiculturalism.

Aren't we? I mean, all communities deserve to be represented in the patchwork of the multi-coloured and textured quilt which is modern Britain.

Not everyone is delighted, however:

The gay storyline has been criticised by Asghar Bokhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

"The Muslim community deserves a character that represents them to the wider public because Islamophobia is so great right now," he said.

"There's a lack of understanding of Muslims already and I think EastEnders really lost an opportunity to present a normal friendly Muslim character to the British public."

Ah yes.

Well, you can't please all of the people all of the time. It's nice to see the diversity mantra being used to upset people other than conservative Britons for a change, however.

After all - acceptance of those different is the only relevant measure of civility in today's society, is it not?

Media Double Standards Continue

In Sunday's Mirror, Mark Austin's column had some information about BNP leader Nick Griffin which was truly 'extraordinary'.

As some will be aware, a row has been raging for a few days because BNP GLA member Richard Barnbrooke wishes to take Griffin as his guest to a garden party hosted by the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Here's what Griffin allegedly said when asked about the invitation:

"Nelson Mandela was a terrorist but it didn't stop him meeting the Queen."

I say Nick has a point there, to be honest.

Austin fumes:

There is a difference. Mandela committed his life to ending the evil of apartheid, Griffin is committing his to effectively recreating it here. The comparison is odious.

The difference to me appears to be that Mandela was on the right side. He is a hero of the international Left, so any crimes or indiscretions he was responsible for must simply be airbrushed out of history.

Anyone who disagrees that Mandela was a saint must be a racist, after all.

Criticising Mandela does not amount to a defence of apartheid. It is simply pointing out that many such struggles, like life, are morally ambiguous, and it is ridiculous to claim one side alone has or had absolute moral authority based on one's own preferences.

I have absolutely no idea what Griffin's opinions on apartheid are - nor do I much care.

However, in August last year professional race-baiter Lee Jasper called for something which remarkably resembled apartheid - and the word would certainly have been used if Griffin had uttered similar sentiments:

Now Mr Jasper has advocated racebased schooling to tackle gang violence and raise education standards for black Caribbean students.

He said: "The fact is, it's time the black community ran its own schools, devised a curriculum that suited the needs of our children, employed teachers that look like the young people they are teaching.

"Some of the greatest black leaders in the world - Dr Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, to name just two - attended all-black schools and universities."

The ex-City Hall deputy claimed the schools would be a "beacon of excellence" for the black community and accused "liberals" of dismissing the idea while accepting faith-based education for Jewish, Muslim and Hindu children.

Mr Jasper said the schools would be open to all races but would be "focused in terms of their ethos, ethics and curriculum to the needs of our children". He added: "I'm not arguing here for a BNP-style 'apartheid education system'. I'm talking about the vision of establishing inclusive beacons of black academic excellence."

He's not arguing for BNP-style racism, you understand - simply that black children be put in certain schools simply by virtue of their colour or race.

It occurs to me that he actually is arguing for similar preferences for black people which the BNP say they wish to give to white Britons. The only difference is, in the eyes of the media and polite society - one is acceptable and one is not, for no other reason than the colour of the speaker.

For a white politician or public figure, using a term such as 'our children', which might imply that there is trouble in Happy-Rainbow-Family-Ville, would simply be career suicide. Implying that children can only be taught well by those who 'look like them' might well incur a prison term.

I don't remember Mark Austin or the Mirror having much to say about Jasper's comments, though. But still, each day it continues - the media pretends to inform us and we pretend to be informed.

They should be careful, though - if they keep the lies and distortions as blatant and one-sided as this, they may cause that which they fear most.

The World Vs. the British National Party

After the conservative columnist Peter Hitchens spoke out vehemently against the British National Party at the end of March, criticising the BNP has become a national sport for commentators and politicians on all sides.

It is clear that many are genuinely concerned about potential BNP gains and what they might mean. What they all fail to address, however, is how this situation came to be in the first place.

For people paid to represent the public, form sensible policies and opinions and govern, I find that lack of insight genuinely disturbing.

Hitchens argues that the BNP is a fascist organisation with a 'whites only' membership policy, and therefore no decent person should ever cast a vote for it.

He acknowledges the anger of ordinary people that organisations such as the 'Black Police Association' are permitted to exist whilst an organisation purely for white people is called racist - and he says that all race-based groups should be got rid of as unnecessary.

I feel that is a fair view point - double standards are always unpleasant. However, the talk about fascism has become somewhat disingenuous. There are many groups out there trying to deny the BNP and the ordinary people who have been driven to support them a voice - and they come from some rather unexpected places.

In March, PC Steve Bettley was dismissed from Merseyside Police after it was revealed he had been a BNP member. This is totally unacceptable - either the police should be banned from joining any political party, or none.

Earlier in March, BNP activist Tony Ward was attacked with a hammer by a group of up to 30 antifa thugs in Manchester. They then proceeded to smash a campaign trailer to pieces.

Many seem unable to accept that like it or not, agree with them or not, the BNP are a legitimate political party.

Today it has emerged that postmen in the West Country have refused to deliver BNP election leaflets . Up to 100 have complained to their union after Royal Mail threatened them with the sack for, er, failing to do their jobs.

The Communication Workers' Union has accused bosses of 'bullying' people.

Let's pick out a few choice paragraphs:

Around 100 workers in the West Country have told union leaders they will not carry the anti-immigration leaflets because they do not want to promote the BNP's extremist 'rubbish'.
Postmen, who were asked to start delivering the BNP's 29million leaflets this week ahead of the European elections next month, are also said to be afraid for their safety if they are seen delivering the anti-immigration message in racially mixed areas.

'In Bristol we have the St Paul's area which has a very high density of those from ethnic backgrounds. Anyone being expected to post BNP stuff through there is going to feel at risk.'

Ah. So some of them don't think the BNP's arguments are 'rubbish' - they feel threatened having to deliver them out in areas which have a high number of foreign residents. Does this not, er, actually back up some of the BNP's claims about how out of control immigration is?

Today one postal worker said it was 'concerning' to be made to post inflammatory material on his route, in Bristol's Fishponds area, bordered by two ethnic-minority areas.

No, the only 'concerning' thing to me is that such ghettoes exist in this country and we've got to this point.

Again - does this not make us think? There are parts of Britain where postmen risk a beating if they hand out election leaflets for certain political parties which immigrants or ethnic minority residents may not like. Is that the BNP's fault for existing, or the fault of the mainstream politicians for allowing this situation to get so bad?

'We are being made to dish out this rubbish. I've read the BNP literature and although there isn't anything racist or fascist on it, it does say "No to immigration".'

Laughable. So now being against mass immigration is extremist and racist? Perhaps the postman concerned would like to have a debate about the benefits that Third World immigration has brought to Britain?

Benefits such as him being afraid to do his job in certain areas if he happens to carry material which doesn't fall in line with multicultural orthodoxy?

Yesterday the ever entertaining Brian Reade stepped in to the row with his Mirror column.

Apparently if enough ordinary people vote for the BNP, this country will turn into Spain. As you may recall, on Monday one fan out of a total of 92,000 'blacked up' whilst watching Lewis Hamilton, the greatest living British tax exile, in the Spanish Grand Prix.

Brian sighs:

We saw once again at the weekend how in Spain they still think it’s fine to put shoe polish on their faces and demean black sportsmen.

Why is this so Brian? Do enlighten us:

It’s now 70 years since idealistic young Brits like Jack fought in the Spanish Civil War to defeat Francisco Franco’s fascists, who were backed by Mussolini. They lost. And how it shows.

Racism is still accepted, even encouraged to an alarming degree in both countries. It’s not in Britain. Because past generations fought and died to defeat fascism in all its forms. And that’s something of which we should be immensely proud and protective.

Ah yes. The fact that Trade Unionist Jack Jones and his Communist cohorts lost the Spanish Civil War to Franco.

I'm no psychologist, but I must agree with Brian that such an analysis adequately and realistically explains the behaviour of that one Spaniard.

If only the side which liked to make priests dig their own graves before burying them alive had won, eh? If the Soviet Union taught us anything, it is surely that Communism always made the world a better place.

I would never defend Franco or the fascists, but here is the stated aim of the Left in said war:

Their goal was to use a veil of legitimate democratic institutions to outlaw the right and to convert the state into the Soviet vision of a "people's republic" with total leftist domination, a goal which was repeatedly voiced not only in Comintern instructions but also in the public statements of the PCE (Communist Party of Spain).[19]

People like Brian may actually do a lot for the BNP. He brings our ancestors into it - they may have fought fascism, but did they fight to become a despised minority in their own country? For Sharia and Islam awareness days? For unlimited Third World immigration? Soaring violent crime?

Of course not. Brian just shows that the Left is incapable of introspection and in need of a dictionary - I think attacking political opponents with hammers and banning their free speech puts one quite firmly in the 'fascist' camp.

More Multicultural Propaganda from the BBC

The BBC is in fine form this week.

On Monday BBC Newsnight kicked off the 'Immigrant Song Contest', whereby bands made up of recent immigrants will compete to play out Thursday's 'special programme about immigration' (and I look forward to that unbiased fact-fest in advance, I'm sure).

There are six bands and singers - from Congo, Somalia, Poland, Afghanistan, Iran and Zimbabwe. You can see a trailer here, along with links to a couple of propaganda interviews with the immigrants in question.

Many Newsnight viewers are apparently up in arms about this pointless waste, particularly in an economic climate where many broadcasters are scaling back production. Also, what happened to the platform for serious news stories?

The BBC enlightens us:

Producers say they aim to highlight the reasons each act came to Britain, show their 'rock and roll prowess' and 'give a face' to the millions who flock to this country from around the world.

A BBC spokesman said: 'The contest will allow viewers to judge for themselves the extent to which the different bands have truly managed to assimilate some of the more cherished aspects of British culture.

'It will also highlight the stories behind some of the immigrants coming to live in the UK.'

Odd, you don't usually get much mention from the BBC that 'millions flock to this country'.

Secondly, today it was announced that the BBC has appointed a Muslim as the head of its religious programming. This despite the fact that 70% of British people profess to be Christians, and only 3% are Muslims.

Even Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is 'concerned' by this move.

The man in question is Aaqil Ahmed (above), previously an executive at Channel 4 responsible for 'Sharia TV', which saw young British Muslims debate clerics about Islamic law.

He is also a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, a body notorious for its commitment to the multicultural agenda.

Ahmed has campaigned vigorously in the past for the 'greater presence of Muslims in the media'.

BBC insiders have suggested that this was not a political appointment and that Ahmed was the best qualified senior director who applied for the job. Therefore, although the role traditionally went to senior clergy, the BBC would have been in contravention of employment law if it had not employed him.

One of the comments on the article interested me:

I don't see what the problem is Churches are emptying whilst Mosques are filling, it is good that a Muslim has been given the job, and shows the BBC see times are changing.
- david l, manchester, 12/5/2009 00:25

Times are certainly changing alright - but for the better?

It's very sad to see that there are people such as 'David L' so eager to embrace their new masters.

There simply must have been a political agenda behind this decision somewhere.

A Storm in a Teacup

The media are up in arms today over comments made by British National Party deputy leader Simon Darby with regard to the Ugandan-born Archbishop of York, the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dr John Sentamu.

Darby wrote on his blog:

'As if the responsibilities of being the Archbishop of York were not enough, the ambitious African has apparently used his power and influence to kindly bestow upon the world the right to be English.'

He also described the archbishop as a 'professional anti-British zealot', and said he was 'derogatory, condescending and arrogant'.

He added: 'If I went to Uganda and I went to a Ugandan village and said that the people there were genetic mongrels and that they had no right to their Ugandan identity I would be picking out spears for days.'

The last part was certainly ill-advised. However, I was as yet unaware that referring to someone born in Africa as an 'African' was racist.

I'm not sure Darby's points about Sentamu are largely correct - he seems to see British identity as something to be cherished, and why not? He fled here from a tyrannical government and was not only given sanctuary, but worked his way up to become one of the most prominent members of the Church of England. He has also stood up for Christians persecuted in the workplace by political correctness and preached about the importance of Christianity to our culture, which is a lot more than many in his position have bothered to do.

Darby and I agree on two things, however; firstly, Sentamu's views about who can be British or English are no more valid than those espoused by the BNP, and secondly if an Englishman went to Uganda to preach Ugandan values and actually dictate who could call themselves a Ugandan, he would be laughed out of the country.

Also, Sentamu's demand that events such as St. George's Day take place but be 'inclusive' is quite hard to stomach; no other culture in this country feels the need to open its festivals and celebrations to all comers, despite they fact they chose to come here and be a part of this country.

Put into context, I don't think Darby's spear gaffe is particularly offensive; in fact, as he points out, there are two rather prominent spears contained in the Ugandan coat of arms.

Compare the outrage over Darby's statements to the way gay Shadow Home Secretary Alan Duncan was treated after joking about killing Miss California Carrie Prejean for her statement that she did not agree with homosexual marriage.

Far-Left group Searchlight said the following about Darby:

Anti-fascist campaign group Searchlight said the claims destroyed the 'mask of moderation' the Right-wing BNP has wanted to create. A Searchlight spokesman said: 'These disgusting threats and thinly veiled racism from its senior leadership exposes the real face of the BNP.

Searchlight weren't that interested in Duncan's obscene outburst of hate towards the Californian Christian community, so here's a quote from Mail writer Dan Newling:

The shadow Leader of the House of Commons was yesterday facing the bizarre prospect of being investigated by police after he suggested he might kill American model Carrie Prejean for being homophobic.

Although made in jest, the gay politician's comments on Have I Got News For You on Friday prompted viewers to complain to the BBC, the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom and even the police.

Right. Well Darby's comment about the spears was quite clearly in jest, wasn't it? Doesn't really seem to matter though.

Could we, quite possibly, have a double standard at play here? If Darby makes a joke he's evil and has let his 'mask of moderation' slip, etc etc.

If Duncan, a possible future Home Secretary, makes a joke about killing someone for their opinion, we're all supposed to see the funny side and not make a fuss.

For the record, here is the comment from Carrie Prejean which Duncan was referring to in his hilarious, satirical manner:

Asked whether every U.S. state should legalise gay marriage, she replied: 'I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be - between a man and a woman.'

Well, isn't she entitled to think that? She never asked anyone else to endorse her opinions, she was simply honest enough to present them when asked.

Much like Simon Darby. Like or loathe his politics, at least he has the audacity to say what many are thinking.

That's not how some see it, however. Tonight, Europe Minister Dennis MacShane (he of 'the internet is full of evil racists who must be atomised' fame) attacked the Tories for fostering the rise of the BNP through their 'xenophobic' attacks on the EU.

It's depressing, isn't it? Has this person ever had a thought that bore any relationship to reality? Dennis, let me spell it out clearly for you:

You and your party caused the rise of the BNP because you were more interested in calling people names and telling them what to think than listening to their legitimate concerns - which is your job, for which you are handsomely rewarded, I might add. This is still the case, despite your impending election wipe-out.

The Tories fostered the rise of the BNP because they moved so far to the Left that the country does not have a decent opposition anymore. Can someone give me a legitimate difference between any of the three main parties? Anyone? Can someone explain to me why Cameron can't wipe the floor with Brown at PMQs even in the current climate? Could it be because, er, they don't actually disagree on very much?

It's not rocket science, Dennis. This is a democracy, and one way or the other, people are going to be listened to. They don't necessarily want to vote for the BNP - they simply don't want to vote for you.

You've lied to them and betrayed them and let them down, because you're more concerned with what should be than what actually is.

The frightening part is, you still can't see it - or won't.

Selective Perceptions of Police Brutality

If you listen to many sections of the media, you will come away with the impression that police brutality marred an otherwise peaceful demonstration at the recent G20 summit.

I am not fully defending the actions of the police; as they increasingly seem a politicised, paramilitary force, it becomes harder and harder for me to do so.

The facts of the matter are these; a man, believed to be an innocent bystander, is now dead after being attacked by at least one riot officer at the G20 summit. A woman claims she was beaten around the legs and then slapped by a Sergeant (who had his ID number covered) for no more than shouting at him.

This paragon of anti-capitalist virtue is now represented by PR man Max Clifford and is seeking £50,000 in damages.

This has become a circus, in other words. Whatever the police did wrong, the truth is that hundreds of demonstrators showed up looking for trouble. Many of them found it, but the actions of the police meant a lot more did not.

Until I've faced down a screaming mob with nothing more than a plastic shield and a hollow baton, I think I'll reserve judgement.

The floodgates are open, however. Now scores of people are claiming they were assaulted by the police, and the Left-wing media is wringing its hands - it's typical, isn't it, the fascists beating up a few poor innocent crusties who just want a better world.

The Mail's token Left-winger Suzanne Moore is in fine form:

Was the policing at the G20 demo any different to the policing of many protests during the past 15 years? Not in my experience. Finally, though, complaints are being taken seriously because we have the technology. All those phone cameras mean the police cannot carry on as they always have. I never wanted a camera in my phone, or a toaster in my hairdryer, or all these dumb multifunctional devices ...but this time, you know, I see the point. The surveillance society is turning its gaze right back. And the police are in trouble.

Up to a point, I agree. The problem I have is thus; I don't think the Left is complaining so loudly because they resent police brutality, but because on this occasion that brutality was aimed at them - or at the very least, groups for which they have some sympathy.

In 2004, there was a London protest organised by the pro-hunt lobby, those in favour of reversing the ban on fox hunting.

It was brutally put down by the police. Dozens of the protesters outside Parliament were left bruised, bloodied and injured. Many members of the public described the carnage as the police clubbed the marchers as 'criminal'.

I didn't hear the likes of Ms Moore complaining, though - after all, these people vote Tory and only got what was coming to them.

But I have something even more tangible to compare this with; let's look at how Muslim protesters and native British protesters are treated by the police.

Here is a video of Muslim demonstrators, who had turned up to heckle a homecoming parade for British troops, being protected by the police from an angry mob of Britons back in March. The reason?

Well, the Muslims had applied for a permit to demonstrate and received one. Take a look:


Now, here is a counter-demonstration by British people in Luton earlier this month. Unfortunately, these people did not apply for a permit and that is why, so we're told, the police met them forcefully (not that this was widely publicised in the press, despite several protesters being injured, including two who had teeth knocked out):


Can you see the difference? The protesters in the latter video are clearly frustrated by what is happening in this country, just as the G20 crowd were - but it seems it is OK to treat one group like cattle.

Perhaps Ms Moore would have preferred it if the police had acted like this towards the Left-wing demonstrators:


Yes, the now infamous footage of British police running away from a largely Muslim crowd during January's round of Israel-bashing.

Oddly, Ms Moore didn't comment on this either.

I'm certain that if one of the poor dears screaming 'poof', 'kuffar' and 'cowards' at the police had been hurt, that would have piqued her interest.

Israel Did Not Break the Law in Gaza

The outcome of the Israeli Army's internal investigation into the conduct of soldiers during the Gaza campaign has been concluded.

Its findings indicate what most level-headed people have known all along; the Israeli armed forces operated within the law and operational necessity within Gaza.

Whilst a few tragic errors did occur, all reasonable steps were taken to avoid civilian casualties - and when dealing with such a ruthless foe as Hamas, people who hide behind women and children, that is no small feat.

In light of these findings, the BBC has issued the following apology:

In common with every other news outlet in Britain, we may have given the impression that the recent war in Gaza was a one-sided, David & Goliath affair, with Israel acting as the bullying aggressor and Hamas as the plucky chaps standing for justice, bravely attempting to fend off an unwarranted invasion by an immensely powerful foe.

Headlines such as 'Israeli Cowards Invade Gaza', 'Isn't it Time Some of These Murdering B*****d Babykillers were Tried in the Hague' and 'Brave People of Gaza Fend off Evil Israelis' may have left some of our readers and viewers with the impression that the conflict was entirely one-sided and that the men of Hamas were in some way fighting an honourable war whilst the Israeli military deliberately and vindictively killed their women and children for sport.

We now realise, after the findings of yet another investigation and the revelation that Hamas is a terrorist organisation which has rained missiles down on Israeli civilians for years, that not one bit of the information presented above is true. We are happy to accept that the Israeli military was in fact carrying out a justified defence of the people of Israel and that where possible it avoided all potential for civilian casualties.

We would like to apologise for any distress or confusion caused to the Israeli people, the Jewish community and the wider public by our unbelievable incompetence, gullibility and laziness, as well as our desire to sacrifice our journalistic code of conduct to devote yet more air time to stories about Global Warming, Lindsay Lohan and Amy Winehouse rather than troubling ourselves with such trivialities as the facts of the stories we report.

Well, OK, I'm lying - but it would be nice, wouldn't it?

As it stands, what they actually do is use lots of carefully worded phrases and strategically placed inverted commas.

The usual suspects are also up in arms about the findings, and are calling for an independent 'unbiased' inquiry (I assume by that they mean their own interpretation of it, i.e. actually quite biased).

But let's not pretend that the BBC isn't biased when it comes to this issue - in the run up to the Israeli elections, they gave us a helpful run down on what the Arab media was saying.

Sadly, all sources were listed without irony, despite their usual virulent anti-Israel and anti-semitic content.

Here's what the BBC's own introduction said:

The Arabic press contains widespread scepticism that the general election in Israel will offer any impetus for change in regional relations, irrespective of the result.

Ah yes. We all know which way that pesky 'impetus' tends to flow, don't we? Well actually no, if you read the BBC's article you don't. As far as I can tell, only Israel is expected to make concession after concession for a peace that never comes; if you read this article, which provides no real balance, you would think it was the other way around.

It is only very recently that Jeremy Bowen, their Middle East editor, was actually so biased as to be rebuked by the organisation.

Well, not rebuked as such - they found him guilty of bias in some of his anti-Israel remarks, but he did not have to resign or anything. I mean, lying to the public seems to be their remit, so why would he?

Here's the Mail:

“The BBC’s Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen faced calls to quit tonight after he was criticised for breaching the broadcaster’s rules on accuracy and impartiality in two reports about the Arab-Israeli conflict.


An inquiry found that a reference to ‘Zionism’s innate instinct to push out the frontier’ in an article for the BBC’s website breached guidelines.

In addition, a suggestion that Israel was ‘in defiance of everyone’s interpretation of international law except its own’ was said to have been ‘imprecise’.

A separate radio broadcast by Bowen also led to a complaint and was criticised by the trust.

The initial claims by Bowen were made in a website report entitled ‘How 1967 Defined the Middle East’. It sparked two complaints.

Bowen’s online article, published last year, put the present-day Israeli-Palestinian conflict in context by explaining the events of the 1967 Six Day War.

But the committee said he should have done more to make clear that there were other views on the matter.

Ruling that the article had breached the rules on impartiality, the committee said: ‘Readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war.’

‘It was not necessary for equal space to be given to the other arguments, but … the existence of alternative theses should have been more clearly signposted.’

Bowen’s radio report, for Radio 4’s From Our Own Correspondent, said the US government considered Har Homa, an Israeli settlement near Jerusalem, to be illegal.

This was based on information from an ‘authoritative source’, the committee said, but there was no evidence the view was official US policy.

BBC bosses have faced repeated claims that reporting of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been skewed towards the Palestinian cause.

One controversial incident involved Middle East correspondent Barbara Plett revealing that she had cried as Yasser Arafat neared death in 2004.

The BBC has also been criticised for spending tens of thousands of pounds in licence fee cash in a court battle to block publication of an internal report into its alleged bias in covering the region.

Jonathan Turner, who made one of the complaints, said he was pleased with the committee’s findings.

But he said Bowen should leave his job as Middle East editor and called on the BBC to publish a correction prominently on its website.

‘If he cannot get this right, it’s difficult to see what else he can get right in relation to Israel,’ Mr Turner said.

‘You cannot understand what’s happening today unless you have a proper understanding of what happened in ‘67.

‘Clearly he doesn’t have a proper understanding, so for that reason I think his position is untenable.’

Mr Turner, a barrister from London, said pursuing the complaint in his spare time had been an ‘enormous burden’.

He described the slow speed of the complaints process as ‘outrageous’.

He made his original complaint about both the Six Day War article - published in July 2007 - and the From Our Own Correspondent broadcast in January 2008.

In today’s report, the BBC Trust apologised for the ‘exceptionally long time’ taken over the complaint.

No disciplinary action is expected against Bowen, but the web article will be revised and a link added to the editorial standards committee’s findings.“

A link to the committee's findings. That should do it.

More on False Claims of IDF War Crimes in Gaza

A short time ago I wrote a brief defence of the IDF after Israeli soldiers were accused of what amounts to cold-blooded murder, shooting civilians out of hand without reason or cause.

Those appalling allegations have since been proved to be false, as I knew they would be. Certain sections of the mainstream media still have a problem with this; the investigations weren't carried out independently, etc etc etc.

Well, over at the excellent Scandinavian blog Tundra Tabloids, KGS has stumbled across a piece in the Jerusalem Post by Major Danny Zamir, the man with whom many of the rumours were said to originate. Even he believes the Left-wing media got it wrong:

Att. Danny Zamir (Major, IDF reserves) wrote an op-ed in yesterday's J'lem Post describing the events that took place, how the media got it all wrong, and how the IDF conducts itself according its doctrine of military conduct and the guiding principle of "Purity of Arms", in other words preventing harm to those not involved in the conflict.

Personal code of IDF soldier: 'May our camp be pure'

A number of articles published recently in The New York Times quoted or were based on words spoken by myself and by graduates of the pre-army leadership development program which I head (the "Rabin Mechina") - graduates who participated as combat soldiers in Operation Cast Lead and who met recently to process personal experiences from the battlefield.

Both explicitly and by insinuation, the articles claim a decline in the IDF's commitment to its moral code of conduct in combat, and moreover, that this decline stems from a specific increase in the prominence of religious soldiers and commanders in the IDF in general, and from the strengthening of the position of IDF Chief Rabbi Avichai Ronsky in particular.

It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met after returning from the battlefield to share their experiences and subjective feelings with each other, using that one episode to draw conclusions that felt more like an indictment. Dogma replaced balance and led to a dangerous misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of Israeli reality. The individual accounts were never intended to serve as a basis for broad generalizations and summary conclusions by the media; they were published internally, intended for program graduates and their parents as a tool to be used in the process of educating and guiding the next generation.I chose as well to submit the soldiers' accounts to the highest levels of the IDF, directly to the chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, out of my deep faith in the solid moral foundations of IDF policy and in complete confidence that the accounts would receive serious and thorough attention, including both investigation and corrective measures, if and when necessary. This faith was and is based on my personal experience of more than two decades - as a combat solider, a major in the IDF and as mentor for hundreds of the Rabin Mechina's graduates who are soldiers serving in combat units (active and reserve).

There are, to be sure, important political differences between myself as a social-democratic Zionist and Zionists of other political opinions. But there exists among us a very broad consensus regarding the moral character of combat - a moral character to which the IDF is committed and educates its soldiers, a character positively influenced by religious mechinot and by the special personal qualities of my colleague Rabbi Ronsky.

THE GUIDING principle that directs IDF combat soldiers, both in their planning and conduct in combat, encompasses a balance between two needs: to defend soldiers' lives and to minimize harm to the civilians behind whom terrorists try to hide. This is expressed in the tension between the necessity of opening fire when the soldiers' security and battle conditions require, even when there's a danger to civilians (providing advance warning to the extent possible), and the absolute obligation to hold fire and to act with due compassion toward civilians when it appears that they have no evil intent. In addition, basic respect toward civilians' belongings and their religious and spiritual property is part of this moral code.

These guidelines and the obligation to uphold them are an inseparable part of the Jewish-Zionist world of IDF soldiers, and deeply anchored in generations of Jewish heritage, particularly in the doctrine of military conduct renewed by the early socialist-Zionists a century ago. They called this principle by a name that's unlikely to have been given by any other nationalist movement fighting for its independence: "Purity of Arms" - that is, preventing harm to those not involved in or supporting the combat.

This moral commandment remains a central motto of the IDF; it is the complete opposite of the code of conduct of Islamist terror organizations such as Hamas, whose judgment on every Israeli and Jew is death. "Purity of arms" is not part of their world, not even in theory.The outsider may not understand this, but we - the Jews of the State of Israel - live this every day, every hour. More here.

I am still waiting for an apology from those who wished to hound Israeli soldiers with these unfounded allegations, and I realise I shall probably wait in vain.

However, the IDF deserve an apology from their accusers - it is only morally right. People have attempted to besmirch the reputation of a fundamentally honourable organisation which must function under difficult circumstances even in 'peace'; they have done this whilst hiding under the cloak of concern for 'human rights'.

If they are serious about their cause, they should issue an apology - not only to do their part in taking an undeserved stain off of the IDF's reputation, but lest they never be taken seriously again.