A Tale of Two Gypsies

A couple of weeks ago, some local people in Belfast made the news when they stoned several houses containing immigrants from Eastern Europe. The immigrants fled in fear of their lives, and eventually left Northern Ireland altogether.

Although I certainly can't and won't condone the behaviour or the alleged connections of those who launched these attacks, I can certainly understand their frustrations.

This understanding is compounded by the outright lies the media told. For a start, the immigrants who were driven out were referred to almost exclusively as 'Romanians' - but they were in fact gypsies.

The media had a field day with the story - the BBC ran at least three consecutive days of lead story updates on the incident, and of course the term 'racist' was prominent in all of the headlines.

Some blamed the BNP gaining seats in the European Parliament election (it would have been rude not to); others just sat back smugly, wagged their fingers and told us so. Britain is full of racists, of course, and a lot more money, affirmative action and brainwashing is what is needed.

Of all the mainstream media outlets and journalists in Britain, to my knowledge only the Daily Mail's Andrew Malone had the courage to look at the incident from a neutral point of view (itself an act of subversion in this age of political correctness).

Although, like me, he can't even come close to condoning the violence - he asks who is really to blame.

Of course, the government is the only contender for that title.

I mentioned that the immigrants were not Romanians but gypsies; is that relevant?

I think so. The Labour government was in favour of EU enlargement to include Romania and Bulgaria; they got their wish. In my opinion neither of these countries was quite ready to enter the EU on their own merits, but the problem with gypsies is something else entirely.

Within months of the accession of these countries to the EU, gypsies, especially Roma, were carrying out a crime wave across Western Europe, and many Romanians and Bulgarians were delighted that they had moved on for richer pickings.

The fact that most pickpockets in places like Italy were young Roma children was already well known; but now, it is estimated that Roma are responsible for anywhere between 45 and 80% of all acts of theft on the London Underground.

The Roma are unique in that the men send out women and children to commit crimes; children are schooled because they are quick and nimble, often overlooked, and can't be jailed in Western countries even if they are caught.

They come from a predatory culture; a culture that considers that all non-gypsies are simply there to sustain the criminal impulses of gypsies.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to condemn all Roma; where I live in Kent is one of the few regions in England to have a historical population of Roma gypsies. My elderly next door neighbour is descended from them, and was raised in their culture.

She often tells stories of her childhood, sorting scrap to sell, and other such things.

She is a very nice lady; but I know for a fact that she avoids many of her own relatives, and if she bumps into a distant cousin in the supermarket will give them a false address - because in her words (spoken like a true Brit), 'I don't want that scum round here'.

If she feels like that about her own relatives, I think we are entitled to ask why Belfast and the U.K. in general needs a large population of Roma.

In very diverse London, the Roma have been resoundingly condemned by pretty much every other immigrant group, whatever its own reputation, as a plague on the city.

If that's the attitude in a place which is hardly closed to foreigners, then the Roma were always going to have problems in a place like Belfast.

But then, just as the gypsies have a right not to be attacked, do not the people of Belfast have a right to decide who they want to live among them in large numbers?

Do they not have the right to decide that these newcomers are unwelcome if they are responsible for a huge crime wave, especially among communities which were hardly prosperous in the first place?

Much of the BBC's hand wringing overlooked any grievances of the locals, and moved straight on to the gypsies.

The Left-wing gutter press were even worse, with headlines like 'Race thugs wanted to slit our baby's throat' from the Mirror.

Here is the story:

‘They made signs like they wanted to cut my brother’s baby’s throat,’ said Couaccusil Filuis, who’d come from a

village near Bucharest, the Romanian capital. ‘They said they wanted to kill us. We are very scared. We have young children. We could go back to Romania, but we have no money. We have to stay here.’

Not one article asked why the British taxpayer is duty bound to support these families, or why they have the inalienable right to settle here and do such useful work as wash windscreens at traffic lights.

But the children featured prominently in the media's sob stories. No work to support the kids back in Romania, so the British taxpayer must step up to the plate.

To balance this, here is the story of another concerned Roma mother, this one from northern France (thanks to GoV):

A Gypsy hits a policeman using a baby as a weapon

Robin, France, June 27, 2009 — Nord-éclair — The presence of Gypsies from Romania in the Roubaix area [north of France] has always brought its load of problems, but a new threshold was reached when a difficult arrest was made last Thursday: a young woman grabbed a baby by its foot and used it as a weapon to hit a policeman.

Last Thursday, around 6.30 p.m., a police patrol stops a young man driving without a licence or insurance. [A common practice, it seems, among Gypsies.] […] Tempers flare. Extra police are summoned to the place. Around ten of them are present when the exchange takes an astonishing turn. A young Gypsy grabs a one-year old baby from the arms of a man belonging to the camp. She steps in front of the policemen. The police think she is trying to prevent the arrest by acting as a human shield. Far from it.

First, she grabs the baby by an arm and a leg, and hits a policeman with it. Then, she grabs it by one foot only, and hits again. What’s happening is awful. The baby cries. The police try to hinder this explosion of violence. This baby used as a weapon; it’s unbearable. Then the woman tries to throw the baby on the ground. Policemen manage to catch it before it falls. They rush it away to the hospital, far from this scene of hysteria.

But wait. Other women bare their breasts, and splatter the police with their own milk. One Gypsy man mutilates himself: he slashes his belly with a 20-cm wound. The police provide him with emergency care and press the wound in order to keep the blood from flowing. The baby-swinging woman, who is not the baby’s mother, is brought to the police station. The baby is in a state of shock. An inquest is begun. The baby might be put under the care of a foster family. Legal proceedings have been started for violence and rebellion.

Why such violence? At the football club next door, people are waiting eagerly for the Gypsies’ departure. The situation has been very tense for the last month: “They steal our footballs, they send their children to relieve themselves on the football ground right while we’re training,” says the coach Hassen Hamidi. [Note how the Arab coach complains about Gypsies in a way that would be deemed “racist” if it came from an aboriginal French. Arabs and Gypsies are notoriously at odds with each other in France, and violent incidents often occur between them. — translator]

People from the neighbourhood have been helpful to Gypsies. But [the Gypsies’] aggressiveness and lack of respect are unbearable.

These stories are not unusual. Wherever the gypsies make camp, trouble soon follows in one form or another.

In another case from Europe, this one from Portugal, the British paedophile who is the prime suspect in the disappearance of toddler Madeleine McCann told the following story:

The Sunday Mirror has also learned that Hewlett befriended two families of Portuguese gipsies in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance. Theories that Madeleine was snatched by gipsies have surrounded the case.

Chillingly, Hewlett told a friend that gipsies had offered him "good money" for his own two-year-old blonde-haired daughter.

Former Scots Guard Peter Verran, 46, shared a Moroccan campsite with Hewlett between June and November 2007.

He said: "He told me gipsies wanted to pay good money for her and he'd met some who traded in children and sold them to paedophiles."

Maybe such things are just rumours and speculation, maybe not.

But the fact remains, there are stories from all over Europe which make me feel no country needs large numbers of Roma turning up.

The fact that it takes the extremes used in Belfast to get the message to the government is the real travesty here.

Funeral of PC Stephen Carroll

Today PC Stephen Carroll, the police officer killed in Northern Ireland on Monday by dissident Republicans, was honoured by colleagues, family and friends.

The Catholic Bishop of Dromore addressed the congregation:

"You are greatly mistaken, your way of thinking is backward-looking, the people of Ireland and Britain have chosen a better way forward, the way of reconciliation and accommodation.

We are determined not to allow ourselves to be dragged back into the morass of hatred and violence."

His widow asked that his death be the last in this bloody conflict.

Fine sentiments, and let us hope that it's not already too late.

Yesterday the bodies of Patrick Azimkar (below left), 21, and Mark Quinsey, 23, the two soldiers killed on Saturday, were released to their families after a military tribute at the base where they died.

The Violence in Ulster Continues

On the evening of 9th March 2009, a policeman serving with the Police Service of Northern Ireland was shot dead in an apparent ambush.

After answering a call in a predominatnly Catholic part of Craigavon, Co. Armagh with another officer, shots were fired from a derelict building as they alighted from their vehicles.

PC Stephen Carroll, 48, was hit in the head and died instantly.

It was believed the attack was carried out by an organisation calling itself the 'Continuity IRA'.

It was reported that the officers knew it was quite possible they were being lured into a trap, but their first priority was the frightened mother who made the 999 call and her safety.

Yesterday the two soldiers killed at the weekend were identified; they are Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azimkar, 21.

It emerged they threw themselves in front of civilians as the gunmen opened fire. At least one of them was executed as he lay seriously wounded on the ground, sheltering a 19 year old pizza delivery boy.

The soldiers were just 2 hours away from leaving for a 6 month tour of Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown flew out to Northern Ireland for talks with leaders yesterday, and police claim they've identified at least one of the gunmen who shot the soldiers.

I wonder what the chances are that the murderers of all three men are terrorists released early from prison under the Good Friday Agreement?

I think they're extremely high. These thugs and fanatics did not simply reform themselves when they were released - many went on to become gang masters on Belfast estates, noted for their brutality.

Is it possible that New Labour has even more blood on its hands?

Violence Returns to Ulster

Last night it was reported that two British soldiers were shot dead and another two seriously injured when a vehicle pulled up outside the barracks of 38 Engineer Regiment in Antrim and sprayed automatic gunfire.

Two civilians were also seriously hurt.

The soldiers are the first to die in Northern Ireland since February 1997.

At this stage the Police Service of Northern Ireland blame dissident Republicans diassatisfied with the peace process.

After getting their murderous terrorist friends out of prison, being granted their concessions on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and keeping large numbers of their weapons, I'm not too sure what they have to be dissatisfied about - but I expect we'll find out soon enough.

Maybe the rounds of referenda stipulated in the Good Friday Agreement which will eventually return Ulster to the control of Dublin (and conveniently never be held again once that end goal is achieved) can't come soon enough?