Lee Jasper | Professional Race Baiter

The ever charming and crooked Mr Jasper, a one time aide of Red Ken, a fulltime Race Peddler, is the pseudo-Marxist reject from the happy farm so many useful stooges are.  Smart enough to know never to answer any direct questions with direct answers, dumb enough to not see that he is nothing but a tool.

A reminder for all those who this despicable parasitic leech is.  When Ken Livingstone duped the deluded into voting him Mayor of London, (twice mind you, so you can understand my lament at my fellow Londoner), he set about promoting all those who helped him garner the block votes.

One thing the Left do well is play multiple tracks to various audiences, where in the end, if all the scripts were merged, it would be contradiction after contradiction and the only promise that would be consistent was ‘vote Ken, get Ken’.  Now this isn’t a rant about Red Ken, the twice divorced, newt-loving Marxist agitator, God no.  This is about his chum and appointee Mr Jasper who I have I had the recent displeasure of displeasing on twitter. The following I copied from The Professional Race Baiter’s twitter account but there is a heck of a lot more.  His moniker is; @LeeJasper

A professional race baiter by trade who tweets constituency about the lack of Black Influence from the overbearing White Oppression he suffers wherever he goes, from music in tube stations to the colour of the crowd.  Not surprising considering the massive chip on his shoulders, and boy is he willing to remind you.  With folks like Mr Jasper, it is not hard to comprehend why racial sentiments develop.

Before anything else, he is Black.  Working class is just laughable.  Anti-racist?  Possibly, although he sure doesn’t let that get in the way of his own bigotry

I explained to the foolish businessman that due to the owners pushing up daisies and the Royalty dues no longer collected, it was FREE.  It also happens to be soothing and promotes a calm atmosphere, perfect for an early morning train ride

Surrounded by his enablers, facilitators, and in general, fellow demented lefturds, he still isn’t happy at the ethnic count.  Mr Jasper began moaning about the lack of diversity in the multitude of Leftarded divisions  present at the #nutroots gathering

Back and forth the tweets went, with myself allegedly a little naughty, calling him a crook (SOURCE) with terrible judgement of character flaw (SOURCE) that is crooked itself.  Although in mitigation, anyone who has ever been paid a penny from the Race Relations Industry, be they black, brown or pink, will receive both barrels from me without mercy.  I detest any soul that would subvert my ancestral homeland, like any sane Kin would.

I was born in King’s College Hospital in 1981.  I have called four places home, all of them in Peckham.  I have worked in Southwark for a decade plus.  The total amount of time I have been away from the London area is roughly 20 months.  In all than time and in all my travels, I think I’ve seen and know more what the real Black working class look like.  And it has never included Jasper the parasitic socialist.

Who knows what dictator we’ll end up with.  And with tools like Jasper, we will.  For once law and order breaks down completely, you’ll watch the masses beg for protection.  Only consolation is that Jasper could probably be one of the first ‘disappearence’ black-op jobs.

Alas, I’m not a journalist and I haven’t the required hacking skills to investigate Mr Jasper’s public and business life so will resort to the Media.

Jasper’s Claim to Fame

Livingstone’s aide admits that £18,000 of City Hall money was improperly diverted to bail out private company

– Daily Mail 28 January 2008

So another pseudo-Democrat who uses public money as if his own.  He was one of the company’s directors but ‘didn’t know about it’.  What was he directing then?  And if one bit of bad press wasn’t bad enough…

Whisky-drinking Livingstone faces fresh scandal as aide quits over five-star freebie trip to Africa

– Daily Mail 23 January 2008

One of his aides takes the piss under his nose.  I can’t be too hard on him on this case.  The entire City Hall could do with a good scrub.  His lack of judgement shouldn’t come as a surprise considering his lack of financial acumen in his directorship.  Yet more recently Mr Gilligan gives him a little mention…

Ken Livingstone’s dog-whistle politics – Telegraph January 5th, 2011

More of his friends seemingly receiving multi-million pound deals for ‘outreach’ work.  Would be comical if this was on TV, yet this is the workings of Government, no matter how small.  They take as much as they can from the public and give it to their friends.  Sure, in return we get a cuddly Labrador (read the article, you’ll be surprised what the right people in the right places can get you).

Conclusion:

If Mr Jasper told me the sky was blue, I would have to check.  A professional race baiter, a crooked or incompetent (both are bad) businessman, and to top it all, recommended by Communspastic Red Ken!

What did Earth do to deserve his useless existence?  We weren’t that naughty surely, what about all those food parcels and technological leg-ups beginning with the wheel, iron working and agriculture, surely that should have counted for something?

To be totally honest, I don’t blame Mr Jasper for chasing the dream.  Afterall, if someone comes along and offers someone more suitable in a McJob an easy ride in a governmental position, can’t blame them for jumping at the chance.  It is only natural he abuses his position as a soundboard to encourage the advancement of his Kin.

Just like it is natural for every Anglo-Saxon and Celt soul to yearn the same for his Kin.  It is time we all sang from the same hymn sheet and remind the likes of Lee Jasper that he isn’t welcome.  I’ll be keeping an eye on Jasper the Stooge myself, locking horns with a fellow “working class hero” , I’m sure we’ll soon find something we can agree on.

Fingers crossed, soon after that step, we’ll agree a leaving date for him and his Marxist ideals.  Positively confident that Brother Mugabe would love to have a fine chap like Mr Jasper in Zim.

Reminder:

This is England.

Don’t let it become another Peckham

When do we say enough is enough?  When the population is 60% British?  55%?  Or do we say mission complete at 50%?

History is littered with warnings against such wishy-washy thinking.  Let us learn from others by understanding the reasoning for certain events.  The flashing red lights and sirens bellowing out the dangers can be seen in Lebanon to Sudan.  Even our open invitations to our fellow Europeans on the basis, come one, come all, is misguided, jeez, we could end up like Belgium.

I stand by what I tweeted to Race-Peddler.  The day the Anglo-Saxon and Celt is cleared from these lands, is the day the Earth crumbles into dust.  The World needs Britain, more than we need the World.

Our own worst enemy is ourselves Britons.  Only when we stop thinking of their feelings, will we see what is best for us.

Blighted | Cultural Marxist Indoctrination

Frank Chodorov:  “The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as “free education” is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education – just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office – and cannot possibly be separated from political control.”

The Subversives that infect the Unions and the Establishment have perverted the education system for all Albion’s children, young and old, Nu and Tru, in the vain hope of making everyone equally dumb.  Explains where the twenty million turkeys in the last election came from.

Now PR PM Cameron from the ConDem Coalition had promised parental control of schools with funding, but this was when he was head of plain old Conservatives.  The NUT who have been busying themselves promoting the Fabian-inspired social engineering program are of course against such a move and so begins the demonisation of the evil middle-class Whiteys wishing to impose education apartied.  Thanks Auntie Beeb for my daily lesson.  Whitey wants better is bad.  Blackie wants better is good.

Yorkshire parents make bid for first ‘free school’

BBC, Thursday, 13 May 2010 20:38 UK

…turned down by Labour’s schools secretary Ed Balls after an independent report he commissioned concluded that paying for a new school in Birkenshaw would damage the finances of other state schools in the area.

Educational apartheid

Mike Foster Chief Education Steward of Unison which represents non-teaching staff in schools accused the parents of trying to set up a “middle-class educational apartheid system.”

“This is an area of fairly well-off, largely white residents who will have a place at this new school. Non-white children who live in adjacent areas will not have a chance to attend”.

“We are not social engineering” says Lesley Surman one of the founders of the Birkenshaw, Birstal and Gomersal Parent’s alliance.

“We were naive in thinking that our campaign would just be about parents wanting a good school for their children and now we find ourselves in the middle of a political argument.

“We are confident that we will get the go-ahead from the new Government”.

Wonder who the PR PM will side with on this one.

The middle-class parents and be labelled the punctured ConDems.

Or to the Unions and be labelled as Establishment.

Equalities Minister | You’re all “male and pale”

Milliseconds after her ministerial butt plonked upon her ministerial position, the mad (by association to the Lib Dems of course) madam Featherstone is making headlines, describing the new Coalition Cabinet as “male and pale”.

Personally, it’s getting very old this recurring habit of hateful remarks directed at Whitey incorporated.

New equalities minister Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone hits out at ‘male and pale’ party negotiators

By Tim Shipman, Daily Mail.  Last updated at 7:55 AM on 15th May 2010

A woman once voted the ‘most fanciable MP’ in Westminster was made equalities minister yesterday – and promptly attacked the lack of women in the new coalition Government.

Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone, 58, will follow in Harriet Harman’s footsteps to fight sexism and discrimination.

She wasted little time yesterday in attacking her own leaders, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, for failing to find room for more than four women in the Cabinet.

Mrs Featherstone said she was ‘very disappointed’ at the lack of women at the top and condemned as ‘male and pale’ the two negotiating teams that thrashed out the terms of the coalition deal.

She said that on being offered the job, she told the PM: ‘We must do better.’

Mrs Featherstone, a mother of two who divorced in 1996, said: ‘It absolutely matters that women are in politics and getting into positions where decisions are taken.’

She said a woman’s perspective was necessary because her previous experience working on London transport issues had shown men concentrate on ‘big macho projects like who’s got the biggest airport or the longest train, rather than looking at the journey to school’.

Mrs Featherstone called for female ‘role models’ – but she has not always been an advert for feminism herself.

Mrs Featherstone, a millionaire whose family owns the Ryness chain of electrical stores, attracted controversy when she once told women to enter politics because they could use their town hall allowances to pay for cleaners and babysitters.

She was embarrassed in 2006 when she put down Parliamentary questions about a date rape drug that had been invented as part of an email hoax.

And she raised eyebrows during the election campaign when she agreed to be filmed for an internet spoof singing along to a remake of the Bucks Fizz pop song Making Your Mind Up.

She has called for the abolition of the Sun newspaper’s topless Page 3 photoshoots.

Mr Cameron boosted the female head count yesterday by sending Maria Miller to the Department of Work and Pensions.

Nick Hurd, son of ex-Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd, became charities minister, Hugh Robertson is sports minister and Lib Dem MP David Heath will be deputy leader of the Commons.

But Mr Cameron alienated more of his former shadow ministers by giving posts to Lib Dems.

I want a meritocracy, not a token society made up of know-nothing every colour-of-the-fecking-rainbow party apparatchiks whose only purpose is to sprout the virtues of their Master’s mad cultural marxist social engineering project.

A derogatory remark against blacks, Asians or any other special group is met with the full force of the law, resulting in extra work for the Police and months of stress for the ‘suspect’.  The other side of the coin and it seems the Establishment can’t help themselves but demean me by the shade of my skin.  Sure the authors were directing their comments towards a certain group of monochrome privilege pricks, doesn’t mean I wish to replace them with a bunch of multicoloured useless tits.

And it sure as hell doesn’t limit the fallout for myself and others like me who sadly cannot afford the same level of protection that the BBC execs and Parliamentarians enjoy.

Had to moan about this before the footie otherwise I would be screwing all the way through the match.  Can’t have that, us Lion fans are world-famous for our friendly charming manners.

World | Leftarded Armies of Doom

“Progressive Politics” will be a term we’ll be hearing a lot more if Labour and the Liberals team up.  But what is it exactly?  Simply put, the Progressives seek to social engineer everything we hold dear at the political level.  Of course, we get the government we deserve and the more people produced that can’t tie their shoelaces together, the more we will suffer at the hands of fools.

As my grasp of the English language is failing me due to the heavy workload along with the headache of worrying about Labour-Liberal degenerates coming out holding hands, an article sent to me from a compatriot worthy of reading from the fine Brussels Journal.

Can We Coexist With The Left?

Brussels Journal.  From the desk of Fjordman on Sun, 2010-05-09 08:59

The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept. The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists “need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.”

A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.

Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.

As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled “moderates,” whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from settling in their countries are demonized as “racist extremists” by the media.

As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show “absolute moral disgust and horror against white non-liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out.”

In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before.” He warned against those who were too negative regarding the policies of Leftist politicians.

In 2009, the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage and stated that “this is a very positive thing.” This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. Clinton at all. The only “terrorism” he is concerned about might be protests from people of European origins who oppose their own dispossession.

Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will “dwarf the internments during World War II.” Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration is a big battle. “And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret: (whispering) We’re getting ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. Don’t tell anybody.”

Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to “get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get into this battle,” the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. She’s the head of an organization that’s been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of voter registration fraud. As President, Obama has repeatedly insulted staunch friends and allies of his country while openly siding with its Islamic enemies.

In April 2010 US President Obama, with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, appealed to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again” for continued “change,” essentially the manifestation of an intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like “Socialists” in his view “closes the door to the possibility of compromise” and “can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”

The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor lamented, the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do so.

In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.” Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.”

After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.

Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently squashed. End of story. People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some radical Socialists apparently believe that a “Final Solution” to the Capitalist Problem involves the annihilation of whites.

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is unfortunately correct here: What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing” back in 1999, thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently followed in all Western nations without exception?

Let me add that I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have some in my immediate family, and they don’t think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little.

In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.

the Left’s obsession with mass immigration and multiculturalism is complex, some who have the best intentions for those concerned but with an equal measure of those with ulterior motives.  The more division is society, the more need for leftarded social engineering plans to ‘cultivate and celebrate’ the transformation for NuBritons rather than highlighting the ‘displacement and disfranchisement’ suffered by TruBritons.  That is the end (desired?) result, the call for more governmental interventionalistic policies.  And to suppress dissenting voices, both subjects are dangled in front of their opponents in the vain hope that the argument can be closed down with accusations of bigotry.

For a lucky few, the benefits of immigration was the extra competition in the job market caused wages to deflate and rents to increase.  The burden of accepting those lower wages and higher rents was placed on the many but we live in a globalised world, where survival of the cheapest has replaced survival of the fittest.

Oh how I despise the Leftarded Armies of Doom.

“When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.”  Thanks to the Leftarded Deluded of Great Britain, the enemy are not only within, they are at this very moment, deciding who will rule us.

NuBritain | Thought Crime

From the Australian, not an actual Australian but a Down Under News-Polluter, are doing a page-filler featuring Hal G. P. Colebatch’s ‘Blair’s Britain: British culture wars and New Labour‘.

Convenient for me they have a great definition of Blighty’s “walking on eggshells” condition.

Thought police muscle up in Britain

Hal G. P. Colebatch From:The Australian April 21, 2009

BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution’s principal tasks was “to alter people’s actual psychology”. Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people’s psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years’ prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the “global baggage of empire” was linked to soccer violence by “racist and xenophobic white males”. He claimed the English “propensity for violence” was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were “potentially very aggressive”.

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government’s anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: “If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: “If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings.” It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher’s first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: “It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police!” Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form.”

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya “Paki” and “bin Laden” during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby). When it reached the court the case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so distressed that he had stopped attending school. The judge, Jonathan Finestein, said: “Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don’t bother to prosecute. This is nonsense.”

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children’s television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to “celebrate diversity”, the enforcing of which is now apparently a police function. A Christian home for retired clergy and religious workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn. This year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private conversations and reported to authorities. The crime of one nurse was to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy socially accepted norms and values. The Royal Navy, for instance, has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the proclivities of a satanist crew member. “What would Nelson have said?” is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together – and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day – they add up to a pretty clear picture.

The world is upside down.  In the quest to make all things equal and rid ourselves of discrimination, the law of unintended consequence has perverted justice to the extreme.  For centuries we have had laws that have perfectly coped with the degenerates who populate our collective ranks and, unless the perpetrator had money or a title, was treated equally and swiftly before the Law.

Today we have Courts that can’t tell the difference between morality and legality.  Jeez, I doubt many care so long as the cheddar keeps on rolling in.

The problem with Laws is the fact that many of em are thought up by Lawyers.  CONFLICT OF INTERESTS me thinks, mmm.

GE10 faux pas | Bigots and Racists

Pensioner who claims she was a life-long Labour voter asks Brown how he would tackle the country’s record deficit, east European immigration, pensions, university tuition fees and anti-social behaviour.  ‘Flash’ Gordon reels off some tractor-stats, lessons learned and how the EU relationship is so beneficial to the economy which currently resides in the gutter.  So far, so Brown.

Then thinking he is out of earshot but forgetting the Sky microphone still attached to his jacket, labels the questioning granny as a ‘bigot’.

The delusional monkeys that call themselves Parliamentarians just do not get it.  Opposing the invasion of ones’ ancestral homeland by economic migrants is not bigotry or racist, it is common sense.  How would any of these Stooges like their home transformed into Little Lagos, Little Warsaw or Little Pakistan?

To bleat on about fairness and equality then deem it racist and xenophobic to oppose mass immigration and Eunification is one thing.  To do so while pandering to the Government ‘sanctioned’ and ‘approved’ Black Minority Ethnic groups is just plain hypocritical.  How can we achieve equality when the EU stooge Establishment are attending a supremacist Black Britain Decides event organised by Operation Black Vote?

Leaders to vie for black votes at London rally

(Reuters) – The three main party leaders will appeal to over 1 million black voters on Wednesday in a bid to woo ethnic minorities who may hold the balance of power in some parliamentary seats.

They will speak at a rally in central London organised by Operation Black Vote (OBV), who say the event is the largest of its kind in recent history and could make a “defining impact” on the election outcome.

The three leaders will address an invited audience of 2,500 voters by video-link at the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster at 6 p.m, but will reach a broadcast audience of well over one million.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg will each have 15 minutes to speak.

Their respective deputies, Harriet Harman, George Osborne and Vince Cable, who will attend the event in person, will then field two questions each.

“Never before in British history has the black and minority ethnic vote been so crucial,” said Simon Woolley, OBV Director.

Woolley said ethnic minorities in Britain were not a homogeneous block and that tackling race inequality within education, employment and the criminal justice system were paramount.

“Which leader can best provide the solutions for these important challenges will be closer to winning this election,” he added.

OBV’s own pre-election research into the power of the black vote shows there are 113 seats in which the black and Asian voting-age population is bigger than the 2005 election notional majority.

It says 54 of those seats would now be considered very marginal due to the “Clegg factor” during the election campaign but that all 113 could be won or lost by an active black vote.

Other speakers at the event, called “Black Britain Decides,” will include black leaders from faith groups, business, politics, the arts and education.

(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Steve Addison)

The joys of cultural enrichment, brought to you by the Establishment for the simple reason of keeping YOU in your place.

War | Variations Worldwide

A declaration of war was made against Man, Family, Home and Nation’ status worldwide long ago, with the Masters of the Universe seeking to install an authority higher than God Almighty.  One that excludes the many and consists of the few, where Earth PLC’s Faceless stockholders can decide the fate of the world away from the prying eyes of us mere tenants.

Order out of Chaos (and Confusion)

“Democracy has run its course“, will be the message and a new form of Government Representation will take Her place.  One where the Leaders are selected and nurtured into the ways of enlightenment, prepared to rise above such petty things as family, nation, culture, even genocide.

Not a conspiracy theory but fact.  The destruction of close-knit communities, kinship, even the sanctity of family with the most sinister tactics has been deliberate.  Wars, laws and misery with no more effort than a pen stroke.

the battle for ‘our’ hearts and minds has involved oppression and persecution from the very people who swear to protect us and is by no means a conventional war.  So scared of the possible repercussions for opposing the Faceless, the Parliamentarians  settle for the ‘funded’ life assisting the Devil in His work.

The various explanations of tactics are from Wikipedia so are not exhaustive but I have edited it and given my own recent or current examples, so this wasn’t no simple cut and paste job.

Power behind the throne

The phrase power behind the throne refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office.  In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or advisor of a political leader (often called a “figurehead”) who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through influence or manipulation.

Examples:  Most visible one to mention would be Lord Mandelson, the barely visible probably Nat Rothschild and the least visible, well, only the Devil knows that.

Shadow government

The term shadow government has two distinct uses with entirely different meanings. The first refers to a government-in-waiting composed of members of the opposition party in a parliamentary chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. In this example the Shadow Cabinet ‘opposes’ by means of dialectical debate and argument the government in power.

In its other use the phrase refers to what is sometimes called “the secret government” or “the invisible government” which postulates that contrary to popular belief, real and actual political power does not reside with publicly elected representatives (for example the United States Congress or the UK Cabinet) but with persons unknown to the general public who are exercising power behind the scenes.  In this sense the official elected government is in reality subservient to the shadow government who are the true executive power.

Examples:  The faceless and nameless Power-brokers of the International circuit.

Divide and rule

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “Divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.

Typical elements of this technique are said to involve:

• creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.
• aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
• fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
• encouraging frivolous expenditures that leave little money for political and military ends.

The use of this strategy was imputed to administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who were charged with playing one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of “Divide and Rule” gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also used to account for the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Examples:  When the ‘working men and women’ got the vote, they had to be divided for the Establishment to maintain power.  Hence encouraging large political, cultural and religous differences and mass immigration.  And so long as Paul was paid enough, Peter could be robbed all day long.

Social conditioning

Social conditioning refers to the sociological phenomenological process of inheriting tradition and gradual cultural transmutation passed down through previous generations.  Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including education, entertainment, popular culture, and family life.  Social conditioning can be understood as representing the role of ‘Nurture’ in the Nature vs. Nurture debate, while the ‘Nature’ aspect is represented by the phenomena described by sociobiology.

Examples:  The entire education-media-political complex, controlling every aspect of our lives, be it through the threat of the law or the indirect prodding from the ‘in’ crowd.  If done right, the population will not even notice.  Climate Change State-sponsored guilt-trips.

Lawfare implications

Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare.  Lawfare is waged via the use of international law to attack an opponent on moral grounds, with an objective of winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare is one of several alternative war-making concepts outlined in the 1999 Chinese book Unrestricted Warfare, which is principally concerned with the new variety of offensive actions available to an international actor that cannot confront another power militarily.

Origin of the term

Perhaps the first use of the term “lawfare” was in a manuscript, Whither Goeth the Law – Humanity or Barbarity. The authors there argue the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian as compared to the more humanitarian, norm-based Eastern system.  They opine the search for truth has been replaced by “lawfare” in the courts.

A more frequently cited use of the term was coined by Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. in a 2001 essay he authored for Harvard’s Carr Center.  In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war.”  He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior military power.

Examples:  The UK Government’s EHRC persecution of the British National Party.  The EU meddling with the internal democratic affairs of Switzerland.  The implementation of Laws Against the Nations ‘tackling’ Climate Change, Holucasut Denial Laws to stiffle internal debate and even the secret family courts which attack the family.

A look at asymmetric warfare

Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

“Asymmetric warfare” can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other’s characteristic weaknesses.  Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the “weaker” combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.  Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.  This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.

Examples:  The Race Relations Industry, blaming ‘percieved’ injustices due to discrimination, creating an atmosphere of fear and entitlement dependent on ‘group needs’.

The dreaded psych-ops

Modern psychological warfare operations

In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. troops used music, most commonly American heavy metal or rock music to confuse or scare insurgents.

However, most uses of the term psychological warfare refers to military methods, such as:

• Distributing pamphlets, e.g. in the Gulf War, encouraging desertion or (in World War II) supplying instructions on how to surrender.
• Propaganda radio stations, such as Lord Haw-Haw in World War II on the “Germany calling” station
• Renaming cities and other places when captured, such as Ho Chi Minh City
• Shock and awe military strategy
• Projecting repetitive and annoying sounds and music for long periods at high volume towards groups under siege.
• Use of loudspeaker systems to communicate with enemy soldiers.

Most of these techniques were developed during World War II or earlier, and have been used to some degree in every conflict since. Daniel Lerner was in the OSS (the predecessor to the US CIA) and in his book, attempts to analyze how effective the various strategies were.

He concludes that there is little evidence that any of them were dramatically successful, except perhaps surrender instructions over loudspeakers when victory was imminent. It should be noted, though, that measuring the success or failure of psychological warfare is very hard, as the conditions are very far from being a controlled experiment.

Lerner’s categories of psychological warfare

Lerner divides psychological warfare operations into three categories:

White [Omissions + Emphasis]

Truthful and not strongly biased, where the source of information is acknowledged.

Grey [Omissions + Emphasis + Racial/Ethnic/Religious Bias]

Largely truthful, containing no information that can be proven wrong; the source may or may not be hidden.

Black [Commissions of falsification]

Intended to deceive the enemy.

Examples:  The current game of political ping-pong between the World Powers over Iran.  The recent assassination that was allegedly carried out by MOSSAD, who will remain quiet even if it wasn’t them. In fact, any major geo-political event in the last hundred years.  And the biggest one of all, the never-ending ‘War on Terror’.

Like Tony Montana said, “..first you get the money, then you get the power..” And while all that economic power rests with the Corruptibles, those Bastards will continue unabated. Now all we need is a way to counter all that.  That though is for another day so will part with a wonderful question to ask ourselves from the mind of Aldous Huxley:

“How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man’s Final End?”

Unions | Cuddling the Tories

Kudos to a fellow patriot for the links.  Apologies before hand as this is quite a selection of articles hopefully highlighting the collusion on the part of the Establishment in maintaining the status quo.  Throws a very interesting light on the whole British Airways’ affair and the entire Political Media storm it has kicked up.

Possible collusion on the part of the Bastards that Be?  Inner-Party plots within plots?  Or simply the way power works?

Firstly, Unite the union’s statement regarding this growing fiasco…

BA: United we stand campaign

Fighting back at British Airways – airline warned Walsh’s slash and burn strategy could destroy the company

Unite cabin crew members at British Airways recognise the pressures facing the company in the midst of the current economic crisis. Negotiations have been going on for over a year, but despite cabin crew being asked to make the heftiest sacrifices of all, British Airways continues to provoke cabin crew by imposing changes and refusing to negotiate openly and fairly.

BA cabin crew offered changes to pay and working practices that would have made savings of more than £100 million for British Airways, but the company rejected these proposals and repeatedly walked away from talks while introducing provocative changes.

Cabin crew are the customers’ closest contact with the airline, does British Airways really want to change from being the world’s greatest airline to the world’s most basic airline?

The latest provocation came when the company called for ‘strike breakers’ to stand in for crew during a strike. Find out more on the campaign, see the latest news updates.

Background

Unite has denounced BA’s attempt to impose significant contractural changes on its cabin crew employees, and introduce a second tier workforce on poorer pay and conditions.

Unite believes the new contractural changes are an attempt to force staff to pay the price for management failings with the company wringing more and more out of fewer and fewer staff who will be paid less.

Working hours will be extended, crew levels will be slashed, career opportunities will disappear and new starters will be brought in on bargain basement wages.  Unite says this will inevitably damage customer service and hit the brand, possibly leaving it beyond repair.

Read the full background article from the October/November 2009 edition of Unite’s Workplace Reporter: BA warned to back off

And from the gutterpress…

Millions of BA passengers in limbo as Labour is accused of being ‘in hock’ to unions

By Ray Massey, Daily Mail.  Last updated at 6:46 PM on 16th March 2010

Hundreds of thousands of British Airways passengers are already suffering the direct impact of this weekend’s looming strike by up to 12,000 cabin-crew, it emerged tonight.

Deadlock between BA and the hard-line Unite union – both engaged in a bitter war of words – is leaving up to million passengers  in limbo as the prospect of a peace-deal disappears over the horizon.

BA insiders said the union was having trouble ‘controlling its militants.’

Some passengers even risk being stranded on a remote Caribbean islands with only a weekly connecting service – though less fortunate travellers may feel there could be worse places to be stuck.

It is causing chaos in the run up to the Easter break as BA insiders warned they were reaching ‘the point of no return’.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown  was yesterday under renewed fire from the Conservatives over Labour’s financial and personal links to the giant Unite union spearheading the disruptive strike action. They dubbed him ‘Cash Gordon’ and said Labour was now a ‘wholly owned subsidiary of the big trade unions’.

BA has mounted a massive global operation to transport 60 per cent of its customers – up to 45,000 a day – on the first three strike days from this Saturday,with an emergency strike-breaking ‘phantom airline’.

It features up to 6,000 BA volunteers – including 1,000 pilots retrained as cabin crew – and supplemented by 21 fully-crewed charter aircraft.

But more than half its planes will be grounded leaving around 90,000 of the estimated 225,000 passengers over the first three-day strike period having to re-book, reschedule or cancel long-planned trips and holiday.

That misery will be repeated again for the second weekend strike – lasting four days from March 27 to 30 when around 120,000 passengers out of a total of 300,000 will need to rejig travel plans.

And the Unite union has warned that if a deal cannot be struck, strikes will begin again from April 14 – in the middle of many school Easter holidays affecting many more.

Legal experts say the union could continue its Spring of Strife ad infinitum through the Summer.

BA said that in the first 24 hours of its contingency operation it had received more than 40,000 phone calls to its telephone hotline, compared to 27,000 on a normal day.

In addition it had 600,000 ‘hits’ on its ba.com website – more than double those in a normal day – as booked passengers checked whether their flights would be  flying, or whether they would have to make alternative arrangements. BA said it was ‘coping well.’

British Airways has an agreement with 40 other airlines to re-book ‘free of charge’ any BA passengers hit by strike action.

But already, UK tourists risk being stranded on a Caribbean island after British Airways cancelled their only weekly flight home. The flight from Turks and Caicos to London has been axed on Sunday due to the BA cabin crew strike, with the Sunday March 28 service also at risk if the planned second wave of strikes goes ahead.

Nick Kidd, 51, one of the BA passengers who had been due to fly home this Sunday said: ‘You would have thought this would be the last flight BA would want to axe as there is only one a week.’

Mr Kidd, an events manager from Hammersmith in west London, said he found out about the cancellation on to the BA website.

‘There are families with young children out here and no one knows how they are going to get home,’ he added.

BA flight 252 would normally have flown from the Turks and Caicos island of Providenciales, stopping at Nassau in the Bahamas before flying on to London. BA has cancelled the Turks and Caicos to Nassau leg but says the plane would be flying from Nassau.

A BA spokesman said: ‘We will be contacting Mr Kidd and all the affected passengers. We will be discussing with them on a one-to-one basis their best travel options.’

BA suffered another blow today when arch-rival Virgin Atlantic was awarded the contract to fly the England team to the World Cup in South Africa.

Extra demand for seats in the wake of the BA cancellations has been driving up prices for those yet to book with BA or other airlines.

In the turmoil of the industrial and political row, millions of passengers have lost track of what the BA strike is actually about.

It began when loss-making BA introduced cost-cutting changes to cabin crew numbers – which have the effect of reducing levels on a jumbo jet from 15 to 14 – to save just under £63million a year.

The Unite union, representing 12,000 BA cabin crew, called for strike action which cabin crew backed 9 to 1 before Christmas. This ballot was ruled invalid and the re-ballot was 4 to 1 in favour of strikes, starting this weekend.

BA says it put forward ‘three times’ a last minute final offer peace deal which was conditional on  the union not announcing strike dates. It was withdrawn when the union did just that.

This BA offer  included the reinstatement of 184 full-time crew, annual pay rises of up to 4 per cent a year, bonuses worth 2 per cent or 4 per cent of basic salary, and commitments on working hours in exchange for the cabin crew agreeing to BA’s planned £62.5m of cost cuts.

BA also wanted the union to ‘recommend’ the offer to its members, which it has repeatedly refused to do.

BA says it has now incurred serious strike-related extra costs.

Unite ‘s joint General Secretary Tony Woodley countered: ‘Put the offer back on the table that we had last week and then we can postpone the dispute and get into real serious talks to solve this very difficult problem once and for all.’

A Unite spokesman added: ‘If BA thinks that strikes are going to be avoided with a worse offer, the company is conning the travelling public.’

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says the strikes are ‘deplorable’ and ‘unjustified’ and should be called off.

But the Conservatives say he has failed to criticise the union leadership because Labour is ‘bankrolled’ by Unite which has given £11million to Labour s over three years.

The union’s political director Charlie Whelan, Mr Brown’s former spin doctor, is also closely involved in Labour’s election campaign.

The militant BASSA cabin crew wing of the Unite union is holding a pre-strike meeting of its members at Sandown Park race-course on Friday where insiders say the union is expected to announce a picketing of Downing Street.

UNITE’S INFLUENCE IN THE LABOUR PARTY

Gordon Brown’s attack on Unite puts him on a collision course with the Labour party’s biggest donor.

The union – Britain’s biggest with almost two million members – has given £11million to the party in the last four years including £3.5million last year.

It boasts more than 160 members within Parliament, and a third of those hold government positions.

There are also 25 Unite Peers in the House of Lords.

Sixty Labour Parliamentary candidates at the election are members of Unite, while eight have been directly employed or held offices there.

Former Labour General Secretary Peter Watt gave an insight into the extent of the union’s power within the party when he said: ‘It is fair to describe the Labour Party as the political wing of Unite.’

He said the union was ‘ferociously well organised’ and exerted influence on candidate selection and policy at every level of the party.

Gordon Brown’s controversial former spin-doctor Charlie Whelan is the political director of the union, and he is expected to play a role in determining the next Labour leader.

Mr Whelan was sacked as Mr Brown’s press secretary in 1999 over his role in the home loan scandal that forced Peter Mandelson to quit the Cabinet.

He has recently been accused of using his influence to ensure a smooth succession for close ally Ed Balls.

60% LONG-HAUL WILL FLY

British Airways says almost two thirds its passengers would still fly, despite the planned walk-out by cabin crew.

It will use 22 fully-crewed charter planes to keep a third of its Heathrow short-haul services going, while 60 per cent of long-haul flights will be operating.

Chief executive Willie Walsh has recruited and trained thousands of volunteers from within BA to do the jobs of the striking cabin crew.

The Unite union claimed the disruption would be far greater.

Could this possibly have something to do with past meetings between the power-hungry Unions and the power-hungry Tories to clip Gordon’s wings…

Cameron meets union leaders at Commons

By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor.  Published: 12:01AM GMT 12 Nov 2006

David Cameron has made another radical break with the Tory past by attempting to forge new links with union leaders.

Nearly 30 years after Baroness Thatcher waged war on the unions, the Conservative leader said he was happy to find “common cause” with them if it helped to improve the health service.

He revealed that he met a dozen union officials in the Commons, including representatives of the TUC, the Transport and General Workers’ Union and Unison.

During a tour of NHS hospitals designed to demonstrate his commitment to the health service, Mr Cameron told The Sunday Telegraph: “We are not going to agree about everything. But in terms of trusting professionals, getting rid of some of the centralisation, giving more independence to the NHS, the trade unions are interested in all of those things. Where we agree with each other we can work together.”

The union meeting is the latest in a series of repositioning moves. Earlier this year, Mr Cameron told his party it must stop making “knee-jerk attacks” on public service workers and said the private sector could learn lessons from the state.

The Tory leader met the union officials in the shadow cabinet room in the Commons 10 days ago. Rebuffing suggestions that some in his party would be horrified at him forging links with the unions, he said: “The party needs to understand that there is a great sense of enterprise within the health service, that we must not see the public sector only in terms of cost and spending. We need to think of people working in these organisations as having entrepreneurial flair.”

Mr Cameron said he wanted to make the Conservatives the party of the NHS. “We are at a turning point where Labour aren’t trusted on the NHS. The Conservative Party is building trust on the NHS.”

After decades of distrust between the Capitalist Tories and the Communistic Unions though, have they made any progress?  A few years back it looked promising…

Will Cameron’s Tories work with the unions?

By Toby Helm, Press Gazette.  12 September 2007

Reporter’s Guide in association with Unite the Union

David Cameron says the Tory Party must re-position itself at the centre of British politics. It is the only way, he argues, to make the party electable after three losses to Labour.

Old Tories, he says, were too “big business” orientated, too dismissive of “society”, too willing to assist corporate interests irrespective of whether those interests were responsible, good for consumers, or contributed to the common good.

There were mutterings early last year that Mr Cameron was even prepared to do business, or at the very least open new lines of communication with, those forces of left-wing outer darkness – the unions.

Announcing a new relationship might – journalists including myself speculated – be just the kind of “shock therapy” the Tory leader has so enjoyed administering to his party. He fuelled this thinking by saying he would invite Polly Toynbee, doyenne of the left-wing intelligentsia, to this year’s Tory conference. The invitation has yet to drop through her letter box.

Against this background, Unite – the flash new super union – seems ripe for Tory overtures. Its members are heavily represented in the “C” social class that Mr Cameron needs so badly to lure back to the fold. Forged in a marriage between the private sector union Amicus and the Transport and General Workers union, its membership is far from “cloth cap”.

Unite has the same proportion of Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail readers as the electorate at large. Its members live in semi-detached homes. Many are in middle managerial posts. They have as many conservatories, credit cards, cars, and qualifications as most people. They are, in short, the British electorate.

In some respects the Tories have moved in the unions’ direction. On the NHS, Mr Cameron has pledged to end Labour’s endless structural revolution. He has ditched plans to subsidise those who opt for private treatment and he wants to keep the service predominantly public. On pensions, there have been positive noises too, with Tory support in the House of Lords for compensation for those who have lost their pension funds.

Yet the unions remain unconvinced. And suspicion of Cameronism is as intense as towards any Tory leader since Thatcher. The publication in August by right-wing former cabinet minister John Redwood of his ideas for economic competitiveness has been viewed by the unions as proof that the “union bashing” torch burns as brightly as ever at Tory HQ.

The TUC sees the document as evidence of a Tory agenda to weaken union power. It believes Mr Redwood wants to scrap EU protection and working time regulations for British workers, to opt-out of the Social Chapter and to review the Health and Safety at Work Act. The TUC believes the Redwood agenda could not be achieved without leaving the EU altogether. David Cameron, union leaders suspect, is on board with much of this thinking.

There is another area of common ground. Many unions, like the Tories, want a referendum on the EU reform treaty because they want to kill it off. But the Tories’ reasons for doing so are very different from those of the pro-referendum unions.

The Tories believe the treaty gives Europe too much power. The unions, on the other hand, object to the way Tony Blair opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would have offered more protection to UK workers. The unions and the Conservatives share a common purpose – but very different motives.

As he ponders a snap election, Gordon Brown will not want to overplay his friendship with the unions or give in to too many demands. But there is no danger of the “barons” transferring their affections to the other man courting middle Britain.

Postscript:  Toby Helm is chief political correspondent at the Daily Telegraph

Yet just last year after Dave’s speech at the Conservative Conference…

Unite’s reaction to David Cameron’s speech to the Tory party conference

Thursday, 08, Oct 2009 12:00

Unite joint general secretary, Derek Simpson said:

“At the height of the worst recession in decades Cameron said nothing about job creation, nothing about supporting our industries and nothing about reigning in his friends in the city who caused economic meltdown.

“Cameron pandered to the Thatcherite small state obsession at a time when anyone can see the need for more government intervention in the economy.

“The Tories are trying to fool the nation with Cameron playing the good cop and Osborne playing the bad cop.

“Cameron desperately tried to row back from the bleak picture painted by his shadow chancellor. No matter what he said the Tories will swing the axe at the public sector while making ordinary families work for longer and for less. “

So much hatred.  Wonder if it has something to do with all those extra benefits and gifts Labour have showered upon the Unions in return for those rather larger ‘donations’…

Tony Woodley, BA strike union leader, given Commons pass by Labour

James Kirkup, Political Correspondent.  Published: 10:00PM GMT 16 Mar 2010

Tony Woodley, the leader of the trade union behind the British Airways strike has been given a security pass to the House of Commons by a Labour MP.

Charlie Whelan, the political director of the Unite union, has also been given a Westminster pass by Labour, giving him free run of the Commons estate.

In total, eight Unite officials hold Commons passes sponsored by Labour. One holds a pass granted by a serving Government minister.

The Conservatives said that having given millions to Labour in recent years, Unite officials are now “roving around Parliament like they own the place.”

The Unite chiefs’ privileged access to Parliament was disclosed as the Conservatives published research showing that scores of Labour ministers, MPs and candidates, including Gordon Brown, have received thousands of pounds of financial support from the union.

Labour is now “in hock” to Unite, which has donated more than £11 million since 2007 years, the Tories said.

etc etc.

So maybe plots within plots…

Brown and Cameron clash in Commons over BA strike

Page last updated at 13:32 GMT, Wednesday, 17 March 2010

David Cameron has called Gordon Brown’s efforts to stop a planned strike by BA staff “feeble” as the two men clashed in Parliament over the issue.

The Tory leader said the prime minister had shown no “backbone” because of Labour’s links to the Unite union, whose members are backing the walkout.

But Mr Brown said the Conservatives were more interested in “provoking” the airline dispute than resolving it.

He added he had spoken to both sides and hoped they could reach a deal.

Since the strike was called last week, the Conservatives have sought to exploit Labour’s links with Unite – the union is Labour’s largest donor – and the relationship between its officials and Downing Street.

‘Handwringing’

During heated exchanges at prime minister’s questions, Mr Cameron said Mr Brown’s approach to the strike – which is due to begin this weekend – had been “weak”.

He asked the prime minister to support British Airways staff who were prepared to cross picket lines to “help get this business going”.

“It is back to the 1970s,” he said. “We have got handwringing from a weak prime minister while companies go down.”

Mr Cameron said the prime minister was reluctant to intervene in the dispute because of Labour’s financial links to Unite, describing the party as a “wholly owned subsidiary of the union”.

“They pick the candidates, they choose the policies, they elect the leader and they have special access to Downing Street. This why his response is so feeble. Isn’t is true that when the crunch comes he can only act in the union interest not the national interest?”

Mr Brown, who has previously described the strike as “deplorable”, said the Conservatives should be “ashamed” of themselves for using the dispute as a “political football”.

“I have already made my views clear about this dispute. What I also know is what passengers are wanting to know, what the country is wanting to know is whether we can resolve this dispute,” he said.

“He [Mr Cameron] has said nothing positive about resolving this dispute. It is the same old Tories.”

Mr Brown said he had spoken to both management and unions and believed that the two sides could “build” on an earlier outline agreement to resolve the dispute before the strike action began.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said both main parties were being “bankrolled”, comparing Labour’s links to Unite with the Tories’ relationship with its deputy chairman and donor Lord Ashcroft.

The party’s home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, told the World At One that Labour’s financial links with Unite cast doubt on whether it could act as an “honest broker” in the BA dispute.

“When general secretaries of Unite decide to snap their fingers, cabinet ministers do tend to come to attention,” he said.

Mass collusion from all the players for the political pantomime to make the Parties seem different?  Or some massive Leftarded Armies of Doom set-up?

Labour Party’s biggest backer Unite threaten to instigate a strike over the Easter break, which would piss off millions of the electorate.

The Media picks this up and begin to make this front-page news (lots of those unions about), making sure this is the ‘topic’ that shows the approved ‘political choice’ available for us the electorate to choose from.  All the free publicity.

The Tories see this as an opportunity to stick it to the Government, pointing out the obvious making sure any other ‘topic’ is playing second fiddle to this media-induced-drama, Dave will exert all political willpower, then POW!  A few days before planned industrial action, Gordon ‘solves’ the crisis and notches up an extra few points.

I’m sure Unite wouldn’t waste £24,000,000 to back a dead horse.  They know what will happen if the strike goes ahead as it was such actions that propelled Maggie into the Premiership.  The leadership might be a few sandwiches short of a picnic but surely they remember that.

We need a Nationalist Government if we want a Nation.

It is really as simple as that.  All the Established Parties are Internationalists Authoritarians who with the aid of European Laws cultivated our predicament.  The solution to our woes will not come from the causes of them.