The truth about mass,uncontrolled immigration

Neil Hamilton wrote the following article, which was published in the Sunday Express on 7th July, summing up a number of problems with uncontrolled mass immigration.  I reproduce his article in full:

Neil Hamilton

A series of government reports last week exposed the horrifying break-up of traditional Britain.  The latest census revealed that immigrants account for 25 per cent of the population of our largest cities.  Nearly a third of residents of these cities are members of a non-white ethnic minority and almost one in 10 homes has not a single person speaking English as a first language.  Department for Education figures reveal three in 10 primary school pupils are from ethnic minorities.  More than one million children do not speak English as their first language at home.  In large parts of London native English-speakers are in the minority.  A Home Office report, Social And Public Service Impacts Of International Migration At The Local Level, said that every year since 1998 net migration has been above 100,000, peaking at 255,000 in 2010.

We have never known anything like this in the history of these islands.  With the exception of wartime, more people immigrated to the UK in a single year, 2010, than from 1066 to 1950. Between 2004-2011 the number of Poles living in the UK leapt from 69,000 to 687,000.  The report concluded that half of Britons report strain on schools, hospitals, transport, housing and employment as a result of mass immigration.  While acknowledging the hugely important work carried out by foreign doctors and nurses, researchers revealed the pressure exerted on the NHS. 
In a single year 73 per cent of TB cases and almost 60 per cent of newly diagnosed HIV cases involved people born outside the UK.

And 80 per cent of hepatitis B-infected UK blood donors were born abroad. Experts questioned by the Home Office agreed the “high birth rates of some migrant groups produce additional demands on midwifery, maternity and health visiting services”.  Health staff said that appointments and visits could take twice as long where patients had poor English, putting significant pressure on other areas.  In housing, large numbers of low-skilled migrants wanting private rented property are driving up prices. In the jobs market hundreds of thousands of immigrants chasing low-skilled jobs have driven pay down to minimum wage levels. With a million young people aged 16-24 out of work this is madness.

The last Labour government encouraged mass immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity” according to Tony Blair’s adviser Andrew Neather. They also calculated it would boost the number of Labour voters.  The scale of migration has been so great that irreversible changes have been made to large swathes of the country. Ethnic division is a reality and the problem is getting worse, with 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians potentially to add to the mix next year.  Although much of the blame lies with Labour ministers, including Ed Miliband, the Tories are little better.  What could David Cameron have been thinking when he said last week that he wants to expand the EU as far as Kazakhstan and the Urals?  If you liked opening our borders to every Romanian and Bulgarian you’ll just love the Kazakhs, Moldavians and Azerbaijanis. Not to mention 75 million Turks, whose application to join the EU he also enthusiastically supports.

Boris Johnson at Talk London event

Unfortunately Cameron isn’t the only swivel-eyed loon in the Conservative Party. A few days ago Boris Johnson backed the call by a Tory backbench MP for an amnesty for up to a million illegal immigrants.  In the next 15 years the UK population will grow by over seven million to 70 million. Five million of that will be due to immigration.  No wonder Tory planning minister Nick Boles is so manic about the need to concrete over three million acres of England.  We must build a new home every seven minutes for new migrants. England is with Holland the most crowded country in Europe, excluding city states. We have 400 people per sq km compared with 252 in Germany and 114 in France.

We have been lied to by Conservative, Labour and Liberal politicians throughout my lifetime as to the scale and effect of immigration.  Their stock riposte to those speaking out was to accuse us of being racist.  It is now clear we were right. The debate was always about space, not race…and the preservation of England’s cultural identity.


UKIP local councillors – Bringing democracy back to the people

There has been a lot of media chatter about how recently elected UKIP councillors have ‘done a deal’ with Labour and the LibDem’s to undermine the Conservative party in Norfolk.

The reality, however, is somewhat different.

Nigel Farage in Ruislip 27th April 2012

UKIP councillor for Swaffham, Paul Smyth, explains what has happened and how UKIP have been the catalyst for removal of the undemocratic ‘strong leader and cabinet’ model of local government and return to the committee system where each councillor can act in the best interests of his constituents and give them a voice



The UKIP Local Election Manifesto stated quite clearly that achieving consensus was a primary objective of UKIP in local government. It’s what makes us different and truly democratic. Instead of posturing and political game playing, UKIP puts its voters and the general public first: “UKIP is unique in local government, because we do not ‘whip’ our councillors to follow party diktats, or toe the party line. Instead, we expect our councillors to represent the wishes of their electors at all times. That means it’s easier to get agreement for the things that really need doing.”

A scan of the internet shows that it would be helpful to explain to the public, and especially to those who voted for UKIP on 2 May, why the UKIP group at Norfolk County Hall has seemingly joined forces with Labour and the Liberal Democrats.  First, it is simply not true that these three parties have formed a coalition. They retain their unique Party policies and will continue to promote their different political aims, but what they have achieved together at Norfolk Council will allow them to express their distinctiveness more effectively.

Most of the people commenting on developments in Norfolk are probably unaware of the relevant facts. For instance, they may not appreciate that although the voters of Norfolk elect 84 councillors to the County Council, under the existing Cabinet system of government only 10 councillors (the Council Leader and the small team he or she personally appoints) hold executive authority.

In layman’s terms this means that a tiny group in the Council effectively wields power for 4 years until the next election. During that time, apart from some reserved powers such as agreeing the Council’s budget, the other 74 councillors are powerless to change Cabinet decisions. They can observe, comment on, object to or protest about them, but the tiny Cabinet might simply press on regardless. Hence, the infamous King’s Lynn waste incinerator project has progressed despite overwhelming political and public objections to it, and without a thorough debate by the full Council.
 Eastleigh UKIP house

In a Council with a strong majority the Cabinet may reflect the views of the dominant Party but it excludes those of other elected councillors, which clearly hinders actual democracy. As UKIP champions bringing power back to the people it is logical that the Party would seek to replace the Cabinet system of governance with a more representative one. As elsewhere in the country, the 2 May elections produced a dramatic change in Norfolk’s political landscape removing a large Conservative majority (60/84) and returning a broader spread of councillors (40 Conservative, 15 UKIP, 14 Labour, 10 Lib-Dem, 4 Green and one independent).

Importantly, of the votes cast in Norfolk some 67% went to non- Conservative candidates. It is therefore unsurprising the so-called opposition groups had no desire to be governed by a Conservative-led minority administration and in the hiatus following an abortive Council meeting on 13 May, UKIP participated in negotiations to find a way forward, applying a common sense approach the Party wishes to pride itself on.

There was consensus among the negotiating groups that a Committee system of government would address the democratic deficit in Norfolk. Such a system would give each elected councillor a degree of influence (currently denied to them) and apportion Council appointments in line with group numbers. If it had been possible the collaborating parties would have sought rapid change, but legal (Local Government Act) and Council constitutional constraints prohibited such a move.

The earliest a Committee system could be adopted would be at the next Council Annual General Meeting in May 2014. That restriction dictated that an interim Cabinet would be needed to run the Council pending the due process necessary to allow the implementation of a more democratic system of government. So bringing power back to the people could not be achieved without a delay and an unavoidable compromise.

St Stephen's Tower and UKIP flag

Those who believe that UKIP should have led the temporary Cabinet are forgetting that would have needed the agreement of all the other parties involved – a concession the market simply would not bear. It is naive to ignore the impact unwelcome and inaccurate stereotypes about UKIP might have. The mainstream parties in British politics are seemingly stunned by UKIPʼs rapid rise and are perhaps unsure of how to react to that success, so the idea that UKIP would simply be welcomed to local government and immediately endorsed as the first among equals is an illusion.

A dogmatic demand for UKIP to be ʻleaderʼ because it had one more seat than the next ʻoppositionʼ group (and that – after four recounts – by a single vote on 2 May) would have achieved nothing positive at all. Rather, given the prize of replacing Cabinet rule with Committee government was so great the pragmatic approach taken by UKIP and the other parties in Norfolk was the correct decision. By acting in the common good, working collaboratively, negotiating reasonably and developing trust, UKIP has helped move Norfolk County Council in the right direction. It has also established a better reputation for itself than that of merely being a Party of objection and protest.

In Norfolk, UKIP is working with other parties to bring about a sea-change in the way the Council is run. The new Cabinet will only last for a year and, as UKIP’s only re-elected Councillor pointed out, should oversee its own demise. There is no coalition, nor has a vote for UKIP been wasted. County Councillors have 4 years in which to work for the people of Norfolk and the temporary transitional arrangements UKIP has helped create should lead to greater democracy, accountability and transparency in local government.

The change to a Committee system of governance should also increase the opportunities for UKIP to promote policies which a Cabinet could simply ignore. The question ‘What difference will UKIP make at Norfolk County Council?’ has had an early answer – it will help bring power back to the people.


UKIP stall Feltham by election 2011

Extremism – An open letter to David Cameron

Dear Prime Minister

 Cameron outside parliament

In the aftermath of the tragic death of Fusilier Lee Rigby, I watched your speech on national TV where you outlined how the government will attempt to deal with the threat of Islamist terrorism.

I was hoping that the atrocity committed would concentrate the minds of those in power on what is a growing menace on our streets, but instead was greeted with a host of soundbytes and platitudes that prove that you do not know what you are dealing with in England today, let alone how to reverse the cycle of violence.

Let me take in order the courses of action you have laid out –

1-      TERFOR – The Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force


On the face of it, a new task force to counter the threat seems like a good idea.

Then stand back and look at the reality – We have the assets in terms of security services and Police specialist divisions to do the job, they are just not allowed to get on and do it. Would TERFOR have the teeth to deport radical extremist preachers like Abu Qatada, or would they (Like our current Home Secretary, Theresa May) be thwarted by the Human Rights lobby and the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)?

 David Cameron & Theresa May

Your idea of a task force includes senior ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders – If you were really serious about this, how about inviting along organisations such as Quilliam who have ex-extremists amongst their number who can advise you how they were radicalised and how they emerged from that mindset? Rather than sitting in an office with Nick Clegg and Bernard Hogan-Howe , how about talking with real experts such as Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz?

Reports since the atrocity have revealed that MI5 knew who the killers of Drummer Rigby were and had done so for years – What difference would a ‘taskforce’ have made if the security services were not able to close in and pick these people up?

2 – Urging Muslim ‘whistleblowers’ to report extremist clerics


The day after the atrocity in Woolwich, I had a long conversation with a Muslim friend who had phoned me to express his disgust with what had happened.

Not for the first time, he relayed to me how his father in the nineties had reported the extremist preachers at FinsburyPark mosque to the Police and they had done nothing about it.

His was not an isolated case.

My experience of the Metropolitan Police over the last fifteen years is that they are stifled in their duty by the fear of yet another report branding them ‘institutionally racist’, and will not go near anything contentious for fear of bringing down the wrath of the ‘Human Rights’ brigade.

3 – Stamping out extremism on university campus’


You were quite clear about trying to stop preachers of hate on campus at universities, a subject on which Home Secretary Theresa May has also been quite vocal.

Yet FOSIS (Federation of Islamic Student Societies) have invited a number of extremists to speak at universities around the country, including some who have propagated the leaflets of Dr Zakir Naik with the message ‘everyone should be a terrorist’.

Recently, your Faith and Communities Minister Baroness Warsi attended an event in the House of Lords organised by FOSIS as reported in the link below

Previously, Andrew Gilligan also filed this report for The Telegraph about OFSTED inspections

Universities have successfully banned the BNP and National Front from recruiting on campus, surely it should not be difficult to do so with the preachers of hate?

4 – We will look at ways of disrupting people who may be influential in fostering extremism


Azad AliThis is Azad Ali, The Chairman and Treasurer of the Muslim Safety forum.

He is also the community affairs co-ordinator of the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) which in its own mission statement says it is dedicated to changing the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed….from ignorance to Islam’

Azad has written on his blog of his love for Al Qaeda cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, advocated the killing of British troops in Iraq (He sued the newspaper who reported that and lost) and was filmed by undercover reporters for the Channel 4 programme Despatches stating, “Democracy, if it means at the expense of not implementing the Sharia, of course no-one agrees with that”

In 2009, The Standard reported that The Muslim Safety Forum received a £30,000 grant from City Hall under the supervision of your colleague, London Mayor Boris Johnson.

This was an interesting development, as Ali had previously donated generously to former Mayor Ken Livingstone’s campaign. Indeed, Mayor ‘Red Ken’ reportedly authorised payment via the London Development Agency of £500,000 to build a new headquarters for the IFE through a donation to the East London Mosque. How much this was influenced by the IFE running a campaign during the 2008 London Mayoral elections called ‘Muslims for Ken’ is not clear.

Mr Ali has also now received a position with the ‘Unite Against Fascism’ (UAF) organisation as Vice-Chairman – UAF is an organisation that supposedly protests against fascists and racists in our society. Their Chairman is a certain Mr Ken Livingstone, and below is a picture of some of their supporters confronting the Police during a St George’s Day parade in Brighton last year.

 Brighton St G 2012 UAF

Brighton St G 2012 barricades

During the parade, two Police officers were taken to hospital and Police horses were injured, whilst a young girl received head injuries from missiles thrown at the parade by members of the UAF. (Below)

 Brighton St George's 2012 - Girl hit by missile

In view of your speech on stamping out extremism, it is difficult to see how the presence of Mr Ali as one of the leaders of an anti-racist organisation can be conducive to good community relations. It is also interesting to see the names on the founding signatory list on the link below to the UAF website, some of which I am sure you recognise

I was also taken aback by Mr Livingstone’s post on the UAF website stating that terrorists would never win and that London would stand up to them – Is this the same Mr Livingstone who whilst leader of the GLC during the 80’s at the height of the IRA  mainland bombing campaign invited Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to County Hall? A somewhat Damascene conversion, especially considering his recent history with the IFE.

5 – There is no question of restricting freedom of speech


From my own experiences in London, I would say that freedom of speech has been restricted for years – Only not for the Islamists who propagate hatred.

In 2011, I attended the 10th anniversary of 9/11 at a ceremony outside of the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square – You were there.

September 2011 uploads 014

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get near enough to hear your speech and the flowers I brought to lay at the memorial to the victims could not be laid until late afternoon.

The reason behind this was that the Islamic extremist group, Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) were having a demonstration and the Police would not let any of us through to pay our respects ‘in case we were going to cause trouble’. The extremists chanted through the 2 minute silence and burned flags – Subsequently, their organisation was banned but has re-surfaced again under yet another name. Indeed, their leader Anjem Choudhary was on both Channel 4 news and the BBC on the night of the murder of Drummer Rigby spouting his hatred on national TV.

One of their previous incarnations, Al-Muhajiroon, recruited the extremist who killed Lee Rigby and the pictures have been in the national press of him at a rally with the aforementioned Choudhary.

Yet Choudhary not only remains free to spout his hatred, he claims more in benefits than a British Army squaddie on the front line gets paid in Afghanistan – He seems able bodied (Certainly enough to get around the country preaching intolerance) so why has Iain Duncan-Smith and his team of benefit fraud busters not been after Mr Choudhary when they are so keen to go after the genuinely disabled and injured ex-servicemen?

In terms of freedom of speech – I have been ordered off of Trafalgar Square by the Met Police on Al Quds Day (An annual parade in London sponsored by the Iranian Government) that preaches anti-semitism  in case I ‘might cause offence’ by having an England rugby shirt on.

I have also been arrested after a flower laying ceremony for the victims of 7/7 with friends of mine because we were deemed to be ‘too close’ to a segregated conference in Stepney Green held by the Islamist organisation Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Who are banned across Europe but not in the UK) I was subsequently transported to Kent and released without charge so as not to inconvenience those who would promote discord amongst our community.

Extremist organisations in London

You talk of countering extremism, but I have witnessed Tony Blair’s sister-in-law, Lauren Booth,  in the shadow of Nelson’s Column stating that ‘Israeli’s will never have a moments good sleep in their beds’ and praising Hamas on that very same day that the Police ordered me from Trafalgar Square.

During the same event, a speech was given by Abdul Wahid, .the chairman of  Hizb-ut-Tahrir saying that he has respect for fighters ‘making jihad’, whilst John Rees of the stop the war coalition praised acts of violence against the Israeli embassy in Cairo.

Al Quds 2012 marchers with Hiz flags

However, probably the worst speech I heard on that day was from Shabbir Rizvi, using terms regarding President Obama that would have had any Englishman serving a prison sentence under the race relations act.

The link below will give you some idea of the atmosphere, including videos of the speeches

The following year, the same parade was attended by sitting MP Jeremy Corbyn (Who made a speech) and ended up at Grosvenor Square, with the battle flags of proscribed organisations such as Hezbollah being in full view. I wrote letters of complaint to Theresa May (Who you have indicated will be on your anti-terrorist taskforce), Ed Miliband as his party leader and my local MP, John Randall.

I have yet to receive a reply.

I requested that the Police present acted under Section 5 of the public order act when calls for violence against Jews and Homosexuals were invoked, yet was ignored and threatened with arrest myself unless I quietened down (After being served a Section 15 dispersal notice to vacate the area so the Islamists could set up their demo)

I wrote about the day on my blog site as can be seen below

What can be done?


You already have the laws in place to deal with extremism – You just need to enforce them correctly. Over the last few days, the police have used these laws to arrest an 85 year old lady from Gillingham for shouting ‘go home’ at a mosque and various people on line for ‘racially aggravated tweets’.

I deplore the way that this government and the previous one have eroded our civil liberties and curtailed free speech, but if you can arrest people such as the misguided old lady and prosecute people like Emma West for rants on a tube train then surely you can do a far better job with the likes of the Hizb conference speakers and the killers of Drummer Rigby who pose a far greater threat to our society?

You have the tools already in place to combat the preachers of hate if you have the backbone to use them – But will you have the nerve to take on the European courts and restore order to England?

Will you have the resolve to either stop the hate preachers getting in to our education system or, as would be more fitting in a genuine democracy, allow people to speak against them without fear of being branded a ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobe’.?

Your past history suggests not, but I hope this time that the revulsion felt for events will reach you in the Westminster Bubble and you can now prove me wrong – For the sake of all the citizens of England of all faiths and colours.

Yours Faithfully



The day everything changed

Back in December after three impressive by-election results, I wrote an article on this blog (‘The Winds of Change? 01-12-2012) asking if we were about to see a sea change in the direction of politics in England.

St Stephen's Tower and UKIP flag

The tide continued to flow in UKIP’s favour at Eastleigh in February, where Diane James recorded an impressive second place in a by-election , pushing the Conservatives in to third and showing a vote increase of over 20% on our outing there at the 2010 general election.

With the polls showing increased support following on from this, we approached last Thursday’s local elections with confidence and with the media forecasting a number of breakthroughs for the party – Little did we realise just how many were about to occur!

Thursday 2nd May 2013 – The day that shook the establishment


With no elections of our own in Hillingdon, branch members assisted our colleagues in Buckinghamshire and Essex.

It soon became apparent that the incumbent Conservative councillors in these areas were very worried about our impact, with the Essex Tories releasing local leaflets focusing on the EU and mass immigration (pictured below) – Subjects that local Conservatives in Hillingdon have criticised us for putting on our literature in the past!

Tory Essex leaflet

Nationally, it also became apparent that Labour finally woke up to the reality that ‘their’ voters are just as susceptible to the UKIP message as traditional Conservatives, with Richard Elvin scoring another by-election second in South Shields to follow on from seconds in Middlesbrough, Rotherham and Barnsley over the last 18 months. These are Labour heartland areas where the Conservatives do not traditionally do well – From a standing start, Richard took 24% of the vote in less than a month of campaigning, denting the Labour majority from the general election result of 2010.

The statistics do not lie – UKIP are now the official party of opposition to Labour in the north of England.

In a frantic final week of campaigning, sections of the media started to highlight UKIP candidates who they claimed had indulged in ‘dubious’ behaviour – Out of over 1700 candidates standing, it is to the party’s credit that they only found 6 or 7 to focus on and all were stood down to face investigation when their actions were pointed out.

It was interesting to see this apparent feeding frenzy, with Tory dinosaur Kenneth Clarke being wheeled out at the weekend to condemn our party as ‘clowns’ and to repeat the ‘closet racist ‘ remarks of David Cameron, a sure sign of near panic in their ranks.

(Further embarrassment for the Tories followed when it was revealed that one of their candidates standing in Rossendale was an ex-BNP and England First officer, link below)

With polling day looming, political pundits were predicting that UKIP could win as many as 40 seats and deny the Conservatives victories by taking an increased vote share.

UKIP stall Feltham by election 2011

By 4am the following morning, it became apparent that they had massively underestimated the impact that UKIP had made on the doorstep – An email sent to activists by party secretary Jonathan Arnott with just 373 seats reported in showed that we had already taken 43 seats, with over 200 second places and around 26.2% of the vote!

Breaking in to the mainstream


By the time the final results came in, it had become obvious that the sea change that I wrote of back in December had come to pass.

The full results can be seen below –

  • 1.25 million votes across the country – more than at the last General Election
  • UKIP won 154 Council seats (including 6 at District/Unitary by-elections)
  • Average of 24.6% of the vote where we stood
  • 17 County Council seats in Kent, 16 in Lincolnshire, 12 in Cambridgeshire, 9 in Essex
  • UKIP will become the ‘official opposition’ or hold the balance of power on a number of Councils
  • The EasternCounties (26.2%) and South East (26.1%) were UKIP’s top two performing regions.
  • 878 UKIP candidates finished in second place
  • 776 UKIP candidates took more than 25% of the vote
  • In wards where UKIP and the Lib Dems went head to head, UKIP took over 300,000 votes more than the Lib Dems
  • In wards where UKIP and Labour went head to head, UKIP took almost 200,000 votes more than Labour
  • UKIP finishes ahead of the Conservatives in almost 500 seats across the country
  • UKIP took the most votes across at least 2 Parliamentary constituencies (Great Yarmouth and Boston & Skegness), possibly more.

What now for UKIP?

 Gooshays by election Mar 2013

With European and local elections in London (Including Hillingdon) next year, the electorate can now be confident that after these elections a vote for UKIP will mean you get a UKIP councillor or MEP, finally burying the standard Tory line that a vote for UKIP lets Labour in by splitting the vote.

Likewise, Labour cannot claim that UKIP are just the Tories in disguise as our gains in the North prove that we are now the natural home for disenfranchised working class voters.

The next year will show what UKIP councillors can do at a local level, where the party encourages them to act in the interests of their constituents and they are not ‘whipped’ to follow a party line ahead of the needs of the community.

A good indication of how that may work out can be seen in Ramsey in Cambs, where UKIP had a majority on the council before the elections.

On Thursday, our candidates were re-elected with a thumping 67% vote share – Proof positive that UKIP have the policies and the drive to make a difference to local communities.

With thanks to Jonathan Arnott for the statistics on the 2nd May elections.

Cabinet Office refuses to release minutes of 1997 Devolution Meeting

In January I re-posted from the Wonko’s World blog details of the author’s request to the Cabinet Office to see notes from the meetings concerning the 1997 Devolution Act under Freedom of Information .(See Below)


A number of us sent in an FOI request as suggested and last week an answer was received – As we all got pretty much the same answer, I have once again copied from the blog and that answer can be seen below.

One thing that did strike me as being very interesting is the part just above the link to a section of Hansard, the record of debate in the house. In it, the FOI team refer to ‘devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions – Not England, but the English Regions!


Part of EU policy is to break England in to nine regions as our country is ‘integrated’ in to the European Union – Does this part of the letter hint at that policy, and is this why release of this information has been suppressed twice before and this FOI request has been also been rejected?

Parliament from the Thames


From Wonko’s World


Original link –


In January I put in a Freedom of Information Request to the Cabinet Office asking for a copy of the minutes and Terms of Reference of the 1997 cabinet meetings on devolution that resulted in Scotland and Wales getting devolved national governments and an agreement that England would be dismembered along EU regional lines with huge glorified county councils begging for scraps under the table.

These minutes have been requested more than once and on every occasion they have been refused.  The Information Commissioner has ruled against the Cabinet Office withholding the minutes and been overruled.  The Information Commissioner has been to court and obtained a court order instructing the Cabinet Office to release the minutes and it has been vetoed by the Home Secretary.  Twice, by Home Secretary’s of different parties.  Clearly these minutes are a smoking gun and we have a right to see what’s in them.

Here is the response from the Cabinet Office:

Dear Mr Parr,


I refer to your request where you asked: “Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a copy of the minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meetings on devolution. I am also requesting a copy of the Terms of Reference for the cabinet committee headed by Lord Irvine that the minutes relate to and any legal or departmental advice provided to the cabinet in relation to these meetings.”

I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office.Some of the information you have requested is exempt under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 21 exempts information if this information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. Section 21 is an absolute exemption and the Cabinet Office is not required to consider whether the public interest favours disclosure of this information.

The terms of reference for the Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions (DSWR) were published in Hansard on 9 June 1997. I attach a link:

The remainder of the information you seek is exempt under section 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act. This is a qualified exemption and therefore subject to the public interest test. The information is exempt under section 35(1)(a) and (b), which relates to the formulation or development of government policy, and Ministerial communications. We accept that there is public interest in improving public understanding of the development of Government policy on devolution and the way Cabinet Government operates more generally. We recognise that the decisions Ministers make have a significant impact on the lives of citizens and there is a public interest in this process being transparent. We also recognise that greater transparency makes government more accountable to the electorate and increases trust.

However, there is a countervailing public interest in protecting the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective decision-making. Ministers will reach collective decisions more effectively if they are able to debate questions of policy freely and in confidence. The maintenance of this convention is fundamental to the continued effectiveness of Cabinet government, and its continued existence is therefore manifestly in the public interest.

In relation to the specific documents you have requested, the policy discussions in this area are ongoing and the adverse effect of disclosing these documents now would not be diminished by the fact that the documents date from 1997. The matters discussed at Cabinet are not matters of purely historic interest, but are important matters of current discussion and debate. We therefore conclude that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Once again I have to ask: what have these traitors got to hide?

I am of course appealing to the Information Commissioner and I would ask that anyone else who joined me in requesting the minutes also appeals.  We can’t allow these people to continue to hide behind a veil of secrecy when the very existence of our nation is in their hands and negotiations with the Scottish separatists are being conducted in our name.

A reply to Mary Beard

 UKIP Party leader Nigel Farage appeared on BBC Question Time on Thursday 17th January, which on that particular night was being filmed in Lincoln.

One of the issues being discussed was mass immigration and a local lady from Boston, Rachel Bull, put forward her point of view on how mass immigration was affecting her home town (See below)

On the panel with Nigel was Cambridge University academic and TV presenter Mary Beard, most famous for her BBC 2 show about the Romans. Ms Beard put forward her view that ‘public services can cope’ with a further influx of migrants from Eastern Europe and that there are ‘myths’ surrounding immigration in her counter argument to the personal experiences of Ms Bull.

Ms Beard quoted from a report published by Boston Council and her response can be seen on the video below

Living in an area that has seen a large amount of immigration over the last thirty years, I posted a link to an article from a national newspaper the following day on my political Facebook page and stated that “Mary Beard is typical of the establishment,preferring statistics over eye witness accounts” – This automatically re-posts to my English Patriot Twitter Feed. To my surprise, Ms Beard actually picked up on this and all credit to her for mounting a defence to her point of view in a conversation spanning a few days on the social networking site.

Unfortunately, Twitter is a very difficult medium to have a proper debate on what Mary herself calls a ‘very complicated issue’ with the limitation of 140 characters, so in this post I will outline why I think she is wrong both from statistics and personal experience.

Before I start, I would like to retract the accusation that Ms Beard is typical of the establishment because unlike many she was prepared to debate her point with good grace and in the face of some determined resistance from myself to her line of logic. She has also received some pretty strong abuse over it from some quarters – Whilst I disagree with her point of view, personal insults do nobody any favours and the mass immigration debate needs to be had without unnecessary unpleasantness. After all, how many of us who have laid down the argument against from a logical point of view in terms of numbers and infrastructure capacity been abused as ‘racists’ over the last twenty years?

Mary Beard

Above – Mary Beard on BBC Question Time (Photograph courtesy of the BBC)


I am a great believer in the ultimate truth of quoting statistics – The stat’s you get out are only as good as the information you put in. Ms Beard quoted from statistics put out by Boston Borough Council about how they could ‘cope’.

Firstly, you have to ask yourself the following question – How many councils will admit that they can’t cope? In these days of increased media scrutiny, admitting that you can’t cope is tantamount to asking the electorate to give you a good kicking at the next election, especially if your council is made up of predominently the same party who are in power nationally.

Now let’s look at some statistics from other organisations that would refute the argument that is being put forward.

Firstly, there is a report that has come in from a body of the government’s own MP’s on the ‘Fresh Start’ Group in January which states that a quarter of the EU nationals living in the UK are not working. That is above the national average for UK born citizens from all backgrounds, and being EU nationals they are entitled to benefits from a system that our own government is trying to rein in. This flies in the face of Ms Beard’s assertion that the migrants in Lincolnshire are not a drain on the public purse unless they are bucking a national trend.

Even if they are, then they are an isolated case in the overall picture.

Then we have the following figures from the ONS (Office of National Statistics). Taken from 2009, a quarter of all births across the UK were to foreign born mothers – In Newham, East London, 75.7 % of births were accredited to this source. This puts an immense strain on the NHS and will ultimately fuel pressure on school places and then housing. In my own home borough of Hillingdon, the population has grown by 30,000 in ten years – More than three times the government’s own estimated growth figures.

In the last two years, the number of people on the affordable housing waiting list has reached nearly nine thousand (The last printed council figure quoted in the Gazette in September 2011 was 7586) , whilst the council are now looking at building on green belt land to satisfy predicted demand for primary school places.



Our National Health Service has been put under tremendous pressure by the amount of migrants using it. Alongside the increase in usage of maternity services, £45,000 per day is spent on translation services as uncovered by a Freedom of Information request submitted by Tory MP Nick De Bois reported in the Express in July of last year.

Taxpayers suffering from cancer in England have also been denied life saving drugs such as Abiroterone and Herceptin due to cost, yet the European Court of Human Rights has insisted that migrants should be treated for HIV/AIDS on the NHS – A move supported by the government as it will  ‘Reduce the risk of Britons being infected’. I think better border controls are probably a less expensive way of stopping Britons becoming infected, but that is just my point of view.

We have also seen in recent years the resurgence of diseases such as TB that had been successfully eradicated from our country in the seventies and eighties by innoculation programmes  – Another direct result of uncontrolled immigration where health checks are not carried out due to non-existent border controls.

Then we have the ridiculous situation where women from countries such as Ireland and Poland where abortion is banned can come to the UK to have the procedure carried out and then hop back on the plane leaving the NHS to pick up the tab.


Olympic stadiumThe Olympic Games in London last year was supposed to be a pick me up to the local economy in the face of austerity. Large amounts of public funding were put in to building the stadia and facilities to host the games, not least on the showpiece stadium in Stratford.

Yet figures from The Olympic Delivery Agency showed that of over six thousand jobs on the construction of the main site, less than a thousand went to UK born construction workers. Moreover, much of the public money going in to pay wages was sent overseas to fund the families of the migrant workers rather than being spent in the local community, thus depriving the area of additional job creation.

It is a pattern that has been repeated frequently in the last ten years, with migrant workers living five and six to a house sharing the bills and thus being able to easily undercut skilled tradesmen already here with mortgages to pay and families to keep. I have friends locally in trades including plumbing,plastering and electrical who tell me that they are earning less now than they were fifteen years ago whilst their overheads both in their working and personal lives have increased dramatically.

But it is not just in the construction trade that this has happened. My friend Kevin spent thousands of pounds of his own money on passing the HGV class 1 qualification so he could drive large lorries. He is now one of just two English drivers left within his company as the management have employed far cheaper Eastern European drivers who have not had to go through the rigorous training that he did and can drive on our roads with a basic tractor license from their own countries. Kevin now gets the difficult jobs as his Polish colleagues are unable to manoeuvre the large vehicles around the tighter streets on his route, whilst overtime and pay rises are out of the question. Road safety is also secondary to the EU free movement of workers regulations in cases such as this.

Something that also needs to be brought in to the equation and cannot be covered by statistics is the ‘black economy’, where cheap migrant labour is imported and the workers live in sub standard and often illegal accommodation. I have seen this for myself locally when I stayed over at a flat above a previous employers shop in neighbouring Southall.

Getting up early in the morning, I viewed numerous people leaving what appeared to be extensions on the back of houses from my vantage point in the first floor flat and getting in to the back of white vans. When I asked my friend Hardeep the next day what was going on, he advised me that this is a regular occurence and that the people I had seen were going out to work on the building sites in the area. Many of these workers are not registered and paid ‘cash in hand’, thus avoiding tax and keeping their employers overheads down – Employers who can then undercut other firms who are tendering legitimately for the same work.

This practice not only damages the economy, it also exploits the migrant workers who in many cases have come looking to better the lives of themselves and their families. This practice has also spread and created a situation in my own borough of Hillingdon where it is referred to as ‘beds in sheds’, a phenomenon that caused a local man to document information and pass it to me showing how planning has been abused to further the spread of this particular problem. The file has also been passed to one of the local MP’s and the council, who have claimed that they can’t track what is happening – A clear case of burying their heads in the sand on an issue that affects local communities, the environment, the employment market and also the wellbeing of those being abused in the labour market in this way.


Estate agent board

One of the areas where the effects of mass immigration in my locality are most keenly felt is in the availability of housing.

When the Conservative government of the day brought in right to buy of the council housing stock, they made the fundamental mistake of not taking the money raised and re-investing in new stock for the next generation. This has now been compounded by open-door immigration – With Heathrow Airport in the borough, we are often on the front line of any new influx.

The figures are pretty damning – The English Housing Survey as reported by Migrationwatch states that around 20% of all the social housing stock in London is occupied by foreign nationals.

Another survey based around ONS statistics from 2008 that Migrationwatch published shows the percentage of population living in social housing broken down in to ethnic groupings – Whilst UK born residents are shown at 17%, our EU partners Portugal have a 40% rate of dependency on social housing in the survey, whilst Turkey (Whom Prime Minister David Cameron wants to join the EU) have a 49% dependency – Somali born residents are quoted at a massive 80%. That final figure is particularly relevant to us in Hillingdon as we have a fast growing Somali community, most notably in Hayes and the south of the borough. Unfortunately, as picked up on by The Mail last month, such surveys in the future may be meaningless as councils are increasingly leaving out the nationalities of those they place in social housing as it is ‘politically sensitive’.

But enough of the statistics, which I have already stated earlier can be interpreted in many ways and are not always accurate – What of the reality on the ground, the real stories that affect people such as Rachel Bull?

My own family has been moved around various accomodation in Hillingdon in the private rented sector. Because both my wife and myself work, we are not considered a priority for Hillingdon Council and because of the high price of property we can’t afford a mortgage. Saving up for a large deposit is definitely a no go as the private rents are increasing at such a rate that over half of our income goes just to pay rent before other bills are taken in to consideration.

What is particularly galling is that many times we have been moved it has been down to the council needing property for their ‘category A on need’ clients and out-bidding us on our existing property. Before we met, my wife was moved out of a property in Hayes at the end of her lease as the landlord was being paid more by the council to take a Somalian family, I was evicted from Yeading to make way for Kosovan refugees and since we met and married we have been moved from Hayes End Drive to make way for an Asian family and from our last house as the landlord wanted to put foreign students in. This is not the fault of the immigrants, but of the ridiculous system that the council uses to allocate on ‘need’.

A prime example that I have seen at first hand is the situation of one of my best friends. When his girlfriend became accidentally pregnant, they started to look for a property they could live in together. Despite his wages being insufficient for a mortgage, the council would do nothing.

The flat they found that they could afford was cold and damp,leading to their young son becoming ill and needing major surgery – Still Hillingdon Council would do nothing until they got a letter from the surgeon who carried out his life saving operation stating that unless they housed the family in decent accomodation he would hold the council responsible for the childs death. (Amazing how the thought of litigation can focus the mind of the most stubborn Council!)

They were in emergency housing for TEN YEARS, whilst all around them migrants were coming on to the estate and being re-homed within months. When they finally got the permanent home they had waited for,it was in a sorry state and we all pitched in to help them renovate it.

Living opposite them in a council property are a migrant family who my friend talks with. They have not worked since entering the UK, and the wife recently had their seventh child. The husband excitedly told my friend that the council are moving them soon as the house has become ‘too small’ for his growing family. They also have a late model people carrier sat on their drive that my firend, who works and pays tax, would struggle to afford!

With the EU demanding that the borders are opened fully to Bulgarian and Romanian migrants from 1st January next year, this is a situation that can only get worse as housing availability dwindles and prices rise – Indeed, this has not only fuelled the ‘beds in sheds’ debacle but neighbouring Southall now has people sleeping rough in groups in parts of the town.


Above – Migrants picking out clothing from bags left outside a charity shop in Harlington last year

Mass Immigration – A problem for us all

I hope that Mary Beard now gets some idea of what ordinary people are seeing as their towns and cities are transformed from the communities we knew barely twenty years ago.

Ultimately, nobody benefits from this in the long term – Locals are crowded out and see their standard of living drop, the migrants that work are frequently exploited and end up with a poor standard of life whilst as taxpayers we all see the amount we pay to both local and central government go up as a direct result of the pressures that have been laid out in this post.

Until we leave the EU, regain control of our borders and introduce an Australian style points system that limits the numbers coming to those that our communities can absorb and with skills that benefit all, then the subject of mass uncontrolled immigration will continue to be a contentious issue at the top of the political agenda.

More importantly, as numbers grow, it will be an issue that spreads to university towns such as Cambridge and, as Mary will find out, becomes a problem affecting us all.

Cameron’s Referendum con-trick

Taken from the website of UKIP London MEP Gerard Batten (below) earlier today –

Gerard Batten




David Cameron’s EU Referendum speech is a re-run of Harold Wilson’s 1975 referendum – only  this time in slow motion.

Mr Wilson sought election in 1974 promising a referendum on continued membership of the European Economic Community.

He obtained some minor cosmetic concessions, and in 1975  told the British to vote ‘Yes’ to keep the Common Market. Mr Cameron hopes to repeat the same trick this time talking about preserving the ‘Single Market’.

Mr Cameron’s plan is just the latest in a long line of Tory con-tricks regarding the EU.  What he outlined in his speech is unachievable. The EU will never agree to any meaningful reofrms or return of significant return of powers to nation states.

Mr Cameron will seek a mandate to renegotiate in the General election of 2015. He then promises to put the results to a referendum in mid 2018. By that time Britain will have had hundreds more Rules, Regulations and Directives  inflicted on it, and we will have opened our doors to potentially to at least another 29 million migrants.

If Mr Cameron sincerely wanted to address the issue he would ask Parliament to authorise an In-or Out referendum later this year or early next year.  Britain could then decide if it wants to be a region of a United States of Europe or restore its status as an independent, democratic nation state.

This entire exercise is about the Tories trying to hoodwink the voters into voting Tory in 2015.

Of course Ed Miliband could spike his guns by offering a simple In-or-Out referendum on EU membership in his 2015 manifesto with a referendum in 2015/2016.

Whatever happens UKIP will continue to tirelessly campaign for Britain’s exit from the EU.

Gerard Batten 2

For more information on Gerard Batten please visit