THE REAL FACE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

We thought we would start with this light reading, to get you in the mood!

There are too many things that mainstream media will not tell you. Google for New World Order.  The whole enterprise is crazy. And it's an absolute scam, which is going to cost you a great deal. It's rather like paying monkeys, because what happens is that civil servants draw up a list and if it's vote number 58 and the piece of paper says vote yes, you vote yes, and if it's number 59 and it says vote no, you vote no. It is an absolute farce, it's complete sham, masquerading as democracy. You should not be mistaken it is very... very, very strong forces are working towards this civil state.

This is the village of Goudhurst. It has been said that if the Kent is the garden of England then Goudhurst is the garden of Kent. The english way of life has gone on here for centuries But is all that about to become a thing of a past? In 1996 chairman of the British Referendum Party Sir James Goldsmith circulated copies of a short film documentary to milions of households across the country, frustrated by the lack of mainstream press coverage over what he saw as dismantling of British sovereignty and independance by coluding politicians. Sir James's wake-up call to people of Great Britain was stark and shocked many.

What's you are about to hear will both surprise and outrage you. It's the true story of Europe. It's the story the politians don't want you to hear, because it shows how they decieved us and betrayed our nation.

Only in 1994, the chancellor Kohl's foreign policy spokesmen speaking on behalf of the ruling party of Europe's dominant nation, Germany, clearly revealed the true plan. The plan is to create a federal european superstate. Into it will be merged up to 25 ancient european nations, including our own. This new country called Europe will have one parliament, one government, one court of justice, one currency, one flag and one anthem.

That has been the plan all along. But those who favoured it knew that people of Europe would never accept it. They would never be willing to surrender their freedoms to become just a province in a vast european superstate. So what did the politicians do? They conspired to keep the truth from the people. So what is the truth behind the European Union? Is it as our politicians are keep telling us: Britains best hope for the future, the chance to regain some of that lost prestige on the world stage by being in the center of Europe?

Today in Britain all three major political parties miraculously appear to agree at least on one thing. They believe in the destruction of Great Britain as an independent nation. They believe an integrated Europe makes sense. That it is the modern forward thinking way to go. That it would prevent any chance of the third european war. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Campaign for Truth in Europe Presents The Real Face of the European Union

The need to unite Europe could understandably devastation left behind after two catastrophic world wars. Of all the empires, it was perhaps the Nazis who came closest to pulling off the military conquest and occupation of Europe in recent times. In June 1940, Hermann Goering, reichs marshal of the german Luftwaffe, reveals final plans for Operation Sea Lion (Seelöwe), the german invasion of Great Britain. He also discusses with Hitler a new plan to unite Europe not just out on the conquering hammer of Blitzkrieg, but through a lasting political and economic union, which the Nazis named Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft - or the European Economic Community. In 1942, a conference was held in Berlin to discuss this political and economic integration of Europe. Of all the nations targeted, Britain has proved the wild card, because she alone has succesfully resisted invasion. Rising to his feet of the conference, Nazi economist professor Horst Jagd of Berlin University, firmly declares that Britain is the greatest obstacle to Germany fulfilling her historic aim of dominating Europe.


Winston Churchill also believed Britain had an incompatible destiny with out of the continent. Refering to the United Kingdom's reliance on her overseas trade, Churchill stated: "If Britain must choose between Europe and open sea, we will choose the sea." Both Churchill and Jagd were independently remarking on the same phenomenon, Napoleon had noticed 150 years before. That Great Britain was a global trading power and the nations of Europe weren't.

According to the Nazis, Great Britain's awesome maritime capability was beggaring Europe, because it was drawing trade away from the continent. If Britain could be conquered militarily or economically, broken up once and for all as a significant economic and political entity, the spoils of all her trade and wealth would go to whoever ran the new european empire. Few in Berlin were in any doubt about who would do the running. But the tide of war turned against Germany. In 1944, a meeting was held in the Hotel Rotes Haus in Strasbourg between officials of the Nazi government and german industrialists. The theme of the meeting was: How will Germany dominate the peace, when she loses the war.

Following the end of WWII, the rebuilding of Europe and Germany in particular became a pressing necessity, and was largely funded under the Marshall plan by the United States. Both Washington and London saw the rapid stabilization of the continent after the war, as essential in order to prevent any incursion into Western Europe by the new enemy to be feared - the Soviet Union.

Winston Churchill agreed that some form of commonwealth of nations in Europe was desirable for establishing stability and the lasting peace. But he never envisioned Britain as being part of a new future: United States of Europe. Winston Churchill's view of Great Britain's relationship with Europe after the second world war is summarised by these words of his: "But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed". The allied answer to military stability in Europe was to be the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or NATO, which came into existance in 1949 as a permanent defense alliance for Europe. The European Union officially began life as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951. A modest industrial corporation between France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland. Six years later in 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed by the six participating Coal and Steel Community nations, declaring its goal as "The ever closer union of the peoples of Europe". The Treaty of Rome went far beyond launching just a common market. It established a fledgling apparatus for an idealistic new superpower. This new entity was given an existing and unsettlingly familiar name: The European Economic Community.

In 1963 Charles de Gaulle and Conrad Adenauer signed the Treaty of Elysée, signifing the symbolic burying of the hatchet between France and Germany. This was the start of a dynamic new dual leadership role in Europe for the two countries. De Gaulle later resigned and within a year was dead. Britain was invited to submit yet another application to join in the EEC. This time, Edward Heath, now as Britain's conservative prime minister, signed the Treaty of Rome and took Britain into the Common Market on New Year's Day 1973. Responding to the deep concerns within his own country, that joining the EEC would compromise Britain's national sovereignty and independance, Heath sought to reassure the British people and the government white paper. He wrote: "There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty".

The master plan of course was well-known to Edward Heath, Lord Hailsham and their colleagues in Brussels. It was the eventual creation of a new european superstate out of 25 existing nations in Europe and Scandinavia, and Britain was going to be part of it.

From 1973 onwards, the slow but consistent transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels through successive treaties our own politicians signed, became known as the acquis communautaire. It was nick-named "The Ratchet" For once powers had been given to Brussels by the member state. They could never be returned.

Initially, I thought like everybody else, that we had joined the common market, and what could be nicer and more friendly and sensible and economically wise to do. But since the then, in 1975, when we had the vote to remain in that, so we were told, it's become one or two things further than just a common market. It then became, few years later, a European Economic Community, then European Community, It's now the European Union with all sorts of controls and restrictions, regulations. and we are fast approaching via this new constitution, something the French have already named potentially United States of Europe. And I'm not at all sure, that's what I and many others voted to join back in 1975.

In 75 we signed that for sort of trade agreement. And we've let - it's the people, who have let the government, successive governments, vote away our democratic rights. This government has no right to sign us up to the constitution without the will of the people. But we need the will of the people to stop it. It's no use coming down in 5 years time, we signed up to it. We can't get out of it and the people say we don't want it. It's up to the people today to say NO.

This is the Strasbourg Parliament. It was built in 1999 at a cost of 300 million pounds. It is open for only 4 days every month. What happens at the end of that four days is we load our offices into tin boxes and then lorries arrive downstairs and drive the whole lot nearly 300 miles up to Brussels where the boxes are unpacked for the next 3 weeks when we suppose to be there and it all brought back again. This whole process of shifting, the administration of the stuff from one home to another is costing european taxpayer over 100 million Euros a year.

It is the biggest scam in human history. We are not talking about billions of pounds, we are talking about trillions of pounds. Why our country, which has been independent for nine hundred or more years, would ever wish to involve itself in such political chicanery and nonsense as something which defies anyone who is sane. And only now we got just about fourteen or fifteen months before they rivet on us a pan-european constitution, which would be superior to our own splendid constitution, one, which is the pride of the world and pioneered the way for sensible living. And here we are giving it all away.


The political aim is to develop a framework for a real European Union constitution and in my opinion this means building up European federal state.

In black and white, the draft constitution would and confirms Brussels will exercise competence and primacy of member states' own laws. For the British, this will mean being stripped of any remaining independence. Losing control over our foreign policy and armed forces. The handing over of our legal system and law enforcement in the European Union. The scrapping of the Pound Sterling to be replaced by the Euro. The handing over of our remaining currency and gold reserves to the European Central Bank. And the total regulation of British domestic and international trade by the European Union.

Coincidentally, or otherwise, the European goal of dominating Britain, unfinished business going back centuries will have been accomplished.

Most already noticed, that the job of running Britain is increasingly been carried out in Brussels not by British politicians, but by unaccountable foreign committees most in this country have never even heard of, let alone voted into power. These unelected inscrutable forums dictate what citizens across the Eurozone can and can't do down to the last detail. Henceforth, Britain is to be ruled from the New Europe by the New Europe and for the benefit of the New Europe. The powers driving this new superstate have always been, indeed as they are today - France and Germany.

Lindsay Jenkins worked as a senior civil servant at the British Ministry of Defense for almost 10 years. And spent a further 10 working for British and American investment banks in the City of London. She is the author of 2 books exposing the origins of European federalism and the emergence of the European Union.

"Today, over 80%, that is, eight-zero percent of everything that goes through the House of Commons and the House of Lords merely rubber stamps Brussels. And there is an awful lot of it. We have recently celebrated, if that is the right word, our 40000th directive from Brussels. And having attacked central government, now Brussels is attacking our local government structure. So, we have lost just to recap, in the following areas, we have lost 100% of our control over the Environment, the British scenery and countryside, everything that comprises environment, including health and safety regulations, absolutely everything. We have lost nearly 100% control over our Fishing. We have lost 100% control over our Farming. And we have lost 100% control over our Trade Policy. And that loss is of particular significance, when you consider, that Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world. And we do more trade per head of population than any other country in the world by far". 

For many in this country, the first experience they have had with the European Union, apart from VAT, came when they tried to protest new legislation introduced to limit the amount and availability of vitamins, herbs and alternative remedies people will be able to purchase and use in the future.

"The UK has always enjoyed a very open market. Products have been allowed on the market in the safe - period. There has not been any restrictions on the dosage or the type of products as long its safe and poses no risk to public health. The European directive on Food supplement changes that completely and we are going to lose over 300 different nutrient forms. On top of that, there's gonna be dosage restrictions, so the 1000 milligram vitamin C tablet that would be selling for 40 - 50 years that will also become illegal. So the safe and effective products that have been used in this country for decades are gonna be illegal for no other reason, that Europe wants to harmonise legislation. We are one of the 3 countries with open market and food supplements, we gonna lose our products by 1st of August 2005".

"I'm Dr. Paul Layman, I work in a clinic using natural therapies to treat people and I regard any restriction of vitamins and mineral production and availability as being very serious and can damage people. We use huge numbers of supplements for our patients that we feel they definitely needed and they respond very well on them". 

Most people in Britain today believe that the European Parliament works in a similar way to Westminster. So many thousands of British citizens have written to the MPs and MEPs protesting these and other directives. But do have MEPs actually have the power to change the food supplements and herbal directives or indeed, anything?

So what are MEPs for, well I tell you: MEPs are here to vote. And to vote often and to vote regularly. Sometimes we vote up to 450 times in the space of 80 minutes. Now I have to confess, hands up, I don't know what's going on half the time. I haven't even read all the documents, so massive are they. Now it could be, that my fellow-MEPs down there are all Albert Einsteins and all absolutely understand what's going on. But I suspect that's not the case. In fact, it's rather like paying monkeys, because what happens is, that civil servants draw up the list and if it's vote number 58 and the piece of paper says vote yes, you vote yes, and if it's number 59 and it says vote no, you vote no. It is an absolute farce, it is a complete sham, masquerading as democracy.

In 15 minutes time we have to go down to the European Parliament and fulfil our function as Members of the European Parliament, which means we have to vote. So what we're about to do now, is with our assistants we've got a massive amount of reading and work behind the scenes, they are effectively going to tell us, what to do. Look at that, this is a classic example of EU voting. There we have 40 individual, different amendments, that we're expected to vote for on block. Now I defy any man or woman down in that chamber to understand all those policy amendments and make a balanced decision? It's just impossible.

Laws of the European Union are drafted not by the Euro Parliament, but by the EU-Commision. One of three powerful forums in which the true might of the Union resides. Members of these forums are not elected to their positions. Nor we are told will they ever be.

When cornered, politicians and public servants routinely tell the British that the EU is just a trading partnership. Yet underneath the surface, a different picture has emerged. In 2001, a market trader was convicted for selling a pound of bananas weighed using British imperial measures, instead of grams and kilos. British district judge Morgan, in passing judgement upon the hapless metric martyr, stated:

"We are now living under a new legal order. The 1972 European Communities Act was a one-off, not an ordinary treaty, but a new way of life. These are new constitutional powers. The British parliament surrendered its sovereignty in 1972. European laws have an overriding force with priority over our British laws... The articles on the supremacy of the British parliament are now only of historical perspective, they are non-binding."

We asked constitutional expert John Bingley, whether our politicians were entitled to abandon the rule of law by handing over the powers of British governments to a foreign power. 

"The answer is simple: NO. We have much written constitution, which is not really fully appreciated in this country. And these documents - The Bill of Rights and Declaration of Rights along with Magna Carta and many other legal instruments make it quite plain that allegiance is owed to the Queen. And that allegiance is returned by her through the contract of her coronation oath to the people. And that is not something, which may be broken. And our politicians are not entitled to break their oaths of office". 

"It follows therefore, that no government with or without a popular mandate may transfer sovereignty on a temporary or permanent basis to a foreign power that has no allegiance to the British crown and is unaccountable to the British people". 

The new European justice system currently being introduced in the UK is known as Corpus Juris, literally Body of Law. Corpus Juris is designed completely and permanently to overhaul the British justice system. And will include the following: The scrapping of trial by jury. Henceforth, you will face a state-appointed judge, who pronounce you guilty or not-guilty. The scrapping of habeas corpus. You are liable to summary arrest without charge. Under corpus juris, you can be detained without charge or any evidence being presented against you for up to 9 months. The scrapping of innocent until proven guilty. Henceforth, a citizen must prove his innocence against the combined machinery of the state. The scrapping of double jeopardy or not being tried for the same offence twice. Under EU-sanction, Jack Straw, while Home Secretary, gave prosecutors leave to appeal not-guilty verdicts, if desired. Technically, this could be done repeatedly, until the required conviction is secured. The scrapping of non-disclosure. Henceforth, under corpus juris, any previous convictions you have will be made available to the court before your trial begins. There is no presumption of innocence.

"The French system, or continental system broadly, that draft d'administrative, places everything the subject of the foreign or continental countries have no rights at all. An Englishmen has full liberty, except under the jurisdiction of law. Under the draft of administrative, you have no rights, except those, that's allowed to you by the state. This fundamental difference is very important, because it's now leading, with the takeover of the EU-situation, we are now leading to a state, whereby we too will come under the drafted administrative, and this will stop us having a right to trial by jury, and that in itself is a back door to a dictatorial arrangement". 

The officials themselves, we learn but we only learn it only step by step, have total immunity from everything. That is from criminal law throughout the member states. They seem to have extraordinary powers, but again, nobody knows quite what Then, gradually, incrementally, they acquire extra-powers. They acquire powers to look at terrorism. What they are precisely, we are not quite sure. They also have powers to look at fraud. What they are, we are quite not sure.

For centuries, it has been the British citizens most basic right, to vote-in 100% of the Members of Parliament to govern their country, or alternatively to vote them all out and sack them if they don't perform.

"For instance the basic principle, that one Westminster Parliament can always change, what the past Parliament did, that's the call of democracy, that you can elect a new parliament and you can have a new law. This call doesn't exist in the EU and doesn't exist in the constitution, we are building now". 

As more and more EU-sanction taxation hits the British taxpayer, from local council tax increases to higher national insurance levies. How many even appreciate the true price of what European Union membership has actually cost Britain.

People don't realise, that the costs of Britain is 1.3 million pounds per hour, every hour, every day, every year. And the way that figure will go is upwards, not downwards.

"We every year give them a nice big fat christmas cake, costing billions of pounds and they decide how many crumbs they are gonna give us back. They don't flannel me, but unfortunately are flanneling a lot of people in this country". 

The Europeans have far higher levels of taxation. With VAT, can you believe it? On food. There will be VAT on house purchase, there will be VAT on public transport, there will be VAT on children's clothing, there will be VAT on funerals. There is no limit to the greed of the bureaucrat.

And the other point of course is the sheer financial point. This place is thick with institutional corruption. You could now buy a cheap airline ticket to come to Strasbourg for about £45 return. When you get in you're reimbursed with nearly £800 for the cost of that flight. Now, this has been going on for the last 20 years, and of course what's happened is that our Members of the European Parliament simply hadn't been talking about it. This system is fraudulent, it's rotten to the core.

The EU's pilfering of airline expenses and the extravagant waste of taxpayers money on shmoozing and boozing MEPs into compliance, is of course serious enough. But there is a lot more. There is the endemic corruption, that has existed in the heart of the Union from the outset.

"The whole thing is corrupt to the core". 

The scale of the corruption, the figure given in a House of Lords committee, it was 6000 million pounds worth of corruption in a single year. Their accounts haven't been signed off for the last 8 years.

"Why would anyone wish to be governed by something, which is utterly corrupt? It is beyond belief". 

"And I think quite honestly, all these MEPs in Brussels. We are gonna have an awful job trying to bring this down, simply because they're on a cushy little number. And that has always been a problem with not only MEPs, but our own government. They are too busy feathering their own nest". 

In 1998 a man called Paul van Buitenen, who worked in European Commission, decided that the fraud, waste, mismanagement, corruption and nepotism had become so bad, that no longer could he hold his piece and went public and became the first whistle-blower. It turned out, that in fact all his claims were right and the entire European Commision was forced to resign in disgrace. The president of that commission, Jacques Santer is now here as a Member of the European Parliament for Luxembourg, and commissioner Kinnock, he was one of the twenty who had to resign, is now vice-president of the European Union and has been put in charge of sorting out fraud. Well, how has he done? Well, there is now another whistle-blower. Her name is Marta Andreasson. She went to Commissioner Kinnock, she said: "I'm sorry commissoner Kinnock, but I cannot sign-off these accounts." "You're using a cash based system, you're not using double entry bookkeeping, which incidentally was invented in the late 14th century." She said: "I cannot sign-off these accounts as being a true and accurate record of the EU finances," and for her trouble, she has been suspended pending an investigation. Everybody talks about reforming fraud within the European Union, I think this whole system is so rotten, that is now unreformable.

"It means that you will be ruled for the first time by people you cannot sack. Why would anyone would do that voluntarily? It's the politicians of all three major parties, who are all hell-bent on ever closer union. Ever closer union in fact means ever closer strangulation". 

Being part of the European Union will mean Britain will permanently lose control over her armed forces and foreign policy. The new European Army so enthusiastically pushed by France and Germany, in effect threatens NATO, the organisation that has kept peace in Europe for the past 50 years.

They can use our armed forces, the current forces, the army, the navy and the air force in the European Rapid reaction force. And imagine our forces being under command of some perhaps French or German general.

And then, there is the Euro. Joining it will be irreversible according to Hans Tietmayer, former president of the German Bundesbank. Monetary union is a path of no-return these days, no subsequent revision or withdrawal of any kind is either legally or politically provided for. Britain's economy traditionally tracks that of the United States because of our heavy trading on the dollar. So what would be the effect of joining the Euro and tying Britain's economy to this one-size-fits-all arrangement with the other nations of the EU?

Brussels wanted to know too, which is why in October 1990, Britain joined something called European Exchange Rate Mechanism, a dress rehearsal for the Euro and monetary union, which effectively locked the British pound into other EU currencies. 23 months of chaos followed. British business suffered its worst recession in 60 years. 100 thousand UK businesses went to the wall. Unemployment doubled from 1.5 to 3 million. More bankruptcies were filed than in any previous 2 year period ever. Repossessions of property increased 7 fold. By 1993, over half a million of us were at least 3 months of arrears on our mortgages. Britain lost estimated reserves of 68 billion sterling.

"And as someone once put it: You may be very friendly with you neighbours, but would you actually hand-over complete control of bank account to your friendly neighbours? Quite probably not. And that's precisely what we will have been doing if we join the Euro".

"And if, if you're in Ireland or in Latvia the Euro can be great, because you're having everything paid for. Unfortunately it is by us. And I don't think we could afford or sustain that level of payment for them all the time. If we join the Euro, and the same thing happen to our economy as what happened to Germany, we could find ourselves struggling to pay our mortgages". 

There has been great debate going on for the last five years about the supposed benefits of the single currency. We're told that business needs it and we're told above all that it's good for jobs. Well, how is it working out 3 years down the road? Well, in Germany, just 2 miles across the border, there are now 4.6 million people unemployed. They are experiencing exactly what we experienced during ERM back in the early 1990s. They cannot set their own interest rates, to set their own economy. And the great risk of joining the Euro is that you can finish out, totally out of sync with the rest of the European economy, and there's nothing that your democratically elected government can do to alter it.

There exists on the continent a massive unfunded pension debt. Run up by German, French and Italian politicians and has been estimated at 1300 billion pounds. And that would be something which we, the British people will be expected to contribute. But how could Britain ever free herself from the European Union through military action, if all her armed forces will be under EU command? And in the unlikely event she did regained her independence, how could Britain relaunch her own currency, if she had handed all her gold and currency reserves over to the European Central Bank?

"In a question that you can ask our ministers is: How is it, they have sworn oaths of office. They say, they will defend all jurisdictions and authorities belonging to Her Majesty against all foreign powers and then they give away those powers of governance or perporting to give away this powers of governance to those that owe no allegiance to this crown". 

Well today the European Parliament has voted on the admission of 10 new member states. I have to tell you that I was one of 22 Members of the House out of 626 that voted for those countries not to join. I did so not just because it would save the British taxpayer a great deal of money if they didn't join. I did it for their sakes because most of these countries have just left a system of centralised, undemocratic communist government based on Soviet Russia. I fear they're about to reenter a very similar system. But I'll say this to you: Not everything about this European project is bad news, because the really good news is, that there is something we can do about it. If we want to, all we need is political will, a British Parliament at any moment in time can vote for us to have an amicable divorce from this corrupt club. We can then re-negotiate a genuine free trade agreement which is what we thought we signed up to in the first place. And even over here, even here commissioners like Kinnock and Patten and luminaries such as Giscard D' Estaing say, that if Britain doesn't want to be part of this full political union, which are they attempting, we can if we want get out of it and re-negotiate a free trade deal. We don't need to be in the EU to trade with the EU, that idea is anachronistic and dates back to the 1950s and 60s. So it really is up to us. But we have to do something about it. We have to vote for people who will not allow this continual surrender of our sovereignty to continue.

If we don't do something about it in the next couple of years, it's goodbye democracy and everything which we fought for for centuries. Time is running out.

"I think Britain joining the EU contradicts the British constitution and the Common Law, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights and Monarchy are undermined and I see the danger of British people losing their rights and liberties by joining the EU".

If police force diplomatic immunity as a front for democracy, it is highly dangerous and basically the politicians of the member nations of the EU have given away the rights and civil liberties of their citizens.

"It follows therefore, that no government with or without popular mandate may transfer sovereignty on a temporary or permanent basis to a foreign power that has no allegiance to the British crown and is unaccountable to the British people". 

"So I say, if you want to turn your democracy into a European federation without the British having any definite say on your own laws, then we make a historical mistake".

In the time it has taken to watch this programme, Great Britain's EU membership has cost you, the British taxpayer, just under 1,000,000 pounds.

www.mustwatch.cz For invaluable assistance in the making of this film our utmost thanks to John Gouriet, Nigel Farage, Norris McWhirter and Richard North.

PS Of course this was filmed some years ago, most of you who read political blogs are aware that things are by far, much, much worse now.

HAT TIP Muffled Vociferation

The return of a legend

We are back. 

We are not politically aligned.

Just pure Nationalism and Common Sense.

We still refuse to be Politically Correct. 

Keep checking back, we will be active soon.

In Defence of Free Speech by Lars Hedegaard

(Lars Hedegaard’s Address to a Meeting of Die Freiheit in Kiel, June 11, 2011)

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to address this important gathering.

To be absolutely frank, I have to admit that I was in grave doubt as to whether I ought to accept your courteous invitation to speak.

As you know, I am the President of the Danish and International Free Press Societies. Both organisations are entirely and exclusively devoted to the protection of free speech. Apart from that, we have no political or religious agenda.

Every member of our organisation is perfectly welcome to say anything he likes and to argue any point he wants to make as long as he does not say or do anything in contravention of free speech. But as an organisation we stick to one issue only: the defence of free speech where ever and by whom ever it is threatened.

So I am not here to heap praise on your party, Die Freiheit, or on your political programme.

I wish you well as I would wish any democratic and freedom-loving (freiheitlich) political party well – in Germany, in Denmark, all over the world.

It may well be argued – and I am prepared to accept this argument – that the struggle for freedom of expression is a political struggle. No doubt the most important political struggle of our time. But once we have agreed on this point, we in The Free Press Society welcome anyone in our midst.

Whether people are socialists, liberals, conservatives, for or against the war in Afghanistan, for or against the European Union, higher or lower taxes, immigration or whatever is of no concern to us.

We have among our members people of many political and religious persuasions – Social Democrats, liberals and conservatives, adherents and opponents of the welfare state etc. We have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists. We get along famously because we have one thing in common: freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is the absolute prerequisite for any other freedom. Without it there can be no democracy, no personal liberty, no rule of law, no equality before the law, no equality between the sexes. In fact no social or scientific progress.

Unfortunately, a growing number of people in our Western societies – and particularly in our governments, in our universities, in the press and among church leaders – think that free speech has become a burden. That it is an affront to the sort of decent and well behaved society they prefer. They think that free speech exists and is encoded in our free and democratic constitutions in order that people may say nice things to each other. In particular, people are not supposed to criticise so-called ethnic minorities, by which they invariably mean Muslim minorities.

According to our ruling elites, any criticism of Islam or of unfettered immigration or of the growing trend in our Western countries towards parallel societies should be seen as racism.

Not only are dissidents called every name in the book and evicted from polite company. Their careers are ruined. They are fired from their jobs. They receive threats. They are beaten up and sometimes killed.

Anyone who thinks that political murders belong in our fascist or communist past should ponder the fate of the two brave Dutchmen Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who were cut down by political fanatics.

And they should remember what recently happened to the Danish artist Kurt Westergaard and his Swedish colleague Lars Vilks. Fortunately they are still alive but only because they are protected by the security police.

And what crime have Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks committed? They have drawn some pictures!

Think about that! What do you think would have happened if forty years ago, some daring soul had suggested that Islam’s implantation in the West would result in this state of affairs? He would have been ridiculed. People would have said that he was ready for the insane asylum. And if he was a politician, his career would have been cut short. That was precisely what happened to the British Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell when he had warned against the consequences of mass immigration.

And today – as it is becoming clear for all to see unless they shut their eyes – that orthodox Islam is incompatible with free speech, new methods are being employed in order to shut up anyone who will not toe the line.

We have come to a point where the upholders of the official state ideology of multiculturalism and cultural and moral relativism can no longer defend their position in free and open discourse. They have run out of rational arguments as more and more Germans, Dutchmen, Danes, Britons, Italians etc. realise that all cultures are not equal and that some religions and political ideologies are better than others.

So they mobilise the judicial system in order to indict and punish dissidents for what they call “hate speech”.

That is why we have seen criminal trials like the ones against my friends Geert Wilders in Holland and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria and myself in Denmark.

Geert, Elisabeth and I haven’t threatened anyone. We have not incited violence against anyone. We are neither anti-Semites nor racists.

We have simply insisted on our right to criticise a totalitarian ideology that threatens to obliterate everything that Europe and the West have achieved over the past 350 years.

Let me remind you that free speech is not an institution intended to ensure that people speak nicely. Quite the contrary. Freedom of expression exists in order to protect those who make statements that people abhor. Statements that are shocking, outrageous, unheard of and – yes – plain blasphemous.

Whenever I get the chance, I take the liberty of slightly rephrasing something that the incomparable English author George Orwell once remarked: Free speech is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear!

If you are looking for an easy-to-remember definition of freedom of expression, there you have it!

Anyone who takes the trouble to study the history of Western societies, will notice that any new thought, any novel scientific hypothesis or insight, any new idea that has brought our Western civilisation forward has invariably been condemned as outrageous, evil, contrary to common sense and moral decency if not outright blasphemous.

Scientific progress and advancement in human understanding cannot take place outside a climate of free speech. This means that people must have an unlimited right to advance any crazy idea they please. They must be permitted to offend, ridicule and blaspheme.

It is characteristic of every known totalitarian system – in the modern world primarily varieties of Fascism, Communism and Islam – that it will not permit people to make mistakes or deviate from a truth they consider god-given.

The pioneers of the European Scientific Revolution did not evade their share of persecution. In 1616 – 73 years after his death – the Catholic church condemned Copernicus’ heliocentric world picture as heretical. In 1633 the church basically crushed Mediterranean science by forcing Galileo to retract his contention that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Not that it made any difference in the real world – except that the Catholic Church drove serious science out of Italy and the Mediterranean lands and thereby handed the scientific and soon after the economic, political and philosophical lead to countries in Northern and Western Europe.

What distinguishes Europe – and later European societies across the seas – from the Islamic World is the fact that religious orthodoxy and religious stupidity could not survive the onslaught of free thought and free expression.

Let me emphasize that this entire development could not have taken place without critics who insisted on their right to free speech and more precisely without the hard-won freedom to criticize religion, including the right to express opinions that someone would find blasphemous. Let us recall that every major step of social progress – the abolition of royal absolutism and the prerogatives of the nobility and the religious hierarchy, the freeing of the peasants, voting rights for workers, equality for women, the abolition of slavery and apartheid, prohibition against beating servants and children etc. – has invariably been opposed by reactionaries and holy men as offensive to the god-given order. So there is no progress in human society without a relentless struggle against the very concept of blasphemy.

A few days ago, at a church gathering – the so-called Kirchentag – in Dresden, German President Christian Wulff repeated his earlier statement that Islam is a part of Germany and others at the conference said that more should be done to make Muslims feel welcome in Germany.

President Wulff might have enlightened his Christian audience that if Islam is to be a part of Germany, freedom of expression cannot be a part of it. If a political ideology such as Islam, according to which any criticism of the prophet or the Koran is punishable by death, is to be a part of Germany, then obviously free speech will have no place this brave new land.

Your President might have said that Muslims can become a part of Germany to the extent that they distance themselves from the insane political ideology that has crippled every society where it has taken hold over the past 1400 years.

But that was not what he said.

I am not mentioning President Wulff’s statement in order to single out your President or Germany for blame. I mention it because I am sure that you have all noticed what President Wullf said and wondered what it might mean.

We hear the same sentiment repeated by governments and political and church leaders all over the Western world: We have to make room for Islam in Europe, they say. Islam is an enrichment of our culture.

Strangely enough we never hear Muslim leaders either in the West or in the Islamic countries say that more should be done to make Christians, Jews and people of other faiths or without religious faith feel more welcome in the Muslim world.

We never hear governments or religious or political leaders in the Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam) demand that non-Muslims should have the right to assemble without fear, that they should have the right to build churches or synagogues. That they should be permitted to freely express their religious beliefs in public without fear of physical attacks or discrimination. In other words, that they should enjoy freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Instead we hear of endless and very often vicious and violent persecution of non-Muslims all over the Islamic world. In Algeria, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan. From Indonesia in the East to Nigeria in the West.

Soon the last Christians of Iraq will have been driven out. That is after our troops have liberated the country. Some liberation! In Egypt – which is supposed to have carried out a democratic revolution – the 8-10 per cent of the population that still clings to Egypt’s old Christian religion are still being killed, Christian girls are still being kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam and married off to Muslim men, and their families never see them again.

I think that your President and other Western leaders ought to have pondered this before making statements intended to give their citizens a bad conscience because by and large, Muslims are poorly integrated in Western societies.

We live at a time when free speech is under the heaviest attack we have experienced since the Nazis tried to impose their absolutist rule two generations ago.

At a time when we should be exchanging views and information about the real threats to our civilization and whole way of life, Western countries and international organizations are busy trying to shut down free discourse. Hate speech and blasphemy laws are being brushed off or reintroduced as a means to regulate and discipline what may be said.

It seems to me that what is politically correct ought be determined by the electorate when it has had the opportunity to listen to all arguments and every relevant piece of information.

But we are going about it the other way around. First our governments tell us what is politically correct and then they decide what may be said without fear of ostracism or criminal prosecution.

It is about time that we return to the roots of our Judeo-Christian civilization and to the founding fathers of free speech.

Let me quote from a pamphlet published by the Englishman John Milton in 1644. The language may be a bit dated, but the ideas are as fresh and relevant as when they were first penned:

“ Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”

“Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

“[Truth] needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious.”

Milton goes on:

“If we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectify manners, we must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man. No music must be heard, no song be set or sung, but what is grave and Doric. There must be licensing of dancers, that no gesture, motion, or deportment be taught our youth, but what by their allowance shall be thought honest.”

That was John Milton in 1644 at the time of the English Revolution.

How ironic, how sad, how despicable that 367 years later, we should again be discussing the need to license opinions, to regulate and rectify manners and indeed to place upon ourselves “this iron yoke of outward conformity” – to quote John Milton once again.

For that is precisely what we do when we introduce laws on hate speech and blasphemy, when the state outlaws certain opinions and put people in jail for voicing them.

Where does all this end? As Milton pointed out, there is no end to it.

Next they will be regulating the internet, they will be scouring e-mails for wrong opinions.

They will invade the private sphere and listen in to what people say in their homes or places of work.

For make no mistake. If you regulate what may be said in public, you’ will simply drive the frank exchange of opinions underground. So the logical outcome will be a police state with millions of snooping stasi informers.

We have already seen such cases in Europe.

It is high time that we the people put a stop to this. A society that regulates speech is a society that is unable to solve its problems – let alone identify them.

And such a society is doomed.

This is not the kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

We must do away with speech rules and political correctness.

We must repeal all hate speech and blasphemy laws.

We in the International Free Press Society will commit all our efforts and resources to achieving this objective.

The Unity Candidate

British National Party Member of the European Parliament Andrew Brons has released a campaign video in which he has outlined the platform upon which he will run his leadership election campaign.

Mr Brons said his most important aim in standing in the leadership election was to be a “unity candidate” to bring the large number of members who have dropped out over the past few years, back into activism.

“I believe that if we can win back those selfless activists, then we can get back to the success which we had a few years ago, ” Mr Brons said.

* The video also includes a short message of support from Richard Edmonds.

Click Here To See Andrew's Video & Read The Rest Of His New Website.

Andrew Brons MEP to Stand in BNP Leadership Contest

Andrew Brons, Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and Humberside, has declared his candidacy for the upcoming leadership election to be held in the British National Party.
Mr Brons’s candidacy will replace and take over the campaign started by Richard Edmonds, with his full support and encouragement.

“This challenge is not an ideological battle, nor is it personal,” Mr Brons said.

“It is primarily concerned with rectifying the party’s internal organisation and ways of handling differences of opinion,” said Mr Brons.

“Our campaign will be based five core principles,” Mr Brons said.

“Firstly, we want to save the party from a haemorrhaging of members, especially activists.

“Secondly we must face up to and deal with the financial mismanagement which has afflicted our party. There is also an urgent need for financial transparency.

“Thirdly, we need to change the party’s constitution to make it more accessible and democratic to the members. It must also embrace a collegiate leadership.

“Fourthly, we need to change the culture of the party with regards to members’ interactions with each other.

“Finally we need to halt the practice of using the internal security and disciplinary procedure as a factional tool,” said Mr Brons.

The campaign staff already assembled for Mr Edmonds’s campaign, including his election agent, Chris Roberts, will make up the core team of Mr Brons’s campaign.

“We have mounted an all-out attempt to save the party,” said Mr Edmonds. “Many of us are of the opinion that the dangers caused by self-inflicted damage could see the British National Party irreparably damaged.

“Mr Brons is the ideal candidate to unite and heal the wounds within our party,” Mr Edmonds continued.

“Mr Brons brings the benefit of his many years of experience and service to our movement. He is a man of integrity and proven selfless devotion to our cause and is respected by all.

“I welcome most warmly his decision to step forward at this time of crisis. We need every person of goodwill if we are to succeed in the effort of saving our party and country.

“I thank all the members and supporters who have helped, aided and encouraged me when I was the challenger. Mr Brons must be supported by all,” concluded Mr Edmonds.

Source

Traitors amongst us

Regular readers of Sarah maid of Albions blog will be aware of her essays entitled Genocide by stealth. when evil forces set out to erase or “ethnically cleanse” a race of people it is not always necessary to use gas chambers, armies or weapons of mass destruction. There are other more subtle and gradual means by which an ethnic group can, by a mixture cajoling and encouragement, be made to shift, inch by inch towards the precipice beyond the rim of which lies their destruction.

Although all genocide is evil, genocide by stealth, albeit less bloody in the immediate sense, requires true malevolence to carry it off. For it is a crime not committed in hot blood but in cold, and it is committed over a protracted period which may take many decades to complete. Also, unlike most other genocides, the perpetrators of genocide by stealth, clearly do not consider their victims to be a threat to them, neither do they have cause for any personal desire for revenge, which might explain, if not excuse what they do. It is genocide committed merely for the sake of an agenda.

As such, these perpetrators are perhaps even more heinous of other such monsters. They have no redeeming features, no excuse for what they do. They were not caught up in a crazy moment of history, they have no bereavements unhealed wounds or historical grievances to avenge. They have had all the time in the world to contemplate what they are doing without being driven by any emotional trigger or sense of unbearable loss and pain. They are without compassion without morals and without redemption

They have lived their whole lives amongst their intended victims and have benefited greatly from doing so. They are children of the same culture yet they have complete contempt for it and have spent their adulthood working for its destruction.

Some of them take the roles of propagandists and create new fake worlds of lies designed to misrepresent and undermine the civilisation they hate, that is to say, our civilisation. They are the journalists, the movie makers, the commentators and general effluent better known as the media. A new book by a young writer called Benjamin Shapiro entitled Primetime Propaganda The true Hollywood story of how the Left took over your TV exposes the degree of misrepresentation which goes on in America. (yes the writer is Jewish I know that matters to some of you – but this young man appears to be on our side, and we would be fools to allow his religion to blind us to the truth he has exposed.)

For instance in this telephone interview with John Langley the creator of the US TV show “Cops” which claims to portray street crime in America, Langley freely admits he deliberately over represents white crime levels and under represents that committed by “people of colour” by approximately 100% in each direction.
I have written a number of articles on the subject myself and I recommend Ben Shapiro's book.

It would be interesting to read a similar expose in Britain, can anyone doubt for instance that the BBC struggle to balance the ethnic make up of the crimes they portray on Crimewatch or how selective they have to be to ensure that there are at least 50% white villains amongst the "wanted faces" reported on by their BBC approved mixed race policeman come D list, and occasionally half nude, celebrity Rav Wilding.

However, the media are merely the spin doctors, they have a lot of influence but to do real damage you need real power, and over the last half century we have consistently granted power to politicians who are committed to the destruction of our society, and us along with it.

Throughout the western world, we have voted for men and women who actively hate us and who will stop and nothing to inflict as much harm as they can upon us. The American public have not yet realised quite how malevolent the man currently occupying the White House and his administration are, however, we in Britain were, this time well ahead of them in electing our own political assassins.

Amongst the most evil of those politicians elected to power in Britain were those who made up the New Labour party who we voted into power in 1997, and kept there for thirteen long years. It is gradually becoming clear that in those thirteen years New Labour did more deliberate damage to our nation, and to our people than any enemy we have ever faced before.

This brings me to the point of this item, in a superb article published on the Gates of Vienna blog last month writer Paul Weston shone a light on the level of treachery the New Labour party under was guilty of. The link to Paul Weston's article is pasted below,and I recommend you circulate it widely:

Why Is This Not Treason?

Hat Tip Sarah Maid Of Albion.

Your Papers Please !

I remember back in the days when we were regularly told by the Media that the people of the Soviet Union were enslaved by their governments, not allowed to speak out, elections were rigged or only ever had one candidate, criticise the party and your house, your job, your pension were gone. "How awful it must be to live under such a regime" we were told, not free to travel about, meet up with friends.

Trillions were spent on Defence systems to make sure the evil Reds could never inflict their restrictive authoritarian systems on us, the Free, in the West.

I wonder why we bothered. I just got a press release from West Midlands Police stating that between Friday 27 May to Thursday 27 October 2011, they will enforce an order allowing the dispersal of two or more people if their behaviour is deemed "anti Social".

Freedom of movement and Association have consistently been abused by our beloved "Police Service". From ASBOS banning people from walking the streets of their own town, to super injunctions shutting the mouths of the masses, we are where the Soviets were.

Hyperbole? I think not. Just because the masses ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Government for the Elite, by the Elite. And don't you forget it.

Hat Tip Old Holborn.

The Common Purpose Rogues Gallery

The poisonous tentacles of Common Purpose reach everywhere. Not just here in the UK, where they are based, but they also operate in France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden and Turkey. This semi-secret ‘educational charity’ don’t like people, such as you or I, talking about them though. ‘Nothing to hide, nothing to fear’, is the mantra we keep hearing from the government, so I wonder what Common Purpose have to hide then.

Plenty, by all accounts just take a look at this site or this one and you will discover all you need to know about the fraudulent activities, the brain washing and the serial abuse of public funds, as they seek to recruit, train and maintain the commissars and apparatchiks needed to implement the British government’s hidden agenda …. New World Order.

So who are the self-serving traitors who have close connections with Common Purpose and have conspired to corruptly abuse millions of pounds of public money? Do we know any of them? We sure do. A database of Common Purpose ‘graduates,’ and a list of BBC staff that have attended CP Courses, is available here but in the meantime here is a rogues gallery of some of the ringleaders and instantly recognisable fraudsters faces that are associated with Common Purpose:

Source

Has your child been CAFed? How the Government plans to record intimate information on every child in Britain

When police raided Tory MP Damian Green’s home, they ‘sheepishly’ asked whether children were present before ransacking it. His wife assumed they were being polite. But, under sinister new guidelines, officers must assess all children they encounter – including while ‘searching premises’ – for a police database called MERLIN.

This, in turn, feeds into a giant new Whitehall database on Britain’s children, Contact Point, which goes live nationally in January.

The Tories have vowed to scrap it, arguing that it threatens family privacy and children’s safety. But civil liberties campaigners say we must resist it now, before it is too late.

Since April 1, hundreds of thousands of State employees, from police to teachers, youth and nursery workers, social workers and sports coaches, have been entitled to interrogate children aged up to 19, using the ‘Common Assessment Framework’ (CAF), a creepy, eight-page, 60-section questionnaire.

CAF includes eyewateringly intimate questions about children’s sexual behaviour, their family’s structure, culture and religion, their views on ‘discrimination’, their friends, secret fears, feelings and family income, plus ‘any serious difficulties in their parents’ relationship’.

How has such a terrifying intrusion into private life crept, almost unnoticed, under the radar? The answer is New Labour has cleverly packaged CAF as an aid to ‘child protection’ and delivering better services as part of its Every Child Matters project (ECM).

The £224million programme has been beset by delays, incomprehensible acronyms and New Labour gobbledegook. But let us not be deceived – it is about control, not care, and spying, not safety.

ECM claims that nearly half of Britain’s 11million children have ‘additional needs’, so must continuously be assessed for the giant database at the Government’s Department for Schools and Families.

CAF questionnaires will be kept until they are 19, or for 75 years if they have been in care, and can be accessed electronically by hundreds of thousands of staff in other agencies.

Contact Point will also store information from databases kept by the NHS, GPs, schools, the Child Benefit Agency and the National Pupil Register. The potential for sensitive material about our children falling into malevolent hands is enormous.

Incredibly, parental consent is not often required for this intrusion into children’s lives. Youngsters from the age of 12 are deemed mature enough to agree to being CAF-ed – whatever their parents’ objections. But campaigners stress that families should teach their children to say No: submitting to CAF is, currently at least, voluntary. The Government claims that the database will identify children at risk of poverty, abuse or future criminality. But since when did filling in endless forms release funds for frontline services, rather than divert them?

By bizarre coincidence – or not – this assault on treasured British notions of privacy and propriety was devised by the woman responsible for Britain’s most notorious social-work scandal. ECM was launched in September 2003 by Margaret Hodge, Tony Blair’s shocking choice as Britain’s first Children’s Minister.

Her main ‘qualification’ was being his pal and running Islington Council when its 12 children’s homes were awash with paedophiles and sympathisers of the ‘Left-wing’ Paedophile Information Exchange. This campaigned for sex to be legalised with children from the age of four.

One can only wonder how many Pervy Petes within childcare today will relish being actively invited to ask children about their sexual behaviour (CAF seemingly views this as normal), the ‘sleeping arrangements’ at home and how they feel about ‘changes to their body’.

I have been exposing child-abuse scandals for nearly 20 years and believe that this new Stalinist bureaucracy will not save a single child. Many of the paedophiles I exposed in Hodge’s homes ‘groomed’ children for eventual abuse through precisely such questions. Hodge claimed that constant State monitoring of children was justified by the Victoria Climbie scandal.

Yet adequate powers to protect genuinely endangered children already exist. Why, then, did the appalling mothers of Shannon Matthews and Baby P retain their children? The problem was not lack of paperwork but too many stupid, politically correct people reading it and failing to act.

CAF will not mean that the State now swoops on the demonic families in flea-infested homes with rottweilers and broken-backed babies. No, just as with the Government’s fearless war on pensioner recycling ‘louts’, they will instead target and terrorise ordinary, decent families.

Why? One reason is simply to control people. Many of today’s New Labour MPs are ex-Marxists and radical feminists who still believe that the family poses the greatest potential opposition to the strong State.

The Government’s decreed desirable ‘outcomes’ for children are so frighteningly broad that many decent parents could find themselves labelled failures or abusers.

Everyone involved with children – including volunteers, and police on raids – is now expected to use the Government’s ‘Pre-Assessment Checklist’, to see if they are achieving these five ‘outcomes’ – being healthy, staying safe, enjoying life, making a ‘positive contribution’ and achieving ‘economic well-being’.

Even parents working desperately hard to feed their children and keep them safe could be classified as failing them. The questionnaire asks if children’s parents are ‘over-protective’, and whether work leaves them ‘too tired to pay attention to your needs’. CAF practitioners are also taught specifically to ask if parents ‘promote a healthy lifestyle’ and oppose ‘bullying and discrimination’.

An increasingly rigid State already rejects potentially loving foster and adoptive carers who smoke or have politically ‘incorrect’ views because they are Christian.

How long until natural parents are also found guilty of thought crime?

Might Damian Green have been considered guilty of encouraging discrimination, through challenging the Government on immigration?

The worst thing is that Every Child Matters has made real protection work harder – the highly effective Child Protection Register was abolished in April and social workers are now drowning in paperwork about entirely innocent families.

A suppressed University of York study found it took them a day to enter data electronically on just one child.

Terri Dowty, director of Action on Rights for Children, says: ‘People should fill in CAF questionnaires only if they have a real, defined need – for example, a disabled child and they need equipment – and then answer only strictly relevant questions. Otherwise, parents should teach their children that if they are asked at school to fill in these forms to say that they want first to go home and discuss it.’

Dowty fears that the new State questionnaire is ‘designed to teach children to accept being interrogated and classified from the earliest age, by anyone and everyone. It is truly frightening’. No one, supposedly, can be forced to fill in a CAF. But practitioners are advised to report the family to the local safeguarding children team ‘if a common assessment is refused and you are concerned’. They may also store the CAF centrally even when permission is refused.

Campaigners are considering challenging CAF in the European Court of Human Rights, which has thrown out Britain’s attempts to store innocent citizens’ DNA. But they desperately need benefactors and lawyers prepared to fund test cases and support innocent families under pressure.

Tragically, Britain, the cradle of parliamentary democracy, is becoming notorious worldwide for snooping on its citizens. Professor Nigel Parton, NSPCC Professor of Childhood Studies at Huddersfield University, warned a recent international conference in Finland that the Every Child Matters agenda means what we are witnessing is the emergence of the ‘preventive-surveillance state’, with ‘major implications for the civil liberties and human rights of the citizen, particularly for children and parents’.

Once, people who warned of a growing police state seemed paranoid. The Damian Green raid was a wake-up call. Let us now protect our children, our and our country’s future, with all our might.

From Here