OUR MPs ARE OUR LEADERS

The BNP and Nick Griffin
Alan Duncan’s Agent has a “pop” at Trevor
Gay Leaders
Alan Duncan MP
Chloe Smith MP
Baroness Scotland (Cabinet)
House Of Commons Statistics

 

 

 

 The BNP and Nick Griffin – 26/10/2009

Do we really need to talk about Nick Griffin, the leader of The BNP Party, or are there more important things in our lives?

Since his appearance on our TV screens last Thursday evening, there has been an enormous amount of chatter and postulating in the press and media generally about this particularly unpleasant little man. In fact, the cynic in me is saying that there are quite a number of household name MPs who are very pleased indeed to have the spotlight diverted away from themselves for a short while. They think that it even bathes their own misdemeanours in the expenses scandal in some sort of tepid and warm light.

Yesterday it was revealed that yet another friend and confidant of Gordon Brown, Baroness Goudie, has been ”creative” with her expenses. She attends the House Of Lords and managed to claim £230,000 in expenses through the manipulation of what was deemed to be her private residence in Glasgow.

We are told that it was a flat, and she has never lived in it. Apparently she has lived her entire life in London. If she tells us that she did not understand, and that she remained within the “rules”, just remember that her husband is a leading Barrister in London – They obviously understood precisely what they were doing.

She even tops the £170,000 that Baroness Scotland managed to “remove” for herself, using a similar shyster type slight of hand.

Back to Nick Griffin – Certainly the BBC’s TV programme, “Question Time”, succeeded in giving the nasty side of politics a platform that I am sure they did not intend, and I think we can all agree that the BNP certainly does not deserve a platform of any nature.

Never-the-less, as unpalatable a spectacle as it undoubtedly was, it was at least an exceptional example of the price that we sometimes have to pay for our freedoms, most notably our freedoms of speech. In that regard, the program itself was a triumph of our democracy and a wonderful illustration of why the United Kingdom would never succumb to a dictator, despot or any other form of maniac with genocide on his mind.

I suppose in some senses, that is probably the nicest thing that we can say about Nick Griffin. It was clear for all to see, he is the extreme version of everything that we do not want anywhere near the corridors of power in this Country.

Having said all that, are we missing something?

Is there anything that we can learn from this distasteful event, and the man who appeared within it?

Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves, why and how this wretched man achieved the platform that the BBC apparently gave him so willingly?

In short, how on this earth did he and his repulsive party manage to get themselves voted into two seats in the European Parliament – not just one, but two?

Who, in this great realm of The United Kingdom has been voting for these people?

Now we are getting nearer the crux of the matter!

Why oh why oh why … did those people vote for the BNP?

If you are a 22 year old single parent mother of two children, living in temporary accommodation, with no job, no prospects, no income, no husband and no future, and you have just been told that the council house that you have been promised for the last few years has now been given to an immigrant family whose need is greater than yours …. then ….. then you must ask who is voting for these people at the BNP.

Sure, we can discuss how she got into that position in the first place …

…. we can ask what went wrong with her own parenting …

…. we can even ask why she keeps having more and more children …

Whilst we are doing all that, we should also ask ourselves … whose fault is it ? …

… however, it will rapidly become obvious that we should look no further than ourselves …

… and we most certainly will not need to ask who is voting for the BNP.

Perhaps I should paint the picture a little more clearly for you.

So, two Baronesses in the House Of Lords, one of the highest accolades that we can give to a citizen of this Kingdom, one of whose husbands is a top London Barrister, managed to relieve the public of nearly half a million quid between them.

An immigrant family, who arrived in this country illegally just a few months ago, has just been given a council house.

The twenty two year old single parent mother of two is now pregnant again, but has nowhere to live.

And …. The BNP gets two seats in the European Parliament from votes that we do not understand.

Excuse me ??

 

LETTER TO THE RUTLAND TIMES FOR PUBLICATION – 16/11/2009 -Alan Duncan’s Agent has a “pop” at Trevor

Dear Sir 

Your profile of Mr Trevor Harrington (October 15^th 2009) made interesting reading, however it missed out a significant detail of importance in respect of what he described as “an interesting exchange some years ago with the Conservative Association.”

Three years ago Mr Harrington asked to speak at the Annual General Meeting of the Rutland & Melton Conservative Association and to the utter disgust of all present launched a revolting homophobic tirade against Alan Duncan MP.

He was loudly booed and hounded out of the meeting and was subsequently expelled from the Association.

He may consider himself suitable to become an MP, but given his bigoted views I doubt many others in Rutland would agree.

Yours sincerely

Allan Dean

Conservative Party Agent for Rutland & Melton 1999-2007

I have been asked to respond to Allan Dean’s recent letter to The Rutland Times.

How sad. I always find it hugely disappointing when somebody who happens to disagree with another person’s point of view, resorts to personal insults and an unpleasant vernacular.

In this instance, it would seem to indicate an element of panic within the Conservative Association of Rutland & Melton.

I must say that I am a little surprised at the tone of Allan Dean’s letter. At the time of the Conservative Association AGM in February 2006, I found him to be very helpful in his guidance to me, always polite, and highly professional. Indeed, Allan Dean himself had spent some considerable time in the weeks before the AGM, in helping me construct the words and the content of my intended speech, and there was nothing in it which should have led anyone to think of me as homophobic.

I am even more surprised that he chooses to make a comment of this nature NOW, especially as I understand that he is currently living many miles away in Yorkshire.

Never-the-less, if we must discuss the events of The Conservative Association AGM of February 2006, and my participation in it (if you can call it that), let us at least get the facts perfectly clear and accurate.

I did not speak at their AGM, simply because the booing and hissing started as soon as I got to my feet in order to speak, and as the Chairman of the day refused to ask the “gang” concerned to be quiet, I sat down again without speaking.

As I did not speak at the meeting, I hardly think that I can be accused of launching any sort of “tirade against Alan Duncan”. However, you might choose to believe that Alan Duncan’s “supporters club” did in fact launch such a tirade against me.

The booing and hissing was orchestrated from approximately 1/3^rd of those attending, all of whom were “coincidentally” sitting nearest to my allotted position on the stage. The biggest remainder of the attendees “sat on their hands”, probably not knowing what on earth was going on.

I was not hounded out of the meeting. I stayed until the end, and then made my way out of the meeting, unmolested and without issue with anyone.

I was not expelled from the Conservative Association, simply because I was never a member of it in the first place.

For the record, my supposition to the AGM was that Alan Duncan had purposefully mislead the Conservative Association at his original selection process in 1991, by presenting himself as “heterosexual, with girlfriend, and looking forward to settling in Rutland and having a family”. He was even marketed at that time as “one of the most eligible bachelors in the County”. Many people in Rutland & Melton believe that this was a calculated and purposeful deceit on the electorate. Subsequently, as the deception became clearer and clearer to the voting public, the Conservative majority in Rutland & Melton reduced from 25,535 to as low as 8,612.

My “motion” to the AGM was that Alan Duncan MP should be subjected to a reselection process, well before the next General Election (Spring 2010), in which he should be asked to participate. My contention was that, as he was the sitting MP, the overwhelming likelihood was that he would be returned, at which point his position, including his lifestyle, would be thoroughly validated in the eyes of the electorate, and hopefully the Conservative majority would recover before the seat was lost to another political party.

For me, there were a number of things which made the meeting an “interesting exchange”, not least was the invective which was directed at me by some (shipped in?) members of the audience, which otherwise appeared to be highly respectable. Shame on those concerned.

Another “interesting” element to the “exchange” came at the end of the meeting when Alan Duncan took to the stage and offered his thanks to his “supporters club”, at which point it appeared that he burst into tears.

Since then of course the issues surrounding Alan Duncan, and his tenancy of the Rutland & Melton seat, have moved on considerably.

We now have to contend with

1) his misappropriation of MPs expenses for his garden,

2) a mortgage that he did not need but charged to us anyway,

3) his comments on a TV game show threatening to kill someone in America who he believed to be homophobic, and

4) his “champagne Charlie” toast to the public whilst maintaining that, as an MP, he is on the “breadline”.

How absolutely wonderful.

I think, whatever perception the “real Conservative Association” members may have of their February 2006 AGM, and whatever happens to the Conservative vote in the General Election next year, it simply remains for me to say – “I did try to tell you so”.

All of this, and many other far more serious economic and political subjects, and I must say, subjects of far greater magnitude and importance than Alan Duncan MP, are covered on this website.

Anybody is welcome to comment through my website, and everybody is welcome to make their own minds up if Allan Dean’s comments about me are valid or not, or indeed, if he was simply directed to try and protect an MP called Alan Duncan, who he used to work for two years ago.

Trevor Harrington

30/10/2009

 

Gay Leaders – Thier Right To Choose And Your Right To Choose

 

For most people, the gay argument has long since become boringly pointless, because it has long since achieved its’ purpose.

Years ago, the argument was certainly necessary in order to change legislation which unfairly discriminated against gay people. That has now largely been achieved. However, the “politically correct (PC)” label has now been attached to the subject, and the net result is that we rarely hear the truth about the gay argument, as expressed by the silent majority, presumably for fear of being labeled “non PC” or a “phobic”.

I am certainly not a “phobic”,  indeed I do have friends, as well as relatives, who are gay. However, I am not linked to a political party either, and therefore, whilst it is not my intention to hurt anybody’s feelings, I am happily not restricted by political correctness.

Are gay people just as important as anyone else in our society, and do they have a valuable contribution to make? – Of course they are, and they do.

Should they be treated in exactly the same way as everyone else? – In most cases they already are, as indeed they also should be when it comes to selecting our leaders.

However, here lies the current issue for gay people in our society today. These days, it seems that it is they who think that they should be treated differently, in particular when we choose our leaders. Undoubtedly, some gay people find it rather difficult to appreciate that when we choose our leaders, we do actually take into account all the known aspects of the candidate’s persona, including his or her sexuality.

People’s natural instincts are to choose their leaders from amongst those who are most like themselves, simply because those are the people who are most likely to understand and relate to their own lifestyle, including natural relations amongst the sexes, marriage, and the normal nurturing and education of their children.

Some voters might prefer to choose a woman leader, some might prefer to choose someone with dyed hair; some might prefer not to choose a woman with dyed hair. Some may prefer not to vote for a gay person and some may prefer not to vote for a transsexual. On the other hand, I am quite sure that there are people out there who would love to vote for one or the other, or indeed both where the opportunity exists. So be it.

The personal selection process is the same for us all, regardless of what you are. And that may well mean that a lot of people will say that if a gay person cannot relate to either half of the two sexes in a natural and normal way, then they have very little in common with them, and that therefore they feel unable to vote for a gay person as their leader. That is probably not a surprise, and it is of course entirely their prerogative.

We live in a democracy, and even if you do have some form of unusual attribute such as being gay, or indeed anything else for that matter, you are of course perfectly welcome to offer yourself as our prospective MP and leader. If we do then vote for you, with that knowledge and on that basis, then you will be our leader in your own right, and you will receive our respect and carry our influence.

However, we also demand honesty, and if as our prospective leader you purposefully misrepresent yourself as straight, and then you latterly announce yourself to be gay, then perhaps you need to ask yourself if you have been entirely honest with us.

Then you will need to ask yourself why you think we should vote for someone who we perceive to be fundamentally dishonest?

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Alan Duncan MP

 

Here in Rutland & Melton, there are reoccurring problems.

When Alan Duncan originally stood as our prospective leader in 1991, he presented himself as definitely and specifically heterosexual, whereas we now know that he was not. Personally I find it an affront to my intelligence to be mislead in this way.

Indeed, when he first offered himself as our prospective MP and leader, I well remember him presenting himself as “the most eligible bachelor in the County – with girlfriend – and looking to settle down here in Rutland and have a family”. There is perhaps a question of dishonesty here, is there not?

Unfortunately for Alan, the whole question of honesty, betrayal, and taking advantage of us, the electorate, crops up time and time again. We probably ought to ask ourselves why we had to pay nearly £5,000 to refurbish Alan’s garden, or indeed why he had a mortgage at all, which he did not need. He charged both of them to us as MPs expenses, when he was already a very wealthy man with two houses in London and one in Rutland.

Of course, he paid the garden expenses back, but that is not the point – his decision to claim for both these items in his expenses was quite specifically, and very obviously, wrong. Many people simply point out that his decision to claim for them, and his original deceit in misrepresenting himself as “straight”, proves a very worrying lack of honesty and integrity.

Understandably, a great many traditional Conservative voters in Rutland & Melton refuse to vote for him … in fact, such is their disillusionment with politics that they refuse to vote at all.

The reality is that these are some of the factors that go a very long way to explaining why the Conservative vote in Rutland & Melton, despite being one of the “safest seats” in the country, has nearly halved during Alan’s tenancy.

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Chloe Smith MP – Norwich By-election – Conservative Victory – 8/8/2009 

 

On the face of it we must offer our congratulations to Chloe Smith who has won the seat in the Norwich By-election for the Conservative Party, and I certainly send her my congratulations.

However, I am already beginning to hear questions in the public mind over the suitability of such a person to be an MP in the first place. Not necessarily questions from Norwich, but more worryingly, questions from all over the Country.

Do we really think that a 27 year old has the experience, worldly knowledge, even temperament, business acumen, family commitment, and time earned wisdom to lead the entire public of Norwich, young and old, employed and unemployed, successful and unsuccessful, privileged and underprivileged …… I think not.

If we assume that the local Conservative Association has normal sensible people on its’ selection committee, people who are looking for a candidate most like themselves, who can represent their beliefs and desires out of knowledge and experience etc …. then why did they select Chloe as their candidate?

If I can be contentious for just a moment longer, it could not be anything to do with the fact that the Conservatives are noticeably short of female MPs could it?

It surely cannot be anything to do with the fact that Chloe was, until recently, working at Conservative head office in London could it?

David Cameron certainly took an unusually high interest in Chloe. Apparently, he personally visited the Norwich by-election several times during the campaign.

By her own admission, Chloe insists that she has been interested in politics for all her life …….

”Chloe - many of us would say that you have not had a life yet. Never the less, I do sincerely wish you well, whilst fearing for you slightly. I sincerely hope that your young and energetic mind, and pure trusting beliefs have not already become tainted by the party political machine. You will, no doubt, find out when you try to take a slightly different view from the party political line, and then Norwich will find out how strong you are. I very, very sincerely wish you well with your task”.

Further out, perhaps the party politicians, of all persuasions, should take a closer look at Chloe’s apparent landslide victory for the Conservatives. A very good margin indeed. However, apparently there was only about 6% more votes for the Conservatives compared to the last General Election, whereas 12,000 Labour voters stayed at home. With a Labour Government performing as this one has done during recent years, there should have been a truly massive vote for anything except Labour, but apparently there was not.

So did the Conservatives win the seat, or did the Labour party loose it?

I think the Conservative Association in Norwich was “put upon” by head office to take Chloe as their candidate rather than someone better qualified, and someone of their own choice. Shame on you all.

I think the natural Conservative voters of Norwich naturally voted for the Conservative candidate rather than for Chloe herself. It is a shame that they did not have the choice of an independent Conservative candidate.

Personally, I think the traditional Labour voter was so disillusioned with the Government and what that Government did to their previous Labour MP, and I think that they were also so seriously disillusioned with him anyway concerning his part in the MPs expenses row, that they stayed away from the polls in vast numbers. They then lost the election.

I simply say this … and I say it to all the party politicians …… The public are speaking to you …. The public are speaking to you all regardless of whether you are in Government or if you are in the opposition parties .…The public are not happy, and the majority of the voters in Norwich, that is to say – the biggest majority of the voting public in Norwich, those who stayed away and did not vote at all, they are the most important factor in that by-election, and they are trying to tell you something.

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Baroness Scotland Employed An Illegal Immigrant – And She Claimed £170,000 in MPs expenses – 28/9/2009 

 

A court was held at the Pub yesterday morning (Sunday) to discuss many things concerning the meaning of life and such important matters.

The subject came up of Baroness Scotland and her employment of an illegal immigrant as her cleaner. Over a pint or two, the collected company at “The Trumpeting Horse and Flute” came to the unanimous decision that she should go. More to the point, and as is usually the case in the real world that I inhabit, the consensus view was that she should be specifically sacked from her post as a Cabinet Minister, rather than offered the chance to resign gracefully.

Of course, the law itself was applied uniformly, in as much that she had been put through the legal process, she declared herself guilty, and she was fined some £5,000 which I understand could have been more, but is in fact the appropriate amount.

However, the main issue seemed to be that Baroness Scotland (her surname, not the country) created that particular immigrant legislation herself, and whilst it is cumbersome and in most practical senses is nearly inoperable, it was her “baby” and her design. Whether she made a mistake or not, in employing the illegal immigrant, seems largely irrelevant.

How can she remain as a Cabinet Minister when she has fallen foul of her own legislation?

Whilst I agree with all that, I must say that the issue that really resolved the matter for me, was the following additional revelation.

Apparently, Baroness Scotland has lived in London for fifteen years, and indeed continues to do so in a very nice house in Chiswick. All good for her and no problems with anyone.

However, it transpires that when she was made up to a Baroness some five years ago, allegedly (and you will appreciate my use of this word) she purchased a small holiday home cottage in Wales and promptly declared it as her “principal residence” for the purposes of claiming expenses. She could now claim travel expenses and accomodation expenses in London because, theoretically, she was now living outside of London. Of course, she retained her proper home in Chiswick and continued to live in it.

A bit “cute” you may say. However, the attractions of being “cute” pales somewhat when you understand that this has enabled her to claim an additional expense allowance of £170,000 over the five years. I should also just remind you that such expenses are tax free.

My preference would also be to sack her. But there again, if Gordon Brown is to sack her from his Cabinet for such an apparent lack of morals and ethics, then those same morals and ethics should also apply to everyone else.

There would then be quite a lot of MPs sweating a bit too!

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

A reader sent me these statistics the other day. I am not assured that they are accurate, but you must decide for yourself.

 

Can you imagine working for this company? The company has a little more than 600 employees and has the following employee statistics. 
 
29 have been accused of spouse abuse.

7 have been arrested for fraud.

9 have been accused of writing bad cheques.

17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses.

3 have served a prison sentence for assault.

71 cannot get a credit card due to their bad credit history.

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.

8 have been arrested for shoplifting.

21 are currently defendants in legal proceedings.

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year.

Collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer £92,993,748 in expenses.

 

Which organisation is this? 

It is the 635 members of the House of Commons.